Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 3015CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 3015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ADOPTING THE FINAL 1992 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR KING COUNTY. WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.080 requires that each city develop its own comprehensive solid waste management plan, enter into an agreement to prepare a joint city/county plan, or authorize the county to prepare the plan for the city's solid waste management; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton and King County entered into an Interlocal Agreement whereby the parties agreed that they shall cooperate in the county's development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan must be updated or revised every three years; and WHEREAS, King County has prepared and proposed a Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and submitted it to the city for adoption; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton and the suburban cities of King County assisted in the development and review of the Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Suburban Cities Association has endorsed the Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City of Renton hereby adopts the Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for King County. 1 1993. RESOLUTION NO. 3015 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 15th day of November , i� 'r Marilyn etersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 15th day of November , 1993 Earl Clymer, Ma Approve s to rm• La4i4nce J. War , City Attorney RES328:11/i/93':as. I• O FINAL 19�n2 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL APPENDICES Volume II August 1993 Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division Department of Public Works 400 Yesler Way, Room 600 Seattle, Washington 98104-2637 '\\I /i VAT Sorting It Out Together A� Mire document is printed on recycled paper Contents Appendix A. Waste Generation Forecast Methodology Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study Appendix C: Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs Appendix F: Resource Guide to Recycling Centers in King County Appendix G: Resource Guide for Recycling and Disposal Alternatives for Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Debris Appendix H: Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis Appendix I: Landfill Reserve Fund Appendix J: Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste Appendix K: WUTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment APPENDIX A GENERATION FORECAST METHODOLOGY King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ,v/, .40F Sorting It Out Together A-1 Appends A Waste Generation Forecast Methodology A. OVERVIEW To better understand solid waste generation, waste reduction and recycling (WR/R), and disposal, King County is continuing to update and develop its methodology and data base to provide a general picture of the quantities and composition of the waste stream. The following sections describe the results of the mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) generation forecast methodology presented in Chapter II.B.1. B. FORECAST METHODOLOGY The County's estimate of MMSW generation quantities are derived by a planning forecast model developed in 1988. The primary objective of the planning forecast model is to obtain reasonable estimates of MMSW to be processed and disposed of at King County facilities. Future MMSW quantities are required to plan facilities operations and maintenance requirements budgets, and to estimate capacities of existing and planned transfer and disposal facilities. Information obtained from the forecasting model can be useful for other purposes. For example, the MMSW generation forecast minus known disposal tonnages allows the County to monitor annual county -wide WR/R. Various methods are available to determine the quantities of MMSW generation. Generally, statistical models are developed to determine the best historical relationship between solid waste quantities and factors that increase or decrease the solid waste stream. The best model is used to forecast future waste streams. The County's approach is to develop statistical relationships between historical waste generation and demographic and economic trends to predict future waste generation. For example, the quantitative relationship between population and solid waste quantities was estimated historically and used to establish a model to project future waste generation based on available population forecasts. In addition, models of per capita solid waste generation and disposal were examined based on their relationship to various economic factors, such as income, employment, and solid waste disposal rates. A number of models and explanatory factors were considered in developing forecasting equations. Waste generation growth patterns in King County have been affected by changes in population, employment, business activity, housing characteristics, income level, the cost of waste disposal, and the value of recyclable material. In addition, waste generation patterns have changed as the County has become more urban and suburban, and less rural. King County has developed and analyzed many different models to capture the impact of these factors. In 1987, the County selected a model developed by R.W. Beck and Company for forecasting future MMSW generation. For more information on this analysis see Appendix B, Waste Stream Characteristics (King County Adopted 1989 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). The forecasting model was developed on a logarithmic transformation of the data using a linear least squares statistical technique. Model results are presented in the forecasting equation below, with the t -statistics in parenthesis under the coefficients, followed by summary statistics for the model as a whole. The equation is: . A. Overview Appendix A; Waste Generation Forecast Methodology A-2 InGen = -26.44 + 2.12 * InPOP + 1.14 * InRPI 01.57) (13.50) (3.79) F statistic = 217, R -squared = .977 Standard error of regression = .049 where Men = Log of King County solid waste generation InPOP = Log of population InRPI = Log of real per capita personal income This model was selected because of its ability to explain past generation patterns and because of the availability of data for the two explanatory variables: population and real personal income. Using these data, the model provides a good explanation of historical changes in waste generation and is considered a reliable tool for predicting waste stream quantities. Population growth affects solid waste generation because more people and a corresponding increase in employment have increased waste generation quantities. Changes in the level of real personal income represent a more complex phenomenon. Higher personal income would be expected to lead to increased solid waste because people have more money to spend on products and services. Furthermore, real personal income is considered a reasonable indicator of economic conditions. Alternative models using employment, value of manufacturing output, household income, and disposal fees were examined, but did not explain the historic pattern of solid waste generation as well. C. FORECAST RESULTS Forecasts of King County's solid waste generation were developed utilizing the assumptions presented in the forecast equation. MMSW generation forecast results obtained from the low-, medium-, and high-growth scenarios are presented in Tables A.1 and A.2. Long-term population growth is based on forecasts prepared for the Puget Sound Regional Council, which forecast population growth for King County excluding Seattle to be an average of 1.9 percent per year from 1991 to 2000, and .9 percent per year from 2000 to 2010. Personal income is based on 1992 PSRC estimates for nominal per capita personal income from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and has been deflated by the Seattle Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area consumer price index. The medium -growth generation forecast assumes personal income growth will grow at the rate of approximately 1.5 percent annually from 1991 through 2010. Following the past five years of very high growth, King County MMSW generation is expected to increase annually by about 4.7 percent during the 1990s and 2.7 percent for the decade beginning 2000. This results in a total increase in waste generation of 107 percent over the period 1990 to 2010. Considering that the average annual growth rate for estimated MMSW generation over from 1985 to 1990 was approximately 9.4 percent, these projections may be conservative. These five years were a time of both high population and economic growth in King County, however, and such a rapid growth rate appears to be unsustainable over the entire 20 -year forecast period. Expectations are for more moderate increases in both population and real per capita personal income. Appendix A: Waste Generation Forecast Methodology C. Forecast Results A- 3 Table Al Projected Average Annual Growth Percent Increase Personal Income Rates for King County Real Personal MMSW % Change Population Employment Income Generation 1980-1990 1980 775,100 actual 2.8 3.3 3.3 8.0 1990-2000 1981 816,700 low 1.5 1.0 3.3 medium 1.9 2.6 1.5 5.7 high 2.8 1.8 8.1 2000-2020 1983 825,200 low 1.2 1.0 3.0 medium 1.7 2.6 1.5 5.4 high 2.8 1.8 8.1 Table A2 King County MMSW Generation Forecast, Population Personal Income Generation Base Growth Scenario Number % Change Amount % Change Tons % Change 1980 775,100 5.7 15,600 -5.7 602,600 2.2 1981 816,700 5.4 15,400 -1.5 638,500 6.0 1982 818,400 0.2 15,100 -2.0 667,400 4.5 1983 825,200 0.8 15,400 2.5 648,900 -2.8 1984 835,200 1.2 16,000 3.3 729,300 12.4 1985 853,800 2.2 16,500 3.2 805,500 10.4 1986 872,300 2.2 17,300 4.5 891,500 10.7 1987 892,100 2.3 17,800 2.9 989,400 11.0 1988 916,800 2.8 18,400 3.4 1,038,400 5.0 1989 947,600 3.4 19,100 3.6 1,176,200 13.3 1990 991,100 4.6 18,800 -1.6 1,269,800 8.0 1991 1,024,300 1.8 18,300 -2.2 1,326,800 4.5 1992 1,042,500 1.7 17,900 -2.4 1,339,600 1.0 1993 1,060,200 1.7 17,900 0.2 1,391,500 3.9 1994 1,078,200 1.7 18,100 1.0 1,458,600 4.8 1995 1,096,900 1.7 18,400 1.5 1,538,600 5.5 1996 1,115,900 1.7 18,700 1.5 1,622,900 5.5 1997 1,135,300 1.7 18,900 1.5 1,711,900 5.5 1998 1,154,900 1.7 19,200 1.5 1,805,800 5.5 1999 1,174,900 1.7 19,500 1.5 1,904,900 5.5 2000 1,195,300 1.7 19,800 1.5 2,009,400 5.5 2001 1,205,500 0.9 20,000 1.5 2,064,500 2.7 2002 1,215,700 0.9 20,100 0.8 2,121,100 2.7 2003 1,226,100 0.9 20,300 0.8 2,179,300 2.7 Compounded Annual Growth Rates 2004 1,236,500 0.9 20,400 0.8 2,239,000 2.7 Personal MMSW 2005 1,247,000 0.9 20,600 0.8 2,300,400 2.7 Population Income Generation 2006 1,257,600 0.9 20,800 0.8 2,363,500 2.7 2007 1,268,300 0.9 20,900 0.8 2,428,300 2.7 1981-1990 2.5% 1.9% 7.8% 2008 1,279,100 0.9 21,100 0.8 2,494,900 2.7 1991-2000 1.9% 0.696 4.7% 2009 1,290,000 0.9 21,300 0.8 2,563,300 2.7 2001-2010 0.9% 0.8% 2.7% 2010 1,301,000 0.9 21,400 0.8 2,633,600 2.7 A. Otmiem Appendix A: Waste Generation Forecast Methodology � APPENDIX 6 WasTE CHARACTERIZATIOT •STUDY �I• • King County • Comprehensive • Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It Out Together ITA r%P endix B Waste Characterization Study Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division King County Department of Public Works Yesler Building, suite 600 400 Yesler Way Seattle, Washington 98104-2637 Prepared by: SCS Engineers 2950 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 822-58W In association with: RIS Thomas/Wright Inc. Herrera Environmental Consultants Statistics and Epidemiology Research Corporation Datasolve October 15, 1991 File No. 049002 1 ......... Appeldir B. Waste Characterization Study B- 2 1` :1 ? 1' This report was prepared by SCS Engineers for the King County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division. A number of the King County staff deserve credit for the commitment they demonstrated to the successful completion of this project Jeanne Marie Isola, the King County Project Manager, was an invaluable asset in conducting this project. She was supported by the County's previous project manager, Theresa Jennings, who continued to provide assistance in a number of activities. Other King County solid waste and recycling staff who merit special mention include Jeff Gaisford and Geraldine Cole. A great deal of assistance was also provided by Gayle Starr and other King County personnel responsible for the operation of the County transfer stations. Special thanks must be extended to the transfer station personnel at Bow Lake, Houghton and Renton Transfer Stations. Credit for the successful completion of this project must also be extended to the many waste haulers who cooperated by identifying potential waste samples and by participating in the waste quantity surveys. This work was performed under contract to King County, Contract No. P01826P. Certificate of Engineer The technical material and data contained in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal to practice as a Professional Engineer is affixed below. L� l� C��i • � I tt�-1 Philip G. Newton Project Manager Appendix B. Waste Characterixatfon Study OST. LS, Date B- 3 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................ B-6 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................... B-11 1.1 Purpose, Scope, and Objectives.................................................... B - 11 1.2 Background................................................................ B-11 1.3 Comparison to Past Studies ...................................................... B - 11 1.4 Organization of Report ......................................................... B - 13 SECTION 2. METHODS......................................................... B-14 2.1 Overview.................................................................. B-14 2.2 Waste Quantity Surveys......................................................... B - 14 2.3 Waste Composition Sampling Design ................................................. B - 15 SECTION 3. QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS .. B - 18 3.1 Summary of Results........................................................... B - 18 3.2 Residential Waste Characterization................................................... B - 18 3.3 Nonresidential Waste Characterization................................................ B - 19 SECTION 4. COMPOSITION OF SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS ..................... B - 37 4.1 Introduction................................................................ B - 37 4.2 Waste Composition Results....................................................... B - 37 SECTION 5. CHARACTERIZATION OF SPECIAL WASTE STREAMS ............................. B - 61 5.1 Introduction................................................................ B - 61 5.2 Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing (CDL) Waste .................................. B - 61 5.3 Wood, CDL, and Hazardous/Special Waste Subcategories ..................................... B - 62 SECTION 6. BOTTLE AND CAN COUNTS .............................................. B - 70 6.1 Introduction................................................................ B - 70 6.2 Results.................................................................... B-70 REFERENCES.................................................................B-76 GLOSSARY...................................................................B-76 ADDENDUM A METHODOLOGIES........................................................... B-81 ADDENDUM B COMBINED CITY/COUNTY DATA .................................................. B - 99 ADDENDUM C CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS ............................. B - 105 ADDENDUM D WASTE QUANTITIES BY MATERIAL TYPE ........................................... B - 113 Appendix B. Waste Characterization Study B-4...... List of Tables Number pne E.1 Total Waste Stream by Type of Generator .................................................. B - 10 3.1 Waste Quantities by Generator Type ...................................................... B - 22 3.2 Unit Waste Disposal Rates in King County .................................................. B - 23 3.3 Total Waste Stream by Generator Type .................................................... B - 24 3.4 Residential Waste Quantities.......................................................... B - 25 3.5 Urban Single -Family Residential Waste Composition ........................................... B - 26 3.6 Rural Single -Family Residential Waste Composition ............................................ B - 27 3.7 Multifamily Residential Waste Composition ................................................. B - 28 3.8 Residential Self -haul Waste Composition................................................... B - 29 3.9 Waste Composition, All Residential by Season ............................................... B - 30 3.10 Waste Composition, All Residential by Generator Type .......................................... B - 31 3.11 Nonresidential Waste Quantities........................................................ B - 32 3.12 Waste Composition, Total CII by Season ................................................... B - 33 3.13 Waste Composition, Nonresidential Self -haul by Season ......................................... B - 34 3.14 Waste Composition, All Nonresidential by Season ............................................. B - 35 3.15 Waste Composition, All Nonresidential Combined, Annual Figures by Generator Type ....................... B - 36 4.1 Waste Composition Results for Select Businesses .............................................. B - 43 5.1 Composition of Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste ................................. B - 64 5.2 Wood, CDL, and Special Wastes by Subcategory, Residential Waste Streams ............................ B - 65 5.3 Wood, CDL, and Special Wastes by Subcategory, Nonresidential Waste Streams ........................... B - 66 5.4 Wood, CDL, and Special Wastes by Subcategory, Select Nonresidential Waste Streams ....................... B - 67 6.1 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Residential Waste Streams, Dry Season ........................... B - 71 6.2 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Nonresidential Waste Streams, Dry and Wet Seasons ................... B - 72 6.3 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Nonresidential Waste Streams, Annual Averages ..................... B - 73 6.4 Number of Bottles and Cans per Ton, Select Nonresidential Waste Streams, Annual Averages .................. B - 74 A.2.1 Main Menu for R:Base System......................................................... B - 96 A.2.2 Secondary Menu for Option 8, Printing Other Reports .......................................... B - 96 A.2.3 Number of Samples per Generator Type per Quarter ........................................... B - 97 A.2.4 Number of Samples per SIC per Quarter ................................................... B - 98 B.1 Waste Quantities, King County and Seattle Combined .......................................... B - 101 B.2 Waste Composition, King County and Seattle Combined, Residential Waste Stream ....................... B - 102 B.3 Waste Composition, King County and Seattle Combined, Residential Waste Stream ....................... B - 103 B.4 Waste Composition, King County and Seattle Combined, Residential Waste Stream ....................... B - 104 C.I. Lower and Upper Confidence Limits, Residential Waste Streams, Dry Season Only ........................ B - 107 C.2 Statistical Certainties, Nonresidential Waste Streams, Annual Figures ................................ B - 108 C.3 Statistical Certainties, Select Nonresidential Waste Streams ....................................... B - 109 D.1 Weight of Materials, King County Residential Waste Streams ..................................... B - 114 D.2 Weight of Materials, King County Nonresidential Waste Streams ................................... B - 115 D.3 Weight of Materials, King County Waste Streams ............................................. B - 116 Appendix B: Waste Cbaractenzation Study List of Figures Number B-5 Page E.1 Waste quantities by type of generator..................................................... B - 8 E.2 Waste composition of all residential waste streams ............................................ B - 8 E.3 Waste composition of all nonresidential waste streams .......................................... B - 9 E.4 Waste composition of residential and nonresidential waste streams combined ............................ B - 9 3.1 Monthly waste quantities............................................................. B - 21 4.1 Waste Composition of SIC 20: Food and kindred products ........................................ B - 47 4.2 Waste Composition of SIC 24: Lumber and wood products ....................................... B - 48 4.3 Waste Composition of SIC 27: Printing and publishing ......................................... B - 49 4.4 Waste Composition of SIC 45: Sea -Tac Airport ............................................... B - 50 4.5 Waste Composition of SIC 50: Wholesale, durable goods ......................................... B - 51 4.6 Waste Composition of SIC 51: Wholesale, nondurable goods ...................................... B - 52 4.7 Waste Composition of SIC 52: Building and garden supplies ...................................... B - 53 4.8 Waste Composition of SIC 53: General merchandise stores ....................................... B - 54 4.9 Waste Composition of SIC 54: Food stores .................................................. B - 55 4.10 Waste Composition of SIC 58F: Fast food restaurants ........................................... B - 56 4.11 Waste Composition of SIC 58S: Sit-down restaurants ........................................... B - 57 4.12 Waste Composition of SIC 70: Hotels ..................................................... B - 58 4.13 Waste Composition of SIC 80H: Hospitals .................................................. B - 59 4.14 Waste Composition of SIC 80C: Other health services ........................................... B - 60 A.1.1 Transfer station survey data ........................................................... B - 83 A.2.1 Field sort form, front page........................................................... B - 93 A.2.2 Field sort form, back page........................................................... B - 94 A.2.3 Sampling schedule and locations....................................................... B - 95 Appendix B. Waste Cbiarxkri=a Study Executive Summary E.1 INTRODUCTION This study was conducted to determine the quantity and composition of solid waste disposed in King County. The primary reason for characterizing the County's solid waste stream was to develop a data base for monitoring the County's waste stream. In addition, the results of this study will assist in focusing recycling efforts and other waste management alternatives, and will provide data for general solid waste management planning purposes. E.2 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH The total waste stream in King County was divided into three waste streams based on current management and disposal methods: • Mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW), the term often used for general residential and commercial garbage that is collected by a waste hauler, or is brought to a transfer station or other disposal site by the waste generator. • Construction, demolition and land clearing (CDL) waste. • Special wastes, such as industrial or infectious waste that cannot be handled through a transfer station and must instead be delivered to a landfill or other disposal site. This study concentrated on the mixed municipal solid waste stream disposed at King County transfer stations and, through a separate phase of this study, on CDL waste. Since the composition of waste disposed by different types of waste generators varies, the mixed municipal solid waste stream in King County was divided into six substreams: • urban single-family • rural single-family residential • multifamily (apartment buildings) • residential self -haul • general commercial/industriallinstitutional ("total CII") • nonresidential self -haul In addition, the composition of waste disposed by fourteen specific types of commercial, industrial, and institutional waste generators were examined to provide information for future recycling efforts. The nonresidential waste streams examined were from food manufacturers, lumber and wood manufacturers, publishers, Sea -Tac Airport, wholesale businesses (two types), retail businesses (building materials, general merchandise, and grocery stores), restaurants (fast food versus sit-down), hotels, hospitals, and other health services. The quantities of waste disposed by the primary generators were determined through surveys conducted at the six King County transfer stations. Waste composition was determined through sampling and sorting wastes at three of the six King County transfer stations: Bow Lake, Houghton, and Renton transfer stations. Over a one-year period, a total of 569 samples of waste were sorted, including 96 samples of residential waste, 136 samples of general nonresidential waste, and 337 samples of select nonresidential wastes. Appendix B. Waste Characterization Study Evecutim Summary U B-7 • E.3 RESULTS • The results of the waste quantity surveys are summarized in Figure E.I. As shown in this figure, the residential sector disposes of an estimated 60 percent of the total wastes disposed in King County annually. Figures E.2 through E.4 illustrate the waste composition results for residential, nonresidential, and the total waste stream. All figures are for King County exclusive of the city of Seattle's waste streams. i Table E.1 shows the waste composition data (for King County without the city of Seattle) for the six primary waste generators • and for the King County waste stream overall. As shown in this table, there are significant differences in the composition of waste disposed by the different types of residential generators. For instance, there is a greater quantity of newspaper and yard waste • disposed by urban single-family residents than by rural residents, despite the additional recycling programs that were available to urban households during the period of this study. Table E.1 shows that substantial amounts of recyclable materials are still in the County's waste streams and could be recovered to assist in meeting waste reduction and recycling goals. In the King County waste stream overall, there is 22.9 percent recyclable paper (including mixed paper), 4.7 percent plastics (including PET and HDPE bottles, polystyrene and plastic film), 19.6 . percent wood and yard wastes, 2.1 percent recyclable glass, and 5.3 percent metals, for a total of 54.6 percent recyclable materials. In addition, there are portions of other materials, such as CDL waste and textiles, that could also be recycled. • Section Four of this report shows the waste composition results for waste disposed by the fourteen specific types of nonresidential ("select nonresidential") generators. These data indicate the potential program results for additional recycling • programs targeting these types of businesses. Data on waste quantities disposed by these generators was not part of this study, but tonnage estimates are available from other sources if needed. Section Five of the report provides a summary of the waste quantity and composition data for the construction, demolition, • and landclearmg (CDL) waste stream. These data are from a separate phase of this study. The same section also provides data on the composition of the CDL and special wastes ("household hazardous" and similar wastes) that were found in the samples for the ® six primary and fourteen select nonresidential waste generators. In other words, these data show the composition of CDL and hazardous wastes that were found in the waste streams brought to the County's transfer stations. Section Six shows data on the number of bottles and cans found in the County's waste streams. These data may assist in • recycling program planning or in the comparison of the results of this study to other studies and activities. Addendum A provides additional detail on the methodologies used for determining waste quantities and composition. • Addendum B shows waste quantity and composition data for the city of Seattle and King County combined. Addendum C provides tables which show the tonnages of materials being disposed by different types of generators. These tables will assist in projecting results of residential and nonresidential recycling programs. The confidence intervals for the waste composition results are provided in Addendum D. • • • lu Fawutsue Summary Appendix B: Waste Charackrixahon Study FIGURE E.1 WASTE QUANTITIES BY TYPE OF GENERATOR RESIDENTIA] Urban Single -Fan 191,200 Tons Rural Single -Family 68,420 Tons Multi -Farm 90,960 Ton Residential Self -Haul 158,850 Tons FIGURE E.2 )NRESIDENTIAL Total CII 257,500 Tons onresidential Self -haul 87,700 Tons WASTE COMPOSITION OF ALL RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS Plastics n nm Pal 27.: Misc. Inorganics 6.4% Me 5.E 3.4% )od & Yard Wastes 20.8% ,r Organics 28.8% Appendix B. Waste Cbaradertxation Study P.make Summary FIGURE E.3 WASTE COMPOSITION OF ALL NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS Plastics Pap( 32.9' Misc. Inorgz 12.1% Metals GIass 4.7% 1.8% FIGURE E.4 Wood & Yard Wastes 17.8% her Organics 18.4% WASTE COMPOSITION OF RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS COMBINED Plastics Paper 29.4% Misc. Inorga: 8.7% Metals Glass 5.3% 2.7% Nood & Yard Wastes 19.6% ier Organics 24.6% Executive Summary AVendir B. Waste Cbaraaff izat Study W I1! J m Q Ir 0 Q (Y w Z W LL 0 W a } } Cm C Q W Ir Ill U) Q J Q O H B-1 0 W� = U NV.OMN V mNm Nm aON r CD m:r tom m O mN tb m N �aMM N'.-tnPrOaOm m'O OOM�M m-.Omv yr -N.-Om cq W c r J Z. W < l..M.:. tOC R NRtA--:O mmRMv CA -O OR M R7.-tn ON to OONNP O O N N M tb m O CO mN M Or O Or W fQ N N W Z Cl) O Z J Oklcq"N qr a0 Mb ONmPRm a0 Nm cq 0M NPMPr- < Wm<. NNMr0r0 OOOMrRR NN N_O tOONMOR F- fl r r r r F - J Z= tb r ao m m O m tp M ch W M-0 "C—O'000r-0 MMOrONr oLL R—Nr Fn J W W } cJ G L< 0Ob 0M0 r to V M -N0 bmOO r -:V mm OOPMr mP ID t" O ORM P.'O O O M O N O-.tn R M tp O N N O r P r r r J D } J J Q <<L om to r�voPmP Nl'1 m �n fpRr I�ReY orcD to P)oP C O m P O00 WOO O r OR O M tp 01n 0 h MM N OO M =)J cq r r R r Cc 'Z_'^^ v/ } J_ Z< < U- tO C+ Mm CMr OtoO RO P Up mR oD 7 l m -R mPMR'It m M . r tO.0000O 4P aO OrOMOrN r,zM a701�NN0 m M Z m U C m m m 4 m -1 20 m a m0 ma mm c E m m m y a� m� m 2 U mvvCL amm mw mmc 3mca m3°mm. m W <. mtaEox�n�ioo���`0 `oOCD mr 3 Q vj,$z000iO� axaa00it 3} `y t- U- OIL Ir LL 2S r 0 < a.. 3 O` AppendLv B: Waste Cbaraamzabon Study a Pt"t MM V mcl m 1n NRNP a00Rlo: N O �N r O O O O.O N O O r 0 aD O OO m r O O 0 PO 1n CO)rr In -r Cl) Mr -gr MN r 00 ODM co jn r O O O O O'O M O O N O m —0000 m MM N N m 0 O� O QD r N m N to m M r N N P O r N to m m NN OOOo-W 0r00r00 rOOMr m m 0 NO Nc`DmmR fptn Ptow Roo fp Otnwo OV —00—CM O V O O N O N 0 0 0 0 O C4 r O 0 VCO m aD m O N R o O O CI - m 000400 O :2,v C4 O O O M — 0 0 0 0 0.)o O O M r 0 O m -<-.O to D7 Cl r N N CO NV� M R P r P R to ::M N O O O tO N r 0 0 0 o M O O O r 0 mM LO Cl L9) C> OR mmr m0to MOPPO 00N:-0000) O 0000 N 00 O O O m w m m m � C m V D O Comm c o� E m m m m m m C C c m c U m o m O m .�� •� C 7 a! m LL °U i ° o C c c � E _ m UoCJCJ Omj7mo"7 0. "r- U LL Camz OI a� 7 m Cl) < m 3 m 2 m E `m m m C �- m'o v 0 m m 2 -E m L j 5 X E � o m -(D OC ¢O p UC7m0 LL0<OmO M <U� z. 0 m 0 O O U) U J Q O — N &ecudw Summary B-11 Section 1 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and composition of solid waste in King County. This information will assist the County in planning future waste management programs and facilities, evaluating performance of existing programs, and determining recycling levels. The scope of this effort included waste disposed from incorporated and unincorporated King County, but excluded the city of Seattle because the Seattle Solid Waste Utility has previously conducted studies of their waste streams. In Addendum B, the results of a previous Seattle study have been combined with this study to generate countywide data. This study concentrated on the mixed municipal solid waste stream, which is handled through the County transfer stations. Mixed municipal solid waste is a term often used for general residential and commercial wastes. This waste stream was divided into four residential waste substreams and two nonresidential waste substreams. In the text of this report, these six substreams are often referred to as the "primary generators" to distinguish them from the select nonresidential generators. The select nonresidential generators are fourteen commercial and industrial waste generators that were chosen for separate examination of waste composition. The specific objectives of the King County Waste Characterization Study were to: • Determine the quantity and composition of residential and nonresidential waste streams in King County. • Determine the seasonal (wet and dry seasons) difference in quantity and composition of the residential and nonresidential waste streams in King County. • Determine the composition of waste disposed by fourteen specific nonresidential waste generators. • Provide information to the suburban cities on the methodology and results of this study. 1.2 BACKGROUND The 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan identified specific County programs and activities for meeting established waste reduction and recycling goals. One such program is monitoring of the County waste stream to collect information on quantities and types of materials being disposed and recycled. The identification of current waste quantities and composition by this study will provide the County with a baseline from which to measure progress in meeting waste reduction and recycling goals. This information will also assist in targeting certain materials for recovery and in targeting specific waste generators for additional waste reduction and recycling programs for the nonresidential sector. 1.3 COMPARISON TO PAST STUDIES This study supplements and/or supersedes the data provided by a number of previous studies. Shown below are the most relevant of these studies, with a discussion of their methodologies and results. Introduction Appendix B: Waste CharactenWhon Study B- 12 King County Solid Waste Dk*ion Waste Characterization Study, February 1989. Prepared by R. W Beck and Associates. The waste quantity projections and composition estimates provided by this previous waste characterization study were developed using available data from published sources. Sources used included studies conducted for the city of Seattle, the Portland Metropolitan Service District, and the state of Washington- No specific waste composition data was available for areas of the County outside the city of Seattle. Because of the differences in methodologies, the results of this previous study are not readily comparable to this report. City of Seattle, Waste Compasi&n Study, June 1989. Prepared by the Matrix Management Group. Randomly selected loads of residential, self -haul, and commercial waste loads were drawn from the city's North and South transfer stations. A total number of SSO samples were taken- The report provided detailed composition data for each substream as delivered for disposal within the city of Seattle. This study differs from the Seattle study by showing separate waste quantities and composition for single-family and multifamily waste; categorizing glass by color instead of by use; and by showing additional categories of materials (fines, furniture, miscellaneous organics, miscellaneous inorganics, and medical waste). Best Management Practices (BMP) Analysis for Solid Waste, Volume 1, January 1989. Prepared by the Matrix Management Group, The BMP shows statewide waste composition data by generator type, including residential, commercial and institutional, manufacturing, and self -haul generators, and by waste generation area (the state was divided into eight areas). A total of 429 samples were taken throughout the state of Washington and results were then applied to the individual waste generation areas based on population and employment. For nonresidential waste generators, results of the BMP study are difficult to compare to this study for a variety of reasons. Different categories of generators were employed by the BMP study, making direct comparison of results difficult. Even for the three select nonresidential generators (SIG's 20, 24, and 27) which were examined by this study and which match industrial generators examined by the BMP study, comparison of results is not feasible because the BMP study employed a significantly different methodology (surveys and visual inspections) to determine industrial waste composition. More importantly, the BMP study provides waste composition results for a much larger area (the Puget Sound Waste Generation Area), whereas this study concentrates on a smaller area. The composition of the nonresidential varies substantially from area to area due to differences in businesses present in the area. Another significant difference in methodologies is the use of per -employee generation rates by the BMP study to project overall composition for the nonresidential waste streams, versus the use of random sampling by this study. For residential waste composition the BMP study again employed different categories of waste generators. The BMP study sampled single-family and self -haul only, whereas this study also sampled multifamily residences. In addition, the self -haul category for the BMP study is a mixture of residential and nonresidential wastes, whereas this study divided this waste stream into two types of waste generators. By calculating additional weighted averages, comparisons could be made between the BMP's residential waste stream results and this study's urban and rural single-family results. The additional weighted average that would be required is the annual average for the urban and rural single-family results, although the fact that part of these results are projected (the wet season waste composition) makes this comparison less meaningful. By calculating a weighted average for this study's residential and nonresidential self -haul waste streams, a comparison could also be made with the BMP's self -haul waste results. The variance caused Appendix B: Waste Cdaraderixation Study tntroduclion B-1 3 by differences in business activities, which likely causes a substantial impact on the nonresidential self -haul waste stream, again means that this comparison is not meaningful. WDOE 1989 Washington State Recycling Survey Through a mail and telephone survey of the recycling industry, this report collected data on the quantity and types of materials being recycled in the state of Washington. Recycling information is presented for 26 categories of materials. The WDOE survey differs from this report in that it estimates the amount of recycled material by recycling method rather than by generator. In addition, no separation is provided between city of Seattle and King County quantities. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is organized as follows: • Section 2.0, Methods: This section provides a brief description of the procedures performed for both the waste quantity survey and waste composition sampling. A more detailed description of the project methodologies is contained within Addendum A. • Section 3.0, Results: This section describes the results for the six primary residential and nonresidential generators, including both quantity and composition for each waste stream. • Section 4. 0, Results for the Select Nonresidential Waste Streams: This section describes the waste composition results for the fourteen select nonresidential waste streams. • Section 5.0, Vecial Wastes Characterization: This section provides a brief description of the separate effort conducted for the construction, demolition and land clearing (CDL) waste stream. It also provides detail as to the composition of wood, CDL, and hazardous wastes found in the mixed municipal waste streams of King County. • Section 6.0, Bottle and Can Counts: This section identifies the amount and type of bottles and cans found in samples of King County waste streams. • References: The references identify the technical sources and background information used in developing this report. • Glossary: The glossary provides the definition for materials measured by this study. • Addenda: The addenda provide specific information on survey and sorting procedures; combined King County and Seattle waste characterization; the statistical meaning of the waste composition results; and quantities by type of material Introduction Appendix B. Waste Cbaracterization Study •:(::,::::::r!:isi}isi::i::i::ii:>:ii:::Y:i:::::{}:':: i;ijji:: j:}:j::i::i::iii:::i: �:-:{::i}:ii::ii}:CLiv::::::::}:i::::i::iii}}}}::}:•}:•}:•}:•:� }:•:� }}:-:-}}:•} }::-}}}:•}:•}:•}}:•}}:•}:tiC}}'-}i}}:•}:•}:ti.i-.::. �:::::::: :.:::::::::::::::::::.::�: :::�::.�:: :+•}:•}:?:•}};tiv::•}}}:•}i:•:::tiitii �:i.::.iv:::::::::+:::•::::;:}}}::ii.}Y.J:::::i•}}:^};:-}}}}}w•-•i: v ....... .....:.}iiiii}i}}::::::::4:•}}}i:t;•%".'}v::v :v.;; •?:: '}i;v ;v:?}}}:4:•::•}vii}:< B-1 4 Section 2 Methods 2.1 OVERVIEW This section provides a brief discussion of the procedures used to characterize the King County municipal solid waste stream. Detailed information on the methodologies employed is provided in Addendum A. In order to characterize the King County municipal solid waste stream, separate methodologies were developed for waste quantities and for waste composition. For waste quantities, surveys were conducted at all six King County transfer stations. For waste composition, sampling and sorting were conducted at the Bow Lake Transfer Station, the Houghton Transfer Station, and the Renton Transfer Station- Thus, the results of this study characterize the waste stream as disposed at King County transfer stations. This study does not address the waste handled by the rural landfills, wastes delivered directly to Cedar Hills Landfill, or wastes transferred to Cedar Hills Landfill through transfer stations operated by waste hauling companies. 2.2 WASZE QUANTITY SURVEYS Surveys were conducted quarterly at the six King County transfer stations to collect data on the waste quantities disposed by different types of generators. Although the survey methodology varied slightly, the surveys for all quarters were designed to be combined with County weight records to derive the percentage of the total waste stream that was disposed by each type of generator during the survey period. By dis-aggregating total waste quantity figures for longer periods, the survey results could be used to determine seasonal and annual waste quantities for each type of generator. In the first quarter (July 1990), transfer station cashiers surveyed all vehicles for one week The information collected by the cashiers included the type of generator, truck type, date, and site. Net weights for every load were provided by the County's records for that day. The survey information and net weights were entered into a computer data base to calculate percentages by type of generator. The truck types were used primarily to provide a "reality check" on the survey data, by indicating the range within which the net weight could be expected to fall for each load. Based on this verification procedure and other considerations, this approach worked quite well. However, this approach required an excessive amount of additional time and effort by the transfer station cashiers. Hence, at the County's request, different approaches were employed for subsequent quarters. The survey used in the second (September 1990) and third (December 1990) quarters was designed to collect information on the number (not the weight) of loads from each type of generator. Net weight of the surveyed loads was not a concern because the survey data were intended to allow prorating of waste tonnages within each of the four primary types of customers that are currently tracked and reported by the County's computer system. This approach failed to produce results with sufficient reliability despite modifications made for the third quarter. In the fourth quarter (March 1991), the original method was employed using temporary staff to survey incoming trucks at each of the six King County transfer stations. Materials used for the spring quarter survey are shown in Addendum A.1, including a copy of the survey form, definitions for the generator types used in the spring quarter, and a copy of the map used in the field to delineate between urban and rural single-family residential waste. Appendix B. Waste Cbiaractersxa ion Study Methods B - 15 2.3 WASTE COMPOSITION SAMPLING DESIGN 2.3.1 Introduction The methodology for determining waste composition in King County was designed to produce accurate data representative of waste as it is disposed by residents and businesses in the County. Since the city of Seattle had already conducted studies of their waste, this study was restricted to waste from areas of King County outside of the city of Seattle. Prior to conducting waste sorting, SCS Engineers developed a Procedures Manual that established methodologies, definitions and a schedule for the study. Included in the Procedures Manual was a detailed sampling design, projected statistical validity of the results, methods to enhance the statistical validity, list of types of generators to be sampled, sorting methodology, sorting locations and schedule, and a description of the data base management system. A condensed version of the Procedures Manual is shown in Addendum A- A A Health and Safety Plan was also prepared prior to waste sorting in order to provide guidance in the field should an accident or other incident occur. This Plan was also used as an educational tool for the crew members. All crew members were required to read the Health and Safety Plan, 0 2.3.2 Types of Generators • For the purposes of this study, the municipal solid waste stream was divided into six primary substreams; four substreams of residential waste and two of nonresidential waste. All waste generators were defined to be in one of these primary substreams, so that 0 the results could be combined to provide data on the total residential waste stream, the total nonresidential waste stream, and the total municipal solid waste stream. 0 In addition to the six primary waste substreams, the waste disposed by fourteen select nonresidential generators was examined. The results for the select nonresidential wastes cannot be combined with the results for the primary nonresidential waste substreams, due largely to differences in sample selection methods. For the general nonresidential waste streams, it was necessary to randomly • choose samples to ensure the statistical validity of the results. For the select nonresidential waste streams, it was necessary to seek out and even pre -arrange samples to ensure sufficient samples could be collected. Samples of wastes from the following types of generators were examined: • urban residential single-family • rural residential single-family • multi -family (apartment buildings) • residential self -haul total commercial/industrial/institutional (total CII) • commercial/industrial/institutional (nonresidential) self -haul • 14 select commercial and industrial waste generators u 0 The two remaining solid waste streams of significance in King County are the construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste stream and special wastes. These wastes are generally handled and disposed of separately from the municipal waste stream, although a limited amount of both are delivered to the County's transfer stations and were measured by this study. The quantity and composition of the CDL waste stream was determined through a separate phase of this study. The quantity and composition of special wastes, most of which are industrial wastes that are delivered directly to the King County Cedar Hills Landfill, are not included in this study. Appendix B. Waste Characterization Study B-16 2.3.3 Sorting Categories and Definitions Waste samples from all of the types of generators were sorted into 35 primary categories and 35 subcategories. The sorting form used for recording this information is shown in Addendum A.2. Definitions for the sorting categories are shown in the Glossary. In addition to data on the weight of each material in the sample, the number of tires, white goods, bottles, and beverage cans was also recorded. 2.3.4 Soiling Locations and Procedures For each season, sorting was conducted at two to three transfer stations, typically for five days at each site. After visits to the transfer stations and examination of vehicle usage data, it was concluded that the following three transfer stations were the best ones for sampling and sorting purposes: • Bow Lake Transfer Station • Houghton Transfer Station • Renton Transfer Station Bow Lake Transfer Station was chosen as a sampling location because it receives a variety of nonresidential waste loads and had ample space available for sorting activities. The nonresidential loads received by Bow Lake include a relatively high amount of loose and compacted drop -boxes (i.e., pure loads) that could be sampled for the select nonresidential waste streams. The Houghton Transfer Station was chosen because of the wide variety of waste that is received by this site. Working conditions at this site were hindered by the lack of space, but the sorting crew was able set up under a tent that was placed north of the building. At the Houghton Transfer Station, sampling of larger loads had to be done from the pit due to the lack of space on the floor. These samples were brought to the sorting area using heavy equipment. Smaller vehicles at Houghton were directed to dump their loads near the sorting work area Samples were placed on tarps to avoid loss of fines and contamination of the sample. In wet or windy conditions, the samples were also covered with a protective tarp. The Renton Transfer Station was chosen because a wider variety of waste was delivered there than to First Northeast or Algona Transfer Stations, despite the fact that the Renton Transfer Station receives the least amount of waste out of the County's six transfer stations. For instance, rural residential loads, which were difficult to procure at other transfer stations, were available at the Renton Transfer Station. Factoria was not available for sorting activities due to the severe space constraints that existed at that transfer station. Samples for the six primary waste generators were taken from vehicles that were randomly chosen. For the select nonresidential generators, any pure load meeting the criteria for that type of waste was sampled, unless sufficient samples of that waste stream had already been taken at that transfer station. In all cases, the driver was interviewed as to the type of waste, the location where the waste was collected, and whether there were any unusual aspects to the load. 2.3.5 Methodology for Projecting Wet Season Residential Waste Composition After the first two quarters (summer and fall) of waste sorting, it became evident that the composition of King County residential waste did not vary substantially from residential waste composition data from other areas. To increase the cost- effectiveness of the study, County staff requested that sorting of residential waste samples cease after the fall quarter. Instead, the composition of the residential waste substreams in the wet season were projected based on the results of the baste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et al., 1989) conducted for the city of Seattle. Appendix B: Waste Charaaterixation Study i Methods 0 S Trends in waste composition shown by the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study for the dry season (summer and fall) versus the wet season (winter and spring) were applied to the County dry season data to project wet season waste composition. Specifically, the ratio of Seattle's wet season percentages (by material) to dry season percentages was calculated and multiplied by King County's dry season percentages to project wet season results for the County. Once wet season waste composition had been projected, an annual average could be calculated for the County's residential waste streams. The annual average is a weighted • average that is derived using the waste quantity figures (by season) shown in Table 3.1. To use the data from the Seattle Waste Composition Study, some adjustments were necessary due to differences in sorting • methodology and materials measured. These adjustments are described below for each of the affected materials: • Computer paper. The Seattle study found no computer paper in the dry season residential waste stream, whereas 0.1 percent was discovered in the County's dry season urban single-family and multifamily waste streams. Although the Seattle data indicate an • increase from the dry season to the wet season, a percentage figure for this increase could not be calculated and so the percent of computer paper in the County's residential waste streams was assumed to remain the same in the wet season as in the dry season. • Plastic film and bags. This study separated "plastic film and bags" from "other plastic packaging," whereas the Seattle study defined these as one material ("plastic packaging"). Hence, the seasonal trend for Seattle's plastic packaging was applied to both of the county categories (plastic film and other plastic packaging) to project wet season residential waste composition. • • Recyclable glass. The Seattle study measured recyclable glass containers by the type of beverage, whereas this study measured recyclable glass by the color of the glass. For the analysis of seasonal trends, the Seattle data for different types of recyclable glass • containers were handled as one total amount and the trend for this figure was applied to all three colors of glass. • Other ferrous metals. The Seattle study provided additional detail for this category, splitting it into bi-metal cans, white goods, • and ferrous metals. As with glass, these were totaled up and the trend applied to the single King County category of "other ferrous metals." • Due to differences in sorting methodology and definitions, a number of other materials measured in this study were not measured • in Seattle's study. These include fines, furniture, miscellaneous organics and miscellaneous inorganics. For the purpose of projecting wet season waste composition for the County, the percentages were assumed to remain the same as in the dry season. This • procedure typically led to a total composition slightly in excess of 100 percent, requiring the wet season data to be decreased (prorated) to add up to 100 percent. 0 • Metbods Appendix B: Waste Cbaracterlxahon Study B-1 7 S Trends in waste composition shown by the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study for the dry season (summer and fall) versus the wet season (winter and spring) were applied to the County dry season data to project wet season waste composition. Specifically, the ratio of Seattle's wet season percentages (by material) to dry season percentages was calculated and multiplied by King County's dry season percentages to project wet season results for the County. Once wet season waste composition had been projected, an annual average could be calculated for the County's residential waste streams. The annual average is a weighted • average that is derived using the waste quantity figures (by season) shown in Table 3.1. To use the data from the Seattle Waste Composition Study, some adjustments were necessary due to differences in sorting • methodology and materials measured. These adjustments are described below for each of the affected materials: • Computer paper. The Seattle study found no computer paper in the dry season residential waste stream, whereas 0.1 percent was discovered in the County's dry season urban single-family and multifamily waste streams. Although the Seattle data indicate an • increase from the dry season to the wet season, a percentage figure for this increase could not be calculated and so the percent of computer paper in the County's residential waste streams was assumed to remain the same in the wet season as in the dry season. • Plastic film and bags. This study separated "plastic film and bags" from "other plastic packaging," whereas the Seattle study defined these as one material ("plastic packaging"). Hence, the seasonal trend for Seattle's plastic packaging was applied to both of the county categories (plastic film and other plastic packaging) to project wet season residential waste composition. • • Recyclable glass. The Seattle study measured recyclable glass containers by the type of beverage, whereas this study measured recyclable glass by the color of the glass. For the analysis of seasonal trends, the Seattle data for different types of recyclable glass • containers were handled as one total amount and the trend for this figure was applied to all three colors of glass. • Other ferrous metals. The Seattle study provided additional detail for this category, splitting it into bi-metal cans, white goods, • and ferrous metals. As with glass, these were totaled up and the trend applied to the single King County category of "other ferrous metals." • Due to differences in sorting methodology and definitions, a number of other materials measured in this study were not measured • in Seattle's study. These include fines, furniture, miscellaneous organics and miscellaneous inorganics. For the purpose of projecting wet season waste composition for the County, the percentages were assumed to remain the same as in the dry season. This • procedure typically led to a total composition slightly in excess of 100 percent, requiring the wet season data to be decreased (prorated) to add up to 100 percent. 0 • Metbods Appendix B: Waste Cbaracterlxahon Study Appendix B. Waste Charadm ization Study Resldenital and NonresrderaW Quantity and Composition • .:..:..... :: x: :•::::::::: :•:: : w::.::.:.:.v. w:::: :.:::: . . m::::: n:::.... . .}. ... ::�..... r.r .............Y.:..:.:'i.........'i.%•}'•i::•}:•}}'•}}}}}:•}:•}}:.}}i::{x:: ri ::::::::::. .......... :...... .}.;.;..fr...... r... r..•.................A .. f... x: x::::::: m:}: :.::: :y: .. f...n... B-18 ::Yty':?,+ilii::::::::::is::::'r'?�Ti::::Y:::S:i:ii::•Yii•::•:::::i::isi::::?::r•'::::•:;::tiy.::::.::tii:;:'::iii:r rl+::ii:?:}:::: }:iiJ : i'rv::�.ri: t }Y!}':}T::}:^: ri:i::i;:.'.}:ii;::tii fi}:CJ iiii::•'Q} f':v':SQ::S}::j;:•}:;!.}';:::::;:?{;:j{::;j: {:;iSi' :;: }:•:•i:•:4i:•}: ..t. . • • • • • Section 3 • Quantity and Composition • of Residential and Nonresidential Waste Streams • • • 3.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 3.1.1 Waste Quantities Table 3.1 shows waste quantities by type of generator for the dry and wet seasons. The dry season was defined as May through October, with the wet comprised of the remaining six months (November through April). Waste quantity data for the period of May 1990 to April 1991 were used (versus the use of a calendar year) because this period most closely matches the period of the • study. As shown in Table 3.1, the total waste stream decreased from 457,200 tons in the dry season to 397,430 tons in the wet • season This decrease is caused primarily by a significant decrease in residential waste quantities during the winter months. The • decrease in total waste quantities during the wet season is typical for Icing County during recent years and is also typical of many other municipalities in the United States. • Figure 3.1 shows how monthly waste quantities at the transfer stations have varied during the period of the study. As can be seen from this figure, the month with the lowest tonnage during the study was December, whereas February has been the lowest month in previous years. The depression of December tonnages is probably due to the severe blizzard that occurred about mid- • December. This blizzard halted garbage collection services in most of King County for up to two weeks. It is interesting to note that January tonnages do not appear to be unusually high, seemingly contrary to the expectation that a backlog of garbage had been • created by the interruption of garbage collection services. In Table 3.2, the dry and wet season tonnages shown in Table 3.1 have been applied to demographic data to derive unit • disposal rates for residents and employees of King County. These figures are exclusive of the city of Seattle. In Table 3.2, the quantity of residential self -haul waste was not applied to a specific population because no data are available as to the number of people who rely on self -haul for disposal. The nonresidential categories have also been combined due to the lack of data on their • respective populations. 3.1.2 Waste Composition The results of the waste composition analysis for the six primary generator types are summarized in Table 3.3. Additional detail, such as seasonal variations for each type of generator, are shown in subsequent tables in this section. • • Appendix B. Waste Charadm ization Study Resldenital and NonresrderaW Quantity and Composition n �J B-19 • • 3.2 RESIDENTIAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATION • 3.2.1 Residential Waste Quantities • As discussed above, the residential waste stream changes substantially from the dry season to the wet season. This can be assumed to be caused by a decrease in certain activities in the wet season and a reduction of specific materials such as yard wastes. • Table 3.4 shows residential waste quantities by season, the seasonal distribution (the percentage that each season contributes for each substream), the annual totals, and the amount (percentage) that each waste substream contributes to the total residential waste stream. As shown in Table 3.4, the degree to which the quantities of each waste substream varies seasonally (the seasonal distribution) • differs. For instance, multifamily waste quantities vary the least, being the closest to a 50-50 split between dry and wet seasons. This • is intuitively correct, based on the assumption that the lifestyles and activities of apartment dwellers would vary less than other types of residential generators. For the other three residential waste generators, waste quantities vary significantly between the seasons. For residential self -haul wastes, the increased quantities in the dry season is likely caused by additional wastes from remodeling, landscaping, and other activities with a seasonal nature. • Like residential self -haul, the variations in waste quantities for urban and rural single-family wastes are likely also caused by • activities that are seasonal in nature. Unlike residential self -haul, examination of the seasonal waste composition results for urban and rural wastes indicates that yard waste contributes significantly to the seasonal variation. 3.2.2 Residential Waste Composition Tables 3.5 through 3.8 show the seasonal variations for specific residential substreams. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 summarize these results by season and by generator, respectively. Data on the statistical certainty of these results can be found in Addendum C. As discussed in Section 2, the wet season results for the residential waste streams have been projected based on data from the Waste Stream CompasWn Study (Matrix et al., 1989) for the city of Seattle. Trends in waste composition shown by the Seattle data for the dry season (summer and fall) versus the wet season (winter and spring) were applied to the county dry season data to project wet season waste composition and allow the calculation of an annual average. 3.3 NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 3.3.1 Nonresidential Waste Quantities Table 3.11 shows nonresidential waste quantities by season, the seasonal distribution (the percentage that each season contributes for each substream), the annual totals, and the amount (percentage) that each waste substream contributes to the total nonresidential waste stream. As can be seen in this table, the nonresidential waste stream has less seasonal variation than the residential waste stream. This is consistent with the logic that business activity proceeds at a steadier pace, and is affected less by seasonal changes than by economic fluctuation. For nonresidential self -haul, it is likely that the observed fluctuation in waste quantities is the result of factors similar to factors which affect residential self -haul. In other words, nonresidential self -haul wastes are likely generated in part by activities with a significant seasonal nature, such as construction and landscaping. Residential and Nonresidential Quantity and Composition Appendix B. Waste Characterixatbn Study B20 B- 3.3.2 Nonresidential Waste Composition Tables 3.12 through 3.15 provide data on the two general nonresidential waste streams. Data on the select nonresidential generators is shown in Section 4. Tables 3.12 and 3.13 show the results of samples taken in the dry and wet seasons for the total CII and nonresidential self - haul waste streams, respectively, and the weighted (annual) average for these waste streams. The weighted average was derived using the tonnage figures shown in Table 3.1 for the dry and wet seasons. Total CII (commercial, industrial, and institutional) is used to refer to the nonresidential waste that is collected by a garbage hauling company, as opposed to being self -hauled by the generator. The two nonresidential categories taken together, total CII and nonresidential self -haul, include every type of nonresidential waste generator in King County. The annual averages for the nonresidential waste streams are summarized in Tables 3.14 (by season) and 3.15 (by type of generator). The values shown in these tables are weighted averages calculated using the waste quantity data (by type of generator) shown in Table 3.1. Appendix B. Wmte Characterization Study Residential and Nonresidential Quantity and Composition co W_ H H Z C6 Q W W CD U- J H Z O 2 0) OD r- (DD U M C�1 (n Z Z < O U) �- O S 1-- 21 rn 0 1 0 C: �+ o � c Z 0 cc c N c0 -- m T U c � 7 c0 U U os m N Ycu E o >• c Residential and Nonr&kknhal Quantity and Compwidon Agmdir B: Waste Characterization Study B- 22 LU a 0 Q w z w 0 C'7 } w m co Q w_ z Q D 0 LwL a z O Q w U w N N C O C 0 cam O ea U m CM Cb z O O O O O i = NVli C = O c0 N h C F-- N Ln '7 00 F— N Cl)o - N N z I 1 I 1 I w Q U N Q �., c LU Q) 00 co 00 �7 a C N O O N N N C O C U cam O ea U m CM Cb d O O O O O i = NVli C aOD O c0 N h C F-- O ccf ~ O N 00 w 0 U U E m m c i N a- cD Ln N M C al N N C O 0 U cam ea U m CM Cb d d i = NVli C N w o a_ fy c U O 0 a c w z w C'3 Cl Ap,pmdkA- taste Charaderizatan Study N C in75 cam ea U m CM Cb • (b i = NVli C c N LO C ccc z F-- O ccf g cU 0 00 �_, o U)� N U U E m m c i N U) C .� dco C CU Q n. d LL O N Q �., (/� — Q) 00 co 00 �7 Q 0 C N O O QI �_ U J Y O CD iL CD Q1 m m T N d i A c O • N w o a_ fy c U O 0 a c w z w C'3 Cl Ap,pmdkA- taste Charaderizatan Study in75 cam ea U m CM Cb • (b i = C CD Y 3 E m E � _ I ccf g cU �_, o U)� N U U E m m c i LL L C .� dco C CU n. d LL O N �., (/� r N ri • a� m • Ln T —_ �_ ; J Y O CD iL CD C'7 m m T N �_ i A c O • > > or o C ` 0 0 o H z o � H c � a • co • 0 m Uo U m a N Q z v Z 1 N N V O 0 CD �E N 10 cD st N CD Residentfril i LO Quantity and Compasiti n N P, O coNv T C7 N Vf � C c C p A Cl N n o o vm, eT co O V v O o p A UoHv • C m m Y 3 r x = o CD O � rn c � o U • CO7 N tl7 N O N Q � LA H m � � • o m � 75 U • a� a m O cD O m y O 7 • cD Of cD O LO N N M O C '$c O _N m O • � H fp0 U C L l0 N` N m °' �L Cl) c O U in75 cam ea U m CM Cb • (b i = C CD Y 3 E m E � _ I ccf g cU �_, o U)� N U U E m m c i LL L C .� dco C CU n. d LL O N �., (/� r N ri • cW C_r co —_ �_ Cir J Y U w aci U N �_ Q ui m cts > > or o 0 0 o H z H z a co • Uo U z • Residentfril and Nonrw denW Quantity and Compasiti n N eo w J m z m O U O z Y z w W Q (r J Q a E W I -- U) H z v m w >1 N a 3 0 '' W LL , c Ctf 0 0 ; , cc - C N p6 p 0 U F� m 0) y C Z m m C Z l0 a f0 U) cn N CL a N m CD E a CL C O $ m CDa a O tY m a a a a a a f- h F- ►- H a. 6 Q N CA CD V U3 M .- N � 0O F N Z cgi z z z n N CD m N m CA >1 N a 3 O W CL C O (D f- Q7 aC W Wm O a: '' W LL , c Ctf a ECC LL «. 7 � _ w y N ¢ cc - C N p6 p Q U F� m 0) y C Z m m C Z l0 a O CL n N N CD 0 Cl O COD O a O tY m N M co Co to h N iD ~ o 6 o � <D V U3 rn co 0 0O ro. N cgi z z z n a N U) L o a H CA H C 3 O W CL C O (D f- Q7 aC W Wm O a: '' W LL , c Ctf E LL _� t� U) Cif a ECC LL «. 7 � _ w y N ¢ cc - C N p6 p Q U F� m 0) y C Z m m C Z l0 a O O N N CD 0 Cl O COD O O O tY O O N M co Co to h N iD Z .- o 6 rn <D (n U3 CD co NGo 0O N cgi B-2 3 m E !- m �10 r p m � c — G 8a S � cc p A c � m fi E c g c c p O N c • 0 ¢ 0 p� Cl c � c of c E • o o C m b n m U ctt 8 to v m O CD � CL Z. .= cV C i 0V O Y Z in Rakknhal and Nonrwden" Quantity and Composition Aoendiz B: Waste Cbarac ff&ation Study `'a0 as 3 O W CL C O (D f- Q7 aC W Wm O a: '' W LL , c Ctf E LL _� t� U) Cif a ECC LL «. 7 � _ w y N ¢ cc - C N p6 p o m U = y :2N m p Z U F� m 0) y C Z m m C Z l0 a B-2 3 m E !- m �10 r p m � c — G 8a S � cc p A c � m fi E c g c c p O N c • 0 ¢ 0 p� Cl c � c of c E • o o C m b n m U ctt 8 to v m O CD � CL Z. .= cV C i 0V O Y Z in Rakknhal and Nonrwden" Quantity and Composition Aoendiz B: Waste Cbarac ff&ation Study L'7 (h W J Cil Q F— B-2 4 ................................... a o TN'at: O 7n N R CO 7n O: N m CO N r O O' - Un O -.O O 07 N 00 O N M A. 7q t -r O cOO Q' OOOM-MQ 007V:�?r- -NrOCD i,: Cl M< O M. p r an N v N f, :'. CD O et •! N mN 0N00r000 � OOOQD - O O �Q CON '. +- r CM -000&0 O • Q W Q • • JI • Q z< i Q=.�QQr N et IR OmM at M<CD-OOM--0 V: WON t,'lc!: 7U cl 7 7UW''..-MM-<clv! 00 CDM O LL r'.07q O O N N t` -.00 NN M 000 Om CO:NMO-OOr - N 17q��-,00000:OMOONOcO'-0000 N N • w Cc W O Z LV J Of C0 -N0 V CO M%0 _: O N CO h O O CO NO OD W) M N t`M h- 04D CD - N 07 N --:W 0710-NNr-- 017N7A0 O V6 43i N NM -07 -0.00 0 M -O < C4 C4- 7q 7170 N M O < CO r - .- r N NN 0000 K O r O O r O Qd 00 M- - } O 4M 0 • F— Cc W JJ JIQ Z Z = C� "It:q 4R OO r` al aVM7q <cq 43 ' 00r CD' 00004000 M M CYO'NMO07<-O 7ghagO V CO :OO aq COO r LV W MQ NNOOM-OIOOO-OMN COVM MMO-ON- f` <: r N- 04-t-00-A-_OOOONOC4 0000- C-4 r O O U V J � W (L U) m J • W cc F- Q O4q.-p MM. - M '14: cl Nm lq O W)q ll- c00 Uq gq t- (I t, 'Q V'.0.OD OD 070N V p Wq O MrO OD ON 06R O O O M- O O •"• • LL CD f, 000 0 0 M f`O O O M O N O O 7 r O O N N O- t` CO M.: r r M r M<-- N O O O M .-000000 .- M W J a • F- c Q c c� Q Q m my F'a J Q LL 001 7q M a O r-':0 f` _ N Cl m 7t7 CD v r P 'C at O r 00 7q M O f� Q Q 0 7q O M r N N CON 7A Cl �.'t. - t` vA 0 O Cc I COO Oh00000 O-O<OC90 0780 1�MMNOOM Co c9 v - -M NOOOLO N-000OM-000-0 Q w C C CID 7• Lu CCS r ' ° Z _ ma % O r T • Fn ; )J CQ O nc 7 0 • a N Q Ll_ btV-M0M-O aq 0.a Of`O0<aq (P (p aOhMKa0 OFf:. aq cl 7q O C0-:< 0 fpr Q 0 �''. MO r` f` 00 - m C mcc • I �+I[I IO Iq O O N t� OQ-:O -O M O -N --1q :M OLONN O- O C� - - - M r co" --000 M -r OOO 00 N 00000 00 m C° C13zi aD m U N m m� ap. m C aD V: m O v C mom c ,r.m m m m O7 e o�� m16 Ci OYfp°cmp�n C m pj0 �o 02 o' aEm C _ V00 m ^ = m �LLc o oa QDtO mm 0 cc rooEm c4D'o� Vm E :3 O a go °n OmLL 4 W•C 0.0 m °m a 10 m 000 Oz m'C ~ G) CLO mw��" -� �3 mm yoa_m � 72 IXV pO O�p Z c:110 t- L mLjL� mro�� W OC �.• < :s OaHLQ L y �V<V�<�LLO O'w ZW LazUoo • C6 W J CD Q H U) W F - z Q LW r Q J Q I— z W _0 cn W cc c C 6 O 82 O N C E O m CO T `ma c T m CD U c 7 e0 O C C � O r uo. rO a O � O � � U m •' H y O � y L 4✓ ppo C m O � � m m<3 %m � c � o to h O C � C O O E c E'ro eo -- ro rn C 70 B VB '61"6 030 ,� eo m c c o U -e U �p 7 1J a�,a OC 7 1 cc N L o U c m F- E - °7i A rn > > m 12m m 3 LL U U c N CO V C71 C Y z0) B-25 Residential and Nonresrclmiul Quantity and Composition Agendtr B: Waste Chwadff&atron Sludy _m �N co < F C C r` C') co T co O O O 0 J C m Q cc z y c c z 0 Q y O O N F— V Ci O s! C) 'o O LO O UO F— N 0 E a o U m c0 O co C) O a`N r v v 6 v N v M v LLJ U) yh C c W O O O cC COi O LO y CO O tD N r` C� N tf Co N Fp _ N O E c U N N O N r O O a n `n "' LO `O LO C� Q O N W Cl 0 0 O CD r^ t0 co N Q Cl N CO <D O V cf N N Fp a� h cu E E _ ll cc L w _3 CC O 11 c_ E W c U) LL z W C13 > (D Z) m > M c a c C 6 O 82 O N C E O m CO T `ma c T m CD U c 7 e0 O C C � O r uo. rO a O � O � � U m •' H y O � y L 4✓ ppo C m O � � m m<3 %m � c � o to h O C � C O O E c E'ro eo -- ro rn C 70 B VB '61"6 030 ,� eo m c c o U -e U �p 7 1J a�,a OC 7 1 cc N L o U c m F- E - °7i A rn > > m 12m m 3 LL U U c N CO V C71 C Y z0) B-25 Residential and Nonresrclmiul Quantity and Composition Agendtr B: Waste Chwadff&atron Sludy ORGANICS 91.8 % 91.2 % 91.5 % Paper 33.0 38.1 35.2 Newspaper 9.1 9.6 9.3 Cardboard 5.8 6.1 5.9 Office Paper Paper 00:3 Computer 0.1 0.1 Mixed 10.4 14.1 12.0 Other 7.2 8.0 7.5 Plastics- 7.9 8.0 8.0 PET Bottles 0.4 0.4 0.4 HDPE Bottles 0.9 1.2 1.0 Polystyrene 0.7 0.7 0.7 Plastic Film, Bags 3.5 3.5 3.5 Other Plastic Pkg. 0.9 0.9 0.9 Other 1.5 1.4 1.4 Wood and Yard Wastes 14.9 - 9.9 < 12.8 Wood 1.2 1.0 1.1 Yard Wastes 13.7 8.9 11.6 Other Organics 36.0 35.2 " 35.6 Textiles 3.4 3.4 3.4 Food Wastes 10.4 8.5 9.6 Disposable Diapers 5.0 6.6 5.7 Fines 2.3 2.2 2.3 Rubber 2.4 2.3 2.4 Furniture, Mattress 0.4 0.4 0.4 Miscellaneous Organics 12.1 11,7 11.9 INORGANICS 8.4 8.8 8.6 Glass 2.3 2.3 . 2.3 Clear Containers 1.5 1.5 1.5 Green Containers 0.3 0.3 0.3 Brown Containers 0.5 0.5 0.5 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 Metals 3.9 3.6 '- 3.8 Ferrous Cans 1.2 1.6 1.4 Other Ferrous 1.1 0.7 0.9 Aluminum Cans 0.6 0.5 0.6 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mixed Metals 0.9 0.8 0.9 Other Non -Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Inorganics 2,2 2,9 2.5 Haz./Special Wastes 0.4 0.3 0.3 Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.4 1.0 0.7 Construction/Demo. Waste 0.6 0.8 0.7 Miscellaneous 0.8 0.8 0.8 TOTALS (3) 100.2 % 100.0 % 100.1 NOTES: 1. Projected using data from the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study. 2. Weighted average based on 109,400 tons in dry season and 81,800 tons in wet season. I Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King Countv '^paste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appendix B. W" Characlenlzation k4au Rmden" and Nommndentral Quamiu and Composition B-27 TABLE 3.6 RURAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION WEIGHTED MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON (1) AVERAGE (2) ORGANICS 88.2 ` % 87.7 % 88.0 % Paper 28.7 34.0 ' 30.9 Newspaper 6.3 6.9 6.5 Cardboard 7.0 7.6 7.3 Office Paper 0.6 0.2 0.4 Computer Paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixed 9.2 12.9 10.7 Other 5.6 6.4 5.9 Plastics 10.5 10.9 10.7 PET Bottles 0.2 0.2 0.2 HDPE Bottles 1.1 1.5 1.3 Polystyrene 0.6 0.6 0.6 Plastic Film, Bags 4.5 4.6 4.5 Other Plastic Pkg. 0.6 0.6 0.6 Other 3.5 3.3 3.4 Wood and Yard Wastes 7.0 4.8 6.1' Wood 0.8 0.7 0.7 Yard Wastes 6.2 4.2 5.4 Other 0roard 42.0 38.1 40.4' Textiles 6.9 7.2 7.0 Food Wastes 14.0 11.8 13.1 Disposable Diapers 3.3 4.5 3.8 Fines 2.7 2.3 2.5 Rubber 0.3 0.3 0.3 Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Organics 14.8 12.0 13.7 INORGANICS 11.7 12-3 : 11.9_ Glass 3.4 3.4 3.4 Clear Containers 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green Containers 0.5 0.5 0.5 Brown Containers 0.6 0.6 0.6 Other 0.3 0.2 0.3 Metals 5.2 5.1 5.1 Ferrous Cans 1.9 2.6 2.2 Other Ferrous 1.4 0.9 1.2 Aluminum Cans 0.9 0.8 0.8 Other Alum. Containers 0.2 0.1 0.2 Mixed Metals 0.5 0.5 0.5 Other Non -Ferrous 0.3 0.2 0.3 1NiW0.7neous Inorganics 3.1 3.8 3.4 Haz./Special Wastes 0.8 0.6 0.7 Medical Waste 0.1 0.1 0.1 Ashes 0.4 1.1 0.7 Construction/Demo. Waste 1.2 1.7 1.4 Miscellaneous 0.6 0.4 0.5 TOTALS (3) 99.9 % 100.0 % 99.9 % NOTES: 1. Projected using data from the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study. 2. Weighted average based on 40,360 tons in dry season and 28,060 tons in wet season. 3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Residential and Nommndential Quantity and Gin Appendix B: Was& CharaaWiration Study TABLE 3.7 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WASTE COMPOSITION MATERIAL ORGANICS Paper Newspaper Cardboard Office Paper Computer Paper Mixed Other Plastics PET Bottles HDPE Bottles Polystyrene Plastic Film, Bags Other Plastic Pkg. Other Wood and Yard Wastes Wood Yard Wastes Other Organics Textiles Food Wastes Disposable Diapers Fines Rubber Furniture, Mattress Miscellaneous Organics INORGANICS Glass Clear Containers Green Containers Brown Containers Other Metals Ferrous Cans Other Ferrous Aluminum Cans Other Alum. Containers Mixed Metals Other Non -Ferrous Miscellaneous Inorganics Haz./Special Wastes Medical Waste Ashes Construction/Demo. Waste Miscellaneous TOTALS DRY SEASON WET SEASON (1) 86.7 % 35.1 10.7 8.1 0.4 0.1 12.5 3.3 7.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 3.6 0.5 2.1 11.6 5.9 5.7 32.6 6.5 11.5 2.4 2.3 0.1 1.9 7.9 13.2 4.6 2.9 0.8 0.9 0.0 3.3 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.1 5.3 1.0 0.0 0.1 2.6 1.6 99.9 86.5 % 40.3 11.2 8.5 0.1 0.1 16.8 3.6 7.3 0.2 0.7 0.5 3.5 0.5 1.9 8.4 4.8 3.7 30.5 6.5 9.2 3.2 2.2 0.1 1.8 7.6 13.6 4.5 2.8 0.8 0.9 0.0 3.1 1.6 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 6.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 3.5 1.5 100.0 WEIGHTED AVERAGE (2) 86.6 % 37.5 10.9 8.3 0.3 0.1 14.5 3.4 7.3 0.2 0.6 0.5 3.6 0.5 2.0 10.1 5.4 4.8 31.6 6.5 10.5 2.7 2.3 0.1 1.9 7.7 13.4 4.6 2.9 0.8 0.9 0.0 3.2 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 5.6 0.9 0.0 0.2 3.0 1.6 100.0 % NOTES: 1. Projected using data from the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study. 2. Weighted average based on 49,270 tons in dry season and 41,690 in wet season. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appendix B: Waste Characterixatan Study Residential and Nonresidents! Quantity and Comjiasition B-2 9 TABLE 3.8 RESIDENTIAL SELF -HAUL WASTE COMPOSITION e WEIGHTED MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON (1) AVERAGE (2) ORGANICS 75.1 % 72.3 % 73.9 % O Paper 11.0 9.6 10.4 Newspaper 3.6 2.0 2.9 Cardboard Office Paper 3.1 2.0 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 Computer Paper 0.0 0.0 0.0 O Mixed 2.7 3.4 3.0 Other 1.4 2.1 1.7 ® Plastics _ 5.0 9.2 6.8 PET Bottles 0.1 0.9 0.4 ® HDPE Bottles 0.1 0.9 0.4 Polystyrene 0.3 0.2 0.3 Plastic Film, Bags 1.2 1.9 1.5 S Other Plastic Pkg. 0.3 0.5 0.4 Other 3.0 4.9 3.8 ® Wood and Yard Wastes 42.3 43.4 42.9 Wood 18.4 19.3 18.8 ® Yard Wastes 24.1 24.1 24.1 Other Organics 16.8 10.1 13.8 Textiles Food Wastes 4.9 5.5 2.4 1.8 3.8 3.9 Disposable Diapers 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fines 1.6 1.5 1.6 Rubber 0.8 0.9 0.8 Furniture, Mattress 2.4 2.2 2.3 Miscellaneous Organics 1.4 1.2 1.3 • INORGANICS 25.1 27.7 26.2 Glass 3.3 5.0 4.0 • Clear Containers 1.5 0.9 1.2 Green Containers 0.4 0.2 0.3 Brown Containers 0.7 0.4 0.6 Other 0.7 3.4 1.9 Metals 7.9 11.3 9.4 Ferrous Cans 0.5 0.7 0.6 Other Ferrous 4.0 5.2 4.5 • Aluminum Cans 0.3 1.1 0.7 Other Alum. Containers 0.3 0.8 0.5 Mixed Metals 2.5 2.8 2.6 Other Non -Ferrous 0.3 0.6 0.4 Miscellaneous inorganics" 13.9 " 11.4 12.8 Haz./Special Wastes 0.7 0.5 0.6 Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.5 0.5 0.5 Construction/Demo. Waste 11.6 9.6 10.8 Miscellaneous 1.1 0.8 1.0 • TOTALS 100.2 % 100.0 % 100.1 0/0 • NOTES: 1. Based on data from the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study. 2. Weighted averages are based on 90,650 tons in dry season and 68,200 tons in wet season. Residential and Nonresidential Quantity and CompasMon Append= B: waste Ctaraamzahon Study B 0 3 ::::::::.:.::::.::::::::::::.;.::.:::;:::.::..:.::.::.::...........:..:........_:.:::::.......:...... . TABLE 3.9 WASTE COMPOSITION, ALL RESIDENTIAL BY SEASON NOTES: 1. Seasonal and weighted averages based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1. 2. Subtotals and totals may not add up exactly due to rounding. S<wrce: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. 4endix B: Waste Characterisation Study Resrdert" and Nonrmiden" Quantity and Composition WEIGHTED MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON AVERAGE ORGANICS 85.0 % 84.0 % 84.7 % Paper 25.8 29.1 27.3 Newspaper 7.3 7.2 7.2 Cardboard 5.5 5.5 5.5 Office Paper 0.3 0.1 0.3 Computer Paper 0.0 0.1 0.1 Mixed 8.2 11.1 9.5 Other 4.5 5.1 4.8 Plastics ' 7.2 8.6 7.9 PET Bottles 0.2 0.5 0.3 HDPE Bottles 0.6 1.0 0.8 Polystyrene 0.5 0.5 0.5 Plastic Film, Bags 2.9 3.1 3.0 Other Plastic Pkg. 0.6 0.7 0.6 Other 2.4 2.8 2.5 Wood and Yard Wastes 21.8 19.4 20.8 Wood 7.3 7.3 7.3 Yard Wastes 14.5 12.0 13.5 Other Organics 30.2 26.9 28.8 Textiles 4.9 4.2 4.6 Food Wastes 9.5 7.0 8.4 Disposable Diapers 2.8 3.6 3.1 Fines 2.2 2.0 2.1 Rubber 1.2 1.2 1.2 Furniture, Mattress 1.2 1.2 1.2 Miscellaneous Organics 8.4 7.7 8.1 INORGANICS 15.0 16.0 15.4 Glass , 3.1 3.7 3.4 Clear Containers 1.8 1.6 1.7 Green Containers 0.4 0.4 0.4 Brown Containers 0.6 0.6 0.6 Other 0.3 1.1 0.6 Metals 5.3 6.1 5.6 Ferrous Cans 1.1 1.5 1.2 Other Ferrous 2.0 2.1 2.1 Aluminum Cans 0.6 0.7 0.6 Other Alum. Containers 0.2 0.3 0.2 Mixed Metals 1.2 1.3 1.3 Other Non -Ferrous 0.2 0.2 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics 6.6 6.2 6.4 Haz./Special Wastes 0.6 0.5 0.6 Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.4 0.7 0.5 Construction/Demo. Waste 4.5 4.2 4.3 Miscellaneous 1.0 0.9 1.0 TOTALS 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.1 % NOTES: 1. Seasonal and weighted averages based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1. 2. Subtotals and totals may not add up exactly due to rounding. S<wrce: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. 4endix B: Waste Characterisation Study Resrdert" and Nonrmiden" Quantity and Composition B 31 TABLE 3.10 WASTE COMPOSITION, ALL RESIDENTIAL COMBINED ANNUAL FIGURES BY GENERATOR TYPE (1) NOTES: 1. Data for each generator is from Tables 3.5 through 3.8. 2. Weighted average is based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1. 3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. ResidentiiW and Nonresidential Qua"v and Compositimt AAWndir B. Waste ChwvdpizaA Study URBAN RURAL SINGLE- SINGLE- MULTI- SELF- WEIGHTED MATERIAL FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY HAUL AVERAGE (2) ORGANICS 91.5 % - 88.0 % 86.6 % 73.9 % 84.7 % Paper 35.2; 30.9 37.5 ', 10.4 27.3 Newspaper 9.3 6.5 10.9 2.9 7.2 Cardboard 5.9 7.3 8.3 2.6 5.5 Office Paper 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 Computer Paper 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Mixed 12.0 10.7 14.5 3.0 9.5 Other 7.5 5.9 3.4 1.7 4.8 Plastics 8.0 10.7 7.3 6.8 7.9 PET Bottles 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 HDPE Bottles 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.8 Polystyrene 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 Plastic Film, Bags 3.5 4.5 3.6 1.5 3.0 Other Plastic Pkg. 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 Other 1.4 3.4 2.0 3.8 2.5 Wood and Yard Wastes 12.8 6.1 10.1 42.9 20:8 Wood 1.1 0.7 5.4 18.8 7.3 Yard Wastes 11.6 5.4 4.8 24.1 13.5 Other Organics 35.6 40.4 31.6 ` 13.8 28.8< Textiles 3.4 7.0 6.5 3.8 4.6 Food Wastes 9.6 13.1 10.5 3.9 8.4 Disposable Diapers 5.7 3.8 2.7 0.0 3.1 Fines 2.3 2.5 2.3 1.6 2.1 Rubber 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 Furniture, Mattress 0.4 0.0 1.9 2.3 1.2 Miscellaneous Organics 11.9 13.7 7.7 1.3 8.1 INORGANICS 8.6 11.9 13.4 - 26.2 15.4 Glass 2.3 3.4 4.6 4.0 3.4 Clear Containers 1.5 2.0 2.9 1.2 1.7 Green Containers 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 Brown Containers 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 Other 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.6 Metals 3.8 5.1 3.2' 9.4 5.6' Ferrous Cans 1.4 2.2 1.4 0.6 1.2 Other Ferrous 0.9 1.2 0.9 4.5 2.1 Aluminum Cans 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 Mixed Metals 0.9 0.5 0.3 2.6 1.3 Other Non -Ferrous 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics 2.5 3.4 5.6'' 12.8 6.4 Haz./Special Wastes 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 Medical Waste 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.5 Construction/Demo. Waste 0.7 1.4 3.0 10.8 4.3 Miscellaneous 0.8 0.5 1.6 1.0 1.0 TOTALS (3) 100.1 iib 99.9 % 100.0 % 100.1 % 100.1 NOTES: 1. Data for each generator is from Tables 3.5 through 3.8. 2. Weighted average is based on waste quantities shown in Table 3.1. 3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. ResidentiiW and Nonresidential Qua"v and Compositimt AAWndir B. Waste ChwvdpizaA Study r C+7 W J CD F- U) W p F - z D a W CD J ¢ z W 0 W CC z z F- c 0 O O N L6 v M 0 LO LO _� N z M h 00 O s� o W ocu C E �3r ^ N Ir U N d (n m C L N a z N LO h r v tD Ln v O a n C: 0 J Q h CO O O z 1-0 O rl Q cs LO CD N F- c 0 O O N L6 v M 0 LO LO _ N z C h 00 O W o W C E Ir O d to �7 N 00 C O Fl.- H N LO h r v tD Ln v a n z 0 CD W OO N � wo Nv Cf) F- c 0 O O N L6 v M 0 LO LO O N CD to `o O° c O c 0 E O L m L Ln O C n U � A C T C i0 D (D LL m O C C U C O to N a 10 t O A to U L A t0 m L D tN9 O � ; c v m CD .v 0) N � C O O OO C � M O C N C 7 v 0 ECE t6 y to t6 m l0 O N O CD L o � o 0 c a t0 N t6 C `C m A m U L U CD m CD a a m m 3 L m � U � io F i0 0 � U U O N 1L U U N W O z N t7 AppendLv B: Waste CGaracte lwfion Study Residential and Nonm den" Quantity and Compm, N O E o z C h 00 W W CO Ir U) N O O CV cli I N Clt C O Fl.- H N LO h r v tD O N CD to `o O° c O c 0 E O L m L Ln O C n U � A C T C i0 D (D LL m O C C U C O to N a 10 t O A to U L A t0 m L D tN9 O � ; c v m CD .v 0) N � C O O OO C � M O C N C 7 v 0 ECE t6 y to t6 m l0 O N O CD L o � o 0 c a t0 N t6 C `C m A m U L U CD m CD a a m m 3 L m � U � io F i0 0 � U U O N 1L U U N W O z N t7 AppendLv B: Waste CGaracte lwfion Study Residential and Nonm den" Quantity and Compm, B- 33 TABLE 3.12 WASTE COMPOSITION TOTAL CII BY SEASON Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991 Residential and NonnasrderkU Quantity and CompasWn Aomdtr B. Waste CAwaaytzation Shtay WEIGHTED MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON AVERAGE (1) ORGANICS 86.5 '% 87.01: %'' 86.9 % Paper 39.5 40.2 ' 39.8 Newspaper 2.2 2.1 2.2 Cardboard 12.4 11.6 12.0 Office Paper 4.6 2.4 3.4 Computer Paper 0.8 1.4 1.1 Mixed 13.0 7.0 9.8 Other 6.5 15.7 11.3 Plastics 10.3 10.6 10.5 PET Bottles 0.0 0.0 0.0 HDPE Bottles 0.2 0.2 0.2 Polystyrene 0.6 0.6 0.6 Plastic Film, Bags 4.3 3.1 3.7 Other Plastic Pkg. 0.9 1.8 1.4 Other 4.3 4.9 4.6 Wood and Yard Wastes 19.6 10.2 14.8 Wood 15.8 8.8 12.2 Yard Wastes 3.8 1.4 2.6 Other Organics 17.1 26.0 21.8 Textiles 1.4 9.1 5.5 Food Wastes 5.5 5.2 5.3 Disposable Diapers 0.4 0.0 0.2 Fines 2.3 3.1 2.7 Rubber 3.0 3.6 3.3 Furniture, Mattress 0.2 1.1 0.7 Miscellaneous Organics 4.3 3.9 4.1 INORGANICS 13.3 12.7 12.9 Glass 2.7 1.3 2.0 Clear Containers 0.6 0.8 0.8 Green Containers 0.0 0.2 0.1 Amber Containers 0.4 0.1 0.2 Other 1.7 0.2 0.9 Metals 4.8 3.8 4.2 Ferrous Cans 0.3 0.7 0.5 Other Ferrous 2.2 1.6 1.9 Aluminum Cans 0.4 0.3 0.3 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mixed Metals 1.5 1.0 1.2 Other Non -Ferrous 0.3 0.1 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics 5.8 7.6 6.7 Haz./Special Wastes 1.5 0.6 1.0 Medical Waste 0.0 0.2 0.1 Ashes 0.0 0.3 0.2 Construction/Demo, Waste 2.7 4.3 3.5 Miscellaneous 1.6 2.2 1.9 TOTALS (2) 99.8 % 99.7 % 99.8 % NOTES: 1. Weighted averages are based on 122,300 tons In dry season and 135,200 tons in wet season. 2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991 Residential and NonnasrderkU Quantity and CompasWn Aomdtr B. Waste CAwaaytzation Shtay �- ......:..... . 5 TABLE 3.13 WASTE COMPOSITION NONRESIDENTIAL SELF -HAUL BY SEASON WEIGHTED MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON AVERAGE (1) ORGANICS 69.6 % 58.7 % 64.1 % Paper 12.3 10.6 _11.5 Newspaper 0.3 0.8 0.5 Cardboard 6.9 4.9 5.9 Office Paper 0.5 0.2 0.4 Computer Paper 0.2 0.0 0.1 Mixed 2.7 1.6 2.2 Other 1.7 3.1 2.4 Plastics ° 11.2 24.6 17.5 PET Bottles 0.0 0.0 0.0 HDPE Bottles 0.0 1.3 0.6 Polystyrene 0.4 5.5 2.8 Plastic Film, Bags 2.2 2.7 2.4 Other Plastic Pkg. 0.3 6.6 3.3 Other 8.3 8.5 8.4 Wood and Yard Ylfastes; 36.8 16.1 26.8 Wood 23.6 16.1 20.0 Yard Wastes 13.2 0.0 6.8 Other Organics 9.3 7.4 8 3 Textiles 3.8 0.1 2.0 Food Wastes 1.3 5.6 3.4 Disposable Diapers 0.2 0.0 0.1 Fines 1.5 0.7 1.1 Rubber 0.9 0.2 0.5 Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Organics 1.6 0.8 1.2 INORGANICS 30.5 40.8 35.7 Glass 1.7 0.3 1.0 Clear Containers 0.7 0.2 0.5 Green Containers 0.6 0.0 0.3 Amber Containers 0.2 0.1 0.1 Other 0.2 0.0 0.1 Metals. 7.6 °' 5.0 6.5 Ferrous Cans 0.1 0.1 0.1 Other Ferrous 3.3 3.2 3.3 Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.2 0.3 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.0 0.1 Mixed Metals 3.5 1.3 2.4 Other Non -Ferrous 0.3 0.2 0.3 Miscellaneous Inorganics 21.2 35.5 28.2 Haz./Special Wastes 1.7 0.4 1.1 Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction/Demo. Waste 19.5 34.6 26.8 Miscellaneous 0.0 0.5 0.3 TOTALS (2) 100.1 % 99.5 % 99.8 % NOTES: 1. Weighted averages are based on 45,220 tons in dry season and 42,480 tons in wet season. 2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. •rr• r rr rr rr� r ,, r •� r. r r r r :. r• r l r r r r rr r .... ............ . . . . .............. * * .... .... *,*,* .... * . ........ `-*-1-':::: X: .............. ­ ....... .. ............................ ...... ... . . ... ... . . . .......................................................................... . ................. ...... D . ............. ........ ........... ...... ........... .......... * ............ ...................................................... ........ ......................... D .. .......... ................... ..................... ... ..... . ........ . ............... ....... ....... . ... .... 11 ..................... .. ...... ...... . .............................. ............... ... ............................. ........... ............... . ... .. :..� . TABLE 3.14 WASTE COMPOSITION ALL NONRESIDENTIAL BY SEASON NOTES: 1. Seasonal and weighted averages are based on data shown in Table 3.1. 2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Residential and Nonrff denhal Quantity and Composition Ag-mdiv B: Waste ChiaraWriwt Study WEIGHTED MATERIAL DRY SEASON WET SEASON AVERAGE (1) ORGANICS 82.1 % 80.3 % 81.5 % Paper 32.2 33.2 32.9 Newspaper 1.7 1.8 1.8 Cardboard 10.9 10.0 10.5 Office Paper 3.5 1.9 2.7 Computer Paper 0.7 1.1 0.9 Mixed 10.2 5.7 7.9 Other 5.2 12.7 9.1 Plastics 10.5 13.9 12.4 PET Bottles 0.0 0.0 0.0 HDPE Bottles 0.2 0.4 0.3 Polystyrene 0.5 1.8 1.2 Plastic Film, Bags 3.7 3.0 3.4 Other Plastic Pkg. 0.7 2.9 1.9 Other 5.4 5.8 5.6 Wood and Yard Wastes 24.4 11.7 17.8 Wood 18.0 10.6 14.1 Yard Wastes 6.4 1.1 3.7 Other Organics 15.0 21,5 18.4 Textiles 2.0 7.0 4.6 Food Wastes 4.4 5.3 4.8 Disposable Diapers 0.4 0.0 0.2 Fines 2.1 2.5 2.3 Rubber 2.4 2.7 2.6 Furniture, Mattress 0.1 0.8 0.5 Miscellaneous Organics 3.6 3.2 3.4 INORGANICS 18.0 19.4 18.6 Glass 2.5 1.1 1.8 Clear Containers 0.7 0.7 0.7 Green Containers 0.2 0.1 0.2 Amber Containers 0.3 0.1 0.2 Other 1.3 0.2 0.7 Metals 5.5 4.1 4.7 Ferrous Cans 0.3 0.6 0.4 Other Ferrous 2.5 2.0 2.2 Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.2 0.3 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mixed Metals 2.0 1.0 1.5 Other Non -Ferrous 0.3 0.2 0.2 Miscellaneous inorganics 10.0 14.2 12.1 HazdSpecial Wastes 1.6 0.5 1.0 Medical Waste 0.0 0.2 0.1 Ashes 0.0 0.2 0.1 Construction/Demo. Waste 7.2 11.5 9.4 Miscellaneous 1.2 1.8 1.5 TOTALS (2) 100.1 % 99.7 % 100.1 % NOTES: 1. Seasonal and weighted averages are based on data shown in Table 3.1. 2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Residential and Nonrff denhal Quantity and Composition Ag-mdiv B: Waste ChiaraWriwt Study TABLE 3.15 WASTE COMPOSITION, ALL NONRESIDENTIAL COMBINED, ANNUAL FIGURES BY GENERATOR TYPE NOTES: 1. Weighted averages are based on 167,520 tons in dry season and 177,680 tons in wet season. 2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appendix B: Waste CbiaraderixaVn Study Residential and Nonresidential Quantity and ConspwiWn NONRESIDENTIAL WEIGHTED MATERIAL TOTAL CII SELF -HAUL AVERAGE (1) ORGANICS 86.9 % 64.1 % 811'5 % Paper 39.8 11.5 32.9 Newspaper 2.2 0.5 1.8 Cardboard 12.0 5.9 10.5 Office Paper 3.4 0.4 2.7 Computer Paper 1.1 0.1 0.9 Mixed 9.8 2.2 7.9 Other 11.3 2.4 9.1 Plastics 10.5 17.5 12.4 PET Bottles 0.0 0.0 0.0 HDPE Bottles 0.2 0.6 0.3 Polystyrene 0.6 2.8 1.2 Plastic Film, Bags 3.7 2.4 3.4 Other Plastic Pkg. 1.4 3.3 1.9 Other 4.6 8.4 5.6 Wood and Yard Wastes 14.8 26.8 17.8'' Wood 12.2 20.0 14.1 Yard Wastes 2.6 6.8 3.7 Other Organics 21.8 8.3 18.4 Textiles 5.5 2.0 4.6 Food Wastes 5.3 3.4 4.8 Disposable Diapers 0.2 0.1 0.2 Fines 2.7 1.1 2.3 Rubber 3.3 0.5 2.6 Furniture, Mattress 0.7 0.0 0.5 Miscellaneous Organics 4.1 1.2 3.4 INORGANICS 12.9 35.7 18.6> Glass 2.0 1.0 1.8' Clear Containers 0.8 0.5 0.7 Green Containers 0.1 0.3 0.2 Brown Containers 0.2 0.1 0.2 Other 0.9 0.1 0.7 Metals 4.2 6.5 4.7 Ferrous Cans 0.5 0.1 0.4 Other Ferrous 1.9 3.3 2.2 Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.3 0.3 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mixed Metals 1.2 2.4 1.5 Other Non -Ferrous 0.2 0.3 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics 6.7 28.2 12.1 Haz./Special Wastes 1.0 1.1 1.0 Medical Waste 0.1 0.0 0.1 Ashes 0.2 0.0 0.1 ConstructioNDemo. Waste 3.5 26.8 9.4 Miscellaneous 1.9 0.3 1.5 TOTALS (2) 99.8 % 99.8 % 100.1 % NOTES: 1. Weighted averages are based on 167,520 tons in dry season and 177,680 tons in wet season. 2. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appendix B: Waste CbiaraderixaVn Study Residential and Nonresidential Quantity and ConspwiWn Section 4 Composition of Select Nonresidential Waste Streams 0 O 4.1 INTRODUCTION B-37 • The purpose of this section is to provide the waste composition results, and interpretation of these data, for the select nonresidential generators. Detailed waste composition infonnation of this nature will permit King County to design waste reduction • and recycling programs for specific business types. The select nonresidential generators were chosen based on: • Employment of a large number of people in King County, as an indicator that the business is a significant waste generator that • may have substantial waste reduction and recycling potential. • Special concerns or issues associated with the wastes disposed by the business. • • A lack of information on the waste composition for the business. • Previous targeting of the business for future recycling efforts. The select nonresidential generators are organized by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, which classifies companies i and institutions by the type of activity in which they are engaged. This approach assumes that companies engaged in similar activities will generate similar wastes. • Four of the SIC codes shown are special divisions created for this study. These are SIC codes 58F, 58S, 80C, and 80H. The division between SIC 58F and SIC 58S was chosen to examine the difference in waste streams from "fast food" (58F) versus "sit- down" (58S) types of restaurants. Likewise, the split between SIC 80C and SIC 80H was chosen to examine the difference in special wastes disposed by hospitals (80H) versus other medical -care facilities (80C). 4.2 WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS • In subsequent pages of this section, the information provided for each select nonresidential generator includes a definition of the generator and examples of the businesses sampled; an identification of significant observations made during sorting; and a pie chart identifying the major materials. Detailed waste composition data for the select nonresidential generators is shown in Table 4.1, at the end of this section. 4.2.1 SIC 20, Food Manufacturing •Descrolion of Generator.- This group includes establishments that manufacture or process foods and beverages for human consumption, such as meat packing plants, dairies, canneries, mills, bakeries, and bottling plants. Examples of businesses sampled include a Coca Cola bottling plant, Vernells Candies, Continental Mills Bakery, Mills Brothers, a dairy, and canneries. Results: As would be expected, waste generated by food manufacturers is relatively high in food wastes. The food waste found in this study included spoiled meats and produce, canned goods that apparently did not meet specifications (full containers of Composition of Sept Nonresidential Waste Streams Appendix B. Waste Characterization Study ......... .................................. .................................. . % '. --- , - - , - , - - : - : ..... ::,. - .:::,. - .,::: - : - : - : - -'- : : - ............... .... ................................................................................. .... .. ................ ......... ..... ................................................................................. .. ... .... X ...... B.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. .... . . . . . ...................................................... .. ... ........................................ .......... ........................................................... ................................................................................. - 3........... 8 soda were especially prevalent in one load), food that was past the expiration date (one load contained a large percentage of bagged candy), and similar wastes. Other organic materials that were present included cardboard, wood (primarily pallets), and plastic film, all of which are common to other manufacturing and wholesale operations. A relatively high amount of metals was also present, due largely to the presence of a substantial amount of ferrous (tin) cans in about one-third of the samples. The results for this SIC show a significant amount of medical waste and other hazardoustspecial wastes. This is primarily the result of one sample. The sample was from a dairy where apparently some agricultural activities were occurring, judging from the veterinarian and other farm -related wastes that were present The agricultural wastes are not defined to be part of this SIC group's activities, but the primary activity of this business meets the criteria for food manufacturing. 4.2.2 SIC 24, Lumber and Wood Products ,0&cnp&n of Generator: This group includes businesses that manufacture cabinets, mobile homes, pallets, fencing, and other products made from wood. Waste samples were taken from manufacturers such as the Woodtape Company, Western Cabinet, Budget Tables, United Millworkers, and Lunstead Furniture Manufacturing. Results: This waste stream contained a great deal of scrap wood generated from the manufacturing process. About two-thirds of the loads sampled for this group consisted of at least 75 percent wood waste. For many samples, the fines were primarily sawdust Materials that were present in a high percentage of the samples included cardboard and ferrous metals. 4.2.3 SIC 27, Printing and Publishing Descrrpllon of Generator: This group includes businesses engaged in printing or publishing (including publishing newspapers, books, and periodicals even if the actual printing is done by someone else), and those businesses which perform services for the printing trade, such as bookbinding, typesetting, and electrotyping. Businesses sampled included funis such as James River Paper Printing and Valley News. Results: The three samples for this group provide only very approximate results. However, the results appear to indicate that there may be a substantial amount of recyclable paper that is being disposed by this group. 4.2.4 SIC 45, Air Transportation Description of Generator: This group includes airports, flying fields, and terminals, but does not include air courier services. For this study, all waste loads were taken from the Sea -Tac International Airport, including samples from Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines, United Flight Kitchen, Delta Airlines, and Host International. Results: In this group, it was quite apparent which loads were from airlines that practiced recycling and which were not Aluminum cans were either nearly absent in the loads, or present in quantities of three to five percent One load contained 7.6 percent aluminum cans. The flight kitchens also appeared to be good candidates for recycling programs, since these loads contained significant percentages of ferrous (tin) cans. A variety of materials were present in at least two-thirds of the samples, including newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, nonrecyclable paper, polystyrene, plastic film, plastic packaging, other plastic, textiles, food wastes, clear glass, and other aluminum containers. Appendix B: Waste CAaracter:mhon Study CompasiWn of Select Nonresidential Waste Streams B- 3 9 4.2.5 SIC 50, Wholesale, Durable Goods Description of Generator: This group includes wholesale operations for automobiles, furniture, lumber, hardware, machinery, jewelry, auto wreckers, hobby supplies, and other products with a long useful life. Some of the businesses sampled included warehouse operations for Greenbaum Home Furnishings, Sears, Consolidated Carpets, Silo, Keller Plumbing Supply, and National Auto Paris Distribution Center. Results: This group demonstrates the potential value for commercial source -separation programs. Many loads for this type of business contained large amounts of cardboard, plastic film, pallets, steel strapping, and/or other recyclable materials. A recycling program instituted at these businesses would be able to divert substantial quantities of their wastes. Alternatively, because the waste stream for this type of business is relatively clean, a materials recovery facility may be able to recover most of the recyclable materials without excessive cross -contamination by nonrecyclable wastes. 4.2.6 SIC 51, Wholesale, Nondurable Goods Description of Generator: This group includes wholesale operations for paper products, drugs, clothing, food, animal feed, and other goods with a relatively short life span. Some of the businesses sampled for this SIC group included Safeway Beverage, Northwest Grocery, Service Paper Company, JC Penny Distribution Center, Orca Bay Seafood, Western Distributing, an Amway distributor, and Baxter Health Care Products. Results: As with wholesale durable, this SIC group demonstrates the potential for source -separation programs tailored to the specific needs of the generator. Almost all samples consisted of 25 percent or more of a single material, including wood waste, yard waste, cardboard, plastic film or packaging, mixed paper, food waste, and soil. The wood waste was typically pallets (see Table 5.4). Many of the businesses sampled in this SIC group and the preceding group handle the same products that are handled by retail operations sampled as one of the next three SIC groups: building materials (SIC 52), general merchandise (SIC 53), and food stores (SIC 54). However, the wholesale operations of SIC 50 and 51 generate a waste stream that is significantly different than the retail operations. 9 4.2.7 SIC 52, Building Materials and Garden Supplies • Description of Generator: This group includes retail facilities that sell building materials, hardware, glass, and/or lawn and gardening supplies. Examples of businesses sampled included McLendon Hardware, Seattle Lumber, Furneys Nursery, Home Club, • BMC West, Pay'N Pak, Molbak's Greenhouse, and Ernst Results: This waste stream has relatively more inorganics than other waste streams, which was caused by the substantial amount of construction and demolition (CDL) wastes. The high amount of CDL wastes was caused largely by the presence of damaged goods. The presence of damaged goods was also a contributing factor to the relatively high amount of wood waste and hazardous/special waste found in this waste stream. • A significant quantity of cardboard is present in the waste stream of this group, although the amount is lower than other retail groups. V Composawn of Sept NonreskkntW Waste Streams Appendix B: Waste Cbaracterlxahon Study ........................................................................................... .................................................................................. B-40 4.2.8 SIC 53, General Merchandise Stores 4.2.9 SIC 54, Food Stores DescrpMon of Generator: This group includes retail stores engaged in the selling of food for home preparation. Samples were taken from businesses such as Safeway, Albertson's, lViftway, Larry's Market, Stock Market Foods, and QFC. Results: The results for this group are especially high in organics. This is caused not just by spoiled food (as could be expected to be present) but also by paper materials (cardboard and nonrecyclable paper). Cardboard was present in all samples, as was food waste and plastic film. Materials that were present in a high percentage of the samples included nonrecyclable paper, mixed paper, polystyrene, other plastic packaging, other plastic, wood, clear glass, and aluminum cans. The wood was primarily (about two-thirds) crates from the shipment of food, and were often "contaminated" by cardboard which was glued or stapled to the wood. 4.2.10 SIC 58F, Fast Food Restaurants Description of Generator: This group is not a traditional division of the restaurant businesses, but was created for this study to test for suspected differences in the waste composition of this type of restaurant versus "sit-down" restaurants. Businesses sampled for this group included Taco Time, McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, and Taco Bell. Results: The relatively low number of samples for this group (14) yields results that do not have the same level of accuracy as other SIC groups (see data on confidence intervals in Addendum Q. The results indicate that this waste stream is highly organic in composition, but would not be easily composted due to the fact that a large amount of the organics are mixed paper and plastics. The results also indicate that the amount of polystyrene in this waste stream is relatively high compared to other select nonresidential waste streams. Unfortunately, this is an area where the results of this study have become outdated, due to the extensive movement away from the use of polystyrene containers. Many of the major fast food restaurant operations (McDonalds, Burger King, and others) ceased using polystyrene containers shortly after the last quarter of waste sorting was conducted. This component of the waste stream has now been replaced by paper-based materials. 4.2. 11 SIC 58S, Sit -Down Restaurants Description of Generator: As with 58F, this group is not a traditional division of the restaurant businesses, but was created for this study. This group differs from SIC 58F by the average length of time the customer is on the premises, and by the perception Appendix B: Waste Cbaractertxahon Study Composition of SeW Nonresidential Waste Sheams ::><:: B-41 that fewer disposable goods and packaging materials are disposed by sit-down restaurants. Businesses sampled included Carillon Point Restaurant, Black Angus, Anthony's Homeport, TGIF's, and Seattle Inn Restaurant. Results: There was a relatively higher amount of food waste present in this waste stream than in the waste stream for fast food restaurants. Sit-down restaurants also had significantly more recyclable glass, consisting of nearly equal amounts of all three colors. Compared to fast food restaurants, sit-down restaurants had less paper and plastic materials. In addition to glass and food waste, materials that were present in a high percentage of the samples for sit-down restaurants included cardboard, other paper, HDPE bottles, polystyrene, and ferrous (tin) cans. 4.2.12 SIC 70, Hotels Description of Generator- This group includes commercial and institutional establishments engaged in furnishing lodging and meals. Businesses sampled included the Silver Cloud Motel, Seattle Inn, Sea -Tac Red Lion Hotel, the Airport Radisson Hotel, • Olympic Four Seasons Hotel, Marriott Hotel, and the Redmond Motor Inn. Results: For some materials, the results for this type of generator are more typical of residential wastes. For instance, this • waste stream contained a significant percentage (10.6 percent) of newspaper. Materials that were present in most (75 percent or more) of the samples included cardboard, office paper, mixed paper, nonrecyclable paper, HDPE bottles, polystyrene, plastic film, other plastic packaging, textiles, food wastes, each of the three colors of glass, ferrous (tin) cans, other ferrous metals, and aluminum cans. Computer paper was present in over half of the samples. 4.2.13 SIC 80H, Hospitals Description of Generator: This group includes establishments engaged in furnishing diagnostic services, emergency care, and continuous nursing services. This group is the same as a standard SIC subdivision (SIC 806) of the Health Services Group (SIC 80). Samples taken for 80H included Evergreen Hospital, Overlake Hospital, Riverton Hospital, Saint Francis Community Hospital and Highline Hospital. Results: The results for this group show that a large amount of medical waste is being disposed as part of the regular waste stream from hospitals. However, it should be noted that the definition for medical waste used by this study was very broad. Only in some samples did the materials measured as medical waste actually meet the stricter definition for infectious or problem waste. In a few cases, syringes were discovered in the hospital waste, which is a clear violation of rules which prohibit these materials from going to the transfer stations. However, these and other problem wastes generally appeared to be the result of accidental disposal rather than the result of a systematic violation of disposal rules. The broad definition for medical waste used by this study was to protect the sorting crew members, since protective gear and other facilities available in the field were not sufficient to protect workers from bio -hazardous wastes. For this study, anything that had potentially been in contact with bodily fluids from a patient, except for things such as disposable "diapers" and bed sheets, was classified as medical waste. In some cases, entire garbage bags of waste were classified as medical waste if blood or other suspect materials could be observed in the bag. 4.2.14 SIC 80C, Clinics Description of Generator: This group was defined to include all of the remaining establishments in SIC 80 that were not included in the previous group (SIC 80H). This includes clinics, nursing homes, and the offices of physicians, dentists, and ComposWn of Select Nonresrden" Waste Streams Mbendix B: Waste Characters'xatron Study B-42 chiropractors. Businesses sampled included the Valley Gardens Medical -Dental Building, Forest Glen Nursing Home, and Lakevue Gardens Nursing Home. Results: 'The relatively low number of samples for this group (14) yields results that do not have the same level of accuracy as other SIC groups (see data on confidence intervals in Addendum Q. However, the results for this waste stream indicate that there may be a significant percentage of medical waste co -disposed with solid waste from these facilities, although less medical waste was found than for SIC 8011 Like hotels (SIC 70), this waste stream also displayed some results that are more typical of residential waste streams, especially for samples from nursing homes. Other materials that were present in over 75 percent of the samples included newspaper, cardboard, office paper, mixed paper, nonrecyclable paper, all of the plastic categories except PET bottles, textiles, food wastes, ferrous (tin) cans, and aluminum cans. Appendxx B: Waste Charaeterizahon Study Composition of Select Nontwkkntfal Waste Streams B - 43 TABLE 4.1 WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SELECT BUSINESSES SEA -TAC FOOD MFG. WOOD MFG. PRINTING AIRPORT MATERIAL SIC 20 SIC 24 SIC 27 SIC 45 ORGANICS 89.5 % 90.9 % 79.8 % 90.2 % Paper 30.4 11.0 61.5 48.2 Newspaper 0.7 1.4 22.5 13.8 Cardboard 15.5 3.5 4.1 8.6 Office Paper 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.9 Computer Paper 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.7 Mixed Other 8.1 1.7 27.5 11.6 5.1 3.7 6.3 11.6 Plastics 15.5 4.0 12.7 12.4 PET Bottles 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 HDPE Bottles 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 Polystyrene 0.3 0.1 0.1 3.2 Plastic Film, Bags 10.6 2.1 3.6 5.7 Other Plastic Pkg. 2.4 0.8 8.4 1.8 Other 0.8 1.0 0.3 1.4 Wood and Yard Wastes 7.1 67.8 0.7 4.0 Wood 5.1 67.6 0.7 2.7 Yard Wastes 2.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 Other Organics 36.5 8.1 4.9 25.6 Textiles 0.3 2.1 3.5 2.0 Food Wastes 33.0 0.3 0.4 15.1 Disposable Diapers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Fines 0.9 3.4 0.3 1.5 Rubber 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Misc. Organics 2.2 1.9 0.2 6.7 INORGANICS 10.5 8.7 20.1 9.7 Glass Clear Containers 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 4.5 Green Containers 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.0 1.7 Brown Containers 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 Other 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Metals Ferrous Cans 8.6 6.7 5.1 17.9 3.8 Other Ferrous 1.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 17.7 0.5 0.7 Aluminum Cans 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.7 Other Alum. Containers 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 Mixed Metals 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.1 Other Non -Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Inorganics 1.5 3.3 1.7 1.4 Haz./Special Wastes 0.6 0.2 1.3 0.6 Medical Waste 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes Constr./Demo. Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 TOTALS 100.0 % 99.6 % 99.9 % 99.9 % NOTES: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Figures shown are mean values for all samples in that SIC cateoory. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study 19W - 1991. ConosWon of Select Nonresidential Waste Streams Apendiv B.• Waste CharacJe =hon Study ..... .. ...... ............... ................................................................ ......... .......... ... ... .......................... ... ..... ......... ............................... .......... -:' -, ' .... .................... ....... ....... ........... ......... ... .......................... ...................................... .... .... .. ....... .................. ... . ............... ........ - ........... . - : : x ................. ....... ........ . .............. ................... ..................... ... .... ........ I ............................ .. ..... - : ' ' ` ".", . *,..',�.,:::;i�i�::��i,...,::.�.:".." ..... ........ :::*, :... ..... . . . ................. .... ----- ..... .. . ...... ....... - ::: . ................................. ................. :::::: " " : . . . .. .......... :::: ......... ':. :.:.: .......................... .......... ............. _:X. ........... ...... ........ . ... .. . .... ... . ........ ....... . ....... ....... ............................... ........ ..... _X ............. - ............................... ­X.X.:-, ....................... ......................................... ................. . ...... . .. ........ . ..... . ....... ............. TABLE 4.1 (continued) WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SELECT BUSINESSES Page 2 of 4 TOTALS 100.0 % 99.9 % 100.0 % 100.1 % NOTES: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Figures shown are mean values for all samples In that SIC category. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study 1990 - 1991. PIP Ill qmji!1�111111�1 11, WHOLESALE WHOLESALE GENERAL DURABLE NONDURABLE BLDG. MTL. MERCHANDISE MATERIAL sic 50 sic 51 SIC 52 SIC 53 ORGANICS 81.7 % 9111 % 75.8 % 89'V% Paper 30.0 34.1 19.6 46.8 Newspaper 0.7 0.9 1.7 2.2 Cardboard 17.2 15.2 9.9 19.8 Office Paper 1.5 0.6 0.4 1.8 Computer Paper 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.9 Mixed 4.2 7.4 3.0 9.7 Other 5.4 9.4 4.0 11.4 Plastics 14.4 22.5 10.2 16.4 PET Bottles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HDPE Bottles 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 Polystyrene 0.9 3.6 0.4 1.5 Plastic Film, Bags 3.8 8.9 5.6 8.0 Other Plastic Pkg. 3.4 5.6 1.9 3.2 Other 6.2 4.2 2.2 3.4 Wood and Yard Wastes 19.0 16.4 34.6 12.8 Wood 18.9 14.2 25.2 12.7 Yard Wastes 0.1 2.2 9.4 0.1 Other Organics 18.3 18.1 11.4 13.6 Textiles 10.9 0.6 2.6 2.5 Food Wastes 1.2 15.0 0.9 4.3 Disposable Diapers 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 Fines 0.9 1.4 6.0 1.1 Rubber 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5 Furniture, Mattress 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Misc. Organics 2.6 1.1 1.7 3.7 INORGANICS 18.3 8.8 24.2 10.5 Glass 0.5 1.9 0.6 019 Clear Containers 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.4 Green Containers 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Brown Containers 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 Metals 10.0 1.9 6.5 6.4 Ferrous Cans 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.4 Other Ferrous 5.8 0.9 5.7 3.2 Aluminum Cans 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 Other Alum. Containers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Mixed Metals 3.8 0.0 0.2 2.1 Other Non -Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 Miscellaneous Inorganics 7.8 5.0 17.1 3.2 Haz./Special Wastes 0.9 0.3 3.6 0.2 Medical Waste 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constr./Demo. Waste 3.3 4.2 11.7 2.4 Miscellaneous 3.4 0.3 1.8 0.6 TOTALS 100.0 % 99.9 % 100.0 % 100.1 % NOTES: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Figures shown are mean values for all samples In that SIC category. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study 1990 - 1991. PIP Ill qmji!1�111111�1 11, ...............................::::.............::........::,.:.:..::::............:.:......................................... _ ..... ; ... _._..............._............................._.........:::.::......::. ,..:.:. .....;;..:.::..::..:.,::::::.:..;;.:::::::...:..::;..........:::• ...............::::...............:::::::........:::::.::................ »::::> - 4 .. _........................:.,.::::::::::..::::>::................. ....,.:::::.::.................:.......::.. B ::r::v. 5 ........................................::::::.::::::::.:..:::::::.::.::.;:.;:::::::::..: :::.: .......... TABLE 4.1 (continued) WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SELECT BUSINESSES Page 3 of 4 FOOD FAST FOOD SIT-DOWN STORES RESTAURANTS RESTAURANTS HOTELS MATERIAL SIC 54 SIC 58F SIC 58S SIC 70 ORGANICS 95.9 % 97.4 % 86.8 % 84.3 % Paper 30.2 50.5 20.2 38.2 Newspaper 1.3 2.0 3.0 10.6 Cardboard 17.3 11.6 7.0 8.9 Office Paper 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.2 Computer Paper 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.7 Mixed 2.8 5.7 2.9 7.7 Other 8.2 31.0 6.4 9.1 Plastics 11.5 13.6 4.6 7.5 PET Bottles 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 HDPE Bottles 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 Polystyrene 1.3 3.9 0.4 0.8 Plastic Film, Bags 6.2 7.5 2.7 3.7 Other Plastic Pkg. 2.1 0.9 0.4 1.0 Other 1.4 0.8 0.4 1.0 Wood and Yard Wastes 7.9 0.3 > 1.8 3.6 Wood 6.2 _ 0.0 0.6 0.5 Yard Wastes 1.7 0.3 1.2 3.1 Other Organics 46.3 33.0 60.2 35.0 Textiles 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.9 Food Wastes 40.2 23.0 53.9 26.0 Disposable Diapers 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 Fines 0.9 1.6 0.8 1.4 Rubber 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Misc. Organics 4.1 7.8 4.5 5.1 INORGANICS 4.2 2.4 13.4 15.3 Glass 2.5 1.1 10.8 9.6 Clear Containers 1.8 0.8 3.9 4.0 Green Containers 0.3 0.2 3.3 2.3 Brown Containers 0.3 0.1 3.2 2.8 Other 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 Metals 1.3 1.0 2.4 5.3 Ferrous Cans 0.3 0.5 2.0 1.3 Other Ferrous 0.6 0.0 0.1 2.1 Aluminum Cans 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 Other Alum. Container 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 Mixed Metals 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 Other Non -Ferrous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics < 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 Haz./Special Wastes 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Constr./Demo. Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Miscellaneous 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 TOTALS 100.1 % 99.8 % 100.2 % 99.6 NOTES: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Figures shown are mean values for all samples in that SIC category. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study 1990 - 1991. Composition of Selec? Nontwldmhal Waste Sht?nms Append& B. Waste clarac&ization Study . .......... . ............. * ...... ***'*"* ............. ........... ....... ....................... .............................................. ......... ...................... X: ............... X.- ::... .......... . .................... . ...... ... X ......... I.:. ... X . . .... ....... .. ............................ ...... I . ..... .. .. ..... ............ .. ........... ........ . : , '' .. ................. .... .. ........... ... .................... ...... i ........... . ........ . ......................... B46 ............................................1 X ........ .... .. ....... ....... ....... ............. ....... .............. .. ..... . ... . .. . ..... . .. ... ........... .......... ... ......... ..... ......... .......... ....... ......................... .. TABLE 4.1 (continued) WASTE COMPOSITION RESULTS FOR SELECT BUSINESSES Page 4 of 4 OTHER HOSPITALS HEALTH SERVICES MATERIAL SIC 80H SIC 80C ORGANICS 71.8 % 90.4 % Paper 28.6 40.4 Newspaper 1.4 4.0 Cardboard 3.8 6.4 Office Paper 2.9 1.5 Computer Paper 2.8 0.2 Mixed 6.4 8.6 Other 11.3 19.7 Plastics 13.5 11.3 PET Bottles 0.0 0.0 HDPE Bottles 0.3 0.4 Polystyrene 1.3 1.8 Plastic Film, Bags 6.1 5.3 Other Plastic Pkg. 2.3 1.8 Other 3.5 2.0 Wood and Yard Wastes 3.0 7.7 Wood 0.4 0.3 Yard Wastes 2.6 7.4 Other Organics 26.7 31.0 Textiles 6.2 1.8 Food Wastes 12.8 11.4 Disposable Diapers 0.7 9.5 Fines 0.8 1.2 Rubber 0.6 1.2 Furniture, Mattress 0.0 0.0 Misc. Organics 5.6 5.9 INORGANICS 28.2 9.6 Glass 1.2 0.9 Clear Containers 0.6 0.6 Green Containers 0.1 0.1 Brown Containers 0.0 0.1 Other 0.5 0.1 Metals 2.4 3.7 Ferrous Cans 1.4 2.7 Other Ferrous 0.6 0.3 Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.5 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.2 Mixed Metals 0.0 0.0 Other Non -Ferrous 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Inorganics 24.6 5.0 Haz./Special Wastes 0.03 0.03 Medical Waste 22.67 3.37 Ashes 0.0 0.0 Constr./Demo. Waste 1.7 0.4 Miscellaneous 0.2 1.2 TOTALS 100.0 % 100.0 % NOTES: Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Figures shown are mean values for all samples in that SIC category. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study 1990 - 1991. AgMdiv B: Waste Cbww&t=fi= Study Corer m1Wn of Mea Nonmm*n" Waste &Yam B-47 FIGURE 4.1 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 20: FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS Pap 30.4 Misc. Inorganic 1.5% Mel 8.6", Additional Details: Paver Cardboard Mixed Paper Plastics Plastic Film & Bags Other Organics Food Wastes Metals Ferrous Cans F.11 -w -v Wood & Yard Wastes 7.1% U.4% Organics 36.5% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 24 15.5% 8.1% 10.6% 33.0% 6.7% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. CwpasW= of Se%! Nmmsidentid Waste SY wvu Ah%mdir B. Waste CbarwOkafion Study FIGURE 4.2 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 24: LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS Misc.lno"'"^- " Metals 5. Glass 0.3% Other Organics 8.1% Paper Plastics 11.0% 4.0% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 35 Additional Details: Paver Cardboard 3.5% Plastics Plastic Film & Bags 2.1% Wood and Yard Wastes Wood 67.6% Other Ori Fines 3.4% Metals Other Ferrous 3.8% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. >od & Yard Estes 8% Aoendiv B. Waste Cdaracteri wim Study Composition of SeW Nonrwider" Waste Stratms FIGURE 4.3 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 27: PRINTING AND PUBLISHING Paper 61.5% Plastics 12.7% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 3 Additional Details: Paper Newspaper 22S% Mixed Paper 27.5% Plastics Other Plastic Pkg. 8,4% Other Organics Textiles 35% Metals Other Ferrous 17.7% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. B-49 i &Yard Wastes 0.7% Cher Organics 4.9% Glass 0.5% Metals 17.9% ,),amcs 7 Composition of Se 1vomm&nhal Waste Streams AVmdiv B. Wave Charaaerrixation Study B5 Q ............................. Paper 48.2% Additional Details: Paver FIGURE 4.4 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 45: SEA -TAC AIRPORT Plastics 12.4% Misc. Inorganics Metals 1.4% 3.8% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 33 Newspaper 13.8% Mixed Paper 11.6% Other 11.6% Plastics Polystyrene 3.2% Plastic Film & Bags 5.7% Wood and Yard Wastes Wood 2.7% Other Oreanics Food Wastes 15.1% Glass Clear Containers 2.0% Metals Aluminum Cans 1.7% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. god & Yard rites I% Other Organics 25.6% Append= B: Wrote Cbarackrmalxm Study Composition of SeAV Nonresidential haste Streams FIGURE 4.5 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 50: WHOLESALE, DURABLE GOODS Pap 30.0 Misc. Inorgani 7.8% Additional Details: Paper Cardboard Plastics Plastic Film & Bags Wood and Yard Waste Wood Other Organics Textiles Metals Other Ferrous Plastics 10-0% Glass utzier 0.5% Organics 18.3% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 30 17.2% 3.8% 18.9% 10.9% 5.8% Source: King County Waste Characterization Studv, 1990 -iggi. Wood & Yard Wastes 19.0% B - 51 COMAvftn of Sekd Nmral&mW Waste &t m AAWndir B. Waste CAwvaffka&x SAO B- 5 2 FIGURE 4.6 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 51: WHOLESALE, NONDURABLE GOODS Pap. 34.1 Misc. Inorganics 3.i Metal Additional Details: Paper Cardboard Mixed Plastics Plastic Film do Bags Wood and Yard Waste Wood Other Organics Food Wastes 1.9% Other Organics 18.1% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 29 15.2% 7.4% 8.9% 14.2% 15.0% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. ics 0 Wood & Yard Wastes 17.7% Appendix B: Waste Cbaraaenza ion study Cw pasttion of Select Nonmoden" Waste Sim= FIGURE 4.7 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 52. BUILDING AND GARDEN SUPPLIES Paner Misc. Inorganics 17.1% ME 6.5 Plastics 10.2% Glass Other 0.6% Organics 11.4% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 24 Additional Details: Paper Cardboard 9.9% Plastics Plastic Film & Bags 5.6% Wood and Yard Waste Wood 25.2% Other Organics Textiles 2.6% Fines 6.0% Metals Other Ferrous 5.7% Misc. Inorzanics CDL Wastes 11.7% Source. King County Waste Characterization Study,1990 -1991. Wood & Yard Wastes 34.6% B- 5 3 Cm panwn of Select Nonwiden" Waste Siremm Apendiz B. Waste Chww*tr don Study ..................................................... ... .............................................. ........... .................. ... .. ............................... ....................... ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . --.--a - : :-: ... ;:: --.. ............................ -':.......... .............................. ::: ..... e . I..-.-�.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- ................................ .. .. ...... " * .. . ....... .. ...... ........ .......................... ....... . .... ***' ' ' * . .... .. ...... .. ............ . ...... . ... .................................. B 54 ....... .......................... .... ........ .............................. . ....... ................................ ... ............... ................... ................ .......................... . ............... ........ ......... ::-- ' ' " . * ...... .......... ............................................ .. .. . ....... ..... . .. .............................. ..... .......................... ............. ............. . ........................ .......................... ....... ..................... ... ..... .............. .............. .... .... . .......................... .. ......... .. ..... .:.� ..................... ......... .. w ... :.:.:. - FIGURE 4.8 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 53: GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES Paper 46.8% Additional Details: PAMr, Plastics Misc. Metals 0.9% Inorganics 6.4% 3.2% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 26 Cardboard 19.8% Mixed 9.7% Plastics Plastic Film & Bags 8.0% Wood and Yard Waste Wood 12.7% Other Organics Textiles 2.5% Food Wastes 4.3% Metals Other Ferrous 3.2% Misc. InoManics CDL Wastes 2.4% Source. King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. Wood & Yard Wastes 12.8% ter ;anics 6% Appendix B. Waste Charac&twfiox Study CmpsOn of &W NonmVenW W&-* SYram Pap 30.2 Misc. Inorganics 0.4% Metals 1.3% Glass 2.57, Additional Details: Egger Cardboard Plastics Plastic Film & Bags Wood and Yard Waste Wood Other Or&gWcs Food Wastes FIGURE 4.9 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 54: FOOD STORES Plastics 1 1 cof — – .11 Organics 46.3% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 32 17.3% 6.2% 6.2% 40.2% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. Vood & Yard Vastes .9% B-55 COMPWWDX of Salem NomwAdWWW Waste Sthwm 4pmdiv B. Wask Cbaradwkafian Study FIGURE 4.10 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 58F: FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS Papel 50.5% fel Additional Details: Paer Plastics ,,) /of Metals 1.0% NUMBER OF SAMPLES =14 Cardboard 11.6% Other 31.0% Plastics Polystyrene 3.9% Plastic Film & Bags 7.5% Other Organics Food Wastes 23.0% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. )d & Yard Wastes 0.3% Other Organics 33.0% Appmair B. Waste CGaracteftmon ,study CompsOn of Salad Nonmidentilll Waste Slownu FIGURE 4.11 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 58S: SIT- DOWN RESTAURANTS Misc. Inorganics 0.20/( Metals 2.4% Glass 10.8% Additional Details: ram Plastics Paper 4.6% . NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 23 Cardboard 7.0% Plastics Plastic Film & Bags 2.7% Other Organics Food Wastes 53.9% Glass Clear Containers 3.9% Green Containers 3.3% Brown Containers 3.2% Metals Ferrous Cans 2.0% Source. King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. ct Wastes 1.8% ether )rganics 0.2% B-57 Compmwm of kart Nmrooffaw wask sh'awm ApDmdiv A Wa* Choodw&afion Rudy Pape] 38.2% Misc. Inorganic Additional Details: Paler FIGURE 4.12 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 70: HOTELS Plastics 7.5% Wood & Yard 5.3% Glass 9.6% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 28 Newspaper 10.6% Cardboard 8.9% Mixed 7.7% Plastics Plastic Film & Bags 3.7010 Wood and Yard Waste 'Yard Wastes 3.1%b Other Oreanics Food Wastes 26.0% Glass Gear Containers 4.0% Metals Other Ferrous 2.1%fl Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. Other Organics 35.0% Appendix B. mmk! Cdaraame -4 q Study Compasit m of Selw Nommiden" Waste Shwvu Pap• 28.5 Mis Inoj ?4 A Additional Details Paper FIGURE 4.13 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 80H: HOSPITALS Plastics Metals 1.2% 2.4% NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 22 Mixed 6.3% Other 11-3% Plastics Plastic Film & Bags 6.0% Other Organics Textiles 6.2% Food Wastes 12.7% Misc. Inorganics Medical Waste 22.7% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. B-59 .......... .......... od & Yard Wastes 3.0% Other Organics 26.6% Composition of Seka Nonresidential Waste Sftwnu 4Tendiv B. Waste Chwadmizahon Study B- 60 FIGURE 4.14 WASTE COMPOSITION OF SIC 80C: OTHER HEALTH SERVICES, CLINICS Pap 40.4 Misc. Inorga. Additional Details: Paper Plastics 11.3% viaaa 3.7% 0.9% NUMBER OF SAMPLES =14 Cardboard 6.4% Mixed 8.6% Other 19.7% _Plastics Plastic Film & Bags 5.3% and Yard Waste _Wood Yard Waste 7.4% Other Orga 'cs Food Wastes 11.4% Disposable Diapers 9.5% Metals Ferrous Cans 2.7% Misc. InoWnics Medical Waste 3.4% Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 -1991. ood & Yard astes 7% Ither ►rganics 1.0% Appendix B: Waste Cbraracterization Study CompasMM of SaW Nonresidential Waste Streams n L� B-61 • � Section 5 • Characterization of Special Waste Streams • 5.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the report provides waste quantity and composition data on two separate but related waste streams: the entire construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste stream; and the CDL waste that was included in the wastes brought to the King County transfer stations. The entire CDL waste stream is typically addressed separately because only a portion of this waste is handled by regular solid waste facilities. Instead, most of the CDL waste stream is brought to disposal facilities dedicated to CDL waste or to recycling facilities that process concrete, wood and other CDL materials. 5.2 CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING (CDL) WASTE 5.2.1 Background In a separate phase of the Waste Characterization Study, the composition and quantity of the CDL waste stream was determined by examining the characteristics of the three substreams: construction waste, demolition waste, and landclearing waste. 5.2.2 Methodologies This report utilized data collected by waste characterization studies conducted in Portland, Oregon, in the period 1986 through 1990. The studies consisted of seasonal sorts which determined the composition of the total waste stream in the Portland Metro region. Field sort forms for loads of CDL wastes were organized into CDL substreams (construction waste, demolition waste, and landclearing waste). The composition of each substream was calculated as a simple average of the composition for all samples that were included in that substream. The materials measured for CDL loads in Portland differ somewhat from the list of materials used for the King County Waste Characterization Study. First, a wider variety of materials are shown as being prLseat because the loads, although primarily consisting of CDL wastes, often contained a variety of the same materials that could be found in other solid waste streams. Specific differences between the two studies are as follows: • Magazines were separately measured by the Portland studies, whereas magazines were included with mixed paper for King County. • Plastics were categorized in the Portland studies based on the usage of the plastic product, versus the type of plastic for King 0 County. • Prunings were separately measured in Portland, whereas these were combined with yard waste (based on the criteria used for • current yard waste collection programs) for King County. • • For glass and metals, many differences exist, with the Portland studies again concentrating on product usage and container types more than the King County study. • • Lastly, what is combined into a general CDL waste category for King County was split into miscellaneous organics (asphalt pavement and roofing wastes) and miscellaneous inorganics (rocks, soil, concrete and fiberglass) by the Portland studies. 0 Characterization of bps;ial Waste Streams Appendix B. Waste Cbaraaerixatiora Study B 62 Information regarding the quantity of each CDL waste substream was derived from the King County Construction, Demolition, and Landclearing Waste Quantity Estimates Memorandum (CDL Memorandum), February 12, 1991, by Herrera Environmental Consultants. The CDL Memorandum indicates that the CDL waste stream in King County is composed of approximately 10.5 percent construction waste, 58.6 percent demolition waste, and 30.8 percent landclearing waste. 5.2.3 Results The composition of each substream and the entire CDL waste stream is shown in Table 5.1. Compared to municipal solid waste, many materials are low or completely absent in the CDL waste streams, including materials such as mixed paper, plastic, and food wastes. Other materials are present in a much larger amount, such as wood, dirt, rock, and brick Construction Waste: This waste stream is generated as a result of the construction of residential dwellings, commercial establishments, and infrastructure such as bridges and roads. Construction waste is typically "cleaner" than demolition waste since it has not been previously used and therefore has not been painted or combined with other materials. In addition, construction waste is distinct from other CDL wastes in that a much wider variety of materials is present, including materials such as paper and plastic, that are more typical of municipal solid waste. Demolition Wasle: This waste stream is generated from the demolition of homes, offices, and other structures. This waste stream differs from construction waste in that materials are typically combined or contaminated with other materials. Modern demolition relies on mechanical methods and size reduction prior to collection. The result is to further commingle materials present in this waste stream. Demolition waste is distinct from other CDL wastes in that fully 50 percent of the waste stream is composed of wood. Landdearing Waste: This waste stream is generated as a result of clearing sites, generally in preparation for the construction of buildings or infrastructure. Landclearing waste may be from either undeveloped land or land that has been previously developed. Landclearing waste may contain small quantities of demolition wastes or other materials that were discarded at the site, but this waste stream typically consists of naturally occurring materials, such as brush, stumps, dirt, and rock The data derived from the Portland metropolitan region may differ from the actual composition of landclearing waste in King County due to the relatively greater need for removal of glacial till or hard pan from construction sites in King County. As shown in Table 5.1, landclearing waste is estimated to contain primarily brush and stumps (75.4 percent). Combined CDL Waste Stream: Only rarely is CDL waste generated and delivered to disposal sites as a mixed material. However, for purposes of understanding the nature of the material and for planning for facilities that may be developed specifically for CDL waste, a weighted average of the three CDL waste streams was developed. The King County CDL waste stream is projected to be composed primarily of woody material (56.8 percent). The largest component present in CDL waste is construction lumber at 32.2 percent, followed by miscellaneous inorganics at 19.8 percent As noted above, CDL waste has less variety than municipal solid waste. Many categories are relatively absent, such as paper (1.5 percent), plastics (2.9 percent), other organics (7.1 percent), and glass (0.1 percent). Other categories are much more prevalent, such as yard waste at 23.9 percent 5.3 WOOD, CDL, AND HAZARDOUS/SPECIAL WASTE SUBCATEGORIES 5.3.1 Introduction During field sorting for the King County Waste Characterization Study, additional detail was recorded on the type of wood, CDL waste, and hazardous/special waste that was found in the waste streams delivered to the King County transfer stations. The Appendix B. Waste Characterization Study Characterization of ,Special Waste Streams • results are presented here to provide some data on the breakdown of these categories, but these data do not have the same level of accuracy as the results for the primary categories of materials due to the lower quantities and the greater variability of the results for these materials. 5.3.2 Results The additional information on the breakdown of wood, CDL, and hazardous and special wastes is shown in Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 for the residential, nonresidential, and select nonresidential waste streams, respectively. These tables show figures that imply significant digits in the range of thousandths of a percent, whereas this is actually well below the minimum limit for statistically meaningful data Despite their lack of statistical meaning, these values are shown in order to provide an indication of the quantity in which a material was found. Characterixatlon of SpecW Waste Streams Appendix B: Waste cbaractert'xation study B- 64 TABLE 5.1 COMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND -CLEARING WASTE CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION LAND -CLEARING ALL CDL MATERIAL WASTE (1) WASTE (1) WASTE (1) WASTE (2) Paper 8.7 % 1.0 Bio 0.0 % 1.5 % Cardboard 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 Newspaper 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Office Paper 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Magazines 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.4 Mixed 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.4 Plastias 3.4 4.4 0.0 2.9 Jugs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Non -Food Container 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.3 Durable 1.1 3.8 0.0 2.4 Films and Bags 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Food Container 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Styrene Foam 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Yard Debris 4.1 0.4 75.4 23.9 Prunings 2.1 0.4 34.2 11.0 Bulky Wood 0.6 0.0 41.2 12.8 Leavers and Grass 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 Wood < 29.6 50.9 0.0 °33.0 Construction Lumber 27.4 50.2 0.0 32.3 Packaging Lumber 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 Miscellaneous Organics 11.7 3.7 11.9 7.1' Textiles 3.1 1.8 0.0 1.4 Food Wastes 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Diapers 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 8.3 1.9 11.9 5.6 Glass: 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Recyclable Glass 0.0 " 0.0 0.0 0.0 Non -Recyclable Glass 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Afumfntxn. 1:0' 0.6 i0.0 0.5 Food Container 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 Ferrous Metai 6.7 14.9 0.0 :9.4' Food Container 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 6.7 14.9 0.0 9.4 Other Non -Ferrous 1.6 - 0.2 0.0 0.3 Misc. Inorganics - 32.2 24.0 7.8 19.9 Other 0.4 0.0 4.9 1.6 White Goods 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Appliances 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Furniture 0.3 0.0 4.9 1.6 Household Hazardous 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Medical 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTALS 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % NOTES: 1. Composition figures from Portland Metro CDL Waste Composition Data Sheets, 1987, 1989 and 1990. 2. 'All CDL Waste" is a weighted average of the three CDL waste streams, based on construction waste - 10.53 percent, demolition waste - 58.65 percent, and land -clearing waste - 30.8 percent. These values were derived from the King County CDL Waste Quantity Projections, by Herrera Environmental Consultants, assuming mid-range values from Table 1-A, and assuming equal densities for all three substreams. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appendfr B,• Waste C&raGWt=Wn Study Cdlamckrtza m of V&Jal {Paste Sttt rrrs .............. .: .: :........' :' :'::'.:'::::::.::::::..............:...:::::::: ....... �::. �::.:.:.... - .:................................... :v�:::i•:.::: }... .N...�{••i••i•:;:1•i{iiiJi;?i:;F :<.'': :.?isFiiiii :.;:_i::.:.::::isi:: .:'i:: ?i?iiiiiiii::::.........: .'`::::::_ :... .. ::i4iiiiiiiii}:::....:::: : ^ * :':::v.:' iC:::'i: iv:iji::?:? •}i: `:•ii}:`�ii::: $$:'::�:{:ii::»'�: ••::} %v :' v::\. "?G:':?i'ii5iiiiii"' :Giiii:<�fi:! :iiii::::::::'2:; :!jj: iiiii: X.Ni ?}''rii}` :;:;:�:;::}}:i?i:iii?: '?..... iiii?Jiiiiiiii}iiiiii?:: ij:>: >}: `i'iiii ':Y >} Sisk` .•. ��•�Sx-::::.::::::::::::.::::.:::::.:::::.:::::..::.::::::.:::::::::::•:.:::::::.:.......................:.:.::::::.::::::........:.:::•::::::..:•:::•:::::::::::.:: TABLE 5.2 WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY AVERAGE PERCENT, DRY SEASON WASTE STREAM KING COUNTY RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS MATERIAL WOOD Dimension Lumber Treated Wood Roofing Contaminated Wood Stumps Bulky Wood Pallets Crates Miscellaneous Subtotal 1 URBAN RURAL MULTI- 0.14 TOTAL RES, SINGLE- SINGLE- FAMILY SELF- WASTE, FAMILY FAMILY DWELLINGS HAUL WEIGHTED AVG. 1.76 0.14 % 0.25 % 2.25 % 15.34 % 5.27 0 0 0.002 0.98 0.31 0 0 0.51 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.09 0.34 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.08 0 0.71 0.24 0 0 0.02 0 0.004 1.06 0.44 2.88 0.93 1.26 1.23 % 0.77 % 5.662 0/6 19.05 0/b 7.52 CDL WASTES Ceramics Rocks Concrete Soil Gypsum Fiberglass Insulation Other Fiberglass Roofing Waste Asphalt Linoleum Miscellaneous Subtotal HAZARDOUSISPECIAL WASTES 0.25 % 0.01 % 0.02 % 0.14 0 0 0.06 0.08 0.003 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 1.76 0.16 0.42 1.45 2.41 0 0 0 1.21 0 0 0 0.72 0.03 0.39 0.98 3.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.16 0.33 0 1.73 0.60 % 1.15 % 2.51 % 11.70 Latex Paint 0 % 0.20 % 0.04 % 0.20 % Oil -Based Paint 0 0.07 0.03 0.004 Solvents 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.20 Adhesives 0 0 0 0 Cleaners 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0.03 0.23 0.007 Medical Waste 0 0.11 0.01 0 Gasoline 0 0.02 0 0.002 Motor Oil 0.08 0.04 0.21 0.02 Car Batteries 0 0 0 0 Household Batteries 0 0.03 0.05 0.03 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 Animal Excrement 0.11 0 0.13 0.06 Animal Carcasses 0 0 0 0 Hair Spray Aerosol 0.02 0 0.006 0 Misc. Aerosols 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 Miscellaneous 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.03 Subtotal 0.40 % 0.69-0/o 0.97 % 0.63 NOTE: Data is for dry season (summer and fall quarters) only. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.55 1.13 0.38 0.22 1.35 0.00 0.02 0.64 4.48 % 0.10 % 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.003 0.08 0 0.02 0 0.08 0 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.61 CbaradmYatian of S ucW Waste Strums Agmdir B: Waste Cbaracterizafian Study B6( - TABLE 5.3 WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF TOTAL WASTE STREAM KING COUNTY NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS Source:: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. 44dix B. Waste Qwaa iraai= Rudy CbawWrratm of &peau! Wage ,Shims TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL TOTAL CII SELF -HAUL WASTE, WEIGHTED AVG. WOC)D Dimension Lumber 5.1 46 5.86 % 5.29 % Treated Wood 0.87 2.67 1.33 Roofing 0 7.07 1.80 Contaminated Wood 0.06 0 0.04 Stumps 0 0.06 0.02 Bulky Wood 0 0 0 Pallets 4.38 0.82 3.48 Crates 0.05 0 0.04 Miscellaneous 1.6 2.97 1.95 Subtotal 12.06 % 19.45 % 13.94 % CDL WASTES Ceramics 0.035 % 0 <Yo 0.03 % Rocks 0.08 0.75 0.25 Concrete 0.28 0.05 0.22 Soil 0.04 0 0.03 Gypsum 1.96 14.61 5.17 Fiberglass Insulation 0.19 1.424 0.50 Other Fiberglass 0.13 0.14 0.13 Roofing Waste 0.03 6.84 1.76 Asoalt 0 0 0 Linoleum 0.32 0 0.24 Miscellaneous 0.36 1.09 0.55 Subtotal 3.43 % 24.90 % 8.88 % HAZARDouw$PECiAL WASTES Latex Paint 0.0003 % 0.21 94, 0.05 % Oil -.Based Paint 0.123 0.26 0.16 Solvents 0.046 0.03 0.04 Adhesives 0.365 0.005 0.27 Cleaners 0.005 0.05 0.02 Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0.003 0.001 Medical Waste 0.151 0 0.11 Gasoline 0 0 0 Motor Oil 0.195 0.2 0.20 Car Batteries 0 0 0 Household Batteries 0.008 0.01 0.01 Antifreeze 0.013 0 0.01 Animal Excrement 0.01 0 0.01 Animal Carcasses 0 0 0 Hair Spray Aerosol 0.004 0 0 Misc. Aerosols 0.011 0.07 0.03 Miscellaneous 0.19 0.21 0.20 Subtotal 1.12 % 1.05 % 1.10 % Source:: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. 44dix B. Waste Qwaa iraai= Rudy CbawWrratm of &peau! Wage ,Shims B-67 Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. • • Charaamwwn of Spial Waste &vwm Appendir B: Waste Charaa,?iAlun Study FOOD WOOD SEA -TAC WHOLESALE MFG. MFG. PRINTING AIRPORT DURABLE MATERIAL SIC 20 SIC 24 SIC 27 SIC 45 SIC 50 WOOD Dimension Lumber 0.47 % 27.94 % 0.61 % 0.18 % 8.88 % Treated Wood 0.27 20.70 0 0.01 0.21 Roofing 0 0 0 0 0 Contaminated Wood 0 0 0 0 0 Stumps 0 0 0 0 0 Bulky Wood 0 0 0 0 0 Pallets 3.13 1.98 0 2.33 4.64 Crates 0.05 0 0 0.21 0.17 Miscellaneous 1.20 16.85 0.04 0.03 4.74 Subtotal 5.12 % 67.47 % 0.65 % 2.76 % 18.64 % CDL WASTES Ceramics 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.87 % Rocks 0 0 0 0.64 0.003 Concrete 0 0 0 0 0.33 Soil 0 0 0 0 0 Gypsum 0.01 2.50 0 0 0.07 Fiberglass Insulation 0 0.24 0 0 0.63 Other Fiberglass 0 0.39 0 0 0 Roofing Waste 0.002 0 0 0 0.005 Asphalt 0 0 0 0 0 Linoleum 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 0- 0 1.36 Subtotal 0.01 % 3.13 % 0.00 % 0.64 % 3.27 % HAZARDOUS/SPECIAL WASTES Latex Paint 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0.01 % Oil -Based Paint 0.004 0.01 0 0.003 0.01 Solvents 0.01 0.005 0 0.09 0.12 Adhesives 0.07 0 0 0.06 0.03 Cleaners 0 0 0 0.10 0.36 Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0 0 0 0 Medical Waste 0.90 0 0 0.01 0 Gasoline 0 0 0 0 0 Motor Oil 0.02 0.02 0 0.08 0.27 Car Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 Household Batteries 0 0.01 0 0.15 0.003 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Excrement 0.17 0 0 0 0 Animal Carcasses 0.29 0.19 0 0 0 Hair Spray Aerosols 0 0 0 0 0 Misc. Aerosols 0.004 0 0 0.04 0 Miscellaneous 0 0.001 1.32 0.02 0.09 Subtotal 1.47 % 0.24 % 1.32 % 0.55 % 0.89 % Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. • • Charaamwwn of Spial Waste &vwm Appendir B: Waste Charaa,?iAlun Study TABLE 5.4 (continued) WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY Page 2 of 3 Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 19% - 1991. WHOLESALE BUILDING GENERAL FOOD NONDURABLE MATERIAL MERCHANDISE STORES SIC 51 SIC 52 SIC 53 SIC 54 WOO[1 Dimension Lumber 1.13 % 9.32 % 2.56 % 0.14 % Treated Wood 0.07 4.08 1.47 0.03 Roofing 0 0 0 0.04 Contaminated Wood 0 0.07 0 0.28 Stumps 0 0 0 0 Bulky Wood 0 0 0 0 Pallets 11.77 6.53 6.93 0.06 Crates 0.42 0 0 4.02 Miscellaneous 1.02 5.20 1.68 1.73 Subtotal 14.41 % 25.20 % 12.64 % 6.30 % CDLWASTES - Ceramics 0 % 0.06 % 0.02 % 0 % Rocks 0 0.44 0 0 Concrete 0 2.43 0 0 Soil 3.03 0 0.47 0 Gypsum 1.20 7.40 1.89 0 Fiberglass Insulation 0.07 0.77 0 0 Othetr Fiberglass 0 0 0 0 Roofing Waste 0 0.38 0 0 Asphalt 0 0 0 0 Linolleum 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 0.16 0 0 Subtotal 4.30 % 11.64 % 2.38 % 0 % HAZA RDOUSISPECIAL WASTES ' Latex Paint 0 % 0.26 % 0 % 0 % Oil -Based Paint 0.01 0.40 0 0.007 Solvents 0 0.08 0.02 0 Adhesives 0 0.03 0.12 0 Cleaners 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0 0 0.01 Mediiml Waste 0.19 0 0 0 Gasoline 0 0 0 0 Motor Oil 0 0 0.003 0 Car Batteries 0 0 0 0 Household Batteries 0.001 0 0.03 0.02 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 Animal Excrement 0.06 0 0 0 Animal Carcasses 0 0 0 0 Hair Spray Aerosols 0 0.01 0.005 0.003 Misc. Aerosols 0 0.01 0.003 0.01 Miscellaneous 0.20 2.85 0.01 0.01 Subtotal 0.47 % 3.65 % 0.22 % 0.08 % Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 19% - 1991. 0 KJ TABLE 5.4 (continued) WOOD, CDL AND SPECIAL WASTES BY SUBCATEGORY Page 3 of 3 .......... B-69 • • FAST FOOD SIT-DOWN OTHER RESTAURANTS RESTAURANTS HOTELS HOSPITALS HLTH.SERV. • SIC 58F SIC 58S SIC 70 SIC 80H SIC 80C • WOOD Dimension Lumber 0.02 % 0.03 % 0.21 % 0.37 % 0.06 % • Treated Wood 0 Roofing 0 0.03 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 Contaminated Wood 0 0 0 0 0 • Stumps 0 0 0 0 0 Sulky Wood 0 0 0 0 0 Pallets 0 0 0 0 0 Crates 0 0.05 0.20 0 0 Miscellaneous 0.01 0.46 0.03 0.004 0.26 Subtotal 0.03 % 0.57 % 0.4-8 % 0.37 % 0.32 % • CDL WASTES Ceramics 0 % 0 % 0.02 % 0 % 0 • Rocks 0 0 0 0 0 Concrete 0 0 0 0 0 Soil 0 0 0 0 0 Gypsum 0 0 0.11 0.04 0.07 Fiberglass Insulation 0 0 0.01 0.003 0 • Other Fiberglass 0 0 0 0 0 Roofing Waste 0 0 0 1.34 0.06 • Asphalt 0 Linoleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0.30 0.31 • Subtotal 0 % 0 % 0.14 % 1.68 % 0.44 % • HAZARDOUS/SPECIAL WASTES Latex Paint 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Oil -Based Paint 0 0.02 0 0 0 • Solvents 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 Adhesives 0 0 0 0 0 • Cleaners 0 0.01 0.13 0.02 0 Pesticides/Herbicides 0 0 0 0 0 • Medical Waste 0 Gasoline 0 0 22.89 3.35 0 0 0.01 0 0 Motor Oil 0.05 0 0 0 0 • Car Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 Household Batteries 0 0.003 0.02 0.001 0.01 • Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Excrement 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Carcasses 0 0 0 0 0 • Hair Spray Aerosols 0 0.01 0.02 0 0 Misc. Aerosols 0 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 • Miscellaneous 0.01 0.01 0.004 0 0 Subtotal 0.07 % 0.08 % 0.21-% 22.92 % 3.39 % • • Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. • CharacAm=vn of Spmd Mute Streams Aoendk B. Waste Chvaaitafion Study .......... B - 7 0 Section 6 Bottle and Can Counts 6.1 INTRODUCTION This section identifies the occurrence of different types of beverage bottles and cans as observed during waste sorting. This information was collected to provide data for recycling program planning and evaluation. 6.2 RESULTS The number of bottles and cans per ton of waste was derived by dividing the total number observed in the samples by the total sample weight for that category of generator. The combined categories of "all residential" and "all nonresidential" are weighted averages based on the estimated seasonal or annual total waste quantities. The presentation of the results on a per -ton basis was chosen to allow calculation to total bottles and cans for larger amounts (tonnages) of waste. 6.2.1 Residential Bottle and Can Count Table 6.1 presents the per ton number of beverage bottles and cans in all categories of the residential waste stream (dry season only). Wet season residential samples were not analyzed. As shown, soda and beer cans are substantially more prevalent within residential waste than glass and PET containers. 6.2.2 Nonresidential Bottle and Can Count Table 6.2 presents the number of bottles and cans, per ton, in the nonresidential waste stream by season and generator. Table 6.3 presents the annual averages for per ton bottle and can counts by nonresidential waste generators. These data are weighted average based on the seasonal waste quantities shown in Table 3.1. As with residential waste, soda and beer cans were the most prevalent type of containers found. 6.2.3 Select Nonresidential Bottle and Can Count Table 6.4 shows the number of bottles and cans, per ton, in the select nonresidential waste streams. The results show a relatively high number of soda cans within airports, hotels, hospitals, and clinics. Also prominent is the relatively high beverage glass count for all colors observed within waste disposed by sit-down restaurants. Apbendtr B: Waste Cbaracterizatan Study Bottle and Can Counts 22 W I CO V ul MC? N O O O W I W r O N 44 W aD O C7 U' z at --U�'} C7 GC ON to N M Of (7 (O = O 6 6 O� (O N O WUC7md2 am JUc'3m(L W r CO .- r m r r � O a >;(D ° r m < O m U J _ Y r CO (D N 0 -.<6 co co O O h O r r 0 0 CD r ui tI N(V O Ci ?N � A(D (7 p N O wwF iml ml J Q Mt N'N r- O h o OO O J t. O O m m N COLO O O to N r O 66 m C, O �I O O O (nl Z Z 00 Q W ui -iw�U r7-cl� moo CD w 40 co ccco W d f, O h 0 0 N CO v Zml N'rriaico ^no U (/j N r t� Q J Q O CO CO O O O !�-fes O CD Z W = O o N .(gi r O W Q a: Q mI Go W W F. o Q [n -� W > N C) O O O oi66cj O` O O (6.6C'i W 'p.. C4 O N Pp -r)r CO- V it occ M .- u� ��ui LL U - O -� LL 01 ° ==I < ~ i J a eF h In h 0 N' N O = W 'tt- to O O O O N N O WCE (9 W (p r CO Q) r 0w r % O � W I st O O (o Q U O •t m) W m m W m 0 Q r h C7 N CO CR CO O O M CO O O O O co m O Z Ui m OI r V) n .- C4 N 0 N�(D °I O C O a O r O W r r co CC �� 22 2 C7 U' z at --U�'} C7 c ev 0) m o 0 �, V) m m o WUC7md2 am JUc'3m(L Qm m o � O a a m U m U B 71 6 m o - h - n t2 m CD O O _ ci r C O C O a) U O T O O 0O �j O � j m E v cOo c O m _ co N co X co m C m Cn =_ U 7 O Cc CL co U m c N m CD T fd NN b E c (DN C 7m H O E X U Q 2 Q c Y W Q 0 z n Boole and Can Coun& Appendir B. Waste CAMcferim ion Stony B-72 4TO14rx B: lust, Charawnr uwm'm Study Bol le and Can Couna J w It C> N m 0 m M 6 O CV 6 m CD O r O J WI N O O m N Q CO r O C M co ca O r r C E� =I ~ z CV N Z O O Co -r h O W ap: 1n r �- O N h 0 0 CO co O W W co NM CV r O O C 0 a 0 r ml mI z Q z lAC`vNO7 O 0 O C9 InO O z NN -� r 0 .- O rrO O �' < OI r C7 ^ �. N CD v� w O w QN. m N c1 m O N N N N O N N W N' CA r CO CD N -� r' O O 0) CD m O r O W Q H I O C CV O O R_ N r aZ _ - a _o U Q o N a 0 0 O O ([ W - C4 40 C� O Co V' 10 . C) OO >-J W r S C O Odic CO CD Tr Lu Q � 4:LU F OR N U ~ m co a> N c) O O O o o O O H a o> r*-: •- co a c! N.'. 01 CV Ocli O p n O C 0 _r:: O CM Qf: DI v� Of w C Z G CAI N � aQ co w < CC J CO J J _� o W _ 1A:t` NOON 0 0 0 0 0 Q� 0100 OI:O O m~ 1 < CD C� O O Oo O O til OI � OI Q LL J � J c CD . *� O LA O O O � V) O to J a: m: 0 O CD O C "'O O r C O - O O o WI N L6 r CD O N: N O F`ZZ W w Q Z m W m ~ N r C7 '-t C'7 O N O CD co O O CO - CA C7 C7 C7 O 1.: 0; O r O O C71: Q1 O co B O W OI N� C7 -�'� Z z NI E Z z w crZ Z C7 E_ Z c 0 U, c m ((A C7 c W 5 m F- a E� Q, a � 1 w WUC7ma= am COCl)Vc7mCL <m N z z O U 3 O m U cl m 4TO14rx B: lust, Charawnr uwm'm Study Bol le and Can Couna Cry C7 S LLJ CL E 50 do a. < co z 0 B-73 .......... Boide and Can Counts Appendiv B: Waste Charackrimfion Study .j ccl LU CR C? 'AR le C4 ki O 90 Q 0n IR CR lz?: 1p O Ui m 0 0 w go 0 Ui co 0 W Z d'`-: C0 le r 0 CM CD cc Z LLI O> cc w D < W -0 co co o -m 0 0 Z (1) Z Z C! P-: cq q q q J W fo 0 V) 0 a r 0 CO co Z w a rLO m CY . . 40'.40 0 < cr �kl C5 CO CO) W :ko; d co o cy co cy: cy o v4 C4 vi C; C5 4 16-:46 6 0 -J a: M CO to r 00 w z m w U) LLI r -z, C4 6 6 46 Iml D co < t*t: U? t"t O (N! O Z w LLJ CC 0 cr z Ml Z 0 0 zi z Cry C7 S LLJ CL E 50 do a. < co z 0 B-73 .......... Boide and Can Counts Appendiv B: Waste Charackrimfion Study TABLE 6.4 NUMBER OF BOTTLES AND CANS PER TON SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, ANNUAL AVERAGES SIC 24 WOOD MANUFACTURING SIC 27 PRINTING & PUBLISHING SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER 5.2 0.9 SIC 20 24.1 4.1 FOOD MANUFACTURING 4.5 SODA BEER OTHER BOTTLES 17.8 ' 0.0 93.5 Clear Glass 8.3 0.0 51.6 Green Glass 0.3 0.0 0.3 Brown Glass 0.0 0.0 0.6 PET 9.2 0.0 0.9 HDPE 0.0 0.0 40.1 CANS 54.0 1.3 1.3 Aluminum 54.0 1.3 1.0 Bi -Metal 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.3 4.1 SIC 45 0.0 0.0 AIRPORTS 0.0 SODA BEER OTHER BOTTLES 45.9 49.4 <' 104.4 Clear Glass 37.1 2.9 42.9 Green Glass 2.7 32.2 24.2 Brown Glass 0.2 14.3 0.9 PET 5.7 0.0 15.5 HDPE 0.2 0.0 20.8 CANS 600.0 51.4 46.3 Aluminum 599.3 51.4 46.3 Bi -Metal 0.7 0.0 0.0 SIC 24 WOOD MANUFACTURING SIC 27 PRINTING & PUBLISHING SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER 5.2 0.9 5.2- 24.1 4.1 21.6 4.5 0.0 2.6 12.4 0.0 4.1 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 11.6 0.0 17.4 26.1 7.8 1.3 49.8 8.3 < 4.1 26.1 7.8 1.3 49.8 8.3 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SIC 50 SIC 51 WHSL.. DURABLE GOODS WHSL, NONDURABLE GOODS SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER 11.4 0.3 12.1 13.6 2.4 37.7 7.8 0.0 1.8 10.2 0.0 22.5 0.5 0.0 2.1 0.3 1.9 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 13.6 40.7 2.1 1.1 59.6 46.8 0.3 40.7 2.1 1.1 59.6 46.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NOTES: All figures are expressed as the number of containers per ton. Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. AADenda B: Wane Cbar aarafion Study Boole and Can Counts B- 75 TABLE 6.4 (continued) NUMBER OF BOTTLES AND CANS PER TON SELECT NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAMS, ANNUAL AVERAGES Page 2 of 2 NOTES: All figures are expressed as the number of containers per ton. Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Bottle and Can Counts AFpendiz B: haste Cbamctmmtion Study SIC 54 SIC 58F SIC 58S FOOD STORES FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER BOTTLES 49.2 0.0 34.9 15:9 ; 7.0 = 39.2 55.0 150.8 113.2 Clear Glass 37.7 5.1 10.9 12.4 1.9 9.9 25.4 15.8 47.9 Green Glass 6.4 1.2 2.4 0.6 1.1 4.0 7.1 35.4 32.2 Brown Glass 1.0 5.6 0.3 0.6 4.0 0.0 20.9 99.7 6.8 PET 1.8 0.0 2.1 2.3 0.0 1.1 1.6 0.0 1.9 HDPE 2.3 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 0.0 24.4 CANS 69.3 9.5 1.5 41.6 13.5 1.8 25.7 10.6 1.0 Aluminum 69.3 9.5 1.5 41.6 13.5 1.8 25.7 10.6 1.0 Bi -Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SIC 70 SIC 80H SIC 80C HOTELS HOSPITALS OTHER HEALTH SERVICES SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER SODA BEER OTHER BOTTLES 83.8 121.5 122.3 10.2 0.4 39.4 '< 10.2 0.0 71.1 Clear Glass 62.3 7.5 44.7 7.4 0.0 12.3 9.6 0.0 13.3 Green Glass 14.5 10.6 27.1 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 Brown Glass 2.8 103.4 7.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 PET 4.2 0.0 10.6 2.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 HDPE 0.0 0.0 32.7 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 53.3 CANS 191.1 69.0 5.0 117.7 8.4 5.9 193.3 5.2 3.0 Aluminum 191.1 69.0 5.0 117.7 8.4 5.9 193.3 5.2 3.0 Bi -Metal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NOTES: All figures are expressed as the number of containers per ton. Numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Bottle and Can Counts AFpendiz B: haste Cbamctmmtion Study References and Glossary REFERENCES King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department. 1991 Annual Growth RgWt, June 1991. Matrix et al. 1989. Matrix Management Group, Herrera Environmental Consultants, R.W. Beck, Fernandes Associates, and Gilmore Research Group. Waste Stream Composition Study, for the City of Seattle, June 1989. OMB 1972. Office of Management and Budget. Standard Industrial Classifrcalion Manual, 1972. PSCOG 1988. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Population and Employment Forecasts, June 1988. SCS 1987. SCS Engineers, Waste Stream Characterization Study, for Portland Metropolitan kmice District, December 1987. GLOSSARY The following definitions were used for the materials measured in the King County Waste Characterization Study. The definitions appear in the same order as they are on the original field data sheets and subsequent tables of results. Primary Categories Each sample of waste was sorted into 35 primary categories of materials. These definitions are presented below. Additional data were collected on some of these categories, such as wood, construction, and demolition waste, and hazardous waste. The definitions of the subcategories for these materials are presented after the definitions of the primary categories. Paper Categories Cardboard Kraft liner cartons with corrugated inner liners, as typically used to ship materials. Does not include waxed cardboard or paperboard (cereal boxes, microwave, and similar food boxes, etc.), but it does include kraft grocery bags. Newspaper Printed groundwood newsprint. Includes glossy ads and Sunday edition magazines that are delivered with the newspaper High-grade Includes typing, copy, computer, bond, and ledger paper and envelopes that are clean and white or very fight in color. Computer Paper Continuous -feed computer printouts and forms of various types; does not include multiple -appy carbonless paper. Mixed Paper Other types of paper that may be recycled but do not fit into the above categories, including junk mail, magazines, paperback books, paperboard (noncorrugated cardboard), and colored printing and writing papers. Other Paper Types of paper that are not recyclable, including carbon paper, tissues, paper towels, paper plates, waxed papers, frozen and microwave food containers, hardcover books, and composites that are primarily paper. Plastic Categories Plastics were characterized by the type of plastic or the usage (as in the case of film and bags). In the field, the plastics were identified by their physical characteristics, application (usage) or the Society of the Plastics Industry's (SPI) Voluntary Container Coding System. The preferred method was the SPI code, where plastic products are marked, typically on the bottom, witl° a numerical code and the recycling symbol. 41vda B: Waste Characterizahon Study Bottle and Can Counts B- 77 PET All bottles and other containers made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), consisting of pop, oil, liquor, and other types of bottles. For pop bottles, no attempt was made to remove the HDPE base cups, nylon or metal caps, or the wrappers, although these other materials were categorized separately if received separately. The SPI code for PET (or PETE) is 1. HDPE Bottles and other containers made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), such as milk, juice, detergent, and other bottles. The SPI code for HDPE is 2. Polystyrene Includes expanded and rigid packaging, examples of which are the "clamshell" containers used for hamburgers and harder products such as yogurt containers and disposable tableware. The SPI code for polystyrene (PS) is 6. Plastic Bags Includes bags of various types. Many of the bags are low-density polyethylene (LDPE), but this category also includes HDPE bags. Other Plastic Packaging Includes rigid and flexible plastic packaging that does not fit into the above categories, such as polyvinyl chloride (V, SPI code 3), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, SPI code 4), polypropylene (PP, SPI code 5), and others. Other Plastic Types of plastics and applications which do not fit into the above categories. This category includes plastics used in a variety of applications, such as toys, housewares, video and audio cassettes, and products made from fiberglass resins. Products made from fiberglass resins that are part of the CDL waste stream will be categorized as such. Wood and Yard Waste Wood Includes stumps, branches over four inches in diameter, large and small pieces of lumber and other wood, and products made predominantly of wood (except furniture, see below). See also the definitions of wood subcategories, below. Yard Waste Includes leaves, grass clippings, garden wastes, and brush up to four inches in diameter. Otber Organics Textiles Used clothing and scraps of cloth made of natural and manmade materials, including cotton, wool, silk, nylon polyesters, and leather. This category includes clothing, rags, curtains, carpets and leather products such as shoes; regardless of condition unless contaminated by more than one-half of the total weight by foreign materials. Food Wastes Wastes from food preparation and leftover food that was not consumed. Includes food in the original or another container when the container weight is less than half of the total weight Also includes vitamins, although medications are included under medical wastes. Disposable Diapers Diapers and similar products made from a combination of fibers, synthetic and/or natural, and made for the purpose of a single use. No attempt will be made to separate the diaper into its component parts. Diapers that are all cloth and not originally intended for a single use, but that may be found in the waste, will be classified as a textile. Fines Material less than one-half inch in diameter that falls through the bottom screen during sorting. Inorganic fines, such as ash and dirt, will be kept separate from this category to the extent possible. Rubber Items made of natural rubber, including tires, door mats, foam rubber, and other products. Furniture and Mattresses Furniture and mattresses made of various materials and in any condition. Miscellaneous Organics Material that remains on the sorting table after all the materials that can practically be removed have been sorted out This material is primarily organic, but may contain small pieces of inorganics, such as broken glass. Glass Categories Clear Glass Containers Includes bottles and jars that are clear, and were used for food, soft drinks, beer, and wine. Green Glass Containers Includes bottles and jars that are green in color and were used for food, soft drinks, beer, and wine. Broum Glass Containers Includes bottles and jars that are brown in color and were used for food, soft drinks, beer, and wine. s References and Glossary Appendix B. Waste Charackmation Study Metal Categories Ferrous Cans Includes tin-plated steel cans (food cans), does not include other bi-metal cans, paint cans or other types of steel cans Other Ferrous includes various iron and steel alloys that contain sufficient iron such that magnets will adhere to them. Includes mixtures that are predominantly (over 75 percent) ferrous. Does not include aerosol or other types of cans that may contain hazardous residues. Includes appliances (white goods) and bi-metal cans (cans composed of an aluminum top and a steel body). Aluminum Cans Beverage cans composed of aluminum only. Other Aluminum Containers Other types of aluminum containers such as foil and pans. Mixed Metals Items that are at least 50 percent metal, but contain a mixture of metals, such as motors, small appliances and other products. Other Nonferrous Nonferrous materials other than the above categories, including products that are predominantly made of copper, lead, brass, tin, and other metals. Also includes aluminum siding and other non -container aluminum. Miscellaneous Inorganics Hazardous Wastes Wastes that are classified as hazardous due to their nature or characteristics, including amounts that are too small to be regulated. Includes aerosol cans, solvents, some paints, cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, compressed gases, various petroleum products, car batteries, and other materials (see definitions of subcategories, below). Ash Material remaining after the combustion process, present in the waste stream as ash from fireplaces and wood stoves, used charcoal from grills, and similar materials. Vacuum cleaner dust was also placed in this category due to the similarity of characteristics (chiefly inorganic, finely divided material). The results shown for this category are primarily from vacuum dust. CDL Waste Construction, demolition, or landclearing waste that cannot be placed into one of the above categories, such as drywall, concrete, plaster, rocks, gravel, bricks, shingle, and insulation of various types (see definitions of subcategories below). Miscellaneous Materials that do not fit into any of the above categories and are predominantly inorganic. Definitions of Subcategories Additional data were recorded during the field tests for the following materials. These data include the weight of wastes by subcategory and, where appropriate, the number of items found. Wood Subcategories Dimension Lumber Wood commonly used in construction for framing and related uses, including 2 x 4's, 2 x 6's, and sheets of plyN'ood- 73eated Wood Wood treated with preservatives such as creosote, including dimension lumber if treated. Does not include painted or varnished wood. This category may also include some plywood (especially "marine plywood"), strand board, particle board that is used, and other wood. Contaminated good Wood contaminated with other wastes in such a way that they cannot easily be separated, but consisting primarily (over 50 percent) of wood. Examples include sheetrock nailed to wood or tiles glued to wood. Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study References and Classary • • B- 9 • • Roofing and Siding Includes wood from demolition or construction wastes that is commonly used for siding or roofing of buildings. This category includes only wood products, such cedar shingles or shakes; and roofing or siding made from other materials • was classified under CDL subcategories. Stumps Stumps of trees and shrubs with any adhering soil. • Bulky Wood Other natural woods, such as logs and branches over four inches in diameter (four inches is the limit used for defining prunings as yard wastes). • Other food Other types of wood that do not fit into the above categories. • Construction, Demolition and Land Clearing (ML) Waste Subcategories • Ceramid, Porcelain, and China Used toilets and sinks were placed in this subcategory. Non -CDL ceramics, such as dishes, were categorized under "miscellaneous inorganics." • Rocks and Brick Includes rock, gravel, and bricks of various types and sizes. • Concrete Includes cement (mixed or unmixed), concrete blocks, and similar wastes. Soil, Dirt, and Nondistinct Fines This category includes soil, sand, dirt, and similar materials, where these were able to be • recovered separately from the fines measured as part of the normal sorting procedure. Gypsum Board Used or new gypsum wallboard, sheetrock, or drywall present in recoverable amounts or pieces (generally any piece • above one -inch square is recoverable). • Fiberglass Insulation Does not include other types of insulation or other fiberglass products. Otber Fiberglass Fiberglass products such as shower stalls and bath tubs. Small, non -CDL fiberglass objects were categorized with • "other plastics." Roofing Wastes Includes asphalt and fiberglass shingles, tar paper, and similar wastes from demolition or installation of roofs. Does • not include cedar shingle or shakes (see the "roofing and siding wood subcategory") or roofing tile (see "rocks and brick CDL subcategory"). • Aspbalt Restricted to asphalt paving materials only. • Hazardous and Special Waste Subcategories • For hazardous and special wastes, the additional detail that was recorded included whether the waste was in an aerosol can. • Aerosol cans, paint cans and other containers that are empty or have only a small amount of residue were categorized by the type of waste that the can originally contained. • Latex Paint Water-based paints and similar products. Ord -Based Paint Solvent -based paints, varnishes, and similar products. Solvents Various solvents, including chlorinated and flammable solvents, paint strippers, solvents contaminated with other products such as paints, degreasers, and some other cleaners if the primary ingredient is (or was) a solvent, and alcohols such as • methanol and isopropanol. Liquor (ethanol) will be included under food wastes or under the type of container, if empty or nearly empty. • Adbeskes and Glues Glues and adhesives of various sorts, including rubber cement, wood putty, glazing and spackling compounds, • caulking compounds, grout, and joint and autobody fillers. Cleaners and Corrosives Includes various acids and bases whose primary purpose is to clean surfaces, unclog drains, or perform • other actions. I• References and Glossary Appendix B: Waste Characknzahon Study Pesticides and Herbicides Includes a variety of poisons whose purpose is to discourage or kill pests, weeds, or microorganisms. Pests include insects, slugs and snails, rodents, and other animals. Fungicides and wood preservatives, such as pentachlorophenol, are also included. Car Batteries Includes car, motorcycle, and other lead -acid batteries used for motorized vehicles. Household Batteries Includes batteries of various sizes and types, as commonly used in households. Gasoline and Fuel Oil Includes gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oils. Motor Oil Used or new lubricating oils primarily used in cars, but including other types with similar characteristics. Antifreeze Includes automobile and other antifreeze mixtures based on ethylene or propylene glycol. Also brake and other fluids if based on the same compounds. Medual Waste bastes related to medical activities, including syringes, IV tubing, bandages, medications, and other wastes. This subcategory was not restricted to those wastes classified as pathogenic or infectious. A broad definition for this type of waste was used in the interest of worker (field crew) safety. Animal Carcasses Carcasses of small animals and pieces of larger animals, unless the waste was the result of food storage or preparation. For example, fish or chicken entrails and raw, plucked chickens would be classified as food, not as an animal carcass. Animal Excrement Feces from animals. Bags of used kitty litter, if relatively free of actual feces, were classified as "miscellaneous inorganic." Other Special Waste Includes asbestos -containing wastes if this is the primary hazard associated with the waste; gunpowder, unspent ammunition, picric acid, and other potentially explosive chemicals; radioactive materials (but smoke alarms were classified as "other plastic"; and other wastes that do not fit into the above categories. Otber Subcategories Tires Whole tires from automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and other vehicles. Wbile Goods Large appliances, such as stoves, refrigerators, water heaters, and others appliances that are generally made primarily of enameled ferrous metals. Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study References and Glassary �J • • B-81 Addendum A Methodologies A.1 WASTE QUANTITY SURVEY METHODS A.1.1 Introduction This addendum describes the methodology used to conduct the waste quantity survey at King County transfer stations in March 1991, which was the most recent survey period. The methodology used for the survey in July 1990 is not described, but that survey was conducted in a similar fashion. A.1.2 Description of Survey Form and Usage The survey form (Figure A- 1.1) was used at all six transfer stations to gather information on the incoming vehicles. As shown, this form was used to record information such as the date, site, generator type, and truck type. The information on truck type was used in some cases to verify generator types. The net weights for each vehicle were provided by the County's transaction record for that day. The County's transaction records show net weights according to transaction numbers, which are unique, sequential numbers assigned to each transaction or customer. The "Comments" column of the survey form was used for recording occasional transaction numbers; to allow the survey data to be matched up with the transaction record; and to record comments, such as the source of the load. The surveyors were provided with definitions for the generator types, a collection of pictures which illustrated truck types, and a map which delineated urban and rural areas for the purpose of classifying single-family residential waste generators. The definitions of generator types used for the spring quarter survey were: • Urban Residential, Single family: More than half of the waste originated from single-family homes within the urban portions of King County (see map), and was delivered to the transfer station by a garbage hauler. • Rural Residential, Single-family: More than half of the waste originated from single-family homes outside the urban portions of King County (see map) and was delivered to the transfer station by a garbage hauler. • Residential Self -haul.• Residential waste delivered to the transfer station by the generator (including homeowners, renters, and landlords). • Apartmen&: More than half of the waste originated from multifamily dwellings. A multifamily dwelling is a structure with four or more apartment units in the same building. Note that duplexes and triplexes were included with single-family homes. • Nonresidential Self -haul: Nonresidential waste delivered to the transfer station by the same company which generated the waste. • Retail: More than half of the waste originated from retail business. • Ofte: More than half of the waste originated from offices, excluding government offices (see Institutional, below). • Wholesale: More than half of the waste originated from wholesale businesses, where one business is selling goods or products to another business. • Instituh;9na1.• More than half of the waste originated from institutions such as schools, universities, hospitals, and government offices. Addendum A: Methodologies Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study B g • Industrial.- More than half of the waste originated from an industrial or manufacturing establishment, typically described as plants, factories, or mills where some object is being made. • Construction/DemoUhbn: More than half of the waste originated from a construction or demolition activity. The waste could have been delivered by construction companies or regular garbage haulers, and could have been from the construction or demolition of any type of structure (residential or nonresidential buildings, bridges, parking lots, etc.). Homeowners or other residential generators who brought in remodeling and similar waste were counted under Residential Self -haul. • OtheNMixed Nonresrden&I Wastes: Nonresidential waste from a type of business not shown or from a mixture of businesses. • Mixed Residen&I1Nonresidentral.• A load of waste which consisted of equal or nearly equal amounts of both residential and nonresidential waste, or one in which the driver was not sure how much of either was in the load. The above list of generator types contains additional businesses, such as retail and office, that are not one of the six primary waste generators. These were included to test the ability of the survey to collect waste quantity and generation data for specific types of nonresidential generators. It was concluded that this was not an acceptable method to determine waste quantities for these types of generators, due largely to the inability to characterize mixed loads. Since a high proportion of the waste produced by these generators is mixed with other wastes as it is collected by waste haulers, total waste volumes for these generators cannot be determined through surveys at disposal sites. Additionally, the difficulty in gathering data on these generators (i.e., number of employees and the length of time associated with the accumulation of a given load) prevents the calculation of per -employee generation rates. Appendix B: Waste Claaraderixation Study Addendum A: Methdologies FIGURE A.1.1 TRANSFER STATION SURVEY DATA SITE: SURVEYOR: DATE: PAGE GENERATOR TYPE Residential Wastes: 0 - Urban Residential, Single -Family 1 - Rural Residential, Single -Family 2 - Residential Self -Haul 3 - Apartments Non -Residential Wastes: 4 - Non -Residential Self -Haul 5 - Retail 6 - Offices 7 - Wholesale/Warehouse 8 - Institutional 9 - Industrial 10 - Construction/Demolition 11 - Other/Mixed Non -Residential Wastes 12 - Mixed Residential/Non-Residential GEN TRUCK NET # TYPE TYPE WT Comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TRUCK TYPE OF 0 - Rear Packer 1 - Front Packer 2 - Side Packer 3 - Loose Drop Box 4 - Compacted Drop Box 5 - Pick -Up Truck 6 - Dump Truck 7 - Small Other Truck (less than 2 ton capacity) 8 - Large Other Truck (more than 2 ton capacity) 9 - Car 10 - Other (Identify under Comments) GEN TRUCK NET # TYPE TYPE WT Comments 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Addendum A Mato"gfes Appmdff B. Wase Cknoclerrr, &k* • ! B- kr 85 A.2 WASTE COMPOSITION PROCEDURES MANUAL A.2.1. Introduction The primary purpose of the Procedures Manual was to establish methodologies, definitions, and a schedule for the study that were acceptable to King County staff, SCS Engineers, and subcontractors. The following waste streams were examined: • Residential single-family urban • Residential single-family rural • Apartment buildings • Residential self -haul • Total commerciaVindustriaVinstitutional (CII); • Commercial/industrial/institutional self -haul • Select nonresidential categories The effort to determine the composition of King County waste was undertaken exclusive of the city of Seattle. Since Seattle has conducted a number of its own studies, there was no need to duplicate its efforts. Instead, it was decided to combine the results of this study and previous Seattle studies to generate countywide data (see Addendum B). A Health and Safety Plan was also prepared prior to conducting any field work. The intent of this plan was to provide guidance in the field should an accident or other incident occur. This plan was also used as an educational tool for the crew members. The crew chief reviewed the plan with the sort crew at the start of each quarter and with new crew members before they were allowed to work. In addition, crew members were required to read the entire Health and Safety Plan. A.2.2 Waste Composition Analysis A.2.2.1 General Approach The approach was designed to produce accurate data that is representative of waste as it is disposed by residents and businesses in King County. Since the city of Seattle had previously performed studies of its waste, this study was restricted to waste from areas of King County outside of Seattle. This approach is consistent with the waste handling system used in King County and Seattle. This study is designed to show seasonal variation in waste composition and the difference in composition of waste produced by a variety of generators. The seasonal variation that this study was designed to address is the difference between wet (winter and spring) and dry (summer and fall) seasons. For the types of generators, the entire waste stream was divided into six primary substreams; four substreams of the residential waste stream and two nonresidential waste streams. All generators were defined to be in one of these six substreams so that the results for these substreams could be combined to provide information on the County's total residential waste stream, the total nonresidential waste stream, and the total waste stream (residential and nonresidential combined). In addition to the six primary waste substreams, the waste disposed by fourteen select nonresidential generators was examined. This effort was conducted to assist with targeting future recycling efforts and to address specific issues such as the presence of special wastes. The results for the select nonresidential wastes cannot be combined with the results for the general nonresidential waste streams due to differences in sample selection methods. For the general nonresidential waste streams, it was necessary to randomly Addendum A: Methodologias Appendix B. Waste C aaracte iwfion Study A.2.2.2 Sampling Design, Statistical Analysis 9 The goal of the sampling and sorting procedures was to provide waste composition results with a reasonable level of accuracy. . Achieving this goal was contingent upon a number of factors, including: • Random sampling of loads (for the six primary generators). • The transfer stations where sampling was conducted are representative of the entire County. • The inherent variability of the waste stream. • The desired degree of detail and divisions (i.e., number of generators and quarters versus seasons). • • The desired level of confidence (Le., 90 percent, 95 percent, or other). • The desired size of confidence interval (the +/- range associated with each result). • • The number of samples taken for each type of generator and each season. Some of these factors were directly addressed through the procedures employed in the study. In addition, some factors were interdependent on other factors and were addressed together in the development of the study design. For instance, the desired • confidence level and the size of the confidence interval, taken together with the inherent variability of the waste stream, determined the number of samples needed for each generator and season. Any change in the number of divisions, such as an increase from two i seasons to four quarters, caused a proportionate increase in the total number of samples needed for the study. The increase in sample numbers may have been in excess of the budget for the study, causing a reduction in the number of generators (or other detail) that could be sampled. Thus, the design of a waste composition study was a process of adjusting numbers of generators and seasons, together with adjusting targeted confidence levels and intervals, to derive a sampling strategy that reflected the goals and priorities of the County. • As a result of the process outlined above, the number of generators and seasonal categories was adjusted to provide accurate results for six primary waste substreams for two seasons, and not to sort the additional samples required to provide data on a • quarterly (four season) basis. Based on the local climate, the two seasons chosen for this study were the wet and dry seasons. These seasons were defined to be of equal length (six months), and the months included in each season were based on mean monthly temperatures and rainfall in Icing County. • An important element of the study design was the random sampling of loads for the six categories of primary generators. Although the numbers of samples at each transfer station were predetermined and the choice of transfer stations was limited by • practical considerations, the actual loads which were sampled were randomly chosen from the incoming vehicles that met the criteria for specific types of generators. The number of samples at each station was initially established based on the amount of waste of that type estimated to be delivered there. The inherent variability of the waste streams was determined by examining raw data from a recent study done in the Portland area Based on the Portland data, the number of samples to achieve the desired level of accuracy for each of the waste streams was • r� Appendix B: Waste Cbiaracte lzoon Study Addendum A: Metbdologies • a 0 initially set at 20 samples per season. Analysis of the results from the first quarter of sorting led to the conclusion that additional samples were necessary for residential self -haul and for total CII to achieve the desired level of accuracy. For the fourteen select nonresidential waste streams, the number of samples was chosen to provide results with statistical accuracy only on an annual basis. The number of additional samples required to determine if a difference exists between wet and dry season waste composition for these generators was considered to be excessive. For the select nonresidential generators, the initial target was 30 samples spread throughout the year. This is a larger number than the primary generators because the results must be able to stand alone. The data for the primary generators will be combined in various ways to provide increasingly more precise information about the entire residential, nonresidential, and total county waste streams. A.2.2.3 Residential Samples Samples from the following substreams of residential waste were sorted: Single-family urban • Single-family rural • Apartments • Self -haul These substreams were sampled during the dry season (summer and fall quarters) only. Due to the similarity of the results for King County compared to other areas, county staff decided that it was not necessary to conduct further sampling of the residential waste streams during the wet season. The division between urban and rural was based on new (1990) information from King County. This division was of particular importance to King County due to its responsibility to provide many of the basic services in the unincorporated (rural) areas. Self -haul was restricted to residential generators who haul their own waste to a transfer station, including landlords cleaning up rental property. Homeowners hauling construction and demolition waste from remodeling and other projects at residences was also included in this category. A.2.2.4 Nonresidential Samples The following substreams were sampled and sorted: • General commercial, industrial, and institutional ("total CII") • CII self -haul • Fourteen select nonresidential generators Composition data were collected for the wet and dry seasons for the two primary waste substreams: the general commercial, industrial, and institutional ("total CII"), and nonresidential self -haul. The total CII waste stream is the waste collected from nonresidential generators by garbage haulers and other third -party transporters. These two substreams, with quantity information on the same basis, provide data on the composition of the County's entire nonresidential waste stream. The select nonresidential generators were a separate effort and were not examined at a level of effort required to provide data on seasonal variations. The list of select nonresidential generators, and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code to which the businesses belongs, is shown below. • 20 - food and kindred products • 24 - lumber and wood products Addendum A: Metbodologies Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study • 27 - printing and publishing • B-88 • 50 - wholesale, durable goods • 51 - wholesale, nondurable goods • • 53 - general merchandise stores • • 27 - printing and publishing • 45 - air transportation; airports, flying fields, and terminals only • 50 - wholesale, durable goods • 51 - wholesale, nondurable goods • 52 - building material and garden supplies • 53 - general merchandise stores • 54 - food stores • 58F - "fast food" restaurants • • 58S - "sit-down" restaurants • 70 - hotels and other lodging • • 80C - health services; clinics, offices, and nursing homes • 80H - hospitals The sampling procedure for the select waste streams depended upon finding "pure loads" from which samples could be taken. • Samples for some types of generators were difficult to procure because they are almost never collected in the form of a pure load that could be sampled easily. This problem especially impacted 58F (fast food restaurants) and 80C (clinics). Most of the businesses in • these two categories are small generators who have their waste collected by the same truck that collects from other businesses, thus resulting in a mixed load that could not be sampled for the select nonresidential generators. • To alleviate the problems associated with relying on pure loads, a local waste hauler was engaged to deliver small loads from • select nonresidential generators. In July, nineteen dumpsters were individually brought to the Renton Transfer Station to supplement the samples that had been collected through pure loads. Later it was concluded that this approach was unnecessary (and • prohibitively expensive) due to experience that was gained the fust quarter in locating appropriate samples. • A.2.2.5 Sorting Categories and Definitions • Waste samples from all of the types of generators were sorted into 35 primary categories and 35 subcategories. The sorting • form used for recording this information is shown in Figures A.2.1 and U.2. The front side of this form (Figure A.2.1) shows the 35 main categories. The entire sample was sorted into these categories. As shown on the back side of the sorting form (Figure , A.2.2), additional information was collected for wood, CDL wastes, hazardous and special wastes, tires, white goods, and other wastes. In addition to data on the weight of a material in the sample, the number of tires, white goods, bottles, and beverage and • aerosol cans was also recorded. It should be noted that the accuracy associated with some of these data is quite low. This is • especially true for the hazardous and special wastes, and for other materials that occurred infrequently. However, it was felt that these data would still be of some interest despite the low level of accuracy. • Definitions for the sorting categories are shown in the glossary. • A2.2.6 Sorting Methodology SCS staff arrived on site at approximately 7:45 A.M. each day to organize and set up the waste -sorting equipment. Equipment • consisted of the following: • • Sort Bax. A box of plywood construction (approximately 6 ft x 3 ft x 1 ft deep) with a wire mesh false bottom that has 0.5 -inch box . openings. The wire mesh allows fines to fall through onto the plywood bottom for easy collection. Most waste was put into this for sorting, but some samples were "floor -sorted" because they consisted primarily of large, bulky items or "pure loads" that were • easily separated without using the box. • • AAW-ndiv B: Waste Characterizwion Study Addendum A: Medi"gies • • • Ykv Scabs. One scale had a lower range, 0 to 20 pounds, and read in smaller increments (ounces) for weighing the waste materials present in smaller quantities. The other scale had a larger range, 0 to 100 pounds by quarter -pound increments, and lower accuracy, about +/- 0.5 pounds under field conditions, for wastes present in larger quantities. • Approximately 50 Plastic Rash Cans. These cans served as containers for the different categories of waste sorted from each sample. Two sizes were used: 30 -gallon containers for the larger quantities of materials and smaller containers, 2.5 gallon in size for wastes found in smaller quantities. Tare weights were measured at the start of sorting, and then periodically checked during the sorting period. • Shovel and Push Broom. Used for site cleanup. • Safety Fquipment. Safety equipment present at the site at all times during the sorting period included a first-aid kit, fire extinguishers, hard hats, orange visibility vests, gloves, eye protection, and dust masks. New gloves and dust masks were issued to the sort -crew members at the start of each day and replaced throughout the day as necessary. Vehicles were randomly chosen for the six general categories of waste generators. For the select nonresidential generators, any pure load falling within the desired category was sampled, unless sufficient samples had already been taken in that category at that transfer station. In all cases, the driver was interviewed as to the type of waste, the location where the waste was collected, and whether there were any unusual aspects to the load. At two of the transfer stations, incoming vehicles with loads to be sampled were directed to a special tipping area. At the Houghton Transfer Station, sampling of larger loads had to be done from the dumping pit due to the lack of space on the floor. Smaller vehicles at Houghton were directed to dump their loads near the sorting area. County personnel and equipment were used to procure a sample (200 to 300 pounds of the load) and place it onto the floor or ground near the sort area. Where a hard surface was not available at the site, plastic sheeting was placed below the sample to maintain sample integrity. Actual waste sorting proceeded as follows: • Discrete items, such as bags of yard waste or large pieces of carpeting, were removed and weighed directly or placed into a container for weighing. • The remaining sample was picked up and placed in the sort box until the box was full. • Plastic bags of waste placed into the sorting box were torn open and crew members segregated each item of waste, placing it in the correct plastic garbage can. • • The above steps were repeated until the entire sample was sorted. The crew used their best efforts to retain and sort all of the sample, including fines that might otherwise be lost on the floor. • At the completion of sorting, all sorted wastes were weighed using the appropriate scale. • Weighing was accomplished by one crew member placing the garbage cans on a scale while the sort -crew leader read and • recorded the gross and tare weights of the garbage cans on the SCS Field Sort Form (see Figures A.2.1 and A.2.2). Calculation of net weights were conducted later, in the office, and not in the field. After each garbage can was weighed, it was emptied into the dumping pit. • While the containers were being weighed, two crew members removed the fines that fell through the screen, placed them in a garbage can for weighing, and then prepared the sorting area for the next sample. The sorting procedure was repeated for up to 12 samples each day. In addition to the health and safety training that they received, crew members were provided with training on sorting materials and the definitions being used for materials, the site layout, the value of working as a team, and the step-by-step process for sorting each sample. Addendum A: Methodologies Appends B. Waste Characterixatfon Study Sorting was conducted at two to three sites for five days each site. In the dry season, sorting was done Tuesday through Saturday to encompass one day of the weekend. This was done to enable representative sampling of residential self -haul loads, which are the primary user of the transfer stations on weekends. In the wet season, when residential samples were no longer being sorted, the schedule was changed to Monday through Friday to allow a better selection of the commercial loads. After visits to the transfer stations and examination of usage data by type of vehicle and generator, it was concluded by SCS Engineers that the following three transfer stations were the best ones for sampling and sorting purposes: • Bow Lake Transfer Station • Houghton Transfer Station • Renton Transfer Station Bow Lake Transfer Station was chosen as a sampling location because it has the most room for working under the canopy and receives a variety of commercial waste loads. The work area for sorting was the north corner, on the commercial vehicle side. The Houghton Transfer Station was chosen because of the large amount and the variety of waste that is received at this site. Working conditions at this site were hindered by the lack of space, but the sorting crew was able to set up north of the building about 50 yards away. A tent was used for covering the work area. Samples were brought to, and sorted materials removed by, a front-end loader or backhoe. Samples were placed on tarps laid on the ground, to avoid loss of fines and/or contamination of the sample. In wet or windy conditions, the samples were also covered with a tarp. The Renton Transfer Station was chosen because it is the best option out of the remaining three available stations. Space at the Algona Transfer Station is more limited. The Fust Northeast Transfer Station has less available space than Renton due to higher usage, and it receives a mix of vehicles that is heavily biased toward privately licensed vehicles. Renton receives the least amount of waste of all of the County's transfer stations, but a better mix of vehicles goes to Renton than to Fust Northeast or Algona transfer stations. Renton also receives some rural residential loads that were difficult to find elsewhere. The sorting work area is northwest of the southernmost pit. No heavy equipment was necessary at this site, since the proposed work area is adjacent to the pit, and the grappling claw was able to grab and place samples as needed. Figure A.2.3 shows the sampling schedule that was used for all four quarters at all transfer stations. As can be seen in this figure, the schedule varied from quarter to quarter. These variations were created in part by differences in sampling needs for each quarter and in part by experience that was gained in discovering what types of generators used which transfer stations more heavily. The initial sampling strategy was based on an analysis of the vehicle usage of each transfer station where sorting was to take place. Data available from King County indicated the number of privately licensed vehicles, the number of larger self -haul vehicles, and the number of garbage trucks. Based on the percentage distribution of these vehicles, samples were assigned to the three transfer stations. For instance, the distribution of residential self -haul was based on the county data for privately licensed vehicles. Other assumptions that were made to prorate the samples are shown on the table. A.2.3. Data Base Management System A.2.3.1 Introduction For data base management and calculations, an R:Base program was employed. The use of R:BASE SYSTEM V provided a number of advantages, including: Appendiv B: Waste CharacWzadon Study Addendum A: Metbdolo* B-91 9 • Its availability due to previous work done by SCS in the Portland area. The Portland program only needed minor modifications for it to be used for Ding County, thus reducing program development costs for the County. • Its ability to handle the required calculations and the large amount of raw data • Its flexibility in selecting, manipulating, and reporting the data based on variable data selection criteria A.2.3.2 Basic Operations All data for this project were managed within the R:BASE system. A menu -driven R:BASE application was used to enter, edit, select, and report the waste characterization data Table A.2.1 shows the main menu for this program. For most of the options shown in the main menu, subsequent menus allowed choices such as new input versus revisions to existing data Option 1 allows the data to be managed by season. The next level of this menu option allows the user to choose to input new data or to change/delete existing data To choose either, the next level of this option requests the user to define a time period (typically one to two months) which corresponds to a particular quarter and season The definition of time periods allows the sample data, added later through other menu options, to be automatically categorized for quarter and season based on its date. Option 2 establishes the SIC codes for the select nonresidential samples. The fust level of this option (after the main menu) allows the user to choose to input new or change/delete existing data For new data, users start with a blank table to fill in For changing or deleting existing data, the user is allowed to modify the existing list of SIC codes by adding or deleting codes and descriptions (such as 58F = fast food restaurants). Option 3 allows the user to establish the numerical codes used for vehicle types. With this option, the type of vehicle from which a particular sample was collected needs only be entered (see options 4 and 5) using a number from 0 to 9, and the R:Base system will automatically print out the name of the type of vehicle (i.e., "loose drop -box" or "rear packer") along with the other sample data Option 4 of the main menu is for inputting sample data The first level of this menu option requests complete information for each sample. Data includes: sample identification number (the number SCS assigned to the sample for accounting purposes); the date the sample was taken; the site where it was taken (two -letter abbreviation for the transfer station); the type of vehicle the sample was taken from (numerical code from 0 to 9); and additional comments on the source of the waste. Option 5 provides the flexibility of modifying or deleting data entered through option 4. option 6 allows the user to enter data on the total weight of waste from a specific generator for a specific quarter (e.g., residential self -haul for the summer season). The R:Base system uses this information to calculate weighted means for different waste streams and/or different quarters; it is also used for calculating the weights of different materials and the percentage distribution of materials in different waste streams. Option 7 allows the user to print sample data in several different ways. Options available for printing sample data include all samples, all samples for a specific quarter, one sample only, or a specified range of samples. Option 8 leads to a variety of choices for printing reports. Choosing option 8 from the main menu leads to a secondary menu (see Table A.2.2) that represents the primary output of the Hase system. In subsequent levels of this option, the user can choose the desired combination of seasons and waste streams. Option 9 returns the user to the DOS operating system for the computer. Addendum A: Methodologies Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study B-2 9 A.2.4. Resulting Sample Numbers Per Generator A.2.4.1 Introduction Table A.2.3 shows the number of samples collected for each of the primary generators and the total number sorted for the select nonresidential generators. To summarize, a total of 569 samples of waste were sorted, including: • 96 samples of residential waste • 136 samples of general nonresidential waste • 337 samples of select nonresidential wastes A.2.4.2 Select Nonresidential Generators The sampling procedure for the select nonresidential waste streams depended upon finding "pure loads" from which samples could be taken. Pure loads are loads of waste that are from a single business or single type of business. The results of this study are potentially biased towards the larger generators for each of the categories, since the waste produced by smaller generators is typically collected along with waste from other types of generators and is not available in the form of a pure load. This problem especially impacted 58F (fast food restaurants) and 80C (clinics). Most of the businesses in these two categories are small generators who have their waste collected by the same truck that collects from other businesses, thus resulting in a mixed load that could not be sampled for the select nonresidential generators. The difficulty in finding pure loads prevented the target number of samples from being achieved for some generators. For instance, only three samples were taken for SIC 27 (printing and publishing). SIC 27 was initially chosen as one of the categories to be sampled, but early in the first quarter it became evident that it would be difficult to locate samples for this category and so it was replaced by SIC 24 (wood and lumber products). In the winter quarter, the opportunity to procure two additional samples for SIC 27 presented itself so the samples were taken to provide approximate data for this category. Shortly after the start of waste sampling, it was decided that SIC 45 should be solely Sea -Tac International Airport. Although samples from other airports could have been taken, it was determined that this category should focus on Sea -Tac Airport to provide good information about this one facility, rather than attempt to characterize many small airports along with the one main airport. The number of samples taken for each of the select nonresidential generators is shown in Table A.2.4. As discussed above, samples were difficult to find for some of the categories. The low number of samples for SIC 27 (printing and publishing), SIC 58F (fast food restaurants) and SIC 80C (other health services), causes a wider confidence interval (higher level of uncertainty) to be associated with their results. This problem varies from material to material for these waste streams, depending upon the frequency of occurrence of the material and variability with which it occurs. Appendix B: Waste Charaderixation study Addendum A: Metbdoly* • B- 9 ... .... .. ......... . . . . ...... ............................................................... % ... .. . ............ ............ ........ ........... .. ........ .......... . .. : ' - : .. .. .......... ....................... ... ..... ..... ... ........................... ................ .. ..... ................................................... ... ........... ...... ............................. .............. ... ....... . . ... . . . . .................... I ....................... .. ........... . . -.1.111.1".1 ....................... ........ ........... 11 sm' FIGURE A.2.1 KING COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY FIELD SORT FORM SAMPLE ID: SITE DATA Date Time Recorder Site VEHICLE DATA Type: Company: Lic. No.: Other: SOURCE (CIRCLE ONE) Residential Self -Haul Single -Family, Urban Singie-Family, Rural Apartment Source: Census Tract: COMMENTS Commercial/Ind/Inst Self -Haul Total CII Select: BOTTLE AND CAN COUNT BOTTLES Soda Beer Other Clear Glass Green Glass Amber Glass PET HDPE CANS IAluminum 'Bi -Metal 1. Provide additional detail on the back of this form for these wastes. 2. Provide further detail on these materials under Comments. 3. Show bottle and can count by contents. Addendum A: Meftdologia Appff dir B. Waste ChafflWftfiffl Rudy B- 9 4 M An ues n FIGURE A.2.2 ADDITIONAL DETAIL KING COUNTY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY AXMd& B: Waste Ckwadw&Mon Rudy Addendum A: MdWa&ogjx cr) CV LLJ cr. M 0 E CO Z 0 C) 0 Z W -j D 0 w Q U) 0 Z -j a. omm umm M E umm 12 si omm ommm UMM Ommm u mm ommm Ll UmMm lamm ummm FJ -mm umm ummm Omm 13mm ummm Ummm Limm ummm um m u LIMMM Ommm Umm ummm UMM ummm Umm "UM Umm ummm ummm am= ummm omm umm am= lwmmm am= ummm lummm ommm ul ul m mm am 13mmm umm umm Elmmm umm ummm lamm Elmmm CMmm ummm amm ummm ummm limm LIMMM umm umm fammm ummm ..Umm ummm umm Ummm lammm umm Omm ummm umm LIMMM Sim lummm am= ummmmm VM= um lwm mi -umm LIM omm umm umm omm UMM u mm Ll lamm FJ -mm umm Omm Limm u m Umm UMM Umm Umm am= omm am= am= ommm ul ul m mm am umm umm umm lamm umm umm amm limm umm ..Umm umm umm Omm umm Sim am= VM= -umm Addendum A: Medudok#w AVmdk B. Waste CkraMrbgRudy TABLE A.2.1 King County Waste Characterization Study Main Menu for R:Base System (1) SEASONS DATA (2) SIC DATA (3) VEHICLE TYPES DATA (4) INPUT SAMPLE DATA (5) CHANGE/DELETE SAMPLE DATA (6) QUARTERLY WEIGHTS DATA (7) PRINT SAMPLE DATA (8) PRINT OTHER REPORTS (9) EXIT SYSTEM TABLE A.2.2 King County Waste Characterization Study Secondary Menu for Option 8, Printing Other Reports (1) NON -ZERO SAMPLE COUNTS (2) UNWEIGHTED MEAN REPORT - 1 SEASON/ALL RES/COMM (3) UNWEIGHTED MEAN REPORT - MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE SIC (4) WEIGHTED MEAN REPORT - MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE STREAM (5) WEIGHT SUMMARY BY MATERIAL - 1 SEASON/ALL RES/COMM (6) BOTTLE/CAN COUNT - MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE STREAM (7) BOTTLE/CAN COUNT SIC - DETAIL/MULTIPLE SEASON/MULTIPLE SIC Appewlir B: waste Characterization Study Addendum A: Methdologw Ir w H Q 0 Cc w a w a } E - cc r) O N Q CcQ w w J Z W m 0 Q Cc w a. U) w J n_ i Q U) LlO M W CCD G Z B-9 7 0 o M to O O O O C) t� J N r (n j 'IT co I,.w co N N M CD O I -T co M (MD Fa- a cD N CO (n O a �co F - r �lm M OC O O O O 0 o M to O O O O C) t� M O O O (n j 'IT N 1� I,.w co N r N J O N a cD N a �co z r �lm M OC O O O O Or N N Q A W a H W •- o 0 0 0 o r M n 3 M �'D n N 0 o M to co o n co N N M O N (D cD N �co l(o r �lm M J a a Z cc O O M M O) N co O (D M N c 6 LL U) r v M v h (D Ir a m Q ha W a H m m rn 03 C m m o 0 0 o T I r� a cD v c g N M (D c O T � I� m U N D fn N 3 m o _m E M _ 7 a E M CO m i — >, O = J O O (0to D L Cl) � E L L O — c4 '"' W O m p) CO R T : C cti } C O C A a cm d! m C m J CD F- m (n N C d m _— N O W w �+ O u) d (= O Q Z O U cE c :� o C o Z c D _� ti Q [L r Z Z O r N c W R1 '_O co Y O O O 16M6 W C .0_O FW- Q O (n O cn m O O ¢ Z (n Z co Addendum A: McOo"gtes Appendir B: WaW Gdw'aaWt irnrrrhf Study I Em 2111111M J Q of 10 M Cl) O M 04 Co N - Cl) Co N Itr PI - C4 N M M M N N N M r- N N N .- Cl) F' Appendix A Waste Cbmw&ft on 9udy Addendum A: Metbd 49* p <D O Co M M M M M M in f- &o Cl) rn I` 0 .y O a E M cc 00 W m y >C_ > M ao N CO �D h h M N f\cc 3 CD �D-�t V t 3 c W x tV Q w � tD ,r O h CO to to r Co <D Cl) T CL U LLI Co Q w -i F- aGO C M t(1 r CO f� M n tD tD . n CoComc t N 'E^ E a, U. a o p E M CL N O T W Co C G J Q C NCo D Z (n Z Co WOD -i wN U 10 o CLm m c Y C LL O U N m 5 7 O d O 3 c E J N U fn 0) �_ a c •C Q f` N U a `� $ Q cE (n O v U Fn y O 0a � 7 m t�A m L O to U to o O O m Co - 'D O z m N '20 L 3 M U Fn m - dp O N 'p C fn N O U fn rn m m Wcrs C Co U `- g O cc) (�i (h L U Fn H m N 'a O LL U to as y ¢ o LL N O LL DD to U n C p Co m ¢ 3 Q « Fn CO U to Co « O O h U w m O. O = O CD U w U d 'L" ca = 4) L Q O M U (n m - L o m A m F' r M W z A N U co A U m m O U O m ` con Appendix A Waste Cbmw&ft on 9udy Addendum A: Metbd 49* B - Addendum B • Combined City/County Data • • B.1 INTRODUCTION • The purpose of this addendum is to combine data from the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et al., 1989) • with the results from this report to derive estimates of the countywide waste quantities and composition. B.2 WASTE QUANTITIES, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED • Based on previous studies conducted for the city of Seattle (Matrix et al., 1989), waste quantities in King County inclusive of the city of Seattle were derived and are shown in Table B.I. No rural residential waste is shown for Seattle because the entire city is • defined as urban. • Since the Seattle data does not separate residential waste quantities produced by single-family residential from multifamily (apartment) waste generators, the data for King County had to be adjusted to combine multifamily data and single-family data This • was done by prorating the waste quantities for multifamily units into the County's urban and rural single-family categories based on the estimated percentage of multifamily housing units in each area It is estimated that 81.5 percent of all multifamily units are • located in urban areas versus 18.5 percent in rural (PSCOG, 1988). This approach assumes the same waste generation rate for each person in an apartment regardless of the urban or rural location of the apartment building. • Table B.1 also shows the percentage that each type of generator contributes to the individual waste streams of King County • and Seattle. For instance, urban residential waste (including the prorated portion of multifamily waste) represents 31.0 percent of the County's total waste stream, exclusive of the city of Seattle. In Seattle, urban residential generators (again including multifamily) • dispose of 36.0 percent of the city's waste. The third column for both King County and the city of Seattle shows the percent of that type of waste that is contributed by • each municipality. For instance, Table B.1 shows that urban residential waste generators in King County dispose of 59.6 percent of • the total amount of urban residential wastes. By definition, waste generators in the city of Seattle dispose of the remaining 40.4 percent. As mentioned above, the city of Seattle is shown as disposing of no rural residential wastes because the entire city is defined • as an urban area • B.3 WASTE COMPOSITION, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED • Tables B.2, B.3 and B.4 combine the waste composition data for King County with the results of a waste composition study conducted for the city of Seattle (Matrix et al., 1989) to provide data on the countywide residential, nonresidential, and total waste • stream waste composition. The waste composition data for both King County and Seattle were determined through sampling at their • respective transfer stations. The data in both cases are "as disposed" figures, except that the Seattle self -haul data include recyclable and compostable materials brought separately to the city's transfer stations. • A number of adjustments were necessary to allow King County and Seattle data to be combined. These adjustments include the following: • • • • Addendum B: Combined City/County Data Appendix B: Waste Cbaracterization Study • B-1 00 • Plastic film and other plastic packaging were not separately measured by the Seattle study, however, the definition for plastic packaging used for the Seattle study is essentially the same as for these two materials combined. Hence, the values for King County for plastic film and other plastic packaging have been combined into a single category ("plastic packaging") in Tables B.2, B.3, and B.4. • The Seattle study measured recyclable glass containers based on the type of beverage or food for which they had been used, while the King County results are shown by color. All of these categories have been combined as "recyclable glass" in Tables B.2, B.3, and B.4. • Some materials measured by the Seattle study have been combined to yield categories comparable to this study. This was done for "other ferrous" (which combines Seattle's bi-metal cans, white goods, and other ferrous), and construction/demolition waste (which combines six categories from the Seattle study). • Other materials not measured by the Seattle study are simply shown as "NA" (Not Available). These materials include fines, furniture, miscellaneous organics, and miscellaneous inorganics. The weighted composition averages shown in Tables B.2, B.3, and B.4 are based on the waste quantities shown in Table B.I. Appendix B: Waste Characknzation Study Addendum B: Combined City/County Data m w m « w O w z m � O Q w � « w @ O 2 « ¥ w 2 D O Q 0 2 � U) w � ¥ 2 « Q O w R m « C p''' p B- 101 / 0 G S S f 8 S n R e * Cl) M g R R R % % 2 \ / \ CM to / / Cl) / 0 C \ e E J 7 $ § @ o � m m LO CO) 0 ¥ q c CAIc CM Q I C k k k k Cd 2 co S LO m % ? n I m 3 k7 \ � \ o C4 w C Cl) — ca vto \ G $ Y) 5 cd ƒ \t \ E J d k 7 ® % 0.CD k k d 7 ( o - 7 10 � 7 ƒ k � / 2 E $ e \ e / k $ k k k k f D k c k « - / z k / o ¢ � / S K R � (D $ N N � « t $ * _ to o — « to %\ S $ / G p 2 z I cc 3 ' D f g o k o ƒ (D k 2 § w\ Q 2 Cl) / C \ $ 3 7 § Q � CAIc k k C k k k k $ m 2 co S LO m % ? n I m k7 ca§ k ca \ !2 § 7 5 cd ƒ \t \ E J d k 7 ® E k k d 7 ( o - 7 10 � 7 ƒ k _ / z E $ % \ k_ / B $ o w 2 m f D Cd§ cc c k E - / z k / o ¢ Cl) z C/) 7� 2§ £S ca k \/ \-a $)m CD �]\ \%\ mk\ §/0 Sa{ 2§\ & §{ƒ e a,m )2(D C) 7E / ®&a f E « }p2 { kko k cli C# § k0- k { ) E! m / LL C \ \ ) § ( 2 A ]mum a Combmd Qvrmnty DXa 44Dm& B. ■MW Cbmawta&s A* B - 102 TABLE B.2 WASTE COMPOSITION, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM TOTALS (3) 100.1 % 100.0 % (4) 100.1 NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et al 1989). 2. Weighted average based on 235,500 tons per year of residential waste in Seattle and 509,600 tons per year of residential waste in King County. 3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 4. Seattle data prorated to total 100 percent instead of 98.9 percent. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Aoerdix B. Waste Cbae>7cteri aAm A* Addendum B. combined City/County Dab WEIGHTED MATERIAL KING COUNTY SEATTLE (1) AVERAGE (2) ORGANICS 84.7 % 77.2 % 82.3 % Paper 27.3 - - 26.0 26.9 Newspaper 7.2 5.7 6.8 Cardboard 5.5 5.0 5.3 Office Paper 0.3 0.2 0.2 Computer Paper 0.1 0.0 0.0 Mixed 9.5 11.1 10.0 Other 4.8 3.9 4.5 Plastics 7.9 6.9 7.6 PET Bottles 0.3 0.2 0.3 HDPE Bottles 0.8 0.2 0.6 Polystyrene 0.5 0.4 0.5 Plastic Packaging 3.6 4.4 3.9 Other 2.5 1.6 2.2 Wood and Yard Wastes 20.8 ` 25.1 22.2 Wood 7.3 5.9 6.9 Yard Wastes 13.5 19.2 15.3 Other Organics 28.8 19.3 25.8 Textiles 4.6 3.7 4.3 Food Wastes 8.4 13.2 9.9 Disposable Diapers 3.1 1.9 2.8 Fines 2.1 NA 1.4 Rubber 1.2 0.5 1.0 Furniture, Mattress 1.2 NA 0.8 Miscellaneous Organics 8.1 NA 5.5 INORGANICS 15.4 22.7 17.7 Glass 3.4"' 5.4 4.0 Recyclable Glass 2.7 5.1 3.4 Other 0.6 0.3 0.5 Metals 5.6 " 6.6 5.9 Ferrous Cans 1.2 1.5 1.3 Other Ferrous 2.1 1.7 1.9 Aluminum Cans 0.6 0.5 0.6 Other Alum. Containers 0.2 0.1 0.2 Mixed Metals 1.3 2.5 1.7 Other Non -Ferrous 0.2 0.2 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics 6.4 10.8 7.8 Haz./Special Wastes 0.6 1.0 0.7 Medical Waste 0.0 NA 0.0 Ashes 0.5 0.3 0.5 Construction/Demo. Waste 4.3 9.5 6.0 Miscellaneous 1.0 NA 0.7 TOTALS (3) 100.1 % 100.0 % (4) 100.1 NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et al 1989). 2. Weighted average based on 235,500 tons per year of residential waste in Seattle and 509,600 tons per year of residential waste in King County. 3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 4. Seattle data prorated to total 100 percent instead of 98.9 percent. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Aoerdix B. Waste Cbae>7cteri aAm A* Addendum B. combined City/County Dab -1 B 103 TABLE B.3 WASTE COMPOSITION, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et at 1989). 2. Weighted average based on 264,100 tons per year of nonresidential waste in Seattle and 345,200 tons per year of nonresidential waste in King County. 3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Addendum B. CombtrW City/County laaW Aj mdfr B. Waste CGaracter&aWn Study WEIGHTED MATERIAL KING COUNTY SEATTLE (1) AVERAGE (2) ORGANICS 81.5 % 80.6 % 81.1 % Paper 32.9 29.1 31.3 Newspaper 1.8 2.9 2.3 Cardboard 10.5 8.9 9.8 Office Paper 2.7 1.0 1.9 Computer Paper 0.9 0.4 0.7 Mixed 7.9 7.2 7.6 Other 9.1 8.9 9.0 Plastics 12.4 6.2 9.7 PET Bottles 0.0 0.1 0.0 HDPE Bottles 0.3 0.2 0.3 Polystyrene 1.2 0.5 0.9 Plastic Packaging 5.3 4.4 4.9 Other 5.6 1.0 3.6 Wood and Yard Wastes 17.8 26.7 21.7 Wood 14.1 21.8 17.5 Yard Wastes 3.7 4.9 4.2 Other Organics 18.4 18.6 18.5 Textiles 4.6 1.9 3.4 Food Wastes 4.8 10.0 7.0 Disposable Diapers 0.2 0.5 0.3 Fines 2.3 NA 1.3 Rubber 2.6 0.5 1.7 Furniture, Mattress 0.5 NA 0.3 Miscellaneous Organics 3.4 NA 1.9 INORGANICS 18.6 19.4 19.0 Glass 1.8 2.1 1.9 Recyclable Glass 1.1 1.8 1.4 Other 0.7 0.2 0.5 Metals 4.7 6.4 5.4 Ferrous Cans 0.4 0.4 0.4 Other Ferrous 2.2 3.3 2.7 Aluminum Cans 0.3 0.5 0.4 Other Alum. Containers 0.1 0.1 0.1 Mixed Metals 1.5 2.0 1.7 Other Non -Ferrous 0.2 0.1 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics 12.1 11.0 11.6 Haz./Special Wastes 1.0 0.4 0.7 Medical Waste 0.1 NA 0.0 Ashes 0.1 0.1 0.1 Construction/Demo. Waste 9.4 9.6 9.5 Miscellaneous 1.5 NA 0.8 TOTALS (3) 100.1 % 100.0 % 100.1 NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et at 1989). 2. Weighted average based on 264,100 tons per year of nonresidential waste in Seattle and 345,200 tons per year of nonresidential waste in King County. 3. Some totals do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Addendum B. CombtrW City/County laaW Aj mdfr B. Waste CGaracter&aWn Study B-14 0 TABLE B.4 WASTE COMPOSITION, KING COUNTY AND SEATTLE COMBINED TOTAL WASTE STREAM NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et at 1989). 2. Weighted average based on 499,600 tons total waste per year in Seattle and 854,800 tons per year of total waste in King County. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appmda B: Waste Cbaracter� Aidy Addendum B. Combated City/County Data WEIGHTED MATERIAL KING COUNTY SEATTLE (1) AVERAGE (2) ORGANICS 83.2 % 79.0 % 81.3 % Paper 29.4 27.6 28.6 Newspaper 5.0 4.2 4.7 Cardboard 7.5 7.0 7.3 Office Paper 1.2 0.6 1.0 Computer Paper 0.4 0.2 0.3 Mixed 8.8 9.0 8.9 Other 6.5 6.5 6.5 Plastics 9.6 6.5 8.2 PET Bottles 0.2 0.1 0.2 HDPE Bottles 0.6 0.2 0.4 Polystyrene 0.8 0.4 0.6 Plastic Packaging 4.3 4.4 4.4 Other 3.8 1.3 2.7 Wood and Yard Wastes 19.6 26.0 22.5 Wood 10.1 14.3 12.0 Yard Wastes 9.5 11.6 10.5 Other Organics 24.6 18.9 22.0 Textiles 4.6 2.7 3.8 Food Wastes 7.0 11.5 9.0 Disposable Diapers 1.9 1.2 1.6 Fines 2.2 0.0 1.2 Rubber 1.8 0.5 1.2 Furniture, Mattress 0.9 0.0 0.5 Miscellaneous Organics 6.2 0.0 3.4 INORGANICS 16.7 21.0 18.6 Glass 2.7 3.6 3.1 Recyclable Glass 2.0 3.4 2.6 Other 0.6 0.3 0.4 Metals 5.3 6.5 5.8 Ferrous Cans 0.9 0.9 0.9 Other Ferrous 2.1 2.5 2.3 Aluminum Cans 0.5 0.5 0.5 Other Alum. Containers 0.2 0.1 0.1 Mixed Metals 1.4 2.2 1.8 Other Non -Ferrous 0.2 0.2 0.2 Miscellaneous Inorganics 8.7 10.9 9.7 Haz./Special Wastes 0.8 0.7 0.7 Medical Waste 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ashes 0.4 0.2 0.3 Construction/Demo. Waste 6.4 9.6 7.8 Miscellaneous 1.2 0.0 0.7 TOTALS 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 NOTES: 1. From the Seattle Waste Stream Composition Study (Matrix et at 1989). 2. Weighted average based on 499,600 tons total waste per year in Seattle and 854,800 tons per year of total waste in King County. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appmda B: Waste Cbaracter� Aidy Addendum B. Combated City/County Data • • • I• • • • • • • 0 B-1 105 Addendum C Confidence Intervals for Waste Composition Results C.l INTRODUCTION This addendum contains the tables showing the lower and upper limits of the 90 percent confidence interval that is associated with the waste composition results. C.2 DESCRIPTION OF TABLES Tables C.1 through C.3 show the mean percentage for each material, and the lower and upper confidence limit associated with that mean, for residential, nonresidential, and select nonresidential waste streams, respectively. The lower and upper confidence limits are based on the standard error of the simple mean (or standard error of the weighted mean), multiplied by a factor taken from a table of Student's t -Distribution values. The simple mean is the average value of the percentages for each material for all samples within one quarter for one generator (for the six primary generators) or for all samples throughout the year (for the select nonresidential generators). The only simple means that are shown in this report are for the select nonresidential, since the quarterly for the primary generators is not shown. The standard error of a simple mean was calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the results by the square root of the number of samples. The standard error of a weighted mean was calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each simple mean squared times the proportion of the simple mean squared. The proportion is the fraction of the total waste stream that is contributed by the generator who also provided the simple mean. The value taken from the Student's t -Distribution table was based on the desired confidence interval (F = 0.95 for the 90 percent confidence interval) and degrees of freedom (n = number of samples minus one). The width of the confidence interval is strongly affected by the number of samples taken and variability of the results. As the number of samples increases, one can be more and more certain that the results are truly representative of the waste stream. Unfortunately, to create a significant impact on the confidence interval requires a change in sample numbers that is orders of magnitude in size. In other words, to decrease a confidence interval from +/- 10 percent to +/- 5 percent may require a change from 20 to 100 samples. Hence, the design of this study was based in part on the need to balance precision of results against excessive sampling costs. To illustrate the impact on confidence intervals caused by the variability of sample results, the lower confidence limits for Sea - Tac Airport (SIC 45) and food stores (SIC 54) can be compared (the upper confidence limit for both is 100 percent). The results for Sea -Tac Airport and food stores are based on a similar number of samples (33 and 32 samples, respectively) and the amount of total organics is similar (90.2 and 95.9 percent, respectively). However, the lower confidence limit for Sea -Tac Airport is substantially lower (34 percent less than the mean percentage for total organics) than it is for food stores (21.9 percent less than the mean percentage). The difference in lower limits for Sea -Tac Airport and food stores indicates that the samples for Sea -Tac Airport were considerably more variable in the amount with which the organic materials were present. For SIC 54, an examination of the field Addendum C. Confidence Mteruals for Waste Composawn Resuh:s AMendir B. Waste Cbaraderkairon Study . . . . .. .. . . .. ...... . . ....... data for those materials that contributed substantially to the percentage of total organics shows that there were some materials (cardboard, plastic film, and especially food waste) that were present in every sample in significant quantities. 0 Ah } J 20 _1 Q W W U co Z } W 2 0 Q r LL U z uj J Ua: LLI Q ~ d CL cf) DW Z q a3 2 J WQ O Z W G LL Q I c � ro 0 Q 0 ror ro -0 3 2 o c -o.2 MW N y U 0 0) ro ro � �U ro .O a, C0 d Co L _O , d r- 0 0 U tr Y W 0 H O o zU) Htr:.b .1A; m M V 0 0 r tD - M r r N co 0@: Go C4 OD n M co M V V o c, W CO m V N Co r co) r M tD O r(D (D V 0m 0000 CO OOO M O cl) A tD0 Cl) N NN0 O V 000 r N C5 C4 0 000(OLur (L J W W J U( U o z w ¢ w>'Z Q Q O W 0 N V 0 N O 7 n V t` h Ih O 00 M M m O r V r N O M O O N 0 M O O V 0 r V O r M h M � c�.COO 0 O V OOt'.M to OoaC to. V O.N V co Nr OOh O N -000M 0-0000 M 000NO U 0 OJ r W W Q � J 2 o Q C7 < O 00-: M O M O N O N N tD 0 0 tD V t'A M tD N 0 0 W N N N V O r:.- M V fD M M r 0 (D N N N t0 (O O V O O O W W W) N: n 00000 V h.000 NON N' t, V O V 0 NN rr.0 12 C.) -000 O -C,100-0 CO 000 V r r Ci r 00 _F W O r 007 V 00MCR .N Nm mOO.m N V M OMr NaDON 0 h. N( - Nm O OM O r*.: (P t\ U. Or V 0 W? O tD O V O O M r r .O O O r O V g co Cl) CO h00 O M r O N 0 N0 r r M O to O O V O CY CD c0 r O Cl) U N N V N' r r ( LL Z w J O p� LU U. W J z3: O 0 V 0 et r 0000 N O O OMrN V m W 0 Dor O O O O (D V 0 0 r N O M N t` rO V O M. M 000 M Op to Q r N O O r O N O O O O O r N OV V N N O O O O O 00 O O O O O N O r O O O O 0 0 0 0 V O Z d o 0 Q r O tDrNOh V O rMNM0 O V- (D 000CD W V V r M.O V rn 0 OO cM MOM 0 h0000r N W O r C)0000Nr O OOOrOM N 00 V (D V OOr ONr O M.r000 )\ O V OONO M OOOr 0 w n r V r N r N r O H it W a O r. 0MrN17O N MCD t`O 00 OD V nr (D M(D Cl CO N 00 U) (D M. 0r Mr O Oh M OC`M M. rr N00 J n- O� N 0 0 0 O V 0 0 0 O V O N C0 c0 -0 0 V M N0 V 0 N wM *- r O O -0000 0 r O O V N O r r r w r U } Z w cr cJ G < W •- r O V r 0 0 r m- r V OO N N V M -d co n V O M O O M c0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 O V 0 0 0 M (M O O 07 h c t j LL O � 0 O C 0 O 0 0 0 N O O O O M O r 1 f C,)" O M co r r O O f O t t) N-000 r 000000 r 00000 o N N � U J - o Qz r N r`r V rOM t NOOIDOr 0 0h (D OO V Mr00 NCC 0 00 00 Cl (V r(D O Cl) r Cl) OOr(D CD 0 W M O M O O N Cl) r O O O Cl) O N O O CO r N N O r t\ M V N O O O M --0600 O .- O O N r co +- r r r M W I-- (r m W O r O 0 0 0 V r m cM (M h N M M O r V N M V aM r (D O(D r N 0 0 CO 0 0 M O r M M V O N N M r M .}.l J W Z) . r r �OrO O N r OMc00000T(D M OrOOOO0 cO to (1) (-0V M 00 V N 0C\l r Z LL LL W 0 W O co) O O M O 0 0 V x 0 0 00 V h 0 0 0 W O (D M CO 0 0 0 M r O r V r O O CO h r 0 NN V r 0 Cl) O V O 0 O N V Il O O O M O r v O V M V r N N O O N O N r O O O N -600006 O O O O O o 0 Z U J R'.>;. R Q QN MO(D O NO O Nr CO OOO O 00N 0 0)O M(, M O to r- V OO COM av 0 V 0NLf) M r co r V NCD 0 0 W t D N0 0 0 0 O O r 0 V O Cl)n O (D NV O V M N 0 0 V r M N 0 0 0 O —0606 00 0 0 0- 0 0 2 2 CON r r r r WO n rNlpr W co r OrOr V O CD rte O V - HOMO V V N 0 V (ter Cl) "T (DMNNr 0 t�rhNM p } J J w a a N h 0 0� 00 O Orr V r N N N 0 CO V N CD Cl) Ori 6 6 x 0 0 0 (O r r O O N O M O O O r O r r r r r Z D LL ( a a JN LL Z W O ch r V r 0 (D N M 1-- V 0 V kc) v 0 0 M (- tto n ro o O CO V V r N Cl) O O 0 (D V 0 0 0 O- 0 x 0 0') (,7 zo 0 V U). (D V 0 0 0 O O O O O N O r 00 O t� N (D N c0 M r O O Of M r r O O O r r O O O O O O O O O O O Z z o Q Z co 00 0..r 00 V r V N 0 V 0t -O00'0 N(- O V V OM V V r V Cl) OMO0 0 Nr (D x00 N V 0 V (DM N w 1.-M 06000 r f` OOO MOr .V -6 M M 0 O N N 0 N 00 N r O O O M r r O OOO N.'.O O O O O 0)r r 0 D r r r 0 ro cc � c w d m� rn .%� w in E d c a _0 (n m 0 d(D y o ° 5 ro 0) (n a y m (d U W C E ,c y y C - C � d Q y LL d O J H Q GE CO } 5 CD U •%• c c (Co o U ro ro coNp OF 2 a°a °m Toa o 3 d3 w ?-° Q UUU yLL �aMZ am W ~ Z �' m� m a� U mw m. 0 o mom._ m C7 c c o ro v n y ¢ v 3� D E Xr' F a> nLr p X ads m 3 d `m Edd Q CS Q: d ro O •- ... O W O p R ..... O (0 0 d (n C 7 ._ (A N O t (C 8 � x t m ro y y O (n 20a z000i0 m a2aa003 ?iYO F tr oiL2tii Z- UC9m0 LL0¢O'mO 2�¢U� I c � ro 0 Q 0 ror ro -0 3 2 o c -o.2 MW N y U 0 0) ro ro � �U ro .O a, C0 d Co L _O , d r- 0 0 U tr Y W 0 H O o zU) Q �W W_S H co Z W(n W C[ U) QD WU�ti J [�JQJ Z W Z Q 0 ¢ LLI Cf) Cl z 0 z (C Q N O O C') r 0 cry O �O M r W U) r- r 0 f-, M CO Cl N M O N p) OO -QA Cl M a^ 0 CC y r M CO U) N N O v �- W Q� r...0 O N a N f` N f` w <6 0 0 O M V r er to N::0 O O r 6 0 N O O N O( r 0 0 N N r r r r CL Off- r. CV N; N— T J � J W Q U ZIw Q[L- CC O dt ,t N V q r N U) o r r n (f) r- r CO T -M c0 r It 0) O m M^Iq r r O N m N r(D r "Q O O CO m O O N O O O O 0 r 0 0 0 O �:.0 O O 0 O OLif N:r CO r O tO r- r� 0 0 0 N O M N r Q'N N O r C3 CJ LLJU OJ Z O z o J J ¢ {n 0).:CO f` fA O r O M N V' CA 0 m co CO N M m 10 a (O co h N N f'- f\ K N M r t0 ZT N r 0 N O^ O Cj O O r M r � v M c v a O N N O M C6 x 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 O N r 0 0 0 r Lw m co J (C O Co cp Co CO c) (0 n CV O (0 O V) h M 00 N CDT m h N r- 0 0 0 (D T M CO N N N O N M m (� r O O O m Z) W Q� 0 co O O M C) C7 O r h co m V;N N �.� f` O r O 0 N (V.C\ O O O O r 0� 0 0 U) 0 6 00 M 0 CL O r c� r co T u? T W , LL U W co J 2 CC Q LLW NNroo00)ch07oo0Mo(ncow0Q000(c�rov OD0-C,00r--o(Or00000 C>0r-o �-. Z� O -Ld O M O O O r 0 0 0 r O N C7 N r 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0660000� O r 0 0 0 0^ O O O r` O r z00(v .-T 0 U J o o Z C, Z T In - O V r N VLo O (0 co C M V Cp O a0 (o O V r r l0 O N ^ Q (O M r rLo r Cl) Cl) rqt M (V x 0 0 co M co z W0 ( O O O C\l 00 6 N (0 N CO O r O 0 r L6TO 000 6 0 (M O O N O N r 00N 6 0i C[ Q M ^ 0 r (0 CO 0 co O N f` 0 O N 'f M (h (0 (0 co) 0) LO r Q m O N M CO Q M H r CO M d (� CO) V N O F' W O O tO r N M C7 O O O V N (O CP (0 V N CO f` O CO L r l0 oi 6 r O O r (6 O N O O r 0 6 r 0 0 (0 M r CL o lij r T r Cl) r T J � D T W U z w _ U 0 U- W O^ f0 CO (V- O N (0 CP O O ('7 !0 r Q M 0 0 w a0 n r- W - N O ( M 0 0 0 0 O r 0 0 0 0 O O O r 0 t� Z� ti c6 r 0) r 0 (O CO � O O O N O M 6 0 0 r N c) 0 r r O N. (6 6 i'- O 0 In CU r O U J E- Z Q 0) Co N O r CO Cl) Lo O N 0 r,- (0 Cn N m (p (0 M N n M f` r Q Q m .- N O N M m M r N N^ O r N (17 CA CO .6N N M r M p O 00 M r 'T N N (0 (0 0 cV M O V (V N' O O O O O r 0 0 r 0 6 r O O M r (p W 00 C0 r T f CV O m y v U C (p C yC U) CD E Op (Hn J 3wp cz 0 C 0 mQ3: 0 d 0n m dQd y(w m V m m 0 «C6 cc 0 OUEd �o J cUp E �2 cc ots p OmoM,a c¢l 2m Zp0 tZo C cm, w -p m Z w C13CD yj M9cy E W LL xLNw 5 co M 0 m w (m Z5L DiC¢LLO¢O�O� � Q -z000��3 Q � ¢ 0) 0 L 0 co co z 0 CL a O C7 W U z 0) O CO :'.r O O r O m t*.! C4 (7 N )O M CM 10 O (O d 0 CD M r N O N d P :q V 01 M C0 C0 N M N N r 01.01 O O h V W O� O M r t0 d to O O (D N N o (O M M N O N O O 0l b (O: M NNa O b O r N r O O Na O O r O O r J a _;CO r r CL � U Z Q W U L Lu NCO MCR M d m :O r N W M (t) 0 0 0 a0 O m7 O O O N O M' 0 O r r OO N N r d O O O :M O O O O 0 'r O O F- Z 3 �j C4 O) CD O O n CO O 0 O N d r 0 00 w 0) 0 0 0 O d v N -r r 0 0 r 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O O o LO Z Q N NICO (D 0)h C0 (D V :r N N n 00 d 0 n M 40;0 r N (O r O n n N O h (O M COU) t, n CO 0 d'(0 O O (D N r -: coO 01 WQ O r O O O rl ) 0 0 0 0 O �;.M CO r O r N'0 O M (O r r> N tqN (0 r O r O O m W d_N r O O r N_ r 0) O WO C! CO O O CO N r W O 01 Cl O O N 'M M O Lf) h 0 00 O O 00 V 0 1� O M O to r 0 Cl) M O O CO --N O O O n m J a r r 0 0 0 M .6 NOO �O 6 m O O O O 5;r, (O O N N (0 aj r r V o2f Z C7 W ZO j O 0 N O O O O O O O O O9 0 0q 0 0 0 0 0 O O :O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O' O O O O O ZZ O O -O M O O O O a O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O<O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O a -i o N Z M U) to r O r N M ti O M r (D V M 'n r*,� O 01 U) d O M (O O N r U0 'It O r o :q O n r r 0 0 P't M O O O V O) (� WOl :N d O r 1� (D N O O O M c0 O O O O M O O O O O O O 0:0 O O O h0 I� O O O O r O O O O t� m :N N N r 07 Ol L W 0 0) : Cl to CD (O r 0 N 0 O r 0) V00 'O Lf) (D O O (O r O r O N O rl Cl) O O M 0) 0 r r CD r d (0 O O 00 r J a O 00 co d O O M h /- O O O M r r r (D O �0 u0 O O (O r O M -- (D O O O O O !� O Ali O O N6 t� O O O (O O O W a C7 U D IL Z - m W Occ LL OCO 17 O O N r M V CO O O r M N N (D h 0 Vr o CO O O O O C) O (O x 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 d O. '0 C4V) 0 N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O CO0 00000000 r00000 NONOOOO O0OOOOOO COO v N o U qJ Z 0) 0 V (O V M h r` O O O r r 00 0 M (0 N r r M O d V 0 0) n Cl) N O O r r 0 00 r O N O M: N O O r 0 O M O O M V O O O N O n n O ao N O O M O O ad O O (O O M O O O M O O O M O (D O `Q T r r r r O O O r OOf) CD (D O) 2 W 0 10 V r O M (O N CV N W V (D r CO 000 V 0 (1) O M N O V r (P (D O O O N 00 M M 0 0 0 O N w r r O zi W GO p -r r 0 n 'M O N O V V^ C) d h V 00 O N O r O 0 M Q1.O O O O O V O N O O O O Vr N O O O N V r r W r U = d Z LCLL C Q m Cl ' O M N O r O 00 O r N 0 h M O) O1 O (O O r 0 O 0 0 0 0) N- -N O O O n (0 O r O O O 0 0 O O O O O0) O O d M tl 000 (O O O N N O N O N O O O O r r - Cl O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O p O LL U 0 N o U Z Ul d o (O 10 V r (O r Cl M (D V 00 r 0 (D M O O 0) r O N U) IT d O O O (0 r V N O Cl) O (O (O 0) O O O O (O U) (O r (D (D M O wM O O O CO O O O N0 N O O O O O N0 0 0 0 0 0 CO (D x 0 0 0 0- O O O O O M M r r r Cl) Cl) r O O c L d 41 cd v N U (D 0 c C y y U) w o o ° E C7) (b : y @ n d 0 C O mo �+ �m ��� ; �3� 0 CO ��0 m ayi O a ra (A (D p `� •(-y •o .o c o U LL c¢ d CL n c N °m c c as ° U E : � tl 4 w ~O v 0) Z (d y v m � c .° a tC 0) O m lL 10 aJ C.. td a m C _. 0 O O U m E m 0>> 0, .0 �' U ~ Q co Oa 0m T !1 N y a1 t0 UUU wLL gQ�Z 0.CL ` W CL mwy.o o c U .8 vpQ3 0,m3owm�m Z cc : 3 O E X L F- a T L L �` SSC o y C OM Q N in o. O L E L X L 14 L C y Z V1 O Q zU0-00 �wam=a- 03} UFU,6if¢Ii U`N667 o (�U.0¢Om0 <000 mCC 0a (L O zF5 W U z 0) c� L Q w w U) J Q Z w 0 V5 w Ir Z 0 Z U W J W U) W H Z Q w 0 U J * M U W CU p O JF- m W H � � F- .. Cl)w d' 1+ :O M N d> st O (D- O Iq r 1n b (D R 1t M OR Iq b UO O b r O m (D N O b t, (D t` It (D N N UO : O O 00 M J Lu M N M st NN � (b N V - O O O U) 00 O CD O r (M N 0 V m V O 00 r 0 0 0 0 0 Vt O O O O O O r S,: r r N Z W CL . = Z c p LLJcccwc b wn t M v U7) O< N O r 0� to N m0 0 v�� r h0 0 Cl N N N O O O N r- N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 L Z> > O� O M O O(D 00 0 0 O O UO O N 0 h O --tO r O Cl O O N N O O O O O N O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (NO r iO O d' o Ln Z m CO U w co N 00 00 0) t` R 'r 0 CO UO O N V t` r 0 UO Cl) Cl) r UO N n U) 0) a r O R V V N Cl) Cl) r cV N O O V (D to *. N O)— r Of r tD O O r M C) c') � N O M N a O r r O M O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C") O O N O M -O O O N O b r r O p J~c O O -..t` (D h r N h h O N (D LO 00 0 �. -M b N N O (D Un O V c0 Q. V N O' 0) C4 V M O M M 0 0 0 0 U) UO Q c w p N UO O r"1 Un tD O O O 00 M C N n N (D r O T O O Cl O O O O O 0) O 00 O O O O 00 O O 00 V N M r H = U Z iw 9 X tO N f\ N r r co M h 0 O N r O c0 7 r 0) m O M O of O O O (p M N 0 0 0 r O O r O r O N 0 0 0 0) O Z u. W O O/ O a O O r N M O O O N O O h fD p 0000000— m O O O O O M O M O O O O M O O O-�r O 0 Z O M r O m NR N Z '7 In U W 00 m N O It (D 00 N O r� (D O N (D N V co 0) O O N O h N (D Cl) r O N U) r N N O N M r CO O O r 00 1O 0) r 0) O O M V O O O O UO r N V UO 0) N 0 0 0 O O r x 000000060000 r Cl) O O n r r M N N r O O O c G Jx deco e0 Nrr CD0't N(0 (D Mn(D CO UO M O'Q OOh 0UO Un M NUO C.) Lo t`Or0 C'4 (D M O(Dn Q J a p p r O r ,:L6 'O O, N O) n f` r tO CD r ('M O N O O r O, N N O O r [t r 0 0 0 0 r O 00.0 S (O N r r (y r N N N N N cc LU D 0 U 0 Z Z w 00_Ir Z U- w ti 00 N O N O f` r r. 0 O O N r co UO r O VO r, O V O O UO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 O O r O O O O� A Y0 O O O M M O N c0 O O O UO UO (D O 11 O (D O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M r J 0OJ Z � o Zr O NQ (D V V UO O N0 0) O N V N N r (D O O 7 O O r CO 0) r r (D 0) (D 0) V O O O O M N O NM 0 U Q wC O UO O O n. C. O O M CD N V tD V N M O UO O r O O r op . r x 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O O O V O Of r N. r r r r 0) tT C L G w d -aG O D) 00 (9 0) n r*� O N a (`9 r N N N N N M 0) c0 V 00 M c0 (D (7, 't 'It 0 0 M UO M r O V 0 tt O O Un M O W J J p O r N r LO h (`O 0 O r UO (D O m b O N M r O r 0 UO M UO O O O O O M O O O O r O m r 0 0 co 00 Sa N N r NN Cl) r M r T - Co a r U x Z Dw 0a: FL O cV UO N v UO r r 0 O M r r M M O a UO Un O v 0 0 v O- N 0 0 0 t- r CO r O N 0 O N O O M 0 (n Z W SO 0a O O N O O N M Lf; O O O N6 r O v M O O O O O r r 00000 •- O r O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O i L7 Z t, O t, N UO O N S IT O r 0) 00 V N 0 0) r Cl) 0) N CO 0) a 0 (D M UO M N O O 0 M 00 r 0 00 O 00 0) O N M V O C) U� Q C C O p, r r, UO O O O M M (D 0) c0 O o0 O r O O O N N c0 O O O O O O O (O O O M O f� O 6. M M 00 (h 00 N m 3 m h C c h m 0 m y w H m ti c o m E m Y a O y d d y 0 m a d >✓ w c c c d 3 m m (n a m c m 0 (d H v W N of 'lC 10 % (6 m LL m(L ° m m 0 m c 0 U d ( V W (a 0 0 E n� �n `m m o m-0 d C 0 0 0 U E 5 d o ro; m 3 o c 0 ~ a$a = om % fid 3 m3 ` ;,�—° v0U �LL ca�Z a,y ci C C U N .0 yypp Y 'Q X_ L W T L L 3 0 �` )( (p' C j` N d O L_ O L j L_ X_ L_ N y y _C U m- d _ 8 zU0C) a-=da00 ��Y UHLLo LfLLLM UC7ao0 IL0< QU� J .. C i.i 0 Q .a � Q w co ¢ O cn x to 0 t 0 co (D 0 CL o_' O Z C7 L D in .'.) W O N:r IO co N r 0':r N M 'R --t6:0) O m:r P IO 00 P O co )q to OD co O O r -.P N O N oo v@ N O O c) U a Oa G ! r O r 0):O r r r r m:0 m Cl) O r O O mW V N a r p:r a 0 0 r 0 d':O O O O O 7l� CO Z D W W 0cc H E W = ZO 30 N Ir M m N v 10 M N h M O r r r a r co 'r d r 0 0 0 V r P N Go 0 0 to 0) 0 U) 0 0 0 000000 OO W) 11 h10 OO M OO OOO Or 00M OomM r r0 rOOO OOO COOO OO O U hQiPm N'O N !11 o J r` Cn Z M N£m 0) N P P r In:- a co P O O m.b r O'O) O M M O r M 0f0 M co IO OV)r P r W N It O O r N c0 W _;,O 00 r O N W P, 0 O O M r col O Cl) b..'� m O O O N h ;Q ;d N N O wi N O O O O 'd C; O O O O 00 l9 M N Of Q cc O.h,-O m 0) W r M r'.N W m a m m r -"R W 00 P M N r 0 0 Id Ip a r M N P -P -W N P O O O Id: C4 O O O N -.r J W 8 HA) 0o O O d 00 m O O O Cl) O O d N n r N O r 0 a W W d V) v v O M:N O O O O O O:O O O O O r .: W a Z Z Oocc pLL W 0).>t:q It r O P 10 rs0 v N O N N 1000 m r IA O 10q 0 In M IN P,: M N r r N O O O O O O'O O O O O FI Z? O M N r N O O r V V)0 O O N6 O ON P fN N 'O O �.0 Lo O O O O 0O:N O r O O O O O 000000 (O Fn O> U Z co C's 0 O IO a 0) c0 r 0 V P a a W 0 N Np W 0 r W O O I[) et CO M Cl) N� a 0 r Cl) 0 0 0 N r O O O r N IQ � :G SSM P O O N m.0 0 0 0 N O O - 0 r c0 o 6 0 0 0 0 v M G 'M 6 6 0 N' N O O O O O G_O O O O O N f0 00 O Q m 1n O IO (P P W W "t m N W O W O 0) a N N 0 0 M P-r.M V N r 0) 0) O Cl P O r P N O O O IO O A .N fr0 O O T N. 0 0 O 10 0 0 0 0 NO N O N O O O T N -r O O O -00000c, O O O O O Owa 4 QU= O Z OrL LU w F N 4-N m O O O R U0 O N O co N 0'O O b r (P O O O O M 7 0) O O O r O r 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 > �Mrr cO O OON W'OON000 0OO NOPOr001n 000000 0000000 000000 r <00 UOJ co o LO U Z Q C to 0 (0 N O P 0 0 0 IO 0) to 0) co M''0 M O IO O r 0 O O 00 -1 r''00 N r 0 0 L O N M O O CO<r O O O N CO FnW0) Po N r 00. O O MPO O OO O M O M OrO O P NrO O O O O O O O O O OOO O O O r CO N 0) O) F- QO t, co co 0) IO 0) m 00 0 c0 m C (n r d u) 0) 0) r r P M O O P IO ;m In In In N �;.. a r M N N 0 co: N O O O IO a 0 T P N N W N r 0) O O co O� O O r r M r ui O r 0 0 IO m M'N O O O N A r 0 0 0 0 O-0 O O O O GO r r ICOI Cl) J a X U O Z Q9 ([ O P 'P Oo O O P W NO N O O M P d 0) IO h M M r In O O In 0)' :- r r 0 10 N r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O a Uj � N :O V O O r LO co O O r 10 r O d M O 00 O 10 O O O O N r r r O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P N r a) co 000 LLd In U Z Q 0) N `M M v N W N 0 o IO M N r (D N P M' P N V 0) O O r N U) co M M r CO M c0 N r r 0 t 00 0 M C4 W )0 0 r ). O O N W c 0 O r c0 N r P IO r m 0 0 0 0 0 0 R N 'r O O O '.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O a l9 . at v O O m W N U m � C 3 w m m c y m O nC6 E d cc a mO mold o ° a m m a 5 V- w C C C C m 3 m � y J cc m an d y m m U m m m O «�+ .�. C O () U N LL U io W o 7 m v m z E w m m c c m° E :° '� `° 4 m Q a c m y w c a m °' $ o m ii itl m m m e o 0 0 00 w y E> m o c� m a �i V LL Q Z ca 0- oCo O r W c) c6. d w m .O. =y c a= 7 c �� w d 'pp a m a� Id m a d o `mE d m a) o m y -m X L L L W_ L c l0 O W O p f6 O CCN z000�O axaa00 ��� VF-LLaILCCLL� UC7mO IL0QOm0 0m Q y2m C/) Cl) c U 0 U o rn WQ ¢; 0) U O 0U) m L D in Q w W Q Z W p W m Z O LZ r U W J W LU H Z c W O U J ,t M U W (j H O Lliw ta- U)a 0) CC O 0! 'Ch tD t` K N f` M OU� U? m N a r f` V. O O f� m M O O! :'IQ f O! N N N Of O f` r M O O IN O O n LU LU W �D COM m O M h aD r N �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q! O O r N O 0 O) N O M W O O N O h 0 N J w r r r r r -W a' F- U J Z W LLJ pCC :l- (jJ O 01 1 " M O O M r O a m O O O O1 'm O M Oo r 0 0 t` co M O O O IO 'p O CI r 0 0 0. q M O O O cc' Z:� N.:r M O O "f co co O O r V O O O O O O O ♦Y O O O O M NO -000 --00600 O O r 0 0 0 L OU O M r CI o O0 Z T to N fD r M O V co M co O h M V 0 00 V U! N N O 0 m (A fD t� Cl) LO N 0 0 0 M t, O V N U) O! 0 0 0 0 0 M No O O O O ui 0 M O O r O O 00 Q �... fD r 0 O0 0) r O O r to r N � O ff� :.M. r- O r r O r 0 M O U W c O N N N LO 00 h GO OD O V h h N CO fD CO CO V LO tO f0 O V O V CD a O M O N r O V V N O r M r co O r to W OON LE) C <{ OO t M 0 0, r M m CD O LO M O O tr O r r r 0 0 0 MO o O V O J r WdO J Q U Z Z) F- w a pCC 0 LL W tb O m V Cl) CO r CO N O N O tO of N Cl O O O O! r 0 <D O O c0 m O N 0 0 0 f` 00 O N O O O (3) O h O O O O f` O O O� —0 OOO a r CO O O O O Cl) --t0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O M O a O O O r OO �r r UJ W W o� U Co Co V co O) c0 cT M EO O M M r M tO O V fD n N M t, W (D O CO N N tD r 0 tO Q V co M r 0 0 0 M h 0 n N 0 O 00 U) r 0 0 O N O N O r 00 r M N N fD r Cl) O O T {D N M CO O N tD fD N O O O O LO CO r O O O O N 0 0 Q n. N r N N Wec .G m m I m m U m y m O w m y w m y E O a m m C -fC m m Y O m m O U m d m >✓ 40U cc cc p mI .0~..! CL Em m cm o mam m c c mtL mc0W! n�E o 0 o rnr V, m 0 ¢Z CL -Z,- ED wm 0 Umoa (U(W n X LOm 3r 72 VE E m j CD LO LOUU ry m¢i _ ii a�t_�<aaO�tt0azO O J CIS } 7E U 0. Q U ocz ICDZ w W Z � O m UCc ICD i 00- a' O Z 0 0) B-11 3 X. Addendum D Waste Quantities by Material Type D.1 INTRODUCTION At the request of King County staff, the following tables were produced to show the total quantities by weight of materials in the various waste streams. These data show the total tons of recyclable and other materials that are currently being disposed by county residents and businesses. The data are also useful for planning and design purposes, especially if the focus is on a particular material, by showing the distribution by weight of materials in the different waste streams. For instance, the data show what percent of the total amount of disposed newspaper is in the various waste streams. Thus, if recycling additional newspaper is being examined, one could determine which waste stream(s) should be targeted to capture the most additional newspaper. These figures were derived from waste composition data (for King County without the city of Seattle) and solid waste quantity data from county transfer stations. • D.2 RESULTS, WEIGHT OF MATERIALS IN KING COUN'T'Y WASTE STREAMS Table D.1 provides the requested data on the weight of materials disposed by different types of residential generators in King • County (exclusive of Seattle). Also shown is the percentage of a given material contained in each of the individual waste streams. For instance, urban single-family waste generators are estimated to be disposing 17,900 tons of newspaper per year, this amount represents 48.6 percent of the total amount of newspaper disposed by residential generators in King County. Tables D.2 and D.3 are similar to Table D.1. Table D.2 shows the weight of materials disposed by the two types of nonresidential generators and the percentage of each material contained in the individual waste streams. Table D.3 summarizes the • previous two tables, showing total residential and total nonresidential quantities by weight; the percentage that each of these streams contains of each of the materials; and the sum of these two waste streams. • • • Addendum D: Waste Quantities by Material Type Appendix B: Waste Cbaraderizahon Study Q W U) W F- U) J Q z W 0 U) W L� r z Z) O U 0 z Y J Q W cQ L LL O F- V W G J D Q 2 1 LL J W U) J_ Q I J G J_ LL I W J 0 Z J Q cc D cc z p o>o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 00 W O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �-: M M V M N cO O h V N O r N a) h N I� O 0J N r M NcO N r r V.M (D N r Q1 (D n- 00 V 0 r V N (0 00O (O (. r 00 (D M N (D O (D (O 00 N Cl) Cl) 00 (O O M t0 N 'M N CV (q Of Q M M N V N V r r O Cl) (D V N V r r V N r c9 N O (D O w m O N CTS co C N OY: 1p O V O M r 00 OD 0 M M N (O 0 q Cl (O O (D r () 00 N 1� (D W (O V0 00 N (O (O O O M: -r O O V V O C'I V OM N O 0) Pcu (C 1'- (O 00 VV O (q M V O M O V t' N O)M(q mm rN Cl)M (Dco N NN(D Cl)M NNNr(DM P, 0M N r..M O � o H �I 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONO0CMOcO DCcNOO �0 p p lq D N (0 t� 0D (D (D V V (O O N (D M r O V O O O 00 (D M W V cli �NM 0 �N O N — co 3 NN O. 0) 00 M U) M OD V N h MLO N 0) fl- N V t0 VU) (D 00 (C) co O V (O V O O N O 00 I, O 01 co co: 0D O (D N V cV (D (d 0) O r N (D O N 1�1 V M Co)(D 00 O/ (q N (q W r h I� V o) M (O O O q O OS I- ( M f- Iq (D O t0 N o7 N N N r N N r r r r r N r r r r N N r r N r N N M N r r r r. N r N 0 76 O F' NI 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o o 0 o 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O M O O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OONO OONO (D I� O N ',200 O O �- O) (q N N r cc<n V M V 00 N O) V f"i M O (q r h C N (O I- M O N W N N 00 P (q (3 F- V 0) n M M (D Cl) r O V V 00 to 0) N N N N r (O. N r Cl) r N W (3) 5 cz ro� d ui N N g r O r (O 7 Of I` c0 N 0) 00 O V V 00 I- 00 M r V 0 co V 0 00 M (- M I- 00 N M O (q 7 I, O M (q 41 (d a) u) N 1, .� NON(O O0 1-NNV(OWNN O (O M O (O M (O N C') rr Lo .W n (q 0 c r r r r r rN r r O (d 00 ,F- U)I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O o >00 o o o 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 O.'O O O O O O V 1� N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O V M O O N W N M 1� O 00 (D O N O O 10 O M M O M +- 00 V +- V M N (O h (O c 0) O I` N V M V CO V r lq (n OD V) r co r M V V c M V V (O th V (l co N V CO I� V 00 N r O N .- Cl) r N r co N N O � _M a's � -.(D 00 V N (q M W O 00 (q O (q (D N it N V O O N (C! 0) V O O0 07 V M O I, r 0 (D V N O (D O 07 07 O CM x . 00 O N N N W 1, V 0) NM M M (O N M 00 Cl) 00 O N NU) (O NCD N O U) V V V O V O O 00 (q O G¢ V V V (o V : (O Cl) V V (q V LO N N M V N V O V N r (q N Cl) N M N V r M r N r r V M Go � o F- �I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0>0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O o 0 0 0 08o(4igiOOow000OOOoOOO0000wo ool-o 0000(DO 0r- 00M o O C7 V (O r O V N f- O V fh h OctO r N r (O V M r V (O 0) (q - O) O c! (D ccr cc h t0 c c IO c N V (q N r (O r N N N N(D O 00 O V V N V N h N r V d N N N QS C C U N acc� ' o' Na yo maE, Cl) c t0 ma3 V ca LL c.:(0 0 o O F J n. m m o o E c co H `-' � a ai c N o o o U �, E 5 d c :y::m � .0 c O ¢ y co �a om TLLa } m ca v ca ns U UUU v LL �¢�Z 0 any U Haya� mwm.� �w�3ovd yZ cc a mWom m W Z v `m = o x t w o o r r m 0 a c ? v" m o r d= r x t `6' co d w o ¢ Cz000 -Na.xaa00 3r F LLou a�LL ¢ NUc7mo �LLOa0 0 �aU � a: mr 0 ca d w TOTALS 257,500 87,700 345,200 NOTES: Based on composition data from Tables 3.12 and 3.13, and waste quantity data from Table 3.1. Some numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Addm dum D. Waste QuanhWw by Material Type Appmdir B. Waste CAvadert 4Afon Study TOTAL CII NONRESIDENTIAL SELF -HAUL • MATERIAL % of Material, of % of Material, of Tons Nonres. Waste Tons Nonres. Waste TOTAL TONS ORGANICS • Paper 102,500 90.2 10,100 8.9 113,600 Newspaper 5,700 91.2 440 7.1 6,200 • Cardboard 30,900 85.2 5,200 14.3 36,200 Office Paper 8,750 93.5 350 3.7 9,400 Computer Paper 2,800 91.2 90 2.8 3,110 • Mixed 25,200 92.5 1,900 7.1 27,300 Other 29,100 92.6 2,100 6.7 31,400 • Plastics 27,000 63.2 15,300 35.9 42,800 PET Bottles 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 HDPE Bottles 510 45.6 530 46.6 1,100 • Polystyrene 1,500 37.0 2,500 58.8 4,200 Plastic Film, Bags 9,500 81.2 2,100 17.9 11,700 • Other Plastic Pkg. 3,600 55.5 2,900 44.5 6,500 Other 11,800 61.4 7,400 38.2 19,300 • Wood and Yard Wastes 38,100 62.0 23,500 38.3 61,400 Wood 31,400 64.5 17,500 36.0 48,700 • Yard Wastes Other Organics 6,700 56,100 52.5 88.4 6,000 7,300 46.8 11.5 12,700 63,500 Textiles 14,200 89.2 1,800 11.0 15,900 • Food Wastes 13,600 82.4 3,000 18.0 16,600 Disposable Diapers 510 85.4 90 14.6 600 • Fines 7,000 87.8 1,000 12.2 7,900 Rubber 8,500 95.1 440 4.9 8,900 Furniture, Mattress 1,800 100.0 0 0.0 1,800 • Miscellaneous Organics 10,600 89.0 1,100 8.9 11,900 • INORGANICS Glass 5,100 82.9 900 14.1 6,200 • Clear Containers 2,100 85.2 400 18.1 2,400 Green Containers 260 49.5 300 50.5 520 Brown Containers 510 85.4 100 14.6 600 • Other 2,300 96.3 100 3.6 2,400 Metals 10,800 66.2 5,700 34.9 16,300 • Ferrous Cans 1,300 93.6 100 6.4 1,400 Other Ferrous 4,900 63.5 2,900 37.6 7,700 • Aluminum Cans Other Alum. Containers 770 260 81.5 74.6 300 100 27.8 25.4 950 350 Mixed Metals 3,100 59.5 2,100 40.5 5,200 • Other Non -Ferrous 510 66.2 300 33.8 780 Miscellaneous Inorganics 17,200 41.3 24,700 59.2 41,800 • Haz./Special Wastes 2,600 74.6 1,000 27.9 3,500 Medical Waste 260 100.0 0 0.0 260 Ashes 510 100.0 0 0.0 510 • Construction/Demo. Waste 9,000 27.8 23,500 72.4 32,400 Miscellaneous 4,900 94.5 260 5.1 5,200 TOTALS 257,500 87,700 345,200 NOTES: Based on composition data from Tables 3.12 and 3.13, and waste quantity data from Table 3.1. Some numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Addm dum D. Waste QuanhWw by Material Type Appmdir B. Waste CAvadert 4Afon Study B- 116 TABLE D.3 WEIGHT OF MATERIALS, KING COUNTY WASTE STREAMS NOTES: Some numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appendir B: Waste Cbaracteftatton Study Addendum D: Waste OwMa by Mate W W RESIDENTIAL WASTE NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE MATERIAL % of Material, of % of Material, of Tons Total Waste Tons Total Waste TOTAL TONS ORGANICS Paper 139,100 55.0 113,600 45.0 252,700 Newspaper 36,800 85.6 6,200 14.4 43,000 Cardboard 27,900 43.5 36,200 56.5 64,100 Office Paper 1,300 12.1 9,400 87.9 10,700 Computer Paper 310 9.1 3,110 90.9 3,420 Mixed 48,400 63.9 27,300 36.1 75,700 Other 24,300 43.6 31,400 56.4 55,700 Plastics 40,200 48.4 42,800 51.6 83,000 PET Bottles 1,800 100.0 0 0.0 1,800 HDPE Bottles 4,000 78.4 1,100 21.6 5,100 Polystyrene 2,700 39.1 4,200 60.9 6,900 Plastic Film, Bags 15,400 56.8 11,700 43.2 27,100 Other Plastic Pkg. 3,200 33.0 6,500 67.0 9,700 Other 13,000 40.2 19,300 59.8 32,300 Wood and Yard Wastes 106,100 63.3 61,400 36.7 167,500 Wood 37,200 43.3 48,700 56.7 85,900 Yard Wastes 68,900 84.4 12,700 15.6 81,600 Other Organics 146,700 69.8 63,500 30.2 210,200 Textiles 23,200 59.3 15,900 40.7 39,100 Food Wastes 42,700 72.0 16,600 28.0 59,300 Disposable Diapers 16,000 96.4 600 3.6 16,600 Fines 10,600 57.3 7,900 42.7 18,500 Rubber 6,200 41.1 8,900 58.9 15,100 Furniture, Mattress 6,100 77.2 1,800 22.8 7,900 Miscellaneous Organics 41,300 77.6 11,900 22.4 53,200 INORGANICS Glass 17,200 73.5 6,200 26.5 23,400 Clear Containers 8,800 78.6 2,400 21.4 11,200 Green Containers 2,200 80.9 520 19.1 2,720 Brown Containers 3,100 83.8 600 16.2 3,700 Other 3,100 56.4 2,400 43.6 5,500 Metals 28,400 63.5 16,300 36.5 44,700 Ferrous Cans 6,300 81.8 1,400 18.2 7,700 Other Ferrous 10,600 57.9 7,700 42.1 18,300 Aluminum Cans 3,200 77.1 950 22.9 4,150 Other Alum. Containers 1,100 75.9 350 24.1 1,450 Mixed Metals 6,600 55.9 5,200 44.1 11,800 Other Non -Ferrous 920 54.1 780 45.9 1,700 Miscellaneous Inorganics 32,600 43.8 41,800 56.2 74,400 Haz./Special Wastes 3,100 47.0 3,500 53.0 6,600 Medical Waste 0 0.0 260 100.0 260 Ashes 2,700 84.1 510 15.9 3,210 Construction/Demo. Waste 22,100 40.6 32,400 59.4 54,500 Miscellaneous 5,100 49.5 5,200 50.5 10,300 TOTALS 509,500 345,200 854,600 NOTES: Some numbers may not add up exactly due to rounding. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, 1990 - 1991. Appendir B: Waste Cbaracteftatton Study Addendum D: Waste OwMa by Mate W W • � APPENDIX C • � SOLID WASTE • FACILITY • SITING PLAN � King County Comprehensive • Solid Waste � Management Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r Sorting It Out Together C-1 Appendix C Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Prepared by R. W. Beck and Associates` Table of Contents A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 3 1. Organization................................................................. 3 2. Siting and Facility Implementation................................................... 3 3. About the Siting Process.......................................................... 3 B. BACKGROUND.................................................................... 5 1. Description of Facility Types ........................................................ 5 2. Relationship to Other Facility Planning Studies ............................................ 7 3. Siting Location Constraint......................................................... 7 C. SITING CRITERIA................................................................. 8 1. Introduction.................................................................. 8 2. Mixed Waste Landfills............................................................ 10 3. Incinerator Ash Landfills.......................................................... 22 4. Transfer Station/Recycling Processing Centers ............................................. 23 5. Energy/Resource Recovery Facilities ................................................... 25 6. Equitable Distribution of Solid Waste Facilities ................................. I ....... I .. 28 7. Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Rating ................................................ 29 D. THE SITING PROCESS.............................................................. 31 1. Goals of the Siting Process......................................................... 31 2. Overview of Siting Process......................................................... 31 3. Steps in the Siting Process......................................................... 32 E. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ......................................... 34 ' June 1988; Revised February 1989; Revised June 1989; Revised by King County Solid Waste Division, March 1992; King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, Volume 11, Appendix, July 1989 4pmdry C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C -2 List of Figures Figure C.1 Site evalution process.......................................................... C - 4 Figure C.2 SEPA elements of the environment .................................................. C - 10 Figure C.3 Subsidence hazard areas ........................................................ C - 12 Figure C.4 Generalized geologic map of King County ............................................. C - 13 Figure C.5 Surface water aquifers, and groundwater withdrawal areas ................................... C - 15 Figure C.6 Public watersheds and surface water ................................................. C - 17 Figure C.7 Mean annual precipitation in inches, King County ........................................ C - 20 Figure C.8 Airport exclusion areas......................................................... C - 22 Figure C.9 State and national parks ........................................................ C - 23 Figure C.10 Air quality nonattainment areas ................................................... C - 25 Figure C.11 Composite of regulatory exclusion areas .............................................. C - 27 Figure C.12 Existing waste facilities......................................................... C - 36 Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C-3 A. INMODUMON This solid waste facility siting plan was prepared by R. W. Beck in conjunction with other elements of the 1989 King County Comprebm&e Solid Waste Management Plan (the Plan). It has been updated as part of the 1992 Plan to reflect changes in legislation and regulations. The siting plan addresses requirements of the King County Council Motion 6862 for a nonsite-specific • siting plan to guide future solid waste facility siting impacts. It also addresses the facility siting requirements set forth in RCW 70.95 and the Solid Waste Management Planning Guidelines (WDOE 90.11). 1. Organization This report is organized in five major sections. 1. Section A—Vurpose and scope • 2. Section B—background 3. Section C --siting criteria 4. Section D --the siting process • 5. Section E --public involvement 2. Siting and Facility Implementation • Selection of a site for a solid waste facility is often the most public and controversial step in the overall facility development process. However, the other steps in this process are also vitally important. Figure C-1 outlines the steps in implementing a solid waste facility. The siting process is preceded by at least two steps. First, the Plan establishes the service needs and identifies the area of intended service, whether local or regional. Then, the County makes budget decisions concerning the scope and schedule of the project. 3. About the Siting Process a. Why and how often must King County find solid waste sites? Under state and federal law, King County is given solid waste management planning authority. In addition to the facilities provided by private operators, the County may develop its own facilities to meet solid waste management needs identified through its planning efforts. Sites may be needed both for new types of facilities that do not exist in King County's solid waste management system (e.g., waste export transfer facilities) and for replacing current facilities that may be operated at or beyond permitted site capacity (e.g., older transfer stations and landfills that must be closed). i Facilities such as transfer stations and energy resource recovery (E/RR) facilities may be upgraded to meet changing needs. • Sites of sufficient size can be designed to serve indefinitely if land use and transportation patterns persist. b. Why have facilities been so difficult to site? Solid waste is generally an unwanted artifact of life. Although practices are rapidly changing, solid waste has been thrown or disposed "away," for health and aesthetic reasons. The public is aware of the highly publicized problems that have arisen with some older waste management practices, and there is often little distinction drawn between the problems of solid waste and hazardous waste facilities. The public also seems generally aware of issues facing modern waste management: increasing waste quantities, • A. Introduction Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C -4 POTENTIAL SITE IDENTIFICATION CRITICAL CRITERIA SCREENING --------------------------------- w BASED SCREENING I- _j a Uj w LL 0 CAL CRITERIA SCREENING OLL ---------------- cr- O m w VBROJAII COMPARATIVE EVALUATION / Z J ZIZ a w COMPARATIVE s EVALUATION U U UJ Z 0 EIS Figme C.1 Site evaluation process. newer stringent environmental regulations, and land development pressures that limit the extent to which solid waste facilities can be sited "away." It is not difficult to understand why, to the public, these solid waste handling and disposal facilities are considered socially unacceptable land uses. In the spirit of protecting their community, groups may organize and vigorously fight efforts to site such facilities. Elected officials who are charged with the difficult task of explaining that a particular facility is necessary for the good of the general county population may face angry, hostile citizens. Local residents may agree in principle that a facility is needed, however the response usually is "site it somewhere else, not here." The "not in my backyard"—or NIMBY syndrome as it is called—will often lead to intense opposition to siting efforts. In the past, local government has opted, in certain cases, to keep the siting process low key in hopes of disturbing as few people as possible as late in the process as possible. Such efforts have sometimes appeared secretive to the public. This has led to public mistrust of the procedures and results of siting efforts. This goes directly against the public desires to be involved in the decisionmaking that affects the quality of life in the community. Initially stimulated by site- and process -specific concerns, discussion often widens to encompass questions about the fundamental policies and concepts upon which the solid waste management system is based. These questions include: • Which solid waste management alternative is or should be given higher priority? • Is a facility is actually needed? • Why not wait until later to site a facility? Appendix C: Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan A. Introduction C- 5 These program -related concerns, along with concerns about the siting process and about specific sites, have caused many facility siting projects to end unsuccessfully. c. Why is a siting plan needed and what should it do? Solid waste facilities are each unique in setting and function. Although the fundamental process used to imd sites for these facilities is fairly well established, individual siting processes employ different procedures. A general siting plan can unify the management approach to the siting process and help ensure that it attains the standards set by the County. The public must be given an opportunity to understand and participate in the process. This will be made easier if the process conforms to a recognizable pattern. Elected officials, who must make decisions, will hear heated opposition to the siting of a facility. A plan will allow differentiation between criticism of the siting process and concerns about a specific site. In summary, the purpose of the siting plan is threefold. 1. It serves as a guide for the Solid Waste Management Division as it conducts facility siting efforts. 2. It provides a reasoned and evenhanded process to be used in selecting sites for what are often locally very unpopular facilities; it also shows where and how the public can provide input into the siting process. 3. For elected officials the plan communicates policy guidance to county staff and provides a tool for assessing the quality of individual siting recommendations that are developed. d. How specific should the plan be? In the next 20 years, the solid waste management system may site a variety of facility types and sizes throughout King County. In the near term, the Plan recommends siting of several transfer stations. This plan outlines the siting process as it would apply to other solid waste facilities, including processing facilities, municipal solid waste landfills, incinerator ash landfills, and landfills for the disposal of construction, demolition, and land clearing waste (CDL). Current local law states that energy/resource recovery (E/RR) will not be an option for solid waste management (KCC 10.12). If this changes, this siting process also would apply to E/RR facilities and incinerator ash landfills. These facilities present unique siting problems due to their disposal and handling processes, site size requirements, and potential impacts. The general facility plan must also apply to facility siting efforts that will be carried out over a number of years. These factors emphasize the need for the plan to focus on those elements of facility siting that can and should be common to all solid waste siting efforts. • B. BACKGROUND • 1. Description of Facility Types This section briefly describes the major features of the solid waste facilities for which this siting plan has been developed. It does not attempt to address all features or potential impacts of these facilities, which would be addressed in detail in the environmental review process associated with a facility -specific siting study. I• Appendix C.• Solid Waste Facility Suing Plan C-6 a. Transfer Station/Materials Recovery Facilities A transfer station is used to combine the solid waste loads of many smaller -capacity vehicles into a smaller number of large, highly compacted loads for transport to a disposal site. Recycling processing may also occur at a transfer station. Recyclables may be separated from waste or may be prepared for market. At a materials recovery facility, various parts of the waste stream are separated out for recycling, and the remainder is either disposed or further processed—for example, to produce refuse -derived fuel (RDF). A transfer station or materials recovery facility may also incorporate facilities for composting the organic portion of the waste stream. Truck and car traffic is the dominant impact of a transfer station or materials recovery facility. Passenger cars, light trucks, and collection packer vehicles deposit waste into a covered receiving pit or directly into a large transfer trailer. The trailers are then pulled by truck to the landfill for ultimate disposal. b. Energy/Resource Recovery Facility The most common type of FJRR facilities accept unprocessed or preprocessed mixed solid waste and through incineration produce an energy product, usually steam or electricity, which is used by a utility or industry. The primary purpose of this facility is to reduce the volume and weight of waste and to alter the characteristics of the waste by oxidizing it This process produces air emissions and an ash residue, which must be disposed of in an incinerator ash landfill. High -efficiency air cleaning equipment is provided to filter the air emissions. C. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill At a mixed waste landfill, unprocessed municipal solid waste is delivered in trucks, compacted, and buried in cells between layers of earth. The organic components in the solid waste undergo biological and chemical decomposition and further compaction. Gas and liquids are released and inorganic compounds may undergo chemical decomposition. Many components, such as plastics, undergo decomposition at very slow rates. Leachate collection and disposal is provided as is a system for controlling gas emissions. At closure, the facility is capped to reduce rain infiltration and a long-term monitoring and maintenance program begins. d. Incinerator Ash Landfill An incinerator ash landfill accepts only processed waste in the form of bottom and fly ash from an FAR facility. After incineration, the bottom ash organic fraction may be less than S percent and consist mostly of carbonates and oxides. Fly ash contains a greater proportion of metals and other trace contaminants removed through the air cleaning process. Metals and other constituents may be leached from the ash under certain conditions of Ph and alkalinity. Leachate collection and disposal as well as dust control systems are provided. An ash landfill will generally be smaller than a mixed waste landfill and will have little odor and gas emissions. Some chemical reactions occur in an ashfill; however, its major role is as a long-term storage and disposal operation. e. Construction, Demolition, and Land clearing Waste Landfill A CDL landfill accepts waste mainly from land clearing, demolition, and construction activities. In addition to brush, stumps, and other inert land clearing waste materials, wood, plastics, drywall, roofing, and other construction materials may be present. This type of landfill may qualify as an inert landfill under the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) if materials that produce leachate, such as sheetrock and plaster, are not accepted. Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan B. Background C- 7 Once deposited and buried, compaction and decomposition occur in which small amounts of gas and leachate are likely to be generated. A leachate collection and disposal system will be required. Heavy diesel trucks and some lighter weight trucks will haul waste to the site and this type of landfill will have traffic impacts similar to those of a mixed waste landfill. However, odor associated with waste decomposition should be substantially less. 2. Relationship to Other Facility Planning Studies In May 1987, in anticipation of the closure of the Newcastle CDL landfill, the King County Council requested the Executive to: "... develop a plan for locating sites for each of the solid waste disposal facilities (E/RR facilities, demolition debris landfill(s), ash landfill, transfer stations, and any other needed facilities) anticipated within the 20th Century. This plan shall provide for identification of multiple site alternatives for each facility, comparison of the alternatives through an EIS, a process for public review of the alternatives and EIS findings, and recommendations to the Council, including equitable distribution of these disposal facilities within the County." (King County Council Motion 6862) In June 1987, the King County Solid Waste Division issued a final E/RR management plan and a declaration of significance and scoping notice for the siting of one or more 2,000 -ton -per -day E/RR facilities within the County. An extensive site screening and selection process was initiated at the same time the scoping notice was issued. That process eventually resulted in the naming of seven alternative sites as potential locations for the E/RR facility. In response to concerns expressed during scoping, the County reevaluated the course of the E/RR program. On January 15, 1988, in Motion 8383, the King County Council requested the Executive to pursue environmental analysis and mitigation studies of an FAR facility and other solid waste management programs to serve King County. The resulting Programmatic HS on Solid Waste Management Alternatives provided the basis for an Executive recommendation and a Council decision regarding the County's desired solid waste management programs (King County Code [KCC] 10.22). 3. Siting Location Constraint The siting of a solid waste facility site is governed by both the location of the identified service area and by specific siting location constraints imposed by the County. The service area determination recognizes a solid waste management need within a specific area A siting area constraint is a policy decision that limits the area in which a prospective facility site is to be located. Siting constraints for smaller local service facilities are usually functions of service need, land use and transportation patterns, zoning, and land availability. For example, a transfer station will serve best if it can be located within its intended service area If it cannot be located near the center of waste generation, use may be inconvenient and the facility may be underutilized. For large regional service facilities --such as landfills and E/RR—legal, political, and cost issues form the basis of site location constraints. The location of a landfill may be restricted to a portion of the regional service area or outside of the service area entirely. The County has the greatest degree of legal and political control in the unincorporated area of the County. Within incorporated areas, the County has the ability to acquire property through adverse condemnation and to obtain land use permits from the host jurisdiction. Without an interlocal agreement in place, the County is severely limited in its ability to site and permit a solid waste facility outside the County. A jurisdiction in another county or a private developer could perform the siting and permitting functions for the County. However, before the County could transport waste to the facility, an interlocal agreement with the host community would be necessary. B. Background Appendix C. Solid Waste Facylity Siting Plan Based on experience gained elsewhere, it may be anticipated that the solid waste facility siting process for major disposal and handling facilities will likely generate independent site offers from outside the service area. Thus, a siting process that is initially constrained to a local service area or to the County as a whole can evolve into a process of negotiating for solid waste facility capacity in a facility outside of the County. C. SITING CRITERIA This section defines siting criteria and describes how they are developed for use in facility -specific siting studies. General criteria categories are discussed for each type of facility included in the siting plan, as called for in the State Solid Waste Planning Guidelines (WDOE 90. 11.) Regulatory exclusion criteria for disposal sites such as mixed waste and ash landfills are discussed in detail, and—where applicable—maps are provided that depict the exclusion areas on a regional level. 1. Introduction When solid waste facilities are sited and constructed there may be unavoidable adverse impacts on the natural and built environments. A goal of the siting process is to select sites that allow impacts to be reduced, eliminated, or mitigated. Sites are sought that achieve the above stated goal by virtue of their setting and onsite features. Solid waste siting criteria are developed to serve as the tests by which potential sites are analyzed to determine their suitability. The impacts and requirements of the different types and sizes of solid waste facilities vary significantly. Those of a rural drop -box facility can be substantially different from those of a complex waste processing and incineration facility. The criteria used in judging the suitability of a site will therefore be different for each facility type. The purpose of siting criteria is to allow differentiation between sites, to distinguish those sites that are more suitable, and to help identify those that are unacceptable. The siting criteria will usually set forth a standard of acceptability and measure divergence from this standard positively or negatively. There are many desirable features of an ideal site. Most of these would not, if absent, constitute a reason for rejecting a site. They may be made up for by other attributes of a site or they simply may indicate that the site is not perfect. These features form the basis for developing relational criteria to compare different sites. Regulatory exclusionary criteria are criteria that indicate selection of a site would require a variance from an established regulatory standard. Such sites would not be selected unless feasible alternatives were unavailable. Physical exclusionary criteria are criteria that define conditions under which it would be impossible to construct and operate a facility. a Siting Criteria Categories The process of developing facility -specific siting criteria will involve development of tests that identify desirable features of sites, differentiate between sites, and identify features that make a site unacceptable. To help direct the development of these tests, criteria may be organized into categories. One example of the various framework systems that can be utilized is the classification of elements of the environment set forth in the State Environmental Policy Act (Figure C.2). Subcategories could be combined and further breakdown added where appropriate. Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria (1) Natural Environment (a) Earth () () Geology (i) (i) Soils (iii) (iii) Topography (iv) Unique Physical Features (v) Erosion/Enlargement of Land Area (Accretion) (b) Air (i) Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans and to (i) Air Quality Estimated Population (i) Odor Housing (ii) Climate (c) Water (iv) Aesthetics (i) Surface Water Movement/Quantity/Quality Recreation (ii) Runoff/Absorption Historic and Cultural Preservation (iii) Floods Agricultural Crops (iv) Groundwater Movement/Quantity/Quality (v) Public Water Supplies (d) Plants and Animals Vehicular Traffic (i) Habitat for and Numbers or Diversity of Species Waterborne, Rail, and Air Traffic of Plants, Fish, or Other Wildlife Parking (ii) Unique Species Movement/Circulation of People or Goods (iii) Fish or Wildlife Migration Routes (e) Energy and Natural Resources Public Services and Utilities (i) Amount Required/Rate of Use/Efficiency Fire (ii) Source/Availability Police (ii) Nonrenewable Resources Schools (iv) Conservation and Renewable Resources Parks or Other Recreational Facilities (v) Scenic Resources Figure C.2 WAC 197-11-444: SEPA elements of the environment. C-9 (2) Built Environment (a) Environmental Health () Noise (i) Risk of Explosion (iii) Releases or Potential Releases to the Environment Affecting Public Health, such as Toxic or Hazardous Materials (b) Land and Shoreline Use (i) Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans and to Estimated Population (i) Housing (ii) Light and Glare (iv) Aesthetics (v) Recreation (v) Historic and Cultural Preservation (vi) Agricultural Crops (c) Transportation (i) Transportation Systems (ii) Vehicular Traffic (ii) Waterborne, Rail, and Air Traffic (iv) Parking (v) Movement/Circulation of People or Goods (v) Traffic Hazards (d) Public Services and Utilities (i) Fire (ii) Police (iii) Schools (iv) Parks or Other Recreational Facilities (v) Maintenance (v) Communications (vi) Water/Stormwater (vii) Sewer/Solid Waste (ix) Other Governmental Services or Utilities The Solid Waste Management Recovery and Recycling Act (RCW 70.95.090) lists the following categories of criteria for siting solid waste disposal facilities: • geology • cover material • groundwater • capacity • soil • climatic factors • flooding • land use • surface water • toxic air emissions • slope • all other factors as determined by the Department The King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) set specific locational standards for these categories. The siting criteria apply to all new and expanded disposal sites, including landfills and landspreading disposal sites. They do not apply to E/RR or transfer stations and most inert or demolition waste sites. C. Siting Criteria Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Suing Plan 7 C-1 0 40 :-1 The State Solid Waste Planning Guidelines (WDOE 90.11) specify that plans must discuss these disposal facility siting standards and any other siting criteria or policies developed by the local governments. In addition, maps are to be provided, as appropriate, to illustrate each criterion and a composite of the regulatory exclusion criteria. Section 10 of the Special Incinerator Ash Disposal Act (Substitute Senate Bill 5570), passed at the 50th Legislative Regular Session, directed the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to develop and submit ash management rules for legislative review. The Special Incinerator Ash Management Rules (WAC 173-306) became effective in May 1990 and contain criteria that apply to the location of incinerator ash disposal facilities. For the purposes of this nonfacility -specific site plan, criteria categories are reviewed using the framework of the siting criteria system set forth in RCW 70.95 and KCBOHC Title 10. This section will review the siting considerations of waste handling and disposal facilities. It will focus first on mixed solid waste landfills for which regulatory exclusionary criteria have been developed through KCBOHC 10.36. Following this will be a discussion of ash landfill siting based on the published ash management standards. Following this will be a discussion of siting considerations for the other facility types: CDL waste landfills, transfer stations, and E/RR facilities. After discussing siting considerations, an example of a detailed evaluation criterion will be presented and discussed. b. General Criteria Review For mixed waste landfills, each of the locational criteria categories is discussed in terms of the requirements in the MFS and the applicability to the County at a regional scale as required in the planning guidelines. The review included in the Siting Plan is general and intended to be a guide for initiating a full-scale siting study for a specific facility. Some of the locational standards discussed require evaluation of very detailed or widely dispersed information and are not appropriate for evaluating the County at a regional scale. These criteria are site-specific and would be used when evaluating sites during a facility -specific siting study. Other criteria can be evaluated at the regional scale. Both regional and site-specific criteria are discussed, with emphasis placed on regional criteria_ Mapping opportunities for the locational standards are listed and maps included when readily available. The Siting Plan also addresses criteria that are important to solid waste facility siting in King County, but which are not addressed in state regulations. After a discussion of each of the locational standards, local siting issues are addressed. This is followed by a summary review of the regulatory exclusionary criteria identified in the previous discussion. 2. Mixed Waste Landfills a. Regulatory Criteria Review (1) Geology and Soil • Regulatory Standard. "No facility shall be located over a Holocene fault, in subsidence areas, or on or adjacent to geologic features which could compromise the structural integrity of the facility." (KCBOHC 10.32.020) This locational standard refers primarily to geologic hazard areas. Such areas include potentially active (earthquake producing) fault zones, landslide areas, and subsidence areas. Mitigation is normally not possible, and such criteria are considered exclusionary. This criterion can be used on a regional basis, to a limited degree, to exclude areas for consideration for siting a disposal facility. Figure C.3 shows areas mapped by King County as probable coal mine subsidence hazard areas. These and other data that must be applied on a site-specific basis are contained in the sensitive areas inventory mapping by King County. Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria . .................................................... ...... .............................................. ........ .... ..................................................... .............................................. C -11 mere G3 subsiaence nazara areas. • Surju=I Geology. This category defines broad geologic settings based on the glacial and nonglacial geology that exists in the County. These geologic units typically exhibit material properties that either decrease or increase the potential for groundwater contamination. Fractured or otherwise permeable bedrock increases the potential for leachate migration. Other conditions relate to the distance from fault zones, creating buffer zones around these geologic hazards. Preferably a site would be located in till, or other consolidated sediments. less desirable would be areas of bedrock within close proximity to a major fault or fracture zone. Some of this information is available on the Generalized Geological Map, Figure CA To some extent, these criteria can be considered on a regional basis. • Geologic Materials. This category addresses the earth materials beneath the site and considers the permeability of the materials and the propensity for contaminant attenuation. This is a site-specific criterion, which would be used for evaluating candidate sites against one another. The data requirements for making this evaluation are much greater than for the category discussed above. M C. Siting Criteria Appendix C. Solid Waste Facday Siting Plan C -12 Figure CA Generalized surface geologic map of King County. ow VGLACIAL 'IDED AL DEPOSITS ;ITS J Survey. 1975. aphis map). United B Mlia unconsolidated coarse-grained material (e.g., gravel) would have a high permeability and little or no capacity for attenuation contaminants (e.g., sorption, cation exchange, capacity, etc.). A fine-grained material, such as clay or till, would retard the downward movement of water and attenuate selected potential contaminants, particularly heavy metals. • Soil Characteristics. Soil and other onsite earth materials are used in landfill construction and operation for bottom liners, caps, final cover, daily and intermediate cover, dikes, and roads. The availability of these materials on site influences the cost of site development and operation. Fine-grained materials (silt and clay) are useful for liners and caps, while coarse-grained materials (sand and gravel) are useful for gas venting and backfill for leachate collection systems. Because soil and onsite earth materials characteristics are also important for cover material, the discussion applies to cover material as well Sites underlain by At and clay soils would generally be superior to other sites because of the groundwater protection provided by these soils. Sites with only sand and gravel would be less desirable, because these sites would require extensive engineering to Appendix C.• Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria • - 1 •................................................................................................................................................................ C 3 • • • • provide the same level of groundwater protection. Sites with both coarse- and fine-grained materials would be better than either of • the above, depending on the amounts and the layering of the materials. The sequential order in which the different layers of material are laid down can be extremely important from an engineering perspective. Coarse-grained materials layered above • fine-grained materials could be desirable because the upper layer could be excavated for roads and daily cover, leaving the fine- grained materials in place for groundwater protection. In a siting study, the soil survey information would be supplemented by field • studies to evaluate soil characteristics. • (2) Groundwater • • Regulatory Standard. "No facility shall be located at a site where the bottom of the lowest liner is any less than ten feet above • the seasonal high level of ground water in the uppermost aquifer, or five feet when a hydraulic gradient control system or the equivalent has been installed to control ground water fluctuations ..." • "No landfill shall be located over a sole source aquifer, and ..." "No facility's active area shall be located closer than one thousand feet to a downgradient drinking water supply well, in use • and existing at the time of the County's adoption of the comprehensive solid waste management plan unless the owner or operator can show that the active area is no less than 90-days' travel time hydraulically to the nearest downgradient drinking • water supply well in the uppermost usable aquifer. (KCBOHC 10.32.020) Of these exclusionary criteria, only the second one—sole-source aquifer designation—�can be applied on a regional basis. In • North King County there is a portion of the cross valley aquifer that has been designated as sole source in the Federal Register. In • central King County, the Cedar Valley aquifer has been designated. A map of sole-source aquifers is included as Figure C.S. • Groundwater Flow Systems. The position of a site with respect to groundwater flow systems increases or decreases the potential . for exposure to groundwater contamination. Hydrologic gradient or potentiometric surface effects provide a basis for assessing such exposure potential when considered in consort with groundwater recharge/discharge area relationships. Preferably, a disposal site • would not be located in the discharge area of a local or regional aquifer. Locating above a sole-source aquifer recharge area would be an exclusionary criterion. • This information is, for the most part, not readily available at a regional level. The groundwater flow system criteria are • most appropriately considered on a site-specific basis. • Well Densitrss. A majority of King County residents rely on surface water sources for their domestic and industrial needs. • Because of the relative lack of demand on the groundwater resource, little information is currently available on the status of King County aquifers. Several municipalities and water districts in King County either supplement their surface water supply with • groundwater, or rely on groundwater as their primary water source. In rural areas of the County, individual wells are used for • residential water needs. As can be seen in Figure C.S, most of the major groundwater withdrawals are located in the central and southern areas of the County. Ecology records water wells drilled in each section of the County. However, in many areas reported • wells represent less than 25 percent of the actual number of wells. Surveys will be needed to confirm distance to active wells for each candidate site. • • Groundwater Depth. The depth to the water table is important from the standpoint of potential groundwater contamination. The deeper the groundwater, the greater the opportunity for contaminant attenuation in the unsaturated zone. The water table, which • is referred to in this category, is the areawide water table or the seasonal high level of groundwater in the uppermost aquifer, and • not groundwater seasonally perched in shallow surficial soils. As mentioned under Regulatory Standard above, siting a landfill where the depth to the uppermost aquifer is less than 10 feet requires a hydraulic gradient control system or equivalent. This condition • cannot be considered an exclusion because of the engineering alternatives allowed for mitigation. This is a site-specific siting criterion, which requires detailed data on specific sites. Maps on a regional basis are not available. • • • C. Siting Criteria Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan • C - 14 t f VAS ON I ISLAND U Figure C.S Suifam water aquifers, and groundwater withdrawal areas. -,BA ------------ J Sole source aquifer • Areas of major groundwater withdrawals] \ for public water supplies Urban boundaries • mater Table Gradient and Direction. The water table gradient directly influences the rate of groundwater flow. The greater the velocity, the greater the potential for contaminants to move off site and impact nearby wells. This is a site-specific criterion and can be applied only after detailed site investigations. • Proximity to Wells. The contamination of drinking water wells by waste disposal operations is unacceptable; therefore, the greater the distance such sites are from existing, active drinking water wells, the more favorable the site. Where drinking water wells are located adjacent to a large site, adequate setbacks could be designed into the site plan and maintain protection of water supplies. An inventory of wells and beneficial use survey would need to be conducted to acquire this information. This criterion would apply to specific candidate sites. • Groundwater Hydrologic Boundaries/Beneftdal Use. Hydrologic boundaries tend to intercept shallow or deep groundwater flow and include: rivers, sloughs, lakes, ditches, restrictive layers of sediment or bedrock, and groundwater divides. Groundwater flow /lppenda- C.' Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C Siting Criteria • (3) Flooding • Regulatory Standard. "All owners or operators of landfills that are located in a 100 -year floodplain shalL• Comply with local floodplain • management ordinances and chapter 508-60 WAC, Administration of flood control zones; and ... Design the landfill so that the landfill entrance or exit roads or practices shall not restrict the flow of the base flood, reduce the temporary • water storage capacity of the floodplain or result in washout of solid waste, so as to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, land or water resources." (KCBOHC 10.36.070) Other than local floodplain management ordinances, this standard does not pose a specific exclusionary standard in siting a • landfill with regard to flooding. However, location within a 100 -year floodplain would require extraordinary flood protection measures. • • Flooding. The potential impacts to the public health and water resources associated with flooding at a solid waste disposal site are very serious. For this reason, location within a 100 -year floodplain is considered an exclusionary criterion. Figure C.5 shows 100 -year floodplain throughout the County. (4) Surface Water • Regulatory Standard. "No facility's active area shall be located within 200 feet measured horizontally, of a stream, lake, pond, river, or saltwater body, nor in any wetland nor any public land that is being used by a public water system for watershed control for municipal drinking water purposes in accordance with WAC 248-54-660(4)" (KCBOHC 10.32.020). The distance of a potential site from surface water is an important consideration. Without carefully controlling design and operation, surface water bodies can be contaminated by surface water runoff and/or groundwater originating from a solid waste disposal site. Therefore, the farther a site is from water bodies, the less potential for contamination and the more suitable it is for disposal. Surface water bodies include perennial streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and marshes as defined in Chapter 90-58 RCI, the Shoreline Management Act. The locational standard also specifies that public land included in watershed control for a public water system be excluded from landfill siting consideration. Sites located adjacent to perennial surface water require significantly more complex design, management, and operation to protect against runoff, washout, and groundwater/surface water contamination. Surface water bodies are easily identified on most maps of the County. Public water system watershed boundaries are not as easily defined. No composite map exists. Public water system operators (involving major surface water supplies) were contacted to determine if watershed control was exercised. The survey results were generalized and included on a map as Figure C.S. This level of analysis is appropriate at the regional scale. However, site-specific information on watershed control and location of surface water bodies and a review of the King County Shoreline Management Use Regulations will be necessary when looking at individual sites. • (5) Slope • Regulatory Standard. "No facility's active area shall be located on any hill whose slope is unstable;" (KCBOHC 10.32.020). Site topography is important from both environmental and operational viewpoints. Steeply sloping land has a greater potential for slope • stability problems and can result in increased runoff, which could carry contaminants off site, and potentially jeopardize ground- or surface water quality. C. Siting Criteria Appeiam C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C-1 6 • Slope. Site topography can have both positive and negative impacts for the development of a solid waste disposal site. Because of the engineering problems involved, it is good if the actual disposal area presents a gentle grade. Access roads have minimum grade constraints for truck and equipment access; however, disposal areas hidden behind hills may have less visual impact. In addition, a site located in a natural depression or valley may he preferable because excavation operations would be limited. However, this may be impossible to achieve due to ground- and surface water problems in such depressions. Topography maps are available from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on quad sheets. Converting the topography information to percentage slope and generalizing the information to the regional scale needed for this preliminary siting analysis would be time consuming. In addition, the generalization that would, of necessity, take place would remove information and possibly misrepresent a potentially suitable or unsuitable area. King County Planning has slope maps available in its Sensitive Areas Map. They are not included here because of the detail, size, and number of maps involved. (6) Cover Matertal Information on cover material was provided in Subsection (a) Geology and Soil. (7) Capacity • Regulatory Standard. "Small landfill designs. For a landfill whose design and permit allow a total capacity at closure of two hundred thousand cubic yards or less, the need for a liner and leachate collection system shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the jurisdictional health department in consultation with the department." (KCBOHC 10.36.060) "All owners and operators shall design landfills, having a permitted capacity of greater than ten thousand cubic yards per year, so that methane and other gases are continuously collected, and (A) Purified for sale; (B) Flared; or (C) Utilized for its energy value. (KCBOHC 10.36.090) "Weigh all incoming waste on scales for landfills having a permitted capacity of greater than ten thousand cubic yards per year or provide an equivalent method of measuring waste tonnage capable of estimating total annual solid waste tonnage to within plus or minus five percent;" (KCBOHC 10.36.120) "Insure that at least two landfill personnel are on-site with one person at the active face when the site is open to the public for landfills with a permitted capacity of greater than fifty thousand cubic yards per year." (KCBOHC 10.32.210) The regulatory standards quoted above specify various landfilling standards that are applied based on size. Any new municipal solid waste landfill sited in King County can be anticipated to be of such size that all capacity -dependent standards would apply. Capacity needs are an important criterion for siting a landfill because the capacity needs determine the size of a parcel needed. These needs would be established in conjunction with decisions on other waste management options. (8) Climatic Factors • Regulatory Standard. "See WAC 173-304-400 such as WAC 173-304-460, Landfilling Standards, (for standards applicable to and climates;" (WAC 173304-130[21[i]). The standards applicable to and climates refer to "locations having less than twelve inches of precipitation annually ..." (WAC 173-304-460[31 [c] [iv]). Annual rainfall in all areas of the county exceeds 12 inches annually. • Precipilalion. The principal operational concern associated with precipitation is leachate generation. Ideally, the lower the annual precipitation level, the smaller the amount of leachate generated. This criterion can be evaluated regionally with data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Weather Bureau. This map is included as Figure C.6. Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria "So that the active area is any closer than one hundred feet to the facility property line for land zoned as nonresidential, except that the active area may be no closer than two hundred and fifty feet to the property line of adjacent land zoned as residential existing at the time of the county's adoption of the comprehensive solid waste management plan; "So as to be at variance with any locally adopted land use plan or zoning requirement unless otherwise provided by local law or ordinance; and "So that the active area is any closer than one thousand feet to any state or national park" (KCBOHC 10.32.020) Each of these restrictions places regulatory exclusions based on land use. These are discussed below. • Airports. The Federal Aviation Administration has stipulated that landfills cannot be located near airports unless a waiver is obtained. Granting of this waiver is dependent on the lack of a bird problem. Birds that are attracted to landfills pose a hazard to aircraft. The location of airports is accurately indicated on the Seattle Sectional Aeronautical Chart, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mapping of these criteria is possible and is included on Figure C.7. All airports are mapped with a 10,000 -foot radius for two reasons: all public airports will accept jet -powered aircraft, and a minimal runway (1,800 feet) can accommodate some of the newer jet aircraft. • Critical Habitat. Areas designated as critical habitat by the referenced agencies are considered regulatory exclusions for landfill siting. At this time there are no areas designated as such in King County. However, sites may be designated in the future, so this criterion should remain in the Siting Plan • Residential Neighbors. Landfills are generally considered to be incompatible with high-density residential areas because of impacts such as noise, birds, traffic, and odor. From a practical point of view, population density is directly related to land values and lack of available tracts of land in the size typically required for a landfill. At the time of actual siting, population densities would be assessed. Guiding and exclusionary criteria would then be established. • Zoning. The existing King County Zoning Code requires an Unclassified Use Permit for landfills in any zone. Landfill operations not consistent with permit restrictions/conditions would be considered exclusionary. • State or National Parks. The active area of a landfill can be no closer than 1,000 feet of any state or national park (KCBOHC 10.32.020). This information is available on most maps of the County and from state and national agencies. Figure C.7 illustrates the locations of these parks and the buffer zone. (10) Air Emissions • Regulatory Standard. An owner or operator of a landfill shall not allow explosive gases generated by the facility whose concentration exceeds: "(A) Twenty-five percent of the lower explosive limit for the gases in facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery system components); (B) The lower explosive limit for the gases at the property boundary or beyond; and (C) One hundred parts per million by volume of hydrocarbons (expressed as methane) in off-site structures. "An owner or operator of a landfill shall not cause a violation of any ambient air quality standard at the property boundary or emission standard from any emission of landfill gases, combustion or any other emission associated with a landfill" (KCBOHC 10.36.020) The standards that are referenced in the locational standards refer primarily to design and operation of a facility and do not directly relate to site characteristics before landfilling. Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria ............................................................................................ S C-19 Regulatory exclusion areas Airport exclusion areas - State and national narks figure C.7 Composite of regulatory exclusion areas, airport exclusion areas, and state and national parks. Air Quality. If an area is already in a nonattainment area for specific air pollutants, such as particulates, this can be used as a • iscriminating factor for siting. Air quality nonattainment areas are shown in Figure C.8. This is not considered an exclusion riterion. • Local Siting Issues In addition to the siting criteria discussed above, there are disposal facility siting issues and concerns that are specific to • 3nditions in King County and that are not contained in any regulations. These issues are recommended to be considered in any . :cility-specific siting effort, although no specific criteria guide is offered. Siting Criteria Appendix C.• Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan t� is 99 • 1 Cn �o SEA 1� jv 1 i 1 4SHON 3LAvND • J C-19 Regulatory exclusion areas Airport exclusion areas - State and national narks figure C.7 Composite of regulatory exclusion areas, airport exclusion areas, and state and national parks. Air Quality. If an area is already in a nonattainment area for specific air pollutants, such as particulates, this can be used as a • iscriminating factor for siting. Air quality nonattainment areas are shown in Figure C.8. This is not considered an exclusion riterion. • Local Siting Issues In addition to the siting criteria discussed above, there are disposal facility siting issues and concerns that are specific to • 3nditions in King County and that are not contained in any regulations. These issues are recommended to be considered in any . :cility-specific siting effort, although no specific criteria guide is offered. Siting Criteria Appendix C.• Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan X .................... ......................... . ................ . . ........ .......... I .......... ... ................ . .. . . .... . . ..... ...... X ...... . .... . ............... . ......... ................... . ................ X . ................. . ........ :X . ......... ::X"", :: ... : .......... ................. .... ............. .......................... .......... ............. .............. C-2 ... .. ... . ... . . . . . .... . .. . ...... . ................. : .I......- ... I ........... .................. . ........... . ........... ............. . .... . . ... .................... . . ......... ........... . i .. ............ .......................... ......... ................ ... ......... ................... Figure C.8 Air quality nonattalrunent areas. Source: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1991. (1) Zoning and Land Use Existing zoning regulations do not directly address the siting of solid waste disposal facilities and allow landfills through Unclassified Use Permits. Zoning and land use issues related to landfill siting that may be considered by King County during a facility -specific study include: • Preference for a site with preferred zoning on adjacent properties to ensure that development is compatible with the landfill. • Preference for sites where utilities and public services are available or planned for the proposed site. APPOa= C.- Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Song cr*?74 i:..... ...:' :j::...... ::: 'i:...... ..-..... •is �:i::ii::i:-:iL.i:.i::�: i::i'L:::i':ii:i::: �S:f}:is�Y:ii::i•isi':i::i :.:t.:::::i:[ii:::i`:':::::: ":''':.:'::.:: ':: Siiiii iiiri::':..:.iY�i v-':.:::: C 21 (2) Operational Issues Operational issues pertain to site characteristics that affect the design of the landfill with regard to gas control, leachate management, accessibility, transportation, and daily operations. • Gas Control. Gas control system requirements at a landfill will vary depending on a number of factors, including topography, underlying geology and soils, acceleration of decomposition processes in the landfill, and distance to adjacent land uses/buildings. Preference should be given to those sites where gas control requirements are minimized. • Leachate Management. Requirements for a leachate control system will vary depending on a number of factors, including underlying geology and soils, precipitation, and access to leachate disposal options. Preference should be given to those sites where leachate management system requirements are minimized. • (3) Transportation • • Location in Relation to haste Source. Haul costs will constitute a substantial portion of total disposal costs. Potential landfill sites should be located as close as possible to the center of waste generation. • • Access Road Development. Access refers to the road system to be used in transporting solid waste from collection points to the landfill site. If County roads are used, then any required improvements to bring the roads up to required capacity and safety standards must be included as project costs. Proximity to a state highway system would potentially reduce road improvement costs and would be preferable. • N& Impact. This criterion category should compare possible sites in relation to the potential impact which the transport of • the solid waste from the transfer stations and/or areas of collection would have on areas through which trucks would be required to travel. It is anticipated that the transport of wastes could have potential secondary impacts on safety, air quality, and noise. The • most desirable site in this category would be one that would be accessed through low-density areas. • Daily Operations. Climatic conditions such as high wind speeds, extreme cold or snow conditions, and high rainfall --place burdens on operations at a landfill. Preference should be given to sites with low wind speeds, low rainfall, and milder temperatures. C. Exclusionary Criteria The exclusionary criteria that can be applied at the regional scale as described above are summarized below: • Groundwater. Sole -source aquifer recharge zone. • Flooding. Within a 100 -year floodplain • Surface Water. Less than 200 feet from major surface water bodies or public water system watershed boundary. • Land Use. Sites within 5,000 feet of an airport serving propeller -driven aircraft or 10,000 feet from an airport serving jet - powered aircraft; areas designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Department of Game as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife; areas where landfill operations are excluded based on overlay or other zoning restrictions; within 1,000 feet of any state or national park To summarize, the following individual maps have been prepared to illustrate some of the siting criteria for disposal sites discussed above: subsidence hazard areas; generalized geological map of King County-, sole -source aquifers, major well fields, public watersheds, and surface water, annual precipitation, airport exclusion areas, state and national parks, and composite of exclusionary criteria air quality nonattainment areas. The final map, Figure C.11, is a composite of the regulatory exclusionary criteria that can be mapped readily at the regional scale, and includes the exclusions shown on the other maps. C. Siting Criteria AXmdtx C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C-2 2 d. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing (CDL) Waste Landfills The Newcastle Landfill, the primary permitted facility for CDL waste in King County, closed in 1990 after reaching the maximum allowed capacity under the Unclassified Use Permit approved by the County Council in 1987. In anticipation of the closure, the 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan recommended that the County develop programs to increase waste reduction and recycling of CDL materials and contract with one or more private vendors to provide waste handling services for CDL waste. Since 1989, the County has actively promoted CDL programs and has selected two vendors to begin handling CDL wastes (See Chapter V, Section D, CDL Waste). In previous years there has been a substantial difference between the regulatory approach to the permitting of CDL landfills and that used for mixed waste landfills. With the development of the new King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10), the distinction between the two has decreased. Although the regulations for siting "inert and demolition waste" landfills are less stringent than regulations for siting mixed waste landfills, inert landfills may not accept sheetrock, plaster, or other demolition wastes that might produce gases or leachate. (KCBOHC 10.52) The King County CDL waste stream appears likely to contain amounts of waste that do not qualify as "inert" waste under KCBOHC Title 10 (1991 King County Waste Characterization Study, Appendix Q. Private developers of new CDL disposal facilities could institute a waste screening program in order to ensure that only waste that qualifies as inert is accepted, or they could choose instead to site and build a landfill to the mixed waste standards. For the purposes of this study, a conservative approach is to assume that a new CDL landfill would be sited under the Locational Standards applicable to mixed waste landfills set forth in KCBOHC 10.32. Further, it is anticipated that a new site would have a liner and conform to the requirements for leachate collection and groundwater monitoring requirements. Should the County enter into the siting of a CDL facility siting process, the locational criteria covered in this plan under mixed waste landfills would be applicable. 3. Incinerator Ash Landfills a. Regulatory Locational Standards Siting of incinerator ash disposal facilities is regulated under the Incinerator Ash Disposal Standards (WAC 173-306) b. Local Siting issues In addition to the siting criteria discussed above, there are ash disposal facility siting issues and concerns that are specific to conditions in King County and which are not contained in the ash management regulations. These issues are recommended to be considered in a facility -specific siting effort, although no specific criteria guide is offered. (1) Zoning and land Use As for mixed waste landfills, King County zoning regulations do not directly address the siting of ash disposal facilities and allow these facilities through Unclassified Use Permits. Zoning and land use issues related to ash landfill siting that may be considered by King County during the development of detailed facility -specific criteria are the same as for mixed waste landfills: • Preference for a site with preferred zoning on adjacent properties to ensure that development is compatible with the ash landfill • Preference for sites where utilities and public services are available or planned for the proposed site. Appendix C.- Solid [haste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria C-2 3 (2) Operationallsmes As for mixed waste landfills, certain operational issues pertain to desired site characteristics that affect the design of the landfill: leachate management, accessibility, and daily operations. • Leachate Management. Requirements for a leachate control system will vary depending on a number of factors, including underlying geology and soils, precipitation, and access to leachate disposal options. Preference should be given to those sites where leachate management system requirements are minimized. • Accessibility. Over the We of a facility, haul costs can make up a significant portion of E/RR ash disposal costs. Potential land- fill sites should be located as close as practicable to the E/RR facility and where the existing road system will not be adversely affected. • Daily Operations. Climatic conditions such as high wind speeds, extreme cold or snow conditions, and high rainfall place burdens on operations at an ash landfill. Preference should be given to sites with low wind speeds, low rainfall, and milder temperatures. c. Exclusionary Criteria A map of composite regional exclusion criteria for incinerator ashfills would be very similar to that developed for mixed waste I andfills. They would differ in that areas around airports would not be excluded for ash landfills due to the absence of bird hazard • near the facilities. Another smaller difference is the exclusion of the 500 -year floodplain for ash landfills. The 500 -year floodplain is not mapped regionally so it would be considered on a site-specific basis. 4. Transfer Station/Recycling Processing Centers Solid waste transfer stations/recycling processing centers are not subject to the siting criteria set forth in RCW 70.95.165 and in KCBOHC Title 10. These facilities are interim solid waste handling facilities that are sited based on determination of local service area needs. Because transfer stations and recycling processing centers are not subject to the broad regulatory locational constraints of landfills, and since local conditions and needs drive the siting of such facilities, countywide or regional mapping of siting criteria is not fruitful. The approach will be to discuss, for each category of criteria listed previously, the features that will tend to make a site more suitable for development. Throughout the discussion, when the term transfer station is used it refers to a transfer station/recycling processing center combination facility or to a separate recycling processing center. a. Geology and Soil The geology of subsurface materials is important in determining foundation stabilities for roadways and building structures. Sites with unstable foundation materials will be very difficult and expensive to develop for transfer station use. b. Groundwater (1) Water rable Deptb Sites with shallow water tables have a high potential for flooding waste pit and transfer truck loading areas. Shallow water tables may be diverted with underdrains in some areas. If diversion is impossible, the entire building structure may require construction on a large manmade embankment. Sites with deeper water tables would be more desirable than sites with higher water table levels. C. Siting Criteria Aamdtr C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C-2 4 C. Flooding The flood hazard category is important for solid waste transfer operations. Since floods can produce excessive amounts of debris requiring disposal, it is important that waste disposal facilities remain operable. Sites within the 100 -year floodplain are less preferable to sites located outside of it. d. Surface Water As local service facilities, transfer stations are located where service need dictates. With the rare exception of facilities requiring access to barge haul, facilities do not require siting within close proximity to surface water bodies. It is also true that a transfer station can be sited within proximity to water bodies if shoreline management designations permit. e. Site Capacity (1) Site Size and Shape The size and shape of a site will determine the layout of transfer station facilities, such as buildings and roads. A potential site must be large enough to contain all facilities and also small enough to reduce wasted land area. Parcels that are irregularly shaped are more difficult to develop than those that are rectangular. Required parcel size will depend on the planned vehicle and tonnage capacities, buffer requirements, onsite queueing capacity and onsite recycling and processing facilities. f. Slope Site topography is important because of excavation -to -fill ratios and site access. Sites on flat terrain may have good access for truck traffic but require excessive filling for construction- Sites located on hillsides may have excellent excavation -to -fill ratios but have grades too steep for truck access. For such conditions, excavation -to -fill ratios and access must be considered together for each site. g. Cover Material This criterion is not applicable to transfer station siting. h. Climatic Factors A transfer station may be a partially enclosed facility depending on climatic factors. Facilities generally are not subject to siting constraints due to wind, rain, snow, and freezing weather conditions. However, a site must be served by an all-weather road. L Land Use (1) Critical Habitat The nature of terrestrial habitat on or adjacent to a potential site is an important consideration because it is an indication of the extent of potential impacts on wildlife. The least preferable situation would be a site where transfer station construction and operation could significantly impact high-value habitat supporting endangered or threatened species. A better situation would be a facility site within an area of low -value habitat Agro div C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria A transfer station is a light industrial or commercial type of use and has substantial transportation -related needs. Transfer stations have been located in many types of settings, most commonly in commercial, industrial, or rural areas. Depending on land use patterns, these areas may be in proximity to residential areas. Vicinity land use is an important consideration because some land uses are associated with activities that are more susceptible to impacts from a transfer station than others. An industrial land use would be most compatible with a transfer station. The least compatible land uses would be residential land; land uses with sensitive receptors, such as schools, nursing homes, or hospitals; and recreational land. The type of recreational use that would be sensitive in this context is activity -oriented recreation with concentrated use patterns. • Access Road Development. Access refers to the road system to be used in transporting solid waste from collection points to the transfer station. If County roads are used, then any required improvements to bring the roads up to required capacity and safety standards must be included as project costs. Proximity to a state highway system would potentially reduce road improvement costs and would be preferable. • Raft Impact. This criteria category should compare the potential traffic impacts from collection trucks. It is anticipated that the transport of wastes could have potential secondary impacts on safety, air quality, and noise. The most desirable sites in this category would be those that would be accessed through low-density areas. j. Air Emissions The major air quality concerns of a transfer station will relate to traffic -generated air emissions and their impacts on areas through which solid waste is transported. Preferable sites would be situated in such a way as to reduce both the level and impacts of such emissions. 5. Energy/Resource Recovery Facilities • As interim solid waste handling facilities, F/RR facilities are not subject to the locational standards set forth in KCBOHC Title 10. The approach herein is to discuss, for each category of criteria listed previously, the features that will tend to make a site more suitable for FJRR development C. Suing Criteria AWWLT C. Solid Waste FaallVy Suing Plan C-26 a. Geology and Soils b. Groundwater (1) Water Table Deptb Sites with shallow water tables have a high potential for flooding the waste pit Shallow water tables may be diverted with underdrains in some areas. If diversion is impossible, the entire building structure might require construction on a large manmade embankment. Sites with deeper water tables would be more desirable than sites with high groundwater levels. c. Flooding The flooding criteria category is important for URR facility operations. It is important that an E/RR facility remain operable during floods. Sites located outside the 100 -year floodplain would be more desirable than facilities within the floodplain. d. Surface Water E/RR facilities are industrial type activities and may be located next to major water bodies if barge access is desired. Shoreline management master programs can have a significant effect on the length of time required to obtain permits for facilities. Some shoreline areas are protected from industrial types of use. With the exception of barge access there appears to be no overriding need to site an E/RR facility within close proximity of surface water bodies. There also appears to be no reason to avoid industrial sites close to water bodies if shoreline management requirements can be met. e. Slope While some slight slopes are acceptable and can be accommodated in the design of a resource recovery facility, a flat site is most desirable for ease of construction and operation. Excessively steep slopes would make the development of such a facility infeasible. Some large sites may have very steep slopes and not be dropped from consideration if there is sufficient flat land that is appropriately shaped for the facility. Thus, site topography must be evaluated in conjunction with site size and site shape in order to determine if the site has an appropriately shaped flat area that is large enough to efficiently accommodate the structures and activities at the E/RR facility. f. Capacity (1) Site Size and Sbape The size and shape of a site will determine the layout of facilities, such as building and roads. A potential site must be large enough to contain all facilities and also small enough to reduce wasted land area Site parcels that are irregularly shaped are more difficult to develop than those that are square to rectangular. Required site size will depend on the E/RR facility's tonnage capacity, Appendfr C Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria C-2% the specific equipment utilized, onsite vehicle queueing, and staging, buffers, and public access for visiting and for waste drop-off facilities, if provided. g. Climatic Fadors In the Pacific Northwest, an F/RR facility would be totally enclosed. The only siting constraints that would apply to such a facility would apply to the transportation system that delivers solid waste to the facility. Based on the need to maintain delivery of solid waste under all conditions, sites subject to excessive snow and freezing weather would be less preferable than sites without such constraints. h. Land Use (1) Airports • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed criteria that define situations in which a structure would pose a potential hazard to navigation. Given a maximum structure height for an FJRR facility, these criteria can be converted into criteria based on linear distance to runways of various lengths. If a site falls within one of these distance criteria, the FAA considers that a potential hazard to aircraft navigation exists and examines the specific situation in greater detail to determine if an actual hazard exists. Although the FAA has no specific regulatory authority in this regard, such a determination that a hazard exists would reduce . the likelihood that permits for the facility would be approved. • (2) Critical Habitats The nature of terrestrial habitat on or adjacent to a potential site is an important consideration because it is an indication of S the extent of potential impacts on wildlife. The least preferable situation would be a site where FJRR facility construction and • operation could significantly impact high-value habitat supporting endangered or threatened species. A better situation would be a facility site within an area of low -value habitat. • Areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Washington Department of Game as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species of plants, fish, and wildlife should be considered an exclusionary siting criteria. At this time there are no such areas designated in King County. However, sites may be designated in the future. (3) Residential Nelgbbors • FJRR facilities are industrial in nature and have substantial transportation -related needs. F/RR facilities have been located in industrial and heavy commercial business areas. Depending on land use patterns, these areas may be in proximity to residential areas. Vicinity land use is an important consideration because some land uses are associated with activities that are more susceptible to impacts from an FJRR facility than others. An industrial land use would be most compatible with an FJRR facility. The least • compatible land uses would be residential land; land uses with sensitive receptors, such as schools, nursing homes, or hospitals; and recreational land. The type of recreational use that would be sensitive in this context is activity -oriented recreation with concentrated use patterns. (4) Zoning • The most advantageous situation would occur ff the use of a site for an FJRR facility is consistent with that site's zoning. Consistency with zoning would increase the probability of obtaining necessary land use permits and minimize land use impacts. In C. Siting Criteria 4p endfr C: Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan (5) State or National Parks As for disposal sites, F./RR facilities should be located no closer than 1,000 feet to any state or national park (6) Traffic • Location in Relation to Waste Source. Haul costs will constitute a substantial portion of total disposal costs. Potential E/RR sites should be located as close as possible to the center of waste generation • Access Road Development. Access refers to the road system to be used in transporting solid waste from collection points to the E/RR facility. if county roads are used, then any required improvements to bring the roads up to required capacity and safety standards must be included as project costs. Proximity to a state highway system would potentially reduce road improvement costs and would be preferable. • Traffic Impact. This criteria category should compare sites in relation to the potential impact that the transport of the solid waste from the transfer stations and/or areas of collection would have on areas through which trucks would be required to travel. It is anticipated that the transport of wastes could have potential secondary impacts on safety, air quality, and noise. The most desirable site in this category would be one that would be accessed through low-density areas. L Air Emissions (1) Air Quality • Terrain. Air quality impacts are greatly influenced by terrain The proximity of terrain either above or at the final plume height (stack height plus plume rise) of a facility may result in air quality impact modeling predictions far higher than for a site in flat terrain. Sites without elevated terrain nearby would be preferable to sites with such adjacent terrain. • Attainment Status. If a site were in or near an area recognized by air quality permitting agencies as not meeting air quality standards (nonattainment areas) obtaining a permit for the F/RR facility could be more difficult. • Availability of Data. A PSD permit for an E/RR facility will require considerable detailed data on local meteorological conditions. Because these data are time consuming to gather, sites with suitable data would be more desirable than sites without data 6. Equitable Distribution of Solid Waste Facilities This section addresses the distribution facilities and impacts in King County. Various means of attempting equitable distribution are discussed. The King County Council, in Motion 6862, requires that the Siting Plan provide for equitable distribution of solid waste facilities throughout King County. Equitable means just and fair, reasonable, not extreme. It is important to note that equitable distribution does not mean equal distribution. Although the term equitable distribution of facilities is used in the Council motion, the motion also indicates that it is the Council's goal that the impacts associated with solid waste facilities should also be equitably distributed. The Preamble to King County Council Motion 6862 states: "... in the interest of equity these disposal facilities should be distributed around the County in a manner which assures that no single area of the County will absorb an unfair share of the impacts from these facilities." Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria 29 The potential impacts of the various types of solid waste disposal facilities can be quite different. Traffic and aesthetics are often primary concerns when siting a solid waste transfer station. In addition to these concerns, development of a landfill entails complex water and air quality issues and land use compatibility concerns. An E/RR facility will often present air quality issues that are unique. The siting constraints of solid waste facilities also differ substantially. A transfer station will require a small site (approximately 20 acres) and require location in an urban or suburban service area A landfill may require hundreds of acres and serve the entire County. The purpose of a transfer station will dictate that it be sited near where solid waste is generated, often in the more densely populated areas of the County. Transfer stations will, by their nature, be distributed within the County, but that distribution will be heavily weighted to the more developed areas. Landfills, on the other hand, are sited where land is available and where geological and hydrological conditions permit This will usually be in the less developed areas of the County. There is little possibility of locating a landfill within the more heavily populated urban and suburban areas of the County. Other facilities, such as transfer stations, are less highly constrained by population, availability of large parcels, or geological conditions. These facilities tend to be urban and industrial in nature, but can be situated in rural areas as well if transportation and other utility systems allow. To attempt equitable distribution, the Council could choose to limit the area in which a required E/RR facility could be located. They could ensure that two facilities would not be located within a specified number of miles of another facility. Such a policy could prove extremely difficult for the Council to develop. More logically, the siting criteria can be constructed to give advantage to sites that are distant from other waste handling and disposal facilities. See Figure C.9 for the location of existing solid waste, hazardous waste and sewage treatment facilities. Correspondingly, scores can be decreased for sites located within proximity to a waste facility. However, this procedure would not ensure equitable distribution of facilities or impacts, since many factors would be reflected in the criteria- Focusing riteriaFocusing strictly on facility distribution as a means of achieving equitable distribution of solid waste facility impacts in King County is limited in that it addresses only part of the solid waste management system, the handling and disposal. It does not address the generation and collection elements. There exists an example of systemwide distribution of impacts associated with solid waste management in King County. In establishing a policy of equal disposal rates throughout the County, the County Council distributes the economic impacts of solid waste management equally throughout the system. Even though the unit cost of service for smaller rural facilities may be higher than that for larger urban transfer facilities, customers in each area of the County pay the same for solid waste disposal at all locations. Through this policy, urban area residents help offset the economic impacts brought about by modern solid waste disposal practices. The participation of urban and suburban area residents and businesses in waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) programs is an example of a systemwide program that can help achieve equitable distribution of impacts. WR/R activities in the urban and suburban areas result in a reduction of impacts created when facilities are sited elsewhere in the County. However, the link between urban/suburban action and resulting decrease in impacts elsewhere will be delayed in time and will be somewhat difficult to quantify. 7. Detailed Evaluation Criteria and Rating Detailed siting criteria drawn from the general criteria presented in Section IV form the basis by which prospective sites are tested to evaluate their suitability. A rating system is developed to record the degree to which a site meets specific criteria Since not all criteria will be of equal importance, there must be a way to incorporate their relative value in the scoring process. C. Siting Criteria Appendix C. Solid Waste Faalrty Siting Plan ::...::::::::.....;.::::::..,...:::: C- 3 s c s �.� Enumclaw MILES Mixed waste landfill Solid waste transfer station A Drop -box CDL transfer station Figure C.9 Existing waste facilities. a Criteria Development Criteria must relate to the type of facility being sited. Evaluation categories should match the purpose of criteria. Criteria scoring of a site must be able to be accomplished with accuracy and with a reasonable amount of effort Lastly, although some overlap in criteria is acceptable and to be expected, the criteria should not measure the same thing. b. Numerical Scoring System for Site Comparison A numerical scoring system will usually be developed to compare sites. The scoring system will often use two separate numerical indicators for each criterion: a site characteristic rating and a criterion weighting. The site characteristic rating is used to APPendix C.• Solid Waste Fadity Siting Plan C. Siting Criteria 0 (1) Site Cbaracteristic Rating Specific criteria are proposed to evaluate how well sites are naturally suited for their use as facility sites. Each detailed criterion includes a range of characteristics that are given numerical scores. The characteristics that are the best for a facility have a high rating, while the features that are not as good receive a lower rating. The ratings may range from "10" for the best rating to "1" for the worst rating. Different ratings are assigned to each site for each criterion, based on how well the site is suited for a given type of facility. Each criterion would have a description of different features and a rating to these features. For some criteria, it is impossible for ranges of acceptability to totally describe all possible site situations. It might be necessary in these cases to interpolate between the defined site ratings during site evaluation. As an example, where ratings of 4 and 6 are defined for a certain criterion, a rating of 5 might be given to a site where it is felt that the actual site condition falls between the described ranges of acceptability for the 4 and 6 ratings. (2) Criterta Weigbting Giving more weight to some criteria than others would be a way of showing that some criteria used for siting are more important than other criteria. Criteria are considered most important when they are related to significant environmental impacts that could be irreversible or difficult to mitigate. For example, in the siting of a landfill, groundwater contamination has a significant environmental impact that is very hard to reverse should contamination begin. Therefore, groundwater criteria would be assigned a high weight. D. THE SITING PROCESS 1. Goals of the Siting Process The primary goal of the solid waste facility siting process is to provide policy makers with a choice of sites from among candidates that are environmentally acceptable and feasible from an engineering perspective. Secondary goals are: (1) to reduce the chance of having to go back and repeat steps in the siting process; and (2) to produce site alternatives that can be permitted within a reasonable time frame. 2. Overview of Siting Process The siting process will be subject to time and budget constraints. Since a great deal of information must be developed and processed, a stepwise process should be employed to make efficient use of resources by focusing time and energy on sites that present a greater likelihood of being selected. The process begins by developing facility -specific site screening criteria, as outlined in Section III. Possible sites are then identified and undesirable sites are dropped from consideration. This leads to detailed feasibility and environmental evaluation of a reduced number of sites that hold a greater chance of becoming recommended alternatives. A Me Siting Process Appendix C Solid Waste Facility Siling Plan C-32 a Role of the EIS in Siting Decisions Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the County must conduct an environmental review before recommending siting actions. In the case of new ,olid waste disposal and handling facilities, this will usually require development of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS is an excellent vehicle to use in developing and presenting the environmental information needed to assess the comparative merits of sites. Selection of several candidate sites, which can then be evaluated through the EIS process, will occur during the fust steps of the siting process. 3. Steps in the Siting Process a. General In general, the approach is to evaluate identified sites using those criteria that pertain to general characteristics of the sites, eliminate the inappropriate sites, and then apply the more site-specific criteria to the remaining sites. Overall, there are six steps in the siting process: • Step I—Site Identification • Step 2—Broad Site Screening • Step 3—Focused Site Screening • Step 4—Comparative Site Evaluation • Step 5—EIS Process • Step 6 --County Decision Making The fust three steps in the siting process deal with identification and screening of potential sites using site selection criteria specifically developed for locating a particular type of solid waste facility in King County. Once Steps 1, 2, and 3 are completed and potential sites have been ranked, the highest ranking sites (the top six or eight) then can be assessed on a comparative basis in Step 4, and the most desirable sites identified for investigation in Step S. The fifth step involves detailed site review through the EIS process, and the final step is the decision making leading to selection of a site by the County. The steps are summarized in Figure C.1. The overall process is designed to be an objective evaluation of potential sites. Numerical ranking of sites is a key feature in the site selection process. Low ranking can lead to a site being eliminated from further consideration. The objective and comparative ranking procedure allows for inclusion of the next highest scoring site as an additional (or substitute) site alternative at each step in the analysis. b. Step I—Site Identification The purpose of this step is to produce a number of possible sites with which to begin the site screening and selection process. The level of effort will depend on the size and type of facility being sited, as well as the nature of the service area The concepts presented as examples will presume a large facility serving the entire County. Smaller local service facilities may not require such measures in order to develop a list of possible sites. A considerable effort should be made to inform county citizens that the County is looking for a new facility site and that the Solid Waste Division will be accepting nominations for possible sites. In particular, the following actions may be taken to solicit site nominations: • Advertisements. Advertisements can be placed in county newspapers. Appendix C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan D. 7be Siting Pyocess • • C-33 • • Letters. Letters of inquiry can be sent to persons or firms on the County Assessor's list of major taxpayers or other lists that may be appropriate. Letters of inquiry can be sent to county taxpayers with individual land parcels of a specified number of acres as appropriate, or carrying a specific zoning designation. Letters of inquiry and a site -selection criteria report can be sent to real estate firms identified as dealing in parcels of the approximate size in the area of service need • • Direct Contact. Direct contacts can be made with major landholders, including the County, the cities, the state, and major • commercial enterprises. • Other Sources of Potential Sites. These are site alternatives from previous siting studies, former and present solid waste sites, • aerial surveys and inventories, and countywide listings of sites and parcels. This step should culminate in a list identifying potential sites. • AOL C. Step 2—Broad Site Screening The purpose of Step 2 is to identify those sites that for one or more reasons are not appropriate for development as a site for a particular type of facility. These reasons may include regulatory, environmental or developmental constraints, or other situational problems associated with a site. During the initial screening step, the strategy is to evaluate sites using basic descriptions of the site and the siting criteria available for the general area. Exclusionary criteria of critical significance should be considered fust so that any sites that do receive disqualification ratings can be eliminated from further analysis. During Step 2, the County will produce a list of disqualified sites and a prioritized list of remaining sites. Depending on the distribution of weighted scores, a decision may be made to drop the lowest rated group of sites from subsequent (Step 3) analysis, since they will be the least appropriate sites at this stage. d. Step 3 --Focused Site screening Step 3 is designed to produce a listing of sites ranked by ability to meet the basic locational requirements for development of a particular type of facility. Some regulatory considerations, such as the presence of endangered species and cultural resources, are also part of the Step 3 evaluation. Finally, County locational constraint policy directions for waste management facilities would be included in the evaluation. As in Step 2, the general approach is to examine sites for exclusionary ratings before doing any in-depth site evaluations. Those sites that do not pass the exclusionary criteria test would be eliminated from further consideration. Only the top ranked sites (perhaps the six or eight sites with the highest scores) need to be carried forward into the Step 4 analysis. e. Step 4—Comparative Site Evaluation The purpose of Step 4 is to assess sites from a comparative perspective, especially with respect to their ability to satisfy operational requirements for a particular type facility. In addition, criteria that focus on potential impacts on the surrounding area from operation of the project facility would be included in the factors to be examined. Site visits are an integral part of the evaluation in this step. Step 4 is somewhat more subjective than the two prior portions of the analysis. Once the sites have been evaluated and ranked numerically, the highest rated sites should be re-examined in an interdisciplinary team setting to do a final feasibility appraisal from environmental, operational, and policy perspectives. At this point the criteria should not be evaluated individually. Instead, the cumulative and interactive impacts not explicitly measured by the criteria would be assessed. This final portion of Step 4 would consider envi`onmental, operational, and policy attributes together. Based upon this analysis, several site alternatives will be chosen for analysis in the EIS. Step 4 forms a transition between the numerical -driven site screening process and the non -numerical environmental analysis process of the EIS. D. Me Siting Process 44wi dfz C: Solei Waste Facility Srtfng Plan C-4 3 f. Step 5—EIS Process This step includes detailed evaluation of each of the candidate sites according to SEPA. During preparation of the EIS, a preferred alternative would be identified and recommended to the County Executive. g. Step 6 --county Decision Making The County Executive reviews the recommendation and approves, modifies, or rejects the recommended site. County action may initiate negotiations leading to purchase of a site or, alternatively, initiation of adverse condemnation proceedings. If the site is owned by another jurisdiction, the County may begin negotiation of an interlocal or site lease agreement. Various state, local, and federal permits are required for solid waste facilities. A difficulty in obtaining a permit could arise during the site screening, acquisition, and permitting processes. If a site is unobtainable, then the second or third alternative can be pursued. For sites located in the unincorporated area the County Council would issue a Use Permit after a hearing is conducted by a hearing examiner. The decision would likely be appealed to the County Council so that the Council would serve as the ultimate decision-making body regarding the acceptability of the site. Inside incorporated jurisdictions, the decision making would be more complex and would include the legislative body of the jurisdiction as well as the County Council E. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM Developed by Pacific Rim, Revised by King County A sound public information and involvement program is vital to successful siting efforts. The elements of the program are early notification regarding siting plans and procedures, regularly updated information about the siting process, and ample opportunities for public input in all phases. The objectives of a public involvement program are as follows for the siting steps: • Site Identufiratron. Ensure that all feasible sites are identified and the public has an opportunity to assist in identifying them. • Site Screening. Ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed. • Comparative Site Evaluation. Incorporate local issues into evaluative criteria and provide for public input in establishing those criteria • Environmental Review. Identify all community impacts, create broad public awareness, and provide diverse opportunities to participate in the review and to provide community input to mitigation measures. • County Decision Making. Give community stakeholders adequate notice and opportunity to express their opinions and preferences. There are three major components to public involvement and information 1. Information Gathering and Issue Identification. Activities could include review of literature; interviews with community leaders to gather baseline information, summarize key issues, and identify groups to be involved; surveys to quantify public preferences (e.g., random sample telephone surveys, random sample or communitywide mail surveys, or handout questionnaires at meetings); focus groups to obtain more in-depth qualitative information about public perceptions and opinions. 2. Information Dissemination. Elements could include media relations activities (e.g., news releases, press conferences, press packets); dissemination of targeted information to elected officials, public agency staff, community organizations, individuals, neighbors or neighborhood organizations, and businesses; and dissemination of general information through brochures and fact sheets, advertisements and public notices, public service announcements, newspaper inserts, and community organizations. 3. Public Involvement and Consensus Building. These activities could include enlisting the services of citizen advisory committees and task forces; encouraging dialogue through community leader forums; conducting community workshops; employing structured consensus building processes when needed (e.g., third parry mediation); and holding public input forums to allow individual comment for the record, (e.g., public meetings and hearings). 4gwndiv C. Solid waste Facility Siting Plan E. Public fnformation and Involwnent Program • APPENDIX D • CYCLING •MARKETS •AsSESSMENT • King County • Comprehensive Solid Waste • Management Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • • ! • • ! • Sorting It out Together D-1 Appendix D Recycling Markets Assessment Section D.1 Prepared by C2S2 Group, Inc. Section D.2 Prepared by Synergic Resources Corporation Contents SECTION D.1 RECYCLABLE MATERIALS MARKETS ASSESSMENT .............................. D - 2 ASummary.................................................................... D-2 B. Paper...................................................................... D-4 C. Plastics..................................................................... D-12 D. Textiles..................................................................... D-18 E. Glass...................................................................... D-20 F. Metals...................................................................... D-23 G. Batteries.................................................................... D-29 H. Polycoated Paperboard........................................................... D - 32 I. Tires....................................................................... D-33 J. Food Waste................................................................... D-36 KSources..................................................................... D-37 SECTION D.2 MARKT ASSESSMENT FOR YARD WASTE AND WOOD ........................... D - 46 Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment D-2 Section D.1 Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment A. SUMMAMY To improve markets for recycled materials, the most important task ahead in the next 10 years is to increase the demand for recycled products. King County can set an example by purchasing recycled products and promoting their use by the private sector and the public. Minimum content standards for glass should be established at the state level and the County can aggressively pursue testing and use of products which can be made from recycled cullet. To ensure the quality of materials collected for recycling, commercial paper recycling programs should focus on source separation by grade; plastics collection systems should emphasize source separation; collection programs should conduct continuing education to decrease contamination; and efforts to increase volumes of textiles should not displace the existing infrastructure of collectors, sellers, and processors. The recycling markets assessment that follows contains current and projected recycling volumes and commodity prices; assessment of current and potential new markets; and discussion of the impact of recycling programs on the market infrastructure. For each material, key points are summarized below, followed by detailed analysis. • Paper—Cardboard, Newspaper, High grade Office Paper, Mixed [haste Paper. In 1990, about 39 percent of the 427,600 tons of waste paper generated in King County were collected for recycling. In the next decade, the volume of recycled paper is expected to increase an average of 9 percent annually to 255,400 tons in 1995 and 333,300 tons in 2000. The ability of the recycling markets to handle this increase varies by grade. Newsprint recycling capacity in the Northwest is expected to surpass local supply by mid-1993, while mixed paper will continue to be exported to Pacific Rim countries. Markets for mixed waste paper are not expected to come into balance until 1994-1996. Cardboard should remain fairly stable, while the market for higher grade office paper should decline in 1992-1994, or until new domestic capacity comes on line. • Plastics—PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP, PS, Mired plasha Approximately 930 tons of all types of plastic (see Section C for plastics definitions) were collected for recycling in King County in 1990, just less than 1 percent of the 85,400 tons of plastics generated. With new household collection programs coming on line, and with HDPE containers (especially milk and juice bottles) becoming a standard material in many household collection programs, volumes are expected to expand significantly by 1995. Recycled volumes of LDPE plastics are projected to grow steadily, but at a lower rate because of the cleaning and sorting required and the associated low market value. The key link in the marketing of recycled resin is the reprocessor. Recent studies and a survey of the industry reveals at least six processors currently operating in the Northwest that either process or have the potential to process post -consumer plastic generated in King County. • Textiles. An estimated 3,000 tons of textiles were collected and marketed in King County in 1990, almost 7 percent of the 43,300 tons generated. In King County, excluding Seattle, there are approximately 20 organizations/locations that collect and sell used clothing, including Goodwill Industries, the Salvation Army, Value Village, and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. About 20 percent of the material collected for recycling is sold as used clothing through these organizations. The remaining 80 percent is sold to processors at a price of $120 to $200 per ton: about 40 percent is absorbent rag grade material, which is cut, repackaged, and sold to machine and automotive shops at up to $1,200 per ton; about 45 percent is reusable clothing that is exported, primarily to Africa and India; about 5 percent is wool or synthetic material that can be exported for reuse in new clothing; and the remaining 10 percent is disposed as waste. Processors foresee a stable market with plenty of capacity for expansion to accommodate increased collection efforts. Appendix D: Regding Markets Assessment Serlion D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment D-3 • Glass—Flint, Amber, Green. In 1990, about 13,000 tons of glass were collected for recycling in King County, 35 percent of over 37,300 tons generated. With the implementation of new household collection programs, it is estimated that by 1995, recycled glass volumes in the Puget Sound region will reach 77,000 tons per year and will exceed 100,000 tons per year by 2000. Current consumption by one of the two glass container manufacturers in the region, Ball-Incon, is expected to reach its 36,000 ton per year ceiling by early 1992. At that point, green cullet will be the first to be turned away. The market for green glass is already saturated, and the market for amber or brown glass may soon become depressed as well. Thus, continued expansion of glass recycling in King County will depend on the use of cullet for products and applications other than container manufacturing. At this time there are no plans by local manufacturers to increase cullet use. Potential new markets are discussed in the full report. • Whste goods. In 1990, approximately 2,500 tons of white goods, light ballasts, and appliances were recycled in King County. White goods are processed and recycled by several private companies in King County. Ecology has issued a regulation, effective July 1992, that will require all processors to capture chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) when preparing white goods for the scrap metal market. The future for processing white goods is expected to be stable, but the current scrap metal market is depressed due to the depressed world economy. • Aluminum Cans. In 1990, approximately 2,800 tons of aluminum cans were collected for recycling -40 percent of the 6,450 tons generated. Beverage can companies buy the recycled aluminum and produce new beverage containers. Currently, the market is on a downward trend but poses no threat to the industry or the recycling programs that supply it. • Aluminum Scrap and Other Nonferrous Metals. An estimated 11,100 tons or 79 percent of aluminum scrap and nonferrous metals generated in King County in 1990 were collected for recycling. Fifteen to 50 percent of the scrap processed by the 25 King County area processors is sold to the local market, and 50 to 80 percent goes overseas. Market prices vary from month to month with higher prices generally paid by overseas buyers. Current market conditions are depressed due to an increase in supply caused by domestic smelters producing at or above capacity. In addition, the former Soviet republics are dumping virgin materials onto the market in return for hard currency to stabilize their economies. • Tin Cans. An estimated 3,100 tons of tin cans were collected for recycling in King County in 1990, almost 28 percent of the 10,900 tons generated. Processors chemically remove the tin and bale and sell the steel. MRI, the only processor of tin cans in King County, has recently upgraded its machinery and probably won't reach capacity until 1995. The market for tin cans is currently depressed, but the steel market is well-established worldwide and recycling programs are not expected to have a significant impact on processors, end users, or commodity prices. • Other Ferrous Metals. In 1990 approximately 70,400 tons of ferrous scrap metal were recycled in King County, 79 percent of the total tonnage generated. Ferrous metals contain iron as a major component. There are about two dozen processors of ferrous metals in the area, which sell scrap metal to domestic and foreign foundries and smelters. The current market is stable but the price is lower than normal due to low prices on the international steel market. The value of ferrous scrap purchased by the steel industry depends on iron content, consistency from one load to another, density, and lack of nonferrous contaminants. • Household Batteries. Most of the approximately 2.9 million household batteries purchased in King County each year are disposed as trash, with less than one percent recycled. Alkaline batteries, which make up 70 percent of household batteries used, are not recyclable. Some jewelry and camera stores in the area collect button cell batteries and sell them to a reprocessor in New York. None of the jurisdictions that collect household batteries in Washington State have found an economically and environmentally sound outlet for recycling them. • Lead Acid Batteries. Nationally, approximately 85 percent of the lead -acid batteries (automotive) are recycled. In King County, 5,000 tons were collected for recycling in 1990, a recycling rate of 100 percent. Markets for automotive batteries as a secondary lead source are very strong due to increased environmental regulations that make it more expensive to mine for lead. • Polycoated Paperboard. There is limited collection, processing, and markets for polycoated paperboard in King County. Two processors handle an estimated 50 tons per year being recycled in the County. Section D.1: Recyclable Maters & Markets Assessment Appendkv D: Rerc)dmg Markets Assessment • 7fres. In 1990, an estimated 1,114,600 tires were recycled in King County, about 23 percent of the total number of tires generated. Tires are sent to processors and end users throughout Washington and Oregon. New recycling technologies are being developed at a rapid pace and several facilities are projected to come on line over the next decade. • Food Waste. To date there have been no significant efforts made to recycle foodwaste. Most of the area compost processors have experimented on some level with adding foodwaste to yard waste during decomposition. Food waste is seen as a potentially strong market if processing issues such as odor, contaminants, cost, and other concerns can be resolved. • Yard Waste and Wood. Over the next few years, collection programs will probably produce a glut in the yard waste processing industry, creating compost stockpiles and difficult market conditions. However, there should be sufficient processing and demand to ensure long-term sustainable markets. The products will be primarily topsoil, mulch, and wood fuel. Sections on each material are organized according to the following information_ • Current and projected recycling volumes • Analysis of current market • Impact of recycling programs on infrastructure • Estimated commodity prices • Potential new markets • Recommendations Throughout the market assessments for each commodity, recycled quantities are taken from the 1990 Wasbington State Recycling Survey published by the Department of Ecology. Disposed tonnages are based on the 1990 King County baste Characterization Study by SCS Engineers. Annual generation is calculated by adding recycled and disposed tonnages. This section addresses general issues and conditions for all paper grades, then examines individual paper grades in more detail. Paper recycling in King County consists of fairly well-developed systems for the collection of old corrugated cardboard (OCC) from businesses and mixed waste paper (MWP) from the residential sector, as well as a developing commercial office paper collection system. Markets for different grades of paper span the range from excellent for source -separated computer printout paper (CPO) to poor for MWP. During the 1990s, demand for recycled paper is expected to increase, which will help to expand the domestic market for post -consumer paper. • Current and Projected Recycling Volumes. As the number of recycling programs in King County increases, the volume of paper collected for recycling continues to grow. In 1990, an estimated 165,500 tons of paper were collected for recycling in King County. This accounts for about 39 percent of the 427,600 tons of waste paper generated in King County in 1990. In the next decade, the volume of paper recycled annually is expected to increase an average of 9 percent per year to 255,400 tons in 1995 and 333,300 tons in the year 2000. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for All Grades of Paper Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 165,500 255,400 333,300 The ability of recycling markets to handle the growth in volume of paper varies by grade. Newsprint recycling capacity in the Northwest is expected to surpass local supply by mid-1993 as new mills come on line. The markets for MWP are not expected to come into balance until 1994-1996. OCC will remain fairly stable, while the market for higher grade office paper will decline in Appendix D: Rw)dmg Markets Assessment Sechon D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment D -4 • 7fres. In 1990, an estimated 1,114,600 tires were recycled in King County, about 23 percent of the total number of tires generated. Tires are sent to processors and end users throughout Washington and Oregon. New recycling technologies are being developed at a rapid pace and several facilities are projected to come on line over the next decade. • Food Waste. To date there have been no significant efforts made to recycle foodwaste. Most of the area compost processors have experimented on some level with adding foodwaste to yard waste during decomposition. Food waste is seen as a potentially strong market if processing issues such as odor, contaminants, cost, and other concerns can be resolved. • Yard Waste and Wood. Over the next few years, collection programs will probably produce a glut in the yard waste processing industry, creating compost stockpiles and difficult market conditions. However, there should be sufficient processing and demand to ensure long-term sustainable markets. The products will be primarily topsoil, mulch, and wood fuel. Sections on each material are organized according to the following information_ • Current and projected recycling volumes • Analysis of current market • Impact of recycling programs on infrastructure • Estimated commodity prices • Potential new markets • Recommendations Throughout the market assessments for each commodity, recycled quantities are taken from the 1990 Wasbington State Recycling Survey published by the Department of Ecology. Disposed tonnages are based on the 1990 King County baste Characterization Study by SCS Engineers. Annual generation is calculated by adding recycled and disposed tonnages. This section addresses general issues and conditions for all paper grades, then examines individual paper grades in more detail. Paper recycling in King County consists of fairly well-developed systems for the collection of old corrugated cardboard (OCC) from businesses and mixed waste paper (MWP) from the residential sector, as well as a developing commercial office paper collection system. Markets for different grades of paper span the range from excellent for source -separated computer printout paper (CPO) to poor for MWP. During the 1990s, demand for recycled paper is expected to increase, which will help to expand the domestic market for post -consumer paper. • Current and Projected Recycling Volumes. As the number of recycling programs in King County increases, the volume of paper collected for recycling continues to grow. In 1990, an estimated 165,500 tons of paper were collected for recycling in King County. This accounts for about 39 percent of the 427,600 tons of waste paper generated in King County in 1990. In the next decade, the volume of paper recycled annually is expected to increase an average of 9 percent per year to 255,400 tons in 1995 and 333,300 tons in the year 2000. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for All Grades of Paper Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 165,500 255,400 333,300 The ability of recycling markets to handle the growth in volume of paper varies by grade. Newsprint recycling capacity in the Northwest is expected to surpass local supply by mid-1993 as new mills come on line. The markets for MWP are not expected to come into balance until 1994-1996. OCC will remain fairly stable, while the market for higher grade office paper will decline in Appendix D: Rw)dmg Markets Assessment Sechon D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment r� D- 5 1992-1994, or until new domestic capacity comes on line. Markets for MWP are not expected to be sufficient to meet the growing supply of MWP during the rest of this decade. • Analysis of Current Market. Several grades of paper are recovered from the municipal waste stream. Newspaper, cardboard, high-grade office paper, and mixed waste paper are the most common. However, with new de -inking mills coming on line in Washington and Oregon, magazines and phone books will increasingly be separated from other mixed waste paper for recycling at a higher value. Paper collected in King County is sent to paper mills from British Columbia to Oregon, and as far east as Montana. Thus, markets for paper must be addressed on a fairly large scale. Currently, however, 90 percent of the paper collected for recycling in King County is exported to Pacific Rim countries. Expansion of domestic markets is crucial in order to maintain long-term stability. At the local and national level, markets for all grades of paper are depressed. Since the Northwest has the advantage of proximity to Pacific Rim markets, local prices have not been as severely affected as those in other parts of the country. • Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure. A substantial barrier to developing domestic markets for paper is the large capital investment required. With equipment costs ranging in the millions of dollars, the industry is hesitant to commit large outlays of capital in this time of depressed markets and economic uncertainty. Before making these investments, the paper industry must be confident that there is sufficient demand for their product Very few companies have been willing to make such investments during the past two years. Hence, the vast majority of all grades of paper collected for recycling in King County continues to be shipped to Asia where the markets are less particular about the quality of paper that is used. Quality control issues affect all types of paper recycling programs and the markets for recycled paper. • Recommendations. The most important task ahead in the next 10 years is to increase the demand for recycled products. To encourage this, King County can set an example by purchasing recycled products and promoting the purchase of recycled products by the private sector. Development of commercial paper recycling programs should focus on source -separated programs by grade of paper. In addition, continuing education to decrease contamination is encouraged. 1. Old Corrugated Containers a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes Old corrugated containers (OCC) make up almost 30 percent of the paper available for recovery. In King County in 1990, about 62,000 tons of OCC were collected for recycling, which is 49 percent of the estimated 127,400 tons generated. The vast majority of OCC, or cardboard, is found in commercial waste, where it is fairly easy to separate from the waste stream for recycling. Businesses often accumulate cardboard in specific places, thus making separation and collection easier. The quantities and market price have historically made OCC collection profitable for private collectors of all sizes, from the lone hauler whose proceeds benefit a church to large recycling companies. The projected growth rate of OCC is 4.6 percent per year. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Old Corrugated Cardboard Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons Recycled 62,000 82,100 102,800 Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Req)ding Markets Assessment b. Analysis of Current Market The following Northwest mills accept OCC for recycling: Mill Product Weyerhaeuser, Longview, WA Boxboard, tubestock Longview Fiber, Longview, WA Linerboard, unbleached kraft Container Corporation (Smurfit), Tacoma, WA Boxboard, tubestock Georgia Pacific, Toledo, OR Kraft bags, linerboard, corrugating medium Keyes Fiber, Wenatchee, WA Molded fruit tray pads Michelsen Packaging, Yakima, WA Molded fruit tray pads Sonoco Products, Sumner, WA Boxboard, tubestock The markets for OCC have been depressed since late 1988, with the current price 40 percent lower July 1987. However, OCC is perhaps the most stable of all paper products. Since a large volume of recycled OCC is exported, prices paid for OCC fluctuate with foreign demand as well as the domestic economy. The American Paper Institute (API) predicts an ongoing demand for OCC because of a worldwide shortage of fiber. C. MVad of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure OCC collected in King County is shipped to mills throughout the Northwest for manufacture into boxboard, linerboard, fruit trays, and corrugated medium. Statewide in 1990, about 273,000 tons of OCC were collected for recycling. About 62 percent of this material is used by domestic mills, the remaining 38 percent is exported. Only two mills have plans to expand their OCC capacity before 1995. Weyerhaeuser's Springfield plant will expand to handle approximately 90,000 tons per year. Longview Fibers will double its capacity from 300 tons per day to 600 tons per day (or 131,400 tons per year) by mid-1992. This will bring the Northwest's OCC capacity to over 430,000 tons per year by 1995. With this additional capacity, all OCC collected for recycling in King County will go to Northwest mills. No mills in the Northwest have firm plans for expansion of OCC capacity beyond 1995. d Estimated Commodity Prices A survey of local brokers put the current price of OCC at $70 to $80 per ton. This price is expected to remain fairly stable through 1995, and will rise as the value of other lower grades of paper rises. By the year 2000, the price for OCC is expected to be around $120 to $140 per ton. Current and Projected Price per Ton for Old Corrugated Cardboard Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $70 to $80 $70 to $80 $120 to $140 e. Recommendations The markets for OCC are stable through 1995. However, careful monitoring of the markets should be maintained to avoid future market difficulties. Appendix D: Regding M040 Assessment Semon D.1: Recyclable Materials Marks Assmmmt D-7 I Newspaper a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes In 1990, approximately 56,000 tons of old newspaper (ONP) were collected for recycling in King County, which represents nearly 56 percent of the 100,500 tons generated. Most ONP collected for recycling comes from the residential waste stream. Two new newsprint mills came on line in 1991, both of which will accept ONP. The addition of Inland Empire in Millwood, Washington, and NORPAC in Longview, Washington, increased the Northwest's ONP capacity by 261,000 tons per year. With the expected addition of four new mills by 1995 adding 394,550 tons per year of capacity, the Northwest will have a total capacity of almost 750,000 tons of ONP each year. These Northwest mills will have the capacity to accept more ONP than the region produces. Thus, the Northwest is expected to import ONP from Midwest states for recycling. The projected growth of the recycling rate for ONP is expected to be 13.2 percent per year. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Old Newspaper Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 56,000 104,100 193,500 The following mills are expected to come on line between 1992 and 1995: Mill Product Capacity (tons/year) Diashowa, Port Angeles, WA Newsprint 33,200 Boise Cascade, Tacoma, WA Newsprint 98,550 News Tech, British Columbia, Canada Newsprint 147,825 Total New Capacity 279,575 b. Analysis of Current Market While most ONP is currently sold to Pacific Rim countries for recycling, new mills are coming on line in the Northwest, which will eliminate virtually all exporting of ONP. The main product made from ONP is newsprint, but a small percentage is used to make boxboard, corrugated medium, tubestock, and fruit tray pads. The following mills accept ONP for recycling: Mill Product Capacity (tons/year) Existing Washington and Oregon Mills (approximately) Newsprint 160,610 Inland Empire, Millwood, WA Newsprint 41,000 Northern Pacific (NORPAC) Newsprint 220,000 The market for ONP in the Northwest has probably reached bottom and will begin to rise during 1992. This is partially a result of the minimum content legislation in California (AB 1305), which required 25 percent recycled newsprint by January 1, 1992, and 50 percent by the year 2000. This has pushed the paper industry to make the necessary investment to equip their mills using recycled newsprint as feedstock. Recycled content legislation in other states, such as Oregon, will continue to positively affect the domestic markets for ONP. c. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastiudure The increasing number of curbside recycling programs in the Northwest has rapidly increased the supply of ONP. This increased supply, combined with a reduced demand for newsprint as newspaper readership declines, has created a surplus supply of . ONP, as well as low market prices. Market prices have also been negatively impacted by the voluntary shutdown of Pacific Rim mills and an oversupply of virgin material. Sec&n D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: RegAding Markets Assessment Current and Projected Price per Ton for Old Newspaper Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $45 to $50 $50 $60 to $70 d Potential New Markets In addition to the paper markets for ONP, new markets are being developed in some parts of the country. In Iowa and other states, agricultural experts have been experimenting with using ONP as animal bedding. Tests show shredded ONP to be significantly superior in bacteria suppression capabilities to straw, pine, and cedar sawdust, sand, bond paper, mulched ONP, and two types of limestone. In addition, studies conducted at the University of Minnesota and in a Wisconsin agricultural field trial concluded that it takes only 80 percent as much paper as dry straw to maintain the same levels of cleanliness. The cost savings by using ONP are substantial: $50 per ton for chopped ONP compared to $100 per ton for straw. The Homasote Company in West Trenton, New Jersey, has been making building products from 100 percent recycled ONP since 1909. Its product line includes underlayment for carpeting and concrete construction, structural board for noise deadening, fireproof roofing panels, insulation, subflooring, and roof decking. Its one -million -square -foot complex employs 250 employees and uses approximately 350 tons of ONP per day. A pilot project in Sydney, Australia will test the development of caskets from ONP. ONP mulch and a polymer binding will be molded into the shape of a coffin. A veneer finish will then cover the molded ONP. Each coffin will use 20 pounds of ONP. e. Recommendations Encouraging residential collection systems that minimize contamination of newspaper will be important as domestic markets develop in the next two years. A high-quality material will be demanded by the new mills. Smurfit and Weyerhaeuser do not currently accept ONP from commingled residential collection programs because of the contamination levels. While the collectors have responded to this message by modifying their collection systems and processing equipment, continued encouragement of contamination minimization techniques will be important to maintain a high-quality product and to increase market development. 3. High-grade Paper While the prices for white and colored ledger and computer paper (CPO) have dropped relative to prices for other grades of paper, they have maintained a fairly high value compared to mixed waste paper. Historically, the value of ledger paper has made it an excellent target for recyclers. However, as the value has fallen with the oversupply of material on the market, commercial collection of high grades has become less profitable. More recently, businesses are more willing to pay for recycling services due to dramatic increases in disposal fees. Recycling a material in King County can cast about 30 percent less than disposing of that material as garbage. As a result, recyclers are seeing an enormous increase in their business from the commercial sector. One local company reports that their commercial recycling business is currently increasing by 10 to 15 percent each month. Appendix D: ReryJtng Markets Assessment Section D.1: RA*dable Materials Markets A=sment a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes An estimated 10,500 tons of high-grade paper were collected for recycling in King County in 1990 out of approximately 25,100 tons generated. This represents a recycling rate of 42 percent In 1995, approximately 14,000 tons of paper will be collected for recycling; in the year 2000, that number is projected to grow to 18,700 tons at a 6 percent projected rate of growth per year. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for High-grade Paper Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 10,500 14,000 18,700 b. Analysis of Current Market Domestic mills that accept waste paper for recycling will accept only ledger and CPO (domestic mills will not accept MWP collected in curbside programs). While the market potential for producing tissue and toweling from high-grade office paper is substantial, domestic markets for recycled ledger and CPO have been slow to respond to the need for increased capacity. This slow response, coupled with an increasing supply and a depressed economy, is expected to push the price of ledger and CPO down during 1992 and 1993. Consumer demand for products that are manufactured from recovered high-grade paper will improve the markets for these materials. These products include consumer goods such as tissue paper, packaging papers, printing, and writing papers. According to local mills, the current market philosophy is that quality and cost are more important than the presence of recycled content c. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure As the value of lower grades of paper increases, the domestic markets for office paper will also increase. Recyclers are increasingly experimenting with "mix -pack" grades of paper, or office paper that is made up of several different types of high-grade paper, such as white and colored ledger and CPO. While the value of a mix -pack grade is not as high as CPO or source -separated white ledger, the volumes are much greater and the recyclers can guarantee a fairly constant mix to the mills. For example, a mix - pack from Boeing will have a consistent blend of a few different grades of paper, so the mill knows what to expect from that particular mix -pack. While Weyerhaeuser and Smurfit collect source -separated high-grade office paper, Recycle America is experimenting with mix packs. James River's Halsey plant is considering accepting mix packs. They anticipate paying $60 per ton for this mixed office -grade paper. Mix -pack -grade pulp will be recycled into paper and writing paper or tissue and toweling paper products. One local processor separates ONP and OCC from their mixed waste paper (MWP). They then mix higher grade office paper collected from commercial businesses with residential MWP to increase the value of their MWP. This MWP product is then marketed in Asia. d Estimated Commodity Prices According to the October 1991 issue of The Paper Stock Report, current prices of high-grade office paper range from $70 to $80 per ton for colored ledger, to $235 to $240 per ton for CPO. While these prices may drop in the next few years, they are expected to rise as the value of lower grade paper rises. It is estimated that the price of office paper will be about the same as current values in 1995, with an increased value ranging from $130 per ton for colored ledger to over $300 per ton for CPO in the year 2000. Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recyr.Jing Markets Assessment D- 1 0 Current and Projected Price per Ton for High-grade Paper Year 1990 1995 2000 Colored ledger $70 to $80 $80 $130 White ledger $95 to $120 $95 to $120 $120 to $150 CPO $235 to $240 $240 to $250 Over $300 e. Potential New Markets There is substantial potential for growth in the amount of high-grade paper used to make tissue and toweling products. There are currently no other planned new markets for high-grade paper. f. Recommendations Perhaps the two most important things that the County can do to encourage recycling of high-grade office paper are: 1. Encourage the use of recycled paper in offices. 2. Encourage source -separated collection of high grades of paper to increase the value of the office paper that is recycled. The number of collection programs implemented in offices will increase as the value of the paper increases. Domestic markets for high grades have high potential for the manufacture of tissue paper, paper 1dwels, and even printing and writing paper. A consistent source of high-grade paper, combined with customer demand will accelerate the development of these markets. 4. Mixed Waste Paper Mixed waste paper (MWP) consists of mixed paper collected in curbside programs, as well as paper left over from other collection programs after the higher grades of paper have been removed. Two major weaknesses of the material collected are high contamination levels and lack of consistency in product quality. These weaknesses have prevented local mills from accepting significant quantities for recycling into new paper products. a. Cimilt and Projected Recycling Volumes An estimated 37,000 tons of MWP were collected for recycling in King County in 1990. This is 32 percent of the estimated 114,800 tons generated. Domestic use of MWP may increase somewhat as the price of virgin fiber increases, but no mills have firm plans to make the equipment changes to recycle MWP. Therefore, there will be insufficient domestic mill capacity to handle the region's projected volumes of MWP for the foreseeable future. A potentially serious oversupply will exist as soon as late 1992. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Mixed Waste Paper Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 37,000 74,000 147,500 b. Analysis of Current Market In 1990, 76,000 tons of MWP were collected in Washington State, with only 6,000 tons consumed by the region's mills. The surplus of 71,000 tons (93 percent of the total MWP collected in Washington) was exported to Pacific Rim countries for recycling. The current Out of MWP is expected to get worse before it gets better. As new curbside programs come on line, increasing quantities of MWP will flood the market. Northwest brokers are particularly worried about the effect that California's mandatory curbside Appendix D: Recjdmg Markets Assessment Section D.1: Reelable Materials Markets Assessment D- 11 recycling law (AB 959) will have on MWP markets. MWP collected in California will be competing for the same export markets that the Northwest currently uses. The potentially large volumes of MWP collected in Los Angeles, for example, would overwhelm an already limited MWP market. Commercial paper recycling is sensitive to the market price for MWP. As MWP prices have fallen, recycling of MWP at commercial businesses has dropped as much as 50 percent since 1988. This is due to a decline in sorting of commercial waste to recover MWP. As the market price of MWP falls in the next one to three years, it is expected that few new commercial recycling programs for MWP will be implemented. A few bright spots in the MWP market are the development of markets for magazines and phone books. Phone book recycling is an example of the power of consumer influence. The phone book industry was pressured by the public to make its product recyclable and recycled. The phone books have now been changed to make them more recyclable. Two large mills that are coming on line by mid-1992 will accept phone books, so that all phone books and most magazines generated in the Northwest will have markets. Diashowa, in Washington, will accept phone books for recycling. In Oregon, Smurfit currently takes magazines for recycling. Demand for these specific paper products will drive up the price, leading King County recyclers to separate the phone books and magazines from other MWP. The city of Portland's new curbside recycling program includes source -separated magazine collection, similar to King County's curbside newspaper collection. Michelsen Packaging in Yakima periodically buys large quantities of phone books from King County. It finds that the phone books are a consistent source of fiber that works very well in its fruit tray manufacturing process. When James River comes on line in mid-1992, the Northwest will be a net importer of phone books. C. Impact of Recycling Program on Infrastrvcture Market development for MWP will be crucial as the collected volumes continue to increase, while existing markets remain severely limited. At the present time, no local markets exist for manufacturing MWP into recycled products, and no domestic mills have plans for accepting MWP. 0 d. Estimated Commodity Prices • The price of MWP has ranged from -$2.50 to $15.00 per ton over the past 4 years, with current value at $0.00 per ton. MWP is low in value because it regularly contains such contaminants as hot -melt glue, laminates, plastics, bindings, wax and foil coatings, • and pressure -sensitive labels. The high cost of sorting MWP precludes most separation attempts, so it is generally sold commingled at a low value. The value of MWP is expected to remain low through 1995, then to rise to $10 to $15 per ton by 2000. Current and Projected Price per Ton for Mixed Waste Paper Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $0.00 $0.00 $10 to $20 e. Potential New Markets Products currently made from MWP include paperboard, chipboard (used for packaging such as cereal and shoe boxes), and roofing paper. Potential nonpaper markets for MWP include compost and ethanol. A pilot project in Orondaga County, New York, involved composting 107,000 phone books (180 tons) with brewer sludge at an Anheuser-Busch facility. Samples of the compost are currently being analyzed for quality and marketability. Ethanol is a fuel produced from cellulose products, such as MWP. This is a low-end use for paper that has quite a bit of future potential. The advantage of fuel/ethanol applications is that a plant can be built to use a variety of feedstocks. When the price of paper is low, the plant can use ethanol for fuel. When the price of paper rises, the plant can change to another, less expensive fuel source. Technology exists to build furnaces that can use ethanol and will meet all Section D.1: Reelable Maerkals Markets Assessment Appenda D: Recydmg Markets Assessment f. Reoommendations To encourage market development and to help minimize the worsening Out of MWP that will most likely occur in 1993 when King County's curbside programs have been implemented, it is recommended that the County: • Encourage high-grade paper collection systems with source separation of grades whenever feasible. • Encourage the public and private sector to buy recycled products (one of the barriers to bringing new mills on he is low demand for recycled products). • Encourage the public and private sector to recycle. • Encourage opportunities for new products and applications of recycled paper, such as molded pulp, compost applications, and composite applications. C. PLASTICS The Society for the Plastics Industry (SPI) has developed the coding system shown below for the plastic resins most commonly found in household and industrial waste: SPI Code Abbreviation Resin Name Typical Application I PET Polyethylene terephthalate Bottles for soda, liquor, cleaners 2 HDPE High-density polyethylene Bottles for milk, juice, laundry detergent, motor oil; containers for yogurt, sour cream, etc.; high-strength bags and wraps 3 PVC Polyvinyl chloride Bottles for cooking oil, mouthwash, etc.; 'blister pack' used for hardware, toys, etc.; and pipes 4 LDPE Low-density polyethylene Grocery bags, bread bags, trash bags 5 PP Polypropylene Containers for yogurt, shampoo; rope and strapping; battery cases 6 PS Polystyrene Hot drink cups, food trays, packing 'peanuts,' plastic cutlery 7 Mixed/other plastics The coding system is intended to assist in the identification and sorting of resin types for recycling. This market assessment treats plastics as a whole whenever possible, and breaks out specific resin types as necessary, using the SPI code and abbreviation to identify individual resins. 1. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes Approximately 670 tons of all types of plastic were collected for recycling in King County in 1990, which represents less than one percent of the 85,400 tons of plastics generated in the County. The Department of Ecology Recycling Survey divides this recycling tonnage into PET bottles, HDPE bottles, LDPE film, and other plastics, as shown below. Appendix D: Ret jdmg Markets Assessment Section D.1: Re*dable Materials Markets Assessment • • D-13 • The 176 tons of PET bottles recycled is about 10 percent of the 1,750 tons generated. With new curbside collection programs coming on line, the volume collected is expected to grow substantially in 1992 and 1993. The 133 tons of HDPE bottles recycled are about 3 percent of the 5,500 tons generated. • With HDPE containers, especially milk and juice bottles, becoming a standard material in many curbside programs, this volume is expected to expand substantially by 1995. The 145 tons of LDPE plastics recycled represents less than 1 percent of the • estimated 27,800 tons generated. The recycled volumes of these plastics is projected to grow steadily but at a lower rate because of the necessity of cleaning and sorting and the associated low market value. 2. Analysis of Current Market Recyclable post -consumer resins share a substantial and growing common infrastructure of collectors, processors, brokers, and manufacturers. The typical recycling loop for plastic materials includes residential, commercial, and industrial sources that generate waste plastic, a collector who picks up or accepts at a drop-off facility the waste plastic, and who may sort plastic types and bale plastics for shipping to processors; a reprocessor who converts sorted plastics into flake or pellets; and a manufacturer who makes a product using recycled resin as a full or partial substitute for virgin resin. The first important feature of this loop is the collection system design and the resin type or mixture of resin types that the system produces. Existing collection systems in King County include both source -separated and commingled approaches. Most commingled collection systems rely on later sorting into single resins; others feed mixed -plastic processing systems that manufacture plastic lumber -type products. The key link in the marketing of recycled resin is the reproccesssor. Reprocessors perform cleaning, sorting, grinding, and pelletizing functions, which determine the markets into which the collected plastics can be sold. A review of recent studies and a survey of the industry reveals at least six reprocessors currently operating in the Northwest, which either process or have the potential to process post -consumer plastic generated in King County. These firms are listed below with a brief description of the resins they handle and the applications for their products. Sechon D.1: RaXiable Materials Wrkels Assessment Appendix D: Recydtng Markets Assessment . Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Plastics Year 1990 1995 2000 • PET bottles 176 300 to 500 500 to 700 HDPE bottles 133 700 to 900 1,000 to 1,200 LDPE plastic 145 250 to 350 600 to 800 Other plastics 218 400 to 600 850 to 1,000 • All plastics 672 1,650 to 2,350 2,950 to 3,700 D-13 • The 176 tons of PET bottles recycled is about 10 percent of the 1,750 tons generated. With new curbside collection programs coming on line, the volume collected is expected to grow substantially in 1992 and 1993. The 133 tons of HDPE bottles recycled are about 3 percent of the 5,500 tons generated. • With HDPE containers, especially milk and juice bottles, becoming a standard material in many curbside programs, this volume is expected to expand substantially by 1995. The 145 tons of LDPE plastics recycled represents less than 1 percent of the • estimated 27,800 tons generated. The recycled volumes of these plastics is projected to grow steadily but at a lower rate because of the necessity of cleaning and sorting and the associated low market value. 2. Analysis of Current Market Recyclable post -consumer resins share a substantial and growing common infrastructure of collectors, processors, brokers, and manufacturers. The typical recycling loop for plastic materials includes residential, commercial, and industrial sources that generate waste plastic, a collector who picks up or accepts at a drop-off facility the waste plastic, and who may sort plastic types and bale plastics for shipping to processors; a reprocessor who converts sorted plastics into flake or pellets; and a manufacturer who makes a product using recycled resin as a full or partial substitute for virgin resin. The first important feature of this loop is the collection system design and the resin type or mixture of resin types that the system produces. Existing collection systems in King County include both source -separated and commingled approaches. Most commingled collection systems rely on later sorting into single resins; others feed mixed -plastic processing systems that manufacture plastic lumber -type products. The key link in the marketing of recycled resin is the reproccesssor. Reprocessors perform cleaning, sorting, grinding, and pelletizing functions, which determine the markets into which the collected plastics can be sold. A review of recent studies and a survey of the industry reveals at least six reprocessors currently operating in the Northwest, which either process or have the potential to process post -consumer plastic generated in King County. These firms are listed below with a brief description of the resins they handle and the applications for their products. Sechon D.1: RaXiable Materials Wrkels Assessment Appendix D: Recydtng Markets Assessment D- 14 Processor and Location Resins Handled Capacity (tons/yr) Applications Denton Plastics PET, H/LDPE PVC, 25,000 Pelletizes resins for sale to manufacturers; handles post -consumer Portland, OR PP, PS and post-industrial resin. Sepco Recycling PET, HDPE 10,000 Cleans and sorts; specializes in post -consumer scrap; plant Spokane, WA opened August 1991. Rainier Plastics HDPE, LDPE, PP 7,500 to Handles only industrial scrap; no capacity for cleaning or sorting. Yakima, WA 10,000 Partek HDPE 3,000 Handles bottles only; sorts into natural and colored; sells to Phillips Vancouver, WA Petroleum for manufacture into non-food bottles. McConkey HDPE, LDPE, PP 2,500 Handles industrial scrap only; manufactures nursery pots and Sumner, WA trays; has larger plant in California which also handles PS. Interstate Plastics LDPE 1,200 Handles clean and baled industrial scrap only; planning to double Vancouver, WA capacity in coming year. In addition to these firms, some smaller local firms, such as Recycled Products Marketing (RPM, Bellevue, WA), act as brokers of locally collected plastics and marketers of end -products containing recycled resin. An undetermined but substantial quantity of plastic collected for recycling in King County is processed in California and other states. Supply of, and demand for, recycled resins can be of such a regional and constantly changing nature, that it often pays to ship baled plastics long distances for processing and manufacturing. The implementation and evolution of the SPI coding system will continue to play an important role in plastic recycling. When they were introduced, the codes were adopted voluntarily by the majority of plastic container manufacturers. Since then, it has become clear that the coding system is limited in its ability to handle the complex array of plastic types and applications. Plastics reclaimers often require more detailed sorting than is addressed by the voluntary coding system. For example, HDPE blow -molded containers (narrow -necked containers such as milk jugs and detergent bottles) and HDPE injection -molded containers (wide-mouthed tubs and jars such as yogurt and margarine containers) are both labeled as #2, but they have significantly different properties when heated and are therefore of greatly limited value when mixed together. Because of this limitation, some manufacturers, reprocessors, and collectors have begun to move away from the coding system toward brand names and generic product type descriptions. Some manufacturers may soon remove the codes from their products on the grounds that they cause more confusion than they prevent More specific, product -oriented sorting of plastic grades is likely to improve the markets for the collected materials, but will place an added burden on the collection and preprocessing systems to separate materials. Local markets for plastics have recently become much more selective about contamination. At the same time, the initial success of the SPI coding system has led to its adoption by segments of the plastics industry beyond the rigid container market for which it was intended. Many plastic film products already use the codes, and it was recently reported that the Mazda Motor Corporation is planning to code its plastic automobile parts using the same system. 3. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure From the perspective of the plastics manufacturing industry, the volumes of recycled resins used are relatively insignificant and therefore have not had a major impact on that infrastructure. Much of the industrial scrap recycling has been happening for many years and seems poised to continue and possibly incorporate limited volumes of post -consumer resins. From the perspective of the recycling industry, however, the low density of post -consumer plastics will rause these materials to have an increasing impact on collection and processing systems. The addition of PET and HDPE bottles to curbside routes has been Appendix D: RegAding Markets Assessment Sw-&n D.1: Rag)dable Materials Markets Assessment D-15 manageable with existing equipment, but the cumulative effect of expansion to other types of plastic may overwhelm the capacity of existing trucks. Some collectors are currently experimenting with on -truck densifiers as a possible solution to this problem. 4. Estimated Commodity Prices The current and projected prices for recycled plastics are shown below by resin type. Reprocessors and manufacturers appear optimistic about continued demand for separated recycled resins of all types; post -consumer resins that require expensive cleaning and sorting are expected to remain at a relatively low value for the foreseeable future. Recently, low market prices for virgin resin have caused a reduction in competing prices for recycled resins, but these prices are expected to stabilize and perhaps regain some ground in early 1992• • It is important to understand that the prices shown are for clean, baled plastic scrap, which is usually obtained from industrial sources. The collection and pre-processing costs to bring post -consumer materials up to this marketable standard is • currently prohibitive for most resin types. For example, post -consumer HDPE and LDPE film from retail bag collection programs • generally has a zero or negative market value because of the required sorting and cleaning. • 5. Existing and Potential New Markets • The markets for each resin type are discussed below. • 2L PET • Current markets for recycled PET are in manufacturing of carpets, fiber insulation, and other fiber applications. Most PET is cleaned, reground, and shipped to California or the Southeastern United States for remanufacture. A huge new market for PET is • beverage containers. Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola have each recently received FDA approval for bottles made from 20 to 30 percent repolymerized post -consumer PET. They have both announced plans to expand their current marketing of these bottles. Hoechst • Celanese Fibers and Film Group in Charlotte, North Carolina, is currently the main producer of repolymerized resin. Eastman • Chemical Company recently began producing the material also at its 50 -million -pound -per -year facility in Kingsport, Tennessee. • b. HDPE • Post -consumer HDPE is currently used in numerous consumer and institutional products, including compost bins, sign posts and sign blanks, and non-food packaging. These markets are reported to be strong with potential for growth A potential new • market for recycled HDPE is in food packaging. Some industry sources expect FDA approval of post -consumer HDPE in food -grade applications by 1995. This market would greatly expand the demand for post -consumer HDPE. Section D.1: Re*raable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recycling Markers Assessment Current and Projected Price Per Ton for Plastics (Based on Clean, Baled Scrap) • Year 1990 1995 2000 • PET $180 to $280 $200 to $400 $200 to $400 HDPE $110 to $210 $200 to $400 $200 to $400 • PVC $300 to $400 $400 to $600 $400 to $600 LDPE $100 to $400 $200 to $400 $200 to $400 • PP $100 to $400 $200 to $400 $200 to $400 PS $200 to $600 $400 to $600 $400 to $600 • It is important to understand that the prices shown are for clean, baled plastic scrap, which is usually obtained from industrial sources. The collection and pre-processing costs to bring post -consumer materials up to this marketable standard is • currently prohibitive for most resin types. For example, post -consumer HDPE and LDPE film from retail bag collection programs • generally has a zero or negative market value because of the required sorting and cleaning. • 5. Existing and Potential New Markets • The markets for each resin type are discussed below. • 2L PET • Current markets for recycled PET are in manufacturing of carpets, fiber insulation, and other fiber applications. Most PET is cleaned, reground, and shipped to California or the Southeastern United States for remanufacture. A huge new market for PET is • beverage containers. Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola have each recently received FDA approval for bottles made from 20 to 30 percent repolymerized post -consumer PET. They have both announced plans to expand their current marketing of these bottles. Hoechst • Celanese Fibers and Film Group in Charlotte, North Carolina, is currently the main producer of repolymerized resin. Eastman • Chemical Company recently began producing the material also at its 50 -million -pound -per -year facility in Kingsport, Tennessee. • b. HDPE • Post -consumer HDPE is currently used in numerous consumer and institutional products, including compost bins, sign posts and sign blanks, and non-food packaging. These markets are reported to be strong with potential for growth A potential new • market for recycled HDPE is in food packaging. Some industry sources expect FDA approval of post -consumer HDPE in food -grade applications by 1995. This market would greatly expand the demand for post -consumer HDPE. Section D.1: Re*raable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recycling Markers Assessment D-1 6 A recent development in the recycled HDPE market is the start of a program sponsored by Procter & Gamble in which it has guaranteed a price for most types of HDPE bottles collected for recycling in Washington State. The company has guaranteed for one year a price of $240 per ton for materials delivered to selected handlers in the State. After the first year, the price for all bottle types will be equal to the price paid for scrap milk jugs. To qualify for the program, bottles must be sorted into three color groups: (1) natural, (2) a yellow -red -orange mix, and (3) a blue-green mix Black, brown, and gray bottles or any bottles that contained hazardous materials (such as motor oil or hazardous household cleaning products) are not accepted. C_ INC PVC is used in a wide range of products, from pressure pipes to clear food packaging, such as cooking oil bottles. Currently, the small amount of PVC collected for recycling is used in low -performance pipe and tubing products. No plans for expansion of recycled PVC markets were reported, but expansion is feasible given the prices paid for scrap bottles. Systems are being tested that will automatically sort PVC bottles from PET bottles. If these systems are proven to be cost-effective, collection and recycling of PVC bottles could expand considerably. d. LDPE Most post -consumer LDPE is currently recycled back into bag applications. Most of the markets for the post -consumer scrap are manufacturers of the products and are set up on the basis of existing purchase contracts between a manufacturer and a retailer/collector. The markets and technology exist to recycle the bags, but the economics currently do not provide any incentive for the collection and recycling of these bags. The retail bag collection programs that are operating in King County are powered by public relations benefits rather than cost savings. On a national level, interest in post -consumer polyethylene film recycling seems to be growing. Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, of Rogers, Arkansas, has recently patented a process that removes contaminants from LDPE bags and other film products. It has formed a partnership with Dow Chemical to further develop and commercialize this technology. It currently mixes the recovered scrap with wood fibers to produce composite building materials. Dow Chemical is also working with Rubbermaid to test use of post -consumer shrink wrap in Rubbermaid's products. No local reprocessors or manufacturers reported any plans for expansion in their post -consumer LDPE activity in the next few years. Source -separation of bag types (some are also HDPE) would improve the market conditions for these materials. e. Polypropylene Polypropylene (PP) is very resistant to chemicals and fatigue, and therefore finds application in food packaging, bottle caps, automotive batteries, and automobile bumpers. Recycled PP is used in the manufacture of new battery cases and in assorted consumer products, such as wheels for barbecues and lawn mowers. Potential volume of existing markets is reported to be large and easily expanded for clean, well -sorted scrap. Innovative markets include the automobile industry's current efforts to use reclaimed scrap to form new bumpers or splash shields. Mazda and Volkswagen are both experimenting with systems for collecting scrap bumpers, removing the paint, and using the recovered materials in new parts. f. Polyslynene Currently, recovered polystyrene (PS) foam is recycled into a wide range of products, including foam egg packaging, office products, and video cassette cases. Expansion of existing markets is expected in the near future, partly through increased levels of Appmdix D: Rm)y g Markets Av ment Sec&n D.1: Racyc le Materials Markels AummwW r� u 0 D-17 recycled content. An innovative new application called Polymer Impregnated Cement (PIC) is being tested by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. PS foam "peanuts" are embedded in cement to form a lightweight composite building material & Mixed/Other Plastics Mixed plastic resins are, currently processed into plastic lumber and similar applications, such as parking bumpers and picnic benches. These markets have potential for development, but in the past year or two have not expanded as strongly as expected. The low throughput of current mixed plastics processing equipment has led to high costs and subsequent difficulty competing with traditional wood products. New markets for mixed plastics include their use in drainage tiles and in a recycled -content asphalt product called "recyphalt." The asphalt product has been developed by a Massachusetts company and is available in the Puget Sound area from Rainbow Cullet of Redmond, WA. The product reportedly uses a wide variety of inorganic materials, including mixed resin scrap plastics, as aggregates. Potential volumes and economics are as yet undetermined. Another recent development in mixed plastics processing is a solvent -based resin separation system developed at Rensselaer Polytecnic Institute and commercialized by M. W. Kellogg of Houston, TX This process uses selective solvents to dissolve and separate one polymer type at a time from a mixed plastic batch M. W. Kellogg is currently assessing the technical and economic performance of the technology. Polyurethane (PU) resin, which is used in flexible and rigid foam products, such as building insulation, padding/filler, and packaging, makes up a significant component of the mixed plastics waste stream. The Society of the Plastics Recycling Industry has joined with 15 private companies to form the Polyurethane Recycling and Recovery Council (PURRC) which will sponsor research into recycling technologies for this resin type. 1 Recommendations The key strategies for King County to pursue in improving markets for recycled plastics fall into three categories: (1) facilitating the design and implementation of source -separated, contamination -free collection systems; (2) buying products that use recycled plastic and encouraging similar purchasing behavior on the part of the cities and the public; (3) educating the public about buying products made from recycled post -consumer plastics. In pursuit of the first strategy, the most effective approach might be to focus on aggressive, countywide public education which works to clarify common misconceptions and confusion about the plastic recycling, addressing issues such as which types are and are not recyclable in certain programs and which contaminants are most common and most detrimental to the recycling process. In addition, the County should work through the cities and with the franchise haulers in the unincorporated areas to standardize the types of plastics that are recycled in curbside and drop-off programs and the preparation requirements for these plastics. The combined efforts of standardization and education would help improve the cost-effectiveness of the plastics recycling programs and lay the groundwork for expanded markets and expanded types of plastics recycling in coming years. In the second strategy, the County should continue to play a leading role in state and regional efforts to identify and procure recycled products. Through the Purchasing Agency, the Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, and other avenues, the County must identify viable products made from recycled plastics, make an extra effort to test their performance where necessary, and give preference to these products over comparable products made from nonrecycled materials. In the area of recycled plastic, products that appear to be appropriate for purchase by the County include compost bins, sign posts and sign blanks, all types of plastic bags (such as trash bags), park benches, marina pilings and decking, and other outdoor lumber applications. As a Secxion D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Asset Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment complement to all purchasing efforts, a plan for outreach to the cities, businesses, and individual consumers of the County should be implemented to highlight county successes in recycled product purchases and opportunities for similar purchases by other groups. 1. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes An estimated 3,000 tons of textiles were collected and marketed in Ding County in 1990—approximately 7 percent of the 43,300 tons generated. Historically, the volume of textiles collected has increased at 5 to 10 percent per year, driven primarily by population growth. Recently, more aggressive solicitation and collection efforts have caused an additional increase in the quantity of materials collected for recycling. Processors have indicated an interest in expanding collection further, perhaps through regular curbside collection of textiles. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Textiles Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 3,000 4,830 7,800 2. Analysis of Current Market Currently, textile recycling in King County consists of four primary components: 1. Collection and sale of used clothing by thrift stores and charitable institutions. 2. Processing of non -saleable cotton clothing into rags. 3. Export of non -saleable but still wearable synthetic textiles. 4. Export of non -saleable wool for reuse in new wool garments. In King County, excluding Seattle, there are approximately 20 organizations/locations that collect and sell used clothing, including Goodwill Industries, the Salvation Army, Value Village, and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Approximately 20 percent of the material collected for recycling is sold as used clothing through these organizations. The remaining 80 percent is sold to processors at a price of $100 to $200 per ton. About 40 percent of the material handled by the King County processors is absorbent -rag -grade material (primarily cotton fiber), which is cut, repackaged, and sold to industrial users (e.g., machine, automotive, and paint shops) at up to $1,200 per ton. About 45 percent is reusable clothing made from synthetic materials and is exported, primarily to Africa and India, at prices from $40 to $400 per ton. About 5 percent is wool or synthetic material that can be exported for reuse in new clothing. The remaining 10 percent is disposed as waste. Processors and graders that serve King County include Barco and Buffalo Industries in Seattle and Northwest Textiles in Tacoma Representatives from these firms believe that current domestic markets for used clothing and rags and export markets for used clothing have the potential to greatly expand. They are limited by the supply of raw materials and, to some degree, by current processing capacity. Northwest Textiles is planning to move into a new facility in the fust quarter of 1992, which will double the company's processing capacity. Other processors report the ability to expand promptly in response to increased supply of textiles. Appendiv D: Recycling Markets Assessment Section D.1: RK)dable Materials Markets Assessment 0 41 D-1 9 3. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure New programs to increase recycling of textiles could have a major impact on the existing infrastructure, depending on how the programs are designed and implemented. With no action on the part of the County, the existing collectors and processors would likely continue to expand their volumes gradually and maintain their present roles in the system. There has been a trend in recent years toward involvement of for-profit enterprises in the primary collection activity, which has historically been dominated by charitable organizations. Existing collectors, both for-profit and nonprofit, could be threatened by the development of a new collection system, not so much because market prices would drop but rather because their supply of raw materials could be diminished. New recycling programs should seek to facilitate increased collection, then perhaps deliver the collected materials to existing handlers and sellers of used clothing or otherwise help maintain their share of the processing market. 4. Estimated Commodity Prices The price that might be paid for raw textiles is difficult to determine, because most sellers of used clothing are also collectors and therefore do not pay another organization for their raw materials. The clothes they are unable to sell are marketed to secondary processors and therefore have an established market price. The prices shown below are for "preprocessed" textiles, which consist of used clothing and rags from which the saleable clothing has been partially or completely extracted. Current and Projected Price per Ton for Preprocessed Textiles Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $100 to $200 $120 to $220 $150 to $250 Processors foresee a stable market with plenty of capacity for expansion to accommodate increased collection efforts. Current market strength is indicated by the fact that private organizations can justify intensive phone solicitation and door-to-door collection programs to increase collected volumes. A sudden increase in collected volumes may cause a slight drop in price but the market should stabilize quickly as outlets are identified and expanded. 5. Potential New Markets Because current markets for textiles are strong, there has been little incentive for development of new markets. Use of textiles made of natural fibers as feedstock for a composting operation has been discussed, but no information on actual performance is available. 6. Recommendations In the case of textiles, County involvement in market development does not appear to be necessary. Instead, efforts should be focused on developing collection programs that capture increased volumes of textiles without displacing the current infrastructure of sellers of used clothing and processors of non -saleable textiles. • Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment D-2 0 E. GLASS Glass containers have been recycled into new glass containers for over 100 years. During the past 10 years, however, the increasing use of plastics has led to a decline of the glass manufacturing industry. This decreasing demand for glass containers, coupled with increasing collection of glass containers for recycling, has created a serious market imbalance for glass throughout the United States. 1. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes In King County, the volume of glass collected for recycling is increasing at an average rate of 10 percent per year. In 1990, about 13,000 tons of glass were collected for recycling in King County, which represents 35 percent of the 37,300 tons generated. With the implementation of new curbside programs, it is estimated that by the year 1995, recycled glass volumes in the Puget Sound region will reach 77,000 tons per year and will exceed 100,000 tons per year by the year 2000. At this time there are no plans by local manufacturers to increase their cullet use. Unless economically feasible export markets are developed, or new end use markets for cullet are developed there will be a large over -supply of cullet in the near future. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Glass Cullet Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 13,000 20,900 33,800 2. Analysis of Current Market Markets for manufacturing glass containers in the Northwest are extremely limited. Ball-Incon in Seattle and Ovens -Brockway in Portland are the only glass container manufacturers in the region. Glass cullet from the Puget Sound region is taken to Ball- Incon, while cullet from the rest of the state goes to Ovens -Brockway. Ball-Incon has the capacity to use up to 36,000 tons of cullet per year. Their current consumption is 30,000 tons per year. With new curbside programs starting in unincorporated King County, it is expected that Ball-Incon will reach its 36,000 tons per year ceiling by early 1992. As Ball-Incon approaches its capacity for accepting cullet, green cullet will be the first to be turned away. The market for green glass is already saturated, and the market for amber (brown) glass may soon become depressed as well. Thus, continued expansion of glass recycling in King County will depend on the use of cullet, specifically green glass and mixed color cullet, for products and applications other than container manufacturing. In the fall of 1990, Fibres International opened its glass benefication plant in South Seattle. Ball-Incon accepts glass only from this plant. The Fibres plant processes all recycled glass in the Puget Sound area, removing contaminants and preparing the cullet according to Ball-Incon's specifications. The plant is built to handle twice the volume that Ball-Incon accepts. Fibres is seeking overseas markets for the cullet, however the cost of exporting glass is extremely high. At this time Fibres is selling cullet only to Ball-Incon. Ball-Incon reports using 30 percent cullet in their flint batches, 50 percent cullet in their amber batches, and 80 percent cullet in their green batches. The higher the percentage of cullet used, the greater the volume of glass that can be recycled. However, with poor markets and customers who demand a high-quality product, glass manufacturers are demanding high-quality loads, with no contamination. For example, Ovens -Brockway has informed its customers that "one major contaminant, such as a ceramic dish, is cause for rejection of the entire load." As volumes of cullet increase and demand decreases, quality control will be increasingly critical. Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Amber (brown) glass is the smallest percentage of glass collected for recycling, at approximately 20 percent. While amber glass does not face the enormous over -supply problem that green glass does, demand is expected to decrease over the next one to three years, causing prices to drop below the current $40 per ton to as low as $10 per ton. A significant amount of the region's amber glass is currently recycled through refillable beer bottle programs. Rainier Brewery in Seattle and Henry Weinhard's Brewery in Portland accept amber beer bottles for refilling. However, the number of bottles being refilled is limited by the growth of curbside programs. Processors of recyclables collected in curbside programs cannot process beer bottles for return to breweries due to the large volume of materials that they handle. Refillable beer bottles are more readily collected at buy-back centers, but these, too, are declining in number as curbside programs come on line. G Green Green glass faces the most difficult market conditions of the glass recycling industry. The United States is a net importer of green bottles (mostly from imported beer and wine). Thus, glass plants receive large quantities of green cullet but have few customers buying green containers. In the Puget Sound area, local wineries are potential buyers of green glass, but Ball-Incon reports that the wineries demand bottles made of virgin materials. An Emergency Glass Task Force was formed by the King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials in 1991 to address a backlog of green glass at Fibres. This Task Force has continued to meet in order to address future markets for glass cullet. 3. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure • Existing infrastructure cannot handle the increasing volumes of glass cullet. Not only is the processing capacity severely limited, but demand for glass containers is not sufficient. As volumes of glass cullet increase, green glass will cause the greatest market difficulties, with amber also in over -supply. Flint is expected to maintain a stable market with stable prices. 4. Estimated Commodity Prices Fibres currently pays $40 per ton for flint. This price is expected to remain fairly constant through 1995. Amber currently brings $40 per ton at Fibres Glass Plant, however, local recyclers expect that this price will decrease to below $10 per ton by 1995. The price of green glass is currently $10 per ton, but is expected to drop to $0 per ton in 1992. Current and Projected Price per Ton for Glass Cullet Year 1990 1995 2000 Flint $40 $40 $40 Amber $40 $10 $10 Green $10 $0 $0 Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D. Recycling Markets Assessment New markets besides remanufacture into glass containers are being developed to handle the mounting stockpiles of green and mixed cullet. The Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development has established a 1995 goal that 50 percent of the glass recovered statewide be used in glass containers, 15 percent be used in fiberglass insulation, 5 percent exported, and 25 percent used for other purposes. Two new options for recycling bottles are attracting attention as the glass recycling industry approaches a critical situation, acrylic -coating glass and refilling wine bottles. Brandt Manufacturing recently introduced an acrylic -coated glass technique, wherein bottles are dipped into a clear or colored acrylic coating, which is heat -cured to a hard finish Using this technique, flint cullet can be used to create "the container," while the coating could provide "the color" of the bottle. This system eliminates the need for color separation, but the glass industry currently considers the cost of the coatings, at one cent per bottle, to be prohibitive. Also, it is unclear how the transition to this system, which uses only flint cullet would be implemented. A company in California, Encore!, has been washing and selling wine bottles back to wineries for reuse. With King County's growing wine industry, this may be a viable option. The major barriers to this process are convincing wine manufacturers of the desirability of refillable bottles and establishing a system to separate and return the bottles to the wineries. Other uses for mixed -color, green, and amber cullet are described below. These applications could use large volumes of cullet, but may need more testing before achieving widespread acceptance. Tests have been performed by New York City and some eastern states on the use of glass cullet in the repaving of roads. New York City has experimented extensively with cullet as an aggregate in asphalt and has found its performance to be on a par with sand. Tests performed in Tacoma and elsewhere indicate that glasphalt is best suited for pavement in situations where volume, tonnage, and speed are low. The City of Baltimore has used glasphalt for aesthetic reasons for many years. By testing glasphalt and adopting specifications that would allow for glasphalt as an asphalt replacement, King County could substantially increase the amount of cullet used. A local firm, Rainbow Cullet, is interested in supplying mixed -asphalt -containing glass that could be used to repave King County bicycle paths. Glass aggregate is considered to be an effective drainage material; it is cleaner than soil and as efficient as stone or sand. The National Standard Plumbing Code has recently included crushed glass as an acceptable aggregate in storm drains. The low market value of mixed cullet makes it a viable substitute for stone or sand. King County is considering testing mixed cullet as a gravel substitute for road maintenance and construction. A preliminary estimate by the King County Public Works Department is that approximately 5,000 to 10,000 tons of cullet could be used by the County for drainage aggregate per year. The Glass Aggregate Corporation, in Grand Rapids Michigan, has developed two products using crushed glass aggregate, an underdrain unit and an erosion control unit. Both have been tested and approved for use in Michigan. Glass beads are micro -sized spherical glass particles that are mixed with paint to give reflective properties for use on highway signs and pavement lines. The glass used in glass beads must be flint -colored and contaminant free. Recycled plate glass is currently the most common material used for glass beads. This is a low-volume use for glass cullet. The potential volume of glass particles used as abrasives in sandblasting material is high. As a blasting material, cullet competes with sand and metals. Glass is considered healthier than sand because it reduces the emission of silica particles into the air. In Madison, Wisconsin, an established sandblasting market pays $10 per ton for mixed cullet. The fiberglass industry has resisted the use of mixed cullet in the manufacture of fiberglass. The industry has very high specifications and insists that they need a high quality of feedstock, such as plate glass cullet. However, there is a possibility of a fiberglass plant opening in the Northwest in the next five years with the Intention of using container cullet in their manufacturing process. Foam glass (used for insulation) can be made almost entirely from recycled cullet of any color or composition. However, the building and construction industry is reluctant to use alternative building materials. Appeidir D: Ruling Markets Assessment Ser.Ron D.1: Recyclable Materkds Markets Assessment D-23 Several local companies use recycled glass cullet to make aquarium gravel (a gravel substitute in fish aquariums). Rainbow Cullet in Redmond obtains their cullet from Spectrum Glass, a local maker of colored glass. They obtain the cullet at no cost, sort it by size, tumble it, and sell it for $400 per ton. Rainbow cullet uses two tons of cullet each month It is estimated that the aquarium gravel market has a potential to use 480 tons per year of glass cullet. Increasing the markets for cullet will be a major challenge for the public and the private sectors. Ding County should encourage the establishment of minimum content requirements at the state level using models from other states. Oregon's SB 66 requires each glass container manufacturer to use 35 percent recycled glass in the manufacture of containers by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000; California's AB 2622 requires a 15 percent minimum recycled content of glass containers by 1992 and 55 percent by 2002. Small increases in the percentages of recycled content make a large difference in the amount of cullet used. In addition to minimum content legislation, new applications for glass cullet, especially green and mixed color, must be developed rapidly in order to avoid a crisis in the glass recycling industry. King County should identify products it purchases that can be made from recycled cullet and aggressively pursue testing and use of these products. • F. METALS • In addition to unique market conditions for each of the specific metal goods categories, the metals market in general is currently depressed. During the Persian Gulf war, prices dropped and have not yet recovered. Independent republics that were part of • the former Soviet Union are dumping huge amounts of product onto the market in an effort to bolster their economies. This has • affected all metals markets, some more than others. A positive note is that China's increasing participation in the world market is expected to stimulate metals markets, since China should be a large consumer of scrap ferrous and nonferrous metals. a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes In 1990, approximately 2,500 tons of white goods were recycled in King County. White goods include light ballasts, washers, dryers, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, microwave ovens, conventional ovens, and air conditioners. These materials are currently not accepted for recycling at King County transfer stations. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for White Goods Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 2,500 3,750 5,625 b. Analysis of Current Market White goods are recycled by several private companies in King County: Seattle Iron and Metal, Cedar Grove Recycling Center, and Arrow Metals. The end markets for processed white goods are the domestic and export scrap metal markets. The current market for scrap metal is depressed, as are all metal markets, due to the depressed world economy. To prepare white goods for the scrap metal market, the potentially harmful elements contained in them must be removed by trained staff. The compressor motor must be removed from refrigerators and freezers, the insulation must be removed from water heaters and freezers, and the running capacitors must be removed from any appliance that uses this type of capacitor. The metal is • Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment • D - 24 valuable, but the process to remove harmful materials and items from the appliances is costly and difficult. In this region, the city of Seattle accepts white goods at their transfer stations, removes the capacitors and compressors, and drains the oil from running capacitors that may contain PCBs. Since some of these materials may be hazardous or harmful, all of them need to be treated as harmful waste. The Department of Ecology has issued a regulation that will require all processors to capture CFCs by July 1992. Processors will need to purchase equipment or contract with services to capture and recycle the CFCs. In 1990, Arrow Metals alone processed and recycled approximately 9,000 to 12,500 tons that were classified as white goods and that originated from both inside and outside of King County's boundaries. They have expanded their facility and are able to process 2.5 times more than they are currently processing, or 22,500 to 31,250 tons per year. With this additional capacity, the future for processing white goods for the scrap metal market appears to be stable. c. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infiastructure White goods recycling is not a part of any existing curbside recycling program. Residents and businesses have limited access to recycling services for white goods. They can self -haul to the few processors in the County, pay to have the white goods picked up, or haul them to transfer stations. The County does not currently have the trained staff, equipment, or space at transfer stations to remove the potentially harmful elements contained in most white goods. White goods received at these facilities are landfilled. d. Estitmated Commodity Prices Currently, Seattle Iron & Metal has a contract with the city of Seattle to recycle the processed white goods that are collected at the transfer stations. It also pays residents for processed white goods. Cedar Grove Recycling Center charges a fee to handle washers, dryers, conventional and microwave ovens, unprocessed freezers, water heaters, and refrigerators. Arrow Metals will pick up appliances for a fee, will provide free dump service for residents who self -haul to their facility, and will pay for large volumes of appliances from businesses. The information for the following table was based on an industry survey. Current and Projected Prices for White Goods Year 1990 1995 2000 Processed items (per ton) $0 to $15 $0 to $15 $0 to $10 Unprocessed items (per item) $0 to $25 $0 to 435 $10 to 450 e. Potential New Markets Due to the longevity and stability of the scrap metal market, the metals industry has not had an incentive to create new markets. f. Recommendations In recovering white goods, the challenges seem to lie not in market development but in collection and processing systems, which must address the following issues: • The need to remove the potentially harmful components of the appliance, namely the CFCs, compressors, and running capacitors that have oil that may contain PCBs. • The lack of locations and space to remove these elements. • The lack of trained staff to properly and safely remove and dispose of or recycle these elements. • The lack of clarity regarding the regulation of the capture and recycling of CFCs. Appendix D.' Re�,4ng Markus Assessment Section D.1: Rer y+clable Materrats Markets Assessment 9 These issues could be addressed by having special recycling centers, upgrading current and future transfer stations, and by giving the private sector incentives to handle these items. 2. Aluminum Cans i a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes • In 1990, approximately 2,800 tons of aluminum cans (used beverage containers or UBCs) were collected for recycling in Ring County. This is 40 percent of the 6,450 tons of UBCs generated in the County in 1990. The national recycling rate for 1990 was • 63.6 percent as reported in the October 1991 issue of Resource Recycling. The table below shows the current and projected recycling volumes as predicted by the aluminum industry. Current and Projected Recycling volumes for UBCs • Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 2,800 3,500 3,800 • S b. Analysis of Current Market The aluminum can processors for King County are Alcoa, Kaiser, Alcan, and Reynolds Aluminum. Beverage can companies, such as American National Can, Golden Aluminum, and Budweiser, buy the recycled aluminum and produce new beverage containers. Aluminum has traditionally been the most profitable commodity for small recycling processors, but currently the market is on a downward trend. The glut of UBCs and virgin ingots at the present time have depressed prices and may force some of the • smaller processors out of business. Unlike most materials, curbside recycling programs do not seem to significantly affect the number of UBCs recycled. The • price paid for UBCs seems to affect the recycling rate more than the convenience of curbside programs. When the prices are high, people are selling cans to buy-back centers. When prices are low, they either store them and wait for a better price, or recycle them at the curb. c. Impact of Recycling Programs on lit asiruct ure Curbside recycling programs along with drop -box and buy-back centers have supplied a steady stream of UBCs to the • aluminum processors. The recycling of UBCs has been an active industry for over 20 years. Processors and end users have been gearing up during this time and are prepared for the increase in supply that recycling programs may provide. d Estimated Commodity Prices The table below shows the current and projected prices for UBCs based on price trends during the last ten years. Current and Projected Prices per Ton for UBC Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $640 to $1,020 $800 to $1,200 $1,200 to $1,400 e. Potential New Markets The UBC market is already established and no ncA, markets are planned in the foreseeable future. Section D.1: Rea ydable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recjdmg Markets Assessment D-2 5 9 These issues could be addressed by having special recycling centers, upgrading current and future transfer stations, and by giving the private sector incentives to handle these items. 2. Aluminum Cans i a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes • In 1990, approximately 2,800 tons of aluminum cans (used beverage containers or UBCs) were collected for recycling in Ring County. This is 40 percent of the 6,450 tons of UBCs generated in the County in 1990. The national recycling rate for 1990 was • 63.6 percent as reported in the October 1991 issue of Resource Recycling. The table below shows the current and projected recycling volumes as predicted by the aluminum industry. Current and Projected Recycling volumes for UBCs • Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 2,800 3,500 3,800 • S b. Analysis of Current Market The aluminum can processors for King County are Alcoa, Kaiser, Alcan, and Reynolds Aluminum. Beverage can companies, such as American National Can, Golden Aluminum, and Budweiser, buy the recycled aluminum and produce new beverage containers. Aluminum has traditionally been the most profitable commodity for small recycling processors, but currently the market is on a downward trend. The glut of UBCs and virgin ingots at the present time have depressed prices and may force some of the • smaller processors out of business. Unlike most materials, curbside recycling programs do not seem to significantly affect the number of UBCs recycled. The • price paid for UBCs seems to affect the recycling rate more than the convenience of curbside programs. When the prices are high, people are selling cans to buy-back centers. When prices are low, they either store them and wait for a better price, or recycle them at the curb. c. Impact of Recycling Programs on lit asiruct ure Curbside recycling programs along with drop -box and buy-back centers have supplied a steady stream of UBCs to the • aluminum processors. The recycling of UBCs has been an active industry for over 20 years. Processors and end users have been gearing up during this time and are prepared for the increase in supply that recycling programs may provide. d Estimated Commodity Prices The table below shows the current and projected prices for UBCs based on price trends during the last ten years. Current and Projected Prices per Ton for UBC Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $640 to $1,020 $800 to $1,200 $1,200 to $1,400 e. Potential New Markets The UBC market is already established and no ncA, markets are planned in the foreseeable future. Section D.1: Rea ydable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recjdmg Markets Assessment D-26 f. Recommendations The UBC recycling industry shows no evidence of needing assistance at this time. 3. Aluminum Scrap and Other Nonferrous Metals Other nonferrous metals include copper, brass, lead, nonmagnetic stainless steel, and non -container aluminum scrap. Aluminum is used to make many products other than beverage containers, including wire and cable, lawn furniture, aluminum siding, cookware, auto parts, awnings, window and door frames, drain pipes, and household and institutional foil. a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes An estimated 11,100 tons of aluminum scrap and nonferrous metals were collected for recycling in King County in 1990. This represents approximately 77 percent of the aluminum scrap and nonferrous metals generated in King County that year. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Nonferrous Metals Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 11,100 12,200 13,500 b. Analysis of Current Market There are approximately 25 processors for aluminum scrap and nonferrous metals in the King County area, including Seattle Iron & Steel, Non-ferrous, Inc., Arrow Metals, Cedar Grove Recycling Center, E.I.R. Recycling, Seattle transfer stations, and Puget Sound Iron & Metals. Fifteen to 50 percent of the scrap is then sold to the local market, with 50 to 85 percent going overseas. Market prices vary widely from month to month with higher prices generally paid by overseas buyers. Current market conditions are depressed due to an increase in supply caused by domestic smelters producing at or above full capacity. c. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure Currently, some curbside recycling programs collect scrap aluminum foil, but there are no programs in King County that collect other scrap aluminum or nonferrous metals at the curb. Recycling programs have increased the recycling awareness of residents and businesses, which has resulted in a slight increase of scrap aluminum and nonferrous metals being recovered. Most of these commodities had already been recycled by businesses and residents in the past. The processors can handle more product, but currently the market is depressed and processors may not be able to pay much for the commodities, which could discourage businesses or residents to deliver material to processors for recycling. The scrap aluminum and nonferrous metal market is so dependent on the international market that its major weakness right now is the lack of stability and the weak economic situation of the world market. d. Estimated Commodity Prices The current and projected prices in the table below are based on a survey of local processors. Projected prices are very uncertain as they depend on the state of the world economic market Appendix D: Reglcfing Markets Assessment Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment D-27 The nonferrous metal market is already established and no new markets are planned in the foreseeable future. L Reoommendations The aluminum scrap and nonferrous recycling industry shows no evidence of needing assistance at this time. 4. Tin Cans a. Gurrent and Projected Recycling Volurnes An estimated 3,100 tons of tin cans were collected for recycling in King County in 1990. This represents about 28 percent of the 10,900 tons of steel cans generated in the County that year. The Steel Can Recycling Institute estimates a tin can recycling rate of 66 percent by the year 1995 and 75 percent by the year 2000. Current and Projected Recycle Volumes for Tin Cans Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons Recycled 3,100 5,640 6,410 b. Analysis of Current Market MRI Corporation is the only processor of tin cans in King County. It chemically treats the cans to remove the tin and bale the steel and sell it to Salmon Bay Steel, Cascade Steel, and some foreign markets. Half as many tin cans were being processed by • MRI in 1985 as in 1990. MRI has upgraded its machinery, and with its current equipment probably won't reach capacity until 1995. The tin can market is currently depressed, with the price for tin cans between $5 and $10 per gross ton. This is due in part to changes in the processing capabilities of the local end markets. Salmon Bay Steel has merged with Seattle Steel, resulting in a temporary shutdown of one of the mills for four months and a reduction in combined capacity of 20,000 tons per month. Cascade Steel has added a new state-of-the-art furnace rated at 50,000 tons per month to replace its two smaller furnaces, which consumed . about 15,000 tons per month each. Cascade Steel's start-up was significantly behind schedule and is only now up to speed, which caused a temporary decrease in local demand for steel. C. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure The steel market is a well-established worldwide market. Recycling programs are not expected to have a significant impact on • the processors, end users, or commodity prices. Section D.1: Racy+clable Materials Markets Assessment Ap,Dendxx D: Recycling Markets Assessment �i Current and Projected Price per Ton for Nonferrous Metals Year 1990 1995 2000 • Aluminum scrap $240 to $500 $0.00 to 600 $300 to $1,000 • Copper $1,400 to $1,700 $1,600 to $1,900 $1,600 to $1,900 Brass $700 to $1,200 $600 to $1,200 $600 to $1,200 • Lead $200 to $240 $200 to $300 $200 to $300 Nonmagnetic stainless steel $360 to $400 $360 to $500 $360 to $500 • _ e. Potential New Markets D-27 The nonferrous metal market is already established and no new markets are planned in the foreseeable future. L Reoommendations The aluminum scrap and nonferrous recycling industry shows no evidence of needing assistance at this time. 4. Tin Cans a. Gurrent and Projected Recycling Volurnes An estimated 3,100 tons of tin cans were collected for recycling in King County in 1990. This represents about 28 percent of the 10,900 tons of steel cans generated in the County that year. The Steel Can Recycling Institute estimates a tin can recycling rate of 66 percent by the year 1995 and 75 percent by the year 2000. Current and Projected Recycle Volumes for Tin Cans Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons Recycled 3,100 5,640 6,410 b. Analysis of Current Market MRI Corporation is the only processor of tin cans in King County. It chemically treats the cans to remove the tin and bale the steel and sell it to Salmon Bay Steel, Cascade Steel, and some foreign markets. Half as many tin cans were being processed by • MRI in 1985 as in 1990. MRI has upgraded its machinery, and with its current equipment probably won't reach capacity until 1995. The tin can market is currently depressed, with the price for tin cans between $5 and $10 per gross ton. This is due in part to changes in the processing capabilities of the local end markets. Salmon Bay Steel has merged with Seattle Steel, resulting in a temporary shutdown of one of the mills for four months and a reduction in combined capacity of 20,000 tons per month. Cascade Steel has added a new state-of-the-art furnace rated at 50,000 tons per month to replace its two smaller furnaces, which consumed . about 15,000 tons per month each. Cascade Steel's start-up was significantly behind schedule and is only now up to speed, which caused a temporary decrease in local demand for steel. C. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure The steel market is a well-established worldwide market. Recycling programs are not expected to have a significant impact on • the processors, end users, or commodity prices. Section D.1: Racy+clable Materials Markets Assessment Ap,Dendxx D: Recycling Markets Assessment �i -2 D 8 d. Estimated Commodity Prices e. Potential New Markets The steel market is well-established. The only potential new market for steel that could have an effect on the national market is the introduction of bimetal cans. Bi -metal cans have tin -coated steel sides, with aluminum on the top and bottom. This type of can is being tested in the eastern part of the United States as an alternative to aluminum beverage containers. Local experts do not foresee this type of can being used on the West Coast Current and Projected Price per Gross Ton for Tin Cans and Scrap Steel Year 1990 1995 2000 Tin cans $5 to $10 $5 to $10 $10 to $30 Scrap steel $30 to $55 $35 to $60 $35 to $60 f. Recommendations Local experts do not believe that the County can do anything to help this particular market as it is a world market 5. Other Ferrous Metals a. Current and Projected Rec r1mg Volumes The scrap metal recycling business has been in existence for over 100 years. In 1990, approximately 70,400 tons of ferrous scrap metal were recycled in King County. This is 69 percent of the 101,400 tons generated in King County in 1990. Ferrous metals are metals that contain iron as a major component These metals are attracted to magnets so they are easily separated from other metals on pick lines at processing centers and scrap yards. Ferrous metal is often a major component in the following items: hardware, construction material, metal casting, car bodies, metal shavings from machine shops, appliances, and miscellaneous pieces of metal. For the purpose of this study, car bodies were not included as ferrous scrap metal as they are recycled at a high rate and do not impact landfills. Current and Projected Recycle Volumes for Ferrous Metals Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 70,400 77,440 85,200 b. Analysis of Current. Market There are approximately two dozen processors of other ferrous metals in the area, including Seattle Transfer Stations, Pacific Iron and Metals, Seattle Iron and Metal, Noble Metals, Cedar Grove Recycling Center, and Arrow Metals. The processors receive the materials from a wide range of sources, including construction companies, recycling companies, machine shops, small recyclers and the general public. These processors sell the scrap metal to both domestic and foreign foundries and smelters, including locally to Appendix D: Ra*dhtg Markeks AssassmW SErNon D.1: Ra*dable Materiais Markers Assessment 0 0 C. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure There are no curbside recycling programs for scrap ferrous metal in King County at this time. d. Estimated Commodity Prices Scrap ferrous prices vary according to the amount of iron present in the metal Each load of scrap ferrous metals that comes into a processors yard is assessed for iron content, then a value is determined. Current and Projected Price per Ton for Scrap Ferrous Metals Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $20 to $80 $25 to $100 $25 to $100 e. Potential New Markets The scrap metal market is stable and therefore has not had an incentive to create new markets. f. Recommendations The stability and longevity of the scrap metal market shows no evidence of needing assistance at this time. G. BATTERIES 1. Household Batteries Household battery curbside collection programs have been implemented in several communities in this state, across the country, in Japan, and in several European countries. However, there are no recycling collection programs for household batteries in King County at this time. Some batteries are collected separately by the King County Wastemobile, but currently most of these are landfilled, either at Cedar Hills or at a hazardous waste landfill in Arlington, Oregon. a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes Most of the approximately 2.9 million household batteries purchased in King County each year are placed in the trash and disposed of in the Cedar Hills Landfill, with less than one percent being recycled. Without significant public sector efforts to collect, process and transport batteries to either a recycling facility or hazardous waste landfill, there will likely be only minimal growth in Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment AA"div D. Recycling Markets Assessment D-30 household battery recycling in the County. Most collection programs for household batteries have been implemented in jurisdictions with solid waste incinerators because of potential air pollution and ash contamination by metals found in these batteries. b. Analysis of Current Market None of the jurisdictions that collect household batteries in Washington State have found an economically and environmentally sound outlet for recycling these batteries. Most of the household batteries collected in Spokane are disposed of at the hazardous waste landfill in Arlington, Oregon. Some of the button cell batteries are shipped to Mercury Refining Company for recycling. The Spokane Regional Solid Waste Authority recently disposed of 15.5 tons of household batteries at a cost of $10,000, or approximately $645 per ton. c. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure There are no current or planned household battery recycling programs. d. Estimated Commodity Prices Button cell batteries are collected by some jewelers and camera stores in the King County area. These batteries are sold to Mercury Refining Company, Inc. in Latham, New York, which is the only reprocessor of household batteries identified by this study. Mercury Refining buys button cell and lithium batteries. It buys the button cells at 5 percent over the spot silver price, currently about $4.20 per pound, and recovers the silver content of the batteries. It charges $6.00 per pound to accept lithium batteries, which it "deactivates" and sends to landfills. Although alkaline batteries make up 70 percent of the household batteries used, they are not recyclable. Rechargeable nickel cadmium batteries, found most often in household appliances, are recycled by Inmetco in Pennsylvania. Inmetco charges $250 per ton, plus shipping and handling. SNAM, a processing facility in France, also accepts nickel cadmium batteries. The Bronx 2000 project, as well as MERECO in New York, will soon ship nickel cadmium batteries collected in the United States to SNAM in France. Current and Projected Prices per Ton for Household Batteries Year 1990 1995 2000 Mercury buttons $500 $500 $500 Silver oxide cells $26,000 1.05 x spot silver price 1.05 x spot silver price Nickel cadmium $625 $780 to 41,250 $975 to -$2,510 Lithium $625 $780 to 41,250 $975 to -$2,510 Alkaline $625 $780 to $1,250 $975 to -$2,510 Carbon -zinc $625 $780 to $1,250 $975 to -$2,510 e. Potential New Markets There is a lack of feasible markets for recycling household batteries, and there are no planned new markets. f. Recommendations Given the lack of feasible markets for household battery recycling, reduction and elimination of waste batteries may be a more • practical and productive strategy for King County to pursue, at least in the short term. One example of this strategy is promotion of rechargeable batteries. Harding Energy Systems of Grand Haven, Michigan, has recently begun production of AA- and C -size nickel • hydride batteries as a replacement for the rechargeable nickel cadmium batteries. Nickel hydride batteries are reported to last twice Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment Section D.1: Rmy+"le Materials Markets Assessment 0 D-1 3 i as long as nickel cadmium and, by eliminating use of cadmium, should have a reduced environmental impact as well. Typical applications for nickel hydride batteries include pagers, radio transmitters, communications equipment, diagnostic test equipment, and laptop computers. 2. Lead Acid Batteries The most common type of lead -acid battery is the typical automotive battery, but this type of battery is also used in boats, motorcycles, and other motorized vehicles. Markets for lead -acid batteries are currently very strong. The secondary lead market remains strong because of increased environmental regulations that make it more expensive to mine for lead sources. Beneficial Recycling Inc. has announced plans to open a lead -acid battery recycling plant in the Seattle area with the ability to process up to 2.5 million batteries each year. The facility will be able to process batteries from the greater Northwest area. a. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes Nationally, approximately 85 percent of the lead -acid batteries are currently recycled. In King County in 1990, approximately 5,200 tons of vehicle batteries were collected for recycling, which is a recycling rate of 100 percent as no lead -acid batteries were found during the King County Waste Characterization Study (Appendix B). Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Lead -Acid Batteries Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 5,200 5,980 6,900 b. Analysis of Current Market The lead -acid battery industry has had tight environmental regulations placed on it in recent years, especially in the transportation arena. Because the shipping regulations are more stringent, there are fewer junkyards shipping batteries, and retailers • are back -hauling more used batteries to manufacturers. Manufacturers ship the batteries to secondary lead smelters for recycling. The export market is strong in the Pacific Northwest, especially to such countries as the Philippines, Indonesia, and India. There are only a few secondary lead smelters on the West Coast, with two large smelters located in the Los Angeles area and one in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Vancouver smelter has a relatively small capacity and handles a small quantity of batteries from King County. King County has a strong market for used batteries at this time. Batteries are delivered to manufacturers, such as Budget • Batteries and Interstate Batteries, then sold to smelters. Smelters and processors that handle batteries from the King County area include RSR Corp (City of Industry, CA), GNB, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA), and Metalex and Trail Corp (Vancouver, BC). With Beneficial Recycling Inc.'s new recycling plant opening in Seattle, plastic chips, liquid for fertilizer products, alloyed metal ingots, and containerized lead carbonate will be able to be recovered. c. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure Recycling of lead -acid batteries in Washington State was stimulated by the enactment of the $5 core charge in 1989 as part of HB 1671. The core charge serves as an economic incentive to individuals to return their used batteries at the time of purchase of a new battery. Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recjdtng Markets Assessment D-32 d. Estimated Commodity Prices The market for secondary lead remains strong and is expected to remain so in the next ten years. Sources of virgin lead are either too expensive or unavailable because of restrictions on mining activity. The secondary lead smelters are not currently running at full capacity and can absorb more volume in the near future. Individuals, businesses, recycling centers, and junk dealers receive from $0.50 to $1.00 per battery from battery manufacturers such as Budget Batteries and Interstate Batteries. These companies receive about $.05 to $.08 per pound for the batteries from domestic smelters. Current and Projected Prices for Lead -Add Batteries Year 1990 1995 2000 Battery Recyclers/Per Battery $0.50 to $1.00 $0.25 to $0.50 $0.00 to $0.25 SmeRers/Per Ton $100 to $180 $100 to $180 $100 to $180 e. Potential New Markets The industry does not have any new markets planned, but the processors are shifting from junkyards and drop-off centers to retailers of batteries. The retailers have the advantage of being able to back -haul the batteries, therefore saving on transportation costs and adding convenience to the customer. f. Recommendations King County should continue to work with the state to implement the $5 core charge on lead -acid batteries. According to the state, the public does not yet understand and use the program and some batteries are still being abandoned. The County could work with retailers to place signage on the premises to encourage lead -acid battery recycling. H. POLYCOATED PAPERBOARD 1. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes Approximately 50 tons a year are currently being recycled in the County. This includes the city of Issaquah curbside program and a number of nonresidential establishments. An estimated 10,000 tons of milk cartons and drink boxes are generated in Washington each year. Adding all other polycoated paperboard generated in the state brings the estimate to 40,000 tons per year. There are strong end-use markets for this entire volume if the material can be reclaimed into the highest possible usage. For this to occur a new facility will be required with an operating capacity of 800 tons per week. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Polycoated Paperboard Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 5o 3,000 8,000 2. Analysis of Current Market Currently there is limited collection, processing, and markets for polycoated paperboard in King County. The city of Issaquah is collecting milk cartons and drink boxes at the curb, the two major dairies in King County are recycling all of their returns and production waste, several retailers are recycling milk cartons and coffee cups, and some major hospitals and a variety of schools and other institutions are recycling milk and juice cartons. Appendix D: Rac)ding Markets Aswment ,Serlion D.1: Reydable Materials Markets Asswment D- 33 Waste Management Inc. and Fibres International are the two processors handling the material. They bale the cartons and ship them to Weyerhaeuser in Longview for hydrapulping. Both Fibres and Waste Management plan to collect and process more material within the next few years. Weyerhaeuser can handle 30 tons per week with its existing equipment. By upgrading its equipment, at a cost of $1.5 million, Weyerhaeuser will be able to handle 200 tons per week 3. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure The existing infrastructure can absorb between 30 to 200 tons per week New processing capacity will need to be developed as volumes exceed 5,000 tons per year. a. Estinnawd Commodity Prices Weyerhaeuser has guaranteed a market for the material through January 1, 1994, at $150 per ton delivered to Longview. In 1995, prices should remain at that level, but by the year 2000 the price is expected to be $180 to $200 per ton. It is anticipated that as more polycoated paperboard is collected, the market will be stimulated to build the required capacity since the end-use potential is very strong for this commodity. Reclaimed polycoated paperboard pulp can be worth $400 to $600 per ton. Current and Projected Price per Ton for Polycoated Paperboard Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $150 $150 $180 to $200 4. Potential New Markets The reclaimed pulp is used in corrugated medium and the polyethylene and aluminum are converted to energy for operating the plant The reclaimed pulp is underutilized in the corrugated medium. It can be used for tissue or writing paper. Upgrades for volume increases will need to consider the higher level usage. 5. Recommendations • At this point, the County can assist the development of the market for polycoated paperboard by participating in collection programs, especially those that provide further information about exact volumes, collection strategies, and economics of processing and handling the materials. I. TIRES All of the scrap tires generated in the County go to a vast array of processors and end-users throughout the Pacific Northwest • or are landfilled. The processors and end-users include tire jockeys, retreaders, granulators, chippers, pyrolysis plants, rubberized asphalt companies, and marine bumper and crab pot manufacturers. The tire recycling industry is still relatively young, with new • technologies developing at a rapid pace. During the 1990s, demand for used tires is expected to increase enough to reduce and possibly eliminate the state's existing fire stockpiles. V Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendiv D: Re✓ycling Markets Assessment • D 3-4 1. current and Projected Recycling Volumes There are no legal tire stockpiles in King County. In 1990, an estimated 1,114,600 tires were recycled in King County. This accounts for approximately 23 percent of the total number of tires generated in King County in 1990. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Tire Processors Tires per Year 1990 1995 2000 Retreaders 120,000 144,000 180,000 Granulators 120,000 210,000 234,000 Chippers 600,000 780,000 960,000 Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Tire End -Users Tires per Year 1990 1995 2000 Crumb rubber 12,000* 60,000 120,000 Marine products 90,000 120,000 180,000 Pyrolysis 600,000 1,392,000 2,760,000 * Used mostly as rubberized asphalt. 2. Analysis of current Market Tires collected in King County are sent to processors and end users throughout Washington and Oregon. Therefore, markets for tires must be addressed on a regional level. Approximately 70 percent of the waste tires recycled in King County are used by granulators and chippers, mostly located outside of the County. Retreaders account for approximately 15 percent of the used tire market; marine bumpers and crab pots account for 5 percent; and rubberized asphalt, athletic tracks, and pyrolysis all account for about 10 percent. Tire -derived fuel, or TDF, is currently the largest end-use for scrap tires in the state, capturing approximately 75 percent of the used tire stream. TDF will most likely maintain its position in the industry unless a new technology replaces it, such as an improved alternative fuel source. The Department of Ecology is currently focusing on cleaning up the 30 million tires that are stockpiled around the state. At the completion of the first year of the $1 per tire surcharge program, the state has cleaned up 16 million tires. Approximately 13.8 million tires were removed on paper (because of prior stockpile size miscalculations) and 2.2 million in actuality. The state has awarded many of its cleanup projects to TDF producers, because this technology can move the largest numbers of tires at the least cost. Firms such as Waste Recovery, Tire Recyclers, and Tire Shredders have been awarded tire stockpile cleanup contracts, but may be forced to readjust their capacity in line with current scrap tire generation once the stock piles are cleaned up. 3. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure It is estimated that the markets will be able to handle the volume of both the existing stockpiles and the current tire flow over the next decade, mainly because new recycling technologies are being developed at a rapid pace and several facilities are projected to come on line. Appendiv D: Regjding Markets Assessment Sec&n D.1: Ro*dable Mater** Marker Assessment 5. Potential New Markets Several new markets for scrap tires are on the verge of major growth in Washington State. Pyrolysis as an alternative fuel source may soon develop into a viable markets in the Northwest within the next five years. Up to this point, the byproducts of oil, gas, and carbon have not been marketable, and the expense of handling the byproducts has not been economical. At this time no tires from King County are being used for pyrolysis purposes. Process Fuels, Inc. in Spokane, WA has a permit and will soon build a manufacturing plant that will utilize the entire 6 - million -tire Spokane stockpile in two years. The byproducts of this process are gas cogenerated for electricity, oil, and ash to be sold to the state highway system for use in production of recycled plastic sign posts. Process Fuels is interested in siting and building a manufacturing facility on the west side of the Cascade Mountains. In addition, Oxford Tire Recycling in California is actively seeking tire suppliers in King County for its 51 -megawatt power plant soon to be built in Nevada. Rubberized asphalt, currently a small user of scrap tires, could expand greatly with support from state and local government agencies. A mandate to use rubberized asphalt in construction and repaving projects would provide an opportunity to demonstrate the performance and cost effectiveness of the product. The Wayne Technology Corporation in Rochester, NY has developed a new technology for converting mixed waste, including tires and plastic film, into a reusable oil product through a process called thermolytic distillation. This process is still in the experimental stage, but appears to have promise for recycling of tires. 6. Recommendations • King County can assist the state in improving scrap tire markets by implementing aggressive procurement policies for used tires. The rubberized asphalt industry would greatly benefit from an intercounty procurement program for rubberized asphalt The • marine products industry would benefit if port authorities and government agencies prioritized the purchase of recycled products. In addition, the King County procurement of non -emergency recapped tires for government vehicles and tire -derived fuel for government buildings would significantly stimulate the private sector. L] Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appends' D: Recyd!mg Markels Assessment D-36 J. FOOD WASTE 1. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes In King County, 44,600 tons of residential food waste and 16,600 tons of nonresidential food waste are disposed of annually through the County's solid waste system. In addition, the nonresidential generation rate for food waste is estimated to be significantly higher than indicated by disposal and recycled figures since many supermarkets and restaurants grind their food waste and dispose of it via the sewer system. To date there have been no significant efforts made in recycling food waste, although some is collected for rendering purposes. The Washington Department of Ecology 1990 Recycling Survey reports 15,439 tons of food waste recycled in King County. This amount represents quantities reported from two companies operating in the County. One firm collects grease from restaurants and food processors for rendering. The other collects meat byproducts, also primarily for rendering. Current and Projected Recycling Volumes for Food Waste Year 1990 1995 2000 Tons recycled 15,439 17,000 25,300 Additionally, a number of restaurants are working with food banks and shelters to distribute their edible food remains, and there have been a few pilot onsite composting programs developed at grocery stores and restaurants through the County's Master Composter/Recycler efforts. Some residents compost their food waste in their backyards. It is estimated that as many as 7 percent of the County's urban single-family households handle part of their food waste in this manner. Rural residents are also likely to either compost their food waste or feed it to animals. However, the majority of food waste generated in King County is either landfilled or put down the sewer. Without significant public sector efforts, it is estimated that only minimal growth in food waste recycling will occur through 1995 and 2000. The public sector efforts that would have an impact are the development and delivery of collection programs, bans on food waste at the landfill or in the sewer system or both, or financial incentives to the generators or haulers to reduce their waste streams further. 2. Analysis of Current Market There are two broad categories of food waste: waste from food processing plants and consumer food waste, which includes grocery store spoilage, restaurants, and the residential stream. According to the Washington Compost Market Assessment conducted for the Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development, the Seattle metropolitan area includes 10 food processors out of a total of 57 in the state. In addition, there is the subcategory of food reprocessors that are one step removed from the agricultural food product. Reprocessors tend to locate near the major population centers. It is estimated that there are a significant number of these firms operating in King County. These usually smaller, diverse companies are generally not part of industry associations and are difficult to identify. Most of the area compost processors have experimented on some level with adding food waste to their yard waste during the decomposition process. To date, the amounts are insignificant. However, local processors are gaining some, if limited, experience at handling the food waste material. There is definitely interest among the local processors in beginning to process food waste. Food waste is seen as a potentially strong market and addition to their business if the processing issues can be resolved. These issues include odor, type of bulking agent, type of system (windrows, in -vessel, or other), regulatory requirements, (especially health department regulations), potential vectors, type and strength of end -market, capital and ongoing costs, impact on yard waste markets, and source -separation from other recyclables to prevent contamination. Appendix D: Rec)lmg Markets Assessment Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment I• ....................................... ........................................................ D- 3 7 • • 3. Impact of Recycling Programs on Infrastructure 0 with the exception of a limited number of pilot programs, there are no current or planned food waste programs. However, large-scale recycling of food waste would significantly impact the existing infrastructure. There are no existing facilities that can 0 handle food waste without major operational and/or regulatory changes. The collection system would also require significant • modifications both in truck and collection container design. Yard waste markets would also be impacted by the added volume of material to be utilized. Since there has been so little food waste composting either in the County or across the nation, it is impossible to accurately project what the value of large amounts of composted food waste would be. Most experts, however, project that the value of food waste compost would equal or exceed the value of yard waste compost. Current and Projected Price per Ton for Food Waste Year 1990 1995 2000 Dollars/ton $0 $10 $5 5. Potential New Markets Other than the current pilot programs and potential new processing facilities, there are no new markets planned for food waste recycling at this time. The County and the city of Seattle will be participating in an assessment of food waste collection, processing, and markets through a joint Department of Ecology grant The results of these studies will provide valuable information on the potential compostability of food waste in King County and is the most valuable market development assistance the County can provide at this time. The County can also improve the potential markets for food waste by using composted yard waste in all applications that previously used nonrecycled products, such as peat and sand. IC SOURCES Persons and publications that were consulted in developing the Recycling Markets Assessment are organized by material categories and by private sector contacts, public sector contacts, and publications. Sec ion D.1: Ragclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Regltng Markets Assessment 1. Paper . Private Sector Contacts Andresen, Wayne, Inland Empire Paper Mill, WA . Armstrong, Mark, Scott Paper, Everett, WA Boddie, Connie, Weyerhaeuser, North Bend, OR I• Campbell, Ken, Boise Cascade, Tacoma, WA Sec ion D.1: Ragclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Regltng Markets Assessment D- 38 Chmekliuskas, Al, Macmillan Bloedel, Vancouver, BC, Canada Evans, Susan, Longview Fiber, Longview, WA International Paper, Gardiner, OR Katchetorian, Sara Lee, Boise Cascade, WA Keyes Fiber, Wenatchee, WA Michelson Packaging, Yakima, WA Parsons, Bill, Georgia Pacific, Toledo, OR Peterson, Shawn, Grays Harbor Paper Co., WA Sherman, Ed, James River Clatskanie, OR Sonoco Products, Sumner, WA Spence, Steve, Rabanco Companies, Ltd., Seattle, WA Tisdale, Jim, Smurfit Newsprint, Newburg, OR Womball, Glen, Waste Management of North America, Seattle, WA Public Sector Contacts Hoffman, Ray, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA Horne -Brine, Preston, Washington Dept. of Trade and Economic Development, Seattle, WA Publications Apotheker, Steve. Animal Bedding -A Capital Idea. Resource Recycling. July 1990, p. 42. Beck, Patty and Pete Grogan. Minimum Content Legislation: An Effective Market Development Tool. Resource Recycling. September 1991, P. 90. BAxyde. New Firms Create Markets for Recyclables. November 1991, p. 52. Biocycle. Recycled Phone Books Find Home in Brewery Sludge. November 1991, p. 62. Bruening, John. Newsprint Recycling Starting to See Light. Recycling Today. October 1991, p. 64. Combs, Susan. House RCRA Draft Includes Minimum Recycled Content. Recycling Times. October 22, 1991, p. 1. Franklin Associates, LTD. National Ojfiee Paper Recycling Project: Supply of and Recycling Demand for Ogee Waste Paper, 1990 to 1995 (Final Report). July 1991. Frey, James A. Newsprint Production, Consumption, and Recovery: Switching to Recycled Fiber. Resource Recycling. July, 1991, p. 33. Gallaway, Matt. States on the Cutting Edge of Market Development. Resource Recycling. July 1991, p. 77. Kacandes, Tom. Market Development in New York: A Report from the Field. Resource Recycling. September 1991, p. 53. Matrix Management Group. Mixed Waste Paper Market Assessment Washington Dept. of Trade and Economic Development, December 1990, Seattle, WA. Meade, Kathleen. Need for New, Two -Tier Recycled Paper Standard Debated. Recycling 7tmes. June 4, 1991. Meade, Kathleen. RAC Passes First Paper Recycling Recommendations. Recycling 7tmes. May 7, 1991, p. 7. Meade, Kathleen- Recycled Fiber Use could Save U.S. and Canadian Mills Money. Recycling 71mes. April 9, 1991. Meade, Kathleen. Washington Tackles Mixed Waste Paper Recycling. Recycling 7tmes. April 9, 1991. Misner, Michael. Advertising Drops Affect ONP. Recycling ftes. September 10, 1991. Misner, Michael. Office Paper, OMG Lead Waste Paper Markets. Recycling 7tmes. June 18, 1991. Misner, Michael. Poor Prices Depress Dealers. Recycling 7tmes. August 27, 1991. Agenda D: Reryrkng Markets Assessment Section D.1: RegwMle Materials Markets Assessment D-39 Recycle This Newsletter. Inland Empire Paper Mill on Line with Deink. October 1991. Recycling 7tmes. Old Phone Books Could Make New Yellow Pages. October 8, 1991. Resource Recycling. Paper Recycling Markets. May 1991, p. 52. Resource Recycling. Paper Recycling Markets. June 1991, p. 82. Resource Recycling. New Recycling Markets. September 1991, p. 28. Resource Recycling. Paper Recycling Markets. October 1991, p. 84-5. Ramsey, David. ONP Makes Better Bedding, Midwest Research Shows. Recycling 7irw. September 10, 1991. Sandoval, Daniel. Paper Industry Meeting Focuses on 40 Percent. Recycling Today. p. 64. Solid baste and Power. Briefly. December 1991, p. 72. Strickman, AL The Recycled Paper Cycle in Thailand. Resource Recycling. July 1991, p. 109. The Paper Stock Report. October 21, 1991. Ward, Mark Who's Buying Paper. Recycling Today. May 1991, p. 52. Wastelines. Paper Procurement on the RAC. September 1991, p. 5. Washington State Department of Ecology. Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan: Markets for Recyclable Materials. Issue Paper No. 7. July 1990. Olympia, WA. Watson, Tom. State Market Development: The Tried, The True and The New. Resource Recycling. September 1991, p. 47. 2. Plastics Private Sector Contacts Bissell, John, Recycled Plastics Marketing, Bellevue, WA Burks, Don, Rainier Plastics, Yakima, WA Butler, Bernie, McConkey Plastics, Sumner, WA Cote, John, Sepco Recycling Systems, Spokane, WA Denton, Dennis, Denton Plastics, Portland, OR Gaudet, Robert, Partek Plastics, Vancouver, WA Kwon, John, Interstate Plastics, Vancouver, WA Newman, Christopher, Rainbow Cullet, Redmond, WA Perkins, Ron, The Council For Solid Waste Solutions, Washington, DC Spence, Steve, Rabanco Companies, Ltd., Seattle, WA Public Sector Contacts Luboff, Chris, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA St Germain, Susan, Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development, Seattle, WA Publications Brewer, Gretchen. Plastic Bottles Close The Loop. Resource Recycling. May 1991, p. 88 Combs, Susan New Clorox Bleach Bottle Will Contain 20 Percent Recycled HDPE. Recycling 7tmes. Dec. 3, 1991. Combs, Susan. CSWS Funds Development of AIC Plastics Sorting Technology. Recycling 7tmes. Dec. 3, 1991. Combs, Susan. Plastics Recycling Had a Tumultuous Year in '91. Recycling Times. Oct 22, 1991. Combs, Susan. New Oregon City Plant Will Target Polystyrene and LDPE. Recycling Times. Dec. 31, 1991. Combs, Susan. Michigan Co. Opens Plant to Recycle LDPE Film Bags. Recycling 7tmes. Oct 22, 1991. 0 Section D.1: Reelable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Regdmg Markets Assessment 0 Combs, Susan. Pennsylvania Plastics Recycler Will Concentrate on HDPE. Recycling 7tmes. Oct. 22, 1991. Engel, Stephen. Controlling Plastics Recycling Collection Costs. Resource Recycling. May 1991, p. 78. Meade, Kathleen. CSWS Study Shows Plastics Recycling Up. Recycling 7tmes, Dec. 3, 1991. Meade, Kathleen. Firm Finds Niche Producing Quality Post -Consumer Resin. Recycling 7tmes. August 27, 1991. Misner, Michael. Wayne Turns Tires, Plastics to Oil. Recycling 7tmes. Dec. 3, 1991. Misner, Michael. Nissan and Honda Try To Recycle Painted Plastic Car Bumpers. Recycling 7tmes. Dec. 3, 1991. Misner, Michael. Most Markets Hit the Bottom Line in 1991. Recycling Mimes. Dec. 31, 1991. Misner, Michael. Plastics, Paper, UBCs Dreary. Recycling 7tmes. OcL 22, 1991. Perkins, Ron. Collection Economics For Plastics Recycling. Resource Recycling, May 1991, p. 66. Plastics Recycling Update. October 1990 -December 1991. Recycle This Newsletter. McDonald's Drops PS. November, 1990. Recycle 7M Newsletter. Pay'N Save Has Recycle -Mania. November, 1990. Recycle 7M Newsletter. PET Recycling Plant Opens. November, 1990. Recycle This Newsletter. Akron Zoo Creates Plastic Park December, 1990. Recycle 7M Newsletter. Sonoco & Mobil Collect Plastic Bags. December, 1990. Recycle This Newsletter. Trash Bags Made Of Recycled Plastic. December, 1990. Recycle ft Newsletter. Green Cross Gives Seal To Peanuts. April, 1991. Recycle This Newsletter. New Washington State Firm Closes Seattle's Loop. May, 1991. Recycle This Newsletter. Plastics Industry Recycling Campaign. May, 1991. Recycle This Newsletter. Truck Grinds Plastics. July, 1991. Recycle 7hfs Newsletter. Procter & Gamble Enters NW Plastics Market. August, 1991. Recycle This Newsletter. Plastic Lumber Mill Planned. January, 1991. Recycling Mimes. The Markets Page. October 1990 -December 1991. Resource Recycling. Market Update: Plastics. October 1990 -December 1991. Resource Recycling. Plastic Film Collected From Residences. December 1991, p. 18. Solid Waste & Power. New England Polystyrene Shipped To New Jersey. October 1991, p. 50. Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development, Plastics Recycling in Washington and the Northwest: An Assessment of Market Opportunities, Seattle, WA. Wastelines. Tetra Pak and Superwood Strike a Deal September, 1990. Wastelines. The Return of Returnable Milk Jugs. September, 1990. 3. Textiles Private Sector Contacts Benezra, Larry, Buffalo Industries, Seattle, WA Barber, Fred, Barco Industries, Seattle, WA Eastman, John, Northwest Textiles, Tacoma, WA Jones, Jill, Goodwill Industries, Seattle, WA Apperdlir D: Rec)dsng Manus Assessment Section D.1: Req)rlable Materials Markets Assessment D-41 4. Glass Private Sector Contact Dolphin, Bob, Owens Brockway, Portland, OR Newman, Christopher, Rainbow Cullet, Redmond, WA Eland, Sid, Sid Eland Distributors, Seattle, WA Skerbeck, Marilyn, Waste Management of Seattle, Seattle, WA Spence, Steve, Rabanco Companies, Ltd., Seattle, WA Public Sector Contacts Hoffman, Ray, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA • Publications AOR Newsletter. Weyerhaeuser to Supply Paper to James River Mills. June 1991. • Apotheker, Steve. Glass Containers: How Recyclable Will They Be in the 1990's? Resource Recycling. June 1991. Barcikowski, Deborah. Glass Recycling Continues Popularity with Consumers. Recycling Today. August 1991. • Bottle/Can Recycling Updates. April 1991 -September 1991. C2S2 Group, Inc. Market Assessment for Use of Recycled Tires, Oil, and Glass. The Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development. October 1990. • California AB 2622 Relating to Recycled Content in Recycled Glass. Emergency Glass Task Force. Technical Literature Abstracts. Waste Management Inc. September 1991. • Galoway, Matt States on Cutting Edge of Market Development. Resource Recycling. July 1991. Glass Recycling Update. Ball-Incon and Fibres International. August 16, 1991. Kacandes, Tom. Market Development in New York: A Report from the Field. Resource Recycling. September 1991. King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials. King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials Report 1991. Mattheson, Greg. Letter to Glass Suppliers. Fibres International. July 1991. Meade, Kathleen Brewing Companies Refill Bottles with a Recycling Twist Recycling Today. June 1991. Meade, Kathleen. Green Glass Oversupply Increases Across the U.S. Waste Age's Recycling Times. July 16, 1991. Meade, Kathleen National Plumbing Code Adds Recycled Glass to Drain Spec. Recycling Ttmes. September 10, 1991. Meade, Kathleen. Recyclers Turn to New Markets for Green and Mixed Cullet Recycling Hines. August 13, 1991. OR Senate Bill 66 Relating to Recycled Content in Newsprint Recycle America. Recycle America Fact Sheet Fall 1991. Recycle This Neuissletter. Glass Recycling: Getting the Scoop on Cullet July 1991. Recycle This Newsletter. Crash! It's the Price of Green Glass. Spokane, WA, August 1991. Recycling Times. Mexican Factory Could Take U.S. Cullet to Make Glassware. September 24, 1991. Resource Recycling. Market Development Case Study: Brandt Manufacturing. September 1991. Rissell, Carol J. Letter to Recyclers. Owens Brockway. April 3, 1991. Trombley, Jeanne. Developing Non -Traditional Glass Markets. Resource Recycling. October 1991. Ward, Mark Who's Buying Glass. Recycling Today. March 1991. Wasbington State Recycling Association Newsletter. Green Glass Price Drop. August 1991. Section D.1: Reqble Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment D-42 5. Metals Private Sector Contacts Arrow Metals Corporation, Woodinville, WA Cedar Grove Recycling Center, Maple Valley, WA Force, Jack, MRI Corporation, Seattle, WA Guthrie, Reid, Alcoa Recycling, Renton, WA Sidel, Alan, Seattle Iron and Metals Corporation, Seattle, WA Simons, Norm, Joseph Simon & Sons, Tacoma, WA Stead, Jack, Salmon Bay Steel, Seattle, WA Steel Can Recycling Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Urbick, Sara, Skagit River Steel and Recycling, Burlington, WA Public Sector Contacts Belt, Laura, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA Brooks, Karen, Seattle, Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA Lorch, Craig, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA Monk, Marilyn, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA Ornes, Maria, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA Starr, Gayle, Cedar Hills Landfill, Maple Valley, WA Publications Apotheker, Steve. Aluminum: The times are changing. Resource Recycling. November 1989, p. 20-24. Apotheker, Steve. Everyone wants the aluminum can. Resource Recycling. October 1991, p. 60 - 70 Bol WCan Recycling Update. UBC Exports. April through September, 1991. BoAWCan Recycling Update. UBC Market Analysis. April through September, 1991. BottlP/Can Recycling Update. Steel Can Recycling News. April through September, 1991. Creel II, James M. The maturing market for aluminum foil and foil products. Resource Recycling. October 1991, p. 52, 53, 56, 58- 59. Force, Jack. Recycled Tin Can Market -199. MRI Corporation for A.O.R. Conference in OR. 1991. Misner, Michael. Aluminum used beverage can prices. Recycling 7£mes. Aug. -Nov., 1991. Powell, Jerry. Household aluminum scrap: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Resource Recycling Powell, Jerry. We can, says the scrap industry. Resource Recycling. February 1991, p. 18, 20, 23, 25. Recycle 7hzs Newsletter. Price of Cans. September through November, 1991. Recycle 7brs Netaslelter. Reynolds, Alcan cut aluminum production. November 1991. Recycle Ibis Neusletter. Can recycler will also process slag. November 1991. Recycling Today, Scrap Managed Better. March 1991, pg 33. Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/ferrous. July 1991, p. 122-123. Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/ferrous. September 1991, p. 127-128. Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/ferrous. November 1991, p. 90. Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/non-ferrous. July 1991, p. 123. Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/non-ferrous. September 1991, p. 128. March 1991, p. 72, 75-77. Appendix D: Regdmg Markets Ammment Section D.1: Regclable Materials Markets Assessment D-43 Resource Recycling. Market Update: Metals/non-ferrous. November 1991, p. 91. 7be Soft Drink Recycler. Recycling Exceeds 50 Percent! Summer 1991. Seattle Solid Waste Utility. Study on White Goods Disposal. Seattle, WA Ward, Mark Commodity Focus -Who's Buying Steel. Recycling Today. July 1991, p. 68 - 74. Washington State Recycling Association Newsletter. Can, Can. October 1991. Private Sector Contacts Allen, Tom, Interstate Battery, Lynnwood, WA Clark, Ken, GNB, Inc., Los Angeles, CA Deetjen, Larry, Harding Energy Systems, Grand Haven, MI Dillman, Glen, Burlington Environmental, ChemPro, Seattle, WA Enumclaw Recycling, Enumclaw, WA Fisher, Carl, RSR Corporation, City of Industry, CA Meucci, Lisa, Recycling Coordinator, ReComp, Bellingham, WA Monzelowski, Roger, Budget Batteries, Seattle, WA Public Sector Contacts Boge, Rick, Skagit County Public Works, Mount Vernon, WA Barrett, Steve, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA Dubois, Annette, Spokane Regional Southwest Disposal Project, Spokane, WA Recycling Hotline, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA Sieberger, Donald, Solid and Hazardous Waste, Department of Ecology, Bellevue, WA Publications Apotheker, Steve. Batteries power secondary lead smelter growth. Resource Recycling. February 1990, p. 46-47, 92. Apotheker, Steve. Does battery recycling need a jump? Resource Recycling. February 1990, p. 21-23, 91. C2S2 Group, Inc. Household Battery Project. King County Solid Waste Division. 1989. &r#x,orks Newsletter. Household Batteries Collected. October 1991. Gitlin, Lisa. Batteries Not Included. Recycling Today. March 1991, p. 58-59. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Household Battery Recycling and Disposal Study. June 1991. Rudinger, Nancy and Dan de Grassi. Household battery recycling: numerous obstacles, few solutions. Resource Recycling. April 1991, p. 24-29. Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development New Battery Recycling Plant To Open In Washington. Re -Marketable News. Dec. 1991, p. 5. 7. Polycoated Paperboard Private Sector Contacts Augenstin, Russ, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA Echick, James, Paperboard Packaging Institute, Washington, DC Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Agendiv D. Recycling Markets Assessment Haines, Ed, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA Den, Ed, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA Lapic,Greg, Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, WA Moon, Jeff, Ponderosa Fibers, Augusta, GA Mounsey, Clark, Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, WA Priano, Lieve, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA 8. Tires Private Sector Contacts Bolser, Tom, Al Bolser Tires, Inc., Seattle, WA Bridges, Phil, Conrad Industries, Centralia, WA Brown, Carol, Pavetech, Seattle, WA Chryst, Milton, Rubber Granulators, Lynnwood, WA Daley, Pete, Waste Recovery, Portland, OR Freeman, Jim, Tire Recyclers, Winloch, WA Hope, Mark, Waste Recovery, Portland, OR Howard, Scott, Holman, Inc., Seattle, WA Keller, Dale, Les Schwab, Prineville, OR Kerber, Denis, Schuyler Manufacturing, Woodinville, WA Mathew, Mitch, P.C. Casing, Kent, WA Munger, Joe, Process Fuels, Inc., Spokane, WA Wright, Sonny, Tire Shredders, Goldendale, WA Scofield, Bob, Dorian Metals, Seattle, WA Public Sector Contacts Clark, Dale, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA Thung, Melina, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA Publications BA%ycle. The bumpy road to tire recycling. May June 1991, p. 28-37. Blumenthal, Michael- Using scrap tire rubber for asphalt. Biocycle. Oct. 1991, p. 47. C2S2 Group, Inc. Market Assessment for Use of Recycled Tires, Oil, and Glass. The Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Developmentt, October 1990. Misner, Michael. Wayne Turns Tires, Plastic To OIL Recycling nines. Dec. 3, 1991. Powell, Jerry. All types and sizes available: Recent scrap tire recycling legislation. Resource Recycling. December 1990, p. 60-64. SCS, ECO Northwest and C2S2 Group, Inc. Feasibility Study To Site and Operate a Tire Recycling Facility in Washington State. 1989. Sikora, Mary. A little retreading goes a lot of miles. Resource Recycling. December 1990, p. 50, 52-58. 4AVda D: R&-jdmg Markets Assessment Serfion D.1: Recyclable Mate►rak Markus Assessment ........................................... .... ... .... .. ...D ...................................... Haines, Ed, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA Den, Ed, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA Lapic,Greg, Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, WA Moon, Jeff, Ponderosa Fibers, Augusta, GA Mounsey, Clark, Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, WA Priano, Lieve, Tetra Pak, Vancouver, WA 8. Tires Private Sector Contacts Bolser, Tom, Al Bolser Tires, Inc., Seattle, WA Bridges, Phil, Conrad Industries, Centralia, WA Brown, Carol, Pavetech, Seattle, WA Chryst, Milton, Rubber Granulators, Lynnwood, WA Daley, Pete, Waste Recovery, Portland, OR Freeman, Jim, Tire Recyclers, Winloch, WA Hope, Mark, Waste Recovery, Portland, OR Howard, Scott, Holman, Inc., Seattle, WA Keller, Dale, Les Schwab, Prineville, OR Kerber, Denis, Schuyler Manufacturing, Woodinville, WA Mathew, Mitch, P.C. Casing, Kent, WA Munger, Joe, Process Fuels, Inc., Spokane, WA Wright, Sonny, Tire Shredders, Goldendale, WA Scofield, Bob, Dorian Metals, Seattle, WA Public Sector Contacts Clark, Dale, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA Thung, Melina, Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, WA Publications BA%ycle. The bumpy road to tire recycling. May June 1991, p. 28-37. Blumenthal, Michael- Using scrap tire rubber for asphalt. Biocycle. Oct. 1991, p. 47. C2S2 Group, Inc. Market Assessment for Use of Recycled Tires, Oil, and Glass. The Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Developmentt, October 1990. Misner, Michael. Wayne Turns Tires, Plastic To OIL Recycling nines. Dec. 3, 1991. Powell, Jerry. All types and sizes available: Recent scrap tire recycling legislation. Resource Recycling. December 1990, p. 60-64. SCS, ECO Northwest and C2S2 Group, Inc. Feasibility Study To Site and Operate a Tire Recycling Facility in Washington State. 1989. Sikora, Mary. A little retreading goes a lot of miles. Resource Recycling. December 1990, p. 50, 52-58. 4AVda D: R&-jdmg Markets Assessment Serfion D.1: Recyclable Mate►rak Markus Assessment .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... D - 45 Private Sector Contacts Iddings, Laura, Iddings, Inc, Kent, WA Klick, Dave, Northwest Food Processors Association, Portland, OR Prenguber, Bruce, Northwest Economic Associates, Vancouver, WA Skumatz, Lisa, Synergic Resources Corporation, Seattle, WA Public Sector Contacts Vu, Tuan, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA Section D.1: Recyclable Materials Markets Assessment Appendix D. Reding Markets Assessment D-4 6 Section D.2 Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood A SUMMARY This report summarizes the current conditions of the markets for recycled or composted yard waste and wood products, based on a phone survey of industry professionals and an evaluation of previous studies. Wood is primarily composed of unprocessed wood debris, such as stumps, roots, trees, and branches removed from landscaping, development and land clearing sites. Yard waste consists of grass clippings, leaves, and small branches from residential and commercial landscaping. Wood is processed for use as a mulch, while yard waste is processed for use as a soil amendment or mulch. Yard waste and wood composting is a new industry, and the evolving markets do not reveal defined parameters. A few important market conditions will continue to influence market development, however • New curbside collection programs may create a Out of yard waste compost over the next two years. • Demand will continue to expand, but will require the timely process of gaining consumer acceptance and confidence. • Demand for yard waste and wood products may be assisted by rising prices of timber byproducts. • Long-term demand should be sufficient for all yard waste and wood supplies. • Total processing capacity for King County yard waste will be 250,000 to 350,000 cubic yards for 1992• • Diversion through existing programs in King County is projected to reach 99,000 tons per year by the year 2000. The markets for yard waste products are in the middle of a critical period of rapid expansion and development in King County. The input market for unprocessed yard waste and the product markets for composted materials and mulches are all being inundated by unprecedented expansions of supply. The dramatic increase of curbside collection programs concentrated over the last few years and continuing into 1992 will continue to provide increasing quantities of yard waste. The markets for selling wood have been developed over a longer period and have achieved more stable footing. There will also be some increases in the supply of wood to recyclers, but they already have secured successful channels into the mulching and hog fuel (wood fuel for power generators) markets. According to this study and previous market analysis, there should be sufficient processing and demand capacity in existing markets to ensure long-term sustainable markets for yard wastes and wood. The products will be primarily absorbed in the topsoil, mulch, and wood fuel markets. The shrinking supplies and rising costs of timber byproducts should allow successful marketing of yard waste and wood products without displacing other important recycled composts from animal and sewer products. Over the next few years, however, collection programs will probably produce a Out in the yard waste processing sector, creating compost stockpiles and difficulties in marketing. Supplies of wood will not be as strongly affected, and wood product demand will stay healthy as bark mulch prices continue to rise and more hog fuel plants come on line. The competitive market of yard waste processing and product supply is locally contained, with most input and output sources within 30 miles of Seattle. There are excellent opportunities for King County and other public agencies to play an effective role in supporting a bulging market. The County can assist other agencies in establishing product specification and certification procedures, providing consumer education and publicity, and establishing county contract specifications for procurement of compost products. Appendir D. Recycft Markets Assessment SwJwn D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood D- 4 7 .............. B. METHOD • This market assessment combines previous relevant market research with a current phone survey of yard waste and wood processors and users in King County. The phone survey contacted about 10 yard waste processors, 15 other soil processors or distributors, 15 commercial users, and 10 public agencies. The framework for the survey was based on the Washington Department of • Ecology market assessment guidelines for local solid waste management. The abbreviated survey format, combined with lack of precise answers from respondents, allowed for few exact quantitative results. The survey does provide valuable consensus of • parameters, issues, and considerations in the expanding marketing of yard waste and wood products. Previous compost market assessments have encountered similar problems with accurately predicting market value and capacity. • Actual estimates generated previously have been primarily based on impressions of contacts in the soil industry. Previous market assessments have been conducted for Washington State (NEA 1990), Snohomish County (NEA 1988), Seattle (Pope -Reid 1988), and Portland (NEA 1986, CRS 1988). In all cases, they concluded there were good indications that soil products markets could absorb the additional products from full-scale yard waste composting programs. King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials will be conducting a countywide market assessment under a Department of Ecology grant beginning in January 1992. C. MARKET SUPPLY 1. Waste Generation Yard waste and wood now account for 20 percent of the solid waste generated in King County (SCS, 1991). The following generation estimates were provided by SCS Engineers based on data from King County and the Washington State Department of Ecology. The portion of wood that is bulky wood and stumps ("natural" wood as defined in the King County Waste Characterization Study, Appendix B) is included in the figures. • 2. Source -separation Diversion Yard waste and wood represent large components of the solid waste stream that can be source separated and processed into useful products using fairly simple procedures. Wood has been diverted for many years by commercial operations (construction and land clearing), but only recently have attempts been made to divert and process a significant amount of yard waste in King County. . Small quantities of yard waste have been diverted for years through commercial self -hauling to topsoil processors and commercial and residential self -composting. Between 1989 and 1992 almost all communities in King County introduced household yard waste • collection for single-family residents, in response to increased solid waste tipping fees, heightened environmental ethics, and, most importantly, countywide requirements. The 19691Cng County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan required that all residents be served by yard waste collection programs. Household collection was encouraged for urban areas. . In the spring of 1989, three cities in King County began household yard waste collection programs. By the spring of 1992, 24 of the remaining 29 suburban cities and all urban unincorporated areas had begun their own programs. A number of cities ban yard • waste from the mixed waste stream. In most areas the service is provided by private haulers, primarily Rabanco and Waste Management subsidiaries, under either franchise or contract agreements. Almost all programs are voluntary and charge a service fee Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood Appendix D: RecjCmg Markets Assessment Diversion through Year Yard Waste Generation Current Programs 1990 149,700 tons per year 57,200 tons per year 1995 175,000 tons per year 86,000 tons per year 2000 192,000 tons per year 99,000 tons per year • 2. Source -separation Diversion Yard waste and wood represent large components of the solid waste stream that can be source separated and processed into useful products using fairly simple procedures. Wood has been diverted for many years by commercial operations (construction and land clearing), but only recently have attempts been made to divert and process a significant amount of yard waste in King County. . Small quantities of yard waste have been diverted for years through commercial self -hauling to topsoil processors and commercial and residential self -composting. Between 1989 and 1992 almost all communities in King County introduced household yard waste • collection for single-family residents, in response to increased solid waste tipping fees, heightened environmental ethics, and, most importantly, countywide requirements. The 19691Cng County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan required that all residents be served by yard waste collection programs. Household collection was encouraged for urban areas. . In the spring of 1989, three cities in King County began household yard waste collection programs. By the spring of 1992, 24 of the remaining 29 suburban cities and all urban unincorporated areas had begun their own programs. A number of cities ban yard • waste from the mixed waste stream. In most areas the service is provided by private haulers, primarily Rabanco and Waste Management subsidiaries, under either franchise or contract agreements. Almost all programs are voluntary and charge a service fee Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood Appendix D: RecjCmg Markets Assessment D-4 8 to the customer. Rates vary between $2 per month to approximately $6 per month Actual subscription rates range from only small percentages in new programs to two-thirds of the households in established programs. King County Areas Offering Curbside Yard Waste Collection 1988 none 1989 Seattle, Bellevue, and Renton 1990 Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Kirkland, Medina, Mercer Island, Redmond, Yarrow Point 1991 Auburn, Bothell, Duvall, Issaquah, Normandy Park, North Bend, SeaTac, Tukwila, unincorporated King County 1992 Algona, Des Moines, Federal Way, Enumclaw, Lake Forest (Source: 1991 King County Annual Report) Estimates for diversion levels are provided by SCS Engineers in the previous table. Diversion levels and program tonnages began to increase dramatically during 1991 as earlier programs achieved high levels of participation. New 1991 programs have only begun to acquire customers. In many of the franchise areas there is little financial incentive for customers to subscribe to yard waste collection. Rate regulation by WUTC has kept the cost of an additional garbage "can" increment at only $2 or $3 per month, while yard waste subscription is at about $6 per month for less frequent service. 3. Wood Generation and Diversion Recyclable wood is generated primarily by commercial operations. The wood recycling industry developed as a response to the increasing disposal costs facing land development companies. Recycling efforts have been focused on diverting land clearing stumpage, wood debris, and clean, untreated lumber. Recyclers accept the wood for a tipping fee and grind it up to be used as mulch, ground cover, and hog fuel. Diversion levels of wood are fairly high. Wood recyclers processed an estimated 150,000 cubic yards of wood in the Puget Sound area in 1991. The significant supply of timber mill byproducts is not considered in this analysis. Timber processing mills produce large quantities of scrap, which is ground or chipped, producing sawdust, mulches, and fuels. Wood recyclers compete directly in with these sizable sources. 0001 :' 1. Processing yard waste is a growing industry, with new Tums trying to capture the growing supplies and associated tipping fees. Processors charge between $3.50 and $10.00 per cubic yard ($15 to $30 per ton) for accepting yard waste and wood, with quality (clean) yard waste drawing a lower fee and mixed wood generally requiring a higher fee. A composting facility requires a large available land base, grinding and screening equipment, turning equipment, and a distribution or sales network. Data from the phone survey indicate that processing costs, including indirect and financing costs, are in a range of $20 to $40 per ton. Previous estimates from other sources have estimated processing costs between $10 and $50 per ton (NEA, 1990). This compares to tipping fee revenues of $15 to $30 per ton, requiring $0 to $25 in additional revenues from compost sales to cover costs (not including profits). Wood recyclers have been able to attain lower processing costs than yard waste processors. Wood recyclers produce a less - refined product (mulches and fuels), requiring less screening and composting. There are only a few wood recyclers in the region, each with established large-scale operations. These large and proven facilities allow the recyclers to maintain low operating costs. Tipping fees for wood are also higher than yard waste, which provides offsetting revenues that support lower product prices. • • ATendxx D: Re)dmg Markets Assessment Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood • 9 • • D- 4 9 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . • • • 5. Distribution and Geographic Area • All processors distribute their products primarily by bulk truck loads to both retail and wholesale customers. Yard waste compost is primarily marketed as a soil amendment for topsoil applications. Most processors sell both straight compost and their own • topsoil blend. Yard waste processors market extra wood debris and screened -out debris as mulch products. Wood processors market • both mulches and hog fuel, depending on the quality and chip size of the product Users acquire the products directly from the processors or through independent distributors. Almost all product sales are in bulk quantities, with a few distributors producing • bagged products for homeowners. At present, there are seven primary yard waste processors in Pierce, Ring, and Snohomish counties. Competitive yard waste • tipping fees and transportation costs have kept the markets for yard waste and yard waste products contained in fairly local areas. Most King County yard waste is processed and distributed within 30 miles of Seattle, not extending beyond southwest Snohomish • County and northwest Pierce County. King County wood is also processed and distributed locally, except for hog fuel users in Tacoma. • King County markets will not be affected by the major program expansions of Portland Metropolitan District's curbside yard waste collection because the regional compost markets are too far apart (150 miles) to interact • Local Yard Waste Processors in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties • (also accept some wood) Company Amount of Business from King County • Basset -Western, Woodinville & Arlington 40% Cedar Grove, Maple Valley 100% • Iddings, Kent 100% Land Recovery, Puyallup 0% • NW Cascades, Puyallup 10% Pacific Topsoil, Bothell 30% • Valley Topsoil, Algona 30% • Total potential capacity for the region: 750,000-800,000 cubic yards/year Total potential capacity serving King County: 250,000-350,000 cubic yards/year • Note: Most processors expect to operate at 70 to 90 percent of capacity in 1992. Puget Sound Wood Processors (also accept some yard waste) • NW Wood Recyclers, 2 facilities: Woodinville and Kent Total wood capacity in King County: About 250,000 cubic yards/year • Note: Total processed wood was 200,000-300,000 cubic yards in 1991. w w w U D. MARKET DEMAND 1. Product Markets The cost and characteristics of yard waste compost are best suited for marketing as a topsoil amendment Compost products have been priced in the high range of topsoils and composts. The physical and chemical composition of yard waste compost make it a valuable product as a soil amendment Compost adds important nutrient levels, moisture retention, and other beneficial characteristics for topsoil. Composts can also be used as mulch or top dressing, especially the coarser products. Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood AhWi div D: Regding Markets Assessment D-50 Yard waste products are too expensive and structurally undesirable for uses as low -quality fill or in farming or wood fuel applications. Various fill dirty can be acquired for free from land development projects and provide a more stable and compact base. Farmers can convert their own manure supplies into compost sprays. Wood recyclers will continue to produce cheap wood fuel products. Yard waste compost is also not cheap enough for significant agricultural uses in King County. Topsoil is primarily used in landscaping applications by a variety of users, Including commercial landscapers, nurseries, public agencies, and homeowners. Users may employ good native soil at the site of application and add compost, or they may purchase topsoil mixes. Topsoil recipes vary, but all include a majority of sand, dirt, loam, and/or other soils mixed with one or more organic composts derived from yard wastes, sewage sludge, manure, stall cleanings, peat, sawdust, and/or barks. Most processors suggest that the best application of yard waste compost is in a mix using a number of different complementary amendments, producing a soil that maximizes the attributes of different composts. Most successfully marketed topsoils include a variety of ingredients to achieve desired moisture retention and nutrient content It is also important to recognize that other soil amendments are often waste composts from other industries (sewer, dairy, etc.), which have already established a share of the market Soil processors have already begun carving a significant niche in the topsoil market for yard waste compost Previous estimates of soil markets have loosely estimated that sales of all barks, sawdust, and soils are in the area of 3 million cubic yards per year in King and Snohomish counties, including 1.5 million cubic yards of topsoil (NEA, 1990). Exact numbers for any of the soil markets are very difficult to establish. It is important to remember the market for soil amendments and composts is less than a fifth of overall market for soils and soil mixes. Below are the current price ranges for various organic products. Prices listed are for bulk, wholesale purchases, picked up by the customer (retail prices are $2 to $3 higher and delivered prices depend on distance). 1991 Bulk, Pick-up Prices (per cubic yard) Topsoil mixes $7414 Sawdust $2-$7 Sand $2-$4 Fill dirt $2 to +$3 $7414 Barks (all types) $11414 Mulches $6-$12 Hog fuel $1-$3 Yard waste composts and soil mixes are priced at the high end of their respective ranges ($10 to $12 per cubic yard). Yard waste product sales have been successful at these prices, but many potential users indicated that price may be a barrier to increased consumption of yard waste products. Wood mulches are priced in the lower range of mulches ($6 to $8 per cubic yard) and are very competitive with more expensive bark mulches. Both yard waste and wood products should benefit from decreasing timber mill production and decreasing supply of mill byproducts. 2. Current and Future Demand Potential for Yard Waste Products The major potential users of yard and wood waste products include commercial landscaping and land development businesses, nurseries, public agencies, and homeowners. Some commercial landscaping agencies and homeowners have begun using yard or wood waste products, but all market sectors have room for increased compost sales. Responses to the phone survey indicate that many potential users are not familiar with the quality and availability of yard waste compost products. AAVdix D: Rw)dtng Markets Assessment Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood a. Commercial Landscaping The most significant and easily accessible potential users of yard waste and wood compost are commercial landscapers. These firms are already the primary users of yard waste products on the market and represent the largest customer segment for soil product • distributors. Landscapers in King County use hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of soil products per year, which they acquire through soil processors and distributors. Most surveyed landscapers were generally open to incorporating compost products if they are economical, since price is a primary consideration in their product selection Reaction has been mostly positive to product quality, with isolated incidents of product difficulties. Most respondents were satisfied with yard waste compost as a partial soil amendment mixed with other composts (sludge, manure, etc.). Soil processors have • found that strengths and weaknesses of the different composts complement each other for a more balanced product. Landscapers often rely on soil processors for information on alternative soil products. Continued success of yard waste compost application should • encourage increased sales, but price may become a limiting factor for many applications. b. Commercial Nurseries Nurseries are the other major commercial users of soil products. Nurseries, however, have higher demands for product consistency due to more stringent requirements for fertile soils that are free of disease organisms and weed seeds. Nurseries have been more hesitant to purchase yard waste compost due to uncertainty about quality control and product consistency. Yard waste processors are now producing products of sufficient quality to meet some nurseries' needs, but must still convince most nurseries and dispel past myths. Yard waste composts may soon be suitable for outdoor nursery application, but their use in indoor operations will • be minimal until additional test results demonstrate an acceptable level of product quality for this type of application. As promoters of landscaping materials, nurseries would become excellent channels for educating residential consumers about the use of compost • Some nurseries have already begun carrying small quantities of yard waste compost for retail sale. c. Public Sector Many local soil processors look to public sector operations for having the most under -realized potential for purchasing yard waste products. City, county, and state agencies have recently been making considerable efforts to move toward increased procurement of recycled products. The Washington State Procurement Act was passed in April 1991, containing specific requirements for compost product purchases (set -asides) by Department of General Administration, Department of Transportation, and city and County highway projects. King County's recently passed procurement act does not yet contain specific compost goals or assistance, and the City of • Seattle is deciding on its own procurement language. Actual implementation and procurement may be a difficult challenge, requiring education and creativity to overcome structural resistance to change. It is also important to recognize that procurement ordinances for compost products may also favor recycled sludge and manure composts. The market potential for purchases of compost products by the public sector is not substantial All purchasing is performed by individual departments and amounts to only about a few hundred cubic yards of soil products per year per department for Seattle and King County. Relevant public agencies include roads, parks, light and water, schools, solid waste, and zoo departments. Seattle has established a blanket contract with Cedar Grove to facilitate agency purchases. All significant capital improvement projects (CIPS) for roads, buildings, or parks are performed by contractors with commodity purchases specified by the relevant agency. The types and sizes of projects vary from year to year, but generally involve up to a few • hundred thousand cubic yards of soil products per year for Seattle or King County. Historically, contract specifications have encouraged only use of a narrow spectrum of soil products, depending on the application. The biggest contracts involving soils for the city and County are for landfill cover. Seattle Solid Waste Utility is negotiating with Cedar Grove to specify 16,000 to 32,000 cubic Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment .............. .. ............ D - 1 S a. Commercial Landscaping The most significant and easily accessible potential users of yard waste and wood compost are commercial landscapers. These firms are already the primary users of yard waste products on the market and represent the largest customer segment for soil product • distributors. Landscapers in King County use hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of soil products per year, which they acquire through soil processors and distributors. Most surveyed landscapers were generally open to incorporating compost products if they are economical, since price is a primary consideration in their product selection Reaction has been mostly positive to product quality, with isolated incidents of product difficulties. Most respondents were satisfied with yard waste compost as a partial soil amendment mixed with other composts (sludge, manure, etc.). Soil processors have • found that strengths and weaknesses of the different composts complement each other for a more balanced product. Landscapers often rely on soil processors for information on alternative soil products. Continued success of yard waste compost application should • encourage increased sales, but price may become a limiting factor for many applications. b. Commercial Nurseries Nurseries are the other major commercial users of soil products. Nurseries, however, have higher demands for product consistency due to more stringent requirements for fertile soils that are free of disease organisms and weed seeds. Nurseries have been more hesitant to purchase yard waste compost due to uncertainty about quality control and product consistency. Yard waste processors are now producing products of sufficient quality to meet some nurseries' needs, but must still convince most nurseries and dispel past myths. Yard waste composts may soon be suitable for outdoor nursery application, but their use in indoor operations will • be minimal until additional test results demonstrate an acceptable level of product quality for this type of application. As promoters of landscaping materials, nurseries would become excellent channels for educating residential consumers about the use of compost • Some nurseries have already begun carrying small quantities of yard waste compost for retail sale. c. Public Sector Many local soil processors look to public sector operations for having the most under -realized potential for purchasing yard waste products. City, county, and state agencies have recently been making considerable efforts to move toward increased procurement of recycled products. The Washington State Procurement Act was passed in April 1991, containing specific requirements for compost product purchases (set -asides) by Department of General Administration, Department of Transportation, and city and County highway projects. King County's recently passed procurement act does not yet contain specific compost goals or assistance, and the City of • Seattle is deciding on its own procurement language. Actual implementation and procurement may be a difficult challenge, requiring education and creativity to overcome structural resistance to change. It is also important to recognize that procurement ordinances for compost products may also favor recycled sludge and manure composts. The market potential for purchases of compost products by the public sector is not substantial All purchasing is performed by individual departments and amounts to only about a few hundred cubic yards of soil products per year per department for Seattle and King County. Relevant public agencies include roads, parks, light and water, schools, solid waste, and zoo departments. Seattle has established a blanket contract with Cedar Grove to facilitate agency purchases. All significant capital improvement projects (CIPS) for roads, buildings, or parks are performed by contractors with commodity purchases specified by the relevant agency. The types and sizes of projects vary from year to year, but generally involve up to a few • hundred thousand cubic yards of soil products per year for Seattle or King County. Historically, contract specifications have encouraged only use of a narrow spectrum of soil products, depending on the application. The biggest contracts involving soils for the city and County are for landfill cover. Seattle Solid Waste Utility is negotiating with Cedar Grove to specify 16,000 to 32,000 cubic Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment D-2 5 yards of compost and mulch for the Kent Highlands cover. King County Solid Waste Division is also working on incorporating compost soils into its landfill covers. The County currently has a contract with Northwest Wood Recyclers for hog fuel as a temporary road cover at Cedar Hills. Washington Department of Transportation (DOT) oversees CIPS of considerable size, involving hundreds of thousands of cubic yards per year. Historically, DOT has specified a soil mix of 75 percent sand and 25 percent ground bark or sawdust. When needed, nitrogen is added for sufficient nutrient content. Bark mulch is usually specified as a covering. The largest DOT project in King County has been the I-90 completion, involving 200 acres and acquiring nearly 900,000 cubic yards of soil mix. Most of the soil mix was specified as sand and ground bark and covering as bark mulch DOT is now establishing compost specifications and investigating how to meet the new procurement requirements. DOT had one King County contract in 1991 that specified a switch to a yard waste compost mix for 2,000 cubic yards. I Homeowner Individual homeowners also represent important potential yard waste compost customers. In 1991, Cedar Grove marketed a bagged yard waste product throughout the Seattle area for residential use. So far, sales are at about 100,000 bags or 3700 cubic yards in 1991. Many of the other soli amendment products, including manure composts, are also packaged for the retail market, and expansion will require emphasizing its appeal as a recycled product to the customer. 3. Current and Future Demand for Wood Products Wood is primarily marketed as a mulch or hog fuel. The finer wood is marketed in bulk to landscaping agencies and larger pieces are sold as hog fuel. Wood is already cheaper than bark mulches and many users have found the darker color appealing (compared to the reddish fir bark mulches). Some users have reported loss of darkness due to sun bleaching. The hog fuel market will stay strong as a major cogeneration plant is now on he in Tacoma. In addition, reduced hog fuel supplies from other sources, such as timber byproducts, should ensure a steady demand for wood. The wood market has been established over time and is not facing any major shifts in supply. Wood and yard waste recyclers conduct a significant amount of business related to building construction and sales and are dependent on a healthy economy to support continued sales. E. Market Analysis Most of the yard waste processors in King County believe there will be a surplus of collected yard waste in 1992. There appears to be sufficient capacity to accept and process the waste, but processors may be experiencing increased stockpiles of compost products. Processors may respond to the rising input supplies with increased tipping fees, which collectors can pass on to the consumer and inhibit the success of collection programs. Higher tipping fees would allow the processors to unload their surplus product at an even lower price. There is no clear indication of how high tipping fees could go, or if they will rise at all. Currently, however, there is still plenty of competition among processors for collected yard waste, keeping tipping fees down. Increased supplies over the past few years have not produced any significant changes in compost prices or in tipping fees. Intensified competition may also thin the field of processors, with only a few yard waste processors surviving. Most processors feel it will become increasingly difficult to sell all of their compost products over the next few years. According to this study and previous market assessments, there should be enough demand in the substantial soil products market for all yard Appendix D: Ruling Markets Assessment Section D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood D-53 waste and wood products, but it may take a few years to achieve the needed product confidence and recognition from the consumer. Many soil processors are already feeling a saturated topsoil market Producers feel that yard waste compost can be best introduced as a complement to other soil amendments, rather than replacing manure or sludge composts. Yard waste composts should have more opportunity to displace timber byproducts as milling in Western Washington is reduced and byproducts become less available and more expensive. Currently, yard waste compost products are successfully competing at the high end of topsoil and compost price range. Future stockpiles may require processors to drop prices, also putting pressure on increasing tipping fees. Most of the survey respondents were confident that demand would eventually be sufficient Increasing supplies of wood products will also be positioned to undercut any increases in timber byproduct prices. Wood products are marketed over a narrower range of uses than yard waste, but producers have already developed somewhat dependable channels of distribution. Low market price should maintain a steady demand for wood in the mulch and hog fuel markets. A weaker economy, however, with less construction and building development, would constrict the commercial landscaping market, and reduce the market share available to both yard waste and wood products. The markets for chipped or composted wood and yard wastes are just now evolving and defy precise predictions, but most sources indicate a sustainable long-term development All previous regional market assessments and processing operations in other areas of the country have provided evidence that large-scale yard waste and wood markets will continue to find sustainable demand. F. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The markets for the inputs and outputs of the yard waste and wood operations are all within a few miles of the King County borders allowing for direct support by local public agencies. All processors agree that the processing and marketing of these wastes • should remain private enterprises, but that the County could assist in market development The County could cooperate with other public agencies to provide quality testing and certification, consumer education and awareness, processing regulation, and open channels for procurement by county agencies. Product standards have begun to be developed by private processors and public agencies, including the Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation, and the Seattle Solid Waste Utility. The next step is to consolidate and refine these standards and consider certification programs for different waste products. Processors are concerned about increased government regulation, but quality control was a major limiting concern in the priority markets of commercial landscaping and nursery • businesses. Consumers must be convinced that products are safe and consistent Increased regulation could hinder efficient product development, but should be enforced at some level to maintain an honest market High tipping fees can inspire collection facilities • that function as little more than private, unmonitored landfills. Most processors are hoping government agencies will become major consumers of yard waste and wood products. The most significant opportunity for county procurement may be in contracts for landfill cover, but the County should attempt to introduce compost procurement in other agencies to at least symbolically support an industry that its programs have created. Establishing blanket contracts and CIP specifications for yard waste and wood products will encourage increased use in county projects. The fust step is to ensure that purchasing and contracting procedures do not discourage waste product procurement The Washington Department of Ecology has awarded a $250,000 grant to the King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials for work beginning in January 1992. The grant work will focus on market development, including a market assessment of compost products, establishing standards and a certification process, and expanding public procurement The Commission will provide a draft for revising the County Procurement Ordinance and provide field demonstrations for public agencies. Section D.2; Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood AWndxx D; ReGdsng Markets Arse ment • i The County may also want to reconsider what role to play in rate recommendations. Current rate levels do not encourage, and i may even discourage, voluntary subscriptions to curbside collection programs. The County will have to assess whether collection programs are achieving desired diversion levels. i i D - 4 << 5 i 1. References ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... i i Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. 1988. Portland Metropolitan Area Comport Products Market Study. • • i The County may also want to reconsider what role to play in rate recommendations. Current rate levels do not encourage, and i may even discourage, voluntary subscriptions to curbside collection programs. The County will have to assess whether collection programs are achieving desired diversion levels. i G. SOURCES i 1. References i Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. 1988. Portland Metropolitan Area Comport Products Market Study. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1990. Draft City of Seattle Soil Use Inventory. Prepared for Seattle Solid Waste Utility. King County Solid Waste Division. 1991. Annual Report 1991. King County Solid Waste Division. 1989. Adopted 1989 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Northwest Economic Associates. 1990. Washington Compost Market Assessment. Prepared for Washington Department of Trade and i Economic Development. Northwest Economic Associates. 1988. Market Analysis of Snohomish County Yard Debris Compost Products. i Northwest: Economic Associates. 1986. Market Analysis of Portland Metropolitan Area Yard Debris. Pope -Reid Associates. 1988. Yard Debris Composting Program Design. City of Seattle. SCS Engineering. 1991. Kang County Waste Characterization Study. • 2. Respondents to Surveys and Interviews i Advanced Sand and Gravel • Bassett -Western, Woodinville and Arlington Burien Bark i Carpinito Brothers Farm, Kent Cedar Grove Compost, Maple Valley Clean Washington Office, DTED • Dowell Company, Seattle Evergreen Bark and Topsoil, Kirkland i Evergreen Topsoil, Kent Iddings, Inc., Kent • Land Recovery, Inc., Puyallup Lloyd's Sand and Gravel, Federal Way King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials i King County Parks King County Public Works i King County Purchasing King County Solid Waste i McCann Wayne Trucking and Excavating, Kirkland NW Cascades, Puyallup i NW Wood, Woodinville and Kent i Pacific Topsoils, Bothell • • i Appendiv D: Regding Markets Assessment Sarlion D.2: Market Assessment for Yard Waste and Wood • D-55 .......... Palmer Coking Coal Company, Maple Valley Red -E Topsoil, Redmond Renton Sand and Gravel, Renton S and B Materials, Seattle Sawdust Supply Company, Seattle Seattle Solid Waste Utility Soils, Inc., Puyallup Superior Soils, Woodinville University of Washington Pack Forest, Eatonville Valley Topsoils, Algona Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of General Accounting Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development Washington Department of Transportation (Olympia, District 3, and 1-90) Washington Organic Recycling Council Section D.2: Market Awwwafor Yard Waste and Wood Appendix D Reqjding markets Assessment 0 APPENDIX E WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It Out Together E-1 Appendix E Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs The following are descriptions of King County program achievements from 1989 to 1992 that fulfill the requirements set forth in the 1989 Plan. In many instances, county achievements have surpassed the basic requirements. • k WASTE REDUCTION 0 1. Public Awareness Education Because waste reduction is a primary goal of the County, all public awareness efforts and school programs developed by the Waste Reduction and Recycling Section include waste reduction components. a. King County Home Waste Guide Distributed to residents throughout the County since its first printing in 1989, the King County Home Waste Guide offers "one • stop shopping' for waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) information for county residents. It includes a "Home Waste Quiz," which offers WR/R tips that can be used in every area of the home; a Resource Catalog, which lists contacts for more detailed information • on waste reduction; and a "Waste Reducer's Checklist," which explains ways to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost waste. These suggestions include buying products in bulk when possible, buying products made from recycled materials, and selecting reusable versions of such items as plates, utensils, cigarette fighters, and razors. 0 b. 1991 "Shop Smart" Campaign Under a Waste Reduction Public Education Grant, the County purchased bus panels, posters, canvas bags, radio and TV PSAs, and a video on shopping smart that have been used to promote selective shopping to reduce waste. The grant also provides partial funding for a brochure developed by the King County Nurses Association on diapering alternatives. The brochure compares the cost, • convenience, and health and environmental factors associated with cloth versus disposable diapers. It will be distributed through health care providers in the Northwest. c. Master Recyder/Composter (MRC) Program This program enlists volunteers to increase and sustain community involvement in WR/R, backyard composting, and household hazardous waste management through outreach activities. Since its inception in 1989, the MRC Program has included waste reduction practices as part of the volunteer training. The manual for the 1991-1992 trainings was revised to expand waste reduction information contained in previous editions. The MRC Program is further described in this appendix under Section D.3. A. Waste Reduction Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E -2 d. School Programs The school programs provide many opportunities for students to learn and practice waste reduction strategies. For example, fact sheets for elementary school teachers provide tips for reducing waste at school in daily activities and when planning special events, such as carnivals. A lesson kit for middle school teachers includes lesson plans and materials for such activities as worm composting and debates on packaging issues. A video featuring words and music written and performed by high school students focuses on the themes of reduction and reuse. e. Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Education/Pechnical Assistance Waste reduction education for businesses is included as part of the County's Technical Assistance Program (TAP), which provides waste audits and guidance in developing recycling programs. Waste reduction education offered by the TAP includes general ideas applicable to many types of businesses, as well as techniques tailored to fit specific establishments, such as offices, restaurants, and industrial plants. f. Financial Asistance Program This program provides funds to businesses to implement waste reduction projects and services that could significantly reduce the waste stream if the project were replicated countywide. In exchange for this assistance, participants will report their results to the County regularly for up to two years. Financial Assistance Program projects will assist the County in assessing the effectiveness of various waste reduction strategies, both in terms of their impact on the waste stream and their economic effect. Examples of organizations receiving funding include a nonprofit food bank supplier that will vermicompost unusable food; a hair salon that will dispense hair care products in bulk; a major retailer that will replace disposable plastic bags with durable ones to cover carts of clothing; and a high school that will replace paperwork with an electronic mail system and open a reuse center for students to reuse school supplies that would otherwise be discarded. g. Variable Garbage Can Rates An effective tool to encourage waste reduction is the use of variable rates for garbage collection. There are many different approaches, but the one used in King County sets a base rate for minimum service, the so-called "mini -can." Subscribers can arrange with their haulers for extra cans for an additional fee. In King County, the average 1992 rate for a mini -can is $7.50 per month; the average rate for one full-sized can is $11.01, or an increase of 51 percent. The monthly fee for two cans is $14.98, 36 percent more than that charged for one can. The County plans to propose adjusting the rate structure to further increase cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels. h. Procurement Program Ordinance 9240, the King County Recycled Product Procurement Policy, establishes policies and procedures to increase King County governmental use of recycled products and promote their use throughout the County. Three county agencies play major roles in promoting procurement of recycled products. 1. The Purchasing Agency promotes in-house procurement by county agencies and contractors. 2. The Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials promotes procurement by the private sector. 3. The Solid Waste Division evaluates the in-house program, recommending policy revisions, and providing technical assistance to suburban cities in developing of their own procurement policies. Appendix E. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs A. Waste Reduction E- 3 Other major achievements of the King County Procurement Program include the following: • A full-time recycled product procurement coordinator was hired by the Purchasing Agency in mid-1990 to take the lead in implementing the in-house procurement program. • An Executive policy containing recycled product procurement guidelines and procedures for county agencies was issued in July 1990. • Contract language requires vendors to use and report the use of recycled paper in county projects. • A regional "Buy Recycled" conference, co-sponsored by the Marketing Commission in February 1991, drew 50 vendors and over 500 attendees. • An inventory of products purchased through the Purchasing Agency that could contain recovered materials was completed in late 1990. • Recycled product procurement was promoted before several audiences, including product wholesalers, contractor associations, teachers, and suburban cities' representatives. • • The Solid Waste Division's Recycled Product Vendor Directory was distributed widely in King County and incorporated into Department of Ecology (Ecology) promotional materials. i. Food Waste Composting Food waste generated at the 1990 King County Fair was collected and composted to determine whether a compost of consistent quality could be produced. The goal was to obtain information useful for developing programs to compost food waste on a larger scale. While composting was actually conducted off site, the compost product was used on site. All analyses indicate that a usable compost was produced. Vegetables and flowers were planted on the fairgrounds in beds utilizing the food waste compost. An educational exhibit at the 1991 King County Fair featured the demonstration plant beds, posters depicting the process and the results of the food waste composting pilot project, and a display of the composting process using an in - vessel composter. This food waste composting project received a 1991 Recycling Award from Ecology for the "Most Innovative Approach or Program for Recycling." Research on food waste collection, processing, and testing will be conducted under a grant received from Ecology in 1991. Working jointly with the Seattle Solid Waste Utility, King County will test collection and processing of commercial food waste, develop a waste generator study, test composted end -products, and conduct growth trials. King County will also test the feasibility of backyard food waste composting and onsite nonresidential food and yard waste composting. j. Baby Diaper Project • In 1991, this pilot project provided reusable cotton diapers through a diaper service to 250 low-income families for six months. In addition to promoting waste reduction, the program provided educational workshops and opportunities to improve infant care. At • the end of the subsidy period, 83 percent of participating families surveyed reported that they would continue using cloth diapers and would either wash their own diapers or pay for diaper service. The project was renewed for 1992. A six-month subsidy will be provided to about 400 participants throughout the County. k. Product Packaging Prohibitions The King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, which was established to enhance local markets for recyclable • goods, has developed voluntary packaging and labeling guidelines for companies doing business in the County. They are intended to reduce contamination created by misleading recycling labeling and to maintain the integrity of the terms "recyclable" and "made 0 0 • A. Waste Reduction Appendix E. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs 0 E-4 from recycled content" by establishing standards for clear recycling language on product labels. In the absence of state and federal standards on this matter, King County has taken a first step to expand the consumer's ability to make informed choices on purchases. The guidelines are as follows: • If a manufacturer uses the term "recyclable" or otherwise claims recyclability on any product or packaging distributed for sale in King County, the recycling option for a "recyclable" product shall be available to the majority of King County residents through curbside recycling programs or conveniently located drop -sites. The population served by a recycling drop -site is considered to be the number of people living no farther than one mile from it. • If a manufacturer of a product or package distributed for sale in King County uses the terms "recycled," "contains recycled material," "recycled content," or any other like term, the manufacturer shall include information regarding the percentage of post- consumer material by weight for that product or package. 1. In-house Program King County has a thorough in-house waste reduction program, which is exemplified by the Model In-house Recycling Program. The model program, developed for the new offices of the Department of Public Works, is detailed in Volume I, Chapter III.B. It incorporates reusable dishware, worm bins for composting, double -sided copying, re -use of paper, and other techniques for reducing waste in the office. The model program will offer ideas for other county facilities and the private sector. Tours of the offices are available. m. Awards/Recognition Recycle Week, an annual event since 1989, consists of exhibits, tours, and other activities that include information on and recognition of waste reduction efforts. In particular, the Achievement Awards ceremony during Recycle Week recognizes outstanding contributions in waste reduction. During Recycle Week '91, there were 23 award recipients, 3 of which were groups specifically commended for their waste reduction efforts: 1. Clark Elementary School, Issaquah, eliminated 21,600 cardboard lunch trays from its yearly waste, at a savings of $2,592. 2. Puget Consumers' Co-Op's bag rebate program has grown to include 30 percent of all transactions. 3. Gift Wrapper, a business in Bellevue Square, uses recycled packing material provided by consumers and businesses in the mall, efforts that reduced the company's waste stream by 50 percent. B. COLLECTION PROGRAMS The 1989 Plan charges King County to implement programs that meet or exceed minimum service levels for collecting recyclables and yard waste in unincorporated urban and rural areas of the County. Unincorporated rural areas are served by drop - sites at King County's four rural disposal sites; yard waste collection is offered at two of them. Additional collection programs will be established near Issaquah and in the Snoqualmie Valley under a grant from Ecology. The remaining rural areas not served by these programs are targeted for service under this plan update. 1. Urban Single- and Multifamily Household Collection In May 1991, King County adopted an ordinance (KCC 10.18) that resulted in franchised solid waste haulers providing recyclable collection services for the 450,000 residents of urban unincorporated King County. Newspaper, cardboard, mixed waste Appendix E. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs B. Collection Programs • • • • • E- 5 paper, glass containers, aluminum foil and cans, tin cans, and PET and HDPE plastics are collected from both single- and multifamily residences. Landlords must enroll their buildings for multifamily collection service. Yard waste collection is offered to all urban single-family residences and some multifamily complexes for an additional charge. The County is developing promotional and educational materials to encourage participation in the program. 2. Rural Collection Programs In accordance with the 1989 Plan, county solid waste facilities in designated rural areas collect source -separated recyclable materials and yard waste. The Hobart, Enumclaw, and Vashon landfills, and the Cedar Falls drop -box accept aluminum, glass, cardboard, mixed paper, newspaper, tin cans, and PET and HDPE plastics. The 1989 Plan also requires that county solid waste facilities in rural areas include opportunities for the collection of yard waste. Yard waste is collected at the Hobart Landfill and the Cedar Falls drop -box. The new Enumclaw Transfer Station, scheduled to open in late 1993, will also take yard waste. A pilot project is under consideration for co -composting yard waste and sewage sludge at the Vashon landfill. Rural collection programs are also planned under the King County Waste Not Washington Communities Program funded by Ecology. During the second quarter of 1991, the County negotiated a portion of a $1.47 million grant from Ecology to fund collection programs in and near some rural communities. The County's program allocates approximately $1 million to comprehensive recycling efforts in Issaquah and the surrounding area_ The remainder of the County's grant provides recycling services to Snoqualmie Valley cities (North Bend, Snoqualmie, Carnation, and Duvall), nearby unincorporated areas, and the outlying communities of Skykomish and Snoqualmie Pass. Implementation of the Issaquah portion began in March 1991, and the Snoqualmie Valley portion began in early 1992• C. SUPPORT SERVICES • The 1989 Plan specified the following support services be implemented by the County. • 1. Rate Incentives/Disincentives • Variable can rates for garbage collection have been established throughout unincorporated King County to encourage participation in recyclable collection programs. This strategy favors waste reduction and is included in the discussion under Section A • of this appendix. • 2. Procurement Policy • King County has adopted procurement standards that encourage waste reduction and favor the use of recycled or recyclable • products. These standards are also discussed under Section A 3. New Construction Requirements The County is developing standards for onsite space for storage and collection of recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential projects. The standards address the need to ensure that new construction incorporates the space needed to store recyclables prior to pickup and removal by haulers. The requirements will apply to all new residential and nonresidential construction in unincorporated King County, except single-family detached houses. They include design and location guidelines that can be used both by builders to develop effective waste management systems in their projects and by appropriate county staff to review development proposals. Draft C. Support Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and RecyGOng Programs E-6 standards were distributed for comment in the fall of 1991. They will be finalized and incorporated into the King County Zoning Code in 1992. 4. Monitoring The County Executive prepares an annual report to the County Council on the progress toward meeting established WR/R goals. a. Multifamily Dwellings The 1989 Plan recommended that the County develop a list of options and implementation strategies for cities to use in developing collection programs for multifamily residences. King County prepared a draft manual and distributed it to cities in the spring of 1991. D. REGIONAL PROGRAMS The following programs, implemented over the last three years, have provided collection, education, and assistance to waste generators throughout the County. 1. Yard Waste Programs Regional yard waste programs in the 1989 Plan include the Backyard Composting Program, the Master/Recycler Composter Program, the Christmas Tree -cycling Program, nursery composting demonstrations, and a yard waste disposal penalty fee. The first four programs have operated successfully for the last three to four years and will be continued. The 1989 Plan scheduled the yard waste disposal penalty fee to begin in 1993. In addition to the above programs, mobile collection sites for yard waste were provided to a number of communities. a. Backyard Composting The Backyard Composting Program diverts yard waste from landfill disposal by encouraging residents to compost their leaves, grass clippings, and prunings. Yard waste compost bins are distributed to King County residents at a subsidized cost and technical assistance is provided through an information phone line. The program is a great success locally and has been presented at national conferences, featured in a major trade journal, and received awards from the National Association of Counties and the National Recycling Coalition. More than 41,010 subsidized compost bins have been distributed by the County through its home delivery system since the program started in June 1989. Initially, residents were offered one bin choice, a cedar slat bin at the subsidized price of $8.75. Beginning in Spring 1992, a variety of bins will be distributed directly to residents at events held on rotating weekends at one of eight Fred Meyer stores located in North Seattle, Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland, and Renton. The bins offered will include some made from recycled plastic. b. Community Yard Waste Collection Since 1989, mobile collection sites have been provided to a number of communities where other yard waste collection alternatives were not available. With the increased availability of household collection of yard waste in urban areas, the program will be discontinued in 1992. Collection was provided, with staffing, at sites in Woodinville, SeaTac, Shoreline, and Federal Way one Appendix E. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs D. Regwnal Programs • weekend per month from April through October. The County charged $4.00 per car or $5.25 per cubic yard for trucks. The material collected was delivered by county staff to a private composting facility. In addition to mobile collection services, the County began • providing yard waste collection during weekday evening hours at Factoria Transfer Station and during regular operating hours at Hobart Landfill in July 1990. Yard waste collection during regular operating hours was added to the Cedar Falls drop -box in October • 1990. The material collected is delivered by private contractors to private composting facilities. From July 1990 to June 1991, 1,920 tons were collected from these facilities. c. Christmas Tree- yding Christmas trees are collected at no charge at King County transfer stations and rural landfills for two weeks following Christmas. Since its inception in 1987, this program has seen yearly increases in tonnages collected. After Christmas 1990, 700 tons (over 13,000 cubic yards) of trees were collected and hauled to a composting facility, representing a 133 percent increase from 1989. The goal of the Christmas Tree -cycling Program is to divert the trees from the waste stream and to ensure that they are recycled. In the past, the trees have been chipped and the mulch used for such purposes as road stabilization and traction aid at the Cedar Hills Landfill and other Department of Public Works projects. 2. Nonresidential Programs Programs in this category that were specified in the 1989 Plan include nonresidential technical assistance, trade fairs, in-house recycling services, the Business and Industry Recycling Council, WR/R consultation training, and a waste exchange. The Nonresidential Technical Assistance Program (TAP) was developed in 1990 and continues to be a major factor for increasing WR/R among businesses. King County helped establish the Business and Industry Council and works cooperatively with other agencies to organize the annual Northwest Waste Information Expo, a major regional trade fair. The County continues to expand its in-house recycling program begun in 1987. The King County Industrial Materials Exchange (INEX) continues to be operated and funded by the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. • a. Nonresidential Technical Assistance The Nonresidential Technical Assistance Program (TAP), begun in July 1990, includes services to help businesses and institutions to develop and implement WR/R programs in the work place. In its first year, the program provided over 270 businesses with onsite waste consultations and telephone assistance, and conducted workshops and presentations attended by nearly 150 businesses. In 1991, the program received a recycling award from Ecology for 'Best Large Government Program." A Business Waste Reduction and Recycling Handbook, developed in August 1990, has been distributed to over 2,500 businesses. It provides practical • information on setting up a WR/R program, obtaining recycling services, and finding where to purchase recycled products. The County also produced Watch Your Waste, a motivational video to show at County -sponsored events and in the business community. A comprehensive information center was developed to disseminate information on recycling resources and programs throughout the Northwest Several pilot projects are being conducted to determine the most effective ways to help small businesses obtain recycling • services. The Cooperative Collection Program, initiated in Tukwila in July 1991, succeeded in setting up recycling collection services for over 110 businesses. In this voluntary program, inspired by a similar program in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a single hauler works • with a group of businesses to determine pickup schedules and dumpster sizes and locations. The combined output of recyclable material is picked up regularly from a central location convenient to all businesses in the area. In its first two months, this program resulted in collection of more than 5 tons of paper and 5.5 tons of glass, aluminum, and plastics, a diversion of 26 percent D. Regional Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E - 7 ......... • weekend per month from April through October. The County charged $4.00 per car or $5.25 per cubic yard for trucks. The material collected was delivered by county staff to a private composting facility. In addition to mobile collection services, the County began • providing yard waste collection during weekday evening hours at Factoria Transfer Station and during regular operating hours at Hobart Landfill in July 1990. Yard waste collection during regular operating hours was added to the Cedar Falls drop -box in October • 1990. The material collected is delivered by private contractors to private composting facilities. From July 1990 to June 1991, 1,920 tons were collected from these facilities. c. Christmas Tree- yding Christmas trees are collected at no charge at King County transfer stations and rural landfills for two weeks following Christmas. Since its inception in 1987, this program has seen yearly increases in tonnages collected. After Christmas 1990, 700 tons (over 13,000 cubic yards) of trees were collected and hauled to a composting facility, representing a 133 percent increase from 1989. The goal of the Christmas Tree -cycling Program is to divert the trees from the waste stream and to ensure that they are recycled. In the past, the trees have been chipped and the mulch used for such purposes as road stabilization and traction aid at the Cedar Hills Landfill and other Department of Public Works projects. 2. Nonresidential Programs Programs in this category that were specified in the 1989 Plan include nonresidential technical assistance, trade fairs, in-house recycling services, the Business and Industry Recycling Council, WR/R consultation training, and a waste exchange. The Nonresidential Technical Assistance Program (TAP) was developed in 1990 and continues to be a major factor for increasing WR/R among businesses. King County helped establish the Business and Industry Council and works cooperatively with other agencies to organize the annual Northwest Waste Information Expo, a major regional trade fair. The County continues to expand its in-house recycling program begun in 1987. The King County Industrial Materials Exchange (INEX) continues to be operated and funded by the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. • a. Nonresidential Technical Assistance The Nonresidential Technical Assistance Program (TAP), begun in July 1990, includes services to help businesses and institutions to develop and implement WR/R programs in the work place. In its first year, the program provided over 270 businesses with onsite waste consultations and telephone assistance, and conducted workshops and presentations attended by nearly 150 businesses. In 1991, the program received a recycling award from Ecology for 'Best Large Government Program." A Business Waste Reduction and Recycling Handbook, developed in August 1990, has been distributed to over 2,500 businesses. It provides practical • information on setting up a WR/R program, obtaining recycling services, and finding where to purchase recycled products. The County also produced Watch Your Waste, a motivational video to show at County -sponsored events and in the business community. A comprehensive information center was developed to disseminate information on recycling resources and programs throughout the Northwest Several pilot projects are being conducted to determine the most effective ways to help small businesses obtain recycling • services. The Cooperative Collection Program, initiated in Tukwila in July 1991, succeeded in setting up recycling collection services for over 110 businesses. In this voluntary program, inspired by a similar program in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a single hauler works • with a group of businesses to determine pickup schedules and dumpster sizes and locations. The combined output of recyclable material is picked up regularly from a central location convenient to all businesses in the area. In its first two months, this program resulted in collection of more than 5 tons of paper and 5.5 tons of glass, aluminum, and plastics, a diversion of 26 percent D. Regional Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E-8 by volume. Services are available to businesses throughout the County, except those in Bellevue, Auburn, Redmond, and Mercer Island. These cities have chosen to provide services directly with funds provided by the County through the City Optional. Program. Under this arrangement, cities may choose to receive county funds to implement their own programs in lieu of receiving county services. b. Northwest Waste Information Expo King County works cooperatively with Metro, the Waste Information Network, and other government agencies to organize the Northwest Waste Information Expo, which has been presented each fall since 1989. The County provides funding for promotion and marketing, staffs a booth, and organizes WR/R shop talks. The Expo consists of two days of shop talks and panel discussions on WR/R practices targeted at small- and medium-sized businesses, as well as exhibits by vendors and government agencies. Expo '91 included a special series of seminars on solid waste issues. c. King County In -House WR/R Services The In -House Program provides King County employees with opportunities to practice WR/R in the workplace. The program goals are to increase employee participation and expand the types of recyclables collected. The Model In -House Recycling Program, designed in 1991 for the Department of Public Works, integrates available technology with employee practices to develop high WR/R standards for the office environment. The offices are equipped with a convenient source -separated recyclable collection system, reusable dishware, cloth roll towels, and worm bins, which produce compost from employee food waste. Beginning in 1992, this program will be used to illustrate office recycling techniques to the public through written materials and office tours. The quarterly Recycling Matters newsletter informs King County employees of the progress of the In -House Recycling Program, provides useful WR/R information, and maintains visibility of the program and its goals among employees. 3. Promotion and Public Involvement This program aims to raise the consciousness of the general public regarding WR/R. Specific elements described in the 1989 Plan include promotion through such activities as "Recycle Week'; general WR/R education through brochures, newsletters, and information lines; and public involvement through volunteer training, participation in public events such as the Home Show, and development of a speaker's bureau. With the exception of the speaker's bureau, all activities are established components of the County's promotion and public involvement efforts. Requests for speakers on WR/R topics are accommodated as resources allow. a. Recycle Week Since its inception in 1989, Recycle Week has provided an opportunity for the County and cities to publicize recycling efforts and to involve more people in WR/R programs. Recycle Week includes such activities as special exhibits, tours of recycling facilities, and special collection events. The highlight of Recycle Week is the annual Achievement Awards ceremony and luncheon, which in 1991 was attended by over 150 people. Awards and recognition are given to groups and individuals for outstanding contributions in waste reduction, recycling, and market development for recyclable materials. Each year, thousands of citizens participate in other Recycle Week activities sponsored by King County or by the suburban cities. During the third annual Recycle Week, held in October 1991, recycling efforts were publicized in seven counties in the Northwest in cooperation with Ecology. King County's Recycle Week, the first of its kind in the nation, has provided the inspiration for similar programs in California and Oregon. Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recyding Programs D. Regional Programs E-9 b. Master RecycledComposter Program The Master Recycler/Composter Program enlists volunteers to increase and sustain community involvement in WR/R, backyard composting, and household hazardous waste management through outreach activities. Master Recycler/Composter volunteers receive over 40 hours of training in exchange for 40 hours of community outreach in the County. By training Master Recycler/Composter volunteers and providing outreach opportunities for sharing their knowledge, the program creates a core of citizens committed to serve as a community resource. The training program, which is continually updated, began in 1990. Approximately 70 volunteers are trained annually. Among their activities are providing information at home composting demonstration sites at local nurseries. They have also built compost demonstration sites in Bellevue, Redmond, and Kent, with an additional site planned in Lake Forest Park in 1992• • c. Recycling and Composting Information Line The Recycling and Composting Information Line was established in 1989. It provides quick responses to citizens' questions about waste reduction, recycling, and yard waste composting. County staff respond to more than 25,000 telephone inquiries annually. d. Information and Promotional Materials The County has developed brochures, reports, and promotional materials that provide information on waste reduction, recycling, and composting strategies and programs. Approximately 150,000 brochures are distributed annually to individuals and organizations. As a waste reduction measure, materials are sent on request rather than in mass mailings. • The following list gives titles of brochures and other materials produced by King County: composting ]Hazardous Waste Home Composting Household Hazardous Products Worm Bin Design Sheet Hazardous Waste Wheel 3 -Bin System Compost Bin [baste Mobile Schedule Portable food & mire Compost Bin • Composting Food and Pet Waste Promotional Resource Guide to Composting Children's Coloring Poster • Mulches from Yard Waste Buttons Money Grown on Trees Order Form ]Tie Waste Paper Demonstration Bin Recycling Home Waste Guide Recycling Centers in King County Recycle at 7iansfer Stations and Landfills Recycle at Work Recycled Products Directory Recycling Business Manual Recycling Plastics Resource Other Annual Report, 1989, 1990, 1991 1989 Comprehensive Plan, Volumes 1 and 2 Executive Summary Waste Acceptance Policy Resource Guide to CDL D. Regional Programs Appendix E. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E-10 The Waste Paper, the Solid Waste Division's bimonthly newsletter, which began in 1988, provides information about solid waste issues and related WR/R programs and services to over 40,000 individuals and organizations. 4. School Programs In accordance with the 1989 Plan, programs have been developed and implemented at the elementary, middle/junior, and high school levels. a. Elementary Schools Elementary school programs are centered on assembly presentations at the schools that introduce school children to WR/R habits they can use the rest of their lives. "Follow the Recycling Road," the first of these presentations, was performed at 85 percent of King County public elementary schools in 1989 and 1990 and was seen by over 81,000 students. A new program launched in academic year 1990-91 called "The Wiz Kids of Waste" focuses on waste reduction in school assemblies and in teacher training and curricula. b. Middle Schools and Junior High Schools Since 1989, the County has worked with the Pacific Science Center to develop the "Waste Busters" programs, specifically geared toward junior high and middle school students. Almost 70 percent of these schools in King County have received the program since its inception in March 1990. Waste Busters has four components: 1. An extensive lesson kit for teachers. 2. Student -teacher camp -ins at the Science Center, where participants can learn intensively about waste reduction issues. 3. School assemblies targeting the "Four R's"—Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. 4. A technical liaison who visits the school to help set up or improve school recycling programs. c. High School WR/R programs for high school students take a different approach than that used for younger students. The intent is to enable students to actively participate in their communities. Students are encouraged to use their knowledge of issues to create change at their school and in their communities. Creative and innovative approaches to WR/R are explored and encouraged. At the same time, the curriculum attempts to take a global perspective; recycling and waste are viewed as more than a science or environmental subject. In the 1991-1992 school year, high school programs centered around three major events: an orientation in November 1991, a follow-up meeting in February 1992, and a student summit and awards ceremony on Earth Day in April 1992. d. Teacher Training Since August 1990, the County has conducted several workshops, providing about 100 elementary teachers with information and strategies for promoting WR/R in the classroom. In October 1991, a workshop provided up-to-date information on WR/R to educators, administrators, and maintenance staff of elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Appendix E. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs D. Regional Programs E-11 e. School District Support The County assists schools and school districts interested in setting up recycling programs. The elementary school recycling collection program, begun in 1989, resulted in collection of 24 tons of paper by mid-1990. In addition, over 7,000 classroom recycling containers were distributed to schools and school districts countywide. f. Preschool indergarten In late 1991, a letter of request was mailed to local writers, illustrators, publishers, and consultants regarding the creation of a children's book on WR/R. The County hopes to print and distribute it in 1992. 5. Zone Coordination In January 1990, King County established the Zone Coordination Unit in the WR/R Section. The County was divided into four geographic service areas with a zone coordinator assigned to each one. Zone coordinators become familiar with local programs and issues and provide liaison between the County and communities in their areas. As cities have established basic collection services, the Unit's original focus of assisting in program implementation has evolved into a more facilitative role. Recent activities include working with city recycling staff on a variety of issues through meetings and workshops. a. Community outreach and Technical Assistance Zone Coordinators have worked with city councils, community groups, recyclers, haulers, and members of the business community in providing outreach and assistance. Since 1989, Zone Coordinators have organized an annual technical assistance workshop for cities. Initiated by the County in 1988, the workshops provide information and assistance on such WR/R issues as collection, composting, rate setting, and public education. Zone Coordinators will also be involved in the administration of a $3 million grant program that will provide funding to cities in unincorporated areas for multifamily and nonresidential collection programs. • b. WR/R Matching Grants to Cities Program • The grants program provided funding assistance to cities within King County to plan and implement recycling programs that would achieve results consistent with the County's overall WR/R goal of 65 percent. The County distributed 17 grants from 1988 • through 1991 to assist 23 cities with planning and implementation of WR/R programs. Funds have been applied toward developing residential and nonresidential collection, yard waste, and public education programs. Table E.1 summarizes city activities and • programs accomplished under this program. • E. CITY PROGRAMS • 1. Algona • a. Collection Programs Algona plans to implement voluntary household collection of recyclables and yard waste in the fust half of 1992. D. Regional Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E-12 Table E.1 Summary of City Grant Programs City Total Grant Grant -funded Programs Auburn $ 28,000 Hired consultant to conduct public education programs and prepare reports on existing conditions, WR/R options, public input, WR/R program recommendations. Bellevue $ 70,000 Hired recycling coordinator to work on curbside, yard waste, multifamily, nonresidential, and public education programs. Black Diamond $ 35,000 Hired consultant, improved existing drop -site, established used -oil drop -site, purchased clean -burn waste oil furnace and equipment for printing WR/R materials. Bothell $ 34,264 Implemented waste oil project, Christmas tree recycling, temporary drop -box. Developed request for proposal (RFP) for household collection of recyclables and yardwaste. Des Moines $ 35,057 Studied existing conditions, set up in-house recycling, prepared city WR/R plan, developed educational displays, set up composting of city -generated landscape waste. Enumclaw $ 55,000 Hired consultant to prepare recycling action plan and related RFP, design variable can rate, conduct surveys, evaluate and set up yardwaste collection. Federal Way $ 35,000 Hired consultant to plan recycling program. Implementation expected in 1992. Issaquah $ 35,000 Hired recycling coordinator, implemented household collection. In conjunction with DOE grant, developing village theme at recycling center. Kent $ 40,000 Implemented single-family household collection, offset cost of residential collection, conducted household hazardous waste collection, spring clean-up and Christmas tree pick- up, and funded public education. Lake Forest Park $ 6,850 Hired recycling coordinator, held recycling fair, set up recycling cart in mall, developed RFP for solid waste and recyclables collection. Point Cities $ 20,025 Hired recycling coordinator, conducted WR/R public education and promotion. Mercer Island $ 8,435 Surveyed recycling activities and attitudes as basis for planning. Normandy Park $ 50,000 Prepared recycling action plan, hired recycling coordinator to implement plan. North Bend/ Duvall/ $ 90,000 Hired recycling coordinator, implemented household collection in North Bend, Snoqualmie. Carnation/ Snoqualmie Developing drop -sites in Duvall, conducting public education in Carnation. Pacific $ 35,000 Paid for part-time recycling coordinator, implemented residential drop -site collection, drafted procurement policy, printed educational materials, purchased related equipment. Redmond $ 19,054 Hired recycling coordinator/assistants to develop in-house recycling program, conduct collection events, provide staff support for curbside/commercial programs. Renton $119,500 Paid for solid waste utility coordinator, consultant and support staff, developed RFP, negotiated contract for household collection of recyclables and yardwaste, conducted public education and promotion, developed WR/R study/plan, purchased equipment. SeaTac $ 35,000 Hired recycling coordinator to develop recycling plan, in-house program, community drop - box. Household collection expected at the end of 1991. Tukwila $ 85,500 Studied existing conditions, conducted pilot recycling programs for multifamily, businesses and in-house programs. Made recommendations on solid waste and recycling programs. Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E. City Programs E-13 b. Support Programs Algona has variable can rates for garbage collection. c. Other Programs The city produces a monthly newsletter, which often includes WR/R information. • 2. Auburn • a. Collection Programs Auburn has developed three recycling programs: (1) drop -box collection of aluminum, glass, newspaper, tin, PET and HDPE plastics, and corrugated and mixed paper; (2) household yard waste collection by the haulers for a fee of $4.50 per month, with 38 pickups a year; and (3) voluntary commercial collection of commingled newspaper, aluminum, tin, cardboard, #1 and #2 plastics, mixed paper and untreated scrap wood. Plastics collection will be added as soon as the markets for those materials improve. On July 1, 1991 the household yard waste and commercial commingled collection programs were implemented. The city - sponsored drop -box program began on June 1, 1991, although the city's hauler has operated this program since 1983. The drop -box • program serves the residential sector, including multifamily dwellings. Each also has the opportunity to have drop -site collection, and • most schools currently recycle some materials. During an annual spring cleanup, white goods are collected, which are recycled by the hauler when possible. Christmas trees • and greenery are collected at two drop -sites located at the city fire stations for two weeks each year in January. Christmas trees may also be recycled in the city yard waste household collection program if collection specifications are met. • • b. Support Services Auburn has a 10-, 20-, and 30 -gallon can rate to provide incentives for garbage customers to reduce and recycle waste. If a • resident requests more than one 30 -gallon can, each additional can costs $7.50. Auburn has an informal policy of purchasing its letterhead, toilet paper, and paper towels made from recycled paper. All city divisions have been asked to purchase recycled products • whenever feasible. The City Council plans to develop a formal policy soon. • c. Other Programs • All Auburn schools have in-house paper recycling programs, and city offices participate in an in-house recycling program. Oil • and batteries are recycled from the city vehicle and equipment fleet. Park and right-of-way prunings are chipped and used as mulch in municipal parks and projects. Fallen trees are cut up for and distributed free to residents as firewood, and fall leaves are collected • and stored in a central pile for residents to pick up for use as mulch. The city has developed the Auburn Residential Recycling Guide, which describes its program, lists drop -box locations, and provides instructions on preparing materials for recycling. Auburn promotes its program through continuous advertising in a local monthly newspaper. In 1992, the city plans to provide more information on yard waste programs. • • • • • • E. City Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs • E-14 Under the City Optional Program, Auburn has received county funding for its Nonresidential Technical Assistance Program (TAP). The city conducts waste audits, distributes the Auburn Nonresidential Waste Reduction Guide, offers waste reduction workshops and procurement information, and promotes nonresidential collection service offered by the city's contracted hauler. 3. Beaux Arts a. Collection Program Aluminum, tin, and glass containers, paper, and yard waste are collected at curbside by the hauler. All program costs are met through the fee paid to the hauler by the resident. b. Support Program The city has variable can rates for garbage collection. 4. Bellevue a. CoUeection Programs Household collection of recyclables in Bellevue began in October 1989. A survey conducted in the summer of 1990 indicated that approximately 80 percent of eligible households participate in the program, well above initial projections. Participation in the yard waste collection program has increased steadily since the program started in July 1989. Over 63 percent of garbage customers participate. The city also holds special collection events for residents to recycle materials such as scrap metal, tires, batteries, and household goods. Bellevue assists businesses and multifamily complexes in establishing recycling collection and education programs. In March 1992, the city issued a request for proposals (RFP) to provide collection services to multifamily residences. b. Support Services The rate structure for solid waste collection provides a variable can rate with a significant incentive for residents to reduce their waste and recycle, including a $5.00 "mini -can" rate. The city has adopted a procurement policy that favors the purchase and use of recycled and recyclable products. Bellevue has promoted WR/R with education programs, brochures, workshops, and participation in events such as Earth Day. A commercial recycling guide brochure has been developed to assist businesses with their recycling programs. The guide is distributed as part of the city's Nonresidential TAP funded under the City Optional Programs, which provides waste consultations, workshops, and educational materials. Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E. City Programs 5. Black Diamond • a. Collection Programs Drop -box recycling has been available since 1973 through the Fire Association. Within the last year, Black Diamond has upgraded drop -box services. Materials collected include cardboard, mixed paper, newspaper, aluminum, and glass. In 1992 the city • plans to add tin, and PET and HDPE plastics. Black Diamond's garbage hauler has agreed to provide a drop -site for recyclables at the trailer park, which houses approximately one-third of the city's residential population. The city recently acquired a chipper, • which is used on yard waste collected seasonally on designated days. In 1992 the city plans to establish an ongoing drop -site for yard waste at its shop, and also plans to collect and chip Christmas trees. . b. Support Programs The city has variable can rates for garbage collection. • C. other Programs The city recycles mixed paper and aluminum through an informal in-house program and also stores and recycles used oil on • site. WR/R information is distributed through the city newsletter. 6. Bothell a Collection Programs • Household recyclables and yard waste collection began in January 1991 in Bothell. Glass, aluminum, newspaper, tin, and some PET and HDPE plastic containers are collected. Yard waste is collected weekly March through October, and monthly from November through February. Residents participate in a yearly spring event to clean up the community and collect recyclable • materials. A pilot program for multifamily and commercial recyclables and yard waste collection began in July 1991, and the permanent program is expected to begin in 1992. b. Support Services Rates for solid waste collection are based on volume: residents with lower volumes of solid waste are billed less than those with high volumes. There is no additional charge for recyclable or yard waste pickup. New multifamily and commercial developments can be required under SEPA regulations to provide onsite space for recyclables collection. Bothell is in the process of establishing this requirement for developments within city limits. c. other Programs Bothell provides WR/R information through brochures and other printed materials and has conducted recycling education projects involving high school students and senior citizens. E. City Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recy mg Programs E-1 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5. Black Diamond • a. Collection Programs Drop -box recycling has been available since 1973 through the Fire Association. Within the last year, Black Diamond has upgraded drop -box services. Materials collected include cardboard, mixed paper, newspaper, aluminum, and glass. In 1992 the city • plans to add tin, and PET and HDPE plastics. Black Diamond's garbage hauler has agreed to provide a drop -site for recyclables at the trailer park, which houses approximately one-third of the city's residential population. The city recently acquired a chipper, • which is used on yard waste collected seasonally on designated days. In 1992 the city plans to establish an ongoing drop -site for yard waste at its shop, and also plans to collect and chip Christmas trees. . b. Support Programs The city has variable can rates for garbage collection. • C. other Programs The city recycles mixed paper and aluminum through an informal in-house program and also stores and recycles used oil on • site. WR/R information is distributed through the city newsletter. 6. Bothell a Collection Programs • Household recyclables and yard waste collection began in January 1991 in Bothell. Glass, aluminum, newspaper, tin, and some PET and HDPE plastic containers are collected. Yard waste is collected weekly March through October, and monthly from November through February. Residents participate in a yearly spring event to clean up the community and collect recyclable • materials. A pilot program for multifamily and commercial recyclables and yard waste collection began in July 1991, and the permanent program is expected to begin in 1992. b. Support Services Rates for solid waste collection are based on volume: residents with lower volumes of solid waste are billed less than those with high volumes. There is no additional charge for recyclable or yard waste pickup. New multifamily and commercial developments can be required under SEPA regulations to provide onsite space for recyclables collection. Bothell is in the process of establishing this requirement for developments within city limits. c. other Programs Bothell provides WR/R information through brochures and other printed materials and has conducted recycling education projects involving high school students and senior citizens. E. City Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recy mg Programs E-16 7. Carnation a. Collection Programs Carnation established a yard waste drop -box collection program in July 1990. Yard waste is accepted weekly at the drop -box, which is located at the high school and tended by students. A privately owned newspaper drop -box is located at the Community Center. Under the Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, Carnation will expand recycling opportunities through additional drop -boxes. A drop -site for mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard, aluminum cans, container glass, tin, PET and HDPE plastics, and yard waste is planned at the municipal maintenance shop for 1992. A special cleanup event was held in August 1991. Materials collected were motor oil, antifreeze, tires, batteries, scrap metals, reusable household goods, and PET, HDPE, and polystyrene plastics. The next cleanup is scheduled for July 1992. A one -day Christmas tree collection was held in January 1992• b. Support Services Carnation implemented a variable can rate in April 1990 and will establish a procurement policy in 1992 that favors the purchase and use of recyclable materials. An effort will be made to establish requirements for onsite space for recycling in new construction. c. other Programs A variety of programs will be implemented under a Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, including waste consultations; establishment of an in-house recycling program; promotion of recycling opportunities for schools, residents, and businesses; distribution of Home Waste Guides; and use of a mobile chipper for yard waste collection. The city will also explore the possibility of siting an oil recycling center. 8. Des Moines a. Collection Programs Des Moines is preparing a franchise agreement for the voluntary collection of recyclables, yard waste, and garbage from all residential and nonresidential properties. Materials to be collected include cardboard, glass, tin, aluminum, mixed paper, PET and HDPE plastics, and yard waste. The program will begin in 1992 under service standards developed by the City Council. The City Council is expected to adopt an ordinance prohibiting placement of yard waste in garbage containers. Under the proposed franchise agreement, the hauler will provide two seasonal cleanups. The city hopes to provide a free drop -site for Christmas tree collection. The plan is to have the trees chipped by city staff and to use the chips in city parks. b. Support Services The draft franchise agreement requires incentive -based rates as approved by the Washington Utilities Transportation Commission. The city manager recently adopted a procurement policy, which is based on the King County Model Ordinance. Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E. City Programs E-17 c. Other Programs Des Moines has an in-house collection program and composts its plant wastes for use as mulch throughout its parks. Educational and promotional materials about city collection programs will be developed by the hauler under the proposed franchise agreement. The city has requested Coordinated Prevention Grant funds to establish a waste oil program. • 9. Duvall • a. collection Programs • Duvall is implementing a citywide household recycling program along with variable can rates for mixed waste in 1992. The program includes yard waste drop -box collection. Collection of recyclables from multifamily residences and businesses will also be • available in 1992. The city held a special cleanup event in October 1991. Materials collected include motor oil, antifreeze, tires, batteries, reusable household goods, and PET, HDPE, and polystyrene plastics. A similar event is planned for 1992. • b. Support Services • The city has variable can rates for garbage collection. Duvall plans to implement a formal procurement policy in 1992 and • will also formalize requirements for new construction that will require onsite space to accommodate recycling. c. Other Programs • Under a Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, the city will conduct waste consultations; provide a chipper for use at its yard waste collection events; promote area recycling and yard waste programs; and purchase bins and balers for drop -sites. • Other plans include producing a WR/R newsletter, establishing a classified ad column for waste exchange, and distributing Home Waste Guides. • 10. Enumclaw a. Collection Programs Enumclaw has two drop -boxes for collecting recyclables. Containers are available for glass, newspaper, mixed paper, cardboard, and aluminum. The city is considering providing curbside collection of yard waste and recyclables for residents. If some level of drop -box collection continues, the materials collected will be expanded to include tin and some plastics. b. Support Programs The city plans to implement a variable can rate. E. City Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E-18 11. Federal Way a. Collection Programs Federal Way recently developed a recycling plan. Implementation of the residential portion of the plan, which includes household collection of recyclables and yard waste, is expected to begin in the spring of 1992. The plan also includes technical assistance and collection programs for businesses. The city encouraged recycling in the interim with summer yard waste collection at city property on the fourth weekend of every month and a Spring Clean event coordinated by the Federal Way Community Council. b. Support Programs The city has variable can rates for garbage collection. Until a procurement policy is adopted, Federal Way abides by an informal procurement policy. c. Other Programs The city's recycling plan includes residential technical assistance, program promotion, and a "buy recycled" campaign. 12. Issaquah a. Collection Programs In July 1991, Issaquah began a comprehensive recycling collection program consisting of: (1) single-family household recycling and yard waste collection, (2) multifamily onsite collection of recyclables, and (3) commercial and institutional collection. Under a Waste Not Washington Communities Program grant, periodic mobile drop collection in lieu of weekly household collection will be tested at three multifamily complexes in 1992. Collection by "Can Do Kids," an organization for youths wanting to earn money from recyclables, will be tested at six complexes. Mobile drop -box service for secondary recyclables will also be provided quarterly. (See Volume I, Table lII.10 for definitions of primary and secondary recyclables.) b. Support Services Issaquah has a variable can rate with strong WR/R incentives. The city has a five-year "phase in" procurement policy for paper and non -paper products with recycled content. In the first year the policy was in effect, second -year goals were reached. Issaquah is currently working on drafting requirements for onsite recycling space for new multifamily and commercial construction. c. Other Programs An in-house program operates in all city offices. A block leader program recruits volunteers to organize recycling efforts in some Issaquah neighborhoods, and plans are underway to develop a neighborhood waste exchange. The city will conduct a yard waste reduction and compost program at a minimum of three multifamily complexes in 1992. Mulching mowers will be tested and composting will be encouraged. Discounted home composting bins will be available to single-family residents. Under Waste Not Washington Communities Program grants, the city will support the upgrade and expansion of services at a private recycling center, provide a chipper for use by single-family households in selected neighborhoods, and develop waste reduction school kits. Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E. City Programs E-19 13. Kent a. Collection Programs In January 1989, Kent initiated a recyclables collection program for newspaper, mixed paper, glass, and cans. The city has subsidized the program using a portion of the utility tax, so there are no direct costs to residents. Participation has been high. During the year, Kent offers a spring and fall cleanup as well as pickup of Christmas trees at no cost to the customer. The cleanups allow residents to dispose of their extra garbage, trash, and yard clippings. The city hopes to implement a chipping program in the spring and again in the fall. Kent is evaluating household collection of yard waste and onsite multifamily collection for possible implementation in 1992• b. Support Services Since Kent residents are now receiving recycling collection services at no cost, there are no substantial rate incentives, though the city does have variable can rates. However, it is possible that with the expansion of the residential recycling program, other • alternatives for financing will be explored. The city currently does not have a formal procurement policy. However, the Purchasing Department does purchase recycled paper for all copying machines, and the printing shop uses recycled paper. c. Other Programs Kent has adopted a resolution stating that all its employees will recycle in-house. The city promotes special collection days through flyers and has recently compiled a list of all sites for used motor oil collection in the area. If a grant can be obtained from the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, waste oil collection days will be established. The city also plans to develop additional educational and promotional materials. 14. Kirkland a. Collection Programs Kirkland's recyclables collection program began in April 1991, with household collection of materials offered as a voluntary component of mandatory garbage service. Materials collected are newspaper, mixed waste paper, aluminum, glass, tins cans, and PET and HDPE plastic milk and beverage containers. Yard waste collection is part of the basic garbage service for single-family residents and is included in the city's flat -rate monthly garbage bill. b. Support Services • Kirkland does not presently offer rate incentives to encourage citizens to recycle. The city wishes to continue to offer unlimited household solid waste collection, which it established in 1973 to minimize illegal trash dumping, a practice that occurred previously under the variable can rate structure. The city attempts to favor the purchase of recycled or recyclable materials and plans to formalize a procurement policy. Although it does not currently have code requirements for space to accommodate recycling containers in commercial and multifamily units, this is an issue that is scheduled to be addressed by the City Council. E. City Programs Appmdiv E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E-20 15. Lake Forest Park a. Collection Programs Lake Forest Park has a household collection program of commingled recyclables, which began in early 1990. The hauler collects newspaper, mixed paper, glass, tin cans, and aluminum from single-family residences. Lake Forest Park has negotiated a new contract for solid waste, yard waste, and recyclables (including PET and HDPE plastics) collection. Recycling and yard waste collection service will also be available to multifamily residences and the commercial sector. The new contract includes a variable can rate. b. Support Services The city has a variable rate structure to encourage WR/R. As an added incentive, the cost of recyclables and yard waste services is embedded in the garbage rates paid by all citizens. Lake Forest Park has an informal procurement policy based on cost comparisons of products made from virgin materials and secondary materials. All else being equal, the city buys recycled content materials. The city adopted a formal procurement ordinance in 1992. c. other Programs Lake Forest Park provides recycling information to its citizens through a recycling information cart and a monthly newsletter, and has sponsored two recycling fairs. 16. Mercer Island a. Collection Programs Mercer Island began hauler -provided household collection of commingled recyclables in October 1989. In April 1990 the city initiated household collection of yard waste from single-family residences. Collection occurs twice a month during spring, summer, and fall, and once a month during winter. The city has passed an ordinance making it illegal to place yard and garden waste in residential garbage cans. b. Support Services Mercer Island has a differential rate structure with moderate incentives built in. The rate includes garbage removal, household recycling, and household yard waste collection. The city is formulating a written procurement policy. For the past few years, Mercer Island has adhered to an unwritten procurement policy that stresses the use of products made from recycled materials whenever financially feasible. The city has no formal code requirements for onsite space for recycling in new construction. However, under a new system the city is informed of new projects before plans are finalized, then it contacts the appropriate businesses and owners to discuss recycling and related space needs inside and outside new buildings. c. other Programs The Mercer Island Recycling Center is a popular drop -site used by many Island recyclers. The Committee to Save the Earth, a student group at Mercer Island High School, operates the center. Unlike the household program, it accepts PET and HDPE. A Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E. City Programs L E-21 • sizeable percentage of the Recycling Center's materials comes from collection programs at Mercer Island's three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Through the City Optional Program, Mercer Island receives county funding to provide . nonresidential technical assistance. The city conducts waste consultations, provides telephone assistance, and distributes printed materials to businesses interested in developing WWR programs. 17. Normandy Park • a. Collection Programs The recyclables collection program in Normandy Park began in November 1991, with voluntary service provided on the same day as scheduled garbage collection. Participation goals are set at 65 percent after one year and 85 percent of total households after five years. The city collects the full range of recyclable materials through the program. The household yard waste program and 0 multifamily onsite recycling collection also began in November 1991, with participation goals set for 50 percent after one year and 85 • percent after five years. A recyclables drop -box is provided at City Hall for newspaper, magazines, and aluminum. 0 b. Support Services • While the city has variable can rates, a service level ordinance with more substantive rate incentives will be considered after household programs for recycling are in place. A procurement policy has been drafted and more information on prices and • availability of products is being sought before the council is asked to act on implementing a city policy. • c. other Programs • Normandy Park has an extensive in-house recycling program at City Hall and has worked closely with the one elementary school to set up an in-house recycling program. Public meetings have been held with the Metrocenter YMCA on sound gardening 0 and hazardous waste, and the city has also sponsored a commercial waste reduction mini -workshop for interested businesses. 0 18. North Bend 0 a. Collection Programs 0 North Bend and Snoqualmie have cooperated to set up joint programs for collecting household recyclables for single- and • multifamily residences and onsite collection of commercial recyclables. The programs, which began in February 1991, exceed the minimum levels of recyclables collection for rural cities required by the County and state. The programs have a high level of • participation. In September 1989, the North Bend and Snoqualmie Recycling Drop -Box Collection program started as a King County pilot • program. It later was operated by Lawson Disposal and is now run by the Mt Si Senior Center. The drop -boxes are located on city property and the public works crew maintains the site. The drop -boxes serve county as well as city residents and remain popular 0 even with the availability of household recycling. The yard waste drop -box collection program started in June 1991. Yard waste will be collected on the second and fourth Saturdays of the month from March through November, and monthly from December through 0 February. i E. City Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E-22 b. Support Services North Bend implemented a variable can rate in January 1991. A procurement policy for the city is planned for 1992. Letters are sent to builders or contractors requesting building permits, informing them that onsite space for recycling is required in new construction. 19. Pacific a. Collection Programs Pacific provides bins for residents at one site for the collection of newspaper and aluminum, and at a second site for cardboard tin, newspaper, glass, and aluminum cans. The city plans to implement a curbside collection program for Christmas trees, and will develop a yard waste curbside collection program. In 1991 the city purchased a chipper for yard waste. The businesses in Pacific are all located in one area, and the city is working with its solid waste hauler to establish a drop -site for recyclables for this sector. b. Support Services The hauler offers rate incentives, including a 10 -gallon mini -can at a lower rate, and a number of residents have taken advantage of it. The city has an informal procurement policy to buy recycled products, and is drafting a formal one. No requirements have been established for onsite space to accommodate recycling. The city will recommend to the Planning Commission that this condition be included in the site plan review process. c. Other Programs The city produces a newsletter on WR/R issues and information every month or every other month depending on need. 20. Point Cities—Hunts Point, Medina, Yarrow Point, Clyde Hill a. Collection Program The cities of Hunts Point, Medina, Yarrow Point, and Clyde Hill offer their residents household collection of recyclables and yard waste. Mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard, glass, tin and aluminum cans are commingled in a 90 -gallon toter and collected every two weeks. Yard waste is collected every other week by the hauler from spring to fall and once a month in the winter. Ordinances in each city prohibit disposal of yard waste with garbage. b. Support Services The cities have variable can rates, and as an added incentive household recycling is included in the base rate for garbage collection. The Point Cities have not seen a need to establish onsite space for recycling since all new construction is single-family homes. c. Other Program WR/R information is included in city newsletters. Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E. City Programs E-23 21. Redmond a. Collection Programs Redmond's household collection of recyclables and yard waste began in March 1990. Redmond also provides collection services to all multifamily residences that are not served through the single-family program. Participation in both recycling programs is high. Cleanup and recycling day events are held twice a year providing residents with regular and convenient opportunities to drop off a variety of materials that are recyclable, reusable, or compostable. Materials collected at these events include used oil and yard waste that is too large for household pickup. b. Support Services • Redmond has established variable can rates for garbage collection, passed a resolution directing city use of recycled paper, and developed requirements for developers to provide space for recycling and garbage storage in new construction. c. other Programs Redmond has an in-house recycling program, provides technical assistance to businesses, and develops public information on • WR/R based on its study Public Perception of Recycling Information Sources. The city provides technical assistance to businesses and backyard composting to residents with county funding assistance through the City Optional Program. 22. Renton • a. Collection Programs Renton's household collection program began in August 1989 and serves single-family, duplex, and mobile homes. Mixed waste paper, cardboard, bottles and cans, and newspapers are placed in bins at curbside for collection on the same day as yard waste and garbage collection. Household collection of yard waste is available for single-family residences only. The hauler supplies 90 - gallon toters for the twice monthly collection. Christmas trees can be collected in the city's curbside yard waste program if collection • specifications are met In 1992, Renton will focus on multifamily collection and education with implementation scheduled for the third quarter of the • year. The city sponsored its fust special collection day for items such as bulky items, scrap metal, automotive batteries, plastics, reusable household goods, and tires. Renton plans to operate this program in the spring and fall. Plans also include the collection of motor oil and antifreeze. b. Support Services The city's current rate structure includes a 10 -gallon mini -can with a senior citizen/low income rate. All regular 32 -gallon cans are available with an incremental increase for each additional can. While the city prepares to draft a procurement ordinance, it is making efforts to procure (and requires all consultants to procure and use) recycled content paper. Some departments purchase other recycled content products as well. E. City Programs Appendix E. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E-24 c. Other Programs 23. SeaTac a. CoUecction Programs In November 1991, SeaTac began implementing a comprehensive voluntary household collection program for single-family and multifamily residents and the nonresidential sector. Materials collected include newspaper, cardboard, and mixed paper; tin, glass, and aluminum containers; PET and HDPE plastics; and yard waste. The city continues to have a drop -site at City Hall. SeaTac plans to implement a chipper service, which will operate twice a year. Residents will bring yard waste to a drop -site, where it will be chipped and transferred to the Southwest Suburban Sewer District for use as a bulking agent for sludge. Christmas trees will be accepted at the drop -site. b. Support Services SeaTac has variable can rates. Other rate incentives will be addressed when the service level ordinance goes before the WUTC. In the service level ordinance, incentive rate setting practices have been requested as well as discounts for senior citizen, disadvantaged, and low-income discounts. The service level ordinance will establish procurement policies for building materials and office supplies, and will encourage practices such as two-sided copying, reusable utensils, and reduction in use of nonrecyclable utensils in city offices. c. Other Programs An in-house program for city employees provides opportunities to recycle mixed paper, high-grade white paper, aluminum, tin, cardboard, and PET and HDPE plastics. The city is working with the Hlghline School District to promote WR/R and will work specifically with Valley View Elementary School on a food waste pilot project. The city will provide technical assistance to multifamily residents and businesses interested in participating in WR/R programs. Assistance will include onsite consultations and educational and promotional materials on WR/R and city programs. SeaTac produces a newsletter twice yearly on its WR/R program. To promote the new program, the city produced a flyer for door-to-door distribution by the hauler. In 1992 the city plans to stencil storm drains to discourage improper disposal of used oil and other hazardous wastes and expects to set up two used oil collection sites in 1993. Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs E. City Programs E- 2 5 24. Snoqualmie a. Collection Programs In February 1991, North Bend and Snoqualmie cooperated to set up joint programs for household collection of recyclables for residential, multifamily, and commercial customers. The two cities have chosen to exceed the minimum levels of recyclables collection for rural cities required by the County and the state. Snoqualmie and North Bend also jointly sponsor a recyclables drop - box collection program, which began in September 1989 as a county pilot program. The drop -boxes, located in North Bend, are managed by the hauler and the Mt. Si Senior Center. Participation remains high, even with implementation of the household programs. The yard waste drop -box started in July 1991 and operates monthly from July to October. In April 1991 Snoqualmie held a yard waste/spring cleanup day; two and a half tons of yard waste were collected. b. Support Services In January 1991, Snoqualmie implemented a variable can rate. The city plans to implement a procurement policy and establish requirements for onsite recycling space for new construction. 25. Tukwila a. Collection Programs Tukwila implemented residential household recycling and yard waste collection in August 1991. Service is also available to multifamily dwellings. Materials collected include cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper, aluminum and tin cans, glass, and PET. b. Support Services The city has variable can rates for garbage collection. While there is no official procurement policy in place, Tukwila purchases some products with recycled content. Tukwila is revising multifamily design standards to require space for recycling containers. =.W . The city's residential recycling program has been promoted through newsletters and articles in the community newspaper. A flyer providing information on waste reduction, setting up a recycling program, materials exchange, and haulers and county resources was distributed to all businesses. A speaker's bureau will be developed that will include slide show presentations on single-family, multifamily, and commercial recycling programs. Technical assistance is provided and informational brochures are distributed to multifamily complex managers. Training is provided for "recycling captains" recruited at apartment complexes. Award certificates recognize exemplary recycling efforts of multifamily residences. An in-house recycling program operates in all city offices. Employees are encouraged to participate through a "good recycling ideas" contest, brown bag presentations, and a bulletin display on WR/R and other environmental issues. E. City Programs Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs (s) APPENDIX F RESOURCE GUIDE TO RECYCLING CENTERS IN KING COUNTY King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It Out Together r • Department of Public Works • King County Solid Waste Division RESOURCE GUIDE TO RECYCLING CENTERS IN KING COUNTY July 27, 1993 This list is to be used as a guide for available services. It is compiled from information provided to the King County Solid Waste Division. It may not be all inclusive and we recommend that you refer to the phone book for additional sources. We also recommend that you contact the individual companies for more specific information. We make every effort to keep our lists up-to-date, so please feel free to contact us at 296-4466 to update this list. For business recycling, please call 296-4356. Vendors are arranged alphabetically by suburban city/area. Information regarding additional plastics recycling, tire recycling; household hazardous waste disposal, and yard waste acceptance at King County and private facilities is listed at the end of this list. Resource guides for recycling plastics; used motor oil; appliances; and construction, demolition, and landclearing debris (includes yard waste and concrete/asphalt) are also available by calling 296-4466. A recyclable in italics indicates that the vendor buys that recyclable. KEY hi -gra high-grade paper (computer paper, white ledger office paper) newsp newspaper cardb corrugated cardboard mag/mix magazines/mixed paper/junk mail glass glass jars and bottles, rinsed beerb beer bottles alum aluminum tin tin/steel food cans, rinsed, labels removed ferr ferrous metal (iron) non-ferr non-ferrous metal (copper, nickel, lead, etc.) batt (lead -acid) car batteries HDPE High-density polyethylene: HDPE is opaque or translucent (off-white milk jugs and juice containers, shampoo, detergent bottles). Look for recycling symbol with #2. PET Polyethylene terephthalate: PET bottles are clear and have a molded injection point on the bottom (not a seam). Includes soft drink, some water, liquor, wine, and fruit juice bottles. Look for recycling symbol with #1. poly Poly -coated containers (milk/juice cartons) • • • • %; Sorting It Out Together • Printed on Recycled Papez United Methodist Church 29645 - 51 st Ave S hi-gra alum Computer paper. Accepts phone books, 839-9220 / Open 24 hours Auburn, WA 98001 newsp no magazines or paper with glue, i.e., cardbmix envelopes. Albertson's 1510 Auburn Way S alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans 1-800-228-2525 Auburn and scrap aluminum. 10-1 Tues -Sat Auburn Recycling Salvage 2906 A St SE alum Accepts car parts. 939-5309 Auburn, WA 98002 tin 9-5 M -Sat ferr non-ferr batt K & M Recycling 38104 Aub-Enum Hwy alum 939-5732 Auburn, WA 98002 non-ferr 9-5 M -Sat Hogan's Market 2900 Auburn Way S nwsp glass Drop box Open 24 hours Auburn cardb alum mag/mix tin HDPE PET 7 -Eleven 1539 - 21 st SE nwsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours Auburn cardb alum mag/mix tin HDPE PET Brandon Park 28th & M St NE nwsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours Auburn cardb alum mag/mix tin HDPE PET White River Mobile Park 4200 A St SE nwsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours Auburn mag/mix alum tin Fred Meyer 8th & Auburn Wy NE nwsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours Auburn cardb tin mag/mix Buddhist Temple 8th & Auburn Wy NE nwsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours Auburn mag/mix alum tin St. Matthew's Church 2nd NE & L St nwsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours Auburn mag/mix alum tin Safeway 2nd & Auburn Wy S nwsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours Auburn mag/mix alum tin Auburn Eagles Open 2nd & Auburn Wy S nwsp glass Drop box. 24 hours Auburn mag/mix alum tin Page 2 Crossroads Shopping 156th Ave NE & NE 13th alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans Center Place and scrap aluminum. 1-800-228-2525 Bellevue 9:30-5 Tues -Sat Lunch 1-1:30 Fibres International, Inc. 1533 - 120th Ave NE hi -gra glass Recycling drives and drop boxes are 455-9811 Bellevue, WA 98006 newsp beerb available. Charges for magazine/mixed 8-5 M -F, 9-3 Sat cardb alum paper. Western beer bottles buy-back, newsp mag/mix tin other glass accepted (white, green, HDPE tin brown). Provides pick-up recycling PET HDPE services with a minimum volume. flattened milk jugs only. Call for fund PET/HDPE bottles only. ............................................................................................................. .............................................................................. ...................................................................................... ........................................................ ....... . .............. ................................................. ........................................................................................................................................ .............................................................................................................................................................. ..................:........ .I ..........:............ :. . ........................................................................... ::;..:......::: ::;:::. ,...:.::.......::::. ....:. Age of Aluminum 68th Ave. NE & Bothell alum Recycling truck is located in the Kenmore Recycling Wy Marketplace parking lot. 487 -ALUM Kenmore, WA Burien Nov -Mar 10-4 Sat; and scrap aluminum. 9:30-5 Tues -Sat Apr -Oct 10-5 Sat Lunch 1-1:30 Burien Recycling Center 16043 First Ave S hi -gra glass Accepts magazines in boxes, no 246-2346 Burien, WA 98166 mag beerb catalogues, phone books or other mixed 9:30-6 M -F, 9:30-5 Sat newsp alum waste paper; accepts books; also accepts cardb tin car radiators and other parts. HDPE - HDPE ferr flattened milk jugs only. Call for fund PET non-ferr raising for schools, churches and other batt community groups. Fred Meyer Store 14300 First Ave. S alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans 1-800-228-2525 Burien and scrap aluminum. 9:30-5 Tues -Sat Lunch 1-1:30 • Carnation Recycling Center • 333-4192 (City Hall) 12-4 W -Th -F 10-4 S/S Corner of Myrtle & newsp glass Located at the City Maintenance Shop. McKinley cardb alum PET & HDPE bottles only. Carnation mag/mix tin HDPE PET Page 3 En urt�clar MD Pharmacy Valu Vila 750 Highway 410 alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans 1-800-228-2525 Enumclaw and scrap aluminum. 2-5 Tues -Sat Enumclaw Recycling 44110 - 239th Ave S.E. hi -gra newsp cardb alum a* Buys back computer paper. Also accepts clean aluminum foil (does not buy-back foil). 825-4720 Enumclaw, WA 98022 HDPE non-ferr PET and HDPE bottles only. 10-5 M -Sat Issaquah PET alum Enumclaw Recycling & 1650 Battersby Ave E newsp glass The new (4/5/93) facility is located across Transfer Station Enumclaw, WA 98022 cardb beerb the street from the old (now closed) 296-4466 24041 276th Ave SE mag/mix alum Enumclaw Landfill --one-quarter mile east 8:30-5 Hobart, WA 98025 HDPE tin of the intersectin of SE 440th St and 284th 8-5 PST 9-6 DST PET alum Ave SE. Recyling bins are located outside HDPE tin of the cashier's booth. I.O.O.B. Club 44011 - 244th Ave SE glass City of Enumclaw maintains bins through Open 24 hours Enumclaw, WA 98022 beerb RST Recycling. alum Safeway 152 Roosevelt Ave newsp glass Drop box. 825-5541 Enumclaw, WA 98022 cardb alum Open 24 hours K -Mart 1207 S. 320th alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans 1-800-228-2525 Federal Way and scrap aluminum. 9:30-5 Tues -Sat Lunch 1-1:30 Neighborhood Recycling 34300 Pacific Hwy. S hi -gra glass Flatten tin cans. Accepts magazines, Center Federal Way, WA 98063 newsp beerb catalogues and phone books, no mixed 952-6002 cardb alum paper/junk mail. Buys back Rainier and 10-5 Tue-Fri, 10-4 Sat mag tin Weinberg beer bottles. PET CEI Recycling Buy -Back Center 391-0650 9-4 M -Sat 970 - 7th Ave NW Issaquah Mailing address is 690 NW Juniper. hi -gra newsp cardb alum ferr non-ferr a* Buys back computer paper. Also accepts clean aluminum foil (does not buy-back foil). City of Issaquah Drop Box 970 - 7th Ave NW HDPE glass PET and HDPE bottles only. Center Issaquah PET alum 391-1004 poly tin Open 24 hrs. ferr Hobart Landfill 24041 276th Ave SE newsp glass 296-4466 Hobart, WA 98025 cardb beerb 8-5 PST 9-6 DST mag/mix alum HDPE tin PET Page 4 Miller Brands 6030 S 196th St newsp alum Aluminum cans only. 872-2600 Kent, WA 98032 cardb tin appliances (fee charged). 9-12 Mon & Tue ferr Weyerhaeuser 19621 - 77th Ave S hi -gra glass Provides pickup recycling services with 682-1035 Kent, WA 98032 newsp alum minimum volume. Scales open 8 a.m. 8-4:30 M -F, 8-3:30 Sat Nr Island carob Mercer Island High School Charges for mixed paper. hi -gra glass mix Drop Box Island property at the Reynolds Aluminum 7855 S 212th St newsp alum Accepts all aluminum (in addition to cans). Recycling Kent, WA 98032 non-ferr Brass and copper. 872-6700 Mercer Island, WA 98040 9-4:30 M -Sat Hallmark Precious Metals, 3011 - 80th Ave. S.E. Fred Meyer Store Benson & 240th Buys precious metals: jewelry, gold, silver, alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans 1-800-228-2525 Kent (East Hill) platinum, and coins. 232-0472 and scrap aluminum. 9:30-5 Tues -Sat 8-5 M -F Lunch 1-1:30 _. .d,ul.. to .. ;::::>::::>:;.><:::::::` ::::> Houghton Transfer Station 11724 NE 60th St newsp glass Recycling bins are located outside the 296-6542 Kirkland, WA cardb alum cashier's booth. 8-5:30 7 days a week mag/mix tin HDPE PET Data Destruction NW Post Office Box 2265 hi -gra Destroys confidential paper documents 828-4769 Kirkland, WA 98083 on-site (fee). 9-5 M -F Meyers Distributing 10822 - 117th Place NE alum Aluminum cans only Company Kirkland, WA 98033 828-6511 10-2 M -F Age of Aluminum 11849 - 98th Ave N alum Recycling truck is located in the Juanita Recycling Juanita, WA Marketplace parking lot. 487 -ALUM Nov -Mar 10-4 Sat Apr -Oct 10-5 Sat Cedar Grove Recycling 18407 Renton -MV Road newsp alum On Highway 169. Buys old cars; accepts Center Maple Valley, 98038 cardb tin appliances (fee charged). 432-3133 ferr 9-6 M -F, 9-5 Sat 9-3 Sun non-ferr batt Nr Island Mercer Island High School Located on City of Mercer hi -gra glass Drop Box Island property at the newsp alum 236-3334 intersection of SE 32nd St cardb tin Open 24 hours and 77th Ave SE mag/mix Mercer Island, WA 98040 PET Hallmark Precious Metals, 3011 - 80th Ave. S.E. Buys precious metals: jewelry, gold, silver, Inc. Mercer Island, WA 98040 platinum, and coins. 232-0472 8-5 M -F Page 5 Cedar Falls Drop Box 16925 Cedar Falls Rd SE newsp glass 296-4466 North Bend, WA 98045 cardb beerb 8-5 PST 9-6 DST mag/mix alum PET tin HDPE Mount Si Senior Center 411 Main Ave N newsp glass Drop box. Open 24 hours North Bend, WA 98045 alum 'Redmond'><'« :>::;. . E.I.R. Recycling Post Office Box 844 hi-gra alum Provides pick-up recycling services with Rick Hoffmaster 392-8990 Redmond, WA 98073 newsp ferr minimum volume cardb non-ferr mix >:` Renta Keppler Feed and 16442 Rntn-Iss. Rd* hi-gra glass Accepts computer paper only in the high- Recycling (Sunset Blvd. NE) newsp beerb grade category. Rainier beer bottle buy- 226-5239 Renton, WA 98056 cardb alum back only. Non-ferrous buyback on 9:30-5:45 daily PET non-ferr copper, brass and radiators. ...... opt t�f Lake hatc�� h p Canal Fred Meyer Store 18325 Aurora Ave. N alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans 1-800-228-2525 Seattle and scrap aluminum. 10-5 Tues-Sat, Lunch 1-1:30 First NE Transfer Station 2300 N 165th St. newsp glass Recycling bins are located outside the 296-4466 Seattle mag/mix alum cashier's booth. 8-5:30 7 days HDPE tin PET Age of Aluminum 6914 NE 204th St alum Recycling truck is located in the Recycling (mailing) Albertson's parking lot. 487-ALUM 145th & 15th Ave NE (site) 10-4 Sat Seattle Medalia Salvage 1112 N 98th St alum Located east of Aurora Ave. Buys back 523-8835 Seattle, WA 98103 ferr copper, brass, lead. 9-6 M-F, 10-2 Sat non-ferr North Seattle Community 9600 College Way N newsp alum Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper College Seattle glass tin picked up by Fibres International. 285-1489 Open 24 hours Price Choppers 85th & 3rd NW alum Reynolds Aluminum trailer. Accepts cans 1-800-228-2525 Seattle (Greenwood) and scrap aluminum. 9:30-5 Tues-Sat Lunch 1-1:30 Saint Catherine Church 8524 Eighth Ave NE newsp alum Suggest using drop box after school hours 525-0581 Seattle to avoid children at play. Safeway 7400 Lake City Way NE newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper 285-1489 Seattle alum picked up by Fibres International. Open 24 hours tin Puget Consumers' Co-op 6504 - 20th Ave NE PET HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown 525-1450 Seattle, WA 98115 or grey bottles, no hazardous waste Open 24 hours containers, no non-bottles or polystyrenes, diapers, paper or plastic mixes, or motor oil containers. Page 6 QFC Roosevelt 6600 Roosevelt Way NE newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper 285-1489 Seattle alum picked up by Fibres International. Open 24 hours tin Safeway 3902 Stoneway N newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper 285-1489 Seattle alum picked up by Fibres International. Open 24 hours tin Shilshole Bay Marina 7001 Seaview Ave NW glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. 285-1489 Seattle (11 sites at the alum Open 24 hours end of docks.) Ballard Recycling Center 1509 NW 49th St hi-gra glass Provides recycling services for 784-6302 Seattle, WA 98107 newsp beerb businesses. Rainier beer bottles only. 9-5 M -F, 9-4 Sat cardb alum non-ferr Noble Metals, Inc. alum 928 NW Leary Way 783-6321 ferr Seattle, WA 98107 9-5 M -F, 9-3 Sat non-ferr Sun West/American Recy 1415 NW Ballard Way hi-gra glass Drop sites at apartments; newspaper drop 789-5498 Seattle, WA 98107 newsp beerb boxes elsewhere. Provides pick-up 8-5 M -F cardb alum recycling service with minimum volume. mag/mix tin Call for when they will be accepting new customers. Budget Batteries 1501 Elliott Ave W batt Only accepts lead -acid -type batteries. Six 922-3737 Seattle, WA 98109 locations in Seattle, 11 in Western 9-6 M -F, 9-5 Sat Washington. Picks up large quantities. Seattle North Recycling N 34th & Carr Place N newsp glass PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown and Disposal Station Seattle, WA 98103 cardb beerb or grey bottles, no hazardous waste 684-7600 mag/mix alumtin containers, no non -bottles. Accepts 8-5:30 M -F, HDPE ferr appliances; no furnaces or boilers. 8-7 Sat, 9-6 Sun PET non-ferr Remove insulation between jacket and batt core from water heaters. University Village Safeway 3020 NE 45th St HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown Seattle PET or grey bottles, no hazardous waste containers, no non -bottles. Phinney Neighborhood 6532 Phinney Ave N HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown Center Seattle PET or grey bottles, no hazardous waste containers, no non-bottles. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _....... _.......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ _... _.. _.. .................................................I--............................_................_.......................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Seattle�ut cif Like Vllash�ntcnhipi Canal Lynn Street E. Lynn & Fairview Ave E. newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. 285-1489 (SW corner), Seattle alum Open 24 hours tin Central Co-op 1835 12th Ave., Seattle glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. 285-1489 (Parking lot off Denny) alum Open 24 hours tin Safeway 2100 Queen Anne Ave N newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper 285-1489 Seattle (Upper QA) alum picked up by Fibres International. Open 24 hours tin Safeway 516 1st Ave W newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper 285-1489 Seattle (Lower QA) alum picked up by Fibres International. Open 24 hours tin Nuts 'N' Bolts 2533 Westlake Ave N cardb glass Pick-up only from establised accounts. 285-1489 Seattle, WA 98109 alum Services food and beverage - establishments; also provides pick-up services with minimum volume (north of Yesler Way), and drop boxes. Page 7 Safeway 1410 East John newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper 285-1489 Seattle (Capital Hill) alum picked up by Fibres International. Open 24 hours tin Roger's Thriftway 1126 MLK Jr. Way newsp glass Nuts & Bolts drop box. Newspaper 285-1489 Seattle (Madrona) PET alum picked up by Fibres International. Open 24 hours tin containers, no non -bottles or polystyrenes, Recycling Depot 851 Rainier Ave S hi -gra glass 10-5 M -Sat Michael Shearn Seattle, WA 98144 newsp beerb* Accepts phone books (in small amounts). 325-7288 7152 First Ave S cardb alum Provides pick-up recycling services with 763-2345 Seattle, WA 98108 tin minimum volume (hi -gra paper and non- 8-4:30 M -FU non-ferr ferrous only). *Buy-back for beer bottles Seattle South Recycling 2nd Ave S. and S. Kenyon newsp glass is for Rainier and Henry's only. Skoor Enterprises 95 S Atlantic hi -gra beerb Pickup service for offices. 935-9841 Seattle, WA 98134 mag/mix alum containers, -.c. non -bottles. Accents 8-5 M -F HDPE tin appliances; no turna�­ _. _:;�•� Pacific Iron and Metal Co. 2230 Fourth Ave S PET alum Also buys precious metals; a non-ferrous 628-6232 Seattle, WA 98134 non-ferr shop. Provides pick-up recycling services 8-4:30 M -F, 8-12 Sat batt with minimum volume for commercial accounts only. Rabanco Recycling 2733 3rd Ave S newsp glass Recycling drives and drop boxes are 382-0480 Seattle, WA 98134 cardb beerb available. Provides pick-up recycling 8-4 M -F, 8-3:30 Sat mag/mix alum services with a minimum volume. PET AI's Junk & Scrap Metals 21 st & S. Massachusetts alum 324-2890 St ferr 7-4:30 M -F Seattle, WA 98144 non-ferr Bloch Steel 4580 Colorado Ave S alum Buys large quantities. 763-0200 Seattle, WA 98134 ferr 7-3:30 M -F non-ferr Pacific NW Recycling Post Office Box 84412 hi -gra alum Provides pick-up recycling services with 431-8109 Seattle, WA 98134 newsp no minimum volume. 8-3:30 M -Sat cardb Sea-Dru-Nar 3844 1 st Ave S hi -gra alum Provides pick-up recycling services with 467-7550 Seattle, WA 98134 newsp minimum volume. 8-4:30 M -Sat cardb mag/mix Seattle Barrel Co. 4716 Airport Way S New and used steel and poly drums, 622-7218 Seattle, WA 98108 bought, sold, reconditioned. 7-4:30 M -F Puget Consumers' Co-op 5041 Wilson Ave S HDPE PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown 723-2720 Seattle, WA 98118 PET or grey bottles, no hazardous waste Open 24 hours containers, no non -bottles or polystyrenes, diapers, paper or plastic mixes or motor oil containers. NW Cooperage Co. 7152 First Ave S Buys and sells steel drums. Plastic drums 763-2345 Seattle, WA 98108 are accepted with a service charge. 8-4:30 M -FU Seattle South Recycling 2nd Ave S. and S. Kenyon newsp glass PET & HDPE bottles only, no black, brown and Disposal Station Seattle, WA 98108 cardb beerb or grey bottles, no hazardous waste 684-7600 mag/mix alum containers, -.c. non -bottles. Accents 6am-11 pm daily HDPE tin appliances; no turna�­ _. _:;�•� PET ferr Remove metal jacket and insulation from non-ferr water heaters. batt Page 8 Smurfit Recycling 9747 M.L.K. Jr. Way S hi -gra alum Recycling drives and drop boxes are Company Seattle, WA 98118 newsp available. Provides pick-up recycling 723-4490 minimum volume. Also buys generators, cardb service with minimum volume. 7-5 M -F, 8-12 Sat non-ferr mag/mix 8-4 M -F, 8-11:30 Sat PET appliances. No crushed oil filters or oil, City Junk 4915 S 124th alum Buys generators and starters, 763-3024 Seattle, WA 98178 non-ferr transmissions, electric motors. No 9-5 M -F, 10-4 Sat Closed 11:30-12:30 for lunch. (Located on appliances. Closed from 12-1 p for lunch. Seattle Iron & Metals 2955 - 11th Ave SW alum Provides pick-up recycling service with Corp. Seattle, WA 98134 ferr minimum volume. Also buys generators, 682-0040 non-ferr starters, alternators, car bodies, and some 8-4 M -F, 8-11:30 Sat appliances. No crushed oil filters or oil, tires, freezers or refrigerator motors. Closed 11:30-12:30 for lunch. (Located on Harbor Island). Non -Ferrous Metals, Inc. 2905 - 13th Ave SW non-ferr Foundry, buys back lead, zinc, and alloys. 624-8414 Seattle, WA 98134 (Located on Harbor Island). 8-4:30 M -F West Seattle Recycling 2964 SW Avalon Way hi -gra glass Accepts magazines, no junk mail, phone Center Seattle, WA 98126 newsp beerb books, catalogues. Specializes in 935-4255 cardb alum fundraising for schools, churches and 9:30-5 M -Sat 9-7 Thu mag tin community groups. Provides pick-up HDPE ferr recycling service with minimum volume. PET non-ferr (located near Seattle Steel, turn left on batt Avalon from Spokane St.) Puget Sound Iron & 2955 11th Ave SW alum Provides pick-up recycling service with Metals Seattle, WA 98134 tin minimum volume. Container drop service 767-5179 ferr free for commercial accounts. 8-4 M -F, 8-11:30 Sat non-ferr MRI Corporation 6000 W Marginal Way SW tin Provides recycling services for businesses 767-4337 Seattle, WA 98106 only. 1000 Ib. minimum. Open 24 hours Tukwila. °` ` < .......................................................................................................................................... Triple A Recycling 4455 S 148th St hi -gra Provides pick-up recycling service for 246-5412 Tukwila, WA 98168 newsp businesses. cardb CMX Corporation 6601 S. Glacier St Buys used litho and x-ray film. Accepts 623-4483/656-1269 Tukwila, WA 98188 and may pickup used fixer. 8-4 M -F Bow Lake Transfer Station 18800 Orillia Rd S newsp glass Recycling bins are located outside the 296-4466 Tukwila, WA 98168 cardb beerb cashiers booth. 8-5:30 mag/mix alum HDPE tin PET Costco Wholesale 1160 Saxon Dr hi-gra* glass *Computer paper only. See plastics sheet 575-9191 Tukwila, WA 98168 HDPE alum for additional plastics. 10-8:30 M -F PET batt Page 9 Vashon Landfill 18910 Westside Hwy SW newsp glass Recycling bins are located outside the 296-4466 Vashon Island, WA 98070 cardb beerb cashier's booth. 8-5 PST 9-6 DST mag/mix alum HDPE tin PET .:. .. . 1�oQdrnvil e Waste Mgmt NW/Recycle 6225 - 233rd St SE newsp beerb Just north of the King County border in America Woodinville, WA 98072 cardb alum Snohomish County. Turn left off Hwy. 9 487-1006 PET (67th Ave. S.E.) at 233rd Place S.E. 10-5, M-F Western beer bottles only. Brown cardboard only, no staples. Bundle or sack newspaper. Soda pop and liquor bottles, remove caps and crush plastic bottles. Cans only. Cut cardboard in 1 or 2 feet square. Permagas 7605 - 222nd St SE In Snohomish County. Accepts used 483-8002 Woodinville, WA 98072 propane tanks (25 gallon or larger) as 8-5 M-F donation only. Arrow Metals Corp. 6014 - 237th Place SE alum (Located just north of the King County 481-1828 Woodinville, WA 98072 tin border in Snohomish County.) Accepts all 8-4:30 M-F, 8-1 Sat ferr types of scrap metals, automobiles to non-ferr lawnmowers. Page 10 Bolser Tire 5530 Evergreen Way Accepts tires including solid rubber tires 763-9313 Everett WA and other rubber items such as tubes, 1-800-828-3961 98203 flaps, hoses. Also sells products such as mats made out of old recycled tires 11.:�:� and/or other recycled rubber. Please (Call the Seattle/King County Health Department Hazards Line at 296-4692 for additional information on disposing of call first for acceptance. Schuyler Manufacturing Company 16901 Woodinville -Redmond Road Accepts only bias ply tires size 8.25 x 18 488-2255 Woodinville, WA 98072 and larger. P.C. Casing 21838 - 84th Ave S Charges $1.00 per tire. 872-2255 Kent, WA 98032 Tire Recyclers, Inc. 583 N Military Road Accepts tires for a fee. Rims accepted (206) 785-4495 Winlock, WA 98596 for additional fee. 1-800-828-3961 11.:�:� (Call the Seattle/King County Health Department Hazards Line at 296-4692 for additional information on disposing of hazardous materials. Household Hazardous Wastemobile Waste Mobile travels around King Bring pesticides, paints, thinners, (HHW) County. Call the Hazards Line at 296- solvents, hobby chemicals, cleaning 4692 for schedule and location. products, motor oil. NW Enviroservice, Inc. 1700 Airport Way S Service fee for pick-up of hazardous 622-1090 Seattle, WA 98134 wastes, acids, bases. Open 24 hours Amalgamated Services, Inc. 21318 - 103rd Place SE Service charge for pick-up only of oil, 854-6643 8-5 M -F Kent, WA 98031 waste solvents, acid. Burlington Environmental NW 734 S Lucile 223-0500 Seattle, WA 98108 Page 11 Rls#�s R�l�t . • POLYSTRENE (#6) Reuse clean and dry polystyrene packaging peanuts (and molded polystrene blocks where indicated) by donating to • mail services. Check yellow pages for packaging and mail services in your area. See partial list below: Or call 1-800- 828-2214 (Mail Box Etc. Hotline). • Packaging Cartons & peanuts 10710 - 5th NE, Seattle Things 364-9105 Packaging Cartons & peanuts 327 - 108th, Bellevue • Things 454-9336 • EXPAC, 628-0607 peanuts 20412 - 87th S, Bldg I, Kent Pony Express, 641-6551 peanuts 4038 - 128th Ave SE, Bellevue • Mail Boxes, Etc. peanuts Kent, Renton, Tukwila, Federal Way . 1-800-818-2214 Packaging Store peanuts 13500 Bel-Red Road, Bellevue • 747.4220 molded blocks 113 4th Ave S, Seattle • Price Ragen Co. peanuts 517 E. Pike St., Seattle 329-8155 thin sheets Call first. . Costco Wholesale all #6 (food containers and 1160 Saxon Dr 575-9191 packaging materials) Tukwila, WA 98168 • Recycle clean polystyrene (#6) food containers at drop boxes at these QFC's: (bins are located outside, open 24 • hours). Gateway, 542-3117 18300 Midvale Ave N., Seattle • Roosevelt, 525-5731 6600 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle • Bothell , 485-7548 18921 Bothell Way NE, Bothell • Lake Hills, 746-3361 549 - 156th SE, Bellevue • Pine Lake, 391-4680 12902 - 228th Ave SE, Issaquah Manhattan, 243-9340 17847 - 1 st Ave S., Seattle • Check local grocery stores for acceptance of clean dry polystrene egg cartons. • OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS • At the following Thriftway Stores recycle these plastics : PET (#1), HDPE (#2)--bottles only, plastic shopping & produce bags (#4), and clean polystyrene food containers (#6). Check below for acceptance/dates) • Kirkland #1, #2, #6 10611 NE 68th, Kirkland 822-9211 Last Sat 10-4 North Bend #1, #2, #4, #6 330 Main Ave S, North Bend • 888-1700 Sat 10-4 • Vashon #1, #2, #4, #6 Downtown Vashon Island 463-2100 Last Sat 10-4 • .. . . produce bags bt sfores such as a�O, A11 1tson s �..... €e�ni8jj> stttl F11 de pfasttC s#topp�ng.and a CVs;>Ca in. Tuictmmia fags (#4} grocery .... must:be cIQBg and dry l+lower puts, platttl<rays aed Fetrovilsisy Rd Rett�on, :dally c:ntauiers; pilasttc ar other maferral, will he accepted tiySoos CreelE`isrdeis2iE>2. SE:'`" .: a .. from 1 Oa to 6p except Ttiesc3aYs Pfaatic flower pots, or: larger Yltiil.l'BCeptedt'?>>:::::. ,.:... . Sursf�awer Oardan Nursery,19t7ii3 NE 1. M St Seattw 367 b444k • .....:> GEE;ht:.is th:Ave;:NW ,.:.: rnflkItc:artaf# >icecream .><:><»>::»» :::::::::...:.... aseptra force boxes are same .......> ::.1- �.......:..A:Y.:::::::::::.::::.:::::.::.::::::::::.::::.:::............:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::..:......... examples tpen hrs .. . . Plastic Bag Assocrairon (PBA .. locattons.to:rea Tale: c.i�a s-.." clearinghouse Ene annati4n, call 1..4M.184565& €or .: P .. 9 • • Page 12 Cedar Falls Drop Box 16925 Cedar Falls Rd. SE $7.41 per passenger licensed vehicle or 7 days a week North Bend $9.50 per cubic yard uncompacted, 9:00 am - 6:00 pm (PST) $17.00 per cubic yard compacted ($7.41 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (DST) minimum). Enumclaw Transfer & Recycling Station 1650 Battersby Ave E $7.41 plus tax per passenger licensed 7 days a week Enumclaw, WA 98022 vehicle or $58.00 per ton. ($7.41 8:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. minimum) Factoria Transfer Station 13800 SE 32nd St $7.41 per passenger licensed vehicle or Monday-Friday Bellevue $58.00 per ton ($7.41 minimum) 6:00 p.m. -1:00 a.m. Hobart Landfill 24041 - 276th Ave SE $7.41 per passenger licensed vehicle or 7 days a week. Hobart $58.00 per ton ($7.41 minimum) 9:00 am - 6:00 pm (PST) 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (DST) .. ..: Y� d .+$c.;:�Sf�Gd 1t s ;CQlle tl[an # Pr Vat F Cifi �:.: c..Of t r.:+r�" s:<:':> :'»..>.>` <: ..... ....... .......:.:... ........ .........:........ .. :...... ......... ................... .............. . ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _ _.................. Iddings, Inc. 27525 Covington Way SE Accepts yard waste (grass clippings, 630-0600 Kent, WA 98042 leaves, weeds). Also accepts sod. 9-5 M-F 9-4 Sat, 10-4 Sun Rainier Wood Recyclers 27525 Covington Way S.E. Accepts clearing debris, stumps, and 630-3565 Kent, WA 98042 brush. 8-5 M-F Valley Topsoil 35019 West Valley Highway Accepts yard waste, no stumps, rocks 939-0886 Algona, WA 98001 up to 3" diameter mixed with yard 7:30-5:30 M-Sat waste, and horse/cow manure. 9-3Sun Lloyd Enterprises 80 5th Ave Newly permitted facility accepts 874-6692 Milton, WA 98356 yardwaste, brush, stumps, prunings, 7a-3:30p M-F and clean unpainted woodwaste. Redmoor Resource Recovery Woodinville Processing Facility Accepts clean wood waste for 885-9416 6211 234th St SE remanufacturing into particle board: 7:30a-4p M-F Woodinville Untreated wood products, pallets, crates, dimensional lumber, plywood, Issaquah Processing Facility particle board. No creosoted or treated 6200 E. Lk Samm Rd SE wood. Also provides pick-up service. Issaquah Stumps and logs accepted at Issaquah Seattle Processing Facility and Auburn facilities. 3425 - 26th Ave SW Seattle Auburn Processing Facility 32300 148th Ave SE Auburn Center Nursery and Recycling 9354 - 4th Ave S Accepts brush and yard debris up to 4 762-9245 Seattle feet long and 4 inches in diameter. 7a-5p M-F City of North Bend 411 Main Ave North Accepts yard waste from North Bend Mount Si Senior Center North Bend, 98045 residents only - must show utility bill. 888-1211 (City Hall) 10-2 2nd & 4th Saturday, Mar-Nov Page 13 City of Snoqualmie Riverview Park Accepts yard waste from residents only - 888-1555 (City Hall) Snoqualmie, WA must show utility bill. 10-2 1 st Saturday, May -Oct -: ........................ Yerd & - 06.' Vlfaste UlOb le Chr .P+ng Services Carnation Recycling Center Corner of Myrtle & McKinley Located at the City Maintenance Shop. 333-4192 (City Hall) Carnation, WA Accepts yard waste from Carnation 1-6 DST residents only - must show utility bill. 12-4 PST Wed -Fri, 10-4 Sat/Sun, Mar -Nov Stillwater Valley Recycling Center (located at elementary school) Please enter from Big Rock Road. 788-1356 11530 320th Ave NE Bring grass, leaves, brush and 10-2, Sat Carnation, WA branches, max. 2" diameter and 3' in length. No commercial loads. Cherry Valley Recycling Center (located at elementary school) Accepts yard waste from Duvall 788-1356 26701 NE Cherry Valley Rd residents only - attendant checks utility 10-2, 1st & 3rd Sat, Mar -Nov Duvall, WA 98019 list. Bring grass, leaves, brush and branches, max. 2" diameter and 3' in length. ...... Yard Wood i�lalste Coifed ars at: Private Falc�lities & C}ther Sites c ntinued':'<;.: Lloyd Enterprises 80 5th Ave Newly permitted facility accepts 874-6692 Milton, WA 98356 yardwaste, brush, stumps, prunings, and clean unpainted woodwaste. -: ........................ Yerd & - 06.' Vlfaste UlOb le Chr .P+ng Services Dick's Chipping Service 17316 North Rd Mobile chipping service for brush, tree 743-9640 Bothell, WA 98012 limbs, etc., up to 6 inches in diameter, will haul or leave chipped material. Preferred Brush Chipping & Recycling Contact: Todd Jones, 271-6908 RESGUIDE\002VEND:July 29, 1993 Page 14 P.O. Box 53182 Mobile chipping service for tree Renton, WA 98058 branches and brush up to 3 inch diameter, will haul larger pieces. Will haul or leave chipped material. � APPENDIX G RESOURCE GUID IZECYCLING AND E FOR DISPOSAL I� ALTERNATIVES FOR • CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING DEBRIS � KingpCounty � Solid Wh tesiv � Management Plan 4 Sorting It Out Together Department of Public Works King County Solid Waste Division Directory of Recycling and Disposal Alternatives for Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Debris This directory lists facilities which are available for recycling CDL materials. This list serves only to present you with options and does not reflect facilities recommended by King County. Please call any of the facilities listed in this directory to verify their acceptance policies, to obtain additional information on fees charged, and to confirm that they have the capacity to accept your materials. For help regarding this list, call 296-4466. Concrete, Asphalt, Rock, Brick, and Dirt For locations to accept clean fill dirt, contact the King County Department of Building and Land Development at 296-6110. Palmer Coking Coal Co. 31407 Highway 169 Accepts rock, dirt, sand, gravel, etc., concrete 886-2841 or 432-3542 Black Diamond, WA 98010 (without rebar and prefer pieces 6 inches or under), asphalt. Renton Concrete Recyclers 14001 68th Ave S Accepts concrete with and without rebar, brick, 772-2278 Renton, WA 98055 concrete, asphalt, anything with aggregate content. Does NOT accept asphalt shingles or metals. Stoneway Rock & Recycling 6808 S 140th Accepts concrete with and without rebar, asphalt. 226-1000 (office) Renton, WA 98055 Rents 10 and 20 yard trucks for hauling, may pick - 623 -1414 (site) up. Metals Arrow Metals Corp. 6014 238th Street SE Accepts non-ferrous and ferrous metal, including 481-1828 (Snohomish Co.) Woodinville, WA 98072 appliances. Compressors must be removed. Auburn Recycling/Salvage 2906 A Street SE Accepts non-ferrous and ferrous metal. No 939-5309 Auburn, WA 98002 appliances removed. Bloch Steel Industries 4580 Colorado Ave. S Buy-back and drop-off site for ferrous and 763-0200 Seattle, WA 98134 non-ferrous metals. Collection service available. Cedar Grove Recycling 18407 Renton -Maple Accepts all ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including and Surplus Valley Rd. appliances. 432-3133 Maple Valley, WA 98038 City Junk, Inc. 4915 S 124th Accepts copper, insulated copper and all other forms 763-3024 Tukwila, WA 98178 of copper. Buys brass, clean aluminum, iron, lead, poly -tri wire and stainless steel. Collection service available. :;nom Sorting It Out Together Printed on Recycled Paper Ed's Metal Express 13818 Hwy 99 Accepts non-ferrous metals. Please call first. 743-3288 (Snohomish Co.) Lynnwood, WA 98037 Independent Metals Company 747 S. Monroe Accepts all non-ferrous metals, specializing in 763-9033 (South Park) Seattle, WA 98108 insulted wire. Jon's Recycling 222 South Holden Accepts all ferrous and non-ferrous metals. 763-2520 Seattle, WA 98108 Medalia Salvage 1112 North 98th St. Accepts ferrous and non-ferrous metals. 523-8835 Seattle, WA 98103 Noble Metals Recycling 928 NW Leary Way Accepts non-ferrous metals, eg., copper, brass, 783-6321 Seattle, WA 98107 aluminum, mercury, bronze, stainless steel, zinc, lead. Non -Ferrous Metals, Inc. 2905 13th Ave. SW Accepts lead, alloys, tin, and zinc. 624-8414 (Harbor Is.) Seattle, WA 98134 Northwest Metal & Salvage 9607 Aurora Ave N Accepts all non-ferrous metals. Pick-up service Service Seattle, WA 98103 available. 525-0814 Pacific: Iron & Metal Company 2230 4th Avenue South Accepts non-ferrous metals. 628-6232 Seattle, WA 98134 Recycling Depot 851 Rainier Avenue South Accepts various ferrous and non-ferrous metals, 325-7288 Seattle, WA 98144 electrical wires and brass radiators. Riverside Salvage & Metal 2316 Harbor Avenue SW Accepts all metals. Pickup & container service Company, Inc. Seattle, WA 98126 available. Specializes in processing insulated wire. 932.-7262 Seattle Iron & Metals Corp. 2955 11th Avenue SW Accepts ferrous, non-ferrous metals, including 682-0040 (Harbor Is.) Seattle, WA 98134 appliances. Compressors must be removed. Collection services available. Simon Joseph & Sons, Inc. 2202 E. River Street Accepts all non-ferrous and most ferrous metals, 838-1993 (Pierce Co.) Tacoma, WA 98421 including insulated wire and electric motors. Tacoma Metals, Inc. 1919 Portland Avenue Accepts all non-ferrous metals. 627-1440 (Pierce co.) Tacoma, WA 98421 Land Clearing Debris, Clean Wood, Pallets Check bellow Pages listings for chippers and shredders under "Lawn and Garden Supplies." Beal Excavating, Inc. PO Box 2009 On-site mobile chipper. Small diameter brush. Call 463-3655 Vashon, WA 98070 for additional information. Carpinito Bros., Inc. 1148 N. Central Accepts clean topsoil, sand, gravel, log yard 854-5692 Kent, WA 98032 clean-up, and chipped brush. Hauling service sometimes available. Center Nursery and Recycling 9354 4th Avenue South Accepts brush and yard debris up to 4 feet long and 762-9245 Seattle, WA 4 inches in diameter. Corbett Logging, Inc. 12105 53rd Street Mobile on-site chipping for land clearing debris. Will 863-4061 or 863-9644 Sumner, WA 98390 clear stumps and trees. (Pierce Co) Custom Crating & Recycling 3419 W. Marginal Way SW Accepts clean lumber and wood. Please call first. 938-2216 Seattle, WA CDL Recycling and Disposal Directory Page 2 CWRR-Commercial Waste 528 Rainier Ave S. #43 Collection service for pallets & crates. Reduction & Recycling Renton, WA 98055 772-4745 D4 Care Construction & 3900 180th Place SW Mobile grinding services for wood waste, Recycling Enterprises Lynnwood, WA 98037 landclearing, and demolition debris. (Serves Vashon 774-3740 or 669-3668 Island.) Iddings, Inc. 27525 Covington Way SE Accepts rocks, dirt, sod, grass, leaves, and 630-0600 Kent, WA 98042 landclearing debris. Northwest Stumpage and Marysville, WA Will haul or grind on-site. Stumpage, roots, yard Wood Handlers waste, brush, pallets, crates, demolition, wood, ties, 658-1616 (Snohomish Co.) poles, fencing. Palmer Coking Coal Co. 31407 Highway 169 Accepts topsoil, other soils, rocks, gravel, and 886-2841 or 432-3542 Black Diamond, WA 98010 excavation fill materials. Also asphalt and concrete without rebar in 6 inch or smaller pieces. Also accepts sawdust, some fine wood particles. Material should be free of stumps, branches, limbs, woody debris, and other contaminants. Preferred Brush Chipping and Mobile brush chipping of material up to 4 inches in Recycling diameter. Larger may be hauled. 271-6908 Purdy Topsoils 5819 - 133rd St. NW Accepts land clearing debris and yard waste. 857-5850 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Rainier Pallet Corp. 28430 - 80th Ave., Kent Accepts reusable pallets in selected sizes. Please call 872-8543 4402 B St NW, Auburn first. Rainier Wood Recyclers 27529 Covington Way SE Accepts land clearing debris, stumps, brush, pallets, 630-3565 Kent, WA 98042 crates, and new construction wood waste. Mobile, on-site chipping available. Redmoor Resource Recovery Issaquah Yard: Accepts industrial wood pallets, crates, etc., stumps, 885-9416 6200 E. Lk Sam Pkwy logs, dimensional lumber waste. Does NOT accept Auburn Yard: demolition waste, compostable brush, dirt or 32300 148th Way SE concrete. Offers mobile, on-site grinding of stumps, demolition and landclearing waste. Pick-up available. TWF Construction 18805 SE Wax Road Can handle up to 8 inches in diameter of any woody 852-3053 Kent, WA 98042 material. Larger may be hauled. Valley Topsoils 35019 West Valley Hwy. Accepts grass, leaves, branches. Does NOT accept 939-0886 Algona, WA 98001 sod, stumps, branches greater than 4 inches in diameter or 5 feet long. Drywall Plasterboard Gypsum Depot Recycling 8625 - 219th SE Accepts gypsum scrap and drywall. 486-2761 (Snohomish Co.) Woodinville, (Maltby) New West Gypsum 1321 54th Ave. East Accepts gypsum drywall scraps and drywall related 922-9343 (Pierce Co.) Fife, WA 98424 waste (mud boxes, tape, cornerboard). No drywall with lead-based paint or asbestos laden material. Rents containers. CDL Recycling and Disposal Directory Page 3 Carpet Padding Sea Tac Recycling & Dist. Co. 1027 Andover Park East Accepts upholstery foam, new and used 575-1808 Tukwila, WA polyurethane foam carpet padding, new carpet. New carpet must be 18" x 24" or larger. Carpet must be rolled and tied. No rubber padding, felt, or jute. Corrugated Cardboard AAA Recycling 4455 S 148th Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue, 246-5412 Tukwila, WA 98168 and staples accepted. Pick-up only. Burien Recycling 16043 1 st Avenue S Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue 246-2346 Burien, WA and staples accepted. Flattened. Community Enterprises of 970 7th Avenue NW Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue, Issaquah Issaquah, WA 98027 and staples accepted. Flattened. No phone books or 391-0650 junk mail. Fibres International 1533 - 120th Ave NE Accepts dry uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, 455-9811 Bellevue, WA 98005 glue, and staples accepted. Drop -box and pick-up services available. Keppler Feed & Recycling 16442 Renton Issaquah Rd Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. No tape or 226-5239 Renton, WA 98059 staples. Glue acceptable. Flattened. Self -haul only. Rabanco Recycling Company 2733 Third Avenue S Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue, 725-1700 Seattle, WA and staples accepted. Drop -box and pick-up services available. Redmond Green Survival 16501 NE 80th Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. No staples. 885-4004 Redmond, WA 98052 24 hour drop -box. Self -haul only. Sam's Recycling Bothell, WA Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue 776-6265 and staples accepted. Flattened. Drop -box and pick- up only. Sea-Dru-Nar Recycling 3844 1 st Avenue S Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue, 467-7550 Seattle, WA 98124 and staples accepted. Drop -box and pick-up services available. Smurfit Recycling Co. 9747 MLK Way S. Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue, 723-4490 Seattle, WA 98118 and staples accepted. Flattened. Drop -box and pick- up services available. West Seattle Recycling Center 2964 SW Avalon Way Accepts uncoated corrugated cardboard. Tape, glue 935-4255 Seattle, WA 98126 and staples accepted. Flattened. Pick-up services available. Commingled CDL Disposal Regional Disposal Company 2733 Third Avenue South Accepts all commingled, non -hazardous CDL waste 725-1700 Seattle, WA for disposal. CDL Recycling and Disposal Directory Page 4 (i) APPENDIX H MIXED WASTE PROCESSING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It Out Together H-1 Appendix H Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to shrinking U.S. landfill capacity, many communities are turning to facilities that process mixed municipal waste into marketable end -products and reduce the amount of waste landfilled. King County policy prioritizes programmatic choices, which affect individual behaviors, over facility choices, which accommodate existing behaviors. However, King County also authorized the construction of one privately owned and operated mixed waste processing facility (MWPF) to evaluate the long-term costs and benefits associated with mixed waste processing in combination with extensive efforts to separate recyclables at the source. To ensure that the proposed facility is compatible with the goals of the County's solid waste management system, the Solid Waste Division identified several facility constraints, consistent with King County policy. In March of 1991, the Solid Waste Division hired a technical consultant to assist in writing the facility Request for Proposal (RFP). After reviewing the facility constraints, the consultant recommended that we not issue the RFP unless certain facility constraints could be modified. The purpose of this issue paper is to evaluate both the need for an MWPF in King County and the constraints placed on the successful development of a feasible RFP for the facility. To address these issues, this evaluation focused on three questions: • What are the key policy constraints impacting on the issuance of a viable MWPF Request for Proposals, and can these constraints be modified? • Does King County need to construct and build a privately owned and operated facility in order to evaluate mixed waste processing in combination with source separation of recyclables? • Will the construction of an MWPF in King County have a negative impact on source -separation goals and objectives? 2. Background MWPF's process mixed municipal solid waste into recoverable products, reducing the amount of waste landfilled. This type of facility differs from Intermediate Processing Facilities and Material Recovery Facilities because, in addition to sorting recyclable materials for processing, MWPF's develop a marketable product from the waste remaining. Although MWPF's usually remove a small portion of recyclable materials from the waste stream for direct recycling, up to 60 percent is processed into one or more usable products, and the remainder is landfilled. The quality and consistency of the resulting end -product depends upon the composition of the incoming mixed municipal waste. Markets for mixed waste compost are limited due to the lack of control over the incoming waste stream, which dictates the end -products' consistency and quality. Currently, numerous mixed waste processing facilities are either operating or under construction in the United States. Many communities are combining mixed waste processing with efforts to separate recyclables at the source, raising concerns about the effect of source separation on the composition of the waste stream processed. Additionally, solid waste managers are concerned that implementing mixed waste processing could undermine efforts to separate recyclables at the source by modifying individual behaviors. A. Executuae Summary Appendix K• Mixed Waste Proming Feasibility Analysis H-2 3. Results in Brief Although county legislation authorizes the construction of an MMPF, the decision to do so conflicts with the County's choice of programmatic over facility approaches to waste reduction and recycling. Through programmatic strategies alone, King County plans to reduce the waste stream 65 percent by the year 2000, with interim waste reduction and recycling goals set at 35 percent in 1992 and 50 percent in 1995. Three key facility constraints, consistent with King County policy, place such a heavy risk on the vendor that the County could be perceived as not seriously supporting the project. These constraints include: (1) no guarantees of waste tonnage, (2) no guarantees on the waste stream composition, and (3) vendor responsibility for siting the facility. Although a facility constructed prior to the year 2000 might contribute to the successful recycling of 65 percent of the County's waste stream, delaying the decision to build an MWPF will not significantly impact the Solid Waste Division's ability to fulfill its mission and successfully dispose of the County's municipal solid waste in a safe and effective manner. Since numerous U.S. communities are combining facility and programmatic recycling strategies, King County does not need to build a MWPF itself to evaluate the long-term costs, benefits, and risks associated with mixed waste processing in combination with programmatic approaches. If source separation is successful, the County will be able to avoid negative reactions related to the "Not in my Backyard" aspect of constructing and operating an MWPF. 4. Principal Findings a. Mixed Waste Processing Could Compete with Programmatic Strategies King County's waste reduction and recycling goal is one of the most aggressive goals in the United States. Until waste reduction and recycling programs have been fully implemented it is impossible to determine the success of programmatic strategies. Premature construction of an MWPF might undermine source -separation efforts. Additionally, experts have indicated that facilities constructed prior to the implementation of source -separation programs may be affected by the change in the waste composition and be unable to continue producing compost of the same quality. Since the composition of the waste stream used to develop the compost is critical in determining its quality and marketability, it makes sense to ensure that waste composition information provided to prospective vendors be as accurate as possible. After King County has implemented all waste reduction and recycling programs, it will be in a better position to provide accurate waste composition information to a prospective vendor. b. King County Can Evaluate Other Communities' Efforts to Combine Programmatic and Facility Choices Many U.S. communities, faced with extreme landfill shortages, have accepted the risk of constructing an MWPF in combination with implementing source -separation programs. Over the next few years, these communities can provide King County with critical information about the success of MWPFs in combination with source separation. Delay in issuing the RFP would allow the County time to evaluate the success of these communities' efforts to combine MWPF with source -separation programs, and the success of mixed waste processing in general. The uncertainty surrounding the quality and marketability of mixed solid waste compost indicates that a significant percentage of the compost might ultimately be landfilled. The numerous questions surrounding the quality and marketability of mixed waste compost make it difficult at this time to determine the true effectiveness of such a facility. Appendix H. Mixed Waste Processing Feasibddy Analysis A. Exaculke Summary H- 3 c. Reconsideration of Current Faality Constraints is Needed Reconsideration of "make or break" constraints appears critical to issuing a viable RFP. Key constraints impacting the development of a viable RFP (no tonnage guarantees, the lack waste stream composition guarantees, and vendor responsibility for facility siting) clearly reduce the risk to the County. However, just successfully constructing and operating an MWPF requires the vendor to take on a significant level of risk. Although the constraints cited above protect the County and are consistent with county policies, vendors could perceive these constraints as a lack of county support for the success of the project. Discussions with the technical consultant have indicated that if the County could provide some type of tonnage guarantees, vendors would probably be willing to take on the siting and waste composition risks. However, if issuance of the RFP is delayed, advances in technology may preclude the need for changing these constraints. • 5. Recommendations • It is likely that a great deal of controversy would surround a decision to construct a MWPF. Additionally, the uncertainties in composting technology and the limited information on the long-term impact of MWPFs on programs emphasizing extensive source separation make the decision to move ahead with construction of a MWPF a risky choice. While King County may be criticized for • delaying the RFP for a processing facility and delaying consideration of a potentially effective recycling option, the risk associated with mixed waste processing as a recycling solution is great enough to justify a cautious approach By 1995, King County will have fully • implemented the majority of its waste reduction and recycling programs, and will be in a better position to evaluate the success of its source -separation strategy. Given the available landfill capacity and the County's desire to emphasize programmatic over facility • choices, it is recommended that the Solid Waste Division: • Delay the decision to issue an RFP for a mixed waste processing facility until 1995. • Monitor the success of other efforts to combine mixed waste processing with extensive source separation. • Reevaluate the success of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts in 1995 to determine if an MWPF is needed to meet King County recycling and waste reduction goals. Delaying the issuance of the RFP will allow the Solid Waste Division time to fully implement its residential recycling programs and reevaluate the success of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts. At that time, the Solid Waste Division could compare its success to areas where an MWPF contributes to the recycling rate achieved. Solid Waste Division staff further recommend that if and when a decision to issue an RFP for an MWPF is made, key policies impacting on an MWPF be reassessed. King County could provide a limited tonnage guarantee that would minimize the risk to the County while ensuring the County's support of the facility's success. Additionally, in 1995, the County will be in a better position to provide information on the anticipated waste composition. Additionally, the Division should reconsider the policies on siting and waste composition. In 1995, the Solid Waste Division expects to be recycling 50 percent of the total waste stream. The composition of the waste stream at this time would provide a reasonable reference for vendors to use and could be included in the RFP, and the County could provide some preliminary siting assistance. Although numerous cities and counties throughout the U.S. are turning to mixed waste processing as a solution to their waste recycling requirements, these communities' ability to successfully combine mixed waste processing with source separation remains to be seen. Once extensive source separation is fully implemented, mixed waste processing could further reduce the amount of waste that must be landfilled. Over the next few years mixed waste processing technologies will continue to advance and more markets for the processed product should exist. Additionally, sufficient time will have passed for the County to evaluate the long-term success of mixed waste processing combined with source separation in other U.S. communities. In the interim, the County can focus full A. Exxufiw Summary Appendix H. Mixed Waste Processing Faasibilily Analysis B. INTRODUCTION 1. Increasing Interest in Mixed Waste Processing As U.S. communities continue to experience reduced landfill capacity, there has been increasing interest in processing mixed municipal solid waste into marketable end -products. MWPFs reduce the amount of solid waste landfilled by processing it into products such as fuel or compost. While mixed waste processing is not a new concept, it has yet to obtain widespread acceptance in the United States. However, declining landfill capacity and the success of many European countries in processing significant portions of their solid waste have led U.S. communities to take a second look at mixed waste processing as a solution to their solid waste management problems. Despite increased interest, industry efforts to implement mixed waste processing in the United States have been slow. Problems with product quality and public fears about product safety and sanitation have caused a great deal of controversy about the true "success" of mixed waste processing. Additionally, solid waste managers question whether mixed waste processing is consistent with recycling efforts, which seek to separate recyclables at the source by modifying individual behavior. Environmental experts have also raised concerns about a system that processes the entire waste stream, rather than attempting to recycle and reuse specific materials in their original form, such as paper and glass. These experts argue that the value of recycled material is best protected through separate collection and processing, rather than processing the entire mixed waste stream into a low -quality compost or fuel product 2. Washington State and King County Policy on Mixed Waste Processing Both Washington State and King County have passed legislation that establishes waste reduction and source separation as the fundamental strategy for waste management. However, both the state and the County consider mixed waste processing a recycling alternative. According to Washington State priorities for the collection, handling, and management of solid waste, it should be implemented prior to energy recovery, incineration, or landfilling. Although King County plans to meet aggressive waste reduction and recycling goals by educating county residents to separate the recyclables from their solid waste, it has also authorized the construction of a privately owned and operated MWPF to evaluate the combination of mixed waste processing with extensive effort to separate recyrlables at the source. King County plans to reduce the waste stream 65 percent by the year 2000, with interim waste reduction goals set at 35 percent in 1992 and 50 percent in 1995. Despite the authorization of one privately owned and operated MWPF, the County has emphasized that in reaching these goals, priority should be placed on programmatic choices that affect individual behavior, rather than facility choices that accommodate existing behavior. To ensure that the proposed facility is compatible with these goals and the overall King County solid waste management system, the Solid Waste Division identified several facility constraints consistent with King County policy; these constraints negatively impact the Division's ability to develop a feasible RFP for the facility. 3. Objective, Scope, and Methodology The primary objective of this issue paper is to evaluate the feasibility of issuing an MWPF RFP, given key policy constraints placed on the facility. A secondary objective is to assess the need to construct one privately owned and operated mixed waste Appendix H. Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis B. Introduction H-5 processing facility in King County for the purpose of evaluating the combination of mixed waste processing with extensive source separation. Consequently, the guiding evaluation questions throughout this issue paper are: • What are the key policy constraints impacting the issuance of a viable request for proposal for an MWPF and can these constraints be modified? • Does King County need to construct and build a privately owned and operated facility in order to evaluate mixed waste processing in combination with source separation of recyclables? • Will the construction of an MWPF in King County have a negative impact on source -separation goals and objectives? The approach taken to answer these questions involved researching available literature on mixed waste processing technology, end -product markets, and facilities in the United States and Europe. Additionally, Solid Waste Division staff interviewed knowledgeable King County and Washington State officials, environmental consultants, and solid waste officials in eight U.S. communities with mixed waste processing facilities. Because existing King County policy does not support incineration, the production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) was not included within the scope of this paper. The paper first provides an overview of mixed waste processing in the United States, explores the proposed system and the key constraints placed on an MWPF, reviews alternatives to these constraints, and evaluates the immediate and future feasibility of mixed waste processing in King County. 0 C. OVERVIEW OF MIXED WASTE PROCESSING i MWPFs process mixed municipal solid waste into recoverable products and reduce the amount of waste landfilled. These types of facilities differ from Intermediate Processing Facilities and Material Recovery Facilities because, in addition to sorting recyclable r materials for processing, MWPFs develop a marketable product from the waste remaining. Although MWPFs usually remove a small portion of recyclable materials from the waste stream for direct recycling, the majority is processed, with up to 60 percent being converted into one or more usable products and the remainder being landfilled. The quality and consistency of the resulting end- o product depend on the composition of the incoming mixed municipal waste. Mixed solid waste compost would be the most likely end -product produced by an MWPF constructed in King County, since the w production of RDF fuel would conflict with existing County policy against incineration. Markets for mixed waste compost vary depending on product quality, which again depends on the composition of the incoming waste. Currently, numerous MWPFs are 0 either operating or are under construction in the United States. Many communities are combining mixed waste processing with efforts to separate recyclables at the source, raising concerns about the effect of source separation on the composition of the waste stream processed. 1. Mixed Waste Processing Technology Is Still Evolving Mixed waste processing is still a relatively new technology in the United States. Although processing mixed municipal solid waste could potentially produce a variety of products, the majority of existing facilities manufacture compost and RDF from incoming municipal solid waste. Although many experts view mixed waste composting as representing the future in solid waste management, compost produced by long-standing facilities in Europe continue to have unacceptable proportions of inorganic materials and heavy metal concentrations. A recent trend in Europe is to source separate organic waste prior to composting in order to reduce the concentration of inorganic materials in the resulting compost. Increasing demand for quality compost has focused efforts on removing contaminants from the existing process to provide a higher quality of compost, which is compatible with the production of food for direct human consumption. Washington State is developing mixed waste compost quality standards and plans to issue these standards by June of 1992. Some state governments have instituted standards for compost quality, however a trade-off exists between the quality of the compost C. a"view of Mixed Waste Pm=ing Appendix H. Mired Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis H- 6 processed and the amount of residual waste that must be landfilled. High-quality compost generally means high percentages of residual waste. While it is possible that a source -separation program might contribute to ]Mp.2--A �,IilinQ out inorganics and plastic, source -separation programs also pull out paper products, which are critical ingredients for successful mim.. waste compost. 2. End -product Markets Unstable Currently, limited markets for mixed solid waste compost exist. Consumers are fearful of the quality of compost developed from solid waste. While the concerns are not unjustified, the development of compost quality standards and increased consumer education should assist in alleviating these concerns. Companies producing compost generally anticipate giving the product away initially in order to build consumer confidence in the product. For example, the Reidel facility in Portland, Oregon has set up agreements to supply farmers and nurseries with the fust three years worth of compost produced. After that time, Reidel hopes to start selling the compost. Many different levels of compost quality exist and MWPFs can adjust the amounts of different quality compost produced to meet the market demand. However, the main determinant of compost quality is the incoming solid waste from which the compost is derived. MWPFs have had problems ensuring product consistency from a waste stream with an uncertain composition. Too much of certain metals or glass can render the compost worthless. Additionally, the compost must be cured for a long enough time to break down all of the material in the compost completely. Otherwise it will compete with the plants it's supposed to fertilize and end up killing them rather than assisting in their growth. 3. Other Communities Combine Source Separation and Mixed Waste Processing As of late 1990, nine full-scale, operating, mixed waste composting facilities existed in the United States. These facilities are located in Minnesota, Florida, Delaware, and Wisconsin. Minnesota leads all other states with five operating facilities and fifteen in the development phases. Most of the areas where these facilities are located also have source -separation programs --usually residential curbside recycling. For example, one county in Minnesota collects recyclable materials separately through a curbside program and also separate "compostable" waste, such as food waste and contaminated paper products. Compostable waste is fed into the processing machine, and nonprocessable waste is landfilled. In the Northwest, two mixed waste processing facilities are under development: one near Bellingham, Washington and one near Portland, Oregon. Both of these facilities will operate from waste streams that will be exposed to extensive source separation The Portland metropolitan area is pursuing a solid waste management plan that combines extensive source separation with mixed waste processing. The following case study discusses Portland's planned waste reduction and recycling system, which will be coordinated with its mixed waste processing goals. 4. Waste Stream Composition Critical to Processing Mixed Solid Waste The waste stream composition directly impacts on an MWPF's ability to divert waste from the landfills. Some experts believe that source separation and waste reduction programs could have severe economic impacts on the profitability of mixed waste processing and the quantity of processable materials in the waste stream. Most facilities remove 5 to 15 percent of the waste for direct recycling. The remaining waste is processed into either compost or RDF. After the material is processed, residual waste is landfilled. This residual can represent 25 to 65 percent of the initial waste stream. 0' Appendix H. Mixed Waste Processing Feasibdily Analyse C. Otm�ko of Mbod Waste Pfrocessrng • • 11 Although it would be difficult to guarantee waste composition, one vendor we spoke with indicated that if King County met its aggressive recycling goals, it would be very risky to assume that sufficient organic material was available to process the mixed waste into any kind of end -product. On the other hand, the following chart illustrates an economic model in Washington State Department of Ecology's 'Best Management Practices," which indicates that if Washington State recycles 50 percent of its solid waste at the source, there would still be sufficient processable material in the waste stream to reduce it an additional 35 percent. A preliminary review of available materials in King County's current disposed waste stream indicates that in addition to the current 32 percent recycling rate the County could recycle an additional 33 percent of the disposed waste stream and still have significant amounts of organic material remaining in the form of paper, yard and wood wastes, food wastes, textiles, disposable diapers, and miscellaneous organics to process mixed solid waste compost. However, this review encompassed the entire waste stream and does not account for regional differences within the County that might impact on the percentage of organic material in the waste received at a facility serving only a small portion of the entire waste stream. It would be risky to assume that the portion of the waste received by one facility would resemble the entire waste stream, given the changing waste streams and users of each facility. D. PROPOSED SYSTEM King County Ordinance 8771 states that the mixed waste processing facility could be sited in lieu of a transfer station, and designates a portion of the waste stream. The Solid Waste H- 7 Figure H.1 Case Study: Portland -Metro Facility Waste received this year [1991] at Portland's Reidel-Metro mixed waste processing facility will have approximately 32 percent of the recyclables removed through source separation. The Portland metropolitan area encompasses parts of three counties and is pursuing an extensive source -separation effort, planning to reduce the waste stream by 50 percent in the year 2000 and 56 percent by the year 2010. The Reidel mixed waste processing facility has been constructed to operate in combination with Metro's extensive source -separation efforts. From the waste received, Reidel is required to withdraw an additional 5 percent of recyclable materials; compost a minimum of 60 percent, and landfill a maximum of 35 percent. The agreement between Metro and Reidel guarantees Reidel 185,000 tons of waste annually (40 percent of the annual waste stream) Under this guarantee Metro must pay Reidel if this amount is not delivered. The contract also guarantees a waste composition with sufficient organic materials to process compost. Metro has initiated flow control legislation to restrict any waste other than residential from entering the facility. This is because residential waste is less likely to be contaminated with moderate risk and hazardous waste, and is more likely to have high levels of organic material. In the future, Portland -Metro also plans to direct waste generated from food manufacturers and restaurants to the facility. Portland -Metro representatives indicated that extensive source separation could actually improve the waste received at the facility by pulling out a large percentage of the inorganic materials. The facility has begun operation, but has not, to date, met the performance requirements. Problems include removing 5 percent of the recyclables, and meeting Oregon's Department of Ecology compost quality requirements. Reidel representatives indicated that the problem may be related to the waste stream composition. Reidel has agreements with compost users, who will be given the compost free for the first three years of production. Later, Reidel hopes to sell it for a profit. Division identified three potential areas where the vendor could site the facility. These areas, and the projected annual tonnage capacity (maximum), are as follows: Northeast Lake Washington, 550,000 tons; South Green River Valley, 350,000 tons; and Middle Snoqualamie Valley, 175,000 tons. The King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan identifies these areas as the planned locations of future transfer stations. The Solid Waste Division's current strategy is to allow mixed waste processing vendors to bid on any one, or all three, of the areas identified. To ensure that the proposed facility was compatible with the overall solid waste management system, the Solid Waste Division imposed certain constraints on a mixed waste processing facility constructed in King County. Under these constraints, an interested vendor would be required to: • Finance and implement the facility siting effort. • Accept the risk of not covering the fixed facility cost, since the County will not provide any guaranteed tonnage levels. • D. Proposed System 11 Appendix H. Mined Waste Processing Feasthdily Analyse 125,000 Urban Residential Single Family Households (Based on Economic Model) 100% Percent Recovered 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 28.87 86.0% 35.4% Mixed Waste Processing for Recyclables and Recovery of Compostables 50.6% Source Separated Lawn and Garden Waste Collection and Recovery (W -weekly) Source Separated Recyclables Collection and Recovery (Weekly) 9.4% Private Drop-box/Buy-Back System $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 Figure H.2 Effect of disposal cost on recovery methods and total recovery rate. Disposal Costs ($ per ton) • Identify a marketable end -product manufactured from waste which has 65 percent of the recyclable materials removed. • Produce an end -product with a consistent quality from a waste stream whose composition is not guaranteed. • Allow the County to control the cashier booths of an otherwise privately owned and operated facility. 1. "Make or Break" Constraints In March of 1991, the Solid Waste Division hired a technical consultant to provide assistance in developing the project RFP. After reviewing the project constraints, the consultant identified three Solid Waste Division policies that would seriously hinder vendors' ability to submit a quality proposal for the construction of a mixed waste processing facility. The three constraints identified are as follows: • No tonnage guarantees. • No guarantees on anticipated waste composition. • Vendor responsibility for siting facility. Appeida H. Mixed Waste P+r =ing Feasibility Analysis D. ftpaW System • • . Potential vendors would incur significant costs merely to submit a proposal. Additionally, it would be very difficult to compare vendor proposals for facilities with different tonnage processing capacity; different assumptions for waste stream composition, and different facility sites. According to the consultant, issuing an RFP under these constraints would be risky. Vendors may perceive the "... County as • being on a "fishing expedition" and not being serious about the project." Additionally, the consultant indicated that issuing an RFP • under the constraints sited above could create "... ill will among potential vendors (some of whom may be existing haulers and recyclers) by asking them to spend significant amounts of money to propose on a project that may not actually be implemented." • Ultimately, they recommended that the County not issue an RFP unless these constraints could be modified. 2. Fewer Constraints Placed on Other U.S. Mixed Waste Processing Facilities King County authorized a privately owned mixed waste processing facility. While this is similar to some U.S. facilities, others are both owned and operated by the County or owned by the County but operated privately. Two typical characteristics of private vendor contracts include guarantees on the amount of tonnage the facility will receive and information or guarantees on the waste stream composition. Tonnage guarantees can be provided either through legislated flow control, legally binding haulers to take their waste to specified facilities, or through put or pay agreements, guaranteeing vendors a pre-set tonnage level. Generally, private vendors rely on some kind of tonnage guarantees to ensure that they can at least cover their fixed facility cost. Information on the reference waste stream composition is also important, assuring vendors that sufficient processable material exists in the waste stream. Again, this is critical to vendors' assessment of the risk involved in constructing such a facility. To compare the constraints placed on other U.S. facilities, the Solid Waste Division staff informally surveyed six operating facilities and two Northwest facilities under development. The purpose of this survey was to determine similarities and differences between the facility size, contractual arrangements, products, amount of source separation, and residual. Solid Waste Division staff also identified whether these contracts included "put or pay" agreements and if the area was pursuing source separation in combination with mixed waste processing. The following chart illustrates the information obtained. Table H.1 Survey of Eight U.S. Mixed Waste Compost Facilities Annual Tons • H- 9 • Processed Product • • . Potential vendors would incur significant costs merely to submit a proposal. Additionally, it would be very difficult to compare vendor proposals for facilities with different tonnage processing capacity; different assumptions for waste stream composition, and different facility sites. According to the consultant, issuing an RFP under these constraints would be risky. Vendors may perceive the "... County as • being on a "fishing expedition" and not being serious about the project." Additionally, the consultant indicated that issuing an RFP • under the constraints sited above could create "... ill will among potential vendors (some of whom may be existing haulers and recyclers) by asking them to spend significant amounts of money to propose on a project that may not actually be implemented." • Ultimately, they recommended that the County not issue an RFP unless these constraints could be modified. 2. Fewer Constraints Placed on Other U.S. Mixed Waste Processing Facilities King County authorized a privately owned mixed waste processing facility. While this is similar to some U.S. facilities, others are both owned and operated by the County or owned by the County but operated privately. Two typical characteristics of private vendor contracts include guarantees on the amount of tonnage the facility will receive and information or guarantees on the waste stream composition. Tonnage guarantees can be provided either through legislated flow control, legally binding haulers to take their waste to specified facilities, or through put or pay agreements, guaranteeing vendors a pre-set tonnage level. Generally, private vendors rely on some kind of tonnage guarantees to ensure that they can at least cover their fixed facility cost. Information on the reference waste stream composition is also important, assuring vendors that sufficient processable material exists in the waste stream. Again, this is critical to vendors' assessment of the risk involved in constructing such a facility. To compare the constraints placed on other U.S. facilities, the Solid Waste Division staff informally surveyed six operating facilities and two Northwest facilities under development. The purpose of this survey was to determine similarities and differences between the facility size, contractual arrangements, products, amount of source separation, and residual. Solid Waste Division staff also identified whether these contracts included "put or pay" agreements and if the area was pursuing source separation in combination with mixed waste processing. The following chart illustrates the information obtained. Table H.1 Survey of Eight U.S. Mixed Waste Compost Facilities D. Propmed System AVend= H. Mvxd Waste Processing Feasibildy Analysis Annual Tons Source Residual Location Processed Product Tonnage Guarantees Separation Landfilled Dade County, Florida 249,600 Compost Yes - Put or Pay Yes - 1.2% 30% Whatcom County, Washington 80,300 Compost, RDF, Recyclables Yes - Flow Control Yes - 25% 10% Portland -Metro, Oregon 450,000 RDF, Compost Yes - Put or Pay Yes - 32% 35% and Flow Control St. Cloud, Minnesota 36,500 Compost Yes - Put or Pay Yes - 25% 30% Fillmore, Minnesota 2,400 RDF, Compost Receives 100% waste Yes - 25% 40% in county Pennington, Minnesota 10,000 Compost Receives 100% waste Yes -< 1% 15% in county Delaware Reclamation Project 220,000 RDF, Compost, Recyclables Yes - Flow Control Yes -< 1% 35% Portage, Wisconsin 10,000 Compost Receives 100% waste Yes - 25% 15% in county D. Propmed System AVend= H. Mvxd Waste Processing Feasibildy Analysis H-10 3. Communities Surveyed Combine Processing with Source Separation All of the areas surveyed combine source separation with mixed waste processing, recycling up to 25 percent of their waste stream. All eight areas surveyed have or plan to implement curbside recycling. Several indicated that they were increasing their emphasis on source separation and planned to meet state recycling goals aimed at reducing the waste stream 30 to 50 percent through source separation. Of the eight facilities surveyed, local governments owned three. Only one of the facilities was county owned and operated. All of the facilities have tonnage guarantees, including the five privately owned facilities. This was achieved either through "put or pay" agreements and/or legislation regulating the flow of solid waste going to the facility. Three of the facilities received 100 percent of the waste generated by the area they served. These facilities generally exported the residual waste to out-of-state landfills. Residuals ranged from 10 percent to 40 percent of the incoming waste. Facilities achieving lower residual rates combined incineration with composting. 4. Landfill Capacity Represents Key Difference A major difference between the areas surveyed and King County was the available landfill capacity. Representatives from each area indicated that these facilities were constructed in response to rapidly declining landfill capacity. Most facilities in Minnesota had no local landfills open, relying completely on the MWPF to handle the majority of their solid waste disposal requirements, exporting the residual waste to out-of-state landfills. In Minnesota, the shallow depth of the water table prevents landfill expansion within the state. In contrast, King County is not faced with the same landfill or geological constraints as Minnesota E. ALTERNATIVES Guaranteeing vendors waste tonnage, identifying and/or guaranteeing the anticipated waste stream composition, and assisting the vendor in siting the facility would greatly increase vendor response to a project RFP. In fact, the County's consultant indicated that it is the combination of these constraints that renders the RFP infeasible. However, from the County's perspective there are risks related to each of these scenarios, individually as well as combined. 1. Providing Tonnage Guarantees Providing tonnage guarantees either through "put or pay" agreements (i.e., the County either provides the vendor an agreed - on tonnage or pays the vendor for tonnage not delivered) or internal flow control (where regulations require certain haulers to use the facility) is standard in similar facilities around the country. Guaranteed delivery of consistent amounts of solid waste is essential to support financing of a recycling and composting facility. Tonnage guarantees allow the vendor to ensure coverage of the facility's fixed costs. Although King County has no formal system for controlling the flow of solid waste within the County, the Solid Waste Division can provide information on the projected waste tonnages for each of the sites identified for the project Despite these estimated tonnages, providing a "put or pay" clause is risky without a system for designating waste flow. In fact, the County could incur significant costs if they had to pay for tonnage that was not delivered. On the other hand, if a "put or pay" requirement was not met, the Solid Waste Division could re-route waste delivered from another transfer station to the MWPF. Ordinance 8771 states that the facility would be "designated" a portion of the County's waste stream. Additionally, the solid Waste Division stated that it will not build any competing facilities in the area where the MWPF is constructed. The County could choose to provide a put or pay clause and initiate legislation to control the flow of commercial and residential solid waste. This would ensure that the vendor receive the contractually guaranteed amount of tonnage. However, this could place a heavy monitoring Appendix H. Mad Waste P►bee mg Feasibday Analysis B. Ahernati w • • • • H-11 burden on the County, in addition to the paperwork involved in legislating where county citizens and haulers are allowed to dispose of their waste. Another option would be to provide a minimum or maximum put or pay clause representing a fraction of the total waste anticipated at the facility site. This would minimize the risk to the County. If at some point there was insufficient tonnage to cover the agreement, as discussed above, the County could have the waste from a transfer station routed to the MWPF rather than to Cedar Hills. 2. Providing Information/Guarantees on Waste Stream Composition Although the Solid Waste Division is directed to "designate" a portion of the waste stream to the proposed facility, it is difficult to measure the impact of source separation on that portion. If significant amounts of recyclables have been removed from the County's designated portion, the remaining waste may not be of the composition necessary to produce a quality end -product According to the County's technical consultant, vendors would have a difficult time proposing on an RFP that could not provide information on the anticipated composition of the waste stream brought into the facility. Through the waste monitoring program, King County has current information on the composition of its municipal solid waste steam. However, given the County's main emphasis on "extensive source separation," the current data on the County's waste composition could be obsolete within a few years. A review of the current waste stream composition indicates that up to 21 percent of the organic waste would probably not be recovered through source -separation efforts. Material contributing to this figure includes textiles, food wastes, disposable diapers, tissue, paper towels, furniture, mattresses, and miscellaneous organic material. However, it would be difficult for the County to guarantee that the vendor would receive a sufficient percentage of these organic materials in the waste receivially if there are no guarantees of tonnage to begin with. Vendors would be accepting a double risk, with no surety of meeting their fixed costs through put or pay and no guarantees regarding the composition of the waste that is delivered to their facility. 3. Siting the Facility The third "make or break" constraint involves vendor responsibility for siting the facility. The process of siting any waste management facility in Washington State is both costly and time consuming, with no guarantee of success. Solid Waste Division staff typically anticipate that a successful siting effort will take approximately two to five years. A vendor bidding on this contract must incur the up -front siting cost, recognizing that the facility may never be successfully sited. According to the consultant, placing the siting responsibility on the vendor may serve to discourage many potential vendors from submitting a bid. Consequently, the County may miss out on certain technologies offered by vendors unwilling to take on the siting process. Most other mixed waste processing RFP's have an identified site provided by the County. In King County, the Solid Waste Division could evaluate three potential sites as required by the State Environmental Policy Act, and then narrow the selection, requesting vendors to submit proposals on a single "preferred site." Although the vendor is still responsible for completing the siting requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act process, identifying a "preferred" site clarifies the land use issues and removes some of the uncertainty and risk Though it does not guarantee a successful siting, the chances of the project succeeding would be greatly increased. It would be difficult for the County to assume the responsibility of siting and permitting the facility for the vendor. Although the County would be responsible for siting a transfer station built on one of the three sites, the County is not sufficiently knowledgeable of specific requirements a selected MWPF might have, such as facility configurations and geotechnical requirements. if the County did site the facility, it takes a risk that the property it sites might ultimately be unsuitable. Consequently, the County has levied this responsibility onto the vendor. Additionally, it would be difficult for the County to assist the vendor in the siting process since the vendor actually has more freedom to negotiate with host communities and smooth potential facility siting problems. E. Alternatives Appendix H.• Mixed Waste Processing Faasibdily Analysis Changes in county policy related to the "make or break" constraints would allow the County to issue a more feasible RFP. Potentially, changing one of the constraints listed above would create an environment in which a realistic proposal could be submitted and implemented. The following paragraphs evaluate the key changes in current policy recommended by the consultant. Additionally, it evaluates the advantages and disadvantages to constructing an MWPF given the County's current waste management system. 1. Key Policy Changes According to the Solid Waste Division's technical consultant, under the current policy constraints the risk is too heavily weighted toward the vendor. In order to issue a viable and reasonable RFP the County needs to provide some kind of support for a minimum tonnage received at the facility. With a put or pay clause, vendors could probably accept the risk involved with siting the facility and utilizing the current waste stream composition information. Providing some type of tonnage guarantee appears to be a critical factor in contracts of this type, mainly because of the risky nature of the venture. It allows the vendor to ensure that fixed facility costs will be covered and also assists the vendor in assessing the other financial risks such as siting the facility and receiving a post -source -separated waste stream. It would be difficult for the Solid Waste Division to provide the vendor with a site, and current policy does not include County agreement with a put or pay clause. Although the Division could provide waste stream composition information on the current waste stream, it is also not in a position to guarantee the composition of the future waste stream when county recycling programs are fully instituted. Only 50 percent of the suburban cities have implemented curbside collection, and the County just recently implemented curbside collection for unincorporated areas in the County. Additionally, planned programs for collecting recyclables from the nonresidential sector have not yet been implemented. Once these planned programs are operating, King County expects significant changes in waste stream composition. It would be very difficult to estimate the specific effect these changes would have on the organic and inorganic waste stream composition. 2. Advantages to the County's Current System The major advantage of King County's current solid waste management system is that the County is not under any pressure to implement both source separation and mixed waste processing—two potentially conflicting methods of recycling solid waste. Because Cedar Hills Landfill has significant remaining capacity, King County can fully implement, monitor, and evaluate the success of extensive source separation before committing to an MWPF that could potentially compete with source -separation efforts. Although King County's solid waste management system focuses on extensive source -separation efforts, the current estimated recycling rate of 32 to 34 percent has been achieved with few of the planned programs fully implemented. Until the County has implemented the majority of planned recycling programs, the success of extensive source separation cannot be fairly evaluated. 3. Construction of a Mixed Waste Processing Facility Could Inhibit Source -separation Success Construction of an MWPF prior to the full implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs could inhibit the County's ability to monitor the success of its programmatic efforts, and possibly undermine efforts to modify individual behavior. In 1988, the Solid Waste Division Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement for Solid Waste Management Alternatives stated Appendix H. Ma& Waste Processing Feasibdity Analysis F. Proposed System us. Alterr� 0 i i r 0 • H-1 3 S that "... delaying the construction of large processing facilities, including mixed waste processing facilities, would allow the County to monitor the effectiveness of waste reduction and recycling programs that require less land and have lower potential for • environmental impacts before deciding that a large processing facility is needed." Additionally, facilities designed and constructed before source -separation programs have been implemented are especially vulnerable to adverse effects of source separation. This is • due to the fact that source separation potentially reduces the amount of material available for processing into compost, impacting on • the facilities profit margin and ability to meet their fixed costs. King County is under no specific or extreme time constraints to reduce the landfilled waste. Although current estimates of • Cedar Hills expected life assume that the County will meet its 65 percent goal, Solid Waste Division staff estimate that even if the County can only maintain the present level of recycling (32 to 34 percent) Cedar Hills would have an estimated capacity of 20 years. • Other counties that have implemented mixed waste processing have not had the luxury of long-term landfill capacity. In effect, King • County has sufficient time to fully implement, monitor, and evaluate the success of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts before any alternatives need to be considered. 4. Mixed Waste Processing Has Future Potential Ultimately, mixed waste processing could be used as a secondary waste treatment after extensive source separation has occurred. An economic study in "Best Management Practices" found that mixed waste can be processed into compost economically, even after over 50 percent of the recyclables have been removed from the waste stream. However, individual attitudes need to be taken into account. Removing 65 percent of the recyclables through source separation will require extensive "retraining' of county citizens. Construction of an MWPF prior to implementing and promoting all possible source -separation efforts might undermine the County's potential to actually remove 65 percent of the recyclables through source separation. Additionally, after the recycling programs have been fully implemented and evaluated the County will have the necessary information on the composition of the post - source -separated waste stream and vendors can determine if they can process the waste remaining into a marketable end -product. Given the problems associated with mixed waste composting, delaying efforts to initiate mixed waste processing in King County would provide time to evaluate other communities success in combining mixed waste processing with source separation. The delay will provide time for improvements in mixed waste processing technology, and the development of solid markets for the resulting end - products. Given the landfill capacity available to King County, the Solid Waste Division is in a unique position to fully implement and evaluate the success of waste reduction and recycling programs without committing to the construction of an MWPF. 5. Disadvantages to the Cuff ent System The main disadvantage in delaying the construction of an MWPF is that the County will remove a potentially effective ! recycling alternative from consideration for a period of time. Delay in issuing the RFP would focus all of the County's efforts on source separation as the sole means of reaching its 65 percent recycling goal However, it will also eliminate a recycling alternative ! that could either further increase recycling beyond 65 percent or contribute to whatever source -separated recycling rate is achieved if • King County does not meet its 65 percent goal. Although Solid Waste Division staff would argue that an MWPF could just as easily undermine the County's ability to successfully meet its source -separation goals, by not reaching those goals and delaying an MWPF, • the County may be criticized for essentially landfilling waste that could be recycled through mixed waste processing. At a later date, some critics might question the reason for delaying the construction of a facility that could make a significant contribution toward reducing the amount of waste landfilled. n U F. Pmpased System m Alterrtatw& Appendtx H. MW Waste ft=mg Feasibility Analysis H-14 G. CONCLUSIONS Although County legislation authorizes the construction of an MWPF, the decision to do so may conflict with the County's choice of programmatic over facility approaches to waste reduction and recycling. King County does not need to build an MWPF itself to evaluate the long-term costs, benefits, and risks associated with mixed waste processing, since numerous communities in the United States are combining these two strategies. Although a facility constructed prior to the year 2000 might contribute to the successful recycling of 65 percent of the County s waste stream, delaying the decision to build an MWPF will not significantly impact the Solid Waste Division's ability to fulfill its mission and successfully dispose of the County's municipal solid waste in a safe and effective manner. If source separation is successful, the County may be able to avoid negative reactions related to the "Not in my Backyard" aspect of constructing and operating an MWPF. 1. King County Needs to Fully Implement Programmatic WR/R Choices King County's waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) goal is one of the most aggressive goals in the United States. Until waste reduction and recycling programs have been fully implemented it is impossible to determine the success of programmatic strategies. In 1995, King County plans to have all residential recycling programs implemented and be recycling 50 percent of the waste stream. By the year 2000, the County will have implemented additional nonresidential programs and plans to be recycling 65 percent of the waste stream through source separation alone. Premature construction of an MWPF might undermine source - separation efforts. Additionally, experts have indicated that changes in waste composition after MWPFs are constructed may significantly impact the end -products' consistency and quality. Since the composition of the waste stream used to develop the compost is critical in determining its quality and marketability, it makes sense to ensure that waste composition information provided to prospective vendors be as accurate as possible. After King County has implemented all waste reduction and recycling programs, it will also be in a better position to provide accurate waste composition information to a prospective vendor. 2. King County Can Evaluate Mixed Waste Processing Success in Other Communities Many U.S. communities, faced with extreme landfill shortages, have accepted the risk of constructing an MWPF in combination with implementing source -separation programs. Over the next few years, these communities can provide King County with critical information about the success of MWPFs in combination with source separation. Delay in issuing the RFP would allow the County time to evaluate the success of these communities' efforts to combine an MWPF with source -separation programs, and the success of mixed waste processing in general. The uncertainty surrounding the quality and marketability of mixed solid waste compost indicates that a significant percentage of the compost might ultimately be landfilled. The numerous questions surrounding the quality and marketability of mixed waste compost makes it difficult at this time to determine the true effectiveness of such a facility. 3. Reconsideration of Key Constraints Important Reconsideration of "make or break" constraints appears critical to issuing a viable RFP. However, if issuance of the RFP is delayed, advances in technology may preclude the need for changing these constraints. At this time [1991], the key constraints impacting the development of a viable RFP involve the decision not to provide put or pay, the lack of a reference waste stream and the stipulation that the vendor take full responsibility for the facility siting. According to the County's technical consultant, the Appendix H. Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis G. Conduslons H - 15 current combination of these three constraints places such a heavy risk on the vendor that the County will be perceived as not seriously supporting the project. Discussions with the technical consultant have indicated that if the County could provide some type of tonnage guarantees, either through a put or pay clause, or internal flow control legislation, vendors would probably be willing to take on the siting and waste composition risks. H. RECOMMENDATIONS It is likely that a great deal of controversy would surround a decision to construct an MWPF. Additionally, the uncertainties in composting technology and the limited information on the long-term impact of MWPFs on programs emphasizing extensive source separation makes the decision to move ahead with construction of an MWPF a risky choice. While Icing County may be criticized for delaying the RFP for a processing facility and delaying consideration of a potentially effective recycling option, the risk associated with mixed waste processing as a recycling solution is great enough to justify a cautious approach As a result of this analysis, it is recommended that the King County Solid Waste Division: • Delay issuing an RFP for a MWPF until 1995. • Monitor the success of other efforts to combine mixed waste processing with extensive source separation • Reevaluate the success of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts in 1995 to determine if a mixed waste processing facility is needed to meet King County recycling and waste reduction goals. Delaying the issuance of the RFP will allow the Solid Waste Division time to fully implement the County's residential recycling programs and reevaluate the success of programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts and compare their success to areas where a mixed waste processing facility contributes to the recycling rate achieved. Solid Waste Division staff further recommend that if, and when, a decision to issue an RFP for an MWPF is made, the key policies impacting on a mixed waste processing facility be reassessed. Potentially, King County could provide tonnage guarantees representing a fraction of the anticipated countywide waste stream. This would minimize risks to the County while ensuring its support of the facility's success. Additionally, the Division should reconsider the policies on siting and waste composition. In 1995, the Solid Waste Division expects to be recycling 50 percent of the total waste stream. The composition of the waste stream at this time would provide a reasonable reference for vendors to use and could be included in the RFP. County assistance in narrowing the specific location of the facility may also be considered. Although numerous cities and counties throughout the United States are turning to mixed waste processing as a solution to their waste recycling requirements, these communities' ability to successfully combine mixed waste processing with source separation remains to be seen. Once extensive source separation is fully implemented, mixed waste processing could further reduce the amount of waste that must be landfilled. Over the next few years mixed waste processing technologies will continue to advance and more markets for the processed product should exist. Additionally, sufficient time will have passed for the County to evaluate the long-term success of mixed waste processing, combined with source separation in other U.S. communities. In the interim, the County can focus full attention on changing individual behavior and reducing and recycling 65 percent of the waste stream by separating recyclables at their source. H. Recommendations 44v dir K• Mind Waste Processing Feasibility Anal* Written sources BA%yde, June 1990, European Models for Organic Waste Composting, Page 31 Biocycle, August 1990, MSW Compost Standards In The European Community, Page 60 Biocycle, July 1990, Composting Record Diagnosis and Prognosis, Page 64 Biocycle, December 1990, Positive Climate for Project Development, Page 48 Biocyde, August 1990, Expanding Compost Markets, Page 54 Biocyde, December 1990, Minnesota Facilities Meet MSW Composting Challenges Environmental Action Foundation, Solid Waste Action Paper #4, MSW Composting: What's In the Mix? King County Solid Waste Division, Adopled 1989 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. King County Waste Characterization Study, SCS Engineers, August, 1991. King County Solid Waste Management Alternatives, Executive Report, October 1988. King County Solid Waste Division, Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement, Solid baste Management Alternatives, Volume 1, September 1988. Metropolitan Service District of Portland, Oregon. Request for Qualifications/Information for Mixed Waste Composting Facility, March, 1986. Metropolitan Service District of Portland, Oregon. Mass Composting Facility Service Agreement, July, 1989. Washington Department of Ecology, Best Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste, Stateunde Findings and Recommendations, Volume III, January 1989. Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Draft Solid Waste Management Plan, November 1990. Interview Sources: Terrill Chang, Camp Dresser and McKee, Environmental Consultants, (313) 963-1313. John Chorlog, Dade County Solid Waste Division, Solid Waste Engineering, (305) 592-1776. Lisa Meucci, Recomp Mixed Waste Processing Facility, Bellingham, Washington, (206) 676-0120. Steve Clayton, Waste Reduction and Recycling, Metropolitan Service District, Portland Oregon, (503) 221-1646. Jerry Johnson, Tri -County Solid Waste Management, St. Cloud, Minnesota, (612) 255-6140. Rick Nordhagen, Pennington County, Minnesota, (218) 681-2407. John Lyman, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, Delaware, (302) 577-3457. Herb Jones, Solid Waste Division, Portage Wisconsin, (608) 742-3445. Steve Diddy, Washington State Department of Ecology Compost Program, (206) 438-7877. Rick Hlavka, SCS Engineers, Seattle, Washington, (206) 855-5800. Sam Chandler, Metropolitan Service Area of Portland Oregon, (206) 221-1646. Appendix H. Mixed Waste ft=mg Feasibility Analysis L References (9) APPENDIX I LANDFILL RESERVE FUND King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It out Together :X*,::' ............. .......... . ............. X� .......... ........... .. ........ . ......... :::. :: :::: - . . . .... . ..... ........ .. .. . ..... ............ ............. X.- ....... ........ ... ...... .... . ..... . . ...... .... .... ......... X .. ........ ........................ ..................... . ......... ... X ..... . ..... . ............... ......... X" ...... ......... . .... ........... ..................... . ....... .... ..... .. ... ............. I .......................... ax— ... ............... ....... ..... . .......... ..................... .................... ........... Table 1.1 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribution Cedar Hills Accounts New Area Development $3.19 Facility Relocation $0.60 Closure $5.33 Post -Closure Maintenance $1.29 Replacement Landfill Development $2.27 $12.68 Rural Landfill Accounts Vashon New Area Development $0.07 Enumclaw Closure $0.69 Hobart Closure $1.51 Vashon Closure $0.25 Vashon Post -Closure Maintenance $0.13 $2.65 Landfill Reserve Fund Charge $15.33 This is a calculation of the LRF contribution using revised tonnage and expenditure forecasts. AAWndkv I LanoW Reserve Fund I-2 .................................................................................................................................................... Table I2 Long-range Disposal Forecast • Cedar Hills Rural Total System Landfill Landfills Disposal • 1992 901,700 23,150 924,850 1993 888,650 17,700 906,350 1994 876,515 4,580 881,095 • 1995 844,211 4,492 848,703 1996 840,366 4,480 844,846 • 1997 a33,249 4,458 837,707 1998 822,493 4,427 826,919 t 1999 807,701 4,383 812,084 2000 788,442 4,327 792,769 • 2001 831,272 4,445 835,716 2002 876,428 4,565 880,993 • 2003 924,037 4,689 928,726 2004 974,232 4,817 979,049 2005 1,027,155 4,948 1,032,102 2006 1,082,951 5,082 1,088,033 2007 1,141, 779 5,220 1,146,999 2008 1,203,803 5,362 1,209,165 . 2009 1,269,196 5,507 1,274,703 2010 1,338,141 5,657 1,343,797 2011 1,410,831 5,811 1,416,641 • 2012 1,487,470 5,968 1,493,438 2013 1,568,272 6,130 1,574,402 • 2014 1,653,463 6,297 1,659,760 2015 1,743,282 6,468 1,749,750 • 2016 1,837,980 6,644 1,844,624 2017 1,937,823 6,824 1,944,647 • 2018 2,043,089 7,010 2,050,098 2019 2,154,073 7,200 2,161,273 • 2020 2,271,086 7,395 2,278,481 2021 2,394,455 7,596 2,402,052 • 2022 2,524,527 7,803 2,532,329 • • Appendix I. Lant#W Resent? Fund • Table 13 Landfill Reserve Fund Account Balances Rural Landfill Accounts January 1, Vashon New Area Development 1992 Cedar Hills Accounts 426,148 CH New Area Development 2,218,402 CH Facility Relocation 2,400,902 CH Closure (12,372,431) CH Post -Closure Maintenance 6,808,841 Replacement Landfill Development 9,253,905 Rural Landfill Accounts Vashon New Area Development 1,317,233 Enumclaw Closure 426,148 Hobart Closure (649,213) Vashon Closure (1,708,026) Cedar Falls Post -Closure Maintenance * 3,203,441 Duvall Post -Closure Maintenance * 1,592,623 Enumclaw Post -Closure Maintenance 4,958,257 Hobart Post -Closure Maintenance 7,092,138 Vashon Post -Closure Maintenance 1,569,469 Total - All LRF Accounts 26,111,690 * Funds for post -closure maintenance at closed landfills will be transferred to Fund 1040 in 1992. I- 3 Appeia" 1. LandjW Resent? Fund I-4 Table I.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribution, 1992-1994 (upda>led March 1992) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = Total Landfill Reserve Fund rate in 1992$ _ $14.58 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance $26,111,690 $13,549,053 $274,270 $18,590,880 $21,344,133 $13,278,028 $461,408 $6,063,257 $29,020,311 $12,908,048 $744,666 $7,119,995 $35,553,030 $11,873,355 $938,777 $13,288,674 $35,076,488 $10,602,814 $1,037,197 $11,566,785 $35,149,714 $10,513,221 $1,038,050 $11,566,785 $35,134,200 $10,377,836 $1,114,073 $6,332,144 $40,293,965 $10,191,657 $990,422 $24,708,897 $26,767,148 $9,949,255 $743,668 $13,863,147 $23,596,923 $10,488,241 $536,819 $21,851,644 $12,770,339 $11,056,466 $477,390 $4,728,613 $19,575,582 $11,655,517 $655,163 $7,086,597 $24,799,665 $12,287,067 $838,371 $5,952,482 $31,972,621 $12,952,881 $859,040 $19,586,262 $26,198,280 $13,654,818 $715,977 $18,277,008 $22,292,068 $14,394,840 $609,891 $18,277,008 $19,019,792 $15,175,015 $797,581 $34,992,388 $15,997,521 $1,289,096 $52,279,005 $16,864,658 $1,819,465 $82,481 $70,880,647 $17,778,848 $2,268,813 $8,243,384 $82,684,924 $18,100,468 $2,547,794 $13,635,079 $89,698,107 $19,081,753 $2,941,917 $2,367,860 $109,353,917 $20,116,290 $3,251,319 $22,087,177 $110,634,349 $21,206,971 $3,169,468 $31,195,479 $103,815,309 $22,356,842 $3,160,449 $19,308,540 $110,024,060 $23,569,119 $3,296,195 $23,888,540 $113,000,834 $24,847,189 $3,572,355 $12,709,500 $128,710,879 $26,194,626 $4,154,095 $6,694,413 $152,365,186 $27,615,195 $3,682,007 $86,896,091 $96,766,297 $29,112,867 $2,319,464 $68,032,216 $60,166,412 $30,691,830 $890,537 $91,673,165 $75,614 Appendix P LandjV Rww Fund $15.33 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Cedar Hills Accounts rate in 1992$ _ $12.12 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance $8,309,620 $11,209,182 $242,986 $11,629,326 $8,132,462 $10,984,962 $408,748 $19,526,172 $10,678,877 $643,283 $6,845,700 $24,002,632 $10,286,280 $846,707 $1,844,387 $33,291,232 $10,239,530 $978,828 $11,566,785 $32,942,806 $10,153,007 $967,078 $11,566,785 $32,496,105 $10,022,261 $1,030,235 $6,332,144 $37,216,457 $9,842,461 $893,497 $24,708,897 $23,243,518 $9,608,364 $634,810 $13,774,703 $19,711,989 $10,128,883 $439,840 $20,230,174 $10,050,539 $10,677,639 $391,679 $4,666,752 $16,453,105 $11,256,165 $573,148 $5,952,482 $22,329,937 $11,866,076 $758,602 $5,952,482 $29,002,133 $12,509,077 $763,906 $19,586,262 $22,688,854 $13,186,964 $604,315 $18,277,008 $18,203,125 $13,901,631 $480,463 $18,277,008 $14,308,211 $14,655,074 $649,072 $29,612,357 $15,449,399 $1,120,112 $46,181,868 $16,286,825 $1,629,758 $64,098,451 $17,169,692 $2,169,343 $743,731 $82,693,756 $18,100,468 $2,547,794 $13,635,079 $89,706,938 $19,081,753 $2,941,917 $2,367,860 $109,362,748 $20,116,290 $3,251,319 $22,087,177 $110,643,181 $21,206,971 $3,169,468 $31,195,479 $103,824,140 $22,356,842 $3,160,449 $19,308,540 $110,032,891 $23,569,119 $3,296,195 $23,888,540 $113,009,666 $24,847,189 $3,572,355 $12,709,500 $128,719,710 $26,194,626 $4,154,095 $6,694,413 $152,374,018 $27,615,195 $3,682,007 $86,896,091 $96,775,129 $29,112,867 $2,319,464 $68,032,216 $60,175,244 $30,691,830 $890,537 $91,673,165 $84,446 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = $12.68 I- 6 Table I.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribution, 1992-1994 (updated March 1992) (Continued) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = Rural Landfill Accounts rate in 1992$ _ $2.46 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance $955,612 $2,339,871 $31,284 $2,165,490 $1,161,276 $2,293,066 $52,659 $1,105,000 $2,402,001 $2,229,171 $101,383 $274,295 $4,458,261 $1,587,075 $92,069 $4,352,149 $1,785,256 $363,284 $58,369 $2,206,908 $360,214 $70,972 $2,638,095 $355,575 $83,838 $3,077,508 $349,196 $96,925 $3,523,629 $340,891 $108,858 $88,444 $3,884,934 $359,358 $96,978 $1,621,470 $2,719,800 $378,827 $85,710 $61,861 $3,122,477 $399,352 $82,015 $1,134,115 $2,469,729 $420,991 $79,769 $2,970,489 $44.3,804 $95,134 $3,509,426 $467,854 $111,663 $4,088,943 $493,210 $129,428 $4,711,581 $519,941 $148,508 $5,380,030 $548,122 $168,985 $6,097,137 $577,833 $189,706 $82,481 $6,782,195 $609,156 $99,470 $7,499,653 ($8,832) 4AW?div I. Landfill Reme Fund $2.65 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = CH New Area Development rate in 1992$ _ $3.05 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance S2,218,402 $2,820,793 $88,724 $1,342,665 $3,785,253 $2,764,368 $155,023 $6,704,644 $2,687,341 $241,449 $9,633,434 $2,588,544 $300,165 $1,844,387 $10,677,757 $2,576,780 $185,483 $11,566,785 $1,873,234 $2,555,006 ($78,980) $11,566,785 ($7,217,525) $2,522,104 ($267,241) $5,903,144 ($10,865,806) $2,476,857 ($538,325) $16,633,544 ($25,560,818) 52,417,946 ($730,555) ($23,873,427) $2,548,935 ($696,807) $1,255,861 ($23,277,160) $2,687,030 ($728,011) $4,666,752 ($25,984,893) $2,832,616 ($826,345) $5,952,482 ($29,931,104) $2,986,100 ($942,429) $5,952,482 ($33,839,915) $3,147,911 ($1,231,865) $17,592,406 ($49,516,274) $3,318,502 ($1,435,711) ($47,633,483) $3,498,348 ($1,376,529) ($45,511,665) $3,687,952 ($1,310,031) ($43,133,744) $3,887,844 ($1,235,695) ($40,481,594) $4,098,582 ($1,152,969) ($37,535,981) $4,320,756 ($1,072,424) $743,731 ($35,031,380) $4,554,986 ($1,187,143) $13,635,079 ($45,298,616) S4,801,926 ($1,286,930) ($41,783,620) $5,062,268 ($1,183,302) $381,798 ($38,286,451) $5,336,738 ($1,179,298) $7,383,714 ($41,512,726) $5,626,103 ($1,160,990) ($37,047,613) $5,931,173 ($1,022,461) ($32,138,901) $6,252,799 ($870,375) ($26,756,477) 56,591,882 ($703,816) ($20,868,411) $6,949,368 ($521,812) ($14,440,855) $7,326,258 ($323,332) ($7,437,928) $7,723,604 $107,284 $178,392 $3.19 AAWndxr L• IanaW Reserve Fund I- 8 Table 1.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribution, 1992-1994 (updated March 1992) (Continued) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = CH Facility Relocation rate in 1992$ _ $0.57 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance $2,400,902 $527,165 $79,935 $3,008,001 $516,620 $97,989 $3,622,610 $502,224 $13,526 $6,845,700 ($2,707,339) $483,761 ($73,964) ($2,297,542) $481,562 ($61,703) ($1,877,683) $477,493 ($49,168) ($1,449,358) $471,344 ($42,846) $429,000 ($1,449,860) $462,888 ($135,732) $6,612,000 ($7,734,704) $451,879 ($230,674) $360,750 ($7,874,250) $476,358 ($312,488) $5,560,360 ($13,270,739) $502,166 ($390,590) ($13,159,163) $529,374 ($386,834) ($13,016,623) $558,058 ($382,128) ($12,840,693) $588,298 ($376,396) ($12,628,791) $620,179 ($369,561) ($12,378,173) $653,790 ($361,538) ($12,085,922) $689,224 ($352,239) ($11,748,937) $726,581 ($341,569) ($11,363,926) $765,965 ($329,428) ($10,927,390) $807,486 ($315,709) ($10,435,614) $851,260 ($300,300) ($9,884,653) $897,409 ($283,078) ($9,270,323) $946,063 ($263,919) ($8,588,178) $997,358 ($242,685) ($7,833,506) $1,051,436 ($219,234) ($7,001,304) $1,108,449 ($193,412) ($6,086,267) $1,168,556 ($165,060) ($5,082,771) $1,231,925 ($134,004) ($3,984,850) $1,298,734 ($100,064) ($2,786,180) $1,369,170 ($63,048) ($1,480,058) $1,443,428 $22,750) $59,381 4AVdtx 1.• LandfrU Resem Fund $0.60 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = CH Closure rate in 1992$ _ $5.10 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance ($12,372,431) $4,716,735 ($454,722) $10,286,661 ($18,397,079) $4,622,385 ($482,577) ($14,257,270) $4,493,587 ($360,314) ($10,123,998) $4,328,385 ($238,794) ($6,034,407) $4,308,713 ($116,402) ($1,842,095) $4,272,305 $8,822 $2,439,031 $4,217,288 $136,430 $6,792,750 $4,141,630 $243,957 $1,463,353 $9,714,983 $4,043,123 $150,887 $13,413,953 $495,040 $4,262,154 ($122,426) $13,413,953 ($8,779,185) $4,493,066 ($195,980) ($4,482,098) $4,736,505 ($63,415) $190,991 $4,993,151 $80,627 $5,264,769 $5,263,721 $206,991 $1,993,856 $8,741,625 $5,548,970 $71,328 $18,277,008 ($3,915,085) $5,849,696 ($303,862) $18,277,008 ($16,646,259) $6,166,739 ($406,887) ($10,886,407) $6,500,985 ($229,077) ($4,614,499) $6,853,367 ($35,634) $2,203,233 $7,224,871 $174,470 $9,602,574 $7,616,534 $402,325 $17,621,433 $8,029,451 $613,567 $2,367,860 $23,896,590 $8,464,776 $518,289 $21,705,379 $11,174,275 $8,923,725 $111,908 $23,811,765 ($3,601,857) $9,407,582 ($256,570) $19,308,540 ($13,759,385) $9,917,699 ($553,644) $19,308,540 ($23,703,870) $10,455,500 ($554,284) ($13,802,653) $11,022,491 ($274,396) $1,710,228 ($4,764,786) $11,620,255 ($203,796) $15,677,091 ($9,025,418) $12,250,464 ($322,162) $15,677,091 ($12,774,207) $12,914,879 $189,503 $48,831 $5.33 Apper div 1. landfill Res m Fund 10 Table I.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribution, 1992-1994 (updated March 1992) (Continued) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = CH Post -Closure Maintenance Collection rate in 1992$ _ $1.23 3.00% set aside revenue real interest 1992$ balance $6,808,841 $1,137,566 $221,329 $8,167,735 $1,114,811 $261,754 $9,544,300 $1,083,747 $302,585 $10,930,633 $1,043,905 $343,578 $12,318,115 $1,039,160 $385,131 $13,742,406 $1,030,379 $427,728 $15,200,513 $1,017,111 $471,272 $16,688,896 $998,864 $515,650 $18,203,410 $975,106 $560,729 $19,739,245 $1,027,931 $607,596 $21,374,772 $1,083,622 $657,497 $23,115,891 $1,142,334 $710,612 $24,968,837 $1,204,231 $767,129 $26,940,196 $1,269,486 $827,248 $29,036,930 $1,338,281 $891,182 $31,266,393 $1,410,809 $959,154 $33,636,356 $1,487,272 $1,031,400 $36,155,028 $1,567,885 $1,108,169 $38,831,081 $1,652,871 $1,189,726 $41,673,678 $1,742,469 $1,276,347 $44,692,494 $1,836,929 $1,368,329 $47,897,751 $1,936,515 $1,465,980 $51,300,246 $2,041,505 $1,569,630 $54,911,381 $2,152,193 $1,679,624 $58,743,198 $2,268,887 $1,796,329 $62,808,414 $2,391,916 $1,920,131 $67,120,461 $2,521,621 $2,051,438 $71,693,520 $2,658,365 $2,190,681 $76,542,566 $2,802,532 $2,338,315 $81,683,414 $2,954,524 $2,494,820 $87,132,758 $3,114,765 $1,285,607 $91,673,165 $140,036 Appendix L• Landfill Rise M Fund $1.29 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = Replacement Landfill rate in 1992$ _ $2.17 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance $9,253,905 $2,006,925 $307,721 $11,568,551 $1,966,780 $376,558 $13,911,888 $1,911,977 $446,036 $16,269,902 $1,841,685 $515,722 $18,627,310 $1,833,315 $586,319 $21,046,944 $1,817,824 $658,676 $23,523,443 $1,794,415 $732,620 $26,050,478 $1,762,223 $807,948 $28,620,648 $1,720,309 $884,424 $31,225,382 $1,813,505 $9639964 $34,002,850 $1,911,756 $1,048,762 $36,963,368 $2,015,336 $1,139,131 $40,117,835 $2,124,537 $1,235,403 $43,477,775 $2,239,662 $1,337,928 $47,055,365 $2,361,032 $1,447,076 $50,863,473 $2,488,988 $1,563,239 $54,915,701 $2,623,887 $1,686,829 $59,226,417 $2,766,105 $1,818,284 $63,810,806 $2,916,040 $1,958,065 $68,684,912 $3,074,112 $2,106,659 $73,865,682 $3,240,760 $2,264,582 $79,371,025 $3,416,453 $2,432,378 $85,219,855 $3,601,679 $2,610,621 $91,432,155 $3,796,958 $2,799,919 $98,029,031 $4,002,834 $3,000,913 $105,032,779 $4,219,884 $3,145,582 $4,580,000 $107,818,244 $4,448,713 $3,110,636 $12,709,500 $102,668,092 $4,689,962 $3,075,629 $4,984,185 $105,449,498 $4,944,305 $2,169,365 $71,219,000 $41,344,168 $5,212,452 $533,185 $52,355,125 ($5,265,320) $5,495,154 $75,532 $154,302 $2.27 App odir 1.• Landfrll Resew Fund 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = Vashon New Area Development rate in 1992$ _ $0.07 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance $1,317,233 $64,740 $40,488 $1,422,461 $63,445 $27,050 $1,105,000 $407,956 $61,677 $13,164 $482,796 $59,409 $15,375 $557,581 $59,139 $17,615 $634,334 $58,639 $19,910 $712,883 $57,884 $22,255 $793,023 $56,846 $24,643 $874,512 $55,494 $25,741 $88,444 $867,303 $58,500 $2,575 $1,621,470 ($693,093) $61,670 ($19,868) ($651,291) $65,011 ($18,564) ($604,843) $68,533 ($17,117) ($553,427) $72,247 ($15,519) ($496,699) $76,162 ($13,759) ($434,295) $80,290 ($11,825) ($365,830) $84,642 ($9,705) ($290,894) $89,229 ($7,388) ($209,053) $94,066 ($4,861) ($119,848) $99,165 ($2,108) ($22,791) Appendix I. landW Resent? Fund $0.07 ............... . ................ . ... . .... ....... . ...... ... ............... . ............. .................. ........... .......... ............ .............. ............... .................... ......... ............ .......... ...................................... ................ ............... :% ....... ............................... **** ....... .. .................................. - . ..%. - .. : * .. * .. - ... ** .................. ...................................... ........................... : .%-.-.-.-.-' .......... . ..... .. ... ................... . : ....... X ................ ........ ..... . ... . ...... X, ........................ ....... . ... . . ...... . . ... ........................... .. .... ......... . .. . .................... ........... . .. .. ................................. . ..................... ....... : . ................ . ................... . .. .. ...................... ...... . .................... ..... ......... .... ... .......... *:::::, .. %.:......... -,..: : . ............... ............................ .................... . . . ..... ... ..................... .... * .... . . .............................. I-1 T" IA Landfill Reserve Fund Contribution, 1992-1994 (updated March 1992) (Continued) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 202-2 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 Enumclaw Closure rate in 1992$ $0.66 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest (1992$) balance $426,148 $610,401 ($10,542) $2,165,490 ($1,139,483) $598,191 ($25,212) ($566,503) $581,523 ($8,272) $6,748 $0.69 APPOdiv 1.• LandfW RwW Fund w Table I.4 Landfill Reserve Fund Contribution, 1992-1994 (updated March 1992) (Continued) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = Hobart Closure rate in 1992$ _ $1.44 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest (1992$) balance ($649,213) $1,331,784 $500 $683,071 $1,305,144 $40,069 $2,028,285 $1,268,777 $75,766 $274,295 $3,098,533 $1,222,132 $46,006 $4,352,149 $14,522 Appendtx I. IandfW Rene m Fund $1.51 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = Vashon Closure rate in 1992$ _ $0.24 3.00% expenditures revenue real interest 1992$ balance ($1,708,026) $221,964 ($47,911) ($1,533,974) $217,524 ($42,756) ($1,359,206) $211,463 ($37,604) ($1,185,347) $203,689 ($32,505) ($1,014,164) $202,763 ($27,383) ($838,784) $201,050 ($22,148) ($659,882) $198,461 ($16,820) ($478,241) $194,900 ($11,424) ($294,765) $190,265 ($5,989) ($110,489) $200,572 ($306) $89,777 $211,438 $4,937 $61,861 $244,291 $222,894 ($6,340) $1,134,115 ($673,269) $234,972 ($16,673) ($454,971) $247,704 ($9,934) ($217,200) $261,128 ($2,599) $41,329 $275,280 $5,369 $321,978 $290,199 $14,012 $626,190 $305,929 $23,375 $955,493 $322,511 $32,265 $82,481 $1,227,789 $339,994 $19,251 $1,512,149 $74,885 $0.25 Appendcr L• Landfill Reserve Fund 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average rate 1/92 - 12/94 = Vashon Post -closure Maintenance Collection rate in 1992$ _ $0.12 3.00% set aside revenue real interest 1992$ balance $1,569,469 $110,982 $48,749 $1,729,200 $108,762 $53,507 $1,891,470 $105,731 $58,330 $2,055,531 $101,844 $63,194 $2,220,569 $101,381 $68,138 $2,390,088 $100,525 $73,211 $2,563,824 $99,230 $78,403 $2,741,457 $97,450 $83,705 $2,922,613 $95,132 $89,105 $3,106,851 $100,286 $94,710 $3,301,846 $105,719 $100,641 $3,508,207 $111,447 $106,918 $3,726,572 $117,486 $113,559 $3,957,617 $123,852 $120,586 $4,202,056 $130,564 $128,020 $4,460,640 $137,640 $135,884 $4,734,164 $145,100 $144,201 $5,023,465 $152,964 $152,998 $5,329,427 $161,256 $162,302 $5,652,985 $169,997 $82,327 $5,987,504 ($82,195) Appendix I. Landfill ReseM Fund $0.13 Table I.5 Projected Landfill Reserve Fund Expenditures (March 1992) Cedar Hills New Area Development: 2010 South 2011 743,731 743,731 2012 13,635,079 13,635,079 Stormwater 2014 Total 2015 and Leachate Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 New Area Year Pump Stations Development Development Development Development Development Development 1992 106,421,615 1,342,665 $ 1,342,665 1993 1994 1995 617,852 1,226,535 1,844,387 1996 5,663,641 5,903,144 11,566,785 1997 5,663,641 5,903,144 11,566,785 1998 5,903,144 5,903,144 1999 2000 16,633,544 16,633,544 2001 1,255,861 1,255,861 2002 4,666,752 4,666,752 2003 5,952,482 5,952,482 2004 5,952,482 5,952,482 2005 17,592,406 17,592,406 2010 2011 743,731 743,731 2012 13,635,079 13,635,079 2013 2014 381,798 381,798 2015 7,383,714 7,383,714 2016 2017 2018 2019 106,421,615 Appmdtx I. Land)W Resew Fund I-1 8 ........... Table 1.5 Projected Landfill Reserve Fund Expenditures (March 1992) (Continued) Cedar Hills Closure: . • Southwest Total Area 2/3 Main Hill Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8 Closure Year Closure Closure Closure Closure Closure Closure Closure Costs • • 1992 5,723,272 4,563,389 $ 10,286,661 • 1993 1994 1995 1996 • 1997 • 1998 1999 1,463,353 1,463,353 2000 13,413,953 13,413,953 2001 13,413,953 13,413,953 • 2002 2003 • 2004 • 2005 1,993,856 1,993,856 2006 18,277,008 16,277,008 • 2007 18,277,008 18,277,008 2008 • 2009 2010 • 2011 • 2012 2013 2,367,860 2,367,860 • 2014 21,705,379 21,705,379 2015 21,705,379 2,106,386 23,811,765 • 2016 19,308,540 19,308,540 2017 19,308,540 19,308,540 2018 2019 1,710,228 1,710,228 2020 15,677,091 15,677,091 • 2021 15,677,091 15,677,091 $ 196,692,286 • • A,TmIix L Landfill Res W Fund • • 19 • • • • Table I.5 Projected Landfill Reserve Fund Expenditures (March 1992) (Continued) • Vashon New Area Development: • • New Area Year Development Leachate Storage Site Plan Total • 1993 1,055,000 50,000 1,105,000 2000 88,444 88,444 • 2001 1,621,470 1,621,470 • • Vashon Closure: • Final Cover Final Cover Year Existing Area New Area Total • 2002 61,861 61,861 • 2003 1,134,115 1,134,115 • 2010 82,481 82,481 2011 1,512,149 1,512,149 • • Enumclaw Closure: • 1992 2,165,490 • • Hobart Final Cover: 1994 274,295 • 1995 4,352,149 • Cedar Hills Facility Relocation: 1994 6,845,700 Leachate pretreatment 1998 429,000 BPA line relocation • 1999 6,612,000 BPA line relocation 2000 360,750 O&M facility • 2001 5,560,360 O&M facility • • • • Appendix L• LandfrU Rene M Fund • APPENDIX J AGRICULTURAL WASTE AND WOODWASTE King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It out Together J-1 Appendix J Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste R. W. Beck and Associates Revised by King County Solid Waste Division, 1992 This characterization of agricultural waste and woodwaste was prepared by R.W. Beck in conjunction with other elements of the 1989 King County Comprebm&e Solid baste Management Plan. It has been updated by the Solid Waste Division staff as part of the 1992 Plan. A. AGRICULTURAL WASTE 1. Introduction Agricultural waste has not been a problem from the standpoint of solid waste management in King County. The management of animal manure, while not posing a solid waste problem, does appear to have potentially significant surface water quality implications. Although not the direct responsibility of King County, the County should work with appropriate state and local environmental and water quality agencies to assure proper management of this waste. Agricultural waste is defined in the State Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) as: "... wastes on farms resulting from the production of agricultural products including but not limited to manures, and carcasses of dead animals weighing each or collectively in excess of fifteen pounds." The MFS and the King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8 do not apply to agricultural waste, which is "... limited to manures and crop residues, returned to the soils at ergonomic rates." This appendix describes crop processing wastes, animal manure, and animal carcasses. 2. Quantity Virtually all agricultural waste generated in King County comes from outside the city of Seattle. There are no projections available on future agricultural waste generation, but continued development of agricultural land for other purposes will likely result in reductions in agricultural waste quantities. There are currently no estimates available on the quantity of crop processing wastes generated in King County because crop wastes are returned to the soli at the end of the season. b. Animal Carcasses The numbers of agricultural animal carcasses in King County per year has not been estimated, nor has the percentage of carcasses processed or discarded illegally. There are three rendering plants in Washington State: Seattle Rendering Works and Pacific Rendering in Seattle; and Puget Sound Byproducts in Tacoma. Seattle Rendering Works maintains that it processes the majority of Appendix J.• Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste A. Agricultural Waste J -2 the carcasses in the state, about 5,000 tons per month. It is believed that the carcasses not processed at one of the three rendering plants may be discarded illegally (personal communication, W. Hammond, Seattle Rendering Works). c. Manure Table J.1 below shows the tonnage of manure produced per day for King County. Total manure production is 1,500 to 1,615 tons per day. Table.1.1 Number of Animals and Tonnage of Daily Manure Production in King County in 1990 Totals 309,000 211.73 240.73 1,364 1,448 Source: Woody Bernard, King County Cooperative Extension 3. Current Disposal Methods and Problems a Crop Processing Wastes According to the Cooperative Extension Service, crop processing wastes are not a major source of concern in King County. Most of these wastes are returned to the soil at the end of the season. Current practices do not result in waste requiring disposal, and there is no identified pollution problem associated with current management practices (personal communication, W. Sheer, Pierce County Cooperative Extension). b. Carcasses Farmers and slaughter houses can contract with rendering plants for disposal of animal carcasses for a fee. The market for the products of rendering plants, namely pet food and animal feed, has declined drastically in recent years (personal communication, W. Hammond, Seattle Rendering Works). Therefore, the fees charged for hauling have increased. Carcasses not processed at one of the three rendering plants in Washington State may be discarded illegally, creating a potential pollution hazard to groundwater and pathways for spreading disease (personal communication, W. Sheer, Pierce County Cooperative Extension). c. Animal Manure According to the Soil Conservation Service (personal communication, J. Henry, Washington Department of Agriculture), dairy manure processing consists of collection, storage, and application. Throughout the entire process, it is handled in a liquid state. The typical mature dairy cow produces 15 gallons per day of manure and requires 7 gallons per day of manure wash water. The wash A. Agricultural Waste Appendix J.Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste Number of Daily Production Total Tons Animal Animals per Animal (Pounds) per Day Low High Low High Mature dairy cattle 15,000 70.00 74.00 525 555 Immature dairy cattle 15,000 35.00 38.00 262 285 Beef cattle 4,000 55.00 64.00 110 128 Horses 20,000 43.50 43.50 435 435 Hogs 1,500 4.00 21.00 3 16 Sheep 3,500 4.00 4.00 Chickens 250,000 0.23 0.23 29 29 Totals 309,000 211.73 240.73 1,364 1,448 Source: Woody Bernard, King County Cooperative Extension 3. Current Disposal Methods and Problems a Crop Processing Wastes According to the Cooperative Extension Service, crop processing wastes are not a major source of concern in King County. Most of these wastes are returned to the soil at the end of the season. Current practices do not result in waste requiring disposal, and there is no identified pollution problem associated with current management practices (personal communication, W. Sheer, Pierce County Cooperative Extension). b. Carcasses Farmers and slaughter houses can contract with rendering plants for disposal of animal carcasses for a fee. The market for the products of rendering plants, namely pet food and animal feed, has declined drastically in recent years (personal communication, W. Hammond, Seattle Rendering Works). Therefore, the fees charged for hauling have increased. Carcasses not processed at one of the three rendering plants in Washington State may be discarded illegally, creating a potential pollution hazard to groundwater and pathways for spreading disease (personal communication, W. Sheer, Pierce County Cooperative Extension). c. Animal Manure According to the Soil Conservation Service (personal communication, J. Henry, Washington Department of Agriculture), dairy manure processing consists of collection, storage, and application. Throughout the entire process, it is handled in a liquid state. The typical mature dairy cow produces 15 gallons per day of manure and requires 7 gallons per day of manure wash water. The wash A. Agricultural Waste Appendix J.Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste J -3 water and the manure are then handled together. For collection, the manure is scraped into underground tanks. In the ideal situation, the manure and wash water are transferred to long-term collection facilities like a lagoon (pond) or an above -ground tank There are only three above -ground collection tanks in King County, due to their high price compared with ponds or lagoons. Long-term storage tanks can hold from 13,000 to 40,000 gallons of manure and wash water, which—ideally—are stored for six months during the winter months, generally from October to March, then applied during the growing season. Long-term storage is complicated by rainfall entering the storage facilities. Six months of storage is typically required to ensure some degree of stabilization and to ensure that manure is applied to unsaturated soil. Application to saturated soil promotes runoff of pollutants to surface waters rather than infiltration and nutrient uptake in the field. The manure liquid is pumped out of the pond or storage tank, or from a "honey wagon," through a pipe with a one -inch nozzle. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of the dairy farmers in King County apply manure to their own farms. Pig manure is also handled as a liquid: again, some farmers may not store it long term. Beef cattle manure is handled as a solid and stored in a covered concrete bunker or "dry -stack area" for six months and applied during the growing season. Some farmers collect and store it for a short period on an open concrete slab. Chicken manure is another solid form. It is usually applied by the farmer to a large field because of its high nitrogen content. Horse manure is also a solid form, used as bedding or topsoil or sold in its raw state. The major concern for manure processing and application is surface water contamination. Problems may result from inadequate long-term storage prior to application. According to the Soil and mater Connection Newsletter, only 14 percent of King County dairies have adequate long-term storage for their manure (King County Conservation District, 1988). Surface water contamination is the responsibility of the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), which investigates existing manure practices and enforces proper application. If improper practices are observed, the landowner is given time to solve the problem. The Soil Conservation Service also makes recommendations to farmers, assisting them in developing new manure processing methods. 4. Opportunities for Reuse, Recycling, Storage, and Disposal a. Crop Processing Wastes Crop residues—stalks, stems, leaves, roots, cull fruit, and prunings left after a harvest—are typically used for soil enhancement. They are commonly introduced into the top layer of soil of the fields where they fall. Some residues must be roughly reduced first, but all can be plowed or disked into the soil. Less frequently, residues may be removed and composted. More exotic approaches to crop residue management represent an additional cost to farmers and must be as cost effective as possible. Burning produces significant smoke and haze pollution and is not practiced in King County to any significant extent. The key challenge in crop residue management is the need to return the field to production as soon as possible. Applying of crop or animal wastes to fields can upset the balance of chemical compounds that serve as a nutritional resource for crops, requiring costly time, fertilizer supplements, preburning, or composting to stabilize the mix. Farmers are most concerned about maintaining a proper carbon -to -nitrogen ratio. Because crop residues take time to break down in the soil, there is a period when the normal ratio is imbalanced by high carbon counts. Farmers can introduce synthetic nitrogen to maintain balance, but this is expensive and produces a less satisfactory growing medium. Outside King County, burning is used to reduce carbon content of crop residues before they are disked into the soil. While it shortens the time to replanting, smoke from the fires introduces a second waste management concern. Mobile incinerators have proven too expensive for all but the most high-priced crops, and most farmers cannot wait for optimum conditions to minimize smoke. Again, this has not been a problem in King County. Off -field composting is gaining increased attention as a means of stabilizing chemical content of residues. Composting of crop residues to produce commercial soil enhancers has not proven cost effective unless very large volumes of residue are available. Appendix J. Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste A. Agricultural Waste J -4 Finally, some farmers have developed planting strategies that work around the biodegrading cycle of residues by planting crops that mature quickly. Fast maturation allows the farmer to plant later or harvest earlier, extending the time available for the residue to stabilize in the topsoil. Because yield from these crops are lower, the farmer must still weigh the economic trade-offs. b. Animal Manure The primary objectives when managing or disposing of animal wastes are: • Managing the wastes to prevent health and safety hazards to humans and animals. • Controlling odor, dust, and flies. • Controlling ground- and surface water pollution. Land applications include directly applying raw, wet manure on local crop land; directly applying liquefied waste from retention lagoons; and composting wastes to reduce raw manure to a more manageable soil enhancer. c. Options for Collecting, Storing, and Processing Manure Options for handling manure are all based on the objectives of controlling the manure's moisture content to control fly breeding, odor, and dust, and to keep manure out of ground- and surface water. These objectives must be pursued in all management stages, from collection, storage, and processing to the final application. Because manure is a low -valued commodity, economy and efficiency also limit management options for livestock wastes. Because land application is only possible at certain times and in certain quantities, storage is inevitably involved in most management systems. Composting allows controlled natural processes to reduce and stabilize the manure. Stockpiled manure is gaining acceptability as a means of stabilizing biological activities, decreasing volume, and producing a more versatile and easily handled fertilizer product. Options for applying processed manures on land can be limited by soil saturation limits, transportation requirements, and available markets. Some of the same chemical characteristics that make manures valuable as soil fertilizers also limit how much can be applied at one time. This limitation increases the pressure to store manure or increase the acreage to be treated. Both pressures increase costs of manure management by requiring more expensive storage systems or increasing transportation costs to outlying croplands. As described earlier, manures are considered a low -value commodity and must compete with low priced, more easily managed synthetic fertilizers. Thus, markets tend to be limited to local livestock operations, restricting the gross amounts of wastes that can be deducted from the stockpiles. Composting manures can be more competitive and offers some prospects for expanding available markets. d. Animal Carcasses Management of animal carcasses is a well-developed industry, centered on rendering plants that derive useful products from animal remains. Depending on demand, rendering facility operators may pay for the animal remains, haul away the carcass for free, or charge for disposal. The hauling service is, in itself, valuable because untended carcasses can be a threatening source of fly maggots and disease, as well as an odorous nuisance. In an innovative approach to carcass management, a New Zealand firm is exploring composting of slaughterhouse wastes with bark and fly ash from the slaughterhouse boilers. in the first phase, static piles of this mix are mechanically aerated. During a final curing phase, the material is tended in windrows that are regularly turned. The final product is packaged and marketed to horticultural facilities. A. Agricultural Waste Appendix J.- Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste ]-5 1. Introduction Woodwaste is defined in the MFS as: "... solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by product or waste from the manufacturing of wood products, handling and storage of raw materials, trees and stumps. This includes but is not limited to sawdust, chips, shavings, bark, pulp, hog fuel and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper -chrome -arsenate." Disposal of woodwaste is being handled by the private sector. Woodwaste is a very small component of the mixed municipal solid waste stream and, unless conditions change significantly, is not anticipated to become a solid waste disposal problem within the planning period. The Washington State Forest Products Trade Directory provides a comprehensive listing of lumber industries, ports, +• transportation services, trade and promotional organizations, consulates, and government agencies. This directory was used to identify potential woodwaste generators in Ding County. For a discussion of vegetative material disposal and composting in construction, • demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste disposal, see Chapter V, Section D. r --I L • 2. Quantity There are seven lumber and wood producers (four sawmills and three shake/plywood mills) located in King County (exclusive • of Seattle), which are potential woodwaste generators. Five log export businesses are headquartered in Seattle, but ship their products from ports outside King County. There are also seven manufacturers of "premanufactured wood structures" located in King County, • but they produce very little woodwaste because they purchase finished wood products. Of the lumber and wood producers listed in the Washington State Forest Products Yiade Directory, all reported that production residues were sold or given away to pulp and paper producers, compost operations, or landscaping companies. Historically, woodwaste generation has been closely tied to the level of activity in the forest products industry. Woodwaste quantities are generally reduced during an economic recession and rise again with recovery. Short-term fluctuations aside, woodwaste quantities are expected to increase by 1 to 2 percent per year over the long term. As is the case today, it is expected that virtually all woodwaste will be reused in some manner rather than disposed. • The King County solid waste system receives an insignificant amount of wood byproducts as woodwaste, and it is usually due to contamination of the byproduct with another material, e.g., sawdust mixed with oil. No estimates are made of woodwaste generation because these byproducts are reused and not foreseen to be a problem for the system. • 3. Current Disposal Methods and Problems The "unused" portion of mill byproducts are likely either landfilled or stockpiled for potential use. This category is extremely • small and the situation is not expected to change. Woodwaste disposal problems are not anticipated in King County. • 4. Opportunities for Reuse, Recycling, Storage, and Disposal • Currently, virtually all woodwaste generated in King County is recycled or reused for topsoil production and beautification or for • fuel and pulp production. Described below are some general categories of woodwaste handling options. • • • Appendix I. Agricultural Waste and Woodumte B. Woodumte • a. Management of Woodwastes Wastes can be generated by milling, processing, and handling of raw wood and vary greatly according to the processes involved. Commonly, wood industries produce bark, shavings, slabs, rejected products, and sawdust. Options for disposing or reusing woodwaste depend, in part, on the final configuration of the waste and the nature of any chemical residues in it (for example, wastes from veneer plants may be saturated with chemical glues). Proximity of mills and manufacturing facilities to secondary markets will determine if a reuse or recycling alternative is cost effective. Alternative reuse or recycling applications include energy recovery, secondary market products, fireplace fuel, charcoal, and compost additives. Burial and burning have been common final disposal approaches, but no generators in King County report burial or burning of woodwaste residue. It is all used or given away. b. Energy Recovery Bark, product rejects, and wood trim or slabs are often burned on site as fuel in a boiler to generate electricity and/or steam for the mill or processing facility. These products may also serve as fuel supplements in boilers serving other facilities near the mill or manufacturing plant. In some boilers, wood can represent up to 100 percent of the total fuel input. Wood pieces may be further reduced to rough chips, or "hog" fuel, for this application. G Secondary Markets Bark and chipped wood may also be applied as landscaping products, such as plant bedding additives and decorative mulch, as well as animal bedding. These applications require that the wastes be free of chemical contamination. Chipped wood is often conveyed from lumber mills to nearby pulp mills for manufacture into paper, fiberboard, or other products. In a related process, sawdust and wood chips are compressed to produce artificial fireplace logs. Unreduced wood slabs and trim are used to produce a myriad of fabricated products from laminated lumber to cutting boards. The volumes of woodwastes reused in this fashion will necessarily be limited by the aesthetic requirements of the end products and by the production limitations of the fabricators. d. Firewood and Charcoal Mill blocks or mill ends can be roughly reduced and sold as fuel for home stoves or fireplaces. These waste products are becoming more competitive as the cost of freshly cut firewood increases. Though most charcoal is produced overseas, hardwood mill wastes and wood debris from land clearing can be economical feed stock for local charcoal operations. e. Compost Additive Bark, sawdust, and chipped wood are all excellent bulking agents for composted products. In municipal sludge composting, wood chips are used during composting to reduce air circulation and absorb some of the heavy metals from the sludge material. In this application, chips that have not decomposed during the process are removed before the sludge compost is marketed or applied. Composted soil conditioners featuring woodwastes can improve the moisture retention and permeability of treated soils. Partially composted bark can also serve as a direct soil conditioner. f. Disposal, Burying, or Burning Aside from the loss of usable materials and landfill space, burial of wood debris and woodwastes does not present serious problems. However, incinerating them (along with other mixed municipal solid waste) poses potential air pollution problems. B. Wooduaste Appendix 1.• Agricultural Waste and Wooduaste APPENDIX K WVTC � SOLID WASTE I' LOST ASSESSMENT • King County • Comprehensive • Solid Waste • Management Plan • • • • • • • I• • ! ! • • • ! Sorting It out Together K-1 Appendix K WUTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1. DEMOGRAPHICS References and Assumptions 1.1.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 King County jurisdictional population (excluding Seattle) estimates from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Population and Employment Forecast, July 1992 Update. 1992 city of Seattle population and growth rate estimates from the PSRC, Populatran and Employment Forecast, October 1992 Update. Assumptions: King County's total population is the sum of Seattle's population plus the jurisdictional population. The city of Seattle's 1992 estimated population growth rate of 0.6% remains constant through the planning period. Calculations: 1992 Seattle and County populations are given and are referenced above. 1994 and 1997 populations are calculated by projecting Seattle's population from 1992 using the 1992 growth rate and then adding this projection to the given jurisdictional population referenced above. 1.1.2 References: 1992, 1994 and 1997 King County jurisdictional population estimates from the PSRC Population and Employment Forecast, July 1992 Update. Assumptions: N/A Calculations: N/A Appendix K W X Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1992 1994 1997 1.1 POPULATION 1.1.1 Total population in county (including Seattle) 1,565,000 1,606,000 1,673,000 1.1.2 Population of jurisdiction area (excluding Seattle) 1,043,000 1,078,000 1,135,000 1.2 HOUSING 1.2.1 Residential properties in jurisdiction 422,000 441,000 469,000 1.2.2 Single-family dwellings 280,000 292,000 311,000 1.2.3 Multifamily dwellings 143,000 149,000 158,000 1.2.4 Average persons per single-family dwelling 3.11 3.08 3.05 1.2.5 Average persons per multifamily dwelling 1.20 1.19 1.18 1.3 BUSINESS 1.3.1 Commercial businesses in jurisdiction 59,000 67,000 78,000 References and Assumptions 1.1.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 King County jurisdictional population (excluding Seattle) estimates from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Population and Employment Forecast, July 1992 Update. 1992 city of Seattle population and growth rate estimates from the PSRC, Populatran and Employment Forecast, October 1992 Update. Assumptions: King County's total population is the sum of Seattle's population plus the jurisdictional population. The city of Seattle's 1992 estimated population growth rate of 0.6% remains constant through the planning period. Calculations: 1992 Seattle and County populations are given and are referenced above. 1994 and 1997 populations are calculated by projecting Seattle's population from 1992 using the 1992 growth rate and then adding this projection to the given jurisdictional population referenced above. 1.1.2 References: 1992, 1994 and 1997 King County jurisdictional population estimates from the PSRC Population and Employment Forecast, July 1992 Update. Assumptions: N/A Calculations: N/A Appendix K W X Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-2 1.2.1 References: 1991 Households from the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. 1990 and 2010 Households from the October 1992 update (unpublished) to the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. Assumptions: Residential properties are assumed to grow at the same rate as residential households. Calculations: Average annual total growth for the period 1990 to 2010 is interpolated from the October 1992 total forcecast households -- this figure approximates 9,369 households per year. 1992, 1994, and 1997 households are projected by adding the annual growth of 9,369 households to the 1991 estimated households presented in the 1992 Growth Databook. 1.2.2 References: 1991 single-family households from the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. 1990 and 2010 Total households from the October 1992 update (unpublished) to the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. Assumptions: Single-family dwellings include properties with 1 to 4 units as well as mobile homes and trailers. Growth in single-family dwellings is assumed to correspond to growth in total number of households. Calculations: Estimate what percent of the total number of households that single-family households account for using the 1991 estimated households presented in the 1992 Growth Databook -- approximately 66%. 1992, 1994, 1997 Single-family dwellings are estimated as a percentage of the total number of households calculated for each planning year in 1.2.1 above. 1.2.3 References: 1991 Multifamily households from the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. 1990 and 2010 Total households from the October 1992 update (unpublished) to the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. Assumptions: Multifamily dwellings include properties with more than 4 units excluding mobile homes and trailers. Growth in multifamily dwellings is assumed to correspond to growth in total number of households. Calculations: Estimate what percent of the total number of households that multifamily households account for using the 1991 estimated households presented in the 1992 Growth Databook -- approximately 34%. 1992, 1994, 1997 Multifamily dwellings are estimated as a percentage of the total number of households calculated for each planning year in 1.2.1 above. 1.2.4 References: Persons per single-family residence from the 1990 US Census. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Jurisdictional population from 1.1.2 above. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Single-family dwellings from 1.2.2 above. Assumptions: Single-family dwellings include properties with 1 to 4 units, as well as, mobile homes and trailers. The percentage of persons per single-family residence remains constant relative to population throughout the planning period. Based on the 1990 US Census approximately 84% of persons live in single-family residential dwellings. Calculations: (1) Estimate the number of persons living in single-family dwellings for 1992, 1994, and 1997 by multiplying the 1990 single-family residential percentage by each planning year's jurisdictional population. (2) Calculate the average number of persons per single-family dwelling for each planning year by dividing the yearly estimate of persons living in single-family dwellings from (1) by the number of single-family dwellings from 1.2.2 above. 1.2.5 References: Persons per multifamily residence from the 1990 US Census. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Jurisdictional population from 1.1.2 above. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Multifamily dwellings from 1.2.3 above. Assumptions: Multifamily dwellings include properties with more than 4 units excluding mobile homes and trailers. The percentage of persons per multifamily residence remains constant relative to population throughout the planning period. Based on the 1990 US Census approximately 16% of persons live in multifamily residential dwellings. Calculations: (1) Estimate the number of persons living in multifamily dwellings for 1992, 1994, and 1997 by multiplying the 1990 multifamily residential percentage by each planning year's jurisdictional population. (2) Calculate the average Appendix K.• WM Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1.3.1 References: 1990 Number of covered employer units from Washington State Employment Security, Employment and Payrolls in Washington State by County and Industry 1990, Published Feb. 1992• 1990 and 2010 Employment from the October 1992 update (unpublished) to the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. Assumptions: Growth in number of businesses is consistent with growth in employment through the planning period. Number of businesses is consistent with the number of covered employers under the Washington Employment Security Act -- Covered businesses account for more than 85% of the state's employment and excludes certain family employment, self employment, casual laborers, and commission only workers. Calculations: Calculate an annual employment growth rate for the period from 1990 to 2010 -- approximately 0.072% linear growth from 1990. Project 1992, 1994, and 1997 number of businesses by applying the growth rate from (1) to the 1990 number of covered businesses. Appendix K.• WUIt;' Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-4 2. WASTE STREAM GENERA'T'ION 1992 1994 1997 2.1 Tonnage Recycled Residential 112,000 157,000 229,000 Commercial 269,000 376,000 549,000 Self -haul 88,000 123,000 180,000 469,000 656,000 958,000 2.2 Tonnage Disposed Residential 240,000 221,000 208,000 Commercial 361,000 333,000 313,000 Residential Self -haul 144,000 132,000 124,000 Commercial Self -haul 125,000 116,000 108,000 870,000 802,000 753,000 References and Assumptions 2.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Waste generation and diversion tonnages from King County Solid Waste Division tonnage projections, March 1993 update (unpublished). Residential, commercial, and self -haul percentage components of the recycled material stream from the 1990 Washington State Department of Ecology Recycling Survey Results. 1992 Actual curbside recycling from monthly hauler reports supplied to King County by certificated haulers operating within the County. 1992 Estimated total diversion of 35% from the King County Solid Waste Division reduction and recycling projections, March 1993 update (unpublished). Assumptions: The recycled material stream allocation percentages remain constant through the planning period -- residential 23.9%, commercial 57.3%, self -haul 18.806. Calculations: Recycled tonnages for each sector are estimated by multiplying the percentage allocations for each sector by the estimated total diversion tonnages from above. The projected 1992 curbside residential recycling tonnage estimate includes the 1992 actual recycled tonnage from the hauler reports and the estimated reduced tonnage from the Solid Waste Division reduction and recycling projections. 2.2 References: 1992 tonnage disposed from King County Solid Waste Division billing records. 1994 and 1997 Tonnage disposed from King County Solid Waste Division tonnage projections, March 1993 update (unpublished). Residential, commercial, and self -haul percentage components of the total waste stream from King County Solid Waste Division waste stream allocation estimates (unpublished), which were based on 1992 billings, hauler reports, and facility surveys. Assumptions: The waste stream allocation percentages remain constant through the planning period -- residential 27.6%, commercial 41.5%, residential self -haul 16.5%, and commercial self -haul 14.4%. Calculations: Disposed tonnages for each sector are estimated by mutiplying the percentage allocations for each sector by the total disposal forecast above. Appenda K• WUIV Solid Waste Cost Assessment n L� 0I K-5 3. SYSTEM COMPONENT COSTS 1992 1994 1997 3.1 WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS 3.1.1 Waste Reduction Programs See Plan, Chapter III 3.1.2 Waste Reduction Costs Appendix K MV Solid Waste Cost Assessment 988,000 1,059,000 1,174,000 3.1.3 Funding Mechanism tipping fees, grants, collection rates, and general fund 3.2 RECYCLING PROGRAMS 3.2.1 Recycling Programs See Plan, Chapter III 3.2.1 a Waste Recycling Costs 3,952,000 4,234,000 4,694,000 Marketing Commission Costs 585,000 627,000 695,000 Total Costs 4,538,000 4,861,000 5,389,000 3.2.2 Urban Recycling Programs 3.2.2.1 Curbside Eligible Households Single-family Households 223,000 233,000 248,000 Multifamily Households 59,000 187,000 205,000 3.2.2.2 Diversion Rate (lbs/household/mo.) 34 46 63 3.2.2.3 Percent Collected by WUTC Haulers Single-family Households 100% 100% 100% Multifamily Households 100% 100% 100% 3.2.2.4 Net Cost for Urban Recycling Included in 3.2.1a 3.2.2.5 Funding Mechanism grants, collection rates, and general fund. 3.2.3 Rural Recycling Programs 3.2.3.1 Curbside Eligible Households Single-family Households 199,000 208,000 221,000 Multifamily Households n/a n/a n/a 3.2.3.2 Diversion Rate (lbs/household/mo.) 34 46 63 3.2.3.3 Percent Collected by WUTC Haulers Single-family Households 100% 100% 100% Multifamily Households n/a n/a n/a 3.2.3.4 Net Cost for Urban Recycling Included in 3.2.1a 3.2.3.5 Funding Mechanism tip fees, grants, collection rates, general fund. 3.2.4 Commercial Recycling Programs 3.2.4.1 Curbside Eligible Businesses 59,000 67,000 78,000 3.2.4.2 Diversion Rate (lbs/business/mo.) 760 935 1,173 3.2.4.3 Percent Collected by WUTC Haulers 39% 39% 39% 3.2.4.4 Net Cost/Commercial Recycling Included in 3.2.1a 3.2.4.5 Funding Mechanism grants, collection rates, general fund. 3.2.5 Drop-off/Buy-back See References and Assumptions 3.2.5.1 Diversion Rate Tons/Month 0 0 0 3.2.5.2 % Operated by WUTC Haulers 0% 0% 0% 3.3 Composting 3.3.1 Diversion Rate (lbs/household/mo.) 24 36 53 3.3.2 Percent Collected by WUTC Haulers 100% 100% 100% 3.3.3 Funding Mechanism tipping fees, collection rates, general fund. Appendix K MV Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-6 References and Assumptions 3.1.2 It is assumed that 20 percent of county and suburban cities waste reduction and recycling program costs are dedicated specifically to reduction programs and/or recycling programs that include a waste reduction component, such as education programs. For the years 1994 and 1997 the costs are inflated by 5 percent per year. For detailed information on recommended reduction programs, see Volume I, Chapter III. 3.1.3 Waste reduction programs are funded as follows 3.2.1.a Estimated 1992 costs include all costs incurred by the County and suburban cities that are directly attributable to recycling programs. Estimated costs for 1994 and 1997 are based on 1992 costs inflated at 3.5 percent per year. 3.2.2.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Residential households from Section 1.2.1 above. Urban/Rural households from the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Tonnage recycled from Section 2.1 above. 1992 Yard waste from hauler reports. Assumptions: The urban/rural percentage split remains constant over the planning period. Calculations: Calculate the percent of urban households from the figures presented in the Annual Growth Databook -- approximately 53% of households are urban. Estimate curbside eligible households by multiplying the percentage of urban households by each planning year's projected number of households. 3.2.2.2 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Households from 3.2.2.1 above. 1R92, 1994, and 1997 Tonnages recycled from Section 2.1 above. 1992 Curbside yard waste from hauler reports. Assumptions: The non -yard waste percent remains constant through the planning period. Calculations: Calculate the percent of curbside non -yard waste from the hauler reports and the total recycled tonnage - - approximately 78% of the curbside tonnage is non -yard waste. Estimate curbside non -yard waste diversion for each planning year by multiplying the above percentage by each planning year's total diversion. Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the non -yard waste estimated diversion for each planning year by the urban households and by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000 pounds per ton. 3.2.2.3 References: N/A Assumptions: All curbside programs reporting to the Solid Waste Division are operated by certificated haulers. Therefore, 100% of the diversion is attributable to these haulers. Calculations: N/A Appendix K WUX Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1992 1994 1997 Tip Fees 61% 47% 62% Grants 6% 20% 6% Collection Rates 26% 26% 26% Surcharges 6% 6% 5% General Fund 1% 1% 1% 3.2.1.a Estimated 1992 costs include all costs incurred by the County and suburban cities that are directly attributable to recycling programs. Estimated costs for 1994 and 1997 are based on 1992 costs inflated at 3.5 percent per year. 3.2.2.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Residential households from Section 1.2.1 above. Urban/Rural households from the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Tonnage recycled from Section 2.1 above. 1992 Yard waste from hauler reports. Assumptions: The urban/rural percentage split remains constant over the planning period. Calculations: Calculate the percent of urban households from the figures presented in the Annual Growth Databook -- approximately 53% of households are urban. Estimate curbside eligible households by multiplying the percentage of urban households by each planning year's projected number of households. 3.2.2.2 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Households from 3.2.2.1 above. 1R92, 1994, and 1997 Tonnages recycled from Section 2.1 above. 1992 Curbside yard waste from hauler reports. Assumptions: The non -yard waste percent remains constant through the planning period. Calculations: Calculate the percent of curbside non -yard waste from the hauler reports and the total recycled tonnage - - approximately 78% of the curbside tonnage is non -yard waste. Estimate curbside non -yard waste diversion for each planning year by multiplying the above percentage by each planning year's total diversion. Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the non -yard waste estimated diversion for each planning year by the urban households and by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000 pounds per ton. 3.2.2.3 References: N/A Assumptions: All curbside programs reporting to the Solid Waste Division are operated by certificated haulers. Therefore, 100% of the diversion is attributable to these haulers. Calculations: N/A Appendix K WUX Solid Waste Cost Assessment K- 7 3.2.2.5 Urban recycling programs are funded as follows: 1992 1994 1997 Grants 18% 18% 18% Collection Rates 78% 78% 78% General Fund 4% 4% 4% 3.2.3.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Residential households from Section 1.2.1 above. Urban/Rural households from the King County Annual Growth Databook 1992. Assumptions: The urban/rural percentage split remains constant over the planning period. Calculations: Calculate the percent of rural households from the figures presented in the Annual Growth Databook -- approximately 47% of households are rural. Estimate curbside eligible households by multiplying the percentage of rural households by each planning year's projected number of households. 3.2.3.2 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Households from 3.2.3.1 above. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Tonnages recycled from Section 2.1 above. 1992 Curbside yard waste from hauler reports. Assumptions: The non -yard waste percent remains constant through the planning period. Calculations: Calculate the percent of curbside non -yard waste from the hauler reports and the total recycled tonnage - - approximately 780/6 of the curbside tonnage is non -yard waste. Estimate curbside non -yard waste diversion for each planning year by multiplying the above percentage by each planning year's total diversion. Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the non -yard waste estimated diversion for each planning year by the rural households and by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000 pounds per ton. 3.2.3.3 References: N/A. Assumptions: All curbside programs reporting to the Solid Waste Division are operated by certificated haulers. Therefore, 100% of the diversion is attributable to these haulers. Calculations: N/A 3.2.3.5 Rural recycling programs are funded as follows: 1992 1994 1997 Tip Fees 64% 73% 83% Grants 19% 10% 0% Collection Rates 16% 16% 16% General Fund 1% 1% 1% 3.2.4.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Businesses from Section 1.3.1 above. Assumptions: N/A. Calculations: N/A. 3.2.4.2 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Tonnages recycled from Section 2.1 above. Assumptions: N/A. Appendix K WUX Solid Waste Cost Assessment Calculations: Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the estimated diversion for each planning year by the number of businesses and by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000 pounds per ton. 3.2.4.3 References: 1992 Tonnage collected from the hauler reports. Assumptions: Percentage of the total diversion that the haulers account for remains constant through the planning period. Calculations: Calculate % collected by dividing the 1992 tonnage collected from the hauler reports by the total estimated diversion in 2.1 above. 3.2.4.5 Commercial recycling programs are funded as follows: 1992 1994 1997 Grants 18% 18% 18% Collection Rates 78% 78% 78% General Fund 4% 4% 4% 3.2.5 Drop -boxes are a component of each of the recycling programs described above and are discussed in each area, i.e., urban single-family programs, rural programs, etc. 3.2.5.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Self haul tonnages recycled from Section 2.1 above. 1992 Auburn 3,000 tons recycled from Department of Ecology. Assumptions: N/A. Calculations: Total diversion is estimated by summing the self haul tonnage from Section 2.1 and the reported Auburn dropoff station tonnage. Calculate the diversion rate by dividing the estimated diversion for each planning year by 12 months in each year then multiply by 2000 pounds per ton. 3.2.5.2 References: N/A Assumptions: The curbside hauler companies for the most part do not operate buyback centers. For those companies that do, the buyback businesses are independent from the curbside hauler operations and, therefore, cannot be directly attributed to any curbside operation. Calculations: N/A 3.3.1 References: 1992, 1994, and 1997 Households from Section 1.2.1 above. 1992 Actual tonnage from the hauler reports. 1992, 1994, and 1997 Curbside tonnages Section 2.1 above. Assumptions: Growth in curside yard waste collection is consistent with growth in total curbside collection from 3.2 above. Calculations: (1) Calculate the diversion rate for 1992 by dividing the reported yard waste collected by the number of 1992 households by 12 months the year. (2) Calculate the annual increase in curbside collection for 1994 and 1997 by dividing the difference between each of the two planning years by the starting year tonnage estimate -- 0.006 increase to 1994, 0.009 increase to 1997. (3) Calculate the diversion rate for 1994 and 1997 by adding the annual increase in (2) for each planning year to the preceding year's diversion rate. Appendix K WUK Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-9 3.3.2 References: N/A Assumptions: All curbside programs reporting to the Solid Waste Division are operated by certificated haulers. Therefore, 1000/6 of the diversion is attributable to these haulers. Calculations: N/A 3.3.3 Yard waste collection programs are funded as follows: 1992 1994 1997 Grants 18% 18% 18% Collection Rates 78% 78% 78% General Fund 4% 4% 4% Appendix K.• WVTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment 10 Table 3.1 Diversion Potential and Costs for Recommended Programs 1992 Costs and Results Total % Waste Cost per Cost per Implementation Funding Tons Stream Household * Business * Responsibility ** Sources ** Residential Programs Single-family Primary Recyclables 64,200 4.79% 2.92 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Multifamily Primary Recyclables 5,100 0.38% 1.30 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Secondary Recyclables 12,100 0.90% 0.02 0.00 C/Co C/Co Buy-back Centers 6,100 0.46% N/A 0.00 P P Wood Waste 1,000 0.07% 0.02 0.00 Co T ConstrUctlon/Demolition 0 0.00% 0.00 0.00 Co T Drop Sites (Primary Recyclables) 1,400 0.10% 0.24 0.00 Co T Clean-up Events 900 0.07% 0.05 0.00 C/Co C/T 90,800 6.78% Nonresidential Programs Nonresidential Recycling 303,500 22.65% 0.45 2.14 P/C/Co P/C/T Wood Waste 1,000 0.07% 0.01 0.07 Co T Construction/Demolition 0 0.00% 0.00 0.00 Co T 304,500 22.720/6 Yard Waste Programs Single-family Collection 20,600 1.54% 3.50 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Multifamily Collection 0 0.00% 1.25 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Self -haul to Transfer Stations 1,800 0.13% 7.41 0.00 Co T Nonresidential Collection 100 0.01% 0.01 0.07 P/Co P/T Roll -off Services 0 0.00% N/A N/A P P Drop Boxes 28,300 2.11% 0.00 0.00 P P 50,800 3.79% Waste Reduction Programs Residential Programs 12,300 0.92% 1.26 0.00 C/Co C/T Nonresidential Programs 10,600 0.79% 0.00 7.75 C/Co C/T 22,900 1.71% Total Diversion 469,000 35.00% Total Waste Disposed 871,000 65.00% Total Waste Stream 1,340,000 100.00% NOTES * $ per month ** P = Private, C = City, Co = County, T = Tip Fee 1. Nonresidential program costs are for educational programs. 2. The unit cost for self -hauling yard waste to transfer stations is the minimum charge for PLV -licenced vehicles. 3. The public cost for yard waste drop box depots in 1994 represents a one -time -only expenditure to assist the private sector in establishing a depot system as part of the implementation of the planned yard waste disposal ban at County transfer stations. Appendix K.• WM Solid Waste Cost Assessment Diversion Potential and Costs for Recommended Programs (Continued) 24.19% 0.44 1.95 P/C/Co P/C/T Wood Waste 15,100 1.03% 0.01 0.06 Co T Construction/Demolition 4,900 0.34% 0.00 2.63 Co T 372,900 25.56% 1994 Costs and Results 0.17% 1.34 Total % Waste Cost per Cost per Implementation Funding 7.41 Tons Stream Household * Business * Responsibility ** Sources ** Residential Programs 0.06 P/Co PIT Roll -off Services 700 0.05% Single-family Primary Recyclables 95,700 6.56% 3.13 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Multifamily Primary Recyclables 19,300 1.32% 1.39 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Secondary Recyclables 16,500 1.13% 0.02 0.00 C/Co C/Co Buy-back Centers 9,300 0.64% N/A 0.00 P P Wood Waste 10,000 0.69% 0.02 0.00 Co T Construction/Demolition 1,500 0.10% 0.10 0.00 Co T Drop Sites (Primary Recyclables) 2,800 0.19% 0.01 0.00 Co T Clean-up Events 2,100 0.14% 0.68 0.00 C/Co C/T 157,200 10.77% Nonresidential Programs Nonresidential Recycling 352,900 24.19% 0.44 1.95 P/C/Co P/C/T Wood Waste 15,100 1.03% 0.01 0.06 Co T Construction/Demolition 4,900 0.34% 0.00 2.63 Co T 372,900 25.56% Yard Waste Programs Single-family Collection 31,200 2.14% 3.75 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Multifamily Collection 2,500 0.17% 1.34 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Self -haul to Transfer Stations 6,100 0.42% 7.41 0.00 Co T Nonresidential Collection 1,000 0.07% 0.01 0.06 P/Co PIT Roll -off Services 700 0.05% N/A N/A P/Co P Drop Boxes 42,400 2.91% 0.12 3.12 Co 83,900 5.75% Waste Reduction Programs Residential Programs 23,800 1.63% 1.32 0.00 C/Co C/T Nonresidential Programs 19,500 1.34% 0.00 7.11 C/Co C/T 43,300 2.97% Total Diversion 711,000 45.05% Total Waste Disposed 802,000 54.97% Total Waste Stream 1,459,000 100.00% NOTES * $ per month ** P = Private, C = City, Co = County, T = Tip Fee 1. Nonresidential program costs are for educational programs. 2. The unit cost for self -hauling yard waste to transfer stations is the minimum charge for PLV -licenced vehicles. 3. The public cost for yard waste drop box depots in 1994 represents a one -time -only expenditure to assist the private sector in establishing a depot system as part of the implementation of the planned yard waste disposal ban at County transfer stations. Appendix K WM Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-12 Diversion Potential and Costs for Recommended Programs (Continued) 1997 Costs and Results Total % Waste Cost per Cost per Implementation Funding Tons Stream Household * Business* Responsibility ** Sources ** Residential Programs Single-family Primary Recyclables 148,500 8.67% 3.24 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Multifamily Primary Recyclables 42,100 2.46% 1.44 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Secondary Recyclables 24,000 1.40% 0.02 0.00 C/Co Co Buy-back Centers 14,500 0.85% N/A 0.00 P P Wood Waste 24,400 1.43% 0.02 0.00 Co T Construction/Demolition 3,900 0.23% 0.10 0.00 Co T Drop Sites (Primary Recyclables) 5,000 0.29% 0.01 0.00 Co T Clean-up Events 4,100 0.24% 0.71 0.00 C/Co C/T 266,500 15.57% Nonresidential Programs Nonresidential Recycling 445,900 26.05% 0.45 1.80 P/C/Co P/C/T Wood Waste 37,500 2.19% 0.01 0.06 Co T Construction/Demolition 12,500 0.73% 0.00 2.45 Co T 495,900 28.97% Yard Waste Programs Single-family Collection 49,000 2.86% 3.88 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Multifamily Collection 6,500 0.38% 1.39 0.00 P/C/Co P/C/Co Self -haul to Transfer Stations 6,000 0.35% 7.41 0.00 Co T Nonresidential Collection 2,300 0.13% 0.01 0.06 P/Co PIT Roll -off Services 1,800 0.11% N/A N/A P P Drop Boxes 73,000 4.26% 0.00 0.00 P P 138,600 8.10% Waste Reduction Programs Residential Programs 31,900 1.86% 1.47 0.00 C/Co C/T Nonresidential Programs 25,800 1.51% 0.00 7.83 C/Co C/T 57,700 3.37% Total Diversion 959,000 56.00% Total Waste Disposed 753,000 43.98% Total Waste Stream 1,712,000 100.00% NOTES * $ per month ** P = Private, C = City, Co = County, T = Tip Fee 1. Nonresidential program costs are for educational programs. 2. The unit cost for self -hauling yard waste to transfer stations is the minimum charge for PLV -licenced vehicles. 3. The public cost for yard waste drop box depots in 1994 represents a one -time -only expenditure to assist the private sector in establishing a depot system as part of the implementation of the planned yard waste disposal ban at County transfer stations. Appendix K• WM Solid Waste Cost Assessment 3.4 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAMS 3.4.1 Regulated Solid Waste Collection Firms 1992 1994 1997 Lawson Disposal (G-41) Residential Customers 8,400 8,700 9,100 Residential Tons 6,100 5,600 5,300 Commercial Customers 700 800 900 Commercial Tons 7,800 7,200 6,700 Container Hauling (G-12) 1,800 Commercial Tons 38,900 Residential Customers 0 0 0 Residential Tons 0 0 0 Commercial Customers N/A N/A N/A Commercial Tons 38,100 35,100 33,000 Eastside Disposal (G-12) 1,700 Commercial Tons 32,100 Residential Customers 48,200 49,800 52,400 Residential Tons 40,700 37,500 35,300 Commercial Customers 3,500 4,000 4,600 Commercial Tons 48,000 44,300 41,600 Sea Tac Disposal (G-12) 1,800 Commercial Tons 46,700 Residential Customers 19,100 19,800 20,800 Residential Tons 14,700 13,500 12,800 Commercial Customers 2,700 3,000 3,500 Commercial Tons 47,200 43,500 40,900 Kent Disposal (G-12) 3,400 Commercial Tons 69,200 Residential Customers 4,900 5,000 5,300 Residential Tons 4,100 3,700 3,500 Commercial Customers 700 800 1,000 Commercial Tons 12,500 11,600 10,900 Meridian Valley (G-60) 2,000 Commercial Tons 47,000 Residential Customers 22,300 23,100 24,300 Residential Tons 18,700 17,200 16,200 Commercial Customers 800 900 1,100 Commercial Tons 19,200 17,700 16,600 Federal Way Disposal (G-35) 600 Commercial Tons 12,400 Residential Customers 13,900 14,400 15,200 Residential Tons 11,400 10,500 9,900 Commercial Customers 900 1,000 1,100 Commercial Tons 27,200 25,100 23,600 K-1 3 Appendix K• WNC Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1992 1994 1997 Nick Raffo Garbage Co (G-16) Residential Customers 9,200 9,500 10,000 Residential Tons 9,200 8,400 7,900 Commercial Customer 1,300 1,500 1,800 Commercial Tons 38,900 35,900 33,700 RST Disposal (G-185) Residential Customers 8,300 8,500 9,000 Residential Tons 8,000 7,300 6,900 Commercial Customers 1,300 1,500 1,700 Commercial Tons 32,100 29,600 27,900 Tri-Star Disposal (G-185) Residential Customers 0 0 0 Residential Tons 0 0 0 Commercial Customers 1,400 1,600 1,800 Commercial Tons 46,700 43,100 40,500 Sno-King Garbage (G-126) Residential Customers 36,500 37,800 39,800 Residential Tons 37,100 34,100 32,100 Commercial Customers 2,600 2,900 3,400 Commercial Tons 69,200 63,800 60,000 Rainier Disposal (G-63) Residential Customers 26,500 27,400 28,800 Residential Tons 24,300 22,400 21,100 Commercial Customers 1,500 1,700 2,000 Commercial Tons 47,000 43,400 40,800 Waste Management - Northwest (G-43) Residential Customers 7,800 8,100 8,500 Residential Tons 6,700 6,200 5,800 Commercial Customers 400 500 600 Commercial Tons 12,400 11,400 10,700 Island Disposal (G-32) Residential Customers N/A N/A N/A Residential Tons 200 200 200 Commercial Customers N/A N/A N/A Commercial Tons 600 500 500 Appendix K• WNC Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-14 3.4.2 Nonregulated Solid Waste Collection Firms 1992 1994 1997 Eastmont Development Corp.* Residential Customers n/a n/a n/a Residential Tons 20,700 19,000 17,900 Commercial Customers n/a n/a n/a Commercial Tons 97,400 89,800 84,300 * (Owned and operated by Waste Management, Seattle) 3.4.3 Collection Costs City of Enumclaw Only $773,000 $812,000 $853,000 Moderate Risk Waste 1,918,000 2,055,000 2,278,000 3.4.4 Funding Mechanism Household hazardous waste surcharge, collection rates References and Assumptions 3.4.1 References: 1992 Tonnages and customer counts from King County Solid Waste Division billing records and hauler reports. 1994 and 1997 Total tons from Section 2.2 above. 1994 and 1997 population and businesses from Sections 1.1 and 1.3 above. Assumptions: The ratio of each hauler's tonnage and customer counts to the overall system totals is assumed to remain constant through the planning period. Calculations: Project the growth for 1994 and 1997 of each hauler's tonnage and customer counts relative to the overall system totals using the figures presented in Sections 1.1, 1.3, and 2.1 above. Add the projected growth to the 1992 and 1994 figures to estimated the 1994 and 1997 respective values. 3.4.2 References: 1992 Tonnages from the hauler reports. 1994 and 1997 Total tons from Section 2.2 above. Customer counts N/A. Assumptions: The ratio of each hauler's tonnage to the overall system totals is assumed to remain constant through the planning period. Calculations: Project the growth for 1994 and 1997 of each hauler's tonnage relative to the overall system totals using the figures presented in Section 2.1 above. Add the projected growth to the 1992 and 1994 figures to estimated the 1994 and 1997 respective values. 3.4.3 Costs for 1992 were provided by the city of Enumclaw and are disaggregated as follows: Operations salaries $172,000 Uniforms 1,000 Supplies 500 Other services 23,000 Rentals 85,000 Appendur K WVTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-15 Machinery and equipment 15,000 Operating transfers 6,000 Total collection costs $303,000 Total disposal costs 470,000 Total Costs $773,000 Actual collection costs for the 1992 Moderate Risk Waste Program are provided as follows: Household collection $1,825,000 Targeted waste collection 22,000 SQG compliance 72,000 Total collection costs $1,918,000 Collection costs for 1994 and 1997 were estimated by inflating the 1992 figures by 3.5 percent per year. 3.4.4 Enumclaw collection costs are funded by collection fees. Moderate risk waste collection costs are funded by grants and by a moderate risk waste surcharge imposed by the Seattle—King County Department of Public Health. Projected costs are a function of the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan budget. Appendix K W= Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-16 3.5 TRANSFER/LONG-HAUL PROGRAMS 1992 1994 1997 3.5.1 Transfer Programs 3.5.1.1 Transfer Costs Operating 12 497 000 13 193 000 14 357 000 3.5.1.2 3.5.1.3 3.5.2 3.5.2.1 3.5.2.2 3.5.2.3 3.6 3.7 3.7.1 Capital 15,302,000 18,044,000 1,100,000 Equipment 1,892,000 0 * 1,882,000 Final Disposal Facilities Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Funding Mechamism Tipping fees, bonds, Landfill Reserve Fund, Capital Equipment Replacement Fund Long-haul Programs Tons Per Year 120,000 500,000 550,000 Long-haul Costs 0 0 0 Funding Mechanism Tipping fees, surcharges ENERGY RECOVERY & INCINERATION (ER&I) PROGRAMS - n/a LAND DISPOSAL PROGRAM -and Disposal Facilities :andfill Name Owner Operator ,edar Hills King County Solid Waste Division King County Solid Waste Division ✓ashon King County Solid Waste Division King County Solid Waste Division -lobart King County Solid Waste Division King County Solid Waste Division numclaw City of Enumclaw King County Solid Waste Division 3.7.2 Tons Disposed/WUTC Haulers 5,309,000 5,490,000 5,694,000 Cedar Hills 627,000 578,000 544,000 Vashon 800 700 700 Hobart 0 Closed Closed Enumclaw 3,561 Closed Closed 3.7.3 Tons Disposed/Non-WUTC Haulers 63,000 0 38,000 Cedar Hills 237,000 219,000 204,000 Vashon 6,300 5,600 5,600 Hobart 10,384 Open % yr. Closed Enumclaw 2,561 Closed Closed 3.7.4 Landfill Operating Costs 2,746,000 Closed Closed Cedar Hills Operating 5,309,000 5,490,000 5,694,000 Capital 28,294,000 0 0 Equipment 1,703,000 0 1,844,000 Vashon Operating 379,000 406,000 421,000 Capital 336,000 0 0 Equipment 63,000 0 38,000 Hobart Operating 379,000 203,000 Closed Capital 2,993,000 2,739,000 Closed Equipment 63,000 0 Closed Enumclaw Operating 379,000 Closed Closed Capital 2,746,000 Closed Closed Equipment 63,000 Closed Closed 3.7.5 Funding Mechanism Tipping fees, bonds, Landfill Reserve Fund, Environmental Reserve Fund * The $0 contribution for equipment in 1994 is a one-time adjustment due to development of a new replacement model, fleet downsizing due to tonnage declines and replacement schedule revisions. Appendix K.• WUTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-1 7 References and Assumptions 3.5 Transfer/Long-haul Programs 3.5.1 Transfer Programs • 3.5.1.1 Elements of the 1992 operating budget that are directly attributable to waste transfer are indicated in Table 3.2. Estimated costs for 1994 and 1997 are based as follows: fixed costs are based on 1992 costs and are inflated by 3.5 percent per year; variable costs, which are defined as costs directly related to the amount of tonnage transferred, are allocated on a per -ton basis each year. • Elements of the 1992, 1994, and 1997 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are based on the six-year CIP project schedule, which is funded through 1987, 1989, 1992, and 1995 bonds; the Landfill Reserve Fund; and the Environmental Reserve Fund (see Table 4.3 for detailed transfer projects). Please note that the yearly expenditure projections may be overstated because multiyear projects may be budgeted in one year. Elements of the 1992, 1994, and 1997 equipment budgets are based on the results of the Solid Waste Division's "Capital Equipment Replacement Program" model. The model is designed to calculate the amount of money needed to be transferred from the Operating Fund to the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund in order fully fund equipment replacement at the end of its useful • life. The model assumes that approximately 50 percent of the equipment purchases each year are directly related to transfer station activity. Table 3.5 Capital Equipment Replacement Program Fund, 1992-1997 1992 1994 1992 1994 1997 Beginning Fund Balance 9,834,000 11,187,000 9,928,000 Revenue - Interest 817,000 708,000 517,298 Salvage value 545,000 256,000 1,364,000 Expenditures (4,788,000) (2,562,000) (7,771,000) Transfer from Operating Fund 3,785,000 1,028,000 3,763,000 Ending Fund Balance 10,243,000 10,617,018 7,801,000 3.5.1.2 All mixed municipal solid waste transferred from County transfer facilities is disposed at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. This is not expected to change during the six-year planning period. 3.5.1.3 Transfer costs are funded as follows: Appendix K WVTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1992 1994 1997 Tip Fees 28% 36% 82% Bonds 67% 64% 5% CERP 5% 0% 13% * See 4.3.1 for project -specific detail. Appendix K WVTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-18 3.5.2 Long-haul Programs 3.5.2.1 The County will consider waste export as an alternative for future mixed municipal solid waste disposal needs. However, present landfill capacity is more than adequate to serve the County through the six-year planning period and beyond. The County is in the process of contracting with a private company or companies for the disposal of construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste and plans to begin out -of -county disposal of CDL in 1993. The 1992 disposal figure of 120,000 tons per year is based on that portion of the CDL waste stream generated in King County that is currently being transferred out -of -county by a private hauler (Rabanco). Projections for 1994 and 1997 are based on the CDL project Final Environmental Impact Statement estimates of 600,000 tons per year minus 5 percent for anticipated recycling activity. 3.5.2.2 The CDL facility will be owned and operated by the private companies (Rabanco and Waste Management). The County will incur some administrative costs, which are 100 percent reimbursable from the contractor to the County. Therefore, the net cost impact should be zero. 3.5.2.3 The private vendor(s) will impose a per -ton tip fee to recover costs. The Solid Waste Division will impose a per -ton administrative surcharge to the CDL facility owners to cover administrative costs incurred by the Division. 3.6 Energy Recovery and Incineration Programs No waste -to -energy facilities are under consideration for implementation in King County during the planning period. 3.7 Land Disposal Programs 3.7.1 Cedar Hills is owned by King County. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources previously owned the facility Transfer of ownership occurred on June 22, 1992. 3.7.2 Based on the Solid Waste Division's internal records, approximately 73 percent of the overall tonnage delivered to Cedar Hills, and 11 percent of tonnage delivered to the Vashon Landfill is transferred by WUTC-regulated haulers. No waste delivery to Hobart is done via WUTC-regulated haulers (see Section 3.4.1). 3.7.3 Based on the Solid Waste Division's internal records, 100 percent of the tonnage delivered to the Hobart Landfill, 89 percent of tonnage delivered to the Vashon Landfill, and 27 percent of tonnage delivered to Cedar Hills is transferred by contributors other than WUTC-regulated haulers. 3.7.4 Elements of the 1992 operating budget that are directly attributable to landfill disposal are indicated in Table 3.2. Estimated costs for 1994 and 1997 are based as follows: fixed costs are based on 1992 costs inflated by 3.5 percent per year; variable costs, which are defined as costs directly related to the amount of tonnage received at each landfill, are estimated on a per -ton basis for each year. Appendix K.• WUTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1K- 9 Elements of the 1992, 1994, and 1997 CIP are based on the six-year CIP project schedule, which is funded through 1987, 1989, 1992, and 1995 bonds, the Landfill Reserve Fund, and the Environmental Reserve Fund (see Table 4.3.1 for detailed landfill projects). Please note that the yearly CIP expenditure projections may be overstated because multiyear projects may be budgeted in one year. Elements of the 1992, 1994, and 1997 equipment budgets are based on the results of the Solid Waste Division's Capital Equipment Replacement Program Fund (CERP) model (see 3.4). The model assumes that approximately 45 percent of the equipment purchases each year are directly related to Cedar Hills Landfill, and 1.66 percent of all equipment purchases are allocated to each rural landfill. The 1994 Hobart operating and CERP costs are based on six months of operation. 3.7.5 Funding Mechanism 3.8 ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 3.8.1 Management Administration Cost 3.8.2 Costs Components 3.8.3 Funding Mechanism 3.9 OTHER PROGRAMS - n/a 3.8 Administration Program 1992 1994 1997 $33,769,671 $31,880,996 $33,629,867 fund transfers, administrative staff and related administrative costs tip fee, collection rate, surcharge, general fund, grants 3.8.1 Includes costs for the County and the suburban cities. 3.8.2 Elements of the 1992 operating budget that are directly attributable to administrative costs are indicated in Table 3.2. Estimated costs for 1994 and 1997 are based on 1992 costs inflated by 3.5 percent per year. 3.8.3 Administrative costs are funded as follows 1992 1994 1997 Tip Fee 14% 43% 32% Grants 0 3 0 Bond 9 0 0 Landfill Reserve 70 53 56 Environmental Reserve 3 2 3 CERP 4 0 9 3.8 ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM 3.8.1 Management Administration Cost 3.8.2 Costs Components 3.8.3 Funding Mechanism 3.9 OTHER PROGRAMS - n/a 3.8 Administration Program 1992 1994 1997 $33,769,671 $31,880,996 $33,629,867 fund transfers, administrative staff and related administrative costs tip fee, collection rate, surcharge, general fund, grants 3.8.1 Includes costs for the County and the suburban cities. 3.8.2 Elements of the 1992 operating budget that are directly attributable to administrative costs are indicated in Table 3.2. Estimated costs for 1994 and 1997 are based on 1992 costs inflated by 3.5 percent per year. 3.8.3 Administrative costs are funded as follows 3.9 Other Programs - n/a Appendix K.• W[ITC Solid Waste Cost Assessment 1992 1994 1997 Tip Fee 95.0% 95.05/6 94.0% Collection Rates 4.0 4.0 4.0 Surcharge 0.5 0.5 0.5 General Fund 0.2 0.2 0.2 Grants 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.9 Other Programs - n/a Appendix K.• W[ITC Solid Waste Cost Assessment Table 3.2 Detail Solid Waste Division Operating Expenditure Projections 1992 1994 1997 3.1.2 Waste Reduction 988,000 1,059,000 1,174,000 3.2 Recycling 4,538,000 4,861,000 5,389,000 3.4.3 General Collection Costs 303,000 325,000 360,000 3.4.3 MRW Collection Costs 1,918,000 2,055,000 2,278,000 3.5.1.1 Customer Transactions 1,498,000 1,605,000 1,780,000 3.5.1.1 Transfer Operations 3,630,000 4,536,000 5,029,000 3.5.1.1 Transportation 3,753,000 3,350,000 3,527,000 3.5.1.1 Shop Costs (Transfer) 3,615,000 3,702,000 4,021,000 3.7.4 Shop Costs (Landfill) 1,551,000 1,617,000 1,724,000 3.7.4 Cedar Hills 5,309,000 5,490,000 5,694,000 3.7.4 Rural Landfills 1,138,000 813,000 421,000 3.7.4 LFG/Wastewater 525,000 563,000 624,000 3.8.1 Administrative Transfers 3.5.1.1 Total Transfer 12,497,000 13,193,000 Overhead 977,000 1,046,000 1,160,000 8,483,000 LTGO Bonds 7,686,000 7,712,000 7,712,000 59,712,000 CERP 3,785,000 0 3,763,000 Landfill Reserve Fund 14,749,000 12,186,000 12,700,000 3.8.1 Administration 4,227,000 4,528,000 4,696,000 3.8.1 Legal 191,000 205,000 227,000 3.8.1 Engineering Services 1,362,000 1,459,000 1,618,000 3.8.1 Program Planning 693,000 742,000 823,000 3.8.1 Fiscal Services 745,000 798,000 885,000 3.8.1 Operations Administration 895,000 959,000 1,063,000 3.8.1 MRW Admin/Educ 95,000 102,000 113,000 Total Operating Budget 64,171,000 59,712,000 66,781,000 King County 60,599,000 55,886,000 61,961,000 Suburban Cities 3,572,000 3,827,000 4,243,000 Summary 3.1.2 Total Waste Reduction 988,000 1,059,000 1,174,000 King County 661,000 708,000 785,000 Suburban Cities 327,000 350,000 388,000 3.2 Total Recycling 4,538,000 4,861,000 5,389,000 King County 2,645,000 2,833,000 3,141,000 Marketing Commission 585,000 627,000 695,000 Suburban Cities 1,307,000 1,401,000 1,553,000 3.4 Total Collection 2,222,000 2,380,000 2,639,000 King County 1,918,000 2,055,000 2,278,000 Suburban Cities 303,000 325,000 360,000 3.8.1 Total Administration 35,404,000 29,737,000 34,759,000 King County 33,770,000 27,986,000 32,818,000 Suburban Cities 1,634,000 1,751,000 1,941,000 3.5.1.1 Total Transfer 12,497,000 13,193,000 14,357,000 3.7.4 Total Disposal 8,523,000 8,483,000 8,463,000 64,171,000 59,712,000 66,781,000 Appendix K• WM Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-21 4. FUNDING MECHANISMS 4.1 TIPPING FEES 4.1.1 Facility Names Landfills Transfer Stations Drop -boxes Cedar Hills Algona Cedar Falls Vashon Bow Lake Skykomish Hobart* Enumclaw Factoria First Northeast Houghton Renton * Hobart Landfill is scheduled to close in 1994 4.1.2 Revenues See Table 4.1.2 4.2 GRANTS 4.2.1 Grant Detailed Information Name Provider Amount Year Purpose Coordinated Ecology $ 2,000,000 92-93 Enumclaw landfill closure ($500k); WR/R Prevention (CPG) programs Food Waste Ecology 302,000 92-94 Testing of collection & processing methods for food waste Waste -Not- Ecology 1,035,000 92-95 To provide WR/R services to Snoqualmie Valley, Washington Skykomish, Issaquah & Snoqualmie Pass City Optional King County 994,000 92-95 Non-residential technical assistance WR/R King County 3,000,000 92-95 Start-up costs for commercial, multifamily & yard waste collection programs TOTAL: $ 7,331,000 4.3 BONDS 4.3.1 Bond Summary Information Year Type Life Value Purpose 1987 LTGO 20 $42,000,000 Cedar Hills mitigation 1989 LTGO 20 $16,900,000 Enumclaw Transfer Station 1992 LTGO 20 $13,900,000 Customer service improvements, transfer station upgrades/replacements 1995 LTGO 20 $30,000,000 New facilities (N.E. Lake Washington and new Auburn Transfer Stations) * for detailed bond information see Table 4.3 4.4 RATES Please refer to Volume I, Chapter IV 4.5 OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS See Table 4.5 4.6 FUNDING MECHANISM SUMMARY See Table 4.6.1 Appendix K: WVTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... K-22 Table U.2 Revenue Forecast by Facility 769,000 50.754 676,000 44.590 634,000 48.231 Rural Landfills 1992 1994 1997 Enumclaw Tip Avg. 66 30.63 Tip Avg. Tip Avg. Revenue Fee Load 66 Revenue Fee Load 66 Revenue Fee Load 76.05 Tonnage (millions) Ron Charge Tonnage (millions) [fon Charge Tonnage (millions) /Ton Charge General Use Facilities 2 23,700 1.561 4,400 .290 4,200 .319 Transfer & Drop Box Stations 3 Total Gen. Use Facilities Refuse 792,800 52.327 66 680,400 44.880 66 638,200 48.550 Factoria 139,000 9.174 66 73.41 116,000 7.682 66 73.41 110,000 8.335 76.05 79.65 Houghton 178,000 11.748 66 81.23 153,000 10.111 66 81.23 148,000 11.233 76.05 90.24 Renton 60,000 3.960 66 59.63 48,000 3.155 66 59.63 43,000 3.232 76.05 61.09 Algona 127,000 8.382 66 76.53 107,000 7.088 66 76.53 102,000 7.757 76.05 83.75 Bow Lake 173,000 11.418 66 74.80 144,000 9.517 66 74.80 135,000 10.267 76.05 80.69 First NE 89,000 5.874 66 41.62 71,000 4.686 66 41.62 64,000 4.867 76.05 43.23 Cedar Falls Drop Box 3,000 .198 66 13.39 3,000 .185 66 13.39 3,000 .190 76.05 13.75 Enumclaw 8 Total Cedar Hills 909,800 57.121 10,000 .686 66 30.63 9,000 .715 76.05 31.92 Hobart 9 Grand Total Refuse Disposed 933,500 63.826 22,000 1.478 66 18.53 22,000 1.635 76.05 20.50 1 769,000 50.754 676,000 44.590 634,000 48.231 Rural Landfills Enumclaw 6,100 .404 66 30.63 closed closed Vashon 7,100 .472 66 21.94 4,400 .290 66 21.94 4,200 .319 76.05 24.13 Hobart 10,400 .685 66 18.53 closed closed 2 23,700 1.561 4,400 .290 4,200 .319 3 Total Gen. Use Facilities Refuse 792,800 52.327 66 680,400 44.880 66 638,200 48.550 76.05 4 Total Yard Waste 1,800 .103 58 2,800 .162 58 4,200 .270 64.31 5 Total General Use Facilities 794,600 52.430 683,200 45.042 642,400 48.820 Cedar Hills 6 Total Regional Direct 119,300 5.132 43 575.70 109,300 4.700 43 575.70 102,700 4.896 47.67 599.71 Special Waste 5,600 .558 100 767.59 5,900 .590 100 767.59 6,400 .710 110.87 923.71 Commercial 15,700 .676 43 362.90 12,900 .555 43 362.90 12,100 .577 47.67 377.29 7 140,700 6.367 128,100 5.845 121,200 6.183 8 Total Cedar Hills 909,800 57.121 804,100 50.435 755,200 54.414 9 Grand Total Refuse Disposed 933,500 63.826 808,500 50.725 759,400 54.733 10 Grand Total . System 935,300 63.929 811,300 50.887 763,600 55.003 Row 8 = row 7 + row 1; row 9 - row 3 + row 7; row 10 = row 9 + row 4 Appendix K.• WVX Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-2 3 Table 43 Six-year CIP Plan Hobart TIS TS 3140 SW Construction 1989 Revised 1993.98 Estimated Project Pro- 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Project No. Project Description gram Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Cost 003157 CH Master Facility Plan CH 250,000 003158 CH Expanded Aquifer Mon CH 354,016 Fund 1,004,175 15,835 3030 SW Construction 1987 Houghton Queuing Improve 1608191 15835 698,030 013093 CH Leachate Head Reductio CH 599,061 3,598,240 013095 CH Active Gas Collection CH 1,088,862 21,647,643 013097 CH Retention/Detention CH 431,285 1,100,005 013098 CH Maple Valley Force Main CH 290,157 3,945,680 013108 CH Pump Station I Const CH 84,862 1,586,082 2,494,227 003114 Cedar Falls Landfill Closure RLF 42,280 003115 Enumclaw Landfill Closure RLF 003116 Hobart Landfill Closure RLF 003117 Vashon Landfill Closure RLF (55) 013100 TIS Facility Upgrade D10729 Solid Waste Const -1987 Subtotal Fund 3030 42,225 TS 1,453,406 ZZZ (623,343) 3,366,515 Fund Hobart TIS TS 3140 SW Construction 1989 837,025 003120 003125 CH Water Supply CH 1,468,522 003126 CH Pretreatment Facility CH South King County TIS 003157 CH Master Facility Plan CH 250,000 003158 CH Expanded Aquifer Mon CH 354,016 003159 CH Eastside Lchate Sys Imp CH 1,004,175 15,835 003136 Houghton Queuing Improve 1608191 15835 31,877,650 1,222,776 2,245,567 8,408,594 4,459,998 16,336,935 2,572,702 (247,809) 50,539,478 2,308,021 220,000 250,000 355,270 15,835 1,020,335 15,835 4,153,626 003156 NPDES SIW Permits NPDE 222,143 226,000 003119 Hobart TIS TS 546,801 837,025 003120 Factoria TIS TS 1,304,752 1,793,124 003122 South King County TIS TS 32,982 33,000 003124 Enumclaw TIS TS 9,605,353 260,762 260,762 11,795,760 003136 Houghton Queuing Improve TS 698,030 707,000 003137 Algona TIS Slope Remediat TS 325,428 365,000 003144 Renton TIS Sewer Upgrade TS 38,771 40,000 003146 Bow Lk TIS Water Main Rpl TS 76,024 79,870 003148 Algona TIS Study TS 40,529 92,900 480,752 260,762 260,762 15,743,679 003128 Trnsfr to CX -BIC ZZZ 51,966 003130 Transfer to Fund 3030 ZZZ 301,698 301,698 D10722 SW Constr 1989 - Default ZZZ 38,324 495,332 340,022 848,996 Subtotal Fund 3140 16,307,548 276,597 276,597 20,972,301 Appendix K.• WV7C Solid Waste Cost Assessment Project No. Project Description Pro- gram Revised 1992 Budget Fund 2,218,606 23,572,104 19,992,570 3831 Environmental Reserve 715,000 5,255,000 003180 Puyallup/Kit Corner ALR 552,490 003181 Houghton Aband LF Remed ALR 552,490 003182 Administration -Env Res ALR 306,606 003183 Bow Lake - Aband LF Rem ALR 3,850,147 Subtotal Fund 3831 003191 1,411,586 Fund 3901 SW Construction 1992 003143 NE Lake WA TIS TS 003147 Household Haz Waste TS 1993.98 Estimated 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Project Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Cost 28,529 28,529 581,019 28,529 30,050 58,579 611,069 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,500,000 1,806,606 326,470 340,555 667,025 667,025 307,058 280,050 250,000 250,000 576,470 590,555 2,254,133 3,665,719 380,000 3,420,000 10,081,000 003160 Hobart TIS TS 901,000 5,771,104 6,450,270 003161 Factoria TIS TS 7,552,000 1,774,606 15,993,000 4,066,300 15,000 003162 South King County TIS TS 954,500 1,428,000 6,056,000 13,100,000 003164 1st NE Noise Barrier TS 290,000 003165 Algona TIS I Fie Hydrant TS 55,000 013088 Middle Snoqualmie TIS TS 445,000 715,000 5,255,000 013089 Bow Lake Expansion - MFP TS 222,000 013090 1st NE Expansion - MFP TS 222,000 13, 881, 000 13, 881, 000 12,221,374 13,122,374 21,848,906 29,400,906 20,584,000 21,538,500 290,000 55,000 6,415,000 6,415,000 222,000 222,000 222,000 222,000 Appendix K W= Solid Waste Cost Assessment 9,752,500 2,218,606 23,572,104 19,992,570 23,641,000 715,000 5,255,000 75,394,280 85,146,780 003163 Repay Fnd 3140•Enum TIS ZZZ 3,850,147 3,850,147 3,850,147 003191 Repay Fnd 3910' ZZZ 003193 1 % for ArtlFund 3901 ZZZ Subtotal Fund 3901 9,752,500 6,068,753 23,572,104 19,992,570 23,641,000 715,000 5,255,000 79,244,427 88,996,927 Fund 3910 Landfill Reserve 003129 CH Area 213 Final Cover CH 7,169,216 8,339,900 003138 CH Pretreatment Facility CH 5,998,669 6,005,000 003140 CH -Area 5 Development CH 1,226,535 5,903,142 5,903,142 5,903,142 18,935,961 18,935,961 003142 CH SW Main Hill Cover CH 8,272,747 9,037,197 013103 CH Leachate Head Red . Ph CH 013105 CH Surface Water Control CH 013107 CH Site Dev PlanIEIS Reissu CH 013111 CH Maple Valley Hiway Wid CH 863,660 863,660 863,660 013113 CH Area 4 Construction CH 1,282,232 21,800,099 013114 CFI Master Electr, Emergenc CH 150,000 150,000 150,000 013132 CHI -Area 5-StormwaterlLeac CH 617,852 5,663,843 5,663,639 11,945,134 11,945,134 22,722,864 1,013,660 1,844,387 11,566,785 11,566,781 5,903,142 31,894,755 77,076,950 Appendix K W= Solid Waste Cost Assessment Revised 1993-98 Estimated Project Pro- 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total Project No. Project Description gram Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Cost 003132 Vashon LF NAD RLF 003145 Vashon LF FC RLF 013115 Enumclaw LF Closure RLF 013116 Hobart LF Closure RLF 013117 Vashon LF Closure RLF 016117 Vashon Site Dev, Plan RLF 017117 Vashon Leachate StoragelP RLF 023116 Hobart Temp Cover SW Imp RLF 003102 Transfer to Landfill PC Fund ZZZ 003192 Loan To Fund 3901 ' ZZZ D10727 Landfill Reserve Default ZZZ Subtotal Fund 3910 GRAND TOTAL 2,745,815 2,986,739 2,992,878 (1,028,042) 2,739,000 1,710,958 4,974,008 335,874 406,853 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,051,000 1,051,000 1,051,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 6,074,567 292,958 2,739,000 9,688,600 4,895,615 5,000,000 7,100,000 12,100,000 16,995,615 237,221 9,806,760 5,132,836 5,000,000 7,100,000 12,100,000 26,802,375 33,930,267 6,306,618 9,839,000 1,844,387 11,566,785 11,566,781 5,903,142 47,026,713 113,567,925 64,768,416 12,959,026 33,691,154 22,086,957 35,457,785 12,858,251 11,748,697 128,801,870 277,742,350 Note: Does not reflect activity in projects closed out in 1992 interim financing amount and timing t.b.d. Appendix K• WVTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-26 Table 4.$ Other Funding Mechanisms (in 8 millions) 1992 1994 1997 Beginning Fund Balance 10.164 6.835 Prior Year Carryover 2.905 Tip Fee Revenue (Table 4.1 .2) 63.929 50.887 55.003 Health Dept. Charges -.540 76.998 57.182 55.003 Other Revenue Moderate Risk Waste 2.222 2.380 Interest .610 .600 Grants .066 .754 WR/R Revenues .321 .300 E/RR 3.000 FEMA Reimbursement .300 Insurance Refund .110 6.329 4.334 11.846 Total Revenue 83.326 61 .516 66.849 Total Expenditures (Table 3.3) 60.599 55.886 61.961 Ending Fund Balance 22.727 5.630 4.888 Less: 45 -day Cash Reserve Requirement 4.780 4.721 4.888 Undesignated Fund Balance 17.947 .910 .000 Appendix K- WVTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment K-2 7 Table 4.6.1 Funding Mechanism (in Percent) Tip Landfill Env. Collection General Component Fee Grant Bond Reserve Reserve CERP Rates Surcharges Fund Total Waste Reduction 1992 60.74 6.05 26.07 5.93 1.21 100.00 1994 47.17 19.96 26.07 5.57 1.21 100.00 1997 61.84 5.79 26.07 5.08 1.21 100.00 Waste Recycling 1992 64.35 6.72 22.71 5.17 1.06 100.00 1994 53.99 17.39 22.71 4.85 1.06 100.00 1997 66.76 5.05 22.71 4.42 1.06 100.00 Collection 1992 13.66 86.34 100.00 1994 13.66 86.34 100.00 1997 13.66 86.34 100.00 ER&I 1992 1994 1997 Transfer 1992 28.15 66.83 5.02 100.00 1994 35.89 64.11 100.00 1997 82.77 4.74 12.48 100.00 Land Disposal 1992 13.74 9.11 70.31 2.93 3.92 100.00 1994 42.91 2.69 52.89 1.51 100.00 1997 31.94 56.13 2.80 9.13 100.00 Administration 1992 95.13 0.81 3.63 0.27 0.17 100.00 1994 94.51 0.91 4.09 0.30 0.19 100.00 1997 94.24 0.95 4.29 0.32 0.20 100.00 Total 1992 58.10 0.69 31.52 4.03 3.07 2.46 0.13 100.00 1994 64.37 2.13 27.01 3.53 2.81 0.15 100.00 1997 83.32 0.99 1.04 5.50 5.00 3.93 0.21 100.00 Appeiadi�: K.• WM Solid Waste Cost Assessment O FINAL 19�12 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND EIS Volume I August 1993 Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division Department of Public Works 400 Yesler Way, Room 600 Seattle, Washington 98104-2637 '\\I /i VOW Sorting It Out Together This entire document is printed on recycled paper This document will be provided in large print, braille, or audio cassette upon advance request King County Executive Proj ect Staff Tim Hill Mark Buscher, Project Manager Ann Kawasaki, Deputy Director Helen Matekel, Assistant Project Manager King County Council Shawn Northrup, Project Staff Audrey Gmger, Chair, District 1 Frederica Merrell, Project Staff Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reed Suzette Riley Brian Derdowski, District 3 Contributing Staff Larry Phillips, District 4 Program Planning Section Ron Sims, District 5 Theresa. Jennings, Manager Bruce Laing, District 6 Julia Bassett Paul Barden, District 7 Jeanne Marie Isola Greg Nickels, District 8 Russ Davies Kent Pullen, District 9 John Sturdivant Department of Public Works Waste Reduction/Recycling Section Paul Tanaka, Director Susan Gulick, Manager Ann Kawasaki, Deputy Director Lyne Davis George Duncalf Jeff Gaisford Solid Waste Division Donna Miscolta Rodney G. Hansen, Manager Bill Reed Suzette Riley Cynthia J. Stewart, Assistant Manager Edward Zaharevitz Solid Waste Advisory Committee operations Section Bruce Glant, Chair Dennis Trammell, Manager Terry Anderson Laura Belt Michelle Dewey Dick Richards George Duncalf Allen Guisinger Engineering Services Section Amanda Hindman Kevin Kiernan, Manager Laurence Istvan Mark Ellefson Nels Johnson Neil Fujii Wally Kohl Lisa Wagner Haley Cathie Koll Shirley Jurgensen Marty Neuhausen Marilyn Monk Bob Schille John Ryland Christopher Sims James K. Talbot Fiscal Services Section Geraldine Cole Suburban Cities Association Policy Group Andy Barton, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Kirkland production Staff Richard Conrad, Assistant City Manager, City of Mercer Island Kurt Bayne Jennifer Cantrell, Solid Waste Program Coordinator, City of Bellevue Blake Feist, Computer Graphics Jim Harris, Planning Director, City of Kent Creede Lambard Mary West Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Consultants Tim Hill, King County Executive Jean Garber Paul Barden, King County Councilmember SCS Engineers CW Brian Derdowski, King County Councilmember Norm Rice, City of Seattle Mayor Synergic Resources Corporation, Inc. Jane Noland, City of Seattle Councilmember Solutions Resources Inc. Doris Cooper, City of Kirkland Councilmember Triangle Associates Mary Gates, City of Federal Way Councilmember Pacific Rim Resources Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, City of Renton Councilmember King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials Candy Cox, Interim Executive Director Jailyn Brown Special thanks for providing assistance to project staff through participation in various interjurisdictional and public involy mmt opportunities. Washington Department of Ecology and Washington Transportation and Utilities Commission Peter Christiansen, Washington State Department of Ecology Tamara Gordy, Washington State Department of Ecology Tom Spille, Washington State Department of Ecology Teresa Osinski, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission City staff Donna Barlow, Recycling Coordinator, City of Issaquah Laura Barlow, Solid Waste Coordinator, City of Burien Steve Bennett, Recycling Coordinator, City of Normandy Park Glenn Boettcher, Recycling Coordinator, City of Mercer Island Cecelia Boulais, Recycling Coordinator, City of Duvall, City of North Bend, City of Snoqualmie Kari Brookhouse, Recycling Specialist, City of Auburn The Honorable Peggy Breen, Councilmember, City of Duvall Ken Cabrera, Public Works Supervisor, City of North Bend Frank Currie, Director of Public Works, City of Auburn Harlan Elsasser, City Engineer, City of Duvall Jacquelyn Faludi, Recycling Coordinator, City of Federal Way Rebecca Fox, Recycling Coordinator, City of Tukwila Heidi Gallup, Recycling Coordinator, City of SeaTac JoAnn Johnson, Commercial Recycling Coordinator, City of Bellevue Linda Knight, Solid Waste Coordinator, City of Renton Claudia Lauinger, Recycling Coordinator, Town of Clyde Hill Corbitt Loch, Recycling Coordinator, City of Des Moines Roger T. Loschen, Mayor, City of Lake Forest Park Terry May, Customer Service, City of Algona Don Mosley, Gas Dept Manager, City of Enumclaw Cecelia Muller, Recycling Coordinator, City of Bothell Kathy Robson, Management Analyst, City of Redmond Karen Siegel, Administrative Assistant, City of Kent Lenya Shore, City Management Intern, City of Kirkland Dorothy Spadoni, City Clerk, City of Pacific Dick Sulser, Solid Waste Supervisor, City of Auburn Wallace Swofford, Environmental Health Services Supervisor, Seattle King County Dept of Public Health Kim Wilde, City Administrator, City of Snoqualmie Diane Yates, Recycling Coordinator, City of Lake Forest Park Lane Youngblood, Recycling Coordinator, City of Woodinville Contents Annotation of 1992 Draft Plan Comments Executive Summary Chapter I: Plan Development A. PLANNING BACKGROUND .................. I - 1 1. Purpose .......................... I - 1 2. Goals and Objectives .................. I - 1 3. Planning Authority ................... I - 1 4. Plan Participants .................... I - 2 5. Required Contents .................... I - 3 6. Plan Organization .................... I - 3 B. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ............. I - 3 1. Solid Waste Plans Incorporated by Reference ... I - 3 a. City of Seattle Plan ................ I - 3 b. Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle -King County .............. I -4 c. Metro Sludge Management Plan ........ I - 4 d. Sludge Management of Other Jurisdictions .. I - 5 2. Plans Related to the Solid Waste Management System .................. I - 5 a. City/County Comprehensive Land Use Plans . I - 5 (1) Local Jurisdictions ............... I - 5 (2) King COUnty Comprehensive Land Use Plan ....................... I - 5 (3) Shoreline Management Master Programs I - 6 (4) Local Zoning and Related Regulations . I - 6 (5) State and Federal Lands .......... I - 6 (6) Groundwater and Surface Water Management Plans ............. I - 6 (7) King County Sensitive Areas ........ I - 6 3. Other Jurisdictions ..................... I - 6 a- Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Plan ................. I - 7 C. ADMINISTRATION ....................... I - 8 1. Formal Stiucture .................... I -8 a. Washington State ................. I - 8 A King County ..................... I - 9 c. Cities ......................... I -9 d. Tribal Authority ................. I - 10 e. Seattle King County Board of Health .... I - 10 f. King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee I - 10 g. Solid Waste Interlocal Fomin ......... I - 10 2. Infonmal Structures .................. I - 12 3. Solid Waste Ownership and Responsibility .... I - 12 D. PLANNING HISTORY .................... I - 12 1. Early Planning Efforts ................ I - 12 a. 1974 RIBCO Plan ................ I - 12 b. 1982 PSCOG Plan ................ I - 12 2. 1989 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ........................... I-13 a. Energy/Resource and Recovery (E/RR) and Waste Reduction and Recycling (WR/R) Programs ..................... I - 13 b. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solid Waste Management Alternatives (PEIS) ............... 1 - 13 c. King County Executive Report Solid Waste Management Alternatives .... I - 13 d. King County Ordinance 8771 .......... I - 13 e. Public Involvement ............... I - 14 f. 1989 Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ................. I - 14 g. Waste Not Washington Act ........... I - 14 3. 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update ...................... I - 14 a. Ordinance 9928 ................. I - 14 b. State Legislation ................. I - 15 (1) Markets and Procurement ........ I - 15 (2) Collection .................. I - 15 (3) Disposal ................... I - 15 (4) Litter ..................... I - 15 c. Environmental Impact Statement Addendum I - 15 E. PROCESS AND SCHEDULE ................ I - 15 1. Planning Process .......... . ........ I - 15 a. Suburban Cities ................. I - 15 b. Solid Waste Advisory Committee ....... 1 - 15 c. King County .................... I - 16 d. Solid Waste Interlocal Forum ......... I - 16 e. Depambent of Ecology ............. I - 16 2. Review and Approval Process ............ I - 16 3. Plan Amendments and Update ........... I - 16 Chapter II: Planning Area A. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Natural Environment ................. II - 1 a. Earth ........................ II - 1 II - 24 (1) Topography ................. II - 1 (2) Comparison of Residential Waste (2) Geology .................... II - 1 - 19 (3) Soils ...................... II - 1 Stream ................... II (4) Geologic Hazards .............. II - 2 b. Air .......................... II - 3 II - 24 (1) Climate .................... II - 3 II - 24 (2) Air Quality .................. II - 3 II - 25 (3) Odor ..................... Il - 3 c. Water ........................ II - 4 II - 25 (1) Surface Water ................ II - 4 II - 25 (2) Storm Water ................. II - 6 II - 25 (3) Groundwater ................ II - 7 d. Plants and Animals ............... II - 7 II - 25 (1) Plants ..................... II - 7 II - 25 (2) Animals ................... II - 8 e. Energy and Natural Resources ........ II - 8 II - 25 (1) Energy .................... II - 8 II - 25 (2) Natural Resources ............. II - 8 2. Built Enviromnent ................... II - 9 a. Noise ........................ II - 9 b. Public Health ................... II - 9 c. Land Use ..................... II - 9 d. Socioeconomics ................. II - 10 (1) Population and Housing ........ II - 10 (2) Business and Industry .......... II - 10 e. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare ......... II - 10 (1) Aesthetics .................. II - 10 (2) Light and Glare ............. II - 11 f. Transportation ................. II - 11 (1) Highways and Roads .......... II - Il (2) Rail and Waterborne Transportation . II - 13 g. Public Services and Utilities ......... II - 13 B. WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS ............... II - 13 1. Overview ........................ II - 13 a. Definition of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MMSW) II - 14 b. Planning Forecast Model ........... II - 14 c. MMSW Generation ............... II - 15 d. Waste Reduction and Recycling ...... II - 15 e. MMSW Disposal ................ II - 16 2. Waste Characterization ............... II - 18 a. Composition of Disposed Waste ....... II - 19 (1) 1987 Versus 1990 Total Waste Stream II - 24 Composition ................ II - 19 (2) Comparison of Residential Waste Stream Composition ........... II - 19 (3) Comparison of Nonresidential Waste b. Groundwater .................. Stream ................... II - 21 b. Composition of Recycled Waste ....... II - 22 3. Monitoring and Evaluation ............ II - 22 C. SOLID WASTE FACILITY SITING PLAN SUMMARY II - 23 1. Facility Types ..................... II - 23 2. Siting Process .................... II - 24 3. Siting Criteria .................... II - 24 a. Geology and Soil ............... II - 24 b. Groundwater .................. II - 24 c. Flooding ..................... II - 24 d. Surface Water .................. II - 24 e. Site Capacity .................. II - 24 f. Slope ....................... II - 25 g. Climatic Factors ................ II - 25 h. Land Use .................... II - 25 (1) Critical Habitat .............. II - 25 (2) Zoning ................... II - 25 (3) State or National Parks ......... II - 25 (4) Residential Neighbors .......... II - 25 (5) Traffic Access Road Development ... II - 25 (6) Traffic Impact .............. II - 25 (7) Air Emissions ............... II - 25 4. _ Rating .......................... II - 25 5. Public Information and Involvement Program II - 26 Chapter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling A. WASTE REDUCTION .................... III - 1 d. Mixed Waste Processing ........... III - 23 1. Existing Conditions .................. III - 1 (1) Background ................ III - 23 a Background .................... III - 1 (2) Feasibility Analysis ............ III - 23 b. County Programs ................ III - 3 2. Needs and Opportunities .............. III - 24 (1) Education .................. III - 3 a. Background ................... III - 24 (2) Research ................... III - 3 b. Recyclables Collection ............. III - 24 (3) Other Services ................ III - 4 (1) Unrecycled Waste Stream By Generator III - 24 c. City Programs .................. III -4 (2) Service Needs ............... III - 25 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... III -4 c. Markets ..................... III - 27 a. Comprehensive Waste Reduction Strategy .. III - 4 (1) Background ................ III - 27 b. Education ..................... III - 4 (2) Key Market Needs III - 28 c. Financial Incentives ............... III - 5 (3) Marketing Commission ......... III - 28 d. Product Packaging and Source Reduction III - 5 d. Support ..................... III - 29 e. Measurement ................... III - 5 e. Regional Programs .............. III - 29 3. Alternatives ....................... III - 5 (1) Intergovernmental Relations/ a Alternative A, Maintain Status Quo ..... III - 5 Coordination ............... III - 29 b. Alternative B, Expand Existing Waste (2) City Optional Programs ......... III - 29 Reduction Programs .............. III - 5 (3) Education/Schools ............ III - 29 (1) Integration of Existing Programs .... III - 6 (4) Public Education ............. III - 29 (2) Media Campaign .............. III - 6 (5) Clean Wood Waste ............ III - 30 (3) Targeted Waste Reduction Plan ..... III - 6 f. Summary of Needs and Opportunities .. III - 30 (4) Collection Rate Incentives ........ III - 7 3. Alternatives ...................... III - 31 (5) Waste Reduction Policy and Program a. Alternative A, Existing Programs ...... III - 33 Research and Development ....... III - 7 (1) Recyclables Collection .......... III - 34 (6) Packaging Restriction Program Research (2) Support and Education Programs .. III - 34 and Development .............. III - 8 (3) Regional Programs ........... III - 34 4. Recommendations ................... III - 8 (4) Program Costs .............. III - 34 5. Implementation .................... III - 8 (5) King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials .... III - 35 B. RECYCLING ......................... III - 10 b. Alternative B, Expanded Setvice5 ...... III - 35 1. Existing Conditions ................. III - 10 (1) Residential Collection Minimum a. Background ................... III - 10 Service Levels ............... III - 36 (1) Status of 1989 Plan Recommendations III - 10 (2) Nonresidential Collection Minimum (2) 1989 Plan Urban and Rural Service Levels ............... III - 41 Designation ................ III - 12 (3) Recyclables Collection at Solid Waste (3) 1989 Plan Designation of Recyclables III - 12 Facilities .................. III - 42 (4) Minimum Service Levels ........ III - 12 (4) Yard Waste Disposal Limitations Barn III - 43 (5) Collection Methods ............ III - 13 (5) Additional County -sponsored (6) Markets ................... III - 13 Collection Set -vices ............ III - 45 b. County Programs ............... III - 18 (6) Support .................. III - 45 (1) Recyclables Collection ......... III - 18 (7) Regional Programs ........... III - 46 (2) Support Programs ............ III - 19 (8) King County Commission for (3) Regional Programs ........... III - 21 Marketing Recyclable Materials .... III - 46 (4) King County Commission for (9) Program Costs .............. III - 47 Marketing Recyclable Materials .... III - 22 c. Alternative C, Mandatory Recycling c. City Programs ................. III - 22 Through Disposal Limitations ........ III - 47 (1) Recyclables and Yard Waste Collection III - 22 (1) Recyclables Collection .......... III - 47 (2) Support Services ............. III - 22 (2) Support Programs . ........... III - 48 (3) City Optional Programs ......... III - 23 (3) Regional Programs and Markets ... III - 48 (4) Other Programs ............. III - 23 (4) Program Costs .............. III - 48 4. Recommendations .................. III - 48 5. Implementation ................... III - 49 Chapter IV: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems A. SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES COLLECTION .. IV - 1 2. Needs and Opportunities .............. 1. Existing Conditions .................. IV - 2 a. Role of the Transfer System ......... a. Legal Authority .................. IV - 2 b. Tonnage Capacity ............... (1) Ecology Authority ............. IV - 2 c. Customer Service Capacity .......... (2) WUTC Solid Waste Authority....... IV - 2 d. Compliance with State and Local (3) WUTC Recyclables Authority ....... IV - 2 Regulations ................... (4) County Solid Waste Authority ...... IV - 2 e. Recycling Facilities .............. (5) County Recyclables Authority ...... IV - 3 f. Accommodation of New Equipment .... (6) Cities and Towns Solid Waste Authority IV - 3 g. Master Facility Plans ............. (7) Cities and Towns Recyclables Authority IV - 4 (1) Facility Expansion ............ b. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste ......... IV - 4 (2) Physical Facilities for Waste Export (1) Residential Collection of Solid Waste Transfer .................. and Recyclables .............. IV - 4 (3) Recycling and Materials Recovery . . (2) Commercial Sector Waste and (4) Technological Obsolescence ...... Recyclables Collection Systems ..... IV - 6 h. Implementation Schedules .......... c. Collection Rates for Solid Waste and (1) Short-term Needs and Opportunities . Recyclables .................... IV - 6 (2) Long-term Needs and Opportunities . (1) Solid Waste ................. IV - 6 i. Private and Public Sector Interactions . . (2) Waste Reduction and Recycling (WR/R) j. System Use Data Collection ......... and Rate Incentives ............ IV - 6 k. Growth Management Legislation Impact . 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... IV - 6 3. Alternatives ...................... a. Urban Solid Waste and Recyclables CollectionIV - 8 a. Alternative A, Status Quo System Plan . . b. Rural Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection IV - 8 (1) North County Area ............ c. Nonresidential Collection ........... IV - 8 (2) Central County Area ........... d. Institutional and Incentive Rates ...... IV - 8 (3) South County Area ............ 3. Alternatives ...................... IV - 8 (4) Rural County Area ............ a. Alternative A, Status Quo Voluntary b. Alternative B, Updated System Plan .... Collection System ............... IV - 9 (1) North County Area ............. b. Alternative B, Voluntary Collection with (2) Central County Area ........... Regulatory Changes .............. IV - 9 (3) South County Area ............ c. Alternative C, Mandatory Collection System IV - 9 (4) Rural County Area ............ 4. Recommendations .................. IV - 10 c. Alternative C, Privatization .......... a. Authority ..................... IV - 10 d. Alternative D, Smaller Facilities ...... b. WUTC Rate Review .............. IV - 10 4. Recommendations .................. 5. Implementation ................... IV - 10 a. 1992 Transfer System Development Plan . (1) Service Area Changes .......... B. TRANSFER SYSTEM .................... IV'- 11 (2) General Changes in the System .... 1. Existing Conditions ................. IV - 12 5. Implementation ................... a. System Description ............... IV - 12 (1) King County Transfer Stations .... IV - 12 (2) Other Public and Private Transfer Facilities .................. IV - 13 b. Transfer System Operations ......... IV - 13 (1) Transportation Routes .......... IV - 16 (2) Vehicle Capacity ............. IV - 16 (3) Tonnage Capacity ............ IV - 17 (4) Variations in Service Demand ..... IV - 17 c. 1989 Transfer System Development Plan . IV - 17 d. Growth Management Legislation Impacts IV - 18 IV - 18 IV - 19 IV - 20 IV -20 IV -21 IV -21 IV -21 IV - 22 IV - 22 IV - 22 IV - 22 IV - 22 IV - 22 IV - 22 IV - 23 IV - 23 IV - 23 IV - 23 IV -23 IV - 24 IV - 24 IV - 25 IV - 25 IV -26 IV -26 IV -26 IV - 26 IV - 26 IV - 27 IV - 27 IV - 27 IV - 27 IV - 28 IV - 28 IV - 28 IV -28 C. DISPOSAL .......................... IV - 31 4. Recommendations ................... IV - 46 1. Existing Conditions ................. IV - 32 a. Ongoing Requirements ............ IV - 46 a. Disposal Facilities and Capacity ...... IV - 32 (1) Icing County Solid Waste Regulations (1) Cedar Hills ................. IV - 32 Code Compliance ............. IV - 46 (2) Hobart Landfill ............... tV - 33 (2) Capital Construction Plan ....... IV - 46 (3) Enumclaw Landfill ........... IV - 33 (3) Financial Assurance ........... IV - 46 (4) Vashon Landfill .............. IV - 34 b. Disposal Capacity ............... IV - 46 (5) Waste Export Evaluation .... :... IV - 34 (1) Cedar Hills ................. IV - 46 (6) Land Availability for (2) Hobart Landfill .............. IV - 47 Future Landfills ............. IV - 34 (3) Vashon Landfill .............. IV - 47 b. Icing County Solid Waste Regulations (4) Waste Export ............... IV - 47 Compliance Demonstration ......... IV - 35 5. Implementation ................... IV - 47 c. Capital Construction Plan for Disposal Facilities ..................... IV - 35 D. INACTIVE LANDFILLS .................. IV - 48 d. Financial Assurance Demonstration .... IV - 35 1. Existing Conditions ................. IV - 48 2. Needs and Opportunities .............. IV - 39 a. Cedar Falls Landfill .............. IV - 48 a. Disposal Capacity ............... IV - 39 b. Duvall Landfill ................. IV - 48 (1) Cedar Hills ................. IV - 39 c. Corliss Landfill ................. IV - 48 (2) Hobart Landfill .............. IV - 40 d. Bow Lake Landfill ............... IV - 48 (3) Enumclaw Landfill ........... IV - 40 e. Houghton. Landfill ............... IV - 49 (4) Vashon Landfill .............. IV - 40 f. Puyallup/Kitt Comer Landfill ........ IV - 49 (5) Waste Export ............... IV - 40 g. Enumclaw Landfill .............. IV - 49 b. King County Solid Waste Regulations h. Financial Assurance .............. IV - 49 Compliance ................... IV - 40 2. Needs and Opportunities .............. IV - 49 (1) Cedar Hills Groundwater ........ IV - 40 a. Site Evaluation ................. IV - 49 (2) Cedar Hills Landfill Gas ........ IV - 41 b. Financial Assurance .............. IV - 50 (3) Enumclaw Landfill Gas ......... IV - 41 3. Alternatives ...................... IV - 50 (4) Vashon Island Landfill Groundwater . IV - 41 4. Recommendations .................. IV - 50 (5) Vashon Landfill Sole Source Aquifer Designation ................ IV - 41 E. ENERGY/RESOURCE RECOVERY ............ IV - 50 c. Capital Construction Plan for Disposal 1. Existing Conditions ................. IV - 50 Facilities ..................... IV - 41 2. Needs and Opportunities .............. IV - 51 d. Financial Assurance .............. IV - 41 3. Alternatives ...................... IV - 44 a. Ongoing Requirements ............ IV - 44 (1) King County Solid Waste Health Regulations Compliance ........ IV - 44 (2) Capital Construction Plan ....... .IV - 44 (3) Financial Assurance ............ IV - 44 b. Disposal Capacity ............... IV - 44 (1) Alternative A, Existing Facilities .... IV - 44 (2) Alternative B, New MMSW Regional Landfill ................... IV - 45 (3) Alternative C, Waste Export ...... IV - 45 Chapter V. Special and Miscellaneous Wastes A. CONTAMINATED SOIL ................... V - 1 D. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, 1. Existing Conditions .................. V - 1 AND LAND CLEARING WASTE .............. V - 7 a. Regulations .................... V - 1 1. Existing Conditions .................. V - 7 b. Quantities ..................... V - 2 a. Waste Characterization ............. V - 8 c. Alternatives to Disposal ............. V - 2 b. CDL Waste Reduction and Recycling .... V - 9 d. Potential Disposal Options ........... V - 2 c. Market Assessments ............... V - 9 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... V - 2 d. CDL Transportation and Disposal ...... V - 10 3. Alternatives ....................... V - 3 e. Processing of Mixed CDL and Disposal a. Alternative A, Status Quo ............ V - 3 of Waste Residuals ................ V - 10 b. Alternative B, Recycling and Treatment, I Regulatory Structure .............. V - 11 Analyze Disposal Options ............ V - 3 (1) King County Solid Waste Regulations . V - 11 4. Recommendations ................... V - 3 (2) King County Solid Waste Code ..... V - 11 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... V - 11 B. ASBESTOS WASTE ...................... V - 4 3. Alternatives ....................... V - 12 1. Existing Conditions .................. V - 4 a. Alternative A, Status Quo ............ V - 12 a. Regulations .................... V - 4 b. Alternative B, Increase WR/R ......... V - 12 b. Disposal of Asbestos ............... V - 4 (1) Source Separation ............. V - 12 c. Quantities ..................... V - 4 (2) Education and Technical Assistance .. V - 12 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... V - 4 (3) Market Development ............ V - 13 c. Alternative C, Regulation ............ V - 13 C. BIOMEDICAL WASTE .................... V - 4 (1) Permitting .................. V - 13 1. Existing Conditions .................. V - 4 (2) Disposal Ban ................ V - 13 a. Regulations .................... V - 5 (3) Waste Screening .............. V - 13 b. Quantities ..................... V - 5 (4) Record Keeping ............... V - 14 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... V - 5 4. Recommendations ................... V - 14 a. Biomedical Waste from Medical, Dental, and 5. Implementation .................... V - 14 Veterinary Facilities ............... V - 5 b. Home -generated Sharps ............ V - 6 E. AGRICULTURAL WASTE .................. V - 14 3. Alternatives ....................... V - 6 1. Existing Conditions .................. V - 14 a. Biomedical Waste from Medical, Dental, and 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... V - 15 Veterinary Facilities ............... V - 6 (1) Alternative A, Out -of -County Treatment F. WOOD WASTE ........................ V - 15 and Disposal ................ V - 6 1. Existing Conditions .................. V - 15 (2) Alternative B, Flow Control ....... V - 6 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... V - 16 b. Home -generated Sharps ............ V - 7 (1) Alternative C, Disposal Ban ....... V - 7 G. OTHER SPECIAL WASTES ................. V - 16 (2) Alternative D, Education ......... V - 7 1. Sludges and Septage ................. V - 16 4. Recommendations ................... V - 7 2. Waste Tires ....................... V - 16 5. Implementation .................... V - 7 3. Dredge Spoils ...................... V - 16 Chapter VI: Enforcement A. SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ...................... VI - 1 1. Existing Conditions .................. VI - 1 a. Regulations .................... VI - 1 b. Implementation ................. VI - 1 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... VI - 2 B. WASTE FLOW CONTROL .................. VI - 2 1. Existing Conditions .................. VI - 2 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... VI - 2 3. Alternatives ....................... VI -3 a. Alternative A, Status Quo ............ VI - 3 - 8 b. Alternative B, Policy and Programs ..... VI - 3 VI c. Alternative C, Staff ................ VI - 3 4. Recommendations ................... VI - 3 C. CONTROL OF INCOMING WASTES ........... VI - 4 1. Existing Conditions .................. VI - 4 V Data ........................ a. Introduction .................... VI - 4 b. Regulations ..................... VI - 4 - 9 c. Implementation Responsibilities ....... VI - 5 VI - (1) Waste Clearance Program ........ VI - 5 (1) Prevention ................. (2) Waste Screening .............. VI - 5 2. Needs and Opportunities ............... VI - 6 3. Alternatives ........................ VI - 6 VI - a. Alternative A, Status Quo ............ VI - 6 Needs and Opportunities .............. b. Alternative B, Expanded Waste Screening . VI - 7 4. Recommendations ................... VI - 7 5. Implementation .................... VI - 7 D. ILLEGAL DUMPING AND LITTERING .......... VI - 7 I. Existing Conditions .................. VI - 7 VII - 3 a. Introduction .................... VI - 7 b. Purpose and Definition ............. VI - 8 VII - 4 c. Enforcement Authorities ............ VI - 8 VII - 5 d. Investigation and Prosecution ......... VI - 8 VII - 5 e. Cleanup Responsibility ............. VI - 9 V Data ........................ VI - 9 g. Assumptions .................... VI - 9 h. Existing Programs ............... VI - 12 (1) Prevention ................. VI - 12 (2) Cleanup .................. VI - 13 i. Status of 1989 Plan Recommendations .. VI - 13 2. Needs and Opportunities .............. VI - 13 a. Data and Study ................ VI - 13 b. Abatement Fund ................ VI - 13 c. Model Litter Control Ordinance ....... VI - 14 3. Alternatives ...................... VI - 14 a. Alternative A, Status Quo ........... V7 - 14 b. Alternative B, Expanded Response Capabilities ................... VI - 14 4. Recommendations .................. VI - 15 5. Implementation ................... VI - 15 Chapter VII: Financial Systems A. FINANCING OPERATIONS ............... VII - 1 1. Overview ....................... VII - 1 a. Surcharges .................. VII -3 2. Solid Waste Fund Structure ........... VII - 3 3. Individual Fund Descriptions .......... VII - 4 a. Capital Equipment Replacement Program Fund (CERP) .................... VII -.4 b. Landfill Reserve Fund (LRF) ....... VII - 4 c. Landfill Post -closure Maintenance Fund (LPCM) .................... VII - 5 d. Environmental Reserve Fund (ERF) ... VII - 5 e. Capital Improvement Funds ........ VII - 5 B. GRANTS .......................... VII - 5 1. Coordinated Prevention Grants ......... VII - 5 2. 1990 Compost Study Grant Program ..... VII - 6 3. Waste -Not -Washington Communities Grant Program ....................... VII - 6 4. King County WR/R Grant Program ...... VII - 6 EIS Addendum References Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Related Legislation Figures Figure I.1 Department of Public Works organizational chart ......................................... I - 11 Figure I.2 Comprebensive Solid Waste Management Plena review and decision-making process ................... I - 17 Figure II.1 Generalized surface geology of King County ........................................... II - 2 Figure II.2 Mean annual precipitation in inches, King County ....................................... II - 4 Figure II.3 Air quality nonattainment areas .................................................... II - 5 Figure II.4 Surface water, aquifers and major wells, and watersheds .................................... II - 6 Figure II.5 Overleaf: Land use in King County .................................................. II - 9 Figure II.6 King County 1990 population density ................................................ II - 11 Figure II.7 Major highways in King County ................................................... II - 12 Figure II.8 King County mixed municipal solid waste 20 -year generation and disposal projections ................. II - 16 Figure II.9 Waste quantities contributed by residential and nonresidential waste generators ..................... II - 18 Figure IL10 King County total waste stream composition, 1987 and 1990-91 ............................... II - 20 Figure II.11 Residential waste stream composition, 1987 and 1990-91 ................................... II - 20 Figure II.12 Nonresidential waste stream composition, 1987 and 1990-91 ................................. II - 20 Figure IL13 Recycled and disposed quantities by material category, 1990 ................................. II - 22 Figure III.1 Urban and rural service areas .................................................... III - 12 Figure III.2 Single-family household recycling and yard waste collection services, June 1992 ..................... III - 19 Figure III.3 Onsite multifamily recycling and yard waste collection set -vices, June 1992 ........................ III - 20 Figure III.4 1990 recycled and disposed quantities by material category ............................... ... III - 25 Figure II1.5 1990 disposed quantities by generator and material category ................................. III - 25 Figure III.6 Additional diversion potential resulting from Alternatives A, B, and C ............................ III - 32 Figure III.7 Nonresidential recycling collection services, June 1992 ..................................... III - 43 Figure IV.1 Overleaf: WUTC franchise areas for MMSW............................................. IV - 2 Figure IV.2 King County transfer system facilities ................................................ IV - 11 Figure IV.3 Main haul routes between transfer stations ............................................ IV - 16 Figure IVA 1989 Transfer System Development Plan .............................................. IV - 19 Figure IV.5 1992 planning areas .......................................................... IV - 25 Figure IV.6 King County Solid Waste Division set -vice areas and facility recommendations ...................... IV - 29 Figure IV.7 Existing and inactive landfills .................................................... IV - 31 Figure IV.8 Projected Cedar Hills lifespan using alternative disposal forecasts .............................. IV - 33 Tables Table I.1 Plan Participants................................................................ I - 2 Table I.2 Legislative, Regulatory, and Contract Authorities ........................................... I - 7 Table II.1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Projections ..................................... II - 15 Table II.2 Impact of King County Population and Per Capita Income Growth on Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 20 -Year Waste Generation and Disposal Projections .................. II - 15 Table II.3 King County Transfer and Disposal Facility 20 -Year Tonnage Forecast (Mixed Municipal Solid Waste) ....... II - 17 Table II.4 King County Tonnage Summary, 1990-1992 ........................................... II - 17 Table II.5 Waste Composition Tonnage, 1987 and 1990-1991 ....................................... 11 - 21 Table III.1 Summary of 1989 Plan Waste Reduction Recommendations .................................. III - 2 Table I11.2 Summary of Waste Reduction Alternatives .............................................. III - 5 Table II1.3 1992 Waste Reduction Recommendations .............................................. III - 9 Table III.4 Waste Reduction Implementation Table .............................................. III - 10 Table III.5 Summary of 1989 Plan Recycling Recommendations ...................................... III - 11 Table III.6 King County Cities, Recycling Collection Service Summary ................................... III - 14 Table III.7 Urban Unincorporated Recyclables Collection Set -vice ...................................... III - 15 Table III.8 1990 Recycling by Material Ty pe III 16 Table III.9 Tons Disposed per Year by Recyclable Commodity and Generator Type ........................... III - 26 Table III.10 Summary of Recycling Alternatives ................................................. III - 31 Table III.11 Summary and Comparative Advantages and Disadvantages of WR/R Alternatives ..................... III - 33 Table III.12 Additional Diversion Potential Resulting from Alternative A .................................. III - 34 Table IIL13 Alternative B, Estimated Percent Increase Resulting from Expanded Voluntary Programs with Yard Waste Disposal Ban .................................................... III - 37 Table III.14 Criteria for Primary and Secondary Recyclables Rankings ................................... III - 39 Table I1I.15 Designated Primary and Secondary Recyclables with Rankings ................................ III - 40 Table III.16 1992 Recycling Recommendations.................................................. III - 49 Table III.17 Recycling Implementation Table ................................................... III - 52 Table IV.1 Status of 1989 Plan Collection Recommendations ......................................... IV - 1 Table IV.2 King County Municipal Solid Waste Franchise Holders ...................................... IV - 3 Table IV.3 Collection System Regulatory Structure ................................................ IV - 3 Table IVA Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Service Summary .............................. IV - 5 Table IV.5 Summary of Solid Waste Collection ................................................. IV - 7 Table IV.6 Summary of 1992 Collection Alternatives ............................................. IV - 9 Table IV.7 Summary of 1992 Collection Recommendations ......................................... IV - 10 Table IV.8 Status of 1989 Transfer Plan System Recommendations .................................... IV - 12 Table IV.9 Transfer Station Compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC 10.30.030) ............ IV - 14 Table IV.10 Drop -box Transfer Facilities Compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulation (KCBOHC 10.08.030) ..... IV - 14 Table IV.11 King County Transfer System Tonnages, 1986-1992 ....................................... IV - 14 Table IV. 12 Description of Transfer Facilities Operated by King County.................................. IV - 15 Table IV. 13 Year Transfer Station is Estimated to Exceed Capacity..................................... IV - 17 Table IV. 14 1989 Transfer System Development Plan.............................................. IV - 18 Table IV. 15 Transfer Station Alternatives...................................................... IV - 23 Table IV. 16 Summary of 1992 Transfer System Recommendations..................................... IV - 28 Table IV. 17 Transfer Station Implementation Schedule............................................. IV - 30 Table IV. 18 Summary of 1989 Plan Disposal Recommendations...................................... IV - 32 Table IV. 19 Status of Conformance with County and State Standards ................... ................. IV - 36 Table IV.20 Estimated Costs of Disposal System Improvements........................................ IV - 38 Table IV.21 Disposal System Project Descriptions and Status......................................... IV - 42 Table IV.22 Summary of 1992 Disposal Alternatives.............................................. IV - 44 Table IV.23 Summary of 1992 Disposal Recommendations.......................................... IV - 46 Table IV.24 Disposal System Implementation Schedule............................................. IV - 47 Table IV.25 Inactive Landfills Recommendation................................................. IV - 50 Table V.1 Summary of 1989 Plan Recommendations for Special and Miscellaneous Wastes ..................... V - I Table V.2 Summary of 1992 Contaminated Soil Alternatives......................................... V - 3 Table V.3 Summary of 1992 Contaminated Soil Recommendations .................................... V - 3 Table V.4 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Alternatives.......................................... V - 6 Table V.5 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Recommendations..................................... V - 7 Table V.6 Composition of CDL Waste Stream (in percent).......................................... V - 8 Table V.7 Summary of 1992 CDL Alternatives.................................................. V - 12 Table V.8 Summary of 1992 CDL Recommendations.............................................. V - 14 Table V.9 Woodwaste Uses.............................................................. V - 15 Table VI.1 Private Solid Waste Handling Facilities in King County...................................... VI - 1 Table VI.2 Waste Flow Control Alternatives..................................................... VI - 3 Table VI.3 1992 Waste Flow Control Recommendations............................................ VI -4 Table VIA 1989 Plan Recommendations...................................................... VI - 4 Table VI.5 Summary of 1992 Alternatives for Control of Incoming Wastes................................. VI - 6 Table VI.6 1992 Recommendations on Control of Incoming Wastes..................................... VI - 7 Table VI.7 Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Codes............................................. VI - 10 Table VI.8 Unlawful Dumping Investigations by the Health Department a................................ VI - 12 Table V1.9 1989 Plan Illegal Dumping and Littering Recommendations................................. VI - 13 Table VI.10 Summary of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering Alternatives................................ VI - 14 Table VI.11 Summary of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering Recommendations ............................ VI - 15 Table VIII Solid Waste Division Rate History ................................................. VII - 2 Table VII.2 Solid Waste Fee Component..................................................... VII - 2 Table VII.3 King County Solid Waste Division Operating Costs....................................... VII - 4 0 ANNOTATION OF 1992 DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan \I /i VOW Sorting It Out Together An-1 Annotation of 1992 Draft Plan Comments The following is an annotation of all comments received on the Draft 1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, issued in August of 1992. The annotation summarizes the comments received, identifies the concerned party, and references the action taken within this Plan to address the comment. Key to Codes for Concerned Parties Cities Industry Regulatory Agencies C1 Bellevue 11 UNOCAL RA -1 Seattle -King County Health Department C2 Lake Forest Park 12 Texaco RA -2 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission C3 Bothell 13 Shell RA -3 State Department of Ecology C4 Redmond 14 Remtech C5 Tukwila 15 Exxon Citizens C6 Mercer Island 16 Aippersbach and Ryan CIT -V Vashon Island Citizens C7 Federal Way CIT -CH Cedar Hills Area Citizens C8 Auburn Advocates CIT -SE Southeast King County Citizens C9 Seattle Al Washington Citizens for Recycling CIT -NE NE Lake Washington Citizens A2 West Seattle Recycling CIT -MS Mid-Snoqualmie Citizens For parties' suggested revisions, added text is indicated by bold italic, . Concerned Comment Parties Reference in Plan Chapter I Be more explicit in identifying Cedar Hills as a resource. SWAC Change made; see I.A.1 Implementation timelines should be updated. C7, C9, Updates made; See Executive RA -1 Summary Table 4, Figure 1.2, Tables 111.3, 111.4, 111.17 and 111.18, IV. 16, IV. 17, IV.21, IV.23 and IV.24. Provide discussion on the plan amendment process. C8 See I.E.3. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments M - 2 Concerned Comment Parties Reference In Plan Include in plan development section, a discussion of penalties for non- SWAC No change; not within the scope compliance with the 1989 CSWMP, according to terms of interlocal of the plan. agreements. The description of RCW 36.58 should read: 'County authority to regulate solid RA -2 Revision made; see Table 1.2. waste collection districts.' Add the following statutes to Table 1.2: RA -2 Additions made; see Table 1.2. RCW 36.58 Solid Waste Disposal WAC 480-12 Motor Carriers WAC 480-70 Solid Waste Collection Companies Revise: 'WUTC authority does not aocossarily extend to city collection utilities RA -2 Revision made; see I.C.1.a. or contracts.' Revise: 'King County cannot provide solid waste collection unless a solid RA -2 Revision made; see I.C.1.b. waste collection district is formed (RCW 36.58A.010) and the Washington recyclers who are not in compliance with DOE survey requirements. Utilities and Transportation Commission determines that no certificated scope of the plan. hauler is available to perform collection services. However, RCW RA -3 36.58.04000(1) gives counties the authority to contract directly for residential operation. Required per RCW 70.95.090 (5) (c). recyclable collection or to allow private solid waste haulers Uaacbisod certificated by the WUTC to collect recyclables. The County has chosen to SWAC have sommsrG certificated haulers set up recyclable collection programs in 1992 decline in tonnage. unincorporated areas.' Add that projected tonnage figures for materials do not include Seattle. C9 Addition made, see 1.B.1.a. Prior to final approval of the plan the County needs to conclude interlocal RA -3 Interlo- .��^•^'- agreements with Woodinville and Burien. ,,,,...,;, ued. See Table 1.1. Is energy resource recovery being considered as a means of refuse disposal? CIT -MS See I.D.2.a. Chapter II Discuss draft legislation being considered which would impose fines on C9 No change made; not within the recyclers who are not in compliance with DOE survey requirements. scope of the plan. Add the population density of each area serviced by a city or franchised RA -3 Change made; see Figure 11.6. operation. Required per RCW 70.95.090 (5) (c). Need additional discussion of the relationship of tonnage projections and the SWAC Addition made; see 11.B.1.e. 1992 decline in tonnage. Explain how waste reduction and recycling are measured and address errors C9 Discussion added; see 11.B.1.d. in the forecast methodology and the generation forecast. Differentiate waste reduced from waste recycled in Table 11.1 RA -3 See 11.B.1.d. Revise Table 11.1 to make figures consistent from year to year. RA -3 Change made; see Table 11.1. Data is missing in the '2010' column of Table 11.3 for rows labeled 'rural RA -2 Revision made; see Table 11.3. landfills' and 'Cedar Hills.' Annotation of i7rafl Plan Comments Comment Are there any PSAPCA regulations regarding air emissions which apply to the siting of transfer stations? Add to transfer station siting constraints, fragile or sensitive slope areas. How do you notify the public that the County is in the process of siting a new facility? Why is waste generation per person increasing? What are the reasons for the recent decline in disposal tonnage? Chapter III Implementation plans in the WR/R and facilities sections are too vague. Add a waste reduction goal and a discussion of what the County and cities can do to affect waste generation. Add to the waste reduction analysis and strategy section per capita waste generation goals and a program/methods for monitoring waste generation rates. The County should continue to accept all materials at transfer stations which the cities are required to collect including yard waste, bulky yard waste, appliances and textiles. Expand 1989 plan summary to include the County's and cities' compliance with the 1989 plan recommendations. Define "on-call" collection with regard to bulky yard waste and white goods. The County needs to devote greater study and analysis to the yard waste ban. If a ban is enacted the County needs to provide new collection sites for yard waste and indicate this commitment in the plan. Assess the industry's ability to manage an increase in supply before implementing a full or partial ban on yard waste. Reword requirements for urban yard waste collection to allow for greater flexibility in service options. Is the county planning to document the need for public sector provision of multifamily yard waste collection? Clarify whether collection would be required for multifamily or if the requirement is for the establishment of collection sites at each complex. Collection should not be mandatory. The plan should allow cities to meet the need for bulky yard waste collection in ways other than on-call collection. Concerned Program change made; Parties Reference in Plan C7 Clarification made; C9 Not specifically. PSAPCA C1, C3, C4, regulations require that the C6, C7 County be cognizant of odor and dust from the operation of transfer stations and landfills. C9 Addition made; see II.C.3.f. CIT -SE See II.C.5. CIT -V, CH See II.B.1.e. CIT -SE See II.B.t.e. SWAC Clarification made; see III.A.1.a and A.3.b.(5). SWAC Clarification made; see III.A.1.a, A.2.e, and A.3.b.(7). C1 Clarification made; see 111.B.3.b.(3) and IV.B.2.a. SWAC See Table 111.5. C4 Program change made; see 111.B.3.b.(1) and (5). C1, C4, C8 Program change made; see 111.B.3.b.(4). RA -3 Program change made; see 111.B.3.b.(4). C7 Clarification made; see 111.B.3.b.(4). C1, C3, C4, Clarification made; C6, C7 see 111.B.3.b.(1). C1, C2, C4, Program change made; C6, C7, C8 see 111.B.3.b.(1). Annotation of Draft Plan Comments An -4 Annotation of Draft Plan Comments Concerned Comment Parties Reference in Plan Clarify whether the 21 percent of urban single-family households which do not RA -2 Clarification made; currently receive recycling service reside in incorporated or unincorporated see 111.6.3.a.(1). areas. Does the County intend to define a minimum number of months for the RA -3 Not at this time. Collection provision of yard waste collection services? service standards will be developed by the County and cities during implementation. See 111.B.3.b.(4). Clarify the recommended frequency of textiles collection from households. C1, RA -2 Program change made; Is it the County's intent to distribute the costs of textiles collection across the see 111.13.3.b.(1). entire residential customer base? The cities should not duplicate textiles collection services which are already C1, C2, C3, Program change made; available through the private sector. Textiles should not be added to the list of C4, C6, C7, see III.13.3.b.(1). secondary recyclables. C8 Acknowledge the modest return of collecting textiles, polycoated materials and C5, C8, Program change made; other items which constitute a small percentage of the waste stream. RA -2 see 111.B.3.b.(1). Has the County considered less expensive means of diverting textiles? RA -3 Program change made; see III.13.3.b.(1). Cities and haulers should not be responsible for on-call collection of white C2, C4, C8 Program change made; goods. see 111.13.3.b.(1). The County should support the local collection of white goods by re -instituting C1, C4, C5 Program change made; the collection option at transfer stations. see 111.6.3.b.(1). County coordination of white goods recycling should supplement, not replace, C7 Program change made; other appliance recycling efforts. The issue of CFCs should be addressed see 111.13.3.b.(1). more thoroughly. The plan needs to place greater emphasis on waste reduction and provide C1, C5, C6, Emphasis expanded; more opportunity for optional programs, flexibility, and innovation in this area. C7, C8 see III.A.3.b and 111.6.3.b.(1). The plan should include a more aggressive role for the County in seeking C1, C5, C6, Emphasis expanded. legislation which supports waste reduction and recycling. C7 See 111.B.3.b.(2) and (4), and III.A.3.b.(5) and (6). Add a discussion of the County's position on the "ban on bans.' C9, Al See III.A.2.d and III.A.3.b.(6). Address need for more interaction with manufacturers on packaging issues. C2, C7, See III.A.2.d and III.A.3.b.(6). SWAC Cities and counties should be required to use differential rate incentives and to SWAC Detail added; see III.B.1.c.(2). educate customers about collection services and rate incentives. Discuss which cities already have rate incentives and the education methods in use. Add to the existing conditions section of the waste reduction chapter a SWAC No change made; not within the discussion of the effectiveness of collection rate incentives (mini -cans, scope of the plan. universal recycling fees, substantial can rate differentials). See 111.B.1.c.(2). Annotation of Draft Plan Comments Identify the city which has yet to implement a variable rate structure and RA -3 See III.B.1.c.(2). describe their plans. State law does not grant the counties authority to require differential rate RA -2 Clarification made; see incentives nor change rate structure. All recommendations which seek to 111.B.1.a.(5), 111.B.1.c.(2), implement programs which fall, by statute, within the WUTC jurisdiction should 111.B.2.b.(2), be reconsidered. 111.B.2.f, and 111.B.3.b.(2). Revise: 'The GO' Rty IRR J cities would aU implement and maintain a variable RA -2 Revision made; see III.A.3.b. rate structure for solid waste collection, with cost differentials a that offer substantial incentives to reduce waste. The County can work with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to Implement rates that make waste reduction and recycling more attractive waste management alternatives." Add to the existing conditions section of the waste reduction chapter greater SWAC Some detail added. Not all description of the baby diaper project, the food waste composting study, the information is within the scope "dollars for data' program and other projects. Include current funding levels, of the plan. See III.A.1.a, benefits of the programs, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the III.A.2.e, and III.A.3.(7). programs. Consolidate information provided on Table 111.6 onto one page. SWAC No change made. Not technically feasible. Clarify the units of measurement used in Table 111.8 with regard to batteries SWAC No change made. See footnotes and tires. to 111.6.1, Table 111.8. Reference Table 111.13 in the waste reduction chapter. SWAC Change made; see III.A.1.a. Does the County plan to monitor the effect of waste reduction efforts? RA -3 Yes. See III.A.1.a, III.A.2.e, and III.A.3.b. (7). Reconsider the requirement that all secondary materials be accepted at C1, C2, C3, Change made; see 111.B.3.b.(7). special collection events funded by the County. C6, C7 It is not clear whether household collection of #3-7 plastics would be required C1 Clarification made; see or optional. I11.B.3.b.(7). Clarify the 'voluntary' component of recycling collection programs. RA -2 Clarification made; see 111.B.3.b.(1). Create a provision for the periodic review of recyclables markets. Develop a C2, C7,17, See 111.B.3.b.(1). mechanism for changing the recyclables lists, based on market viability for the SWAC materials. Collection of a material should not be required until markets are in place. Should King County work to promote higher value markets in coordination C9 No change made; not within the with the Clean Washington Center and/or Tetrapak? Should the County avoid scope of the plan. collection of these materials unless the market covers additional costs? Expand the existing conditions section of the recycling chapter to include a SWAC See 111.B.3.b.(1). discussion of green glass market conditions and reasons for including this material in the list of designated recyclable materials. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments Concerned Comment Parties Reference In Plan Goals for materials diversion should be accompanied by goals to procure SWAC See 111.B.3.a.(5). recycled products. Is King County planning to strengthen its procurement ordinance? C9 See III.B.3.a.(5). Wait until the next plan update to add polycoated paper and additional C7 See III.B.3, Table 111.15. plastics to the list of mandatory recyclables. Neither food waste nor #3-7 plastics should be classified as recyclable C7 See 111.6.3, Table 111.15. materials. Mixed waste paper, #1 and #2 plastic bottles and yard waste should no C7 See 111.6.3, Table 111.15. longer be classified as primary recyclables. Clarify and standardize the use of terms describing the different recyclable SWAC Standardization made plastics. throughout the plan as follows: '#1 and #2 Plastics (PET and HDPE) and #3-7 Plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and polystyrene)' Does King County discourage the recycling of PVC and mixed resins? C9 No. King County doesn't discourage the safe recycling of any reusable material. See 111.B.1.a.(3). Polycoated paperboard should not be included in recycling programs. C2 See Table 111.15. Add that the Clean Washington Center is researching the production of C9 No change made. This level of cellulose insulation and mulch/bedding from MWP. detail does not fit within the scope of the plan. Establish and enforce recycled content standards for cellulose insulation. C9 No change made. Recycled content standards are established by legislative process. Consider requiring that lead -acid batteries generated in King County be C9 No change made. Trade policy reclaimed in the U.S. and not shipped overseas. does not fall within the jurisdiction of King County. Add glass collection to Table 111.6 for Auburn. C8 Addition made; see III.B.1, Table 111.6. Add an explanation of regulatory structure to Table 111.6 . RA -2 See Table IVA. Identify the two urban cities who have not implemented a household RA -3 Change made; see III.B.1.a.(1). recyclable collection or equivalent program and describe their plans. Establish minimum educational guidelines for entities (cities, counties and SWAC No change; not within the scope haulers/recyclers) responsible for recycling collection programs, of the plan. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments Revise: 'Businesses could select their service provider, but if recyclers or RA-2 Revision made; see 111.B.3.b.(2). cities were unable to provide recycling services, a business could subscribe to services provided by any common, contract or private carrier offering recycling services in their area.' State law constrains the Commission from placing minimum service level RA-2 Clarification made; see requirements for nonresidential recycling on motor carriers regulated under 111.B.3.b.(2). chapter 81.80 RCW. Greater emphasis on nonresidential recycling programs is needed. C1, C4, C5, Emphasis expanded; see collection, appliance collection, and textile collection as well as yard waste C6 III.B.3.b.(2). Collection service plans for nonresidential recyclables should maximize C7 See III.B.3.b.(2). freedom of choice. A2 No change. Program currently The County should be more specific about its role in identifying and C7 Clarification made; see addressing barriers to nonresidential recycling. III.B.3.b.(2). Note the appliance recycling resource list as an on-going program in SWAC Revision made; see Table 111.18. Table 111-18 [formerly 111.17]. The list should be updated regularly. Comment noted. Include a key to symbols on each page of Table 111.18 [formerly 111.17]. Also SWAC Change made; see 111.8.3, indicate that the table is divided into the quarters of the year. CIT -CH Table 111.18. Cost estimates for the new on-call programs should be revised to account for C1, RA -2 Changes made to programs. an expected participation rate of less than 100 percent. A cost/benefit analysis See III.B.3. should be done for each program to ensure its necessity and economic feasibility. Expand the cost assessment element of the plan to include information on the RA -2 Program changes made; see sufficiency of revenues to fund associated programs and how surplus III.B.3 and Appendix K. revenues would be used. Include complete estimates of the cost of providing bulky yard waste RA -2 Programs revised; see III.B.3. collection, appliance collection, and textile collection as well as yard waste collection services to multifamily residential structures. Consider providing financial incentives to buy-back centers for #2 HDPE A2 No change. Program currently plastic, ferrous materials, green glass, and mixed waste paper. only focuses on primary recyclables. See III.B.1. The County may wish to protect the confidentiality of those surveyed for RA -3 No change made in the plan. recycling data by entering into interlocal agreements with those who wish to Comment noted. have access to this data. There should be greater incentives for citizens to recycle. CIT -CH See 111.B.3.b.(7). Why is there a decline in mixed waste paper collection? CIT -CH See III.B.2.c.(2). Why isn't recycling mandatory? CIT -V See 111.6.3. Provide additional recycling collection bins in more available and convenient CIT -CH See III.B.3.b.(1). areas. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments Comment Concerned Parties Reference in Plan Is King County working on the markets for recycled materials? CIT -SE Yes. See 111.2.c.(1), (2), and (3). Who uses recycled paper? CIT -NE See II1.2.c.(1). Where do people take refrigerators since they are not being accepted at the CIT -NE See 111.3.b.(1). facilities? Chapter IV What are the standards for new and upgraded transfer stations? What new SWAC See IV.B.2.a, e, and g. systems will be incorporated? Will there be segregation of commercial from self -haul unloading? Reconcile references to Factoria expansion. SWAC Changes made throughout Chapter IV. Are there any plans to site a transfer facility in the S.E. area? C9 See IV.8.3.a.(3) and B.3.b.(3). Enumclaw landfill variance has already been granted. RA -1 Change made throughout Chapter IV. Hobart implementation schedule should be adjusted. RA -1 Adjustment made throughout. See IV.C.3.b.(1) and Table IV.24. Typo: 'Algona..Sxkwduled Scheduled to close. RA -1 Correction made; see Chapter IV, Table IV.8. Will the Waste Management Northwest -Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station C9, RA -1 No. Change made throughout. (formerly Snohomish Eastmont) open by 12/31/927 See IV.B.3.b.(1). Is the existing transfer station system cost-effective and is the County looking C9 See IV.B.2.a, IV.B.3.a, b, and d. at ways to make it more so? Would an expanded system of smaller stations be more effective? List the types of recyclables that each transfer station accepts. C9 No change made; information is subject to change. See IV.6.2.e. Change: 'Under the Solid Waste Management and Recovery Act, local C9 No change made as handling is governments are given primary responsibility for solid waste bandliwg correct. See Related Legislation planning.' RCW 70.95.020(1). Add: 'Cities may require mandatory collection, in which all residents and C9 Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(6). businesses subscribe to designated refuse collection services or mandatory payment for collection services." Change: 'Contracts usually are awarded C9 Revision made; see IV.A.1.a. (6) biddeF through an RFP or bid process. Occasionally, contracts are awarded through direct negotiations. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments An -9 Concerned Comment Parties Reference in Plan Add: 'In unincorporated long County, individuals may choose to haul their C9 No change made. Residents own waste...' throughout the County may choose to haul their own waste in addition to receiving regular collection services. See IV.A.1.b.(1). Add greater specificity about County and private sector roles in monitoring C7 See IV.6.2.a. and addressing self -haul waste. Add: 'Cities can also establish the collection rates, bill residents for the C9 No change made. This level of service, collect revenue and pay the contractor for the services provided." detail does not fit within the scope of the plan. See IV.A.2.c.(1). What issues are to be covered in the waste export position paper? Add SWAC Discussion added; see discussion of the waste export option to plan. Need further discussion on IV.C.1.a.(5), IV.C.2.a.(5), and disposal options after Cedar Hills is closed. IV.C.3.b.(3). How will the closed landfills be used? SWAC See IV.B.4.a.(2). Investigate alternatives to using increased levels of soil and earth material C9 No change made. Landfill cover cover at Cedar Hills, is an operations issue and is not within the scope of the plan. Discuss the need for a groundwater study and the problem with periodic RA -1 See IV.0 Table IV.19 and migration of landfill gas at the Vashon Island landfill. associated footnotes. Include an implementation schedule for the installation of new wells at Cedar RA -3 No change made. That is an Falls and Duvall landfills. operational detail not within the scope of the plan. Revise: Na county legislative authority comments RA -2 Revision made; see IV.A.i.a.(2). to the Commission per RCW 81.77.120, the WUTC-to will monitor those comments concerning the adequacy of garbage and refuse collection in unincorporated portions of a county or unregulated areas in cities or towns.' Clarify 'exceptions' granted to solid waste collection companies by WUTC. RA -2 Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(3). Revise: 'RCW 36.58A authorizes counties to establish a system of solid waste RA -2 Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(4). disposal. Under certain conditions, as allowed by chapter 36.58A RCW, counties may establish collection districts...' Revise the 'license' column of Table IV.3 to reflect that cities have three RA -2 Revision made; see IV.A.1, regulatory choices not four. Table IV.3. Revise: 'In a licensed system, WUTC certificates are augmented by city RA -2 Revision made; see IV.A.1.a.(6). licenses, which grant the municipality orJe44;0pal regi datory control over revenue through fees.' Define the abbreviation 'FA' in Table IV -5. RA -2 Revision made; see Table IVA. In Table IVA distinguish local government options for the collection of garbage RA -2 Distinction made; see Table IVA. from the options for collection of recyclables. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments An - 10 Concerned Comment Parties Reference In Plan Correct regulatory authorities in Table IVA for Des Moines (cert), Federal Way RA -2 Revisions made; see Table IVA. (contract) and Mercer Island (contract). Table IVA does not reflect the fact that Lake Forest Park's residential rates C2 No change made. That level of include the cost of yard waste collection. detail is not within the scope of the plan. Clarify mandatory collection in Table IVA Does this include recycling? C8 Clarification and changes made, Correct can rates for Auburn. see Table IVA. Add a statement of which agency was responsible for the moderate risk waste RA -2 Addition made; see IV.A.11.c.(1). surcharge. Revise wording to reflect the fact that the WUTC cannot promote cross- RA -2 Revision made; see IV.A.2.c and subsidization between solid waste collection companies and motor carriers. Table IV.7. It is untrue that the cost of service methodology used by WUTC 'does not RA -2 Revision made, see IV.A.2.d. allow for incentive rates to encourage WR/R behavior.' Clarify whether the County is or is not asking the WUTC to increase rates RA -2 No change made. The County through shorter amortization periods? is not recommending specific alternatives to the current rate review process. See IV.A.3.b. Investigate alternatives to current leachate disposal method for the Duvall C9 No change made; see IV.D.3. landfill. Expand section B.2.g.(3) of Chapter IV. Does 'materials recovery' include the C9 No. Clarification made; idea of salvaging materials from the MSW stream? see IV.13.2.g.(3). What information is there about the types of additional transfer station services C9 See IV.B.2.a. the public wants? Table IV.22 lists two alternatives and the text discusses three. SWAC Correction made; see Table IV.22. Add a discussion of actions which could be taken in response to the results of 17 Change made; see IV.B.2.c. the queuing study. How do waste management problems specific to Vashon Island fit into the CIT -V See IV.C.1.a.(4) and IV.C.4.b.(4). discussion of the County waste system? When will transfer station siting begin in the Northeast (formerly Mid- CIT -MS See IV.B Table IV.17. Snoqualmie) area? How long does the process take? Is the County considering mandatory garbage collection for the Snoqualmie CIT -MS Not at this time. See IV.A.3.c. valley? Is a new transfer station going to be sited at Hobart or anywhere else in SE CIT -SE Yes. See IV.B.3.b. and IV.C.4. King County? Why is Houghton transfer station being closed and where is the new NE Lake CIT -NE See IV.8.1.a.(1) and Figure IV.6. Washington transfer station site? Annotation of Draft Plan Comments Comment Chapter V Do not require soil waste generators to use the Cedar Hills landfill for disposal of petroleum -contaminated soil wastes even temporarily. Add a discussion of tracking mechanisms for the removal of hydrocarbon - contaminated soils. Add: 'Airborne asbestos can present a considerable risk...' Add: 'Home generated sharps are exempt from KCBOHC regulation if they are ... (3) placed into a needle clipper or a sealed and labeled PET pop bottle.' Discuss the alternatives to home sharps disposal which could be offered by making changes in state law. Are there any exceptions to the flow control ordinance, such as recyclables and untreated biomedical wastes? Add a section on IMD( and list IMEX in Appendix E. Add information on the new KCBOHC 'solid waste treatment site' category and the accompanying standards. Revise to reflect that KCBOHC Title 10 regulations on CDL landfills are now significantly more strict than State WAC 173-304. Update the CDL section to reflect the most current information. Add: "CDL collection will be accomplished per chapter 81.77 RCW." Are some self -haulers also allowed to dump at Cedar Hills, such as self - haulers with special wastes? Where do people go with inert CDL and small quantities of non -inert CDL waste? What is the role of the new CDL screening employees? Where will they be stationed and are they necessary? Has the Mt. Olivet landfill closed yet? Hogfuel and painted wood should not be considered woodwastes. An - 11 Concerned Parties Reference in Plan 11, 12, 13, 15, Detail added. See V.A.3.(2) and 16 V.A.4. 16 No change made. Not within the scope of the plan. C9 Change made, see V.6.1. C9 Addition made; see V.C.1.a. C9 No change made. Not within the scope of the plan. C9 Yes. See V.C.3.a. RA -1 Addition made to plan; see V.D.3.b.(2). RA -1 No change in plan. See Related Legislation, Solid Waste Handling Code, Title 10, KCBOHC Section 10.24. RA -1 No change. This level of detail does not fit within the scope of the plan. See V.D.11(1). SWAC Change made; see V.D. RA -2 Addition made; see V.D.1.f. C9 Residential haulers may bring in some special wastes in limited amounts. See Related Legislation, King County Public Rules 7-1-2 and 7-2-1. C9 For a description of waste acceptance and waste clearance policies see Related Legislation, King County Public Rules 7-1-2 and 7-2-1. SWAC Clarification made; see V.D.1.e. C9 Yes. See V.D.1. C9 Clarification made; see Table V.9. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments ......... . . .. ...................... .. * . ....... . . .... . .................................... " ..................... ............. ........... .... ..................... ::::: An -12 Comment Concerned Parties Reference in Plan Acknowledge the Health Dept. support for a rewrite of Ecology's minimum C9 No change made; not within the functional standards for woodwaste landfills. scope of the plan. Provide an implementation schedule and cost summary for recommendations RA -3 Scheduling clarification made in Chapter V. throughout; see Chapter V. See Chapter VII and Appendix K for cost summaries. Add: '...King County Surface Water Management, and the Environmental RA -1 Addition made; see V.E.1. Health Division of the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health...' authority. See VI.C.1.b and c. The County should accept used tires at the landfill. C5 See V.G Add that large amounts of tires could be used as lightweight fill, landfill cover, C9 No change made. Landfill cover or fill in road construction. C7 is an operations issue. Add discussion of tires, sludge, and septage and dredge spoils to your plan RA -3 Change made; see V.G. as required by RCW 70.95.090. Does King County use tire -derived fuel in small-scale boilers? No. No change made in the plan as the procurement of boiler fuel is an operations issue. Chapter VI Isn't it a King County public rule which requires generators of contaminated C9 The Health Department and/or soil and industrial wastes to obtain a clearance, not the Health Dept.? the County require clearance forms. See VI.C.1.b. and c.(1). Doesn't all asbestos waste have to have a PSAPCA Notice of Intent and a C9 No. In cases where a PSAPCA Waste Clearance Form? Notice of Intent form is not required, the County requires a Waste Clearance Form. For a discussion of waste clearance authority. See VI.C.1.b and c. Table VI -7 does not reflect that violation of the litter ordinance is a C2 Correction made; see VI.D, misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $500 fine or six months in jail. Table VI.7. Develop a revolving fund to abate illegally dumped waste. C7 Change made; see VI.D.3.b. The plan should place more emphasis on dealing with the problem of illegal C1, C4, C6, Change made; see VI.D. dumping and County responsibility for clean-up in view of additional banning C7, C8, C9 of landfill disposal for various materials. Consider providing information for the public on the disposal of acceptable C9 No change made. That and unacceptable wastes. information is provided at the transfer stations. Typo: '...in a receptacle paid they paid for.' RA -2 Change made; see VI.D.2.c. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments An - 1 3 Concerned Comment Parties Reference In Plan Amend current laws to require drop -box owners to also include an SWAC Discussion added; see VI.D.3.b. identification number on all bins. Include in enforcement section a discussion of King County law pertaining to SWAC Discussion added; see VI.D.3.b. the labeling and maintenance of recycling drop -boxes. The problems with illegal dumping are well-documented and further study is CIT -CH, NE, See VI.D. not needed. The County needs to follow-up on reports, impose higher fines, MS and enact more stringent laws. Chapter VII Include plans for future financing of SWD activities. SWAC See VII.A.1. When, what, and how will rural recycling programs be funded and carried out? SWAC See VII.A.1 and Appendix K. Is there a difference between 'user fees' and 'disposal fees'? SWAC No. Change made throughout to standardize as "disposal fees.' Does the Solid Waste Division have the ability to charge fees other than SWAC No. Clarification made; disposal fees? see VII.A.1. Is the minimum fee for regional direct and charitable customers $5.73 or SWAC It is $5.73. See VII.A.1. $5.93? It would be useful to see the budget broken down by 'fixed" and "variable' SWAC No change; not within the scope costs. of the plan. Are closure costs for Cedar Hills financed with bond sales or only through C9 Closure costs are financed surcharges? through the landfill reserve fund with transfers from the operating fund. See VII.A.3.b. What are the plans/contingencies if state grant funds end? What are the plans SWAC See VII.A.1. for avoiding the elimination or reduction of these grant funds? Can we assume that all CPG funds coming to the Solid Waste Division are SWAC Clarification made; see VII.B.1. spent on and in unincorporated King County? Include an analysis of the sensitivity of variable and fixed costs to decreasing SWAC See VII.A.1. tonnages. The implications for each of reaching our WR/R goals should be examined. How much of the budget is determined by computer models? What are the SWAC No change; not within the scope plans for ongoing review and revisions of the models? of the plan. Explain clearly the rationale for the forecasted timing of capital expenditures. C9 See VII.A.3.e. How will computer models be affected by major changes in disposed SWAC No change; not within the scope tonnage? Will they and the transfer system as a whole be affected by Growth of the plan. Management Act issues? Annotation of Draft Plan Comments An - 14 necessary and how will the additional revenue be allocated? The plan should avoid actions which lead to rate increases. Concerned See VII.A.1. Comment Parties Reference in Plan which come from hauler surcharges to customers. RCW. Add additional pages and amendments for KCBOHC Title 10. Identify alternatives to disposal fees for covering costs of Solid Waste Division SWAC See VII.A.1. operations and activities. Discuss the decoupling of solid waste management Handling Code, Title 10 of the from disposal services. RA -2 See VII.A.1 for a discussion on What would be the effect of immediate closure of the Vashon Landfill on the SWAC No change; not within the scope Landfill Reserve Fund and other accounts? What are the contingency plans if RA -2 of the plan. this occurs? King County Board of Health When will tipping fees be expected to increase, why is such an increase C1, C6 Detail added; see VII.A.1. necessary and how will the additional revenue be allocated? The plan should avoid actions which lead to rate increases. C6 See VII.A.1. Expand Chapter VII and Appendix K to include discussion of the revenues RA -2 Clarification made; see VII.A.1.a. which come from hauler surcharges to customers. RCW. Add additional pages and amendments for KCBOHC Title 10. Expand the cost assessment element of the plan to include Information on RA -2 Clarification made; see VII.A.1. plans to increase, decrease or terminate surcharges. Handling Code, Title 10 of the How does the County collect fees from all populations to insure that RA -2 See VII.A.1 for a discussion on ratepayers of certificated haulers are not unduly burdened? RA -1 Code revised. See Related financing. Clarify that residential and commercial customers of solid waste collection RA -2 Clarification made; see VII.A.1. companies pay a different surcharge for recycling programs. King County Board of Health Revisit and revise the 22 -cent fee which goes to the Health Department as RA -2 Detail added; see VII.A.1.a. necessary. Is the Solid Waste Division funded fully with its own revenues? CIT -SE Yes. See VII.A.1. Add an explanation of the rate setting process. CIT -SE See VII.A.1. Related Legislation Chapter 70.95 RCW has been revised and needs to be corrected in your RA -2 Code revised. See Related related legislation section. Legislation, Solid Waste Management Act, Chapter 70.95 RCW. Add additional pages and amendments for KCBOHC Title 10. RA -1 Code revised. See Related Legislation, Solid Waste Handling Code, Title 10 of the King County Board of Health Code. The $10.00 fee for each additional acre in K.2 should be in K.1 under the RA -1 Code revised. See Related $150.00 fee for the first acre. Legislation, Solid Waste Handling Code, Title 10 of the King County Board of Health Code. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments An - 1 5 Concerned Comment Parties Reference in Plan Section 10.28.087 Human Excrement, is now included in our Regulations and RA -1 Code revised. See Related is not 'Reserved.' Legislation, Solid Waste Handling Code, Title 10 of the What percentage by weight or volume of the MMSW stream is woodwaste? King County Board of Health See Appendix B, Table 3.3. Code. Section 10.68.010: B.7 has been repealed and replaced with C. RA -1 Code revised. See Related requirements are minimized and/or where gas recovery can be minimized." Legislation, Solid Waste C.C.2.b.(2) Handling Code, Title 10 of the C9 King County Board of Health green glass and why this is so? Code. Change 10.72.020.C: 'All facilities shall also ... testing parameters listed in RA -1 Code revised. See Related Section 10.68.72.020(c)(2) per WAC 173-200.' Legislation, Solid Waste Handling Code, Title 10 of the wine bottles preclude the use of King County Board of Health Code. Appendices Change PSCOG to the Puget Sound Regional Council. C9 Change made. See Appendix A.C. What percentage by weight or volume of the MMSW stream is woodwaste? C9 See Appendix B, Table 3.3. Add: 'Preference should be given to those sites where gas control C9 No change made; see requirements are minimized and/or where gas recovery can be minimized." C.C.2.b.(2) Has King County surveyed local wineries to verify that they only want virgin C9 A survey has not been green glass and why this is so? necessary. Color standards for light green ('deadleaf green') wine bottles preclude the use of recycled glass cullet. Dark green wine bottles can be made with from 40-80% recycled cullet. Both types of bottles are used by local wineries. See DA.E.2.c. Correct Appendix E with regard to Auburn's collection program and school C8 No change made as this level of programs. detail is not required. See E.E.2. Bassett Western facility no longer accepts yard waste, tree trimmings and RA -1 Change made; see Appendix F. prunings. Add Lloyd Enterprises to Appendix F. RA -1 Change made; see Appendix F. Cedar Grove should be included in Appendix F RA -1 Change made; see Appendix F. Nurseryman Products is no longer in business. RA -1 Change made; see Appendix F. Carpinito Bros. no longer accepts yard waste. RA -1 Change made; see Appendix G. Annotation of Draft Plan Comments An - 1 6 Concerned Comment Parties Reference in Plan Redmoor Resource Recovery is closing down its Issaquah yard in January '93. RA -1 Change made; see Appendix G. Appendix K If the County cannot provide separate customer counts and tonnages for state- RA -2 No change. To provide a city - regulated and city -regulated collection programs, add a footnote to that effect. by -city accounting would require an amendment to current reporting requirements. What are the snatching dollars for the Waste -Not -Washington grants and where SWAC See Appendix K. are they? What are the $1.5 million for the King County WR/R grant program and where SWAC See Appendix K. are they? Does the forecast of future CIP expenditures reflect the most recent revisions C9 Yes. See Appendix K. to the forecast of waste disposal. How has the County responded to WUTC assertions that the plan understates C1 Correction made; see required revenues despite increases in tipping fees? Explain the discrepancy Appendix K Table 4.1.2. between WUTC's analysis of tipping fee increases and the County's calculations. Provide a more thorough definition of cost estimates and detail the link C7, RA -2, C9 See Table 4.6.1, Appendix K. between grog am expenditures and rate components. The plan doe;: not adequately detail the costs of all required programs. RA -2 See revised Table 3.1, Appendix K. The plan doe;: not estimate the cost impacts of a yard waste ban. RA -2 Clarification made; see discussion in III.B.3 and Appendix K, Table 3.1. Describe short term program costs and financing needs for the transfer system RA -3 Updates made; see Appendix K, in a more accessible and complete manner. Table 4.3.1. What are the $2.8 million matching funds for the State CPG and where are SWAC See Appendix K. they? Add detail on the 22 -cent administrative surcharge and the moderate risk RA -2 See revised Table 4.6.1 in waste surcharge to Appendix K. Appendix K. Address discrepancies between WUTC and County projections for MRW, RA -2 Correction made. See Table 3.3 administrative and hazardous waste items. in Appendix K. Annotation of .Draft Plan Comments O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan NQ/I 74 e Sorting It out Together Executive Summary Solid waste management is a tremendous challenge. From 1980 to 1990 the population of King County grew 28 percent. The rate at which each individual generated waste grew 65 percent from 4.3 pounds per day in 1980 to 7.1 in 1990. If this trend were to continue, per capita generation would increase to approximately 10 pounds per day in the year 2000. In addition, 218,000 new residents will live and work within the King County solid waste region, bringing the total population to 1,209,000. King County and its cities are reducing this waste stream by 35 percent in 1992 through their nationally recognized leadership in waste reduction and recycling. This outstanding accomplishment is supported by residents and businesses with commitment and enthusiasm. This 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will lead King County toward its goal to further reduce the waste stream by 50 percent in 1995 and by 65 percent in 2000. Through this Plan, King County will also continue its nationally recognized leadership in solid waste management with state-of-the-art facilities and operations. The waste reduction and recycling success attained since 1987 has already extended the useful life of Cedar Hills Regional Landfill by several years. Under current planning assumptions, achieving and sustaining the 35 percent WR/R goal could mean the remaining capacity at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill could last for 21 years, until 2013. Achieving the 50 percent waste reduction and recycling goal could yield 24 years—until 2016—and 65 percent WR/R could achieve 27 years—until 2019. King County is very proud of these solid waste management achievements. PLAN BACKGROUND This is the 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) for the suburban cities and unincorporated areas of King County. The city of Seattle prepared a plan for its solid waste in 1989. This Plan i addresses what is needed to meet the adopted King County 65 percent waste reduction and recycling goal by the year 2000 and to ensure adequate services and environmental controls at King County transfer and disposal facilities. This Plan is based on a 20 -year forecast of the waste stream. It is reviewed and updated every three years to identify changed conditions and new needs. This update of the 1989 Plan builds on the joint accomplishments of the cities and the County which have depended on the citizens, businesses, and recycling and solid waste management industries. Representatives of all of these groups and the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG) contributed to this Plan through workshops, meetings, working groups, and monthly SWAC meetings. This Plan examines the successes in implementing the 1989 Plan, identifies new needs and alternative ways to achieve them, and recommends specific actions with implementation schedules and responsibilities. THE PLAN The Waste Stream Forecast Table 1 shows projected waste generation and reduction through the year 2010. Mixed municipal solid waste disposal increased annually until 1992. In 1992 tonnage began to decline, because of waste reduction and recycling, and the decline is projected to continue until approximately 2000 when it will begin to increase again. The County is projected to reach its 65 percent waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) rate in 2000. It is assumed the WR/R rate would remain at 65 percent thereafter, while tonnage disposed would once again grow due to population growth. About half the unrecycled waste stream is paper, wood, and yard waste. Waste reduction and recycling programs and services recommended in Chapter III of the Plan target the major waste components listed in Table 2. Evecutive Summary Table 1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Projectionsa a The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils, asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste). Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals Waste Reduction State and local legislation identify waste reduction as the highest solid waste management priority. Despite important waste reduction successes through education, rate incentives, and other initiatives, waste generation continues to increase. This increase is due, in part, to King County's growing economy and population, but also because of manufacturing trends and consumption habits. Therefore, King County and the cities must continue to improve on their existing waste reduction efforts. With this Plan, the County has developed a more detailed and comprehensive waste reduction strategy. This strategy identifies a plan of action for creative and innovative ways to meet economic needs while producing little or no solid waste. Executive Summary Table 2 1990-91 Waste Stream Characterization Paper 29.4% Wood/Yard Waste Tons Plastics Year Tons Tons Reduced/ Percent Metals Generated Disposed Recycled WR/R 1987 989,500 808,000 181,500 18.3 1988 1,038,500 813,000 225,500 21.7 1989 1,138,500 838,500 300,000 26.4 1990 1,258,500 890,500 368,000 29.3 1991 1,346,500 914,000 432,500 32.1 1992 1,339,600 870,700 468,900 35.0 1993 1,391,500 834,900 556,600 40.0 1994 1,458,600 802,200 656,400 45.0 1995 1,538,600 769,300 769,300 50.0 1996 1,622,900 762,800 860,100 53.0 1997 1,711,900 753,200 958,700 56.0 1998 11805,800 740,400 1,065,400 59.0 1999 1,904,900 723,900 1,181,000 62.0 2000 2,009,400 703,300 1,306,100 65.0 2001 2,064,500 722,600 1,341,900 65.0 2002 2,121,100 742,400 1,378,700 65.0 2003 2,179,300 762,800 1,416,500 65.0 2004 2,239,000 783,700 1,455,300 65.0 2005 2,300,400 805,100 1,495,300 65.0 2006 2,363,500 827,200 1,536,300 65.0 2007 2,428,300 849,900 1,578,400 65.0 2008 2,494,900 873,200 1,621,700 65.0 2009 2,563,300 897,200 1,666,100 65.0 2010 2,633,600 921,800 1,711,800 65.0 a The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils, asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste). Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals Waste Reduction State and local legislation identify waste reduction as the highest solid waste management priority. Despite important waste reduction successes through education, rate incentives, and other initiatives, waste generation continues to increase. This increase is due, in part, to King County's growing economy and population, but also because of manufacturing trends and consumption habits. Therefore, King County and the cities must continue to improve on their existing waste reduction efforts. With this Plan, the County has developed a more detailed and comprehensive waste reduction strategy. This strategy identifies a plan of action for creative and innovative ways to meet economic needs while producing little or no solid waste. Executive Summary Table 2 1990-91 Waste Stream Characterization Paper 29.4% Wood/Yard Waste 19.6 Plastics 9.6 Food Waste 7.0 Demolition 6.4 Metals 5.3 Textiles 4.6 Glass 2.7 Other 15.4 Source: Chapter Il, Figure 11.10, and Volume ll, Appendix B. • Expanded Programs Recommended new waste reduction strategies would consist of both general programs focused on expanding public awareness and understanding of waste reduction and programs targeted at specific generator groups. The strategies are briefly described below. • Business programs would emphasize waste reduction. • Schools would be encouraged to set goals for waste reduction of specific wastes. • A countywide mass media campaign, coordinated across jurisdictional lines, would be implemented by the County. • The County and the cities would develop waste reduction programs to meet the needs of residents, businesses, and institutions. Policy and Program Research A comprehensive analysis of nationwide waste reduction policies and programs is needed to identify elements that would augment existing County and city programs. Research would focus on waste generation, packaging issues, and regulatory options. Options for implementing restrictions or imposing taxes on the sale of specific packaging or products could be explored with the lifting of the "ban on bans" in July 1993. Measurement Two methods of measurement are to be developed for waste reduction: • A method to monitor progress made toward decreasing per capita generation rates through waste reduction. • A method of evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of waste reduction programs implemented by the County and the cities. .I Recycling The Plan identifies needs for the recycling collection system, recyclable materials markets, regional services, and • other supports for recycling. Collection King County and the cities have established a county -wide household recyclables collection system. Other collection service needs addressed in the Plan include: • Household yard waste collection in all urban areas. • Secondary recyclables such as white goods, plastics (SPI codes 3-7), bulky yard waste, and scrap metal. • A more comprehensive rural residential collection system. • Where feasible, more recyclables and yard waste collection at King County transfer stations. • More yard waste collection services for multifamily and commercial generators. • Nonresidential recyclables collection service standards and financial incentives. Recyclable Materials Designation This Plan designates recyclable materials for collection. Primary recyclables are those commonly collected and are included in minimum service levels. Secondary recyclables are less commonly collected (see Table 3). Required Recyclables Collection The Plan designates urban and rural service areas that correspond to the King County Comprehensive Plan. The urban minimum residential service level requires the following collection services: • Primary recyclables collected from both single- and multifamily residences. • Yard waste collection from single-family residences • Yard waste collection/drop-off service for multifamily residences. • Appliance collection opportunities. • Bulky yard waste collection opportunities. • Textiles collection opportunities. Table 3 Designated Primary and Secondary Recyclables Primary Secondary newspaper polycoated paperboard cardboard high-grade office paper computer paper mixed paper yard waste (< 3" diameter) bulky yard waste wood food waste PET & HDPE bottles all other plastics glass containers tin cans other ferrous metals aluminum cans other nonferrous metals appliances (white goods) textiles The rural minimum service levels established in the Plan require the following drop -site collection services: • Primary recyclables. • Single-family yard waste collection. Optional Recyclables Collection In addition to collection required by the minimum service levels, the County and cities are encouraged to implement the following services: • Urban and rural household polycoated paperboard collection. • Urban and rural household collection for #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and polystyrene). • Rural household collection for primary recyclables. • Rural yard waste collection (household or drop -site). • Rural household appliance collection opportunities. • Rural household textiles collection opportunities. • Cities nonresidential recycling collection services. Nonresidential Recyclables Collection This Plan recommends that nonresidential collection service guidelines be implemented voluntarily by cities that contract directly with haulers. In all other cities and in Executive Summary IV unincorporated areas, these guidelines should be implemented by haulers with support from those cities mid the County. State law does not provide clear authority for cities and the County to require nonresidential recyclables collection. King County should clarify this authority to ensure better nonresidential recyclables collection service county -wide. Clean wood collection After a study to determine volume and generator information for clean wood, programs may be developed for waste reduction and the collection of recyclable clean wood materials Recyclable Materials Market Needs Recyclable materials that need high-priority market development to support successful recycling are plastics, glass, compost, and mixed waste paper. The King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials will work to stimulate procurement through education, outreach, increased recyclable product procurement, product testing and demonstration, coalition building, coordination with the Clean Washington Center, policy analysis, legislative initiatives, and technical assistance to businesses and government. Support Services This Plan recommends the cities and the County continue 1989 Plan support programs, including collection rate incentives, procurement policies that favor use of recycled or recyclable products, and new construction standards requiring onsite space for recyclables storage. In addition, progress will be measured by routine recyclables collection data reporting and annual reports of progress toward Plan implementation. Regional Services King County should continue to provide more waste reduction and recycling information to the public. The County should also continue to work with cities and other agencies to achieve stronger intergovernmental coordination and to maximize available grant assistance through the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Coordinated Prevention Exxutive Summary Grant and other programs. King County should increase coordination with school districts and continue to provide extensive education and anticipated public information. Residential Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection System Except for the recycling needs and recommendations described above, the basic recyclables and solid waste collection system appears to be adequate. Nonresidential Collection Authority Local governments need authority to set non-residential recyclables collection minimum service standards. Also, King County may need to work with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to promote cross -subsidization (allowing income from one type of operation to subsidize another; for instance, solid waste collection could subsidize recyclables collection), other forms of combined rates, and other means of stimulating commercial recyclables collection. Institutional and Incentive Policies Incentive Rates Aggressive recycling goals need to be supported by a rate design process that allows haulers to provide waste reduction and recycling incentives and recover costs associated with improving service. The cities, King County, and the collectors should continue to implement and maintain rate incentives that encourage waste reduction and recycling. Mandatory Collection Mandatory solid waste and recyclables collection is not recommended at this time. However, the County should study the relationship between mandatory solid waste collection, participation in recycling programs, self -haul activity, and illegal dumping in order to evaluate the possibility of making collection mandatory in the future. 7 The Transfer System Transfer system planning provides for adequate capacity for the tonnage and number of vehicles projected to use each facility. It also plans for required recycling services, and for environmental controls in the transfer system. Future expansion and configuration of the system will continue to be examined. Four planning needs have been identified: • To provide adequate tonnage capacity to serve all areas of the county. • To increase customer service capacity. • To accommodate recycling at County transfer facilities. • To plan for future decisions, such as to set level of service standards in urban and rural areas and to accommodate such changes as technological advances, new regulations, or other needs. This Plan modifies the 1989 transfer system development plan based on current circumstances. This updated 1992 transfer system development plan (Figure 1) recommends that the site selection process for a new Northeast Lake Washington Area facility would begin in 1993 , and site selection for a new South County station would. begin in late 1994. The Plan also recommends: • Analysis of the role of the transfer system, (including possible privatization of some services). • Development of master facility plans for those transfer stations with expansion potential. • Update of system use data Disposal facilities are needed to serve all areas of King County. Their capacity must be adequate to meet this need over the next 20 years. Cedar Hills Regional Landfill has a disposal capacity of 45 million cubic yards, but King County should anticipate the need for additional disposal capacity beyond the 20 -year planning requirement. In addition to facilities availability and capacity, compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10), necessary capital improvements, and closure and post - closure activities and funding are also identified needs in this Plan. V King County should continue to upgrade existing disposal facilities to meet the requirements of the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10). Continuation of adequate capacity should be the primary goal for the disposal system. Recommendations for specific landfills are listed below. • Cedar Hills. Re-evaluate and revise the Draft Cedar Hills Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS in response to revised tonnage forecasts, operating experience, public comment and potential out -of -county disposal. The Plan proposes accelerating the development of Refuse Area 5. • Hobart. Continue limited operations at the landfill until the facility closes. • Vashon. Determine the impact of a sole source aquifer designation on this landfill. Evaluate the replacement of the landfill with either a transfer station or a drop -box. Waste export, or shipment of solid waste out -of -county, would continue to be studied throughout the planning period. Closure and post -closure funding for all facilities should be assured by adjustments in contributions in the next rate period. Inactive Landfills King County has custodial responsibility for seven inactive landfills. These are Enumclaw, Cedar Falls, Duvall, Corliss, Bow Lake, Houghton, and Puyallup/Kitt Corner landfills. The city of Carnation is responsible for the Carnation Landfill. The major needs identified for the landfills are monitoring, maintenance, and a set aside of sufficient funds to support the costs of monitoring and maintenance for a minimum of 20 years. The post -closure costs for the King County landfills are presently funded from the Solid Waste Division operating budget, the landfill post -closure maintenance fund and the environmental reserve fund. The appropriateness and adequacy of this funding method should be evaluated upon completion of further environmental studies. Energy/Resource Recovery The 1992 Plan does not recommend an energy/resource recovery facility. Waste reduction and recycling goals are being successfully achieved and landfill resources are adequate. Executive Summary Vt Fxecutive Summary TRANSFER STATIONS CLOSE RURAL LANDFILLS TO BE CLOSED AND NEW TRANSFER STATIONS • Houghton Transfer Station REPLACED WITH TRANSFER STATIONS • Northeast Lake Washington Area • Renton Transfer Station Hobart Landfill • Factoria Area • Algona Transfer Station • Middle Snoqualmie • Intersection of SR -18 and 1-90 UPGRADE • Tukwila Area (if Bow Lake cannot be • First Northeast Transfer Station upgraded) UPGRADE OR REPLACE • South County Area • Factoria Transfer Station • Hobart • Bow Lake Transfer Station Figure 1 King County Solid Waste Division service areas and facility recommendations. Fxecutive Summary Special and Miscellaneous Wastes Special wastes are those mixed municipal solid wastes that may require special handling and therefore must receive regulatory clearances prior to disposal in the King County solid waste system. The Plan specifically addresses significant special wastes, including contaminated soils; asbestos; biomedical; and construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste. Miscellaneous wastes, including woodwaste and agricultural wastes, are handled outside the King County mixed municipal solid waste disposal system. Contaminated Soils Contaminated soils typically are those that contain petroleum products or other hazardous substances. Disposal of contaminated soils at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill creates impacts and contributes 1.5 percent of the disposed tonnage. A variety of treatment processes to remove or destroy hazardous substances from contaminated soil are preferable to disposal. Treatment processes should be promoted over disposal and disposal options should be revaluated in relation to the economic and operational impacts to processors and operational impacts to the Cedar Hills Landfill. W Asbestos Waste No needs have been identified beyond those for waste • screening (see Enforcement). The existing system is otherwise adequate for asbestos waste disposal. Biomedical Waste Because there are no major biomedical treatment facilities to handle wastes from medical, dental and veterinary facilities within King County, biomedical waste, including residuals from treatment or incineration, should be excluded from flow control provisions. Continued disposal at appropriate facilities in and outside of King County is recommended. The adequacy of the current option for disposal of home - generated sharps needs to be further assessed. Home generators of sharps wastes should receive more education on proper disposal measures. VII Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste King County has provided for CDL disposal services through two contracts with Regional Landfill Corporation for disposal in Klickitat County (expected to begin in September 1993) and Waste Management in Arlington, Oregon (to commence before mid-1994). There are many in -county options for CDL recycling and composting of land clearing debris. Planning for disposal is adequate, however better information is needed on the waste stream and operations of local recyclers and processors to support waste reduction and recycling efforts. Waste generators need to systematically plan for waste handling early in project planning and permitting. CDL materials markets also need to be further assessed. Miscellaneous Wastes No solid waste management needs are identified and no action is recommended for the remaining miscellaneous waste streams, woodwaste, agricultural waste, sludges and septage, waste tires, and dredge spoils. Enforcement Four types of enforcement activities are carried out by the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (Health Department) and the Solid Waste Division. • Solui waste handling facilities permit requirements. The Health Department is responsible for permitting both public and private solid waste facilities in accordance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations. The existing enforcement system appears to be effective to ensure compliance, but staffing levels need to be evaluated. • Waste flow control. Waste generated within the King County solid waste planning area must be disposed at King County facilities unless its disposal is prohibited by the Division's waste acceptance policy or disposal elsewhere is specifically permitted by ordinance or the Plan. Data indicate that total tonnage delivered to the system appears to be declining faster than anticipated. This impacts financial planning and operations and indicates a need to monitor waste Executive Summary Vi l l flow control and evaluate needs for further measures. Waste from jurisdictions that are not part of this Plan must be charged a triple rate. The Plan recommends increased attention to the source of waste in order for the rate disincentive to work, public education, and continued monitoring. • Control of incoming waste. The Plan recommends that expanded waste screening operations at King County and private transfer stations, to ensure only allowable mixed municipal solid waste is disposed. • Illegal dumping and littering. Few data are available to accurately assess the nature and extent of illegal dumping and littering. The Plan recommends research and analysis of these problems. Based on findings, a county -wide information tracking system may be needed. Environmental Impact Statement Addendum This 1992 Plan is substantially similar to the 1989 Plan. Although this 1992 Plan contains a number of new recommendations, they build upon the same basic solid waste management programs recommended in the 1989 Plan. Because of the similarity of the two plans, the probable significant adverse impacts of the recommendations and alternatives in the 1992 Plan fall within the range of those evaluated in the 1989 Plan EIS. Therefore, rather than prepare a new EIS on the 1992 Plan, the King County Solid Waste Division has decided to adopt the 1989 Plan EIS in its entirety, and prepare an addendum that contains needed additional information. Plan Recommendations A table of Plan recommendations is found at the end of this summary (Table 4). PLAN DEVELOPMENT The 1992 Plan has been developed with extensive early public involvement and the active participation of the suburban cities. City recycling coordinators and County staff have also Executive Summary worked cooperatively to identify and resolve Plan issues. The SWAC also reviewed and commented on the Plan at each stage of its development. The Plan development process consisted of the three steps described in the following sections. Draft Plan Development Development of the Draft 1992 Plan began in early 1991. In order to identify countywide concerns, two county - sponsored workshops were held to discuss the 1992 Plan. Suburban cities' elected officials, administrators, and managers, SWAC members, recycling coordinators and representatives of the haulers and recycling businesses participated in these meetings and workshops. Three community meetings were also held at locations potentially affected by the Plan's transfer facility siting recommendations. Based on the input received at these meetings and research conducted by Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff and consultants, the Draft 1992 was produced and distributed for review and comment in August 1992. A 90 -day public review period began upon issuance of the Draft Plan. The Plan was widely distributed for review and comment by those affected by it. King County conducted public meetings, hearings, and briefings for elected officials in addition to taking written comments. The SWAC and the Suburban Cities Staff Policy Group reviewed and commented upon the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was formally reviewed by Ecology per RCW 70.95 and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission reviewed the Cost Assessment (Volume II, Appendix K). Final Plan Development This Final Plan was revised based on strategies developed by the public, suburban cities staff, SWAC, and the Staff Policy Group of the Suburban Cities Association during and after the Draft Plan review period. Based on the comments received, issues needing review and revision were identified and strategies were developed to address the concerns raised. Consensus was gained on revision strategies through meetings with the Staff Policy Group, suburban cities recycling coordinators, the SWAC, and Ecology. August -1992 Draft Plan Issuance August - November 1992 ;;. Public Comment Period 0z Fn J> LU' �i August - December 1992 Ecology - Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Review p4W'_ a > December 1992 - June 1993 W Consensus Building with Suburban Cities and Ecology & Final Plan Development July 1993 Final Plan Issuance 3rd Quarter 1993 Forum Review z 3rd Quarter 1993 z p Ecology Final Review Q E"' ® 1 st Quarter 1994 Q Cities and King County Adoption Process Completed Final Plan Submitted to Ecology With Adoptions for Approval Figure 2 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan review and decision-making process. Executive Summary May 1991 - February 1992 .` Early Public Involvement Q W :. February - March 1992 cc >1, Preliminary Plan Draft Summary for Review and Discussion August -1992 Draft Plan Issuance August - November 1992 ;;. Public Comment Period 0z Fn J> LU' �i August - December 1992 Ecology - Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Review p4W'_ a > December 1992 - June 1993 W Consensus Building with Suburban Cities and Ecology & Final Plan Development July 1993 Final Plan Issuance 3rd Quarter 1993 Forum Review z 3rd Quarter 1993 z p Ecology Final Review Q E"' ® 1 st Quarter 1994 Q Cities and King County Adoption Process Completed Final Plan Submitted to Ecology With Adoptions for Approval Figure 2 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan review and decision-making process. Executive Summary Based on the consensus achieved during the preceding process, the Suburban Cities Association has adopted by resolution support for the final plan. Plan Adoption Plan adoption is the third and final stage. Pending Ecology's concurrence that the Final Plan and Suburban Cities Association recommendations are in compliance with RCW 70.95, Plan adoption will be voted on by suburban the cities and then the King County Council. The Plan is deemed adopted if cities representing 75 percent of the incorporated population approve it within the 120 -day adoption period, which begins when the Plan is issued. Ecology would grant final approval once these steps are completed. (The Plan process is shown in Figure 2.) PLAN ORGANIZATION VOLUME I Annotation of 1992 Draft Plan Comments Executive Summary Chapter I: Plan Development A. Planning Background B. Relationship to Other Plans C. Administration D. Planning History E. Process and Schedule Chapter II: Planning Area A. Existing Conditions B. Waste Stream Analysis C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Summary Chapter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling A. Waste Reduction B. Recycling Chapter IV: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection B. Transfer System F_xecudive Sunanuiry C. Disposal D. Inactive Landfills E. Energy/Resource Recovery Chapter V: Special and Miscellaneous Wastes A. Contaminated Soil B. Asbestos Waste C. Biomedical Waste D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste E. Agricultural Waste F. Woodwaste G. Other Special Wastes Chapter VI: Enforcement A. Solid Waste Handling Facilities Permit Requirements B. Waste Flow Control C. Control of Special Wastes D. Illegal Dumping and Littering Chapter VII: Financial Systems A. Financing Operations B. Grants Environmental Impact Statement Addendum Glossary References Related Legislation VOLUME II Appendix A: Waste Generation Forecast Methodology Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study Appendix C: Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Appendix D: Recycling Markets Assessment Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs Appendix F: Resource Guide to Recycling Centers in King County Appendix G: Resource Guide for Recycling and Disposal Alternatives for Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Debris Appendix H: Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis Appendix I: Landfill Reserve Fund Appendix J: Agricultural Waste and Woodwaste Appendix K: WUTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment Xl Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations Rec. No. Recommendation Description Chapter III - Waste Reduction and Recycling WASTE REDUCTION 111.1 Business waste reduction Expand business waste reduction program by developing model office display, and recognize businesses that incorporate waste reduction into company Required Collection practices. 111.2 County in-house program Form a networking committee to expand and create new waste reduction Provide household collection of paper, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE), programs for County In -House program. 111.3 Holiday waste reduction Expand waste reduction programs targeting consumers and businesses during the holiday season. 111.4 Green teams Increase number of Green Teams school program sites to include all schools. 111.5 Multimedia strategy Purchase videos on waste reduction for airing on public access television and participate with other jurisdictions and television media to buy air time to promote same materials collected at urban households waste reduction. 111.6 Targeted waste reduction Develop and implement one waste reduction program per generator type (residential, business, and institution). 111.7 Packaging analysis Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packaging and design and identify excessive and nonrecyclable packaging. 111.8 Identification of reducible waste Identify categories of waste which can or cannot be reduced to target eliminating reducible waste. 111.9 Waste reduction data Identify existing waste reduction efforts by the private and public sectors. 111.10 Consortium building Establish a waste reduction consortium with trade associations and manufacturers. 111.11 Intergovernmental coordination Increase intergovernmental coordination to increase influence on waste reduction decisions. 111.12 National activities Develop proposals for establishing industry consortiums, intergovernmental coordination and national coalitions to promote waste reduction in products and packaging. 111.13 Rate incentives Continue to encourage waste reduction and recycling through such rate -related incentives as mini -can garbage service, special recycling service rate for non - garbage customers, distributing cost of recycling among all rate payers, and establishing substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels. Executive Summary RECYCLABLES COLLECTION • Required Collection 111.14 Urban household collection of primary Provide household collection of paper, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE), recyclables yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter), glass containers, and tin and aluminum cans from all urban single- and multifamily residences • 111.15 Rural drop box collection of primary Provide rural single- and multifamily residences with drop -sites for collection of the recyclables same materials collected at urban households • 111.16 Urban single-family household yard Provide household collection of yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter) from waste collection urban single-family residences in unserved urban areas Executive Summary X11 Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. Recyclables collection at King County Continue current level of primary recyclables including yard waste services at No. Recommendation Description 111.17 Urban multifamily onsite yard waste Ensure yard waste collection service options are available to urban multifamily 111.30 collection service dwellings 111.18 Urban household bulky yard waste Ensure household collection service options for yard waste too large or in 111.31 collection service excessive amounts for regular household collection are available 111.19 Urban household appliance collection Ensure large appliance collection service options are available to urban service households 111.20 Urban household textiles collection Ensure collection service options are available for textiles on a regular basis service of accepting, collecting, or recycling used appliances and who meet the new 111.21 Nonresidential recycling service Ensure that businesses have minimum recycling services available to them 111.34 guidelines implementation and Coordinate special collection events countywide (urban and rural) for secondary promotion recyclables Optional Collection Primary Recyclables Education 111.22 Urban and rural household polycoated Evaluate the inclusion of polycoated materials (milk cartons, butter and frozen food collection service of primary recyclables. paperboard collection packages) in household collection programs 111.23 Urban and rural household collection Include #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and all other plastics) in of #3-7 plastics household collection programs 111.24 Rural household collection of primary Collect primary recyclables at the household from rural single- and multifamily recyclables residences 111.25 Rural drop -site collection of yard waste Provide on-call household or drop -site collection of yard waste 111.26 Rural household collection of Collect appliances from rural households appliances 111.27 Rural household textiles collection Collect used clothing and fabrics from rural households 111.28 Nonresidential recycling collection Initiate collection contracts to provide minimum recycling services to businesses. service contracts Other County Collection Programs 111.29 Recyclables collection at King County Continue current level of primary recyclables including yard waste services at Solid Waste Facilities existing facilities where feasible; collect these and other materials as needed at upgraded and new facilities 111.30 Yard waste drop sites Ensure the provision of yard waste drop sites or services in the northeastern, near - south, and eastside areas of the County 111.31 Yard waste disposal ban Implement a phased ban on yard waste disposal at County disposal facilities 111.32 Incentives to buy-back centers Evaluate the feasibility of providing financial incentives to existing private buy-back centers to encourage them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials 111.33 Appliance recycling resource list Maintain and distribute a resource list of appliance dealers and recyclers capable of accepting, collecting, or recycling used appliances and who meet the new Federal Clean Air Act CFC regulations 111.34 Secondary recyclables collection Coordinate special collection events countywide (urban and rural) for secondary events recyclables 111.35 Primary Recyclables Education Develop and implement a campaign to increase public awareness of household Campaign collection service of primary recyclables. Executive Summary X111 Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation CITY/COUNTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS 111.36 Collection rate incentives 111.37 Procurement policies 111.38 Recycling space standards for new construction 111.39 City annual reports 111.40 Data reporting by haulers, recyclers, cities COUNTY REGIONAL PROGRAMS 111.41 King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials 111.42 Business recycling program 111.43 King County employee recycling program 111.44 School education program 111.45 Other WR/R education 111.46 Clean wood collection 111.47 Master Recycler Composter program Description Continue to establish rate incentives for solid waste collection that encourage participation in recycling programs (see Recommendation 111.13) Continue the adoption of procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or recyclable products Continue to develop new construction standards that require onsite space for collecting and storing recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential structures countywide Continue annual reports to the County on progress toward implementing the Plan's required programs and achieving established diversion goals Continue to provide collection data from household and nonresidential collection programs Continue to foster the development and expansion of recycling markets in King County and the region Continue to assist businesses and institutions in developing and implementing WR/R programs in the workplace Continue to provide recycling opportunities in the workplace to King County employees Continue to work with cities, school districts, haulers and recyclers in the delivery of school educational and collection programs Continue existing education programs and community events, develop new programs in the areas of yard waste and mixed waste paper collection, and develop and coordinate a comprehensive media campaign aimed at multiethnic and other groups Study and develop programs to increase waste reduction and recycling opportunities for clean wood waste. Continue to train community volunteers in recycling and composting techniques Executive Summary X1 V Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation Description Chapter IV - Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems COLLECTION IVA Collection authority Pursue state legislation to clarify nonresidential recycling authority of counties and IV.20 Capital construction plan cities to set recommended minimum service standards for nonresidential collection of recyclables. IV.2 Evaluate mandatory collection Study relationships between mandatory collection, self -haul activity, illegal IV.21 Financial assurance dumping, and participation in recycling programs. IV.3 WUTC rate review Continue to seek changes in statutes and in the WUTC rate review process to IV.23 Hobart Landfill allow haulers to recover costs related to nonresidential recycling service level improvements called for in the Plan. IVA Rate incentives Continue to implement rate incentives that will encourage waste reduction and recycling (see also Chapter III, Recommendations 111.13 and 111.36). IV.5 Waste Management Northwest Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system. IV.6 Northeast Lake Washington Begin site selection in 1993, completion in 1999. IV.7 Houghton Close in 1999, after new Northeast Lake Washington is completed. IV.8 First Northeast Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible. IV.9 Factoria Build new facility. Add MRW services if feasible. IV.10 South County Build new transfer station. Begin site selection in 1994. IVA 1 Algona Close after new South County Transfer Station is completed in 2000. IV.12 Bow Lake Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible, or build a replacement in Tukwila area. IVA 3 Renton Close Renton after Factoria and Bow Lake expansions or Tukwila replacement facility is built. IVA 4 Enumclaw Landfill closed. Replaced with new transfer station in 1993. IVA5 Hobart Close landfill in 1994. IV.16 New transfer facilities Place on hold pending the outcome of Growth Management Act initiatives IV.17 Role of Transfer System Develop a study on the role of the transfer system. IV.18 System Use Data Collection Collect current data on transfer system usage, programs, and regulations. DISPOSAL IVA9 KCBOHC Title 10 compliance Continue monitoring compliance. IV.20 Capital construction plan (a) Accelerate development of the Refuse Area 5, Cedar Hills. (b) Delay Vashon new area development and final cover projects. (c) Adjust costs associated with Capital Construction Plan with updated estimates. IV.21 Financial assurance Adjust contributions to individual accounts in next rate period. IV.22 Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Modify draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS. IV.23 Hobart Landfill Maintain existing load restriction and continue operation until capacity is reached. Close in 1994. IV.24 Enumclaw Landfill Landfill closed. Closure process initiated. Executive Summary Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation Description XV IV.25 Vashon Landfill (a). Seek clarification on impact of a sole source aquifer designation for Vashon Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill. (b) Evaluate replacement options for the Vashon Landfill. (c) Evaluate leachate storage, transport, and treatment alternatives and select alternative. IV.26 Waste export Evaluate economics of out -of -county alternatives with continued operation of Cedar Hills; include back-up level operation necessary for Cedar Hills. INACTIVE LANDFILLS IV.27 Inactive Landfills Conduct further study and evaluation to determine what actions may be necessary to manage inactive landfills. Chapter V - Special and Miscellaneous Wastes CONTAMINATED SOIL V.1 Recycling and treatment Promote recycling/treatment. Analyze disposal options and the costs and benefits of in -County vs. out -of -County disposal. BIOMEDICAL WASTE V.2 Treatment and disposal Continue to allow treatment and disposal outside of King County. V.3 Flow control exclusion Remove biomedical waste references from flow control provisions. VA Home -generated sharps education Develop and distribute additional education materials for home generators of sharps waste. V.5 Home -generated sharps disposal Continue to evaluate the adequacy of current disposal options for home -generated sharps. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING WASTE V.6 Source separation Encourage a policy of source separation for CDL. Promote an increase in the number of dispersed locations receiving CDL recyclables. V.7 Onsite assistance Conduct onsite waste audits. V.8 Resource guides and brochures Develop broad distribution network for the "Resource Guide." Develop new brochures to target various audiences, e.g., CDL generators and recyclers. V.9 Workshops Conduct workshops in conjunction with building trades organizations V.10 Waste exchange Expand the work of the IMEX group to add components of demolition and construction waste into its listing. Expand the County's procurement policy to cover CDL materials most easily recycled, such as asphalt, untreated wood, and compost made from land clearing debris. Develop incentives to encourage recyclers to locate in King County or expand their existing operations. Develop monitoring program for non -contracted recyclers. V.11 Permitting Develop, in conjunction with DDES and city permit agencies, a waste reduction and recycling plan requirement for commercial and residential building, grading, or subdivision permits. V.12 Disposal ban Study imposition of a disposal ban on specific CDL materials. V.13 Waste screening Evaluate instituting a waste screening program. V.14 Record keeping Monitor the disposal of CDL waste. Executive Summary XVl Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation Chapter V'1 - Enforcement WASTE FLOW CONTROL VI.1 Waste flow control education VI.2 Enforcement CONTROL OF INCOMING WASTES VI.3 Expanded waste screening VIA Staff training VI.5 Regulation of private transfer stations ILLEGAL DUMPING AND LITTERING VI.6 Evaluate current systems VI.7 Central monitoring system VI.8 Abatement of illegally dumped waste VI.9 Model litter control ordinance Executive Summary Description Develop waste flow control education program. Increase enforcement of flow control and waste acceptance policies. Allocate resources for routine observation of unloading, periodic load checks, and documentation of screening activities at transfer stations. Provide additional training for employees to screen wastes. Establish screening and record keeping requirements at private transfer stations. Evaluate current monitoring, enforcement, and cleanup systems. Develop a central system for monitoring illegal dumping complaints and countywide enforcement activities. Research provision of revolving fund for abatement. Research and draft a model ordinance to address litter and illegal dumping concerns. • CHAPTER I • • 1 PLAN 0 0 DEVELOPMENT • • King County • Comprehensive • Solid Waste • Management Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sorting It Out Together Plan A. PLANNING BACKGROUND I-1 Chapter I Development This chapter of the 1992 King County Comprehensive Solus Wote Management Plan (the Plan, Volumes I and II) describes the Plan's purpose, goals and objectives, legislative and planning authority, its relationship to other plans, a history of the planning effort, and the process and schedule. = The 1989 Plan and this 1992 Plan update provide a strategy for achieving federal, state, and local goals for solid waste handling within most of King County. The 1989 Plan established a comprehensive program that emphasized reduction and recycling of the solid waste stream and disposal of nonrecyclable materials in environmentally safe landfills. The 1992 Plan continues this emphasis, focusing on programs and services that prevent land, air, and water pollution and conserve the region's natural, economic, and energy resources. The 1992 Plan update reviews progress made since the 1989 Plan was implemented, reassesses the County's needs, and expands on the recommendations laid out in the 1989 Plan by increasing waste reduction and recycling activities in order to reduce waste and preserve capacity at the Cedar Hills landfill. The 1992 Plan update helps to implement adopted County Policy, which states: "This County recognizes that there will be considerable difficulty in siting a new landfill at any time now or in the future. The county, therefore, finds that the Cedar Hills landfill is a valuable and irreplaceable resource and that aggressive and timely action must be taken to preserve and insure the safe use of this resource as long as possible for the future." (KCC 10.14). 2. Goals and Objectives Goals of the Plan were determined in an extensive public and legislative process that resulted in amendments to RCW 70.95 and King County Code (KCC) 10.14. The goals are: • To preserve the environment and public health of the County through the proper management of solid waste. • To achieve a waste reduction and recycling rate of 35 percent in 1992, 50 percent by 1995, and 65 percent by 2000. • To mitigate impacts of existing and future solid waste handling. • To continue development of adequate disposal capacity that meets all regulatory requirements. 3. Planning Authority King County prepares and maintains this comprehensive solid waste management plan pursuant to state and local enabling statutes that require its preparation. The most important of these are: • RCW 70.95 (Solid Waste Management Reduction and Recycling Act) sets solid waste management priorities and assigns solid waste planning authority to local (county and city) governments and directs each county to prepare a plan in cooperation with the cities in its planning area • KCC Title 10 defines the County's role as the solid waste planning authority for the County and provides for interlocal agreements to implement these activities within cities and towns. To carry out the planning process, King County entered into cooperative solid waste management agreements—or Interlocal Agreements (I .As)—with cities in the planning area in 1988. The II.As conform with RCW 39.34 (the state statute Chapter L• Plan Development A. Planning Background 7 governing interlocal agreements between local jurisdictions), RCW 70.95, and King County Council Motion 7143, which authorizes the County Executive to enter into such agreements. The ILAs establish the County's responsibility for solid waste management planning for the cities and unincorporated areas and define authorities and responsibilities for solid waste handling. Another ILA, the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Agreement, establishes a policy advisory body. These agreements (they will both be referred to as ILAs for ease of reference) are in effect from July 1, 1988 to June 30, 2028, although provisions may be reviewed or renegotiated at the request of any of the parties (ILA Section 5.1., see Related Legislation addendum to this Plan). The ILAs: • Create a Solid Waste Interlocal Forum consisting of 12 elected representatives of suburban cities, Seattle, and King County, which is charged with making recommendations concerning solid waste policies. • Affirm the ;priorities of waste reduction and recycling as identified in RCW 70.95. • Designate the County as the operating authority for transfer, processing, and disposal facilities for all jurisdictions party to the ILAs. • Authorize the County to serve as the planning authority for solid waste handling for all parties to the ILA • Reaffirm cities' responsibility to provide for solid waste collection within their corporate limits. Adoption of the Plan requires approval by the County, participating cities representing 75 percent of the incorporated population (provided that they act on the Plan within 120 days), and the Department of Ecology (Ecology, RCW 70.95.094). Environmental review for the Plan is in the form of an addendum (included in this Volume) to the 1989 Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 4. Plan Participants The Plan was prepared by the King County Solid Waste Division (the Division) with the input of representatives of the County and suburban cities and assistance from private consultants. It encompasses all King County cities and unincorporated areas except Milton, which is included in the Pierce County planning area, and Seattle, which has its own plan RCW 70.95 and the ILAs identify the suburban cities and the County as the major participants involved in the planning process. This Plan update includes the cities listed in Table I.1. The city of Seattle disposes of its own nonresidential, residential, and special wastes and has prepared its own solid waste management plan. The Seattle plan will be incorporated by reference into the final King County Plan update (pursuant to RCW 70.95.080) and updated in 1995. Because Seattle was part of the County's disposal system for approximately five years, the city also signed an agreement to participate in the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum. Seattle has been less involved in Forum activities since leaving the County's disposal system (see Section I.B.l.a). Table I.1 Plan Participants Algona I-2 Auburn Lake Forest Park Beaux Arts Village Medina Bellevue 7 governing interlocal agreements between local jurisdictions), RCW 70.95, and King County Council Motion 7143, which authorizes the County Executive to enter into such agreements. The ILAs establish the County's responsibility for solid waste management planning for the cities and unincorporated areas and define authorities and responsibilities for solid waste handling. Another ILA, the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Agreement, establishes a policy advisory body. These agreements (they will both be referred to as ILAs for ease of reference) are in effect from July 1, 1988 to June 30, 2028, although provisions may be reviewed or renegotiated at the request of any of the parties (ILA Section 5.1., see Related Legislation addendum to this Plan). The ILAs: • Create a Solid Waste Interlocal Forum consisting of 12 elected representatives of suburban cities, Seattle, and King County, which is charged with making recommendations concerning solid waste policies. • Affirm the ;priorities of waste reduction and recycling as identified in RCW 70.95. • Designate the County as the operating authority for transfer, processing, and disposal facilities for all jurisdictions party to the ILAs. • Authorize the County to serve as the planning authority for solid waste handling for all parties to the ILA • Reaffirm cities' responsibility to provide for solid waste collection within their corporate limits. Adoption of the Plan requires approval by the County, participating cities representing 75 percent of the incorporated population (provided that they act on the Plan within 120 days), and the Department of Ecology (Ecology, RCW 70.95.094). Environmental review for the Plan is in the form of an addendum (included in this Volume) to the 1989 Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 4. Plan Participants The Plan was prepared by the King County Solid Waste Division (the Division) with the input of representatives of the County and suburban cities and assistance from private consultants. It encompasses all King County cities and unincorporated areas except Milton, which is included in the Pierce County planning area, and Seattle, which has its own plan RCW 70.95 and the ILAs identify the suburban cities and the County as the major participants involved in the planning process. This Plan update includes the cities listed in Table I.1. The city of Seattle disposes of its own nonresidential, residential, and special wastes and has prepared its own solid waste management plan. The Seattle plan will be incorporated by reference into the final King County Plan update (pursuant to RCW 70.95.080) and updated in 1995. Because Seattle was part of the County's disposal system for approximately five years, the city also signed an agreement to participate in the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum. Seattle has been less involved in Forum activities since leaving the County's disposal system (see Section I.B.l.a). Table I.1 Plan Participants Algona Kirkland Auburn Lake Forest Park Beaux Arts Village Medina Bellevue Mercer Island Black Diamond Normandy Park Bothell North Bend Burien Pacific Carnation Redmond Clyde Hill Renton Des Moines SeaTac Duvall Skykomish Enumclaw Snoqualmie Federal Way Tukwila Hunts Point Woodinville Issaquah Yarrow Point Kent A. Planning Background Chapter L Plan Development 5. Required Contents The elements required in a solid waste plan are delineated in RCW 70.95.090, which specifies minimum requirements for solid waste plans to ensure a uniform, comprehensive approach, and in KCC Chapters 10.22 and 10.24, which provide policy direction on solid waste management and incorporate the state requirements. The Guidelines for the Development of the Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions (WDOE 90-11, hereafter referred to as "Ecology Guidelines"), issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), provide direction to local jurisdictions for the development, content, and adoption and approval processes for solid waste plans. The guidelines are issued pursuant to RCW 70.95 and require the following content elements in local jurisdiction plans: • Inventory and description of all solid waste handling facilities. • Estimated capacity needs of solid waste handling facilities for the duration of the plan. • Program for solid waste handling facilities development. • Surveillance and control program for solid waste operations. • Current inventory and description of solid waste collection needs and operations within the planning area. • Review of potential areas that meet the solid waste facility siting criteria outlined in RCW 70.95.165. • A waste reductior>/recycling element. 6. Plan Organization • The Plan is divided into seven chapters, which are described below. Technical documentation and background • reports are provided in the technical appendices (Volume II of the Plan). • Chapter 1, Plan Development: purpose and goals, • participants, relationship to other plans, and planning history. • Chapter II, Planning Area: the natural and built . environment, waste stream analysis, and the solid waste facilities siting process. 3 I- • Chapter III, Waste Reduction and Recycling: existing conditions and needs and opportunities for waste reduction and recycling, alternatives .for programs that address these needs, and recommended course of action. • Chapter IV, Mixed Municipal Solid Waste System: existing conditions and needs and opportunities of the solid waste handling system, alternative methods to address these needs, and implementation schedules. • Chapter V, Special and Miscellaneous Wastes: solid waste handling systems for construction, demolition, and land clearing, biomedical, agricultural, woodwaste, asbestos, and contaminated soil. • Chapter VI, Enforcement: existing conditions and needs and opportunities for enforcement, and recommended action for waste Flow control, solid waste handling facilities, litter and illegal dumping, and control of incoming waste. • Chapter VII, Financial System: financial system and grant programs. B. REIATIONSHIP TO OTHER PIANS This section describes the relationship between the Plan and other planning or regulatory activities. 1. Solid Waste Plans Incorporated by Reference a. City of Seattle Plan The city of Seattle's solid waste management plan, entitled Seattle's Intep-ated Solus Waste Management Plan (August 1989), sets fouls a strategy for collection and disposal of the city's residential, commercial, and special wastes. As described in the Seattle plan, the city's goals are to reduce, recycle, or compost 60 percent of its total waste stream by 1998, with interim goals of 40 percent by 1991 and 50 percent by 1993. Nonrecyclable waste will be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner at an out -of -county landfill. The Seattle plan also emphasizes waste reduction, public education and fulfillment of the closure requirements for the Kent Highlands and Midway landfills. Chapter L- Plan Development B. Relationship to Other Plans I-4 An agreement between Seattle and the County, signed in late 1986, allowed the city to dispose of its mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill after Seattle's Kent Highlands and Midway landfills were closed. This agreement was terminated in June 1991, when Seattle began shipping its wastes to a landfill in Arlington, Oregon. Seattle controls all of the waste generated within its boundaries and disposes of it in its own system. Similarly, other King County waste is controlled by King County and does not go to Seattle waste handling facilities. Seattle is not included in King County's plan; however, the Seattle plan is consistent with the 1992 Plan and, pursuant to RCW 70.95.080, is integrated into the King County Plan. Projected tonnage and cost data throughout this plan are for King County and the suburban cities and do not include Seattle. b. Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle -King County The State Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 70.105.220[1]) requires each local government, or combination of contiguous local governments, to prepare a local hazardous waste plan to manage "moderate risk wastes," generated by households and small quantity generators (defined by RCW 70.105.010[171). The Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (the Health Department), the King County Solid Waste Division, the Seattle Office of Long Range Planning, the Seattle Solid Waste Utility, and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) worked together to prepare the 1989 Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (LHWMP), with assistance from the Suburban Cities Association. The UMAP focuses on the amount of hazardous substances entering the solid waste and wastewater streams generated in households or produced in small quantities by businesses. The stated objectives are: • To reduce accidents resulting in worker exposure to hazardous waste in solid waste or wastewater facilities. • To establish a management program that will allow solid waste and wastewater facilities to continue meeting environmental discharge standards, even as the numbers of people and small businesses increase, or as the wastewater discharge requirements become more stringent. Public education, waste reduction, recycling, waste treatment, storage and disposal programs, and facilities are emphasized in the LHWMP. It recommends a number of programs to reduce the amount of waste generated and to safely dispose of the hazardous wastes collected. Permanent facilities and mobile collection are both recommended for household hazardous waste (HHW) and waste generated by small quantity generators (SQG). The public education programs highlight proper disposal and reduction of household and SQG waste generation. SQG businesses will be offered technical assistance in handling their hazardous waste and reducing the use of hazardous materials. The LHWMP was issued in 1989, adopted by the cities and the County, and approved by Ecology in 1990. It is scheduled for revision in 1994. c. Metro Sludge Management Plan Sludge, a byproduct of municipal wastewater treatment, is defined as a solid waste in the King County Solid Waste Regulations (King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC Title 10) but generally does not enter the county mixed municipal solid waste stream. Provisions for adopting and enforcing sludge management regulations are contained in RCW 70.95. Major regulations for sludge management are contained in KCBOHC Title 10. In addition, Ecology developed Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines (WDOE 82-11) and Best Management Practices for Use of Municipal Sludge (WDOE 82-12). Sludge management is the responsibility of the wastewater treatment agencies (RCW 35.58.180 and RCW 35.58.200). The Metro Sludge Management Plan and amendments are incorporated into the Plan by reference. They direct Metro to develop sludge management facilities and practices to accommodate sludge loads projected through the year 2000. The March 1991 amendments set forth the following policies: • Digested sludge is considered a resource that can have beneficial use through recycling by land application. Metro B. Relationship to Other Plans Chapter L• Plan Development should use the soil conditioning and plan nutrient value of sludge to improve soils, fertilize forest lands, produce compost, and fertilize agricultural lands. • Sludge will not be disposed through incineration or dumping in the ocean or in landfills. • New and innovative technologies will be considered for sludge treatment, land application, and energy recovery, including both public and private ownership of facilities. • Production of a pathogen -free (Class A) sludge will be investigated and existing solids handling will continue. At the West Point Treatment Plant, an end -product mix will be produced by continuing both the existing digestion and dewatering of sludge and private vendor processing of a portion of the solids. d. Sludge Management of Other Jurisdictions The Health Department estimates that 90 to 95 percent of the sludge generated in the County is handled and disposed of through the Metro Sludge Management Plan. The remaining 5 to 10 percent originates in Black Diamond, Duvall, Midway, Enumclaw, Lakota, Miller Creek, North Bend, Redondo, Salmon Creek, Snoqualmie, and Vashon. Redondo and Lakota belong to the Federal Way Sewer District; Salmon Creek and Miller Creek belong to the Southwest Suburban Sewer District. Most wastewater management agencies in King County are members of the Washington State Regional Sludge Management Committee. These agencies work together on a regional basis to site projects that can be used by all members. Sludge disposal is allowed by permit only. Applications for permits may be approved, denied, or conditioned by the Health Officer (KCBOHC 10.40.010). Importing sludge from other counties is allowed provided that the uses are permitted by the Health Department pursuant to RCW 70.95 and KCBOHC Title 10. The Health Department estimates that sludge which is not managed through the Metro plan is composted (60 percent), used for land applications (30 percent), and offered to the public for soil improvement (10 percent). I- 5 2. Plans Related to the Solid Waste Management System a. City/County Comprehensive Land Use Plans To ensure compatibility of land uses, Ecology Guidelines (WDOE 90-11) require that the County consider comprehensive land use plans and pertinent legislation for all participating jurisdictions when developing the Plan. These include the State Growth Management Act (SHB 2929 and 1025), the 1985 King County Comprehensive land Use Plan and 1992 amendments, community plans for unincorporated King County, and city comprehensive plans. Compatibility among plans is important when planning future disposal, transfer, and waste reduction and recycling facilities, and is particularly significant when siting facilities. (1) Local Jurisdictions Cities have permitting processes regulating land use and the location, development, and construction of facilities within their corporate boundaries. Their regulations and policies are expressed in comprehensive plans, shoreline management master programs, and zoning codes. Appropriate local plans are reviewed prior to siting solid waste facilities. (2) King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan The 1985 King County Comprehensive land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and 1992 amendments (Chapter 10, Comprehensive Plan Review, Ordinance 10237) contain the following policies related to solid waste facilities and management: • Regional and essential public facilities (including solid waste facilities) should be compatible with neighboring uses and adjoin nonresidential uses whenever possible. Those serving large areas and used by the public should be located in or near urban areas or rural activities centers. • Proposed regional and essential public facilities should be reviewed through countywide public hearings and formal action by elected officials. Chapter L• Plan Deuelopment B. Relatronsl* to Other Plans I- 6 • Protection of environmental quality and equitable distribution countywide should be primary considerations when siting facilities. Specific policies affecting solid waste handling set forth in Ordinance 10237 are: • Solid waste should be handled and disposed of in ways that minimize land, air, and water pollution and protect public health (F-326). • Management of solid waste should take a regional approach in planning for needs, facilities, and services (F-327). • The life of existing landfills should be maximized, the need for new landfills avoided by expanding and developing new waste reduction and recycling opportunities, and the use of out - of -county landfills investigated to the extent possible. Other impacts of landfills that should be considered include air and water quality and public health (F-328). (3) Shoreline Management Master Programs Shoreline master programs contain policies and regulations affecting most development projects on shorelines abutting state waters, including reservoirs, floodplain, and associated wetlands, and excluding stream segments on rivers with a mean annual flow of less than 20 cubic feet per second and lakes smaller than 20 acres (Shorelines Management Act, RCW 90.58). Local shoreline master programs generally either prohibit or significantly restrict siting of solid waste facilities on shorelines. (4) Local Zoning and Related Regulations City zoning codes and regulations affect whether solid waste facilities may provide recycling collection areas. They may also include structural size limitations; site design requirements, such as setbacks from property lines; and other aspects of land use, such as noise and air pollutant generation. (5) State and Federal Lands A large area of King County falls under state or federal jurisdiction, primarily forests and parks in rural areas. State and federal land could be potential sites for solid waste facilities. Such a strategy could require land purchase or a lease from the appropriate administrating agency. (6) Groundwater and Surface Water Management Plans The siting, construction, and operation of any facility recommended as part of this Plan should be coordinated with the appropriate surface and groundwater plans and administrating agencies. The improper disposal of solid waste has been identified as a potential source for groundwater contamination (Puget Sound Dater Quality Authority, PSWQA, 1991 Plan. The PSWQA plan states that the sources which contaminate groundwater are often the same sources that contaminate surface water. Surface and groundwater management plans develop a strategy for eliminating or minimizing problems with surface water runoff or risk of contamination to groundwater resources. There are several plans that address surface and groundwater management in King County in addition to the PSWQA plan. These include the King County Surface hater Management Diinsion Strategic Plan (1991), local water utilities plans, and the Seattle Water Plan (1985). Ecology, the Health Department, and city surface water drainage programs will also be consulted during facility siting processes. (7) King County Sensitive Areas The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio, updated in 1990, displays environmentally sensitive areas in unincorporated western King County that are subject to natural hazards and lands that support unique, fragile, or valuable natural features. These characteristics or features are considered when locating facility sites. 3. Other Jurisdictions If the comprehensive solid waste management plans of other jurisdictions recommend alternatives that involve the use of King County Solid Waste Division disposal facilities or private solid waste facilities within the County solid waste planning area, these alternatives must also be accommodated in the Plan. Similarly, if the Plan recommends actions that will affect B. Relationshp to Other Plans Chapter L• Plan Development 0 0 other jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle or Snohomish County), the recommendations must be communicated to the appropriate parties and their responses included in the Plan. • Recommendations involving another jurisdiction may be subject to interlocal agreements and any applicable permit • requirements. Table I.2 Legislative, Regulatory, and Contract Authorities Citation KCBOHC Title 10 KCC Title 10 KCPR PUT 7-1-2 KCPR PUT 7-2-1 ILA ILA PSAPCA Reg II, Article 4 RCW 35.21 RCW 36.58 RCW 36.58A RCW 39.34 RCW 43.21 c RCW 70.105 RCW 70.93 RCW 70.95 RCW 81.77 RCW 81.80 WAC 173-303 WAC 173-304 WAC 173-340 WAC 480.12 WAC 480.70 WDOE 90-11 • RCW 90.58 29CFR Part 1910 40CFR, Part 240-271 RCRA, Subtitles C and D • 40CFR, Part 259 40CFR, Part 61, NESHAPS . 42CFR Parts 280-281 CERCLA Chapter P Plan Development Description I-7 a Snohomish County solid Waste Management Plan Snohomish County, bordering King County to the north, received approval from Ecology for the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Plan in 1989. The major features of the Snohomish County plan are an aggressive waste reduction and recycling program to reduce the mixed municipal solid waste stream, design and construction of a regional landfill, and implementation of out -of -county disposal for nonrecyclable waste. County Board of Health Regulations King County Solid Waste Code Waste Acceptance Policies Waste Clearance Policies Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Agreement Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Asbestos Control Standard Miscellaneous provisions affecting all cities and towns Solid Waste Disposal Solid Waste Collection Districts Interlocal Cooperation Act State Environmental Protection Act Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act Washington State Comprehensive Litter Code Solid Waste Management Reduction and Recycling Act WUTC Regulation of Solid Waste Collection WUTC Motor Freight Regulation (nonresidential recycling) Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations Washington State Minimum Functional Standards Washington State Model Toxics Control Act Motor Carriers Garbage and Refuse Collection Companies Washington State Department of Ecology Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans Shoreline Management Act Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ('Superfund') B. Relationship to Other Plans I-8 The proximity of the two counties has occasioned consideration of regional planning for the use of transfer stations in at least one instance. The 1989 King County Plan included a recommendation that the privately owned and operated Snohomish Eastmont facility be used as a north King County transfer station (with hauling to Cedar Hills) if the facility was permitted by Snohomish County. The 1989 Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan states that: "In principle, private initiatives in solid waste management are encouraged, and such facilities might be allowed to the extent that they are consistent with the orderly and efficient implementation of the CSWMP. Such proposed facilities may accept wastes from beyond the boundaries of the county and its participating jurisdictions if the handling of such wastes is consistent with the orderly and efficient implementation of the current CSWMP update." (Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Plan Update, December 1989, page 10-8). In its plan approval resolution,. Snohomish County included a policy stating that all private transfer stations or mixed waste processing plants would have to be pre -approved by the Snohomish County Council prior to final approval of such facilities. To date, the Snohomish Eastmont facility has not been approved by Snohomish County, therefore no action was taken on King County's 1989 Plan recommendation. The Snohomish Eastmont facility is now used as a recycling facility. This 1992 King County Plan update includes a recommendation that the Snohomish Eastmont facility be used as a north county transfer station if the permitting goes forward before December 31, 1992 (see Chapter IV, Section B.3). C. Administration C. ADMINISTRATION 1. Formal Structure Solid waste handling, as defined by the state of Washington, includes management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing and final disposal (RCW 70.95.030[171). The administration of solid waste handling systems in Washington is divided among the counties, jurisdictional health departments, and the cities. The governmental roles and authorities for solid waste handling are delineated in legislation, regulations, and agreements and are summarized in Table I.2 and described below. The state establishes authorities, minimum standards, and planning requirements that are delegated to counties and cities. a. Washington State RCW 70.95 gives Ecology the authority make solid waste regulations. These regulations are set forth in WAC 173-304 and are called the Minimum Functional Standards (MFS). Counties have the authority to permit solid waste handling facilities, which are designated in comprehensive solid waste management plans. Health departments set local standards, which must be at least as strict as the WAC 173-304 standards. The MFS protect public health; prevent land, air, and water pollution; and conserve the state's natural, economic, and energy resources by: • Setting minimum standards for proper handling of all solid waste materials. • Identifying those functions necessary to ensure effective solid waste handling programs at both the state and local level. • Reflecting state solid waste management priorities. • Describing the responsibilities of jurisdictions and agencies under existing laws and regulations related to solid waste. • Requiring use of the best available technology for siting, designing, constructing, operating, and closing solid waste handling facilities. • Establishing statewide standards to provide consistency and expectations regarding the level at which solid waste is managed throughout the state. Chapter L• Plan Development Ecology has been delegated the authority to manage hazardous waste in the state by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous waste is regulated under RCW 70.105 and its disposal is implemented under WAC 173-303. Private garbage collection companies serving unincorporated areas are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). The WUTC grants franchises and sets rates and types of service. WUTC authority does not necessarily extend to city collection utilities or contracts (RCW 81.77). (See Chapter IV, Section A) The state has provided partial funding for various solid waste planning and project development activities through the grant programs administered by Ecology. In the last five years, Ecology has contributed grant support for food and yard waste composting programs, assistance in establishing required waste reduction and recycling programs in the rural cities and unincorporated areas, the Cedar Hills site development study, and a number of capital improvement projects for landfills. The agency has also funded the Coordinated Prevention Grant Program. Moderate risk waste and comprehensive solid waste planning have been supported through state grants. In addition, the Health Department receives funding for solid waste disposal facility inspections and related administrative expenses. (See Chapter VII, Section B, for grant discussion.) b. King County Counties may establish or acquire solid waste disposal sites and make and enforce rules and regulations for their use (RCW 36.58.030). Rules include operating hours, types of waste accepted, access by customer class, and rates (KCC Title 10.10-10.12). Fees, based on tonnage, are collected at disposal facilities and constitute the primary revenue source for the Solid Waste Division. The Division has the authority to determine the types of waste accepted at King County disposal sites (Title 10.08 KCC). Mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) is accepted at all active landfills, and Cedar Hills accepts both MMSW and special wastes. Disposal of dangerous or hazardous wastes is prohibited at the County disposal facilities by Title 10.04, and special wastes (discussed in Chapter V) may be refused under King County Public Rules PUT 7-1-2 (PR) and PUT 7-2-1 (PR) I- 9 Waste Acceptance and Waste Clearance Policies. A generator with dangerous or hazardous materials is referred to Ecology for direction on disposal. King County designates which disposal facilities may be used by individuals, municipalities, and commercial haulers. Haulers are prohibited from transporting waste outside the County unless it is authorized by the adopted comprehensive solid waste management plan (KCC Title 10.08) or specifically permitted by state law, County ordinance, or interlocal agreement. Disposal of solid waste generated in unincorporated areas is the responsibility of the County. King County cannot provide solid waste collection unless a solid waste collection district is formed (RCW 36.58A.010) and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission determines that no certificated hauler is available to perform collection services. However, RCW 36.58.040(1) gives counties the authority to contract directly for residential recyclables collection or to allow private waste haulers certificated by the WUTC to collect recyclables. The County has chosen to have certificated haulers set up recyclable collection programs in unincorporated areas (KCC Title 10.18). (See Chapter III, Section B.1.) Any city disposing of solid waste at county disposal facilities is required to sign an interlocal agreement with the County (KCC Title 10.08). The agreements designate the County as the operating authority for the solid waste management system for the participating cities (KCC Title 10.08.050). King County has authority to prepare the comprehensive solid waste management plans for unincorporated areas and for any cities that elect to have the County prepare plans for them by signing IIAs (Solid Waste Interlocal Agreements and RCW 70.95.080). The organizaitonal structures of the King County Department of Public Works and the Solid Waste Division are presented in Figure I.1. C. Cities There are 29 incorporated cities in King County participating in the interlocal agreements. Two new cities will participate once their incorporation is complete (see discussion Chapter I. Plan Development C. Administration I-1 0 in Section I.A.3). Under state law, cities may provide or contract for the collection, processing, recycling, and disposal of all solid waste generated within the city limits and for the sale of reclaimed products (RCW 35.21.120). Unlike counties, cities may require collection and set charges for garbage pickup. d. Tribal Authority Treaty Indian tribes possess a full range of powers independent of other powers and authorities discussed in this section. The regulation, administration, and management of all solid waste handling and disposal on tribal lands is the responsibility of the tribal authorities. Indian tribes are not covered by this Plan. e. Seattle King County Board of Health The Health Department has adopted standards for storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, and final disposal of all solid waste in the County (Title 10, King County Solid Waste Regulations, KCBOHC). The King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) are implemented through the permitting process. The Health Department issues, renews, and—when necessary—suspends permits for solid waste handling and disposal facilities (KCBOHC Title 10.12). Landfills, transfer stations, drop -boxes, energy recovery and incineration plants, and recycling facilities open to the elements must have permits in order to legally operate. All solid waste facilities must be inspected by the Health Department on a regular basis. Sites that are not in conformance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations are given compliance schedules in an effort to ensure timely correction of defects. Rules and regulations relating to methods of disposal are made and enforced by the Health Department. The rules implement the state MFS in King County and prescribe how mixed municipal solid waste is to be stored, collected, and disposed (see discussion, Chapter V for special wastes). Clearances are issued by the Health Department for nonhazardous materials, thereby informing the Division that the wastes are acceptable in the landfill. C. Administration The Health Department collects annual permit fees for solid waste disposal sites and receives a portion of the tipping fee charged at county landfills. The Board of Health Code requires that there be a plan of operation for each solid waste handling facility in the County. The plans must include emergency procedures for fire, leakage, and water contamination, as well as general operating procedures and closure plans. Another cf ::LC hva',,., Department is to establish rules for excavation and redevelopment of abandoned or closed landfills. f. King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) was established by County Ordinance No. 6862, in accordance with the provisions of RCW 70.95.165. The SWAC has the responsibility to advise King County on all aspects of solid waste management planning; assist King County in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste management; and review and comment on proposed solid waste management rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption. The SWAC has functioned since 1985, meeting at least once each month at a location open to the public. Notices of the meeting time and place are published in various general circulation local newspapers. Minutes are kept of all committee meetings and specific program and policy recommendations are transmitted to the County Executive and the County Council. The SWAC has reviewed and commented on the development of policies for inclusion in this Plan, has reviewed a preliminary draft, and will provide additional comment prior to final adoption of the Plan. g. Solid Waste Interlocal Forum The Solid Waste Interlocal Forum is a body of twelve elected officials and a citizen chair who represent King County unincorporated areas, the city of Seattle, and participating suburban cities to involve those jurisdictions in advising King County on solid waste issues. For additional information on the forum, see Section I.A.3. Cbapter L• Plan Development Department of Public Works ----------------------------------------------------------------- V.,,., Solid Waste Division March 1993 Assistant Manager Program Planning Program Evaluation Comprehensive Planning Public Involvement Waste Reduction/Recycling Waste Reduction/Recycling Policy and Program Development Moderate Risk Waste Manager Engineering Services Field Engineering Landfill Engineering Facility Engineering Special Waste Management Administration and Customer Service Fiscal Services Accounts Payable Accounts Receivable Internal Controls Human Resource Services Figure I.1 Department of Public Works organizational charL Operations Administration Customer Transactions Shop/Maintenance Operations Transportation Transfer Operations Rural Landfills Cedar Hills Landfill Landfill Gas/Water Chapter L• Plan Development C. Administration I-12 2. Informal Structures The 1989 Plan recommended that a technical advisory committee be formed, to be composed of staff from participating cities. Recycling coordinators of the suburban cities meet on a regular basis. This committee provides a means of coordinating program implementation and sharing information on waste reduction and recycling programs. It also participated in the early development of this 1992 Plan update. 3. Solid Waste Ownership and Responsibility Wastes with no perceived value or with potential negative environmental effects, once delivered to and accepted at a county facility, become the responsibility of the County. The enforcement section of this Plan, Chapter VI, includes a discussion on the control of wastes coming into the county disposal system. Ownership and responsibility for solid waste at different stages of the collection and disposal process is established by the state as described below. • The generator retains ownership of the wastes until they arrive at the transfer station or disposal site (RCW 36.58.060). • Removal of litter on public land is the responsibility of state and local agencies; removal of litter on private property is the responsibility of the owner (RCW 70.93.110). • The collector is responsible for proper handling of solid waste from the point of collection to the transfer station or disposal site (RCW 36.58.060). • King County designates the disposal site to be used for waste generated in unincorporated areas and in cities that have interlocal agreements with the County (KCC Title 10.08.020 and 10.08.130). • Transportation of solid waste between transfer stations and the disposal site is the responsibility of the County managing the facilities and is exempt from WUTC regulation (RCW 36.58.050). • The person or agency managing the disposal or recycling facility owns the solid waste upon its arrival at the facility (RCW 36.58.060). D. PLANNING HISTORY 1. Early Planning Efforts After the State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act (RCW 70.95) was passed in 1969, King County began a comprehensive planning process for its solid waste, developing disposal policies, considering disposal alternatives, and adopting recommended approaches. The County's original plan was prepared in 1974 by the Metro River Basin Coordinating Committee (RIBCO) and updated in 1982 by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). These documents were followed by the 1989 Plan and this 1992 update prepared by King County. a. 1974 RMCO Plan The 1974 RIBCO plan recommended formation of a multijurisdictional solid waste management board and consolidation of solid waste functions into a single agency, a feasibility study of an energy resource and recovery system (F/RR), and construction of the recommended E/RR system by 1981. The plan was adopted in 1975 by Metro (Council Resolution 2328), and approved by Ecology in 1977. The formation of the solid waste management board recommended in the RIBCO plan was a condition of approval. b. 1982 PSCOG Plan The 1982 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan updated the 1974 RIBCO plan and examined solid waste issues related to waste stream ownership, operational and disposal costs, landfill and closure costs, risk and liability, environmental degradation, energy resource recovery, and hazardous waste disposal. Its preparation was delegated to the King Subregional Council of the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG), functioning as the Solid Waste Management Board. This board was assisted by an D. Planning Hutory Chapter I.• Plan Development interagency staff and received input from a citizens' advisory committee and the King Subregional Council Committee on Solid Waste. The plan was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985 by the PSCOG King Subregional Council and the County and its cities. Ecology, however, did not approve this plan, continuing instead to recognize the 1974 RIBCO plan until the 1989 King County Plan was approved. The 1982 PSCOG plan included a six-year capital improvement program, which made specific recommendations, including landfill improvements and closures, landfill leachate control system upgrades, and upgrade and new construction of transfer stations. The County used these recommendations to develop and improve the solid waste disposal system. The background and current status of specific solid waste disposal facilities is discussed in Chapter IV, Sections B, C, and D. 2. 1989 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan The 1989 Plan was initiated in 1986 by Ordinance 7737 (KCC 10.24), which established the process for adopting and updating it. The ordinance addressed the Plan's requirements, development, and revision; planning coordination with the cities; and review. It also provided for establishment of the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum. Studies and policy development activities that preceded the 1989 Plan and contributed to its development and focus include: the King County Energy/Resource and Recovery Management Plan (1987), the King County Solid Waste System Operating Plan (Staff Report, 1988), the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Solid Waste Management Alternatives (1988), and the King County Executive Report, Solid Waste Management Alternatives (1988). a. Energy Resource and Recovery (E/RR) and Waste Reduction and Recycling (WR/R) Programs In August 1986 in Ordinance 7764, the King County Council stated the County's intent to develop E/RR facilities and directed the County Executive to submit a plan, which was I 13........ issued in 1987. At that time, the County issued a scoping notice addressing siting of one or more 2,000 -ton -per -day E/RR facilities. The notice also addressed programmatic solid waste management alternatives, including continued landfilling and WR/R levels. Seven sites were selected as potential locations for the E/RR facility. b. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solid Waste Management Alternatives (PEIS) In response to public comment, the County reevaluated its E/RR program, establishing a process and schedule for making policy decisions regarding solid waste management and emphasizing public input by passing Ordinance 8383. The ordinance directed preparation of the PSIS on policy choices for waste reduction, recycling, E/RR, and disposal. Issued in September 1988, the PEIS represented the first phase of environmental review of the 1989 Plan, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). c. King County Executive Report Solid Waste Management Alternatives Since the PEIS did not include recommendations, the County Executive issued a report in October 1988 that recommended development of WR/R programs, exclusion of solid waste incineration, and allowance for planning of an out - of -county landfill program with other jurisdictions. d. King County Ordinance 8771 After considering the alternatives presented in the PEIS and the County Executive's recommendations, the County Council passed Ordinance 8771 in December 1988 (KCC 10.22). This concluded the first environmental review phase of alternatives initiated by Ordinance 8383 and directed the County Executive to prepare a solid waste financing study and rate proposal (released May 1, 1989). Solid waste strategies supported by Ordinance 8771 are: • Requirements for WR/R programs to provide aggressive reduction in the County's solid waste stream. Chapter L• Plan Detelopment D. Planning History I-14 • Elimination of E/RR as a disposal method for the 1989 Plan. • Study of other disposal options that could be implemented to reduce waste going to Cedar Hills, such as waste export or mixed waste processing. The ordinance also established WR/R goals for the County. e. Public Involvement There was extensive public involvement during development of the 1989 Plan. The PSIS received considerable public review, including suggestions from the Solid Waste Management Alternatives Development Committee (an advisory group), review and comment from the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG), public hearings, briefings to the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum and the County Council Solid Waste Committee, and public hearings conducted by the County Council on Ordinance 8771. Scoping meetings for the Plan EIS were held in December 1988, three public hearings were held in May 1989 to review public comments and testimony, and the County and participating cities conducted public review as part of the Plan's adoption. King County's SWAC, formed in 1985, participated in developing and reviewing the Plan. The King County Solid Waste Interlocal Forum, established in 1988, reviewed and commented on solid waste issues and policies contained in Ordinance 8771. f. 1989 Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) In accordance with SEPA, a Draft EIS was issued in April 1989 for the Plan; it served as the second phase of environmental review (the PSIS and resulting County Council actions represented the fust phase). During the SEPA scoping period (December 1988 to January 1989), three public hearings on the EIS and Plan were held, and 25 comment letters were received. g. Waste Not Washington Act The Waste Not Washington Act (SHB 1671, the Act), enacted in 1989 and amending RCW 70.95, accomplished a number of the 1989 Draft Plan's legislative recommendations needed to assist the County in meeting its solid waste management goals. King County worked closely with the Washington Legislature's Joint Select Committee on Solid Waste to formulate and pass this bill, contributing recommendations from the 1989 Draft Plan that were ultimately addressed in the Act. The Act established solid waste management priorities for the state as (1) waste reduction; (2) recycling, with source separation preferred; (3) energy recovery, incineration, or landfilling of separated waste; and (4) energy recovery, incineration, or landfilling of mixed waste. A statewide recycling goal of 50 percent by 1995 was also established, although the bill did not require the new WR/R element for King County until 1991. King County incorporated this element in its 1989 Plan, however, in order to implement programs necessary to achieve its aggressive 65 percent WR/R goal by the year 2000. 3. 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update KCC 10.24.020.B requires that the County's solid waste management plan be updated or revised every three years. Additional legislation passed after the 1989 Plan was adopted also has an impact on solid waste strategies. The following changes that affect the development of the Plan update have occurred since the adoption of the 1989 Plan. a. Ordinance 9928 In May 1991, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 9928 (KCC 10.18) enabling franchised solid waste haulers to provide recyclables collection services for 460,000 county residents. This ordinance extended household recyclables collection to all residents living in single- and multifamily housing in urban areas. D. Planning History Chap& L• Plan Development In 1991 and 1992, the Washington State Legislature passed the following solid waste legislation: (1) Markets and Procurement Two bills in the 1991 Legislature addressed markets for recyclable materials. 1. SB 5591 created the Clear, Washington Center to develop new and expand existing markets for recycled commodities. 2. SB 5143 requires state and local jurisdictions to increase the purchase and use of recycled products, requires standard codes for plastics, allows expansion of the state SWAC to more than 11 members, and expands duties of the local SWACs in developing waste reduction and recycling elements for comprehensive plans. (2) Collection Two bills addressed recyclables collection in 1991. I. SB 5478 (1991) redefined "multiple family residences" and requires collection of source -separated materials from single - and multiple -family residences. It also requires new multifamily residences and new commercial facilities to have adequate and conveniently located space to store and dispose of recyclable materials and solid waste. 2. HB 1304 (1991) requires state parks, marinas, and airports to provide opportunities to recycle. (3) Disposal Two bills addressed disposal in the 1992 Legislature. 1. HB 2391 created a statewide definition of biomedical wastes. 2. HB 2633 encourages privately owned hazardous and moderate waste facilities to manage the disposal of these wastes. (4) Litter One bill affecting litter was passed in 1992. SHB 2635 amends the Model Litter Control and Recycling Act by adding a waste reduction emphasis and funds that promote markets, recycling, and education In accordance with SEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued for the 1989 Plan. The 1992 update does not propose programs or a new facility plan that will differ substantially from the 1989 Plan. Therefore, this 1989 EIS is being adopted and supplemented with an addendum, which is included in this volume. E. PROCESS AND SCHEDULE 1. Planning Process The major participants and their roles in development and adoption of the Plan are described below. a. Suburban Cities Suburban cities are actively involved in Plan development throughout the planning process. County and city recycling coordinators meet to discuss and plan for cities' participation in defining Plan issues. Two county -sponsored workshops were held to discuss the 1992 Plan. Suburban cities' elected officials, administrators, and managers, SWAC members, recycling coordinators, and representatives of the haulers and recycling businesses participated in these meetings and workshops. Three community meetings were held at locations potentially affected by the Plan's transfer facility siting recommendations. b. Solid Waste Advisory Committee RCW 70.95.165 directs the counties to establish local Solid Waste Advisory Committees (SWACs) to assist in developing programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and to review and comment on proposed rules, policies, and ordinances. Committee members represent a balance of community interests—private citizens, public interest groups, businesses, the waste management industry, and local government officials. The King County SWAC reviewed and commented on the Plan at each stage of its development. Chapter I: Plan Development E. Process and Schedule I-16 c. King County The King County Solid Waste Division provides the staff and administrative support to organize the planning process, coordinate involvement among all participants, and write and produce the Plan. d. Solid Waste Interlocal Forton The Solid Waste Interlocal Forum (Section IA3) advises the County and other jurisdictions on all aspects of solid waste management and planning policies, reviews and comments on draft Plan alternatives and recommendations, and facilitates cities' approval of the final Plan. e. Department of Ecology The Department of Ecology (Ecology) provides technical assistance to counties, from determining issues to final adoption. It reviews the Plan draft for consistency and adherence to state legislation and regulations and Ecology Guidelines (WDOE 90-11). 2. Review and Approval Process The public review and comment period will extend for 90 days following the issuance of the draft Plan. The comments are reviewed and addressed in the final Plan. Ecology, King County, and the suburban cities must approve the final Plan. (The Plan is deemed approved for all suburban cities that are parties to the ILAs if it is adopted by cities representing three-quarters of the total population of the cities that act on the Plan within 120 days.) The review and approval steps are shown in Figure I.2. 3. Plan Amendments and Update The solid waste IIAs require that solid waste management plans "be reviewed and any necessary revisions proposed at least once every three years," or more frequently if conditions warrant. Elements to be updated will be assessed to accommodate contemporary needs and opportunities and to make corrections necessary to achieve the 1989 Plan goals. Goals and objectives will also be reviewed for appropriateness. An amendment process was developed and agreed upon by the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum in August 1990. If issues requiring a plan amendment are resolved between the County and the affected jurisdiction, the parties develop a plan amendment and take formal action on the agreed amendment. If an agreement is not reached, a formal request is made by the County or the jurisdictions by proposing an amendment to the Plan. The County (or the Forum if there is a dispute) determines which jurisdictions are affected by the amendment. An amendment would be developed and presented for approval to the Forum. If approved, King County and any other affected jurisdictions would act to adopt the amendment. Ecology would then have to approve the amendment and it would be distributed to all jurisdictions by King County. E. Process and Schedule Chapter L• Plan Development I 17........ May 1991 - February 1992 Early Public Involvement~` February - March 1992 Preliminary Plan Draft Summary for Review and Discussion August - 1992 Draft Plan Issuance August - November 1992 Public Comment Period August - December 1992 Ecology - Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Review December 1992 - June 1993 Consensus Building with Suburban Cities and Ecology & Final Plan Development July 1993 Final Plan Issuance 3rd Quarter 1993 Forum Review 3rd Quarter 1993 Ecology Final Review 1 st Quarter 1994 Cities and King County Adoption Process Completed Final Plan Submitted to Ecology sh With Adoptions for Approval Figure I.2 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan review and decision-making process. Chapter L• Plan Development E. Process and Schedule • • • • • CHAPTER II P• LANNING •Am • King County ! Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan • • • • • • I,• • • • • • • • • • • Sorting It out Together Chapter II Planning Area A. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the characteristics of the natural and built aspects of the environment in King County and briefly describes how they relate to solid waste management. 1. Natural Environment a. Earth (1) Topograpby Site topography can have both negative and positive impacts on solid waste facilities. Steep slopes are more likely to be unstable than gentle ones and may pose access problems for trucks and equipment with maximum grade constraints. However, a gentle grade can provide noise and visual buffers and may lessen the need for excessive filling when constructing facilities. In King County, land elevations generally increase from west to east, rising from sea level on Puget Sound to thousands of feet along the ridge line of the Cascade Mountains. The western one-third of the County is relatively flat, dominated by low hills and terraces, with elevations generally less than 500 feet above sea level. The central third is characterized by foothills and several mountain peaks. The eastern third has rugged relief and steep slopes characteristic of the central Cascade Range. (2) Geology Geologic features, such as bedrock formations, surface deposits, and fault zones, can have a direct impact on siting and operations of landfills and other solid waste facilities and the stability of structural foundations and roadways. They can also affect the location and degree of natural protection of groundwater and decrease or increase the potential for contamination. Two major geologic processes—glaciation and erosion—are most responsible for King County's surface geology (Figure II.l). The most recent continental glaciation deposited great loads of rock, gravel, and finer materials into the Puget Lowland and shaped them into mounds and hills covering the underlying bedrock Water erosion then formed the general surface patterns of rock, sand, and silt (Kruckeberg, 1991). (3) Soils Soils and other surface materials are important factors in the design and operation of landfills. Specific types of soils are used in landfill construction and operation for bottom liners, caps, final cover, daily and intermediate cover, dikes, and roads. Fine-grained materials like silt and clay are useful for liners and caps, while coarse-grained materials, such as sand and gravel, are useful for daily cover, gas venting, and backfill for leachate collection systems. If suitable soils are not available on a landfill site, large quantities may have to be imported, which can be costly. In King County, most soils were formed after the retreat of the continental ice sheet and were largely defined by coniferous forests. Soil types are defined as a "series," which encompasses materials with common characteristics, such as depth to till or bedrock, amount of coarse fragments, color, and percent of organic material. Most common in King County is the Aldenvood Series. These soils develop on gentle rolling terrain and have good surface drainage, but display restricted subsurface drainage because of an underlying hardpan layer. They have a coarse texture, with depths of 28 to 32 inches to the hardpan or glacial till layer. All similar soils originally supported coniferous forests. A. Existing Conditions Cb apter If: Planning Area ::.:..................: ::: :...........::::::::. ...............................:.:.:...... ...::............. :::.:.:..::. >:::::::: : ::::. ...........................:.:......................................... Other soils in King County are alluvial types, the most common of which is the Everett Series. Everett soils are fine - textured, very fertile, and provide rich agricultural land. Alluvial soils usually support grasses, shrubs, and herbs (Kruckeberg, 1991). (4) Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards in King County include erosion, landslides, mines, and seismic areas susceptible to earthquake - induced ground failure. These areas are defined in and regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of the King County Code (KCC 21.54) and its administrative rules. The County's Department of Parks, Planning and Resources mapped these areas in the 1990 King County TpTb 1 FIGURE II - 1 GENERALIZED SURFACE GEOLOGIC MAP OF KING COUNTY Q ALLUVIUM ® OSCEOLA MUDFLOW a GLACIAL AND NONGLACIAL DEPOSITS, UNDIVIDED ,q BEDROCK VASHON DRIFT GLACIAL DEPOSITS ® OUTWASH DEPOSITS fE TILL DEPOSITS SourceUrriteC S—Gedog WSurvey. 1975. K,,g Canty. Wastrvgton (tvowwW 'Vy Um States Dere a me exena. N t: a000m Figure 11.1 Generalized surface geology of Icing County. Source: United States Geological Survey, 1978, King County, Washington (topographic map), United States Department of the Interior Chapter 4• Planning Area A. P.xisttng Conditions Sensitive Areas Map Folio. The maps include areas where soils are susceptible to increased erosion resulting from development. Any solid waste facility developed in these areas requires an erosion control plan. Landslide hazard areas on 40 percent or greater slopes are regulated as steep slope hazards, and facilities developed in these areas require buffers of native vegetation. Areas mapped as seismic hazards are those susceptible to earthquake -induced ground failure. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (KCC 21.54) regulates development in these areas. Also, the King County Solid Waste Regulations (King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC, Title 10) prohibit the development of solid waste facilities 'over a Holocene fault, in subsidence areas, or on or adjacent to geologic features which would compromise the structural integrity of the facility" (KCBOHC 10.32.020[A]). b. Air (1) Climate The Puget Sound region has a typical marine climate. In late spring, an eastern Pack high-pressure system forces storms well north of the state, resulting in dry, stable weather conditions. During winter months, a relatively stationary low- pressure system sends Pacific storms through the region, resulting in cloudy, rainy weather. Annual precipitation in King County generally increases from west to east as elevation rises (Figure II.2). The impact of precipitation on solid waste management is discussed in Section II.M.c. Ground -level temperature inversions can occur during the winter, resulting in conditions conducive to poor air quality. The National Weather Service issues an air stagnation advisory when such conditions are forecast to last 24 hours or more. There are rarely more than three of these advisories issued per year, and none in some years (TRC Environmental Consultants, 1991). (Z) Air Quality Vehicles and equipment operated during solid waste collection, transfer, processing, and disposal contribute to ambient concentrations of regulated pollutants. Therefore, impacts on air quality must be considered in facility siting, II -3 design, and operation. Project -specific mitigation can usually be developed to satisfy air quality concerns. Three agencies have jurisdiction over air quality in King County. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). They regulate allowable concentrations of air pollutants and emission levels of contaminants from air pollution sources. Ecology and PSAPCA maintain air quality monitoring stations throughout the region. Ambient standards for particulate matter and carbon monoxide (CO) have been exceeded in recent years, resulting in the designation of "nonattainment areas" (Figure I1.3). Existing nonattainment areas for particulates are in the Duwamish tideflats and the city of Kent; the CO nonattainment area encompasses the entire Seattle metropolitan area. In addition, based on recent monitoring data, EPA has proposed designating the entire Puget Sound region as a nonattainment area for ozone (Personal communication, B. Miller, Ecology, 1991). PSAPCA has designated developed areas as a no -burn zone where open burning is restricted (it conforms exactly to the CO nonattainment area). The no -burn designation has increased construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) wastes and yard waste entering the solid waste system. (3) Odor Odor is a key public concern associated with handling and disposing of solid waste and can be an important consideration in recyclables collection and design and operation of transfer stations and landfills. Odor emissions in King County are regulated through Sections 9.11 and 9.12 of Regulation 1 of PSAPCA, which specify that odor emissions may not be injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or property, or unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of life and property. In response to odor complaints, PSAPCA officers may issue a notice of violation. An active gas and odor control system has been installed at the Cedar Hills Landfill to prevent odors from impacting the surrounding community. Transfer stations are sited and designed to mitigate odor impacts. A. Existing Conditions Chapter I/.• Planning Area C. Water (1) Surface Water The King County Solid Waste Regulations do not allow solid waste disposal sites within 200 feet of streams, lakes, ponds, rivers, or saltwater bodies (KCBOHC 10.32.020 [c]). To prevent water quality degradation, surface water and leachates at solid waste facilities --particularly landfills --must be carefully controlled. 1 SEA I \ Ol 1 ° i 1 G � m I i c40 I VASHON % ISLAND There are 38 separate drainage basins that form five major river watersheds in King County: the White, Green, Cedar, Snoqualmie, and Skykomish. These rivers originate in the Cascade Mountains, flow west, and empty into Puget Sound (Figure II.4). There are also many lakes throughout the County, including several created by dammed rivers: the Tolt Seattle Water Supply Reservoir on the South Fork of the Tolt River, Chester Morse Lake on the Cedar River, the Howard --------- ---- ----- 4 _ c _ ,100 "120 M� 140 160 180 m OV °0 1 D ; 50, � i 5 0 5 MILES Figure H2 Mean annual precipitation in inches, King County. Souroe: U.S. Weather Bureau, 1992. Choter Il.• Planning Area A. Existing Conditions Hanson Reservoir on the Green River, and Mud Mountain Lake on the White River. Water quality in King County ranges from very good to poor. The King County Basin Reconnaissance Program found evidence of water quality degradation in various waters (Personal communication, R. Storer, King County, 1991). Some of the degradation is attributed to continuing urbanization, which results in nonpoint source pollution, such as increased urban runoff from impervious surfaces, fertilizers, and commercial or industrial sources. Degradation can also occur from failing septic tanks or illegal hook-up of sewer lines to storm drains, increased sedimentation from uncontrolled access of livestock to stream banks, and illegal dumping of solid or hazardous waste (Personal communication, R. Storer, King County, 1991). Figure U3 Air quality nonattainment areas. Source: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1991. A. Existing Conditions Chapter Il.- Planning Area (2) Storm Water Floods have historically been the County's most damaging and frequently occurring natural hazard. The King County Solid Waste Regulations require that all landfills located in a 100 - year floodplain comply with local floodplain management ordinances and be designed so as not to restrict the flow of the base flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain, or result in a washout of solid waste 1(4 �—\ V \C) SEATTLE IC jo 0 \ 4 1 3. 1 1 I VASHON I ISL/ANBD V (KCBOHC 10.30.070). The Solid Waste Regulations also require that all solid waste facilities provide peak rate runoff control for a 25 -year, 24-hour storm event (KCBOHC 10.36.030 [c] [d]). Flooding occurs in county rivers during two sharply defined periods. From October to March, the highest precipitation of the year causes winter runoff, which is characterized by sudden surges in water discharge, aggravated by heavy rains or melting snow. From March through June, EN a 5 0 iii 5 MILES •RIVER:;?:;::: ....... _R i ve Iv BASIN RIV l BASIN Figure HA Surface water, aquifers and major wells, and watersheds. �ASYPF\ ar l G _....., B e - Com•\ 1 Sole source aquifer Areas of major groundwater withd \•_ for public water supplies Urban boundaries Cfxr & 11.• Planning Area A. Existing Conditions rivers swell as the mountain snowpack melts. Water volumes peak in June, but the pattern is a gradual increase rather than the sudden surge of winter floods (Kruckeberg, 1991). Recent development in King County has increased the area of impervious surface and diminished the size and number of wetlands, leading to more surface water runoff and potentially more frequent and severe flooding (Personal communication, R. Storer, King County, 1991). When runoff is unusually heavy, rivers may completely fill or overtop designated floodways. Local flood management is provided by the King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division. (3) Groundwater Landfills have a potential impact on groundwater. The King County Solid Waste Regulations specify that a landfill owner or operator cannot contaminate the groundwater underlying the facility (KCBOHC 10.36.020 [A]). Groundwater monitoring is required for all landfills, waste piles, landspreading disposal facilities, and surface impoundments (KCBOHC 10.72.010). Most groundwater impacts associated with solid waste landfills can be mitigated during siting and design. Ideally, a disposal site would be located as far as possible from existing, active drinking water wells; utilize geologic barriers to minimize movement of contaminants; and maintain as much distance as possible between the lowest liner and seasonal high groundwater. The proposed Seattle -King County Groundwater Management Plan would prohibit placing a landfill on a critical aquifer recharge area. Maps showing the general location of these areas will be developed as part of the planning process (Personal communication, T. Rolla, Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, SKCDPH, 1992). Many aquifers in King County are associated with alluvial, post -glacial deposits and occur less than 100 feet below the surface (see Figure II.4). They are usually linked to adjacent water courses, such as rivers. Recharge of groundwater results from precipitation and adjacent stream flows. The Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (hereafter called the Health Department) has proposed designating "critical aquifer recharge areas" as suitable for protection under the Sensitive Areas II- 7 Ordinance. These are areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water. Principal users of public water supplies from groundwater are the municipalities of Renton, Kent, Redmond, Issaquah, Federal Way, and Auburn, and small water districts in King County. Typically, in rural areas, individual, privately -owned wells are used for residential water. Future development in the County is expected to rely on groundwater as the principal source of potable water. (Personal communication, T. Rolla, SKCDPH, 1992.) d. Plants and Animals (1) Plants King County Solid Waste Regulations prohibit the placement of a land disposal facility in areas designated as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species of plants (KCBOHC 10.32.020 [e] [2]). However, there are no known endangered or threatened plant species in King County (Personal communication, S. Norwood, Washington Department of Natural Resources, DNR, 1992). There are 11 species of vascular plants in the County that have been declared sensitive by the DNR. Any future solid waste facility sites found to have sensitive plant species would require protection measures, such as adequate buffers. The two major habitat types that support vegetation in King County are forests and wetlands. Of the three types of forest zones, the Western Hemlock Zone is the principal forest habitat in the County and the one most likely to be disturbed by construction of solid waste facilities. Wetlands are common and widespread, and the importance placed on their preservation is reflected in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (KCC 21.54). The overall policy objective identified in this ordinance is no net loss of wetland functions and values. Detailed development standards are provided in the ordinance and its administrative rules. King County Solid Waste Regulations prohibit the placement of an active landfill within 200 feet of a wetland (KCBOHC 10.32.020 [i]). A. Existing Conditions Chapter U Planning Area II-8 (2) Animals King County Solid Waste Regulations prohibit siting of a landfill within areas designated as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species of wildlife or fish by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Washington State Department of Wildlife (KCBOFIC 10.32.020 [E]). Significant areas in King County still harbor a variety of wildlife, including species that are considered threatened or endangered, e.g., the bald eagle and western pond turtle (threatened), and the gray wolf (endangered). e. Energy and Natural Resou rm (1) Energy The current emphasis on waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) in solid waste management results in the conservation of energy and natural resources. In addition, placement of transfer stations reduces the use of petroleum fuels by consolidating waste volumes and reducing travel distances for most haulers. Solid waste can also be used as an energy source for heating and electricity, however the 1992 Plan does not recommend pursuing energy resource recovery (E/RR) strategies at this time. King County is currently investigating the feasibility of capturing and utilizing landfill gas from the Cedar Hills Landfill as an energy source. Landfill gas can be collected and purified as a substitute for natural gas or burned directly. King County currently derives its energy from natural gas, petroleum, electricity, and coal. Natural gas is supplied through pipelines from Canada Crude oil from Alaska, Canada, and overseas is refined by local refineries. Electricity is generated by hydroelectric, nuclear, and coal-, wood-, oil-, or gas-fired plants and cogeneration. Some coal is mined in King County and burned by the Centralia power plant. Wood, primarily from commercial forestlands, is burned in stoves and fireplaces as a primary or secondary heating fuel for residences and for industrial purposes (Washington State Energy Office, 1988). (2) Natural Resources State and county emphasis on preserving resource lands has made them an important consideration in siting solid waste facilities. The King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan encourages long-term retention of lands for productive forestry. The State Growth Management Act requires that the County ensure conservation of designated agricultural lands. Both require that mineral resource lands, if not urbanized, be designated and conserved for continued or future use (King County, 1990)• King County has 1,330 square miles of forest land, which comprises 62 percent of the County's total area. Approximately 1,000 square miles are reserved for commercial forestry; 225 square miles of forest land are preserved for open space uses in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Approximately 90 percent is held in 1,700 large parcels potentially subject to commercial harvest. Agriculture contributes an estimated $75 million in sales per year to the County's economy (Personal communication, C. Moulton, King County Cooperative Extension Service, 1992). Farm land declined from 165,000 to 55,500 acres between 1945 and 1974, mostly east of Lake Washington and in the Green River Valley. An estimated 54,000 acres of active farm land remain, and the County has applied restrictive agricultural zoning to 43,000 of them (King County, 1990). The major mineral resources in the County are sand and gravel, with limited exploration for gold and silver and extraction of clay and silica Sand and gravel consumption— estimated at 7.35 million tons annually countywide—is related to residential, commercial, and industrial construction, and 70 to 80 percent of it is produced in -county. Principal sand and gravel deposits are located along the eastern flanks of the Snoqualmie River Valley. Coalfields are located in central and southeastern King County; the largest and most productive are in the Green River Valley. Production is about 58,000 tons per year, reserves are estimated to be 828 million tons. Chapter /!.• Planning Area A. Existing Conditions 2. Built Environment a. Noise Noise from construction, traffic, and operating equipment associated with solid waste facilities is a major public concern. Proximity to sensitive noise receptors (such as hospitals, schools, and residences) and the availability of enough land to buffer noise are important siting factors. King County Solid Waste Regulations require that buffer zones adequate to minimize noise nuisances surround the operating area of transfer stations (KCBOHC 10.60.020 [F]). Noise reduction must also be considered in equipment specifications and facilities design. Noise is regulated by the King County Code and criteria established by the state. In addition, several federal agencies—including the EPA and Federal Highway Administration—have guidelines to evaluate noise impacts. KCC 12.86 limits levels and duration of noise transmitted across property boundaries. Allowable maximum sound levels depend on zoning of the noise source and receiving property (limits do not apply to traffic -generated noise). b. Public Health There are currently no public health problems associated with any of King County's solid waste facilities. However, solid waste handling facilities, if not properly located, designed, and operated have the potential to cause adverse impacts to public health. The Health Department is the primary agency responsible for ensuring that solid waste facilities do not adversely impact public health and the environment. State and local rules, regulations, and enforcement procedures applicable to solid waste are described in Chapter VI. Most of the waste delivered to the King County disposal system is mixed municipal solid waste generated by households and businesses. Screening and clearance of incoming waste to identify waste types requiring special handling and to keep inappropriate waste out of the system is described in Chapter VI, Section C.I. Figure U.S Overleaf: Land use in King County. Note: Since this map was prepared, the cities of Burien and Woodinville have incorporated. c. Land Use In describing land -use patterns in King County, it is useful to divide the County into the following four subregions (King County, 1991): 1. Seattle, four suburban dies (Des Moines, Lake Forest Park, Normandy Park and SeaTac), and the unincorporated Higbline and Shoreline community planning areas. This highly urban subregion sustained most of the County's growth until 1960. Little undeveloped land remains in this subregion, which has well-developed urban utilities and roads. 2. Ybe urban belt from Snohomish County east of Lake Washington and south to the Pierce County border. This subregion contains 19 suburban cities and 6 unincorporated community planning areas. Once a farm belt that fed the urban areas, residential and commercial land development since the 1950s has focused in this area. Most of the public infrastructure needed to accommodate growth is already developed. 3. Bear Creek and Fast Sammamish community planning areas, and portions of Tahoma/Raven Heights. Aside from small portions of Redmond, this region contains no cities. Over the last 30 years, this area has experienced the greatest population change in the County. Land use is mixed urban and rural. Much of the basic infrastructure required to support urban development is planned, but not yet in place. 4. Hobart and Enumclaw plateaus, Snoqualmie Valley, Vashon Island, and Fast King County planning area. Although this area contains three-quarters of the County's land area, most of it is in farm, forest, or rural residential use. The King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies urban areas expected to see the most population and employment growth, and to achieve housing and employment densities that support urban services. Within urban areas, commercial and industrial activities are encouraged to concentrate in compact activity centers (see Figure II.5). A. Existing Conditions Chapter ll.• Planning Area Solid waste management services, particularly collection of waste and recyclables, are most efficient when they are in a well-developed urban infrastructure. As a result, program design and implementation typically differs between urban and rural areas. (1) Population and Housing King County is the most populated of Washington's 39 counties. Growth in population and number of households during the 1980s and the resulting increase in solid waste generation, provided the impetus for emphasis on waste reduction and recycling in the 1989 Plan and this Plan update. The County is expected to continue to experience significant growth in population through the 20 -year planning period. King County's April 1, 1990 population of 1,507,319 is two and a half times the size of the next largest county, Pierce County, and comprises nearly a third of the total state population of 4.87 million.' Seattle, with 516,259 residents, is the largest jurisdiction in the state; unincorporated King County is the second largest, with 513,298. The 29 suburban cities of the King County solid waste planning area have 477,067 residents. King County's population distribution is shown in Figure II.6. (1990 Census and King County, 1991) There were 616,000 households in King County in 1990. During the 1980s, the number of households increased at a faster pace than total population, 24 versus 19 percent, as a result of declining average household size. Persons per household dropped from an average of 2.9 in 1970, to 2.5 in 1980, to 2.4 in 1990 (King County, 1991). (2) Business and Industry The King County Waste Characterization Study (Volume II, Appendix B) determined that approximately ' However, note that Seatte is not included in the King County solid waste management planning area 40 percent of the solid waste generated in the County comes from nonresidential sources. King County had about 945,000 nonagricultural wage and salary jobs in 1990, 39 percent more than 1980. About three- quarters of this increase occurred after 1985. The strong performance of the aircraft industry in the manufacturing sector and of the services, wholesale, and retail sectors are responsible for most of the growth. Geographical distribution of jobs changed dramatically. In 1980, approximately 58 percent of all jobs in King County were located in Seattle—one in five in the downtown area By 1988, over half of all jobs in the County were outside the city. Downtown Seattle is still the major employment center (120,000 jobs), but suburban centers in Bellevue, Kent, and Highline have developed substantial employment concentrations. The most rapid growth in new jobs is occurring in Redmond, Woodinville, and Federal Way (King County, 1991). e. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare (1) Aestbetics King County is located in a region of spectacular landscapes, characterized by mountains, forested plateaus and hills, river valleys, and shorelines. Many areas of the County have inspirational views and its residents value the aesthetic quality of life. Aesthetics is most applicable to solid waste management in the siting and design of facilities. Site selection can consider whether views might be altered or obstructed, and buildings can be designed with features that enhance aesthetics. For example, materials such as natural stone, brick, glass, or wood (rather than metal siding) can enhance the exterior, colors can articulate architectural and design features; details such as fascias, canopies, arcades, can break up large wall surfaces; equipment or structures can be screened from public view, and areas can be landscaped. King County requires that one percent of certain facility costs be spent on artwork to either enhance the visual quality of the site or onsite structures or to mitigate offsite impacts. Chapter !1.• Planning Area A. Existing Conditions s Luxor,„ PARK DES ,L y a TACOMA z� cm King County Comprehensive Plan May 1992 - Open space Existing pubric park and recreation areas, and natural features protected by environ- mental regulations. Resource Lands Forest Production Districts Agricultural Production Districts 0 Rural Areas Areas to remain in rural land uses, where rural public facility and service standards apply. 0 Urban Areas Areas planned for growth at a range of residential densities (from very high to very low), where urban public facility and service standards will apply. 0 Transitional Areas To remain in low density land uses as a reserve for future urban development or designation as Rural Areas. - Rural City Expansion Area r—� L _ _j Potential Urban Activitiy Center ® Indian Reservation 0 Incorporated Area O Urban Activity Centers Cities containing one or more concentrations of employment/shopping. Major concentrations of employment/ shopping in unincorporated King County. O Rural Activity Centers Concentrations of employment, shopping and higher density housing in Rural Areas, including incorporated and unincorporated rural towns. Existing city boundaries will expand through annexations. Source: King County Comprehensive Plan Map. *City of Burien incorporation effective early 1993. 1992 (2) Ligbt and Glare Light and glare from bright outdoor lamps or motor vehicles can intrude onto adjacent properties and can also create safety hazards or interfere with views. Design and operational elements that can abate offsite impacts of solid waste facilities include minimizing reflective surfaces, orienting the facility to keep light away from nearby structures, using hoods on outdoor lamps, and installing fencing along roadways to deflect vehicle headlamps. f. Transportation (1) Higbways and Roads Because most solid waste is transported along freeways and arterials, roadways are an integral component of a solid waste system. Any plans for new or expanded solid waste facilities must consider existing traffic levels on haul routes, and the capacity of these roadways to handle additional truck traffic. In some cases, it may be necessary to improve Figure HA King County 1990 population density. Source: Puget Sound Regional Council. Note: Seattle population data are not shown. A. Existing Conditions Chapter /1.• Planning Area roadways or adjust haul routes or schedules to mitigate potential impacts. The County's transportation system includes a full range of roads: arterials for fast travel between activity centers, local access streets for low speeds and volumes in residential areas, and neighborhood collectors for circulation between residential areas and for connecting local access streets to arterials. Arterial roads comprise the County's primary road system (Figure II.7). Traffic congestion is particularly heavy in urban areas. Roadways experiencing severe peak -hour congestion include portions of I-405, I-5, SR -520, SR -167 and SR -169. To ease this situation, the County is constructing new arterials and widening existing ones (Ding County, 1990). County and local municipalities have six-year road improvement programs that are updated annually. In some cases, county and municipal agencies work together to develop and fund mutually beneficial road improvements. Figure II.7 Major highways in King County. Chapter Il.• Planning Area A. Existing Conditions The King County ftnsportation Plan aimed road improvements primarily at urban and suburban areas experiencing the worst traffic congestion. In 1989, over 90 percent of road improvement funds were earmarked for growth - related improvements. Despite this level of spending, funding is not adequate to finance the construction projects needed to establish a complete road network or improve mobility in urbanizing areas (King County, 1990)• The 1990 Washington State Legislature approved additional revenue for transportation improvements by counties, cities, and public transit districts. Local options authorized for increased funding include both mass transit and road improvements. Given development and population growth in unincorporated King County, the Transportation Plan will continue to focus on supporting operation, maintenance, and improvement of the general purpose road network in unincorporated areas. The planning process has not been completed and the adequacy of this new funding has not been determined. (2) Rail and Waterborne Transportation Rail will play an important role in transporting CDL waste generated in King County to out -of -county land fills under recently approved contracts with private vendors (see Chapter V, Section C ). Also, rail or barge may play a role in any future consideration of mixed municipal solid waste export (see Chapter IV, Section A.U.). King County is well served by rail and barge. The main line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, shared by the Union Pacific Railroad runs north -south through the County. Spur lines provide rail access from industrial areas. Well-developed port facilities on Puget Sound provide year-round ship and barge access. Puget Sound barge traffic connects to the 465 - mile Columbia/Snake River navigation system via the Pacific Ocean. g. Public Services and Utilities Availability of water and sewer services is an important consideration in siting solid waste facilities. Adequate water supply is required at solid waste facilities to fight fires, control dust, wash down facilities and equipment, and provide potable water for employees. Connection to a sewer system is needed to discharge pretreated landfill leachate and for wastewater runoff from transfer stations. Wastewater discharge permits from Metro are required for such discharges. Since sewer utilities are typically restricted to urban areas, rural facilities may require treatment capability on site. There are 21 sewer districts, 35 water districts, several large private water systems, approximately 2,000 small public water systems, and thousands of private wells in King County. Water and sewer capacity and services for solid waste facilities must be consistent with density. In densely populated and developed urban areas, large public sewer and water systems are needed. In rural areas, onsite sewage disposal systems and small public or individual water systems are acceptable. Critical recharge areas for aquifers used for potable water are subject to regulation. (King County, 1990.) Police protection is provided by the cities and King County. There are 50 fire departments operated by special purpose districts in unincorporated areas. All solid waste facilities are required to prepare an action plan for a fire or explosion as part of a comprehensive operations plan (KCBOHC 10.34.030 [B] [41). B. WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS 1. Overview The rate at which King County generates solid waste is increasing due to growth in population, continued growth in the business sector, and increases in the amount of waste each individual generates. It is important to understand waste generation quantities and composition to make wise decisions about future waste management. Knowing what materials comprise the waste stream and evaluating trends in their usage can provide valuable information in planning to reduce solid waste generation and toxicity. The county system includes transfer and disposal of mixed municipal solid waste, special wastes, and recyclables delivered to county -operated transfer stations, landfills, and drop -boxes. To plan and manage solid waste disposal and recycling effectively, King County seeks to understand who is generating B. Waste Stream Analysis Chapter B Planning Area waste and what types of materials these generators dispose. This section presents a description of the quantity and composition of the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. King County relies on its own economic planning model, disposal records, and data from the Ecology's (Ecology) recycling survey to obtain reliable disposal and recycling data for short- and long-term planning. To further enhance and validate these sources, the County initiated a waste monitoring program to collect data on the quantity and composition of the disposed and recycled waste stream. The data collected comes from a variety of sources, including data from suburban cities and haulers, information from consultant studies based on data obtained from waste samples, and surveys at county disposal facilities. a. Definition of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MMSW) King County defines "solid waste" to include all "... putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes ... including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes ..." MMSW and special wastes are subsets of solid waste (KCBOHC 10.04.020). MMSW is composed of wastes that are generated by residences, stores, offices, and other generators, but which are not industrial, agricultural, or from demolition. Special wastes are those that require regulatory clearance and special handling practices, such as asbestos, medical waste, and contaminated soils. Miscellaneous wastes are solid wastes that are generally not disposed in the King County disposal system. These include woodwaste and agricultural wastes and CDL wastes. Chapter V addresses specific information about special and miscellaneous wastes. MMSW quantities, as described in this section, are typically post -consumer solid wastes that end up in either the disposed or recycled waste streams. They can be categorized as materials or recyclable products, such as paper, metals, plastics, or yard wastes. MMSW can be picked up by public or private collectors, or self -hauled to landfills, transfer stations, compost facilities, recycling facilities, or drop -boxes. b. Planning Forecast Model The Solid Waste Division uses a planning forecast model to predict future waste quantities for planning, budgeting, operations, and maintenance purposes. The model is also used to estimate capacities of existing and planned transfer and disposal facilities. Its primary objectives are to estimate future waste disposal and to provide estimates of the amount of waste reduced and recycled. The total of all waste disposed, reduced, and recycled represents the amount of waste that is actually generated. Table II.1 provides a description of the 20 -year waste generation forecast for MMSW. To predict future waste quantities, the planning forecast model relies on statistical relationships between waste disposal, population, and income. Although many factors appear to influence waste generation and disposal, research indicates that historical and projected changes in population and real personal income provide the best indicators of future waste generation. The County relies on population and personal income projections provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council of Governments. The model assumes that the projections of population and real personal income adequately represent expected changes in both of these factors. Changes in the County's overall population and the amount of waste each individual generates (or the per capita rate), have the greatest influence on future changes in waste generation and disposal. From 1980 to 1990 the population of King County grew 28 percent In addition, the amount of waste generated by each individual increased from 4.3 pounds per day in 1980 to 6.9 pounds per day in 1990. If this trend continues, per capita generation will increase to approximately 10 pounds per day in the year 2000. Personal income is also considered a good indicator of changing economic conditions. The more money people spend, the more waste is generated, both in terms of the items replaced and new purchases and packaging. Although not directly included in the planning forecast model, other factors influencing future waste quantities include general economic growth, which influences the amount people consume and dispose; the continuing urbanization of King County, which results in the construction of more housing and commercial buildings, which in turn creates waste; and socioeconomic Chapter H..• Planning Area B. Waste Stream Analysis Table 11.1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Projectionsa a The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils, asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste). Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals Table 11.2 Impact of King County Population and Per Capita Income Growth on Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 20 -Year Waste Generation and Disposal Projections Real Personal MMSW MMSW Tons Population Income (S) Year Tons Tons Reduced/ Recycled Percent WR/R 603,000 507,000 Generated Disposed 16,464 806,000 • 1987 989,500 808,000 181,500 18.3 1995 1988 1,038,500 813,000 225,500 21.7 • 1989 1,138,500 838,500 300,000 26.4 20,600 1990 1,258,500 890,500 368,000 29.3 • 1991 1992 1,346,500 1,339,600 914,000 870,700 432,500 468,900 32.1 35.0 1993 1,391,500 834,900 556,600 40.0 • 1994 1,458,600 802,200 656,400 45.0 1995 1,538,600 769,300 769,300 50.0 • 1996 1,622,900 762,800 860,100 53.0 1997 1,711,900 753,200 958,700 56.0 • 1998 1,805,800 740,400 1,065,400 59.0 1999 1,904,900 723,900 1,181,000 62.0 2000 2,009,400 703,300 1,306,100 65.0 • 2001 2,064,500 722,600 1,341,900 65.0 2002 2,121,100 742,400 1,378,700 65.0 a 2003 2,179,300 762,800 1,416,500 65.0 2004 2,239,000 783,700 1,455,300 65.0 • 2005 2,300,400 805,100 1,495,300 65.0 2006 2,363,500 827,200 1,536,300 65.0 • 2007 2,428,300 849,900 1,578,400 65.0 2008 2,494,900 873,200 1,621,700 65.0 2009 2,563,300 897,200 1,666,100 65.0 • 2010 2,633,600 921,800 1,711,800 65.0 a The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils, asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste). Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals Table 11.2 Impact of King County Population and Per Capita Income Growth on Mixed Municipal Solid Waste 20 -Year Waste Generation and Disposal Projections a Exclusive of city of Seattle b In tons changes, such as changes in households, personal wealth, and demands for convenience and time -saving gadgets. For example, over the past 10 years households have increased while the number of people making up a household have decreased. Since a "household" implies a certain fixed level of maintenance, mail, purchasing, and so on, regardless of the number of people in it, the increasing number of households and their decreasing size have a significant effect on increasing waste generation. Additionally, increases in personal wealth and demands for convenience and time -saving gadgets result in increased levels of disposed products, which further contribute to waste generation. c. MMSW Generation King County's planning forecast model is designed to identify the anticipated waste generation of county residents, assuming the County had not pursued aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs. Waste generation is defined as the amount of waste disposed plus the amount of waste reduced and recycled. The County uses 1987 as the base year for forecasting waste generation. The model assumes that approximately 18 percent of the total waste generated in 1987 was reduced or recycled through local recycling drop -boxes sponsored by businesses and charitable organizations. Historical waste disposal data and estimates of amounts reduced or recycled prior to 1987 are used to project the anticipated level of waste generation from 1988 through the year 2000 if no additional recycling programs had been implemented. Table II.2 provides the historical population and personal income data used to forecast future waste generation. A more detailed description of the generation forecast methodology and alternative growth assumptions are provided in Volume II, Appendix A of this Plan. d. Waste Reduelion and Recycling In 1991, King County reduced and recycled an estimated 32 percent of the total waste generated. Waste reduced is defined as waste no longer generated from an activity previously generating waste. Examples include changed manufacturing B. Waste Stream Analyse Chapter /1.• Planning Area Real Personal MMSW MMSW Population Income (S) Generationb Disposalb 1980 775,100 15,605 603,000 507,000 1985 853,828 16,464 806,000 673,000 1990 991,060 18,695 1,258,500 890,500 1995 1,096,900 18,380 1,538,600 769,300 2000 1,195,300 19,800 2,009,400 703,300 2005 1,247,030 20,600 2,300,400 805,100 2010 1,301,000 21,450 2,633,600 921,800 a Exclusive of city of Seattle b In tons changes, such as changes in households, personal wealth, and demands for convenience and time -saving gadgets. For example, over the past 10 years households have increased while the number of people making up a household have decreased. Since a "household" implies a certain fixed level of maintenance, mail, purchasing, and so on, regardless of the number of people in it, the increasing number of households and their decreasing size have a significant effect on increasing waste generation. Additionally, increases in personal wealth and demands for convenience and time -saving gadgets result in increased levels of disposed products, which further contribute to waste generation. c. MMSW Generation King County's planning forecast model is designed to identify the anticipated waste generation of county residents, assuming the County had not pursued aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs. Waste generation is defined as the amount of waste disposed plus the amount of waste reduced and recycled. The County uses 1987 as the base year for forecasting waste generation. The model assumes that approximately 18 percent of the total waste generated in 1987 was reduced or recycled through local recycling drop -boxes sponsored by businesses and charitable organizations. Historical waste disposal data and estimates of amounts reduced or recycled prior to 1987 are used to project the anticipated level of waste generation from 1988 through the year 2000 if no additional recycling programs had been implemented. Table II.2 provides the historical population and personal income data used to forecast future waste generation. A more detailed description of the generation forecast methodology and alternative growth assumptions are provided in Volume II, Appendix A of this Plan. d. Waste Reduelion and Recycling In 1991, King County reduced and recycled an estimated 32 percent of the total waste generated. Waste reduced is defined as waste no longer generated from an activity previously generating waste. Examples include changed manufacturing B. Waste Stream Analyse Chapter /1.• Planning Area methods that reduce or eliminate the amount of materials used to package a product and/or altering purchasing practices that favor products that are reusable and finding secondary uses for goods previously discarded after a single use. Measuring an activity (disposal) that no longer occurs is extremely difficult. King County currently recognizes that "buy recycled" procurement policies, and commercial and residential promotion programs annually increase the level of waste reduction. However, without a reliable method of estimating the amount of material diverted from the waste stream due to waste reduction, King County conservatively estimates that beginning in 1989, 2 percent of the waste diverted from disposal has been eliminated through waste reduction activities and this amount will increase approximately 0.5 percent annually. Future waste reduction policy and program development efforts are discussed in Chapter III. King County will also explore methods of measuring the amount of waste reduced through these efforts. Figure II.8 illustrates projected waste generation and waste disposal levels under four separate planning forecast scenarios. The "baseline" scenario represents the anticipated level of waste disposal if the County had not initiated aggressive waste reduction and recycling policies. This scenario recognizes that county residents would have continued to recycle a limited amount of their waste, i.e., 18 percent in 1987 and remaining at 18 percent thereafter. The "Status Quo Scenario" assumes a waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) rate of 35 percent will be achieved in 1992 and remain at 35 . percent thereafter. The "50 Percent Scenario" assumes that a 50 percent WR/R rate will be achieved in 1995 and remain constant thereafter. The "Goals Scenario" represents the adopted King County WR/R goal of 65 percent in 2000, and assumes that the rate will remain constant thereafter. The 20 -year projected disposal level under the 35 percent, 50 percent, and 65 percent scenarios are displayed in Table I1.3. e. MMSW Disposal The quantity of solid waste disposed has been growing steadily despite increasing recycling rates. This growth occurred primarily because waste generation has been growing faster than recycling due to increased population, employment, and per capita generation. The map in Figure II.6 illustrates the current population densities in each county jurisdiction. Since 1980, disposal of MMSW in King County's system has increased from approximately 507,000 tons in 1980 to approximately 890,000 tons in 1990. This represents an average increase of 7.5 percent per year. Municipal solid waste disposal in King County presently occurs at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (97 percent) and three rural landfills (3 percent). Despite overall growth, waste disposal in 1992 dropped significantly for several reasons: Generation • Baseline -18% Status -35% O 50% • Goals -65% 3,000 2,500 0 2,000 a 0 H 1,500 0 1,000 500 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Figure IIS King County mixed municipal solid waste 20 -year generation and disposal projections. Chapter Il.• Planning Area B. Waste Stream Analysis • II -1 .......... 6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ • • methods that reduce or eliminate the amount of materials used to package a product and/or altering purchasing practices that favor products that are reusable and finding secondary uses for goods previously discarded after a single use. Measuring an activity (disposal) that no longer occurs is extremely difficult. King County currently recognizes that "buy recycled" procurement policies, and commercial and residential promotion programs annually increase the level of waste reduction. However, without a reliable method of estimating the amount of material diverted from the waste stream due to waste reduction, King County conservatively estimates that beginning in 1989, 2 percent of the waste diverted from disposal has been eliminated through waste reduction activities and this amount will increase approximately 0.5 percent annually. Future waste reduction policy and program development efforts are discussed in Chapter III. King County will also explore methods of measuring the amount of waste reduced through these efforts. Figure II.8 illustrates projected waste generation and waste disposal levels under four separate planning forecast scenarios. The "baseline" scenario represents the anticipated level of waste disposal if the County had not initiated aggressive waste reduction and recycling policies. This scenario recognizes that county residents would have continued to recycle a limited amount of their waste, i.e., 18 percent in 1987 and remaining at 18 percent thereafter. The "Status Quo Scenario" assumes a waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) rate of 35 percent will be achieved in 1992 and remain at 35 . percent thereafter. The "50 Percent Scenario" assumes that a 50 percent WR/R rate will be achieved in 1995 and remain constant thereafter. The "Goals Scenario" represents the adopted King County WR/R goal of 65 percent in 2000, and assumes that the rate will remain constant thereafter. The 20 -year projected disposal level under the 35 percent, 50 percent, and 65 percent scenarios are displayed in Table I1.3. e. MMSW Disposal The quantity of solid waste disposed has been growing steadily despite increasing recycling rates. This growth occurred primarily because waste generation has been growing faster than recycling due to increased population, employment, and per capita generation. The map in Figure II.6 illustrates the current population densities in each county jurisdiction. Since 1980, disposal of MMSW in King County's system has increased from approximately 507,000 tons in 1980 to approximately 890,000 tons in 1990. This represents an average increase of 7.5 percent per year. Municipal solid waste disposal in King County presently occurs at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (97 percent) and three rural landfills (3 percent). Despite overall growth, waste disposal in 1992 dropped significantly for several reasons: Generation • Baseline -18% Status -35% O 50% • Goals -65% 3,000 2,500 0 2,000 a 0 H 1,500 0 1,000 500 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Figure IIS King County mixed municipal solid waste 20 -year generation and disposal projections. Chapter Il.• Planning Area B. Waste Stream Analysis Table 113 King County Transfer and Disposal Facility 20 -Year Tonnage Forecast (Mixed Municipal Solid Waste) 1991 Transfer Stations 1990 1995 2000 2010 SCENARIO: STATUS QUO (35 PERCENT WR/R) 111,750 Transfer Stations 193,000 Houghton 186,500 148,250 Factoria 168,000 145,400 190,850 251,050 Houghton 186,500 192,850 263,200 360,050 Renton 69,000 58,550 70,050 83,850 Algona 128,500 134,500 179,150 239,100 Bow Lake 195,000 179,800 233,750 304,400 First NE 98,500 87,350 106,550 130,100 Cedar Falls 2,500 3,400 4,150 5,050 Enumclaw not open 12,850 15,750 19,350 Hobart not open 28,200 -T42;i300 38,100 �f0�55a 51,650 Disposal Facilities 5,600 Cedar Hills 1 1,373,500 7719100 Rural Landfills 43,500 4,900 5,600 6,400 Cedar Hills 1 1,373,500 1,001,200 1,307,400 1,713,400 SCENARIO: 50 PERCENT WR/R 1990 1991 Transfer Stations Transfer Stations Factoria 168,000 111,750 146,700 193,000 Houghton 186,500 148,250 202,300 2769800 Renton 699000 45,000 53,850 64,450 Algona 128,500 103,350 137,700 1839800 Bow Lake 195,000 138,150 1799650 234,000 First NE 98,500 67,100 81,900 1009000 Cedar Falls 2,500 2,600 3,200 3,900 Enumclaw not open 9,900 12,100 14,900 Hobart not open �'4$;� 21,650 -fi4T,75b 29,300 �7� 39,700 9,fT0,55a Disposal Facilities 15,500 10,500 Cedar Falls 500 Rural Landfills 43,500 4,300 4,900 5,600 Cedar Hills 1 1,373,500 7719100 1,006,700 1,319,000 SCENARIO: GOALS (65 PERCENT WR/R) 104,500 Transfer Stations 119,500 City of Seattle 379,500 162,500 Factoria 168,000 111,750 102,550 134,950 Houghton 186,500 148,250 141,450 193,550 Renton 699000 45,000 37,650 45,050 Algona 128,500 1039350 96,250 128,550 Bow Lake 195,000 138,150 125,600 163,650 First NE 98,500 67,100 57,250 69,950 Cedar Falls 2,500 2,600 2,250 2,750 Enumclaw not open 9,900 8,500 10,400 Hobart not open WWII 21,650 -47-,756 26,500 -592006 27,800 -776;6M Disposal Facilities Rural Landfills 43,500 4,300 4,100 4,700 Cedar Hills 1 1,373,500 771,100 706,100 925,000 1 includes special wastes II 17 • The City of Seattle left King County's waste disposal system in June of 1991. 1992 was the first full year the County did not receive waste from the city of Seattle. • Since 1990, the suburban cities have been gradually implementing recycling services that help to reduce the volume of waste disposed. In September 1991, the County provided recycling services to citizens in the unincorporated areas, which represent approximately 52 percent of the County's population outside the city of Seattle. Increased recycling services have helped to decrease disposal tonnages in 1992. Table 11.4 King County Tonnage Summary, 1990-1992 Grand Total --System 1,434,000 1,178,500 933,500 System less Yardwaste 1,433,000 1,175,000 931,500 B. Waste Stream Analysis Chapter f.• Planning Area 1990 1991 1992 Transfer Stations Factoria 168,000 158,000 140,500 Houghton 186,500 188,500 177,500 Renton 69,000 76,000 60,000 Algona 128,500 136,000 126,500 Bow Lake 195,000 180,000 172,500 First NE 98,500 102,500 88,500 Enumclaw Not opened Subtotal 845,500 841,000 765,500 Rural Landfills Enumclaw 11,000 7,000 6,000 Vashon 5,000 7,000 7,000 Hobart 27,000 15,500 10,500 Cedar Falls 500 closed closed Subtotal 43,500 29,500 23,500 Regional Direct King County 104,500 96,000 119,500 City of Seattle 379,500 162,500 0 Subtotal 484,000 258,500 119,500 Cedar Hills --Other Commercial 24,000 20,500 15,732 Special Waste 34,000 25,000 6,000 Cedar Falls d/b 2,500 3,500 3,500 Cedar Hills Total 1,373,500 1,146,000 909,500 Grand Total --System 1,434,000 1,178,500 933,500 System less Yardwaste 1,433,000 1,175,000 931,500 B. Waste Stream Analysis Chapter f.• Planning Area • King County has implemented alternative methods for managing CDL waste that focuses on recycling and also allows residual CDL waste to flow to out -of -county landfills. • Finally, the region as a whole was in an economic recession in 1992. Economic recession causes disposal tonnages to decline by cutting industrial production, which reduces the waste disposed by factories and other businesses. Consumer spending also declines, which causes the volume of waste disposed by households to decline. Table II.1 projects future disposal tonnages for the King County region. To determine the historical quantities of waste disposed, King County relies solely on internal billing and disposal records. Since the Solid Waste Division is responsible for providing for the disposal of all MMSW generated within its jurisdiction, internal activity records are the most reliable source for aggregate disposal data. To determine the quantity of waste disposed by each city or unincorporated service area, the County initiated a monthly reporting system in 1991 to collect detailed information on the amount of waste collected from cities and unincorporated service areas. These reports are submitted to the County by the cities and all certified haulers operating within their jurisdictions. To project anticipated levels of future waste disposal, the County uses the planning forecast model discussed previously (Section B.l.b and Volume II, Appendix A). Similar to waste generation projections, the model forecasts waste disposal using historical population, income, and disposal data. The model incorporates historical disposal data to assist in predicting future disposal requirements. Table II.4 provides detailed information on disposal estimates by disposal facility for 1990 through 1992• 2. Waste Charactefization In addition to estimating the total quantity of waste disposed at King County disposal facilities, it is also important to characterize the material composition of the waste that is disposed to understand the behavior of individual waste generators. Understanding the amount and material composition of waste that the County's residential and nonresidential (commercial) sectors generate is important to target specific WR/R programs and identify future policies for the County's solid waste management system. In 1989, King County estimated that the majority of its disposed waste (60 percent) was generated by the nonresidential sector (Figure II.9). This estimate was based on King County, including the city of Seattle. The 1990 study indicated that for King County excluding Seattle, 60 percent of the disposed waste is generated in the residential sector, while the nonresidential sector only accounted for 40 percent. These estimates have significant impacts on county strategies for reaching WR/R goals, since planned programs must target those sectors that account for the majority of disposed waste. The 1990 transfer station surveys revealed that residential and nonresidential self -haulers represent 29 percent of the disposed waste stream. Self -haulers are those waste generators who take their waste directly to county disposal facilities rather ao so 10 F a Q, A o0 o� Figure H.9 Waste quantities contributed by residential and nonresidential waste generators. Chapter 11.• Planning Area B. Waste Stream Analysis than having garbage haulers collect and transfer it. One explanation of the high percentage of self -haulers contributing to the disposed waste stream may be related to the unexpected increases in construction and demolition waste brought into the county system after the Newcastle Landfill closure. The significant number of self -haulers raises questions concerning the access individuals and businesses have to garbage or recycling collection services and the impact that self -haulers have on county disposal facilities. Over the next few years, the County plans to continue monitoring and evaluating the impact of the self -hauler category. King County will continue to develop and implement special studies to determine the quantity and composition of its disposed waste stream. Information gained from these studies will be used to plan short- and long-term waste reduction and recycling programs discussed in Chapter III. Additionally, this information is also being coordinated with the King County Marketing Commission to provide information about materials in the waste stream that are available for marketing. The following sections discuss the existing composition of King County's residential and nonresidential waste streams and compare changes in waste composition between studies performed in 1987 and 1990. a. Composition of Disposed Waste The waste composition information provided in the 1989 Plan resulted from a 1987 characterization study (R.W. Beck, 1987) that relied on available waste composition data from the city of Seattle, the state of Washington, and the Portland Metropolitan Service District. Based on analysis of the data from these studies, King County drew conclusions about the amount of recyclable materials disposed by its residential and nonresidential generators. In 1990, the County initiated a more comprehensive waste characterization study, which involved actual sampling and sorting of waste disposed in King County (see Volume II, Appendix B). Although the methods used to perform the 1987 and 1990 studies varied significantly, thereby limiting a statistically valid comparison, the results of these studies point to interesting contrasts in the quantity and composition of residential and commercial waste in 1987 and 1990. (1) 1987 Versus 1990 Total Waste Stream Composition Figure II.10 displays an overall comparison between the 1987 and 1990 waste disposal composition. In general, wood, yard waste, glass, paper, and aluminum represent the majority of waste disposed both in 1987 and 1990; however, they each represent a smaller proportion of the total waste stream in 1990 than they did in 1987. Additionally, in the 1990 study, wood, construction, and demolition waste were measured separately. This was not the case in 1987, when construction and demolition were combined with the "wood" category. Consequently, the reduction in wood alone from 1987 to 1990 appears higher than it actually is. Total tons of waste disposed increased by approximately 82,000 tons. Yard waste disposal decreased by 53,00 tons, while wood disposal increased by 20,500 tons, metal disposal by 9,500 tons, glass by 12,500 tons, and paper by 4,000 tons. On the other hand, the amount of plastic and textiles disposed increased by 14,500 and 15,000 tons respectively. The largest increase between 1987 and 1990 occurred in the "other" category, which consists of small amounts of organic and inorganic material including rubber, furniture, ashes, and small particles of waste that are not clearly identified. (2) Comparison of Residential Waste Stream Composition Figure II.11 compares the compositions of the 1987 and 1990 residential waste streams. As shown in Table II.5, the County experienced significant decreases in the amount of wood, yard waste, paper, plastic, and glass disposal. The decreases are attributable to the implementation of significant levels of residential curbside recycling in suburban King County. Materials such as textiles, food waste, and metals indicate minimal increases or decreases. As in the total waste stream, the largest increase in residential waste is observed in the "other" category. The 1990 study also examined the composition of waste from self -haulers. This waste revealed a very different material composition: 12 percent was wood waste and 7 percent was yard waste. The remaining waste included paper (10 percent), metals (9 percent), and miscellaneous organic (14 percent) and B. Waste Stream Analyse Chapter II.• Planning Area I-2 I 0 ............................................................................................................................................................. • 1987 1990-1991 • Glass Plastics Glass Plastics • 4.6% 8.8% 2.7% 9.6% • Paper 29.4% Wood/yard Paper Wood/yard waste 32.9% waste 19.6 26.6 • Textiles Other Figure II.10 King County total Textiles Other 4.6% Food waste 16.4% • waste stream composition, 1987 3.2% Food Waste 7.9% Metals 10% 7.0% Metals Demolition 7.0% 6.3% 6.4% • and 1990-91 Glass plastics Glassplastics • 7.6% 10.0% 3.4% 7.9% • Paper 27.3% Wood/yard waste • Wood/yard 20.8 % waste Paper 26,8% . 36.1% Other inorganics • 2.1% Textiles y Other 4.6% Figure II.11 Residential waste Metals1.7/° Food waste Other organics • stream composition, 1987 and Textiles Food waste 6.6% 8.4% Metals 16.6% 3.4% 8.9% 6.6% • 1990-91 Glass plastics Glass plastics 2.1% 7.8% 1.9% 12.4% • Paper Paper • 30.3% Wood/ and Wood/yard 32. 9 Wood/yard waste waste • 26.6% 17.9% • Other inorganics 2.7% • Textiles 3.0% Textiles b's's> Other organics Figure U.12 Nonresidential Food Other 4.6% Food 8.9% • waste stream composition, 1987 waste 7.0% Metals 16.9% waste Metals Demolition 7.4% 4.9% 4.9% 9.4% and 1990-91 Chapter !L• Planning Area B. Waste Stream Analysis • n U inorganic materials (13 percent). Since the 1987 Waste • Characm*atton Study (R.W. Beck, 1987) did not address the composition of residential or nonresidential self -hauled waste, it • is not possible to compare changes in the composition of waste disposed by these generators. (3) Comparison of Nonresidential Waste Stream Figure II.12 compares the composition of the 1987 and 1990 nonresidential waste streams. The nonresidential sector experienced shifts between 1987 and 1990 in the amount of wood, yard waste, paper, and plastic disposed. Approximately 19,000 fewer tons of wood and yard waste were disposed in 1990 than in 1987, while paper and plastic disposed by the nonresidential sector increased by roughly 20,000 tons each. The 1990 study also measured the composition of nonresidential self -haulers. CDL waste represented 26 percent of this waste. This is assumed to be due to the Newcastle Landfill closure. Yard waste represented an additional 20 percent. Wood (7 percent), paper (12 percent), plastic (18 percent), and miscellaneous inorganic material (28 percent) accounted for the majority of the remaining waste. As with the residential sector, there are no data available on this group from the 1987 study to use for the purpose of comparison. Again, it is important to note that the different methodologies used in developing the composition data in 1987 and 1990 limit a statistically valid comparison. However, waste composition data that allow statistically valid comparisons are necessary in order to efficiently manage the County's solid waste system. Therefore, beginning in 1993, all future waste composition studies conducted by the County will utilize the same methodology. This will allow the County to accurately track changes in disposal patterns over time. Comparative information is useful in determining how to adjust service levels at disposal facilities to meet changing needs and develop new programs and services that help to meet the County's established waste reduction and recycling goals. It is anticipated that the 1993 waste composition study, including data gathering and analyses, will be completed in 1994. A description of the methodology to be used is contained in Volume II, Appendix B, to the Plan. Table U.5 Waste Composition Tonnage, 1987 and 1990-1991 Total Waste 1987 1990-1991 Variance Wood/Yard waste Tons Tons -14,003 Paper 265,903 261,746 -4,157 Wood/Yard waste 206,903 174,498 -32,405 Plastics 71,123 85,468 +14,345 Food waste 63,849 62,321 -1,528 Metals 56,575 47,186 -9,389 Glass 36,370 24,038 -12,332 Textiles 25,863 40,954 +15,091 Other 81,630 137,105 +55,475 Demolition 56,979 +56,979 Total 808,216 890,295 +82,079 Residential Waste Paper 175,059 145,830 -29,229 Wood/Yard waste 125,112 111,109 -14,003 Plastics 48,493 42,200 -6,293 Food waste 43,159 44,871 +1,712 Metals 31,520 29,914 -1,606 Glass 36,855 18,162 -18,693 Textiles 16,488 24,572 +8,084 Other 8,244 -8,244 Other organics 83,332 +86,306 Other inorganics 11,218 Demolition 22,970 +22,970 Total 484,930 534,178 +49,248 Nonresidential Waste Paper 97,956 117,163 +19,207 Wood/Yard waste 82,438 63,389 -19,049 Plastics 25,216 44,159 +18,943 Food waste 22,630 17,094 -5,536 Metals 23,923 16,738 -7,185 Glass 6,789 6,410 -379 Textiles 9,699 16,381 +6,682 Other 54,635 -54,635 Other organics 31,694 -13,326 Other inorganics 9,615 Demolition 33,475 +33,475 Total 323,286 356,118 +32,832 nonresidential B. Waste Stream Analysis Chapter !1.• Planning Area Measuring the composition of the recycled waste stream is a complex task. It involves data collection for materials recycled by all recycling haulers, processors, and end-users. Beginning in 1987, Ecology began to collect these data annually through surveys of haulers, processors, and end-users throughout the state. These surveys include questions on the quantity and composition of recyclables collected in curbside, drop -box, buy-back, and nonresidential programs. The information collected is disaggregated by county. Although Ecology believes the surveys provide reliable information statewide, the department acknowledges that the data may not be accurate at the county level. This is because many haulers, processors, and end-users handle recyclables from more than one county and many respondents to Ecology's survey could not identify the original county or city from which the recyclable materials were collected. As a result, 34 percent of the total tons of material recycled in Washington State could not be attributed to any specific county. Consequently, King County relies on information provided by the survey to determine recycling composition but utilizes the planning forecast model described in Section B.l.b to identify the quantity of waste recycled. The County began collecting monthly recycling information from haulers and suburban cities in September 1990. Over time, these data will provide an additional source for verifying the accuracy of Ecology's surveys and the planning forecast model. Figure II.13 illustrates the estimated composition of waste recycled in 1990. This information was obtained by applying the results of Ecology's recycling surveys to county estimates of tons recycled. Ferrous metals represent the largest category of recycled waste, followed by corrugated paper, yard waste, newspaper, and mixed waste paper. This information provides only an estimate of the composition of recycled waste, because a large portion of Ecology's data could not be attributed to any one county. Efforts to collect information on recyclables at the county level may improve estimates of recycled waste composition in the future. King County will continue monitoring and evaluating the quantity and composition of its waste stream. To do this, the County will work with representatives from the suburban cities and unincorporated service areas and recycling haulers to obtain accurate data on recyclables to evaluate the success of solid waste programs. To further enhance the validity and reliability of the waste quantity and composition information, the County intends to: • Research and evaluate methods to measure waste reduction. • Continue to collect data to assist suburban cities in evaluating the success of their solid waste programs. • Work with Ecology to refine King County recycling data. • Develop a method for estimating the impact of waste reduction and recycling programs on residential and nonresidential disposal. 300 250 200 V d a 150 N 0 100 50 U) N N 'O G. U U) N L M m C7 Z O 0 CL o Material Category Figure U.13 Recycled and disposed quantities by material category, 1990. Chapter Il.- Planning Area B. Waste Stream Analysis •I 01 • Continue researching alternative external validation methods to estimate the composition and quantity of the disposed and recycled waste streams. • Use current and future waste composition and quantity information to draw conclusions about changes in residents' behavior with regard to recycling and waste reduction. • Continue to monitor the percentage of waste disposed by self -haulers. • Coordinate with the Marketing Commission on the results of the Waste Characterization Study and impacts on marketing requirements. C. SOLID WASTE FACILITY SITING PLAN SUMMARY This summary provides an overview of the facility siting process, but because transfer stations are the only King County solid waste facilities recommended by this 1992 Plan update, discussions beyond general descriptions of other types of facilities are omitted. The complete text of the King County Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan can be found in Volume II, Appendix C of this Plan. Selecting a solid waste facility site is often the most controversial step in the overall process of developing facilities to meet solid waste management needs. To facilitate this process, in 1986 the King County Council requested the Executive to: " ... develop a plan for locating sites for each of the solid waste disposal facilities ... anticipated within the 20th century. This plan shall provide for identification of multiple site alternatives for each facility, comparison of the alternatives through an EIS, a process for public review of the alternatives and EIS findings, and recommendations to the Council, including equitable distribution of these disposal facilities within the County." (Motion 6862) The King County Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan included in the 1989 Plan addresses requirements set by the King County Council (KCC 10.08.030), the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) and by the state (RCW 70.95, WAC 173-304, and Ecology Guidelines for the Development of the Local Solid baste Management Plan and Plan Ret*kns (Ecology Guidelines, WDOE 90-11). The facility siting plan • Guides the Solid Waste Division's facility -specific siting efforts. • Ensures a reasoned site -selection process and delineates where and how agencies and the public can provide input. • Communicates policy guidance to county staff. • Provides an assessment tool for individual siting recommendations. KCC 10.08.030 further requires that the plan provide for equitable distribution of solid waste facilities and their associated impacts throughout the County. The potential impacts vary dramatically. Traffic and aesthetics are major concerns for a transfer station. Landfills face other complex water quality, air quality, and land use issues as well. Siting constraints also differ. Transfer stations require smaller sites and are located throughout the County. A landfill may require hundreds of acres, is usually sited in less developed areas, and may serve the entire County. To ensure equitable distribution, county and cities' zoning codes need to include provisions for solid waste facilities as appropriate uses to ensure the flexibility to locate facilities to meet service needs and mitigate their impacts. 1. Facility Types There are two major types of solid waste facilities covered by the siting plan: 1. ftnsfer station/recychng processing centers. Transfer stations are facilities where wastes from many smaller -capacity vehicles (passenger cars, light trucks, and other collection vehicles) are combined, loaded into a fewer number of transfer trailers, and trucked to a landfill. Recycling processing, including composting facilities, potentially may be incorporated into transfer stations or developed separately. 2. Mixed municipal solid waste landfills. Waste in landfills is compacted and buried between layers of earth with extensive control systems to mitigate potential environmental impacts. (For discussion of landfill siting, see Volume II, Appendix C.) C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Summary Chapter 1L: Planning Area II-24 2. Siting Process The siting process objective is to recommend a site to decision makers that is environmentally acceptable, feasible from an engineering and operational perspective, and acceptable to the public. There are six steps in the process: 1. Site identification. Potential sites are identified. 2. Broad site screening. Sites are screened according to general criteria (regulatory, environmental, development, or other situational factors), and a prioritized list of sites is compiled. 3. Focused site screening. Sites are screened for site-specific criteria and ranked. These highest ranked sites proceed to comparative site evaluation. 4. Comparative site evaluation. These highest ranked sites are examined from environmental, operational, and policy perspectives. These sites are ranked again, and the top three or four sites, along with a no -action alternative, proceed to environmental review. S. Environmental review. Final candidate sites undergo environmental review (SEPA process) and EIS development (if required). A preferred site alternative is recommended to the County Executive. 6. County decision making. The County Executive reviews the recommendation and approves, modifies, or rejects the recommended site. 3. Siting Criteria Solid waste transfer stations are not subject to state regulatory exclusionary siting criteria for landfills. Local conditions and needs drive the siting of transfer stations. For each criterion, the features that tend to make a site more suitable for development are discussed. (For discussion of landfill criteria, see the complete text of the facility siting plan in Volume II, Appendix Q. a. Geology and Soil The geology of subsurface materials is important in determining foundations stability for roadways and structures. Sites with unstable foundation materials will be difficult and expensive to develop for transfer station use. b. Groundwater Sites with shallow water tables have a high potential for flooding of waste pit and transfer trailer loading areas. There are engineering solutions for some aspects of this problem, but sites with deeper water tables are more desirable than sites with higher ones. c. Flooding Since floods can produce excessive amounts of debris requiring disposal, it is important that waste disposal facilities remain operable. Sites within the 100 -year floodplain are less preferable than sites located outside of it. d. Surface Water To meet local service needs, transfer stations are located where those needs dictate. With the rare exception of facilities requiring access to barge haul, facilities are not required to be sited close to surface water bodies. A transfer station can be sited near water bodies if shoreline management designations permit. Also, sites located in or near surface water bodies, such as creeks or wetlands, would be more difficult and expensive to develop than sites that do not have these features in or near their development boundaries. e. Site Capacity The size and shape of a site determine the layout of transfer station facilities, such as buildings and roads. Required parcel size depends on planned vehicle and tonnage capacities, buffer requirements, onsite queuing capacity, and onsite recycling and processing facilities. Irregularly shaped sites are more difficult to develop than square or rectangular ones. Chapter II.• Planning Area C. Solid Waste Facdity Siting Plan Summary L Slope Site topography is important because of excavation -to -fill ratios and site access. Sites on flat terrain may have good access for truck traffic but require excessive filling for construction. Sites located on hillsides may have excellent excavation -to -fill ratios, but may be fragile or unstable or may have grades too steep for truck access. For such conditions, excavation -to -fill ratios and access must be considered together for each site. g. Climatic Factors Because transfer stations may be partially enclosed, depending on climatic factors, they generally are not subject to • siting constraints due to wind, rain, snow, and freezing weather conditions. However, sites must be served by all-weather roads • that are maintained and kept open. h. Land Use (1) Critical Habitat Areas designated as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Washington Department of Game are considered regulatory exclusions. There are no areas currently designated as critical habitat in King County. (2) Zoning A potential transfer station that is consistent with a site's zoning increases the probability of obtaining land use permits, where necessary, and minimizes land use impacts. In some jurisdictions a transfer station is considered an unclassified use and can potentially locate in any zone. Generally, however, transfer stations are most consistent with light industrial or commercial uses. (3) State or National Parks Transfer stations should not be sited within 1,000 feet of a state or national park (4) Residential Neigbbors A transfer station is similar to a fight industrial or commercial use and has substantial transportation -related needs. Transfer stations have been located in various types of settings, most commonly in commercial, industrial, or rural areas, many of which may be close to residential areas. An industrial land use would be most compatible with a transfer station. The least compatible land uses are residential areas with sensitive uses nearby, such as schools, nursing homes or hospitals, and heavily used recreational areas. (5) Tra ffle Access Road Development Access refers to the road system to be used in transporting solid waste from collection points to the transfer station. Potential transfer station sites should be located as close as practicable to the bulk of waste generation. Project costs will include improvements required to meet the facility's needs and to meet road capacity and safety standards. Proximity to a state highway system is preferable. (6) Tra,,fie Impact Another consideration in siting is the effect of transfer station -generated traffic. A traffic impact analysis would compare possible sites to assess potential secondary impacts such as safety, air quality, and noise. The most desirable sites are those where there would be less significant increases above existing levels. (7) Air Emissions The major air quality concerns of a transfer station relate to vehicle emissions and their impact on areas through which solid waste is transported. Preferable sites are those that reduce both the level and impact of such emissions. Other air quality concerns that must be addressed are odor and dust control (KCBOHC 10.020). 4. Rating Site characteristics are rated numerically to compare alternative sites in relation to a single criterion. Criterion C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Summary Chapter 11.Planning Area weight compares the importance of a given criterion in relation to other criteria- 5. riteria 5. Public Information and Involvement Program A sound public information and involvement program is vital to successful siting efforts. The elements of the program are early notification regarding siting plans and procedures, regularly updated information about the siting process, and ample opportunities for public input in all phases. The objectives of a public involvement program are as follows for the siting steps: • Me identification. Ensure that an adequate number of sites are identified, and the public has an opportunity to assist in identifying them. • Site screening. Ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed. • Comparative site evaluation. Incorporate local issues into evaluative criteria and provide for public input in establishing those criteria. • Environmental review. Identify community impacts, create broad public awareness, and provide diverse opportunities to participate in the review and to provide community input into mitigation measures. • County decision making. Give people in the community who may be affected by a siting decision adequate notice and opportunities to express their opinions and preferences. There are three major components to public involvement and information. I. Information gathering and issue identification. Activities may include review of literature; interviews with community leaders to gather baseline information, summarize key issues, and identify groups to be involved; surveys to quantify public preferences (e.g., random sample telephone surveys, random sample or communitywide mail surveys, or handout questionnaires at meetings); focus groups to obtain more in- depth qualitative information about public perceptions and opinions. 2. Information dissemination. Elements may include media relations activities (e.g., news releases, press conferences, press packets); dissemination of targeted information to elected officials, public agency staff, community organizations, individuals, neighbors or neighborhood organizations, and businesses; and dissemination of general information through brochures and fact sheets, advertisements and public notices, public service announcements, newspaper inserts, and community organizations. 3. Public involvement and consensus building. These activities may include enlisting the services of citizen advisory committees and task forces; encouraging dialogue through community leader forums; conducting community workshops; employing structured consensus -building processes when needed (e.g., third parry mediation); and holding public input forums to allow individual comment for the record, (e.g., public meetings and hearings). Chapter If.- Planning Area C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Summary • � CHAPTER III � WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING � King County Comprehensive � Solid Waste � Management Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i• \I1� Sorting it Out Together Chapter III Waste Reduction and Recycling Waste reduction and recycling are recognized as basic elements of a responsible waste management system because they help to reduce waste generation and disposal rates, preserving the environment and landfill space. Accordingly, the State has identified waste reduction and recycling as priority methods of managing solid waste (RCW 70.95). King County has also identified the importance of waste reduction and recycling in preserving environmentally secure landfill capacity at Cedar Hills. It is the County's policy that aggressive and timely action be taken to preserve and insure the safe use of the landfill for as long as possible (Title 10, King County Code (KCC) 10.14). The citizens and business community in King County have made the County a national leader in waste reduction and recycling (WR/R). Aggressive goals for WR/R were adopted by the State and County under RCW 70.95 and KCC 10.22.030, respectively, and programs designed to pursue the new policy were implemented through the 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (1989 Plan). In 1991, 32 percent WR/R was achieved. The County has also met its first goal -35 percent WR/R in 1992. This chapter reviews the existing WR/R system and lays out a strategy to achieve the second goal -50 percent WR/R in 1995 and the foundation for 65 percent by 2000. A. WASTE REDUCTION 1. Existing Conditions Successful waste reduction requires changes in the ways goods and services are produced and consumed throughout society. Waste reduction challenges citizens and businesses to be efficient and creative to devise more ways to fulfill economic needs while producing little or no solid waste. State and county legislation identify waste reduction as the highest priority for solid waste management. The development of specific waste reduction education, promotion, and service programs by the County and suburban cities recognizes the importance of waste reduction as part of King County's overall solid waste management strategy. a Background By definition, waste reduction means that less waste is generated at the source or that there is a reduction of difficult - to -recycle wastes at the source. For example, reusable goods are manufactured and purchased instead of disposable ones; packaging is minimized or changed from difficult -to -recycle materials (such as plastics) to more easily recycled materials (such as paper). Other examples include products that are made to be durable and have a long useful life, use of double - sided copies in offices, and use of shrubs and ground cover that don't require pruning or mowing for landscaping. Waste reduction decisions can be made when (1) manufacturers decide what goods to produce, how they are produced, and how to package them, (2) consumers decide what to buy, and (3) consumers decide to use and reuse products efficiently. Because waste reduction is the act of not producing waste, the best method available for measuring waste reduction is the per capita generation rate for the County. Per capita waste generation is the number of pounds of waste generated, either for disposal or recycling, per person per day within the County. Over the last decade, the County's per capita generation rate has been steadily rising. The goal of the waste reduction program is to reverse this trend over time. Per capita waste generation is a measure of social behavior and can be influenced by a variety of factors other than waste reduction programs. Therefore, it is difficult to assign quantitative values to discrete waste reduction practices A. Waste Reduction Chapter 111.• Waste Reduction and Recycling or programs implemented by the County and suburban cities. Factors that can influence per capita waste generation include changes in population, economic cycles, and other outside influences such as information and public opinion relayed by the national media. As a result, the effectiveness of specific County or city waste reduction programs cannot be assessed at this time by measuring the volumes of waste reduced through the implementation of each program. Because of these measurement difficulties, the County's WR/R rate includes a conservative estimate of annual waste reduction. The estimate recognizes the success of procurement policies for buying recycled products, promotion of waste reduction to school children, and media programs targeted at residential and commercial generators. Two percent of the total WR/R rate has been assigned to waste reduction, and this amount is expected to increase by approximately 0.05% annually. (See Chapter II.B for a discussion of waste reduction and recycling rates measurement and Table III.13 for WR/R rates.) Although recycling can be accomplished locally, waste reduction measures are affected by the national and Table M.1 Summary of 1989 Plan Waste Reduction Recommendations international economies and encompass changes in production methods and consumption patterns. Waste reduction measures extend waste management responsibility to a broader field of players—those who design, manufacture, and consume products and packaging. Since 1989, local governments in Washington have been prohibited by state law from banning products or packaging and from assessing taxes or deposits on products or packaging for the purpose of affecting their use or disposal (RCW 70.95.000 and RCW 82.02.025). Consequently, existing programs in King County are focused on educating consumers and working with businesses to implement waste reduction practices in the work -place. The "ban on bans" will be lifted in July 1993 giving local jurisdictions a broad range of strategies with which to increase waste reduction. King County and the suburban cites have expanded the public's understanding of waste reduction and provided the means for individuals and businesses to begin to reduce their waste by implementing the 1989 Plan's recommendations for waste reduction (Table III.1). Program Description Implementation Status Collection rate Establish variable can rates to encourage participation in Established in the County and 28 cities. incentives yard waste and recyclables collection programs. (city/county) City optional Allow cities to receive backyard composting, Master Four cities implementing nonresidential technical programs (city) Recycler/Composter, and nonresidential technical assistance; one city implementing backyard assistance services from the County or operate their own composting. programs with funding assistance from the county. Yard waste programs Provide backyard composting bins from county and Established and ongoing. (county) Master Recycler/Composter training. Nonresidential Conduct WR/R consultations for a wide range of Ongoing technical assistance provided to technical assistance nonresidential generators; develop educational materials businesses through onsite visits, coordinated (city/county) and hold workshops to assist businesses in implementing collection, workshops, and phone assistance. Four WR/R programs in the workplace. cities implementing nonresidential technical assistance. WR/R promotion, Promote WR/R through printed materials, special events, WR/R informational brochures; annual Recycle education, etc. and school programs Week; community events; school education (county) programs; WR/R telephone hotline are provided. Chapter 111. Waste Reduction and Recycling A.1. Waste Reduction: Existing Conditions 0 KI i M 0 b. County Programs (1) Education King County has developed a range of education programs designed to reduce the County's per capita generation rate over time. These programs encourage citizens to generate less waste; to generate waste that is more readily recyclable and less toxic; and to recycle a greater portion of the waste generated. Most public awareness and education efforts which promote recycling also incorporate waste reduction components. These efforts include: • 7be Home Waste Guide, a widely distributed booklet that leads the reader on a tour through the average home and identifies waste reduction and recycling options. It includes the "Resource Catalog," which lists contacts for more detailed information on waste reduction, and the "Waste Reducer's Checklist," which explains ways to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost waste. • Special events, such as the annual Recycle Week, which recognize waste reduction accomplishments. Recipients of the Achievement Awards for outstanding contributions to waste reduction have included an elementary school that eliminated cardboard lunch trays from its waste stream; a consumer cooperative which offers a five -cent rebate to consumers who reuse shopping bags; and a retailer who reuses packing materials provided by consumers and neighboring businesses. • School programs, which include materials about waste reduction for children and teachers. The elementary school program for the academic year 1990-1991 offered an assembly presentation called "The Wiz Kids of Waste." The Wastebusters Program for middle and junior high school students includes student -teacher camp -ins where participants can learn intensively about waste reduction issues. A video focusing on the themes of reduction and reuse was produced featuring words and music written and performed by high school students. • Waste reduction education for businesses provided through the Business Recycling Program. This program includes waste consultations and written materials, such as the Business Waste Reduction and Recycling Handbook, which has been distributed to over 2,500 businesses. A.1. Waste Reduction: Existing Conditions • County Model Employee Program. Through this program, County employees are encouraged to make double -sided copies, reuse paper and other office supplies, and use washable dinnerware. Some County agencies, such as the Solid Waste Division and the Department of Stadium Administration, use worm bins to compost organic food waste generated at the work -place. • Training in waste reduction practices for Master Recycler/Composter volunteers. The manual for the 1991- 1992 training has been revised to expand the waste reduction information. • Composting bins to help residents keep yard waste in their own backyard. The County also provides a wide variety of printed information on composting and operates a composting hotline. (2) Researcb King County conducts experimental waste reduction or pilot projects, including: • A project that provides cloth baby diapers to low-income families. In addition to promoting waste reduction, the program provides educational workshops and opportunities to improve infant care. • A project with Seattle Solid Waste Utility to test a variety of food waste composting methods. This research, funded by a grant from Ecology, will also test the feasibility of backyard food waste composting and on-site nonresidential food and yard waste composting. • A financial assistance program (Dollars for Data) to enable businesses to implement waste reduction projects and services. Businesses provide the County with information and data on the effectiveness of their waste reduction efforts in exchange for waste reduction assistance. Businesses participating in this program include a food bank organization that is vermi-composting unusable food, a hair salon that is providing hair care products in bulk to its clients, a major retail distributor that is replacing disposable plastic clothing bags with durable reusable covers, and a high school that has installed an electronic mail system to convey messages, reports, and other communications in lieu of using paper. Cb apter N..- Waste Reduction and Recycling (3) Other Services The other types of waste reduction measures used by the County and suburban cities are support services, such as rate incentives and a procurement policy that promotes the use of both reusable and recycled products. Variable can rates, which provide an incentive for garbage subscribers to reduce the amount of materials they throw away, have been established throughout unincorporated King County. Subscribers are encouraged to practice waste reduction and recycling by subscribing to a mini -can rate, which offers cost savings over the regular one -can rate. There are substantial cost differentials between garbage service levels, and an additional fee is charged for each extra can the subscriber requests and occasional extra bags of garbage placed at the curb. The County and suburban cities regularly disseminate rate incentive and recycling information to subscribers through brochures, radio ads, and bus boards. The King County Recycled Products Procurement Policy promotes waste reduction by requiring county departments to use both sides of paper sheets whenever practicable. All bids and proposals issued by the County require contractors and sub - consultants to adhere to this policy when submitting documents. c. City Programs Waste reduction information is included in brochures and other publications distributed by the cities. Many cities participated in the statewide Shop Smart campaign coordinated by Ecology in 1991 to encourage consumers to reduce waste by shopping selectively for minimally packaged products, durable and reusable items, and bulk quantities. The cities have also initiated other efforts to promote waste reduction, such as distributing reusable travel mugs and developing waste reduction kits for schools. (Refer also to Volume II, Appendix E for more information on city programs.) Most cities have enacted some form of garbage rate incentives and several have formally adopted procurement policies. •I •I • • 0 2. Needs and Oppoftunities a. Comprehensive Waste Reduction Strategy Realization of the next two WR/R goals, 50 percent by 1995 and 65 percent by 2000, can be greatly assisted by major achievements in waste reduction. Despite remarkable WR/R success, the per capita waste generation rate continues to grow (see waste generation discussion, Chapter II, Section B). Also, as recycling strategies are successfully implemented and recycling increases, achieving additional marginal increases in the recycling rate may become more difficult and expensive. These two reasons underscore the need for much more aggressive waste reduction aimed at reducing the County's per capita waste generation rate, in addition to existing and future recycling efforts. A comprehensive waste reduction strategy would encompass legislative efforts to actively pursue elimination of excessive and non -recyclable packaging as well as more focused and better integrated educational efforts and financial incentives. The role of the private sector should also be considered in product design, manufacturing, and marketing. b. Education The County and cities have already implemented many waste reduction education programs. However, these could be even more effective with better integrated and more widespread promotion that conveys a clear definition of waste reduction and offers specific examples of actions which reduce waste. A county -wide educational effort, delivered through a variety of media, could reach a wider consumer audience. Specific strategies also need to be developed for businesses, residents, governments, and institutions. Chapter Ill Waste Reduclron and R ltng A.2. Waste Redudron: Needs and Opportunitres 0 i c. Financial incentives Financial incentives can be very effective tools in changing purchasing and disposal habits. Manufacturers and retailers need to be encouraged to reduce waste at the points of production and marketing. This can best be accomplished through such state -imposed actions as product disposal charges on particular products, or tax exemptions or credits for companies and institutions that follow specific waste reduction procedures. At the local level, a variable can rate for garbage collection or other financial incentives to reduce waste need to receive continued emphasis and support. Existing rate incentives could be further developed to increase their effectiveness. d. Product Packaging and Source Reduction Under State law, King County and the cities have the ultimate responsibility for managing solid waste and meeting state and local recycling goals. The County and the cities need a full complement of strategies to deal with solid waste disposal issues. The expiration of the "ban on bans" in July 1993 offers the opportunity to examine the various source reduction strategies. Among the strategies that need to be examined are packaging and product prohibitions, advance disposal fees, deposit systems, and mandatory recycling and disposal sites. e. Measurement In order to monitor progress made toward achieving the waste reduction program's goal of a decreasing per capita waste generation rate over time, an accurate method of measurement needs to be developed. The methodology developed must account for changes in the per capita waste generation rate attributable to population shifts and economic cycles so as to produce an accurate projection of social behavior. The evaluation of the effectiveness of specific waste reduction programs implemented by the County is also necessary for making decisions about how to expand and improve on the County's overall waste reduction effort. As discussed in Section III.A.La., it is difficult to measure the impact of discrete waste reduction practices or programs on per capita waste generation rates. Therefore, alternative methods for measuring the effectiveness of programs must be developed that include focusing on the targeted waste stream and potential number of generators impacted by a particular program. 3. Altematives There are two waste reduction alternatives considered: maintaining the status quo and expanding existing programs. These alternatives are summarized in Table III.2 and discussed below. a. Alternative A, Maintain Status Quo Existing policies and programs promoting waste reduction would be continued (rate incentives, procurement policies, and packaging guidelines). Regional education programs (school programs, publications, special events, technical assistance to businesses, volunteer training) would continue to treat waste reduction as the first priority for solid waste management. The County's model employee program would continue to incorporate waste reduction practices into the work -place. Ongoing data collection on waste reduction projects through the financial assistance program to businesses would be an important resource for determining effective strategies for the commercial sector. b. Alternative B, Expand Existing Waste Reduction Programs The County and cities would continue to integrate waste reduction into all WR/R programs. In addition, each jurisdiction would establish additional waste reduction programs targeted at residences, businesses, governments, and institutions. The County and the cities would all implement and maintain a variable rate structure for solid waste collection with cost differentials that offer substantial incentives to reduce waste. Table III.2 Summary of Waste Reduction Alternatives Akernative A Continue existing policies and programs Alternative B Expand existing waste reduction programs A.3. Waste Reduction: Alternatives Chapter N. Waste Reduction and Recyding The programs described in Alternative B would require relatively small budgets for implementation. No increases in rates due to these programs is anticipated. Waste reduction efforts would consist of seven major strategies, which are discussed in the sections that follow. (1) Integration of Existing Programs The County and cities would continue to integrate waste reduction elements into programs for all targeted groups. Business, school, and public education programs described under "Existing Conditions" (III.A.1) would continue to operate at the same level of effort. This strategy is referred to as "Waste Reduction Fust." New strategies that would be implemented under these programs are as follows. • The County would expand its waste reduction efforts in its business recycling program by developing a model office display which would demonstrate methods, equipment, and procurement procedures that reduce waste. The display would be exhibited at trade fairs, offices, and malls. • The County Model Employee Program would continue to encourage double -sided copying, reuse of office supplies, and use of durable dishware through motivational signs and waste reduction checklists. A networking committee would be formed to look for potential waste reduction projects within the County. • The outreach potential of Master Recycler Composters would be increased with additional training in holiday waste reduction techniques and conducting school workshops. The County would also be responsible for implementing additional programs that are related to existing efforts. These include: • Green Works - a program which recognizes businesses that have implemented at least three waste reduction strategies. It is anticipated that the positive Image associated with Green Works recognition will motivate businesses to incorporate waste reduction into company practices. • Holiday Waste Reduction - a program that would target consumers as well as businesses by providing information on how to reduce waste generation during the holiday season; presenting demonstrations on how to wrap gifts and make greeting cards using waste reducing techniques; educating consumers on less wasteful purchasing habits; and working with retailers to encourage the use of reusable shopping bags and gift boxes. • Green Teams - a program that would augment the waste reduction component of the elementary school program by assisting in the formation of teams at each school. Green team members would include students and teachers who would adopt and pursue a waste reduction goal such as reducing the amount of paper or food waste generated at their school. They would be assisted in their efforts through King County curriculum materials. (2) Media Campaign The County would implement a county -wide mass media waste reduction educational campaign which would be coordinated across jurisdictions in its message, presentation, and audience. The purpose of the campaign would be to define waste reduction for the public and describe actions they can take to reduce the amount of waste they generate. Media approaches could include the following. • Newspaper, television, radio and bus -board ads. • Videos on waste reduction, home composting, and household toxics reduction purchased by the County for possible airing on public access and commercial television stations. • A multi -jurisdictional project to buy air time to promote waste reduction topics during breaks in children's programming. (3) Targeted Waste Reduction Plan The cities and the County would develop specific waste reduction programs to meet the particular needs of their residents, businesses, and institutions. The County would implement, at a minimum, at least one program for each residential, business, and institutional generator class from the following list of existing strategies for unincorporated King County. Each city would either implement at least one program from each of the waste reduction strategies below for each generator class, or create their own programs appropriate for each generator class. If cities create their own programs, program summaries would be reviewed and commented upon by the County before implementation, and implementation Chapter UI Waste Reduction and Recydtng A.3. Waste Reduction: Alternatives status would be reported by the cities in their annual report to the County. • Point of purchase exhibits and information. Develop and display exhibits and information in retail stores to educate consumers on selective shopping techniques that reduce waste. • Swap meets. Sponsor citywide or community-based swap meets to encourage residents to trade or sell used goods. • Model programs. Develop and publicize a model residence where waste reduction techniques have been incorporated into daily activities. A checklist might include the use of reusable sandwich boxes for school lunches, cloth diapers, solar -powered products, and landscaping and gardening practices that reduce waste. Emulation by other residents would be encouraged through a recognition program. • Durable shopping bag distribution. Devise a program targeted at shoppers who do not yet use durable or reusable bags. Provide durable shopping bags containing brochures and other materials on selective shopping and other waste reduction strategies. Businesses • Procurement workshops for businesses. Conduct workshops that assist businesses in developing procurement programs that favor durable and reusable products. • Model programs. Develop model programs for different types of businesses and encourage emulation by other businesses through recognition programs. • Waste reduction technical assistance. Provide technical assistance to retailers and other businesses in developing waste reduction programs. • Product or shelf -labeling programs. Work with retailers to develop a product or shelf -labeling program to help consumers identify types of products that reduce waste. • Directory of businesses/organizations employing waste reduction methods. Develop a directory of businesses that employ waste reduction practices as a resource for other businesses planning waste reduction programs. Government/Institutions • Procurement standards. Ensure that procurement specifications for equipment, vehicles, supplies, furniture, parts, and materials provide for the systematic purchase of durable and reusable products. • Model programs. Develop models for waste reduction in offices, cafeterias, parks, or other facilities. Use recognition programs to encourage widespread adoption of waste reduction practices. (4) Collection Rate Incentives The County and the cities would continue to implement rate incentives that encourage waste reduction and recycling and further develop variable rates to ensure substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels. These incentives could include: • Mini -can garbage service. • A special recycling service rate for customers who do not subscribe to garbage collection service. • Distribution of recycling costs among all rate payers. • Substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels. (S) Waste Reduction Policy and Program Research and Development King County would undertake a comprehensive analysis of waste reduction policies and programs implemented in other parts of the country to identify new options for augmenting the expanded programs discussed above. Areas of research could include the following: • Review current assumptions regarding waste generation to determine whether King County's waste generation forecasting model needs revision. • Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packaging and design to determine the types of packaging to be targeted in waste reduction programs. • Identify excessive and non -recyclable packaging, wasteful products, unavoidable waste, and waste that could potentially be eliminated or reduced. A.3. Waste Reduction: Alternatives Chapter N..• Waste Reduction and Recycling • Identify existing waste reduction efforts by the private sector and by government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. • Evaluate regulatory options for enhancing waste reduction. The results of this analysis could lead to additional program proposals for the current planning period. Among the new policies and programs that could be considered are: • Establish a waste reduction consortium with trade associations and manufacturers. • Increase intergovernmental waste reduction coordination to influence state and local decisions. • Work with citizen groups, as well as local, state, and national government coalitions to lobby for regional and national changes in the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of goods and packaging. (6) Packaging Restriction Program Research and Development With the expiration of the ban on bans, the County and cities would immediately gain the authority to implement product restrictions or impose taxes. Although local jurisdictions would have the right to act independently, the County and the cities would attempt to coordinate the implementation of any product restrictions or taxes with one another. Any actions would be implemented through ordinances and be subject to public review. The County and the cities would propose to evaluate the following actions for the 1995 Plan to determine if they are necessary to meet state and local goals: • Prohibitions on the sale of products made of materials that result in excessive waste or waste that is difficult to recycle • Enactment of advance disposal fees on the sale of products that also result in excessive waste or waste that is difficult to recycle • Deposit systems requiring retailers to add a deposit fee for specified products to be refunded upon their return • Establishment of mandatory recycling/disposal sites by retailers for certain products that they sell. (This option would require amendment of existing statutes.) Measurement King County would develop and implement a waste reduction measurement program consisting of: • Annually reporting the per capita waste generation rate countywide. The reported generation rate would account for population shifts and economic cycles in order to accurately assess social behavior. • Evaluating the effectiveness of specific waste reduction programs implemented by the County and suburban cities at the end of each planning period. The evaluation would consist of an analysis of the size of the waste stream targeted and number of generators impacted by the particular program. 4. Recommendations Alternative B, expand existing waste reduction programs, is recommended because it addresses the need for greater waste reduction achievements (specific recommendations that comprise Alternative B are summarized in Table III.3). It provides both short- and long-term strategies for managing waste among businesses, residents, and local governments through waste reduction. The short-term strategy is to increase the awareness of waste reduction opportunities for all generator classes. For the long term, Alternative B provides research and analyses that will lead to the development of more targeted programs and more accurate measurement of program effectiveness. Waste reduction activities are interrelated with recycling programs and goals. Therefore, this recommendation is also coordinated with the recycling recommendations in Section B. 5. Implementation The waste reduction implementation chart (Table III.4) provides information on program responsibility and projected timelines. Both new and continuing programs are shown. Chapter 111. Waste Reduchon and Recycling A.4. Waste Reduction: Recommendations Table III.3 1992 Waste Reduction Recommendations Recommendation 111.1 Business waste reduction Recommendation 111.2 Employee recycling program Recommendation 111.3 Holiday waste reduction Recommendation 111.4 Green teams Recommendation 111.5 Multimedia strategy Recommendation 111.6 Targeted waste reduction Recommendation 111.7 Packaging analysis Recommendation 111.8 Identification of reducible waste Recommendation 111.9 Waste reduction data Recommendation 111.10 Consortium building Recommendation 111.11 Intergovernmental coordination Recommendation 111.12 National activities Recommendation 111.13 Rate incentives Strategy Expand business waste reduction program by developing model office display, and recognize businesses that incorporate waste reduction into company practices. Form a networking committee to expand and create new waste reduction programs for employee recycling program. Expand waste reduction programs targeting consumers and businesses during the holiday season. Increase number of Green Teams school program sites to include all schools. Purchase videos on waste reduction for airing on public access television and participate with other jurisdictions and television media to buy air time to promote waste reduction Develop and implement one waste reduction program per generator type (residential, business, and institution). Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packaging and design and identify excessive and nonrecyclable packaging. Identify categories of waste which can or cannot be reduced to target eliminating reducible waste. Identify existing waste reduction efforts by the private and public sectors. Establish a waste reduction consortium with trade associations and manufacturers. Increase intergovernmental coordination to increase influence on waste reduction decisions. Develop proposals for establishing industry consortiums, intergovernmental coordination and national coalitions to promote waste reduction in products and packaging. Continue to encourage waste reduction and recycling through such rate -related incentives as mini -can garbage service, special recycling service rate for non -garbage customers, distributing cost of recycling among all rate payers, and establishing substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels. Implementation Responsibility County County County County County County, cities County County County County County, cities County County, cities AA Waste Reduction: Recommendations Chapter N: Waste Reduction and Recycling Table U1.4 Waste Reduction Implementation Table EProgram Implementation' ZM�Busines waste reduction CO Employee recycling program CO Multimedia strategy CO MM Targeted waste reduction C'CO Packaging ana!ysis MM,Waste reduction data CO =ht-e-r-g-overn mental coordination EM Rate incentives C,CO!TTTTTTTT5 Cities = C Planning period County = CO Implementation period Continuation B. RECYCLING The 1989 Plan established minimum levels of recyclables collection service for the residential sector. Household recyclables collection is required in urban areas and drop -sites are required in rural areas. Yard waste collection was specified for both urban and rural areas. Substantial progress has been made implementing residential collection programs. About 95 percent of the County's single-family residences have household collection of recyclables available, and in many areas household yard waste service is provided as well. Support programs, such as procurement policies and collection rate incentives, encourage participation in WR/R programs and services. Education programs have provided information to schools, businesses, and residents on specific ways to reduce and recycle waste. 1. Existing Conditions This section reports on the status of the 1989 Plan recommendations for recycling and provides background information on recyclables collection and material markets. More specific information on county and city activities and accomplishments over the last three years is also presented in Volume II, Appendix E. a. Background (1) Status of 1989 Plan Recommendations The status of recycling recommendations made in the 1989 Plan is summarized in Table III.5. Except for special waste recycling, which is readdressed in this plan update, all of the 1989 recommendations have been fully or partially implemented. For instance, while rate incentives are in place in 28 cities, procurement policies have been adopted so far by only the County and six cities. However, other cities have informal policies pending formal adoption. Additionally, 20 of 24 cities in the urban area have implemented a household recyclables collection program. Auburn has implemented an alternative program which is being assessed for adequacy by Ecology and Algona is still developing plans for its household recycling program. Efforts are ongoing to fully implement all recommendations. Chapter N. Waste Reduction and Regding B.1. Req ding: Existing Conditions Table IH.5 Summary of 1989 Plan Recycling Recommendaflons Program Description Implementation Status Urban/rural designation << III - 11 Table IH.5 Summary of 1989 Plan Recycling Recommendaflons Program Description Implementation Status Urban/rural designation Determine urban and rural boundaries to provide basis for Established in 1989 Plan. minimum levels of recycling services. Recyclables designation List possible materials to include in collection programs. Established in 1989 Plan. Minimum service levels Require household collection of recyclables in urban cities and Twenty of 22 urban cities and 3 of 7 rural cities have or (cities) encourage it in rural cities. Require drop -site collection, at a plan household collection of recyclables. Yard waste minimum, in rural cities. Require yard waste collection services in programs are offered or planned in 28 cities. both urban and rural cities. Minimum service levels Require household collection of recyclables for urban areas and Household collection of recyclables and yard waste is (county) encourage it for rural areas, which must otherwise be served by available throughout urban unincorporated King County drop -sites or buy-back centers. Require yard waste collection in and some rural cities. Most county solid waste facilities urban areas. County must provide solid waste facilities in rural offer recycling services. Drop boxes and buyback centers areas for collection of recyclables and yard waste. serve rural areas. Rate incentives Establish variable can rates to encourage participation in yard Established in the County and 28 cities. waste and recyclables collection programs. Procurement policies Adopt procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or Adopted by the County and six cities; remaining cities recyclable materials. have informal policies. Minimum requirements Revise zoning and building codes to include the provision of Recycling space requirements will be included in the for new construction recycling collection space in new construction. Revised King County Zoning Code; recycling space requirements are under consideration by many cities. Monitoring progress Require cities and county to prepare annual reports on status of Progress by all cities and the County is reported in Solid toward WR/R goals programs and progress toward WR/R goals. Waste Division Anrrua/ Report. Analysis of multifamily List options and implementation strategies for cities to use in Draft manual distributed in 1991. collection options developing collection programs for multifamily residences. City optional programs Allow cities to receive backyard composting, Master Four cities implementing nonresidential technical Recycler/Composter, and nonresidential technical assistance assistance; one city implementing backyard composting. services from the County or operate their own programs with Remainder participate in countywide programs. funding assistance from the county. Yard waste programs Provide backyard composting bins from county, Master Established and ongoing. Recycler/Composter training, Christmas tree collection, and nursery composting demonstrations. Food waste processing Evaluate food waste processing alternatives. Received Ecology grant to study collection, processing, and composting. MMSW processing Evaluate implementation issues and develop a procurement MMSW processing evaluated by Solid Waste Division in approach related to the construction of a mixed municipal solid report issued in 1991. waste processing facility. Nonresidential technical Conduct WR/R consultations for a wide range of nonresidential Ongoing technical assistance provided to businesses assistance generators; develop educational materials and hold workshops to through onsite visits, coordinated collection, workshops, assist businesses in implementing WR/R programs in the and phone assistance. workplace. Market development Encourage procurement of recycled products by all King County County procurement policy adopted; cities adopting agencies; emphasize the development of local markets through procurement policies on an individual basis (six cities have the Kng County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials. formal policies). Marketing Commission established and is undertaking several market development activities. WR/R promotion, Promote WR/R through printed materials, special events, and WR/R informational brochures; annual Recycle Week; education, etc. school programs. community events; school education programs; WR/R telephone hotline. Special waste recycling Evaluate collection, processing, and recycling of bulky waste, Readdressed in 1992 Plan. CDL waste, and woodwaste. B.1. Recycling.- Existing Conditions Chapter HI: Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 12 ::: (2) 1989 Plan Urban and Rural Designation Service levels for collecting recyclables are based on whether an area is urban or rural and include materials formally designated as recyclable in the King County 1989 Plan. Since the criteria in the 1985 King Couno, Conaprebensive Plan (KCCP) for urban and rural designations are consistent with the policies and intent of RCW 70.95, the County used them for the 1989 Plan. They are shown in Figure III.1 and include: • Urban. King County and the cities have made firm commitments to urban development and services; natural features are capable of supporting urban development without significant environmental degradation; public facilities and services are in place or can be provided to accommodate urban growth; and the area is generally developed at one dwelling or more per 2.5 acres and is extensively platted into lot sizes averaging less than five acres. • Rural. There are major physical barriers (for example, steep slopes or water bodies) to urban services; environmental constraints make the area generally unsuitable for intensive urban development; existing resource activities (farming, forestry) and soils make the area desirable for rural designation to encourage continuing resource management; new development will average one dwelling unit per ten acres in areas where large parcels remain, and one dwelling unit per five acres in areas with many existing small parcels. • P-ansitional areas. Areas that remain low-density land uses as a reserve for future urban development or designation as a rural area. For urban areas, the County considered total population, population density, and land use and utility service plans. Urban areas are anticipated to develop at higher densities in the long term; areas designated as rural are expected to remain at lower densities. Figure III.1 illustrates service areas designated as urban and rural for planning purposes; it represents the most recent updates to the KCCP map. Figure III.1 is a guide for collection services. Generally, areas with at least 200 dwelling units per square mile, as determined by the King County 1991 Annual Growth Report should receive household collection service. Collection service areas are delineated in city and county 0 0 Figure III.1 Urban and rural service areas. (See overleaf.) 0 implementation ordinances and contracts or through Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulation of haulers. Collection services are described in more detail under county and city programs, Sections B.l.b and B.l.c, and Volume II, Appendix E. They are also discussed in Chapter IV, Section A. (3) 1989 Plan Designation of Recyclables Materials are defined as recyclable in RCW 70.95 if they yield a price on the market or have a beneficial end use. Materials designated as recyclable in the 1989 Plan, and therefore among those included in collection programs, are: • Paper—newspaper, corrugated cardboard, computer, office paper, mixed paper, other paper • #1 and #2 Plastics—PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and HDPE (high-density polyethylene) • Glass --container glass • Metals—aluminum cans, tin (steel) cans, ferrous metals, nonferrous metals, insulated wire, bi-metals/combination metals • Tires • Yard waste • Bulky waste—furniture, appliances, white goods (4) Mininzuni Service Levels Cities are responsible for ensuring the provision of minimum service levels within their jurisdictions and the County does so in unincorporated areas (collection services are summarized in Tables III.6 and III.7). These levels differ for urban and rural areas. However, under the 1989 Plan, both urban and rural collection programs at a minimum were required to collect: "(1) glass, mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard, bi-metals and aluminum cans; or (2) any combination of the materials designated as recyclable in this plan (including yard waste) that will result in the collection of at least 10 percent of Clwpter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling B.I. Recycling: Existing CondiAgns the residential waste stream by weight by July 1, 1992, as provided in SHB 1671." The 1989 Plan minimum service levels for urban areas are: • Household collection of source -separated recyclables from all residential dwellings, including multifamily dwellings. • Programs for the collection of yard waste. These programs should be designed to service all residential dwellings and commercial establishments. Either drop -site (mobile or permanent) or household collection may be provided. The 1989 Plan minimum service levels for rural areas are: • Collection of source separated recyclable materials. Programs should be designed to service all residential dwellings and commercial establishments through strategically located drop -sites, buy-back centers, or mobile collection services that provide regular service. Household recyclables collection is encouraged but not required. • Collection of yard waste. Programs should be designed to service all residential dwellings and commercial establishments through strategically located drop -sites, buy-back centers, or mobile collection services that provide regular service. (S) Collection Methods There are four collection methods for recyclables employed in King County: household, nonresidential, drop -site, and buy-back. Appendix F is a resource guide to recycling centers in King County. Residents who receiveikiousehold collection services co - mingle recyclable materials in a single toter or separate them into multiple bins and place them near the street on a specified day for pickup. The commingled system results in higher processing costs; the multiple -bin system involves higher collection costs. For yard waste collection, residents bag, box, or bundle yard waste, or put it into toters or garbage cans. The frequency of pickup differs among service providers and includes seasonal variations. To ensure participation, some cities have passed ordinances banning yard waste from residential garbage cans. Counties and cities do not have the authority to require haulers to offer recyclable materials collection services to nonresidential generators; therefore, collection services are provided on a voluntary basis. Nonresidential collection service providers typically require minimum volumes and processing levels for specific materials (for example, they might require that all cardboard be baled). Commercial waste haulers and private recyclers often provide multiple bins for customers with large quantities of recyclable items who are willing to source separate them. Source -separated materials usually command higher market value because of lower processing costs and higher quality product. This enables businesses to recover a portion of the market value of the recyclable either through lower garbage rates, monthly payment from the collector, or both. Financial incentives often facilitate paper recycling in individual businesses or office buildings. Drop -site collection is provided by haulers and private recyclers who collect recyclables at commercial establishments, institutions, and multifamily dwellings. King County and some cities offer recycling and yard waste drop -sites; nonprofit organizations have drop -boxes for reusable or refurbishable goods and recyclables; and some cities hold cleanup days, when residents can drop off materials at a designated location. Buy-back centers pay for materials from businesses or the public. They may be commodity specific or accept a variety of recyclable materials. Some buy-back centers pickup at businesses, but this is becoming less common and currently is very restrictive regarding types of materials and volume. (6) Markets Markets for recycled materials are affected by marry of the same factors that affect other industries. For example, recycling markets depend on the availability of materials and on adequate processing capacity to convert reusable materials into feedstock; markets are affected by supply and demand and competition from other sources (such as raw materials); and prices are affected by local, national, and global economic conditions. For materials collected by King County recycling programs, all these factors come into play. As market conditions vary, so do the recycling rates among different materials (Table III.8). For example, B.I. Recycling: Existing Conditions Chapter AT Waste Reduction and Recycling Table III.6 King County Cities, Recycling Collection Service Summary Algona Auburn RST Beaux Arts Eastside Bellevue Fibres Black Diamond Meridian Bothell WM Sno w SeaTac Burien ccm DN Raffo Carnation WM Sno Clyde Hill Eastside Des Moines ST Duvall WM Sno Enumclaw RST Federal Way RST Hunts Point Eastside Issaquah Lawson Kent Kent Dis Kirkland WM Sno Lake Forest Park Eastside Medina Eastside Mercer Island Eastside Normandy Park Fibres North Bend Lawson Pacific RST Redmond Fibres Renton WM Rai SeaTac Sea -Tac Skykomish R Snoqualmie Lawson Tukwila Raft Materials Recycled Sea -Tac Sub MYN w R D DN DN H H H H w DN w ccm DN DN 6 All m m to e r=c w H 9 d W H m n m v v H C ma" nwx wto n nm z � aC _ Mw Other materials Sea -Tac Sub MYN 1 R D DN DN H H H H DN DN SMY DN DN DN Wood,DN All H SY 1 All H H H H H H H H H Drink boxes, poly- olycoated Sub $2.50 S M Y 3 R H H H H H H H H H coatedpaper H Y Oil SY 3 R H H H H H H H H $1.83 All SMY 1,3 H H H H H H H H $1.80 R D D D D D D D All SY 1 H H H H H H Sub SMYN 1 HN HN HN HN HN H,N HN HN HN All $3.90 SMN R HN HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN R D D D D H Sub SMY 3 H H H H H H H H All SY 1 H H H H H H Drink boxes, milk Sub $2.44 SMYN 3 R HN HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN cartons H Sub SMN 1 HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN Wood pallets N SMY 3 H H H H H H H H All SMYN 1 HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN All SY 1 H H H H H H SY 1 H H H H H H H H H H Sub $3.60 SMY 3 R H H H H H H r;, H H All $4.00 SMYN 3 RY HN HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN H R D D D D Drink boxes, poly- olycoated All SMYN 3 R HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN coatedpaper H All SMY 3 H H H H H H H H Sub SMY 1 H H H H H H H H All $4.00 SMN 3 R HN HN HN HN HN HN HN N HN HN HN Sub SMY 3 H H H H H H H H Sea -Tac Sub SMY 1 H H H H H H H H Woodinville WM Sno All $1.83 SMY 3 H H H H H H H H Yarrow Point Eastside All S Y 1 H H H H H H Cbapter N..• Waste Redudton and Regding B.I. Rec)ding.• Rxistmg Conditions Table III.7 Urban Unincorporated Recyclables Collection Service [1] Monthly charge per customer [2] Household collection method: number of bins of recyclables collected ]3] City -sponsored residential drop -site services [4] High-grade paper: collected separate from mixed waste paper. Eastside Eastside Disposal - Rabanco Fibres Fibres International Kent Dis Kent Disposal Lawson Lawson Disposal Meridian Meridian Valley Disposal - Rabanco Raffo Nick Raffo Garbage Co. Materials Recycled RST/Federal Way Disposal (Nick Raffo) Sea -Tac Sea -Tac Disposal - Rabanco WM Rai Waste Management - Rainier C Waste Management - Sno-King m n C r r U m a .m, i M CL s a o v 0 v o` m E c e a m e. `ei v C6 o v 9 w = `m a -a C A m m s C c m E C.2 3 's d cc ES a i Q = i *k Vx Other materials Service Area 1 WM NW All $3.74 S M Y 3 n1a H H H H H H H H Service Area 2 Eastside All $1.83 SMY 1 n1a H H H H H H H H Service Area 3 WM Sno All $2.74 SMY 3 n1a H H H H H H H H Service Area 4 Lawson All $4.10 SMY 3 We H H H H H H H H Service Area 5 WM Rain All $2.92 SMY 3 n1a H H H H H H H H WM Sea All $1.95 SMY 3 We H H H H H H H H Sea -Tac All $1.83 SMY 1 n1a H H H H H H H H Service Area 6 WM Sea All $1.95 SMY 3 We H H H H H H H H Sea -Tac All $1.83 SMY 1 n1a H H H H H H H H Raffo All $1.80 SMY 3 n1a H H H H H H H H Service Area 7 RST All $1.80 SMY 3 nia H H H H H H H H Sea -Tac All $1.83 SMY 1 n1a H H H H H H H H Service Area 8 Meridian All $1.83 SMY 1 We H H H H H H H H [1] Monthly charge per customer [2] Household collection method: number of bins of recyclables collected ]3] City -sponsored residential drop -site services [4] High-grade paper: collected separate from mixed waste paper. Eastside Eastside Disposal - Rabanco Fibres Fibres International Kent Dis Kent Disposal Lawson Lawson Disposal Meridian Meridian Valley Disposal - Rabanco Raffo Nick Raffo Garbage Co. RST RST/Federal Way Disposal (Nick Raffo) Sea -Tac Sea -Tac Disposal - Rabanco WM Rai Waste Management - Rainier WM Sno Waste Management - Sno-King All all residents pay D drop -site H household M multifamily N Nonresidential R recyclables S single-family Sub subscribers Y yard waste (household) B.1. Recycling: Existing Conditions Chapter N..• Waste Reduction and Recycling 100 percent of lead -acid automobile batteries are recycled, but fewer than 1 percent of household batteries are recycled. This is because automobile batteries provide a competitive source of lead (due to costly environmental regulations for lead mining) The core charge on lead -acid batteries encourages users to recycle them, and processors have ample capacity. A core charge is a deposit charged when a battery is purchased; it is refunded when the battery is returned to the retailer after use. However, such market stimulants do not exist for household batteries. Except for small quantities of button cell batteries that are collected and shipped to processors in the eastern United States, there are limited outlets for recycling household batteries. By far the most significant recycled material is paper—both in terms of volume collected and percent of material generated that is recycled. Paper recycling in King County consists of fairly well-developed systems for collecting cardboard from businesses and mixed waste paper (MWP) and old newspaper (ONP) from the residential sector, as well as a developing commercial, office paper collection system. Recycling has also made significant in -roads in diverting other materials from the waste stream, such as aluminum and tin cans and ferrous scrap. A detailed discussion of market conditions for recyclable materials is given in Appendix D, which provides current and projected recycling volumes and commodity prices, an analysis of the current market and an assessment of potential new markets, and a discussion of the impact of recycling programs on market infrastructure. Key points for each major material market are as follows: • Paper. In 1990, an estimated 165,500 tons of paper were collected for recycling, about 39 percent of the waste paper generated. In the coming decade, the volume of paper collected for recycling is expected to increase by an average of 9 percent annually, but the ability of recycling markets to handle Table HIS 1990 Recycling by Material Type III - 16 Total Tons Material .................................................................................. • Total Tons Generated a Recycled • 100 percent of lead -acid automobile batteries are recycled, but fewer than 1 percent of household batteries are recycled. This is because automobile batteries provide a competitive source of lead (due to costly environmental regulations for lead mining) The core charge on lead -acid batteries encourages users to recycle them, and processors have ample capacity. A core charge is a deposit charged when a battery is purchased; it is refunded when the battery is returned to the retailer after use. However, such market stimulants do not exist for household batteries. Except for small quantities of button cell batteries that are collected and shipped to processors in the eastern United States, there are limited outlets for recycling household batteries. By far the most significant recycled material is paper—both in terms of volume collected and percent of material generated that is recycled. Paper recycling in King County consists of fairly well-developed systems for collecting cardboard from businesses and mixed waste paper (MWP) and old newspaper (ONP) from the residential sector, as well as a developing commercial, office paper collection system. Recycling has also made significant in -roads in diverting other materials from the waste stream, such as aluminum and tin cans and ferrous scrap. A detailed discussion of market conditions for recyclable materials is given in Appendix D, which provides current and projected recycling volumes and commodity prices, an analysis of the current market and an assessment of potential new markets, and a discussion of the impact of recycling programs on market infrastructure. Key points for each major material market are as follows: • Paper. In 1990, an estimated 165,500 tons of paper were collected for recycling, about 39 percent of the waste paper generated. In the coming decade, the volume of paper collected for recycling is expected to increase by an average of 9 percent annually, but the ability of recycling markets to handle Table HIS 1990 Recycling by Material Type Total Tons Material % Recycled Total Tons Generated a Recycled Paper 39 427,600 165,500 Glass 35 37,300 13,000 Metal Aluminum cans 43 6,450 2,800 Aluminum scrap and nonferrous 77 14,400 11,100 Tin cans 36 12,000 4,350 Ferrous scrap 69 101,400 70,400 White goods 93 30,000 b 28,000 b Lead -acid batteries loo ` 5,200 5,200 Household batteries <1 2,900,000 d <29,000 d Plastics >1 83,000 930 Textiles 7 43,300 3,000 Tires 23 6,500,000 e 1,5oo,000 e a Total tons generated are based on estimates of disposed and recycled tonnages. b Based on Solid Waste Division estimates 100% recycling is assumed since no lead -acid batteries were found during the King County Waste Characterization Study (Appendix B) Nationally, the recycling rate for lead -acid batteries is approximately 85 percent. d Individual batteries (not tons) e Individual tires (not tons) Source: Recycling Markets Assessment, Volume II, Appendix D Chapter N. Waste Reduction and Recjding B.1. Raq)ding. Existing Conditions this growth will vary by grade. Newsprint recycling capacity in the Northwest is expected to surpass local supply by mid-1993 as new mills come on line, while MWP will continue to be exported to Pacific Rim countries. The markets for MWP are not expected to come into balance until 1994-1996. Old corrugated cardboard will remain fairly stable, while the market for higher grade office paper will decline in 1992-1994, or until new domestic capacity comes on line. Currently, much of the paper collected for recycling in King County is exported to Pacific Rim countries. Expansion of domestic markets is crucial in order to maintain long-term stability. A substantial barrier to developing domestic markets for paper is the large capital investment required. Before making these investments the paper industry must be confident that there is sufficient demand for their product. • Glass. In 1990, about 13,000 tons of glass were collected for recycling in King county, about 35 percent of the glass waste generated. During the past 10 years, the increasing use of plastics has led to a decreased market share for the glass container manufacturing industry. This decreasing demand for glass containers, coupled with increasing collection of glass containers for recycling, has created a serious market imbalance for glass throughout the United States. In King County, the volume of glass collected for recycling is increasing at an average rate of 10 percent per year. With the implementation of new curbside programs, it is estimated that by the year 1995, recycled glass volumes in the Puget Sound region will reach 77,000 tons/year and will exceed 100,000 tons/year by the year 2000. At this time there are no plans by local manufacturers to increase their cullet use. Unless economically feasible export markets are developed, which is unlikely in the short term, or new end-use markets are developed, the current market imbalance will worsen. • Aluminum cans. Aluminum cans were recycled at a rate of 40 percent in King County in 1990. Aluminum has traditionally been the most profitable commodity for small recycling processors, but currently the market is on a downward trend. The recycling rate for aluminum cans, unlike most materials, does not seem to be significantly increased by curbside programs. The price paid for aluminum cans seems to have a greater impact. When prices are high, people sell cans to buy-back centers. When prices are low, they either <<III - 1 7 store them and wait for a better price, or recycle them at the curb. • Tin Cans. Tin cans were recycled at a rate of 28 percent in King County in 1990. The Steel Can Recycling Institute estimates a national tin can recycling rate of 66 percent by the year 1995 and 75 percent by the year 2000. MRI Corporation, the only processor of tin cans in King County, has recently upgraded its machinery, and with its current equipment probably won't reach capacity until 1995. The steel market is a very established worldwide market. Recycling programs are not expected to have a significant impact on the processors, end-users, or commodity prices. • Plastics. Approximately 670 tons of all types of plastic were collected for recycling in King County in 1990. This represents less than one percent of the 85,400 tons of plastics generated in the County. The plastics manufacturing industry does not use recycled resin in quantities significant enough to have a major impact on markets. From the perspective of the recycling industry, however, the low density of post -consumer plastics will cause these materials to have an increasing impact on collection and processing systems. The addition of #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE) to curbside routes has been manageable with existing equipment, but expansion to other types of plastics may overwhelm this capacity. Some collectors are experimenting with on -truck densifiers as a possible solution to this problem. • Compost materials. In 1990, 38% of the wood and yard waste generated in King County was diverted through yard waste collection programs. The markets for yard waste products are in the middle of a critical period of rapid expansion and development in King County. The input market for unprocessed yard waste and the product markets for composted materials and mulch are being inundated by unprecedented expansions of supply. The dramatic increase of household collection programs over the last few years and continuing into 1993 will continue to provide increasing quantities of yard waste. Over the next few years, collection programs will probably produce an oversupply in the yard waste processing sector, creating compost stockpiles and difficulties in marketing. There will also be some increases in the supply of wood to recyclers, but they already have secured successful channels into the mulching and hog fuel markets. In the long term, there should be B.1. Recycling: Existing Conditions Chapter III. Waste Reduction and Recycling sufficient processing and demand capacity in existing markets to ensure long-term sustainable markets for wood and yard wastes. The products will be primarily topsoil, mulch, and separated wood used as a fuel. To date there have been no significant efforts to recycle food waste. Most of the area processors have experimented on some level with adding food waste to their yard waste during the decomposition process. Food waste is seen as a potentially strong market and addition to the compost business if processing issues such as odor, contaminants, cost, and other concerns can be resolved. A market is being secured for the food waste compost that will be derived from the County's Ecology -funded pilot project. • Other materials. Currently there are limited collection, processing, and markets for polycoated paperboard in King County. Two processors handle the estimated 50 tons per year that are being recycled in the County. The current market for ferrous scrap is stable, but the price is lower than normal due to generally low prices on international steel markets. Current market conditions for nonferrous scrap are depressed due to an increase in supply caused by domestic smelters producing at or above full capacity. New recycling technologies for tires are being developed at a rapid pace and several facilities are projected to come on fine over the next decade. All of the scrap tires generated in the County go to a vast array of processors and end-users throughout the Pacific Northwest or are landfilled. The tire recycling industry is still relatively young, with new technologies developing at a rapid pace. Tire - derived fuel is currently the largest end-use for scrap tires in the state. Several new markets, such as pyrolysis and rubberized asphalt, are on the verge of major growth in Washington State. b. County Programs WR/R programs established in the 1989 Plan are discussed under three areas: 1. Recyclables collection (cities and county) 2. Support programs (cities and county) 3. Regional programs (county and cities optional) Over the last three years the County and suburban cities have achieved significant results in all three areas. Household collection programs are offered throughout most of the County, and support programs such as procurement policies and variable can rates have been adopted by the County and many of the cities. County recycling programs are described below, followed by a synopsis of the cities' programs; waste reduction programs are also discussed in Section IIIA. Major achievements of the County and cities are summarized later in this section; a more detailed description of programs is included in Volume 11, Appendix E. (1) Recyclables Collection Recyclables collection consists of services such as household collection and facilities that have drop -sites. Areas served by household recycling and yard waste collection services are shown in Figures 11I.2 and I11.3. Under the 1989 Plan, King County was responsible for implementing programs that meet or exceed minimum service levels for collecting recyclables and yard waste in unincorporated areas, both urban and rural by September 1, 1991. Requirements for unincorporated urban collection were met in 1991 by making household recyclables and yard waste collection available to all residents. Table II1.7 indicates service providers, materials collected, and other program inforrmation for each of the eight unincorporated urban service areas. King County has the authority to contract recyclables collection from residents in urban unincorporated areas, but instead chose to establish a service level ordinance stating program specifications to be implemented by waste haulers. The WUTC regulates franchised waste haulers in providing these set -vices. In May 1991, Ordinance 9928 was adopted (now King County Code [RCC] 10.18), which resulted in certificated solid waste haulers providing recyclable collection services for the 450,000 residents of urban unincorporated ting County. The County has developed, and will continue to develop, promotional and educational materials to encourage further participation in these programs. In accordance with minimum service requirements, county solid waste facilities in designated rural areas collect source -separated recyclable materials and yard waste. Services at rural ting County solid waste facilities are: • Cedar Falls drop-box—recyclables, yard waste Chapter HT Waste Reduction and Recycling B.1. Regding: Existing Conditions v • Enumclaw Landfill—recyclables • Enumclaw Transfer Station (1993)—recyclables, yard waste • Hobart Landfill—recyclables, yard waste • Vashon Landfill--recyclables Rural collection programs are also planned under the Waste Not Washington Communities Program funded by Ecology for Issaquah and the surrounding area (begun in March 1991); North Bend, Snoqualmie, Carnation, and Duvall, and nearby unincorporated area (begun in early 1992); and the outlying III - 19........ communities of Skykomish and Snoqualmie Pass. Urban and rural areas are further served by privately operated drop -boxes and buy-back centers, which are available to both residents and businesses. (2) Support Programs Support programs in the 1989 Plan were the responsibility of the cities and the County, while education programs were to be primarily regional services implemented by the County. The B.1. Recycling: Existing Conditions Chapter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling 1989 Plan specified five support programs to be implemented by the County to encourage WR/R: rate incentives, procurement policy, recycling space requirements for new construction, monitoring, and a multifamily dwellings recycling implementation handbook Rate incentives are achieved through variable can rates for garbage collection, which have been established throughout unincorporated King County to encourage participation in recyclables collection programs. Other rate incentives include a "mini -can" rate, substantial cost differentials between garbage service levels, and rates for recycling service only (for non - garbage customers). A procurement policy was adopted by the County that favors the use of recycled or recyclable products. In 1992, recycled paper use was at 82 percent in the fourth quarter of the year, surpassing the 1995 goal of 60 percent stated in King County Ordinance 9240. Recycled paper use is expected to climb gradually as additional types of recycled paper become available. Cb w 111.• Waste Reduction and Reding B.1. Regding. Existing Conditions III - 2 0 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1989 Plan specified five support programs to be implemented by the County to encourage WR/R: rate incentives, procurement policy, recycling space requirements for new construction, monitoring, and a multifamily dwellings recycling implementation handbook Rate incentives are achieved through variable can rates for garbage collection, which have been established throughout unincorporated King County to encourage participation in recyclables collection programs. Other rate incentives include a "mini -can" rate, substantial cost differentials between garbage service levels, and rates for recycling service only (for non - garbage customers). A procurement policy was adopted by the County that favors the use of recycled or recyclable products. In 1992, recycled paper use was at 82 percent in the fourth quarter of the year, surpassing the 1995 goal of 60 percent stated in King County Ordinance 9240. Recycled paper use is expected to climb gradually as additional types of recycled paper become available. Cb w 111.• Waste Reduction and Reding B.1. Regding. Existing Conditions New construction standards have been developed that will require onsite space for collecting and storing recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential structures. Draft standards were distributed for comment in the fall of 1991, and are included in the revised King County Zoning Code under consideration by the King County Council. Monitoring of the progress made in meeting WR/R goals is reported in the Solid Waste Division's annual report to the County Council. Cities are required to submit reports for inclusion in the annual report. In addition, haulers serving the urban unincorporated areas of King County provide monthly reports of recycling and solid waste tonnages. The 1989 Plan recommended that the County develop options and implementation strategies for cities to use in developing multifamily residence collection programs. King County prepared a draft manual and distributed it to cities in the spring of 1991. (3) Regional Programs Regional programs are those offered county wide to support WR/R goals including public information, education, nonresidential technical assistance, yard waste projects, experimental projects, and zone coordination. Under the public information program, King County produces information and promotional publications (brochures, newsletters, and reports), maintains a recycling and composting information line, and sponsors special events such as Recycle Week Education programs for schools seek to integrate WR/R into K-12 curricula and school disposal practices --providing teacher training, classroom and school assembly materials, and support to the districts in setting up collection programs. In the community, the Master Recycler/Composter Program trains volunteers in WR/R, backyard composting, and household hazardous waste management. The Business Recycling Program helps businesses and institutions develop and implement WR/R programs in the workplace by providing waste consultations, telephone assistance, workshops, presentations, and written and video materials. Regional yard waste programs provide residents with yard waste handling alternatives or supplements household collection, such as programs for backyard composting and the collection of Christmas trees for recycling without charge at county disposal sites. From 1989 to 1991, mobile collection sites were provided to communities with no other yard waste alternatives. With the increased availability of household yard waste collection in urban areas, this program was discontinued in 1991. The County has developed a resource list of over fifty businesses throughout the County that are willing to accept, collect, or recycle used appliances and which meet the new Federal Clean Air Act CFC regulations effective July 1, 1992. The County will monitor the continuing availability of this service to ensure that it remains available at a reasonable fee before considering contracting with appliance dealers and recyclers to collect appliances from residences for a fee to supplement or replace other appliance collection opportunities. Experimental and pilot projects implemented to encourage WR/R include a project that provides reusable cotton diapers through a diaper service to low-income families; a food waste composting project at the King County Fair to obtain information that might lead to larger -scale food waste composting; a food waste collection processing and product testing grant from Ecology to King County and Seattle; and a model employee WR/R program for the King County Department of Public Works to develop techniques for reducing waste in the workplace. The Zone Coordination Program provides information, staff assistance, and grants to cities on a variety of issues through meetings and workshops. Zone coordinators are involved in the administration of a WR/R grant program to cities that provides funding for multifamily, nonresidential, and yard waste collection, and other WR/R programs. A previous grant program distributed 17 grants from 1988 to 1991 to assist 23 cities in developing residential and nonresidential recyclables, yard waste, and public education programs. B.1. Recycling: Existing Conditions Chapter Ill. Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 22 (4) King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials The King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials was formed in July 1989 by the King County Council. As part of the Department of Public Works, the Marketing Commission's objective is to help close the "recycling loop" in King County—the local remanufacture and purchase of recycled products. King County and the suburban cities have made tremendous strides in collecting recyclable materials and diverting them from landfill disposal. The Marketing Commission is complementing this effort by promoting markets for recycled materials. The Marketing Commission's efforts focus on encouraging businesses, public agencies, and the general public to buy recycled products. To this end, it is (1) providing information on where and how to obtain recycled products, (2) testing and demonstrating applications for recyclable materials and recycled products, (3) promoting the "buy recycled" ethic through a broad education program, and (4) recommending policy to address recycling market issues. Voluntary packaging and labeling guidelines were developed by the Marketing Commission for companies to reduce contamination caused by misleading recycling labeling. The County is prohibited by state law from enacting prohibitions or deposits on products or packaging before July 1, 1993. In the absence of state or federal standards, the County has taken this step to help consumers make informed choices. c. City Programs The 1989 Plan directs cities to begin implementing minimum service WR/R collection and support services by September 1, 1991 and to complete implementation by September 1, 1992. The services include urban household recyclables collection, rural drop -box services, and yard waste programs. Additionally, three support service programs are being implemented: (1) rate incentives, (2) procurement policies, and (3) onsite recycling space requirements for new multifamily and nonresidential construction. Appendix E provides more detailed information on city WR/R programs. (1) Recyclables and Yard Waste Collection Under the 1989 Plan the cities are responsible for implementing programs that meet or exceed minimum service levels for collecting recyclables and yard waste in incorporated areas. Twenty of twenty-two urban cities and three of seven rural cities have household collection of recyclables (Table III.6 provides information on service providers, collection methods, and materials.) Five cities provide residential recycling drop - boxes. Yard waste collection programs are offered or planned in twenty-eight cities. Thirteen cities have recyclables collection services available to multifamily dwellings. In addition, a number of cities provide special collection days for certain recyclables, such as such as plastics and waste oil. (2) Support Services All cities, except Kirkland, provide rate incentives through variable can rates. However, the cost difference between can sizes varies among cities, with some offering greater incentives than others. (Refer to Chapter IV, Section A for additional information on solid waste and recyclables collection services and rates.) The city of Kirkland has used a flat rate collection fee since 1973 as a disincentive to illegal dumping. In spite of their continued use of the flat rate collection fee, the participation rate for curbside collection service in Kirkland is similar to that of other suburban cities with differential rates. Kirkland would reexamine the issue of differential collection rates if the city's participation rate for curbside recycling declined. Residents of cities where rate incentives are used are regularly educated on how they can reduce their monthly collection bill by taking advantage of differential can rates and recycling services. The cities and the haulers include information with their billings, and new residents are automatically informed of rate incentives when they sign up for collection service. Six cities have adopted a recyclable and recycled products procurement policy; the remaining cities abide by an informal policy pending formal adoption. Six cities have developed requirements for onsite recycling for new construction; the remaining cities have indicated plans to do so. Chapter 111.• Waste Reduction and Recycling B.I. Recd ng: Rusting Conditions (3) City Optional Programs The 1989 Plan identified three programs for optional city implementation: backyard composting bin, Master Recycler/Composter, and the Business Recycling Program (BRP) Cities could apply for county funds to operate these programs or receive county services. The cities of Auburn, Bellevue, Mercer Island, and Redmond chose to implement their own BRP and received county funds to do so. Waste consultations, focus groups, workshops, and educational materials are among the services they offer. The city of Redmond also opted to implement its own backyard composting program in 1992. No cities chose to implement a Master Recycler/Composter program. (4) Other Programs Cities have implemented a variety of other programs including in-house recycling, newsletters and other promotional materials, waste oil collection, award programs, compost projects, and school projects. (See also Volume II, Appendix E.) d. Mixed Waste Processing (1) Background Mixed municipal solid waste can be mechanically processed to remove recoverable material and reduce the amount of waste disposed. Mixed waste processing (MWP) facilities can remove recyclables and compostable material from the mixed municipal solid waste stream. These materials can be processed and can then be marketed. The quality and consistency of the end products depend on the composition of the incoming municipal waste. Unusable residual materials can be disposed of through landfilling, incineration, or the production of refuse -derived fuel. King County Code 10.22.020 F. authorizes one privately owned and operated mixed waste processing facility in King County, which could supplement source -separation measures, and directs that the Division evaluate the long-term benefits, costs and risks of mixed waste processing in combination with extensive source separation programs. (2) Feasibility Analysts III - 23 In 1991, King County issued the Mixed Waste Processing FeasiUili�, Analysts (see Volume II, Appendix H). The report offers an evaluation of the need for a mixed waste processing facility (MWPF) and an analysis of the constraints which would be placed on the facility and the impact of those constraints on the feasibility of the project. The report includes discussion of other jurisdictions' experiences with mixed waste processing, as well as the likely effects on the total recycling recovery rate in King County from the construction of an MWPF. The principal findings of the report are as follows: 1. Mixed waste processing could compete with the preferred source seperation programmatic strategies for waste reduction and recycling in King County. 2. King County can obtain critical information about the success of mixed waste processing facilities operating in conjunction with source reduction programs by evaluating these programs where they exist in other jurisdictions. 3. Reconsideration of current facility constraints for the operation of an i4IWPF is needed. As a result of this analysis, the Division recommended delaying an issuance of request for proposals for a mixed waste processing facility until 1995 in order to: • Monitor the success of other areas' ability to combine mixed waste processing with extensive source separation. • Re-evaluate the potential for a mixed waste processing facility in 1995 to supplement programmatic waste reduction and recycling efforts. Over the next few years, mixed waste processing technology may continue to advance, and more markets may emerge for the processed end -products. Additionally, sufficient time will have passed for the County to evaluate the long-term success of mixed waste processing combined with source separation in other U.S. communities. In the interim, King County can focus full attention on source separation strategies. B.1. Recycling: Rx*ting Conditions Chaphi, N..• Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 24 2. Needs and Opportunities a. Background The overall WR/R objective of this 1992 Plan update is to develop a strategy that will result in a 50 percent diversion rate in 1995 and lay the foundation for achieving 65 percent in 2000. To focus program efforts, unmet needs in existing collection services must be defined and appropriate government and private sector roles for providing needed services identified. Opportunities must also be identified for improving markets for materials collected for recycling, and for increasing public awareness of the importance of recycling and the need to purchase recycled and recyclable materials. Ways to enhance existing recycling and waste reduction opportunities need to be identified and the following questions answered: • What materials remain in the waste stream that have potential market value, especially in the immediate future (next three years)? • Which markets need to be sustained and which markets need to be enhanced or expanded in order to support a high level of recycling? • Which material markets have the highest priority? • Should voluntary recycling programs be continued or should mandatory measures be instituted? • If only existing WR/R programs are continued, will the County achieve its established WR/R goals, or do existing programs need to be expanded and new programs implemented? • Is the current recycling infrastructure adequate or are improvements needed? • Which generators or groups remain unserved or under served by current recycling services and infrastructure? What can be done to improve services to these groups? • What additional or ongoing WR/R education efforts are needed and which groups are not participating in recycling programs that need to be reached? • Are current WR/R responsibilities of the public and private sector appropriate and adequate, or should they change? This section will discuss the needs and identify opportunities for recyclables collection, material markets, and support and education. b. Recyclables Collection Recycling needs can be determined by examining the composition of the unrecycled waste stream by generator and analyzing the numbers and types of generators served by existing and planned city and county programs. (1) Unrecycled Waste Stream By Generator The amount of waste disposed varies among different types of generators. For example, in King County residential generators contribute a larger share of the solid waste disposed than the commercial sector. The current proportions of the waste stream disposed by residential and nonresidential generators in King County are: Commercial haul nonresidential 30 • Self -haul nonresidential 10 Total nonresidential 40 • Source: 1990-1991 King County Waste Characterization Study, • Volume II, Appendix B. This information illustrates the need to continue to expand residential recycling programs and to develop nonresidential services. (2) Service Needs There is a need for both residential and nonresidential generators to increase recycling levels. To develop effective programs, collection service needs were assessed; areas with adequate recycling service were identified; population data were compiled; tonnages from city and county recycling programs were determined; recyclers, haulers, and end-users were surveyed to estimate recycling volumes and sectors served; and waste composition data were analyzed. This information was used to Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recycling B.2. Recycling: Needs and Opportunities % of Total Generator Disposed Waste Urban residential 31 Rural residential 10 Self -haul residential 19 Total residential so Commercial haul nonresidential 30 • Self -haul nonresidential 10 Total nonresidential 40 • Source: 1990-1991 King County Waste Characterization Study, • Volume II, Appendix B. This information illustrates the need to continue to expand residential recycling programs and to develop nonresidential services. (2) Service Needs There is a need for both residential and nonresidential generators to increase recycling levels. To develop effective programs, collection service needs were assessed; areas with adequate recycling service were identified; population data were compiled; tonnages from city and county recycling programs were determined; recyclers, haulers, and end-users were surveyed to estimate recycling volumes and sectors served; and waste composition data were analyzed. This information was used to Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recycling B.2. Recycling: Needs and Opportunities estimate the number of county residents currently receiving recycling services. From these data, tons disposed by recyclable material and generator type were determined. Figure III.4 shows the amount of materials that are being recycled or disposed. Paper, wood, and yard waste represent a large share of the materials currently being disposed that are readily recyclable. Figure III.5 illustrates the disposed waste composition of the major generators in King County. This chart illustrates that single-family residences and self -haulers generate a large portion of the material being disposed. It further indicates that these are groups that will need to be reached in order to achieve established WR/R goals. For example, further 300 250 200 0 0 0 T X 150 Cn C 0 N 100 50 0 Qa�e` 5 QN�`\G� NZ, oa\�a�a Ori` �o Material category Figure IIIA 1990 recycled and disposed quantities by material category. Source: Waste Characterization Study, Volume 1!. III - 25 education of urban single-family generators about the types of mixed waste paper that can be recycled could increase the diversion of paper in household collection programs. Table III.9 provides detailed information on the materials which may be recyclable being disposed by single-family, multifamily, and nonresidential generators. This table provides more specific information to support Figures III.4 and III.5. Percentages of households (urban and rural) and businesses in King County and the cities lacking recycling and yard waste collection service are: • Single-family recycling -5 percent • Single-family yard waste -12 percent • Multifamily recycling -45 percent • Multifamily yard waste -71 percent 200 175 150 0 125 0 0 T X 100 Cn C H 75 50 25 0 zk C's, QaQ Q moo Material category Figure HI -5 1990 disposed quantities by generator and material category. B.2. Recycling: Needs and Opportunities Chapter N. Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 26 Table 111.9 Tons Disposed per Year by Recyclable Commodity and Generator Type a Estimates based on deposit of used tire or battery with retail establishment at the time of purchase of new tire or battery. b Denotes tonnage corrections to the September, 1990 waste stream sampling. The estimated volume of the marked commodities was claculated for programs that have come on line between September 1, 1990 and March 31, 1992, and subtracted from the total disposed tonnage sampling numbers. Based on unpublished research for the polycoated paper industry. n/a = Figures not available. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study • Nonresidential recycling -80 percent While the above percentages indicate overall service gaps, a breakdown by urban and rural areas provides more specific information on services offered and services needed. in urban areas, household collection of recyclables is available to 95 percent of single-family residences, and yard waste collection is available to 79 percent_ For urban multifamily residences in incorporated areas, household collection of recyclables is offered to 51 percent and yard waste collection to 6 percent. All multifamily residences in urban unincorporated areas have access to household collection of recyclables and yard waste (see also Figure III.3). Household collection programs typically include recyclables, such as paper, glass, metals, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE), and yard waste under 3 inches in diameter. Some recyclables, however, such as white goods, #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), scrap metal, and yard waste over 3 inches in diameter are not widely collected. As Figure III.3 indicates, there are few opportunities for urban residences to Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recyding B.2. Recyding. Needs and Opportunities • • • • Generator Type Recyclable commodity Single-family Multifamily Nonresidential Newspaper 2,910 b 10,300 6,200 Cardboard 10,060 b 7,900 36,200 Office paper 880 260 9,400 Computer paper 200 90 3,110 Mixed paper 18,690 b 13,700 27,300 #1 Plastic (PET) bottles 730 b 190 0 #2 Plastic (HDPE) bottles 2,900 540 1,100 #3-7 Plastics 14,170 4,330 22,400 Wood waste 2,730 5,100 48,700 Yard waste 26,900 4,600 12,700 Textiles 11,800 6,200 15,900 Food waste 28,500 10,000 16,600 Glass 0 b 4,400 3,520 White goods n/a n/a n/a Tin cans 3,150 b 1,300 1,400 Other ferrous metals 2,650 850 7,700 Aluminum cans 770 b 520 950 Aluminum scrap 290 0 350 Other nonferrous metals 180 80 780 Batteries, household n/a n/a n/a Batteries, automotive a 0 0 0 Polycoated paper 4,500 ° 3,0000 7,500 Tires a 0 0 0 a Estimates based on deposit of used tire or battery with retail establishment at the time of purchase of new tire or battery. b Denotes tonnage corrections to the September, 1990 waste stream sampling. The estimated volume of the marked commodities was claculated for programs that have come on line between September 1, 1990 and March 31, 1992, and subtracted from the total disposed tonnage sampling numbers. Based on unpublished research for the polycoated paper industry. n/a = Figures not available. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study • Nonresidential recycling -80 percent While the above percentages indicate overall service gaps, a breakdown by urban and rural areas provides more specific information on services offered and services needed. in urban areas, household collection of recyclables is available to 95 percent of single-family residences, and yard waste collection is available to 79 percent_ For urban multifamily residences in incorporated areas, household collection of recyclables is offered to 51 percent and yard waste collection to 6 percent. All multifamily residences in urban unincorporated areas have access to household collection of recyclables and yard waste (see also Figure III.3). Household collection programs typically include recyclables, such as paper, glass, metals, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE), and yard waste under 3 inches in diameter. Some recyclables, however, such as white goods, #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), scrap metal, and yard waste over 3 inches in diameter are not widely collected. As Figure III.3 indicates, there are few opportunities for urban residences to Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recyding B.2. Recyding. Needs and Opportunities • • • • I• • • • r� u recycle these latter recyclable materials. This information also indicates there is a need to expand multifamily recyclables and yard waste collection services in the cities of King County, and to a lesser extent, improve single-family household yard waste collection in urban areas. In rural areas, household collection of recyclables is not required but several rural cities offer it. Others are served by existing or planned drop -sites, thus completing coverage of incorporated rural areas for recyclables collection. Yard waste drop -sites are located in five rural cities, serving 54 percent of rural incorporated area residents. Recycling and yard waste collection services in the rural unincorporated areas are more limited. Drop -sites for recyclables and yard waste are available at rural county disposal sites at Cedar Falls and Hobart; drop - sites for recyclables are available at the Enumclaw transfer station and Vashon landfill. There is still a need to improve recycling and yard waste services in rural areas. In the nonresidential sector, approximately 10 percent of King County businesses receive recyclables collection service through city -sponsored programs and an additional 10 percent are served through privately operated programs. The majority of the remaining unserved businesses are within a five -mile radius of a drop -site, transfer station, or buy-back center. However, only an estimated 10 to 20 percent of these businesses regularly use these facilities. In short, businesses are not participating in recycling programs at the same level as residences in King County. Significant increases in nonresidential recycling must be achieved to meet WR/R goals. King County's Business Recycling Program has effectively provided businesses with information about how to improve WR/R activities, and several cities have successful collection programs. However, providing information addresses only one barrier. Regulatory barriers to implementation, such as cross - subsidization between commercial garbage and recycling rates, also need to be addressed; impediments to increased nonresidential WR/R should be identified; and the roles and responsibilities of the cities, the County, and the private sector in overcoming these barriers need to be delineated. The following issues must be addressed: • Collection services. To determine gaps in nonresidential collection services, the following should be identified: types of B.2. Recycling: Needs and OpportunUt�s III - 27 businesses and areas of the County receiving recycling services and the materials currently collected. • Local government authority. State law does not provide local governments the same regulatory authority for commercial recyclables collection as it does for residential recyclables collection. The cities' and County's authority to provide for commercial recycling must be clearly delineated. Because commercial recyclers respond to market demand, service may not be available to all businesses in a given area, and materials collected and prices charged can vary. Changes in state law may be needed to allow local government the authority to require that a minimum level of recycling services be made available to businesses county wide. • Financial incentives. Rate -setting practices can result in recycling rates that are not competitive with or are more than the cost of disposal. Financial incentives to encourage businesses to recycle should also be addressed. Programs are also needed to address the significant quantities of waste disposed by self-haulers—largely residents and businesses that do not subscribe to garbage service or periodically dispose of waste at county facilities. Of the 1990 tonnage disposed by residential self -haulers (estimated to be 15 to 20 percent of the single-family population), 18 percent was recyclable materials and 43 percent was yard waste and wood. Of the nonresidential disposed tonnage, 15 percent was recyclable materials, and 27 percent was yard waste and wood. c. Markets (1) Background In order for recycling programs to succeed, increased recycling collection efforts must be accompanied by greater consumer demand for recycled products. King County and the suburban cities can continue to set an example by purchasing recycled products and promoting the purchase of recycled products by the private sector. Market demand can also be addressed by identifying economically viable uses for recycled feedstocks, increasing local capacity to process and remanufacture recyclable and recycled products, and investigating legislative enhancements for recycling markets. Special attention needs to be given to glass, mixed waste paper, plastics, compost, and other commodities that pose Chapter N. Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 28 special market development challenges. Establishment of minimum content standards for glass can be encouraged at the state level, while the County can aggressively pursue testing and use of products that can be made from recycled cullet. Markets for yard waste products can be strengthened by providing quality testing and certification, consumer education and awareness, processing regulation, and open channels for procurement by county agencies. To ensure the quality of materials collected for recycling, development of commercial paper recycling programs needs to focus on source -separated programs by grade of paper. Collection systems designed for plastics and yard waste .also need to emphasize source separation. In addition, continuing education to decrease contamination is important in the collection of all materials. (See Volume II, Appendix D for more information about recyclable materials markets.) To promote more widespread use of products made from recycled materials and to support recycled materials markets, consumers need to be informed about their availability. For example, Lake Forest Park will use plastic lumber for benches and other equipment in its fust city park While durability will require years to assess, information addressing considerations such as public acceptance and aesthetics can be shared with other jurisdictions much sooner. Various recycled products should be tested for effectiveness, durability, and other qualities by testing programs distributed among the cities and the County. (2) Key Market Needs • Plastics. The key strategies for King County to pursue in improving markets for recycled plastics fall into three categories: (1) facilitating the design and implementation of source - separated, contamination -free collection systems; (2) buying products that use recycled plastics and encouraging similar purchasing behavior on the part of the cities and the public; (3) educating the public about buying products made from recycled post -consumer plastics. • Glass. Demand must be increased to address the oversupply of glass. The Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development has established a 1995 goal that 50 percent of the glass recovered statewide be used in glass containers, 15 percent be used in fiberglass insulations, 5 percent exported, and 25 percent used for other purposes. Other uses being explored include refilling wine bottles, glass aggregate as a drainage material, the use of glass aggregate in place of sand in asphalt, and the use of glass foam for insulation. • Compost. The short-term market outlook may bring an oversupply and difficult market conditions. Three factors could contribute to greater supply: yard waste disposal limitations, an expanded PSAPCA burn ban, and other potential regulatory changes. Long-term markets are expected to be more stable with sufficient processing and demand to lead to sustainable markets. Many processors hope government agencies will become major consumers. • Mixed waste paper. Mixed waste paper consists of mixed paper as well as paper left over after higher grades of paper have been removed. Two major weaknesses of the material collected are high contamination levels and lack of consistency in product quality. These weaknesses have prevented local mills from accepting significant quantities for recycling into new paper products. In 1990, 76,000 tons of mixed waste paper were collected in Washington State, with only 6,000 tons consumed by the region's mills. The majority of the mixed waste paper was exported to Pacific Rim countries for recycling. The current Out of mixed waste paper is expected to get worse before it gets better. As new local and national curbside programs come on line, increasing quantities of mixed waste paper will flood the market and compete for the same export markets. James River and Daishowa are two large mills which have come on line in the Northwest which accept used phone books for repulping. With these two mills in operation, the Northwest is now a net importer of phone books and markets for these paper products may increase. (3) Marketing Commission To pursue its five-year objective to develop markets by stimulating procurement of recycled products, the Marketing Commission needs to: • Educate the public, government and private industry about the importance of buying post -consumer content recycled Chapter N- Waste Reduction and Recycling B.2. Raoyr g: Needs and Opportunit y products. Three important topics are recyclable material contamination, product quality and benefits of using products made from recycled materials. • Encourage increased government recycled product procurement, recommend market development policy and legislation, and encourage collection of commodities in short supply. • Test the performance of recycled products in new and existing applications. Draft specifications for recycled product procurement, and encourage further research and development. • Facilitate common market development goals of public agencies, citizens, and the private sector. • Address policy and legislative issues such as cooperative purchasing, advance disposal fees, and the removal of price supports for virgin material. • Provide the private and public sectors with information on the quality and benefits of recycled products. d. Support No new needs for support programs are identified, however cities and King County need to continue existing support programs. These include collection rate incentives, procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or recyclable products, new construction standards that require onsite space for collecting and storing recyclables, routine recyclables collection data reporting, and annual reports of progress toward Plan implementation. e. Regional Programs (1) Intergovernmental Relations/Coordination The Zone Coordination Unit has functioned as a resource to city recycling staff, administered grants programs, and coordinated meetings among county and city staff to exchange information and ideas. There is a need for the County to provide more information through such activities as periodic mailings that update the role and responsibilities of county WR/R staff, jointly sponsored workshops or roundtables; continued grant program funding, and issue -specific interjurisdictional committees. In establishing disposal bans, for purposes of promoting recycling or for other operational III - 29 reasons, the County will coordinate implementation with the cities through the Zone Coordination Unit. (2) City Optional Programs Three programs were designated as city optional in the 1989 Plan: (1) nonresidential technical assistance, (2) backyard composting bins, and (3) master recycler/composter. Under the program, cities could apply to the County for funds to establish and operate these programs or continue to receive services from the County. There is a need to evaluate which programs operate more effectively as regional services and which are best updated locally. The Backyard Composting Bins Program and the Master Recycler/Composter Program are most cost-effective as regional services, and cities have generally not opted to implement these programs. To continue to offer cities some flexibility in providing services, new programs need to be considered for city optional status. (3) Educatiom&bools More emphasis on coordination with school districts and cities is needed to streamline scheduling and enhance program effectiveness. Currently, presentations depend on individual teachers who request it for their classes. Schools also need assistance with establishing recyclables collection programs. (4) Public Education The County's public education and promotion of WR/R issues is extensive. While comprehensive in its coverage of topics and use of various media, there remain opportunities to increase public awareness of the need to reduce, recycle, and purchase recycled products. These include providing information on what to use in place of difficult -to -recycle materials, increased information on procurement for the nonresidential sector, and a more visible waste reduction campaign. New and innovative promotional approaches need to be explored, such as newspaper inserts, paid advertising, and cooperative efforts with other organizations, businesses, and the suburban cities. Finally, targeted information needs to be delivered to minority, low-income, senior groups, and other groups not reached by previous educational efforts. B.2. Recycling: Needs and Opportunities Chapter 111. Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 30 (S) Clean mood Waste Clean wood is defined as wood that has been processed into lumber and has not been contaminated during use. Most clean wood waste is generated by large commercial and residential construction projects and is taken to privately owned CDL facilities. After September 1993, most CDL generated in the County will be taken to a privately owned processing system developed to meet operational specifications established by the County (Section V.D.I.e.). Recycling will be encouraged by requiring that the contractors maintain a specified minimum processing capacity at one or more of the facilities that receive loads of mixed CDL materials from generators and haulers and by reserving the County's right to prohibit or limit disposal of materials deemed recyclable. The County is also developing WR/R programs that target building contractors and other trades that will utilize the CDL processing system. While the new CDL processing system is expected to capture most of the clean wood generated in the County, small volumes of clean wood generated by remodeling contractors, do-it-yourself remodelers, and pallet users will likely continue to be delivered to transfer facilities in privately licensed vehicles (PLVs) for disposal. Opportunities for recycling and programs for waste reduction and recycling education are needed for this portion of the wood waste stream not captured by the County's CDL processing system. The Waste Characterization Study, prepared for the County in 1991, documents the quantity of wood waste present in both the residential and nonresidential waste streams. However, the study did not provide information about the specific components of the wood waste stream. Therefore, it is difficult to project how much wood entering the CDL processing system or County transfer system will be clean wood. This lack of specific information makes it difficult to plan or implement wood waste recycling program. In order to improve the County's ability to manage wood waste, the 1993 Waste Characterization Study will gather information to better differentiate clean wood waste components, identify generator sources, and determine volumes. f. Summary of Needs and Opportunities In summary, alternative methods for enhancing recycling efforts should be evaluated that consider the following needs and opportunities: • Additional residential collection programs to include household collection of yard waste in all urban areas; services and facilities for secondary recyclables such as white goods, #3- 7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), oversized yard waste, and scrap metal; and more comprehensive rural residential recycling systems. • Self -hauler recyclables and yard waste collection opportunities. • Yard waste collection alternatives for multifamily and commercial generators. • More comprehensive, nonresidential recycling systems, which include collection service standards and financial incentives to increase recycling among nonresidential generators. • Legislative authority allowing the County and the cities to require minimum levels of recyclables collection service for nonresidential generators. • Market development for collected materials, particularly paper and compost. • Stronger intergovernmental coordination of common WR/R efforts. • Identification of additional strategies as potential city optional programs. • Testing and promotion of additional products made from recycled materials. • Increased coordination with school districts and cities to assist schools in implementing collection programs. • Distribution of WR/R information to all segments of the population using multiethnic and other educational strategies. • Increased diversion of recyclables, such as mixed waste paper, in existing collection services through additional educational efforts. Chapter Ill. Waste Reduction and Recyding B.2. Rec)ding: Needs and Opportunities 3. Altemaxives There are three alternative ways to meet the WR/R needs described in the previous section: • Continue the existing voluntary WR/R efforts. • Continue existing efforts and initiate new measures to increase recycling of targeted materials or generators. • Continue some existing efforts and prohibit the disposal of selected recyclable materials. Criteria used to develop and evaluate recommendations include cost of service, waste diversion potential, and potential for implementation within three years. The alternatives considered are summarized below and in Table III.10. The additional diversion potential for the three alternatives are displayed in Figure III.6. • Alternative A—Continue Existing Programs. This alternative would continue voluntary programs established in the 1989 Plan without instituting new programs or disposal bans or limitations. It would likely result in an estimated additional diversion of 5 percent by 1995, for a total WR/R rate of 40 percent. This increase would be achieved through targeted promotional efforts and continuing public education for existing programs and the addition of services that are currently in the planning stages (i.e., multifamily and yard waste collection programs). Diversion rates greater than 40 percent would not be expected because no significant improvements in recycling services or facilities would be considered. • Alternative Band existing programs and institute a yard waste ban. This alternative would expand voluntary services for all generators, provide collection opportunities for additional materials, and ban or limit disposal of yard waste. it would establish nonresidential collection service guidelines to encourage the expansion of services to commercial generators. This would likely achieve an estimated diversion rate of just over 50 percent by 1995, assuming that a yard waste disposal ban or limitation is in place in 1993• • Alternative C—Initiate mandatory recycling through disposal bans. This alternative would initiate mandatory recycling measures, including disposal prohibitions for certain recyclables and yard waste. It would be more expedient and less costly than focusing on voluntary collection programs for recyclables and yard waste, and if fully implemented would result in an additional 26 percent of recyclables collected, bringing total diversion to 60 percent or more by 1995, but only if active enforcement is initiated. Furthermore, the capacity of processing facilities and the adequacy of markets to absorb each commodity would need to be ascertained before a material is banned from disposal. The advantages and disadvantages of all three alternatives are compared in Table III.11. The diversion potential of the program alternatives is based on analyses of the King County Waste Characterization Study (Volume II, Appendix B), the 1991 Ecology recycling survey results (Washington State Recycling Survey, Ecology), and Solid Waste Division waste generation forecasts. The alternatives reflect policy considerations and priorities expressed by the suburban cities and other participants at plan update workshops. Each of the three alternatives respond in some way to the needs and opportunities of the WR/R system. Alternative A assumes that there are limited resources and that additional resources would not be allocated to new WR/R programs. This alternative also assumes that continued implementation of status quo programs adequately meets the WR/R needs of King County residences and businesses. Alternative B assumes that there is a significant amount of material with recycling potential that is being disposed. This alternative also recognizes that additional efforts by the County, cities, and the private sector are needed to meet WR/R needs in the County and to meet established goals. Alternative C also recognizes that additional diversion of certain materials is needed in order to meet WR/R goals. However, this alternative would achieve additional diversion through mandatory measures, such as prohibiting the disposal of recyclable materials, rather than continue with the existing approach of providing voluntary programs and services. Table IU.10 Summary of Recycling Alternatives Alternative A Continue existing programs. Alternative B Expand existing programs and institute a yard waste ban. Alternative C Initiate mandatory recycling through disposal bans. B.3. Receding: Alternatives Chapter 111. Waste Reduction and Recyding 70 60 50 E cz 40 30 'r= 20 10 I;1-32 0 1993 1994 1995 70 60 a) I> 50 E 40 (D 30 20 ib 10 0 1993 70 60 Edi 50 40 30 20 i0 n 10 1994 1995 0 1993 1994 1995 Fig= 111.6 Additional diversion potential resulting from Alternatives A, B, and C. Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C CbV&,V[.- Waste Reduction and Recycling B-3. Recycling: AI&nafiw Table M.11 Summary and Comparative Advantages and Disadvantages of WR/R Alternatives Alternative A—Continue Existing Programs Advantages • Presents no new costs to cities, County, and the private sector. • Presents fewest implementation difficulties. Disadvantages • Attains only 40% WR/R; falls far short of 1995 50 percent diversion goal. • Does not address all identified needs in materials collection. • Does not increase recycling opportunities for businesses and self -haulers. Alternative B --Expand Existing Programs with Yard Waste Ban Advantages • Could attain 50 percent 1995 WR/R goal. • Utilizes existing hauler infrastructure for service options. • Requires no additional statutory authority. • Incurs moderate regulatory and enforcement costs. • Is less likely to meet with public opposition than Alternative C. III - 33 Disadvantages • Has potentially higher cost to customers for recyclable collection services. • Incurs additional operating costs for haulers; additional costs for cities and county. • May incur additional capital costs for construction of facilities. • Has potential for delays because of facility siting difficulties. • Requires further planning to clarify public and private responsibilities for providing collection facilities. • Provides no guarantee that collection needs of the nonresidential sector will be met. Alternative C-4nitiate Mandatory Recycling through Disposal Bans Advantages • Could attain 60% WR/R rate, and has highest potential diversion rate. • Offers potentially lower costs to the County, cities, and haulers for services and facilities. • Gives greater autonomy to cities in determining additional collection services and their WR/R program. Specific programmatic proposals for each alternative are described in the sections that follow. a. Alternative A, Existing Programs This alternative would continue to implement the voluntary programs recommended by the 1989 Plan described in Section III.A.1, which could result in additional 5 percent waste stream diversion. This could be achieved by more fully Disadvantages • Incurs additional costs to the County and haulers to enforce bans. • Poses potential increase in illegal dumping if collection alternatives are not economical and convenient. • Poses potential short-term disequilibrium for recycled product markets. • Has enforcement and monitoring difficulties. implementing the 1989 Plan programs, such as yard waste and multifamily recyclables collection in urban areas; however, this alternative does not meet all of the needs identified in Section III.A.2. The additional diversion that could be expected from continued implementation of the 1989 Plan recommendations is shown in Table III.12. The 1992 WR/R rate of 35 percent would be maintained, and some additional diversion would result from added multifamily and yard waste service. Existing B.3. Recycling: Alternatives Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recyding Il:I 34 programs fall into four general categories: waste reduction, recyclables collection, support programs, and regional programs. These programs and implementation responsibility are discussed in detail in Section IIIAI and summarized below. (1) Recyclables Collection King County and the cities would continue to implement programs to meet or exceed minimum service levels for collecting recyclables and yard waste in the urban and rural areas. The minimum levels of services are described in Section III.A.1, with a list of the recyclable materials. To fulfill the minimum service levels from the 1989 Plan, multifamily recyclables service and yard waste collection would need to be available countywide. Increasing service availability and participation to multifamily residences in cities would be emphasized. Currently 41 percent of multifamily units in incorporated areas do not have recycling service. Of those that do, it is estimated that fewer than 50 percent use the services. Household yard waste collection services would be extended to the 21 percent of urban single-family households in incorporated areas (one through four units) that do not currently receive this service. Needs for yard waste collection and processing facilities would be evaluated countywide. Current levels of yard waste and recycling opportunities would continue to be provided at current levels at county disposal facilities. New facilities scheduled to come on line before 1995, including the Enumclaw Transfer Station, would be designed with the capacity to collect all primary recyclables. Table 111.12 Additional Diversion Potential Resulting from Alternative A 1993 1994 1995 Yard Waste .75 1.50 2.25 Primary Recyclables .30 .65 1.00 Multifamily .60 1.20 1.75 Total WR/R Increase from 1.65 3.35 5.00 1992 1992 W R/R Rate 35.00 35.00 35.00 Total WR/R Rate 36.65 38.25 40.00 (2) Support and Education Programs Existing programs would be continued, with emphasis on publicizing service expansions to multifamily dwellings. Education programs include school programs, community event displays, and a recycling/composting hotline. Cities would continue to either utilize the County's Business Recycling Program or apply for county funds to implement their own. (3) Regional Programs Existing regional programs would be continued. The Backyard Composting Program and Master Recycler/Composter Program would become regional—instead of city optional—support and education programs. (4) Program Costs Implementation of alternative A generally would maintain public and private costs at current levels. Existing funding mechanisms would be used. Collection services would continue to be paid through city contracts or directly through fees charged to customers. Cities would continue to fund other WR/R programs and services with utility taxes, general fund revenue, and grants. Regional programs and services offered by the County would continue to be funded through tipping fees charged at disposal facilities. The addition of new household yard waste collection services could result in an added monthly cost to participating households. The cost to the customer of new multifamily recyclables collection service could vary widely depending on the size of the complex and the frequency of service. However, most customers should also see a commensurate reduction in their garbage bill, as they reduce the amount of waste being disposed if rates are structured to do so. (S) King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials Under alternative A, the King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials would continue to establish, enhance, and ensure methods of utilizing recyclable materials; promote the use of products manufactured from recycled materials; and recommend policies to enhance market Chapter 111. Waste Reduction and Recycling B.3. R*ding: Alternatives •I 91 0 i 0 development. The following programs and actions would be undertaken by the Commission to fulfill this charge: • Market information. Maintain a market information system that allows the County to monitor basic trends in the regional recycled materials infrastructure. • Recycled products promotion and education. Continue to expand recycling markets by promoting the use of recycled products by residents, businesses, and public agencies. Educate and motivate the public, government, and private industry about the importance of buying post -consumer content recycled products. This should include information about contamination issues, as well as the qualities and benefits of using recycled materials. • Recyclable commodilia priorities. Focus efforts on priority commodities including—but not limited to—glass, compost, mixed waste paper, and plastics. • Recycled yard waste compost. Promote the consumption of recycled yard waste compost in King County through product testing and market development and support activities • Clean Washington Center coordination. Continue working cooperatively with the Clean Washington Center and other agencies to promote local recycling markets, providing assistance and support to the Center for its market development activities in the region. • Coalition building. Facilitate the common market development goals of public agencies, citizens, and the private sector. This can be accomplished by using the expertise of the Commissioners, assisting public agencies to buy recycled products, and recommending policies regarding market development issues. • Product testing and demonstration. Test recycled materials in new and existing applications to evaluate their performance and potential for continued and expanded use. This would include drafting specifications for recycled product procurement, and monitoring and supporting research and development efforts of private industry and other public agencies. • Technical assistance. Provide technical assistance to private businesses and public agencies by providing information on qualities and benefits of recycled products, and assistance in drafting specifications that meet applicable guidelines. B.3. Recycling: Alternatives III - 35 • Procurement of recycled products. Promote the purchase of recycled products by the public and private sector by supporting the King County Purchasing Agency to promote local agency procurement of recycled and recyclable materials. Provide technical assistance to targeted businesses to incorporate recycled and recyclable products into the merchandise they market and the supplies they use. Increase exposure and access to recycled and recyclable products for residents. • Procurement goals. Establish procurement goals for targeted commodities by King County. • Policy analysts. Analyze legislative initiatives and recommend policy, including those regarding cooperative purchasing, advance disposal fees, and removal of price supports for virgin material. • Legislation. Support market development legislation at the state and federal level. b. Alternative B, Expanded Services Under this alternative most existing services and programs would continue; additional services, facilities, and programs would be provided; more types of materials would be collected; and the 1989 Plan recommendation for a yard waste disposal ban would be phased in beginning in 1993. The first phase of the disposal limitation would affect single-family residences. The second phase would affect all other yard waste generators and is expected to take effect by 1995. Implementation of 1989 Plan requirements resulted in a 35 percent WR/R rate in 1992. Alternative B is based on the need to go beyond the minimum requirements of RCW 70.95 to achieve 50 percent diversion or higher. This approach identifies additional services or actions needed to do so, assuming King County continues a voluntary WR/R system. The additional services proposed in alternative B are designed to meet the service needs identified in Section IIIA2: • Add services (and materials) to established urban household collection programs to include all primary recyclables. These include paper, cardboard, glass, tin, and aluminum beverage containers, yard waste, and #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE). Chapter N- Waste Reduction and Recycling • Implement a campaign to educate residents in the urban area about the availability of urban household collection programs for all primary recyclables. • Provide optional collection opportunities for secondary materials in both urban and rural areas. These include wood, #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), textiles, appliances, furniture, scrap metals, and food waste. • Provide additional yard waste recycling opportunities to serve residences, self -haulers, and businesses. • Establish minimum service guidelines for nonresidential recyclables collection. • Initiate the phased implementation of the yard waste disposal ban. • Determine roles and services of Solid Waste Division facilities in recyclables collection. Programs are described in detail in the sections that follow. The diversion potential of Alternative B is shown in Table III.13. It illustrates the additional increment of diversion expected from continued implementation of the 1989 Plan recommendations and the new diversion increment that would result from new services. The 35 percent WR/R rate being achieved in 1992 would be maintained and there would be some additional diversion as a result of additional multifamily and yard waste services. Expansion of curbside yard waste collection service to all urban residents, initiation of a yard waste ban, and additional composting opportunities would result in an additional 6 percent diversion by 1995. These estimates assume that almost 80 percent of the currently disposed yard waste would be diverted from disposal. It also assumes that, by 1995, at least 50 percent of those eligible for program services would be participants. New optional programs to provide additional collection opportunities for selected secondary recyclables could result in an additional 1 percent diversion of the total waste stream in 1995. Significant diversions can be achieved through the promotion of multifamily recycling services, additional amounts of mixed waste paper, and additional opportunities for textiles collection. It is estimated these programs would achieve an average participation rate of 60 percent. The successful promotion of voluntary nonresidential recycling collection service guidelines could result in an additional 3 percent diversion by 1995, if half the businesses targeted in the guidelines recycle 50 percent of their waste stream. Greater diversion could be expected if the legislative authority of counties and cities is changed to allow local governments to require nonresidential recyclables collection. This alternative also assumes a moderate increase in waste reduction as a result of accelerated educational efforts by cities and the County, and through additional backyard composting of yard waste. (1) Residential Collection Minimum Service Levels Alternative B increases the 1989 minimum service levels for both residential and nonresidential collection. Both urban and rural collection systems must include all primary recyclables (the urban and rural boundaries are shown in Figure III.I; primary recyclables are listed in Table III.15). In changing minimum service levels, cities with contracts for residential garbage and/or recycling services would negotiate these service levels with their contractor. King County would change its service level requirements (KCC 10.18) as needed. Cities with garbage or recycling services regulated by the WUTC could amend their service level requirements to ensure minimum services or work with their franchise haulers through franchise agreements or other means. Recyclable materials, as defined by this Plan are in accordance with RCW 70.95.030 (Table III.14). They are classified as "primary" and "secondary." Primary recyclables are those materials most commonly collected in household and drop -box programs and those with established or emerging markets, including paper, cardboard, glass, tin, aluminum beverage containers, and #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE). Secondary recyclables are those less commonly collected than primary recyclables because of limited markets or lack of collection systems. These include batteries, #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene), textiles, appliances, furniture, scrap metals, and food waste. State statute RCW 70.95.090 and KCC 10.22 require that a list of recyclable materials be included in the County's solid Chapter /IL- Waste Redumon and Recycling B.3. Recycling: Alternatim Is 0 i waste management plan. Criteria were developed for determining what recyclable materials could be included on the primary and secondary lists. These criteria are that the materials: • are already being collected or are collectable, • are recyclable, • have markets or potential markets (as described in Appendix D, Recycling Markets Assessments), and • have potential diversion rates that will contribute to meeting state and local recycling goals. A scale of high to low was used to rank materials according to the criteria. A high ranking in all the criteria is preferable for placement of materials on the list; however, materials can be included without receiving high ranking for all criteria. Recyclable materials could be placed or kept on the recyclables list for one of the following reasons: Table HI.13 Alternative B, Estimated Percent Increase Resulting from Expanded Voluntary Programs with Yard Waste Disposal Ban 1992 1995 % of Total % of Total Total Tons Waste Stream Total Tons Waste Stream Total Waste Stream 1,339,600 100.00 1,571,582 100.00 Total Disposal Stream 870,447 64.98 784,573 49.92 Residential Programs Single -Family Primary Recyclables 64,212 4.79 119,131 7.58 Multifamily Primary Recyclables 5,068 0.38 29,418 1.87 Secondary Recyclables 12,123 0.90 19,836 1.26 Buy -Back Centers 6,143 0.46 11,600 0.74 Wood Waste 1,000 0.07 16,399 1.04 Construction/Demolition 0 0.00 2,599 0.17 Drop -sites (Primary Recyclables) 1,428 0.11 3,737 0.24 Clean -Up Events 943 0.07 3,000 0.19 90,917 6.79 205,719 13.09 Nonresidential Programs Nonresidential Recycling 303,499 22.66 394,280 25.09 Wood Waste 1,000 0.07 25,047 1.59 Construction/Demolition 0 0.00 8,260 0.53 304,499 22.73 427,588 27.21 Yard Waste Programs Single-family Collection 20,578 1.54 39,090 2.49 Multifamily Collection 0 0.00 4,293 0.27 Nonresidential Collection 136 0.01 1,569 0.10 Roll -off Services 0 0.00 1,170 0.07 Drop -boxes 30,102 2.25 62,005 3.95 50,816 3.79 108,127 6.88 Waste Reduction Programs Residential Programs 12,317 0.92 25,066 1.59 Nonresidential Programs 10,604 0.79 20,509 1.30 22,921 1.71 45,575 2.90 Total Diversion 469,153 35.02 787,009 50.08 B.3. Recycling: Alternatives Cbapter Ill.• Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 38 • to create or guarantee an adequate and consistent supply of materials for development and maintenance of a recycled products industry, • to avoid frequent changes in the recyclables list that could undermine the public's commitment to WR/R, • to insure adequate diversion of recyclable materials from the waste stream to meet state and local goals. Table III.14 defines the scale for each of the criteria used for developing the recyclables lists. Table III.15 applies the criteria and displays the ranking for the materials on the Plan lists. Urban, household, collection programs would be expanded to include the following minimum levels of residential services: • Urban bousehold primary recyclables collection. All single- and multifamily residences would have household collection, or a collection program determined to be equivalent to household collection by Ecology, of paper (newspaper, cardboard, mixed wastepaper); #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE); yard waste (smaller than 3 inches in diameter); glass containers; and metal (tin and aluminum cans). Participation by residences would be voluntary. As the yard waste disposal ban is phased in, household options for managing their yard waste would be limited to participating in household collection programs, self -hauling their yard waste to processors or collection facilities or on-site composting. • Urban, single family, yard waste collection. Household collection of yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter) would be required in urban areas. Regular yard waste collection service would likely be subject to volume restrictions to be set by individual cities and by the County. • Urban, multifamily, on-site yard waste collection. Local governments would ensure that this service is available by requiring haulers to provide on-call multifamily yard waste collection service throughout their territory; or through some other means of collection that is deemed appropriate by the individual jurisdiction. This service would be made available in all urban areas but participation by multifamily property owners would be voluntary. Expanding this service will not cause overall collection rates to rise. Haulers can employ the same equipment used for single-family household yard waste collection. Additional operational costs would be covered by service fees paid by program participants: Promotional costs can be managed within existing budgets. Although it is expected that only a small percentage of multifamily complexes will participate, the program will close an identified service gap. • Urban, bousebold, appliance collection service. To comply with the federal Clean Air Act which prohibits the venting of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the air, effective July 1, 1992, appliance and appliances containing CFCs will require special handling before they can be recycled. Other appliances (stoves, ranges, heat pumps, water heaters, dehumidifiers, dishwashers, washers and dryers, trash compactors, furnaces) would also be banned from disposal at. the county's transfer stations and landfills on September 1, 1993. Local governments would ensure that appliance collection service is available to residents by disseminating information about existing collection services or accepting appliances at locally sponsored special events. King County would maintain and continue to regularly update a list of the 50 or more appliance dealers, recyclers, and non-profit organizations that accept large appliances, including those that contain CFCs, or provide household pick-up for a reasonable fee. In addition, over the long term, all new County transfer stations would be designed to accept CFC appliances. The availability and costs of appliance collection would be re-evaluated during the 1995 planning process. Because appliance collection would not be a part of regular solid waste and recyclables collection services, there would usually be an additional cost to those households that must dispose of a used appliance. In 1992, the average fee for residential pick-up of a CFC appliance in urban areas is approximately $40. The average fee for non -CFC appliances is approximately $30. Costs to local governments for promotion can be managed within existing budgets. Governments can expect to spend an average of $13,000 to sponsor a special collection event; adding appliances to the list of materials to be collected at planned events will add costs to events but can be managed within existing budgets. • Urban, household, bulky yard waste collection service. This includes yard waste too large for regular household collection (limbs, stumps, and other yard waste larger than 3 Chapter AT Waste Reduction and Recyding 8.3. Recycling: Altemaftw Table 1H.14 Criteria for Primary and Secondary Recyclables Rankings Ranking Collectable H Materials are easy to set out for pick-up or transport; containers and the means to handle them are readily available. M Separation of this material could be achieved by combining it with another material already collected, possibly creating certain but not unreasonable contamination or handling problems. Separation of this material would require special handling and/or equipment due to special properties such as size, bulk, consistency, moisture content and potential for significant contamination of other materials. Processing Capacity Either local processing or low-cost transport to processing is available Local processing or transport may be available under certain conditions such as moderate increases in cost. No local processing available; transport to processing very costly. inches in diameter), or large volumes generated at one time (i.e., fall prunings). The County and Cities would assure that bulky yard waste collection service is available to households by choosing to provide on-call collection service, disseminate information about private sector chipping services and private yard waste collection depots that accept self -hauled loads of bulky yard waste, or sponsor collection events that accept bulky yard waste. Yard waste disposal limits at county facilities would encourage use of the services provided. King County would develop countywide information for home owners which identifies private depots and chipping and hauling services that handle bulky yard waste. Cities may choose to develop and distribute information about local services. The County would also sponsor collection events that accept bulky yard waste. The County would monitor bulky yard waste collection service so that the level of countywide service can be re- evaluated during the 1995 planning process. The need for required household collection of bulky yard waste would also be examined at that time. • Urban, household textiles collection service. Many non- profit organizations provide on-call or depot collection of Market Potential Markets are well- established and are generally strong, despite periodic fluctuations. Markets exist but are static and possibly weak due to oversupply or competing materials. Markets do not exist or are in the early stages of development. Diversion Potential Relatively high volumes, either by weight or cubic yards, are generated and disposed. Relatively moderate volumes are generated and disposed. Low volumes are generated and disposed. reusable and recyclable textiles (used clothing, leather goods, and natural household fabrics). Cities and the County would ensure additional collection opportunities by choosing to disseminate information which identifies the organizations that provide this service, by accepting reusable and recyclable household textiles at regular collection events sponsored by local governments, or by providing household collection of textiles on a regular basis. King County would work with the non-profit organizations to help coordinate collection efforts so that countywide service is ensured. The County would monitor textile collection service so that the level of countywide service can be re-evaluated during the 1995 planning process. The need for required household collection of textiles would also be examined at that time. Costs of promoting available services can be managed within existing budgets. Special collection programs average $13,000 an event. Adding textiles to the list of recyclables to be collected at planned events can be managed within existing budgets. If the local government chooses to provide household collection, costs would vary according to the design of the program. B.3. Recycling: Alternatives Chapter Ill Waste Reduction and Recycling 40 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Table IU.15 Designated Primary and Secondary Recyclables with Rankings (L = low, M = medium, H = high) Collectable Processing Market Diversion At BZ Capacity Potentla13 Potential Primary Recyclables Newspaper H H H H Cardboard H H M M- H High-grade office paper H M M L Computer paper H M M L Mixed Paper H L L H PET & HDPE bottles (clear & colored) H L M L Yard waste (< 3' in diameter) H H M H Glass containers (flint, amber, green) H L - M L5 - M M Tin cans H H M L Aluminum cans H H H L Secondary Recyclables Polycoated Paperboard L L- M L- M H L Other plastics L L L M Bulky yard waste (> 3' in diameter) L M - H L - M L - M Wood M M- H H H Food waste L L M M Appliances (white goods) L L- M M M L Other ferrous metals L L- M H M M Other nonferrous metals L H M L Textiles L- M H H H 1 Currently being collected in most household recyclables collection programs in King County. 2 (1) Currently being collected in some programs or collected regularly through other means. (2) Has the potential to be collected (curbside or otherwise). There are no technical reasons why it cannot be collected. 3 Appendix D - Recycling Markets Assessment 4 Appendix B - Waste Characterization Study 5 green glass 6 All plastics except PET/HDPE bottles, which are primary recyclables. These are PET (non -bottle), HDPE (non -bottle), vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene, and other plastics. These plastics also known by their SPI codes (1 through 7 respectively). Rural collection programs would also include the following residential services: • Rural, drop -site, primary recyclables collection. All single and multifamily residences would have collection of the same materials collected at urban households. Participation by rural residents would be voluntary. The County would provide recycling drop -sites or expand household collection service in unserved unincorporated rural areas. The Snoqualmie Valley cities drop -sites (provided through the Waste Not Washington Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recycling grant) would continue to operate within their own jurisdictions. • Rural, single family, yard waste collection. Yard waste drop -sites would be required, at a minimum. • Review of minimum service level requirements. In addition to the above minimum service levels, optional household collection of #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, polystyrene, and all other plastics), and polycoated materials (milk cartons, butter, and frozen food packages) would be considered for possible future inclusion in this Plan for urban areas. The County is evaluating the B.3. Recycling: Alternatkes • • following factors to determine the feasibility of collecting these materials: potential markets, potential diversion rates, additional collection and processing costs, and the impacts on collection and processing equipment. If this evaluation indicates that household collection of any or all of these materials is feasible, they would be added to minimum service requirements as early as 1994. If changes are made to minimum service level requirements, then a Plan amendment would be proposed by the County. The cities and the County may opt to collect these materials from all households sooner. (2) Nonresidential Collection Minimum Service Levels Alternative B recognizes the need to increase the amount of recyclables diverted from commercial generators. To increase diversion, additional collection services need to be available to businesses and institutions throughout King County, within the limits of local government authority. The County's Business Recycling Program would continue to offer technical assistance to develop and implement WR/R programs for nonresidential generators. Waste consultations, telephone assistance, workshops, presentations, and written and video materials are among the services that would be offered. The new primary nonresidential WR/R program included in Alternative B is the establishment and promotion of voluntary nonresidential recycling service guidelines based on an evaluation of gaps in existing services available to businesses. The guidelines would target materials that comprise the majority of the nonresidential waste stream currently being disposed (King County Waste Characterization Study, Volume Il, Appendix B). The guidelines would be voluntary because of limited local government authority to require commercial recycling services; however, the guidelines establish the minimum level of service needed to reach the WR/R goals. Efforts would be made during the 1992 Plan period to pass legislation granting counties and cities the authority to set minimum standards for the collection of nonresidential recyclables. If such legislation is passed, the voluntary minimum service guidelines described in Alternative B would become the minimum service levels requirements, to the extent feasible, pursuant to the new legislation. Cities could develop their own programs and go beyond the voluntary guidelines as long as the minimum standards in the 1992 Plan would be met. Implementing ordinances passed by the County and cities would also be necessary under such new legislation. Under the voluntary program, the cities and the County would be responsible for promoting and meeting the following nonresidential recycling service guidelines. Nonresidential service providers and the WUTC would be strongly encouraged to voluntarily comply with the service guidelines. • Cities would ensure that businesses have minimum recycling services available to them. This can be done by initiating contracts to provide these services or by working with haulers, recyclers, and the WUTC. Cities would also be responsible for promoting nonresidential recycling services if they receive funding from the County. • The County would work with haulers, recyclers, and the WUTC to ensure that businesses in the unincorporated areas have minimum recycling services. The County would also be responsible for promoting service guidelines in cities and unincorporated areas that are served through the Business Recycling Program. The County would also monitor recyclables diversion using data provided by haulers and recyclers. • Haulers and recyclers would be encouraged to provide minimum recycling services to their customers. Businesses could select their service provider, but if recyclers or cities were unable to provide recycling services, a business' garbage hauler would provide the minimum level of services. Haulers and recyclers would also be requested to provide the County with monthly reports of nonresidential recyclables collected throughout the County. • The WUTC would be encouraged to permit haulers and recyclers to establish rates and services that meet the minimum service requirements, and to work cooperatively with cities and the County in implementing service guidelines. The nonresidential (commercial) recycling service guidelines would establish clear and uniform expectations of what constitutes reasonable recycling collection services for businesses in King County. They would recognize the roles of current service providers and the limitations of local government to mandate nonresidential recycling and work within the existing authorities. The guidelines would not be B.3. Re*ding: Alternatives Chapter Ill. Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 42 ....:....:..::::::::...:::..:..:.::: <<»: within the existing authorities. The guidelines would not be intended to supplant current service providers. They would allow current service providers to continue collecting recyclables from current customers and encourage expansion of services to meet recommended service levels. Businesses and institutions would still be allowed to select the best recycling services they can find. The Division would prepare a handbook to describe the service guidelines. There would be three major components: 1. Areas to. be served (targeted businesses). Businesses would be targeted for collection service are based on their location and size (service areas are shown in Figure III.7). In primary service areas, all businesses regardless of their size would be targeted; in secondary service areas, businesses with 50 or more employees; and in rural service areas, businesses with 100 or more employees. 2. Minimum services to be provided Minimum would be defined as providing services on a regularly scheduled basis; source -segregating materials to meet processing needs; promoting services to all targeted businesses; and establishing rates in which recycling and garbage services combined cost less than an equivalent level of garbage service alone. 3. Materials to be collected. The minimum services would include the collection of paper as described below and at least one other material category other than paper. Nonresidential recyclable materials to be collected would include at least two grades of paper (cardboard, high grade, mixed waste paper, and poly -coated paper). All nonresidential programs would also include at least one of the following categories: at least four types of containers (glass, tin cans, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and poly -coated paperboard cartons), wood, metals, yard waste, and textiles. The following options would be promoted among businesses not targeted for collection services because of their size or location: • Cooperative collection. Recycling services would be coordinated for a group of businesses in a limited geographic area. • Self -haul to buy -backs and drop -sites. Businesses would be encouraged to use and would be assisted in locating drop - sites and buy-back centers. Chapter N. Waste Reduction and Recycling • Case -by -corse services. Businesses would be assisted with collection alternatives on a individual basis. King County would monitor the diversion of recyclables from the nonresidential waste stream using information provided by Ecology, haulers, and recyclers. Mandatory recycling measures would be evaluated in the 1995 Plan, and possibly instituted through disposal limitations, if these service guidelines do not result in sufficient diversion. Under the voluntary service guidelines, no impact on rates is anticipated. Businesses and collection companies would continue to negotiate prices for collection of nonresidential recyclables. If state statutes are amended to give cities and counties authorities to set minimum collections standards for nonresidential recycling, city contracts could be affected. (3) Recyclables Collection at Solid Waste Facilities The objectives of establishing recyclables collection service at county transfer facilities and landfills are to: • Provide the opportunity to recycle at all points of disposal. • Provide recycling set -vices to self -haul customers. • Educate customers about recycling. • Contribute to overall WR/R goals. • Supplement and enhance private sector recycling facilities and services. While the private sector would be relied on to provide most of the collection and processing of recyclables in King County, minimum services at county transfer stations would be developed according to the following criteria: • All existing transfer stations and landfills would continue the current level of recyclables including yard waste services to provide adequate primary recycling services to self -hauler customers. • All upgraded transfer stations would collect primary recyclables including yard waste, and other materials (from designated recyclables list, Table III.15) in order to fill identified private -sector recyclables collection service gaps. • All new transfer stations would collect primary recyclables, including yard waste, to provide adequate basic recycling services to self -haulers, and would collect other secondary B.3. Recycling: Alternatives materials (from designated recyclables list, Table III.15) in order to fill identified private -sector recyclables collection service gaps. (4) Yard Waste Disposal Limitations Ban Major diversion of yard waste is necessary to achieve the 50 and 65 percent WR/R goals. The 1989 Plan recommended a penalty fee for yard waste disposal (p. III -73, 1989 Plan) to encourage source separation of yard waste from the waste III-4 3 stream, beginning in January 1993. This penalty was not imposed because regulations and the necessary infrastructure were not in place to divert yard waste from the waste stream for all generators. Alternative B includes a yard waste disposal ban that would be initiated with a ban on residential collection of yard waste in refuse cans and would progress to banning residential and nonresidential yard waste from the disposal system. Figure 1I.7 Nonresidential recycling collection services, June 1992. B.3. Recycling: Alternatives Chapter 111. Waste Reduction and Recycling III -44 The impacts of a yard waste disposal ban on the transfer and disposal systems would be minimal. Facility engineering and operational plans have assumed a total ban on yard waste for the planning period so implementation of a ban would not cause unplanned tonnage decreases at the transfer stations or the Cedar Hills Landfill. The yard waste disposal ban would be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 would be the implementation of a ban on the disposal of yard waste in refuse cans set out by residents for pickup by garbage haulers. The ban would be applicable to all unincorporated areas where yard waste collection services are available. Phase 2 would be implementation of a ban on disposal at all King County solid waste facilities which would affect both residential and nonresidential generators in the County and suburban cities. The Plan recommends the extension of household collection service for all primary recyclables, including yard waste, to most households in the County. Therefore, an adequate collection system for Phase I of the yard waste disposal ban would be in place. The residential yard waste disposal ban would consist of the following elements: • The ban would go into effect in the unincorporated areas of the county during 1993 with the passage of an ordinance prohibiting disposal of yard waste in refuse cans set out for pickup by garbage haulers. • Suburban cities with existing yard waste collection service programs would have until 6 months after Plan adoption to implement the residential yard waste disposal ban. Cities that are implementing new yard waste collection programs, as recommended by the Plan, will implement the residential disposal ban 6 months after they implement their household collection programs. • Garbage haulers would enforce the ban by issuing warnings and refusing to collect cans containing yard waste. Phase 2, a total yard waste disposal ban, would be implemented by 1995. This ban would affect all generators, including nonresidential and self -haul. Implementation of a total yard waste ban would occur only after an environmentally secure and convenient system of collection and processing is developed. The steps to be taken in developing the system would include: • Siting of interim yard waste depots - The primary method of collecting yard waste from nonresidential and residential self - haul generators would be at interim recycling drop-off depots and recycling facilities at new county transfer stations as they are built. The County would revise the King County Zoning Code and work with the cities to revise their zoning codes to Bow interim recycling depots as permitted uses in certain existing zones. • Interim yard waste depots funding - Interim recycling depots for the collection of yard waste would be privately owned and operated. However, the County could help fund the cost of developing the depot system through the use of grant funds to ensure enough depots would be available to provide convenient collection service throughout the County. • Regulation - To ensure an environmentally secure alternative to disposal for yard waste, the Health Department would regularly inspect the operations of the depots to assure compliance with health regulations. • Markets - Active markets for composted yard waste already exist in King County. In 1992, 45 percent of the 113,500 tons of yard waste generated in the County was composted at private facilities and offered for sale. Working with the King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials, the County would plan actions to expand markets prior to the implementation of a total yard waste disposal ban- it anIt is recognized that the greatest potential for compost market expansion is in the private sector. The County would seek to expand private sector demand for yard waste compost over time through its waste reduction and recycling education programs, Business Recycling Program, and other means as they are identified. Another method of expanding compost markets would likely be changes in procurement policies for government agencies that would favor recycled products, including compost. Actions would include the development of procurement standards for compost products by the Marketing Commission and the incorporation of these standards into the King County recycled products procurement policy. The County would also ChapterN. Waste Reduction and Recycling B.3. Recycling Alternatives • encourage the suburban cities to adopt the procurement standards. The prospect of expanding compost markets to include • government-sponsored capital improvement projects would be an incentive for processors to meet the compost quality • standards. Private sector confidence in compost may also increase with the establishment of quality standards. • Implementation of Phase 2 of the ban is dependent upon successfully developing and adopting zoning and siting standards for yard waste recycling depots, private sector siting of • collection depots, and evidence of an expanded market for composted materials. If these do not occur within the projected • timeline, the implementation schedule and respective roles of the public and private sectors for the yard waste disposal ban • would be re-evaluated by the County and the cities. Options considered during re-evaluation would include: • Delaying implementation • Developing an alternative yard waste depot siting process • Reliance on new or existing County facilities for collection service • Examination of the adequacy of the collection capacity of existing yard waste processing facilities as they may exist at the time of re-evaluation, and • Examining other options for providing convenient collection locations for source separated yard waste. The County and cities would cooperate in re-evaluating the total yard waste disposal ban options. Some of the criteria that are likely to be used to analyze and select the preferred option from the list above would be: • Geographic diversity of built drop-off depots, recycling facilities at transfer stations, and processors as they exist at the time of re-evaluation; • Operating capacity of depots, recycling facilities, and processors; • Projected annual marketing capacity for yard waste compost; • Ability of the yard waste collection system to meet or exceed environmental and public health regulations as they may exist at the time of re-evaluation. III - 45 (S) Additional County -sponsored Collection Services • Incentives to buy-back centers. Under this program, the County would evaluate the feasibility of providing financial incentives to existing private buy-back centers to encourage them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials. • Optional secondary recyclables collection. The County would coordinate countywide events (urban and rural) for the collection of secondary recyclables. These events are discussed under city optional programs, recommendation III.34 in the following section. • Clean wood collection. The County would conduct a waste characterization study at the transfer stations to determine the volume and composition of clean wood waste, generator source, and type of generator using the transfer system. After completion of the study, programs could be developed to improve waste reduction efforts and increase clean wood waste recycling for generators utilizing transfer stations. Some of the programs that could be offered are: • collection of source -separated clean wood waste at newly constructed or expanded transfer stations where feasible • a waste audit program for do-it-yourself remodelers an education program on wood waste reuse and recycling • distribution of a list of available recycling processors and businesses that accept clean wood for reuse to the construction trades and general public. (6) Support Alternative B includes the following support programs in addition to those in the 1989 Plan. • Data reporting requirements. Haulers and recyclers would continue to provide collection data from household and commercial collection programs, which the County would maintain in a data base. For each city and urban unincorporated service area, the following information would be provided monthly on household collection: average pounds of recyclable and yard waste collected per set -out, program summary tonnage, contaminated recyclables and yard waste by receiving facility, and the number of single-family customers and multifamily complexes (and units) served. For commercial B.3. Recycling: Alternatives 6apter 111. Waste Reduction and Recycling collection, the following would be collected quarterly by the County. summary of tonnage, amount of contaminated recyclables and yard waste disposed of by receiving facility, and the number of businesses served. (7) Regional Programs Alternative B includes the following new programs in addition to those continuing from the 1989 Plan. • Primary Recyclables Education Campaign. The County would develop and implement a campaign to educate the public in the urban unincorporated areas about the availability of household collection service for all primary recyclables. The program is intended to increase participation rates in household collection programs and increase the volume of primary recyclables recovered from the residential waste stream. • Single family, housebold yard waste colleclion education program. King County would implement a program designed to increase participation in the yard waste collection services available in urban unincorporated areas. This would help planned and recently implemented yard waste collection programs achieve their full potential more quickly. The campaign would emphasize waste reduction and composting first, signing up for yard waste service second. The program would be developed for the urban unincorporated area program, but would be available for the cities to use to promote their own yard waste programs. • Rural yard waste composling education program. The County's backyard composting program would be expanded to include education efforts for rural populations. This program would help divert some of the increase in rural residential yard waste anticipated as a result of the PSAPCA burn ban which took effect in September 1992. • Multielhnsc and other audience -specific materials. The County would develop and coordinate a comprehensive media campaign to promote WR/R aimed at multiethnic and other groups. The information and promotional materials produced would be available to cities and the County. • School education and collection programs with cities and school dzsMds. The County would work with cities and school districts and haulers and recyclers in the delivery of school educational and collection programs. • City optional programs. Two of the city optional programs recommended in the 1989 Plan would be implemented as regional programs. Backyard Composting Bin and Master Recycler/Composter programs would be offered only as regional programs administered by the County. Only one city opted to implement its own backyard composting program for one year. It would be more cost effective if these programs were implemented on a countywide basis. The Business Recycling Program would continue to be city optional. In addition, urban and rural secondary recyclables collection events would become city optional. These events (such as "roundups") for the collection of secondary recyclable items, white goods, and other bulky items would be a coordinated program between the County and the cities. Special collection events would be held at regularly scheduled times at designated sites throughout the County. As a city optional program, cities could implement a special collection event with funding assistance provided by the County. In order to receive funding, cities would agree to have regularly scheduled events each year; allow non -city residents to attend; and collect a minimum of four materials from a list of secondary materials. (8) King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials Under Alternative B, the King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials would continue to foster the development and expansion of recycling markets in King County and the region with the activities under Alternative A. The Commission would step up efforts to gather and assess market information in order to address increasing volumes and types of materials collected. Such information would be used to set priorities for market development initiatives. For example, the impacts of increased collection of recyclables from residential and nonresidential sources would be more closely monitored to quickly address emerging market supply, demand, and capacity. This is particularly true for yard waste, due to the proposed disposal ban. The Marketing Commission would also work to complement the Solid Waste Division's messages in outreach programs, such as those for yard waste and other primary recyclables. Chapter N Waste Reduction and Ruling B.3. Reding: Alternatives I II - 46......................................................................................................................................................................... collection, the following would be collected quarterly by the County. summary of tonnage, amount of contaminated recyclables and yard waste disposed of by receiving facility, and the number of businesses served. (7) Regional Programs Alternative B includes the following new programs in addition to those continuing from the 1989 Plan. • Primary Recyclables Education Campaign. The County would develop and implement a campaign to educate the public in the urban unincorporated areas about the availability of household collection service for all primary recyclables. The program is intended to increase participation rates in household collection programs and increase the volume of primary recyclables recovered from the residential waste stream. • Single family, housebold yard waste colleclion education program. King County would implement a program designed to increase participation in the yard waste collection services available in urban unincorporated areas. This would help planned and recently implemented yard waste collection programs achieve their full potential more quickly. The campaign would emphasize waste reduction and composting first, signing up for yard waste service second. The program would be developed for the urban unincorporated area program, but would be available for the cities to use to promote their own yard waste programs. • Rural yard waste composling education program. The County's backyard composting program would be expanded to include education efforts for rural populations. This program would help divert some of the increase in rural residential yard waste anticipated as a result of the PSAPCA burn ban which took effect in September 1992. • Multielhnsc and other audience -specific materials. The County would develop and coordinate a comprehensive media campaign to promote WR/R aimed at multiethnic and other groups. The information and promotional materials produced would be available to cities and the County. • School education and collection programs with cities and school dzsMds. The County would work with cities and school districts and haulers and recyclers in the delivery of school educational and collection programs. • City optional programs. Two of the city optional programs recommended in the 1989 Plan would be implemented as regional programs. Backyard Composting Bin and Master Recycler/Composter programs would be offered only as regional programs administered by the County. Only one city opted to implement its own backyard composting program for one year. It would be more cost effective if these programs were implemented on a countywide basis. The Business Recycling Program would continue to be city optional. In addition, urban and rural secondary recyclables collection events would become city optional. These events (such as "roundups") for the collection of secondary recyclable items, white goods, and other bulky items would be a coordinated program between the County and the cities. Special collection events would be held at regularly scheduled times at designated sites throughout the County. As a city optional program, cities could implement a special collection event with funding assistance provided by the County. In order to receive funding, cities would agree to have regularly scheduled events each year; allow non -city residents to attend; and collect a minimum of four materials from a list of secondary materials. (8) King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials Under Alternative B, the King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials would continue to foster the development and expansion of recycling markets in King County and the region with the activities under Alternative A. The Commission would step up efforts to gather and assess market information in order to address increasing volumes and types of materials collected. Such information would be used to set priorities for market development initiatives. For example, the impacts of increased collection of recyclables from residential and nonresidential sources would be more closely monitored to quickly address emerging market supply, demand, and capacity. This is particularly true for yard waste, due to the proposed disposal ban. The Marketing Commission would also work to complement the Solid Waste Division's messages in outreach programs, such as those for yard waste and other primary recyclables. Chapter N Waste Reduction and Ruling B.3. Reding: Alternatives (9) Program Costs Alternative B would call for the availability of new collection services that could result in added costs to local governments, residences, businesses, and the private sector. While precise costs of the additional WR/R efforts described in Alternative B are difficult to project, some that can be estimated are described below (complete cost estimates for Alternative B collection programs are summarized in Appendix I). Existing programs (see Alternative A) would continue to incur public and private sector costs at current levels. Existing funding mechanisms would also be continued. Collection services would continue to be paid through city contracts or directly through fees charged to customers. Cities would continue to fund other WR/R programs and services with utility taxes, general fund revenue and grants. Regional programs and services offered by the County would continue to be funded through tipping fees charged at disposal facilities. The new collection services would result in additional costs to the customer—and potentially the service provider—if the new services require the purchase of equipment or additional labor. Some of the additional programs would not add significant costs. Ensuring that on-call multifamily yard waste collection is provided, for example, would expand a service which is already widely available to single-family residences. Implementation of the program will not cause overall collection rates to rise. Haulers can utilize existing equipment with additional operational costs covered through service fees paid by users of the service. Start-up promotional costs would be managed within existing budgets. Cities with contracts for services would need to include these new programs and could recover their costs through fees charged to customers or through other city revenue mechanisms. In areas of the County where recycling services are regulated by the WUTC, the additional costs would be passed on directly to the customer. New city educational or promotional efforts would be funded by city utility taxes, general revenue funds, or grants. Regional programs, educational or otherwise, provided by the County would be funded through tipping fees charged at disposal facilities. III - 47 c. Alternative C, Mandatory Recycling Through Disposal Limitations Under this alternative, most existing services and programs would continue, while a regulatory approach would be undertaken to increase recycling. This policy alternative is based on the recognition that it may be necessary to go beyond providing voluntary recycling services and waste reduction programs to achieve established WR/R goals. This approach might increase the WR/R level to 60 percent or more by banning disposal of recyclable materials in the county solid waste disposal system. This alternative would limit disposal of one or any combination of the following: primary residential recyclables; metals and appliances; yard waste; and selected nonresidential recyclables. Table III.15 gives the diversion potential of the bans. (1) Recyclables Collection The materials that could be selected for bans comprise a major portion of the waste stream or are readily recyclable. The estimated diversion impact (Table III.15) is based on the amount of these materials currently disposed at county facilities (King County Waste Characterization Study, Volume II, Appendix B). King County would evaluate the feasibility of these bans in the same way it would evaluate the yard waste ban (Section III.A.3.b). In addition to yard waste, which would result in an additional diversion of nearly 8 percent, Alternative C would ban disposal of one or more of the following: • Primary residential recyclables. Container glass, aluminum cans, tin cans, newspaper, mixed paper, and#1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HDPE). Despite extensive residential collection, these materials are still disposed in significant amounts. Loads containing these materials would not be accepted at transfer stations from haulers or self -haulers. This ban could result in an additional diversion of over 3 percent of the total waste stream by 1995. • Ferrous and nonferrous scrap metal and appliances. Tin and aluminum cans are included in the ban on primary recyclables. A ban of these materials would result in an additional diversion of less than 2 percent by 1995. B.3. Recycling: Alternatives Chapter 111.• Waste Reduction and Recycling III - 48 • Selected nonresidential recyclables—all paper, glass, metals, wood, and some plasaw. Banning materials commonly recycled in the nonresidential sector could result in an increased waste diversion of almost 13 percent by 1995. This assumes 80 percent of these materials would be diverted from the nonresidential sector. Before a ban would be instituted, the County would assess the availability of disposal and recycling alternatives, the capacity of recycling markets to absorb additional materials, the effect on service costs, collection and processing facilities capacity and availability, and which public facilities would best fill any gaps. Since disposal bans create markets for collection services from the private sector, this alternative assumes the County would be less involved in developing service options than in Alternative B. However, there would be a need for increased county personnel to monitor compliance by checking loads at transfer facilities or randomly surveying dumpsters and garbage cans. (2) Support Programs Under Alternative C, no new support programs would be implemented. (3) Regional Programs and Markets Programs promoting recyclables collection could be scaled down since garbage haulers would require their customers to source separate. However, substantial public education would still be needed, including programs to provide information on waste reduction, backyard composting, and recycling to educate the general public, particularly the nonresidential sector, about what materials cannot be disposed. Banning disposal and increasing collection of recyclables would result in pressure on recycling markets to absorb more materials. Potential market impacts include: • Significant price drops for some commodities, particularly in the short term. • Insufficient capacity to process materials or use them to manufacture new products. • Added incentives over the long term for remanufactures to increase the recycled content of products. To address these and other market impacts, the County would increase its efforts to actively develop markets for materials targeted for a disposal ban. For example, the Marketing Commission would identify market barriers, encourage the private sector to increase local capacity to process recyclables and manufacture recycled products, work with wholesalers and retailers to increase availability of recycled products, and test recycled products in new and existing applications. (4) Program Costs Implementation of Alternative C would maintain public and private costs for existing programs at current levels. Existing funding mechanisms would also be used. Collection services would continue to be paid through city contracts or directly through fees charged to customers. Cities would continue to fund other WR/R programs and services with utility taxes, general fund revenue, and grants. Regional programs and services offered by the County would continue to be funded through tipping fees charged at disposal facilities. Mandatory recycling measures could result in additional costs to the County and the private sector in enforcing disposal prohibitions. The County could incur additional costs of staff to monitor compliance with disposal bans. The private sector could also see increased cost through additional staff to ensure compliance or through penalties or fines paid. The magnitude of the costs to enforce disposal limitations would vary depending on the level of monitoring put in place 4. Recommendations In order to reach 50 percent diversion by 1995, either voluntary services must be expanded (Alternative B), mandatory measures must be imposed (Alternative C), or a combination of the two alternatives must be implemented. Alternative B is the recommended approach because voluntary programs in many areas have only recently been implemented. These, as well as expanded programs, should be given a chance to work on a voluntary basis before a mandatory approach is considered. One exception is the proposed Countywide yard waste disposal Chapter !IL• Waste Reduction and Recycling 8.4. Recjding: Recommendations •i 01 01 ban that requires the County and suburban cities to develop alternative collection methods for yard waste. Alternative B (Table III.16) is recommended for several reasons: • The expansion of services and facilities builds on the existing recycling system and supports the current approach of making recycling as convenient as disposal. • These additional services and programs are clearly needed in order to reach the stated WR/R goal of 50 percent by 1995. • This alternative fills needs not being met by the current recycling system. These include: ensuring high participation in multifamily recycling; expanding participation in all yard waste programs by establishing increased yard waste services for households, self -haulers and commercial generators to support the phased implementation of the yard waste disposal ban; establishing and promoting improved nonresidential recycling 111-49 II 4 9 services; and providing more opportunities to collect secondary recyclable materials at home or through drop-off services. The recommended programs and actions target the diversion of large portions of the waste stream, emphasizing materials with potential market value. In addition, Alternative B combines hauler and facility -based options to address service needs of self -haulers and businesses. It also provides service options, which result in the best coverage for recovery of materials that are not generated daily or that require multiple diversion options. Recyclable materials as defined in the 1992 Plan are listed in Table III.14. 5. Implementation The implementation chart (Table III.17) provides information on program responsibility, and anticipated start times. Both new and continuing programs are shown. Table 111.16 1992 Recycling Recommendations Recommendation 111.16 Urban single-family RECYCLABLES COLLECTION Cities Implementation Strategy Responsibility Required Collection Recommendation 111.14 Urban household collection Provide household collection of paper, #1 and #2 plastic County, cities of primary recyclables bottles (PET and HDPE), yard waste (less than 3 inches in Urban multifamily onsite Ensure yard waste collection service options are available to diameter), glass containers, and tin and aluminum cans from all urban single- and multifamily residences urban multifamily dwellings Recommendation 111.15 Rural drop box collection of Provide rural single- and multifamily residences with drop- County, cities primary recyclables sites for collection of the same materials collected at urban households Urban household bulky B.5. Recycling: hnplenm4ation Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recycling Recommendation 111.16 Urban single-family Provide household collection of yard waste (less than 3 Cities • household yardwaste inches in diameter) from urban single-family residences in collection unserved urban areas • Recommendation 111.17 Urban multifamily onsite Ensure yard waste collection service options are available to County, cities yardwaste collection service urban multifamily dwellings • Recommendation 111.18 Urban household bulky Ensure household collection service options for yard waste County, cities yardwaste collection service too large or in excessive amounts for regular household • collection are available • Recommendation 111.19 Urban household appliance Ensure large appliance collection service options are available County, cities collection service to urban households . Recommendation 111.20 Urban household textiles Ensure collection service options are available for textiles on a County, cities collection service regular basis • B.5. Recycling: hnplenm4ation Chapter N Waste Reduction and Recycling 50 1992 Recycling Recommendations (Confirmed) Implementation Strategy Responsibility Recommendation 111.21 Nonresidential recycling service guidelines implementation and promotion Ensure that businesses have minimum recycling services County, cities available to them Optional Collection Recommendation 111.22 Urban and rural household Evaluate the inclusion of polycoated materials (milk cartons, County, cities Other County Collection Programs Recommendation 111.29 polycoated paperboard butter and frozen food packages) in household collection County collection programs Recommendation 111.23 Urban and rural household include #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and all County, cities collection of #3-7 plastics other plastics) in household collection programs Recommendation 111.24 Rural household collection Collect primary recyclables at the household from rural single- County, cities of primary recyclables and multifamily residences Recommendation 111.25 Rural drop -site collection of Provide on-call household or drop -site collection of yard County, cities yard waste waste Recommendation 111.26 Rural household collection Collect appliances from rural households County, cities of appliances existing private buy-back centers to encourage them to collect Recommendation 111.27 Rural household textiles Collect used clothing and fabrics from rural households County, cities Recommendation 111.33 collection Maintain and distribute a resource list of appliance dealers County Recommendation 111.28 Nonresidential recycling Initiate collection contracts to provide minimum recycling Cities collection service contracts services to businesses Other County Collection Programs Recommendation 111.29 Recyclables collection at Continue current level of primary recyclables including yard County King County Solid Waste waste services at existing facilities where feasible; collect Facilities these and other materials as needed at upgraded and new facilities Recommendation 111.30 Yard waste drop sites Ensure the provision of yard waste drop sites or services in County the northeastern, near -south, and eastside areas of the County Recommendation 111.31 Yard waste disposal ban Implement a phased ban on yard waste disposal at County County disposal facilities Recommerdation 111.32 Incentives to buy-back Evaluate the feasibility of providing financial incentives to County centers existing private buy-back centers to encourage them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials Recommendation 111.33 Appliance recycling Maintain and distribute a resource list of appliance dealers County resource list and recyciers capable of accepting, collecting, or recycling used appliances and who meet the new Federal Clean Air Act CFC regulations Recommendation 111.34 Secondary recyclables Coordinate special collection events countywide (urban and County, collection events rural) for secondary recyclables city optional Recommendation 111.35 Primary Recyclables Develop and implement a campaign to increase public County Education Campaign awareness of household collection service of primary recyclables. Chapter III.• Waste Reduction and Recycling B.S. Recycling: Implementation 1992 Recycling Recommendations (Continued) CITY/COUNTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS Recommendation 111.36 Collection rate incentives Recommendation 111.37 Procurement policies Recommendation 111.38 Recycling space standards for new construction Recommendation 111.39 City annual reports Recommendation 111.40 Data reporting by haulers, recyclers, cities COUNTY REGIONAL PROGRAMS Strategy Implementation Responsibility Continue to establish rate incentives for solid waste collection County, cities that encourage participation in recycling programs (see Recommendation 111.13) Continue the adoption of procurement policies that favor the County, cities use of recycled or recyclable products County Continue to develop new construction standards that require County, cities onsite space for collecting and storing recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential structures countywide Materials Continue annual reports to the County on progress toward Cities implementing the Plan's required programs and achieving Business recycling program established diversion goals County, Continue to provide collection data from household and County, cities nonresidential collection programs city optional Recommendation 111.41 King County Commission Continue to foster the development and expansion of County for Marketing Recyclable recycling markets in King County and the region Materials Recommendation 111.42 Business recycling program Continue to assist businesses and institutions in developing County, and implementing WR/R programs in the workplace city optional Recommendation 111.43 King County employee Continue to provide recycling opportunities in the workplace County recycling program to King County employees Recommendation 111.44 School education program Continue to work with cities, school districts, haulers and County recyclers in the delivery of school educational and collection programs Recommendation 111.45 Other WR/R education Continue existing education programs and community events, County develop new programs in the areas of yard waste and mixed waste paper collection, and develop and coordinate a comprehensive media campaign aimed at multiethnic and other groups Recommendation 111.46 Clean wood collection Study and develop programs to increase waste reduction and County recycling opportunities for clean wood waste. Recommendation 111.47 Master Recycler Composter Continue to train community volunteers in recycling and County program composting techniques Recommendation 111.48 Foodwaste research and Continue to implement a foodwaste collection, processing, County development and product testing project under a grant from Ecology B.S. Recycling: Implementation Chapter !//.• Waste Reduction and Recycling 52 .......... .......... Table Ill.],' Recycling Implementation Table Chapter III baste Reduction and Recycling B.S. Recycling: Implementation NMI mollz R.A.Ii IFNISTI�OKOLOJropnr. NEM Mmin. METAIms gill i 551151155311 On. ir-mir.r.1n. Z 1-51111 IS lol-- 1-2111 I Ila, 115511115 155111 ME 1155 5111111111 Chapter III baste Reduction and Recycling B.S. Recycling: Implementation III 3 Recycling Implementation Table (Condnued) Program Implementation Name Responsibility 1992 1 1993 1 1994 1 1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 Cities = C Planning period County = CO Implementation period Private sector = P Ongoing program B.S. Recycling: Implementation Chapter III Waste Reduction and Recycling City annual reports Wi Data reporting by haulers, recyclers, cities ,COUNTY REGIONAL PROGRAMS WKing County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials Business recycling program (city optional) W - - King County employee recycling program CO - I — Ei :School education program CO Other WR/R education Co� Clean wood collection CT am Foodwaste research and development - Cities = C Planning period County = CO Implementation period Private sector = P Ongoing program B.S. Recycling: Implementation Chapter III Waste Reduction and Recycling • rn � CIL1PfCR IV MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE Sorting It out Together SYSTEM • ! King County • Comprehensive • Solid Waste ! Management Plan Sorting It out Together • • • • • IV - I Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems This chapter addresses the needs for solid waste and recyclables collection, transfer, and disposal, and for management of inactive landfills. A brief background discussion of energy/resource recovery (E/RR) is also included in this chapter, although E/RR is not included in the King County solid waste management system. Table N.1 Status of 1989 Plan Collection Recommendations k SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES COLLECTION This section examines solid waste and recyclables collection services in King County, identifies potential problems with meeting present and future needs, evaluates alternatives, and recommends policies and activities consistent with other portions of this 1992 Plan. Specifically, this section recommends legislation needed to clarify nonresidential recycling authority for counties and cities, further study of mandatory collection of solid waste to achieve other program goals, and adoption of incentives to encourage waste reduction and recycling (WR/R). The status of 1989 Plan recommendations is given in Table N.1. Program Recommendation Implementation Status III.C.4 Minimum service Require household collection of recyclables for urban Household collection of recyclables and levels (County) areas and encourage it for rural areas, which may yard waste is available throughout urban also be served by drop -sites. Require yard waste unincorporated King County. Most collection in urban areas. County must provide solid county solid waste facilities offer waste facilities in rural areas for collection of recycling services. recyclables and yard waste. III.C.5 WUTC rate review Seek changes to WUTC rate review process to allow Ongoing change haulers to recover costs incurred from service level improvements in solid waste and recycling collection III.C.6 WUTC variable rate Seek changes to the WUTC process to establish Ongoing change variable rates to encourage recycling. See 1992 Plan Recommendation III.C.7 Solid Waste Division Establish information line in SWD to answer Implemented 1990 information line questions and make referrals concerning haulers III.C.8 Bulky item pickup Establish convenient and affordable service for the Not implemented• pickup of bulky items through contracts and See revised 1992 Plan recommendation minimum service levels A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems 1. Existing Conditions a Legal Authority Legal authority for solid waste and recyclables collection and disposal is shared among the state, acting through the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), the counties, and the cities. (1) Ecology Authority Under the Solid Waste Management and Recovery Act (RCW 70.95), local governments are given primary responsibility for solid waste handling. Counties plan for collection services through comprehensive solid waste management plans. Ecology reviews and approves plans to assure their compliance with state requirements. (2) WUTC Solid Waste Authority Concurrent with the Ecology review, .the WUTC reviews the Plan cost assessment to determine the impact on collection rates (see Volume II, Appendix K, for complete WUTC cost assessment). Under RCW 81.77, the WUTC certifies and regulates garbage and refuse collection companies and requires compliance with local solid waste management plans and related implementation ordinances. However, this statute does not apply to operations of any collection companies under contract for garbage collection and disposal with any city or town, nor to any city or town that undertakes disposal of its own garbage. If a county legislative authority comments to the Commission per RCW 81.77.120, the WUTC will monitor those comments concerning the adequacy of garbage and refuse collection service in unincorporated portions of a county or unregulated areas in cities and towns. All of unincorporated King County is served by collectors who operate under WUTC certificates of public necessity. Certificate holders have the exclusive territorial right to collect the type of solid waste within their service areas as stipulated in their franchise, except in those service areas that overlapped when RCW 81.77 was passed in 1961. Certificated haulers collect waste in the unincorporated sections of their franchise areas and in cities and towns that choose not to regulate collection themselves. Certificates have market value and may be purchased from the existing holders. Certificates exist in perpetuity for the franchised area unless the certificate holder fails to provide adequate service. They are also issued for collection of different types of waste, which may lead to overlapping certificated areas (franchises) for collection of mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW). Franchise haulers are listed in Table IV.2; WUTC franchise areas for MMSW are shown on Figure IV.1. (3) 1WDTC Recyclables Authority Under RCW 70.95, residential recycling is regulated under the WUTC's solid waste statute (RCW 81.77), while commercial recycling is regulated under its motor freight laws (RCW 81.80). The distinction between the two has important rate design implications. Under RCW 81.77, haulers file their own tariffs to recover costs associated with unique characteristics of their collection services. Under RCW 81.80, the WUTC publishes a common set of tariffs, which all haulers must adhere to, unless they publish their own tariffs under special permission from the commission. Under RCW 81.77, solid waste haulers must comply with a local solid waste plan, but under RCW 81.80 there are no equivalent requirements for commercial recyclables collection. (4) County Solid Waste Authority RCW 36.58 authorizes counties to establish a system of solid waste disposal. Under certain conditions, as allowed by Chapter 36.58A RCW, counties may establish collection districts for the mandatory collection of solid waste. There are currently no solid waste collection districts in King County. Counties may also adopt regulations and ordinances governing the collection, transportation, storage, processing of solid waste, and .establishment of bans or limitations on the disposal of certain materials. In establishing a ban for purposes of promoting Figure N.1 Overleaf: WUTC franchise areas for MMSW. Chapter IV Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection e �- �I O < Y N w_ 1 / � 1 I ' ' 111r'1-r�',rfi�lr�i/r�i�llrk�ii111 . ,` N ti t11 - � �V 1 ��1 / �:: �1r/` �♦, I ,♦`' �Jr I IItFi 11111911111111111111 - — _ - - �t , RL [ � / 11111, 1 11111111'7 11 11 11 111111 11 s � � � � � i, IL i /1 � in��; ,, 1111111111,11 I�t 11111,1,111,1,1,111,1111 ',, �''r .r �1 '. � / 1 - E ,, - _- '11111111111111,111111111111 1141111111111• -'-� ."`�_'-,�. �: /l -,I, ,, ,•,� - - -„ 111 1111111111 (IIII - �,,, ♦," v_ ` ii - l i l l i l i l l l 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 - _ ����♦:'moi �%! 'Ir:,l%1. �, ,�, r/�/ 111111111111111111111 1111111111111 _.. � 1_11, f _., •i_�_r � - ,� �� ,.•,. _ ` " I 1'. / � - S 19 if 5 3 � `tC;;,%♦�1 l9 / 9 ♦' `:,� it -i :,,' [ 1 \ ;; �I l\. j!/�1 ' 1 l/" O -� � `I,1 lei ♦ \ .1 Iii 1 ' I F`� Y \ I is — eF If if Ir / g. ;r .x I d ge �, it 10 a r El ■ El ® 0 M ® 11111 Z �M _ E• - t _ G O �� m m K m N QCD Q F E �+ a1 CD (D N Q d 1 ze' 3;. rF if c 7 (D p TI S, s .= 3 0 US n' (D d N (DCD D) o 00000000 ion �" ANrrvy s 2) (D (n (n 70 m r T\ m N cn CD CD vEn 0 o vo o = 'O �O pi cn -O Cn N Z w ww co I0 .. :; ...:..:..:..::::.I....N - Table IV.2 King County Municipal Solid Waste Franchise Holders [certificate numbers in brackets] • Ronald Teed Island Disposal [G-32] dba Island Disposal • 1345 North Lake Way Bremerton, WA 98312 License Contract • Lawson Disposal [G-411 Collector Private Post Office Box 1220 Private Issaquah, WA 98027 • Murrey's Disposal Company, Inc. [G-9] WUTC dba Points Garbage Service Municipality Post Office Box 399 • Puyallup, WA 98371 Source: WUTC 1992. recycling or some other operational objective, the County will coordinate implementation with the cities. (See King County Solid Waste Regulations, King County Board of Health Code [KCBOHC] Title 10.) Nick Raffo Garbage Company, Inc. [G-16, G-35, G-185] dba Federal Way Disposal, RST Disposal Post Office Box 1877 Auburn, WA 98071-1877 Rabanco, Ltd. [G-12, G-60] dba Eastside Disposal, KentlMeridian Disposal, Sea -Tac Disposal. 4730 - 32nd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98118 Waste Management, Inc. [G-43, G-63, G-67, G-126, G-140] dba W.M.—Seattle, W.M.-Northwest, W.M.-Rainier, W.M.—Sno-King. 4020 Lake Washington Boulevard Northeast Kirkland, WA 98033 (5) County Recyclables Authority RCW 36.58 authorizes counties to set minimum service levels and contract for collection of source -separated recyclables from residences in unincorporated areas. In addition, counties may impose fees on these services to fund WR/R programs. Counties can contract directly with haulers and recyclers (or allow WUTC franchise haulers to collect in these jurisdictions), but they do not have to collect commercial recyclables, which are regulated under RCW 81.80. King County Code (KCC) 10.18, adopted in 1991, specifies minimum service level standards for residential recyclables collection and incentive rate structures in unincorporated urban areas. To permit the most efficient provision of services countywide, recyclables collection districts are delineated. Under the current structure, the WUTC continues to control rate - setting, but is required to allow for costs incurred due to service level requirements (see Chapter III, for further discussion of recycling implications). (6) Cities and Towns Solid Waste Authority Collection systems and the regulatory structure they fall under are summarized in Table IV.3. Cities may require mandatory collection, in which all residents and businesses subscribe to designated refuse collection services, or mandatory RP Table IV.3 Collection System Regulatory Structure • Certificated License Contract Municipal • Collector Private Private Private Public Collection Authority WUTC WUTC Municipality Municipality • Rate Approval WUTC WUTC Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Billing Collector Municipality or collector or collector • • A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection Chapter N Nlived Municoal Solid Waste Handling Systems N-4 payment for collection services. Under RCW 35.21.120, cities and towns may allow WUTC franchise haulers to collect in their jurisdictions or choose one of the following options for managing solid waste collection (none eliminates a citizen's right to haul his or her own waste, though they may be required to participate in a collection system and share the financial burden): • Certificated. Newly incorporated cities must continue to use the present franchised hauler for at least five years (RCW 35.02.160), but this requirement does not preclude purchase of the WUTC franchise. • License. Cities may issue licenses to collect solid waste. In a licensed system, WUTC certificates are augmented by city licenses, which grant the municipality revenue through fees. • Contract. Cities and towns may enter into contracts with private haulers to collect residential and commercial wastes. The contracted hauler does not need to hold a certificate of public necessity or a franchise for that area. Contracts usually are awarded through an RFP or bid process. Occasionally, contracts are awarded through direct negotiations. • Municipal. Municipalities may operate their own collection systems. (7) Cities and Towns Recyclables Authority Cities may contract directly with haulers or recyclets to collect recyclables and yard waste, provide the collection service themselves, or allow the WUTC to establish these services. No jurisdiction has been given the authority to enter into an exclusive contract for the collection of commercial recyclables, which are regulated under RCW 81.80. Cities may provide collection services for commercial recyclables, but businesses may choose an alternative service if they wish. RCW 70.95 requires household collection of recyclable materials in areas designated urban. According to the requirements of the Plan, residents in areas designated rural must be served by drop -sites, buy-back centers, or mobile collection facilities for recyclables and yard waste. b. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (1) Residential Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclables Residential collection consists of the removal of recyclables and waste from individual residences and the transport of those materials to processing facilities, transfer stations, or disposal sites. In 1991 there were four major certificated haulers for MMSW in King County: Rabanco, Waste Management, RST, and Lawson. The methods of collection, types of service available, and nature of the service vary throughout the County. Residential services available in each jurisdiction are summarized in Table IVA In King County and nationwide the collection industry is moving toward more fully automated equipment that requires standardized containers. Automated and semi -automated collection decreases risk of injury to workers and is more cost- effective. For the most part, these containers are owned and maintained by the collection companies, and customers are charged a rental fee. Individuals may choose to haul their own waste (self - haul) to transfer stations or rural landfills in lieu of regular collection service or in addition to receiving regular service. In 1990, self -haul accounted for 17 percent of total residential waste and 25 percent of commercial waste received at county facilities. Individuals who self -haul usually do so because of the material they are disposing of (for example bulky items), or because they live near landfills or transfer stations. With few exceptions, direct haul by individuals to the Cedar Hills Landfill is not permitted. Residents may also self -haul recyclables, although household collection services are available in most urban areas. Recycling collection is being implemented or planned wherever possible at most King County transfer stations and rural landfills (see Chapter III, Section B for program descriptions). - Meeting collection needs where growth rates are significantly higher will require additional investment in equipment and service levels by haulers. Although the total population in King County is expanding rapidly, most growth is occurring in well-established urban and suburban areas. However, haulers note that increased population will facilitate Cbapter IV Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection I V - 5 Table IVA Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Service Summary certificate Same as area 6 Form of Mandatory Carnation Cost of Collection Rates SnoKing Collection Solid Waste Collector Recycling cert/FA Eastside (R) Jurisdiction Regulation Collector Solid Waste Collection Recyclables included Mini -can 1 can 2 cans Algona contract Sea -Tac (R) yes 7.10 7.05 9.70 Auburn contract RST yes RST 6.50 7.90 15.80 Beaux Arts certificate Eastside (R) no Eastside yes 8.80 9.70 11.95 Bellevue contract Eastside (R) no Fibres yes 6.80 11.75 16.15 Black Diamond certificate Meridian Valley (R) no Meridian Val Eastside 8.10 10.15 Bothell contract SnoKing (WM) yes SnoKing yes 10.00 14.00 Burien certificate Same as area 6 Carnation contract Snoking (WM) yes SnoKing 11.15 15.00 Clyde Hill cert/FA Eastside (R) no Eastside yes 8.89 10.43 14.22 Des Moines certificate Sea -Tac (R) no Sea -Tac 7.10 9.85 Duvall certificate SnoKing (WM) no SnoKing 7.62 8.90 Enumclaw city City yes RST 2 can min. 10.05 Federal Way contract Federal Way Disp (RST) no RST 7.10 9.85 Hunts Point cert/FA Eastside (R) no Eastside yes 5.00 7.85 10.85 Issaquah contract Lawson no Lawson yes 7.92 12.78 22.51 Kent contract Kent Disp (R), TriStar (RST) no Kent 7.60 11.35 Kirkland contract SnoKing (WM) yes SnoKing yes 6.35 10.80 15.20 Lake Forest Park contract Eastside (R) no Eastside yes 6.35 9.95 13.95 Medina cert/FA Eastside (R) no Eastside yes 5.00 7.85 10.85 Mercer Island contract Eastside (R) no Eastside yes 6.35 10.80 15.20 Milton contract Murrey's Disposal yes 6.15 9.34 Normandy Park cert/FA Raffo(RST), no Fibres 5.60 7.40 11.10 Sea -Tac (R) 3.95 7.30 10.60 North Bend contract Lawson yes Lawson yes 10.00 Pacific contract RST (R) yes RST 5.60 6.95 10.95 Redmond cert/FA SnoKing (WM) no Fibres 7.14 11.55 16.80 Renton contract Rainier (WM) yes Rainier yes 3.60 8.90 14.90 SeaTac certificate Raffo (RST) no Raffo 5.60 8.35 11.75 Sea -Tac Sea -Tac Skykomish city City yes 9.50 Snoqualmie contract Lawson yes Lawson yes 10.35 Tukwila certificate Raffo (R)/ no Raffo yes 7.10 10.65 14.20 Sea -Tac Sea -Tac 5.75 9.10 12.40 Woodinville certificate Lawson no Lawson yes 8.20 12.93 17.18 Yarrow Point cert/FA Eastside (R) no Eastside yes 5.00 7.85 10.95 Unincorporated King County Service Area 1 certificate WM, Northwest no WM, NW yes 8.21 12.21 16.21 Service Area 2 certificate Eastside no Eastside yes 5.22 8.07 11.07 Service Area 3 certificate Sno-King no Sno-King yes 7.21 10.36 14.26 Service Area 4 certificate Lawson no Lawson yes 8.20 12.93 17.18 Service Area 5 certificate Rainier no Rainier yes 7.64 11.54 15.29 WM-Seattle WM-Seattle 8.27 12.32 16.87 Sea -Tac Sea -Tac 6.02 9.47 13.17 Service Area 6 certificate WM-Seattle no WM-Seattle yes 8.27 12.32 16.87 Sea -Tac Sea -Tac 6.02 9.47 13.17 RST RST 7.32 10.32 14.42 Service Area 7 certificate RST no RST yes 7.32 10.32 14.42 Sea -Tac Sea -Tac 6.02 9.47 13.17 Service area 8 certificate Meridian Valley no Meridian Val yes 6.05 9.60 13.35 (R) = Rabanco companies, (WM) = Waste Management, (RST) = RST Disposal FA = franchise area b 32 -gallon owner containers, curb or alley pickup. Toter containers are billed at different rates. A.1. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection: Etiisting Conditions Chapter IU Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems N-6 collection, because higher density concentrates routes, thereby increasing cost-effectiveness. (2) Commercial Sector Waste and Recyclables Collection Systems Commercial collection consists of the removal of recyclables and solid waste from commercial and institutional buildings and some multifamily residences. Multifamily units are typically included under commercial collection due to the number of pickups required, the size of containers used, and billing procedures (charging the landlord rather than residents). However, the Plan requirement for household recyclables collection in urban areas does apply to multifamily dwellings. Municipalities may control commercial waste collection within their boundaries, and many cities that utilize licenses and contracts to regulate residential solid waste collection also choose to regulate the commercial sector. Most of the certificated franchises in King County collect garbage from both residential and commercial customers. Some certificates also designate particular areas or types of wastes that may be collected. Table IV.5 is a summary of companies that collect commercial waste, types of materials they collect, and their areas of operation in the County. Most commercial recyclables collection services are arranged directly between businesses or property managers and service providers. Currently, there are few municipally sponsored commercial collection programs in the County, although many cities are evaluating their options for initiating such programs. The 1989 Plan provided for a Business Recycling Program to assist in developing collection programs for recyclables. (See Section III.B.) c. Collection Rates for Solid Waste and Recyclables (1) Solid Waste Refuse collection rates vary among municipalities and franchise areas. For the most part, recent rate increases reflect the rising cost of disposal and the imposition of a moderate risk waste surcharge by the Seattle -King County Board of Health. Rates are also affected by population size and density, size and type of commercial and industrial sectors, distance to the transfer station or disposal sites, age and size of the collection vehicle fleet, and any administrative and billing costs added by municipalities. Also, services may vary in numerous ways—free pickup of municipal garbage, length of the contract, and location of pickup, for example. Solid waste rates are regulated by the WUTC for haulers with franchise certificates and by cities for haulers with contracts or licenses (Table IV.3). Table IVA shows solid waste collection rates for suburban cities. (2) Waste Reduction and Recycling (WR/R) and Rate Incentives Collection rates for recyclables are often included in residential solid waste rates. Consolidation of collection fees for recycling and solid waste into one bill is believed to have made residential recycling more successful because it is more efficient for haulers, more convenient for customers, and demonstrates to customers how minimizing disposal through WR/R can also reduce costs. This is particularly effective when haulers also use an incentive rate structure to encourage WR/R. Incentive rates include mini -can set -vices, once -a -month garbage collection service, yard waste rates, and substantial cost differentials between service levels. In 1990 the WUTC initiated a notice of inquiry on solid waste collection rate design, focusing on how to structure rates to encourage WR/R. The WUTC's current cost -of -service methodology does not produce significant incentive rate structures, but the commission is continuing to investigate this matter through workshops and public involvement. In 1991 King County worked with the WUTC to implement an incentive rate structure for household recyclables collection in urban unincorporated areas. Implementing rate incentives satisfies the requirements of the rate policy addressed in KCC 10.18.020. 2. Needs and Opportunities The collection system is evaluated within the framework of the overall mission of the King County Solid Waste Division to protect the public health and environment through the proper management and disposal of waste. The goals for determining needs for solid waste and recyclables collection are Chapter N Mixed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systems A.1. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection: Existing Conditions IV - Table IV.S Summary of Solid Waste Collection (Companies affiliated with Rabanco are indicated by [R]; companies affiliated with Northwest Waste Industries are indicated by [NWWI] certificate numbers are in brackets) Eastside Disposal [R] [G-12] • Garbage in Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila areas, extending east to include North Bend and Black Diamond • Garbage (commercial only) in White Center and Burien areas • Scrap and refuse in Tukwila, part of Renton, Burien, and White Center Garbage and rubbish in North Bend, Snoqualmie west to Issaquah, and Kent • Scrap and refuse in King County north of the line of South 180th Street extended and east of Lake Washington • Scrap and refuse in Seattle and the northern part of Vashon Island Sea -Tac Disposal [R] [G-12] • Refuse and debris in the Auburn, Federal Way, Algona, Des Moines, and Kent areas • Scrap and refuse in all of King County south of a line determined by 180th Street, extended east and west • Garbage and rubbish in Auburn and Black Diamond. Kent/Meridian Valley Disposal [R] [G-60] Garbage and refuse for western Kent, Auburn, Algona, Black Diamond, Issaquah east to Snoqualmie, Renton, and North Bend Seattle Disposal [NWWI] [G-124] • Garbage in Seattle • Refuse throughout King County (and Washington State) • Rubbish and debris in Seattle north of the ship canal and Lake Union Waste Management of Seattle [G-140] • Refuse in Seattle • Garbage and refuse throughout King County (and Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties) • Debris and refuse in the southern half of Seattle • Garbage and refuse in Seattle south of North 85th Street • Garbage and refuse in Seattle south of North 145th Street • Garbage in White Center and Skyway Waste Management--SnoKing [G-126] • Garbage and refuse in Bothell, Redmond, Duvall, and Carnation areas • Rubbish in North City, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, Kirkland, and Bellevue Waste Management -Northwest [G-43] • Garbage and refuse in Richmond Beach Waste Management -Rainier [G-63, G-67] Garbage in an area to the west, south, and southeast of Renton, northeast of Auburn, and Skyway Pontius Trucking [G-212] • Non-metallic residue from Northwest Steel Rolling Mills Lawson Disposal [G-41] • Garbage and refuse in North Bend, Issaquah, and an area near Snoqualmie and North Bend R.S.T. Disposal [G-185] • Garbage in Algona, Kent, Auburn, and Federal Way areas • Rubbish in Tukwila, Kent, Federal Way, Des Moines, and Burien areas Nick Raffo Garbage Company [G-16] • Garbage in Burien, White Center, and Federal Way areas Federal Way Disposal [G-35] • Garbage in Federal Way Murrey's Disposal Company [G-9] • Garbage and refuse in a small part of western Federal Way The following haulers are certified to collect either a particular material or from a limited number of sites, or both Northwest Recovery Systems [G-209] • Garbage and refuse from NOAA facilities and the VA Medical Center Resource Recovery [G-176] • Liquid industrial wastes in the state of Washington • Hazardous or chemical wastes in the state of Washington Montleon Trucking [G-203] • Construction and demolition debris in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties Amalgamated Services [G-204] • Hazardous waste and bulk liquid non -hazardous waste from King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties Fedderly-Marion Freight Lines [G-207] • Kiln dust from Ideal Basic Industries Environmental Transport [G-211 ] Extremely hazardous semisolid waste in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Kitsap and Pierce counties Sure Way Medical Services (N.W. Waste Industries) [G-236] • Medical waste from King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection Chapter IV: Mixed Alunicipal Solid Waste handling Systems IV - 8 to make collection services available to all county residents and to ensure compatibility with WR/R programs. (See also Chapter III, Section B.) a Urban Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection Most large cities maintain contracts with collectors to provide recyclables and solid waste collection for their residents; the remaining cities and towns allow franchised haulers to collect under a license or certificate. The unincorporated areas are served by franchise haulers. These services appear to be adequate. A collection system for secondary recyclables, such as appliances, furniture, food waste, mixed plastics, and bully yard waste is needed. Residential collection vehicles generally are not equipped to handle bulky items, and residents who are unable to transport them to transfer stations or landfills must arrange special pickup. Depending on the location, this can be costly. The consequences can be illegal dumping or donations to local charities which may then be burdened with unusable furniture and appliances. (See Chapter III, Section B.) b. Rural Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection Solid waste collection services are available countywide; however, a comprehensive system for collecting recyclables and residential and commercial yard waste is needed in some rural areas. c. Nonresidential Collection Although the Business Recycling Program has been effective in providing businesses with information about how to improve WR/R activities, collection services for commercial recyclables are often unavailable or expensive. Local governments have not been given explicit authority to set service levels. Achieving an integrated collection and billing program for nonresidential solid waste and recyclables is difficult because different statutes regulate the collection of commercial solid waste and recyclables (see Section IV.A.2.b.) The WUTC believes that because RCW 81.80 and RCW 81.77 utilize different rate - setting methods, it is inappropriate to allow a single firm with both types of authority to use income from one type of operation to subsidize another (called "cross subsidization"). For example, solid waste collection income might be used to subsidize recyclables collection. If there are no significant increases in the volumes of recyclable materials collected in the nonresidential sector during 1992-93, King County may need to work with the WUTC to develop rate incentives, other forms of combined rates, or other means of stimulating commercial recyclables collection. d. Institutional and Incentive Razes Because the authorities and responsibilities for setting service level standards are shared among the WUTC, counties, and cities, there is a need for clear and coordinated goals in solid waste management and rate design. Aggressive recycling goals set by the state, counties, and cities need to be supported by a rate design process that allows haulers to provide WR/R incentives and recover costs associated with improving service. The WUTC's current rate methodology calculates collection rates based on a strict adherence to a historic cost -of -service allocation model, which only allows for limited cost differentials between service levels. It is expected that as. collection, processing, and disposal costs rise and as further rate incentives are established, most customers will practice more waste reduction and recycling. Rate design that includes substantial cost differentials between different service levels is needed to support these alternatives. Current procedures and the risks and limitations imposed on cost recovery discourage haulers from investing in additional or upgraded equipment and have inhibited innovation in the area of recycling. The mechanism for providing assistance to the collection industry for service modifications to support recycling and other programs needs to be improved. 3. Alternatives This section identifies alternatives that address the needs discussed above (Table IV.6 summarizes these alternatives). There are no unserviced areas in King County—the current system fulfills the first goal of ensuring availability of solid waste collection to all county residents. However, an increased Chapter N Mixed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systems A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection • Table IVA Summary of 1992 Collection Alternatives IV -9 Alternative A Status quo—voluntary Continue voluntary participation in recycling and solid waste collection services, and maintain collection system current regulatory structure. Alternative B Voluntary collection Mitigate institutional barriers created by the state -imposed collection franchise system through system with county involvement in rate and service evaluations and lobbying the WUTC to change its rate regulatory changes review process. Clarify collection authority of counties and cities. Alternative C Mandatory collection Institute mandatory collection of solid waste. service level is needed to meet the second goal of supporting WR/R programs. a. Alternative A, Status Quo Voluntary Collection System This alternative would continue implementation of the programs recommended in the 1989 Plan (See Table IVA). b. Alternative B, Voluntary Collection with Regulatory Changes This alternative would expand upon the 1989 recommendations. The need for service improvements in nonresidential recycling highlights an area where collection authority needs to be clarified. Counties are not authorized to provide collection service, except as provided under RCW 36.58A regarding solid waste collection districts. State legislation is needed to delineate county and city authority to provide for nonresidential recycling programs in comprehensive solid waste management plans. The institutional barriers created by the state -imposed collection franchise system could be mitigated through continued county involvement in rate and service evaluations. Due to the complexity and limitations of WUTC rate evaluations, haulers have little incentive to upgrade curbside recyclables and solid waste collection. The County could provide support to improve service levels, particularly the compatibility of recycling and other programs, by continuing to provide documentation supporting increased service levels and incentive rate structures. The County could also lobby the WUTC to change its rate review process to consider all reasonable costs in the purchase Of new collection equipment (including financing costs). This A. Solid Waste and Recjc bles Collection would speed up the turnaround time between when costs are incurred and when they are recouped through increased rates. It would also provide for consideration of risk in recovering costs associated with service level changes when they are directly tied to programs recommended in an approved solid waste management plan. King County recognizes that intervention and support for service level and rate changes may not be consistently successful. The primary purpose of intervention would be to ensure that private haulers can improve the level of service to be consistent with other elements of the Plan update. c. Alternative C, Mandatory Collection System Improved participation in recycling programs may require further changes in solid waste and recycling collection authority. Mandatory recycling could be initiated by imposing disposal limitations on materials that are readily recyclable or for which there are adequate recycling opportunities (Section III.B, Alternative Q. Mandatory collection of solid waste could be initiated by requiring that all households in unincorporated King County be billed a minimum rate for collection. A rationale for implementing mandatory collection would be to limit self -haul activity, to limit illegal dumping and littering, and to distribute the costs of recycling and solid waste management among all city and county residents. However, the relationships between mandatory collection, self -haul, and illegal dumping activities are unknown. The County could study these relationships as a first step toward evaluating mandatory collection. As noted in Section III.A.l.a, implementing mandatory collection under the present system would require the formation of solid waste collection districts, which require approval by the Chapter IV Mixed Mungvl Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 10 county governing body acid public hearings, or a change in state law to authorize counties to make this decision more easily. Cities would also be required to implement mandatory collection. 4. Recommendations Alternative B is recommended to meet the goal of supporting WR/R programs by improving rate structures and clarifying nonresidential collection authorities. The specific recommendations that comprise alternative B are summarized in Table IV.7. a. Authority The cities and King County will implement and maintain rate incentives that encourage waste reduction and recycling. These include variable rates with substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels; once -a -month garbage collection service; mini -can garbage service; and rates for recycling services only for non -garbage customers (see Chapter III, Recommendations I11.1-4). To reach 50 percent diversion by 1995, King County should assist and support collection agencies and plan service modifications that are compatible with recycling and other solid waste programs and goals. The County should pursue state legislation that clarifies authority of counties and cities to set minimum service standards for nonresidential collection of recyclables. (See Chapter III, Recommendation III.1.) Although mandatory collection is not recommended at this time, the County should study the relationship between mandatory collection, self -haul activity, illegal dumping and participation in recycling programs. b. WUTC Rate Review The County should continue to seek changes through the WUTC rate review process that would allow haulers to recover costs related to nonresidential, recycling service level improvements called for in the 1989 Plan. The County and cities should continue to implement rate incentives in residential solid waste collection. (See Chapter III, Recommendation III.[d]). 5. Implementation The recommended actions for solid waste and recyclable collection focus on strengthening King County's ability to implement the 1992 Plan update through enhanced collection set -vices. This would be accomplished by securing state legislation authorizing nonresidential minimum service levels and improving the WUTC rate review process to support and reinforce recycling. It would require an estimated one to two years to implement the desired collection practices. Table IV.7 Summary of 1992 Collection Recommendations Recommendation IVA Collection authority Pursue state legislation to clarify nonresidential recycling authority of counties and cities to set recommended minimum service standards for nonresidential collection of recyclables. Recommendation IV.2 Evaluate mandatory collection Study relationships between mandatory collection, self -haul activity, illegal dumping, in and participation recycling programs. Recommendation IV.3 WUTC rate review Continue to seek changes in statutes and in the WUTC rate review • process to allow haulers to recover costs related to nonresidential recycling service level improvements called for in the Plan. • Recommendation IVA Rate incentives Continue to implement rate incentives that will encourage waste reduction and recycling (see also Chapter III, Recommendations 111.13 • and 111,36), Chapter IV Maxed Munk4W Solid Waste Handling Systems A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection r� u B. TRANSFER SYSTEM • Approximately 84 percent of the refuse disposed in King County is processed through the King County transfer system. . The system is a network of seven publicly owned transfer stations and two rural drop -boxes where residential customers • and commercial haulers transfer loads from many small vehicles to fewer, large hauling vehicles that haul the waste to the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (Figure IV.2). Some solid IV - 11 waste is also delivered to Cedar Hills from two privately owned transfer/recycling stations. Waste from Seattle's two transfer stations is no longer disposed at Cedar Hills, since Seattle withdrew from the King County system in May 1991. In 1991, King County transfer facilities handled 842,083 tons of solid waste and received 821,722 visits from commercial haulers, businesses, and self -haulers. Transfer stations operated by the private sector and the City of Seattle handled 255,485 tons of mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) in 1991. Special • 5 0 5 1.` MILES�.� 1 • • 0 Mixed waste landfill ■ Solid waste transfer station A Drop -box _ ii� CDL transfer station • Figure IV.2 King County transfer system facilities. • B. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste ftnsfer System Chapter IV Mixed Municipal Solid Waste handling Systems i • ��—� �—First �---� r Ave NE I� • !C G) • /� ! y Seattle North t • 1y \lam SEATTLE ! 2 Third & . ( 0 Lander Eastmont E. Seattle j South • I Vashon 0 Bow L' •VASHON ! ISLAND IV - 11 waste is also delivered to Cedar Hills from two privately owned transfer/recycling stations. Waste from Seattle's two transfer stations is no longer disposed at Cedar Hills, since Seattle withdrew from the King County system in May 1991. In 1991, King County transfer facilities handled 842,083 tons of solid waste and received 821,722 visits from commercial haulers, businesses, and self -haulers. Transfer stations operated by the private sector and the City of Seattle handled 255,485 tons of mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) in 1991. Special • 5 0 5 1.` MILES�.� 1 • • 0 Mixed waste landfill ■ Solid waste transfer station A Drop -box _ ii� CDL transfer station • Figure IV.2 King County transfer system facilities. • B. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste ftnsfer System Chapter IV Mixed Municipal Solid Waste handling Systems i 7 .. IV...... - .......:::.. ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::.:...::::.:.::: 12 1stAvenue NE Upgrade Factoria Expand or replace (expansion was deemed infeasible) Bow Lake wastes, such as asbestos, medical waste, contaminated soil, and others, require special handling and are not allowed in transfer stations. They are disposed at Cedar Hills, with special clearance (see Chapter V). The 1989 Plan recommended a number of improvements to the transfer system to increase capacity and provide better customer service. The recommended activities are proceeding on schedule and the status is reported in Table IV.8. 1. Existing Conditions a. System Description (1) King Connty Transfer Stations There are nine King County transfer facilities: seven transfer stations and two rural drop -boxes. The seven transfer stations are located at First Northeast (north of Seattle), Houghton (in Kirkland), Factoria (in South Bellevue), Renton, Bow Lake (Tukwila), Algona, and Enumclaw (which opened in mid-1993). The two rural drop -boxes are at Skykomish and Cedar Falls. All solid waste from the County's transfer system is disposed at Cedar Hills. Table IV,8 Status of 1989 Transfer Plan System Recommendations Facility Recommendation Houghton Complete compliance requirements. Replace with new facility. Renton Close --complete MFS requirements. Algona Close 1stAvenue NE Upgrade Factoria Expand or replace (expansion was deemed infeasible) Bow Lake Upgrade or replace Enumclaw Open Hobart Landfill Open Waste Management Get permitted Northwest (formerly Snohomish Eastmont) Skykomish Drop -box Five of the seven existing transfer stations Algona, Factoria, First Northeast, Houghton, and Renton—were built between 1963 and 1967 and are of the same basic design. They are direct load facilities, in which refuse is loaded directly into transfer trailers. The Bow Lake Transfer Station, constructed in 1977, is a push pit facility—refuse is unloaded into a pit, then pushed into waiting trailers. This design is more desirable because it provides some storage during peak use periods. At the time they were designed, these facilities represented the state of the art, however they do not meet current needs. These transfer facilities were also constructed prior to the current emphasis on recycling, and some do not provide the recycling services that are desired. Where possible, drop -boxes have been added at the existing facilities to collect self -haul recyclables. They are in place at Bow Lake, Factoria, First Northeast, and Houghton, and facility plans were submitted for approval for Algona and Renton. Yard waste is collected during the second shift at Factoria, but adding it at the other facilities is difficult due to site constraints. Implementation Status Compliance completed by 1992; replacement scheduled for 1999. Will complete compliance in 1993, close by 2010 after Bow Lake expansion. Scheduled to close in 1998, replace with South King County. Upgrade to meet compliance requirements completed in 1992 Upgrade to meet compliance requirements completed in 1992; replace with new facility in 1996. Upgrade to meet compliance requirements implemented 1990. • Landfill final closure in 1993, replaced with new transfer facility in April 1993. Landfill closure to begin in 1994. Facility services and capacity will be replaced by existing facilities. Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system. Implemented Chapter N Mixed Mumcpal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.1. Transfer System: Existing Conditions I• li • The new Enumclaw transfer station utilizes a modification of the push pit technology described above. It also provides a full range of recyclable collection services on site. Construction is scheduled to begin in 1995 for the replacement of the Factoria Transfer Station, as recommended in the 1989 Plan, to increase capacity (see Table IV.8). This will be a push pit facility, which will include an area for self - haul recyclable materials, including yard waste. The facility will also be designed to provide for moderate risk waste collection though this service is not anticipated to begin in 1996 when the facility opens. This is consistent with the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (LHWMP) for Seattle - King County, which recommends that, as King County expands its solid waste facilities, permanent household hazardous waste (HHW) collection facilities be considered in the design. At the request of the Management Coordination Committee for the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program, inclusion of a moderate risk waste collection service has been made a part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Factoria Transfer Station replacement project. However, the Management Coordination Committee has recommended that this service not be provided initially, allowing for an assessment of collection needs before household hazardous waste collection services are offered at this site. The Skykomish drop -box uses two containers that can be rolled on and off a truck and hauled to the Houghton Transfer Station for transfer to Cedar Hills. The Cedar Falls drop -box, serving the North Bend area, uses two containers for mixed waste and one for yard waste. They are hauled directly to Cedar Hills or to a yard waste composting facility. Tables IV.9 and IV.10 summarize the transfer system's compliance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC 10.08.030). All King County facilities are largely in compliance. (2) Otber Public and Private Transfer Facilities This Plan reevaluates the possible use of the Waste Management, Northwest -Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station (formerly Snohomish Eastmont), a privately owned facility north of the King -Snohomish county line. Although the 1989 Plan recommended using the station, it is not operational because it has not been granted a permit by Snohomish B.1. ftnsfer System: Existing Conditions N-1 3 County. Therefore, it is not included in that county's solid waste management plan. In addition to King County's facilities and the Waste Management, Northwest -Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station, there are other solid waste facilities in Seattle outside the King County planning area. Two are owned and operated by the city of Seattle, and two are private. Waste from Seattle's transfer stations is not taken to Cedar Hills but is exported to a landfill in Oregon. The two privately owned and operated transfer/recycling stations are the Regional Landfill Company's (formerly Rabanco) Third and Lander facility and the Waste Management of Seattle (formerly Eastmont) facility. Table IV.11 lists actual tonnages handled at these two transfer stations from 1986 through 1991. Records from Cedar Hills indicate that these two facilities handle waste generated both from within and outside Seattle. No other privately operated facilities are planned at this time in King County. King County Ordinance 8771 (KCC 10.22.030.17) authorizes one privately owned and operated mixed waste processing facility (MWPF) in King County. (See Chapter III.B and Volume 11, Appendix H.) As a result of reevaluating current policy guidelines, the Solid Waste Division published an issue paper titled "Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis" in November 1991. It recommended delaying the Request for Proposal, while continuing to monitor the experiences of other jurisdictions that. employ both an MWPF and source separation, and reevaluation of this technology in 1995 to supplement programmatic WR/R efforts. b. Transfer System Operations Table IV.12 shows the location, size, capacity, use, numbers of customers served, and waiting times associated with six County -operated transfer stations and the two drop -box sites. Information is not yet available for the new Enumclaw Transfer Station because it has only been in operation since April 1993. Chapter 1V Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems :.:::......::.......::::..:::.. Table IV.9 Transfer Station Compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC 10.30.030) Standard Algona Bow Lake Factoria 1st Ave NE Houghton Renton Enumclaw (a) Fenced and screened Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (b) Cleanable materials Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (c) Control rodents and harborages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (d) Screened and litter controlled Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (e) Tipping floor covered Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (f) Buffer zone (50' to residential N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A Yes property) (g) Comply with zoning Yesa Yesa Yesa Yesa Yesa Yesa Yes (h) Surface and groundwater Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes control: 24 -hr, 25 -yr storm event + washdown (i) All-weather roads Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0) Odor and dust control Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (k) Prohibit scavenging Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (1) Have site attendants when open Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (m) Signage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (n) Access to emergency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes communications (o) Remove waste at closure. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes allonconforming use—in operation before local zoning ordinances were adopted. Table IV.10 Drop -box Transfer Facilities Compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulation (KCBOHC 10.08.030) Standards Cedar Falls Skykomish Constructed of watertight materials with lid, controlling loss Yes Yes of material during transport and access by rats and vermin Serviced by all-weather roads Yes Yes Serviced regularly to ensure adequate capacity Yes Yes Signage Yes Yes Remove waste at closure N/A N/A Table IV.11 King County Transfer System Tonnages, 1986-1992 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 King County Transfer System 624,247 681,472 667,651 712,156 846,422 842,083 770,448 Regional Landfill Co., 151,000 170,000 138,000 127,000 91,000 75,000 not reported 3rd and Lander Waste Management of Seattle 112,000 128,000 148,000 138,000 169,000 111,000 not reported (formerly Eastmont) City of Seattle 9,691 291,791 267,483 208,460 221,621 70,155 a 0 a Withdrew from King County system May 31, 1991. Chapter IV- Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.1. Transfer System: Existing Conditions N-1 5 Table IV.12 Description of Transfer Facilities Operated by King County 1st Ave NE Houghton Factoria Renton Algona Bow Lake Cedar Falls Skykomish Location County Kirkland Bellevue Renton Algona Tukwila County County County planning area North North Central South South South Rural Rural Type of transfer facility Two -trailer direct unload transfer station Push -pit TS Drop -box Round trip miles to Cedar Hills 73 48 36 24 41 33 56 132 Acres occupied by site 12.5 8.4 7.8 9 4.6 16.9 3 1 Hours of operation per week 66.5 66.5 99 66.5 66.5 66.5 63 63 Design capacity/waste received (tons): Design capacity at one 8 -hour shift per day (tons) Daily 275 275 275 275 275 750 44 44 Monthlya 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300 22,625 1,333 1,333 Yearlya 99,550 99,550 99,550 99,550 99,550 272,000 16,000 16,000 Estimated actual capacity (tons) Daily average 350 350 350 350 350 750 44 44 Monthlya 10,560 10,560 10,560 10,560 10,560 22,625 1,333 1,333 Yearlya 126,700 126,700 126,700 126,700 126,700 272,000 16,000 16,000 Peak day of year 650 650 650 650 650 1,350 N/A N/A Waste received, 1991 (tons) Daily average 291 483 632 262 471 596 9 3 Monthly average 8,541 12,961 15,705 6,314 11,354 15,016 281 94 Peak month (July) 9,822 14,848 17,363 7,076 12,599 16,204 401 115 Yearly 102,488 155,538 188,465 75,773 136,251 180,197 3,372 1,130 Number of customers served: Peak day capacityb 850 850 850 850 850 1,900 N/A N/A Average daily vehicle 387 387 387 387 387 900 N/A N/A capacity Annual vehicle capacitya 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 326,000 N/A N/A Vehicles served, average 13,618 12,829 11,925 7,070 9,899 13,337 1,244 20 month (1991) Vehicles served, 16,476 15,471 14,601 8,833 12,105 16,038 1,6131 259 peak month (July 1991) Weekend average (1991) 354 345 339 165 252 358 N/A N/A Weekday average (1991) 537 524 420 351 438 561 N/A N/A Waiting time/vehicle queue°: Longest wait, average 17 15 15 15 15 15 none none weekend day (minutes)d Longest wait, peak weekend 105 123 66 20 29 30 none none day (minutes) Capacity of onsite queue 54 43 16 47 19 31 none none (18 feet/vehicle) No. of times queue extended 17 10 0 1 43 1 N/A N/A offsite (year)e Peak queue, average 13 0 4 0 0 0 none none weekend daye Peak queue, peak weekend 251 292 142 19 64 51 none none daye ab 362 operating days per year. a For the year 1984-1985. Number of vehicles that can be served in 1 day without offsite From May 1984 through April 1985. waiting lines. t August c Estimates calculated from daily vehicle counts and assumptions 9 April and July about unloading times. B.1. Aansfer System: Existing Conditions Chapter IV.. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 16 (1) Transportation RmUes Figure IV.3 shows the main haul routes between transfer stations and Cedar Hills. The transfer stations are located generally within one mile of interstate freeways. The Figure shows a haul route from the Factoria Transfer Station to Cedar Hills through Issaquah. This route is currently not in use because the City of Issaquah prohibits large trucks to travel along the route. . (2) Vehicle Capacity Design peak vehicle capacity is the greatest number of vehicles a transfer station can handle without creating a waiting line that extends into the street. Design peak vehicle capacity is different for each site. It is influenced by the interaction of several factors, e.g., cashier transaction time, length of roadway between cashier/scale complex and transfer building, the actual mix of commercial/private vehicles using the facility at any particular time, and the length of time to Algona Transfer;ss r Station ©' —• \— ............. 1- 0 Enumclaw Transfer Station 5 0 5 .,. �•� MILES�-� Figure IV -3 Main haul routes between transfer stations. Chapter IV- Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.1. Transfer System: Existing Conditions transfer or tip waste. There is also a significant difference between weekday and weekend vehicle capacity. This is due to the change in the mix of commercial and private vehicles and their very different unloading times. The average daily vehicle capacity (Table IV.13) was estimated by multiplying the actual, single peak day's traffic by the historical ratio of average daily traffic to single peak day traffic count. The annual vehicle capacity was estimated by multiplying the average daily capacity by 362, the number of operating days in a year. (3) Tonnage Capacity Peak tonnage capacity is the total tonnage that can be handled during a single work shift. This includes unloading (tipping) by customers and loading into transfer trailers and hauling refuse off site. Capacity is exceeded if unacceptably long waits occur, if on-site storage capacity is exceeded, or unplanned for constraints develop. (4) Variations to Service Demand The busiest hours for traffic and tonnage at transfer stations are usually during midday but these fall off after 3:00 P.M. The busiest months are during spring and summer Table IV -13 Year Transfer Station is Estimated to Exceed Capacity' :> ::, N 17 The greatest traffic volumes occur on Saturdays and Sundays, because of the high number of passenger vehicles, but the busiest days measured by tons received are weekdays, when collection trucks are operating. In 1991, the daily volume of waste received at King County transfer stations was three times higher on weekdays than on weekends, yet vehicle traffic on weekend days was one- third higher (greater) than on weekdays. July is the peak month of the year for both tons and customer activity. Both tonnage and traffic are higher in the summer and lower in the winter, although the difference between the two seasons is becoming less pronounced over time. During the slowest winter month (November), the transfer station daily tonnage was 84 percent of what it was in July. c. 1989 Transfer System Development Plan In the 1989 Plan, the County was divided into four planning areas: north, central, south, and rural. Thirteen alternative plans were evaluated, and one was selected for each planning area. This resulted in the 1989 Transfer System Development Plan (summarized in Table IV. 14 and Figure IVA), Recommendations were made to replace facilities if either tonnage or customer service capacity was exceeded. ' Tonnages based on the forecast shown in Section ILC b Capacity is not expected to be exceeded within the 20 -year planning period. c Capacity is stated for the first weekday (M -F) shift and weekend operating hours. It does not include the second weekday (M -F) shift, when the station is open until 1:00 a.m. d Weekday average tonnage capacity, assuming the County's 65% waste reduction and recycling goals is achieved. B.1. ftnsfer System: Bxtisting Conditions Chapter N dlixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems Tonnage Capacity Vehicle Traffic Capacity Year Daily Year Rated Capacity Current Vehicle Capacity Current Transfer Station Capacity Exceeded d Status Capacity Exceeded Status Houghton 350 tpd 1986 Exceeded 387 1984 Exceeded First Northeast 350 tpd 2007 387 1984 Exceeded Factoria 350tpdc 1986 Exceeded 387° 1985 Exceeded Algona 350 tpd 1990 Exceeded 387 1990 Exceeded Bow Lake 750 tpd 2010 900 -- b Renton 350 tpd -- b 387 b ' Tonnages based on the forecast shown in Section ILC b Capacity is not expected to be exceeded within the 20 -year planning period. c Capacity is stated for the first weekday (M -F) shift and weekend operating hours. It does not include the second weekday (M -F) shift, when the station is open until 1:00 a.m. d Weekday average tonnage capacity, assuming the County's 65% waste reduction and recycling goals is achieved. B.1. ftnsfer System: Bxtisting Conditions Chapter N dlixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 18 XX d. Growth Management Legislation Impacts Recent growth management legislation requires that the County develop comprehensive county -wide planning policies. These policies, coupled with the individual jurisdictions' comprehensive plan updates, are expected to encourage higher density growth in urban centers, while preserving the current rural character of much of King County. These new centers will become the target for increased employment and housing development. Adoption of the County's Growth Management Plan by the County Council and the cities may alter implementation schedules for alternatives recommended in the 1989 Plan. Delineation of an urban growth boundary will be a significant factor in implementing level -of -service improvements within the service area. Upon adoption of the urban growth boundary line, the level of service for each sector will be defined for both urban and rural areas. The urban level of service is anticipated to remain as currently provided. Both the 1989 Plan and 1992 update present alternatives that are consistent with proposed growth management planning. Specific modifications to the Plan will be addressed in greater detail in the 1995 Plan update. 2. Needs and Opportunities Existing facility limitations indicate the need to expand or replace a number of transfer stations. Two main conclusions were reached in defining needs for the transfer system. First, regardless of the WR/R levels achieved, there are actions the County needs to take to address current transfer system demands. Second, the present uncertainty associated with the types and capacity of recyclable materials drop-off and storage units that will be needed at transfer facilities in the future requires a flexible approach to long-range facility planning. Other key needs and opportunities for improving King County's transfer system operations are listed below and described in the subsections that follow. • Evaluation of the role of the transfer system in solid waste management, e.g., service levels, changes in source -separated waste streams, and potential service improvements for specific customer groups. C7 Table IV.14 1989 Transfer System Development Plan • [brackets indicate year site study is scheduled to begin] • North County Area Seek to permit the Snohomish Waste Management Northwest Transfer Station. Add a new facility in the Northeast Lake Washington Area when necessary. [1993] Close Houghton after addition of the Northeast Lake Washington Area Transfer Station and expansion of the First Avenue Northeast Transfer Station. Expand the First Avenue Northeast Transfer Station on site, as space allows. Central County Area Expand the Factoria Transfer Station on site or build a new facility at a nearby location, if necessary. [1989] (expansion was deemed infeasible) South County Area Build a new transfer station in the South County (Auburn) area. [1994) Close the Algona Transfer Station after construction of the South County Area Transfer Station. Study the feasibility of expanding the Bow Lake Transfer Station. Expand on site or, if necessary, site and build a replacement transfer station in the Tukwila area. Close the Renton Transfer Station after the expansion or replacement of Factoria and Bow Lake or the addition of a Tukwila Area Transfer Station. Rural County Area Replace the Cedar Falls Landfill with a rural drop -box facility. When appropriate, site and construct a new transfer station near the intersection of 1-90 and SR -18, closing Cedar Falls after completion of the new facility. Replace the Enumclaw Landfill with a rural transfer station on or adjacent to the existing site. [1989] Replace the Hobart Landfill with a rural transfer station in the vicinity of the landfill. [1990] Build a new transfer station in the Northeast County Area. [1995] • Adequate capacity. • Increased tonnage capacity. • Compliance with state and local regulations. • Expanded recycling opportunities. • Ability to accommodate new equipment and technologies. Chapter N Mixed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.2. Transfer System: Needs and Opportunities • Facility master development plans. • Updated system use data. • Evaluation of the potential role, if any, of the private sector in the operation of the transfer system. • Schedules for implementing facility decisions. • Definition of the level of service to be provided in the rural portion of the County, upon completion of the growth management planning. O S C NF I aka M/achinrifnn TrAnBfar Stntinn IV 19 a. Role of the Transfer System The transfer system is currently designed and managed to consolidate many refuse loads into fewer, larger transfer loads. It provides convenient access to the solid waste system and minimizes traffic entering the regional landfill. It is designed and operated to handle both small self -haul loads and large commercial haulers. The system has been retro -fitted where possible to provide for self -haul recyclables collection. New facilities will be designed for considerably higher recycling service levels. 5 0 5 MILES Figure IVA 1989 Transfer System Development Plan B.2. Aansfer System: Needs and Opportunities Enumclaw Landfill/Transfer Station N i • Transfer facility upgrade ■ New transfer facility Landfill upgrade O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station Future transfer facilities locations (conceptual) Chapter N Mzxed Munkpal Solid Waste Handling Systems i asho •I andfill I - G • VASHON ISLAND U . TF NF I aka M/achinrifnn TrAnBfar Stntinn IV 19 a. Role of the Transfer System The transfer system is currently designed and managed to consolidate many refuse loads into fewer, larger transfer loads. It provides convenient access to the solid waste system and minimizes traffic entering the regional landfill. It is designed and operated to handle both small self -haul loads and large commercial haulers. The system has been retro -fitted where possible to provide for self -haul recyclables collection. New facilities will be designed for considerably higher recycling service levels. 5 0 5 MILES Figure IVA 1989 Transfer System Development Plan B.2. Aansfer System: Needs and Opportunities Enumclaw Landfill/Transfer Station N i • Transfer facility upgrade ■ New transfer facility Landfill upgrade O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station Future transfer facilities locations (conceptual) Chapter N Mzxed Munkpal Solid Waste Handling Systems -2 N 0 As changes occur in the County's demographic makeup, especially in relation to high-density growth patterns, changes in self -haul patterns, recyclables source separation and levels and types of service to be provided all need to be evaluated. This will include reevaluating service levels to be provided iu urban and rural areas, and targeting potential improvements to specific types of customers (e.g., commercial haulers) by providing improved access to transfer facilities and reduced waiting times. A role of the transfer station study will be conducted in 1993. The results of the study will be used to review and develop capital improvement plans for the transfer system as well as operational practices at the facilities. No changes recommended by the study will be implemented without public review and input from the hauling industry and the public. b. Tonnage Capacity Existing King County transfer stations lack capacity for projected waste quantities. This capacity, defined as tonnage capacity, is the amount of refuse that can be handled at a facility on an average day. Based on the 20 -year forecast, which assumes a Countywide 65 percent waste reduction and recycling rate by 2000. Table IV.13 shows when each station is expected to reach tonnage limits if no additional capacity is added to the system. The Houghton, Factoria, and Algona transfer stations already operate at or near capacity; the First Northeast and Bow Lake stations are projected to reach tonnage capacity between 2006 and 2010. Table IV.12 shows that the First Northeast, Algona, Factoria, Houghton, and Renton transfer stations have approximate capacities of 350 tons per day (126,700 tons per year), and Bow Lake is 750 tons per day (272,000 tons per yen'). Acquisition of a new or replacement facility requires a minimum of five years to site, design, and construct. To ensure that adequate facilities are available when needed, implementation of a new or replacement facility should begin when tonnage exceeds target levels. Target levels are defined as that tonnage which will result in surpassing facility capacity within the five year implementation time -frame, based on tonnage projections produced by the Solid Waste Division. Implementation begins with project authorization, site identification, and property acquisition. Once project authorization is given, the process is governed by the King Couno) Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan summarized in Chapter II, Section C. (The complete text of the siting plan is given in Volume II, Appendix Q. The siting plan also defines the criteria to be used in the selection of potential sites. These siting activities can occur concurrently with continual evaluation of need. Any land that is acquired will be available for future use. A siting study for a new facility to replace the Renton Transfer Station will be needed when tonnage levels reach the target level of 285 tons per day (103,000 per year). Contingent on the completion of Master Facility Plans at Fust Northeast and the Bow Lake Transfer Station, siting studies for new facilities may also be necessary. This would allow the five years needed to construct a new or replacement facility, consistent with the tonnage growth rate projected in the County's planning forecast (Chapter II, Section Q. c. Customer Service Capacity Waiting lines at several transfer stations are long and are expected to lengthen as use increases. Additional services, such as recycling, may also affect waiting times: Table IV.13 shows when each station is expected to reach customer service capacity, defined as the number of vehicles that can be accommodated at a given facility without unacceptable impacts, such as off-site queuing. Vehicle traffic was projected by multiplying the 1991 average vehicles per ton at county facilities (0.98) by the tonnage projections presented in Chapter II, Section B. Since these projections are based on historical use patterns, they may fall short of actual future use as WR/R rates increase. If there are significant volumes of recyclable materials deposited at transfer stations, vehicle traffic may increase faster than disposed tonnage. Algona, Houghton, First Northeast, and Factoria stations have already reached or exceeded capacity. Long waiting times and queues of vehicles extending onto nearby streets at these three stations frustrate users, create safety problems, and may encourage illegal dumping. Chapter IV Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.2. Transfer System: Needs and Opportunities lu A survey of transfer facilities from May 1984 through April 1985 indicated that customers spent 15 minutes on an average weekend day waiting in line and unloading. On the busiest weekend day, some customers waited up to two hours. On these days, waiting and unloading ranged from 20 minutes at Renton to 123 minutes at Houghton. In 1989, design criteria, including service levels, were developed for the replacement transfer stations. Maximum queuing during any stage of the disposal process for self -haul customers should be 30 minutes or less. For commercial haulers, the maximum queue should be 5 minutes or less. Maximum time required in the facility, excluding tipping floor time should be 60 minutes for self - haulers and 10 minutes for commercial haulers. In 1993, a study of actual through -put times at the transfer facilities will be conducted in order to validate the present maximum queue time assumptions. The study recommendations will be evaluated by the Division and representatives of the hauling industry and will be incorporated into the 1995 King County Solid Waste Management Plan. During implementation of the 1989 Plan, public comments received indicated that customer service capacity for the northeast county area is less convenient, due to the closure of the Duvall and Carnation landfills and that plans for providing more convenient disposal service within the area should be accelerated. The need for new facilities and other methods of providing disposal service within the northeast county area will be addressed as a part of the role of the transfer station study to be conducted by the Solid Waste Division in 1993. The Study will examine the impact of the County's growth management policies when developing a recommended service level for the northeast county area. d. Compliance with State and Local Regulations Some transfer stations did not fully comply with King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10); however, the Health Department has either granted waivers or compliance measures are being implemented. Table IV.9 shows the compliance status for the six transfer stations. Responsibility for enforcement of these measures rests with the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (the Health Department; B.2. Transfer System: Needs and Opportunities ......... :.::: IV - 21 see Chapter VI). Transfer station compliance with Title 10 was evaluated in 1991. Noncompliance areas included insufficient buffer zones and lack of surface water and groundwater pollution controls. The Health Department established a schedule to complete improvements to meet the standards. The Solid Waste Division received a waiver from buffer requirements for existing facilities. All other compliance measures have been completed, except for improvements to the surface and ground- water management system at the Renton Transfer Station. Upgrades to correct this single remaining noncompliance condition are scheduled to be completed by the end of 1993. e. Recycling Facilities Existing transfer stations were not designed to include space for recycling facilities. Some have been retro -fitted with recycling collection, and the feasibility of adding it at or near other existing transfer stations is under examination. Space and design constraints may limit the type and capacity, of recycling facilities that can be installed. The limitations may preclude expanding services to meet new program goals, such as public education and collection of recyclable items not currently picked up through household collection programs. Expansion of the yard waste program presents particular problems because of the need for large dumping and holding areas. Despite these limitations, transfer stations are convenient locations for recycling, and providing this service is consistent with the emphasis on waste reduction and recycling (WR/R). The role of the transfer station study will examine which types of recycling services can be provided efficiently at new or retrofitted facilities as they are designed and constructed. f. Accommodation of New Equipment Since King County's transfer stations were constructed between 1963 and 1977, they do not accommodate the newer, larger waste collection vehicles now in use. Ceiling clearances are low and maneuvering space is severely limited for the five transfer stations designed and constructed in the 1960s. The tipping floors are small and movement is further constrained by several structural roof support columns on the tipping floor. These limitations restrict efficiency and capacity and present difficulties for drivers and operators trying to maneuver newer, Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 22 larger trucks and equipment inside the stations. In some cases, the size of newer vehicles has resulted in damage to both trucks and buildings. More unobstructed floor space, higher roofs, or differently designed vehicles are needed to maneuver and unload. Self -haulers using trailers also experience difficulty in positioning their vehicles to unload. g. Master Facility Plans Existing transfer station sites are also constrained by existing space configurations and the space required by new programs, such as recyclables collection. Facility plans are needed to make optimal decisions for each facility and to coordinate planning system -wide. (1) Facility Expansion Some sites, such as Bow Lake and First Northeast, potentially can be expanded. Such expansions require master facility plans to ensure that available space and resources are allocated to the highest priority uses. (2) Physical Facilities for Waste Export Transfer Decisions to implement waste export (long haul to out -of - county disposal facilities) may also change demands on the transfer system. Such decisions are important to future transfer station expansion or replacement because payloads must be maximized when using long-haul disposal. The recently completed Pre -load Compaction/Denstion Feasibility Study (CH2M Hill, March 1992) pointed out that significant facility modifications would be required at existing stations. For most of them it is not economically feasible to incorporate this new technology. Compaction equipment will be installed at new or replacement transfer stations, making them compatible for future long-haul operations. (3) Recycling and Materials Recovery One of the objectives for transfer station upgrades and master facility plan design is to accommodate the collection of source separated recyclables to the maximum extent possible. The option of postcollection material recovery is not being considered at this time. (4) Tecbnological Obsolescence Technological obsolescence is another factor to be considered amid growing concerns about the age of county facilities and their ability to meet current and future King County Solid Waste Regulations as well as more stringent sewer, storm water, and groundwater quality regulations. As new transfer stations using pre -load compaction technology come on line, it will also become uneconomical to operate separate components of the transfer trailer fleet. In essence, there will be two separate operating subsets of the transfer system: one system will include transfer stations using compactor -based technology and the other will be composed of transfer facilities using the current transfer trailer fleet. Up to twice as many top -loaded trailers as compactor -loaded trailers would have to be operated for the same tonnage. This would also increase the number of truck driver positions required and demands on maintenance and support facilities. h. Implementation Schedules (1) Sbort-term Needs and Opportunities The facility openings and closure decisions identified in both the 1989 Plan and the 1992 update are generally not affected by the WR/R levels achieved by the County. Due to the long lead time involved in implementing capital project decisions (e.g., site selection, property acquisition(s), project design, permitting, and construction), implementation schedules for capital projects extend over several years, and in some cases, well beyond the six-year CIP planning horizon. Decisions made now may not come to fruition or even achieve major project milestones during the current Plan update period. Accordingly, when projections indicate tonnage or customer activity limits will be reached or exceeded, future year CIP projects should be implemented. The Fast Northeast and Bow Lake transfer stations have capacity for a number of years beyond the present CIP planning horizon. Both of these facilities were identified in the 1989 Plan as having the potential for expansion. The first step in determining the full potential of these facilities for expansion and upgrade would be to develop a master facility plan at each site. Issues that should be considered include site development Chapter IV Mixed Munical Solid Waste Handling Systems B.2. Transfer System: Needs and Opportunities • restrictions, operational characteristics limiting expansion, and ability to accommodate new services and technologies. (2) long-term Needs and Opportunities The County's WR/R goals imply significant changes in disposal behavior and may require changes in solid waste handling methods and facilities. It is difficult to predict long- term facilities needs with sufficient accuracy to make detailed cost estimates or to plan reasonable implementation schedules. As WR/R levels increase, they will significantly affect the timing and size of transfer system modifications. The 1992 Plan seeks to balance the possibility of prematurely expending funds for facilities that might be too large if WR/R goals are achieved against the possibility that system capacity could be insufficient if those goals are not met. To do this, needs and functional requirements of facilities (tonnage capacity, customer activity capacity, physical facilities for long-haul transfer, or recycling) and technological obsolescence for 1997 through 2008 need to be continually assessed. The County will proceed with planning activities when any one of the four criteria is not satisfied by the existing system. i. Private and Public Sector Interactions Two privately operated transfer/recycling stations deliver waste to the King County system. The County has not supported additional private sector facilities because of concern that they may not provide the desired level of set -vice, could erode the rate base, and could conflict with existing labor agreements. j. System Use Data Collection The Solid Waste Division conducted a detailed field analysis of transfer system use patterns in 1985. These data are the basis for several assumptions used in Plan development. New services have been implemented since that time and no additional data have been collected to date. These data will be updated in 1993. Data collected in 1984 and 1985 indicate that nearly all existing transfer stations were at vehicle and tonnage capacity, except Bow Lake and Renton, which had near -tern reserve capacity (within six years). Since these data 8.3. Transfer System: Alternatives X. N-2 3 were collected, both tonnage and customer activity have increased. There has been no appreciable relief for the over- capacity transfer stations, while reserve capacity of the two under -capacity stations has been reduced significantly. Despite the success of recycling efforts, population growth in King County has more than offset the gain. k Growth Management Legislation Impact After the County's growth management policies are implemented, service levels will be defined for the urban areas as a part of the role of the transfer station study. Current urban service levels at the six existing transfer stations will then need to be examined and any shortfalls identified. Services planned at the new Factoria Transfer Station are expected to meet most, if not all, required service levels. After the urban growth boundary line is adopted, rural levels of service will also be developed. The County needs to adopt rural service levels consistent with the growth management policies. 3. Altematives Several alternative Plan recommendations are available for the transfer system. They are the status quo 1989 system plan, updated 1992 system plan, privatization, and smaller facilities alternatives. These are summarized in Table IV.15 and discussed in further detail in the subsections that follow. Alternative A generally carries forth the 1989 Plan recommendations and implementation schedules. Alternative B primarily modifies the implementation schedule based on events that have occurred since the 1989 plan was prepared. Alternative C concerns involving the private sector in transfer Table IV.15 Transfer Station Alternatives Alternative A Continue with implementation of 1989 recommendations as scheduled. Alternative B Continue with implementation of 1989 recommendations and amend implementation schedule per changed conditions. Alternative C Privatize the transfer system. Alternative D Develop smaller facilities. Chapter IV Alixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems stations operations, and alternative D considers the question of scale (more, smaller scale transfer facilities). Alternatives C and D address two new issues that have emerged since the 1989 Plan was adopted. a. Alternative A, Status Quo System Plan This alternative is the implementation of recommendations exactly as identified in the 1989 Plan. They are identified as the 1989 Transfer System Development Plan (see Section N.B.1). Their selection was based on the criteria listed below. The criteria are not presented in order of relative importance and no attempt was made to resolve any conflicts among them. • User convenience. Combined travel and waiting tunes for most users should be sufficiently low to discourage illegal dumping. Increased opportunity for tipping at the transfer facility is a major factor in reducing queuing (waiting) time. • Community impacts. Transfer station siting and operation may have adverse impacts on nearby communities, which should be reasonably mitigated. Consistent with King County Code 10.08.030, these impacts should be shared equitably among communities of solid waste facilities, rather than concentrated in only a few. • Facility cost. The desired level of service should be provided at the minimum capital and operating cost for the total life of the facility. Economies of scale will generally make fewer large facilities less costly to construct and operate than a large number of small facilities (see Section IV.C.3.d). • f:~ansporlation cost. The desired level of set -vice should be provided, while minimizing haul costs from transfer facilities to regional service facilities. • Regulatory compliance. Transfer facilities must be sited and operated in compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations (Title 10, KCBOHC). • Uniform facility size, design, and operation. Reduced costs for staff training and maintenance should be achieved, and the ability of operators to shift among the facilities increased. • Facility size. To increase the efficiency of operations, facilities should be large enough to accommodate push -pit type designs and other facility design features that minimize risks to the public during loading of transfer trailers. • Facility siting. The number of new facilities should be minimized and maximum use should be made of existing facilities (see Section IV.C.3.d). • Integration with regional service facilities. Distribution of transfer facilities should be compatible with future plans for the development of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill or potential out -of -county (long-haul) disposal proposals. • Compatibility with collection system. Improved interface with enhanced collection technologies should be provided, e.g., larger collection vehicles, and be consistent with increased source -separation of recyclables. • Compatibility with waste reduction and recycling objectives. The system should be flexible to accommodate any new source -separated materials or new processes and methods to achieve WR/R goals. Some of the 1989 recommendations are no longer appropriate. Changes in tonnage forecasts, delays, and the continued non -operational status of the Waste Management, Northwest -Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station have affected implementation schedules. The recommendations correspond to each geographic planning area, e.g., North, Central, South, and Rural (see Figure IV.5). The specific recommendations for each planning area are summarized in Table IVA and are described as follows: (1) North County Area • Seek to permit the Waste Management, Northwest - Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station. Add a new facility in the Woodinville area when necessary. • Close the Houghton Transfer Station after addition of the Woodinville Area Transfer Station and expansion of the First Avenue Northeast Transfer Station. • Expand the First Northeast Transfer Station on site, as space permits. O apter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems 8.3. Transfer System: Alternatives r r • (2) Central County Area • • Replacement of the Factoria Transfer Station • (3) South County Area • • Build a new transfer station in the South Green River Valley (Auburn) area. i • Close the Algona Transfer Station after construction of the Auburn Area Transfer Station. • Study the feasibility of expanding the Bow Lake Transfer Station. Expand on site or, if necessary, site and build a replacement transfer station in the Tukwila area • Close the Renton Transfer Station after the expansion of Factoria and Bow Lake or the addition of a Tukwila Area Transfer Station. Proposed Waste Management N_W_Transfer Station ................................ .. ................. .:::.:::::.::.::.::.::.>:.::.::.::..:.::::.::.::.:::.::......:.:::.:::.:.::.:.;::.:......::.:.:.:.:::.:::....:..............................:.::::::::::::::::::::::.::: ...:.............. .:: ;:::::.::.:.::.;:.;::.:.>::>::>::>::;::>::>:>::>:::::,.::...::.,.::.:.::.;:::.::.......::::: N - 25 r r • (2) Central County Area • • Replacement of the Factoria Transfer Station • (3) South County Area • • Build a new transfer station in the South Green River Valley (Auburn) area. i • Close the Algona Transfer Station after construction of the Auburn Area Transfer Station. • Study the feasibility of expanding the Bow Lake Transfer Station. Expand on site or, if necessary, site and build a replacement transfer station in the Tukwila area • Close the Renton Transfer Station after the expansion of Factoria and Bow Lake or the addition of a Tukwila Area Transfer Station. B.3. Transfer System: Alternatives Chapter Iv Mixed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systems Proposed Waste Management N_W_Transfer Station ---_---._._.----_.—.--_.—.—.— �._. — — — — — — — — _ — — — -------------------------------------------- _ �. First First Ave NEt•ITr�an er tion / NORTH / 2 _... 4Skyhomish Drop -box j • 203 ... _. - , / 99 on Transfer Station l 1 f 908 l Im 1 \ O SEATT e ' CENTRAL i 1 `• /��� i o c oria Transfer, ion RURAL 20 / SOUTH %� ton Trbnsfer Station `_ N i \ / j ashon— I Landfill ,e 0 Cedar Falls Drop -box • f 509 Lake OC ed Hills FTegional Landfill so % er Statlo*---- c •HobarRLandfill •\, VASHON 1 ISLAND \ 1 •\ v 5 N \ / 99 M,\ AIgq Transfer .ration 64 5 0 5 �. • Enumclaw Transfer Station MILES `�•� / 1 Planning areas 1 Urban boundaries iFigure IV.5 1992 areas. planning B.3. Transfer System: Alternatives Chapter Iv Mixed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systems N-2 6 (4) Rural County Area • Replace the Cedar Falls Landfill with a rural drop -box facility. When appropriate, site and construct a new transfer station near the intersection of I-90 and SR -18, closing Cedar Falls after completion of the new facility. • Replace the Enumclaw Landfill with a transfer station. • Replace Hobart Landfill with a transfer station. • Build a new transfer station in the northeast county area. b. Alternative B, Updated System Plan Alternative B is nearly identical to Alternative A except for the modifications to the transfer station development plan schedule and the additional planning activities. Selected actions for Alternative B are based on responses to evolving conditions resulting from implementation of the status quo alternative described above and refinements to program goals. Execution of the 1989 Plan has demonstrated that the proposed time tables were too optimistic, and actual time frames have been longer than anticipated. Evolving federal and state regulations have placed additional restraints on specific elements of the CIP Program. The inability to reach closure on whether the Waste Management, Northwest - Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station would be granted an operating permit played a major role in determining which new transfer stations should be scheduled and planned. In 1989, a decision was made to proceed with the Factoria Transfer Station replacement project, even though the Houghton Transfer Station was operating above capacity in both vehicle and tonnage categories. This was based on the expectation that the Waste Management Northwest -Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station could provide transfer service by early 1990, and that its opening would provide immediate capacity relief to the Houghton Transfer Station. Similarly, the South King County Area Transfer Station project was scheduled to begin in 1992, in order to be on-line to replace Algona in 1997. Houghton's replacement, the Northeast Lake Washington Area Transfer Station project, was planned to start in 1994. Because the Waste Management, Northwest -Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station is not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system, the decision was made to begin work to site the N.E. Lake Washington Transfer Station and defer the South King County Transfer Station Project until 1994. As part of the 1989 Plan recommendation to expand or replace the Bow Lake and First Northeast transfer stations, and the need to execute several major (non-CIP) facility plan projects at these two facilities, facility master plans (FMP) studies have been proposed in the 1993 budget. These FMPs would identify major development conflicts and provide feasible alternative recommendations for site redevelopment and expansion. The service data obtained in 1984-1985 may not accurately reflect current disposal practices, customer usage, initiation of source -separated recyclable collection services, or recent changes in disposal regulations, e.g., bans on CFC - containing appliances and household hazardous waste. An updated waste stream analysis has also been proposed in the 1993 budget. (1) North County Area • The Waste Management, Northwest -Woodinville Recycling Transfer Station is not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system. The transfer station implementation schedule will be accelerated to begin the Northeast Lake Washington transfer station project in 1993 instead of 1994. The design for the South County station would then be delayed to begin in 1994 or later. • The new transfer facility would be named the Northeast Lake Washington (rather than the Woodinville Area Transfer Station) to better define the potential site search area. (2) Central County Area • A collection facility for moderate risk waste may be added at the Factoria replacement facility, if feasible. (3) South County Area • The schedule for South County transfer facility design work would begin in 1994 or later. • The new transfer facility would be renamed South County to better define the potential site search area. Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.3. Transfer System: Alternatives 0 0 0 (4) Rural County Area • A new transfer facility near the intersection of I-90 and SR - 18 and a new facility to serve the Northeast County area would be further evaluated pending the outcome of growth management planning and the completion of the role of the transfer station study. c. Alternative Q Privatization It has recently been suggested that the County look into the role of the private sector in operation of the transfer system. The options range from complete privatization to an exclusive franchise to operate a transfer station within a specific service area. At this time, very little is known about the potential for and possible impacts of privatizing transfer service in King County. King County could evaluate the feasibility of privatization and potential impacts on the existing transfer system, including impacts on the rate base, different staffing criteria for publicly versus privately operated transfer stations, levels of service, legal issues (such as considerations involved in contracting), and enforcement issues. To date, privatization has not been formally analyzed. Preliminary evaluations indicate that transfer station tonnage revenues would decrease significantly faster than would a corresponding reduction in total system costs, e.g., not all operational or administrative costs could be reduced at the same rate as tonnage could be diverted for private disposal. An evaluation of the impacts to the overall solid waste system would be needed before a formal recommendation on privatization could be made. d. Alternative D, Smaller Facilities This alternative develops the concept of more, smaller capacity transfer stations in lieu of fewer, larger ones. Implementation of the 1989 Plan has provided some opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of this alternative by comparing the new Enumclaw and proposed Hobart transfer stations (which are smaller) to the new larger Factoria transfer station. Based on actual bid results and a completed design for B.4. ftnsfer System: Recommendations IV - 27 the Enumclaw Transfer Station, there does not appear to be any significant cost savings between the two sizes of facilities. The physical size of a transfer station is almost unaffected by rated tonnage. Vehicle turning radii, desired queue times, inclusion of recycling opportunities for a wide variety of materials, and compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) requirements preclude major reductions in the physical plant. Temporary on-site storage of MMSW will primarily affect the shape and size of the surge pit and the amount of space dedicated to trailer parking, but these do not have a big impact on total size. Approximately 20 acres or more for each transfer facility is desirable to meet the transfer station program objectives. Preliminary analysis shows that it would cost significantly more to build several smaller transfer facilities to provide the same rated tonnage and/or vehicle capacity than it would for fewer, larger transfer facilities. Siting costs such as EIS's and site searches, are the same for large or small facilities. There are no apparent significant reductions in staffing on an overall system basis. In addition, tonnages are projected to decline beginning in 1993 through 2000 when they begin to increase again (Table 11.1). It will be important to keep system -wide costs down during this period of declining tonnage. It appears that it would be more prudent to provide for fewer, larger new transfer facilities in lieu of having several large parcels devoted to the construction of smaller transfer stations. 4. Recommendations Alternative B is recommended to be implemented as the 1992 Transfer System Developnwit Plan. The basis for the recommendation is that Alternative A is no longer valid because it included the assumption that the Waste Management Northwest -Woodinville would become a part of the County transfer system, which is no longer correct. Table IV.16 and Figure IV.6 summarize the recommendations. Based on current population growth projections, Alternative B identifies geographic areas that will require facilities and recommends construction schedules. This alternative also recommends surveys and analytical studies needed for long-range planning and transfer station master facility plans. Privatization of the Clwpter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 28 transfer system will be studied with the role of the transfer system. a 1992 Transfer System Development Plan (1) Service Area Changes Figure IV.6 shows the approximate locations of the recommended facility constructions, closures, and upgrades. If the County solid waste system continues to meet its WR/R goals, many of the actions shown in Figure IV.6 could be deferred until after the year 2008. Progress toward these goals and customer activity at facilities will be reported in the Solid Waste Division annual report. An implementation schedule for the first six years of the planning period is provided in Table IV.17. It assumes the Waste Management, Northwest- Woodenville facility will not become a part of the County's transfer system. Therefore, the schedules for the Northeast Lake Washington and South County facilities have been modified. Northeast Lake Washington will be accelerated and South County will be delayed. Table iv.16 Summary of 1992 Transfer System Recommendations (2) General Changes in the System The recommended alternatives include changes to the solid waste facilities evaluated in this plan, including two closures, three replacements, and six new facilities. It is unlikely that all these facilities will be built within the 20 -year planning period. The Skykomish drop -box will not be changed. Plans for closed transfer station sites will not be included in the 1992 Plan. Closed transfer system sites will require several years of monitoring for health and environmental risks before they could be used for any other purpose. The Waste Management, Northwest -Woodinville facility is not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system. Therefore, the Northeast Lake Washington Transfer Station will need to be sited and built sooner than previously anticipated and will need to have a larger capacity than previously envisioned. 5. Implementation The implementation schedule for the 1992 transfer system development plan is shown in Table IV.17. Rural Recommendation IV.14 Enumclaw Landfill closed. Replaced with new transfer station in 1993. Recommendation IV.15 Hobart Close landfill in 1994. Recommendation IV.16 New transfer facilities Place on hold pending the outcome of Growth Management Act initiatives Other Recommendations Recommendation IV.17 Role of Transfer System Develop a study on the role of the transfer system. Recommendation IV.18 System Use Data Collection Collect current data on transfer system usage, programs, and regulations. Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.S. Transfer System: implementation North Area Recommendation IV.5 Waste Management Northwest Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system. Recommendation IV.6 Northeast Lake Washington Begin site selection in 1993, completion in 1999. Recommendation IV.7 Houghton Close in 1999, after new Northeast Lake Washington is completed. Recommendation IV.8 First Northeast Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible. Central Area Recommendation IV.9 Factoria Build new facility. Add MRW services if feasible. South Recommendation IV.10 South County Build new transfer station. Begin site selection in 1994. Recommendation IVA 1 Algona Close after new South County Transfer Station is completed in 2000. Recommendation IV.12 Bow Lake Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible, or build a replacement in Tukwila area. Recommendation IVA 3 Renton Close Renton after Factoria and Bow Lake expansions or Tukwila replacement facility is built. Rural Recommendation IV.14 Enumclaw Landfill closed. Replaced with new transfer station in 1993. Recommendation IV.15 Hobart Close landfill in 1994. Recommendation IV.16 New transfer facilities Place on hold pending the outcome of Growth Management Act initiatives Other Recommendations Recommendation IV.17 Role of Transfer System Develop a study on the role of the transfer system. Recommendation IV.18 System Use Data Collection Collect current data on transfer system usage, programs, and regulations. Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.S. Transfer System: implementation (0 --\ V O SEATTLE c� 2 v rV-29 ,-e- Proposed Waste Management N.W. Transfer Station SO 5 0 5 MILES CLOSE • Houghton Transfer Station • Renton Transfer Station • Algona Transfer Station UPGRADE • First Northeast Transfer Station UPGRADE OR REPLACE • Factoria Transfer Station • Bow Lake Transfer Station Enumclaw Landfill[Transfer Station •Transfer facility upgrade TRANSFER STATIONS RURAL LANDFILLS TO BE CLOSED AND REPLACED WITH TRANSFER STATIONS • Hobart Landfill Figure MIS King County Solid Waste Division service areas and facility recommendations. ■ New transfer facility A Landfill upgrade O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station Drop -box Future transfer facilities locations (conceptual) NEW TRANSFER STATIONS • Northeast Lake Washington Area • Factoria Area • Middle Snoqualmie • Intersection of SR -18 and 1-90 • Tukwila Area (if Bow Lake cannot be upgraded) • South County Area • Hobart B.5. Transfer System: Implementation Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems i TuM j AI i Trai 1 <St j Vashon ALandfill B VASHON I ISLAND USouth Transfer rV-29 ,-e- Proposed Waste Management N.W. Transfer Station SO 5 0 5 MILES CLOSE • Houghton Transfer Station • Renton Transfer Station • Algona Transfer Station UPGRADE • First Northeast Transfer Station UPGRADE OR REPLACE • Factoria Transfer Station • Bow Lake Transfer Station Enumclaw Landfill[Transfer Station •Transfer facility upgrade TRANSFER STATIONS RURAL LANDFILLS TO BE CLOSED AND REPLACED WITH TRANSFER STATIONS • Hobart Landfill Figure MIS King County Solid Waste Division service areas and facility recommendations. ■ New transfer facility A Landfill upgrade O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station Drop -box Future transfer facilities locations (conceptual) NEW TRANSFER STATIONS • Northeast Lake Washington Area • Factoria Area • Middle Snoqualmie • Intersection of SR -18 and 1-90 • Tukwila Area (if Bow Lake cannot be upgraded) • South County Area • Hobart B.5. Transfer System: Implementation Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 3 Table iV.17 Transfer Station Implementation Schedule 1992 1 1993 1 1994 1 1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 ete final design construction ete construction inq County Area Transfer Chapter IV Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems B.S. Transfer System: Implementation ............................................ C. DISPOSAL • King County's disposal system for mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) consists of the regional landfill at Cedar Hills, S and two rural landfills at Hobart and Vashon (Figure IV.7). This 1992 Plan update evaluates the adequacy of this system and recommends appropriate actions to ensure that adequate disposal capacity is available and environmentally sound. Specific state and county requirements of the Plan include: • Use of a 20 -year planning horizon for disposal capacity. • Inclusion of a six-year capital construction plan. • Demonstration of compliance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations (King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC Title 10) for solid waste handling or demonstration of a compliance plan. • Demonstration of financial assurance for compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations, specifically closure and post -closure maintenance. s o s • MILES • • X. %• Cedar Hill / — ■ Cedar Falls t •-Hobart. -----' �.. X. Enumclaw Figure IV.7 Existing and inactive landfills. Note: The First Northeast facility was built on the Corliss site. i C. Disposal • Open Landfill ■ Closed Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems First IC • • %y 1H C SEAT" • /2 io I , I t Vashon • J VASHON ISLAND • • Use of a 20 -year planning horizon for disposal capacity. • Inclusion of a six-year capital construction plan. • Demonstration of compliance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations (King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC Title 10) for solid waste handling or demonstration of a compliance plan. • Demonstration of financial assurance for compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations, specifically closure and post -closure maintenance. s o s • MILES • • X. %• Cedar Hill / — ■ Cedar Falls t •-Hobart. -----' �.. X. Enumclaw Figure IV.7 Existing and inactive landfills. Note: The First Northeast facility was built on the Corliss site. i C. Disposal • Open Landfill ■ Closed Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 32 1. Existing Conditions a. Disposal Facilities and Capacity The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill receives over 97 percent of the municipal solid waste generated in the King County system (which excludes the city of Seattle). The rural landfills receive waste from large but sparsely populated rural areas in their immediate vicinity. The 1989 Plan recommended closing all of the rural landfills except Vashon and replacing them with drop -boxes or transfer stations (1989 Plan recommendations are summarized in Table IV.18). Waste collected at these new transfer stations will be transported to Cedar Hills for disposal. Completion of the Enumclaw transfer station has brought all of the King County solid waste disposal system (excluding Vashon Island) into the Cedar Hills service area. (1) Cedar Hills Cedar Hills has six years of built capacity remaining and room to construct additional capacity for the 20 -year planning horizon. Its remaining permitted capacity (land use permit and soils balance) is approximately 45 million cubic yards. Table IV.18 Summary of 1989 Plan Disposal Recommendations Recommendation Description Hobart Close, replace with transfer station Enumclaw Close, replace with transfer station Cedar Falls Close, replace with drop -box Vashon Upgrade Wet -site landfill Meet state wet -site landfilling standards for standards any out -of -county disposal sites. Transshipment Continue to examine development of a facility study transshipment facility in cooperation in one or more other Puget Sound governments. This capacity may need to be reduced depending on a planned facility needs assessment (see Master Facility Plan, Section IV.C.l.c). Figure IV.8 illustrates how the three planning forecast scenarios described in Chapter II, Section B would impact the remaining capacity of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Under the 1987 planning forecast (trends) scenario, the County could anticipate a remaining capacity of approximately 18 years without the implementation of aggressive WR/R goals. Conversely, if the County reaches its WR/R goal of 65 percent in the year 2000, Cedar Hills' remaining capacity increases significantly—to 27 years (2019). The 35 percent WR/R scenario would mean a remaining capacity of 21 years (2013) while the 50 percent scenario equates to a closure date of 2016, or 24 years of remaining capacity. The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Draft Site Development Plan (Site Development Plan, CH2M Hill, 1987) and associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) were completed in December 1987. The draft Site Development Plan was prepared concurrently with a Draft EIS that compared relative environmental impacts of development alternatives. Its purpose was to provide sufficient information to support a modified land use permit, if required. Implementation Status Landfill closure to begin in 1994. Complies with MFS. Landfill will be replaced with existing facilities. Closed Implemented 1989 Implemented 1989, complies with all MFS except Performance Standard Groundwater Not applicable Preliminary data shows not enough data to complete. Regional landfill site Evaluate available land suitable for siting a Analysis was not performed. Evaluation for CDL site availability study new regional landfill. mapped areas of county suitable for siting a landfill Cedar Hills Regional Continue operation as the primary disposal Complies with MFS except for Performance Standard Landfill facility. Groundwater and Performance Standard Gas in older areas of the landfill. Remediation projects are nearing completion. Chapter IV: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems C.1. Disposal: Existing Conditions The preferred alternative would modify the use permit to allow placement of support facilities in the 1,000 -foot buffer zone and allow soils stockpiling in the southern and western buffers. The proposal maintained 250 feet of existing buffer in its natural state around the perimeter and a 1,000 -foot buffer from any areas of landfilling. It would have increased the area available for landfilling to 355 acres and increased the remaining capacity to approximately 45 million cubic yards. It included development of eight separate disposal areas, four of which have already been constructed. A second stage of landfill development was proposed that would involve placing two to four lifts of refuse on top of the eight disposal areas. A western buffer stockpile would have been constructed during the construction of Refuse Area 5. The proposed expanded capacity—to 45 million cubic yards—is based on a revised soils balance that would increase the life of the landfill by increasing the depth of excavation and therefore capacity. The draft Site Development Plan proposed moving support facilities, such as the administrative offices and the operation and fleet maintenance facilities, to the property's o u) o m 0) O m O O 04 N-33 southern buffer. These modifications would require a revised land use permit. (2) Hobart Landfill The Hobart Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 100,000 cubic yards and is projected to close in 1994. To preserve its remaining capacity, commercial haulers and vehicles with greater than 8,000 -pound gross capacity are prohibited from using the site. A replacement is not planned for Hobart as there is adequate service capacity at other facilities in the area. (3) Enumclaw Landfill The Enumclaw Landfill was granted a variance by the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (the Health Department) from some of the King County Solid Waste Regulations (Section IV.C.I.b and KCBOHC Title 10) that allowed it to remain in operation until May 1993. The landfill is no longer accepting waste and closure is now in progress. Maximum Capacity = 45,000,000 Cubic Yards 1165% WR/R El 50% WR/R ® 35% WR/R Figure 1VS Projected Cedar Hills lifespan using alternative disposal forecasts. Cubic Yards 50,000,000 40,000,000 0 N N 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 C.I. Disposal: Existing Conditions Chapter IV Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems N-4 3 (4) Vasbon Landftll New disposal capacity has been developed at the Vashon Landfill consistent with the 1989 Plan (see Table IV.18). The Vashon Landfill has over 10 years of built capacity remaining and room to construct additional capacity for the 20 -year planning horizon. The service area for the Vashon Landfill is Vashon Island. An application for designation as a sole source aquifer has been filed for Vashon Island with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There are no provisions prohibiting landfills over sole source aquifers in federal regulations, but the King County Solid Waste Regulations have a location standard, which states that "no landfill shall be located over a sole source aquifer" (KCBOHC 10.32.020.B.2). It is unclear how this standard would apply to facilities that existed before a sole source designation was made. (S) Waste Export Evaluation The 1989 Plan, in accordance with King County Ordinance 8771 (KCC 10.22.030) recommended that the County continue to operate Cedar Hills and develop and evaluate a Request for Proposals (RFP) for exporting a portion of the County's MMSW stream. If a waste export proposal were selected for implementation, the 1989 Plan recommended that Cedar Hills continue to be operated at a level adequate to allow its use as a back-up facility in the event of an emergency (Table IV. 18). During 1991, the County conducted a preliminary feasibility analysis of the waste export option. It was decided that before an RFP could be issued, the County would need to evaluate: • Which loads would be targeted for Cedar Hills and waste export. • Specific transfer facility and transportation fleet requirements for an out -of -county system. • Equipment, personnel, and contracting options needed to allow use of Cedar Hills as a back-up facility. • The effectiveness of Seattle's and Snohomish County's transition to an out -of -county landfill. Preliminary analysis indicates that to obtain maximum benefits from an out -of -county option, compaction units would need to be installed at transfer stations identified for waste export disposal. The feasibility of retrofitting existing transfer stations was examined in the King County Preload Compaction Feasibility Study (CH2M Hill, 1992). The County found that it would not be cost-effective to install compaction units at any existing transfer stations except for Bow Lake and First Northeast. Bow Lake is the only facility for which the potential benefits of retrofitting for preload capability exceed the costs of required modifications for the existing system of transfer and disposal. The study also recommended that any new transfer stations (Section IV.B) and planned transfer station facility replacements be designed with preload capability to improve the existing system's performance. If waste export were to be implemented, King County would need higher payloads per trailer in order to be economically justifiable. Only those loads originating at transfer stations with compaction capability could be economically designated for out -of -county disposal. The Solid Waste Division is continuing to evaluate the pros and cons of waste export, in 1993. Specifically, the Division is conducting analyses to: • Evaluate the effectiveness of Seattle and Snohomish County out -of -county contracts, which do not include local backup capacity. • Evaluate the equipment and personnel needs and contracting options necessary to allow use of Cedar Hills as a backup facility. • Evaluate system alternatives for targeting how loads could be distributed between Cedar Hills and an out -of -county facility. • Define specific facility and transportation fleet requirements required for a transition to partial out -of -county landfilling. . Assess the financial impacts and the effects on rates by the waste export strategy. (6) Land Availability for Future Landfills Although the impacts of a new regional landfill were discussed in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), Ordinance 8771 (KCC Title 10) did not give specific policy direction to evaluate this alternative in the 1989 Plan. That Plan stated that the need for a new regional landfill would depend on the status of any out -of -county disposal Chapter N Mtred Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems C.1. Dispasak Existing Conditions _..._............................................._...._.............._._.................__......__...........__...................................................... _. ...................._......... -..........................................._....._.................._.........._....._...__......._..._.................................................... _...._ N- ................................................. ............. ...:............::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::.:.::::.::.:::.:.::.::.:::.:.:.::.:::.::.::.:::.::.::...........::.::.::.::.::.:.:.... 5 .............:::....:.::::::.:::::::::::......:::::::::::::....:::.:.::.:......................................................... 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................I.......... proposal and evaluation of the need for local back-up capacity. The 1989 Plan recommended deferring evaluation of these factors to the Plan update, though it did recommend evaluating the availability of land suitable for siting a new regional landfill. This analysis was not performed. However, an evaluation of land in King County suitable for development of a construction, demolition, and landclearing (CDL) debris landfill was performed by R.W. Beck and Associates (1991) as one of several studies in support of the County's ultimate decision regarding CDL waste handling. The study was limited to mapping areas of the County that would be suitable or unsuitable for siting a landfill, based on locational criteria. The study found that central King County contains large areas that, on a regional basis, would meet locational criteria. It did not look at the suitability of specific sites. b. King County Solid Waste Regulations Compliance Demonstration Pursuant to RCW 70.95.090, The Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions Planning Guidelines (Ecology Guidelines, WDOE 90-11, 1990) require that the Plan demonstrate that existing facilities are in compliance with the requirements and standards for solid waste handling facilities or recommend a program to ensure that solid waste facilities meet them. The requirements and standards that apply to all solid waste handling facilities—landfills, transfer stations, compost facilities, and surface impoundments—are found in King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) and the state Minimum Functional Standards (MFS, WAC 173-304). Subsections that apply to disposal facilities include location standards, general facility requirements, surface impoundment standards, landfilling standards, and groundwater monitoring requirements. The status of each of King County's operating landfills with respect to these standards is presented in Table IV.19. C.1. Disposal: Existing Conditions c. Capital Construction Plan for Disposal Facilities The Solid Waste Division has a six-year capital improvement program (CIP) that includes capital projects to upgrade existing facilities and maintain or expand service levels and disposal capacity (see Volume II, Appendix K). The CIP is funded by bond proceeds and revenue deposited in a landfill reserve fund (LRF). In general, the LRF finances new disposal area development, closure, and post -closure maintenance. The remainder of the CIP is funded through bond proceeds. Projects related to disposal facilities and projected expenditures from 1992 through 1997 are given in Table IV.20. The cost estimates are based on standard engineering estimating techniques, estimates prepared for the draft Site Development Plan, bids for similar projects, engineering reports, and actual bids. They reflect the 1992 adopted CIP budget. The Solid Waste Division prepares project status reports quarterly (more frequently when needed). The reports include funding sources, cumulative authorizations, projected total budget, original commitment, approved changes, current commitment and obligation, pending changes, expenditures, estimated expenditures to completion, cost at completion, variance budget, variance authorization, unencumbered authorization, and unobligated authorization. Individual projects are described in Table IV.20. d. Financial Assurance Demonstration The King County Solid Waste Regulations have requirements related to financial assurance for public facilities owned or operated by municipal corporations that relate to closure and post -closure maintenance. Closure and post -closure maintenance costs are to be estimated and financial assurance funds for them generated by transferring a percentage of facility disposal fees to a nonexpendable trust fund or one established with an entity that can act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a federal or state agency. King County has adopted the latter method of financial assurance. Chapter N Mixed Alunicpal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV - 36 Table IV.19 Status of Conformance )Aith County and State Standards Cedar Hills Hobart Enumclaw Vashon Location Standards Recordkeeping Conforming Conforming Conforming Geology constraints Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Groundwater constraints Conforming a Conforming b Conforming Conforming Sole source aquifer constraints Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Down -gradient drinking water supply Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming well constraint Performance standard groundwater Nonconforming e Conforming Conforming Flooding constraints Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Surface Water constraints Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Slope constraints Conforming d Conforming Conforming Conforming d Land Use constraints Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming General Facility Requirements Plan of operation Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Recordkeeping Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Reporting Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Inspections Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Surface Impoundment Standards Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Landfilling Standards Performance standard groundwater Nonconforming e Conforming Conforming Nonconforming r Performance standard gas Nonconforming 9 Conforming Nonconforming h Nonconforming' Performance standard surface water Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Daily cover Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Noncontainerized liquid prohibition Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Surface water run-on control Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Surface water run-off control Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Leachate collection system Conforming Conforming k Conforming Conforming m Leachate pretreatment Conforming N/A N/A Conforming Liner design Conforming N/A k N/A Conforming Closure design Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming' Gas control Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Recycling N/A " Conforming Conforming Conforming Groundwater Monitoring Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Requirements Notes: a New refuse areas being developed at Cedar Hills will have greater than a 10 -foot separation between the bottom of the refuse and the uppermost aquifer capable of yielding significant amounts of groundwater to wells or springs. New areas at Cedar Hills may not provide a 10 -foot separation between the bottom of the liner and saturated lenses capable of yielding monitorable quantities of water to an approved monitoring device. Ecology Technical Information Memorandum No. 88-2, (October 24, 1988) defined monitorable quantity to be the locational standard, while the Solid Waste Division believes the significant amounts definition is the standard established by rule. However, new areas will be constructed with underdrain systems to prevent any buildup of hydrostatic pressure under the liner. b In the past, seasonally high groundwater -saturated portions of the in-place waste at the Hobart Landfill. A slurry wall and groundwater extraction system have been subsequently constructed. This system lowers groundwater levels within the refuse, and prevents the movement of water through the slurry wall, effectively isolating groundwater beneath the landfill from the surrounding aquifer. (Notes continued on next page) Chapter N Mixed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systems C1. Disposal: FxisMng Conditions IV - 37 Notes (continued): A sole -source aquifer petition was submitted to EPA for Vashon Island. It is unclear how this provision will apply to existing landfills. d With respect to slope and land use, the active and closed areas of the Vashon and Cedar Hills landfills are not located where slopes are unstable. Ecology Technical Memorandum 89-1 (February 15, 1989) considers existing refuse to be unstable while the Solid Waste Division does not believe this to be a proper extension of the intent of the prohibition as established by rule. e Impacts to shallow groundwater from older waste areas have been observed at Cedar Hills. Remedial measures in the form of improving existing leachate collection and closing completed areas have been completed in the previous plan period. Others, including collection and treatment of shallow groundwater impacted by landfilling activities, are in progress and ongoing. Groundwater quality is monitored to observe improvements. f Impacts to shallow groundwater from older waste areas have been observed at Vashon Landfill. Remedial measures in the form of closing completed areas were completed in the previous plan period. Groundwater quality is being monitored to observe improvements. 9 Although an in -waste active gas collection system was installed, landfill gas migration is occasionally observed during periods of low pressure. A series of migration controls were recently installed with a source of vacuum independent of the in -waste extraction system. Since installation, no migration has been observed; however, a prolonged low-pressure period has not occurred since installation. h Although an active gas collection and flare system was installed in the closed (northern half) section of the landfill, landfill gas migration is occasionally observed during periods of low pressure. Final closure in 1992 will entail the construction of gas collection facilities in the southern half of the site. Although a passive in -waste gas collection system was installed, gas migration is occasionally observed during periods of low pressure. A consultant has been retained to make recommendations regarding improving performance of the gas extraction system. All areas at Cedar Hills designed, constructed, and operated subsequent to September 1986 are in conformance with the design requirements of MFS. Areas operated prior to the adoption of this regulation were not constructed in conformance with the liner and leachate collection requirements of the 1985 update. Consistent with the requirements of this regulation, these areas have been closed. An apparent leachate mound was observed in the main refuse hill, one of the closed areas. Horizontal borings and leachate extraction wells were installed to reduce this mound. Their performance is monitored to establish whether other measures are necessary. k The Division applied for a variance from liner design standards in 1989. The Seattle/King County Department of Public Health advised that a variance was not required because, in their opinion, the slurry wall qualified as an equivalent design under WAC 173-304-460 (3) (c) (iii) in that it minimized the migration of solid waste constituents or leachate into groundwater and functioned at least as effectively as the standard and alternative designs allowed by the code. The Solid Waste Division proposes to close this facility in 1994. The Division has received a 3 -year variance from the effective date of the landfilling standards (November 1989). Specifically, these are WAC 173-304-460(3)(b), Leachate Systems, and WAC 173-304-460(3)(c), Liner Designs. Partial closure incorporating a geomembrane cover system and the construction of surface water and combustible gas control are expected to mitigate impacts during continued operation. These improvements were completed in 1989. `" The area currently being filled at the Vashon Landfill has been designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with the design requirements of the MFS. Areas operated prior to the adoption of this regulation were not constructed in conformance with the liner and leachate collection requirements of the 1985 update. Consistent with the requirements of this regulation, these areas were closed. " Cedar Hills Landfill is not open to the general public and is therefore not required to provide recycling opportunities for the general public. C.1. Disposal: Exacting Conditions Chapter IV Mixed Municpal Solid Waste Handling Systems Table IV20 Estimated Costs of Disposal System Improvements Leachate head reduction Active gas collection Water supply Retention/detention Eastside leachate system improvements Expanded aquifer monitoring Master facility plan Vashon Projects: Vashon closure Vashon new area development Vashon final cover Enumclaw Projects: Enumclaw closure Hobart Projects: Hobart closure Group NPDES Permit for Landfills 2,950,033 Prior 1992 Project Description Expenditures Budget Cedar Hills Projects: 550,509 8,654,838 3,016,806 Construction of Refuse Area 5 (see Table IV.21) completed Construction of Refuse Area 4 20,457,433 1,342,665 Closure of Refuse Area 2/3 456,696 7,883,204 Closure of SW Main Refuse Hill 241,429 8,795,771 Leachate pretreatment 174,686 6,050,314 Leachate head reduction Active gas collection Water supply Retention/detention Eastside leachate system improvements Expanded aquifer monitoring Master facility plan Vashon Projects: Vashon closure Vashon new area development Vashon final cover Enumclaw Projects: Enumclaw closure Hobart Projects: Hobart closure Group NPDES Permit for Landfills 2,950,033 648,207 20,497,383 1,150,261 802,925 1,505,096 549,491 550,509 8,654,838 3,016,806 1,004,500 1993 completed completed completed construction delayed monitoring completed completed completed completed 355,270 completed 250,000 completed 1994 1995 1996 4,521,857 344,968 completed 97,000 402,000 5,371,000 110,000 68,400 325,000 4,116,000 2,431,520 2,800,786 completed 8,654,838 3,016,806 370,000 1,188,430 226,000 completed King County has developed an LRF funded through disposal fees. Contributions are determined in the rate study process. Specific reserve accounts related to currently active disposal sites are: • Cedar Hills New Area Development Account • Cedar Hills Facility Relocation Account • Cedar Hills Closure Account • Cedar Hills Post -closure Maintenance Account • Cedar Hills Replacement Landfill Development Account • Vashon New Area Development Account • Vashon Closure Account. • Vashon Post -closure Maintenance Account • Hobart Closure Account • Hobart Post -closure Maintenance Account • Enumclaw Closure Account • Enumclaw Post -closure Maintenance Account Contributions to these accounts are adjusted in every rate period and are evaluated more often as appropriate. Each account is funded through a dedicated component of the disposal fee, which takes the form of a fixed dollar assessment per ton. A disposal fee component is calculated that will make the present value of projected expenditures equal the present value of projected revenue over the life of the landfill. Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems C.1. Disposal: Rvisting Conditions Of the landfill reserve accounts, only closure and post - closure accounts are required by state law. King County has elected to provide financial assurance for other activities, such as new area development and facility relocation, through the same mechanism. (The financial status of the various accounts is presented in detail in Volume II, Appendix K) King County solid waste disposal needs fall into several categories: facilities availability and capacity, compliance with King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10), capital improvement, and closure and post -closure activities and funding. Disposal facilities are needed to serve all areas of the County. Their capacity or that of their planned replacements must be adequate to meet this need over the next 20 years. While the Cedar Hills Landfill has sufficient capacity, additional disposal capacity should be planned for the future. Existing and planned disposal facilities must comply with the KCBOHC Title 10. There are also some specific facility needs independent of capacity or KCBOHC Title 10 compliance. Capital projects are necessary to upgrade existing facilities and maintain or expand service levels and disposal capacity. Closure and post -closure maintenance activities must be planned and adequate funding ensured. a. Disposal Capacity (1) Cedar Hills The draft Site Development Plan for Cedar Hills needs to be updated and finalized. The Cedar Hills Special Use Permit, issued by the King County Board of Commissioners in 1960, requires that a 1,000 -foot buffer strip surrounding the entire site be maintained in its natural state. This buffer limits the area of land currently available to be landfilled to approximately 300 acres. Excluding the solid waste already in place, the site has a remaining capacity of 45 million cubic yards under existing permit conditions. After the draft Site Development Plan and Draft EIS were published, the Solid Waste Division identified several factors that will require modifications to these two documents: C.2. Disposal: Needs and Opportunities • Comments received on the draft Site Development Plan and associated EIS. • Revised operating assumptions. • Revised tonnage forecasts. • Changing regulations governing solid waste disposal facility design. Comments received from the public on the draft Site Development Plan were very critical of two elements: (1) developing a stockpile in a buffer zone bordering on a residential neighborhood and (2) the concept of a second stage of development. Residents preferred filling to a higher initial height than a second stage of filling, and requested additional information regarding noise, traffic, and property values in the vicinity. Revised operating assumptions are also expected to result in modifications. The draft Site Development Plan assumed that refuse densities, solid waste settlement, and daily and interim cover used would be similar to those recorded in the past at other facilities. Since publication of the draft Site Development Plan, the Solid Waste Division's operating statistics indicate that in-place densities being achieved at Cedar Hills are higher than draft Site Development Plan assumptions, that settlement is lower, and that daily and interim cover use are higher. Revised tonnage forecasts are likely to impact the number and size of future disposal areas. Based on tonnage assumptions of the draft Site Development Plan, disposal areas were planned to have a two- to four-year capacity. This capacity reflects a balance between the need to keep disposal areas as small as practicable to minimize leachate production and the need to allow time for design and construction for subsequent disposal areas. Current tonnage forecasts are considerably lower than forecast, which—using the criteria above—is likely to result in modifications to include more, but smaller, disposal areas. Planned disposal areas need to be revised based on modifications to operating assumptions and public comment. Support facility needs and proposed locations need to be reevaluated and included in the draft Site Development Plan revisions, and modifications may need to be obtained for the land use permit. Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems Hobart landfill has 100,000 cubic yards of capacity remaining and is expected to close in 1994. It has been established that there is adequate service capacity in the area without replacing the Hobart facility. Cedar Hills, Renton, and Bow Lake landfills are in close proximity to the Hobart service area. (3) Enumclaw Landfill The Enumclaw Landfill has been replaced by the new Enumclaw Transfer Station. The landfill is no longer accepting waste and the closure process has begun. (4) Vashon Landfill The Vashon Landfill has over ten years of built capacity remaining and room to develop additional capacity. However, there are outstanding issues related to the use and cost of this capacity. An application for designation as a sole source aquifer has been filed for Vashon Island with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There are no provisions prohibiting landfills over sole source aquifers in federal regulations, but the King County Solid Waste Regulations have a location standard, which states that "no landfill shall be located over a sole source aquifer" (KCBOHC 10.32.020.B.2). It is unclear how this standard would apply to facilities that existed before a sole source designation was made. This issue must be clarified, and continued use of the Vashon Landfill should be evaluated. Leachate transport and treatment must also be considered. Leachate currently collected at the Vashon Landfill is stored in an aerated lagoon, then hauled via tanker truck and ferry and discharged to the Metro wastewater treatment system in West Seattle. This is sometimes a problem because leachate can only be hauled when ferries are operating. There is a need to either provide additional storage to anticipate ferry down times, or develop an alternative treatment facility on the island. In evaluating the impact of a sole source aquifer designation and leachate handling alternatives for the Vashon Landfill, King County should determine whether the landfill should be replaced with a transfer station. The projected life of the Cedar Hills Landfill is 27 years if the 65 percent recycling goal is met in the year 2000. Because Cedar Hills is expected to be the last MMSW landfill of its size to be operated in the County, there is a need to extend the life of the landfill beyond the 27 -year projection. Although studies indicate that land maybe available for future landfills (Section IV.l.a.6), environmental issues and community resistance make siting a new in -county landfill unlikely. Exporting a portion of the County's MMSW waste stream is a possible method of extending the life of the landfill. King County is continuing to examine a waste export strategy (Section IV.l.a.5) in order to complete an evaluation of the impacts of waste export before an RFP is issued. b. King County Solid Waste Regulations Compliance There are four areas of noncompliance and one area of potential noncompliance with the regulations that need to be addressed. These are described below. (1) Cedar Hills Groundwater Impacts to shallow groundwater from older unlined waste areas have been observed at Cedar Hills. This shallow groundwater is not a source or potential source of drinking water and the extent of the area of the impacted shallow groundwater formations and their impacts is limited to the Cedar Hills site. Remedial measures (improved existing leachate collection and closing of completed areas) have been completed. Others, including collection and treatment of shallow groundwater impacted by landfilling activities, are in progress and ongoing. Leachate extraction wells and horizontal borings were installed into the waste and are being monitored to determine the effectiveness of the remedial measures. Also, in response to impacts to shallow groundwater observed on the east side of the landfill near a gap in the leachate collection system, groundwater extraction wells were designed and are expected to become operational in the second quarter of 1993. There will be a continuing need to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of these systems. Chapter N Mixed MunkVW Solid Waste Handling Systems C.2. Disposal.• Needs and Opportunities 10 (2) Cedar Hills Landitll Gas Although an in -waste gas collection system was installed at Cedar Hills, landfill gas migration has been observed during periods of low barometric pressure. A series of migration control wells was installed with a source of vacuum independent of the in -waste gas extraction system. Since installation, no migration has occurred. However, a prolonged period of low pressure has not occurred since the control wells were installed. There is a continuing need to monitor and evaluate the in -waste and migration control gas extraction systems. (3) Enumclaw Landitll Gas An active gas collection and flare system was installed in the closed (northern half) section of the Enumclaw Landfill; however, gas migration has been occasionally observed during periods of low barometric pressure in the southern part of the site. Closure of the southern half of the landfill will be completed in 1993 and will entail constructing active gas collection facilities there. The effectiveness of the existing and planned extraction system will need to be monitored and evaluated to determine if additional measures are required. (4) Vashon Island Landfill Grmindwater Impacts to shallow groundwater from older waste areas have been observed at Vashon Landfill. Remedial measures in the form of closing completed areas are concluded. There is a continuing need to monitor and evaluate these measures. (S) Vashon Landfill Sole Source Aquifer Designation Since a sole source aquifer designation was applied for with respect to Vashon Island's water supply, there is a need to clarify the effect of such an action on the compliance status of the Vashon Landfill, particularly with respect to the locational constraint to sole source aquifers in the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10). C.2. Disposal: Needs and Opportunities 1V-41 c. Capital Construction Plan for Disposal Facilities There is a need to update the Capital Construction Plan described in Section IV.C.l.c. As identified in Table IV.21, there is a need to accelerate development of Refuse Area S at Cedar Hills because of short-term changes in forecasted tonnage due to closure of the Newcastle Landfill. There is a parallel need to reevaluate its planned size and capacity. Although a recent capacity assessment indicates that Vashon new area development and final cover projects can be delayed from the schedule in Section IV.C.1, these projects need to be reevaluated in relation to the possible sole source aquifer designation. A capital project to support modifications to the existing leachate handling and transport system also needs to be developed. This need will have to be addressed regardless of whether or not the Vashon Landfill is replaced by a transfer station. It is essential to address the impact of new and pending regulations on facility capital costs. Amendments to Subtitle D of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) have included new design criteria that will impact capital costs. The primary impact of this regulation on capital construction program costs are closure costs for Refuse Area 4 and future landfill units at Cedar Hills. This need will be addressed under Section IV.C.2.d, Financial Assurance. The Solid Waste Division also needs to continue to monitor and evaluate the impacts of proposed revisions to the MFS (WAC 173-304) on its Disposal System Capital Construction Plan. Developing regulations resulting from recent amendments to the federal Clean Air Act may also impact capital construction planning, specifically, the design of gas extraction and leachate treatment facilities. Until proposed regulations are developed, it is difficult to assess the impact these might have on capital construction planning. d. Financial Assurance As described under existing conditions, King County has established a landfill reserve fund with several individual accounts, each held in trust and funded by fixed fees per ton. Chapter N.• Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems Retention/Detention This project involved improvements to Cedar Hills stormwater collection and retention/detention systems in response to King County Surface Water Design Standards, Minimum Functional Standards, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Several surface water retention/detention systems have been completed and the remaining project balance is being held to support modifications that may be required by an NPDES Permit (see later discussion of group NPDES Permit for Landfills). Eastside Leachate System This is a project developed in response to observation of some impacts to shallow groundwater on the east side of the Cedar Hills Landfill near a gap in the leachate collection system. Design of a series of groundwater extraction wells has begun and construction is expected to be completed in 2nd quarter 1993. [continued on next page] Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems C.2. Disposal.- Needs and Opportunities • N - 42 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table IV.21 Disposal System Project Descriptions and Status • Cedar Hills Projects: • Construction of Refuse Area 5 This is not currently included in the six-year CIP. However, new tonnage forecasts indicate the need to begin design in the current six-year period. Funds are available to be reprogrammed from • unobligated project balances to support design of this project. Construction of Refuse Area 4 Construction of Cedar Hills Refuse Area 4 has been completed. Remaining activities associated . with this project are support to operations in the form of an erosion control plan, gas collection plan, stormwater collection plan, and lift sequencing plan. Warranties and guaranties are also being • tracked. Remaining activities were completed in 1992. Closure of Refuse Area 2/3 Design has been completed for the closure of Cedar Hills Refuse Area 2/3 and a contract has been • awarded. This project was completed in December 1992. Closure of SW Main Refuse Hill Design has been completed for the closure of the Cedar Hills Southwest Main Refuse Hill and a . construction contract has been awarded. This project is expected to be completed in December 1992. • Leachate Pretreatment This project is phased to construct additional leachate pretreatment steps at the Cedar Hills Landfill in response to Metro costs and pretreatment standards. Conceptual design alternatives have been . evaluated for this project. The total project cost will be reestimated after final design. Leachate Head Reduction This is a project that has been phased to evaluate the feasibility of extracting leachate from the Main Refuse Hill at Cedar Hills. Leachate extraction wells and horizontal borings have been constructed and are being monitored to determine their effectiveness. Residual project balance is being used to • support monitoring and additional facility recommendations if required. Active Gas Collection This was a project to construct an active gas collection system for the landfill and closed unlined • areas at Cedar Hills. It was phased over several years and closure projects were completed in 1990. Remaining work being performed under this project relates to improving the landfill gas . migration control system, which will be completed in 4th quarter 1994. Existing Water Supply The existing water supply at Cedar Hills was inadequate to meet current nonpotable needs and is • not in conformance with some Health Department potable water requirements. Specifically the water supply well was located closer to existing refuse than allowed by code. A potable water supply line • connecting Cedar Hills to Water District 90 has been constructed and connected. A nonpotable water supply reservoir to supply fire protection to Cedar Hills and the Alcoholism Treatment Center • has been designedand will be completed in August 1993. Retention/Detention This project involved improvements to Cedar Hills stormwater collection and retention/detention systems in response to King County Surface Water Design Standards, Minimum Functional Standards, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Several surface water retention/detention systems have been completed and the remaining project balance is being held to support modifications that may be required by an NPDES Permit (see later discussion of group NPDES Permit for Landfills). Eastside Leachate System This is a project developed in response to observation of some impacts to shallow groundwater on the east side of the Cedar Hills Landfill near a gap in the leachate collection system. Design of a series of groundwater extraction wells has begun and construction is expected to be completed in 2nd quarter 1993. [continued on next page] Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems C.2. Disposal.- Needs and Opportunities • ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... N-4 3 Project Descriptions and Status (Continued) Vashon Projects Expanded Aquifer Monitoring This project supports construction of additional monitoring wells at Cedar Hills. It is currently in the consultant selection phase and is projected to be completed in 1st quarter 1993. Cedar Hills Master Facility Plan This plan will provide a guide for locating, siting, and constructing administrative, operating, and maintenance facilities at Cedar Hills. Its purpose is to anticipate and plan for facilities in a logical and fiscally sound manner. The consultant contract has been signed. Draft alternatives are expected to be completed in the 2nd quarter of 1993. Vashon Landfill Closure The Vashon Landfill Closure project provided for construction of a low -permeability cap over the existing landfill in conformance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10). Leachate handling facilities, landfill gas control, surface water control, and a scale were also included. The remaining project balance is being used to support preliminary design of leachate transport and pretreatment alternatives. Leachate is currently being trucked off the island. Vashon New Area Development This project supports the design and construction of additional capacity at the Vashon Landfill. A recent capacity assessment indicates that this project can be delayed from the schedule shown. Vashon Final Cover This project supports closure design and construction of the existing disposal area at Vashon Landfill. As was the case with Vashon New Area Development, a recent capacity assessment indicates that this project can be delayed form the schedule shown. Enumclaw Projects Enumclaw Closure This is a two-phase project involving the closure design and construction of the Enumclaw Landfill. Phase I closure was completed in 1989; Phase II closure is scheduled to be completed in October 1993. Hobart Projects Hobart Closure This is another two-phase project. Phase I closure was completed in 1989 and Phase II closure is planned to occur in 1994. Group NPDES Permit NPDES Permit Application The Solid Waste Division has received baseline general permits for the Cedar Hills and Vashon landfills. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans are currently being developed and should be completed in the third quarter 1993. Additional projects may result from Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan development. There is a need to evaluate the adequacy of this fixed -fee contribution in light of system changes contemplated in this Plan. The current contribution to each account is based on adopted solid waste disposal fees for 1992 through 1994. The Capital Construction Plan presented in Section IV.C.1, differs somewhat from the assumptions used to develop rates and may require adjustments. Similarly, any proposed changes to the Capital Construction Plan in response to needs presented above may result in changes to the contributions to the individual accounts (See Appendix K). C.2. Disposal: Needs and Opportunities Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems IV-44 3. Alternatives This section describes activities to meet state and local planning and regulatory requirements (facilities compliance, a capital improvement plan (CIP), and financial assurance). It considers the disposal capacity needs of the existing King County solid waste management system and presents some discussion of two other capacity alternatives; a new regional landfill and waste export (out -of -county landfilling). a. Ongoing Requirements (1) King County Solid Waste Health Regulations Compliance Alternatives to complying with the King County Solid Waste Health Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10) are not being considered. The Plan does recommend specific actions to achieve and maintain compliance at all facilities. (2) Capital Construction Plan The Capital Construction Plan presented in Appendix K has been proposed in response to legal and capacity requirements. Alternative capital construction plans are not being considered in the 1992 Plan. (3) Financial Assurance Financial assurance requirements are established through WAC 173-30-467 and -468. Alternative financial assurance mechanisms are not being considered by the 1992 Plan. b. Disposal Capacity There are three major alternatives for future MMSW disposal in King County, which are summarized in Table IV.22. Although the current King County solid waste management system is expected to provide adequate capacity for the 20 year planning period, the policy issues raised in these alternatives also begin to consider longer-term disposal needs and the preservation of existing capacity at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. (1) Alternative A, Existing Facilities Under this Alternative, the Cedar Hills landfill is recognized as a limited resource. The Solid Waste Division would continue to implement initiatives that would extend the life of Cedar Hills so that it could serve the County's disposal needs beyond the 20 -year planning horizon. Hobart Landfill has little remaining capacity and is expected to close in 1994. The Enumclaw Landfill closed in April 1993 and has been replaced by a new transfer station. Under this scenario, all of the King County solid waste planning area except Vashon Island would be a part of the Cedar Hills service area. The Vashon Island Landfill is the only rural landfill that would continue operation. The option to export waste as a means of extending the life of the Cedar Hills landfill would be further evaluated. Specific activities would include: • Cedar Hills. The draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS would be modified and reissued prior to being finalized. Modifications are underway to respond to revised tonnage forecasts, operating experience, public comment, and potential partial out -of -county disposal. Support facility needs and their proposed locations would be reevaluated. The County's waste reduction and recycling program would be expanded to meet the established WR/R goal of 50 percent by 1995. The major development would be expansion of yard waste collection and processing services available in the County. These would include extending curbside collection to all urban residents, development of a yard waste collection depot system and phased implementation of a yard waste disposal ban. In total, expanded yard waste collection and processing service is estimated to divert an additional 47,000 tons of waste annually by 1995. A separate management system for CDL management that increases waste reduction and recycling and restricts landfilling of CDL at Cedar Hills would also be implemented. • Hobart Landfill. Existing load restrictions would stay in place until the landfill is closed. Periodic assessments would be made to determine if additional load restrictions are warranted. Table IV.22 Summary of 1992 Disposal Alternatives Alternative A Continue to dispose MMSW at Cedar Hills Alternative B Dispose MMSW at a new regional landfill Alternative C Dispose MMSW in an out -of -county landfill Cbapter IV Mixed Munki d Solid Waste Handling Systems Q. Disposal: Alternatives • Vashon Landfill. The impact of a sole source aquifer designation for Vashon Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill should be determined in any alternative scenario. Specific areas of clarification that should be sought are (1) continued use of existing built landfill capacity once a sole source designation is made, and (2) if use of the existing landfill built capacity were to be discontinued, the .period of time operation would continue to be allowed. If the sole source designation prohibits continued use of existing built capacity, the Vashon Landfill would be replaced with a drop - box or transfer station. Replacement of Vashon Landfill with either a transfer station or drop -box would be evaluated both in terms of the economic merits (independent of a sole source aquifer designation) and in terms of the potential impacts of such a designation. The Solid Waste Division would evaluate additional leachate storage, transport, and treatment alternatives for the Vashon Landfill, and select an alternative. • Waste EVort. Although Alternative C outlines a fully developed waste export alternative, Alternative A also includes some analysis of waste export. The economics of waste export alternatives should be compared with the continued operation of Cedar Hills. A back-up level of operation at Cedar Hills would be developed as part of the economic analysis of the three waste export options discussed in Alternative C (Section IV.3.b.1). • King County Solid Waste Regulations Code Compliance. King County Solid Waste Regulations compliance should continue to be monitored in any alternative. • Capital Construction Plan. The development of Refuse Area S at Cedar Hills would be accelerated from the schedule shown in Section IV.C.1. The schedule for Vashon new area development and final cover projects would be delayed from the schedule shown in existing conditions. The costs associated with the Capital Construction Plan would be adjusted to be consistent with the updated estimates presented in Volume II, Appendix I. • Financial Assurance. Contributions to individual accounts would be adjusted in the next rate period. C.3. DL posal: Alternatives (2) Alternative B, New MMSW Regional Land, f i'll The requirements for developing a new regional landfill in King County have been explored in the Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan (R.W. Beck, June 1989), In -County Regional Landfill Study, (R.W. Beck, February 1989), and the Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement of Solid Waste Management Alternatives (Parametrix, September 1988). Additional information was developed in a related study of land in King County suitable for development of a CDL facility (Technical memorandum from R.W. Beck to Mike Wilkins dated February 4, 1991, WW-1640-EA7-DA). Further consideration of a new regional landfill in King County is not authorized by policy established for the Plan (KCC 10.22.030[I]). (3) Alternative C, Waste Export Pursuant to King County Code (KCC 10.22.030[F]) which authorizes out -of -county landfilling of a portion of the waste stream as part of the County's solid waste system, a portion of the County's waste would be exported. Under this Alternative, the County would continue operating Cedar Hills Landfill at an adequate level to allow its use as a back-up system in case of emergencies or failure of the waste export alternative. The existing King County transport and transfer system is not currently designed to support out -of -county landfilling. Previously considered waste export disposal alternatives have involved some component of rail haul, but the existing transportation fleet (specifically the existing trailer fleet) is not compatible with this method. Existing transfer stations would require modifications involving installation of pre -load equipment to increase the payload of individual trailers. Major facility modifications would be required to allow installation of pre -load compaction equipment (the economics of long haul require that loads be compacted). King County would assess the level of operation needed at Cedar Hills to maintain it as an emergency backup to waste export and evaluate three possible facility configurations for implementing a waste export strategy. The options are: • Phased transition to out -of -county disposal as new transfer stations with compactors and existing transfer stations retrofitted with compactors become operational; Oapto- N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems -4 N 6 Development of a central transfer and pre -load facility where loads from existing transfer stations could be loaded into suitable containers for rail haul; and, • Transfer of waste to a private vendor for compaction and transport to a long-haul receiving station. When the facility configuration and level of operation studies are completed, King County would then assess the financial impact of the preferred waste export strategy on solid waste management activities and the effect the strategy would have on the rate structure. 4. Recommendations Alternative A, Existing King County Disposal System is recommended for implementation during the planning period. This alternative provides adequate disposal capacity for the entire King County solid waste planning area. It is coordinated with development of the King County transfer system and WR/R goals. It also provides for the continued evaluation of long- term capacity beyond the 20 -year planning period by continuing to analyze the feasibility of waste export during the planning period. Based on the results of the analyses conducted, an implementation decision for the waste export program (Alternative C) will be made during the next update to the Plan in 1995. A summary of disposal recommendations is listed in Table IV.23. Table IV.23 Summary of 1992 Disposal Recommendations Recommendation IV.19 KCBOHC Title 10 compliance Recommendation IV.20 Capital construction plan Recommendation IV.21 Financial assurance Recommendation IV.22 Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Recommendation IV.23 Hobart Landfill Recommendation IV.24 Enumclaw Landfill Recommendation IV.25 Vashon Landfill Recommendation IV.26 Waste export Chapter N Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems a, ongoing Requirements (1) King County Solid Waste Regulations Code Compliance King County Solid Waste Regulations compliance should continue to be monitored. (2) Capital Construction Plan The development of Refuse Area 5 at Cedar Hills should be accelerated from the schedule shown in Section IV.C.I. The schedule for Vashon new area development and final cover projects should be delayed from the schedule shown in existing conditions. The costs associated with the Capital Construction Plan should be adjusted to be consistent with the updated estimates presented in Appendix I. (3) Financial Assurance Contributions to individual accounts should be adjusted in the next rate period. b. Disposal Capacity (1) Cedar Hills The draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS should be modified and reissued prior to being finalized. Modifications are underway to respond to revised tonnage Continue monitoring compliance. (a) Accelerate development of the Refuse Area 5, Cedar Hills. (b) Delay Vashon new area development and final cover projects. (c) Adjust costs associated with Capital Construction Plan with updated estimates. Adjust contributions to individual accounts in next rate period. Modify draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS. Maintain existing load restriction and continue operation until capacity is reached. Close in 1994. Landfill closed. Closure process initiated. (a) Seek clarification on impact of a sole source aquifer designation for Vashon Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill. (b) Evaluate replacement options for the Vashon Landfill. (c) Evaluate leachate storage, transport, and treatment alternatives and select alternative. Evaluate economics of out -of -county alternatives with continued operation of Cedar Hills; include back-up level operation necessary for Cedar Hills. C.4. Disposal: Recommendations • • • forecasts, operating experience, public comment, and potential partial out -of -county disposal. Support facility needs and proposed locations are being reevaluated. (2) Hobart Landitll Existing load restrictions should stay in place until the landfill is closed. (3) Vasbon Landf ll The impact of a sole source aquifer designation for Vashon Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill should be determined. Specific areas of clarification that should be sought are (1) continued use of existing built landfill capacity once a sole source designation is made, and (2) if use of the existing landfill built capacity were to be discontinued, the period of time operation would continue to be allowed, pending transition to another disposal site. If the sole source designation prohibits continued use of existing built capacity, the Vashon Landfill should be replaced with a drop - box or transfer station. Table IV.24 Disposal System Implementation Schedule IV -47 Replacement of Vashon Landfill with either a transfer station or drop -box should be evaluated both in terms of the economic merits (independent of a sole source aquifer designation) and in terms of the potential impacts of such a designation. The Solid Waste Division should evaluate additional leachate storage, transport, and treatment alternatives for the Vashon Landfill, and select an alternative. (4) Waste Export The economics of two waste export alternatives should be compared with the continued operation of Cedar Hills. A back- up level of operation of Cedar Hills should be developed as part of the economic analysis of the three waste export options discussed in Alternative C (Section IV.3.b.1). 5. Implementation The implementation schedule is shown in Table IV.24. C.5. Disposal: Implementation Chapter IV: Alixerd Alunicipal Solid Waste Handling Systems Program Name KCBOHC Title 10 compliance - continue monitoring Capital construction plan - accelerate Cedar Hill Area 5 development -s -Refuse Capital construction plan - delay Vashon new area and final cover projects Capital construction plan - adjust costs MFinancial assurance - adjust constructions to individual accounts in next rate period Cedar Hills - modify draft site development plan and associated draft EIS ,Hobart Landfill - maintain existing load restrictions and operation until closed Enumclaw Landfill - closure process .a Vashon Landfill - seek clarification on sole source aquifer designation MM storage, transport, and treatment alternatives Evaluate the economics of waste export C.5. Disposal: Implementation Chapter IV: Alixerd Alunicipal Solid Waste Handling Systems :>::....> N - 48 D. INACTIVE LANDFILLS 1. Existing Conditions King County has custodial responsibility for seven inactive landfills: Cedar Falls, Duvall, Corliss, Bow Lake, Houghton, and Puyallup/Kitt Corner and Enumclaw (Figure IV.7). The Seattle - King County Department of Public Health (Health Department) inspects each of these facilities. The County's obligations toward these landfills depends on their closure dates. For landfills closed prior to adoption of the Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) for Solid Waste Handling in 1972, the County has no specific responsibilities as defined by solid waste rules and regulations. Requirements for landfills closed after 1972, defined by the date of closure, include groundwater, surface water, and gas monitoring, and maintenance of the facility and its structures. The Corliss, Bow Lake, Houghton, and Puyallup/Kitt Corner landfills, referred to as "abandoned landfills" in the past, were operated and closed prior to adoption of the 1972 MFS. They were studied in the Abandoned Landfill Study in. King County (Health Department, 1985) and Abandoned Landfills Toxicity/Hazard Assessment Project (Health Department, 1986). The city of Carnation is responsible for the closure of the Carnation Landfill, which the city operated until 1989 and still owns. The city operated the landfill from the early 1920s to November 1, 1989, when Ecology required its closure due to noncompliance with the minimum standards for landfill operation. The landfill discontinued operations on the November 1989 date and entered into an interlocal agreement with King County for shipment of MMSW to Cedar Hills. The city of Carnation plans to pay for the landfill closure through the use of fees and grants, and meet their financial assurance obligations through surcharges on garbage collection. King County has no responsibility for the Carnation Landfill and will have no recommendations regarding its closure a_ Cedar Falls Landfill The Cedar Falls Landfill, located near North Bend, was operational from the early 1950s through 1989, when it was closed in conformance with present MFS. Continuing Solid Waste Division activities performed on this site include quarterly groundwater monitoring, cover maintenance, security, maintenance of a passive gas collection and surface water control systems, and monthly inspections. Certain groundwater monitoring wells dried up following closure, and new wells are planned to replace the dry ones. b. Duvall Landfill The Duvall Landfill accepted waste from the early 1950s through 1981. In 1981 the closure process began and it was completed in 1984. The Duvall site conforms with the 1972 Minimum Functional Standards. It has leachate collection and storage tanks; the leachate is trucked to a Metro discharge point on Northeast 128th Street. Continuing Solid Waste Division activities performed on this site include maintenance of a leachate collection and storage system, and quarterly groundwater monitoring, surface water control systems, cover maintenance, security and monthly inspections. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in 1983. Some of them are dry and new ones are planned to replace them. c. Corliss Landfill The Corliss Landfill in the Shoreline area operated from the 1940s until it was closed by the construction of Interstate 5 in 1959. The First Northeast Transfer Station was built on the northern half of this site, and the Metro North Operating Base was constructed on the southern half. Refuse was removed during construction of the Metro North Operating Base. The Division continues to perform cover maintenance, security, surface water control systems maintenance, and inspections. d. Bow Lake Landfill This landfill, located in Tukwila, was operated from the early 1940s until it was closed by the construction of Interstate 5 in the late 1950s. The Bow Lake Transfer Station was subsequently built on a portion of the site. The Division also continues to perform cover maintenance, security, maintenance of surface water control systems, and inspections. Chapter IVMixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems D.I. Inactive Landfd1s: Existing Conditions ::.::.::.::.::.::.: 9 e. Houghton Landfill The Houghton Landfill is located near Bridle Trails State Park and was operated from the 1940s through 1965. The Houghton Transfer Station was built on part of this site in 1965. Another portion of the site has been used as a ball field by the Kirkland Little League. Continuing Division activities include cover maintenance, gas monitoring, security, surface water control systems maintenance, and inspections. f. Puyallup/Kitt Corner Landfill The Puyallup/Kitt Corner Landfill, located in south King County, was operated from the 1940s until shortly after the Algona Transfer Station opened in 1967. Continuing Division activities include cover maintenance, gas monitoring, security, surface water control systems maintenance, and inspections. g. Enumclaw Landfill The Enumclaw Landfill is the most recent County landfill to close. It closed in April of 1993 and was replaced with a new transfer station. The closure process is just beginning at the landfill. h. Financial Assurance For landfills closed prior to adoption of the King County Solid Waste Handling Regulations, King County has no financial assurance requirements. For those closed after 1972, these requirements were defined by the regulations in place at the time of closure. Generally the requirements are that sufficient funds be set aside and deposited in a post -closure financial assurance account to support the costs of ongoing monitoring and maintenance for a minimum of 20 years. The Cedar Falls Landfill has a post -closure maintenance reserve fund of over $3 million held in an interest-bearing account. The amount is based on estimated average yearly expenditures for post -closure maintenance of $161,000 (1992 dollars). A post -closure maintenance reserve fund of over $1.6 million in an interest-bearing account established for the Duvall Landfill is based on estimated average yearly expenditures for post -closure maintenance of $82,000 (1992 dollars). The Corliss, Houghton, Bow Lake, and Puyallup/Kitt Comer landfills D.2. Inactive Landfills: _Needs and Opportunities �0 were closed before post -closure maintenance funds were required. Continuing activities at these sites are funded through the Division's annual operating budget. In August 1991, a solid waste environmental reserve fund was created through King County Ordinance 10056. This fund supports remediation costs related to active and closed solid waste handling facilities the Division owns or has custodial responsibility for. It will be used to support environmental investigations and any required remediation at the Corliss, Houghton, Bow Lake, and Puyallup/Kitt Comer landfills. This fund was created through a one-time transfer of funds and is not rate supported. When it was created, the Division recommended waiting until initial investigations were completed to assess whether additional contributions were required to support remedial measures. Sufficient funds existed to support preliminary investigations and remedial alternatives development, and the potential magnitude of costs could not be adequately estimated until these activities were completed. Volume II, Appendix I contains detailed information regarding the Duvall and Cedar Falls post -closure maintenance accounts and the solid waste environmental reserve fund. 2. Needs and Opportunities a. Site Evaluation The needs and opportunities associated with the inactive landfills vary by site and generally depend on previous evaluations. The Cedar Falls Landfill has been thoroughly studied in the past, but additional information is needed regarding groundwater flow direction and quality. Since placement of final cover at this site, some groundwater monitoring wells have gone dry and need to be replaced. The Duvall Landfill has leachate collection and storage; however, due to its remote location, there have been difficulties in the past in transporting the leachate, particularly when snow or flooding close routes to the site or considerably slow traffic. Additional leachate storage capacity is needed at the site, or leachate generation needs to be reduced. Also, since final cover was placed at this site, some of the groundwater monitoring wells have gone dry and need to be replaced. Chapter IV Mzwd Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems :.:.::.:.:....:...................................:....::::::::::......:::::::: N The Houghton, Puyallup/Kitt Corner, Bow Lake, and Corliss landfills were studied for surface impacts but have not had hydrogeologic studies performed to assess whether they might be impacting groundwater and whether landfill gas is being generated and if it is migrating. These studies may indicate that further actions are warranted at these sites. b. Financial Assurance The Duvall and Cedar Falls landfills' post -closure reserve funds must periodically be evaluated to determine if they are adequate to fund continued post -closure maintenance (see Volume II, Appendix I). If additional funds are required, contributions through the next rate study should be considered. The environmental reserve fund contains sufficient funds to support initial investigations at the Houghton, Puyallup/Kitt Corner, Bow Lake, and Corliss landfills and day-to-day maintenance. However, upon completion of environmental studies, the need for additional contributions to this fund should be evaluated. 3. Alternatives Alternatives for site evaluation and financial assurance needs would be generated pending further study and evaluation. 4. Recommendations The County should conduct further study and evaluation to determine what actions may be necessary to manage inactive landfills (see Table IV.25). Table IV25 1992 Inactive Landfill Recommendation E. ENERGY/RESOURCE RECOVERY 0 1. Existing Conditions In August 1986, the King County Council indicated the County's intent to proceed with plans to develop Energy/Resource Recovery (E/RR) facilities. Although the County was moving to increase WR/R levels, E/RR was viewed as a technology which could reduce reliance on landfilling and mitigate its impacts. The Council approved the King County E/RR Management Plan in June 1987 and the Solid Waste Division began the siting process for an E/RR facility. Seven alternative sites were proposed. Public scoping meetings were held at all seven sites and extensive public comment was received. Two major concerns were: (1) that the County was proceeding with extensive siting studies for an E/RR facility before adequately evaluating other program alternatives (specifically W/RR); and that (2) E/RR, particularly a mass burn facility of the size proposed, posed an unacceptable risk to human health. The King County Council directed reevaluation of the E/RR program with passage of Ordinance 8383 in January 1988. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solid Waste Management Alternatives (PEIS) was conducted on policy choices for waste reduction, processing, and disposal. Although the final PEIS (September 1988) reached no conclusions on environmental impacts associated with incineration, the information was used to develop the Executive Report on Solid Waste Management Alternatives. The Executive Report, released in October 1988, recommended against solid waste incineration as a waste management strategy. Recommendation IV.27 Inactive Landfills Conduct further study and evaluation to determine what actions may be necessary to manage inactive landfills. Chapter N Mined Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems E. Energy/Resource RecovM) 0 King County Council review of the PEIS and the Executive Report led to the adoption of Ordinance 8771 in December 1988 (see Related Legislation at the end of this volume). It found the PSIS to be adequate and concurred with the Executive's recommendation against including solid waste incineration in the Plan. The 1989 Plan thus did not recommend incineration. There is no need to include E/RR in the solid waste strategy at this time since the County's waste reduction and recycling goals are being achieved. In 1991, the WR/R IV - 51 programs implemented by the County and suburban cities reached a 32 percent diversion rate. The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is expected to be an adequate landfill resource for the 20 -year planning period. In addition, waste export is scheduled to be evaluated for the 1992 Plan period. 2. Needs and Opportunities Since WR/R goals are being met and landfill resources remain adequate, there is no need to address E/RR facilities. E. Energy/Resource Recoveg Chapter N Mved Mumcpal Solid Waste handling Systems • � CHAPTER V • � SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS • WASTES � King County 0 Comprehensive • Solid Waste 0 Management Plan • • • • • I• • • • • • • .\1/, ,0 Sorting It Out Together • • V-1 r Chapter V • Special and Miscellaneous Wastes • Special wastes are those mixed municipal solid wastes identified as requiring clearances by King County Code (KCC) 10.12.020.D, the King County Solid Waste Regulations (Title 10 of the King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC), or the Waste Acceptance Policy (PUT 7-1-2[PR]). Contaminated soils, asbestos -containing material, treated biomedical wastes, and several other special wastes together comprising approximately three percent of the waste stream are disposed within the King County solid waste system. Certain construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste will be disposed within the King County system until September of 1993. Other miscellaneous wastes, including forest product residues and agricultural wastes, are disposed outside the system. See Chapter VI, Section C for a discussion of the waste clearance and screening program for special wastes. The 1989 Plan recommended a number of strategies to handle special and miscellaneous wastes. The status of these recommendations is summarized in Table V.I. A. CONTAMINATED SOIL 1. Existing Conditions Contaminated soil is soil containing fuel oil, gasoline, other volatile hydrocarbons, or other hazardous substances in concentrations below dangerous waste levels but greater than cleanup levels established by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) (PUT 7-1-2 [PR], 5.10). Contaminated soil results from removal of leaking underground storage tanks and releases of hazardous substances into soil. a. Regulations Disposal of contaminated soil is regulated by the Solid Waste Division and the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (the Health Department) through the waste clearance process. See Chapter VI, Section C for a discussion of the waste clearance program. Table V.1 Summary of 1989 Plan Recommendations for Special and Miscellaneous Wastes Procurement Recommendation Status Special wastes Implement fee to recover special wastes handling costs for all special wastes. Implemented handling fee Conduct CDL disposal site study including the potential use of Cedar Hills for CDL disposal. Completed Asbestos waste Institute a regulation requiring proof of proper handling and permits, and advance notification Implemented disposal regulation for disposal of asbestos -containing wastes at Cedar Hills. Infectious waste Monitor, enforce and evaluate the current infectious waste handling regulations Ongoing monitoring Evaluate a potential permit requirement to ensure that contractors submit and comply with a Completed Procurement Initiate a procurement process to select and contract with a vendor for land clearing and Completed demolition waste disposal services and, potentially, materials recovery or recycling services. CDL disposal site Conduct CDL disposal site study including the potential use of Cedar Hills for CDL disposal. Completed CDL WR/R Develop programs to increase waste reduction and recycling of CDL. Establish recycling Ongoing goals for CDL, conduct a recycling evaluation study, and implement programs to increase CDL recycling. CDL permitting Evaluate a potential permit requirement to ensure that contractors submit and comply with a Completed requirements disposal plan for CDL. A. Contaminated Soil Cimpter V Special and Miscellaneous Wastes V -Z b. Quantities In 1991, 16,772 tons of contaminated soils were accepted and deposited into lined cells at Cedar Hills Landfill, approximately 1.5 percent of the total tonnage received. In 1992, the volume of contaminated soils accepted at Cedar Hills declined to less than 1,000 tons. There is a degree of uncertainty regarding the projected volume of contaminated soils that will enter the waste stream during the planning period. This uncertainty is due to the phasing out of underground petroleum storage tank removal required by federal regulations (Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 CFR parts 280-281)' and uncertainty about the number and type of remediation activities conducted at contaminated sites in response to the Washington Model Toxics Control Act Regulations (WAC, Chapter 173-340). Contaminated soils excavated during tank removal currently comprise over 75 percent of the contaminated soils cleared for disposal at Cedar Hills. The Washington Model Toxics Control Act programs are still in the early implementation phases and data are limited, so the nature and quantity of contaminated soils from remediation cannot be predicted. However, it is expected that these new remediation projects will cause contaminated soil to continue to be a significant component of the waste -stream for the foreseeable future. c. Alternatives to Disposal There are a variety of treattnent processes that remove or destroy hazardous substances from contaminated soil. Treatment processes are preferable to landfill disposal and are frequently used as alternatives. On-site treatment technologies include aeration, in situ bioremediation, and use of mobile thermal desorption or incineration units. Off-site treatment technologies include thermal desorption and incineration. These technologies are frequently cost -competitive options for managing contaminated soils, depending on the volume and characteristics of the soil contaminants. In particular, treatment is most cost -competitive for large remediation projects and for petroleum -contaminated soil. Treatment and recycling processes are not restricted by King County flow control provisions. d. Potential Disposal Options King County's flow control ordinance currently prohibits out -of -county landfilling of contaminated soil. The only landfill within the County's system designed to accept contaminated soil (a special waste) is the Cedar Hills Landfill. A number of commercial solid and hazardous waste landfills located outside the County accept contaminated soils, including the Columbia Ridge and Roosevelt regional landfills. Some municipal landfills, including the Kitsap County Landfill, accept contaminated soil from other counties. 2. Needs and Opportunities Contaminated soil has impacts on the King County disposal system, especially at Cedar Hills. While relatively infrequent, some remediation projects generate large volumes of contaminated soil over short periods of time that may exceed or impact the daily capacity at Cedar Hills. These include both traffic impacts caused by large numbers of trucks entering and exiting the landfill and operational impacts. Operational impacts occur because contaminated soil must be managed in the same manner as MMSW at the Cedar Hills Landfill. All contaminated soil must be overlain with daily cover the same day it is received. No stockpiling of contaminated sods can occur on site. Since contaminated soil is heavier than MMSW, it takes more time and effort to spread the material across the working face of the landfill before it can be buried, which leads to the operational impacts caused by receiving large volumes of contaminated soil in a single day. In order to mitigate these impacts, large volumes of soil from remediation projects must be scheduled into the landfill in litnited daily quantities. ' By December 22, 1991, all underground storage tanks installed prior to 1974 were required to be upgraded or closed; deadlines for tanks installed between 1975 and 1988 continue through December 1993• Chapter V.- Special and Miscellaneous Wastes A. Contaminated Soil i i At 1.5 percent of Cedar Hills tonnage, contaminated soil contributes a significant quantity of waste to the total waste stream. Efforts to reduce the volume of contaminated soil disposed at Cedar Hills are needed to lessen these impacts. Potential means of meeting this need include promoting the use of soils processors for contaminated soils treatment and utilizing landfill space in out -of -county landfills. 3. Alternatives Two alternatives considered to manage contaminated soils are summarized below and in Table V.2. a. Alternative A, Status Quo This alternative would maintain the status quo. In - county disposal of contaminated soil would be required with clearance. Generators would be allowed to continue to choose treatment and recycling processes. b. Alternative B, Recycling and Treatment, Analyze Disposal options The priority method of managing all solid wastes in the State, including contaminated soils, is through reduction and recycling whenever feasible (RCW 70.95.010). Treatment and recycling services for contaminated soils are provided by the private sector. The County does not provide any direct services. Therefore, in order to increase the volume of contaminated soils reused and recycled, the County would promote the use of treatment and recycling services for different types of contaminated soils over landfilling whenever feasible. In order to implement an effective treatment and recycling program, the County would study the availability of treatment and recycling opportunities for specific types of contaminated soils and evaluate methods for promoting the reuse of contaminated soils through treatment. Among the promotional methods to be evaluated would be economic incentives designed to make treatment more cost -competitive with disposal. Table V.3 Summary of 1992 Contaminated Soil Recommendations V-3 Table V.2 Summary of 1992 Contaminated Soil Alternatives Alternative A Maintain status quo. Alternative B Promote recycling and treatment. Analyze disposal options and the costs and benefits of in -County vs. out -of -County disposal. Further analyses would also be conducted to determine whether flow control for the disposal of contaminated soil should be retained or removed by the County. The analyses to be conducted would focus on maintaining environmental standards, the impact of decreased disposal costs to generators, the impact on operations at Cedar Hills, and the impact to contaminated soils treatment and recycling facilities that would result from either retaining or removing flow control authority. The County would maintain control over the disposal of all contaminated soils through its waste clearance process regardless of whether flow control authority was retained or removed. If flow control is retained, contaminated soils destined for disposal would be directed to Cedar Hills. If flow control is removed, haulers of contaminated soils would be allowed to take their loads to any landfill that is in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to disposal facilities. Maintenance of the waste clearance process would help to ensure that appropriate disposal facilities are selected, and ensure that no contaminated soils that meet "dangerous waste" levels are disposed of at mixed municipal solid waste landfills. 4. Recommendations Alternative B, development of recycling and treatment opportunities, monitoring the feasibility of disposal bans and analyzing disposal options, is recommended (it is summarized in Table V.3). The analysis of disposal options will focus on the potential impact of decreased disposal costs on soils generators and processors, and on operational impacts at Cedar Recommendation V.1 Recycling and treatment Promote recycling/treatment. Analyze disposal options and the costs and benefits of in -County vs. out -of -County disposal. A. Contaminated Soil Charpter V Special and Miscellaneous Wastes Hills. The County would require waste clearance permits for all contaminated soils destined for disposal, regardless of whether flow control is retained or removed. B. ASBESTOS WASTE 1. Existing Conditions Asbestos waste is any waste that contains more than one percent asbestos by weight (40 CFR Part 61; Asbestos NESHAP and PSAPCA Regulation III Article 4; KCBOHC 10.08.040; PUT 7-1-2 [PR], 5.3). Airborne asbestos can present a considerable risk to human health and is therefore considered a hazardous air pollutant. a_ Regulations Asbestos handling is regulated by the following federal, state, and local laws from in situ removal through final landfill disposal: • The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). A November 1990 amendment established record-keeping and operational requirements for disposal facilities accepting asbestos waste. • The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority's (PSAPCA's) Asbestos Control Standard (Regulation I11, Article 4). This regulation requires permits for the removal, encapsulation, and disposal of friable asbestos (any material containing more than one percent asbestos which, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure). • King County Public Rules (PUT 7-1-2 [PR] and PUT 7-2-1 [PR]), the Waste Clearance and Waste Acceptance Policies and KCBOHC 10.28.060. These statutes regulate the disposal of asbestos -containing material. b. Disposal of Asbestos The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is the only disposal site in King County's solid waste management system that accepts asbestos. Chapter V• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes All asbestos -containing waste must be accompanied by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Shipment Record for Regulated Asbestos Waste Material and either a PSAPCA Notice of Intent or a Solid Waste Division Waste Clearance Decision Form. Each asbestos load is placed in a marked area separate from the main working face. A waste screening technician observes the waste as it is unloaded to ensure that the material is properly bagged and that the bags are not broken during placement. The asbestos area is covered at the end of each working day. The Division maintains records of the location, depth, area, and volume of asbestos -containing waste disposed at the landfill. c. Quantities There were 3,851 tons of asbestos -containing waste disposed at Cedar Hills in 1991. This amount is expected to drop to 1,000 to 2,000 tons during 1992 as a result of the withdrawal of Seattle from King County's solid waste management system. 2. Needs and Opportunities No needs have been identified beyond those discussed in Chapter VI, Section C regarding waste screening. C. BIOMEDICAL WASTE 1. Existing Conditions Biomedical wastes contain pathogens in sufficient concentrations that exposure to the waste may create a significant risk of disease in humans (PUT 7-1-2 [PR], 5.4.). Biomedical wastes include cultures; laboratory waste; needles and other sharps; and flowable human blood, tissues, and body parts. Most biomedical waste is generated by hospitals, laboratories, research facilities, and medical, dental, and veterinary clinics. Residential users of syringes, lancets, and other home health care materials also generate biomedical waste (home -generated sharps). B. Asbestos Waste i 0 • V-4 ................................................................................. ....................................................................... • Hills. The County would require waste clearance permits for all contaminated soils destined for disposal, regardless of whether flow control is retained or removed. B. ASBESTOS WASTE 1. Existing Conditions Asbestos waste is any waste that contains more than one percent asbestos by weight (40 CFR Part 61; Asbestos NESHAP and PSAPCA Regulation III Article 4; KCBOHC 10.08.040; PUT 7-1-2 [PR], 5.3). Airborne asbestos can present a considerable risk to human health and is therefore considered a hazardous air pollutant. a_ Regulations Asbestos handling is regulated by the following federal, state, and local laws from in situ removal through final landfill disposal: • The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). A November 1990 amendment established record-keeping and operational requirements for disposal facilities accepting asbestos waste. • The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority's (PSAPCA's) Asbestos Control Standard (Regulation I11, Article 4). This regulation requires permits for the removal, encapsulation, and disposal of friable asbestos (any material containing more than one percent asbestos which, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure). • King County Public Rules (PUT 7-1-2 [PR] and PUT 7-2-1 [PR]), the Waste Clearance and Waste Acceptance Policies and KCBOHC 10.28.060. These statutes regulate the disposal of asbestos -containing material. b. Disposal of Asbestos The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill is the only disposal site in King County's solid waste management system that accepts asbestos. Chapter V• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes All asbestos -containing waste must be accompanied by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Waste Shipment Record for Regulated Asbestos Waste Material and either a PSAPCA Notice of Intent or a Solid Waste Division Waste Clearance Decision Form. Each asbestos load is placed in a marked area separate from the main working face. A waste screening technician observes the waste as it is unloaded to ensure that the material is properly bagged and that the bags are not broken during placement. The asbestos area is covered at the end of each working day. The Division maintains records of the location, depth, area, and volume of asbestos -containing waste disposed at the landfill. c. Quantities There were 3,851 tons of asbestos -containing waste disposed at Cedar Hills in 1991. This amount is expected to drop to 1,000 to 2,000 tons during 1992 as a result of the withdrawal of Seattle from King County's solid waste management system. 2. Needs and Opportunities No needs have been identified beyond those discussed in Chapter VI, Section C regarding waste screening. C. BIOMEDICAL WASTE 1. Existing Conditions Biomedical wastes contain pathogens in sufficient concentrations that exposure to the waste may create a significant risk of disease in humans (PUT 7-1-2 [PR], 5.4.). Biomedical wastes include cultures; laboratory waste; needles and other sharps; and flowable human blood, tissues, and body parts. Most biomedical waste is generated by hospitals, laboratories, research facilities, and medical, dental, and veterinary clinics. Residential users of syringes, lancets, and other home health care materials also generate biomedical waste (home -generated sharps). B. Asbestos Waste i 0 • 0 A 0 a. Regulations There is currently no comprehensive scheme of biomedical waste regulation in Washington State. Statewide definitions of biomedical waste were established in the 1992 Legislature (SHB 2391) in an amendment to RCW 70.95. Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates worker exposure to biomedical waste in the Blood-borne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030). The OSHA standard has been adopted by the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Administration (WISHA). The OSHA/WISHA definitions of biomedical waste differ from the statewide definitions found in RCW 70.95 revisions. It is not yet clear how the differing regulations will change biomedical waste management practices. On a local level, biomedical waste is regulated by the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (KCBOHC, Title 10) and by King County's Waste Acceptance Policy (PUT 7-1-2 (PR)). These rules establish conditions under which some biomedical wastes may be accepted at Solid Waste Division facilities and specify which wastes are not acceptable for disposal in the County's waste management system. Definitions of biomedical waste contained in these rules are consistent with definitions established by the Washington State Legislature. King County solid waste facilities accept biomedical waste from medical facilities only when it has been treated according .to standards contained in King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC 10.28.070). Generally, biomedical waste must be treated by steam sterilization, incineration, or another approved method. Sharps waste, including needles, syringes, and lancets, must be contained in rigid, puncture -proof containers. Containerized sharps waste is segregated and disposed in an area of the landfill where it can be covered without being crushed and compacted by landfill equipment. Treated biomedical waste disposed in King County's solid waste management system is subject to waste clearance requirements and is transported directly to the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. Home -generated sharps are exempt from KCBOHC regulations if they are (1) returned to a medical facility, (2) returned to a pharmacy, or (3) placed into a needle clipper or a labeled PET pop bottle. A needle clipper is a metal box with a blade that clips a needle from a syringe and safely contains C. Biomedical Waste V-5 it. Sharps contained in needle clippers or PET bottles are allowed in the general solid waste stream. Medical facilities have the responsibility to determine which wastes are considered infectious and to comply with the requirements of the Health Department and the Solid Waste Division. Each facility must have an infection control committee or staff with this responsibility (KCBOHC 10.28.070 and 10.08.222). The federal Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 (40 CFR part 259) directed the EPA to conduct a two-year demonstration program for tracking medical wastes in several east coast and Great Lakes states. The tracking program was initiated in June 1989 and expired in June 1991. The Medical Waste Tracking Act does not apply to Washington State, but national regulations may be instituted if the program results are favorable. b. Quantities Seven hundred tons of treated biomedical waste and containerized sharps were disposed at Cedar Hills in 1991. Most of this waste came from Seattle prior to the city's withdrawal from the County's waste management system in June 1991. Quantities after June 1991 have averaged less than one ton per month. Most untreated biomedical waste from hospitals and clinics in King County is handled by private infectious waste haulers. It is generally brought to out -of -county facilities for treatment, either by incineration or microwave treatment. No data are available on the volume of biomedical waste handled by private haulers. No data are available on the quantity of home -generated sharps waste disposed with mixed municipal solid waste. 2. Needs and Opportunities a. Biomedical Waste from Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Facilities Most untreated biomedical waste from medical, dental, and veterinary facilities is being treated and disposed at private incinerators and treatment facilities outside King County. This Chapter V.• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes V- 6 may be in conflict with the flow control provisions of the King County Code (KCC 10.08.020). There is a need to clarify whether all biomedical waste, including residuals from treatment or incineration, must be disposed in King County. b. Home -generated Sharps While biomedical waste from medical, dental, and veterinary facilities is tightly controlled, home -generated sharps are much more difficult to control. Home -generated sharps pose approximately the same risks as sharps from medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Improper disposal of home - generated sharps can expose solid waste workers to blood-borne pathogens. Some efforts have been made by Ecology and the Health Department to inform the public about proper handling and disposal of home -generated sharps. Additional measures are needed to reduce improper disposal of home -generated sharps. Health Department regulations allow use of needle clippers and PET bottles for containment of home -generated sharps for disposal in the general solid waste stream. This has reportedly caused problems in the PET recycling industry, where home -generated sharps have been found at recycling facilities. The adequacy of current options for disposal of home -generated sharps needs to be further assessed. 3. Alternatives Four alternatives are discussed and considered: Alternatives A and B are related to biomedical waste from medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Alternatives C and D address home -generated sharps. Table VA summarizes biomedical waste alternatives. Table V.4 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Alternatives Alternative A Allow continued treatment and disposal of biomedical wastes outside King County. Alternative B Enforce flow control over all biomedical wastes. Alternative C Ban disposal of home -generated sharps in the MMSW disposal system. Alternative D Develop educational materials for home generators of sharps waste. a. Biomedical Waste from Medical, Dental, and Veterinary Facilities (1) Alternative A, Out -of -County Treatment and Disposal This alternative would continue to allow treatment and disposal of biomedical waste outside King County. Flow control provisions would be revised to clarify that treatment and incineration of biomedical waste are not addressed. Alternative A would allow the present system for treatment and disposal of biomedical waste to continue. Existing incineration and treatment facilities are adequate to handle current volumes of biomedical wastes. Alternative A also favors development of additional treatment capacity by not restricting the location of these facilities in King County. (2) Alternative B, Flow Control This alternative would enforce flow control over all biomedical waste. It would require either on-site treatment of biomedical waste or off-site treatment at a facility located in King County. All treatment residuals, including incinerator ash, would have to be disposed at Cedar Hills. Alternative B would require significant changes to the way biomedical wastes are handled in King County. There are currently no commercial biomedical waste treatment facilities in King County and most generators of biomedical waste do not have the capability to treat their biomedical waste. Either generators would have to procure their own treatment equipment, or a private facility (or facilities) within the County would need to be sited and built. The quantity of biomedical waste in King County is small, so flow control will have little impact on MMSW facility planning and revenue generation. Requiring biomedical waste and their treatment residues to remain within the county would impose significant costs for little benefit. Chapter V. Special and Miscellaneous Wastes C Biomedical Waste b. Home -generated Sharps (1) Alternative C, Disposal Ban This alternative would ban disposal of all home -generated sharps in the MMSW system. It would require generators of home -generated sharps to dispose of sharps only through a medical facility or pharmacy, or use a hauler to pickup sharps for disposal at Cedar Hills or a private treatment facility. Alternative C has some weaknesses. First, there is limited availability for sharps disposal apart from disposal in the general MMSW system, especially for persons in remote areas who have restricted mobility. Second, a disposal ban would be difficult to enforce and, as a result, would have limited effectiveness. (2) Alternative D, Edncation Educational materials would be developed and distributed for home generators of sharps waste. Disposal of needle clippers and PET bottles is not inherently risky. Additional educational materials should help to address problems in the PET recycling system. Options for disposal of home -generated sharps should continue to be evaluated. 41 4. Recommendations Alternative A is recommended for biomedical waste in • medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Alternative D is recommended for management of home -generated sharps. Biomedical waste recommendations are summarized in Table V.5. 0 r. L Table V.5 Summary of 1992 Biomedical Waste Recommendations V 7 - 5. Implementation To implement the biomedical wastes recommendations, the Division will: • Propose revisions to the flow control ordinance. • Develop and distribute educational materials for home generators of sharps waste. D. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING WASTE This section addresses the management of construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL)' wastes. Pursuant to 1989 Plan recommendations, the County actively promoted waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) of CDL wastes and selected two private sector vendors to handle the remaining mixed CDL and residual component of materials processing. 1. Existing Conditions CDL waste is generated by construction and demolition companies who clear land, and build, remodel, or demolish structures. Historically, it has been collected, transported, and disposed by private industry. Until January 1990, the primary facility in the County permitted to accept this waste was the Newcastle Demolition Waste Landfill. In January 1990, the Newcastle Landfill closed after it reached the maximum allowed capacity (fill dirt and final cover are still being accepted to accomplish suitable final grades and close the facility). The Mt. Olivet landfill, which accepted a small quantity of County CDL waste (approximately 10 percent), also closed after reaching maximum capacity in the spring of 1991. Termed LC/DW (land clearing and demolition waste) in the 1989 Plan. Recommendation V.2 Treatment and disposal Continue to allow treatment and disposal outside of King County. Recommendation V.3 Flow control exclusion Remove biomedical waste references from flow control provisions. Recommendation VA Home -generated sharps Develop and distribute additional education materials for home generators of education sharps waste. Recommendation V.5 Home -generated sharps Continue to evaluate the adequacy of current disposal options for home - disposal generated sharps. D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste Chapter V. Special and M#cellaneous Wastes In anticipation of these closings, the 1989 Plan recommended that the County increase waste reduction and recycling of CDL materials and contract with private vendors to provide handling services. The County responded to closings of the Newcastle and Mt. Olivet landfills by amending its waste acceptance policy by emergency public rule PUT 7-1 (PR) to provide some CDL waste handlers with a local waste disposal option at Cedar Hills. King County solid waste facilities now accept commercial quantities of non -inert demolition and construction waste (with certain restrictions), including land clearing debris and clean wood. Inert wastes are not accepted from commercial vehicles. When the CDL vendor contract is implemented, the public rules will be amended to exclude all CDL waste from King County solid waste facilities except materials transported by private vehicles with gross weights not exceeding 8,000 pounds and incidental amounts of CDL waste in mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) loads. In preparing the Environmental Impact Statement on CDL Waste Handling Vendor Selection, the County estimated that between 1.01 and 1.64 million un -compacted cubic yards of CDL waste will be generated annually in King County through the year 2000. Table v.6 Composition of CDL Waste Stream (in percent) a. Waste Characterization The CDL waste stream is composed of inert and non -inert materials. Data on the composition of this waste stream in King County are limited: few have been collected and private hauling of CDL materials to a variety of disposal sites, many of which are not part of the county system, complicates efforts to characterize or quantify the waste stream. Data for the King County Waste Characterization Study (King County, 1991) were derived from a Portland, Oregon, study (1986-1990). It was assumed that waste generated there is similar since the regions have comparable climates, histories, urban forms, demographics, and economies, and both have burn bans in the metropolitan area. CDL material is estimated to be 10.5 percent construction waste, 58.6 percent demolition waste, and 30.8 percent land clearing waste (Table V.6). The amount of CDL waste generated depends on such factors as the extent of economic growth and development, large public works projects (e.g., I-90 construction), and unplanned events like natural disasters. The amount that requires disposal is affected by the availability and cost of hauling options, recycling, and disposal options; local, state, Materials Construction a Demolition a Land Clearing a All CDL b Yard debris 4.1 0.4 75.4 23.9 Wood° 29.6 50.9 0.0 33.0 Paper 8.7 1.0 0.0 1.5 Plastic 3.4 4.4 0.0 2.9 Miscellaneous organics 11.7 3.7 11.9 7.1 Glass 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Aluminum 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 Ferrous metal 6.7 14.9 0.0 9.4 Nonferrous 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.3 Miscellaneous inorganics 32.2 24.0 7.8 19.9 Other 0.4 0.0 4.9 1.6 a Composition figures from Portland Metro CDL Waste Composition Data Sheets, 1987, 1989, 1990 b All CDL Waste is a weighted average of the three CDL waste streams, based on construction waste = 10.53 percent, demolition waste = 58.65 percent, and land clearing waste = 30.8 percent. These values were derived from King County CDL Waste Quantity Projections by Herrera Environmental Consultants, assuming midrange values and equal densities for all three substreams. ` Wood includes only those components from CDL activity, and differs from the definition of woodwaste addressed in Section V.F. Source: King County Waste Characterization Study, Volume ll, Appendix B. Chapter V.• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste • • • and federal regulations on CDL waste handling; and the availability of end-use markets. b. ®L Waste Reduction and Recycling Based on recommendations from the 1989 Plan, the County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) may require applicants to submit a waste disposal and recycling plan (WDRP) when applying for demolition permits (this requirement has not yet been codified). To date, the Solid Waste Division does not have sufficient data to analyze the full potential for increased recycling of CDL materials. In the absence of this information, the Division has established an interim goal of 50 percent WR/R by 1995, which is the state WR/R goal. A more definite goal will be established after more WR/R development and analysis is completed. Since the January 1990 closure of Newcastle Landfill, WR/R practices among CDL waste generators have increased. It appears that most of them recycle if it is convenient and economically feasible. An informal survey revealed that some contractors employ careful site planning, ordering, and use of materials, and replanting of vegetation to reduce waste. Many use excavated dirt as cover and recycle inorganics, such as brick or concrete, by using them as back -fill. Asphalt and concrete are taken to recycling facilities if they are reasonably close to the work site. Stumps and other large pieces of wood are sometimes ground on site. Wood scraps may be offered free to the public (one contractor sold logs at current timber prices). Plastics, aluminum, and ferrous metals are reused on site or recycled; others are hauled to nearby landfills. The survey revealed a general pattern of reusing or recycling materials—such as cardboard, clean wood, metal, concrete, and brick ince they have established end-use markets. Many contractors expressed concern, however, about the cost of separating CDL waste, lack of storage space, and availability of markets. They also were concerned about the location of recycling facilities, since the cost of hauling large volumes of CDL waste for long distances can be prohibitive. By simply disposing of wastes, generators can transport the materials to one location, but to recycle they must transport separated loads to various facilities, which increases costs and D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste V-9 traffic to and from the construction site. Since the higher costs are passed on to the consumer, the viability of instituting rigorous recycling programs in a recessed economy was questioned. Processors of CDL materials appear to have managed the increased volume of materials coming to their facilities since the Newcastle Landfill was closed. The County compiled a list of these facilities, surveying all known processors of CDL material (Volume II, Appendix G). c. Market Assessments To date, no market studies have been completed specifically for this waste stream in King County. Several agencies are conducting research that will provide data in the coming year. Studies of categories of more commonly recycled materials provide data that is relevant for some components of this waste stream. The market assessment detailed in Volume II, Appendix D of this Plan (summarized in Chapter III, Section A) addresses markets for several recyclable components of construction waste and for the organic fraction of land clearing waste. The report indicates that markets for yard waste and wood products (the largest components of construction and land clearing wastes) are expected to be stable; markets for cardboard are expected to remain stable through 1995; and markets for metals vary depending on the type of metal. Dirt, rock, sand, and sod recovered from land clearing and construction sites are typically reused as fill. Markets for other recyclable components of construction wastes—such as concrete, drywall (gypsum), and paints—have not yet been evaluated for King County. Summaries are not available on markets for demolition. wastes. Because a large percentage of this waste stream is commingled and contaminated, no conclusions may be drawn with any reasonable level of confidence until specific research is conducted. The King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials is developing projects to stimulate the increased procurement of compost products by government agencies, the commercial sector, and the general public. The Commission will provide support to other agencies' projects to stimulate markets as specific needs are identified. Chapter V.Special and Miscellaneous Wastes V-10 The Building Code Council is studying increased use of recycled building materials from construction and building demolition debris. This research, to be completed in late 1993, will provide the County with a statewide perspective of CDL materials markets. The Washington State Clean Washington Center (a division of the Department of Trade and Economic Development) publishes a Directory of Recycled Content Building and Construclion Products, which lists products made with recycled material. Several of these products are displayed at the annual Northwest Regional "Buy Recycled Conference," which is cosponsored by federal, state, and county agencies. d. CDL Transportation and Disposal Since the Mt. Olivet and Newcastle landfills have ceased accepting CDL waste, the portion that is not recycled has been distributed to various facilities. Approximately 24 percent is hauled in commercial packer trucks, and 76 percent is transported by private vehicles. Disposal has been distributed among sites such as the Hidden Valley Landfill in Pierce County, County Construction Recycling Facility in Whatcom County, Morrison Sand & Gravel in Kitsap County, private transfer stations (to be taken to out -of -county landfills in some instances), and county transfer facilities (some material is taken to Cedar Hills Landfill). e. Processing of Mixed CDL and Disposal of Waste Residuals In December 1989, the Solid Waste Division issued a request for proposals (RFP), which resulted in selection of Regional Disposal Company (formerly Rabanco Regional Landfill) and Waste Management of Washington to be CDL waste handling vendors, contingent on their completion of required site-specific environmental review. These vendors are to provide suitable facilities to receive mixed loads of CDL materials, provide for the removal of recyclable materials, and provide transportation, final disposal, and other related handling of non -recycled CDL. Recycling is encouraged by requiring that the contractors maintain a specified minimum processing capacity at one or more of the facilities that receive loads of mixed CDL materials from generators and haulers, and by reserving the County's right to prohibit or limit disposal of materials deemed recyclable. Contractor facilities used to dispose of CDL must meet or exceed the Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) for mixed municipal solid waste (WAC 173-304). The contract also includes provisions for the County to impose a surcharge on the contractor's fees. Regional Disposal Company and Waste Management of Washington, the two vendors selected to handle CDL waste, estimate they will each receive 250,000 to 300,000 tons per year, reflecting recent increases in waste reduction, source separation, and recycling. The County agreed to enact a flow control ordinance directing all non -recycled waste to the contractor's facilities only. The waste would include residual materials resulting from recycling and processing of CDL waste. This ordinance will be in place when the Regional Disposal Co. facilities are opened to users in September of 1993. The County has also agreed to hire flow control officers to enforce the provisions of the flow control ordinance by inspecting incoming loads of waste at transfer stations and the Cedar Hills landfill for CDL material and by monitoring other CDL handling practices. The County's Public Rules include a provision that when the flow control becomes effective, the current provisions for handling CDL waste in King County's transfer stations and regional landfill will be rescinded and waste will be directed to designated vendors' facilities. Flow control will be implemented by identifying and educating generators, and tracking their activity from the point of waste generation to the point of disposal or recycling. Regional Disposal Company proposes to utilize two transfer/recycling facilities (one existing and one proposed) to separate mixed CDL waste and refine materials for reuse. Non - recycled materials will be disposed at Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Goldendale, Washington (Klickitat County). Regional Disposal Company is scheduled to begin service in September 1993. Waste Management also proposes to use one new transfer/recycling facility and modify an existing facility for separation and processing (they have yet to complete site - Chapter V.• pecial and Miscellaneous Wastes D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste specific environmental review requirements). One or both of these contractors must provide capacity to commence handling a minimum of 50,000 tons per month of CDL waste no later than June 1, 1994. CDL handling service contracts require that vendors provide the County with records of payload weight, customer class, and types of CDL materials received in loads at transfer/recycling facilities. The records must indicate separated material(s), geographic origin, and disposition of materials. This information will guide future planning for CDL management. f. Regulatory Structure King County regulates and plans for the reduction, recycling, and disposal of CDL under RCW 70.95. WAC Chapter 173-304 provides standards for inert and demolition waste landfills; the King County Solid Waste Regulations, Title 10 of the King County Board of Health Code (KCBOHC), provides similar requirements; and the King County Solid Waste Code, Title 10 of the King County Code, provides standards for acceptance of CDL materials within the county system. In addition, RCW 81.77 provides for the supervision and regulation by the WUTC of solid waste collection companies that handle CDL materials. (1) King County Solid Waste Regulations Regulation of CDL waste disposal by the King County Solid Waste Regulations depends on the component waste types. Wood waste components can be disposed at wood waste disposal sites (see Section V.F.1). Inert components can be disposed in inert or demolition waste disposal sites. Facility requirements include standards related to slope, dust control, protection of combustible materials, record keeping, waste acceptance, and site access (WAC 173-304-461). King County Board of Health Code Title 10 specifically requires—depending on whether the CDL materials are being recycled or disposed—that bulky wastes be recycled or taken to a disposal site permitted to accept oversized waste. D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste '0 V-11 (2) King County Solid Waste Code KCC 10.12.065 states that disposal of demolition and land clearing debris at King County transfer stations and landfills is inappropriate. Generally this is because operational consequences may result if large quantities of these wastes are handled within the County system. Specific acceptance procedures in the King County Public Rules Solid Waste Acceptance Policies PUT 7-1-2 (PR) provide for limited disposal in the King County system only until private vendor services are available. 2. Needs and Opportunities The 1989 Plan identified the need to plan for new facilities for disposal of CDL materials. This has been accomplished, and the Division is proceeding to identify the needs for more effective planning and recycling programs. They are: • To effectively plan for recycling and disposal of CDL materials, current local data on CDL waste stream composition and fluctuations due to seasonal and economic conditions need to be obtained and analyzed. • To provide assistance in recycling materials to generators, information is needed on operations of local recyclers and processors and the status of CDL markets. • CDL waste generators need to be provided with information on how, what, and where to recycle. • CDL materials markets need to be assessed in order to evaluate the potential to provide assistance in this area. • To encourage recycling and waste reduction, generators of CDL waste need to estimate quantities and plan their handling methods in the early phases of projects There are opportunities to reuse and recycle several components of the CDL waste stream. Land clearing wastes usually contain organic and mineral components, such as soil, rocks, stumps, and brush. Compost from organic waste can be used as soil amendment, and woody materials can be chipped or shredded for mulch, for ground cover to control erosion on slopes, or for a base for pathways and jogging trails. Finally, rocks unearthed during the land clearing process can be crushed and reused as gravel. Chapter V.- Special and Miscellaneous Wastes 'd-12 The waste generated during a construction project is diverse and has many uses. Concrete can be crushed and reused as gravel for road -base or aggregate for asphalt. Recovered wood can be processed and reused as particle -board or compost. Materials containing asphalt can be processed and used in road -base or as paving material for driveways.and parking lots. Ferrous and nonferrous metals can be sold to scrap metal dealers for processing and recycling. Recycling and reducing demolition waste is difficult because a large portion of the waste is contaminated or commingled with other wastes. The most fundamental strategy is to remove all reusable and recyclable components (e.g., HVAC ducts, ornamental fixtures, weather stripping) from a building before demolition. Components such as metals, bricks, wood, and concrete can be manually separated at the site. Materials that are commingled must be taken to processing facilities for waste separation, recycling, and disposal of residuals. Processing methods include flotation ponds to separate out the wood, and vibrating feeders, screens, magnets, and crushers to separate and process the materials that remain. 3. Alternatives The following discussion provides detail on three CDL alternatives considered in this Plan: maintaining the status quo, augmenting current services, and offering new services to enhance opportunities for recycling. These alternatives are summarized in Table V.7. a. Alternative A, Status Quo Current activities, with CDL waste directed to contracted vendors, would result in viable options for handling CDL wastes. However, the status quo alternative would not address the WR/R needs identified. Table V.7 Summary of 1992 CDL Alternatives Alternative A Maintain status quo. Alternative B Increase WR/R. Alternative C Regulate CDL disposal and recycling. b. Alternative B, Increase WR/R (1) Source Separation Most recyclers currently do not accept CDL waste that is commingled. Source separating waste on site would greatly expand recycling options for waste generators and haulers and increase the supply of high-quality recyclable materials available to processors. A policy that aggressively encourages source separation could be the linchpin of any CDL waste reduction and recycling program. On-site source separation could also be required by law. King County could examine this option in light of progress made with voluntary compliance through various incentive programs. Clearly, source separating CDL waste will be more labor intensive, and thus could be more costly for the generators to implement than disposal, unless the tipping fee for CDL disposal is considerably higher than the cost to recycle. Transportation costs would diminish by increasing the number of dispersed locations for delivering materials. The County could assist existing recyclers in evaluating other options for increasing collection locations. (2) Education and Technical Assistance This alternative would augment education and technical assistance to CDL waste generators to promote further waste reduction and recycling. It consists of the following activities: • On-site assistance. This assistance could include on-site waste "audits" (technical assistance) similar to those the County conducts for commercial mixed solid waste generators. Demonstration projects would be conducted for demolition and construction activity. • Resource guides and Inochures. The "Resource Guide" (Volume II, Appendix G), which lists existing recyclers (materials accepted, address and telephone number), would be more widely distributed. New material could be developed to target various audiences, including lists of products manufactured from recycled materials with suppliers' addresses and telephone numbers; tips on general WR/R techniques and methods of preparing materials for market; current market conditions; and a summary of the Solid Waste Division goals, with background information and strategies. Chapter V.- Special and Miscellaneous Wastes D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste ...............:. ..............:: _.._. :»..::..:.: :. .::: :_ :.:.::::::...:.::::::::..::::::..... :.:...13 V «» • Workshops. Informal workshops could be organized and conducted in conjunction with regularly scheduled meetings of associations, such as the Master Builders Association and the American Institute of Architects. • Waste exchange. The system now in place allows some CDL generators to advertise to find parties interested in reusing specific waste materials. The Industrial Materials Exchange (IMEX) group, sponsored by the Health Department with support from the Solid Waste Division and other agencies, serves this function locally. Organized in 1989, IMEX is an information clearinghouse for industrial waste exchange opportunities throughout the I-5 corridor. In 1991 IMEX listed 150,000 tons of solid waste materials for reuse. The Division could continue to work with this group to introduce additional components of demolition and construction waste into the listings. (3) Market Development Public and private sector interests can work together to ensure viable markets for recycled CDL products: for example, through preferential purchasing programs, increased tipping fees for disposal of recyclable wastes, and business incentives to recyclers to encourage them to locate in King County or expand their existing operations. King County could expand the procurement policy to cover certain CDL materials: recycled asphalt, untreated wood, and compost made from land clearing debris are three examples. To ensure the viability of the procurement policy, however, performance standards need to be clearly defined. Economic incentives to encourage private sector investment in CDL market development would be considered in any comprehensive strategy to reduce and recycle the CDL waste stream. Reduced -rate loans, interest subsidies, and tax incentives have been suggested as ways to stimulate the CDL market economy. The labor costs associated with on-site source separation and hauling to recyclers could make CDL WR/R more cosily to implement in the short term. County staff could actively pursue the cooperation of non - contracted recyclers to keep records of the quantities and disposition of materials. County staff could track materials' market activity to assess the potential for increasing recycled quantities, establishing realistic goals, forecasting problems in marketing specific materials, and stimulating the production and sale of recycled products. The County could play a role by participating in the development of research conducted by state agencies and facilitating information gathering. c. Altemative C, Regulation (1) Permitting The County could complement an education strategy by incorporating WR/R concerns in the permitting process and encouraging cities to do the same. DDES and city permitting agencies could also require a waste disposal and recycling plan (WDRP) as a component of commercial building or residential building, grading, or subdivision permit applications. The WDRP will support the education program and underscore the importance of effective WR/R strategies by anticipating waste handling needs before construction begins. Permitting agencies could also control the amount of native vegetation removed from a site through a clearing ordinance. (2) Disposal Ban In order to promote recycling, the County has retained a provision in its CDL Waste Handling Services Contract that reserves the right for the County to prohibit, by Ordinance or Public Rules, the disposal of Recyclable CDL materials. Key considerations in implementing a disposal ban are whether the private sector offers conveniently located recycling alternatives with adequate capacity, whether the alternatives meet environmental standards and whether the costs of the alternatives are reasonable. The Contract allows the vendor to determine, in consultation with the County, the economic feasibility of separating and marketing material from mixed loads of CDL. (3) Waste Screening In evaluating the alternative of imposing a disposal ban, the effectiveness of waste screening programs would be a key factor. Waste screening practices would ensure that county D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste Chapter V Special and Miscellaneous Wastes V-14 facilities accept only very small quantities of non -recyclable CDL waste. (4) Record Keeping The County could track the amount and types of CDL wastes being disposed, and use this information to verify current data, more effectively manage the waste stream, and determine the potential for increased recycling. 4. Recommendations Alternatives B and C are recommended to promote waste reduction and increase recycling of CDL waste. The specific elements of the alternatives are listed in Table V.8 and summarized below: • Alternative B. The County should develop a comprehensive program to promote waste reduction and recycling of CDL materials. This program should include enhancement and expansion of existing services for technical assistance. It should also include monitoring of disposal and recycling activity and analysis of the system to determine future needs. Staff should collaborate with state and county agencies to develop markets for recycled CDL material. • Alternative C. Cities and the County should require a waste disposal and recycling plan in all grading, building, and demolition permits. The feasibility of implementing bans on the disposal of specific CDL materials should be researched. 5. Implementation To implement the CDL waste recommendations, the Solid Waste Division should: • Develop and implement a comprehensive plan to promote waste reduction and recycling of the CDL waste stream. • Work with land use permitting agencies to include a waste disposal and recycling plan requirement in all grading, building, and demolition permits; and evaluate the feasibility of implementing a ban on the disposal of specific CDL materials. E. AGRICULTURAL WASTE 1. Existing Conditions Agricultural wastes are byproducts of farming and ranching—crop processing waste, manure, and carcasses of dead animals over 15 pounds (KCBOHC 10.08.020). The King Table V.8 Summary of 1992 CDL Recommendations Recommendation V.6 Source separation Encourage a policy of source separation for CDL. Promote an increase in the number of dispersed locations receiving CDL recyclables. Recommendation V.7 Onsite assistance Conduct onsite waste audits. Recommendation V.8 Resource guides and Develop broad distribution network for the "Resource Guide." Develop new brochures brochures to target various audiences, e.g., CDL generators and recyclers. Recommendation V.9 Workshops Conduct workshops in conjunction with building trades organizations Recommendation V.10 Waste exchange Expand the work of the IMEX group to add components of demolition and construction waste into its listing. Expand the County's procurement policy to cover CDL materials most easily recycled, such as asphalt, untreated wood, and compost made from land clearing debris. Develop incentives to encourage recyclers to locate in King County or expand their existing operations. Develop monitoring program for non -contracted recyclers. Recommendation V.11 Permitting Develop, in conjunction with DDES and city permit agencies, a waste reduction and recycling plan requirement for commercial and residential building, grading, or subdivision permits. Recommendation V.12 Disposal ban Study imposition of a disposal ban on specific CDL materials. Recommendation V.13 Waste screening Evaluate instituting a waste screening program. Recommendation V.14 Record keeping Monitor the disposal of CDL waste. Chapter V.• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes E. Agricultural Waste County Cooperative Extension Service (Extension) reports that crop processing waste is not a major concern in King County and no estimates are available on quantity (most of it is returned to the soil at the end of the growing season). Current practices do not result in waste requiring disposal or pollution problems. Farm animals in King County produce from 1,371 to 1,725 tons of manure per day (Volume II, Appendix J, Table J.1), which is generally stored and eventually applied to farmlands. The major concern for manure processing and application is contamination of surface water, which is the responsibility of the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), King County Surface Water Management, and the Environmental Health Division of the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. Ecology investigates existing manure practices and enforces proper manure application. Long-term storage to stabilize manure as fertilizer is lacking on many county dairy farms (Appendix J). Management of animal carcasses is a well-developed industry, composed of rendering plants that derive useful products from animal remains. Carcasses may also be disposed in landfills or buried on the owner's property without creating a health hazard. The numbers of animal carcasses disposed in the County have not been estimated. Seattle Rendering Works processes approximately 5,000 tons per month (Appendix J). Depending on the demand for rendered products, facility operat- ors may pay for animal remains or haul away the carcass for free or for a fee. 2. Needs and Opportunities Agricultural waste is not a solid waste management problem in King County. No action is recommended at this time. F. WOOD WASTE 1. Existing Conditions Wood waste consists of wood pieces or particles generated as byproducts or waste from the manufacturing of wood products or handling and storage of raw materials, such as P. Woodwaste V-1 5 trees and stumps. These wastes include --but are not limited to—sawdust, chips, shaving, bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log -sort - yard waste. This waste category does not include wood included under yard waste or CDL definitions. They do not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives, such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper - chrome arsenate. (KCBOHC 10.08.520). Other materials not included in the wood waste definition are wood from the residential and commercial sectors included in the mixed municipal solid waste stream disposal system and CDL debris. These are disposed at separate landfills (see Chapter V, Section D) or are recycled or composted. These include dimension lumber, stumps, large branches, and other wood. (See also Volume II, Appendices B and D.) There are seven lumber or wood producers (all mills) located in King County (exclusive of Seattle) that are potential wood waste generators. No estimate of wood waste generation in King County has been prepared. Generators report no unused byproducts; they are sold, used, or given away (Appendix J). Options for disposing or reusing such wastes depend, in part, on their final form. Wood wastes generated by milling, processing, and handling of raw wood can vary greatly—bark, shavings, wood trim, slabs, rejected products, and sawdust are all produced (Table V.9). Table V.9 Woodwaste Uses Byproduct Use Bark Fuel supplements, landscaping products, composting Wood trim Fuel supplements Slabs Fuel supplements Chipped wood Landscaping, can be manufactured into paper, fiberboard, etc.; used in artificial logs, composting products Sawdust Used in artificial logs, composting products Mill blocks Packaged and sold for home fuel for stoves or fireplaces Hogfuel Boiler fuel Source: Volume II, Appendix J Chapter V.• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes Wood components can be disposed at wood disposal sites, which must comply with surface- and well -water locational standards, record keeping, acceptance restrictions, lift height restrictions, site access, and closure. If the facility has accepted in excess of ten thousand cubic yards at closure, they must have groundwater monitoring and leachate collection and treatment systems. The KCBOHC Title 10 provisions regulating wood waste landfills are the same as the state requirements, except that there is an added requirement for landfill gas monitoring for closed facilities with final capacity in excess of ten thousand cubic yards. 2. Needs and Opportunities Wood waste recycling and disposal is handled by the private sector. It is an insignificant mixed municipal solid waste component and, unless conditions change, is not expected to become a major solid waste disposal problem in the near future. No action is recommended. G. OTHER SPECIAL WASTES Other special wastes include sewage sludge and septage, waste tires and dredge spoils. Of these materials, only waste tires regularly enter the County's solid waste stream. Sludges and septage and dredge spoils are typically managed outside of the County's solid waste system. 1. Sludges and Septage Sludges and septage are by products of waste -water treatment. Generally, these materials do not enter the County mixed municipal solid waste stream. Sludge and septage management is the responsibility of waste -water treatment agencies. The Health Department estimates that 90 to 9.5 percent of all the sludge generated in the County are managed by Metro. The remaining 5 to 10 percent originates in Black Diamond, Duvall, Midway, Enumclaw, Lakota, Miller Creek, North Bend, Redondo, Salmon Creek, Snoqualmie and Vashon. These communities are served by local sewer districts that also manage sludges and septage. Sludges and septage are not expected to begin entering the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. The management techniques employed by waste water treatment agencies appear adequate. 2. Waste Tires Waste tires are accepted at County disposal facilities on a limited basis. Individuals are permitted to dispose of up to 4 tires at a time. Licensed haulers may dispose of up to 9 tires at a time. Commercial loads of waste tires are prohibited. In total, waste tires and other disposed rubber products make up less than 2 percent of the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. The majority of waste tires generated in the County are processed by tire recyclers. The County promotes fire recycling by maintaining an up-to-date list of tire recyclers and providing the information over the County's recycling -hotline. Waste tires are also accepted for recycling at collection events sponsored by the County and suburban cities. Waste tires are not expected to become a significant portion of the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. No changes are recommended to the existing management conditions. 3. Dredge Spoils Dredge spoils consist of soils and other organic materials generated by dredging operations. Dredge spoils are typically used as upland fill and generally do not enter the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. No dredge spoils were received at County landfills in 1992. However, the County is prepared to properly manage dredge spoils in the event some material is disposed. Dredge spoils are subject to the same waste clearance rules as contaminated soils. Independent testing and SWD and Health District approval are required before dredge spoils will be accepted for landfilling at County facilities. Additionally, dredge spoils must be dewatered before they are accepted for disposal. Dredge spoils are not expected to enter in the mixed municipal solid waste stream any significant quantity. No changes are recommended to the existing management system. Chapter V.• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes G. Other Special Wastes i V -1 6....................................................................................................... _ . r Wood components can be disposed at wood disposal sites, which must comply with surface- and well -water locational standards, record keeping, acceptance restrictions, lift height restrictions, site access, and closure. If the facility has accepted in excess of ten thousand cubic yards at closure, they must have groundwater monitoring and leachate collection and treatment systems. The KCBOHC Title 10 provisions regulating wood waste landfills are the same as the state requirements, except that there is an added requirement for landfill gas monitoring for closed facilities with final capacity in excess of ten thousand cubic yards. 2. Needs and Opportunities Wood waste recycling and disposal is handled by the private sector. It is an insignificant mixed municipal solid waste component and, unless conditions change, is not expected to become a major solid waste disposal problem in the near future. No action is recommended. G. OTHER SPECIAL WASTES Other special wastes include sewage sludge and septage, waste tires and dredge spoils. Of these materials, only waste tires regularly enter the County's solid waste stream. Sludges and septage and dredge spoils are typically managed outside of the County's solid waste system. 1. Sludges and Septage Sludges and septage are by products of waste -water treatment. Generally, these materials do not enter the County mixed municipal solid waste stream. Sludge and septage management is the responsibility of waste -water treatment agencies. The Health Department estimates that 90 to 9.5 percent of all the sludge generated in the County are managed by Metro. The remaining 5 to 10 percent originates in Black Diamond, Duvall, Midway, Enumclaw, Lakota, Miller Creek, North Bend, Redondo, Salmon Creek, Snoqualmie and Vashon. These communities are served by local sewer districts that also manage sludges and septage. Sludges and septage are not expected to begin entering the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. The management techniques employed by waste water treatment agencies appear adequate. 2. Waste Tires Waste tires are accepted at County disposal facilities on a limited basis. Individuals are permitted to dispose of up to 4 tires at a time. Licensed haulers may dispose of up to 9 tires at a time. Commercial loads of waste tires are prohibited. In total, waste tires and other disposed rubber products make up less than 2 percent of the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. The majority of waste tires generated in the County are processed by tire recyclers. The County promotes fire recycling by maintaining an up-to-date list of tire recyclers and providing the information over the County's recycling -hotline. Waste tires are also accepted for recycling at collection events sponsored by the County and suburban cities. Waste tires are not expected to become a significant portion of the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. No changes are recommended to the existing management conditions. 3. Dredge Spoils Dredge spoils consist of soils and other organic materials generated by dredging operations. Dredge spoils are typically used as upland fill and generally do not enter the County's mixed municipal solid waste stream. No dredge spoils were received at County landfills in 1992. However, the County is prepared to properly manage dredge spoils in the event some material is disposed. Dredge spoils are subject to the same waste clearance rules as contaminated soils. Independent testing and SWD and Health District approval are required before dredge spoils will be accepted for landfilling at County facilities. Additionally, dredge spoils must be dewatered before they are accepted for disposal. Dredge spoils are not expected to enter in the mixed municipal solid waste stream any significant quantity. No changes are recommended to the existing management system. Chapter V.• Special and Miscellaneous Wastes G. Other Special Wastes (S) CHAP'T'ER VI ENFORCEMENT King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It out Together Chapter VI Enforcement This chapter discusses four types of enforcement activities carried out primarily by the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (Health Department) and the King County Solid Waste Division. They are: • Health Department enforcement of solid waste facility handling permit requirements. • Enforcement of laws governing the right to and responsibility for disposal of wastes generated within ting County (flow control). • Enforcement of the King County public rules governing the acceptance of special wastes. • Enforcement of illegal dumping and littering laws. A. SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 1. Existing Conditions a. Regulations The Health Department is the primary regulatory and enforcement agency for solid waste handling facilities and vehicles in King County (RCW 70.95). Solid Waste Regulations are codified in Title 10 of the King County Board of Health Code (KCBOHC). The following solid waste handling facilities in King County are regulated by the Health Department (see Chapter IV, Figure IV.2 for locations). 1. County facilities --Cedar Hills, Hobart, Enumclaw and Vashon landfills; First Northeast, Houghton, Factoria, Enumclaw, Renton, Algona, and Bow Lake transfer stations; and Skykomish and Cedar Falls drop -boxes. 2. Private facilities (see Table VI.1). 3. City facilities—Carnation landfill VI - 1 Health Department enforcement activities are currently funded by fees based on disposed tonnage and small grants from the Department of Ecology (Ecology). b. Implementation The Health Department is responsible for issuing permits to both public and private facilities. The permitting process for new and existing vehicles, transfer stations, landfills and other disposal sites, and some commercial recycling facilities, gives the Health Department the mechanism to enforce the Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) contained in WAC 173-304 and the King County Solid Waste Regulations (King County Board of Health Code, KCBOHC Title 10). The Health Department reviews proposed operational changes, closure and post -closure Table V1.1 Private Solid Waste Handling Facilities in King County Transfer/Recycling Stations Compost Sites Rabanco Recycling Iddings (3rd & Lander) Cedar Grove Waste Management of Seattle Valley Topsoils Recycling Center Gro -Co (Biosolids) (formerly Eastmont) Steer -Co (cow manure) Black River waste reduction Lloyd Enterprises center (Rabanco) Intermodal Facilities Seattle International Gateway (backup for 3rd & Lander) Port of Seattle Terminal 18 Seattle Intermodal Facility Recycling Operations Recycle America (WMI) Special Purpose Facilities Reserve Silica (fly ash) John Henry Coal Mine (fly ash) Solid Waste Treatment Sites Redmoor Rainier Wood Recyclers (For additional listings including addresses, see Volume II, Appendix F) A.1. Solid Waste Handling Facilities Permit Requirements: Existing Conditions Chapter W..• Enforcement -2 VI plans, and supporting technical documentation. Proposals for solid waste handling facilities must be consistent with the adopted Plan. The Health Department also regularly inspects solid waste handling sites, recycling drop boxes and vehicles and requires landfill operators to perform groundwater and methane monitoring. Facilities that are not in compliance with the MFS may be granted variances, with the approval of Ecology, if the public health and environment are not endangered or if compliance would produce hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public. An annual permit for a nonconforming site may be issued if Health Department conditions are met and there is a schedule for full compliance or closure. The status of facility compliance with the MFS is addressed in Chapter IV, Sections B, C, and D of this Plan and summarized in Tables IV.10, IV.11, and IV.19. Ecology has the authority to appeal issuance of permits to the State Pollution Control Hearings Board (RCW 70.95). The Health Department may impose civil penalties, initiate criminal proceedings, or order a site closed if it determines that the operation of the facility would endanger the public health. 2. Needs and Opportunities The enforcement system described above appears to be effective to ensure compliance. However, the Health Department should evaluate staffing levels to ensure that staffing resources are appropriate. Fee and rate adjustments may need to be considered during the next rate period. B. WASTE FLOW CONTROL 1. Existing Conditions Pursuant to King County Code (KCC) 10.08.020 A, solid waste generated within King County must be delivered to county disposal facilities. The Solid Waste Division is responsible for disposal of all waste generated within its jurisdiction, except waste that is explicitly prohibited by the Division's Waste Acceptance Policy (Public Rule PUT 7-1-2 [PR], see Section C.l.b). Additional exceptions can be made to disposal prohibitions by revisions to state law or county ordinances. Waste accepted from any jurisdiction that King County does not have an interlocal agreement with is subject to a fee three times the usual rate. Seattle and Snohomish and Pierce counties also specifically prohibit disposal of waste generated outside their jurisdictions. In September 1991, Kung County began receiving monthly reports from all certified haulers operating within its boundaries. The hauler reports provide detailed information on disposal and recycling activity and are designed to assist the County in monitoring waste flow patterns. The County conducts quarterly generator surveys at its disposal facilities to determine the origins of the disposed waste stream. The County also randomly screens incoming vehicles to educate customers about acceptance policies and fees. Staffs of Seattle, Snohomish, Pierce, and King counties meet regularly to discuss flow control issues. Based on monitoring, the County has determined that there is a flow control problem that could escalate without intervention. For example, data obtained from quarterly transfer station surveys and random screenings of incoming vehicles indicate that King County regularly receives significant amounts of waste from other jurisdictions. Conversely, total tonnage disposed at county facilities in the first quarter of 1992 appears to be much lower than anticipated. It is not known what may be contributing to this other than the effect of WR/R. Flow control problems could be exacerbated if rates increase in neighboring jurisdictions. To alleviate this problem, in the proposed 1993 budget the Solid Waste Division has planned for a mixed municipal solid waste flow control officer to develop procedures for enforcement of flow control policies. The County anticipates significant flow control issues associated with the opening of a construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste facility in 1993 and will provide two flow control officers to deal with this waste stream (See Chapter V). 2. Needs and Opportunities Further research is needed to determine the extent of the waste flow control problem. In addition, there will be a need to address this problem more aggressively when Seattle and Snohomish County rates increase. The difference between those Chapter V1: Enforcement B.1. Waste Flow Control: Existing Conditions • • • • I• rates and King County's is expected to widen in the next year or so. Additionally, the success of waste flow control depends on a coordinated effort with Seattle and Snohomish and Pierce counties. 3. Alternatives There are three alternatives that address waste flow control: to maintain existing programs and to expand existing support services. They are summarized below and in Table VI.2. a. Alternative A, Status Quo This alternative would maintain the status quo. It would include continued monitoring of monthly hauler reports, quarterly generator surveys, random screening of incoming vehicles at specific facilities when the other jurisdiction is known, imposing triple fees for out -of -jurisdiction waste, and meeting monthly with Seattle and Snohomish and Pierce counties to discuss flow control issues. Three flow control officers would be hired: one for mixed municipal solid waste and two for construction, demolition, and land clearing waste. Maintaining the status quo would allow the Solid Waste Division adequate time to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs. There is a significant possibility, however, that the status quo alternative may not provide adequate staffing to effectively control the flow of waste generated in ting County. Additionally, this alternative would not provide adequate flow control without changes in acceptance policies and an education program. b. Alternative B, Policy and Programs Under this alternative, in addition to maintaining the status quo, a regional educational program would be developed to address flow control issues. This effort would include informing many more people of the County's policy to charge three times the rate for out -of -jurisdiction waste and increased verification of the sources of waste delivered to County facilities. This alternative would be more effective than Alternative A, without significantly increasing program costs. B.3. Waste Flow Control: Alternatives VI .....- c. Alternative Q Staff King County would significantly supplement existing programs by hiring one enforcement officer for each of the six transfer stations and for the Vashon and Cedar Hills landfills, beginning in 1993. These enforcement staff would be responsible for screening all incoming vehicles to ensure compliance with waste acceptance policies and to educate the public on proper disposal policies and procedures. More adequate staffing may effectively control the flow of waste within King County. However, implementation of this alternative may be premature. 4. Recommendations Alternative B is recommended to ensure adequate waste flow control. For the remainder of 1992 and throughout 1993, King County should: • Continue implementing four generator surveys per year at each County disposal facility. • Continue monitoring and evaluating monthly hauler disposal and recycling reports. • Continue random screening of incoming vehicles at County disposal facilities. • Begin working with representatives from the city of Seattle and Snohomish and Pierce counties to develop a regional education campaign to address flow control issues in the fourth quarter of 1992. • Hire three flow control officers in 1993 (one for mixed municipal solid waste in addition to the two for construction, demolition, and land clearing waste. If by January 1994 the County is still experiencing significant problems with flow control issues, adoption of the more stringent measures described in Alternative C should be considered. (Table VI.3 summarizes waste flow control recommendations). Table V1.2 Waste Flow Control Alternatives Alternative A Maintain status quo. Alternative B Maintain status quo and develop educational programs on waste flow control issues. Alternative C Hire additional enforcement officers. Cb apter W..- Enforcement Recommendation VI.1 Waste flow control education Develop waste flow control education program. Recommendation VI.2 Enforcement Increase enforcement of flow control and waste acceptance policies. C. CONTROL OF INCOMING WASTES 1. Existing Conditions a. intWucction Most of the waste delivered to the Knlg County solid waste disposal system is mixed municipal waste generated by households and businesses. Special wastes, including asbestos - containing waste, contaminated soils, treated infectious waste, drum containers, and CDL waste, require special handling for regulatory, operational, or safety reasons and have conditions attached to their acceptance (KCC 10.12.020[E] and PUT 7-1-2 [PR]). Certain other wastes are prohibited from disposal in municipal landfills, including hazardous and dangerous wastes as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations. The 1989 Plan recommended development and implementation of a waste clearance and screening program (see Table VIA). b. Regulations Existing laws, regulations, codes, and rules that impact the acceptance of waste at King County solid waste management facilities include the following: • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Regulations promulgated under RCRA and HSWA are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 258 establishes minimum design and operational standards for municipal solid waste landfills, including operational requirements to exclude hazardous waste, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and liquids. Implementation of these regulations is generally delegated to states. Pants 260 through 271 define hazardous wastes and establish management standards for hazardous waste. Chapter VI Enforcement t" • Washington State Minimum Functional Standards (MFS) for Solid Waste Handling (WAC 173-304). These regulations expand on 40 CFR 258, establishing minimum requirements for solid waste handling and disposal facilities. Implementation of these standards is delegated to local jurisdictions, which may establish more stringent requirements. • King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10). These regulations expand on WAC 173-304, establishing standards for municipal solid waste; construction, demolition, and land clearing waste; woodwaste; inert landfills, transfer stations, and recycling facilities; and collection and transfer vehicles. In addition to the requirements to exclude hazardous waste, PCBs, and liquids, these regulations identify other unacceptable wastes, including oil, oil-based paints, wood preservatives, untreated infectious waste, and others. The Health Department is also authorized to require generators of contaminated soil and industrial waste to obtain clearance prior to disposal. • King County Solid Waste Code (KCC Title 10) and King County Public Rules PITT 7-1-2 (PR) (Waste Acceptance Policy) and PUT 7-2-1 (PR) (Waste Clearance Policy). KCC Title 10 authorizes the Solid Waste Division to develop operating regulations for its solid waste facilities that address controls on incoming wastes. The Waste Acceptance Policy and the Waste Clearance Policy establish these controls. The Waste Acceptance Policy describes the categories of waste which are accepted by the County. In some cases these restrictions are more stringent than those of the Health Department. The Waste Clearance Policy specifies which wastes require clearance and what the conditions of clearance are. Table VIA 1989 Plan Recommendations Recommendation Status Develop and implement Public rules PUT 7-1-2, a waste clearance and PUT 7-2-1 established. screening program. Implementation ongoing. C.1. Control of Incoming Wastes: Existing Conditions For some wastes, clearance by the Health Department and the County are required. For other wastes, clearance is required by one authority or the other. • National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NEHAPs) (40 OR Part 61) and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Asbestos Control Standard (Regulation 111, Article 4). These regulations control the disposal of asbestos containing waste. The Solid Waste Division is authorized to develop and amend public rules in response to changing special wastes • needs and conditions (KCC Title 10). Rules are developed in cooperation with all affected parties and there is a formal public involvement process. • 0 0 c. Implementation Responsibilities various federal, state, and local agencies enforce solid waste rules and regulations depending on the type of waste: • The Health Department has the authority to enforce its solid waste regulations, which deal broadly with management of hazardous, moderate risk, and infectious wastes; contaminated soil; and other special wastes. • Ecology has primary authority to regulate the hazardous waste management system in the state and to respond to reports of illegally disposed hazardous wastes. • Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) responds to reports of improper disposal of asbestos -containing waste and other materials with air emissions. • The Solid Waste Division enforces King County Public Rules on waste acceptance and clearance according to procedures specified in KCC Title 23. • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has oversight authority for enforcement of hazardous waste and asbestos disposal programs administered by Ecology and PSAPCA. Responsibility for compliance with federal, state, and local regulations is shared by generators, haulers, and solid waste facility operators (KCBOHC 10.04.020): • Generators are required to determine whether their wastes are hazardous or otherwise regulated, to properly prepare them C.1. Control of Incoming Wastes: Existing Conditions �- 5 for disposal, and to direct them to an appropriate disposal facility. • Haulers may transport only authorized wastes to King County transfer and disposal facilities. • The Solid Waste Division is responsible for establishing controls over special wastes and implementing programs to detect and respond to illegal disposal of hazardous and other prohibited wastes. Controls over incoming wastes are implemented by the Division and the Health Department through both waste clearance and waste screening functions. (1) Waste Clearance Program The Solid Waste Division establishes policies and administrative controls over special wastes entering the solid waste system through the waste clearance program. King County Public Rule 7-1-2 (PR) establishes policies for accepting various wastes at King County facilities, i.e., which ones are prohibited, which are accepted with certain conditions, etc. PUT 7-2-1 (PR) describes procedures for obtaining approval (or clearance) to dispose of special wastes. The Health Department reviews data and issues clearance on all contaminated soil and industrial waste. The Solid Waste Division reviews and issues clearances for all other special waste. By requiring clearance of special waste, the Division may ensure that hazardous wastes are not accepted and acceptable wastes are properly handled and disposed. The program also maintains a data base to track and monitor special wastes accepted at Division facilities. (See also Chapter V, Special Wastes.) (2) Waste Screening Through the waste screening program, King County monitors and inspects solid waste entering the system to detect and remove hazardous or other unauthorized wastes. Waste screening is performed in several ways: • Solid Waste Division technicians at Cedar Hills screen loads of special waste and perform random solid waste checks of other loads. They also perform periodic waste screening at rural landfills and transfer stations, and investigate incidents of suspected improper disposal. Chapter W: Enforcement W- 6 • Site attendants perform limited screening of waste entering transfer stations. They are trained to recognize and report illegal disposal of hazardous and other regulated wastes. • Equipment operators perform similar screening at Cedar Hills and the rural landfills. They are trained to recognize and report improperly disposed material during unloading of transfer trailers and compaction at the face of the landfill. • Supervisors respond to staff reports of suspected improper disposal as appropriate, such as isolating the waste, conducting further investigation, and notifying regulatory agencies. • Health Department inspectors perform limited waste screening during inspections of solid waste facilities, note the results on their inspection reports, and forward them to the Solid Waste Division for resolution. The Health Depaignent also evaluates certain waste materials to determine whether they are of regulatory significance. 2. Needs and Opportunities Once mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) is accepted at a county disposal facility it becomes the responsibility of the County (RCW 36.58.060). Therefore, the inadvertent acceptance of prohibited wastes subjects King County to certain financial and legal risks. The County may be obligated to pay for the removal and proper disposal of dangerous and hazardous wastes that enter its facilities, especially if they pose a threat of release into the environment. Investigation and cleanup of facilities contaminated by illegally disposed materials can be extremely expensive. Worker safety and public health can be affected by releases of hazardous substances at transfer stations and landfills. Severe contamination with hazardous substances could subject the County to legal liability under Superfund (RCRA) or the Washington Model Toxics Control Act. Due to these risks, the Solid Waste Division needs to continue to evaluate its waste acceptance policies and revise them as necessary in light of changing waste streams, new waste management alternatives, and new regulations. The waste screening program needs to be evaluated regularly to ensure that the Division is providing comprehensive screening throughout the solid waste disposal system. Waste screening is now carried out primarily at landfills. Hazardous waste and other prohibited wastes can generally be detected more effectively at earlier stages in the waste management system, particularly at transfer facilities as waste is being unloaded. Eighty-four percent of solid waste disposed at Cedar Hills passes through county transfer facilities. Additionally, some waste is hauled from private transfer stations in Seattle. Only special waste and a small number of local commercial collection routes are hauled directly to Cedar Hills. Current staffing levels at King County transfer facilities allow only ad hoc screening. Employees typically are not on the tipping floor or are busy with other duties that preclude consistent observation of unloading, investigation of suspicious loads, and documentation of observations and problems. There is a need for staff at transfer stations who have specific training and responsibility for screening and whose other duties are compatible with screening activities. Screening should occur early in the system, since it is quite difficult to track the source of unauthorized waste by the time it has passed through the transfer system to the landfill. Screening programs should also be extended to private transfer facilities to enhance overall controls on incoming waste. 3. Altematives Two alternatives are considered: maintaining the existing screening programs or adding training and screening requirements to improve them. They are described below and summarized in Table VI.5. a. Altemative A, Status Quo This alternative would maintain the existing program for landfill -based waste screening. The Waste Acceptance Policy would be updated as needed to address changing conditions. This alternative provides administrative controls over incoming waste and a waste screening program that complies with the operating standards for MMSW landfills in RCRA Table VI -5 Summary of 1992 Alternatives for Control of Incoming Wastes Alternative A Maintain status quo. Alternative B Expand waste screening programs. Chapter U. Enforcement C2. Control of Incoming Mutes: Needs and Opportunities Subtitle D. It establishes policies on acceptance of waste and provides screening of random loads of solid waste entering King County landfills. However, it is weak in two areas. First, waste screening is performed on only a small, randomly selected portion of MMSW entering the disposal system, thus infrequent but potentially serious violations of the acceptance policy may not be detected. Second, screening at landfills rarely provides information about the source of improperly disposed material. The waste has generally been mixed and processed to the point that the nature and source cannot be determined with any accuracy. b. Alternative B, Expanded Waste Screening This alternative would expand the waste screening program to provide consistent screening at county and private transfer facilities. Staffing plans for county transfer stations would allocate resources for routine observation of vehicle unloading, periodic load checking, and documentation of screening activities. Additional training would be provided for employees who screen wastes. Requirements for screening and record keeping of screening activities at commercial transfer facilities would be established. Alternative B has the advantage of providing transfer facility -based screening to ensure that nearly all waste entering the system would be visually screened and a much higher proportion sorted. Further, information could be gathered directly from haulers about the source and nature of regulated or suspicious material brought to transfer stations. 4. Recommendations Alternative B is recommended (summarized in Table IV.6). The waste screening program should be expanded to provide consistent screening at county and private transfer Table VIA 1992 Recommendations on Control of Incoming Wastes Recommendation VI.3 • Recommendation VI.4 Expanded waste screening Staff training Recommendation VI.5 Regulation of private transfer stations C.4. Control of Incoming Wastes: Recommendations facilities. Resources should be allocated for routine observation of vehicle unloading, periodic load checks, and documentation of screening activities in staffing plans. Additional training should be provided for employees conducting screening. Screening and record keeping should be established at commercial transfer facilities. 5. Implementation Staffing plans and training resources would be developed for expanded waste screening at transfer facilities. Regulatory mechanisms to require screening at private transfer facilities would be investigated and implemented. D. ILLEGAL DUMPING AND LITTERING 1. Existing Conditions a. Introduction Responsibilities for illegal dumping and anti -litter laws are discharged reactively in response to complaints and proactively through prevention and cleanup programs. These responsibilities are shared by the suburban cities and several county departments, including the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health (Environmental Health Division); Department of Public Works (Roads, Solid Waste, and Surface Water Management divisions); Parks, Planning and Resources Department; and the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES). Other responsibilities are carried out by private property owners and volunteers. Allocate resources for routine observation of unloading, periodic load checks, and documentation of screening activities at transfer stations. Provide additional training for employees to screen wastes. Establish screening and record keeping requirements at private transfer stations. Chapter W: Enforcement b. Purpose and Definition The purpose of anti -litter and illegal dumping legislation is to promote health, safety, and the aesthetic value of the environment and to reduce the costs of cleanup. Littering and illegal dumping are generally defined as the accumulation or disposal of waste materials anywhere other than in a designated receptacle or permitted waste handling facility. c. Enforcement Authorities King County's prohibition against littering and illegal dumping is codified in KCC 10.04.080; penalties and enforcement procedures are in KCC Title 23. The KCBOHC illegal dumping regulations are codified in KCBOHC 10.84; penalties and enforcement procedures are in KCBOHC 1.08. In unincorporated areas, there may be an overlap in enforcement authority due to the diversity of county departments with this responsibility. Eighteen of the suburban cities also have illegal dumping and/or anti -littering statutes. Many of these laws are more extensive than either the King County Code or the Board of Health Code. For example, some include specific prohibitions against disposing accumulated waste in receptacles owned or paid for by someone else, including publicly owned receptacles. Transportation of unsecured loads is also prohibited by many city codes and the King County Code. The state has a comprehensive Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Litter Control Act (RCW 70.93) and addresses illegal dumping separately in RCW 70.95.240 and .250. See Table VI.7 for a comparison of these codes. The 1989 Plan recommended developing and promoting a model litter control ordinance. Because there has been no common point from which to implement a comprehensive strategy, nor authority for one agency or department to take the lead in developing such a strategy, this recommendation will need to be re-evaluated so that these issues can be addressed. d. Investigation and Prosecution Responsibility for investigation, enforcement, and cleanup throughout the County lies with the Health Department as well as other county departments and jurisdictions. Upon receiving a complaint or observing illegally dumped material, Health Department personnel usually conduct a field investigation to determine the nature of the problem, identify the offender and the property owner, and attempt to resolve the problem informally. Investigators are assisted by the KCBOHC provision that establishes a presumption of culpability based on the presence of three items bearing a person's name in the illegally dumped load. The Health Department may pursue civil sanctions against the responsible parry. Civil penalties for the first violation can be as high as $250 per day. Criminal sanctions are only rarely pursued because, in order to convict the responsible party, both an eye -witness to the illegal dumping event and physical evidence are required. If the Health Department discovers that the illegal dumping is within the jurisdiction of a city or another agency, it will contact that jurisdiction and either defer to or cooperate with it to resolve the problem. Similarly, if another jurisdiction receives a complaint directly, it may choose to resolve the matter itself, or refer it to the Health Department. See Table VI.7 for details about enforcement provisions. The Surface Water Management Division of the King County Department of Public Works has custodial responsibility for drainage areas and will investigate illegal dumping on custodial lands and adjacent private property. This division contracts with Roads for both cleanup and enforcement. Parks also takes responsibility for cleanup but only rarely attempts to pursue enforcement actions. When they do, they typically ask Roads for help with investigation. The Roads Division of the King County Department of Public Works investigates and cleans up illegal dumping in road rights-of-way. Two uniformed officers are available to Roads for illegal dumping and litter enforcement and they enforce illegal dumping laws through the Criminal code. This results in little formal enforcement because the rules of evidence for criminal cases essentially require eye -witnesses. Additionally, DDES investigates illegal dumping on private property as a nuisance under the Uniform Housing Code (KCC 16.04). The department's enforcement section locates and deals directly with the owners of the property on which illegal dumping has occurred but does not investigate further. Chapter 9 Enforcement D.1. Illegal Dumping and Littering: Existing Conditions e. Cleanup Responsibility Responsibility for cleanup of illegally dumped material is often that of the property owner, or a government agency if the material is dumped on public property, and the offender cannot be identified or fails to comply with a cleanup order. Therefore, cleanup costs often fall to the private property owner even though they may have reported the violation. This may result in conflict and does not promote cooperation between agencies and the public. Most jurisdictions are authorized to abate the violation and bill the responsible party for cleanup costs, but only if the responsible parry can. be identified. Although DDES has an abatement account, the Health Department does not have a revolving fund to cover cleanup costs pending reimbursement proceedings against a responsible party, so this option is rarely exercised. Since a substantial quantity of illegally dumped material is deposited on public property (roads, waterways, greenbelts, and parks), various federal, state, and county agencies and cities shoulder a sizable cleanup burden. As an example, the labor costs alone for the Roads Division in 1992 were $360 per ton for roadside litter clean up and over $2,500 per ton for special pickups of illegal dump sites. The cleanup is done primarily by litter and maintenance crews from public lands departments, with assistance from volunteer community groups. In contrast, the average total cost of legally collecting and disposing of MMSW is approximately $125 per ton. L Data As described above, complaints are received and handled by many different jurisdictions. It appears that there is a significant problem with both litter and illegal dumping. However, there are insufficient data county -wide to evaluate this perception. Similarly, county -wide costs associated with enforcement and cleanup are not easy to calculate. Health Department statistics show only numbers of activities broken down by geographic divisions of the County. The number of follow-up contacts required to resolve a violation, the character and scope of the problem, description of specific location, category of violator, or outcome of investigation are accessible through complaint files in district health offices and must be consolidated. Also, variations in D.1. Illegal Dumping and Littering.- Existing Conditions data tracking procedures or external variables—such as increased tipping fees (i.e., increases in illegal disposal occur when fees are increased), increased reporting by the public, greater or lesser assumption of responsibility by other agencies—are not easily accounted for. A roads division computerized complaint tracking system initiated in 1991 includes some of these details and may serve as a model for inter -jurisdictional tracking of complaints and resolutions. An informal survey of Roads employees indicates that the problem of illegal dumping may be increasing; computerized data such as the tracking system can verify whether or not this is actually occurring. Records maintained by other King County divisions are not easily accessible because they are not computerized, coded, separated from other complaints, or standardized. Some divisions keep no records at all, or incomplete records. For example, the parks division responds to and records complaints but illegal dumping that is discovered and cleaned up during routine maintenance may not be noted. The 1989 Plan recommended continued monitoring of the number of complaints and associated costs and periodic assessment of the issue. Health Department statistics in Table VI.8 show that numbers in all categories and each geographical area are increasing, but—as suggested above—given the amount of information missing from these charts, conclusions about the severity of the county's illegal dumping problem or the adequacy of the county's and suburban cities' ability to respond to it cannot be drawn from these data alone. g. Assumptions Informal reporting of problems and opinions about solutions reveals that laws, policies, programs, and budget allocations designed to prevent, prosecute, or cleanup illegal disposal are based on a number of assumptions about its causes. They include: high tipping fees (i.e., increases in illegal disposal occur when fees are increased); inadequate or inconvenient legal recycling or disposal alternatives; inadequate public education regarding appropriate disposal options and cleanup costs; convenience of illegal dumping, especially in rural areas and in unlocked public or privately owned Chapter U.- Enforcement VI - 10 Table VI.7 Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Codes Chapter W..- Enforcement D.1. Illegal Dumping and Littering: Existing Conditions P = private receptacles U = public receptacles O = owner responsibility d S = secured loads e M = mandatory litter Ab - bags f ate- Civil Citation a ■ = presumption 9 Enforcer h ment' Misdemeanor Penalty k State I RCW 70.93, 70.95.240, O S M ■ State Police $50 min. + pickup; 90 day $1,000/ .250, 46.61.65 max. 1 st violation WAC 173-310 County KCC 10.04.080, 7.12.440, U S Director of Public ■ $500 and/or $500-1,000/ 23.08.010, 23.08.050, Works, County 90 days max 1st violation .080, .090 police Seattle -King KCBH 10.84, 1.08 O ■ Environmental ■ $500 and/or $25-250/ County Health Division 90 days max 1 st violation Health Department Algona AMC 8.12.040 U S M law enforcement $10 min +pickup Auburn ACC 8.166 O S ■ Director of Public $100 max Works 30 days max Bellevue BCC 9.11 P O S ■ Code Compli- ■ * See Chapter ance Officer 1.18 Beaux Arts none Black none Diamond Bothell BMC 8.44 U O S Police Dept. $10 min +pickup Carnation none Clyde Hill none Des Moines DMMC 923 (adopts some ■ Planning Dept. $50 min +pickup sections of 70.93 by ref.) Duvall Enumclaw EMC 700 Police Dept. Federal Way FWMC 9.36.020, (adopts $50 min +pickup $1,000 1st 70.93.060 by reference) 90 days max violation Hunts Point none Issaquah ICC 8.06 U S M Police Dept. gross misdemeanor -- $5,000/ 1 year max +pickup Kent KCC 9.18 O S Building official ■ $100 max KirklandKMC 11.64 O S City Admin- ■ istrator Chapter W..- Enforcement D.1. Illegal Dumping and Littering: Existing Conditions V1 - 11 Table VIJ Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Codes (Continued) * Fine pursuant to general penalty section for misdemeanor. a Code at a minimum prohibits disposal of waste on public or private land or in waterways except in designated receptacles or in permitted solid waste handling facilities. b Code prohibits disposal of waste in a receptacle owned or paid for by another without permission. Code prohibits disposal of wastes accumulated at a residence or business in a public or park receptacle. d Code includes a specific provision holding property owners responsible for proper storage, removal, and disposal of waste found on their property. e Code prohibits vehicles from driving unsecured loads. f Code requires every motor vehicle and boat to have a litter bag. 9 Code provides for a presumption of ownership of unlawfully disposed waste when three pieces of identification are found in the load. h Enforcement authority specified by code or reported by city. Code provides for clean up of violation by the jurisdiction and a reimbursement proceeding against the responsible party. i Violation of the code is a misdemeanor. k A separate civil penalty is provided for. D.1. Illegal Dumping and Littering. Existing Conditions Chapter U/• Enforcement P = private receptacles U = public receptacles ° O = owner responsibility d S = secured loads e M = mandatory litter Ab - bags f ate- Civil Citation a ■ = presumptions Enforcer h ment Misdemeanor Penalty k Lake Forest LFPMC 8.04.120 P U O Police Dept. $500/6 mos. max Park Medina none Mercer MIMC 8.04.0308 P U M ■ Police Dept. Island Normandy none U Park North Bend NBMC 8.24 S Police Dept. $50-300 +pickup. 2nd $50-300 offense gross misdemeanor, $100-500/90 days Pacific Redmond RMC 6.04 U S Department of * +pickup Public Works Renton RMC 6-14 as amended P O S Building official ■ $1000/90 days max $100/day by Ordinance 4238 SeaTac SMC 7.10 Dept. of Public $10 min +pickup Works Code Enforcement Skykomish none Snoqualmie SMC 8.28 U S police $50-250 +pickup; 2nd offense is a gross misdemeanor Tukwila TMC 6.12 O S $1500/6 months max Yarrow Point none * Fine pursuant to general penalty section for misdemeanor. a Code at a minimum prohibits disposal of waste on public or private land or in waterways except in designated receptacles or in permitted solid waste handling facilities. b Code prohibits disposal of waste in a receptacle owned or paid for by another without permission. Code prohibits disposal of wastes accumulated at a residence or business in a public or park receptacle. d Code includes a specific provision holding property owners responsible for proper storage, removal, and disposal of waste found on their property. e Code prohibits vehicles from driving unsecured loads. f Code requires every motor vehicle and boat to have a litter bag. 9 Code provides for a presumption of ownership of unlawfully disposed waste when three pieces of identification are found in the load. h Enforcement authority specified by code or reported by city. Code provides for clean up of violation by the jurisdiction and a reimbursement proceeding against the responsible party. i Violation of the code is a misdemeanor. k A separate civil penalty is provided for. D.1. Illegal Dumping and Littering. Existing Conditions Chapter U/• Enforcement ma VI - 12 Table VIS Unlawful Dumping Investigations by the Health Department a Health Department Regions Alder Square (SW & SE) East North b Total 1983 Initial investigation 204 136 81 421 Follow-up investigation 258 35 97 390 Enforcement actions 22 0 0 22 Consultations * 79 15 4 98 1984 Initial investigation 205 141 81 427 Follow-up investigation 371 26 111 508 Enforcement actions 23 1 4 28 Consultations * 41 7 11 59 1985 Initial investigation 200 286 104 590 Follow-up investigation 269 89 154 512 Enforcement actions 26 0 3 29 Consultations * 26 27 19 72 1986 Initial investigation 306 136 102 544 Follow-up investigation 223 32 152 407 Enforcement actions 17 1 3 21 Consultations * 39 10 14 63 1987 Initial investigation 689 66 65 820 Follow-up investigation 664 9 109 782 Enforcement actions 81 1 0 82 Consultations * 266 16 27 309 1988 Initial investigation 804 107 118 1029 Follow-up investigation 662 32 110 804 Enforcement actions 69 3 0 72 Consultations * 308 19 64 391 1989 Initial investigation 832 41 272 1145 Follow-up investigation 871 24 89 984 Enforcement actions 115 1 3 119 Consultations * 329 11 15 355 1990 Initial investigation 933 107 343 1383 Follow-up investigation 636 87 262 985 Enforcement actions 112 6 16 134 Consultations * 700 204 85 989 1991 Initial investigation 966 212 202 1380 Follow-up investigation 833 59 84 976 Enforcement actions 106 16 12 134 Consultations * 843 290 260 1393 * Consultations are informal telephone resolutions of complaints. a Does not include Seattle District. b Reports from a portion of Seattle. receptacles; reliance on voluntary collection programs; ineffectual enforcement; and inadequate hauling equipment. The magnitude of each of these assumptions in causing illegal dumping to occur is not known. An analysis of these issues is needed to determine their actual impact on illegal dumping. h. Existing Programs In addition to the enforcement programs described above, there are several prevention and cleanup programs: (1) Prevention • Legal recycling and disposal -alternatives are provided through the continued development, implementation, and evaluation of a comprehensive collection system for waste (See Chapters III and IV). • Comprehensive waste reduction and recycling education is conducted pursuant to RCW 70.95 (see Chapter 111). • The Industrial Materials Exchange (IMEX), a materials exchange program, is sponsored by the Health Department (Chapter V, Section Q. • Special collection days are sponsored by most suburban cities. They are tailored to each city's needs, which may include pickup of excess waste of any kind or only items not normally collected. They may be held once a year, quarterly, or only occasionally. • Laws that prohibit depositing accumulated waste in public receptacles or in private receptacles owned by another have been enacted by 11 cities. • Mandatory garbage collection with voluntary recyclable collection has been instituted by several cities (see Chapter IV, Section A). • Other strategies include such programs as distribution of free litter bags for vehicles and vessels by the city of Mercer Island, and fencing and posting of "no dumping" signs in persistent problem areas by the King County Parks Department. The King County Roads Division also installs "no dumping" signs in problem locations on rights-of-way. Chapter VI- Enforcement D.1. Illegal Dumping and Littering: Existing Conditions I• • U (2) Cleanup • The state, county, and some cities sponsor community litter cleanup days. Coordination, bags, and disposal are provided by the sponsors, and cleanup is done by volunteers. The state sponsors the Adopt -a -Highway volunteer cleanup program and, in King County, 65 roads have been adopted under the county Adopt -a -Road program. • King County Surface Water Management Division administers community stewardship grants for cleanup of waterways by volunteers. • King County Roads and Solid Waste divisions oversee litter crews. The Roads Division is primarily responsible for maintaining county roads in a litter -free condition and provides services to other agencies such as the Surface Water Management Division; the Solid Waste Division keeps county transfer stations and access roads litter free. . King County Department of Development and Environmental Services does no direct cleanup but instead enforces cleanup on private property under the county's nuisance ordinance contained in the Uniform Housing Code. A 1993 budget provision requires that all penalties and recovered abatement costs be used for future abatements. . Parks Division of the King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department is responsible for cleanup of materials that have been dumped illegally on parks property. L Status of 1989 Plan Recommendations The status of 1989 Plan recommendations regarding illegal dumping is summarized in Table VL9. The 1989 Plan recommended development of a model litter control ordinance. It has been determined that additional data and further evaluation of specific needs for a model litter control ordinance are needed before this recommendation can be implemented. The 1989 Plan also recommended continued monitoring of illegal dumping and littering incidents (see Section D.I.O. As discussed above, management of illegal dumping is the responsibility of a number of different county departments and jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no common point from which to implement a comprehensive strategy, nor is there clear authority for one agency or department to take the lead in developing a strategy. Although monitoring has continued as D.2. Illegal Dun ping and Littering: Needs and Opportunities 13 recommended, a more comprehensive and uniform effort is needed. ::1 1 111a I V; a. Data and Study Resources for the enforcement of illegal dumping laws as well as prevention and cleanup of illegal dumping are currently allocated on the basis of limited information, incomplete descriptive data, and historical assumptions. A detailed county- wide picture of illegal dumping is needed to properly plan for prevention, cleanup, and enforcement. This will require a cooperative and coordinated effort between various county departments and the suburban cities. The costs of gathering information to compose such a picture of illegal dumping county -wide are unknown. Current allocations may be appropriate, but without adequate data, it is not possible to adequately defend or explain programmatic choices. Given the continuing perceptions of the public and responsible officials about the magnitude of the problem, and the frequency with which increased illegal dumping is considered as a possible consequence of proposed solid waste management programs, it is clear that research and analysis of the issue are needed. b. Abatement Fund Since most suburban cities and county agencies do not have a revolving fund to cover cleanup costs, they must rely on voluntary compliance by property owners or offenders or assistance from other government entities. This often results in Table V1-9 1989 Plan Illegal Dumping and Littering Recommendations Recommendation Status Draft and promote a model litter Being re-evaluated control ordinance. pending further study Continued monitoring of number of The need to set up such complaints, volume collected and a monitoring system is associated collection costs; periodic being assessed in 1993. assessment of the problem. Chapter V: Enforcement VI-14 a protracted resolution and greater use of staff time to obtain compliance. If illegally dumped material poses a health hazard, financial barriers to timely cleanup could increase the risks to the community. An abatement fund could provide a more expedient and direct mechanism to rapidly respond to illegal dumping. c. Model Litter Control Ordinance Litter control ordinances have been developed by eighteen cities but a model litter control ordinance for the county has not been developed. A number of diverse concerns have been addressed by ordinances including mandatory litter bags, handbill distribution, transportation of unsecured loads and even dropping litter from an aircraft. Health Department staff report that the disposal of accumulated waste in receptacles owned by others may also be a significant problem. As a result, many citizens and commercial enterprises must assume the costs of disposal for waste generated by others. Although numbers of such complaints and their associated costs are unknown, Health Department personnel report that this issue may be significant. A few cities have enacted ordinances that prohibit the unauthorized use of receptacles. A model ordinance would propose methods to deal with this and other related problems in a unified manner throughout the county. 3. Altematives Alternatives to define the extent of illegal dumping and remedy it are summarized below and in Table VI.10. a. Alternative A, Status Quo b. Alternative B, Expanded Response Capabilities Under this alternative, the County would evaluate current monitoring, clean-up, and enforcement systems, and would develop both an improved system to monitor complaints and specific strategies to improve enforcement and assist with clean- up costs. With the participation of the county departments responsible for illegal dumping and the suburban cities, the Solid Waste Division would assume the lead role in collecting data related to the volumes, frequency and costs associated with the clean-up and enforcement of illegal dumping. These data would be used to cooperatively develop a standardized information base. Once the data base is established and analyzed, recommendations to improve methods of enforcement and cleanup of illegal dumping can be developed. The need for and feasibility of a revolving fund for the abatement of illegally dumped waste would be evaluated. Included in the evaluation would be an analysis of costs, potential methods of financing, and the mechanics of utilizing such a fund. A model litter control ordinance to encourage stronger and more uniform enforcement would also be studied. Such an ordinance could be cooperatively enacted by the cities and the County. The County would also evaluate options for developing clearer authority for resolving complaints about the unauthorized use of private receptacles, including recycling drop boxes. The County would seek to establish penalties for unauthorized use of drop boxes which are consistent with civil penalties for other forms of illegal dumping. The implementation of a requirement for identification numbers on all private recycling drop boxes would also be evaluated. The presence of ID numbers would facilitate the policing of drop box maintenance problems and unauthorized drop box use. This alternative would continue existing programs without further study. The Health Department would continue to rely on voluntary compliance and intergovernmental cooperation. Table VI.10 Summary of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering The county's and suburban cities' methods of resolving Alternatives complaints would be continued. This alternative does not recognize the demonstrated need for a more cooperative monitoring effort, nor does it provide for a comprehensive strategy to address the problem of illegal dumping. Alternative A Maintain Status quo. Alternative B Increase response capability by evaluating and improving current monitoring, enforcement, and clean-up systems. Assess abatement fund and model litter control options. Chapter W: Enforcement D.3. Negal Dumping and Littering: Alternatives 4. Recommendations To address the needs outlined above, Alternative B is the recommended approach. The recommendations are listed below and summarized in Table VI.11. • The Solid Waste Division, with the cooperation and concurrence of other county departments and the suburban cities, would take the lead in developing a comprehensive strategy to address illegal dumping. The initial step would be the evaluation of the adequacy of existing monitoring, enforcement, and clean-up systems. This effort is a necessary task which would serve as a basis for the following recommendations and needs to occur before they can be carried out. • The Solid Waste Division will develop a central monitoring system to evaluate all complaints and enforcement actions throughout the County. Countywide costs of current prevention, enforcement, and cleanup programs should be assessed prior to initiating any system improvements. VI-15 • The need for a revolving fund for abatement of illegally dumped waste will be assessed. If an abatement fund is found to be both feasible and appropriate, such a fund should be established. • The need for a county and city model litter control ordinance or separate related ordinances will be assessed. If found to be appropriate, such ordinances will be researched, drafted, and circulated to all relevant jurisdictions. 5. Implementation To be effective, implementation must be a cooperative effort between the Solid Waste Division, Health Department, suburban cities, and other agencies. 1992 illegal dumping and littering recommendations are summarized in Table VLII. Table VI.11 Summary of 1992 Illegal Dumping and Littering Recommendations Recommendation VI.6 Evaluate current systems Evaluate current monitoring, enforcement, and cleanup systems. Recommendation VI.7 Central monitoring system Develop a central system for monitoring illegal dumping complaints and countywide enforcement activities. Recommendation VI.8 Abatement of illegally Research provision of revolving fund for abatement. dumped waste Recommendation V1.9 Model litter control Research and draft a model ordinance to address litter and illegal dumping ordinance concerns. D.4. Illegal Dumping and Littering. Recommendations Chapter W: Enforcement • 0 • � CHAFER VII • • INANCIAL • 'SYSTEM • ' King County • Comprehensive • Solid Waste Management Plan Sorting It out Together Chapter VII Financial System A. FINANCING OPERATIONS 1. Overview It is King County policy that the Solid Waste Division be a self-supporting enterprise. The majority of the revenue generated to operate the County's solid waste system is through disposal fees. Other revenue sources include surcharges for CDL management, state and federal grants, a collection fee in unincorporated areas and interest on revenues. Disposal fees are set by the King County Council and are not subject to state or federal regulation. Because over 90 percent of solid waste management programs in King County are financed through disposal fees, bonds, and reserve funds, the majority of this Chapter focuses on the County's financing structure. The remainder of funding comes from grants, collection rates, surcharges, and individual cities general funds. Solid waste programs sponsored by suburban cities within King County can be funded through several sources. The bulk of the money is collected through residential and commercial garbage bills. Cities also have the authority to levy an administrative charge on top of the fee collected by haulers. Other mechanisms used by suburban cities to fund their respective solid waste programs include state grants, county grants, and allocations from the city's general fund. Collection fees charged within cities are shown in Table IVA, Chapter IV. The disposal fees paid by residents of King County are based on the type of waste and the facility being used. The basic fee for mixed waste at county transfer stations and rural landfills is $66 per ton. Separated yard waste is accepted at certain facilities for $58 per ton. Waste that is delivered to Cedar Hills by long-haul transfer trucks after going through a non -county transfer station is charged the regional direct rate of $43 per ton. Current and past county disposal fees are summarized in Table VIII. There is a fee of $100 per ton for special waste, such as asbestos, contaminated soil, slag, and other hard -to -handle wastes. Special waste is accepted only at Cedar Hills and must be cleared for disposal by the Solid Waste Division and the Seattle—King County Department of Public Health. Certain recyclable materials are accepted at no charge at most county transfer stations and rural landfills. A reduced fee of $43 per ton is charged to certain charitable organizations that are in the business of processing used goods for resale. This rate mitigates the effect of dumping unusable materials that these organizations experience as disposal fees rise. Charges at rural landfills and drop -boxes that do not have scales are on a per cubic yard basis. The current fees are $19 per cubic yard for compacted mixed waste, $11 per cubic yard for un -compacted mixed waste, $17 per cubic yard for compacted yard waste, and $9.50 per cubic yard for un - compacted yard waste. These charges are intended to be equivalent to the per ton fees. Minimum fees for use of county disposal facilities are $9.28 for mixed waste, $7.41 for yard waste, $13.86 for special waste, and $5.73 for regional direct customers and charitable organizations. These fees are set to minimize change handling requirements so that when taxes and surcharges are included the total charge comes out to the nearest quarter dollar. All waste, except source separated yard waste and special waste, is charged a state refuse tax of 4.6% per transaction. A hazardous waste surcharge is charged against mixed municipal solid waste entering County facilities (see "Surcharges", Section VII kI.a_). Disposal fee revenues fund all Solid Waste Division activities including operations and maintenance, debt service, equipment replacement, and a $15.80 per ton contribution to the Landfill Reserve Fund (see Table VII.2). The current fees went into effect on January 1, 1992, and are expected to remain the same through 1994. Chapter V!L Finandal system ::: : VII - 2 ;>< » Table VII.1 Solid Waste Division Rate History Sites With Scales Basic fee for solid waste (per ton) Source -separated yard waste (per ton) Passenger licensed vehicles (per entry) Charitable organization fee (per ton) Sites Without Scales Compacted solid waste (per cy) Uncompacted solid waste (per cy) Compacted separated yard waste (per cy) Uncompacted separated yard waste (per cy) Passenger licensed vehicles (per entry) Minimum Charges Solid waste (per entry) Source -separated waste (per entry) Charitable organizations (per entry) Cedar Hills Charges Regional direct (per ton) Other vehicles (per ton) Minimum charge (per entry) Special waste (per ton) Special waste minimum charge (per entry) Jan Jan Jan Dec Jun Jan 1981 1982 1983 1986 1990 1992 $ 15.00 $ 18.50 $ 26.50 $ 47.00 $ 47.00 $ 66.00 15.80 15.80 Waste reduction/recycling 5.11 13.00 58.00 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 9.28 8.24 6.21 Total 66.00 43.00 43.00 4.50 5.60 7.90 14.00 14.00 19.00 2.50 3.10 4.40 8.00 8.00 11.00 9.60 17.00 5.25 9.50 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 9.28 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 9.28 4.00 7.41 5.93 5.50 7.00 11.00 31.50 31.50 43.00 15.00 18.50 26.50 47.00 47.00 66.00 2.00 2.50 3.50 6.50 6.50 9.28 75.00 100.00 10.50 13.86 Table VII.2 Solid Waste Fee Component ($ per ton) Basic Regional Fee Direct Landfill operations 7.68 7.68 Transfer/transport 10.30 0.83 Equipment maintenance/replacement 11.47 3.99 Landfill reserve fund 15.80 15.80 Waste reduction/recycling 5.11 4.66 Administration 5.54 1.98 Support for other agencies 1.85 1.85 Debt service 8.24 6.21 Total 66.00 43.00 Chapter VII: Financial System 0 F9 L-A 0 • 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Solid Waste Division operates on a two- or three-year rate cycle. The Division will initiate and complete a rate study in 1994 to determine the tip -fee rate for the next rate cycle scheduled to be in effect from 1995 through 1997. The new rate will be based on tonnage projections and revenue needs. Both will be developed during the rate study in 1994. The rates described above are based on the County's current financing structure; however the trend toward less disposed waste will have a significant impact on future revenues. Solid Waste Division costs are either fixed or variable (tonnage dependent), with the majority of the costs, such as debt service, environmental monitoring, and minimum required staffing levels, being fixed. Decreases in the amount of waste disposed will lead to increased costs per ton to the citizens of King County. The County will endeavor to minimize rate increases by cutting expenditures whenever possible. As described above, the Solid Waste Division collects most of its revenue through the collection of disposal fees at transfer stations and landfills. The Division also receives state grants that help fund various WR/R programs. However, as the State seeks to reduce its own budget, the availability of grant funds is expected to decline. In order to further stabilize rates over the long term, the Division needs to investigate other options for generating revenues. Prior to the next planning period, the Division will initiate and complete an analysis of alternative financing schemes for funding solid waste programs. a Surcharges In addition to the disposal fee, citizens of King County pay moderate risk waste surcharges imposed by the King County Board of Health. The methods used are a surcharge imposed at County disposal facilities ($2.61 per ton with a $1.00 minimum fee for self -haulers), a surcharge collected by certified haulers on residential and commercial garbage bills ($.60 for residential and $5.24 for commercial), and a surcharge on Metro sewage customers. The surcharge revenue is used to support the implementation of the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The majority of the Solid Waste Division's moderate risk waste programs are supported through this funding source. VII -3 Residents of urban unincorporated areas of the County who have curbside collection pay a surcharge of $0.22 per month through monthly hauler billings to cover the administrative costs of recycling programs for urban unincorporated areas. Residents and businesses in King County who dispose construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) materials at the planned private CDL disposal facility(ies) will also be assessed an administrative surcharge by the Solid Waste Division (see Chapter V). The revenue will be used to support various waste flow control measures to make sure that all CDL generated in the County is disposed or recycled at the designated disposal facility(ies). Appendix K contains a detailed breakdown of Division revenues and expenditures. 2. Solid Waste Fund Structure The Division follows generally accepted accounting principles for enterprise funds. All fee revenues are deposited in the Operating Fund, which is composed of the following cost centers: administration, engineering services, waste reduction and recycling, program planning, fiscal services, moderate risk waste, shop/maintenance, transfer operations, transportation, Cedar Hills operations, rural landfill operations, operations administration, landfill gas and waste -water, and customer transactions. Disposal fees also fund the King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials and support certain activities in other county agencies that perform work on the Division's behalf, including the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, the Prosecuting Attorney, and the Roads Division. Funds are transferred out of the Operating Fund monthly to the Landfill Reserve Fund, annually to the Capital Equipment Replacement Program Fund, and semi-annually to pay debt service on bonds issued for solid waste capital projects. Table VII.3 displays the actual 1991 and 1992 budgets and projected budgets for 1993 and 1994. Chapter Vlt: Financi7l System VII - 4 Table V11.3 King County Solid Waste Division Operating Costs (Thousands of Dollars) a Includes budget and carryovers from 1993 and 1992 carryovers. b 1993 budget includes $3 million transfer from E/RR Fund for WR/R grants and programs. 3. Individual Fund Descriptions a. Capital Equipment Replacement Program Fund (CERP) The CERP fund was established in 1982 to ensure that reserves are available to replace transportation, landfill, and transfer station equipment when it reaches the end of its useful life. A model was developed that uses the purchase price, expected life, and salvage value for each piece of equipment, along with assumptions on future interest and inflation rates to project net costs and the annual transfer required from the Operating Fund to support planned replacements. An annual equipment acquisition plan and a multi-year financial plan for the CERP fund is produced through the model. In addition to Chapter SIL' Financial System transfers from the Operating Fund, the CERP fund receives income from the sale of old equipment and earned interest. b. Landfill Reserve Fund (LRF) The LRF was set up in 1983 to fund projects related to the development, closure and maintenance of King County's landfills. A contribution of $15.08 per ton is transferred from the Operating Fund to the LRF for each ton disposed. Funding for landfill projects is collected over the life of the landfill. The LRF is made up of 12 accounts: Cedar Hills (CH) new area development, CH closure, CH facility relocation, CH post -closure maintenance, replacement landfill development, Enumclaw closure, Hobart closure, Vashon closure, Enumclaw post -closure 1991 1992 1993 1994 Actual Actual Budget a Projected Administration Debt service 6,888 7,686 7,712 7,712 CERP 3,771 3,785 3,545 4,080 LRF 18,675 14,749 13,934 12,186 Overhead Allocation 568 977 1,206 1,160 Non -programmable administration 2,714 2,592 3,118 2,777 Engineering 1,582 1,362 3,031 1,459 WR/R 5,279 3,306 7,633 b 3,541 Program planning 1,379 693 1,384 742 Fiscal services 583 745 874 798 Moderate risk waste 2,191 2,013 4,483 2,157 Marketing Commission 426 585 1,162 627 Shop 5,644 5,166 6,440 5,319 Transfer operations 3,762 3,630 4,609 4,536 Transportation 5,010 3,753 4,004 3,350 Cedar Hills operations 6,765 5,309 4,438 5,490 Legal 159 191 168 174 Rural landfills 1,808 1,138 1,197 421 Operations administration 674 895 1,687 1,219 Landfill gas and wastewater 231 525 1,883 562 Customer transactions 532 1,498 1,704 1,605 Total 68,641 60,598 74,212 b 59,915 a Includes budget and carryovers from 1993 and 1992 carryovers. b 1993 budget includes $3 million transfer from E/RR Fund for WR/R grants and programs. 3. Individual Fund Descriptions a. Capital Equipment Replacement Program Fund (CERP) The CERP fund was established in 1982 to ensure that reserves are available to replace transportation, landfill, and transfer station equipment when it reaches the end of its useful life. A model was developed that uses the purchase price, expected life, and salvage value for each piece of equipment, along with assumptions on future interest and inflation rates to project net costs and the annual transfer required from the Operating Fund to support planned replacements. An annual equipment acquisition plan and a multi-year financial plan for the CERP fund is produced through the model. In addition to Chapter SIL' Financial System transfers from the Operating Fund, the CERP fund receives income from the sale of old equipment and earned interest. b. Landfill Reserve Fund (LRF) The LRF was set up in 1983 to fund projects related to the development, closure and maintenance of King County's landfills. A contribution of $15.08 per ton is transferred from the Operating Fund to the LRF for each ton disposed. Funding for landfill projects is collected over the life of the landfill. The LRF is made up of 12 accounts: Cedar Hills (CH) new area development, CH closure, CH facility relocation, CH post -closure maintenance, replacement landfill development, Enumclaw closure, Hobart closure, Vashon closure, Enumclaw post -closure 0 0 0 0 0 0 maintenance, Hobart post -closure maintenance, Vashon post - closure maintenance, and Vashon new area development. Funds for maintaining county landfills for 30 years after closure are collected while the facility is operating so that all foreseeable costs are paid by the landfill users rather than future rate payers. When the landfill closes, the money collected for post -closure maintenance is transferred from the LRF to the Landfill Post -closure Maintenance fund. c. Landfill Post-losure Maintenance Fund (LPCM) This fund contains resources for complying with all state and federal regulations for the maintenance of King County's closed landfills. Funds for Cedar Falls and Duvall, which had been collected in the LRF were transferred to the LPCM fund when it was created in 1991. An additional $5 million transfer was made when the Enumclaw Landfill closed in 1993. Post -closure maintenance includes: gas extraction; monitoring of groundwater, surface water, leachate and gas; leachate pretreatment; environmental data evaluation; payment of permit fees; and site maintenance. Costs of equipment, staff, supplies, fees, and sampling for the closed landfills are covered by the LPCM. d. Environmental Reserve Fund (ERF) The ERF was established in 1991 for site investigations and any remediation costs related to active, closed, or abandoned solid waste handling facilities, the Solid Waste Division owns or for which it has custodial responsibility. Also covered are costs related to inverse condemnation claims resulting from solid waste activities. The fund was started with resources collected between 1986 and 1990 for development of an energy/resource recovery facility. A per ton contribution from the Operating Fund may be included in the next rate base. e. Capital Improvement Funds 1/ Capital improvement projects that are not funded through u the LRF or ERF are paid for through the sale of limited -term general obligation bonds. The Division is currently paying fib u u VII -5 annual debt service of $7.7 million for four bond issuances. As with all funds, the bond fund balances can be supplemented by interest earnings, grants, the sale of surplus equipment, and other miscellaneous sources. A bond issue for new transfer facilities is expected in 1992. Capital improvement projects are prioritized and scheduled according to projected needs and the time necessary to complete projects in time to meet the projected needs. B. GRANTS 1. Coordinated Prevention Grants The Department of Ecology (Ecology) Coordinated Prevention Grant (CPG) program allocates Local Toxics Control Account and Hazardous Waste Assistance Account funds to each county to support hazardous and solid waste program planning and implementation (WAC 173-312). The purpose of the grant is to fund projects required by state law and comprehensive plans and those designed to prevent or minimize environmental contamination. The eligibility and administrative guidelines are designed to promote regional solutions, intergovernmental cooperation, and local responsibility for solid and hazardous waste management. The countywide allocation for 1992-1993 is approximately $7 million, which will be distributed among Seattle -King County Department of Public Health Environmental Division, the City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility, the King County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division, and 18 suburban cities. Most of the funded projects will focus on waste reduction and recycling education and recyclables and household hazardous waste collection. One million dollars will be used to close the Enumclaw and Carnation landfills. Grant funds allocated to the cities and to the unincorporated areas of the County are used for projects that benefit the specific jurisdiction receiving the funds. However, some programs that the County implements, such as information programs that include brochures, indirectly benefit the entire County. Grantees are required to provide a 40 percent match. The program will continue indefinitely with a new allocation Chapter iii/: Financial System VII - 6 and application process every two years. The program may expand to include other funding sources. 2. 1990 Compost Study Grant Program The Ecology Compost Study Grant Program allocates money from the Solid Waste Management Account to fund food and yard waste composting projects (WAC 73-319). The Division will fund projects to gather data to guide development of environmental standards for compost facilities, to determine the potential end -uses of compost products, and to determine the feasibility of long-term, countywide implementation of on- site nonresidential composting and backyard food waste composting. The Division received an award of $302,000 for the 1992-1994 biennium and is working in cooperation with Seattle on this project. A 25 percent match is required. This grant will not continue beyond 1994. 3. Waste -Not -Washington Communities Grant Program Phase I of the Ecology Waste Reduction/Recycling Grant Program, called the "Waste -Not -Washington Grant" in King County, allocates funds from the waste disposal facilities bond issue of 1980 to local governments to support waste reduction and recycling projects (WAC 173-318). The purpose of the grant is to provide comprehensive regional waste reduction and recycling services. This grant will fund recycling projects in the Snoqualmie Valley cities and the surrounding unincorporated areas, the city of Skykomish, the Snoqualmie Pass area, and the city of Issaquah and surrounding unincorporated area. The allocation to the County and participating suburban cities is $1.03 million for 1992-1995. The required 30 percent match is provided by the County (17 percent) and Issaquah (13 percent). Phase 11 of this grant will allocate approximately $2.3 million countywide for 1992-1996. Cb apler NL• Financial System 4. King County WR/R Grant Program The King County WR/R Grant Program will allocate funds from the Solid Waste Division budget to fund waste reduction and recycling projects in unincorporated King County and the suburban cities (King County Council Motion No. 8407). The purpose of the grant is to encourage waste reduction and recycling efforts beyond those currently required by law. Beginning in 1992, $1.5 million will be distributed. Grantees are not required to provide matching funds. The program will end in 1995. • • 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADDENDUM King County Comprehensive • Solid Waste � Management rias • 74 Sorting It out Together Determination of Significance/Adoption Notice and Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Statement King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan King County Solid Waste Division, July 1989 Prepared to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules for environmental review of the 1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. King County Solid Waste Division August 1992 Determination of Significance and Adoption of Existing Environmental Document Description of current proposal: The proposal is adoption of the 1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Proponent: King County Solid Waste Division Location of current proposal: King County is located in western Washington approximately equal distance between the state's northern and southern boundaries. The county is bordered on the west by Puget Sound, on the east by Chelan and Kittitas Counties, on the north by Snohomish County, and on the south by Pierce County. Title of document being adopted: Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1989 King County Comprehenswe Solid Waste Management Plan Agency that prepared document being adopted: King County Solid Waste Division Date adopted document was prepared: July 14, 1989 Description of document (or portion) being adopted: The final environmental impact statement (Final EIS) being adopted consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, prepared by the King County Solid Waste Division and issued on April 17, 1989; together with the addendum -form Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid baste Management Plan, prepared by the King County Solid Waste Division and issued on July 14, 1989. The latter document consists of a revised Fact Sheet and Summary, comment letters and responses, and an Errata section. Together, these documents describe the alternatives and recommendations in the proposed 1989 Plan; and evaluate their potential significant adverse environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts. The Final EIS consisting of these two documents is being adopted in its entirety. If the document being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: The adopted document has not been challenged. The document is available to be read at (place/time): the King County Solid Waste Division, 600 Yesler Building, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA, between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M.; and at all King County libraries. Major King County libraries are open between the hours of 10:00 AM. and 9:00 P.M, while smaller libraries may have more restricted hours. EIS REQUIRED. The lead agency has determined that this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. To meet the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), the lead agency is adopting the document described above. Under WAC 197-11-630, there will be no scoping process for this SIS. We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. Together with the additional information provided in the attached addendum, the document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision maker. Name of agency adopting document: King County Solid Waste Division Contact person, if other than responsible official: Jackie Krolopp Kim Phone: (206) 296-4406 Responsible Official: Rodney G. Hansen, Ph.D., P.E. Position/title: Manager, King County Solid Waste Division Phone: (206) 296-4385 Address: 600 Yesler Building, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104 Date:! -30 /c/12 '-i Signature: lla� Rodney G. n, Ph.D., P.E. Section I Introduction The 1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is substantially similar to the 1989 Plan. Although the 1992 Plan contains a number of new recommendations, they build upon the same basic solid waste management programs recommended in the 1989 Plan. Because of the similarity of the two plans, the probable significant adverse impacts of the recommendations and alternatives in the 1992 Plan fall within the range of those evaluated in the 1989 Plan EIS. Therefore, rather than prepare a new EIS on the 1992 Plan, the King County Solid Waste Division has decided to adopt the 1989 Plan EIS and prepare an addendum that contains needed additional information. Section II of this addendum describes those recommendations and alternatives in the 1992 Plan that have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts, indicates the page number of the adopted 1989 Plan EIS where the relevant impact analysis can be found, and provides some minor additional analysis where needed. Section III of the addendum provides a summary of the Cost Assessment for the 1992 Plan, which is included as Appendix K of the 1992 Plan. Recommendations and alternatives for each element of the King County solid waste system are presented in Chapters III, IV, V, and VI of the 1992 Plan. Those which have the EIS - 1 potential to cause significant adverse impacts and are addressed in this addendum occur in the following sections of the 1992 Plan Chapter III - Waste Reduction and Recycling • Section III.B - Recycling Chapter IV - Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems • Section IV.B - Transfer System • Section IV.0 - Disposal Chapter V - Special and Miscellaneous Wastes • Section VA - Contaminated Soil • Section V.0 - Biomedical Waste • Section V.D - Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing (CDL) Waste Recommendations and alternatives that would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts are not addressed in this addendum. These include recommendations and alternatives that involve educational activities, studies, monitoring, waste screening, enforcement, alternative funding mechanisms, and incentive rate structures. ELS Addendum <' EIS - 2 Section II Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives and Impact Analysis This addendum incorporates the 1992 Plan by reference, so descriptions of the proposed action and alternatives are very brief, with reference made to the corresponding section of the 1992 Plan. Because the Final EIS on the 1989 Plan was prepared in addendum format, the page numbers provided in the impact analyses are for the Draft EIS. The Determination of Significance (DS)/Adoption Notice preceding this addendum provides complete references for the Draft and Final EIS's on the 1989 Plan and the location where these documents can be reviewed. For purposes of this addendum, the No -Action Alternative is continued implementation of the recommendations in the 1989 Plan The impact analyses for these recommendations are included in the 1989 Plan EIS and are not repeated in this addendum. A. MMSW WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING 1. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives a. Proposed Action (Alternative B, Expand Existing Programs with Yard Waste Disposal Limitations) Waste reduction and recycling programs in the 1992 Plan are very similar in nature to those recommended in the 1989 Plan However, in response to identified service needs and opportunities, the 1992 Plan recommendations establish more specific, expanded minimum service levels for residential collection of recyclables (provision of minimum service levels ELS Addendum would be mandatory, but participation by residents would remain voluntary); provide collection opportunities for a wider range of recyclable materials; establish guidelines for nonresidential collection service (both the collection service and business participation would be voluntary); provide additional yard waste recycling opportunities; and implement the 1989 Plan recommendation for yard waste disposal limitations in 1993. The proposed programs would be expected to achieve a diversion rate of just over 50 percent by 1995. Elements of the proposed action that could potentially result in significant adverse impacts are summarized below. Further detail on the proposed action is provided in Section III.B.3•b of the 1992 Plan. (1) Residential Collection Under the 1992 Plan, residential collection programs would be expanded to include the following minimum service levels: - Urban household primary recyclables collection - Household collection of primary recyclables (paper, glass, metals, PET and HDPE plastics, and yard waste under 3 inches in diameter) would be required for all single-family and multi- family residences. - Rural drop -site primary recyclables collection - All single and multifamily residences would have drop -site collection of the same primary recyclables collected from urban households. - Urban and rural single-family yard -waste collection - Household collection of yard waste under 3 inches in diameter would be required for all single-family and multifamily residences in urban areas, while rural areas would have, at a minimum, drop -site collection services. - Urban multifamily onsite yard waste collection - This would be required for all urban areas. - Urban household on-call appliance collection - Residents would be able to call the city or county solid waste or recycling service provider and arrange for collection of large appliances for a fee. The County could provide for appliance collection at new transfer stations. - Urban household on-call bulky yard waste collection - This includes large quantities of yard waste or yard waste too large for curbside collection (larger than 3 inches in diameter). Residents could have this type of waste collected for a fee. - Urban household textiles collection - Regularly scheduled collection service (at least quarterly) would be required for used clothing and fabrics (natural and manmade). In addition to these required minimum service levels, there would be optional household collection in urban area for additional plastics and polycoated materials. For rural areas, optional services would include household collection of primary recyclables, on-call collection of appliances and bulky yard waste, regularly scheduled textiles collection, and household or drop -site collection of additional plastics and polycoated materials. (2) Nonresidential Collection The proposed action would establish minimum collection service guidelines for businesses. Under these guidelines, businesses would be targeted for regularly scheduled collection services based on their location and size. Materials to be collected would include, at a minimum, two of the four grades of paper (cardboard, high grade, mixed waste paper, and polycoated paper); and at least one of the following: four mixed containers (glass, tin cans, aluminum cans, PET and HDPE plastic bottles, or polycoated paperboard cartons), wood, metals, yard waste, or textiles. Options for businesses not targeted for collection services because of their size or location would include cooperative collection, self -haul to drop -sites and buy-back centers (businesses would be encouraged to use and assist in locating such facilities), and collection alternatives on a case-by-case basis. n U EIS S - 3 (3) Collection at Solid Waste Facilities Under the 1992 Plan, the required minimum service levels for collection of recyclables at County solid waste facilities would be as follows: - All existing transfer stations and landfills would continue to provide the current level of recyclables and yard waste collection service. - All new and upgraded (where feasible) transfer stations would collect primary recyclables, including yard waste; and secondary recyclables, as needed, after evaluating private sector options. Processing of any recyclable materials would be determined on a case-by-case basis after private sector options are considered. (4) Yard Waste Disposal Limitations The proposed action includes banning or limiting yard waste disposal at County facilities if needed to meet the County's waste reduction and recycling goals. Under an outright ban, yard waste would be generally be prohibited from disposal at King County solid waste facilities, but could be collected at special yard waste facilities, either County or private. A yard waste limitation might ban disposal of large quantities of yard waste or charge a higher rate as an incentive to source separation. A ban or limitation could he implemented with or without the public sector providing any additional yard waste collection services and facilities. Without such additional service, residences and businesses would be directed to use hauler -provided collection services or haul directly to private composting facilities. (5) Additional county -sponsored Collection Services If the County decides to ban or limit yard waste disposal and recommends additional collection services for unserved areas, it will ensure the provision of three yard -waste drop -sites in the northwestern, near -south, and eastside areas of the county. The County may also provide financial incentives to existing private buy-back centers to encourage them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials, such as polycoated paperboard, additional plastics, bulky yard waste (greater than EIS Addendum EIS - 4 3 inches in diameter), wood, appliances, metals, and textiles. The County may consider contracting with appliance dealers and recyclers to collect appliances from residents for a fee. Proposed county -sponsored "cleanup -up events" are discussed under (6) below. (6) Regional Programs The only proposed regional program that would have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts is regularly scheduled special collection events for secondary recyclable materials. The County would sponsor such events at regularly scheduled times at designated sites throughout the County. As a city optional program, cities could implement a special collection event with funding assistance from the County. b. Alternative A, Continue Existing Programs Under this alternative, existing collection and education programs would continue, and multifamily and curbside yard waste programs would be available in all urban areas. It is estimated that there would be a small increase in the recycling rate, possibly to 40 percent Diversion rates greater than 40 percent would not be expected, because there would be no significant improvements in recycling services or facilities. Further detail on alternative A is provided in Section III.B.3.a of the 1992 Plan. c. Alternative C, Initiate Mandatory Recycling Through Disposal Bans Under this alternative, most existing services and programs would continue, and disposal bans would be placed on one or any combination of the following: primary residential recyclables, metals and appliances, yard waste, and selected nonresidential recyclables. Alternative C would be expected to result in a recycling rate of up to 60 percent or better, depending on the materials selected, and the effectiveness of enforcement Further detail on alternative C is provided in Section III.B.3.c of the 1992 Plan. E!S Addendum 2. Impact Analysis a. Proposed Action (Alternative B, Expand Existing Programs with Yard Waste Disposal Limitations) (1) Residential Collection Urban and rural household and multifamily on-site collection services would be provided for a greater range of materials under the 1992 Plan than under the 1989 Plan. However, on a programmatic level, the impacts would fall within the range of those discussed in the 1989 Plan Draft EIS for yard waste curbside collection (page IV -14), residential curbside collection (page IV -16), and multifamily dwelling recycling (page IV -17). Separate collection of additional materials would result in increased truck traffic and associated noise impacts in neighborhoods served, and the potential for more frequent aesthetic impacts if the additional materials are placed on the curb. However, these impacts would be intermittent and would not be expected to be significant The 1992 Plan could result in the location of additional drop -sites in rural areas. The impacts of drop -sites would fall within the range of those discussed in the 1989 Plan for neighborhood yard waste drop boxes (page IV -15) and drop-off centers (page IV -24). (2) Nonresidential Collection The impacts of collection of source -separated commercial recyclables is discussed on page IV -24 of the 1989 Plan Draft EIS. The proposed action could also result in development or increased use of buy-back centers and drop -sites. The impacts of these types of facilities are discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS on page IV -23 and IV -24, respectively. (3) Collection at Solid Waste Facilities The 1992 Plan would result in collection of additional materials at new or upgraded County transfer stations. The impacts of these activities would fall within the range of those discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS for yard waste collection at transfer stations (page IV -16), recycling opportunities at transfer •i • • • • • • • • 0 stations and rural landfills (page 4-18), and processing facilities for yard waste/recyables (page (IV -18). (4) Yard {caste Disposal Limitations The 1992 Plan could result in a ban or limits on disposal of yard waste at County solid waste facilities. The impacts of disposal bans are discussed on page IV -21 of the 1989 Plan EIS. Disposal limitations would have similar impacts. (5) Additional County -Sponsored Collection Services This aspect of the 1992 Plan could result in new buy- back centers and drop -sites, as well as collection of appliances from residences for a fee. The impacts of these activities would fall within those referred to above under Residential Collection and Nonresidential Collection. (6) Regional Programs The impacts of special collection events to collect secondary recyclable (hard -to -recycle) materials would be similar to those discussed on page IV -24 of the 1989 Plan EIS for drop -off -centers. Traffic increases could be greater for a special collection event, but would be confined to the day(s) that the special event took place. Also, the potential aesthetic impacts of an unstaffed drop-off center would be less likely to occur at a special event, because such events would be supervised. b. Alternative A, Continue Existing Programs Alternative A would continue waste reduction, recycling, and composting programs recommended in the 1989 Plan. The environmental impacts of these programs are discussed in Section 4.4.1.2 of the 1989 Plan EIS, beginning on page IV -8. c. Alternative C, Initiate Mandatory Recycling Through Disposal Bans Continuation of existing programs under Alternative C would have the same impacts as those discussed for Alternative A above. In addition, there would be impacts of disposal bans, which are discussed page IV -21 of the 1989 Plan EIS. EIS - 5 B. TRANSFER SYSTEM 1. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives a. Proposed Action (Alternative B, Updated System Plan) The proposed 1992 Transfer System Development Plan is nearly identical to the 1989 Transfer System Development Plan (see description below of Alternative A - Status Quo System Plan), differing primarily in the timing of proposed facility constructions, closures, and upgrades. Like the 1989 Plan, the 1992 Plan defines four distinct planning areas for defining transfer system development options: North, Central County, South County, and Rural. The boundaries of these planning areas are shown in Figure IV.S of the 1992 Plan. Modifications in the development option for each area under the proposed 1992 Transfer System Development Plan are summarized briefly below. Further discussion of the proposed action is provided in Sections IV.B.3.b of the 1992 Plan, with the implementation schedule outlined in Table IV.17 of the 1992 Plan. (1) Nortb County Area If Snohomish County does not grant a permit to operate the Snohomish Eastmont facility as a transfer station by December 31, 1992, replacement of the Houghton Transfer Station with the new Northeast Lake Washington Transfer Station (called the Woodinville Area Transfer Station in the 1989 Plan) would begin in 1993 instead of 1994. (2) Central County Area The EIS is in progress for the Factoria Transfer Station replacement site. A collection facility for moderate risk waste may be added at the Factoria replacement facility, if feasible. (3) Soutb County Area Design work for the new South County Transfer Station (called the Auburn Area Transfer Station in the 1989 Plan) would begin in 1993 unless the Snohomish Eastmont Transfer ES i - 6 Station does not open, in which case design work would be delayed to begin in 1994 or later. (4) Rural County Area The need for a new transfer facility near the intersection of I-90 and SR -18, which was recommended in the 1989 Plan, would be further evaluated pending the evaluation of growth management planning. b. Alternative A, Status Quo System Plan This alternative is the implementation of recommendations exactly as identified in Section III.D.4 and III.D.S of the 1989 Plan. These recommendations are summarized below. (1) Nortb County Area The County would seek to permit the Snohomish Eastmont Transfer Station, add a new Woodinville Area Transfer Station when necessary (called the Northeast Lake Washington Transfer Station in the 1992 Plan), and expand the Fust Northeast Transfer Station on site, as space permits. After the latter two actions, the Houghton Transfer Station would be closed. (2) Central County Area The Factoria Transfer Station would be replaced (expansion was determined to be infeasible). (3) Soutb County Area A new Auburn Area Transfer Station (referred to as the South County Transfer Station in the 1992 Plan) would be constructed, after which the Algona Transfer Station would be closed. The feasibility of expanding the Bow Lake Transfer Station would be studied. This facility would either be expanded on site or replaced with a transfer station in the Tukwila area The Renton Transfer Station would be closed after the expansion of Factoria and Bow Lake or the addition of the Tukwila Area Transfer Station. (4) Rural County Area The Cedar Falls Landfill has been replaced with a rural drop -box facility. When needed, a new transfer station would be constructed near the intersection of I-90 and SR -18, followed by closure of the Cedar Falls facility. Both the Enumclaw and Hobart Landfills would be replaced with transfer facilities, and a new transfer station would be constructed in the northeast county area c. Alternative Q Privatization Under this alternative, King County would evaluate the feasibility of private sector involvement in operation of the transfer system. Options range from complete privatization to an exclusive franchise to operate a transfer station within a specific service area_ d. Alternative D, Smaller Facilities Under this alternative, a greater number of smaller capacity transfer stations would be provided rather than fewer, larger facilities. By comparing the design of the new Enumclaw Transfer Station and the proposed new larger capacity Factoria Transfer Station, it was determined that the physical size of a transfer station, and therefore the needed site size, is virtually the same regardless of tonnage capacity. 2. Impact Analysis a. Proposed Action (Alternative B, Updated System Plan) Like the 1989 Plan, the 1992 Plan recommendations for transfer station development encompass closures of transfer stations and rural landfills and construction and operation of new or expanded transfer stations or new drop -boxes. On a programmatic level, the potential significant adverse impacts of the 1992 Plan recommendations fall within the range of those discussed for the proposed action beginning on page IV47 of the 1989 Plan EIS. u • • The 1989 Plan EIS does not specifically address the impacts of co -locating a transfer station and moderate -risk waste collection facility, which could occur at the replacement Factoria Transfer Station if feasible at one of the candidate sites currently undergoing environmental review. The impacts of co - locating these two facilities would be similar in nature to those discussed for a new transfer station beginning on page IV47 of the 1989 Plan EIS. However, the extent of the construction and operation impacts, including area of land disturbed, potential for removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat, aesthetics impacts,and traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts, would be greater than for a transfer station alone. Also, due to the greater risks associated with this type of waste, a mitigation plan would have to be developed specifically for the moderate -risk waste collection facility to protect workers, the public, and the environmenL This would include design measures such as adequate containment for spills; and operational measures such as safe waste handling and storage procedures, an emergency response plan designed specifically for moderate -risk waste, and adequate worker training. b. Alternative A, Status Quo System Plan • The impacts of this alternative would be the same as those of the proposed action in the 1989 Plan, which are evaluated beginning on page IV47 of the 1989 Plan EIS. G Alternative C, Privatization Since this alternative would involve only a study of the concept of privatization, there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts. The focus of the study would be to evaluate potential impacts on the existing transfer system, including impacts on the rate base, staffing criteria, levels of service, legal issues (such as contract considerations), and enforcement issues. d. Alternative D, Smaller Facilities As noted previously, it has been determined that smaller transfer facilities would require approximately the same size site as larger facilities. Therefore, development of a greater number of smaller transfer facilities would result in greater cumulative r-1 LJ `> EIS - 7 environmental impacts (similar environmental impacts at a greater number of sites). Furthermore, preliminary analyses show that it would cost significantly more to provide several smaller transfer facilities than it would to provide fewer, larger facilities (see Section IV.B.3.d of the 1992 Plan). C. DISPOSAL 1. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives a. Proposed Action (Alternative A, Disposal at n fisting King County Disposal Facilities) Under this Alternative, the Cedar Hills Landfill could remain open for the at least next 20 years, while the Hobart and Enumclaw rural landfills would close and be replaced with transfer stations. The Vashon Island Landfill is the only rural landfill that would continue operation. The option to export waste would be further evaluated. Speck activities would include: (1) Cedar Hills Landf 111 The County's MMSW would continue to be disposed at the Cedar Hills Landfill. New tonnage forecasts indicate the need to accelerate development of Refuse Area S at the landfill. The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan and associated Draft HS (issued in December 1987) would be modified to respond to revised tonnage estimates, operating experience, public comment, and potential partial out -of -County disposal. (2) Hobart Landf i'll Existing load restrictions would remain in effect until it reaches its capacity in 1994. Periodic assessments would be made to determine if additional load restrictions are warranted. (3) Enumclaw Landf 111 The Solid Waste Division is seeking an additional variance to maintain operation of the Enumclaw Landfill until May 1993 when the new Enumclaw Transfer Station becomes operational. l'�>fif a/if (4) Vasbon Landtll An application has been filed with the Environmental Protection Agency for designation of Vashon Island as a sole source aquifer. The landfill has over ten years of built capacity remaining and room to provide additional capacity. Under the proposed action, the schedule for new area development would be delayed until outstanding issues related to the use and cost of this capacity are settled, including the sole source aquifer issue as well as alternatives for leachate transport and treatment. The 1992 Plan recommends that if the sole source aquifer designation prohibits use of built landfill capacity, the landfill should be replaced with a drop -box or transfer station. (S) Waste Export Although Alternative C outlines a fully developed waste export alternative, the proposed action would include an evaluation of the economics of waste export alternatives compared with continued operation of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Recommendations for a backup level of operation at Cedar Hills would be developed as part of this evaluation. b. Alternative B, Pursue Development of a New MMSW Regional Landfill The requirements for developing a new regional landfill in King County have been explored in several studies over the past few years (see Section IV.C.3.b[2] of the 1992 Plan). Further consideration of a new regional landfill in King County is not authorized by policy established for the Plan (KCC 10.22.030[I]). c. Alternative C, Waste Export of a Portion of the King County MMSW Waste Stream Under this alternative, a portion of the County's MMSW would be exported to an out -of -county landfill. The County would continue to operate the Cedar Hills Landfill at an adequate level to allow its use as a back-up system in case of emergencies or failure of the waste export system. This alternative could be accomplished either by a phased transition to out -of -county disposal as new or upgraded transfer stations with compaction capabilities become operational; or by development of a central transfer and preload facility where loads from existing transfer stations could be loaded into suitable containers for rail haul. 2. Impact Analysis a. Proposed Action (Alternative A, Disposal at Existing King County Disposal Facilities) (1) Cedar Hills Landfill The environmental impacts of continued use of the Cedar Hills Landfill are discussed on page IV -54 of the 1989 Plan EIS. Acceleration of development of Refuse Area 5 would cause construction impacts associated with new area development to occur earlier than previously anticipated. Further analysis of the impacts of continued operation of the landfill will be addressed in the environmental review of the modified Site Development Plan. (2) Hobart Landf ill with continued load restrictions at the Hobart Landfill, commercial haulers serving the Hobart area would continue to haul directly to the Cedar Hills Landfill. This would result in continued increased traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts on haul routes to the Cedar Hills Landfill. There would also be additional use of petroleum fuels due to the longer distances traveled by commercial haulers to the Cedar Hills Landfill compared to the Hobart Landfill. Increased load restrictions would result in similar effects, because current users of the Hobart Landfill would be forced to use more distant transfer stations outside the Hobart service area There could be an increase in illegal dumping in the Hobart area if load restrictions increase. All these impacts would be temporary, and would cease when the planned Hobart Transfer/Recycling Station opens. (3) Enumclaw Land, f ill Under the proposed variance, impacts currently associated with landfill operation, including noise from equipment operation and vehicle traffic, would continue until May 1993 when the new Enumclaw Transfer Station becomes operational. EIS Addendum • 0 Such impacts do not occur at levels that would be considered significant. There is sufficient remaining capacity at the landfill to allow continued operation through May 1993 without increasing the currently permitted footprint or final grades of the landfill. (4) Vasbon Land, fill Delay of new area development at the Vashon Landfill would delay the impacts associated with such development. Depending on the resolution of the sole source aquifer issue, the landfill may have to be replaced with a transfer station or drop box The impacts of both types of facilities would fall within the range of those discussed for a new transfer station on page IV -47 of the 1989 Plan EIS under Proposed Action. b. Alternative B, Pursue Development of a New MMSW Regional Landfill The impacts of developing a new regional landfill in Icing County are discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS beginning on page IV -56. c. Alternative C, Waste Export of a Portion of the King County MMSW Waste Stream The impacts of implementing a long-haul program to dispose of waste in an out -of -county landfill, including potential development of a new transshipment facility, are discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS beginning on page IV -58. Because only a portion of King County's MMSW would be exported under this alternative, the impacts of the proposed disposal action (see Section II.C.2.a above) would continue at a reduced level. Also, since County transfer stations would play a role in waste export, impacts associated with the proposed transfer system development plan (see Section II.B.2.a above) would continue. EIS - 9 D. CONTAMINATED SOIIS 1. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives a. Proposed Action (Alternative C, Recycling and Treatment) Under the proposed action, the County would study the availability of recycling/treatment processes for specific types of contaminated soil, and impose disposal bans when recycling and treatment processes can be demonstrated to be reasonably available for a particular type of contaminated soil. In -county disposal of all contaminated soil would continue to be required. (1) Alternative A, Status Quo This alternative would maintain the status quo. In - county disposal of contaminated soil would continue to be required. Generators would be allowed to continue to choose treatment and recycling processes. (2) Alternative B, Out -of -County LKsposal This alternative would remove flow control over contaminated soil to allow disposal at out -of -county disposal facilities in addition to the Cedar Hills Landfill. Generators would be allowed to continue to choose treatment and recycling processes. 2. Impact Analysis a. Proposed Action (Alternative C, Recycling and Treatment) Under the proposed action, a greater percentage of contaminated soil would be treated and recycled, but some would continue to be disposed at the Cedar Hills Landfill. EIS Addendum -1 0 << EIS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Disposal needs would be expected to decrease as a recycling/treatment market is developed and further treatment options become available. Therefore, the impacts of disposal of contaminated soils at the Cedar Hills Landfill, as described on page IV -87 of the 1989 Plan EIS under No Action Alternative, would also be expected to decrease. The 1989 Plan recommendation for a special handling fee to recover the cost of contaminated soil handling at the landfill has been implemented. There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding quantities that would be disposed both in the long-term and on a daily basis. The reason for this is that most contaminated soils cleared for disposal at the Cedar Hills Landfill are soils excavated during federally required removal of underground storage tanks or as a remediation activity under the state Model Toxics Control Act. Insufficient information is available on these types of activities to allow a reliable prediction of their timing, the quantities of soil to be removed, and the nature and extent of the contamination. The most commonly used treatment alternatives for contaminated soil are aeration, vapor extraction, incineration, and bioremediation. A description of these treatment methods is provided on page IV -72 of the 1989 Plan EIS. Their impacts are evaluated on page IV -88 of the 1989 Plan EIS under Alternatives to the Proposed Action. b. Alternative A, Status Quo The impacts of continuation of the status quo would fall within the range of impacts discussed for the proposed action on page IV -88 of the 1989 Plan EIS. Because it is likely that substantial quantities of contaminated soil would continue to be disposed at the Cedar Hills Landfill, this alternative would have some of the impacts of the No Action Alternative as described on page IV -87 of the 1989 Plan EIS. c. Alternative B, out -of -County Disposal If out -of -county disposal of contaminated soil were permitted in addition to disposal at the Cedar Hills Landfill, and alternative treatment processes were used at the option of the generator, some of the impacts of the status quo would still occur, although likely at a reduced level. However, the impacts described on page IV -87 of the 1989 Plan EIS for disposal of EIS Addendum contaminated soil at the Cedar Hills Landfill would also occur at one or more out -of -county landfill sites. If the location of an out -of -county landfill site requires long-haul transport of contaminated soils, this alternative would have impacts similar to implementation of an out -of -county long-haul option for MMSW, as described on page IV -58 on the 1989 Plan EIS. E. BIOMEDICAL WASTE 1. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Four alternatives are considered in the 1992 Plan. Alternatives A and B are related to biomedical waste from medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Alternatives C and D address home -generated sharps. a. Proposed Action (Alternative A, out -of -County Treatment and Disposal of Biomedical Waste; and Alternative D, Education for Users of Home - Generated Sharps) The proposed action would allow continuation of the current system for treatment and disposal of biomedical waste from medical, dental, and veterinary facilities. Because there are currently no commercial biomedical waste treatment facilities in King County, and most generators do not have the capability to treat their biomedical waste, generators would be allowed to continue to direct their biomedical waste to incineration and treatment facilities outside King County. These facilities are adequate to handle current volumes of such waste. King County solid waste facilities would also continue to accept biomedical waste if treated according to standards contained in King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC 10.28.070). Generally, biomedical waste must be treated by steam sterilization, incineration, or another approved method, and is subject to waste clearance requirements. Sharps waste must be contained in rigid, puncture -proof containers. Under the proposed action, flow control provisions would be revised to clarify that treatment and incineration of biomedical waste are not addressed. Options for disposal of 0 home -generated sharps would continue to be evaluated, and educational materials would be developed and distributed to home generators. b. Alternative B, Flow Control Over Biomedical Waste This alternative would enforce flow control over all biomedical waste. All such waste would either have to be treated onsite or transported to an offsite facility in King County for treatment. All treatment residuals, including incinerator ash, would have to be disposed in King County. As noted above, there are currently no commercial biomedical waste treatment facilities in King County. Therefore, under this alternative, either generators would have to procure their own treatment equipment, or a private facility or facilities would have to be sited and constructed in King County. c. Alternative C, Disposal Ban on Home -generated Sharps This alternative would ban disposal of all home -generated sharps in the MMSW system. It would require home generators of sharps waste to dispose of sharps only through a medical facility or pharmacy, or use a hauler to pick up sharps for disposal at Cedar Hills or a private treatment facility. Currently, home -generated sharps may be disposed in the MMSW disposal system if they are placed in a needle clipper or a labeled PET bottle. A needle clipper is a metal box with a blade that clips a needle from a syringe and safely contains it. 2. Impact Analysis a. Proposed Action (Alternative A, Out -of -County Treatment and Disposal of Biomedical Waste; and Alternative D, Education for Users of Home - Generated Sharps) Out -of -county treatment and disposal of biomedical waste, and disposal at King County solid waste facilities in accordance with applicable standards, would continue under the proposed action. These practices have not resulted in any known ESI -11 significant incidents of worker exposure or significant adverse environmental impacts, and none would be expected in the future. Education for home generators of sharps waste would have beneficial impacts in encouraging generators to use acceptable disposal practices. b. Alternative B, Flow Control Over Biomedical Waste Extending flow control to biomedical waste does not appear to be a reasonable alternative at this time due to the absence of commercial biomedical waste treatment facilities in King County. The quantity of waste requiring such treatment facilities is small, and would not justify the significant costs of siting, constructing, and operating in -county facilities. The impacts of siting, constructing, and operating biomedical waste treatment facilities would depend on the nature and size of the facilities, and cannot be evaluated at a programmatic level. Proposals for new facilities would have to undergo project - specific environmental review under SEPA. If sited, constructed, and operated in accordance with all applicable standards, biomedical waste treatment facilities would not be expected to result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts. c. Alternative C, Disposal Ban on Home -generated Sharps A disposal ban on home -generated sharps would reduce the potential for worker exposure from improperly disposed sharps. However, it does not appear to be a reasonable alternative at this time for two reasons. First, there is limited availability for sharps disposal apart from disposal in the general MMSW system, especially for persons in remote areas who have restricted mobility. Second, a disposal ban would be difficult to enforce and, as a result, would likely have limited effectiveness. E6 Addendum EIS - 12 F. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING WASTE 1. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives a. Proposed Action (Alternative B, Increase Waste Reduction and Recycling; and Alternative C, Regulation) A minimum level of processing would be provided for mixed loads of CDL waste at vendor facilities recommended under the 1989 Plan (see discussion under Section II.E.Lb below). However, there would still be a need for additional waste reduction and recycling of this waste to comply with the solid waste management priorities set forth in RCW 70.95. Therefore, under the proposed action, the County would initiate a program to promote further waste reduction and recycling of CDL waste by (1) encouraging source separation, either through incentives or by mandating it by law, (2) providing education and technical assistance to CDL waste generators, and (3) working with the private sector and other agencies to ensure viable markets for recycled CDL products, including possible expansion of the County's procurement policy to cover certain CDL materials. In addition to a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling program, the proposed action includes regulatory actions to complement this program. The County and cities would require a waste disposal and recycling plan in all grading, building, and demolition permits; the feasibility of implementing bans on the disposal of specific CDL materials would be researched; and waste screening would be implemented at all county transfer stations. b. Alternative A, Status Quo As recommended in the 1989 Plan, the County is in the process of implementing contracts with two vendors to provide disposal services for CDL waste. The vendors would also be required to provide a specified minimum processing capability for removing recyclable materials from any mixed loads of CDL ��s waste received at their transfer facilities. The County has agreed that before vendor systems are opened to users, the County will enact a flow control ordinance directing all nonrecycled CDL waste, including residual materials resulting from processing of CDL waste, to the contractors facilities only. The only CDL waste that would be accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill would be loads transported in private vehicles with gross vehicle weights not exceeding 8000 pounds, and incidental amounts of CDL waste in loads of MMSW. Vendor contracts will specify that the County reserves the right to prohibit or limit disposal of materials deemed recyclable. 2. Impact Analysis a_ Proposed Action (Alternative B, Inas se Waste Reduction and Recycling and Alternative C, • Regulation) The proposed action would result in increased recycling of CDL waste and would likely encourage greater use of existing processing facilities for recyclable materials (such as composting facilities for clean wood and concrete processing facilities). New processing facilities could also be developed within King County as markets for recyclable CDL materials are developed. The impacts of new or expanded CDL waste processing facilities fall within the range of those discussed in the 1989 Plan EIS for processing facilities for yard waste/recyclables (page IV -18), MMSW processing facility (page IV -19), intermediate processing centers (page IV -25) and commodity specific processing facilities (page IV -25). The impacts of a disposal ban on certain CDL materials would be similar to those discussed for disposal bans on recyclable components of MMSW on page IV -21 of the 1989 Plan EIS. b. Alternative A, Status Quo The impacts of private vendors systems for handling CDL waste are evaluated in the Final EIS on Selection of Private Vendor(s) to Provide CDL Waste Handling Servkz, issued by the County in June 1991. Section III Cost Assessment RCW 70.95 requires that each county and city solid waste management plan include a cost assessment. The cost assessment is a comprehensive systemwide review of a solid waste plan's costs, considering the dollar impact of its decisions on ratepayers, and providing information sufficient to estimate future rate levels. The required cost assessment for the 1992 Plan is included in Volume II, Appendix K of the Plan and incorporated in this addendum by reference. The following discussion focuses on King County's funding mechanism for its own solid waste operations, as described in more detail in Section VILE of the 1992 Plan. It is a King County policy that the Solid Waste Division be supported exclusively through user fees and that user fees will not be used for any purpose other than solid waste management. The disposal fees paid by King County residents depend on the type of waste and the facility being used. The basic fee for disposal of MMSW at county transfer stations and rural landfills is $66 per ton. Some commercial haulers are permitted to haul directly to the Cedar Hills Landfill without going through a county transfer station. These haulers are charged the "regional direct" rate of $43 per ton for MMSW. There is a $100 per ton disposal fee for special waste such as asbestos, contaminated soil, slag, and other hard -to - handle waste. Special waste is accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill and must be cleared for disposal by the Solid Waste Division or the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. Section VIIA of the Plan provides a complete summary of these and other fees charged at County solid waste facilities, EI - 1 S 3 including minimum fees. Disposal fee revenues fund all Solid Waste Division activities, including operations and maintenance, debt service, equipment replacement, and a $15.80 per ton contribution to the Landfill Reserve Fund. Table 1 shows how the standard disposal fee and regional direct fee are allocated among various Division activities. Table 1 Allocation of Basic Disposal Fee and Regional Direct Fee ($ per ton) Regional Basic Fee Direct Fee Landfill operations 7.68 7.68 Transfer/transport 10.30 0.83 Equipment maintenance /replacement 11.47 3.99 Landfill Reserve Fund 15.80 15.80 Waste reduction/recycling 5.11 4.66 Administration 5.54 1.98 Support for other agencies 1.85 1.85 Debt service 8.24 6.21 $66.00 $43.00 The current disposal fees went into effect on January 1, 1992 and are expected to remain the same through 1994. In addition to the disposal fee, residential and commercial self - haulers currently pay a surcharge of $2.61 per ton ($1 minimum) for MMSW, which is used to fund implementation of the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Bd4 Addendum � REFERENCES • • King County Comprehensive Solid Waste • Management Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _/I 4AN4 Sorting it out Together References Chapter I R-1 King County Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1985. King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Planning Division. Seattle, WA Department of Public Works. 1991. King County Surface Dater Management Division Stratetic Plan. Surface Water Management Division. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1989. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Solid Waste Management Alternatives (PETS). Solid Waste Division. Parametrix, Inc. Seattle, WA Department of Public Works. 1988. Kang County Solid Waste System Operating Plan, Transfer Stations and Rural Landfills and Final Environmental Impact Statement Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. Prepared by CH2M HILL, Bellevue, WA. Department of Public Works. 1988. Kang County Executive Report, Solid [Paste Management Alternalives-Executive Report. Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA Department of Public Works. 1987. King County Energy/Resource Recovery Management Plan. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA Metro, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. August 1983. Metro Sludge Management Plan. Seattle, WA Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area, Part IV Solid Waste, December 1974. Municipality of Metro. Seattle. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Seattle, WA Seattle, City of. Seattle Water Department. 1985. 1985 COMPLAN (Seattle Comprehensive Regional Water Plan) and Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle, WA Solid Waste Utility. 1989. Seattle Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Seattle, WA. Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Division. 1989. Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Plan. Everett, WA Washington State • Department of Ecology. 1990. Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions. • WDOE 90-11. Olympia, WA. Department of Ecology. 1982. Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines. Olympia, WA • Department of Ecology. 1989. Best Management Practices for Use of Municipal Sludge. Olympia, WA • • • • • • • References KI R-2 Chapter H King County Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1991. King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. Planning Division. Seattle, WA Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1991. King County Comprehensive Plan Review. Planning Division. Seattle, WA. Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1991. the 1991 Annual Growth Report. Planning Division. Seattle. WA. Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1985. King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Planning Division. Seattle, WA Planning Division. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1988. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1991. The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA R.W. Beck, 1987. Technical memo on construction, demolition, and land clearing waste to Mike Wilkins, King County Solid Waste Division, from R.W. Beck, February 5, 1991. TRC Environmental Consultants. 1991. Air Quality Analysis of Black River [baste Reduction and Shipping Yard. Mountlake Terrace, WA- Washington AWashington State Department of Ecology. 1991. Draft Washington State Solid Waste Management Plan. Olympia, WA. Department of Ecology. 1990. Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid [haste Management Plans and Plan Revisions. WDOE 90-11. Olympia, WA. State Energy Office. 1988. Washington State Energy Use Profile, Olympia, WA Personal Communications Andonaequ, Carmen, Biologist, Washington State Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA Phone conversation January 6, 1992. Miller, Bob, Air Monitoring Coordinator, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA 1991. Phone conservation December 16, 1991. Norwood, Sandy, Environmental Review Coordinator, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA Phone conversation January 3, 1992. Rolla, Trudy, Senior Environmental Specialist, Drinking and Groundwater Program, Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, Seattle, Wk Phone conversation January 6, 1992. Storer, Bob, Senior Water Quality Specialist, Surface Water Management Division, King County Department of Public Works, Seattle, WA. Phone conversation December 30, 1991. Moulton, Curt, Acting Chair, King County Cooperative Extension Service, Seattle, WA Phone conversation January 13, 1992. RYere?= ................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ......... R- 3 Chapter III King County Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. 1985. King County Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1991. Mixed Waste Processing Feasibility Analysis. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA - Department of Public Works. 1991. King County Waste Characterization Study. Solid Waste Division. Prepared by SCS Engineers, Bellevue, WA. Department of Public Works. 1990. King County Home Waste Guide. Volume One. Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1987. King County Five -Year Waste Reduction and Recycling Work Program Plan. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1990. Washington State Recycling Survey. Olympia, WA. Chapter IV Beck, R.W. and Associates. 1991. Memo to M. Wilkins, Solid Waste Division, February 4, 1991. Ref. #WW-1640-EAl-DA. Carnation, city of. 1991. Coordinated Prevention Grant Application. Carnation, WA. 1990. Engineering Report of Closure Plan Carnation Landfill. Alpha Engineers, Inc. Seattle, WA. King County Department of Public Works. 1991. Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 1992-1994. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1989. Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle -King County. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA Department of Public Works. 1989. In -County Regional Landfill Study. Solid Waste Division. Prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1989. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Solid Waste Management Alternatives (PSIS). Solid Waste Division. Prepared by Parametrix, Inc. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1989. King County ftnsportation Plan. Roads Division. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1988. King Counll, Executive Report, Solid Waste Management Alternatives-nF-xecutive Report. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, WA. Department of Public Works. 1987. Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Draft Site Development Plan (Draft Site Development Plan). Solid Waste Division. Prepared by CH2M Hill. Seattle WA. Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 1985. Abandoned Landfill Study in King Count,. Seattle, WA. Seattle -King County Abandoned Landfills Toxicity/Hazard Assessment. 1986. References R-4 Chapter V King County Department of Public Works. 1991. Waste Characteriza&n Study. Solid Waste Division. Seattle, Washington Portland, [Waste Stream Characterization Study for Portland Metropolitan Service Disctrict, SCS Consultants, December 19871 1986-1990) Department of Public Works. Environmental Impact Statement on CDL Waste Handling Vendor Selection Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development, Clean Washington Center. Feb. 1992. Recycled Products Directory. Olympia, Washington. Chapter VII Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and King County (Seattle -King County Board of Health). 1989. Local Hazardous [baste Management Plan. Seattle, WA. Legislation King County King County Code Title 10 (10.18; 10.18.020; 10.22.020 King County Code Title 23 King County Solid Waste Code (KCC) Declaration of Policy and Finding of Special Conditions (Noise). KCC 12.86. King County Solid Waste Regulations, KCBOHC Title 10 (10.32.020.B.2; 10.28.060; 10.28.070; 10.08.222; King County Ordinance 10056 King County Public Rules PUT 7-1-2 PR Waste Acceptance and Waste Clearance Policies PUT 7-2-1 (PR) King County Zoning Code Solid Waste Division Waste Clearance Decision Form Intergovernmental Solid Waste Interlocal Agreements Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Asbestos Control Standard, Regulation III, Article 4 Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 70-105) Washington Model Toxics Control Act Regulations, WAC Chapter 173-340 Washington State Solid Waste Management Act. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.95. Solid Waste Management and Recovery Act, RCW 70.95 State Growth Management Act Waste Not Washington Act (SHB 1671), amended RCW 70.95 SB 263 Hazardous WAste Plans HB and SHB 2391 (1992) References R- 5 SB 5143 Procurement Policies SB 5478 SB 5591, Solid Waste Reduction Through Recycling HB 13-4 SHB 2635, amends the Model Litter Control and Recycling Act RCW 35.02.160 and 35.21.120 RCW 81.77 and 81.80 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal. Washington Administrative Code 1989 (WAC) 173-304 Federal Clean Air Act (Code of Federal Regulations, CFR #40, Parts 1-99) Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (42 CFR Parts 280-281) Medical Waste Tracting Act of 1988 (40 CFR part 259) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) (40 CFR Part 61) OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR Parts 148, 260-281) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Shipment Record for Regulated Asbestos Waste Material (40 CFR Part 61) PSAPCA Notice of Intent to Remove or Encapsulate Asbestos - PSAPCA Control Standard Regulation 3, Article 4 I0 References w • • • • .GLOSSARY OF 'TERMS AND w •ABBREVIAnONS • • King County • Comprehensive • Solid Waste Management Plan • • • w • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _��/I 7410 Sorting It Out Together Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations TERMS 1 G-1 Agricultural wastes Wastes on farms resulting from the production of agricultural products including, but not limited to, manures and carcasses of dead animals weighing each or collectively in excess of 15 pounds (KCBOHC 10.08.020). Aluminum cans Beverage and food cans composed of aluminum (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Aquifer A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground- water to wells or springs (KCBOHC 10.08.035). Asbestos containing waste Any waste that contains more than one percent asbestos by weight (PUT 7-1-2,5.3; see also KCBOHC 10.08.040). Automotive batteries Includes car, motorcycle, and other lead -acid batteries used for motorized vehicles (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Biomedical waste Carcasses of animals exposed to pathogens, bio -safety level 4 disease waste, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents, human blood and blood products, pathological waste, sharps waste, and other waste determined to be infectious by the generator's infection control staff/committee (PUT 7-1-2,5.4). Buffer zone That portion of the facility that lies between the active area and the property boundary (KCBOHC 10.08.055). Bulky CDL waste Dense, bulky materials typically resulting from construction, demolition, and land clearing activities. These materials include but are not limited to asphalt, concrete, masonry, stumps, and rocks (PUT 7-1-2,5.7). Bulky yard waste Natural woods, such as stumps and logs or branches, over two inches in diameter (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Buy-back center A facility where individuals bring recyclables in exchange for payment (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). CDL See "Construction," "demolition," and "land clearing" wastes. Certificated hauler Any person engaged in the business of solid waste handling having a certificate granted by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) for that purpose (KCC 10.04.020(E)). Construction waste Solid waste originating from the construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. Generally includes, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized or plastic piping, or plaster. Certain components of the construction waste stream are considered to be inert and others noninert (PUT 7-1-1,5.8). Cardboard See "old corrugated containers." City Every incorporated city or town (RCW 70.95.030). City optional programs Programs that are provided by the County on a regional level but which cities may instead opt to implement with county funding assistance. Clean Air Act Act passed by Congress to have the air "safe enough to protect the public's health" by May 31, 1975. Required the setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major primary air pollutants (PL 101 549). ' Unless a source is cited, definitions are worldng definitions of the Solid Waste Division or common terminology. Glassary of 7ernu and Abbreviations i0 G -2 Closure Those actions taken by the owner or operator of a solid waste site or facility to cease disposal operations and to ensure that all such facilities are closed in conformance with applicable regulations at the time of such closures and to prepare the site for the post -closure period (KCBOHC 10.08.070). Compost The stabilized product of composting that is beneficial to plant growth It has undergone an initial, rapid stage of decomposition and is in the process of humification (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Composting The controlled degradation of organic solid waste yielding a product for use as a soil conditioner (KCBOHC 10.08.090). Computer printout paper Continuous -feed computer paper and forms of various types, but does not include multiple -copy carbonless paper (Source: Volume 1I, Appendix B). Contaminant Foreign material lending impurity to a primary material (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Corrugated paper Paper or cardboard manufactured in a series of wrinkles or folds, or into alternating ridges and grooves (Source: 1991 State Comprebensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Countywide programs Programs that are implemented by the county throughout both unincorporated and incorporated areas. Curbside collection See Household collection. Daily cover Soil layer placed above active waste disposal areas throughout the operating day to isolate the landfilled wastes from the environment (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan, 1987). Demolition waste Solid waste originating from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads, and other structures. Demolition waste many include, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized or plastic piping, sheet rock, plaster, pallets, asphalt floor tile, and carpeting. Certain components of the demolition waste stream are considered to be inert waste, and certain components are considered to be noninert. In no event shall demolition waste include dangerous or extremely hazardous waste, liquid waste, garbage (as defined by KCC 10.040.020), sewage waste, animal carcasses, chemical waste, p0roleum waste, or asbestos (PUT 7-1-2,5.13). Disposal The discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water (KCBOHC 10.08.130). Disposal site The location where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposit of solid waste occurs (KCBOHC 10.08.135). Diversion rate A measure of the amount of waste material being diverted for recycling compared with the total amount that was previously thrown away (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Drop -box facility A facility used for the placement of a detachable container including the area adjacent for necessary entrance and exit roads, unloading, and turn -around areas. Drop -box facilities normally serve the general public with loose loads and receive waste from off site (KCBOHC 10.08.140). Drop-off center/drop-site A method for collecting recyclable or compostable materials in which individuals take the materials to collection sites and deposit them into designated containers (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). Emission Discharge of a gas into atmospheric circulation (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Energy recovery The recovery of energy in a usable form from mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis or any other means of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves high temperature (above twelve -hundred degrees Fahrenheit [1,200°F]) processing (KCBOHC 10.08.145; see also RCW 70.95.030). Ferrous metals Metals or finished products that contain a significant percentage of iron, including stainless steel (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). Classary of Terms and Abbreviations i • • G- 3 • • • • • Final cover System of soil layers with extremely low permeability and a synthetic liner designed pursuant to state and\or federal regulations, and placed over waste areas to close them permanently to landfilling activity (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional • Landfill Site Development Plan, 1987). Flow control A legal or economic means by which waste is directed to particular destinations (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive • Solid Waste Management Plan). • Flow detention Storage and controlled release of leachate and water to hydraulic conveyances at an acceptable rate for the receiving conveyance; used to smooth out variations in flow (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development . Plan, 1987). Food waste Residual food from residences, institutions, or commercial facilities, or unusable portions of fruit, animal, or vegetable • material resulting from food production (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). • Franchise area A solid waste hauler's territorial collection area, which is delineated in the WUTC certificates for solid waste collection. • Garbage Unwanted animal and vegetable wastes and animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, and consumption of food, swill, and carcasses of dead animals, and of such a character and proportion as to be • capable of attracting or providing food for vectors, except sewage and sewage sludge (KCBOHC 10.08.185). Glass containers Includes bottles and jars that are clear, brown, or green in color, from food, soft drinks, beer, and wine. Does • not include window glass, mirrors, fight bulbs, and other glass that is not recyclable (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). • Groundwater All subsurface water occurring in the zone of saturation (KCBOHC 10.08.190). Hazardous waste Solid waste designated by 40 CFR Part 261 and regulated as hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental • Protection Agency (PUT 7-1-2,5.17). HDPE plastic High-density polyethylene, often used to make bottles and other containers, such as milk, juice, and detergent bottles. • The SPI code for HDPE is /2\. (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). Head Height of the free-surface level of a liquid above any point in a hydraulic system; a measure of the pressure or force exerted • by the liquid (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan, 1987). • High-grade paper Relatively valuable types of paper such as office paper and computer printout paper (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). • Household batteries Includes batteries of various sizes and types, as commonly used in toys and other household applications (Source: Volume I1, Appendix B). • Household collection programs (also known as curbside programs) The pick-up of recyclables from a household. This pick- up may be at a curb, end of driveway, or alleyway from both single- and multifamily dwellings, (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). • Incentive rates Solid waste rates structured to provide incentives to reduce waste generation or to recycle. Incineration A process of reducing the volume of solid waste by use of an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion • (KCBOHC 10.08.205). Incinerator Facility in which the combustion of solid waste takes place (See Incineration). • Industrial solid waste Waste byproducts from manufacturing operations such as scraps, trimmings, packing, and other discarded materials not otherwise designated as dangerous waste under Chapter 173-303 WAC (PUT 7-1-2,5.23). • Inert wastes Noncombustible, nondangerous solid wastes that are likely to retain their physical and chemical structure under • expected conditions of disposal, including resistance to biological attack and chemical attack from acidic rainwater (KCBOHC 10.08.220). • • • • Glacsary of Terms and Abbreviations G -4 Inert construction waste Inert components of construction waste, including, but not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, masonry, plastic piping, glass, dirt, and gravel (PUT 7-1-2,5.8.1). Inert demolition waste Inert components of demolition waste, including, but not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, masonry plastic pipe, glass, asphalt floor tile, dirt, and gravel (PUT 7-1-2,5.13.1). Inorganic waste Waste that does not originate from plants or animals (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Integrated solid waste management A practice of using several waste management techniques to manage and dispose of specific components of the municipal solid waste stream. Waste management alternatives include source reduction, recycling, composting, energy recovery, incineration, and landfilling (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Interim final cover Layer of compacted till and layers of other soil placed over the waste disposal areas not anticipated to receive additional waste fill for at least two years (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan, 1987). King County Solid Waste Regulations KCBOHC Title 10, governs solid waste handling, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing and final disposal of all solid waste generated within King County, including issuance of permits and enforcement (KCBOHC 10.04.020). Land clearing wastes Waste resulting from site clearing. It includes, but is not limited to, stumps, tree trunks, brush, other vegetation, plant waste, rocks, mud, and other mineral waste. Most vegetative land clearing waste may be composted (PUT 7-1- 2,5.2.6). Landfill A disposal facility or part of a facility at which solid waste is permanently placed in or on land and which is not a land spreading disposal facility (KCBOHC 10.08.235). LDPE plastics Low-density polyethylene, often used to make bags and lids where durability and flexibility is desired. The SPI code for LDPE is /4\ (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). Leachate Water or other liquid that been contaminated by dissolved or suspended materials due to contact with solid waste or gases therefrom (KCBOHC 10.08.245). Leachate head reduction Removal of leachate from the unlined portion of the refuge areas in order to reduce the height or head of the leachate mound in the hill (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan, 1987). Lift Landfill units are developed through a series of As and lifts. A cell is the volume of waste placed daily on the same horizontal plane. A lift consists of all adjacent cells on the same horizontal plane. Local government A city, town, or county (Chapter 70.95.030 RCW). LTGO Limited tax general obligation bonds; debt that is backed by the taxing authority of the County (Source: Volume 1I, Appendix B). Mandatory collection An obligatory fee for solid waste collection which is required of all residents of a defined area. Mandatory recycling Programs that, by law, require consumers to separate trash so that some or all recyclable materials are not burned or dumped in landfills (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Methane An odorless, colorless, flammable, and explosive gas produced where organic waste such as municipal solid waste undergo anaerobic decomposition. Methane is emitted from municipal solid waste landfills and anaerobic compost processes (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Minimum Functional Standards WAC 173-304, the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling, see also KCBOHC Title 10. Mixed municipal solid waste (MMSW) Waste consisting of solid waste generated by residences, stores, offices, and other generators of wastes that are not industrial, agricultural, or demolition wastes. (KCC 10.04.020(KK) Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations <<<<>>< 5 G - Mixed waste paper Low-grade, potentially compostable paper, including noncorrugated paperboard, paperback books, telephone books, paper towels, and paper food containers (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Moderate risk waste (a) Any waste that exhibits any of the properties of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation under this chapter solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation, and (b) any household wastes which are generated from the disposal of substances identified by Ecology as hazardous household substances (Chapter 70.105.010 RCW). Multifamily residential waste Waste from a residential structure designed to accommodate more than one family in separate dwelling units. This includes apartment houses, townhouses, and row houses, but does not include duplexes or triplexes, which are defined as single family (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Needle clipper A device consisting of a box with a blade which clips a used needle off a syringe and safely contains the needle. Nonferrous metals Nonferrous metals includes aluminum (except beverage cans), copper, lead, brass, tin, and other metals (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Noninert construction waste Components of construction waste which are not considered to be inert waste, including, but not limited to, wood, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, steel, copper, aluminum or galvanized piping, sheet rock, and plaster (PUT 7-1-2,5.8.2). Noninert demolition waste Components of demolition waste that are not considered to be inert waste, including, but not limited to, wood, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, steel, copper piping, galvanized piping, sheet rock, plaster, pallets, and carpeting (PUT 7-1-2,5.13.2). Nonresidential self -haul waste Nonresidential waste delivered to a solid waste facility by the same company that generated the waste, including construction and demolition waste brought in by the construction company that generated the waste (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Nonresidential waste Waste that originates from institutions (such as government offices and schools) and businesses and is delivered to a solid waste facility by a garbage hauler or other third party who is paid to transport the waste (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Office paper Includes typing, copy, bond, and ledger paper and envelopes that are clean and typically white or fight -colored (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Old corrugated containers (OCC, Cardboard) Used, kraft liner cartons with corrugated inner liners, as typically used to ship materials. Does not include waxed cardboard or paperboard (cereal boxes, microwave and similar food boxes, etc.), but it does include kraft grocery bags (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Old newspapers (ONP) Printed ground wood newsprint. Includes glossy ads and Sunday edition magazines that are delivered with the newspaper (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). On-call collection Programs that are set up to be conducted on a regular basis, but to stop at only those households that have indicated their interest through a phone call to the collector or through other means (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Organic matter Portion of the soil that includes microflora and microfauna in the soil (living and dead) and residual decomposition products of plant and animal tissue; any carbon assembly (exclusive of carbonates), large or small, dead or alive, inside soil space; consists primarily of humus (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Organic waste Waste material containing carbon. The organic fraction of municipal solid waste includes paper, wood, food wastes, plastics, and yard wastes (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Other ferrous metals Typically used to include metals or finished products that contain a significant percentage of iron, but exclusive of white goods and tin cans (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). classary of Terns and Abbreviations G -6 Participation rate A measure of the number of people participating in a recycling program compared to the total number that could be participating. (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Permit An authorization issued by the jurisdictional health department that allows a person to perform solid waste activities at a specific location and includes specific conditions for such facility operations (KCBOHC 10.08.305). PET Polyethylene terephthalate 2 -liter pop and liquor bottles with or without base. The SPI code is /1\ (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Planning area or jurisdiction The geographical location designated by a local solid waste management plan as the plan's legal boundaries (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Plastic bags Includes bags made from various types of plastic. Most of the bags are LDPE, but this category also includes HDPE (commonly used for garbage bags) (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Plastics 3-7 Includes less common plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (SPI code 3), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, SPI code 4), polypropylene (SPI code 5), polystyrene (SPI code 6), and all other resins (SPI code 7). See also SPI codes (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Polycoated paper Multicomponent packaging that contains paper as one or more of the layers, including milk cartons, juice boxes, and similar packaging (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Post -closure The requirements placed on disposal facilities after closure to ensure their environmental safety for a number of years after closure (KCBOHC 10.08.335). Post -consumer recycling The reuse of materials generated from residential and commercial waste, excluding recycling of material from industrial processes that has not reached the consumer, such as glass broken in the manufacturing process (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Primary recyclables Recyclable materials that are commonly collected and are therefore included under minimum services levels for collection programs. These include paper, cardboard, glass, tin and aluminum beverage containers, and HDPE and PET bottles. Primary recyclables are characterized by established or emergency markets. Processing An operation to convert a solid waste into a useful product or to prepare it for disposal (WAC 173-304-100). Procurer,ent policy Development and implementation of a policy which achieves the purchase of products made from recycled or recyclable goods (KCC 10.04.020(UU)) Putrescible waste Solid waste which contains materials capable of being decomposed by microorganisms (KCBOHC 10.08.355). Rate incentives See Incentive rates. Recyclables collection Services such as household collection or facilities such as drop -sites that provide collection opportunities for recyclable materials. Recyclable materials Those solid wastes that are separated for recycling or reuse, such as papers, metals, and glass, that are identified as recyclable material pursuant to a local comprehensive solid waste plan (Source: 1991 State Comprebensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Recycling Transforming or remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill or incineration (RCW 70.95.020.(15)). Regional programs See Countywide programs. Residential self -haul waste Residential waste delivered to a solid waste facility by a homeowner, renter, or landlord, typically using cars, vans, pickup trucks, and other personal vehicles (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Residual waste Materials remaining after processing, incineration, composting, or recycling have been completed. Residues are usually disposed in landfills (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid baste Management Plan). Glassary of Terms and Abbreviations G- 7 Resource recovery The extraction and utilization of materials and energy from the waste stream. The term is sometimes used synonymously with energy recovery (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Reuse Use of a product more than once in its same form for the same purpose; e.g., a soft-drink bottle is reused when it is • returned to the bottling company for refilling (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Screening The passing of compost through a screen to remove large inorganic particles and improve the consistency and quality of • the end-product (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Secondary material Material that is used in place of a primary or raw material in manufacturing a product (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Secondary recyclables Recyclable materials that are not commonly collected. These include batteries, plastics coded 3 through 7, textiles, appliances, furniture, scrap metals, and food waste. • Self-haul Materials hauled to transfer disposal site by generator rather than by contracted hauler (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Septage A semisolid consisting of settled sewage solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials generated • from a septic tank system (KCBOHC 10.08.395). Single -family residential waste Waste from single -family residences, including duplexes and triplexes (see also "multifamily residential waste") (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Sludge A semisolid substance consisting of settled solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials generated from a wastewater treatment plant or other source (KCBOHC 10.08.410). • Soils balance Landfill site planning such that soils required for daily, interim, and final cover are excavated on site, and that the volume of the excavated soils is then available as additional landfill capacity. • Soil liner Landfill liner composed of compacted soil used for the containment of leachate (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Solid waste or wastes All putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, infectious waste, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded commodities, or contaminated excavated soil/fill material. This includes all liquid, solid, and semisolid materials • which are not the primary products of public, private, industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations. Solid waste includes, but is not limited to, sludge from wastewater treatment plants and septage from septic tanks, woodwaste, dangerous • waste, and problem wastes (KCBOHC 10.08.420). Solid waste handling The management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, and final disposal of solid wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes, the recovery of energy resources from solid •wastes, or the conversion of the energy in solid wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof (KCBOHC 10.08.425). Source reduction The design, manufacture, acquisition, and reuse of materials so as to minimize the quantity and/or toxicity of waste produced at the place of origin (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Source separation The separation of different kinds of solid waste at the place where the waste originates (RCW 70.95.030). • Special waste All wastes which requires waste clearance, as specified in the Waste Acceptance Policy PUT 7-1-2 (PR) (PUT 7-2- 15.11,6.3). SPI codes The numbers assigned to different types of plastic resins by the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., as follows: • (Source: Volume II, Appendix B) 1 - polyethylene terephthalate 5 - polypropylene • 2 - high-density polyethylene 6 - polystyrene 3 - vinyl and polyvinyl chloride 7 - all other resins 4 - low-density polyethylene Clawry of Terms and Abbreviations G- 8 Subtitle D Solid, nonhazardous waste section of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR part 258). Support services Programs or policies that encourage participation in waste reduction and recycling programs. Examples of support services are variable can rates for garbage collection, procurement policies that favor the purchase of recycled products, and construction standards that require collection and storage space for recyclables. Surface water run-off Surface water, leachate, or any other liquid that flows by gravity from the surface of waste disposal areas onto other areas. Surface water run-on Surface water, leachate, or any other liquid that flows by gravity onto the surface of waste disposal areas or other areas (Source: Draft Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan, 1987). Technical assistance (State) Aid provided by the state to local governments or individuals and of a technical nature to aid in complying with all laws and regulations (Source: 1991 State Comprebenswe Solid Waste Management Plan). Textiles Used clothing and scraps of cloth made of natural and manmade materials, including cotton, wool, silk, nylon, polyesters, and leather (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Tipping fee The price paid per ton, cubic yard, or other measurement to dispose of waste at a transfer station, incinerator, or landfill (KCC Chapter 10.12). Tin cans Includes tin-plated steel cans (food cans), and does not include paint or other types of steel cans (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Tires Whole tires from automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and other vehicles (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). Transfer station A permanent, fixed, supplemental collection and transportation facility, used by persons and route collection vehicles to deposit collected solid waste from off site into a larger transfer vehicle for transport to a solid waste handling facility. Transfer stations may also include recycling facilities and compaction/baling systems (KCBOHC 10.08.460). Unauthorized waste Waste that is not acceptable for disposal at any or a specific disposal facility according to applicable rules and regulations or a determination of the manager (KCC 10.04.020(PPP)). Used oil Oil that through use, storage, or handling has become unsuitable for its original purpose due to the presence of impurities or the loss of original properties (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). UfGO Unlimited tax general obligation bonds; debt that incurred with the consent of taxpayers and that is backed by the full faith and credit pledge of the County (Source: Volume 11, Appendix B). Variable can rate A charge for solid waste services based on the volume of waste generated measured by the number of cans set out for collection (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). Waste clearance policy Procedure to determine whether and under what conditions special wastes identified in PUT 7-1-2 may be disposed at Cedar Hills Landfill (PUT 7-1-2,5.38). Waste clearance decision form Documentation provided by the Solid Waste Division to generators based on information provided in the generator's application. The decision form specifies conditions for disposal of materials regulated under this public rule (PUT 7-2-1,5.14). Waste lift Solid waste layer that is underlain and overlain by applications of daily cover. It generally has a maximum thickness of about 13 feet (Source: haft Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan, 1987). Waste reduction Reducing the amount or toxicity of waste generated or reusing materials RCW 70.95.02 (20) see also (KCBOHC 10.08.505). Waste screening A process by which King County monitors and inspects solid waste entering the solid waste system to detect and remove hazardous or other unauthorized wastes. Ghwry of Terms and Abbreviations G- 9 Waste stream The total flow of solid waste from homes, businesses, institutions and manufacturing plants that must be recycled, or disposed in landfills; or any segment thereof, such as the "residential waste stream" or the "recyclable waste stream" (Source: 1991 State Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan). White goods Used major household appliances such as washers, dryers, and refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, stoves, and water heaters. Woodwaste Solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a byproduct or waste from the manufacturing of wood products, handling, and storage of raw materials, trees, and stumps. This includes, but is not limited to, sawdust, chips, shavings, bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper -chrome arsenate (KCBOHC 10.08.520). Wood Includes stumps, branches over four inches in diameter, and other wood, and products made predominantly of wood except furniture (Source: Volume II, Appendix B). Yard waste Grass clippings, leaves and weeds, and prunings from residences or businesses (Source: Volume II, Appendix B; see also PUT 7-1-2,5.40). ABBREVIATIONS BALD King County Building and Land Development Division CDL Construction, demolition, and land clearing waste CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERP Capital Equipment Replacement Program CFC Cholorfluorocarbons CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital improvement plan CO Carbon monoxide DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement Division King County Solid Waste Division Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EIS Environmental Impact Statement (see also DEIS, FEIS, PEIS, SEIS) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ER/R Energy resource/recovery ERF Environmental Reserve Fund FEIS Final environmental impact statement Forum Solid Waste Interlocal Forum HB House Bill HDPE High-density polyethylene Health Department Seattle -King County Department of Public Health ILAs Interlocal agreements IMEX Industrial Material Exchange KCBOHC King County Board of Health Code Glavaq of Terms and Abbreviations -1 G 0 KCC King County Code KCCP King County Comprehensive Plan LDPE Low-density polyethylene LHWMP Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan LPCM Landfill Post -Closure Maintenance Fund LRF Landfill Reserve Fund Metro Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle MFS Minimum Functional Standards MMSW Mixed municipal solid waste NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCC Old corrugated containers ONP Old newspapers PEIS Programmatic environmental impact statement PET Polyethylene terephthalate Plan King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan PSAPCA Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency PSCOG Puget Sound Council of Governments PSWQA Puget Sound Water Quality Authority PUT King County Public Rules and Regulations RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCW Revised Code of Washington RFP Request for proposal RIBCO River Basin Coordinating Committee SB Senate Bill SEIS Supplemental environmental impact statement SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SHB Substitute House Bill SWAC Solid Waste Advisory Committee TAP Technical assistance program WAC Washington Administrative Code WDOE See Ecology WDRP Waste disposal and recycling plan WR/R Waste reduction and recycling WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Gassary of Terms and Abbreviations • O • • � RELATED LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS • � King County � Comprehensive Solid Waste • Management Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • i� • Sorting It Out Together Related Legislation and Regulations Solid Waste Management Act - Recovery and Recycling ................. RL - 1 Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of Washington King County Solid Waste Code ................................ RL - 24 Title 10 - King County Code Solid Waste Handling Code .................................. RL - 60 Title 10 - King County Board of Health Code Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement / Forum Interlocal Agreement ......... RL - 113 Solid Waste Acceptance Policy ............................... RL - 129 King County Public Rule PUT 7-1-2 (PR) Waste Clearance Policy ................................... RL - 148 King County Public Rule PUT 7-2-1 (PR) RL - I Related Legislation RCW 70.95 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REDUCTION AND RECYCLING ACT 70.95.010 Legislative finding -- Priorities -- Goal. 70.95.020 Purpose. 70.95.030 Definitions. 70.95.040 Solid waste advisory committee -- Members -- Meetings -- Travel expenses -- "Governor's award of excellence." 70.95.050 Solid waste advisory committee -- Staff services and facilities. 70.95.060 Standards for solid waste handling -- Areas. 70.95.070 Review of standards prior to adoption -- Revisions, additions and modifications -- Factors. 70.95.075 Implementation of standards -- Assessment -- Analyses -- Proposals. 70.95.080 County comprehensive solid waste management plan -- Joint plans -- Duties of cities. 70.95.090 County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Contents. 70.95.092 County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Levels of service, reduction and recycling. 70.95.094 County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Review and approval process. 70.95.096 Utilities and transportation commission to review local plan's assessment of cost impacts on rates. 70.95.100 Technical assistance for plan preparation -- Guidelines -- Informational materials and programs. 70.95.110 Maintenance of plans -- Review, revisions -- Implementation of source separation programs. 70.95.130 Financial aid to counties and cities. 70.95.140 Matching requirements. 70.95.150 Contracts with counties to assure proper expenditures. 70.95.160 Local board of health regulations to implement the comprehensive plan -- Section not to be construed to authorize counties to operate system. 70.95.163 Local health departments may contract with the department of ecology. 70.95.165 Solid waste disposal facility siting -- Site review -- Local solid waste advisory committees -- Membership. 70.95.167 Private businesses involvement in source separated materials -- Local solid waste advisory committee to examine. 70.95.170 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Required. 70.95.180 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Applications, fee. 70.95.185 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Review by department -- Appeal of issuance -- Validity of permits issued after June 7, 1984. 70.95.190 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Renewal -- Appeal -- Validity of renewal. 70.95.200 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Suspension. 70.95.210 Hearing -- Appeal. 70.95.215 Landfill disposal facilities -- Reserve accounts required by July 1, 1987 -- Exception -- Rules. 70.95.220 Financial aid to jurisdictional health departments -- Applications -- Allocations. 70.95.230 Financial aid to jurisdictional health deparnuents -- Matching funds requirements. 70.95.235 Diversion of recyclable material -- Penalty. • Related Legrstation lui RCW 70.95 RL-2 70.95.240 Unlawful to dump or deposit solid waste without permit. 70.95.250 Name appearing on waste material -- Presumption. 70.95.255 Disposal of municipal sewage sludge or septic tank sludge prohibited -- Exemptions -- Uses of sludge material permitted. 70.95.260 Duties of department -- State solid waste management plan -- Assistance -- Coordination -- Tire recycling. 70.95.263 Additional powers and duties of department. 70.95.265 Department to cooperate with public and private departments, agencies and associations. 70.95.267 Department authorized to disburse referendum 26 (chapter 43.83A RCW) fund for local government solid waste projects. 70.95.268 Department authorized to disburse funds under chapter 43.99F RCW for local government solid waste projects. 70.95.280 Determination of best solid waste management practices -- Department to develop method to monitor waste stream -- Collectors to report quantity and quality of waste -- Confidentiality of proprietary information. 70.95.285 Solid waste stream analysis. 70.95.290 Solid waste stream evaluation. 70.95.295 Analysis and evaluation to be incorporated in state solid waste management plan. 70.95.500 Disposal of vehicle tires outside designated area prohibited -- Penalty -- Exemption. 70.95.510 Fee on the retail sale of new replacement vehicle tires. 70.95.520 Vehicle fire recycling account -- Deposit of funds. 70.95.530 Vehicle fire recycling account -- Use. 70.95.535 Disposition of fee. 70.95.540 Cooperation with department to aid tire recycling. 70.95.550 Waste. tires -- Definitions. 70.95.555 Waste tires -- License for transport or storage business -- Requirements. 70.95.560 Waste tires -- Violation of RCW 70.95.555 -- Penalty. 70.95.565 Waste tires -- Contracts with unlicensed persons prohibited. 70.95.600 Educational material promoting household waste reduction and recycling. 70.95.610 Battery disposal -- Restrictions -- Violators subject to fine -- "Vehicle battery" defined. 70.95.620 Identification procedure for persons accepting used vehicle batteries. 70.95.630 Requirements for accepting used batteries by retailers of vehicle batteries -- Notice. 70.95.640 Retail core charge. 70.95.650 Vehicle battery wholesalers -- Obligations regarding used batteries -- Noncompliance procedure. 70.95.660 Department to distribute printed notice -- Issuance of warnings and citations -- Fines. 70.95.670 Rules. 70.95.700 Solid waste incineration or energy recovery facility -- Environmental impact statement requirements. 70.95.710 Incineration of medical waste. 70.95.720 Closure of energy recovery and incineration facilities -- Recordkeepiug requirements. 70.95.800 Solid waste management account. 70.95.810 Composting food and yard wastes -- Grants and study. 70.95.900 Authority and responsibility of utilities and transportation commission not changed. 70.95.901 Severability -- 1989 c 431. 70.95.902 Section captions not law -- 1989 c 431. 70.95.903 Application of chapter -- Collection and transportation of recyclable materials by recycling companies or nonprofit entities -- Reuse or reclamation. 70.95.910 Severability -- 1969 ex.s. c 134. 70.95.911 Severability -- 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41. RCW 70.95 Related Legislation RCW 70.95.010 Legislative finding -- Priorities -- Goal. The legislature finds: (1) Continuing technological changes in methods of manufacture, packaging, and marketing of consumer products, together with the economic and population growth of this state, the rising affluence of its citizens, and its expanding industrial activity have created new and ever -mounting problems involving disposal of garbage, refuse, and solid waste materials resulting from domestic, agricultural, and industrial activities. (2) Traditional methods of disposing of solid wastes in this state are no longer adequate to meet the ever-increasing problem. Improper methods and practices of handling and disposal of solid wastes pollute our land, air and water resources, blight our countryside, adversely affect land values, and damage the overall quality of our environment. (3) Considerations of natural resource limitations, energy shortages, economics and the environment make necessary the development and implementation of solid waste recovery and/or recycling plans and programs. (4) Waste reduction must become a fundamental strategy of solid waste management. It is therefore necessary to change manufacturing and purchasing practices and waste generation behaviors to reduce the amount of waste that becomes a governmental responsibility. (5) Source separation of waste must become a fundamental strategy of solid waste management. Collection and handling strategies should have, as an ultimate goal, the source separation of all materials with resource value or environmental hazard. (6) (a) It is the responsibility of every person to minimize his or her production of wastes and to separate recyclable or hazardous materials from mixed waste. (b) It is the responsibility of state, county, and city governments to provide for a waste management infrastructure to fully implement waste reduction and source separation strategies and to process and dispose of remaining wastes in a manner that is environmentally safe and economically sound. It is further the responsibility of state, county, and city governments to monitor the cost-effectiveness and enviromnental Related LegWation ......................:.::.::. ..:....:.; :;:.;`..: .: .:.::.::.;......::.;:.;. RL 3 :>:<::::<:>. safety of combusting separated waste, processing mixed waste, and recycling programs. (c) It is the responsibility of county and city governments to assume primary responsibility for solid waste management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source separation strategies. (d) It is the responsibility of state government to ensure that local governments are providing adequate source reduction and separation opportunities and incentives to all, including persons in both rural and urban areas, and nonresidential waste generators such as commercial, industrial, and institutional entities, recognizing the need to provide flexibility to accommodate differing population densities, distances to and availability of recycling markets, and collection and disposal costs in each community; and to provide county and city governments with adequate technical resources to accomplish this responsibility. (7) Environmental and economic considerations in solving the state's solid waste management problems requires strong consideration by local governments of regional solutions and intergovernmental cooperation. (8) The following priorities for the collection, handling, and management of solid waste are necessary and should be followed in descending order as applicable: (a) Waste reduction; (b) Recycling, with source separation of recyclable materials as the preferred method; (c) Energy recovery, incineration, or landfill of separated waste; (d) Energy recovery, incineration, or landfilling of mixed wastes. (9) It is the state's goal to achieve a fifty percent recycling rate by 1995. (10) Steps should be taken to make recycling at least as affordable and convenient to the ratepayer as mixed waste disposal. (11) It is necessary to compile and maintain adequate data on the types and quantities of solid waste that are being generated and to monitor how the various types of solid waste are being managed. (12) Vehicle batteries should be recycled and the disposal of vehicle batteries into landfills or incinerators should be discontinued. RCW 70.95 .:;:....... ....: . ..................................... RL- 4 .......:.:.::.:.::.... (13) Excessive and nonrecyclable packaging of products should be avoided. (14) Comprehensive education should be conducted throughout the state so that people are informed of the need to reduce, source separate, and recycle solid waste. (15) All governmental entities in the state should set an example by implementing aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs at their workplaces and by purchasing products that are made from recycled materials and are recyclable. (16) To ensure the safe and efficient operations of solid waste disposal facilities, it is necessary for operators and regulators of landfills and incinerators to receive training and certification. (17) It is necessary to provide adequate funding to all levels of government so that successful waste reduction and recycling programs can be implemented. (18) The development of stable and expanding markets for recyclable materials is critical to the long-term success of the state's recycling goals. Market development must be encouraged on a state, regional, and national basis to maximize its effectiveness. The state shall assume primary responsibility for the development of a multifaceted market development program to cavy out the purposes of *this act. (19) There is an imperative need to anticipate, plan for, and accomplish effective storage, control, recovery, and recycling of discarded tires and other problem wastes with the subsequent conservation of resources and energy. History: [1989 c 431 § 1; 1985 c 345 § 1; 1984 c 123 § 1; 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 1.] RCW 70.95.020 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a comprehensive state-wide program for solid waste handling, and solid waste recovery and/or recycling which will prevent land, air, and water pollution and conserve the natural, economic, and energy resources of this state. To this end it is the purpose of this chapter: (1) To assign primary responsibility for adequate solid waste handling to local government, reserving to the state, however, those functions necessary to assure effective programs throughout the state; (2) To provide for adequate planning for solid waste handling by local government; (3) To provide for the adoption and enforcement of basic minimum performance standards for solid waste handling; (4) To provide technical and financial assistance to local governments in the planning, development, and conduct of solid waste handling programs; (5) To encourage storage, proper disposal, and recycling of discarded vehicle tires and to stimulate private recycling programs throughout the state. It is the intent of the legislature that local governments be encouraged to use the expertise of private industry and to contract with private industry to the fullest extent possible to carry out solid waste recovery and/or recycling programs. History: [1985 c 345 § 2; 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 2; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 2.1 RCW 70.95.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context indicates otherwise: (1) "City" means every incorporated city and town. (2) "Commission" means the utilities and transportation commission. (3) "Committee" means the state solid waste advisory committee. (4) "Department" means the department of ecology. (5) "Director" means the director of the department of ecology. (6) "Disposal site" means the location where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposit of solid waste occurs. (7) "Energy recovery" means a process operating under federal and state environmental laws and regulations for converting solid waste into usable energy and for reducing the volume of solid waste. (8) "Functional standards" means criteria for solid waste handling expressed in terms of expected performance or solid waste handling functions. RCW 70.95 Related Legislation • • • • • • • • • • • • _. .............................._..............._..............._.................................................................................. ................._............... . ..................................................__._ .............___...................._................_.._.........................................................._....... :_:...::: .;....:::....:::__ .:::. % RL - (9) "Incineration" means a process of reducing the volume of solid waste operating under federal and state environmental laws and regulations by use of an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion. (10) "Jurisdictional health department" means city, county, city -county, or district public health department. (11) "Landfill" means a disposal facility or part of a facility at which solid waste is placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility. (12) "Local government" means a city, town, or county. (13) "Multiple family residence" means any structure housing two or more dwelling units. (14) "Person" means individual, firm, association, copartnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity whatsoever. (15) "Recyclable materials" means those solid wastes that are separated for recycling or reuse, such as papers, metals, and glass, that are identified as recyclable material pursuant to a local comprehensive solid waste plan. Prior to the adoption of the local comprehensive solid waste plan, adopted pursuant to RCW 70.95.110(2), local governments may identify recyclable materials by ordinance from July 23, 1989. (16) "Recycling" means transforming or remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal or incineration. (17) "Residence" means the regular dwelling place of an individual or individuals. (18) "Sewage sludge" means a semisolid substance consisting of settled sewage solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials, generated from a wastewater treatment system, that does not meet the requirements of chapter 70.95) RCW. (19) "Solid waste" or "wastes" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill,sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and recyclable materials. (20) "Solid waste handling" means the management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, and final disposal of solid wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes, the Related Legislation recovery of energy resources from solid wastes or the conversion of the energy in solid wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof. (21) "Source separation" means the separation of different kinds of solid waste at the place where the waste originates. (22) "Vehicle" includes every device physically capable of being moved upon a public or private highway, road, street, or watercourse and in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public or private highway, road, street, or watercourse, except devices moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. (23) "Waste reduction" means reducing the amount or toxicity of waste generated or reusing materials. [1992 c 174 § 16; 1991 c 298 § 2; 1989 c 431 § 2; 1985 c 345 § 3; 1984 c 123 § 2; 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 3; 1970 ex.s. c 62 § 60; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 3.1 RCW 70.95.040 Solid waste advisory committee -- Members -- Meetings -- Travel expenses -- "Governor's award of excellence." (1) There is created a solid waste advisory committee to provide consultation to the department of ecology concerning matters covered by this chapter. The committee shall advise on the development of programs and regulations for solid and dangerous waste handling, resource recovery, and recycling, and shall supply recommendations concerning methods by which existing solid and dangerous waste handling, resource recovery, and recycling practices and the laws authorizing them may be supplemented and improved. (2) The committee shall consist of at least eleven members, including the assistant director for waste management programs within the depaiunent. The director shall appoint members with due regard to the interests of the public, local government, tribes, agriculture, industry, public health, recycling industries, solid waste collection industries, and resource recovery industries. The tenn of appointment shall be determined by the director. The committee shall elect its own chair and meet at least four times a year, in accordance with such rules of procedure as it shall establish. Members shall RCW 70.95 RL - 6 receive no compensation for their services but shall be reimbursed their travel expenses while engaged in business of the committee in accordance with RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060 as now existing or hereafter amended. (3) The committee shall each year recommend to the governor a recipient for a "governor's award of excellence" which the governor shall award for outstanding achievement by an industry, company, or individual in the area of hazardous waste or solid waste management. History. [1991 c 319 § 401; 1987 c 115 § 1; 1982 c 108 § 1; 1977 c 10 § 1. Prior: 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 9; 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 34 § 160; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 4.] RCW 70.95.050 Solid waste advisory committee -- Staff services and facilities. The department shall furnish necessary staff services and facilities required by the solid waste advisory committee. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 5.1 RCW 70.95.060 Standards for solid waste handling -- Areas. The department in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, as now or hereafter amended, may adopt such minimum functional standards for solid waste handling as it deems appropriate. The department in adopting such standards may classify areas of the state with respect to population density, climate, geology, and other relevant factors bearing on solid waste disposal standards. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 6.1 RCW 70.95.070 Review of standards prior to adoption -- Revisions, additions and modifications -- Factors. The solid waste advisory committee shall review prior to adoption and shall recommend revisions, additions, and modifications to the minimum functional standards governing solid waste handling relating, but not limited to, the following: (1) Vector production and sustenance. (2) Air pollution (coordinated with regulations of the department of ecology). (3) Pollution of surface and ground waters (coordinated with the regulations of the department of ecology). (4) Hazards to service or disposal workers or to the public. (5) Prevention of littering. (6) Adequacy and adaptability of disposal sites to population served. (7) Design and operation of disposal sites. (8) Recovery and/or recycling of solid waste. History: [1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 4; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 7.1 RCW 70.95.075 Implementation of standards -- Assessment -- ' Analyses -- Proposals. In order to implement the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling, evaluate the effectiveness of the minimum functional standards, evaluate the cost of implementation, and develop a mechanism to finance the implementation, the department shall prepare: (1) An assessment of local health agencies' information on all existing permitted landfill sites, including (a) measures taken and facilities installed at each landfill to mitigate surface water and ground water contamination, (b) proposed measures taken and facilities to be constructed at each landfill to mitigate surface water and ground water contamination, and (c) the costs of such measures and facilities; (2) An analysis of the effectiveness of the minimum functional standards for new landfills in lessening surface water and ground water contamination, and a comparison with the effectiveness of the prior standards; (3) An analysis of the costs of conforming with the new functional standards for new landfills compared with the costs of conforming to the prior standards; and (4) Proposals for methods of financing the costs of conforming with the new functional standards. History: [1986 c 81 § 1.] RCW 70.95 Related LegWa6gn n 0 -:::....:::::................................... : RL RCW 70.95.080 County comprehensive solid waste management plan -- Joint plans -- Duties of cities. Each county within the state, in cooperation with the various cities located within such county, shall prepare a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan. Such plan may cover two or more counties. Each city shall: (1) Prepare and deliver to the county auditor of the county in which it is located its plan for its own solid waste management for integration into the comprehensive county plan; or (2) Enter into an agreement with the county pursuant to which the city shall participate in preparing a joint city -county plan for solid waste management; or (3) Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city's solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. Two or more cities may prepare a plan for inclusion in the county plan. With prior notification of its home county of its intent, a city in one county may enter into an agreement with a city in an adjoining county, or with an adjoining county, or both, to prepare a joint plan for solid waste management to become part of the comprehensive plan of both counties. After consultation with representatives of the cities and counties, the department shall establish a schedule for the development of the comprehensive plans for solid waste management. In preparing such a schedule, the department shall take into account the probable cost of such plans to the cities and counties. Local governments shall not be required to include a hazardous waste element in their solid waste management plans. History: [1985 c 448 § 17; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 8.1 Related Legislation (1) A detailed inventory and description of all existing solid waste handling facilities including an inventory of any deficiencies in meeting current solid waste handling needs. (2) The estimated long-range needs for solid waste handling facilities projected twenty years into the future. (3) A program for the orderly development of solid waste handling facilities in a manner consistent with the plans for the entire county which shall: (a) Meet the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling adopted by the department and all laws and regulations relating to air and water pollution, fire prevention, flood control, and protection of public health; (b) Take into account the comprehensive land use plan of each jurisdiction; (c) Contain a six year construction and capital acquisition program for solid waste handling facilities; and (d) Contain a plan for financing both capital costs and operational expenditures of the proposed solid waste management system. (4) A program for surveillance and control. (5) A current inventory and description of solid waste collection needs and operations within each respective jurisdiction which shall include: (a) Any franchise for solid waste collection granted by the utilities and transportation commission in the respective jurisdictions including the name of the holder of the franchise and the address of his or her place of business and die area covered by the franchise; (b) Any city solid waste operation within the county and the boundaries of such operation; (c) The population density of each area serviced by a city operation or by a franchised operation within the respective jurisdictions; (d) The projected solid waste collection needs for the respective jurisdictions for the next six years. (6) A comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element that, in accordance with the priorities established in RCW 70.95.010, provides programs that (a) reduce the amount of waste generated, (b) provide incentives and mechanisms for source separation, and (c) establish recycling opportunities for the source separated waste. RCW 70.95 RCW 70.95.090 County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Contents. Each county and city comprehensive solid waste management plan shall include the following: Related Legislation (1) A detailed inventory and description of all existing solid waste handling facilities including an inventory of any deficiencies in meeting current solid waste handling needs. (2) The estimated long-range needs for solid waste handling facilities projected twenty years into the future. (3) A program for the orderly development of solid waste handling facilities in a manner consistent with the plans for the entire county which shall: (a) Meet the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling adopted by the department and all laws and regulations relating to air and water pollution, fire prevention, flood control, and protection of public health; (b) Take into account the comprehensive land use plan of each jurisdiction; (c) Contain a six year construction and capital acquisition program for solid waste handling facilities; and (d) Contain a plan for financing both capital costs and operational expenditures of the proposed solid waste management system. (4) A program for surveillance and control. (5) A current inventory and description of solid waste collection needs and operations within each respective jurisdiction which shall include: (a) Any franchise for solid waste collection granted by the utilities and transportation commission in the respective jurisdictions including the name of the holder of the franchise and the address of his or her place of business and die area covered by the franchise; (b) Any city solid waste operation within the county and the boundaries of such operation; (c) The population density of each area serviced by a city operation or by a franchised operation within the respective jurisdictions; (d) The projected solid waste collection needs for the respective jurisdictions for the next six years. (6) A comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element that, in accordance with the priorities established in RCW 70.95.010, provides programs that (a) reduce the amount of waste generated, (b) provide incentives and mechanisms for source separation, and (c) establish recycling opportunities for the source separated waste. RCW 70.95 (7) The waste reduction and recycling element shall include the following: (a) Waste reduction strategies; (b) Source separation strategies, including: (i) Programs for the collection of source separated materials from residences in urban and rural areas. In urban areas, these programs shall include collection of source separated recyclable materials from single and multiple family residences, unless the department approves an alternative program, according to the criteria in the planning guidelines. Such criteria shall include: Anticipated recovery rates and levels of public participation, availability of environmentally sound disposal capacity, access to markets for recyclable materials, unreasonable cost impacts on the ratepayer over the six-year planning period, utilization of environmentally sound waste reduction and recycling technologies, and other factors as appropriate. In rural areas, these programs shall include but not be limited to drop-off boxes, buy-back centers, or a combination of both, at each solid waste transfer, processing, or disposal site, or at locations convenient to the residents of the county. The drop-off boxes and buy-back centers may be owned or operated by public, nonprofit, or private persons; (ii) Programs to monitor the collection of source separated waste at nonresidential sites where there is sufficient"IIensity to sustain a program; (iii) Programs to collect yard waste, if the county or city submitting the plan finds that there are adequate markets or capacity for composted yard waste within or near the service area to consume the majority of the material collected; and (iv) Programs to educate and promote the concepts of waste reduction and recycling; (c) Recycling strategies, including a description of markets for recyclables, a review of waste generation trends, a description of waste composition, a discussion and description of existing programs and any additional programs needed to assist public and private sector recycling, and an implementation schedule for the designation of specific materials to be collected for recycling, and for the provision of recycling collection services; (d) Other information the county or city submitting the plan determines is necessary. (8) An assessment of the plan's impact on the costs of solid waste collection. The assessment shall be prepared in conformance with guidelines established by the utilities and transportation commission. The commission shall cooperate with the Washington state association of counties and the association of Washington cities in establishing such guidelines. (9) A review of potential areas that meet the criteria as outlined in RCW 70.95.165. History: [1991 c 298 § 3; 1989 c 431 § 3; 1984 c 123 - § 5; 1971 ex.s. c 293 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 9.] RCW 70.95.092 County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Levels of service, reduction and recycling. Levels of service shall be defined in the waste reduction and recycling element of each local comprehensive solid waste management plan and shall include the services set forth in RCW 70.95.090. In detennining which service level is provided to residential and nonresidential waste generators in each community, counties and cities shall develop clear criteria for designating areas as urban or rural. In designating urban areas, local governments shall consider the planning guidelines adopted by the department, total population, population density, and any applicable land use or utility service plans. History. [1989 c 431 § 4.1 RCW 70.95.094 County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans -- Review and approval process. (1) The department and local governments preparing plans are encouraged to work cooperatively during plan development. Each county and city preparing a comprehensive solid waste management plan shall submit a preliminary draft plan to the department for technical review. The department shall review and comment on the draft plan within one hundred twenty days of receipt. The department's comments shall state specific actions or revisions that must be completed for plan approval. (2) Each final draft solid waste management plan shall be submitted to the department for approval. The department will limit its comments on the final draft plans to those issues RCW 70.95 Related Legislation identified during its review of the draft plan and any other changes made between submittal of the preliminary draft and final draft plans. Disapproval of the local comprehensive solid waste management plan shall be supported by specific findings. A final draft plan shall be deemed approved 9 the department does not disapprove it within forty-five days of receipt. (3) If the department disapproves a plan or any plan amendments, the submitting entity may appeal the decision under the procedures of Part IV of chapter 34.05 RCW. An administrative law judge shall preside over the appeal. The appeal shall be limited to review of the specific findings which supported the disapproval under subsection (2) of this section. History: [1989 c 431 § 8.1 RCW 70.95.096 Utilities and transportation commission to review local plan's assessment of cost impacts on rates. Upon receipt, the department shall immediately provide the utilities and transportation commission with a copy of each preliminary draft local comprehensive solid waste management plan. Within forty-five days after receiving a plan, the commission shall have reviewed the plan's assessment of solid waste collection cost impacts on rates charged by solid waste collection companies regulated under chapter 81.77 RCW and shall advise the county or city submitting the plan and the department of the probable effect of the plan's recommendations on those rates. History: [1989 c 431 § 12.] RCW 70.95.100 Technical assistance for plan preparation -- Guidelines -- Informational materials and programs. (1) The department or the commission, as appropriate, shall provide to counties and cities technical assistance including, but not limited to, planning guidelines, in the preparation, review, and revision of solid waste management plans required by this chapter. Guidelines prepared under this section shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Guidelines for the preparation of the waste reduction and recycling element of the comprehensive solid waste management plan shall be completed by the department by March 15, 1990. ............................................ RL - 9 These guidelines shall provide recommendations to local government on materials to be considered for designation as recyclable materials. The state solid waste management plan prepared pursuant to RCW 70.95.260 shall be consistent with these guidelines. (2) The department shall be responsible for development and implementation of a comprehensive state-wide public information program designed to encourage waste reduction, source separation, and recycling by the public. The department shall operate a toll free hotline to provide the public information on waste reduction and recycling. (3) The department shall provide technical assistance to local governments in the development and dissemination of informational materials and related activities to assure recognition of unique local waste reduction and recycling programs. (4) Local governments shall make all materials and information developed with the assistance grants provided under RCW 70.95.130 available to the department for potential use in other areas of the state. History: [1989 c 431 § 6; 1984 c 123 § 6; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 10.] RCW 70.95.110 Maintenance of plans -- Review, revisions -- Implementation of source separation programs. (1) The comprehensive county solid waste management plans and any comprehensive city solid waste management plans prepared in accordance with RCW 70.95.080 shall be maintained in a current condition and reviewed and revised periodically by counties and cities as may be required by the department. Upon each review such plans shall be extended to show long-range needs for solid waste handling facilities for twenty years in the future, and a revised construction and capital acquisition program for six years in the future. Each revised solid waste management plan shall be submitted to the department. Each plan shall be reviewed and revised within five years of July 1, 1984, and thereafter shall be reviewed, and revised 9 necessary according to the schedule provided in subsection (2) of this section. Related Legislatimi RCW 70.95 RL - 1 0 (2) Cities and counties preparing solid waste management plans shall submit the waste reduction and recycling element required in RCW 70.95.090 and any revisions to other elements of its comprehensive solid waste management plan to the department no later than: (a) July 1, 1991, for class one areas: PROVIDED, That portions relating to multiple family residences shall be submitted no later than July 1, 1992; (b) July 1, 1992, for class two areas; and (c) July 1, 1994, for class three areas. Thereafter, each plan shall be reviewed and revised, if necessary, at least every five years. Nothing in *this act shall prohibit local governments from submitting a plan prior to the dates listed in this subsection. (3) The classes of areas are defined as follows: (a) Class one areas are the counties of Spokane, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap and all the cities therein. (b) Class two areas are all other counties located west of the crest of the Cascade mountains and all the cities therein. (c) Class three areas are the counties east of the crest of the Cascade mountains and all the cities therein, except for Spokane county. (4) Cities and counties shall begin implementing the programs to collect source separated materials no later than one year following the adoption and approval of the waste reduction and recycling element and these programs shall be fully implemented within two years of approval. History: [ 1991 c 298 § 4; 1989 c 431 § 5; 1984 c 123 § 7; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 11.1 RCW 70.95.130 Financial aid to counties and cities. Any county may apply to the department on a form prescribed thereby for financial aid for the preparation of the comprehensive county plan for solid waste management required by RCW 70.95.080. Any city electing to prepare an independent city plan, a joint city plan, or a joint county -city plan for solid waste management for inclusion in the county comprehensive plan may apply for financial aid for such purpose through the county. Every city application for financial aid for planning shall be filed with the county auditor and shall be included as a part of the county's application for financial aid. Any city preparing an independent plan shall provide for disposal sites wholly within its jurisdiction. The department shall allocate to the counties and cities applying for financial aid for planning, such funds as may be available pursuant to legislative appropriations or from any federal grants for such purpose. The department shall determine priorities and allocate available funds among the counties and cities applying for aid according to criteria established by regulations of the department considering population, urban development, environmental effects of waste disposal, existing waste handling practices, and the local justification of their proposed expenditures. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 13.1 RCW 70.95.140 Matching requirements. Counties and cities shall match their planning aid allocated by the director by an amount not less than twenty-five percent of the estimated cost of such planning. Any federal planning aid made directly to a county or city shall not be considered either a state or local contribution in determining local matching requirements. Counties and cities may meet their share of planning costs by cash and contributed services. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 14.] RCW 70.95.150 Contracts with counties to assure proper expenditures. Upon the allocation of planning funds as provided in RCW 70.95.130, the department shall enter into a contract with each county receiving a planning grant. The contract shall include such provisions as the director may deem necessary to assure the proper expenditure of such funds including allocations made -to cities. The sum allocated to a county shall be paid to the treasurer of such county. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 15.1 RCW 70.95 Related LegWatton RCW 70.95.160 Local board of health regulations to implement the comprehensive plan -- Section not to be construed to authorize counties to operate system. Each county, or any city, or jurisdictional board of health shall adopt regulations or ordinances governing solid waste handling implementing the comprehensive solid waste management plan covering storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing and final disposal including but not limited to the issuance of permits and the establishment of minimum levels and types of service for any aspect of solid waste handling. County regulations or ordinances adopted regarding levels and types of service shall not apply within the limits of any city where the city has by local ordinance determined that the county shall not exercise such powers within the corporate limits of the city. Such regulations or ordinances shall assure that solid waste storage and disposal facilities are located, maintained, and operated in a manner so as properly to protect the public health, prevent air and water pollution, are consistent with the priorities established in RCW 70.95.010, and avoid the creation of nuisances. Such regulations or ordinances may be more stringent than the minimum functional standards adopted by the department. Regulations or ordinances adopted by counties, cities, or jurisdictional boards of health shall be filed with the department. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the operation of a solid waste collection system by counties. History: [1989 c 431 § 10; 1988 c 127 § 29; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 16.] • RCW 70.95.163 Local health departments may contract with the department of ecology. Any jurisdictional health department and the department of ecology may enter into an agreement providing for the exercise by the department of ecology of any power that is specified in the contract and that is granted to the jurisdictional health department under this chapter. However, the jurisdictional health department shall have the approval of the legislative Related Legislation authority or authorities it serves before entering into any such agreement with the department of ecology. History: [1989 c 431 § 16.1 RCW 70.95.165 Solid waste disposal facility siting -- Site review -- Local solid waste advisory committees -- Membership. (1) Each county or city siting a solid waste disposal facility shall review each potential site for conformance with the standards as set by the department for: (a) Geology; (b) Ground water; (c) Soil; (d) Flooding; (e) Surface water; (f) Slope; (g) Cover material; (h) Capacity, (i) Climatic factors; (j) Land use; (k) Toxic air emissions; and (1) Other factors as determined by the department. (2) The standards in subsection (1) of this section shall be designed to use the best available technology to protect the environment and human health, and shall be revised periodically to reflect new technology and information. (3) Each county shall establish a local solid waste advisory committee to assist in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal and to review and comment upon proposed rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption. Such committees shall consist of a minimum of nine members and shall represent a balance of interests including, but not limited to, citizens, public interest groups, business, the waste management industry, and local elected public officials. The members shall be appointed by the county legislative authority. A county or city shall not apply for funds from the state and local improvements revolving account, Waste Disposal Facilities, 1980, under chapter 43.99F RCW, for the preparation, update, or major amendment of a comprehensive solid waste management plan unless the plan or revision has been prepared with the RCW 70.95 12 RL - active assistance and participation of a local solid waste advisory committee. History: [1989 c 431 § 11; 1984 c 123 § 4.1 RCW 70.95.167 Private businesses involvement in source separated materials -- Local solid waste advisory committee to examine. (1) Each local solid waste advisory committee shall conduct one or more meetings for the purpose of determining how local private recycling and solid waste collection businesses may participate in the development and implementation of programs to collect source separated materials from residences, and to process and market materials collected for recycling. The meetings shall include local private recycling businesses, private solid waste collection companies operating within the jurisdiction, and the local solid waste planning agencies. The meetings shall be held during the development of the waste reduction and recycling element or no later than one year prior to the date that a jurisdiction is required [to] submit the element under RCW 70.95.110(2). (2) The meeting requirement under subsection (1) of this section shall apply whenever a city or county develops or amends the waste reduction and recycling element required under this chapter. Jurisdictions having approved waste reduction and recycling elements or having initiated a process for the selection of a service provider as of May 21, 1991, do not have to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section until the next revisions to the waste reduction and recycling element are made or required. (3) After the waste reduction and recycling element is approved by the local legislative authority but before it is submitted to the department for approval, the local solid waste advisory committee shall hold at least one additional meeting to review the element. (4) For the purpose of this section, "private recycling business" means any private for-profit or private not-for-profit business that engages in the processing and marketing of recyclable materials. History: [1991 c 319 § 402.] RCW 70.95.170 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Required. After approval of the comprehensive solid waste plan by the depaitment no solid waste disposal site or disposal site facilities shall be maintained, established, substantially altered, expanded, or improved until the county, city, or other person operating such site has obtained a permit from the jurisdictional health department pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.95.180. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 17.1 RCW 70.95.180 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Applications, fee. (1) Applications for permits to operate new or existing solid waste disposal sites shall be on forms prescribed by the department and shall contain a description of the proposed and existing facilities and operations at the site, plans and specifications for any new or additional facilities to be constructed, and such other information as the jurisdictional health department may deem necessary in order to determine whether the site and solid waste disposal facilities located thereon will comply with local and state regulations. (2) Upon receipt of an application for a permit to establish, alter, expand, improve, or continue in use a solid waste disposal site, the jurisdictional health department shall refer one copy of the application to the department which shall report its findings to the jurisdictional health department. (3) The jurisdictional health department shall investigate every application as may be necessary to determine whether an existing or proposed site and facilities meet all applicable laws and regulations, and conforms with the approved comprehensive solid waste handling plan, and complies with all zoning requirements. (4) When the jurisdictional health department finds that the permit should be issued, it shall issue such permit. Every application shall be approved or disapproved within ninety days after its receipt by the jurisdictional health department. (5) The jurisdictional board of health may establish reasonable fees for permits and renewal of permits. All permit fees collected by the health department shall be deposited in the RCW 70.95 Related Legislation treasury and to the account from which the health department's operating expenses are paid. History: [1988 c 127 § 30; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 18.] RCW 70.95.185 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Review by department -- Appeal of issuance -- Validity of permits issued after June 7, 1984. Every permit issued by a jurisdictional health department under RCW 70.95.180 shall be reviewed by the department to ensure that the proposed site or facility conforms with: (1) All applicable laws and regulations including the minimal functional standards for solid waste handling; and (2) The approved comprehensive solid waste management plan. The department shall review the permit within thirty days after the issuance of the permit by the jurisdictional health department. The department may appeal the issuance of the permit by the jurisdictional health department to the pollution control hearings board, as described in chapter 43.21B RCW, for noncompliance with subsection (1) or (2) of this section. No permit issued pursuant to RCW 70.95.180 after June 7, 1984, shall be considered valid unless it has been reviewed by the department. History: [1984 c 123 § 8.] RCW 70.95.190 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Renewal -- Appeal -- Validity of renewal. Every permit for a solid waste disposal site shall be renewed annually on a date to be established by the jurisdictional health department having jurisdiction of the site. Prior to renewing a permit, the health department shall conduct such inspections as it deems necessary to assure that the solid waste disposal site and facilities located on the site meet minimum functional standards of the department, applicable local regulations, and are not in conflict with the approved solid waste management plan. The department shall review and may appeal the renewal as set forth for the approval of permits in RCW 70.95.185. A renewal issued under this section shall not be considered valid unless it has been reviewed by the department. Related RgWafib a RL - 13 History: [1984 c 123 § 9; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 19.] RCW 70.95.200 Permit for solid waste disposal site or facilities -- Suspension. Any permit for a solid waste disposal site issued as provided herein shall be subject to suspension at any time the jurisdictional health department determines that the site or the solid waste disposal facilities located on the site are being operated in violation of this chapter, or the regulations of the department or local laws and regulations. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 20.] RCW 70.95.210 Hearing -- Appeal. Whenever the jurisdictional health department denies a permit or suspends a permit for a solid waste disposal site, it shall, upon request of the applicant or holder of the permit, grant a hearing on such denial or suspension within thirty days after the request therefor is made. Notice of the hearing shall be given all interested parties including the county or city having jurisdiction over the site and the department. Within thirty days after the hearing, the health officer shall notify the applicant or the holder of the permit in writing of his determination and the reasons therefor. Any party aggrieved by such determination may appeal to the pollution control hearings board by filing with the hearings board a notice of appeal within thirty days after receipt of notice of the determination of the health officer. The hearings board shall hold a hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. History: [1987 c 109 § 21; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 21.] RCW 70.95.215 Landfill disposal facilities -- Reserve accounts required by July 1, 1987 -- Exception -- Rules. (1) By July 1, 1987, each holder or applicant of a permit for a landfill disposal facility issued under this chapter shall establish a reserve account to cover the costs of closing the facility in accordance with state and federal regulations. The RCW 70.95 RL - 14 account shall be designed to ensure that there will be adequate revenue available by the projected date of closure. Landfill disposal facilities maintained on private property for the sole use of the entity owning the site shall not be required to establish a reserve account if, to the satisfaction of the department, they provide another form of financial assurance adequate to comply with the requirements of this section. (2) By July 1, 1986, the department shall adopt rules under chapter 34.05 RCW to implement subsection (1) of this section. The rules shall include but not be limited to: (a) Methods to estimate closure costs, including postclosure monitoring, pollution prevention measures, and any other procedures required under state and federal regulations; (b) Methods to ensure that reserve accounts receive adequate funds, including: (i) Requirements that the reserve account be generated by user fees. However, the department may waive this requirement for existing landfills if user fees would be prohibitively high; (ii) Requirements that moneys be placed in the reserve account on a regular basis and that the reserve account be kept separate from all other accounts; and (iii) Procedures for the department to verify that adequate sums are deposited in the reserve account; and (c) Methods to ensure that other types of financial assurance provided in accordance with subsection (1) of this section are adequate to cover the costs of closing the facility. History: [1985 c 436 § 1.1 RCW 70.95.220 Financial aid to jurisdictional health departments -- Applications -- Allocations. Any jurisdictional health department may apply to the department for financial aid for the enforcement of rules and regulations promulgated under this chapter. Such application shall contain such information, including budget and program description, as may be prescribed by regulations of the department. After receipt of such applications the department may allocate available funds according to criteria established by regulations of the department considering population, urban development, the number of the disposal sites, and geographical area. The sum allocated to a jurisdictional health department shall be paid to the treasury from which the operating expenses of the health department are paid, and shall be used exclusively for inspections and administrative expenses necessary to enforce applicable regulations. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 22.] RCW 70.95.230 Financial aid to jurisdictional health departments -- Matching funds requirements. The jurisdictional health department applying for state assistance for the enforcement of this chapter shall match such aid allocated by the department in an amount not less than twenty-five percent of the total amount spent for such enforcement activity during the year. The local share of enforcement costs may be met by cash and contributed services. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 23.1 RCW 70.95.235 Diversion of recyclable material -- Penalty. (1) No person may divert to personal use any recyclable material placed in a container as part of a recycling program, without the consent of the generator of such recyclable material or the solid waste collection company operating under the authority of a town, city, county, or the utilities and transportation commission, and no person may divert to commercial use any recyclable material placed in a container as part of a recycling program, without the consent of the person owning or operating such container. (2) A violation of subsection (1) of this section is a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW. Each violation of this section shall be a separate infraction. History: [1991 c 319 § 407.1 RCW 70.95.240 Unlawful to dump or deposit solid waste without permit. After the adoption of regulations or ordinances by any county, city, or jurisdictional board of health providing for the RCW 70.95 Related Legislation issuance of permits as provided in RCW 70.95.160, it shall be unlawful for any person to dump or deposit or permit the dumping or depositing of any solid waste onto or under the surface of the ground or into the waters of this state except at a solid waste disposal site for which there is a valid permit: Provided, That nothing herein shall prohibit a person from dumping or depositing solid waste resulting from his own activities onto or under the surface of ground owned or leased by him when such action does not violate statutes or ordinances, or create a nuisance. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 24.] RCW 70.95.250 Name appearing on waste material -- Presumption. Whenever solid wastes dumped in violation of RCW 70.95.240 contain three or more items bearing the name of one individual, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the individual whose name appears on such items committed the unlawful act of dumping. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 25.1 RCW 70.95.255 Disposal of sewage sludge or septic tank sludge prohibited--Exemptions--Uses of sludge material permitted. After January 1, 1988, the department of ecology may prohibit disposal of sewage sludge or septic tank sludge (septage) in landfills for final disposal, except on a temporary, emergency basis, 9 the jurisdictional health department determines that a potentially unhealthful circumstance exists. Beneficial uses of sludge in landfill reclamation is acceptable utilization and not considered disposal. The department of ecology shall adopt rules that provide exemptions from this section on a case-by-case basis. Exemptions shall be based on the economic infeasibility of using or disposing of the sludge material other than in a landfill. The department of ecology, in conjunction with the department of health and the department of agriculture, shall adopt rules establishing labeling and notification requirements for sludge material sold commercially or given away to the RL - 15 public. The department shall specify mandatory wording for labels and notification to warn the public against improper use of the material. [1992 c 174 § 15; 1986 c 297 § l.] RCW 70.95.260 Duties of department -- State solid waste management plan -- Assistance -- Coordination -- Tire recycling. The department shall in addition to its other powers and duties: (1) Cooperate with the appropriate federal, state, interstate and local units of government and with appropriate private organizations in carrying out the provisions of this chapter. (2) Coordinate the development of a solid waste management plan for all areas of the state in cooperation with local government, the department of community development, . and other appropriate state and regional agencies. The plan shall relate to solid waste management for twenty years in the future and shall be reviewed biennially, revised as necessary, and extended so that perpetually the plan shall look to the future for twenty years as a guide in carrying out a state coordinated solid waste management program. The plan shall be developed into a single integrated document and shall be adopted no later than October 1990. The plan shall be revised regularly after its initial completion so that local governments revising local comprehensive solid waste management plans can take advantage of the data and analysis in the state plan. (3) Provide technical assistance to any person as well as to cities, counties, and industries. (4) Initiate, conduct, and support research, demonstration projects, and investigations, and coordinate research programs pertaining to solid waste management systems. (5) Develop state-wide programs to increase public awareness of and participation in tire recycling, and to stimulate and encourage local private tire recycling centers and public participation in tire recycling. (6) May, under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, as now or hereafter amended, from time to time promulgate such rules and Relgted Legislation RCW 70.95 RL -1 6 regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. History: [1989 c 431 § 9. Prior: 1985 c 345 § 8; 1985 c 6 § 23; 1969 ex.s. c 134 § 26.1 RCW 70.95.263 Additional powers and duties of department. The department shall in addition to its other duties and powers under this chapter. (1) Prepare the following: (a) a management system for recycling waste paper generated by state offices and institutions in cooperation with such offices and institutions; (b) an evaluation of existing and potential systems for recovery of energy and materials from solid waste with recommendations to affected governmental agencies as to those systems which would be the most appropriate for implementation; (c) a data management system to evaluate and assist the progress of state and local jurisdictions and private industry in resource recovery, (d) identification of potential markets, in cooperation with private industry, for recovered resources and the impact of the distribution of such resources on existing markets; (e) studies on methods of transportation, collection, reduction, separation, and packaging which will encourage more efficient utilization of existing waste recovery facilities; (f) recommendations on incentives, including state grants, loans, and other assistance, to local governments which will encourage the recovery and recycling of solid wastes. (2) Provide technical information and assistance to state and local jurisdictions, the public, and private industry on solid waste recovery and/or recycling. (3) Procure and expend funds available from federal agencies and other sources to assist the implementation by local governments of solid waste recovery and/or recycling programs, and projects. (4) Conduct necessary research and studies to carry out the purposes of this chapter. (5) Encourage and assist local governments and private industry to develop pilot solid waste recovery and/or recycling projects. (6) Monitor, assist with research, and collect data for use in assessing feasibility for others to develop solid waste recovery and/or recycling projects. (7) Make periodic recommendations to the governor and the legislature on actions and policies which would further implement the objectives of *this 1976 amendatory act. History: [1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 5.1 RCW 70.95.265 Department to cooperate with public acid private departments, agencies and associations. The department shall work closely with the department of trade and economic development, the department of general administration, and with other state departments and agencies, the Washington state association of counties, the association of Washington cities, and business associations, to carry out the objectives and purposes of *this 1976 amendatory act. History: [1985 c 466 § 69; 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 6.1 RCW 70.95.267 Department authorized to disburse referendum 26 (chapter 43.83A RCW) fund for local government solid waste projects. The department is authorized to use referendum 26 (chapter 43.83A RCW) funds of the Washington futures account to disburse to local governments in developing solid waste recovery and/or recycling projects. History: [1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 10.] RCW 70.95.268 Department authorized to disburse funds under chapter 43.99F RCW for local government solid waste projects. The department is authorized to use funds under chapter 43.99F RCW to disburse to local governments in developing solid waste recovery or recycling projects. Priority shall be RCW 70.95 Related LegWatton • • •1 • • n u 0 0 • given to those projects that use incineration of solid waste to produce energy and to recycling prgjects. History: [1984 c 123110.1 RCW 70.95.280 Determination of best solid waste management practices -- Department to develop method to monitor waste stream -- Collectors to report quantity and quality of waste -- Confidentiality of proprietary information. The department of ecology shall determine the best management practices for categories of solid waste in accordance with the priority solid waste management methods established in RCW 70.95.010. In order to make this determination, the department shall conduct a comprehensive solid waste stream analysis and evaluation. Following establishment of baseline data resulting from an initial in-depth analysis of the waste stream, the department shall develop a less intensive method of monitoring the disposed waste stream including, but not limited to, changes in the amount of waste generated and waste type. The department shall monitor curbside collection programs and other waste segregation and disposal technologies to determine, to the extent possible, the effectiveness of these programs in terns of cost and participation, their applicability to other locations, and their implications regarding rules adopted under this chapter. Persons who collect solid waste shall annually report to the department the types and quantities of solid waste that are collected and where it is delivered. The department shall adopt guidelines for reporting and for keeping proprietary information confidential. History: [1989 c 431 § 13; 1988 c 184 § 1.1 RCW 70.95.285 Solid waste stream analysis. The comprehensive, state-wide solid waste stream analysis under RCW 70.95.280 shall be based on representative solid waste generation areas and solid waste generation sources within the state. The following information and evaluations shall be included: (1) Solid waste generation rates for each category; Related LegWaAgn RL - 17 (2) The rate of recycling being achieved within the state for each category of solid waste; (3) The current and potential rates of solid waste reduction within the state; (4) A technological assessment of current solid waste reduction and recycling methods and systems, including cost/benefit analyses; (5) An assessment of the feasibility of segregating solid waste at: (a) The original source, (b) transfer stations, and (c) the point of final disposal; (6) A review of methods that will increase the rate of solid waste reduction; and (7) (7) (7) An assessment of new and existing technologies that are available for solid waste management including an analysis of the associated environmental risks and costs. The data required by the analysis under this section shall be kept current and shall be available to local governments and the waste management industry. History: [1988 c 184 § 2.] RCW 70.95.290 Solid waste stream evaluation. (1) The evaluation of the solid waste stream required in RCW 70.95.280 shall include the following elements: (a) The department shall determine which management method for each category of solid waste will have the least environmental impact; and (b) The depattment shall evaluate the costs of various management options for each category of solid waste, including a review of market availability, and shall take into consideration the economic impact on affected parties; (c) Based on the results of (a) and (b) of this subsection, the department shall determine the best management for each category of solid waste. Different management methods for the same categories of waste may be developed for different parts of the state. (2) The department shall give priority to evaluating categories of solid waste that, in relation to other categories of solid waste, comprise a large volume of the solid waste stream or present a high potential of harm to human health. At a minimum the following categories of waste shall be evaluated: RCW 70.95 RL - 18 (a) By January 1, 1989, yard waste and other biodegradable materials, paper products, disposable diapers, and batteries; and (b) By January 1, 1990, metals, glass, plastics, styrofoam or rigid lightweight cellular polystyrene, and tires. History: [1988 c 184 § 3.1 RCW 70.95.295 Analysis and evaluation to be incorporated in state solid waste management plan. The department shall incorporate the information from the analysis and evaluation conducted under RCW 70.95.280 through 70.95.290 to the state solid waste management plan under RCW 70.95.260. The plan shall be revised periodically as the evaluation and analysis is updated. History: [ 1988 c 184 § 4.] RCW 70.95.500 Disposal of vehicle tires outside designated area prohibited -- Penalty -- Exemption. (1) No person may drop, deposit, discard, or otherwise dispose of vehicle tires on any public property or private property in this state or in the waters of this state whether from a vehicle or otherwise, including, but not limited to, any public highway, public park, beach, campground, forest land, recreational area, trailer park, highway, road, street, or alley unless: (a) The property is designated by the state, or by any of its agencies or political subdivisions, for the disposal of discarded vehicle tires; and (b) The person is authorized to use the property for such purpose. (2) A violation of this section is punishable by a civil penalty, which shall not be less than two hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars for each offense. (3) This section does not apply to the storage or deposit of vehicle tires in quantities deemed exempt under rules adopted by the department of ecology under its functional standards for solid waste. History: [1985 c 345 § 4.1 RCW 70.95.510 Fee on the retail sale of new replacement vehicle tires. There is levied a one dollar per tire fee on the retail sale of new replacement vehicle tires for a period of five years, beginning October 1, 1989. The fee imposed in this section shall be paid by the buyer to the seller, and each seller shall collect from the buyer the full amount of the fee. The fee collected from the buyer by the seller less the ten percent amount retained by the seller as provided in RCW 70.95.535 shall be paid to the department of revenue in accordance with RCW 82.32.045. All other applicable provisions of chapter 82.32 RCW have full force and application with respect to the fee imposed under this section. The department of revenue shall administer this section. For the purposes of this section, "new replacement vehicle tires" means tires that are newly manufactured for vehicle purposes and does not include retreaded vehicle tires. History: [1989 c 431 § 92; 1985 c 345 § 5.1 RCW 70.95.520 Vehicle tire recycling account -- Deposit of funds. There is created an account within the state treasury to be known as the vehicle fire recycling account. All assessments and other funds collected or received under this chapter shall be deposited in the vehicle tire recycling account and used by the department of ecology for administration and implementation of this chapter. After October 1, 1989, the department of revenue shall deduct two percent from funds collected pursuant to RCW 70.95.510 for the purpose of administering and collecting the fee from new replacement vehicle tire retailers. History: [1989 c 431 § 94; 1985 c 345 § 6.1 RCW 70.95.530 Vehicle tire recycling account -- Use. Moneys in the account may be appropriated to the department of ecology: (1) To provide for funding to state and local governments for the removal of discarded vehicle tires from unauthorized fire dump sites; RCW 70.95 Relater! Legislation n U L-A E I• (2) To accomplish the other purposes of RCW 70.95.020(5); and (3) To fund the study authorized in section 2, chapter 250, Laws of 1988. In spending funds in the account under this section, the department of ecology shall identify communities with the most severe problems with waste tires and provide funds first to those communities to remove accumulations of waste tires. History: [1988 c 250 § 1; 1985 c 345 § 7.1 RCW 70.95.535 Disposition of fee. (1) Every person engaged in making retail sales of new replacement vehicle tires in this state shall retain ten percent of the collected one dollar fee. The moneys retained may be used for costs associated with the proper management of the waste vehicle tires by the retailer. (2) The department of ecology will administer the funds for the purposes specified in RCW 70.95.020(5) including, but not limited to: (a) Making grants to local governments for pilot demonstration projects for on-site shredding and recycling of tires from unauthorized dump sites; (b) Grants to local government for enforcement programs; (c) Implementation of a public information and education program to include posters, signs, and inforinational materials to be distributed to retail tire sales and tire service outlets; (d) Product marketing studies for recycled tires and alternatives to land disposal. History: [1989 c 431 § 93.1 RCW 70.95.540 Cooperation with department to aid tire recycling. To aid in the state-wide fire recycling campaign, the legislature strongly encourages various industry organizations which are active in resource recycling efforts to provide active cooperation with the department of ecology so that additional technology can be developed for the tire recycling campaign. History: [1985 c 345 § 9.1 Related LegWanbn RL - 19 RCW 70.95.550 Waste tires -- Definitions. Uriless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 70.95.555 through 70.95.565. (1) "Storage" or "storing' means the placing of more than eight hundred waste tires in a manner that does not constitute final disposal of the waste tires. (2) "Transportation" or "transporting' means picking up or transporting waste tires for the purpose of storage or final disposal. (3) "Waste tires" means tires that are no longer suitable for their original intended purpose because of wear, damage, or defect. History. [1988 c 250 § 3.1 RCW 70.95.555 Waste tires -- License for transport or storage business -- Requirements. Any person engaged in the business of transporting or storing waste tires shall be licensed by the department. To obtain a license, each applicant must: (1) Provide assurances that the applicant is in compliance with this chapter and the rules regarding waste fire storage and transportation; and (2) Post a bond in the sum of ten thousand dollars in favor of the state of Washington. In lieu of the bond, the applicant may submit financial assurances acceptable to the department. History: [1988 c 250 § 4.1 RCW 70.95.560 Waste tires -- Violation of RCW 70.95.555 -- Penalty. Any person who transports or stores waste tires without a license in violation of RCW 70.95.555 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished under RCW 9A.20.021(2). History: [1989 c 431 § 95; 1988 c 250 § 5.] RCW 70.95 RL 20 RCW 70.95.565 Waste tires - Contracts with unlicensed persons prohibited. No business may enter into a contract for. (1) Transportation of waste tires with an unlicensed waste tire transporter, or (2) Waste fire storage with an unlicensed owner or operator of a waste tire storage site. History: [1988 c 250 § 6.1 RCW 70.95.600 Educational material promoting household waste reduction and recycling. The department of ecology, at the request of a local government jurisdiction, may periodically provide educational material promoting household waste reduction and recycling to public and private refuse haulers. The educational material shall be distributed to households receiving refuse collection service by local governments or the refuse hauler providing service. The refuse hauler may distribute the educational material by any means that assures timely delivery. Reasonable expenses incurred in the distribution of this material shall be considered, for rate -making purposes, as legitimat: operating expenses of garbage and refuse haulets regulated under chapter 81.77 RCW. History: [1988 c 175 § 3.1 RCW 70.95.610 Battery disposal -- Restrictions -- Violators subject to fine -- "Vehicle battery" defined. (1) No person may knowingly dispose of a vehicle battery except by delivery to: A person or entity selling lead acid batteries, a person or entity authorized by the depattment to accept the battery, or to a secondary lead smelter. (2) No owner or operator of a solid waste disposal site shall knowingly accept for disposal used vehicle batteries except when authorized to do so by the department or by the federal government. (3) Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a fine of up to one thousand dollars. Each battery will constitute a separate violation. Nothing in this section and RCW 70.95.620 through 70.95.660 shall supersede the provisions under chapter 70.105 RCW. (4) For purposes of this section and RCW 70.95.620 through 70.95.660, "vehicle battery" means batteries capable for use in any vehicle, having a core consisting of elemental lead, and a capacity of six or more volts. History. [1989 c 431 § 37.1 RCW 70.95.620 Identification procedure for persons accepting used vehicle batteries. The department shall establish a procedure to identify, on an annual basis, those persons accepting used vehicle batteries from retail establishments. History: [1989 c 431 § 38.1 RCW 70.95.630 Requirements for accepting used batteries by retailers of vehicle batteries -- Notice. A person selling vehicle batteries at retail in the state shall: (1) Accept, at the time of purchase of a replacement battery, in the place where the new batteries are physically transferred to the purchasers, and in a quantity at least equal to the number of new batteries purchased, used vehicle batteries from the purchasers, 9 offered by the purchasers. When a purchaser fails to provide an equivalent used battery or batteries, the purchaser may reclaim the core charge paid under RCW 70.95.640 by returning, to the point of purchase within thirty days, a used battery or batteries and a receipt showing proof of purchase from the establishment where the replacement battery or batteries were purchased; and (2) Post written notice which must be at least eight and one-half inches by eleven inches in size and must contain the universal recycling symbol and the following language: (a) "it is illegal to put a motor vehicle battery or other vehicle battery in your garbage." (b) "State law requires us to accept used motor vehicle batteries or other vehicle batteries for recycling, in exchange for new batteries purchased." RCW 70.95 Related LegWation. i. (c): "When you buy a battery, state law also requires us to include a core charge of five dollars or more 9 you do not return your old battery for exchange." History: [1989 c 431 § 39.1 RCW 70.95.640 Retail core charge. Each retail sale of a vehicle battery shall include, in the price of the battery for sale, a core charge of not less than five dollars. When a purchaser offers the seller a used battery of equivalent size, the seller shall omit the core charge from the price of the battery. History: [1989 c 431 § 40.] RCW 70.95.650 Vehicle battery wholesalers -- Obligations regarding used batteries -- Noncompliance procedure. (1) A person selling vehicle batteries at wholesale to a retail establishment in this state shall accept, at the time and place of transfer, used vehicle batteries in a quantity at least equal to the number of new batteries purchased, if offered by the purchaser. (2) When a battery wholesaler, or agent of the wholesaler, fails to accept used vehicle batteries as provided in this section, a retailer may file a complaint with the department and the department shall investigate any such complaint. (3) (a) The department shall issue an order suspending any of the provisions of RCW 70.95.630 through 70.95.660 whenever it finds that the market price of lead has fallen to the extent that new battery wholesalers' estimated state-wide average cost of transporting used batteries to a smelter or other person or entity in the business of purchasing used batteries is clearly greater than the market price paid for used lead batteries by such smelter or person or entity. (b) The order of suspension shall only apply to batteries that are sold at retail during the period in which the suspension order is effective. (c) The department shall limit its suspension order to a definite period not exceeding six months, but shall revoke the order prior to its expiration date should it find that the reasons for its issuance are no longer valid. RL -Zl History: [1989 c 431 § 41.] RCW 70.95.660 Department to distribute printed notice -- Issuance of warnings and citations -- Fines. The department shall produce, print, and distribute the notices required by RCW 70.95.630 to all places where vehicle batteries are offered for sale at retail and in performing its duties under this section the department may inspect any place, building, or premise governed by RCW 70.95.640. Authorized employees of the agency may issue warnings .and citations to persons who fail to comply with the requirements of RCW 70.95.610 through 70.95.670. Failure to conform to the notice requirements of RCW 70.95.630 shall subject the violator to a fine imposed by the department not to exceed one thousand dollars. However, no such fine shall be imposed unless the department has issued a warning of infraction for the first offense. Each day that a violator does not comply with the requirements of *this act following the issuance of an initial warning of infraction shall constitute a separate offense. History: [1989 c 431 § 42.] RCW 70.95.670 Rules. The department shall adopt rules providing for the implementation and enforcement of RCW 70.95.610 through 70.95.660. History: [1989 c 431 § 43.1 RCW 70.95.700 Solid waste incineration or energy recovery facility -- Environmental impact statement requirements. No solid waste incineration or energy recovery facility shall be operated prior to the completion of an environmental impact statement containing the considerations required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and prepared pursuant to the procedures of chapter 43.21C RCW. This section does not apply to a facility operated prior to January 1, 1989, as a solid waste incineration facility or energy recovery facility burning solid waste. History: [1989 c 431 § 55.1 Related Legislation RCW 70.95 RCW 70.95.710 Incineration of medical waste. Incineration of medical waste shall be conducted under sufficient burning conditions to reduce all combustible material to a form such that no portion of the combustible material is visible in its uncombusted state. History: [1989 c 431 § 77.1 RCW 70.95.720 Closure of energy recovery and incineration facilities -- Recordkeeping requirements. The department shall require energy recovery and incineration facilities to retain records of monitoring and operation data for a minimum of ten years after permanent closure of the facility. History: [1990 c 114 § 4.] RCW 70.95.800 Solid waste management account. The solid waste management account is created in the state treasury. Moneys in the account may only be spent after appropriation. Expenditures from the account may only be used to carry out the purposes of *this act. History: [1991 1st sp.s. c 13 § 73; 1989 c 431 § 90.1 RCW 70.95.810 Composting food and yard wastes -- Grants and study. (1) In order to establish the feasibility of composting food and yard wastes, the department shall provide funds, as available, to local governments submitting a proposal to compost such wastes. (2) The department, in cooperation with the department of trade and economic development, may approve an application if the project can demonstrate the essential parameters for successful composting, including, but not limited to, cost-effectiveness, handling and safety requirements, and current and potential markets. (3) The department shall periodically report to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature on the need for, and feasibility of, composting systems for food and yard wastes. History: [1989 c 431 § 97.1 RCW 70.95.900 Authority and responsibility of utilities and transportation commission not changed. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to change the authority or responsibility of the Washington utilities and transportation commission to regulate all intrastate carriers. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 27.] RCW 70.95.901 Severability -- 1989 c 431. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. History: [1989 c 431 § 107.1 RCW 70.95.902 Section captions not law -- 1989 c 431. Captions and headings used in this act do not constitute any part of the law. History: [1989 c 431 § 108.] RCW 70.95.903 Application of chapter -- Collection and transportation of recyclable materials by recycling companies or nonprofit entities -- Reuse or reclamation. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a recycling company or nonprofit entity from collecting and transporting recyclable materials from a buy-back center, drop -box, or from a commercial or industrial generator of recyclable materials, or upon agreement with a solid waste collection company. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting a commercial or industrial generator of commercial recyclable materials from selling, conveying, or arranging for RCW 70.95 Related Legislation ...::.::......:::::::::::::.:..... .. ...::.:..:: RL-2 transportation of such material to a recycler for reuse or reclamation. History: [1989 c 431 § 32.1 RCW 70.95.910 Severability -- 1969 ex.s. c 134. If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances is not affected. History: [1969 ex.s. c 134 § 28.] RCW 70.95.911 Severability -- 1975276 2nd ex.s. c 41. If any provision of this 1976 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. History: [1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 41 § 11.] WAC -Ti al EnuimmeWal (5/10195) - (c) - TEU-Tne✓e, inc. (800) 575-4955 Related Legzslatibn RCW 70.95 RL - 24 KING COUNTY CODE TITLE 107 SOLID WASTE Chapters: 10.04 King County Solid Waste Code 10.08 Solid Waste Sites 10.10 Disposal Sites - Hours and Types of Waste Accepted 10.12 Solid Waste Site Disposal Fee 10.14 Waste Reduction - Recycling and Recovery 10.16 Recycled Product Procurement Policy 10.18 Collection of Household Recyclables and Yard Waste in Unincorporated King County 10.22 Policy Direction for Development of the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan 10.24 Solid Waste Management Plan 10.28 Solid Waste Advisory Committee Chapter 10.04 KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE CODE Sections: 10.04.010 Title of chapter. 10.04.020 Definitions. 10.04." 30 Keeping and use of solid waste containers. 10.04.040 Construction, maintenance and placement of solid waste containers. 10.04.060 Separation of solid waste. 10.04.070 Removal or storage of swill. 10.04.080 Littering and unlawful dumping. 10.04.010 Title of chapter. This chapter shall be known as the "King County Solid Waste Code," and is necessary for the preservation and protection of public health, welfare and safety. The terms, provisions, rules and regulations incorporated herein shall be liberally construed for the aforementioned purpose. (Ord. 8891 § 2, 1989). 10.04.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this title: (updated 1/93) A. "Agricultural wastes" means non -dangerous wastes on farms resulting from the production of agricultural products including but not limited to manures and carcasses of dead animals weighing each or collectively in excess of fifteen pounds. B. "Asbestos -containing waste material" means any waste that contains asbestos. This term includes, but is not limited to, asbestos waste from control devices, contaminated clothing, asbestos waste material, materials used to enclose the work area during an asbestos project, and bags or containers that previously contained asbestos. C. "Ashes" means the residue including any air pollution control equipment flue dusts from combustion or incineration of material including solid wastes. D. 'Bulky waste" means large items of refuse, such as appliances, furniture, and other oversize wastes which would typically not fit into reusable solid waste containers. E. "Certified hauler or certificated hauler" means any person engaged in the business of solid waste handling having a certificate granted by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for that purpose. F. "Charitable organization" means any organization which meets the following criteria: must be defined by the KCC Title 10 Related Legislation ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................. RL-2 5 Internal Revenue Service as a 501(03 charitable .organization; must be engaged as a primary form of business in the processing of abandoned goods for resale or reuse; and must have an account with the solid waste division. G. "Clean soils and clean dredge spoils" means soils and dredge spoils which are not dangerous wastes or problem wastes as defined in this chapter. H. "Commercial hauler" means any person, firm or corporation including but not limited to "certified hauler," as defined herein, collecting or transporting solid waste for hire or consideration. I. "Compacted waste" means any solid waste whose volume is less than in the loose condition as a result of compression. J. "Controlled solid waste" means all solid waste generated, collected or disposed within the unincorporated areas of King County and all solid waste generated, collected or disposed within any other jurisdiction with which a solid waste interlocal agreement, as defined herein, exists. K 'Dangerous wastes" means any solid waste designated as dangerous waste by the Washington State Department of Ecology under chapter 173-303 WAC. L. 'Demolition wastes" means solid waste, largely inert waste resulting from the demolition, razing or construction of buildings, roads, and other man-made structures. Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, and minor amounts of other metals like copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plaster board) or any other material that is likely to produce gases or a leachate during the decomposition process and asbestos wastes are not considered to be demolition waste for the purposes of this chapter. M. 'Designated interlocal forum" means a group of representatives of unincorporated King County and of incorporated cities and towns within King County designated by the council of King County and by interlocal agreement with the cities in King County to discuss solid waste issues and facilitate regional interlocal cooperation in solid waste management. N. "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water. 0. 'Disposal facility" is a disposal site or interim solid waste handling facility. This includes, but is not limited to, transfer stations included as part of the county disposal system, landfills, incinerators, composting plants, and facilities for the recycling or recovery of resources from solid wastes or the conversion of the energy from such wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof. P. "Disposal site" means a site or sites approved by the council of King County where any final treatment, utilization, processing or disposition of solid waste occurs. Q. 'Disposal system" means the system of disposal facilities, rules and procedures established pursuant to this title. R. 'Drop box facility" means a facility used for the placement of a detachable solid waste container, i.e., drop boxes, including the area adjacent for necessary entrance and exit roads, unloading, and turnaround areas. Drop box facilities normally serve the general public with loose loads and receive waste from off-site. Drop box facilities may also include containers for separated recyclables. S. 'Division' means the solid waste division of the King County public works department. T. "Energy resource recovery" means the recovery of energy in a usable form from mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis or any other means of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves high temperature (above 1200 degrees Fahrenheit) processing. U. "Garbage" means unwanted animal and vegetable wastes and animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food, swill, and carcasses of dead animals and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for vectors, except sewage and sewage sludge. V. "Hazardous wastes" means and includes, but is not limited to explosives, medical wastes, radioactive wastes, pesticides and chemicals which are potentially harmful to the public health or the environment. Unless otherwise defined by the King County board of health, such waste shall have the meaning as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Washington Administrative Code. Related Legislation KCC Title 10 is%>}i: .r:u:.. ;.;'.- T. .. f. n..r. 26% ................................................................................................................................................................... <. --- W. "Hazardous waste management plan" means a plan for managing moderate risk wastes, pursuant to RCW 70.105.220. X "Health department" means the Seattle -King County health department. Y. "Health officer" means the King County director of public health, or his authorized agent. Z. "Industrial solid wastes" means waste by-products from manufacturing and fabricating operations such as scraps, trimmings, packing, and other discarded materials not otherwise designated as dangerous waste under Chapter 173-303 WAC. AA. "Interim solid waste handling facility" means any interim treatment, utilization or processing site engaged in solid waste handling which is not the final disposal site. Transfer stations, drop boxes, baling and compaction sites, source separation centers, intermediate processing facilities, mixed waste processing facilities and treatment facilities are considered interim solid waste handling sites. BB. "Intermediate processing facility" means any facility that sorts mixed recyclables from source separation programs to divide them into individual component recyclable materials or to process them for marketing. CC. "King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee" means the committee formed pursuant to King County Ordinance 6862 and RCW Chapter 70.95 to advise the county on solid waste management planning, assist in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste management, and review and comment on the plan and other proposed solid waste management rules, policies or ordinance prior to adoption. DD. "Landclearing wastes" means solid wastes resulting from the clearing of land for new construction and includes, but is not limited to, stumps and other vegetation, rocks, mud and other plant or mineral wastes. EE. "Landfill" means a disposal site or part of a site at which waste is placed iii or on land and which is not a landspreading disposal facility. FF. "Landspreading disposal facility" means a facility that applies sludge or other solid wastes onto or incorporates solid waste into the soil surface at greater than vegetative utilization and soil conditioners/immobilization rates. GG. "Liquid" means a substance that flows readily and assumes the form of its container but retains its independent volume. HH. "Littering' means to accumulate, or place, throw, deposit, put into or in any land or water or otherwise dispose of refuse including rubbish, ashes, garbage, dead animals, industrial refuse, commercial waste and all other waste material of every kind and description in any manner except as authorized by this chapter. II. "Manager" means the manager of the solid waste division of the department of public works of King County. B. "Medical waste" means all waste so defined by the King County board of health rules and regulations. KK_ "Mixed municipal solid waste" means waste consisting of solid waste generated by residences, stores, offices, and other generators of wastes that are not industrial, agricultural, or demolition wastes. LL. "Mixed waste processing' means sorting of solid waste after collection from the point of generation in order to remove recyclables from the solid waste to be disposed. MM. "Mobile yard waste facility" means a yard waste facility requiring no above -grade construction and established on a temporary basis. For the purposes of Section 10.12.020, a mobile yard waste facility shall be considered to be a disposal site without scales. NN. "Moderate risk waste- means: 1. any waste that exhibits any of the properties of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation under RCW Chapter 70.105 solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation, and 2. any household wastes which are generated from the disposal of substances identified by the department of ecology as hazardous household substances. 00. "Multi -family structure" means any residential structure designed exclusively for occupancy by two or more families living independently of each other receiving solid waste collection set -vice as an entire structure or complex and the structure or complex is billed for solid waste collection service as a whole and not by individual dwelling units. PP. Noncommercial user" means any person not engaged in the business of solid waste handling. KCC Title 10 Related Legislation • • • • • • • • • CI 0 QQ. "Operating hours" means those times during which disposal facilities are normally open and available for the delivery of solid wastes. RR. 'Person" means any individual, association, firm, corporation, partnership, political subdivision, municipality, government agency, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity. SS. 'Plan" means the coordinated comprehensive solid waste management plan for the county as required by RCW Chapter 70.95. TT. 'Problem wastes" means: 1. soils removed during the cleanup of a remedial action site, or a dangerous waste site closure or other cleanup efforts and actions and which contain harmful substances but are not designated dangerous wastes, or 2. dredge spoils resulting from the dredging of surface waters of the state where contaminants are present in the dredge spoils at concentrations not suitable for open water disposal and the dredge spoils are not dangerous wastes and are not regulated by the Federal Clean Water Act. UU. 'Procurement policy" means the development and implementation of a policy which achieves the purchase of products made from recycled and/or recyclable goods. W. 'Receivers" means persons who will reuse recyclables and to whom source separated recyclables for which a market does not presently exist can be delivered at little or no cost in order to avoid landfilling the materials pending development of economic markets. WW. 'Reclamation site" means a location used for the processing or the storage of recycled waste. XX. "Recyclables" means any material that can be kept out of or recovered from solid waste and the resources therein be transformed and/or reused including, but not limited to, mixed paper, newsprint, cardboard, aluminum, glass, plastics, chemicals, oil, wood, compostable organics (food and yard debris), ferrous metal, and inorganics (rubble and inert material). YY. 'Recycling' means either source separation or the processing of solid waste mechanically or by hand to segregate materials for sale or reuse. Materials which can be removed through recycling include but are not limited to mixed paper, newsprint, cardboard, aluminum, glass, plastics, chemicals, oil, Related Legislation RL - 27 wood, compostable organics (food and yard debris), ferrous metal, and inorganics (rubble and inert material). Recycling does not include combustion of solid waste or preparation of a fuel from solid waste. ZZ. "Refuse" means garbage, rubbish, ashes, will and all other putrescible and nonputrescible wastes, except sewage, from all public and private establishments and residences. AAA 'Regional approach" means the development and implementation of a solid waste management program in cooperation with municipalities in King County and with other counties within the Puget Sound area. BBB. 'Regional direct" means any solid waste transported to Cedar Hills disposal site by conventional long haul transfer vehicles, transporting from solid waste transfer stations solid waste generated and collected in King County. CCC. 'Reuse" means the return of a commodity into the economic stream for use. DDD. 'Rubbish" means all nonputrescible wastes from all public and private establishments and from all residences. EEE. "Secured load" means a load of solid waste which has been secured or covered in the vehicle in a manner that will prevent any part of the solid waste from leaving the vehicle while the vehicle is moving. FFF. "Self -hauler" means all vehicles that are neither passenger licensed vehicles nor vehicles used by solid waste collection entities in their solid waste collection operations. GGG. "Single family dwelling' means any residential unit receiving solid waste collection service as an individual unit and the dwelling is billed for solid waste collection service as an individual dwelling. HHH. "Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, except wastes identified in WAC 173-304-015, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded commodities, sludge from wastewater treatment plants and septage from septic tanks, woodwaste, dangerous waste, and problem wastes. This includes all liquid, solid and semisolid materials which are not the primary products of public, private, industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations. Unrecovered residue from recycling operations shall be considered solid waste. KCC Tittle 10 RL - 28 III. "Solid waste collection entity" means every person or his lessees, receivers, or trustees, owning, controlling, operating or managing vehicles used in the business of transporting solid waste for collection and/or disposal for compensation including all certified haulers, or any city using its own employees, or any company operating pursuant to a contract with or franchise from a city performing solid waste collection services within the city. B. "Solid waste interlocal agreement" means an agreement between a city and the county for use of King County disposal system for solid waste generated or collected within the city. KKK "Solid waste management" means the systematic administration of activities which provide for the reduction in generated volume, source separation, collection, storage, transportation, transfer, recycling, processing, treatment and disposal of solid waste. This includes public education and marketing activities. LLL. "Source separation" means the process of separating recyclable materials from material which will become solid waste at its source. MMM. "Suspect waste" means any waste the manager suspects may be unauthorized waste. NNN. "Swill" means every refuse accumulation of animal, f-ait or vegetable matter, liquid or otherwise, that attend the preparation, use, cooking, dealing in or storing of meat, fish, fowl, fruit and vegetables, except coffee grounds. 000. "Transfer station" means a staffed, fixed, supplemental collection and transportation facility used by persons and route collection vehicles to deposit collected solid waste from off-site into a larger transfer vehicle for transport to a permanent disposal site. It may also include recycling facilities. PPP. "Unauthorized waste" means waste which is waste not acceptable for disposal at any or a specific disposal facility according to applicable rules and regulations or a determination of the manager. QQQ. "Uncompacted waste" means any solid waste in an uncompressed or loose condition. RRR. "Unincorporated urban service area" means a geographical area of urban unincorporated King County designated to receive solid waste, recyclables, and yard waste collection services. SSS. "Waste reduction" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated. M. "Woodwaste" means solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by-product resulting from the handling and processing of wood, including, but not limited to, hog fuel, sawdust, shavings, chips, bark, small pieces of wood, stumps, limbs and any other material composed largely of wood which has no significant commercial value at the time in question, (but shall not include slash developed from logging operations unless disposed of on a different site), and does not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper -chrome -arsenate. UUU. "Yard waste" means a compostable organic material generated in yards or gardens, including but not limited to, leaves, grass, branches, prunings, and clippings of woody and fleshy plants and unflocked Christmas trees, but shall not include rocks, dirt or sod, concrete, asphalt, bricks, landclearing wastes, demolition wastes, woodwaste or food waste. WV. "Yard waste facility" means a facility used by county residents to deposit source separated yard waste. (Ord. 10018 § 1, 1991: Ord. 9928 § 1, 1991: Ord. 9599, 1990: Ord. 9484 § 1, 1990: Ord. 9271 § 16, 1989: Ord. 8891 § 3, 1989). 10.04.030 Keeping and use of solid waste containers. Each person in possession, charge or control of any dwelling, flat, roominghouse, apartment house, hospital, school, hotel, club, restaurant, boardinghouse or eating place, or in possession, charge or control of any shop, place of business or manufacturing establishment, or any place where garbage, refuse or swill is created or accumulated shall at all times, keep or cause to be kept portable solid waste containers, for the deposit therein of garbage and refuse, and to deposit, or cause to be deposited the same therein. (Ord. 8891 § 4, 1989). KCC Me 10 Related Legislation 0 1C U 0 10.04.040 Construction, maintenance and placement of solid waste containers. Solid waste containers shall be constructed in such a manner as to be strong, watertight, not easily corroded, rodentproof, insectproof, and shall have adequate handles, and tight fitting lids. Such containers shall be kept in a sanitary condition with the outside thereof clean and free from accumulative grease and decomposing material. Each container shall be kept in a place accessible to the collector of garbage and refuse on scheduled collection days. The standards for receptacles for separated recyclables may be established to meet the requirements of the applicable recycling programs. (Ord. 8891 § 5, 1989: Res. 8778 § 5, 1943). 10.04.060 Separation of solid waste. The county may by ordinance require the separation of paper, yard and garden waste or other component parts of solid waste and may require the deposit thereof in separate cans or receptacles and may prescribe the methods of handling thereof. (Ord. 8891 § 6, 1989). 10.04.070 Removal or storage of swill. Swill may be eliminated by use or may be sold by the person producing the same or may be removed by persons; provided they receive the approval of the health officer, and that the removal or storage of the swill is carried out according to good sanitary practice. (Ord. 8891 § 7, 1989). 10.04.080 Littering and unlawful dumping. A. It is unlawful to place, throw, deposit or otherwise dispose of refuse other than in a receptacle provided for that purpose, in any public place, public road, public park, on any private property or in the waters within King County, except as specifically authorized by this title or at the official solid waste disposal facilities provided therefor by King County. B. It is unlawful for the owners or occupants of private property to deposit or accumulate, or to permit the deposit or accumulation of refuse upon such private property; provided, however, that this shall not prohibit the storage of garbage, rubbish, or recyclable materials in public or private receptacles, or in solid waste containers or other approved receptacle, or in Related Legislation RL - 29 securely tied bundles when such receptacles or bundles are for immediate or approved periodic disposal; provided, further: 1. the use of a compost pile or bin shall not be prohibited if the use and maintenance thereof is in such a manner as to prevent the attraction, breeding and/or harboring of insects and rodents; 2. nor shall any recycling operation be affected if it is operating in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, laws or other permit requirements. Any such use permitted hereunder shall not be construed to permit a nuisance as defined by state law. C. Hauling restrictions. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to haul refuse, garbage, rubbish, dead animals, ashes, or any other waste material of the kind defined in this chapter on the highways and roads in King County unless such materials are properly stored, covered and otherwise secured so as to prevent spillage or littering. (WAC 173.304.200). (Ord. 8891 § 8, 1989). Chapter 10.08 SOLID WASTE SITES ' Sections: 10.08.020 System of disposal. 10.08.030 Acquisition of solid waste disposal facilities. 10.08.040 Operation of solid waste disposal facilities by county. 10.08.050 Use of county disposal facilities. 10.08.060 Establishment and operation of solid waste disposal. 10.08.070 Exempt operations. 10.08.080 Recycling. 10.08.090 Solid waste disposal site permit - regulations. 10.08.100 Enforcement. 10.08.110 Penalties. 10.08.120 Severability. 10.08.130 Interlocal agreements. 10.08.140 Reporting. ' [For statutory provisions regarding garbage disposal sites, see RM 36.58.] KCC Mle 10 RL - 30 10.08.020 System of disposal. A Under the authority provided by the King County Home Rule Charter and RCW 36.58.040, a system is hereby established for disposal of all solid waste generated and/or disposed in unincorporated King County. Additionally this system shall include all solid waste generated and/or collected in any other jurisdictions with which an interlocal agreement exists pursuant to K.C.C. 10.08.130. B. Disposal in King County. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of controlled solid waste except at disposal sites and in a manner authorized by King County. C. Disposal outside King County. Unless specifically permitted by state law or specifically authorized by King County ordinance, it is unlawful for any commercial hauler or other person or entity to deliver or deposit any controlled solid waste outside the borders of King County unless it is authorized by the adopted King County comprehensive solid waste management plan. (Ord. 8891 § 13, 1989: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.030 Acquisition of solid waste disposal facilities. The county may acquire by purchase, lease, contract with private parties or other necessary means, disposal facilities which are needed for disposal of solid waste generated and collected in King County and other jurisdictions with which an interlocal agreement exists, pursuant to K.C.C. 10.08.130. Selection of such disposal facilities shall be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and all federal, state, and local requirements, including, but not limited to, comprehensive land use planning, fire protection, water quality, air quality, and the consideration of esthetics. To the extent practicable, solid waste disposal facilities shall be located in a manner which equalizes their distribution around the county, so that no single area of the county will be required to absorb an undue share of the impact from these facilities. More than one alternative must be considered and evaluated in the siting of planned solid waste disposal facilities. The county may acquire disposal facilities on a continuing basis, as is required by the volume of solid waste generated and collected within the county. (Ord. 8891 § 9, 1989: Ord. 8069, 1987: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.040 Operation of solid waste disposal facilities by county. The division shall be the operating authority for all solid waste disposal facilities owned or operated by King County. Nothing herein shall prohibit the county by ordinance from contracting with another entity, public or private, to own, construct and/or operate a disposal facility. The council of King County shall establish by ordinance the hours of operation of disposal facilities, disposal fees charged, and types of waste for which each facility is intended. The manager shall prepare operating regulations for solid waste disposal facilities, which shall govern all other matters necessary to assure compliance with federal, state and local regulations applicable to such facilities. The county reserves the right to provide in said operating rules that certain solid wastes, such as bulky wastes, problem wastes and wood waste, based on source, type or volume, shall not be accepted, or only conditionally accepted, at facilities owned or operated only by the county. The operating rules for such facilities shall be consistent with this chapter and no less stringent than regulations promulgated by the board of health. (Ord. 8891 § 10, 1989: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.050 Use of county disposal facilities. A. Dangerous and hazardous waste. Under no circumstances shall any person deliver to any King County solid waste disposal facility for disposal any waste that is defined as "hazardous waste" per the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 USC §6901-6991i, or rules or regulations thereunder, or defined as "extremely hazardous wastes" or "dangerous wastes" per Chapter 70.105 RCW or rules or regulations thereunder except: 1. in those specific cases where the county has expressly authorized the place, time, type and manner of the delivery of such waste after full disclosure; or 2. at a time and place expressly specified for dangerous and hazardous waste collection. B. No person shall deliver any waste to any King County disposal facility which has not been handled and treated in the manner required by applicable operating regulations adopted by the division and the King County board of health rules and regulations. KCC Title 10 Related Legislation n L� C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no municipal corporation or agent thereof or any commercial hauler shall deposit in any King County solid waste disposal facility solid waste generated or collected within the boundaries of a jurisdiction which has not entered into a written use agreement with King County unless otherwise authorized use through special rate class established by ordinance.* (Ord. 8946, 1989: Ord. 8891 § 11, 1989: Ord. 8613 § 3, 1988: Ord. 7891 § 1, 1986: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.060 Establishment and operation of solid waste disposal. Pursuant to Chapter 70.95 RCW, no disposal facility in King County, whether acquired publicly or privately, shall be established, altered, expanded, improved, operated or maintained without prior compliance with the following: A. The disposal facility and proposed method of operation shall be consistent with the King County comprehensive solid waste management plan and shall be approved by the health department; and B. The disposal facility shall be constructed, operated and maintained in accord with teams of permit from the health department and such other permits as are required by law. C. All other federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations shall be met. D. In addition to other requirements imposed by laws, all recycling drop box facilities shall display the name, address, and telephone number of the owner/operator in an easily identified place and the type of material to be accepted. These facilities shall be regularly collected and/or emptied so the material contents do not overflow. (Ord. 9580, 1990: Ord. 8891 § 12, 1989: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.070 Exempt operations. A. Any solid waste operation herein exempt from obtaining a permit under this • chapter must be established, maintained, managed and/or operated in compliance with all other requirements of local, * Ordinance No. 8613 which amended Section 10.08.050 has • an effective date of September 15, 1988. r� Related Legulatton I• RL - 3 1 state or federal health rules. Any exception allowed in this chapter shall have no effect on requirements of other laws, ordinances, or regulations. B. The following solid waste disposal operations or facilities are hereby exempted from obtaining a permit under this chapter to be established, maintained, managed or operated: 1. Dumping or depositing solid waste generated by a single family or household produced incidental to routine household activities onto or under the surface of the ground owned or leased by that family or household. 2. Wrecking automobiles and parts thereof including storage and handling facilities. 3. Depositing less than 2,000 cubic yards of soil, rock, gravel, broken concrete, and similar inert wastes onto the surface of the ground whereby such depositing is to be temporary in nature, graded, and otherwise worked to fill an existing depression or low area of ground. C. Depositing agricultural solid waste onto or under the surface of the ground when said waste is being utilized primarily for fertilizer or a soil conditioner, or is being deposited on ground owned or leased by the person responsible for the production of said waste; as long as depositing such waste does not create a nuisance. D. Depositing sewage and/or sewage sludge onto or under the surface of the ground at a disposal site which has otherwise been issued a permit by a local, state or federal agency to be operated, maintained or managed for that purpose. E. Depositing hazardous waste onto or under the surface of the ground at a disposal site which has otherwise been issued a permit by a local, state or federal agency to be operated, maintained, or managed for this purpose. (Ord. 8891 11,1989: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.080 Recycling. A goal for King County's solid waste management shall be to achieve maximum feasible reduction of solid waste going to landfills and to other processing facilities, conservation of energy and natural resources, and environmental protection. The division shall develop plans and incentives for waste reduction through source separation, recycling, packaging changes, and other methods KCC Title 10 3 RL 2 deemed effective by the division. Reclamation sites for recycling operations shall be designated as part of the county's disposal system and shall be subject to permit requirements of the health department (Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.090 Solid waste disposal site permit - regulations. The board of health shall adopt regulations governing the establishment, alteration, expansion, improvement, operation and maintenance of all solid waste disposal sites. Such regulations shall set procedures, standards and conditions for the issuance of solid waste disposal site permits designed to assure that disposal sites and facilities are located, maintained and operated in a manner so as to properly protect the public health, prevent air and water pollution, and avoid the creation of nuisances. Such regulations shall be consistent with, but may more stringent than, the minimum functional standards adopted by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WAC 173-304). (Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.100 Enforcement. The director of the Seattle -King County department of public health is authorized and responsible to enforce or seek the enforcement through the prosecutor's office of KC.C. 10.04.030, 10.04.040, 10.04.070, 10.04.0&f, 10.08.060, 10.08.070-.090, and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to but not restricted to the enforcement and penalty provisions of Title 23. The manager is authorized and responsible to seek the enforcement through the prosecutor's office of K.C.C. 10.08.040, 10.08.050 C. and KC.C. 10.08.020 and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to but not restricted to the enforcement and penalty provisions of Title 23. Both the director of the department of public health and the manager are authorized and responsible for enforcement of KC.C. 10.04.060, 10.08.050 A and 10.08.050 B. and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to but not restricted to the enforcement and penalty provisions of Title 23. (Ord. 8891 § 14, 1989: Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.110 Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation which violates or refuses to or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or regulations promulgated hereunder and orders issued pursuant hereto or who files or supplies any false incomplete or inaccurate information in conjunction with any permit application or permit renewal or in supplying any other information requested by this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than 90 days or by fine in the amount fixed by the court of not more than $1,000 or both such imprisonment and fine. In addition, enforcement and penalty provisions of KC.C. Title 23 shall be applicable to any violation of this chapter or regulations promulgated hereunder. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to exempt an offender from any other suit, prosecution or penalty provided in the King County Code or by other laws. (Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.120 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason, found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (Ord. 7708 § 1, 1986). 10.08.130 Interlocal agreements. A. By October 1, 1986, the division shall request each city in the county to provide to the division by December 31, 1986, written notification of its intent to use county disposal facilities. Any city which does intend to use county disposal facilities shall enter into an interlocal agreement with the county by June 30, 1988. Any city failing to notify the division by December 31, 1986 of its intent to use county disposal sites or failing to enter into an interlocal agreement with the county by June 30, 1988 shall be prohibited from disposing its solid waste at any county disposal site until or unless specifically so authorized by King County ordinance. B. These interlocal agreements shall provide for cities to designate by ordinance the county disposal system for disposal of all solid waste generated within their corporate limits and shall grant to the county the authority to designate specific sites for the disposal of solid waste generated within their corporate limits. Nothing in these contracts shall prevent any city from implementing programs to achieve maximum recycling of waste. All rates shall be as established by King KCC Title 10 Related LegWation »::............. RL County ordinance. (Ord. 8365 § 1, 1987: Ord. 7708 § 2, 1986). 10.08.140 Reporting. Effective July 1, 1991, all solid waste collection entities shall provide information to the manager on their usage of King County solid waste facilities. A No later than 15 days after the end of each month, solid waste collection entities shall report the amount of residential and commercial tonnage hauled to each King County solid waste facility, and identify the cities, towns or unincorporated service areas from which each ton of waste hauled by them originated. B. Once each year, no later than March 31, solid waste collection entities shall submit an annual tonnage forecast which estimates the total amount of residential and commercial tonnage and the number of residential and commercial accounts by city, town or unincorporated service area for the current year. C. All information shall be reported on forms provided by the county. D. Any significant changes in patterns of usage of King County solid waste facilities shall be reported to the manager 30 days in advance of the change. (Ord. 10018 § 4, 1991). Chapter 10.10 DISPOSAL SITES - HOURS AND TYPES OF WASTE ACCEPTED Sections: 10.10.020 Operating hours. 10.10.030 Types of waste accepted. 10.10.040 Effective date. 10.10.020 Operating hours. Operating hours at King County solid waste disposal facilities shall be as follows: A Transfer stations shall be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Sundays through Saturdays. The Factoria transfer station shall also be open at night from 5:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. Yard waste facilities shall be located at the following transfer stations and shall be open at the hours here specified: Related LegWation Factoria Transfer Station.... 5:30 p.m. to 1:00 am. Monday through Friday B. The Cedar Hills Landfill shall be open from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, 6:30 am. to 4:30 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. Cedar Hills shall not be open for use by the general public. C. All King County solid waste disposal facilities shall be closed on Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and New Years Day. D. King County landfills (excluding Cedar Hills), drop boxes, and yard waste facilities located at landfills shall be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., seven days per week during Pacific Standard Time and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days per week during Pacific Daylight Time. Yard waste facilities shall be located at Hobart and Cedar Falls landfills. E. Operating hours, dates of operation, and sites for mobile yard waste facilities shall be determined and publicized by the manager. (Ord. 9484 § 2, 1990: Ord. 8156, 1987: Ord. 8108 § 3, 1987). 10.10.030 Types of waste accepted. Types of waste accepted at King County solid waste disposal facilities shall be limited to the following: A. Cedar Hills Landfill shall accept mixed municipal solid waste from transfer stations and other sources in King County, and demolition waste in small quantities incidental to jurisdictional activities. B. Rural landfills shall accept mixed municipal solid waste from nonurban sources. C. Transfer stations shall accept mixed municipal solid waste, demolition waste in small quantities incidental to jurisdictional activities and of a size and density capable of being handled by transfer station equipment, and waste from the general public, businesses, and route collection vehicles collecting waste in King County. D. Drop box facilities shall accept mixed municipal solid waste in loads not to exceed five cubic yards and/or one ton. E. Yard waste facilities located at county transfer stations or landfills shall accept source separated yard waste from county residents. KCC Tule 10 3 F. Mobile yard waste facilities shall accept source separated residential yard waste from noncommercial users in loads not to exceed five cubic yards and/or one ton. G. Other wastes, such as industrial waste, semisolid, or liquid waste, and asbestos containing waste material, may be accepted at sites as designated and approved by the manager. H. Acceptance of any suspect waste may be denied pending the health officer's approval. (Ord. 9484 § 3, 1990: Ord. 8108 § 4, 1987). 10.10.040 Effective date. This chapter shall take effect on July 1, 1987. (Ord. 8108 § 1, 1987). Chapter 10.12 SOLID WASTE SITE DISPOSAL FEES Sections: $ 9.25 per entry 10.12.020 Fees for use of disposal sites. 10.12.022 City of Seattle withdrawal. 10.12.025 Landfill management. 10.12.030 Collection of fees. 10.12.050 Exception to service fee. 10.12.055 Other fees. 10.12.060 Enforcement. 10.12.065 Disposal of demolition and landclearing debris. 10.12.020 Fees for use of disposal sites. All persons using county -operated solid waste disposal facilities shall pay the service fees set forth in the following schedules: A. Effective January 1, 1992 service fees for the use of disposal sites with scales, excluding Cedar Hills, shall be: 1. Solid waste disposal: Passenger licensed vehicles $ 9.25 per entry Other vehicles 66.00 per ton Charitable organizations 43.00 per ton Minimum charge 9.25 per vehicle Charitable organizations, minimum charge 6.00 per entry • • 2. Deposit of source separated yard waste at • disposal sites with yard waste facilities: Passenger licensed vehicles 7.50 per entry Other vehicles 58.00 per ton Minimum charge 7.50 per vehicle B. Effective January 1, 1992 service fees for the use of disposal sites without scales shall be based upon the cubic yard or fraction thereof as follows: 1. Solid waste disposal: Passenger licensed vehicles $ 9.25 per entry Other vehicles Compacted wastes 19.00 per cubic yard Uncompacted wastes 11.00 per cubic yard Minvnum charge 9.25 per vehicle 2. Deposit of source separated yard waste at disposal sites with yard waste facilities: Passenger licensed vehicles 7.50 per entry Other vehicles Compacted wastes 17.00 per cubic yard Uncompacted wastes 9.50 per cubic yard Minimum charge 7.50 per vehicle C. Effective January 1, 1992 service fees at the Cedar Hills Landfill shall be: Cedar Hills regional direct $43.00 per ton Other vehicles 66.00 per ton Disposal by other vehicles is at the discretion of the solid waste manager. Any certificated hauler who has been disposing solid waste at a rural landfill may be authorized by the solid waste manager to dispose solid waste at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill on a temporary, emergency basis at the regional direct fee. D. Effective July 1, 1991, a moderate risk waste surcharge shall be added to all solid waste disposed by non - solid waste collection entities using county operated disposal facilities. The fee schedule is as follows: KCC Tule 10 Related Legislation 1. For sites with scales: Self-hauleis $2.61 per ton Minimum charge 1.00 per entry Passenger licensed vehicles 1.00 per entry 2. For sites without scales: Compacted .76 per cubic yard Uncompacted .44 per cubic yard Minimum charge 1.00 per entry Passenger licensed vehicles 1.00 per entry E. Effective January 1, 1992 a special waste fee shall be charged for special wastes including infectious waste treated and handled pursuant to King County Board of Health Code 10.28.070, asbestos -containing waste material, bulky waste, problem wastes, and other additional wastes requiring clearances pursuant to the King County Board of Health Code Title 10 or pursuant to rules promulgated by the department. Special Waste Fee $100.00 per ton Minimum charge 13.75 per entry F. In the absence of exact weights or measurements, the estimate of the manager shall be binding upon the user. G. Special Set -vice Fee. Solid waste generated and/or collected within the boundaries of a jurisdiction which has not entered into an agreement with King County for use of King County solid waste disposal facilities as provided by this chapter may only be disposed of in a King County facility upon payment of a special service fee of 3 times the applicable per ton rate for facilities with scales and 3 times the applicable cubic yard rate for compacted or uncompacted wastes for facilities without scales. Payment of the special service fee in this subsection shall be in lieu of payment of the fees in subsections A-E. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the use of King County facilities by any municipal corporation or agent thereof or any commercial hauler for disposal of solid waste generated and/or collected outside King County. (Ord. 10068 § 1, 1991: Ord. 10018 § 2, 1991: Ord. 9484 § 4, 1990: Ord. 9271 § 2, 1989: Ord. 8613 §§ 1, 4, 1988: Ord. 7748 § 3, 1986: Ord. 7012 § 3, 1984: Ord. 6177 § 2, 1982). Related Legislation RL - 3 S 10.12.022 City of Seattle withdrawal. In the event that the City of Seattle withdraws from the King County solid waste system prior to December 31, 1992, the King County solid waste division shall prepare disposal fee recommendations for consideration by the King County council. Such disposal fee recommendations shall be for a three year period commencing with the date of the City of Seattle's withdrawal. (Ord. 9271 § 14, 1989). 10.12.025 Landfill Management.* Included in the rate structure listed in K.C.C. 10.12.020 of this chapter is a $15.08 per ton charge that shall be collected for each ton of solid waste collected in the King County solid waste system which shall be reserved to provide for the management, replacement and/or reclamation of King County operated landfills in accordance with K.C.C. 4.08.045. (Ord. 10649 § 1, 1992: Ord. 9271 § 6, 1989: Ord. 7748 § 4, 1986: Ord. 6177 § 4, 1982). 10.12.030 Collection of fees. A. All service fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be collected in cash by site cashiers at the time of use; provided, that the manager of the King County solid waste division, department of public works may authorize a commercial or noncommercial user to be billed monthly for all solid waste delivered to the transfer stations and/or final disposal sites. B. The solid waste manager is authorized to adjust any solid waste service fee for purposes of minimizing cash holding requirements at solid waste facilities. The adjustment to the calculated fee shall not exceed twenty-five cents nor shall it have a significant impact on the revenue collected in the proposed rate period. C. Authorization of a commercial or noncommercial user's monthly billing shall result from a request in advance for such service by the commercial or noncommercial user. * See K.C.C. 4.08.045 for Landfill Reserve Fund. KCC Title 10 1. No authorization shall be granted without the posting of an irrevocable payment bond secured by the commercial or noncommercial user in the name of the solid waste division and in an amount which is equal to the larger amount of the actual prior three months of user fee charges or $2,500. 2. In the absence of the actual prior three months of user fee charges, the irrevocable payment bond will be determined by the larger amount of either an estimate by the commercial or noncommercial user of three months of user charges or $2,500. 3. The amount of such bond may be changed by giving of thirty days' notice by the manager to reflect actual usage. 4. The manager, shall upon request, relieve a commercial user certified pursuant to Chapter 81.77 RCW of the requirement for an irrevocable payment bond if it has not been delinquent in the preceding 12 months. 5. When the monthly bill is delinquent by five days the user shall post within thirty days of the delinquency an irrevocable bond equal to the larger amount of three month's actual user charges or $2,500. 6. The manager shall waive the irrevocable payment bond for the following governmental noncommercial users: a ..runicipal corporation, governmental department, agency or commission or political subdivision when he approves its monthly billing request. D. All invoiced fees shall be received, payable to King County, finance division, in monthly installments on or before the twenty-fifth day following the billing date as listed on the invoice. A late payment penalty equal to one and one-half percent of the delinquent unpaid balance, compounded monthly, shall be assessed on the delinquent unpaid balance of those nongovernmental commercial and noncommercial accounts in arrears. The manager, having given seven days' notice, may suspend use privileges for a commercial or noncommercial user who fails to tender payment by the end of the billing month. Any invoiced fee or other service fee which remains unpaid ninety days after its due date may be remitted to a collection service agency which will exercise their best, prudent and lawful efforts to secure collection. An administrative fee of fifteen dollars will be added to all such unpaid account totals. This fee will be in addition to any late payment penalty or fee imposed by county ordinance. E. Effective July 1, 1991, users not having charging privileges and unable to pay disposal charges assessed at the disposal facility shall be issued a one-time payment invoice of dumping fees charged plus a handling fee of $5.00. Payment on this invoice shall be due within 7 days of issue and late payment penalties shall be charged consistent with Subsection D above. F. A noncommercial user may be authorized by the manager to be billed monthly for all solid waste delivered to the transfer stations and for final disposal sites; provided, that such noncommercial user is either: 1. A municipal corporation, governmental department, agency or commission or political subdivision; or 2. A person whose monthly service charges exceed one hundred dollars. G. Persons authorized for monthly billings shall receive one or more identification badges for the purpose of crediting charges. A fee of twenty-five dollars shall be charged the person to replace a lost or damaged card. No fee will be charged for replacement due to normal wear. (Ord. 10018 § 3, 1991: Ord. 9271 § 13, 1989: Ord. 7012 § 4, 1984: Ord. 6461, 1983: Ord. 2304 § 1, 1975: Ord. 1985 § 2, 1974: Ord. 900 (part), 1971: Ord. 800 § 3, 1971). 10.12.050 Exception to service fee. Payment of the service fee may not be required of a user who is engaged in a community litter clean-up campaign; provided, that prior authorization has been secured in writing from the manager; and provided, that records of use and volumes shall be maintained for such. (Ord. 7012 § 6, 1984: Ord. 800 § 5, 1971). 10.12.055 Other fees. A. Persons shall be charged a handling fee of fifteen dollars for each check returned due to non -sufficient funds. B. Persons lacking cash at the time of disposal shall be billed for the amount due. A one dollar charge for handling and processing shall be added to the original fee. (Ord. 8539 § 2, 1988: Ord. 7012 § 7, 1984). KCC Title 10 Relater? Legislation RL - 6 3 0 0 1. No authorization shall be granted without the posting of an irrevocable payment bond secured by the commercial or noncommercial user in the name of the solid waste division and in an amount which is equal to the larger amount of the actual prior three months of user fee charges or $2,500. 2. In the absence of the actual prior three months of user fee charges, the irrevocable payment bond will be determined by the larger amount of either an estimate by the commercial or noncommercial user of three months of user charges or $2,500. 3. The amount of such bond may be changed by giving of thirty days' notice by the manager to reflect actual usage. 4. The manager, shall upon request, relieve a commercial user certified pursuant to Chapter 81.77 RCW of the requirement for an irrevocable payment bond if it has not been delinquent in the preceding 12 months. 5. When the monthly bill is delinquent by five days the user shall post within thirty days of the delinquency an irrevocable bond equal to the larger amount of three month's actual user charges or $2,500. 6. The manager shall waive the irrevocable payment bond for the following governmental noncommercial users: a ..runicipal corporation, governmental department, agency or commission or political subdivision when he approves its monthly billing request. D. All invoiced fees shall be received, payable to King County, finance division, in monthly installments on or before the twenty-fifth day following the billing date as listed on the invoice. A late payment penalty equal to one and one-half percent of the delinquent unpaid balance, compounded monthly, shall be assessed on the delinquent unpaid balance of those nongovernmental commercial and noncommercial accounts in arrears. The manager, having given seven days' notice, may suspend use privileges for a commercial or noncommercial user who fails to tender payment by the end of the billing month. Any invoiced fee or other service fee which remains unpaid ninety days after its due date may be remitted to a collection service agency which will exercise their best, prudent and lawful efforts to secure collection. An administrative fee of fifteen dollars will be added to all such unpaid account totals. This fee will be in addition to any late payment penalty or fee imposed by county ordinance. E. Effective July 1, 1991, users not having charging privileges and unable to pay disposal charges assessed at the disposal facility shall be issued a one-time payment invoice of dumping fees charged plus a handling fee of $5.00. Payment on this invoice shall be due within 7 days of issue and late payment penalties shall be charged consistent with Subsection D above. F. A noncommercial user may be authorized by the manager to be billed monthly for all solid waste delivered to the transfer stations and for final disposal sites; provided, that such noncommercial user is either: 1. A municipal corporation, governmental department, agency or commission or political subdivision; or 2. A person whose monthly service charges exceed one hundred dollars. G. Persons authorized for monthly billings shall receive one or more identification badges for the purpose of crediting charges. A fee of twenty-five dollars shall be charged the person to replace a lost or damaged card. No fee will be charged for replacement due to normal wear. (Ord. 10018 § 3, 1991: Ord. 9271 § 13, 1989: Ord. 7012 § 4, 1984: Ord. 6461, 1983: Ord. 2304 § 1, 1975: Ord. 1985 § 2, 1974: Ord. 900 (part), 1971: Ord. 800 § 3, 1971). 10.12.050 Exception to service fee. Payment of the service fee may not be required of a user who is engaged in a community litter clean-up campaign; provided, that prior authorization has been secured in writing from the manager; and provided, that records of use and volumes shall be maintained for such. (Ord. 7012 § 6, 1984: Ord. 800 § 5, 1971). 10.12.055 Other fees. A. Persons shall be charged a handling fee of fifteen dollars for each check returned due to non -sufficient funds. B. Persons lacking cash at the time of disposal shall be billed for the amount due. A one dollar charge for handling and processing shall be added to the original fee. (Ord. 8539 § 2, 1988: Ord. 7012 § 7, 1984). KCC Title 10 Relater? Legislation 10.12.060 Enforcement. The director of the department of public works is authorized to enforce the provision of this chapter, the ordinances and resolutions codified in it, and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to the enforcement and penalty provisions of Title 23. (Ord. 2910 § 3 (part), 1976: Ord. 800 (part), 1971). 10.12.065 Disposal of demolition and landclearing debris. A. The King County council hereby finds that current conditions related to disposal of demolition debris, such as limited remaining capacity at the only major landclearing and demolition debris landfill in King County, expansion of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority burn ban to a larger geographic area, may cause inappropriate disposal of demolition and landclearing debris at King County transfer stations and landfills. The council further finds that severe operational and fiscal consequences may result to Cedar Hills landfill if large quantities of landclearing and demolition debris wastes are diverted to that facility. B. Landclearing waste and demolition debris delivered in any commercial vehicle or any private vehicle with a load capacity greater than 1500 pounds are prohibited and shall not be accepted at any King County solid waste handling facilities. (Ord. 9271 §§ 15, 17, 1989). Chapter 10.14 WASTE REDUCTION - RECYCLING AND RECOVERY Sections: 10.14.020 County goals. 10.14.040 Development of recovery facilities. 10.14.050 County intent - reduce and divert waste from landfills. 10.14.060 Five-year work program. 10.14.070 Budget request. 10.14.080 Annual evaluation. 10.14.020 County goals. It is King County's goal to achieve maximum feasible reduction of solid wastes going into its landfills and other processing facilities by diverting as much Related Legislation RL - 37 as possible from the waste stream. It is recognized that waste reduction and recycling are the highest priority of the viable solid waste .management options, and the county hereby adopts this policy which will be aggressively pursued. (Ord. 7786 § 2, 1986). 10.14.040 Development of recovery facilities. The county policy in the development of future energy recovery facilities shall complement its waste reduction program. The county shall take its waste reduction and recycling goals and objectives into account in determining the size of any energy recovery facilities. Waste reduction shall have first priority, and energy recovery second priority, as a means of reducing the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills. (Ord. 7786 § 5, 1986). 10.14.050 County intent - Reduce and divert waste from landfills. It is the intent of King County to fulfill the following objectives in order to reach its goal to reduce and divert waste from landfills. A. Adopt an aggressive and regional approach to finding solutions to solid waste problems by working cooperatively with other cities and counties whenever it is appropriate. B. Provide technical assistance and support to municipalities within King County who are interested in developing waste reduction and recycling programs. C. Educate and encourage citizens, businesses, and institutions to reduce, reuse, source separate, and recycle solid waste. D. Encourage volunteer participation through outreach and coordination of waste reduction and recycling efforts. E. Encourage the private sector to increase recycling, such as collection, processing and marketing of recyclables. F. Implement an in-house King County recycling and waste reduction program, including the adoption of a procurement policy for county purchase of recycled products by June 1987, and other actions to encourage recycling and waste reduction by county government. G. Encourage the development of markets for and encourage use of recyclables. RCC Title 10 • • H. Annually project the amounts of waste being diverted from county landfills. (Ord. 7786 § 3, 1986). 10.14.060 Five-year work program. King County shall adopt a five-year work program which will serve as a guide for the development of a three-phase plan relating to governmental, private/business and public citizen actions which will implement King County's solid waste reduction and recycling program. A Phase I shall focus on government, emphasizing the following programs: 1. developing a regional plan for waste reduction and recycling; 2. evaluating rate structures that provide incentives for waste reduction and recycling by municipalities, businesses, and individuals; 3. developing a system to quantify waste diverted from county landfills as a result of King County's waste reduction efforts; 4. providing technical assistance to municipal public officials on waste reduction program development and implementation; 5. organizing localtmunicipal recycling action committees (a coalition of citizens, businesses and government officials) to plan and develop community waste reduction and recycling programs; 6. developing and implementing a procurement policy for recycled products in King County; 7. setting an example for the public by reducing, reusing, and recycling waste in county and municipal government. B. Phase II shall focus on business to develop the physical capacity to collect, process and sell recyclables. Programs in this phase include: 1. working with nonrecycling business and industry to reduce and recycle wastes; 2. encouraging recycling businesses to expand existing waste reduction and recycling services; 3. stimulating the development of new businesses to recycle parts of the waste stream that are not currently being recycled; 4. developing markets for recyclables by using direct marketing approaches to encourage consumption of recycled goods. C. Phase III shall focus on the public to mobilize participation. Programs in this phase include: 1. developing a public education program using mass media and direct marketing to encourage widespread participation; 2. developing and implementing waste reduction, including composting and recycling collection programs. (Ord. 7786 § 4, 1986). 10.14.070 Budget request. The executive shall annually prepare a budget request from the solid waste operating fund to support the five-year work program described in Section 10.14.060 of this chapter. The 1987 budget shall include resources for development of the work program and the 1988 and subsequent budgets shall include resources for implementing the work program. (Ord. 7786 § 6, 1986). 10.14.080 Annual evaluation. It is the council's intent to evaluate annually, in September of each year, the effectiveness of the waste recycling and reduction program in a programmatic and quantitative manner, to ensure the program is responsive and is meeting the solid waste management needs of the people of King County. The division shall submit to the council by September 1, of each year an annual report of its progress toward the goal of maximum feasible reduction of waste going to the landfills and other processing facilities. ThL< report shall include annual projections of the amounts diverted from landfills and shall describe progress toward the work program outline in Section 10.14.060 of this chapter. (Ord. 7786 § 7, 1986). KCC Tule 10 Related Legislation • :><:>::»::RL3 • • H. Annually project the amounts of waste being diverted from county landfills. (Ord. 7786 § 3, 1986). 10.14.060 Five-year work program. King County shall adopt a five-year work program which will serve as a guide for the development of a three-phase plan relating to governmental, private/business and public citizen actions which will implement King County's solid waste reduction and recycling program. A Phase I shall focus on government, emphasizing the following programs: 1. developing a regional plan for waste reduction and recycling; 2. evaluating rate structures that provide incentives for waste reduction and recycling by municipalities, businesses, and individuals; 3. developing a system to quantify waste diverted from county landfills as a result of King County's waste reduction efforts; 4. providing technical assistance to municipal public officials on waste reduction program development and implementation; 5. organizing localtmunicipal recycling action committees (a coalition of citizens, businesses and government officials) to plan and develop community waste reduction and recycling programs; 6. developing and implementing a procurement policy for recycled products in King County; 7. setting an example for the public by reducing, reusing, and recycling waste in county and municipal government. B. Phase II shall focus on business to develop the physical capacity to collect, process and sell recyclables. Programs in this phase include: 1. working with nonrecycling business and industry to reduce and recycle wastes; 2. encouraging recycling businesses to expand existing waste reduction and recycling services; 3. stimulating the development of new businesses to recycle parts of the waste stream that are not currently being recycled; 4. developing markets for recyclables by using direct marketing approaches to encourage consumption of recycled goods. C. Phase III shall focus on the public to mobilize participation. Programs in this phase include: 1. developing a public education program using mass media and direct marketing to encourage widespread participation; 2. developing and implementing waste reduction, including composting and recycling collection programs. (Ord. 7786 § 4, 1986). 10.14.070 Budget request. The executive shall annually prepare a budget request from the solid waste operating fund to support the five-year work program described in Section 10.14.060 of this chapter. The 1987 budget shall include resources for development of the work program and the 1988 and subsequent budgets shall include resources for implementing the work program. (Ord. 7786 § 6, 1986). 10.14.080 Annual evaluation. It is the council's intent to evaluate annually, in September of each year, the effectiveness of the waste recycling and reduction program in a programmatic and quantitative manner, to ensure the program is responsive and is meeting the solid waste management needs of the people of King County. The division shall submit to the council by September 1, of each year an annual report of its progress toward the goal of maximum feasible reduction of waste going to the landfills and other processing facilities. ThL< report shall include annual projections of the amounts diverted from landfills and shall describe progress toward the work program outline in Section 10.14.060 of this chapter. (Ord. 7786 § 7, 1986). KCC Tule 10 Related Legislation Chapter 10.16 RECYCLED PRODUCT PROCUREMENT POLICY Sections: 10.16.010 Propose. 10.16.020 Policies. 10.16.030 Definitions. 10.16.040 Designated products and recycled designated products. 10.16.050 Requirements for purchasing contracts. 10.16.060 Rules and regulations for procurement of paper and paper products. 10.16.070 Rules and regulations for procurement of building insulation products. 10.16.080 Rules and regulations for procurement of cement or cement concrete. 10.16.090 Rules and regulations for procurement of lubricating oil. 10.16.100 Rules and regulations for procurement of tires. 10.16.110 Rules, regulations and procedures for designation and procurement of recycled plastic products, compost, and other recycled designated products. 10.16.120 Procurement of recycled products. 10.16.130 Disposable food and beverage containers. 10.16.140 Capital improvement projects and construction contracts. 10.16.150 Annual report. 10.16.160 Responsibilities and reporting requirements of departments. 10.16.170 Responsibilities of the solid waste division. 10.16.180 Responsibilities of the purchasing agency. 10.16.190 Exemptions. 10.16.200 Effective date. 10.16.210 Severability. 10.16.010 Purpose. This chapter shall be known as the "King County Recycled Product Procurement Policy." Its purpose is to promote market development of recycled products and recyclable products by establishing preferential purchase Related Legislation RL 39 programs applicable to county departments and contractors, thereby diverting materials from the solid waste stream. (Ord. 9240 § 1, 1989). 10.16.020 Policies. A All departments shall whenever practicable use recycled products and recyclable products to meet their needs. B. The county shall whenever practicable require its contractors and consultants to use recycled products and recyclable products in fulfilling contractual obligations to the county. C. In procuring designated products pursuant to this chapter, the county shall require recovered material and/or post -consumer material content to be factors in determining the lowest responsive and responsible bid in any competitive bidding procurement process initiated pursuant to state and county law. D. The county shall promote the use of recycled products and recyclable products by publicizing its procurement program and by disseminating information about recycled products. (Ord. 9240 § 2, 1989). 10.16.030 Definitions. The following terms shall have the assigned definitions for all purposes under this chapter: A. 'Building insulation" means a material, primarily designed to resist heat flow, which is installed between the conditioned volume of a building and adjacent unconditioned volumes or the outside. This term includes but is not limited to insulation products such as blanket, board, spray -in-place, and loose -fill that are used as ceiling, floor, foundation, and wall insulation. B. "Cement" means a powder -like manufactured mineral product, often referred to as 'Portland cement," used in the manufacture of cement concrete. C. "Cement concrete" means concrete which contains cement. D. "Cement with fly ash or cement concrete with fly ash" means cement or cement concrete containing any amount of fly ash. E. "Contractor" means any pet -son, group of persons, consultant, designing architect, association, partnership, corporation, or other type of business entity which has a contract with King County (including suppliers) or which serves KCC Mle 10 .. ..... >;:.. RL - 40 in a subcontracting capacity with an entity having a contract with King County for the provision of goods and/or services. F. "Departments"* shall refer to any department as defined by King County ordinance or other applicable law and shall include all county agencies not associated with a department, the King County prosecuting attorney, the King County assessor, and the King County council. G. "Designated products" means all products that have been or may be identified pursuant to Section 10.16.040 of this chapter as products that can be procured with significant levels of recovered materials. H. "Designing architect" means any architect or engineer performing architectural or engineering services for the county in connection with a county construction project and who is chiefly responsible for the project's design. I. "Director" means the director of the department of executive administration or the director's designee. J. "End use" means an intended final use of a product by a consumer which will not result in additional value being added to the product. K. "Fly ash" means the component of coal which results from the combustion of coal and is the finely divided mineral residue which is typically collected from boiler stack gases by electrostatic precipitator or mechanical collection devices. L. "Lubricating oils" means engine lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, and gear oils, excluding marine and aviation oils. M. "Minimum content standards" means standards set by the county specifying the minimum level of recovered material and/or post -consumer material necessary for designated products to qualify as recycled products. N. "Mixed municipal solid waste" means waste consisting of solid waste generated by residences, stores, offices, and other generators of wastes that are not industrial, agricultural, or demolition wastes. 0. "Paper and paper products" means all items manufactured from paper or paperboard. * See K.C.C. 2.16 for department names. P. "Post -consumer material" means only those products generated by a business or consumer which have served their intended end uses, and which have been separated or diverted from the solid waste stream for the purposes of collection, recycling and disposition. Q. "Post -consumer paper material" means: 1. Paper, paperboard and fibrous wastes including corrugated boxes, newspapers, magazines, mixed waste paper, tabulating cards and used cordage from places like retail stores, office buildings and homes after the point at which they have passed through their end use as consumer items; and 2. All paper, paperboard and fibrous wastes that enter and are collected as mixed municipal solid waste. R. "Purchasing contract" means any contract which is awarded by the county for the purchase of tangible goods. S. "Recovered material" means material and byproducts which have been recovered or diverted from solid waste, but does not include those materials and byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing process (such as mill broke or home scrap). T. "Recovered paper material" means paper waste generated after the completion of a papermaking process, such as post -consumer material, envelope cuttings, bindery trimmings, printing waste, cutting and other converting waste, butt rolls, and mill wrappers, obsolete inventories, and rejected unused stock. Recovered paper material, however, shall not include fibrous waste generated during the manufacturing process such as fibers recovered from waste water or trimmings of paper machine rolls (mill broke), or fibrous byproducts of harvesting, extractive or woodcutting processes, or forest residue such as bark. U. "Recyclable product" means a product which, after its intended end use, can demonstrably and economically be diverted from the King County solid waste stream for use as a raw material in the manufacture of another product. V. "Recycled designated product" means a product designated in or pursuant to Section 10.16.040 of this chapter that meets or surpasses (1) county minimum content standards, and (2) all other criteria for qualification as specified in this chapter. KCC Title 10 Related Legislation W. "Retread tire" means a worn automobile, truck, or other motor vehicle tire, excluding airplane fires, whose tread has been replaced. X "Reusable product" means a product that can be used several times for an intended end use before being discarded, such as a washable food or beverage container or a refillable ball point pen. Y. "Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, except wastes identified in WAC 173-304-015, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded commodities, sludge from wastewater treatment plants and septage from septic tanks, woodwaste, dangerous waste, and problem wastes. This includes all public, private, industrial, commercial mining and agricultural operations. Unrecovered residue from recycling operations shall be considered solid waste. Z. "User department" means a department that purchases any amount of a given designated product, except when the department has made no purchase within the current or preceding calendar year. (Ord. 9240 § 3, 1989). 10.16.040 Designated products and recycled designated products. For allpurposes of this chapter, the products listed in this section or added pursuant to it are designated as products that can be readily procured with significant levels of recovered materials. Designated products shall qualify as recycled designated products if they meet minimum content standards established in this chapter. Designated products shall include: A. Paper and paper products. B. Cement concrete. C. Lubricating oil. D. Tires. E. Building insulation products. F. Other products, including plastic and compost products, designated on a case-by-case basis as specified in this chapter. (Ord. 9240 § 4, 1989). 10.16.050 Requirements for purchasing contracts A. Invitations to bid issued by the county after March 31, RL -41 1990, for the purchase of designated products shall contain no terms, requirements or specifications prohibiting or discouraging post -consumer or recovered material content, unless a user department provides the director or his designee with satisfactory evidence that, for technical reasons and for a particular end use, a product containing such materials will not meet reasonable performance standards. B. In determining the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the purchase of designated products pursuant to invitations to bid issued after the effective date of Ordinance 9830 (March 18, 1991), the director or his designee shall use the procedures and evaluation criteria specified in this chapter. If a bidder, in response to any such invitation, offers to supply the county with one or more recycled designated products, or recyclable products pursuant to K.C.C. 10.16.120, the purchasing agency shall reduce the actual bid amount for each such product by the applicable percentage factor as specified in this chapter. The reduced bid amount for each such product shall be used only for purposes of determining the lowest responsive and responsible bid pursuant to this chapter and K.C.C. 4.18. The actual amount bid shall in all cases be the contracted amount. However, nothing contained in this chapter shall preclude user departments from requiring post -consumer or recovered material content as a specification in invitations to bid for any products. C. Each contractor supplying the county with recycled designated products pursuant to an invitation to bid process initiated after March 31, 1990 shall provide certification acceptable to the county from all product manufacturers that the products being supplied meet or surpass county minimum content standards and shall agree to reasonable verification procedures specified by the director or the director's designee. (Ord. 9830 § 1, 1991: Ord. 9240 § 5, 1989). 10.16.060 Rules and regulations for procurement of paper and paper products. A. King County's recycled paper procurement goal for user departments (expressed as a percentage of the total volume of paper purchased) shall be: 1. Not less than ten percent by 1990; 2. Not less than thirty percent by 1992; 3. Not less than sixty percent by 1995. Related Legislation KCC Title 10 Each department shall be responsible for making its best effort to meet or surpass these goals. B. The solid waste division manager and the director, or their designees, shall jointly adopt minimum content standards for recycled paper products by January 31, 1990. The minimum content standards shall, at a minimum, be consistent with standards promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and found in 40 CFR Pail 250.21, unless the solid waste division manager and the director, or their designees, determine that a different standard would significantly increase recycled product availability or competition or would increase recycled content without adversely affecting. availability. C. The director or his designee shall use a percentage factor of fifteen percent in the process of determining the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for paper and paper products, except for paper to be used for county letterhead. D. All imprinted letterhead paper and business cards used by county departments shall be recycled paper. E. Departments shall publicize the county's use of recycled paper by printing the words "Printed on Recycled Paper" and a recycling logo as specified by the solid waste division on all letterhead paper and on the title page of all reports printed on recycled paper. F. To reduce the volume of paper purchased, departments shall use both sides of paper sheets whenever practicable. G. Requests for proposal or qualifications issued by the county after the effective date of Ordinance 9830 (March 18, 1991) shall require all proposed contractors or consultants submitting proposals to agree to the following as a precondition to contract award: 1. All reports submitted to the county by a contractor in fulfillment of contract obligations, excluding invoices and routine correspondence, shall use recycled paper when it is available at a reasonable price. For purposes of this paragraph, the price of recycled paper shall be considered "reasonable" if its cost is no more than 15% higher than the lowest price offered for non -recycled paper. 2. Reports submitted to the county by contractors shall use both sides of paper sheets whenever practicable. Contractors who submit over ten reams of printed or copied materials to the county in any given month shall keep records of paper purchased for the county's purposes and shall justify to the county any use of non -recycled paper. Contractors shall submit such records to the county according to procedures to be established jointly by the solid waste division and the purchasing agency by the effective date of Ordinance 9830 (March 18, 1991). Contractors shall be responsible for maintaining and submitting these records for all of their subcontractors. (Ord. 9830 § 2, 1991: Ord. 9240 § 6, 1989). 10.16.070 Rules and regulations for procurement of building insulation products. A. The solid waste division manager and the director, or their designees, shall jointly adopt minimum content standards for recycled building insulation products by January 31, 1990. The minimum content standards shall, at a minimum, be consistent with standards promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and found in 40 CFR Part 248.21, unless the solid waste division manager and the director or their designees determine that a different standard would significantly increase recycled product availability or competition. B. All designing architects shall include as a design consideration in all bid and construction documents they prepare the county's policy preferring the use of building insulation products containing recovered materials. C. Designing architects shall select the type of building insulation to be procured and shall whenever practicable procure the type with the highest post -consumer material content. D. Designing architects shall provide to the county a written statement explaining the architect's selection of building insulation types not on the county's minimum content standards list. E. The purchasing agency shall provide departments with listings of vendors of building insulation products that meet the county's minimum content standards. F. If the selected type of insulation is available in products that meet minimum content standards, these KCC 71tte 10 Related LegWatton I• standards shall be included in bid solicitations for construction work. G. Prospective suppliers of insulation products for use in county funded projects shall provide the county with estimates of the percentage of recovered material of each building insulation product to be supplied. H. If minimum content standards for insulation have been included in bid specifications, suppliers shall certify, prior to delivery or installation, that the building insulation products provided meet or exceed these standards. I. Departments administering contracts in which building insulation is procured shall maintain records on the amount of each type of insulation purchased; the percentage of recovered materials in each; and reasons for not procuring insulation meeting minimum content standards. (Ord. 9830 § 3, 1991: Ord. 9240 § 7, 1989). 10.16.080 Rules and regulations for procurement of cement or cement concrete. A. Cement or cement concrete containing any amount of fly ash shall qualify as a recycled product. B. Each department that administers construction contracts is responsible for ensuring that all invitations to bid issued by the county after March 31, 1990 contain specifications that allow cement or cement concrete with fly ash as an optional or alternate material for all construction projects. C. Where cement or cement concrete is purchased by purchase order, contractors shall estimate in signed bid documents the percentage of fly ash by weight, as well as the total weight of fly ash to be supplied. D. Where cement or cement concrete is purchased as a component of a construction contract, the engineer responsible for the mix design shall maintain records of the percentage of fly ash (as a percentage of total cementitious material) and the total weight of fly ash supplied. (Ord. 9240 § 8, 1989). 10.16.090 Rules and regulations for procurement of lubricating oil. A. Lubricating oil with re -refined oil content shall contain the maximum practicable amount of re -refined oil, but not less than twenty-five percent of total product weight. Related Legislation B. The director or his designee shall use a percentage factor of ten percent in the process of determining the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for lubricating oil. C. Each department that purchases lubricating oil is responsible for ensuring that all invitations to bid issued by the county after March 31, 1990 contain specifications that allow lubricating oil with re -refined content. If lubricating oil with re -refined content does not satisfy warranty or performance standards, the affected departments shall submit documentation to the purchasing agency. (Ord. 9240 § 9, 1989). 10.16.100 Rules and regulations for procurement of tires. A. All retread tires shall qualify as recycled products. B. All departments that purchase replacement tires shall review specifications for tires by March 31, 1990 to ensure that specifications do not discriminate against retread tires. Specifications shall be based upon specific performance requirements, such as mileage warranties or speed ratings. C. All departments shall procure retreading set -vices for their used tires to the maximum extent practicable before obtaining replacement tires. D. In response to invitations to bid, bidders shall be required to certify the number of retread tires and the percentage of the total tires to be supplied that will be retread tires. (Ord. 9240 § 10, 1989). 10.16.110 Rules, regulations and procedures for designation and procurement of recycled plastic products, compost, and other recycled designated products. A. A vendor of a product that contains recovered materials, such as post -consumer plastic or yard waste that are not designated products, may petition the county to qualify the product as a recycled designated product on a case-by-case basis. The vendor shall be responsible for providing sufficient evidence to the county that the product is suitable for its intended end use by the county. B. The director and the solid waste manager or their designees shall jointly determine on a case-by-case basis the percentage factor to be used by the director or the director's designee in the process of determining the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for products qualifying as recycled products KCC Mle 10 RL - 44 in this section; provided that the percentage factor shall be no higher than ten percent. C. In determining product qualification and the percentage factor, the solid waste division manager and the director, or their designees, shall jointly develop evaluation criteria, including but not limited to the following: effect on solid waste stream reduction; product performance and quality; information provided by the vendor about product composition, safety or durability; comparative post -consumer material content; and conformance with county, state and federal standards. D. The solid waste division manager and the director, or their designees, shall solicit the input of departments that are potential users of products under consideration in evaluating product efficacy and performance. E. Recycled designated products qualified under the terms of this section shall maintain their qualification for a period of three years, at which time qualifications may be reviewed for renewal; provided that the county may revoke qualification at any time if products are found to be unsatisfactory or unsafe, or if the recovered material or post -consumer material content of the products decreases. (Ord. 9240 § 11, 1989). 10.16.120 Procurement of recyclable products. A. A vendor may petition the county to qualify a product as a recyclable product on a case-by-case basis. The vendor shall be responsible for providing all information requested by the county, including evidence that there is an existing market for the product after it has served its intended end use and that it will be diverted from the solid waste stream. B. The solid waste division manager and the director, or their designees, shall jointly determine on a case-by-case basis the percentage factor to be used by the director or the director's designee in the process of determining the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for products qualifying as recycled products in this section. For recyclable products which are also recycled designated products, the combined percentage factor shall at no time be greater than fifteen percent. C. In determining product qualification and the percentage factor, the solid waste division manager and the director, or their designees, shall develop evaluation criteria, KCC Title 10 including but not limited to the following: documented marketability of the recycled material and specific contractual arrangements for collection of materials after they have been used by the county. D. Recyclable products qualified under the terms of this section shall maintain their qualification for a period of three years, at which time qualifications may be reviewed for renewal; provided that, the county may revoke qualification at any time if the county determines that the products are not in fact recyclable products. (Ord. 9240 § 12, 1989)• 10.16.130 Disposable food and beverage containers. A. The county prefers the use of reusable food and beverage containers when practicable. B. When it is necessary to purchase disposable food and beverage containers, all departments and all concessionaires operating on county property or on property managed by the county shall whenever practicable purchase recyclable products. (Ord. 9240 § 13, 1989). 10.16.140 Capital improvement projects and construction contracts. A. The county's preference for the purchase and use of products containing recovered materials shall be included as a factor in the design development of county capital improvement projects. B. Where the King County design commission is required to review proposals for the design of a project, the commission shall determine whether the proposals have made a reasonable attempt to include products containing recovered materials. C. Specifications for materials in construction contracts shall specify or encourage the use of designated recycled products whenever practicable. Specifications shall not prohibit or discriminate against the use of designated recycled products unless the department issuing the contract provides the director or the director's designee with written documentation that, for technical reasons and for a particular end use, a product containing such materials will not meet reasonable performance standards. (Ord. 9240 § 14, 1989). 10.16.150 Annual report. The solid waste division . shall submit to the county council each year in September, Related Legislation ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... beginning in 1990, a report evaluating the procurement program, including the following components: A. Quantities of designated products purchased by departments; B. Quantities and types of recycled product purchased; C. Prices and relative quantities purchased of recycled and non -recycled designated products; D. A determination as to whether minimum content standards should be changed or remain the same; E. A summary of program promotional efforts; F. An assessment of the effectiveness of the procurement program and an evaluation of program goals; and G. Recommendations for changes in procurement policy, including designation of additional products. (Ord. 9240 § 15, 1989). 10.16.160 Responsibilities and reporting requirements of departments. All user departments are responsible for: A. Purchasing and using recycled products whenever practicable; B. Documenting any technical problems that preclude the use of recycled products; C. Providing written explanations to the director or the director's designee for not purchasing recycled products; D. Conducting comparative tests of the performance of recycled products and non -recycled products, as specified by the solid waste division and the purchasing agency; E. Transmitting to contractors, upon their request, recycled product and vendor lists prepared by the purchasing agency and solid waste division; F. Collecting information from contractors about their designated product purchases before contract expiration dates, according to procedures established by the solid waste division; G. Submitting a report on the purchase of designated products by contractors to the solid waste division by July 31 each year, beginning in 1991; H. Informing the purchasing agency of potential uses of recycled products by contractors. (Ord. 9240 § 16, 1989). 10.16.170 Responsibilities of the solid waste division. A. Providing information and technical assistance Related Legislation 0 RL -4 5 to local governments, schools, colleges, and other public and private organizations interested in purchasing recycled products; B. Assisting departments in resolving problems and complaints concerning recycled product performance or availability, C. Preparing press releases and fact sheets publicizing the successes of the program; D. Preparing a report evaluating the procurement program to be submitted to the county council each year in September, beginning in 1990, and E. Assisting the purchasing agency in fulfilling its responsibilities in connection with this chapter. (Ord. 9240 § 17, 1989). 10.16.180 Responsibilities of the purchasing agency. The purchasing agency is responsible for: A. Revising or amending standard bid documents and contract language where necessary to implement this chapter. B. Collecting data on purchases by departments of designated products on county purchase orders, to be compiled by the solid waste division; C. Preparing bid invitations for recycled products; D. Maintaining a directory of recycled products and local vendors; E. Disseminating recycled product information to departments; F. Assisting the solid waste division in fulfilling its responsibilities in connection with this chapter. (Ord. 9240 § 18, 1989). 10.16.190 Exemptions. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as requiring a department or contractor to procure products that do not perform adequately for their intended end use or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time. (Ord. 9240 § 19, 1989). 10.16.200 Effective date. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all county procurement processes, including invitations to bid, and requests for proposals initiated after March 31, 1990. (Ord. 9240 § 20, 1989). KCC Title 10 10.16.210 Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, clause or phrase of this chapter be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this chapter. (Ord. 9240 § 21, 1989)• CHAPTER 10.18 COLLECTION OF HOUSEHOLD RECYCLABLES AND YARD WASTE IN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY Sections: 10.18.010 - Minimum levels of residential recyclables collection 10.18.020 Solid waste collection and recycling rates 10.18.030 County notification of WUTC tariff filings 10.18.040 Program promotion and education requirements 10.18.050 Certificated haulers customer service responsibilities 10.18.060 Reporting requirements 10.18.070 County administrative fee 10.18.080 County notification of certificated haulers 10.18.090 Full program implementation 10.18.100 Severability 10.18.010 Minimum levels of residential recyclables collection. The minimum levels of service and WUTC regulation of certificated haulers, pursuant to RCW 81.77, shall continue for five years from the effective date of Ordinance 9928 (May 30, 1991). The minimum level of service for residential recycling programs in unincorporated urban service areas of King County, as defined in Attachment A to Ordinance 9928*, shall include the following: A. Single family recyclables collection. 1. Recyclables collection services shall, at a minimum, be available to all single family dwellings in unincorporated urban service areas of the county. *Available in the office of the Clerk of the Council 2. Participation in these programs shall be voluntary. 3. Materials. The following recyclable materials, at a minimum, shall be collected from single family dwellings. a. Newspaper - printed groundwood newsprint including glossy advertisements and supplemental magazines that are delivered with the newspaper. b. Clear, amber, and green empty, clean glass containers. Plate glass, ceramics, or mirror glass will not be collected. c. Clean tin -coated steel cans. d. Clean aluminum cans and foil. e. Mixed waste paper, including most types of clean and dry paper which fall into high and low grade categories including glossy papers, magazines, catalogs, phone books, cards, laser -printed white ledger paper, windowed envelopes, paper with adhesive labels, paper bags, wrapping paper, packing paper, chipboard such as cereal boxes and shoe boxes, and glossy advertising paper. f. Cardboard - clean corrugated cardboard and kraft paper, including unbleached, unwaxed paper with a ruffled ("corrugated") inner liner. Cardboard does not include chipboard such as cereal boxes and shoe boxes. g. PET plastics - clean and empty polyethylene terephthalate bottles [Society of Plastics Industry (SPI) code 1], including clear 1- and 2 -liter soda bottles, as well as some bottles for liquor, liquid cleaners, and detergents. h. HDPE plastics - clean and empty high- density polyethylene bottles [Society of Plastics Industry (SPI) code 21 including milk, juice, and water jugs, as well as bottles for laundry detergent, fabric softener, and lotion. 4. Collection schedule. The recyclable materials listed in Subsection A.3 shall be collected at least twice a month on the same day of the week as solid waste collection. a. The certificated hauler may request an exception to this requirement for all or part of their service area. b. The request must be submitted in writing to the division and include, at a minimum, the following infonnation: the location of the area affected; the number of customers affected; the alternative collection schedule; and the reasons supporting the request. KCC Title 10 Related Legislation 0 0 0 0 0 c. The division will determine whether to allow the hauler's request based on demonstration that: the number of customers affected is minimized; program participation will not be adversely affected; substantial cost savings will accrue due to the alternative collection schedule; and other information presented in the request. 5. Collection Containers. Containers for recyclables storage shall be provided by certificated haulers to all single family dwellings. The containers may be provided by the certificated hauler by delivering containers to all single family dwelling units in unincorporated urban areas. Alternatively, collection containers may be provided on a sign- up basis according to the notification requirements defined in KC.C. 10.18.040A. Delivery of containers to all single family dwellings is preferable to a sign-up system. a. The containers shall be sufficient in number and type to hold all recyclables accumulated between collections. b. The containers must be made of durable materials that will last a minimum seven years under normal use. Plastic materials used in the construction of recycling containers shall be durable, ultraviolet light stabilized and manufactured using recycled or post -consumer materials. Collection containers shall contain a minimum of at least ten percent postconsumer material unless the certificated hauler can demonstrate evidence to the division that such material is unavailable. Plastic bags, or bags made of other material, shall not be used as containers. c. All containers shall contain information about the proper preparation of materials and include the telephone number and name of the certificated hauler. d. A container delivery schedule shall be provided to the county at the initiation of the project to allow for coordination of its promotional and educational efforts. Containers will be delivered to program participants at least seven (7) days prior to the initiation of collection. B. Multi -family recyclables collection. L Recyclables collection services shall, at a minimum, be available to all multi -family structures or complexes in unincorporated urban service areas of the county. 2. Participation in these programs shall be voluntary. Related LegWa6qn 3. Materials. At a minimum, all of the recyclable materials listed in Subsection U shall be collected from multi -family structures. 4. Collection schedule. The recyclable materials listed in Subsection A.3 shall be collected at least twice a month on a regular schedule. 5. Collection containers. Certificated haulers shall provide on-site collection containers for recyclables to multi -family structures or complexes on a sign-up basis according to the notification requirements defined in KC.C. 10.18.040B. a. The containers shall be sufficient in number and type to hold all recyclables accumulated between collections. b. On-site containers must be made of durable materials that will last a minimum of seven years under normal use. Plastic bags, or bags made of other material, shall not be used as on-site containers. c. All containers shall contain information about the proper preparation of materials and include the telephone number and name of the certificated hauler. d. Containers will be delivered to multi- family structures signed -up for service at least seven (7) days prior to the initiation of collection. C. Single family and multi -family yard waste collection. 1. Yard waste collection services shall, at a minimum, be available to all single family dwellings and multi -family structures or complexes in unincorporated urban service areas of the county. 2. Participation in these programs shall be voluntary. 3. Materials. Yard waste collected from single family dwellings and multi -family structures or complexes shall meet the following specifications: a. With the exception of unflocked Christmas trees, materials larger than two inches in diameter and three feet in length will not be considered yard waste. Unflocked Christmas trees shall be accepted in three foot lengths with no diameter restrictions. 4. Collection schedule. Yard waste shall be collected from single family dwelling units and multi -family KCC Title 10 structures or complexes at least twice a month during the months of March through November, and at least once a month from December through February. Single fatuity yard waste shall be collected on the same day of the week as solid waste collection. a. The certificated hauler may request an exception to this requirement for all or part of their service area. b. The request must be submitted in writing to the division and include, at a minimum, the following information: the location of the area affected; the number of customers affected; the alternative collection schedule; and the reasons supporting the request. c. The division will deternnine whether to allow the hauler's request based on demonstration that: the number of customers affected is minimized; program participation will not be adversely affected; substantial cost savings will accrue; and other information presented in the request. 5. Collection containers. Certificated haulers shall offer to provide yard waste containers to single family dwellings and multi -family structures or complexes on a sign- up basis, according to the notification requirements in KC.C. 10.18.040C. a_ Certificated haulers may require that customers use containers provided by the certificated hauler or allow customers to provide their own containers. An additional fee may be charged to the customers electing to lease a yard waste container from a certificated hauler. b. Plastic bags shall not be used as containers. c. Certificated haulers may establish a maximum volume of and/or weight of yard waste that will be accepted for each collection. D. Additional minimum level of service provisions. The following provisions shall apply to the collection set -vices described in Subsection A, B., and C.: 1. If access to potential program participants is restricted, due to impassable road conditions, alternatives to curbside recyclables collection, such as drop site collection, will be provided by the certificated hauler. This exception shall not apply to impassable road conditions due to severe weather situations. The certificated hauler will report to the county those areas receiving alternative curbside collection services. 2. The certificated haulers shall designate and inform the county and program participants of the holidays that it will observe and the schedule that will be used when a holiday falls on a regular collection day. The certificated hauler shall designate a process for responding to missed collections as a result of inclement or adverse weather conditions. 3. Special recyclables collection services shall be provided for those households where there are handicapped or elderly people who cannot move their recycling or yard waste containers to the curb. Households that qualify for this service will be determined by the certificated hauler. 4. The certificated haulers shall retain ownership of all containers distributed to program participants. Replacement necessitated by normal use or by container damage due to the certificated haulers negligence shall be the responsibility of the certificated hauler. Replacement necessitated by container damage due to program participant negligence shall be at the program participant's expense. 5. The certificated haulers shall use intermediate processing facilities that have obtained all applicable local, state and federal permits. Whenever possible, local markets shall be used to receive recyclables and/or yard waste for purposes of processing, handling or remanufacturing the materials into new products. 6. The certificated haulers shall not under any circumstances dispose of marketable recyclables or yard waste by landfilling or incineration. In addition, in no instance shall unmarketable materials be disposed of at a landfill or other disposal facility outside of King County. 7. The division will discuss any proposed changes with the certificated haulers prior to proposing any amendments to the list of materials to be collected and/or the unincorporated urban service area boundaries. However, nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a certificated hauler from exceeding the minimum requirements by collecting additional materials or providing collection services to a larger portion of their franchise area. (Ord. 10446 § 1, 1992: Ord. 9928 § 2, 1991). KCC Title 10 Related Legislation 8 .... ...................................... ..:::::: structures or complexes at least twice a month during the months of March through November, and at least once a month from December through February. Single fatuity yard waste shall be collected on the same day of the week as solid waste collection. a. The certificated hauler may request an exception to this requirement for all or part of their service area. b. The request must be submitted in writing to the division and include, at a minimum, the following information: the location of the area affected; the number of customers affected; the alternative collection schedule; and the reasons supporting the request. c. The division will deternnine whether to allow the hauler's request based on demonstration that: the number of customers affected is minimized; program participation will not be adversely affected; substantial cost savings will accrue; and other information presented in the request. 5. Collection containers. Certificated haulers shall offer to provide yard waste containers to single family dwellings and multi -family structures or complexes on a sign- up basis, according to the notification requirements in KC.C. 10.18.040C. a_ Certificated haulers may require that customers use containers provided by the certificated hauler or allow customers to provide their own containers. An additional fee may be charged to the customers electing to lease a yard waste container from a certificated hauler. b. Plastic bags shall not be used as containers. c. Certificated haulers may establish a maximum volume of and/or weight of yard waste that will be accepted for each collection. D. Additional minimum level of service provisions. The following provisions shall apply to the collection set -vices described in Subsection A, B., and C.: 1. If access to potential program participants is restricted, due to impassable road conditions, alternatives to curbside recyclables collection, such as drop site collection, will be provided by the certificated hauler. This exception shall not apply to impassable road conditions due to severe weather situations. The certificated hauler will report to the county those areas receiving alternative curbside collection services. 2. The certificated haulers shall designate and inform the county and program participants of the holidays that it will observe and the schedule that will be used when a holiday falls on a regular collection day. The certificated hauler shall designate a process for responding to missed collections as a result of inclement or adverse weather conditions. 3. Special recyclables collection services shall be provided for those households where there are handicapped or elderly people who cannot move their recycling or yard waste containers to the curb. Households that qualify for this service will be determined by the certificated hauler. 4. The certificated haulers shall retain ownership of all containers distributed to program participants. Replacement necessitated by normal use or by container damage due to the certificated haulers negligence shall be the responsibility of the certificated hauler. Replacement necessitated by container damage due to program participant negligence shall be at the program participant's expense. 5. The certificated haulers shall use intermediate processing facilities that have obtained all applicable local, state and federal permits. Whenever possible, local markets shall be used to receive recyclables and/or yard waste for purposes of processing, handling or remanufacturing the materials into new products. 6. The certificated haulers shall not under any circumstances dispose of marketable recyclables or yard waste by landfilling or incineration. In addition, in no instance shall unmarketable materials be disposed of at a landfill or other disposal facility outside of King County. 7. The division will discuss any proposed changes with the certificated haulers prior to proposing any amendments to the list of materials to be collected and/or the unincorporated urban service area boundaries. However, nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a certificated hauler from exceeding the minimum requirements by collecting additional materials or providing collection services to a larger portion of their franchise area. (Ord. 10446 § 1, 1992: Ord. 9928 § 2, 1991). KCC Title 10 Related Legislation 10.18.020 Solid waste collection and recycling rates. Certificate holders under chapter RCW 81.77 shall use rate structures and billing systems consistent with the solid waste management priorities set forth under RCW 70.95.010 and the minimum levels of solid waste collection and recycling services pursuant to the local comprehensive solid waste management plan, as required by RCW 81.77. A. It is the county's policy that the certificated haulers include the following elements in the tariffs submitted to the WUTC: 1. A mini -can (10-20 gallon container) rate to reward people who reduce their level of solid waste collection service. 2. A recycling -only rate for program participants who decline solid waste collection service, but participate in recycling programs. Certificated haulers may include a fee to administer billing for this service. 3. A yard waste only rate for program participants who decline solid waste collection service, but participate in a yard waste collection program. Haulers may include a fee to administer billing for this service. 4. Billing that includes the cost of solid waste and recycling collection services on the same statement, as provided by chapter 81.77 RCW. 5. A rate structure designed to provide customers with adequate options and incentives to reduce their level of solid waste collection service as a result of their participation in waste reduction and recycling programs. 6. A rate structure that distributes the cost of the single family and multi -family recyclables collection programs among all rate payers in the franchise area where recycling and yard waste services are available. 7. A rate structure for single family yard waste collection services that charges only those customers subscribing to the service. To encourage recycling, the cost of yard waste collection shall be less than a comparable unit of solid waste. 8. The cost to produce and distribute program promotion and educational materials to customers, in accordance with KC.C. 10.18.040. 9. A monthly administrative fee to compensate the division for the costs of prograin management and Related Legislatibn RL -4 9 promotional and educational programs. The monthly administrative fee is specified in KC.C. 10.18.070. 10. Reduced solid waste and recyclables collection rates for eligible elderly and low-income program participants, as permitted by the WUTC. B. Certificated haulers shall file tariffs, with an effective date no later than July 31, 1991, with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). It is the county's policy that the rates include all elements specified in Subsection A. of this section and be designed to encourage participation in recyclables and yard waste collection programs, in accordance with the plan. C. Whenever certificated haulers file tariffs with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC), it is the county's policy that the certificated haulers include all elements specified in Subsection A. of this section in the tariffs and that an incentive solid waste collection rate structure be used rather than a strict cost of service rate structure. An incentive solid waste collection rate structure is one that rewards customers who recycle and includes substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels. The tariffs filed shall include the following percentages of increases between levels of service: a minimum of sixty percent between mini and one can; a minimum of forty percent between one and two cans or equivalent; and a minimum of twenty five percent between two and three cans or equivalent. These percentages should apply to the combined charge to the customer for both solid waste and recyclable materials collection. The WUTC is strongly encouraged to approve tariffs that are consistent with the policies set forth in this chapter, and that meet the minimum percentages specified in this section. (Ord. 10446 § 2, 1992: Ord. 9928 § 3, 1991). 10.18.030 County notification of WUTC tariff filings. Whenever a certificated hauler files a proposed tariff revision for solid waste, recyclables and/or yard waste collection rates with the WUTC, the certificated hauler shall simultaneously provide the division manager with copies of the proposed tariff and all nonproprietary supporting materials submitted to the WUTC. KCC Title 10 `> RL - 0 5 ::»::::>::::>::>::>::::: ::::.:. . % A. The certificated hauler shall transmit the proposed tariff to the division manager at least thirty (30) days prior to action by the WUTC. B. The division will review the proposed tariffs to determine their compliance with the plan and the provisions of this chapter. C. The certificated haulers shall notify the division within one week after their tariffs are approved by the WUTC. The notification shall specify the rates approved by the WUTC and the effective dates for the rates. (Ord. 9928 § 4, 1991). 10.18.040 Program promotion and education requirements. Certificated haulers shall be responsible for distributing promotional and educational materials for their franchise area and for initial promotion of the programs. Promotional and educational materials are those materials prepared for the purpose of encouraging participation and educating residents about the county's recycling collection programs. Materials shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following: brochures; mailings; advertisements; radio and television commercials or public set -vice announcements; and displays. A. Single family recyclables collection. The certificated hauler shall provide, at a minimum, the following notifications to all single family dwellings within the portion of their franchise area lying within an unincorporated urban service area. 1. The first notification shall announce availability of service, provide a description of the program, container delivery schedule, recycling hotline phone number(s), and an explanation of the solid waste and recyclables collection rate structure and how program participants can reduce their level of solid waste collection service by participating in collection programs. An optional program sign-up card may be included in the first notification. 2. A second notification shall include a schedule of collection days and shall explain materials preparation requirements detailing the required care and handling of recyclables to make them acceptable for collection by the certificated hauler, including, but not limited to, cleaning, sorting, and properly locating recyclables for collection. Recycling hotline phone number(s) must also be provided. This notification may be included with delivered containers. 3. Certificated haulers offering collection services on a sign-up basis must continue to notify non -participants of the availability of service at least twice a year until 80 percent or more of all single family dwellings are signed -up for service. 4. The division may also promote the program to residents of single family dwellings. B. Multi -family recyclables collection. The certificated hauler shall provide, at a minimum, the following notifications to all multi -family building owners and managers for the portion of their franchise area lying within an unincorporated urban service area. 1. The first notification shall announce availability of service, provide a description of the program, and a sign-up card or phone number to call for service, and an explanation of the solid waste and recyclables collection rate structure and how program participants can reduce their level of solid waste collection service by participating in collection programs. 2. A second notification, included with container delivery, shall include a schedule of collection days and shall explain materials preparation requirements detailing the required care and handling of recyclables to make them acceptable for collection by the certificated hauler, including, but not limited to, cleaning, sorting, and properly locating recyclables for collection. Recycling hotline phone number(s) must also be provided. 3. Certificated haulers offering collection services shall notify non -participating building owners and managers of the availability of service at least twice a year until 50 percent or more of all multi -family dwellings are signed -up for service. 4. The division may promote the program to both tenants and building managers. C. Single family and multi -family yard waste collection. The certificated hauler shall provide, at a minimum, the following notifications to all single family dwellings and multi -family structures or complexes within the portion of their franchise area lying within an unincorporated urban service area. 1. The first notification shall announce availability of service, provide a description of the program, and KCC Title 10 Related Legislation • 0 xxx­ RL - 1 5 a sign-up card or phone number to call for service, and an explanation of the solid waste and recyclables collection rate structure and how program participants can reduce their level of solid waste collection service by participating in collection programs. 2. A second notification, included with container delivery (if the hauler requires the use of their containers), shall include a schedule of collection days and shall explain materials preparation requirements detailing the required care and handling of yard waste to make it acceptable for collection by the certificated hauler. Recycling hotline phone number(s) must also be provided. 3. Certificated haulers shall continue to notify non -participants of the availability of single family yard waste collection services at least twice a year until 60 percent or more of all single family dwellings are signed up for service. 4. The division may also promote the program to residents of single family dwellings and multi -family structures or complexes. D. All notifications provided by the certificated hauler must be approved by the division. The division shall review notifications for content and accuracy of information, and consistency with materials prepared by the county. Copies of the notifications must be submitted to the division for its review at least three weeks prior to their printing and the division shall return comments within that three week period. E. King County shall periodically provide the certificated haulers with educational materials to be included with a hauler's mailing or bill. These materials will be designed to encourage participation in the collection programs and to familiarize participants with general waste reduction and recycling concepts. The division and the certificated hauler shall mutually agree upon the number and format of materials to be included in the hauler's mailings. Any material prepared by the division that will be distributed by haulers will be distributed to the haulers for their review three weeks prior to their printing. The hauler shall return any comments on the materials to the division within that three week period. (Ord. 10446 § 3, 1992: Ord. 9928 § 5, 1991). 10.18.050 Certificated haulers customer service responsibilities. Certificated haulers shall be responsible for Related Legislation all aspects of customer service. Customer service responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to: A. General program information provided by telephone, brochures, and advertisements: B. Program sign-up, container delivery and replacement information. C. Written notification shall be distributed at the point of collection when collection is refused. The notification shall include, at a minimum, an explanation of the reasons collection was refused. D. Response to complaints of missed collection. The certificated hauler shall collect the uncollected recyclables within one business day after the complaint is received and verified. E. Telephone and written response to service complaints. The certificated haulers shall maintain an adequately staffed telephone hotline for their franchise area served by the programs. This number shall be accessible to residents for the purpose of providing program information, and accepting service comments and complaints. 1. The hotline must be capable of responding to a large volume of phone calls. Callers must be able to talk to hotline staff or obtain information through recorded message or an interactive communications system when the hotline phone is not staffed. The callers must also have the option of speaking to hotline staff in less than three (3) minutes during normal business hours. The hotline shall have the capability of recording all calls received when the hotline is not staffed. 2. The hotline phone number(s) shall be clearly shown on the collection equipment and all recyclables and yard waste containers provided by the certificated hauler, included in all mailings, and other publicity materials. 3. The county may publish the hotline phone number(s) on other county materials as part of its education and promotion of the collection programs with prior notification of the certificated hauler, (Ord. 9928 § 6, 1991). 10.18.060 Reporting requirements. A. The certificated hauler shall submit a report to the division on the fifth day of each month beginning May 1991 through July 1991. The reports will include an implementation schedule for the program and a written summary of progress made to implement the collection programs for the portion of their KCC Title 10 R - L2 ..................................................... . S franchise area lying within an unincorporated urban service area. The implementation schedule and report will address but not be limited to: a description of container type, status of container and equipment order and delivery; container delivery to program participants; status and content of tariff submittals to the WUTC; and progress made in program promotion. B. Certificated haulers shall, on a monthly basis, provide the county with information to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs. The reports will contain monthly, quarterly, and annual data in a format and medium determined by the division. At a minimum, the monthly service reports shall include the following information for each service area and for each service: 1. Weekly and monthly set -out counts by routes, programs and service area. Set -out count is the number of dwelling units that make the contents of their recyclables and/or yard waste collection containers available for collection. 2. Average pounds of recyclables and yard waste collected per set -out. 3. Summaries of tons of all recyclables and yard waste collected, by material. 4. Location of intermediate processing facility(ies) and materials types delivered to these facilities. 5. Summaries of tons of all recyclables sold, by material. 6. Summary of tons of contaminated recyclables and yard waste disposed of at a county solid waste facility, and which solid waste facility received it. 7. For each franchise area located within the urban unincorporated areas, as defined by this chapter: a. The total number of single family solid waste collection customers; b. The total number of multi -family complexes receiving solid waste collection service, and the number of units within those complexes; c. The total number of single family dwellings receiving recyclables and/or yard waste collection services; d. The total number of multi -family complexes receiving recyclables collection services and the location of these complexes. 8. Summaries of tons of all solid waste collected from all single family dwellings and multi -family structures and which King County solid waste facilities received it. 9. Any significant changes in patterns of usage of King County solid waste facilities, to be reported to the manager of the division 30 days in advance of the change. 10. Log of service complaints received by certificated haulers. 11. Location of areas receiving alternatives to curbside recyclables collection due to inaccessibility as permitted in KC.C. 10.18.01OD.1. 12. A map at a scale of one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet, indicating the areas served and the collection days for each program. C. Reports shall be submitted to the division by the fifteenth (15th) of each month and will be based on the operation of the programs for the previous month. In addition, annual service reports shall be due within 30 days after the end of the calendar year. In addition to the year end summary of the monthly reporting information, the annual report shall include a summary of program highlights, problems and measures taken to resolve problems and increase efficiency and participation, an analysis of each program's effectiveness, and an annual tonnage forecast which estimates the total amount of solid waste tonnage for the current year. D. The certificated haulers shall meet with a representative of the solid waste division at a minimum of once per month, beginning in May 1991. All meetings shall be at the discretion of the division. (Ord. 9928 § 7, 1991). 10.18.070 County administrative fee. The county hereby imposes a fee, as permitted by RCW 36.58.045, upon solid waste collection service on certificated haulers operating within the unincorporated areas of the county to fund the administration and planning expenses to comply with the requirements in RCW 70.95.090. A monthly administrative fee of twenty-two (22) cents per customer, or its equivalent, shall be collected by the certificated haulers to compensate the division for the costs of program management and promotional and educational programs. The revenue collected through the administrative fee shall be remitted to the division on a quarterly basis on the following dates: April 30, for the quarter KCC Title 10 Related Legislation I0 I• of January through March; July 31, for the quarter of April through June; October 31, for the quarter of July through September; and January 31, for the quarter of October through December. A late payment penalty equal to one and one-half percent of the delinquent unpaid balance, compounded monthly, shall be assessed on the delinquent unpaid balance of those accounts in arrears. (Ord. 10446 § 4, 1992: Ord. 9928 § 81 1991). 10.18.080 County notification of certificated haulers. A. The division hereby notifies the certificated haulers operating in unincorporated urban areas of King County's intent to exercise its authority to contract for source separated recyclables and yard waste collection from residences if the services specified in KC.C. 10.18.010 are not fully implemented for the portion of their franchise area lying within an unincorporated urban service area by July 31, 1991. B. In the event that the county exercises its authority to contract for the collection of residential recyclables in unincorporated urban areas the county will select a recycling contractor through a request for proposal process for single family recyclables and yard waste collection and multi -family recyclables collection for the portion of their franchise area lying within an unincorporated urban set -vice area. 1. Recycling contractors shall be selected on the basis of a request for proposal that considers, among other factors, experience, qualifications, and costs. 2. The prevailing wage rate shall be paid to all laborers under these contracts and shall be in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Department of Labor and Industries. (Ord. 9928 § 9, 1991). 10.18.090 Full program implementation. A. The King County executive shall notify the WUTC that the county will exercise its authority to contract for the collection of source separated recyclables from residences of unincorporated urban areas of the county if it is determined that the programs specified in this chapter are not fully implemented. The programs shall be considered fully implemented when the following conditions are met: Related Legzslatron RL -53 1. The certificated hauler has received approval by the WUTC for its tariff filings for recyclables and yard waste services; and, 2. The set -vices are available to all who want service. Customers must be able to receive containers within twenty-one (21) days of a request and receive their first collection within thirty-five (35) days of a request. (Ord. 9928 § 10, 1991). 10.18.100 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is, for any reason, found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (Ord. 9928 § 11, 1991). Chapter 10.22 POLICY DIRECTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Sections: 10.22.010 Findings. 10.22.030 Solid waste system alternatives. 10.22.040 Strategies for waste reduction and recycling goals. 10.22.050 State legislation. 10.22.060 Vendors. 10.22.010 Findings. The King County council finds: A. The Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Solid Waste Management Alternatives issued on September 30, 1988 is adequate for purposes of making policy decisions about which alternative strategies shall be included in the preparation of the 1989 King County solid waste management plan (CSWMP). B. The Programmatic EIS is the first step in a phased review of the 1989 King County CSWMP update. This phased review assists in focusing on the issues that are ready for hCC Mle 10 RL - 54 decision and excluding from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready. C. The key issues that are ready for decision based on the Programmatic Final EIS are: 1. The types of waste reduction and recycling programs that should be implemented to provide maximum reduction in King County's solid waste stream; 2. Whether some form of incineration is a necessary component of the county's solid waste management program; and 3. Whether other disposal options should be implemented to reduce the amount of waste going to the Cedar Hills Landfill. D. Further environmental review to the extent required by SEPA will be perfonned for facility siting, facility expansion, and the other issues included in the CSWMP but not addressed in this chapter or in the Programmatic EIS. E. This chapter will provide broad programmatic policy direction under which the King County solid waste management system shall be developed. Implementation of these policies will be described in the CSWMP and the annual budget process, and will include review by the Interlocal Forum and the King County solid waste advisory committee. F. The King County solid waste advisory committee, the council ad hoc committees and the designated Interlocal Forum on Solid Waste have reviewed and commented on the solid waste issues facing King County and the policies contained in this chapter. G. Waste reduction and recycling are now basic elements of responsible solid waste management systems. Each citizen of the county must accept a commitment to waste reduction and recycling as a basic part of his/her social responsibility. H. Accomplishment of the waste reduction and recycling goals will require cooperation between the cities, private recycling, waste disposal businesses, and the county. I. A goal of the system is to minimize the amount of solid waste requiring disposal and to provide for disposal of the remainder in a manner that minimizes environmental risks and impacts. J. Programmatic choices, which affect individual behaviors, are preferable to facility choices, which accommodate existing behaviors. This hierarchy should apply within recycling alternatives, as well as between solid waste management alternatives, such as recycling, incineration, and landfilling. K The public has expressed an interest in more convenient recycling opportunities. L. Passage of state legislation establishing policies and clarifying various authorities related to waste reduction and recycling is critical to the success of the waste reduction and recycling program. M. Notice has been received from the City of Seattle that it will no longer be a participant in the county waste disposal system on or before January 1, 1993. (Ord. 8771 § 1, 1988). 10.22.030 Solid waste system alternatives. The 1989 comprehensive solid waste management plan which is being prepared by the King County solid waste division for review by the designated Interlocal Forum and approval by the appropriate parties as set forth by state law shall include the following policies: A. A waste reduction and recycling goal of sixty-five percent, to be achieved within twelve years. Interim goals of thirty-five percent within three years (1992) and fifty percent within six years (1995) are shorter range goals to measure progress. At each of these checkpoints the recycling levels will be assessed pursuant to section 10.22.040E. of this chapter and, if necessary, the waste reduction and recycling program will be adjusted and prohibition of certain recyclables from disposal at Cedar Hills landfill shall be considered in order to assure achievement of the sixty-five percent goal. An annual report on progress towards the waste reduction and recycling goals will be prepared by the King County solid waste division pursuant to K.C.C. 10.14.080. B. Programs to reduce yard waste, including an extensive backyard composting program, support for curbside collection of yard waste, a neighborhood yard waste drop box program, and support for yard waste processing facilities. C. Programs to reduce residential waste, based on waste reduction and source separation of recyclables from solid waste and including curbside collection of recyclables from all residents living in the urbanized portions of King County. The county will work with affected jurisdictions and service providers hCC Title 10 Related Legislation to facilitate provision of curbside collection of recyclables in areas where housing density makes this practice feasible. Containers or other systems to collect recyclables from apartments and condominiums should also be provided, and convenient and comprehensive drop box sites for collection of source separated recyclables should be located in rural King County. D. Programs to reduce non-residential waste, based on waste reduction and source separation of recyclable material from solid waste and including a comprehensive technical assistance program for the commercial sector that provides waste audits and assistance in establishing waste reduction and recycling mechanisms, as well as facilitating collection of source separated recyclable material. E. Development of private sector recycling facilities which complement the waste reduction and recycling program emphasis on source separation of recyclables, including yard waste processing and intermediate processing facilities. F. Authorization for one privately owned and operated mixed waste processing facility to which a portion of the county's waste stream will be designated to supplement source separation and to evaluate the long-term benefits, costs and risks of mixed waste processing in combination with extensive source separation programs. G. Authorization of out of county landfilling as part of the county's solid waste system. H. If an out of county landfill option is implemented, King County shall continue a level of operation at Cedar Hills landfill at least adequate to allow use of Cedar Hills as a backup system for King County waste, excluding waste from the City of Seattle, if necessary due to an emergency or failure of the out of county landfill alternative. I. An energy/resource recovery facility shall not be included as a waste disposal alternative in the 1989 CSWMP and shall not be constructed. J. The City of Seattle will plan separately for disposal of its own waste, including commercial waste, special waste, demolition and construction debris, as well as residential waste. (Ord. 8771 § 3, 1988). 10.22.040 Strategies for waste reduction and recycling goals. The executive shall implement the following RL- 55 strategies directed at the waste reduction and recycling goals established in 10.22.030 of this chapter. A. Rates. 1. The executive shall prepare a solid waste financing study and rate proposal which provides for funding the waste reduction and recycling programs needed to achieve the goals established in Section 10.22.030A. of this chapter as well as funding to support ongoing operations requirements of the King County solid waste division. The rate which is proposed shall be a single rate for disposal of waste at Cedar Hills Landfill or another final disposal site and a single rate for use of county transfer stations and rural landfills. The financial and policy implications of an increase in disposal rates, and the effect it will have on recycling programs and other system operations and programs, shall be fully analyzed. In addition, the possibility of establishing a surcharge for handling special wastes, such as asbestos, at Cedar Hills Landfill should be analyzed. 2. The executive shall work with cities and the WUTC to support collection rates which involve higher rates for higher volumes of mixed waste. B. Promotion, education and public involvement. An extensive 2 -tiered promotion, education, and public involvement effort shall be implemented to carry out the waste reduction and recycling program. The goal of public education in King County's waste reduction and recycling program is to provide various audiences with information and technical assistance which will change their attitudes and behavior about waste disposal. The two distinct tiers should include: 1. awareness building and 2. technical assistance. The following WR/R education programs should be provided: resource center and educational materials, technical assistance and training, school programs, and publicity and demonstrations. The following audiences should be targeted: city governments, commercial and institutional sectors, schoolchildren, households, and media. C. Market support. The executive shall submit to the council an expanded procurement policy directed toward stimulating demand for and use of recyclable materials recovered from solid waste. Other municipalities and the private sector should be encouraged to adopt procurement policies that favor recycled and recyclable materials. In addition, the division shall assist the private sector in identifying Related LegWaAgn KCC We 10 K*KWRL - 5 6 receivers for recyclables for which markets do not exist but which are under development. D. Marketing council. King County will support state legislation to develop a marketing council comprised of government officials, business representatives, recyclers, and others, to promote research and development of new uses for recycled materials, match recyclers with persons interested in purchasing their end -product, and keep apprised of the latest developments in recycling markets. The executive shall develop a local marketing council if the state does not create such an entity. E. Monitoring. The executive shall establish an annual monitoring program to measure waste reduction and recycling levels and to provide information on where improvements can be made. The program should evaluate four sets of information: the quantity and composition of the waste stream as generated, the sources of waste by waste stream component, the quantities and types of materials being recycled, the quantities and types of waste being disposed, and the amount of recycling that is occurring in different sectors of the economy. (Ord. 8771 § 4, 1988). 10.22.050 State Legislation. It is county policy to seek legislation, in addition to that referenced in Section 10.22.04,D. of this chapter, which will accomplish the following: A. Authorize the county to establish the minimum level of recycling and mixed waste collection services to be provided in unincorporated areas of the county and in any incorporated areas for which the county has solid waste planning authority or in which the city or town is not providing or contracting for solid waste collection services. B. Discourage waste generation and encourage the use of recycled materials, including establishment of disincentives for unnecessary packaging, incentives to encourage the production and use of recycled materials, and packaging standards and labeling requirements to guide the development of packaging and to inform consumers about the impacts of their product choices. C. Strengthen the state's involvement in implementing its waste reduction and recycling priorities by the establishment of reporting or licensing requirements for entities that collect or process recyclables and also by monitoring per capita waste generation rates. D. Development of minimum requirements for new construction to provide waste reduction and recycling opportunities. (Ord. 8771 § 5, 1988). 10.22.060 Vendors. The executive shall use the following procedures to select the vendors referenced in Sections 10.22.030 F. and G. of this chapter. A. Mixed waste processing. The vendor to provide mixed waste processing shall be selected through an RFQ/RFP and the plant shall be coordinated with the county transfer system. The project RFQ shall include criteria to establish demonstrated vendor performance, guaranteed level of waste reduction, costs comparable to other disposal alternatives authorized in the CSWMP, and marketable by-products from the process. B. Out of county landfilling. The out of county landfilling alternative which is designated must be selected through an RFQ/RFP process using the following criteria: 1. Landfill operations and transportation system must meet all applicable environmental standards. 2. There are assurances of host community receptivity. 3. There is assurance of long-term waste stream diversion from Cedar Hills Landfill (i.e., a minimum volume guaranteed for 10-20 years), including guaranteed backup. 4. There are adequate assurances of vendor financial and legal capability to indemnify the county from risks of liability for out of county operations. 5. 'There are penalties for non-performance by the vendor. 6. The life cycle cost of the proposal is financially competitive in comparison to other disposal options. Cost considerations include: a. Direct and indirect costs of both the proposal and any additional King County operating and/or capital costs, and b. Effect of proposal on the following system costs: • (1) Annual landfill reserve fund contributions. KCC Title 10 Related Legislation •.................................... . (2) Cedar Hills new area development costs. (3) Effect on E/RR reserve fund. 7. The proposal is feasible in terms of its impact • on the county transfer system and other county operations. (Ord. 8771 § 6, 1988). 10.24.020 Responsibilities. A. The division shall prepare the plan and submit it to the council of King County on or before March 1, 1989, for adoption. B. The division shall maintain the plan in a current condition and shall propose necessary plan revisions to the council at least once every three years. C. The King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall review and comment upon the proposed plan prior to its submittal to the council for adoption. D. The designated interlocal forum shall have the following responsibilities: 1. Advise the King County council and executive and other jurisdictions as appropriate on all policy aspects of solid waste management and planning. Consult with and advise the King County solid waste division on technical issues. 2. Review and comment on alternatives and recommendations for the county comprehensive solid waste management plan and facilitate approval of plan by each jurisdiction. 3. Review proposed interlocal agreements between King County and cities for planning, recycling, and waste stream control. 4. Review disposal rate proposals. Related Legislation, RL -57 5. Review status reports on waste stream reduction, recycling, energy/resource recovery, and solid waste operations with interjurisdictional impact. 6. Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators, local governments with collection authority, recyclers, and county planned and operated disposal system. 7. Provide coordination opportunities between King County solid waste division, local governments, private operators and recyclers. 8. Aid cities in recognizing municipal solid waste responsibilities, including collection and recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities. E. The council shall hold a public hearing on the draft plan and another public hearing on the final plan prior to adoption of the plan. Any city using county disposal sites shall be notified of these public hearings and shall be requested to comment on the plan. F. Until adoption of the plan by ordinance of King County, the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments shall be used as the solid waste management plan for King County. G. Beginning in 1989, the division shall submit to the council by September 1 of each year an annual report of its progress toward objectives identified in the plan. H. Interlocal agreements between the county and cities wishing to plan jointly with the county or to authorize the county to plan for it shall identify which parry is responsible for city solid waste operational plans, tonnage forecasts, and recycling goals. (Ord. 8771 § 8, 1988: Ord. 8365 § 2, 1987: Ord. 8098 § 2, 1987: Ord. 7737 § 2, 1986). 10.24.030 Plan contents. The plan shall include the following: A Goals for solid waste management in King County, including a goal to achieve maximum feasible reduction of solid waste going to landfills and other processing facilities, conservation of energy and natural resources, and environmental protection. The plan shall include measurable objectives for achieving this goal, including but not limited to the following: 1. Annual tonnage projections; KCC Tule 10 Chapter 10.24 • SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Sections: • 10.24.020 Responsibilities. 10.24.030 Plan contents. ! 10.24.040 Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 10.24.050 Solid Waste Management Plan Adoption. • 10.24.020 Responsibilities. A. The division shall prepare the plan and submit it to the council of King County on or before March 1, 1989, for adoption. B. The division shall maintain the plan in a current condition and shall propose necessary plan revisions to the council at least once every three years. C. The King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall review and comment upon the proposed plan prior to its submittal to the council for adoption. D. The designated interlocal forum shall have the following responsibilities: 1. Advise the King County council and executive and other jurisdictions as appropriate on all policy aspects of solid waste management and planning. Consult with and advise the King County solid waste division on technical issues. 2. Review and comment on alternatives and recommendations for the county comprehensive solid waste management plan and facilitate approval of plan by each jurisdiction. 3. Review proposed interlocal agreements between King County and cities for planning, recycling, and waste stream control. 4. Review disposal rate proposals. Related Legislation, RL -57 5. Review status reports on waste stream reduction, recycling, energy/resource recovery, and solid waste operations with interjurisdictional impact. 6. Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators, local governments with collection authority, recyclers, and county planned and operated disposal system. 7. Provide coordination opportunities between King County solid waste division, local governments, private operators and recyclers. 8. Aid cities in recognizing municipal solid waste responsibilities, including collection and recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities. E. The council shall hold a public hearing on the draft plan and another public hearing on the final plan prior to adoption of the plan. Any city using county disposal sites shall be notified of these public hearings and shall be requested to comment on the plan. F. Until adoption of the plan by ordinance of King County, the 1982 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments shall be used as the solid waste management plan for King County. G. Beginning in 1989, the division shall submit to the council by September 1 of each year an annual report of its progress toward objectives identified in the plan. H. Interlocal agreements between the county and cities wishing to plan jointly with the county or to authorize the county to plan for it shall identify which parry is responsible for city solid waste operational plans, tonnage forecasts, and recycling goals. (Ord. 8771 § 8, 1988: Ord. 8365 § 2, 1987: Ord. 8098 § 2, 1987: Ord. 7737 § 2, 1986). 10.24.030 Plan contents. The plan shall include the following: A Goals for solid waste management in King County, including a goal to achieve maximum feasible reduction of solid waste going to landfills and other processing facilities, conservation of energy and natural resources, and environmental protection. The plan shall include measurable objectives for achieving this goal, including but not limited to the following: 1. Annual tonnage projections; KCC Tule 10 Em RL - 58 .................. !I 2. Five, ten and twenty year plans for waste reduction through recycling and waste reduction incentives, packaging changes, source separation, and waste processing alternatives, and other methods deemed effective by the division; and 3. Analysis of alternative waste reduction and disposal methods showing the impact of each on landfill capacity, energy consumption, natural resource consumption, and environmental quality. B. A detailed inventory and description of all existing solid waste handling facilities including an inventory of any deficiencies, including operating efficiencies and public service needs, in meeting current solid waste handling needs. C. The estimated long-range needs for solid waste handling facilities projected twenty years into the future. D. A program for the orderly development of solid waste handling facilities in a manner consistent with the plans for the entire county which shall: 1. Meet the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling adopted by the State of Washington Department of Ecology and all.laws and regulations relating to air and water pollution, fire prevention, flood control, and protection of public health; 2. Take into account the comprehensive land use plan of each jurisdiction; 3. Contain a six year construction and capital acquisition program for solid waste handling facilities; and 4. Contain a plan for financing both capital costs and operational expenditures of the proposed solid waste management system. F. A program for surveillance and control. F. A current inventory and description of solid waste collection needs and operations within each respective jurisdiction which shall include: 1. Any franchise for solid waste collection granted by the utilities and transportation commission in the respective jurisdictions including the narne of the holder of the franchise and the address of his place of business, the area covered by his operation and rates charged in comparison to disposal costs; .2. Any city solid waste operational plan, including boundaries and identification of responsibilities; 3. The population density of each area serviced by a city operation or by a franchised operation within the respective jurisdictions; 4. The projected solid waste collection needs for the respective jurisdictions for the next six years; 5. Analysis of operating economics, travel distances and economically optimal locations of disposal sites; G. A review of potential areas that meet the (siting) criteria as outlined in RCW 70.95.165. H. Any other requirements prescribed by the State of Washington. I. Any other analysis which will be useful to fulfilling the goals set forth in the plan. (Ord. 7737 § 3, 1986). 10.24.040 Hazardous Waste Management Plan. A. The division shall prepare a hazardous waste management plan for unincorporated King County and submit it to the council of Kung County no later than January 1, 1990 for adoption. The hazardous waste management plan may either be incorporated into the Plan or be prepared separately. B. The executive is authorized to enter into interlocal agreements with any cities in King County which wish to plan jointly with King County for moderate risk waste management, provided that such agreements require that any jurisdiction contracting with the county for moderate risk waste planning which must designate hazardous waste zones within its boundaries pursuant to RCW 70.105.225 shall so designate by April 1, 1988. Any jurisdiction wishing to plan jointly with King County must either include this plan in the terms of its interlocal agreement pursuant to K.C.C. 10.24.020, K.C.C. 10.08.050 and K.C.C. 10.08.130 or submit a letter of intent to the county by October 1, 1987. C. In preparing the hazardous waste management plan, the division shall consider cooperative efforts with adjacent counties and shall prepare a regional plan to the extent practicable. D. The .King County council finds the Seattle -King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement issued August 1989 is adequate for purposes of making a decision to adopt the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle -King County. KCC Tule 10 Related Legislation U U E. The 1989 Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle -King County as amended by the Plan Addendum of the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Resolution 90-001, is hereby adopted. (Ord. 9697 §§ 1-2, 1990: Ord. 8098 § 3, 1987). 10.24.050 Solid Waste Management Plan Adoption. The King County council finds the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement issued July 14, 1989 is adequate for purposes of making a decision to adopt the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The 1989 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is hereby adopted as amended by Attachment A of the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Resolution 89-005. (Ord. 9471, 1990). Chapter 10.28 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Sections: 10.28.010 Establishment. 10.28.020 Composition. 10.28.030 Scope and charge. 10.28.040 Membership. 10.28.050 Administrative support. 10.28.060 Compensation. 10.28.010 Establishment. The King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee is hereby established to be comprised of a county -wide group of representatives of citizens, public interest groups, business, the waste management industry and local elected public officials to provide for coordination and information exchange between the groups about solid waste issues and to provide on-going public input and advice to King County on solid waste management issues. (Ord. 6862 § 1, 1984). 10.28.020 Composition. The King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall be composed of at least nine and not more than fifteen members representing a balance of interests Related Legzslatibn RL - 5 9 among the groups listed in Section 10.28.010. (Ord. 9086, 1989: Ord. 6862 § 2, 1984). 10.28.030 Scope and charge. A. The King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall advise and make recommendations to the county executive on matters within their scope and charge. B. The scope and charge of the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall be to: 1. Advise King County on all aspects of solid waste management planning, 2. Assist King County in the development of programs and policies concerning solid waste management; 3. Review and comment on proposed solid waste management rules, policies, or ordinances prior to their adoption. (Ord. 6862 §§ 3-4, 1984). 10.28.040 Membership. A. Regular members shall be appointed by the county executive subject to confirmation by county council motion. The executive shall be able to appoint non-voting ex -officio members who shall serve at the executive's discretion. B. Members may be reappointed to serve consecutive terms. Reappointment shall be subject to confirmation by county council motion. C. Members shall serve a term of three (3) years or until their successor is appointed and confirmed as provided in this chapter. The terms of office shall be staggered consistent with the provisions of K.C.C. Chapter 2.28. D. A vacancy shall be filled for the remainder of the term of the vacant position in the manner described in the initial appointment. E. A majority of the committee shall elect one of its members as chair. The term of the chair shall be for one year. (Ord. 6862 §§ 5-9, 1984). 10.28.050 Administrative support. Ongoing administrative support to the committee shall be provided by the solid waste division manager. (Ord. 6862 § 10, 1984). 10.28.060 Compensation. Members of the committee shall serve without compensation. (Ord. 6862 § 11, 1984). KCC Title 10 RL-60 THE CODE OF THE KING COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH - TITLE 10 Rules and Regulations No. 8 as amended by Rules and Regulations No. 81 "King County Solid Waste Regulations" Effective April 28, 1992 Seattle -King County Department of Public Health Table of Contents 10.04 CITATION AND PURPOSE ............ 64 10.04.010 Citation .......................... 64 10.04.020 Purpose and policy .................. 64 10.04.030 Applicability ....................... 64 10.08 DEFINITIONS ..................... 65 10.08.005 Applicability --State definitions adopted ...... 65 10.08.010 Abandoned landfills .................. 65 10.08.015 Active area ........................ 65 10.08.016 Acutely hazardous waste ............... 65 10.08.017 Adequately wetted ................... 65 10.08.020 Agricultural wastes ................... 65 10.08.025 Agronomic rate ..................... 65 10.08.030 Air quality standard .................. 65 10.08.035 Aquifer .......................... 65 10.08.037 Asbestos ......................... 65 10.08.038 Asbestos containing material ............ 65 10.08.040 Asbestos containing waste material ........ 65 10.08.045 Ashes ........................... 66 10.08.050 Balefill .......................... 66 10.08.051 Biomedical waste .................... 66 10.08.052 Biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicle 66 10.08.053 Biomedical waste generator ............. 66 10.08.054 Biomedical waste storage/treatment operator .. 67 10.08.055 Biomedical waste storage/treatment site ...... 67 10.08.056 Biomedical waste transporter ............ 67 10.08.057 Biomedical waste treatment ............. 67 10.08.058 Biosolids ......................... 67 10.08.059 Biosolids utilization site ............... 67 10.08.060 Buffer zone ....................... 67 10.08.062 Bully waste ....................... 67 10.08.065 Clean soils and clean dredge soils ......... 67 10.08.070 Closure .......................... 67 10.08.075 Collecting agency ................... 67 10.08.080 Collection/transportation vehicle .......... 67 10.08.085 Compliance schedule ................. 67 10.08.090 Composting ....................... 67 10.08.092 Construction, Demolition, Landclearing (CDL) waste ....................... 67 10.08.094 Construction waste ................... 68 10.08.095 Container ........................ 68 10.08.100 Contaminate ...................... 68 10.08.105 Cover material ..................... 68 10.08.110 Dangerous wastes ................... 68 10.08.115 Demolition waste .................... 68 10.08.117 Department ....................... 68 10.08.120 Detachable containers ................. 68 10.08.125 Disposable containers ................. 68 10.08.130 Disposal or deposition ................ 68 10.08.135 Disposal site ....................... 68 10.08.140 Drop box facility .................... 69 10.08.142 Empty .......................... 69 10.08.145 Energy recovery ..................... 69 10.08.150 Existing facility ..................... 69 10.08.155 Expanded facility .................... 69 10.08.160 Facility .......................... 69 Kang County Board of Healtb Code -Title 10 Related Legislation _._._................._............._...-................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... RL 61 :...::.::.::.::.::.::.:.::.:.:;:;:.;:.;;:.;::.:;:.;:;.;:.;:.;:.;................;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:.;:.;:.;:.;.................. >:: 10.08.165 Facility structures ................... 69 10.08.335 Post -closure ...................... . 10.08.17.0 Final treatment ..................... 69 10.08.340 Premises ......................... . 10.08.175 Free liquids ....................... 69 10.08.345 Problem wastes .................... . 10.08.180 Fumarole ........................ 69 10.08.352 Process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP) .. . 10.08.185 Garbage ......................... 69 10.08.354 Process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP) 10.08.190 Groundwater ...................... 70 10.08.355 Putrescible waste .................... 10.08.195 Health officer ...................... 70 10.08.360 Pyrolysis ......................... 10.08.200 Holocene fault ..................... 70 10.08.365 Reclamation site ................... . 10.08.202 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) ........ 70 10.08.367 Recycling ........................ . 10.08.204 Human excrement ................... 70 10.08.370 Reserved ......................... 10.08.205 Incineration ....................... 70 10.08.375 Reusable containers .................. 10.08.207 Industrial sludge .................... 70 10.08.380 Runoff ........................... 10.08.210 Industrial solid wastes ................ 70 10.08.385 Run-on .......................... 10.08.215 Industrial wastewater facility ............ 70 10.08.390 Scavenging ....................... 10.08.220 Inert wastes ....................... 70 10.08.395 Septage .......................... 10.08.222 Infection control staff committee .......... 70 10.08.412 Small Quantity Generator (SQG) .......... 10.08.225 Infectious waste generator .............. 70 10.08.415 Sole source aquifer .................. 10.08.230 Interim solid waste handling site ......... 71 10.08.420 Solid waste ....................... 10.08.233 Laboratory ........................ 71 10.08.425 Solid waste handling 10.08.234 Land clearing waste .................. 71 10.08.430 Solid waste management ............... 10.08.235 Landfill .......................... 71 10.08.435 Special purpose facility ................ 10.08.237 Landspreading disposal facility ........... 71 10.08.438 Steam sterilization ................... 10.08.245 Leachate ........................: 71 10.08.440 Storage .......................... 10.08.250 Liquid .......................... 71 10.08.445 Stream .......................... 10.08.255 Local fire control agency ............... 71 10.08.450 Surface impoundment ................ 10.08.260 Lower explosive limits ................. 71 10.08.455 Surface water ...................... 10.08.265 Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) ............ 71 10.08.460 Transfer station ..................... 10.08.267 Municipal sewerage sludge .............. 71 10.08.465 Treatment ........................ 10.08.270 New facility ....................... 72 10.08.470 Twenty-five (25) year storm ............. 10.08.275 Nonconforming site .................. 72 10.08.475 Twenty-four (24) hour; twenty-five (25) 10.08.280 Nuisance ......................... 72 year storm ........................ 10.08.285 One hundred (100) year floodplain ........ 72 10.08.480 Upland .......................... 10.08.290 Open burning ...................... 72 10.08.482 Used Oil ......................... 10.08.295 Performance standard ................. 72 10.08.485 Utilization ........................ 10.08.297 Permanent Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) 10.08.490 Vadose zone ....................... Collection/Storage Facility .............. 72 10.08.495 Vector ........................... 10.08.305 Permit .......................... 72 10.08.500 Waste recycling ..................... 10.08.315 Person .......................... 72 10.08.505 Waste reduction .................... 10.08.320 Pile ............................ 72 10.08.510 Water quality standard ................ 10.08.325 Plan of operation ................... 72 10.08.515 Wetlands ......................... 10.08.330 Point of compliance .................. 72 10.08.520 Woodwaste ........................ 72 72 72 73 73 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Related 1.olation King Count) Board of Health Code - Title 10 RL-62 10.08.522 Yard waste ........................ 76 10.08.525 Zone of saturation ................... 76 10.12 ADMINISTRATION ................. 76 10.12.010 Other agencies and jurisdictions .......... 76 10.12.020 Enforcement ....................... 77 10.12.030 Exempted activities .................. 77 10.12.040 Inspections ........................ 77 10.12.050 Nonconforming disposal site ............ 77 10.12.060 Variances ......................... 77 10.12.070 Imminent and substantial dangers ........ 78 10.16 PERMITS FOR NEW OR EXPANDED 10.20 PERMITS FOR VEHICLES AND EXISTING FACILITIES ...................... 78 10.16.010 Approval required ................... 78 10.16.020 Application --Filing ................... 78 10.16.030 Application --Contents .................. 79 10.16.040 Renewal application .................. 83 10.16.050 Preoperational inspection ............... 83 10.16.070 Reexamination fee ................... 83 10.20 PERMITS FOR VEHICLES AND EXISTING 10.24 FACILITIES ...................... 83 10.20.010 Permit required ..................... 83 10.20.020 Permit application ................... 83 10.20.030 Permit issuance .................... 83 10.20.040 Special purpose facilities permit .......... 84 10.20.060 Closure permit ..................... 84 10.20.070 Expiration ........................ 84 10.24 FEES ........................... 84 10.24.010 Annual (new/renewal) operating permit fees .. 84 10.24.015 Permit application/plan review fees ........ 84 10.24.020 Tonnage and volume fees .............. 85 10.24.030 Payment ......................... 85 10.24.050 Special inspections ................... 85 10.24.055 Solid waste variance fee ............... 85 10.24.060 Special services --Authority .............. 85 10.24.070 Special Setvices--Terms and conditions ...... 85 10.28 WASTE MANAGEMENT .............. 86 10.28.010 Storage requirements generally ........... 86 10.28.020 Container construction ................ 86 10.28.030 Collection and transportation ............ 86 10.28.040 Garbage and rubbish ................. 87 10.28.045 Approval of change of biomedical waste 95 10.34.060 treatment site ...................... 87 10.28.050 Household waste .................... 87 10.28.055 Yard wast ........................ 88 10.28.060 Asbestos -containing waste material ......... 88 10.28.070 Biomedical waste .................... 88 10.28.085 Septage .......................... 92 10.28.087 Human excrement ................... 92 10.28.090 Animal waste ...................... 92 10.28.100 Compost ......................... 92 10.28.110 Bulky waste ....................... 92 10.28.120 Excavated soil and fill material .......... 92 10.32 LOCATION REQUIREMENTS .......... 93 10.32.010 Location requirements --Applicability ......... 93 10.32.020 Location requirements --Designated ......... 93 10.32.040 Closure .......................... 93 10.34 GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .... 94 10.34.010 General facility requirements --Applicability .... 94 10.34.020 State and local requirements ............ 94 10.34.030 Plan of operation ................... 94 10.34.040 Recordkeeping ..................... 95 10.34.050 Reporting ........................ 95 10.34.060 Inspections ........................ 95 10.34.070 Closure and post -closure ............... 95 10.36 LANDFILLING ..................... 97 10.36.010 Applicability ....................... 97 10.36.020 Minimum functional standards for performance 97 10.36.030 Minimizing liquids .................. 97 10.36.040 Leachate systems .................... 97 10.36.050 Liner designs ...................... 98 10.36.060 Small landfill designs ................. 98 10.36.070 Floodplain ....................... 98 10.36.080 Closure .......................... 98 King County Board of Heald) Code - Title 10 Related Legrslatron 10.36.090 Gas control ....................... 99 10.36.100 Fencing .......................... 99 10.36.110 Groundwater monitoring ............... 99 10.36.120 Weighing incoming waste .............. 99 10.36.130 Employee facilities ................... 99 10.36.140 Sign ............................ 99 10.36.150 Fire protection ..................... 99 10.36.160 Vector control ...................... 99 10.36.170 Unloading areas .................... 99 10.36.180 Approach and exit roads ............... 99 10.36.190 Office -site communications ............. 99 10.36.200 Operating plan conformance ............ 99 10.36.210 Operating details .................... 99 10.36.220 Boundary posts ..................... 100 10.36.230 Compaction and daily cover ...........:. 100 10.36.240 Secondary cover .................... 100 10.36.250 Final cover ....................... 100 10.36.260 Monitoring systems .................. 100 10.36.270 Recycling required ................... 100 10.36.280 Dangerous wastes ................... 100 10.36.290 Closure and post -closure standards ........ 100 10.36.300 Abandoned landfill sites ............... 101 10.40 BIOSOLIDS ...................... 101 10.40.005 Pathogen reduction requirements .......... 101 10.40.007 Permit requirements --Applicability ......... 101 10.40.010 Requirements generally --Permit ........... 101 10.40.020 Permit application contents ............. 102 10.40.030 Practices --Monitoring ................. 102 10.40.040 Biosolids landfill disposal .............. 102 10.42 LANDSPREADING DISPOSAL STANDARDS 102 10.42.010 Applicability ....................... 102 10.42.020 Performance ....................... 102 10.42.030 Locational standard .................. 103 10.42.040 Minimum functional standard for design .... 103 10.42.050 Minimum functional standards for maintenance and operation ......................... 103 10.42.060 Minimum functional standards for closure and post - closure .......................... 103 RL - 63 10.44 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ........... 103 10.44.010 Applicability ....................... 103 10.44.020 Design, construction and operation ........ 104 10.48 STORAGE AND TREATMENT PILES ..... 104 10.48.010 Applicability ....................... 104 10.48.020 Requirements generally ................ 105 10.48.030 Putrescible wastes or leachable wastes ....... 105 10.48.040 Tire piles ......................... 105 10.52 INERT WASTE LANDFILLING .......... 105 10.52.010 Applicability ....................... 105 10.52.020 Requirements generally ................ 105 10.56 WOODWASTE LANDFILLING .......... 106 10.56.010 Applicability ....................... 106 10.56.020 Requirements generally ................ 106 10.60 TRANSFER STATIONS ............... 106 10.60.010 Applicability ....................... 106 10.60.020 Transfer stations, baling and compacting systems 106 10.60.030 Drop box facilities ................... 107 10.64 INCINERATION AND SOLID WASTE Maximum contaminant levels ........... 111 ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITIES ....... 107 10.64.010 Applicability ....................... 107 10.64.020 Requirements generally ................ 107 10.68 RECYCLING ...................... 108 10.68.010 Applicability ....................... 108 10.68.020 Compliance by existing facilities .......... 108 10.68.030 Requirements generally ................ 108 10.68.040 Woodwaste and other organic biosolids ...... 109 10.72 GROUND WATER MONITORING ....... 109 10.72.010 Applicability ....................... 109 10.72.020 Standards ........................ 109 10.72.030 Corrective action program .............. 111 10.72.040 Maximum contaminant levels ........... 111 Related Legislation King Counly Board of Health Code - Mle 10 7 10.76 METHANE .......................111 10.76.010 Methane monitoring .................. 111 10.76.020 Construction standards for methane control ... 111 10.80 WASTE SCREENING ................ 112 10.80.010 Dangerous waste .................... 112 10.80.020 Disposal site inspection and screening ...... 112 10.80.030 Notice requiring screening ............... 112 10.80.040 Excavated material inspection and screening .. 112 10.84 UNLAWFUL DUMPING ............... 112 10.84.010 Prohibited ........................ 112 10.84.020 Identification of responsible person ........ 113 EFFECTIVE DATE ......................... 113 CHAPTER 10.04 CITATION AND PURPOSE 10.04.010 Citation. This title may be cited and referred to, and shall be known as the "King County Solid Waste Regulations." 10.04.020 Purpose and policy. A. Authority is established under RCW 70.05 and WAC 173-304 for Solid Waste and RCW 70.93 and WAC 173-310 for Litter Control. This title is enacted as an exercise of the Board of Health powers of King County to protect and preserve the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. Its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes. This title governs solid waste handling, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing and final disposal of all solid waste generated within King County, including issuance of permits and enforcement. B. It is expressly the purpose of this title to provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this title. C. It is the specific intent of this title to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon waste generators, haulers and/or operators of disposal sites, and no provision of nor term used in this title is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon King County or any of its officers or employees, for whom the implementation or enforcement of this title shall be discretionary and not mandatory. D. Nothing contained in this title is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of King County, or its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any person subject to this title to comply with this title, or by reason or in consequence of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this title on the part of King County by its officers, employees or agents. 10.04.030 Applicability. This title applies to solid waste as that term is defined in section 10.08.420. This title shall not apply to the following solid wastes: A. Overburden from mining operations intended for return to the mine; B. Liquid wastes whose discharge or potential discharge is regulated under federal, state or local water pollution pen -nits; C. Dangerous wastes as defined by RCW Chapter 70.105 and WAC Chapter 173-303; D. Woodwaste used for ornamental mulch, animal bedding, and plant bedding, or road building purposes; E. Agricultural wastes, limited to manures and crop residues, returned to the soils at agronomic rates; centralized facilities used for the treatment of agricultural wastes shall be subject to this title; F. Clean soils and clean dredge spoils as defined in section 10.08.065 or as otherwise regulated by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217); G. Septage taken to a sewage treatment plant permitted under RCW Chapter 90.48; H. Radioactive wastes, defined by WAC Chapters 402-12 and 402-19; King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Lqg btion • > _> RL -6 4 ::>::::>::::>......:>::::>::::: . ..:::.;:.::.;:.;:.;:.;:.::.::.;:.;:.;:.;:.:.:.:.:.;:.;::.;;:..:. :. ..... ........................................................... 7 10.76 METHANE .......................111 10.76.010 Methane monitoring .................. 111 10.76.020 Construction standards for methane control ... 111 10.80 WASTE SCREENING ................ 112 10.80.010 Dangerous waste .................... 112 10.80.020 Disposal site inspection and screening ...... 112 10.80.030 Notice requiring screening ............... 112 10.80.040 Excavated material inspection and screening .. 112 10.84 UNLAWFUL DUMPING ............... 112 10.84.010 Prohibited ........................ 112 10.84.020 Identification of responsible person ........ 113 EFFECTIVE DATE ......................... 113 CHAPTER 10.04 CITATION AND PURPOSE 10.04.010 Citation. This title may be cited and referred to, and shall be known as the "King County Solid Waste Regulations." 10.04.020 Purpose and policy. A. Authority is established under RCW 70.05 and WAC 173-304 for Solid Waste and RCW 70.93 and WAC 173-310 for Litter Control. This title is enacted as an exercise of the Board of Health powers of King County to protect and preserve the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. Its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes. This title governs solid waste handling, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing and final disposal of all solid waste generated within King County, including issuance of permits and enforcement. B. It is expressly the purpose of this title to provide for and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this title. C. It is the specific intent of this title to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon waste generators, haulers and/or operators of disposal sites, and no provision of nor term used in this title is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon King County or any of its officers or employees, for whom the implementation or enforcement of this title shall be discretionary and not mandatory. D. Nothing contained in this title is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basis for any liability on the part of King County, or its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any person subject to this title to comply with this title, or by reason or in consequence of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this title on the part of King County by its officers, employees or agents. 10.04.030 Applicability. This title applies to solid waste as that term is defined in section 10.08.420. This title shall not apply to the following solid wastes: A. Overburden from mining operations intended for return to the mine; B. Liquid wastes whose discharge or potential discharge is regulated under federal, state or local water pollution pen -nits; C. Dangerous wastes as defined by RCW Chapter 70.105 and WAC Chapter 173-303; D. Woodwaste used for ornamental mulch, animal bedding, and plant bedding, or road building purposes; E. Agricultural wastes, limited to manures and crop residues, returned to the soils at agronomic rates; centralized facilities used for the treatment of agricultural wastes shall be subject to this title; F. Clean soils and clean dredge spoils as defined in section 10.08.065 or as otherwise regulated by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217); G. Septage taken to a sewage treatment plant permitted under RCW Chapter 90.48; H. Radioactive wastes, defined by WAC Chapters 402-12 and 402-19; King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Lqg btion C, • :. ..... . ;:. ` ........................ RL -6 5 • • • • I. Wood debris resulting from the harvesting of timber and such that the available nitrogen is, at all times, less than or whose disposal is permitted under RCW Chapter 76.04, the State equal to the nitrogen needs of the crop under cultivation. • Forest Practices Act. 10.08.030 Air quality standard. "Air quality • CHAPTER 10.08 standard" means a standard set for maximum allowable DEFINITIONS contamination in ambient air as set forth in WAC Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for air pollution sources. • 10.08.005 Applicability --State definitions adopted. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, the "definitions" set forth in WAC 173-304 and WAC 173-303 are hereby incorporated by reference. • • 10.08.010 Abandoned landfills. "Abandoned landfills" means those sites completed prior to the requirement . of obtaining a closure permit. 10.08.015 Active area. "Active area" means that portion of a facility where solid waste recycling, reuse, • treatment, storage, or disposal operations are being, are proposed to be, or have been conducted. Buffer zones shall not be considered part of the active area of a facility. • is • • • 10.08.016 Acutely hazardous waste. "Acutely hazardous waste" means dangerous waste sources (listed in WAC 173-303-9904) F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, or F027, and discarded chemical products (listed in WAC 173-303-9903) that are identified with a dangerous waste number beginning with a "P" or that show an "Y' or "A" in the reason for designation column. 10.08.017 Adequately wetted. "Adequately wetted" means sufficiently mixed, saturated, or coated with water or an aqueous solution to prevent emissions. 10.08.020 Agricultural wastes. "Agricultural wastes" means wastes on farms resulting from the production of agricultural products, including but not limited to manures, and carcasses of dead animals weighing in excess of fifteen (15) pounds. 10.08.025 Agronomic rate. "Agronomic rate" means the rate of application of biosolids, manures, or crop residues Related Legislation 10.08.035 Aquifer. "Aquifer" means a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to wells or springs. 10.08.037 Asbestos. "Asbestos" means the asbestiform varieties of actinolite, amosite (cunvningtonite-grunerite), tremolite, chrysotile (serpentinite), crocidolite (riebeckite), or anthophyllite. 10.08.038 Asbestos containing material. "Asbestos containing material" means any material containing at least one percent (1%) asbestos as determined by polarized light microscopy using the Interim Method of the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Samples contained in Appendix A of Subpart F in 40 CFR Part 763. This term does not include asbestos - containing flooring and roofing materials, regardless of asbestos content, when the following conditions are met: A. The asbestos -containing flooring or roofing material is in good condition and is not peeling, cracking, or crumbling; and B. The binder is petroleum based, the asbestos fibers are suspended in that base, and individual fibers are still encapsulated; and C. The asbestos -containing flooring or roofing material does not have a friable asbestos backing or friable asbestos layers in between layers of petroleum based binder; and D. The building, vessel, or structure containing the asbestos -containing flooring or roofing material, regardless of the condition of the material, will not be demolished by burning. 10.08.040 Asbestos containing waste material. "Asbestos containing waste material" means any waste that King Count ) Board of Health Code - Tide 10 • RL - 66 ............ ........................................................................... • contains asbestos. This term includes asbestos waste from control devices, materials used to enclose the work area during an asbestos project, asbestos -containing materials(s) collected for disposal, or asbestos -contaminated waste, debris, containers, bags, protective clothing, or HEPA filters. Asbestos -containing flooring or roofing materials meeting the conditions specified in 10.08.038 shall not be considered asbestos -containing waste material . 10.08.045 Ashes. "Ashes" means the residue including any air pollution control equipment flue dusts from combustion or incineration of material including solid wastes. 10.08.050 Balefill. "Balefill" means a landfill which uses compacted bales of solid waste to form discrete lifts as the landfill is filled. 10.08.051 Biomedical waste. "Biomedical waste" means: A. Cultures and stocks of etiologic agents and associated biologicals, including, without limitation, specimen cultures, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents, wastes from production of biologicals and serums, and discarded live and attenuated vaccines; or B. Laboratory waste which has come into contact with cultures and stocks of etiologic agents or blood specimens. Such waste includes but is not limited to culture dishes, blood specimen tubes; devices used to transfer, inoculate and mix cultures; and paper and cloth which has come into contact with cultures and stocks of etiologic agents; or C. Sharps, associated with those instruments that are used to puncture, cut, or scrape body parts that may, as a waste, cause punctures or cuts to solid waste handlers and/or the public. Such waste includes but is not limited to hypodernic needles, syringes with needles attached, lancets, dental scalers, and scalpel blades; or D. Pathological waste, which means most human tissues and anatomical parts which emanate from surgery, obstetrical procedures, autopsy, and the laboratory. Pathological waste does not include extracted teeth, hair, toenails or fingernails; or E. Human body fluids, including but not limited to blood and blood products, serum and plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 synovial fluid, pleural fluid, peritoneal fluid, pericardial fluid, and amniotic fluid shall be considered biomedical waste when they are: 1. hi free flowing form, or 2. In fluid or absorbed form in any amount and not packaged in a leakproof container; or F. Wastes that have come into contact with human body substances infected with anthrax, smallpox, rabies, plague and viral hemorrhagic fevers such as Lassa fever and Ebole-Marburg virus disease; or G. As determined by and solely at the discretion of the biomedical waste generator's infection control staff/conmmittee, wastes that have come into contact with human body substances or other sources which may contain pathogenic microbial agents or other biologically active materials in sufficient concentrations that exposure to the waste directly or indirectly creates a significant risk of disease; or H. Animal carcasses exposed to human pathogens in research, their bedding, and other waste from such animals. 10.08.052 Biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicle. "Biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicle" means a collection/transportation vehicle used for the collection and transportation of biomedical waste over the highways. 10.08.053 Biomedical waste generator. "Biomedical waste generator" means any producer of biomedical waste to include without limitation the following categories: general acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facility or convalescent hospitals, intermediate care facilities, in-patient care facilities for the developmentally disabled, chronic dialysis clinics, community clinics, health maintenance organizations, surgical clinics, urgent care clinics, acute psychiatric hospitals, laboratories, medical buildings, physicians offices and clinics, veterinary offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, funeral homes, or other similar facilities. "Biomedical waste generator" does not include residents that generate waste from self - treatment. Home generated syringe wastes are excluded from this category if the containment and disposal requirements specified in section 10.28.090.B.11(c) are followed. Related Legislation • • • • r • • u 10.08.054 Biomedical waste storage/treatment operator. "Biomedical waste storage/treatment operator" means a person who treats and/or stores biomedical waste and is not a biomedical waste generator. 10.08.055 Biomedical waste storage/treatment site. "Biomedical waste storage/treatment site" means a location where biomedical waste is stored for more than fifteen days or treated by a person who is not a biomedical waste generator. Sites such as incinerators, steam sterilizers, and other approved facilities will be considered biomedical waste storageltreatment sites. 10.08.056 Biomedical waste transporter. "Biomedical waste transporter" means a person who transports biomedical waste over public roads commercially or one who transports in volumes that equal or exceed one hundred (100) pounds per month. • 10.08.057 Biomedical waste treatment. "Biomedical waste treatment" means biomedical waste treated by processes • described in section 10.28.070(C) of this title or by a method approved in writing by the health officer. 10.08.058 Biosolids. "Biosolids" means a treated organic product that is produced by wastewater treatment processes and can be beneficially. recycled. 10.08.059 Biosolids utilization site. "Biosolids utilization site" means a facility that applies or incorporates sewage sludge into the soil surface in accordance with "Municipal and domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines Best management Practices," Department of Ecology 82.12 an area that has been treated with biosolids at an application rate that does not exceed the nitrogen utilization requirements of the site's vegetation or crop. Different areas of the same project site need not be geographically contiguous. 10.08.060 Buffer zone. "Buffer zone" means that part of the facility that lies between the active area and the property boundary. Related Legislation RL -6 7 Im 10.08.062 Bulky waste. "Bulky waste" means large items of refuse, such as appliances, furniture, and other oversize wastes which would typically not fit into reusable or disposable containers. 10.08.065 Clean soils and clean dredge soils. "Clean soils and clean dredge soils" means soils and dredge spoils which are not dangerous wastes or problem wastes as defined in this section. 10.08.070 Closure. "Closure" means those actions taken by the owner or operator of a solid waste site or facility to cease disposal operations and to ensure that all such facilities are closed in conformance with applicable regulations at the time of such closures and to prepare the site for the post -closure period. 10.08.075 Collecting agency. "Collecting agency" means any agency, business or set -vice operated by a person for the collecting of solid waste. 10.08.080 Collection/transportation vehicle. Tollection/transportation vehicle" means a vehicle, other than a biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicle (see 10.08.052), used to transport residential and commercial solid waste generated by others over the highways of King County. 10.08.085 Compliance schedule. "Compliance schedule" means a written schedule of required measures in a permit including an enforcement sequence leading to compliance with this title. 10.08.090 Composting. "Composting" means the controlled degradation of organic waste yielding a product for use as a soil conditioner. 10.08.092 Construction, Demolition, Landclearing (CDL) waste. "CDL waste" means any combination of recyclable or non -recyclable construction, demolition, and landclearing waste that results from construction,. remodeling, repair or demolition of buildings, roads or other structures, or King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 RL . - 68 .::..:.: . .:..: .::.. ........:. ........................:.. :::.:: from land clearing for development, and requires removal from the site of construction, demolition or land clearing. 10.08.094 Construction waste. "Construction waste" means wood, concrete, drywall, masonry, roofing, siding, structural metal, wire, insulation, and other building material; and plastics, styrofoam, twine, baling and strapping materials, cans, buckets, and other packaging materials and containers. It also includes sand, rocks and dirt, that are used in construction. In no event shall construction waste include dangerous or extremely hazardous waste of any kind, garbage (as defined by 10.08.185), sewerage waste, animal carcasses, or asbestos. 10.08.095 Container. "Container" means a device used for the collection, storage, and/or transportation of solid waste including but not limited to reusable containers, disposable containers, detachable containers and tanks, fixed or detachable. 10.08.100 Contaminate. "Contaminate" means to allow to discharge a substance into surface or ground water that would cause: A The concentration of that substance in the ground water to exceed the maximum contamination level specified in WAC 173-304-9901 including the numerical criteria listed in Table 1, WAC 173-200-040(2), or an alternative enforcement limit established under WAC 173-200-040; or B. A statistically significant increase in the concentration of that substance in the ground water where the existing concentration of that substance exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in WAC 173-304-9901, Table 1 of WAC 173-200-040(2), or an alternative enforcement limit established under WAC 173-200-050, whichever is the most stringent, or C. A statistically significant increase above background in the concentration of that substance which: 1. Is not specified in WAC 173-304-9901, Table 1 'of WAC 173-200-040(2) or an alternative enforcement limit established under WAC 173-200-050; and 2. Is present in the solid waste, and 3. Has been determined to present a substantial risk to human health or the environment in the concentrations found at the point of compliance by the health officer in consultation with the Department of Ecology and the Department of Health. 10.08.105 Cover material. "Cover material" means soil or other suitable material that has been approved by the health officer as cover for wastes. 10.08.110 Dangerous wastes. "Dangerous wastes" means any solid waste designated as dangerous waste by the Department of Ecology under WAC Chapter 173-303. 10.08.115 Demolition waste. "Demolition waste" means concrete, drywall, asphalt, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing, siding, structural metal, wire, insulation, and other materials found in demolished building, roads, and other structures. It also includes sand, rocks and dirt, that result from demolition. In no event shall demolition waste include dangerous or extremely hazardous waste, liquid waste, garbage (as defined by section 10.08.185), sewerage waste, animal carcasses, or asbestos. r 10.08.117 Department. "Department" means the • Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 10.08.120 Detachable containers. "Detachable • containers" means reusable containers that are mechanically loaded or handled such as a " dumpster" or drop box. • 10.08.125 Disposable containers. "Disposable containers" means containers that are used to handle solid waste such as plastic bags, cardboard boxes and paper bags. 10.08.130 Disposal or deposition. "Disposal' or "deposition" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, leaking, or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water. 10.08.135 Disposal site. "Disposal site" means the location where any final treatment, utilization, processing, or deposition of solid waste occurs. See also the definition of interim solid waste handling site. King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation 9 10.08.140 Drop box facility. "Drop box facility" means a facility used for the placement of a detachable container including the area adjacent for necessary entrance and exit roads, unloading and tum -around areas. Drop box facilities normally serve the general public with loose loads and receive waste from off-site. 10.08.142 Empty. "Empty" means all waste has been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from the type container, e.g., pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Additionally, containers in excess of 25 gallons must have at least one end removed. Containers which once held acutely hazardous waste must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by an equivalent method to be considered empty. (Note: Household hazardous waste is exempt from this requirement unless included by label directives - i.e., certain pesticides.) Containers which once held pesticides regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act must be emptied according to label instructions or triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent if the container bears the danger or warning label. Cylinders of compressed gas are empty when the pressure in the container is equivalent to atmospheric pressure. Any rinsate or vacuumed residue which results from the cleaning of containers or inner liners shall, whenever possible, be reused in a manner consistent with the original intended purpose of the substance in the container or inner liner. 10.08.145 Energy recovery. "Energy recovery" means the recovery of energy in a useable form from mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis or any other means of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves high temperature (above twelve hundred degrees Fahrenheit [1,200°F]) processing. 10.08.150 Existing facility. A. "Existing facility" means a facility which is owned or leased, and in operation, or for which construction has begun, on or before the effective date of these Rules and Regulations and the owner or operator has obtained pennits or approvals necessary under federal, state and local statutes, regulations and ordinances. A facility has commenced construction if either: RL - 69 1. A continuous on-site physical construction program has begun; or 2. The owner or operator has entered into contractual obligations which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial financial loss for physical construction of the facility to be completed within a reasonable time. B. Lateral extensions of a landfill's active area on land purchased and permitted by the health officer for the purpose of landfilling before the effective date of this title shall be considered existing facilities. 10.08.155 Expanded facility. "Expanded facility" means a facility adjacent to an existing facility for which the land is purchased and approved by the health officer after the effective date of this title. A vertical expansion approved and permitted by the health officer after the effective date of this title shall be considered an expanded facility. 10.08.160 Facility. "Facility" means all contiguous land (including buffer zones) and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for solid waste handling. 10.08.165 Facility structures. "Facility structures" means buildings, sheds, utility lines, and drainage pipes on the facility. 10.08.170 Final treatment. "Final treatment" means the act of processing or preparing solid waste for disposal, utilization, reclamation, or other approved method of use. 10.08.175 Free liquids. "Free liquids" means any sludge which produces measurable liquids when the Paint Filter Liquids Test, Method 9095 of EPA Publication Number SW -846, is used. 10.08.180 Fumarole. " Fumarole" means an opening in the surface of a landfill from which smoke and gases arise. 10.08.185 Garbage. "Garbage" means unwanted animal and vegetable wastes and animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food, swill and carcasses of dead animals, and Related legislation King County Board of Health Code - 71de 10 of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for vectors, except sewage and biosolids. 10.08.190 Groundwater. "Groundwater" means that part of the subsurface water which is in the zone of saturation. 10.08.195 Health officer. "Health officer" means the Director of the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health or his/her designated representative. 10.08.200 Holocene fault. "Holocene fault" means a fracture along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side and that has occurred in the most recent epoch of the quaternary period extending from the end of the pleistocene to the present. 10.08.202 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW). "Household hazardous waste" means any discardedliquid, solid, gas or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity or waste, regardless of quantity, which would meet the characteristics or criteria for designation as a State Dangerous Waste or Extremely Hazardous Waste under WAC 173-303 except that it is generated at a residence and is exempt. It includes, but is not limited to: cleaning agents; pesticides; solvents; motor fuels; crankcase oil; and chemicals used for home repair and remodeling, auto, boat and equipment maintenance, and hobby and recreational uses. 10.08.204 Human excrement. "Human excrement" means human fecal material and urine. 10.08.205 Incineration. "Incineration" means reducing the volume of solid wastes by use of an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion. 10.08.207 Industrial sludge. "Industrial sludge" means a semisolid substance consisting of settled solids combined with varying amounts of water or solvent and dissolved materials generated from industrial processes such as spray paint booths, solvent recovery systems, metal plating operations, or other like methods, excluding biosolids and municipal sewerage sludge. 10.08.210 Industrial solid wastes. "Industrial solid wastes" means waste by-products from manufacturing operations such as scraps, trimmings, packing, and other discarded materials not otherwise designated as dangerous waste under WAC Chapter 173-303. 10.08.215 Industrial wastewater facility. "Industrial wastewater facility" means all strictures, equipment, or processes required to collect, carry away, treat, reclaim, or dispose of industrial wastewater. 10.08.220 Inert wastes. "Inert wastes" means noncombustible, nondangerous solid wastes that are likely to retain their physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal, including resistance to biological attack and chemical attack from acidic rainwater. 10.08.222 Infection control staff committee. "Infection control staff/committee" means those individuals designated by a biomedical waste generator or a biomedical waste storage/treatment operator whose responsibility includes but is not limited to developing and maintaining the biomedical waste generator's or biomedical waste storage/treat- ment operator's Biomedical Waste Management Plan. [Section 10.08.223 Infectious waste. (See 10.08.051)] [Section 10.08.224 Infectious waste collection/transportation vehicle. (See 10.08.052)] 10.08.225 Infectious waste generator. "Infectious waste generator" means any producer of infectious waste to include without limitation the following categories: general acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facility or convalescent hospitals, intermediate care facilities, in-patient care facilities for the developmentally disabled, chronic dialysis clinics, community clinics, health maintenance organizations, surgical clinics, urgent care clinics, acute psychiatric hospitals, laboratories, medical buildings, physicians offices and clinics, veterinary offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, funeral homes, or other similar facilities. King County Board of Health Code -Title 10 Related Legislation • I RL - 0 ;;:::;:::>:>>::::.::::>:;>>::>::::>:>:>::>::>::: ......... :;:.;::::.::.....:............. ::. .......:::::::::::::::: of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for vectors, except sewage and biosolids. 10.08.190 Groundwater. "Groundwater" means that part of the subsurface water which is in the zone of saturation. 10.08.195 Health officer. "Health officer" means the Director of the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health or his/her designated representative. 10.08.200 Holocene fault. "Holocene fault" means a fracture along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side and that has occurred in the most recent epoch of the quaternary period extending from the end of the pleistocene to the present. 10.08.202 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW). "Household hazardous waste" means any discardedliquid, solid, gas or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity or waste, regardless of quantity, which would meet the characteristics or criteria for designation as a State Dangerous Waste or Extremely Hazardous Waste under WAC 173-303 except that it is generated at a residence and is exempt. It includes, but is not limited to: cleaning agents; pesticides; solvents; motor fuels; crankcase oil; and chemicals used for home repair and remodeling, auto, boat and equipment maintenance, and hobby and recreational uses. 10.08.204 Human excrement. "Human excrement" means human fecal material and urine. 10.08.205 Incineration. "Incineration" means reducing the volume of solid wastes by use of an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion. 10.08.207 Industrial sludge. "Industrial sludge" means a semisolid substance consisting of settled solids combined with varying amounts of water or solvent and dissolved materials generated from industrial processes such as spray paint booths, solvent recovery systems, metal plating operations, or other like methods, excluding biosolids and municipal sewerage sludge. 10.08.210 Industrial solid wastes. "Industrial solid wastes" means waste by-products from manufacturing operations such as scraps, trimmings, packing, and other discarded materials not otherwise designated as dangerous waste under WAC Chapter 173-303. 10.08.215 Industrial wastewater facility. "Industrial wastewater facility" means all strictures, equipment, or processes required to collect, carry away, treat, reclaim, or dispose of industrial wastewater. 10.08.220 Inert wastes. "Inert wastes" means noncombustible, nondangerous solid wastes that are likely to retain their physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal, including resistance to biological attack and chemical attack from acidic rainwater. 10.08.222 Infection control staff committee. "Infection control staff/committee" means those individuals designated by a biomedical waste generator or a biomedical waste storage/treatment operator whose responsibility includes but is not limited to developing and maintaining the biomedical waste generator's or biomedical waste storage/treat- ment operator's Biomedical Waste Management Plan. [Section 10.08.223 Infectious waste. (See 10.08.051)] [Section 10.08.224 Infectious waste collection/transportation vehicle. (See 10.08.052)] 10.08.225 Infectious waste generator. "Infectious waste generator" means any producer of infectious waste to include without limitation the following categories: general acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facility or convalescent hospitals, intermediate care facilities, in-patient care facilities for the developmentally disabled, chronic dialysis clinics, community clinics, health maintenance organizations, surgical clinics, urgent care clinics, acute psychiatric hospitals, laboratories, medical buildings, physicians offices and clinics, veterinary offices and clinics, dental offices and clinics, funeral homes, or other similar facilities. King County Board of Health Code -Title 10 Related Legislation n L-A 0 ::::::> [Section 10.08.226 Infectious waste storage/treahnent operator. (See 10.08.053)] [Section 10.08.227 Infectious waste transporter. (See 10.08.054)] [Section 10.08.228 Infectious waste treatment. (See 10.08.055) ] 10.08.230 Interim solid waste handling site. "Interim solid waste handling site" means any interim treatment, utilization or processing site engaged in solid waste handling which is not the final site of disposal. Transfer stations, drop boxes, baling and compaction sites, source separation centers, and treatment facilities are considered interim solid waste handling sites. 10.08.233 Laboratory. "Laboratory" means a room or building equipped for scientific experimentation, research,. testing, or clinical studies of specimens, fluids, tissues, cultures or stocks of etiologic agents and associated biologicals or other biologically active agents. 10.08.234 Land clearing waste. "Land clearing waste" means natural vegetation and minerals such as stumps, brush, blackberry vines, tree branches, and associated dirt, sand, tree bark, sod, and rocks. 10.08.235 Landfill. "Landfill" means a disposal facility or part of a facility at which solid waste is permanently placed in or on land and which is not a landspreading disposal facility. Related legislation 10.08.237 Landspreading disposal facility. "Landspreading disposal facility" means a facility that applies biosolids or other solid wastes onto or incorporates solid waste into the soil surface at greater than vegetative utilization and soil conditioners/immobilization rates. [Section 10.08.240 Landspreading utilization site. Repealed. (see 10.08.059)] 10.08.245 Leachate. "Leachate" means water or other liquid that has been contaminated by dissolved or suspended materials due to contact with solid waste or gases therefrom. 10.08.250 Liquid. "Liquid" means a substance that flows readily and assumes the form of its container but retains its independent volume. 10.08.255 Local fire control agency. "Local fire control agency" means a public or private agency or corporation providing fire protection such as a local fire department, the Department of Natural Resources or the United States Forest Service." 10.08.260 Lower explosive limits. "Lower explosive limits' means the lowest percentage by volume of a mixture of explosive gases which will propagate a flame in air at twenty-five degrees centigrade and atmospheric pressure. 10.08.265 Moderate Risk Waste (MRW). "Moderate Risk Waste" means: A. Any waste that exhibits any of the properties of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation under the Dangerous Waste Regulations solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation, or B. Any household wastes which are generated from the disposal of substances identified by the department as household hazardous waste (see 10.08.202). 10.08.267 Municipal sewerage sludge. "Municipal sewerage sludge" means a semisolid substance consisting of settled solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials collected in a municipal waste water treatment plant. King County Board of Health Code - Title to RT.' -72- 10.08.270 New facility. "New facility" means a facility which begins operation or constriction after the effective date of this title (see also the definition of "existing facility"). 10.08.275 Nonconforming site. "Nonconforming site" means a solid waste handling facility which does not currently comply with the facility requirements applicable but does comply with a compliance schedule issued in a solid waste permit by the health officer. 10.08.280 Nuisance. "Nuisance" consists in unlawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission either annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others, offends decency, or unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, any lake or navigable river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square street or highway; or in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property. 10.08.285 One hundred (100) year floodplain. "One hundred year floodplain" means any land- area which is subject to one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year from any source. 10.08.290 Open burning. "Open burning" means the burning of solid waste materials in an open fire or an outdoor container without providing for the control of combustion or the control of emissions from the combustion. 10.08.295 Performance standard. "Performance standard" means the criteria for the performance of solid waste handling facilities. 10.08.297 Permanent Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) Collection/Storage Facility. "Permanent MRW Collection/Storage Facility" generally means an enclosed building, large container/cargo van or portable collection/storage unit that is specifically built or set up at a permanent or semi-permanent location to collect, store, transfer, and ship moderate risk waste. 10.08.305 Permit. "Permit" means an authorization issued by the health officer which allows a person to perform solid waste activities at a specific location and which includes specific conditions for such facility operations. [Section 10.08.310 Penmit-by-rule. Repealed.] 10.08.315 Person. "Person" means an individual, fine, association, copartnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity whatsoever. 10.08.320 Pile. "Pile" means any noncontainerized accumulation of solid waste that is used for treatment or storage. 10.08.325 Plan of operation. "Plan of operation" means the written plan developed by an owner or operator of a facility detailing how a facility is to be operated during its active life and during closure and post -closure. 10.08.330 Point of compliance. "Point of compliance" means that part of ground water that lies beneath the perimeter of a solid waste facilities' active area as that active area would exist at closure of the facility. 10.08.335 Post -closure. "Post -closure" ineans the requirements placed upon disposal facilities after closure to ensure their environmental safety for a number of years after closure. 10.08.340 Premises. "Premises" means a tract or parcel of land with or without habitable buildings. 10.08.345 Problem wastes. "Problem wastes" means: A. Soils removed during the cleanup of a remedial action site, or a dangerous waste site closure or other cleanup efforts and actions and which contain harmful substances above the levels specified in the State Model Toxics Control Act Regulation (WAC 173-340) for soils, but are not designated dangerous wastes; or B. Spoils resulting from the dredging of surface waters of the state where contaminants are present in the dredge spoils at King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation . concentrations not suitable for open water disposal and the dredge spoils are not dangerous wastes and are not regulated • by Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217). [Section 10.08.350 Processing. Repealed. (see Section 10.08.465)] 10.08.352 Process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP). "Process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP)" means a biosolids treatment process from the following list: Composting: Using the within -vessel composting method, the Biosolids are maintained at operating conditions of 55°C (131°F) or greater for three (3) days. Using the static aerated pile composting method, the biosolids are maintained at 55°C (131°F) or greater for three (3) days. Using the windrow composting method, the solid waste must attain a temperature of 55°C (131°F) or greater for at least fifteen (15) days during the composting period. Also, during the high temperature period, there will be a minimum of five (5) turnings of the windrow. Heat drying. Dewatered biosolids calve is dried by direct or indirect contact with hot gases, and moisture content is reduced to ten percent (10%) or lower. Biosolids particles reach temperatures well in excess of 80°C (176°F), or the wet bulb temperature of the gas stream in contact with the biosolids at the point where they leave the diver is in excess of 80-C (176°F). Heat treatment: Liquid biosolids are heated to temperatures of 180°C (356°F) for thirty (30) minutes. Thermophilic aerobic digestion: Liquid biosolids are agitated with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions at residence times of ten (10) days at 55-60�C (131-140°F), with a volatile solids reduction of at least thirty-eight percent (38•/6). Other methods: Other methods or operating conditions may be acceptable if pathogens and vector attraction of the waste (volatile solids) are reduced to an extent equivalent to the reduction achieved by any of the above methods. Any of the processes listed below, if added to a process to significantly reduce pathogens, will further reduce pathogens. Because the processes listed below, on their own, do not reduce the attraction of disease vectors, they are only add-on in nature. RL - 73 Beta ray irradiation: Biosolids are irradiated with beta rays from an accelerator at dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature (ca. 20°C) (68°F). Gamma ray irradiation: Biosolids are irradiated with gamma rays from certain isotopes, such as Cobalt and Cesium, at dosages at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature (ca. 20'C) (WF). Pasteurization: Biosolids are maintained for at least 30 minutes at a minimum temperature of 70°C (158°F). Other methods: Other methods or operating conditions may be acceptable if pathogens are reduced to an extent equivalent to the reduction achieved by any of the above add-on methods. 10.08.354 Process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP). "Process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP)" means a biosolids treatment process from the following list: Aerobic digestion: The process is conducted by agitating biosolids with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions at residence times ranging from sixty (60) days at 15°C (59°F) to forty (40) days at 20'C (68°F), with a volatile solids reduction of at least thirty-eight percent (38%). Air drying. Liquid biosolids are allowed to drain and/or dry on under -drained sand beds, or paved or unpaved basins in which the biosolids are at a depth of nine inches (9"). A minimum of three (3) months is needed, two (2) months of which temperatures average on a daily basis above 0°C (320F). Anaerobic digestion: The process is conducted in the absence of air at residence times ranging from sixty (60) days at 20'C (68�F) to fifteen (15) days at 35-55% (95-1310F), with a volatile solids reduction of at least thirty-eight percent (38%). Composting: Using the within -vessel, static aerated pile or windrow composting methods, the solid waste is maintained at minimum operating conditions of 40°C (104°F) for five (5) days. For four (4) hours during this period the temperature exceeds 55°C (131°F). Lime stabilization: Sufficient lime is added to produce a Ph of twelve (12) after two (2) hours of contact. Related Legislation King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 RL - 74 Other methods: Other methods or operating conditions may be acceptable 9 pathogens and vector attraction of the waste (volatile solids) are reduced to an extent equivalent to the reduction achieved by any of the above methods. 10.08.355 Putrescible waste. "Putrescible waste" means solid waste which contains material capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms. 10.08.360 Pyrolysis. "Pyrolysis" means the process in which solid wastes are heated in an enclosed device in the absence of oxygen to vaporization, producing a hydrocarbon -rich gas capable of being burned for recovery of energy. 10.08.365 Reclamation site. "Reclamation site" means a location used for the processing or the storage of recycled waste. 10.08.367 Recycling. "Recycling" means either source separation or the processing of solid waste mechanically or by hand to segregate materials for sale or reuse. Materials which can be removed through recycling include but are not limited to mixed paper, newsprint, cardboard, aluminum, glass, plastics, chemicals, oil, wood, compostable organics (food and yard/land clearing debris), ferrous metal, and inorganics (rubble and inert material). Recycling does not include combustion of solid waste or preparation of a fuel from solid waste. 10.08.370 Reserved. "Reserved" means a section having no requirements and which is set aside for future possible rulemaking as a note to the regulated community, 10.08.375 Reusable containers. "Reusable containers" means containers that are used more than once to handle solid waste such as garbage cans. 10.08.380 Runoff. "Run-off' means any rainwater, leachate or other liquid which drains over land from any part of the facility. 10.08.385 Run-on. "Run-on" means any rainwater or other liquid which drains over land onto any part of a facility. 10.08.390 Scavenging. "Scavenging" means the removal of materials at a disposal site, or interim solid waste handling site without the approval of the owner or operator and the health officer. 10.08.395 Septage. "Septage" means a semisolid consisting of settled sewage solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved materials generated from a septic tank system. [Section 10.08.400 Sewage sludge. (Recodified as 10-08.058)] [Section 10.08.410 Sludge. (see 10.08.267)] 10.08.412 Small Quantity Generator (SQG). "Small Quantity Generator" means a business that generates wastes in amounts below Federal and State hazardous waste regulatory thresholds, generally less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste or 2.2 lbs of extremely hazardous waste per month or per batch. SQG waste includes but is not limited to dyes, paints, thinners, solvent, coolants, cleaning fluids, photographic chemicals, adhesives, alcohols, industrial sludges, acids and bases from businesses. 10.08.415 Sole source aquifer. "Sole source aquifer" means an aquifer designated by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 1424e of the Safe Drinking Water Act PL 93-523). 10.08.420 Solid waste. "Solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, biomedical waste, swill, demolition and construction wastes, land clearing wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded commodities, or contaminated excavated soil/fill material. This includes all liquid, solid and semisolid, materials which are not the primary products of public, private, industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations. Solid waste includes but is not limited to: biosolids from King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related legislation IC 10.08.425 Solid waste handling. "Solid waste handling' means the management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, or final disposal of solid wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes, the recovery of energy resources from such wastes or the conversion of the energy in such wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof. 10.08.430 Solid waste management. "Solid waste management" means the systematic administration of activities which provide for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste. 12-19-86) 10.08.435 Special purpose facility. "Special purpose facility" means a method of solid waste handling not otherwise provided for in this title. 10.08.438 Steam sterilization. "Steam sterilization' means sterilizing biomedical waste by use of saturated steam within a pressure vessel at temperatures sufficient to kill all microbiological agents in the waste as determined by biological and chemical indicator monitoring requirements set forth in this title. 10.08.440 Storage. "Storage" means the holding of solid waste materials for a temporary period. 10.08.445 Stream. "Stream" means the point at which any confined freshwater body of surface water reaches a mean annual flow of twenty (20) cubic feet per second. 10.08.450 Surface impoundment. "Surface impoundment' means a facility or part of a facility which is a natural topographic depression, man-made excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials (although it may be luted with man-made materials), and which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquids or biosolids. The term includes Relaxed Legislation 10.08.455 Surface water. "Surface water" means all lakes, rivets, ponds, wetlands, streams, inland waters, salt waters and all other water and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. 10.08.460 Transfer station. "Transfer station" means a permanent, fixed, supplemental collection and transportation facility, used by persons and route collection vehicles to deposit collected solid waste from off-site into a larger transfer vehicle for transport to a solid waste handling facility. Transfer stations may also include recycling facilities, and wmpactiowbaling systems. 10.08.465 Treatment. "Treatment" means the physical, chemical or biological processing of solid waste to make such solid wastes safer for storage or disposal, amenable for energy or material resource recovery or reduced in volume. Treatment includes methods such as grinding, shredding, screening, aerating, chemical or biological altering, heating and sorting to render the waste useful as a recyclable (commodity), fuel source, approved fill material, other approved and useful item, or prepare it for disposal. The treatment of inert wastes is excluded from this definition. 10.08.470 Twenty-five (25) year storm. "Twenty-five (25) year storm" means a storm of a particular duration and of such an intensity that it has a four percent (061) probability of being equalled or exceeded in each year. 10.08.475 Twenty-four (24) hour, twenty-five (25) year storm. "Twenty-four hour (24), twenty-five (25) year storm" means a twenty-five (25) year storm of twenty-four (24) hours duration." 10.08.480 Upland. "Upland" means land areas that are not within any wetland or. high water zone of any river, stream, lake, or tidal area under the jurisdiction of the United States Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, or Washington State Department of Ecology and not King Couniv Board of Health Code - Title 10 regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217). 10.08.482 Used Oil. "Used Oil" means: A Lubricating fluids that have been removed from an engine crankcase, transmission, gearbox, hydraulic device, or differential of an automobile, truck, bus, vessel, plane, heavy equipment, or machinery powered by an internal combustion engine; or B. Any oil that Inas been refined from crude oil, used, and as a result of use, has been contaminated with physical or chemical impurities; or C. Any oil that has been refined from crude oil and, as a consequence of extended storage, spillage, or contamination, is no longer useful to the original purchaser. "Used oil" does not include oil to which hazardous wastes have been added. 10.08.485 Utilization. "Utilization" means consuming, expending, or exhausting by use, solid waste materials. 10.08.490 Vadose zone. "Vadose zone" means that portion of a geologic formation in which soil pores contain some water, the pressure of that water is less than atmospheric pressure, and the formation occurs above the zone of saturation. 10.08.495 Vector. "Vector" means a living animal, insect or other arthropod which may transmit an infectious disease from one organism to another. 10.08.500 Waste recycling. "Waste recycling" means reusing waste materials and extracting valuable materials from a waste stream. 10.08.505 Waste reduction. "Waste reduction" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated. 10.08.510 Water quality standard. "Water quality standard" means a standard set for maximum allowable contamination in surface waters as set forth in WAC Chapter 173-201, Water Quality Standards for Waters of the State of Washington. 10.08.515 Wetlands. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, estuaries, and similar areas. 10.08.520 Woodwaste. "Woodwaste" means solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by-product or waste from the manufacturing of wood products, handling and storage of raw materials and trees and stumps. This includes but is not limited to sawdust, chips, shavings, discarded pallets, clean dimensional lumber, bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as paint creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper -chrome -arsenate. 10.08.522 Yard waste. "Yard waste" means waste resulting from maintenance or removal of vegetation, including, but not limited to: brush, branches, prunings, grass, leaves, flowers, shrubs and small trees. Yard waste shall not include animal excrement, rocks, garbage, solid wastes other than yard waste, demolition debris, household hazardous waste, biomedical wastes, moderate risk waste, dangerous waste, or extremely hazardous waste. 10.08.525 Zone of saturation. "Zone of saturation" means that part of a geologic formation in which soil pores are filled with water and the pressure of that water is equal to or greater than atmospheric pressure. CHAPTER 10.12 ADMINISTRATION 10.12.010 Other agencies and jurisdictions. All solid waste management shall be subject to the authority of other laws, regulations or other agency requirements in addition to this title. Nothing in this title is intended to abridge or alter the rights of action by the State or by a person which exist in King Count, Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related LegWation RL _ regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217). 10.08.482 Used Oil. "Used Oil" means: A Lubricating fluids that have been removed from an engine crankcase, transmission, gearbox, hydraulic device, or differential of an automobile, truck, bus, vessel, plane, heavy equipment, or machinery powered by an internal combustion engine; or B. Any oil that Inas been refined from crude oil, used, and as a result of use, has been contaminated with physical or chemical impurities; or C. Any oil that has been refined from crude oil and, as a consequence of extended storage, spillage, or contamination, is no longer useful to the original purchaser. "Used oil" does not include oil to which hazardous wastes have been added. 10.08.485 Utilization. "Utilization" means consuming, expending, or exhausting by use, solid waste materials. 10.08.490 Vadose zone. "Vadose zone" means that portion of a geologic formation in which soil pores contain some water, the pressure of that water is less than atmospheric pressure, and the formation occurs above the zone of saturation. 10.08.495 Vector. "Vector" means a living animal, insect or other arthropod which may transmit an infectious disease from one organism to another. 10.08.500 Waste recycling. "Waste recycling" means reusing waste materials and extracting valuable materials from a waste stream. 10.08.505 Waste reduction. "Waste reduction" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated. 10.08.510 Water quality standard. "Water quality standard" means a standard set for maximum allowable contamination in surface waters as set forth in WAC Chapter 173-201, Water Quality Standards for Waters of the State of Washington. 10.08.515 Wetlands. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, estuaries, and similar areas. 10.08.520 Woodwaste. "Woodwaste" means solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by-product or waste from the manufacturing of wood products, handling and storage of raw materials and trees and stumps. This includes but is not limited to sawdust, chips, shavings, discarded pallets, clean dimensional lumber, bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as paint creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper -chrome -arsenate. 10.08.522 Yard waste. "Yard waste" means waste resulting from maintenance or removal of vegetation, including, but not limited to: brush, branches, prunings, grass, leaves, flowers, shrubs and small trees. Yard waste shall not include animal excrement, rocks, garbage, solid wastes other than yard waste, demolition debris, household hazardous waste, biomedical wastes, moderate risk waste, dangerous waste, or extremely hazardous waste. 10.08.525 Zone of saturation. "Zone of saturation" means that part of a geologic formation in which soil pores are filled with water and the pressure of that water is equal to or greater than atmospheric pressure. CHAPTER 10.12 ADMINISTRATION 10.12.010 Other agencies and jurisdictions. All solid waste management shall be subject to the authority of other laws, regulations or other agency requirements in addition to this title. Nothing in this title is intended to abridge or alter the rights of action by the State or by a person which exist in King Count, Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related LegWation U I• 0 0 I• I• equity, common law, or other statutes to abate pollution or to abate a nuisance. 10.12.020 Enforcement. The health officer shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this title in accordance with Chapter 1.08 of this code (King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 7). The health officer is also authorized to adopt rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this title for the purpose of enforcing and carrying out its provisions. 10.12.030 Exempted activities. A. Permits are not required for single family residences and single family fames dumping or depositing solid waste resulting from their own activities on to or under the surface of land owned or leased by them when such action does not create a nuisance, violate statutes, ordinances, or regulations, including this title. B. Permits are not required for corrective actions at solid waste handling facilities performed by the State and/or in conjunction with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), or corrective actions taken by others to comply with a state and/or federal cleanup order provided that: 1. The action results in an overall improvement of the environmental impact of the site; 2. The action does not require or result in additional waste being delivered to the site or increase the amount of waste or contamination present at the site; 3. The applicable facility standards are met; and 4. The health officer is informed of the actions to be taken and is given the opportunity to review and comment upon the proposed corrective action plans. 10.12.040 Inspections. A. Frequency. An inspection of a solid waste disposal site, sewage treatment works or collection/transportation vehicle may be performed by the health officer as often as such officer deems reasonably necessary, with a minimum frequency of once per year. B. Access. Every person operating a solid waste disposal site or collection/transportation vehicle shall permit the health officer, after proper identification to enter the site, sewage Related LegWa ion treatment works or vehicle during its normal business hours for the purpose of making inspections to detennine compliance with this title; and shall permit the health officer to examine the operation and records of the establishment to obtain the information necessary to determine compliance. C. Report. 1. Whenever an inspection of a solid waste disposal site or collection/transportation vehicle is made, the findings shall be recorded on the inspection report form prepared by the health officer. 2. The inspection report form shall summarize the requirements of this title. Inspectional remarks shall be written to reference, by section number, the section of this title violated, and shall state the date of the inspection. 3. A copy of the completed inspection report form shall be furnished to the person in charge of the site or vehicle at the conclusion of the inspection or shall be mailed within five (5) working days of inspection. 10.12.050 Nonconforming disposal site. When an existing disposal site not fully meeting this title applies to the health officer for a permit, a permit for a non -conforming site may be issued. The conditions of the permit shall be itemized by the health officer and shall include a schedule of compliance or a closure schedule as appropriate. 10.12.060 Variances. A. Applicability. Any person who owns or operates a solid waste facility may apply to the health officer for a variance from any section of this title. The application shall be accompanied by such information as the health officer may require. The health officer may grant such variance, but only after due notice (or a public hearing) if it finds that: 1. The solid waste handling practices or site location do not endanger public health, safety or the environment; and 2. Compliance with the regulation from which variance is sought would produce hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public. B. No variance shall be granted pursuant to this section until the health officer has considered the relative interests of the applicant, other owners of property likely to be affected by the handling practices and the general public. King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 C. Any variance or renewal may be granted within the requirements of subsection A of this section but with the following limitations: 1. If the variance is granted on the grounds that there is no practicable means known or available for the adequate prevention, abatement, or control of pollution involved, it shall be only until the necessary means for prevention, abatement or control become known and available and subject to the taking of any substitute or alternative measures that the health officer may prescribe; 2. The health officer may grant a variance conditioned by a time table if: a. Compliance with this title will require spreading of costs over a considerable time period; and b. The time table is for a period that is needed to comply with this title. 3. Any variance granted pursuant to this section may be renewed on terns and conditions and for periods which would be appropriate on initial granting of a variance. No renewal thereof shall be granted, unless following a public hearing on the complaint or due notice, the health officer finds the renewal is justified. No renewal shall be granted except on application. Any such application shall be made at least silty (60) days prior to the expiration of the variance. Immediately upon receipt of an application for renewal the health officer shall give public notice of such application in accordance with this title. 4. An application for a variance, or for the renewal thereof, submitted to the health officer shall be approved or disapproved by the health officer within ninety (90) days of receipt unless the applicant and the health officer agree to a continuance. S. No variance from WAC 173-304 shall be granted by the health officer except with the approval and written concurrence of the Department of Ecology prior to action on the variance by the health officer. The health officer may grant variances from this title, without Department of Ecology approval and written concurrence, for standards that are more stringent than the standards of WAC 173-304, or from provisions in this title that are not contained in WAC 173-304. 6. Public notice shall be given by mailing a notice of the variance application to persons who have written to the health officer asking to be notified of all variance requests. 10.12.070 Imminent and substantial dangers. Notwithstanding any provisions of this title the health officer may take immediate action to prevent an imminent and substantial danger to the public health by the improper management of any waste irrespective of quantity or concentration. CHAPTER 10.16 PERMITS FOR NEW OR EXPANDED FACILITIES • 10.16.010 Approval required. A solid waste disposal site shall not be constructed, substantially altered or expanded until plans and specifications for such construction, alteration or improvement have been submitted to and approved by the health officer, and a fee paid as set forth in this chapter. It is the responsibility of persons operating, or proposing to operate a solid waste facility to obtain all necessary permits and approvals, including those of other applicable agencies before starting construction or operation. All new or expanded solid waste handling facilities shall meet the requirements of: Section 10.16.020 and the applicable sections of Chapter 10.32 through 10.84, after the effective date of this title. 10.16.020 Application --Filing. A. Any owner or operator subject to the permit requirements who intends to operate a facility must apply for a permit with the health officer. Filing shall not be complete until two (2) copies of the application have been signed by the owner and operator and received by the health officer and the applicant has filed an environmental checklist required under the State environmental policy act rules, WAC Chapter 197-11. B. Applications for a permit must contain the information set forth in section 10.16.030 hereof. C. Once the health officer determines that an application for a permit is factually complete, he/she shall refer one (1) copy to the appropriate regional office of the Department of Ecology for review and comment. King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation .:: . C. Any variance or renewal may be granted within the requirements of subsection A of this section but with the following limitations: 1. If the variance is granted on the grounds that there is no practicable means known or available for the adequate prevention, abatement, or control of pollution involved, it shall be only until the necessary means for prevention, abatement or control become known and available and subject to the taking of any substitute or alternative measures that the health officer may prescribe; 2. The health officer may grant a variance conditioned by a time table if: a. Compliance with this title will require spreading of costs over a considerable time period; and b. The time table is for a period that is needed to comply with this title. 3. Any variance granted pursuant to this section may be renewed on terns and conditions and for periods which would be appropriate on initial granting of a variance. No renewal thereof shall be granted, unless following a public hearing on the complaint or due notice, the health officer finds the renewal is justified. No renewal shall be granted except on application. Any such application shall be made at least silty (60) days prior to the expiration of the variance. Immediately upon receipt of an application for renewal the health officer shall give public notice of such application in accordance with this title. 4. An application for a variance, or for the renewal thereof, submitted to the health officer shall be approved or disapproved by the health officer within ninety (90) days of receipt unless the applicant and the health officer agree to a continuance. S. No variance from WAC 173-304 shall be granted by the health officer except with the approval and written concurrence of the Department of Ecology prior to action on the variance by the health officer. The health officer may grant variances from this title, without Department of Ecology approval and written concurrence, for standards that are more stringent than the standards of WAC 173-304, or from provisions in this title that are not contained in WAC 173-304. 6. Public notice shall be given by mailing a notice of the variance application to persons who have written to the health officer asking to be notified of all variance requests. 10.12.070 Imminent and substantial dangers. Notwithstanding any provisions of this title the health officer may take immediate action to prevent an imminent and substantial danger to the public health by the improper management of any waste irrespective of quantity or concentration. CHAPTER 10.16 PERMITS FOR NEW OR EXPANDED FACILITIES • 10.16.010 Approval required. A solid waste disposal site shall not be constructed, substantially altered or expanded until plans and specifications for such construction, alteration or improvement have been submitted to and approved by the health officer, and a fee paid as set forth in this chapter. It is the responsibility of persons operating, or proposing to operate a solid waste facility to obtain all necessary permits and approvals, including those of other applicable agencies before starting construction or operation. All new or expanded solid waste handling facilities shall meet the requirements of: Section 10.16.020 and the applicable sections of Chapter 10.32 through 10.84, after the effective date of this title. 10.16.020 Application --Filing. A. Any owner or operator subject to the permit requirements who intends to operate a facility must apply for a permit with the health officer. Filing shall not be complete until two (2) copies of the application have been signed by the owner and operator and received by the health officer and the applicant has filed an environmental checklist required under the State environmental policy act rules, WAC Chapter 197-11. B. Applications for a permit must contain the information set forth in section 10.16.030 hereof. C. Once the health officer determines that an application for a permit is factually complete, he/she shall refer one (1) copy to the appropriate regional office of the Department of Ecology for review and comment. King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation D. The health officer shall investigate every application to determine whether the facilities meet all applicable laws and regulations, conforms to the approved King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Handling Plan and complies with all zoning requirements. E. The Department of Ecology shall report to the health officer its findings on each permit application within forty-five (45) days from receipt of a complete application or inform the health officer as to the status of the application. Additionally, the Department of Ecology shall recommend for or against the issuance of each permit by the health officer. F. When the health officer has evaluated all pertinent information, he/she may issue a permit. Each completed solid waste permit application shall be either approved or disapproved within ninety (90) days after its receipt by the health officer or the applicant shall be informed as to the status of the application. G. Except for applications specified in section 10.16.030(H), every permit issued by the health officer shall be on a format prescribed by the Department of Ecology and shall contain specific requirements necessary for the proper operation of the permitted site or facility including the requirement that final engineering plans and specifications be submitted for approval to the health officer. H. All permits must be filed with the Department of Ecology no more than seven (7) days after the date of issuance. I. The owner or operator of a facility shall apply for renewal of the facility's permit annually. The health officer shall: 1. Review the original application for compliance with this title and require such additional information as spelled out in subsection D of this section. 2. Review information collected from inspections, complaints, or known change in the operation; 3. Collect the permit renewal fee; 4. Renew the pennit-, and 5. File the renewed permit with the Department of Ecology no more than seven (7) days after the date of issuance. The Department of Ecology shall review and may appeal the renewal as set forth in RCW 70.95.185 and 70.95.190. Related Legislation RL - 7 9 10.16.030 Application --Contents. A. All permit applications, except applications for inert waste landfills, special purpose facilities and recycling facilities, which are specified in subsection H of this section, shall contain the following: 1. A general description of the facility; 2. The types of waste to be handled at the facility; 3. The plan of operation required by section 10.32.030; 4. The form used to record weights or volumes required by section 10.32.030; 5. An inspection schedule and inspection log required by section 10.32.030; 6. Documentation to show that any domestic or industrial waste water treatment facility, such as a leachate treatment system, is being reviewed by the Department of Ecology under WAC Chapter 173-240. B. Application contents for permits for new or expanded landfill facilities. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this subsection, each landfill permit application must contain: A geohydrological assessment of the facility that addresses: a. Local/regional geology and hydrology, including faults, unstable slopes and subsidence areas on site; b. Evaluation of bedrock and soil types and properties; c. Depths to ground water and/or aquifer(s); d. Direction and flow rate of local ground water; e. Direction of regional ground water; f. Quantity, location and construction (where available) of private and public wells within a two thousand foot (2,000') radius of site; g. Tabulation of all water rights for ground water and surface water within a two thousand foot (2,000') radius of the site; h. Identification and description of all surface waters within a one -mile radius of the site; i. Background ground and surface water quality assessment, and for expanded facilities, identification of impacts the existing facility has upon ground and surface waters from landfill leachate discharge; j. Calculation of a site water balance; King Counlj) Board of Health Code - Title 10 k. Conceptual design of a ground water and surface water monitoring system, including a proposed installation method for these devices and where applicable, a vadose zone monitoring plan; 1. Land use in the area, including nearby residences; and m. Topography of the site and drainage patterns. 2. Preliminary engineering report/plans and specifications that address: a. How the facility will meet the location standards of sections 10.32.010 and 10.32.020, b. Relationships of facility to the ting County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the basis for calculating the facility's life; c. The design of bottom and side liners; d. Identification of borrow sources for daily and final cover, and soil liners; e. Interim/final leachate collection, treatment, and disposal; f. Landfill gas control and monitoring; g. Trench design, fill methods, elevation of final cover and bottom liner, and equipment requirements; and h. Closure/post-closure design, construction, maintenance, and land use. 3. An operation plan that addresses: a. Operation and maintenance of leachate collection, treatment, and disposal systems; b. Operation and maintenance of landfill gas control systems; c. Monitoring plans for ground water, surface water, and landfill gases to include sampling technique, frequency, handling and analyses requirements; d. Safety and emergency accident/fire plans; e. Routine filling, grading, cover, and housekeeping; f. Record systems to address weights (or volumes), number of vehicles and the types of waste received; g. Vector control plans; h. Noise control; i. Handling solid wastes on-site during the active life of the facility; King Couno, Board of Health Code - Title 10 Self inspections including frequency and methodology; k. Actions to take if there is a fire or explosion; 1. Actions to take if leaks are detected; m. Corrective action programs to take if ground water is contaminated; n. Actions to take for other releases (e.g., failure of the run-off containment system), and o. A plan for waste screening activities. 4. A closure plan that addresses: a. Estimate of closure year and the schedule at which partial sequential closure is to be implemented; b. Capacity of site in volume and estimated tonnage; c. Year -to -Year maintenance of the active area versus completed, final coverage acreage; d. Closure cost estimates and projected fund withdrawal intervals of the associated closure costs from the financial assurance instrument; e. Estimated closure construction timing and notification procedures; f. Final inspection by regulatory agencies; and g. Financial assurance instrument as described in WAC 173-304-467 and WAC 173-304-468 or as hereafter amended. S. Post -closure plan to address: a. Estimated time period for post -closure activities; b. Site monitoring of landfill gas, ground water, and surface water; i c. Deed clause changes, land use, and zoning restrictions; d. Maintenance activities to maintain cover and run-off systems; and e. Identification and final closure costs including cost calculations and the funding mechanism for final assurance, as described in WAC 173-304-467 and WAC 173-304- 468 or as hereafter amended. C. Application contents for new or expanded transfer stations, drop box facilities, and baling and compaction systems requiring a permit. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, each application for a permit must Related Legislation contain preliminary engineering report/plans and specifications that address: 1. The proposed facility's zoning status; 2. The relationship to the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; 3. The area to be served by the facility; and 4. The facility design to address how the facility shall meet requirements of chapter 10.60, including closure. D. Application contents for new or expanded surface impoundments requiring a permit. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, each applicable application for a permit must contain: 1. A geohydrological assessment of the facility that addresses all of the factors in subdivision 1 of subsection A of this section; 2. Preliminary engineering report/plans and specifications that address, where applicable: a. How the proposed facility will meet the locational standards of sections 10.32.010 and 10.32.020; b. The relationship of facility to the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; c. The design of liners and foundation to be incorporated in the facilities design including the design of leachate collection and treatment systems; d. The design of ground water monitoring; e. The design of dikes including calculations of dike stability analyses under conditions of liner failure; f. Other design details, including biosolids cleanout and disposal, overfilling alarms and inlet design; and g. Closure/post-closure design, Construction maintenance and proposed land use. 3. An operation plan that addresses: a. Operation and maintenance of leachate collection system, or ground water monitoring; b. Operation and maintenance of overfilling equipment or details of filling and emptying techniques; c. Inspection of dikes and liners for integrity; and d. Final inspection by regulatory agencies. 4. A closure plan that addresses: a. Estimate of closure year and cost; b. Methods of removing wastes, liners and any contaminated soils, and location of final disposal; Related Legislation RL - 81 '< c. Closure timing and notification procedures; and d. Final inspection by regulatory agencies. E. Application contents for new or expanded piles requiring a permit. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, each application for a permit must contain: 1. Preliminary engineering reports/plans and specifications that address: a. How the proposed facility will meet the locational standards of section 10.32.010 and 10.32.020; b. The relationship of the facility to the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and zoning requirements; c. The design of the liner or sealed surface upon which the liner rests, including an analysis of the liners ability to withstand the stress; d. The design of the run-on and run-off system; e. The design to avoid washout when the pile is located in a one hundred (100) year floodplain; and f. Maximum elevation and boundaries of the waste pile. 2. An operation plan that addresses: a. Methods of adding or removing wastes from the pile and equipment used; b. Inspection of the liner for integrity; and c. Safety and emergency plans. 3. A closure plan that addresses: a. Estimate of closure year and cost; b. Methods of removing wastes, liners and any contaminated soils, and location of ficial disposal; c. Closure timing and notification procedures; and d. Final inspection by regulatory agencies. F. Application contents for new or expanded energy recovery and incinerator facilities requiring a permit. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, each permit application must contain: 1. Preliminary engineering reports/plans and specifications that address: a. The relationship of the facility to the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and zoning requirements; b. The design of the storage and handling facilities on-site for incoming waste as well as fly ash, bottom ash and Kiang Cour» , Board of Health Code - Title 10 RL - 82 any other wastes produced by air or water pollution controls; and c. The design of the incinerator or thermal treater, including charging or feeding systems, combustion air systems, combustion or reaction chambers, including heat recovery systems, ash handling systems, and air pollution and water pollution control systems. Instrumentation and monitoring systems design shall also be included. 2. An operation plan that addresses: a. Cleaning of storage areas as required by section 10.64.020(B), b. Alternative storage plans for breakdowns as required in section 10.64.020(D), c. Inspection to insure compliance with State and local air pollution laws and to comply with section 10.34.060. The inspection log or summary must be submitted with the application; and d. How and where the fly ash, bottom ash and other solid wastes will be disposed . 3. A closure plan that addresses: a. Estimate of closure year and cost; b. Methods of closure and methods of removing wastes, equipment, and location of final disposal; c. Closure timing and notification procedures; and d. Final inspection by regulatory agencies. G. Application contents for new or expanded landspreading disposal facilities requiring a permit. In addition to the requirements of subsection A of this section, each permit application must contain: . 1. A geohydrological assessment of the facility that addresses all of the factors of subdivision 1 of subsection B of this subsection; 2. Preliminary engineering reports/plans and specifications that address: a. How the proposed facility will meet the locational standards of sections 10.32.010 and 10.32.020, b. The relationship of the facility to the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; c. The basis for calculating the facility's life; d. Waste analyses and methods to periodically sample and analyze solid waste; e. Design of interim waste storage facilities if such facilities are not otherwise permitted by the health officer; f. Design of run-on and run-off systems; g. A contour map of the active area showing contours to the nearest foot; h. A ground water and surface water monitoring program; and 0 • i. Access barriers such as fences, and warning • signs. 3. An operation plan that addresses: a. Operation and maintenance of run-off and run-on systems; b. Methods of taking ground water samples and for maintaining ground water systems; c. Methods of applying wastes that meet the requirements of section 10.40.030, 1) Estimated multiples of agronomic rates; 2) Frequency of discing; and 3) Avoidance of standing water. d. The written contract required between landowners, waste generators and waste operators. 4. A closure plan that addresses.- a. ddresses:a. Estimate of closure season/year; b. Capacity of site in volume and tonnage; c. Year-to-year maintenance of the active area versus completed, final coverage acreage; d. Closure construction timing and notification procedures; and e. Final inspection by regulatory agencies. 5. A post -closure plan that addresses: a. Estimated time period for post -closure activities; b. Site monitoring of ground water; c. Deed clause changes, land use, and zoning restrictions; d. Maintenance activities to maintain cover and run-off systems; e. Plans for food chain crops being grown on the active areas, after closure; and f. Identification of final closures costs including cost calculations and the funding mechanism. H. Application contents for new or expanded inert waste landfills, solid waste treatment sites, permanent MRW King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation I0 • collection/storage sites, special purpose facilities, woodwaste landfills, and recycling facilities shall be on forms whose • content shall be specified by the health officer. n L 10.16.040 Renewal application. All owners or operators of existing facilities shall renew permits or application forms specified in Section 10.16.030(C). Previous information submitted to the health officer may be referred to on the application forms. Changes in operating methods or other changes must be noted on the application in order to be authorized by permit. 10.16.050 Preoperational inspection. Whenever plans and specifications are required by this chapter to be • submitted to the health officer, the health officer may inspect the solid waste disposal site or facility prior to the start of the • operations. [Section 10.16.060 Fees Generally. (see 10.24.015)] 10.16.070 Reexamination fee. When plans and specifications that have been examined are altered and resubmitted, an additional fee for the re-examination of such plans shall be assessed at the current cost of plan review. Where a duplicate set of approved plans are submitted for examination and approval at any time after a permit has been issued on the original approved plans, a fee shall be charged at the current cost of plan review for such examination and approval. Where a complete redesign of a site is submitted after one (1) design has been examined, a new review fee shall be charged in addition to the review fee for the first design. The examination of any further redesign shall be similarly charged. CHAPTER 10.20 PERMITS FOR VEHICLES AND EXISTING FACILITIES 10.20.010 Permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a collection/transportation vehicle, an existing disposal site, facility, a biomedical waste storage/treatment site, or operate as an biomedical waste transporter, without a valid permit issued by the health officer RL -83 Permits shall not be transferable and shall be valid only for the pet -son and place or vehicle for which issued. 10.20.020 Permit application. Any person desiring to operate a collection/transportation vehicle, a disposal site, a biomedical waste storage/treatment site or operate as a biomedical waste transporter shall submit three (3) copies of a written application to the health officer, on a form to be provided by the health officer. The health officer shall refer one (1) copy to the Washington State Department of Ecology. Such application shall include the applicant's full name, post office address, and the signature of an authorized representative of the applicant; shall disclose whether such applicant is an individual, firm, corporation, and, if a partnership, the names and mailing addresses of all of the partners; the address, legal description, and type of the respective solid waste disposal site, facility, collection/transportation vehicle, or biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicle; and shall be accompanied by the permit fee amount described in chapter 10.24. Applicants for an biomedical waste transporter permit shall also state the legal description of the site(s) that the applicant is planning to use to treat biomedical waste, and have a contingency plan as described in 10.28.070.C.4 of this title. 10.20.030 Permit issuance. When inspection reveals that the applicable requirements of this title have been met and the applicable fee has been paid, a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the health officer. The health officer may deny the application if in his/her judgement the operation of the site or vehicle is likely to result in a hazard to the public health and/or will not meet the requirements of this title. The health officer may also suspend or revoke a permit during its term for noncompliance with conditions of the permit, the penmittee's failure to disclose relevant facts at any time, or if the permittee's activity endangers or manifests irresponsibility concert -ting public health or the environment. The health officer shall consider any relevant health and safety factors in making this determination. If an application is denied or a permit is suspended or revoked, the health officer at the time of the denial, suspension, or revocation shall inform the applicant in writing of the reasons for the denial or revocation and the applicant's right to an appeal pursuant to RCW Chapter 70.95. Related Legis/ation King Cor n�, Board of Health Code - Title 10 10.24.010 Annual (new/renewal) operating permit fees. The permit fees for solid waste disposal sites, collection/transportation vehicles, biomedical waste transporters, biomedical waste storage/treatment sites, and sewage treatment works subject to the fee requirements of this title shall be the annual fees set forth below: A. Municipal landfill .................. $150.00 B. CDL landfill ...................... $150.00 0 ....:..:.... .:.:.. RL - 84 r: X .: . D. Solid waste incineration and energy recovery .. $150.00 E. Compost ........................ $475.00 F. Transfer station .................. $1,000.00 10.20.040 Special purpose facilities permit. When G. Permanent MRW collection and storage facility $750.00 • the disposal site and operation utilize a new method of solid H. Recycling: waste handling or disposal not otherwise provided for in this 1. Noncontainerized composting piles title, a special purposes facilities permit may be issued. The first acre ................... $100.00 health officer shall determine which items of this title shall each additional acre ............. $15.00 apply to the disposal site on a case by case basis so as to 2. Waste pile recycling .............. $100.00 protect the public health and the environment and to avoid the 3. Solid waste treatment site ........... $250.00 creation of nuisances. The terms and conditions of the special I. Closed landfill site .................. $100.00 • permit shall be itemized in writing by the health officer. J. Drop box ........................ $75.00 [Section 10.20.050 Effective dates. Repealed] K Landspreading (land utilization of biosolids): 1. Sites with biosolids application rates 10.20.060 Closure permit. When an owner/operator greater than or equal to four (4) dry plans to close a municipal waste landfill CDL landfill, or tons per acre, per acre woodwaste landfill, a closure plan and application for closure first acre ................... $150.00 permit must be submitted to the health officer. The health 2. Sites with biosolids application rates less officer shall have the authority to require landfill operators than four (4) dry tons per acre, per year . $150.00 and/or owners to submit closure plans for closed or abandoned each additional acre ............. $10.00 landfills. L. Collection/transportation vehicle ....... $25.00 for first vehicle 10.20.070 Expiration. All permits issued pursuant to each additional vehicle ............. $15.00 • this title shall expire on the December 31st following the date M. Biomedical waste transporter, up to 4 vehicles $100.00 of issuance, except permits for collection/transport vehicles and each additional vehicle ............. $20.00 • biomedical waste transporters which shall expire on the June N. Special purpose facility............... 30th following the date of issuance. 0. Storage/treatment piles first acre ...................... $100.00 each additional acre ................ $15.00 CHAP'T'ER 10.24 P. Woodwaste landfilling ................ $250.00 FEES Q. Surface impoundments ............... $250.00 R. Biomedical waste storage/treatment site .... $250.00 10.24.010 Annual (new/renewal) operating permit fees. The permit fees for solid waste disposal sites, collection/transportation vehicles, biomedical waste transporters, biomedical waste storage/treatment sites, and sewage treatment works subject to the fee requirements of this title shall be the annual fees set forth below: A. Municipal landfill .................. $150.00 B. CDL landfill ...................... $150.00 C. Inert landfill ..................... $100.00 D. Solid waste incineration and energy recovery .. $150.00 E. Compost ........................ $475.00 F. Transfer station .................. $1,000.00 10.24.015 Permit application/plmi review fees. Plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee as follows: A. Municipal landfill, base fee ............. $600.00 each additional acre ................ $10.00 (total fee not to exceed $1,000.00) B. CDL landfill, base fee ................ $600.00 each additional acre ................ $10.00 (total fee not to exceed $1,000.00) C. Inert landfill ..................... $200.00 D. Energy recovery and incineration ........ $550.00 E. Recycling King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related LegUation 1. Non -containerized composting ........ $100.00 each additional acre ........... $15.00 (total fee not to exceed $1,000.00) 2. Waste pile recycling .............. $200.00 3. Solid waste treatment site ........... $100.00 F. Transfer station ................... $220.00 G. Special-purpose facility ............... $300.00 H. Closed landfill plan review ............. $550.00 I. Drop box ....................... $110.00 J. Biosolids utilization sites: 1. Sites with biosolids application rates greater than or equal to four (4) dry tons per acre per year first acre .................. $150.00 each additional acre ............ $10.00 (total not to exceed $500) 2. Sites with biosolids application rates less than four (4) dry tons per acre per year .. $150.00 K. Storage/treatment piles first acre ..................... $100.00 each additional acre ............... $ 50.00 L. Woodwaste landfilling ................ $300.00 each additional acre ............... $10.00 (total fee not to exceed $500.00) M. Surface impoundments ............... $250.00 N. Permanent MRW Collection and storage facility $250.00 10.24.020 Tonnage and volume fees. The health officer shall receive the following fee per ton and per cubic yard of all solid waste entering a municipal landfill or CDL landfill for disposal: Sites Sites Without Scales With Scales Landfills N/A 67 cents/ton Inert/Demolition 35 cents/cubic yard 35 cents/ton Landfills 10.24.030 Payment. All volume or tonnage fees are to be forwarded to the health officer monthly on a for7m prescribed by the health officer, prior to the fifteenth (15th) day of each month. 10.24.050 Special inspections. Fees for inspection service requested by the solid waste disposal site, collection/ - transportation vehicle management, biomedical waste storage/treatment site or biomedical waste transporter, to be performed outside regular departmental working hours will be charged at a rate equal to the cost of performing the service. 10.24.055 Solid waste variance fee. Where the health officer is involved with official review and processing of requests for variance from these regulations, he/she may grant same as long as the action will not impair public health and safety. The nonrefundable fee for review of a variance request is $150.00. 10.24.060 Special services --Authority. The health officer is also authorized to charge such fees as he/she may deem necessary for the furnishing of special services or materials requested that are not ordinarily provided under permit or pursuant to statute. Such services and materials to be furnished may include but are not limited to the following: A. Reproduction and/or search of records and documents; B. Examination, testing, or inspection of particular products, materials, Construction, equipment or appliances to determine their compliance with the provision of this title or their acceptability for use. 10.24.070 Special Services --Terms and conditions. The health officer or his/her authorized representative shall have full authority to specify the terms and conditions upon which such services and materials shall be made available, consistent with any applicable statutes and ordinances; provided, that any fees imposed pursuant to this authorization shall be reasonably equivalent to King County's cost for furnishing said services and materials. Related Legislation Xing County Board of Heallb Code - Title 10 .. ............... . ; ........ RL - 86 CHAPTER 10.28 WASTE MANAGEMENT 10.28.010 Storage requirements generally. The owner and/or occupant of any premises, shall be responsible for the safe and sanitary storage of all solid wastes accumulated at that premises until it is removed to a disposal site. The storage area and storage containers shall be maintained in a clean, safe, and nuisance free condition. Provisions shall be made for safe and sanitary disposal of leakage and drainage from sanitary compactors, drop boxes and from storage areas. Materials shall be contained to prevent blowing. Additionally, generators should refer to sections 10.28.040 through 10.28.150 pertaining to specific solid wastes handling requirements. Dangerous waste handling and disposal shall be regulated by the Department of Ecology pursuant to WAC 173-303 as amended. 10.28.020 Container construction. The owner, operator, or occupant of any premises, business establishment, or industry shall store containerized solid wastes in containers that meet the following requirements: A. Disposable containers shall be sufficiently strong to allow lifting without breakage and shall be thirty-two (32) gallons in capacity or less where manual handling is practiced; B. Reusable containers, except for detachable containers, shall be: 1. Rigid and durable; 2. Corrosion resistant; 3. Nonabsorbent and water tight; 4. Rodent -proof and easily cleanable; 5. Equipped with a close fitting cover; 6. Suitable for handling with no sharp edges or other hazardous conditions; and 7. Equal to or less than thirty-two (32) gallons in volume where manual handling is practiced. C. Detachable containers shall be durable, corrosion -resistant, nonabsorbent, nonleaking and having either a solid cover or screen cover to prevent littering. D. Containers shall be cleaned frequently to prevent rodent/vector and odor nuisances. All waste water from container cleaning shall be disposed of in a sanitary sewer King County Board of Health Corte - Title 10 system unless otherwise authorized by the health officer. In addition, the health officer may require disinfection of any container. 10.28.030 Collection and transportation. A- All persons collecting or transporting solid waste shall avoid littering, or the creation of other nuisances at the loading point, during transport and for the proper unloading of the solid waste at a permitted transfer station, or other permitted solid waste handling site. B. Vehicles or containers used for the collection and transportation of solid waste, except biomedical waste, shall be tightly covered or screened where littering may occur, durable and of easily cleanable construction. Where garbage is being collected or transported, containers shall be cleaned and kept in good repair as necessary to prevent nuisances, odors and insect breeding. C. Vehicles or containers used for the collection and transportation of any solid waste, except biomedical waste, shall be loaded and moved in such a manner that the contents will not fail, leak in quantities to cause a nuisance, or spill therefrom. Where such spillage or leakage does occur, the waste shall be picked up immediately by the collector or transporter and returned to the vehicle or container and the area otherwise properly cleaned. D. Biomedical waste shall be transported over public roads only in leakproof and fully enclosed container or vehicle compartment. Biomedical waste shall not be transported in the same vehicle with other waste or medical specimens unless the biomedical waste is contained in a separate, fully enclosed leakproof container within the vehicle compartment. Biomedical waste shall be delivered for treatment only to a facility that meets all local, state, and federal environmental regulations, as detennined by the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. The transporter shall keep records of disposal for a period of at least three (3) years, and they shall be available to the health officer upon request. Surfaces of biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicles that have contacted spilled or leaked biomedical waste shall be decontaminated as described in this title. Each biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicle shall carry a spill kit. Related LegWatOn 0 E. Biomedical waste collection/transportation vehicles used by permitted biomedical waste transporters shall have a leakproof fully enclosed vehicle compartment of a durable and easily cleanable construction, and shall be identified on each side of the vehicle with the name or trademark of the biomedical waste transporter. F. All persons commercially collecting or transporting solid waste shall inspect collection and transportation vehicles monthly, for repairs to containers such as mAsing or loose -fitting covers or screens, leaking containers, etc., and maintain such inspection records at the facility normally used to park such vehicles or such other location that maintenance records are kept. Such records shall be kept for a period of at least two (2) years, and be made available upon the request of the health officer. G. Vehicles shall be cleaned frequently to prevent rodent/vector and odor nuisances. In addition, the health officer may require disinfection of any vehicle. All waste water from vehicle cleaning shall be disposed of in a sanitary sewer system unless otherwise authorized by the health officer. 10.28.040 Garbage and rubbish. A. Storage. Garbage shall be stored in containers which meet the requirements of Section 10.28.020. Rubbish shall be stored and transported so as not to create a nuisance or litter problem. 1. Where garbage is stored in combination with rubbish, containers for the storage of the mixture shall meet garbage storage standards. 2. Containers shall be of a size and weight acceptable to the collecting agency, subject to agreement with the health officer, the municipality and the customer. 3. Containers shall be cleaned with sufficient frequency to prevent nuisances. B. Removal. Garbage shall be removed from the premises no less than once per week, unless a different frequency is approved by the health officer. C. Disposal. Garbage and rubbish may be disposed of at any of the sites outlined in chapters 10.42 through 10.68, including facilities that recycle, incinerate, recover energy or landfill; except, garbage shall not be deposited at CDL landfills, inert landfills, woodwaste landfills, or landspreading sites. RL - 87 _ « 10.28.045 Approval of change of biomedical waste treatment site. Should the holder of a biomedical waste transporter permit desire to transport biomedical waste to a site other than the site listed in the current permit application, the permittee shall first obtain written approval of said site from the health officer. 10.28.050 Household waste. A. General. All household waste except for banned and restricted use pesticides, wood treating preservatives and used crankcase oils shall be deposited with the waste stream, in accordance with Sections 10.28.010, 10.28.020 and 10.28.030. B. Toxic. Banned and restricted use pesticides, wood treating preservatives and used crankcase oils shall not be deposited in the household waste collection system, a public sewer system, an on-site sewage system, the surface or ground water, the surface of the ground or under the ground. Usable pesticides and wood preservatives shall be disposed of through proper use and application in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency approved label requirements, or should be disposed of at disposal sites approved by the health officer. Substantially empty pesticide containers are excluded from this section and should be handled as general household waste. C. Used oil 1. Used oil shall not be deposited in the household waste collection system, a public sewer system, an on-site sewage system, in surface or ground water, onto the surface of the ground, or under the ground. Used oil shall be delivered to a facility approved to collect used oil for recycling, treatment or disposal such as: transfer stations, permanent MRW collection sites, service stations, lube shops and auto supply stores. 2. The use of used oil for dust suppression or weed control is prohibited. 3. Effective July 1, 1992, no person may sell or distribute absorbent -base kits, intended for home use, as a means for collecting, recycling, or disposing of used oil. 4. No owner or operator of a solid waste landfill may knowingly accept used oil for disposal in the landfill. 5. Used automotive oil filters shall not be placed into the solid waste collection system unless they have been Related Legislation King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 thoroughly drained of all fluid oil. This may require having the filters drain up to twenty-four (24) hours. 10.28.055 Yard waste. Yard wastes that have been segregated from the waste stream for the purposes of recycling at a centralized facility shall be stored, and transported in such a way as to minimize the creation of odors and excess waste. Effective January 1, 1994, plastic bags shall not be used to store or transport yard wastes. Residential yard waste collection companies shall reject pick-up set -vice of yard wastes that have been stored in plastic bags. Rejected loads shall be tagged to explain the reason for rejection. Solid wastes other than yard wastes shall not be disposed with yard wastes segregated for the purposes of recycling at a centralized facility. Residential yard waste collection companies shall reject pick-up services of yard wastes that are substantially contaminated with other solid wastes. Rejected loads shall be tagged to explain the reason for its rejection. 10.28.060 Asbestos -containing waste material. Asbestos -containing waste material. Asbestos .containing waste shall be handled and disposed pursuant to 40CFR Part 61 Subpart M, WAC 173-303, and Article 10 of Regulation No. III, Article 4 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) as follows: A. Removal. Persons removing asbestos containing waste material shall provide advance notification to PSAPCA, which enforces regulations concerning removal and disposal. Asbestos containing waste material must be wetted down during removal to reduce airborne emissions of particulate matter. The adequately wetted asbestos wastes shall be sealed into a leak -proof container. The container must be dust -tight, at least 6 -mil in thickness, completely enclose the asbestos - containing waste material and prevent solids or liquids from escaping or spilling out. Such containers include sealed plastic bags, metal or fiber drums and polyethylene plastic sheeting. Each container must be labeled with an approved asbestos warning sign. B. Disposal. Generators of regulated asbestos containing waste material regardless of quantity, shall dispose of their waste at a landfill approved by the Department. The generator must notify the disposal site operator prior to transporting the asbestos waste to allow for adequate site preparation and staff availability. The asbestos containing waste material shall be covered with at least fifteen (15) centimeters, six inches (6"), of compacted non -asbestos containing waste material within twenty-four (24) hours of disposal. Asbestos waste shall not be disposed of at transfer stations unless separate provisions are approved (by the health officer) and in place for receiving, storing, monitoring and transporting the material to an approved landfill. 10.28.070 Biomedical waste. A. Biomedical waste management plan. Each biomedical waste generator (BWG) and biomedical waste storage/treatment operator (BWSTO) must write an biomedical waste management plan with an internal annual review. The plan shall include all aspects of the BWG's or BWSTO's biomedical waste management. The plan must be followed by the BWG or BWSTO. The plan must include a listing of the BWG's or BWSTO's infection control staff/committee member(s), phone numbers of responsible individuals, definition of wastes handled by the system, department and individual responsibilities, procedures for waste identification, segregation, containment, transport, treatment, treatment monitoring, disposal, contingency planning, staff/housekeeping training for biomedical waste identification, when applicable, and compliance with biomedical waste regulations. The plan must include the chief executive officer's endorsement letter. The plan shall be available for inspection at the request of the health officer. B. Storage and containment of biomedical waste. 1. Storage of biomedical waste shall be in a manner and location which affords protection from animals, rain and wind; does not provide a breeding place or a food source for insects or rodents; and is accessible only to personnel authorized in the biomedical waste generator's biomedical waste management plan. 2. Biomedical waste shall be segregated from other waste by separate containment at the point of origin. 3. Biomedical waste, except for sharps, shall be contained in disposable leakproof plastic bags having a strength to prevent ripping, tearing, breaking or bursting under normal conditions of use. The plastic bags shall be appropriately marked by the generator as containing biomedical waste. The King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation 0 ..........R L- 88 ................................................ • thoroughly drained of all fluid oil. This may require having the filters drain up to twenty-four (24) hours. 10.28.055 Yard waste. Yard wastes that have been segregated from the waste stream for the purposes of recycling at a centralized facility shall be stored, and transported in such a way as to minimize the creation of odors and excess waste. Effective January 1, 1994, plastic bags shall not be used to store or transport yard wastes. Residential yard waste collection companies shall reject pick-up set -vice of yard wastes that have been stored in plastic bags. Rejected loads shall be tagged to explain the reason for rejection. Solid wastes other than yard wastes shall not be disposed with yard wastes segregated for the purposes of recycling at a centralized facility. Residential yard waste collection companies shall reject pick-up services of yard wastes that are substantially contaminated with other solid wastes. Rejected loads shall be tagged to explain the reason for its rejection. 10.28.060 Asbestos -containing waste material. Asbestos -containing waste material. Asbestos .containing waste shall be handled and disposed pursuant to 40CFR Part 61 Subpart M, WAC 173-303, and Article 10 of Regulation No. III, Article 4 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) as follows: A. Removal. Persons removing asbestos containing waste material shall provide advance notification to PSAPCA, which enforces regulations concerning removal and disposal. Asbestos containing waste material must be wetted down during removal to reduce airborne emissions of particulate matter. The adequately wetted asbestos wastes shall be sealed into a leak -proof container. The container must be dust -tight, at least 6 -mil in thickness, completely enclose the asbestos - containing waste material and prevent solids or liquids from escaping or spilling out. Such containers include sealed plastic bags, metal or fiber drums and polyethylene plastic sheeting. Each container must be labeled with an approved asbestos warning sign. B. Disposal. Generators of regulated asbestos containing waste material regardless of quantity, shall dispose of their waste at a landfill approved by the Department. The generator must notify the disposal site operator prior to transporting the asbestos waste to allow for adequate site preparation and staff availability. The asbestos containing waste material shall be covered with at least fifteen (15) centimeters, six inches (6"), of compacted non -asbestos containing waste material within twenty-four (24) hours of disposal. Asbestos waste shall not be disposed of at transfer stations unless separate provisions are approved (by the health officer) and in place for receiving, storing, monitoring and transporting the material to an approved landfill. 10.28.070 Biomedical waste. A. Biomedical waste management plan. Each biomedical waste generator (BWG) and biomedical waste storage/treatment operator (BWSTO) must write an biomedical waste management plan with an internal annual review. The plan shall include all aspects of the BWG's or BWSTO's biomedical waste management. The plan must be followed by the BWG or BWSTO. The plan must include a listing of the BWG's or BWSTO's infection control staff/committee member(s), phone numbers of responsible individuals, definition of wastes handled by the system, department and individual responsibilities, procedures for waste identification, segregation, containment, transport, treatment, treatment monitoring, disposal, contingency planning, staff/housekeeping training for biomedical waste identification, when applicable, and compliance with biomedical waste regulations. The plan must include the chief executive officer's endorsement letter. The plan shall be available for inspection at the request of the health officer. B. Storage and containment of biomedical waste. 1. Storage of biomedical waste shall be in a manner and location which affords protection from animals, rain and wind; does not provide a breeding place or a food source for insects or rodents; and is accessible only to personnel authorized in the biomedical waste generator's biomedical waste management plan. 2. Biomedical waste shall be segregated from other waste by separate containment at the point of origin. 3. Biomedical waste, except for sharps, shall be contained in disposable leakproof plastic bags having a strength to prevent ripping, tearing, breaking or bursting under normal conditions of use. The plastic bags shall be appropriately marked by the generator as containing biomedical waste. The King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation plastic bags shall be secured to prevent leakage or expulsion during storage. NOTE: This shall not apply to biomedical waste stored in rigid plastic, single use, or approved multiple use marked containers 4. Sharps shall be contained in leakproof, rigid, puncture resistant, break resistant containers which are labeled and tightly lidded during storage, handling and transport. 5. Biomedical waste held in plastic bags as described in paragraph 3 shall be placed in other leak -proof containers such as disposable or reusable pails, drums, or bins for storage, handling, or transport. The containers shall be conspicuously labeled with the international biohazard symbol, and the words "Biomedical Waste" or other words that clearly denote the presence of biomedical waste. 6. Reusable containers: a. Reusable containers for biomedical waste storage, handling or transport shall be thoroughly washed and decontaminated by an approved method each time they are emptied unless the surfaces of the containers have been protected from contamination by disposable liners, bags or other devices removed with the waste, separate from those required in paragraph 3 of this section. b. Approved methods of decontamination are agitation to remove visible solid residue combined with one of the following procedures: 1) Chemical disinfection - Chemical disinfectants should be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations for tuberculocidal and viricidal (Polio type 1 or 2, SA Rotovirus) killing capacities or by disinfectant concentration/contact times approved in writing by the health officer. 2) Other methods approved in writing by the health officer c. Reusable pails, drums, or bins used for containment of biomedical waste shall not be used for any other purpose except after being disinfected by procedures as described in this paragraph and after the international biohazard symbol and the words "Biomedical Waste" are removed. 7. Trash chutes shall not be used to transfer biomedical waste. 8. Unless otherwise approved by the health officer, biomedical waste, other than sharps, shall be treated in accordance with paragraph C or delivered to an biomedical waste storage/treatment operator within fourteen (14) days from the generation of the waste. Sharps waste must be disposed in accordance with section 10.28.070.B.11 or be transported to a storage treatment facility within ninety,(90) days commencing from the time the sharps container is sealed. 9. Biomedical waste shall not be subject to compaction prior to treatment. 10. Biomedical waste shall not be placed into the general solid waste stream prior to treatment. 11. At no time shall treated sharps waste, except incinerated sharps waste, be disposed into the general solid waste stream, unless approved in writing by the health officer. a. Treated sharps waste, except incinerated sharps waste, shall be segregated from the general solid waste stream in approved sharps containers for disposal at a medical waste treatment facility or landfill approved by the health officer. Treated sharps waste shall not be mixed with the general solid waste stream at any time. b. The transporter of treated sharps waste, excluding incinerated sharps waste, must notify the disposal site operator prior to transporting the sharps waste to allow for adequate site preparation and staff availability. The sharps waste shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of compacted waste material within twenty four (24) hours of disposal. c. Home generated sharps are exempt from other provisions of section 10.28.070 if prepared for disposal by a means that protects medical handlers, solid waste workers and the public from injury. The disposal of home generated sharps shall be limited to: 1. Depositing sharps at a medical facility which has agreed to accept home generated sharps. 2. Depositing properly contained sharps at a pharmacy that provides a program to dispose sharps waste that meets the requirements of these regulations. 3. Acquiring a pickup service from an biomedical waste transporter permitted by the health officer. 4. Depositing the sharps in the regular household garbage, PROVIDED that they are contained in a manner that Related Legislatibn King County, Board of Health Code - Title 10 RL - 0 9 protects solid waste workers and the public. Such containment shall be limited to die following: a) Needle clippers approved by the health officer. Such devices shall clip the needle from the syringe directly into a crush proof container and render the syringe barrel harmless; or b) Two liter clear P.E.T. plastic bottles commonly used for soft drink containers. Such bottles shall be tightly capped and taped to further secure the cap to the bottle. The bottle must be labeled/marked "Warning: Syringes, Do Not Recycle." 5. Other methods approved by the health officer. C. Biomedical waste treatment 1. Biomedical waste shall be treated prior to disposal by one or more of the following methods: a. Cultures and stocks of etiologic agents and associated biologicals (as defined in 10.08.051): steam sterilization, incineration, or other treatment method approved in writing by the health officer. b. Laboratory waste (as defined in 10.08.051): steam sterilization, incineration, or other treatment method approved in writing by the health officer. c. Sharps (as defined in 10.08.051): incineration, containment as described in this title, or other treatment method approved in writing by the health officer. d. Pathological waste (as defined in 10.08.051): incineration, interment, or other treatment method approved in writing by the health officer. Tissue of 0.5 cm or less in diameter may be disposed into an approved sewer system with the approval of the local sewer authority. e. Human body fluids (as defined in 10.08.051) shall be considered treated biomedical waste when they are: 1) Poured directly into an approved sanitary sewer system. 2) Incinerated, or 3) Absorbed by materials such as bandages, sanitary napkins, or commercial absorbents so that the fluid will not be released from the material and/or become airborne during normal solid waste handling practices. f. Wastes that have come into contact with human body fluids from patients diagnosed with pathogenic organisms assigned to Biosafety Level 4 (as defined in this title): steam sterilization, incineration, or other treatment method approved in writing by the health officer. g. Other waste(s) determined to be infectious by the generator's infection control staff/conhmittee, as defined in 10.08.222: steam sterilization, incineration, or other method approved by the health officer. h. Animal carcasses exposed to pathogens in research (as defined in this title): incineration or other treatment method approved in writing by the health officer. 2. Biomedical waste treatment and disposal shall be conducted as follows: a. Steam sterilization: steam sterilization by heating in a steam sterilizer so as to kill all microbiological agents as determined by chemical and biological indicator monitoring requirements set forth in this section. Operating procedures for steam sterilizers shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Adoption of standard written operating procedures for each steam sterilizer, including time, temperature, pressure, type of waste, type of container(s), closure on container(s), pattern of loading, water content and maximum load quantity. 2) Check of recording and/or indicating thermometers during each complete cycle to ensure the attainment of a minimum temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees fahrenheit (250'F) or one hundred twenty one degrees centigrade (121°C) for one-half (1/2) hour or longer, depending on quantity and compaction of the load, in order to achieve sterilization of the entire load. Thermometers shall be checked for calibration at least annually. 3) Use of heat sensitive tape or other device for each load that is processed to indicate that the load has undergone the steam sterilization process. 4) Use of the chemical migrating integrator Thermalog-S, or other chemical integrator meeting equivalent time, temperature and steam indicator specifications, based upon Bacillus stearothennophilus spore kill steam sterilization parameters, approved in writing by the health officer. The chemical integrator shall be placed at the center load of each cycle to confirm attainment of adequate sterilization conditions for each biomedical waste treatment cycle run. King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation i 5) Use of the biological indicator, Bacillus stearothermophilus, or other biological indicator approved in writing by the health officer, placed at the center of a load processed under standard operating conditions at least monthly to confirm the attainment of adequate sterilization conditions. 6) Maintenance of records and procedures specified in (1), (2), (4) and (5) for a period of not less than three (3) years. 7) Development and implementation of a written steam sterilization training program for steam sterilizer operators. biomedical waste so treated shall be disposed into the general solid waste stream provided it is not otherwise hazardous waste or non -incinerated sharps waste. b. Incineration: Incineration shall be conducted at a sufficient temperature and for sufficient duration that all combustible material is reduced to ash; that no unburned combustible material is evident in the ash. Operating procedures for incinerators shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Adoption of a standard written operating procedure for each incinerator that takes into account: variation in waste composition, waste feed rate, and combustion temperature. 2) Development and implementation of a written incinerator operator training program for incinerator operators. 3) Implementation of a program to test incinerator ash for extractable heavy metals prior to disposal at a licensed disposal site. Should the incinerator ash fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis for heavy metals, the ash must be handled as a State Dangerous Waste under WAC 173-303. 4) Records of generator, quantities, and destruction shall be maintained by the incinerator owner/operator for a period of not less than three (3) years. c. Interment of pathological waste shall be conducted in such a manner so as to meet all federal, state and local regulations. 3. Biomedical waste treated in accordance with this section, with the exception of non -incinerated sharps waste, shall be considered solid waste and may be disposable into the general solid waste strewn. Related LegWa ion RL -91 4. Contingency planning: Each biomedical waste generator and biomedical waste storage/treatment operator must have an alternative plan for the treatment of biomedical waste to be used in the event that changes at the primary treatment facility result in that facility no longer conforming to the requirements of this code. D. Biomedical waste storage/treatment site requirements. Biomedical waste storage areas must comply with the following requirements: 1. Unless otherwise approved by the health officer, the biomedical waste storage area must be located on the same site as the treatment facility. 2. The storage area shall be kept locked and accessible only to authorized personnel at all times. 3. The storage area shall be conspicuously marked with a sign twelve inches by twelve inches (12" x 12") with the words "Biomedical Waste" and the international biohazard symbol. 4. The storage area shall be constructed of cleanable materials, and kept in a sanitary condition. A spill kit must be available at the site. 5. The waste shall be stored in a nonputrescent state using refrigeration when necessary. 6. The total combined time biomedical waste can be stored with the biomedical waste transporter and the storage/treatment site, prior to disposal, shall be fifteen (15) days unless otherwise approved by the health officer. E. Transfer of biomedical waste. Any biomedical waste generator who produces more than one hundred (100) pounds of biomedical waste per month that requires off-site biomedical waste treatment shall have said waste transported only by an biomedical waste transporter. F. Inspection. The health officer shall have the authority to inspect any biomedical waste generator (BWG) or biomedical waste storage/treatment operator (WSTO), at any reasonable time, for the purpose of evaluating the BWG's or BWSTO's written biomedical waste management plan, to determine if the BWG's or BWSTO's biomedical waste is being handled, stored, treated and disposed in accordance with this regulation. The health officer shall have the authority to inspect any biomedical waste transporter at any reasonable time, for the purpose of determining if the provisions of this title are being met. King County Board of Health Code - 7We 10 [Section 10.28.080 Sewage sludge. (Repealed. See Chapter 10.40) ] 10.28.085 Septage. Septage must be disposed of directly into a sewage treatment works licensed by the Department of Ecology, or other facility as approved. in writing by the health officer. 10.28.087 Human excrement. [Reserved] 10.28.090 Animal waste. A. Dead animals. Dead animals shall be disposed of in a manner to protect the public health and the environment. Their disposal shall be consistent with local codes. Animals weighing fifteen (15) pounds or less may be disposed with the general household waste. Animals weighing more than fifteen (15) pounds shall be taken to a rendering plant, a veterinary clinic, an animal shelter, pet cemetery or can be disposed of directly at landfills or transfer stations so as not to create a nuisance. Property owners may bury dead animals on their property, so long as no nuisance is created. B. Agricultural waste. Agricultural waste shall be regulated pursuant to RCW 70.95. C. Dog droppings. Dog droppings shall be disposed of in a manner such as burial which does not create a nuisance. Dog droppings may be disposed of into the sewer 9 the system is served by Metro or other large sewer treatment facility which will accept such waste. This waste shall not be put into a septic system. 10.28.100 Compost. A. Household. Composting of household vegetative food waste, grass clippings and/or other compostable material excluding fecal matter and meat/milk products, shall be maintained in a manner which does not create a nuisance, or attract rodents and/or other vectors. B. Compost facilities. These facilities shall meet the applicable facility standards found in chapter 10.68 and/or chapter 10.48: 1. Generators of compost for retail sales shall submit chemical analysis and reports at a frequency to be determined by the health officer to demonstrate that the saleable product does not contain levels of chemicals or pathogens that could create a risk to the public health. Testing may include but not be limited to the following parameters: Metals - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc; Organochlorine pesticides; Organophosphorous pesticides; PCB's; PCP's; Fecal streptococci; and Fecal coliforms. 2. Generators of biosolids compost must comply with the standards and procedures established in the "Best Management Practices for Use of Municipal Sewage Sludge" developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and 40 CFR Part 503 upon final promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency. 3. Generators shall provide written notice to the compost user of the potential public health risks. 4. Odorous materials such as spoiled foods, blood and slaughterhouse wastes shall be immediately processed to prevent odors. 5. The composted material shall not reheat upon standing, shall be innocuous, and shall contain no sharp particles which would cause injury to pet -sons handling the compost. 10.28.110 Bulky waste. Bully wastes shall be stored and transported in such a manner so as not to create a nuisance or safety hazard. Bulky waste should be recycled. If recycling is not feasible, these wastes shall be taken directly to a disposal site permitted to accept oversized waste. Landclearing bulky waste such as tree stumps, trees, portions of buildings, and other waste shall be transported directly to a transfer station or landfill designed to accept these bully wastes; provided, that nothing herein shall prevent these wastes from being salvaged and/or used as firewood. 10.28.120 Excavated soil and fill material. The health officer shall have the authority to inspect and screen any excavated dirt, soil or other material intended for use as upland fill 9 the material is suspected of containing contaminants at significant levels to endanger the public health, safety or the environment. If the material is detennined not to be a dangerous waste, but still contains a significant level of contaminants which could create a problem from: becoming airborne (breathing or nuisance odor), skin contact, leaching into surface or ground waters or entering the food chain, or King County Board of Heraltb Corte - Title 10 Related legislation • - 2 <' 9 [Section 10.28.080 Sewage sludge. (Repealed. See Chapter 10.40) ] 10.28.085 Septage. Septage must be disposed of directly into a sewage treatment works licensed by the Department of Ecology, or other facility as approved. in writing by the health officer. 10.28.087 Human excrement. [Reserved] 10.28.090 Animal waste. A. Dead animals. Dead animals shall be disposed of in a manner to protect the public health and the environment. Their disposal shall be consistent with local codes. Animals weighing fifteen (15) pounds or less may be disposed with the general household waste. Animals weighing more than fifteen (15) pounds shall be taken to a rendering plant, a veterinary clinic, an animal shelter, pet cemetery or can be disposed of directly at landfills or transfer stations so as not to create a nuisance. Property owners may bury dead animals on their property, so long as no nuisance is created. B. Agricultural waste. Agricultural waste shall be regulated pursuant to RCW 70.95. C. Dog droppings. Dog droppings shall be disposed of in a manner such as burial which does not create a nuisance. Dog droppings may be disposed of into the sewer 9 the system is served by Metro or other large sewer treatment facility which will accept such waste. This waste shall not be put into a septic system. 10.28.100 Compost. A. Household. Composting of household vegetative food waste, grass clippings and/or other compostable material excluding fecal matter and meat/milk products, shall be maintained in a manner which does not create a nuisance, or attract rodents and/or other vectors. B. Compost facilities. These facilities shall meet the applicable facility standards found in chapter 10.68 and/or chapter 10.48: 1. Generators of compost for retail sales shall submit chemical analysis and reports at a frequency to be determined by the health officer to demonstrate that the saleable product does not contain levels of chemicals or pathogens that could create a risk to the public health. Testing may include but not be limited to the following parameters: Metals - arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc; Organochlorine pesticides; Organophosphorous pesticides; PCB's; PCP's; Fecal streptococci; and Fecal coliforms. 2. Generators of biosolids compost must comply with the standards and procedures established in the "Best Management Practices for Use of Municipal Sewage Sludge" developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and 40 CFR Part 503 upon final promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency. 3. Generators shall provide written notice to the compost user of the potential public health risks. 4. Odorous materials such as spoiled foods, blood and slaughterhouse wastes shall be immediately processed to prevent odors. 5. The composted material shall not reheat upon standing, shall be innocuous, and shall contain no sharp particles which would cause injury to pet -sons handling the compost. 10.28.110 Bulky waste. Bully wastes shall be stored and transported in such a manner so as not to create a nuisance or safety hazard. Bulky waste should be recycled. If recycling is not feasible, these wastes shall be taken directly to a disposal site permitted to accept oversized waste. Landclearing bulky waste such as tree stumps, trees, portions of buildings, and other waste shall be transported directly to a transfer station or landfill designed to accept these bully wastes; provided, that nothing herein shall prevent these wastes from being salvaged and/or used as firewood. 10.28.120 Excavated soil and fill material. The health officer shall have the authority to inspect and screen any excavated dirt, soil or other material intended for use as upland fill 9 the material is suspected of containing contaminants at significant levels to endanger the public health, safety or the environment. If the material is detennined not to be a dangerous waste, but still contains a significant level of contaminants which could create a problem from: becoming airborne (breathing or nuisance odor), skin contact, leaching into surface or ground waters or entering the food chain, or King County Board of Heraltb Corte - Title 10 Related legislation contains a level of contamination above that specified in the State of Washington Model Toxic Control Act Regulations (WAC 173-340) for soils, the health officer can regulate the material as solid waste. (See section 10.80.040.) CHAPTER 10.32 LOCATION REQUIREMENTS 10.32.010 Location requirements --Applicability. This section shall apply to all new and expanded disposal sites, including mixed municipal waste landfills, construction, demolition, landclearing (CDL) waste landfills, woodwaste landfills, landspreading disposal sites, and piles and surface impoundments that are to be closed as landfills. This section shall not apply to existing facilities or facilities that have closed before the effective date of this title, interim solid waste handling sites, energy recovery and incineration sites, pile and surface impoundments used for storage, utilization of biosolids and other waste on land, inert landfill sites, and problem waste sites. 10.32.020 Location requirements --Designated. All applicable solid waste facilities shall be subject to the following locational standards: A Geology. No facility shall be located over a holocene fault, in subsidence areas, or on or adjacent to geologic features which would compromise the structural integrity of the facility. B. Ground water. 1. No facility shall be located at a site where the bottom of the lowest liner is any less than ten feet (10) above the seasonal high level of ground water in the uppermost aquifer, or five feet (5) when a hydraulic gradient control system or the equivalent has been installed to control ground water fluctuations; 2. No landfill shall be located over a sole source aquifer; and 3. No facility's active area shall be located closer than one thousand feet (1,000) to a down -gradient drinking water supply well, in use and existing at the time of the county's adoption of the comprehensive solid waste management plan RL - 9 3 unless the owner or operator can show that the active area is no less than ninety (90) days travel time hydraulically to the nearest down -gradient drinking water supply well in the uppermost useable aquifer. C. Surface water. No facility's active area shall be located within two hundred feet measured horizontally, of a stream, lake, pond, river, or salt water body, nor in any wetland nor any public land that is being used by a public water system for watershed control for municipal drinking water purposes in accordance with WAC 248-54-660(4); D. Slope. No facility's active area shall be located on any hill whose slope is unstable; E. Land use. No facility shall be located: 1. Within ten thousand feet (10,000') of any airport runway currently used by turbojet aircraft or five thousand feet (5,000) of any airport runway currently used by only piston -type aircraft unless a waiver is granted by the federal aviation administration. This requirement is only applicable where such facility is used for disposing of garbage such that a bird hazard to aircraft would be created; 2. In areas designated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Department of Game as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife; 3. So that the active area is any closer than one hundred feet (100') to the facility property line for land zoned as nonresidential, except that the active area may be no closer than two hundred and fifty feet to the property line of adjacent land zoned as residential existing at the time of the county's adoption of the comprehensive solid waste management plan; 4. So as to be at variance with any locally -adopted land use plan or zoning requirement unless otherwise provided by local law or ordinance; and 5. So that the active area is any closer than one thousand feet (1,000) to any state or national park. [Section 10.32.030 Plan of operation. (see 10.34.030)] 10.32.040 Closure. A. Operational requirements. Each owner or operator shall close the facility according to plans spelled out in the plan of operation. Solid waste facilities shall be restored by the owner or operator to be as compatible as possible with the surrounding environs following the closure. Closure includes but is not limited to grading, seeding, Related Legislation King Count�l Board of Health Code - Title 10 C� RL - 94 landscaping, Contouring, and screening. For interim solid waste handling sites, closure includes waste removal and decontamination. Following the closure of a landfill or landfill site, and inspection by the health officer, necessary maintenance and repairs shall be made by the owner and/or operator of the site until the fill has been stabilized for a period of thirty (.30) years or longer as required by the health officer. Necessary maintenance includes leachate collection and treatment, methane testing and control, fumarole and surface repairs and other conditions required by the health officer. The owner and/or operator shall inspect the site on an approved schedule as necessary to verify conditions. Annually, until the site has been stabilized, the owner and/or operator of a closed disposal site shall submit a report prepared by an approved engineer stating the conditions noted from the inspections of the site and any alterations from the original closure plan, and any recommended revisions. Anv construction or excavation on a completed landfill shall proceed only after written notification to and approval by the health officer. B. Recording with records division. Maps and a statement of fact concerning the disposal area shall be recorded as part of the deed with the records division prior to approval of the final closure plan. Records and plans specifying the general nature of the materials, location of the disposal areas, and periods of operation shall be included on the recorded map. Areas used for the disposal of wastes shall not be sold or transferred without prior notification of the health officer. C. Surety bond additional requirements. A surety bond must be renewed annually after the completion of any landfill or inert/demolition landfill site until the fill has been stabilized for a period of thirty (30) years or as long as required by the health officer. CHAPTER 10.34 GENERAL. FACI1,11Y REQUIREMENTS 10.34.010 General facility requirements -- Applicability. All solid waste handling facilities shall meet the requirements of this section, except for: A Waste recycling facilities, whose standards are spelled out in Chapter 10.68; B. On-site containerized storage, collection and transportation facilities which are spelled out in Section 10.28.010 and 10.28.030; C. Single family residences and single family farms whose year round occupants engage in solid waste handling of the single family's solid waste on-site. D. Problem wastes as defined in Section 10.08.345; E. Solid waste handling facilities that have engaged in closure and closed before the effective date of this title; and F. Domestic wastewater facilities and industrial wastewater facilities otherwise regulated by federal, state, or local water pollution permits except for any portion that utilizes or engages in landspreading disposal biosolids or solid residues directly on the land. 10.34.020 State and local requirements. All solid waste disposal facilities shall comply with all state and local requirements such as zoning land use, fire protection, water pollution prevention, air pollution prevention, nuisance and aesthetics. 10.34.030 Plan of operation. A. Each owner or operator shall develop, keep and abide by a plan of operation approved as part of the permitting process in Chapter 10.16. The plan shall describe the facilities' operation and shall convey to site operating personnel the concept of operation intended by the designer. The plan of operation shall be available for inspection at the request of the health officer. The facility must be operated in accordance with the plan or the plan must be so modified with the approval of the health officer. Owners or operators of drop boxes may develop a generic plan of operation applicable to all such drop boxes, owned or operated. B. Each plan of operation shall include: 1. How solid wastes are to be handled on-site during their active life; 2. How the facility will be closed and, for land disposal facilities, how post -closure will be carried out; 3. How inspections and monitoring are conducted and their. frequency; 4. Actions to take if there is a fire or explosion; 5. Actions to take if leaks are detected; King Cor n�i Board of Health Code - 7Ltle 10 Related LegWation 6. Corrective action programs to take if ground water is contaminated; Actions to take for other releases (e.g. failure of run-off containment system); 8. How equipment such as leachate collection and gas collection equipment are to be maintained; 9. A safety plan or procedure; and 10. Other such details as required by the health officer. 10.34.040 Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator shall maintain daily operating records on the weights (or volumes), number of vehicles entering and, if available, the types of wastes received. The annual report shall cover facility activities during the previous year and must include the following information: 10.34.050 Reporting. Each owner or operator shall prepare and submit a copy of an annual report to the health officer and the Department of Ecology by March 1st of each year. The annual report shall cover facility activities during the previous year and must include the following information: A. Name and address of the facility; B. Calendar year covered by the report; C. Annual quantity in tons, or volume in cubic yards, and estimated in-place density in pounds per cubic yard of solid waste handled, by type of solid waste if available, for each type of treatment, storage, or disposal facility, including applicable recycling facilities; and D. Results of ground water monitoring required in chapter 10.72. 10.34.060 Inspections. The owner or operator shall inspect the facility to prevent malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors and discharges which may cause or lead to the release of wastes into the environment or a threat to human health. The owner or operator must conduct these inspections often enough to identify problems in time to correct them before they harm human health or the environment. The owner or operator shall keep an inspection log or summary including at least the date and time of inspection, the printed name and the handwritten signature of the inspector, a notation of observations made and the date and nature of any IZI, - :::::::::::::..::::.:::::..:.:.....:. 9 repairs or corrective action. The log or summary must be kept at the facility or other convenient location if permanent office facilities are not on-site, for at least three (3) years from the date of inspection. Inspections records shall be available to the health officer upon request. 10.34.070 Closure and post -closure. A Closure performance standard. Each owner or operator shall close their facility in a manner that: 1. Minimizes the need for further maintenance; 2. Controls, minimizes, or eliminates threats to human health and the environment from post -closure escape of solid waste constituents, leachate, landfill gases, contaminated rainfall or waste decomposition products to the ground, ground water, surface water, and the atmosphere; and 3. Prepares the facility for the post -closure period. B. Closure plan and amendment(s). Closure as defined in section 10.08.070 includes but is not limited to grading, seeding, landscaping, contouring, and/or screening. For interim solid waste handling sites, closure includes waste removal and decontamination of the site. 1. Each owner or operator shall develop, keep and abide by a plan of closure approved by the health officer as part of the permitting process in chapter 10.16. 2. The closure plan shall project time intervals at which sequential partial closure is to be implemented, and identify closure cost estimates and projected fund withdrawal intervals for the associated closure costs, from the approved financial assurance instrument. 3. Each owner or operator shall not commence disposal operations in any part of a facility until a closure plan for the entire facility has been approved by the health officer, and until a financial assurance instrument has been provided, as required by applicable laws and regulations. 4. The health officer shall approve, disapprove, or require amendment of the closure plan as apart of the permitting process of chapter 10.16 in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. S. Each owner and operator shall close the facility in accordance with the approved closure plan and all approved amendments. C. Closure procedure. Related LegWatt6n King Coun.4, Board of Health Code - Me 10 9 1. Each owner and operator shall notify the health officer and where applicable, the financial assurance instrument trustee, of the intent to implement the closure plan in part or whole, no later than 180 (one hundred eighty) days prior to the projected final receipt of waste at the entire facility unless otherwise specified in the closure plan. 2. The owner or operator shall commence implementation of the closure plan in part or whole within 30 (thirty) days after receipt of the final volume of waste and/or attaining the final landfill elevation at part of or at the entire facility as identified in the approved facility closure plan unless otherwise specified in the closure plan. 3. Waste shall not be accepted for disposal or for use in closure except as identified in the closure plan approved by the health officer, as required section 10.34.070.13.1. 4. When facility closure is completed in part or whole, each owner and operator shall submit the following to the health officer: a. Facility closure plan sheets signed by a professional engineer registered in the state of Washington and modified as necessary to represent as -built changes to final closure construction as approved in the closure plan; b. Certification by the owner or operator, and a professional engineer registered in the state of washington that the site has been closed in accordance with the approved closure plan. 5. The health officer shall notify the owner or operator and the Department of Ecology of the date when the facility post -closure period has begun, which period shall commence when the health officer has verified the facility has been close din accordance with the specifications of the approved closure plan and the closure requirements of this section. D. Post -closure. 1. Each owner or operator shall provide post -closure activities to allow for continued facility maintenance and monitoring of air, land, and water as long as necessary for the facility to stabilize and to protect human health and the environment. 2. Post -closure plan and amendment. For disposal facilities; post -closure includes ground water monitoring; surface water monitoring; gas monitoring; and maintenance of the facility, facility structures, and monitoring systems for their intended use for a period of twenty years and any other activities deemed appropriate by the health office. a. Each owner or operator shall develop, keep and abide by a post -closure plan approved as a part of the permitting process in WAC 173-304-600. The post -closure plan shall address facility maintenance and monitoring activities for at least a twenty-year period or until the site becomes stabilized (i.e., little or no settlement, gas production or leachate generation), and monitoring of ground water, surface water, and gases can be safely discontinued. b. The post -closure plan shall project time inteivals at which post -closure activities are to be implemented, and identify post -closure cost estimates and projected fund withdrawal intervals from the selected financial assurance instrument, where applicable, for the associated post -closure costs. c. Each owner or operator shall not commence disposal operations in any part of a facility until a post -closure plan for the entire facility has been approved by the health officer, and until a financial assurance instrument has been provided where applicable, as required by WAC 173-304-467. d. Each owner or operator shall complete the post - closure activities in accordance with the approved post -closure plan and schedule. Facility post -closure activities shall be completed in accordance with the approved post -closure plan or the plan shall be so amended with the approval of the health officer. e. The health officer may determine that a facility post -closure plan is invalid and require an owner or operator to amend the facility post -closure plan. 1) The health officer may direct facility post - closure activities, in part or whole, to cease until the post - closure plan amendment has received written approval by the health officer. 2) When the health officer determines a facility post -closure amendment is required, the health officer shall, after consultation with the owner/operator, designate a compliance schedule for submittal of the amendment and its review and approval by the Department of Ecology. 3. Post -closure procedures. a. Each owner or operator shall commence post - closure activities after completion of closure activities outlined King County Board of Health Code - Tule 10 Related Legislation in subsection D.2.e.1) and 2) of this section. The health officer may direct that post -closure activities cease until the owner or operator receives a notice to proceed with post -closure activities. b. When post -closure activities are complete, the owner or operator shall certify to the health officer signed by the owner or operator, and a professional engineer registered in the state of Washington stating why post -closure activities are no longer necessary (i.e., little or no settlement, gas production, or leachate generation). c. If the health officer finds that post -closure monitoring has established that the facility is stabilized (i.e., little or no settlement, gas production, or leachate generation), the health office may authorize the owner or operator to discontinue post -closure maintenance and monitoring activities. E. Recording with records division. Maps and a statement of fact concerning the disposal area shall be recorded as part of the deed with the records division prior to approval of the final closure plan. Records and plans specifying the general nature of the materials, location of the disposal areas, and periods of operation shall be included on the recorded map. Areas used for the disposal of wastes shall not be sold or transferred without prior notification of the health officer. CHAPTER 10.36 LANDFILLING 10.36.010 Applicability. This chapter applies to facilities that dispose of solid waste in landfills including, but not limited to, mixed municipal waste landfills, and CDL landfills, and woodwaste landfills. This chapter does not apply to inert waste landfills. Inert waste landfills shall be subject to chapter 10.52 standards. 10.36.020 Minimum functional standards for performance. A. Ground water. An owner or operator of a landfill shall not contaminate the ground water underlying the landfill, beyond the point of compliance. Contamination and point of compliance are defined in Sections 10.08.100 and 10.08.330, respectively. RL - 9 7 B. Air quality and toxic air emissions. 1. An owner or operator of a landfill shall not allow explosive gases generated by the facility whose concentration exceeds: a. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the lower explosive limit for the gases in facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery system components); b. The lower explosive limit for the gases at the property boundary or beyond; and c. One hundred (100) parts per million by volume of hydrocarbons (expressed as methane) in off-site structures. 2. An owner or operator of a landfill shall not cause a violation of any ambient air quality standard at the property boundary or emission standard from any emission of landfill gases, combustion or any other emission associated with a landfill. C. Surface waters. An owner or operator of a landfill shall not cause a violation of any receiving water quality standard or violate RCW Chapter 90.48 from discharges of surface run-off, leachate or any other liquid associated with a landfill. 10.36.030 Minimizing liquids. All owners or operators of landfills shall minimize liquids admitted to active areas of landfills by: A. Covering according to this chapter, B. Prohibiting the disposal of noncontainerized liquids or hiosolids containing free liquids in landfills unless approved by the health officer; C. Designing the landfill to prevent all the run-on of surface waters and other liquids resulting from a maximum flow of a twenty-five (25) year storm into the active area of the landfill; D. Designing the landfill to collect the run-off of surface waters and other liquids resulting from a twenty-four (24) hour, twenty-five (25) year storm from the active area and the closed portions of a landfill. 10.36.040 Leachate systems. All owners or operators of landfills shall: A. Install a leachate collection system sized according to water balance calculations or using other accepted engineering methods either of which shall be approved by the health officer, Related LegWatjon King Counr l Board of Health Code - Title 10 <' RL - 9 8 B. Install a leachate collection system so as to prevent no more than two feet (2) of leachate developing at the topographical low point of the active area; and C. Install a leachate treatment, or a pretreatment system if necessary in the case of discharge to a municipal waste water treatment plant, to meet the requirements for permitted discharge under RCW Chapter 90.48 and the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217). 10.36.050 Liner designs. All owners or operators of landfills shall use liners of one (1) of the following designs: A. Standard design. The liner shall be constructed of at least a four feet (4) thick layer of recompacted clay or other material with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec and sloped no less than two percent (2%); or B. Alternative design. The design shall have two (2) liners: 1. An upper liner of at least fifty (50) mils thickness made of synthetic material; and 2. A lower liner of at least two feet (2) thickness of recompacted clay or other material with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec and sloped no less than two percent (2%); or C. Equivalent design. The design shall use alternative methods, operating practices and locational characteristics which will minimize the migration of solid waste constituents or leachate into ground or surface water at least as effectively as the liners of subsections A and B of this subsection. (C)(3). 12-19-86) 10.36.060 Small landfill designs. For a landfill whose design and permit allow a total capacity at closure of two hundred thousand (200,000) cubic yards or less, the need for a liner and leachate collection system shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by the health officer in consultation with the Department of Ecology. 10.36.070 Floodplain. All owners or operators of landfills that are located in a one hundred (100) year floodplain shall: A. Comply with local floodplain management ordinances and WAC Chapter 508-60, administration of flood control zones; and B. Design the landfill so that the landfill entrance or exit roads or practices shall not restrict the flow of the base flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity of the floodplain or result in washout of solid waste, so as to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, land or water resources. 10.36.080 Closure. All owners and operators shall design landfills so that at closure: A. At least two (2) feet of 1 x 106 cm/sec or lower permeability soil or equivalent shall be placed upon the final lifts. Artificial liners may replace soil covets provided that a minimum of fifty mils thickness is used; B. The grade of surface slopes shall not be less than two percent (2%), nor the grade of side slopes more than thirty-three percent (33966); and C. Final cover of at least six inches (6") of topsoil be placed over the soil cover and seeded with grass, other shallow rooted vegetation or other native vegetation. D. Following the closure of a landfill or landfill site, and inspection by the health officer, necessary maintenance and repairs shall be made by the owner and/or operator of the site until the fill has been stabilized for a period of thirty (30) years or longer as required by the health officer. Necessary maintenance includes leachate collection and treatment, methane testing and control, funnarole and surface repairs and other conditions required by the health officer. The owner and/or operator shall inspect the site on an approved schedule as necessary to verify conditions. Annually, until the site has been stabilized, the owner and/or operator of a closed disposal site shall submit a report prepared by an approved engineer stating the conditions noted from the inspections of the site and any alterations from the original closure plan, and any recommended revisions. Any construction or excavation on a completed landfill shall proceed only after written notification to and approval by the health officer. E. Surety bond additional requirements. A surety bond must be renewed annually after the completion of any landfill or inert/demolition landfill site until the fill has been stabilized King County Boats! of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation • I• • • for a period of thirty (30) years or as long as required by the health officer. 10.36.090 Gas control. A All owners and operators shall design landfills, having a pennitted capacity of greater than ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards per year, so that methane and other gases are continuously collected, and 1. Purified for sale; 2. Flared; or 3. Utilized for its energy value. B. Installation of a landfill gas system requires a permit from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Collection and handling of landfill gases shall not be required if it can be shown that little or no landfill gases will be produced or that landfill gases will not support combustion; in such cases installation of vents shall be required. 10.36.100 Fencing. All owners and operators of landfills shall design landfills to be fenced at the property boundary or use other means to impede entry by the public and animals. A lockable gate shall be required at the entry to the landfill. 10.36.110 Groundwater monitoring. All owners and operators of landfills shall design landfills to monitor groundwater according to Chapter 10.72, using a design approved by the health officer with the guidance of the Department of Ecology. The health officer may also require monitoring of: A. Surface waters, including run-off; B. Leachate; C. Subsurface landfill gas movement (see Chapter 10.76) and ambient air; and D. Noise. 10.36.120 Weighing incoming waste. All owners and operators of landfills shall design landfills to weigh all incoming waste on scales for landfills having a permitted capacity of greater than ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards per year or provide an equivalent method of measuring waste tonnage capable of estimating total annual solid waste tonnage to within plus or minus five percent ( +5%). Related Legislation RL - 9 9 10.36.130 Employee facilities. Provide for employee facilities including shelter, toilets, hand washing facilities and potable drinking water for landfills having the equivalent of three or more full-time employee. 10.36.140 Sign. Erect a sign at the site entrance that identifies at least the name of site, if applicable, the hours during which the site is open for public use, unacceptable materials and an emergency phone number. 10.36.150 Fire protection. Provide on-site fire protection as determined by the local and state fire control jurisdiction. 10.36.160 Vector control. Prevent potential rat and other vectors (such as insects, birds, and burrowing animals) harborages in buildings, facilities and active areas. 10.36.170 Unloading areas. Provide unloading area(s) to be as small as possible, consistent with good traffic patterns and safe operation. 10.36.180 Approach and exit roads. Provide approach and exit roads to be of all-weather construction, with traffic separation and traffic control on-site, and at the site entrance. 10.36.190 Office -site communications. Provide communication between employees working at the landfill and management offices on-site and off-site (such as telephones) to handle emergencies. 10.36.200 Operating plan conformance. All owners or operators of landfills shall maintain and operate the facility so as to conform to the approved plan of operation. 10.36.210 Operating details. All owners of landfills shall operate the facility so as to: A. Control road dust; B. Perform no open burning unless permitted by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency or the Department of Ecology under the Washington Clean Air Act, Chapter 70.94 King Counh, Board of Heraltb Code - Title 10 RL - 100 RCW. Open burning of garbage or other materials placed in landfill shall not be allowed. C. Collect scattered litter as necessary to avoid a fire hazard or an aesthetic nuisance; D. Prohibit scavenging; E. Conduct on-site reclamation in an orderly sanitary manner, and in a way that does not interfere with the disposal site operation; F. Insure that at least two (2) landfill personnel are on-site with one (1) person at the active face when the site is open to the public for landfills with a permitted capacity of greater than fifty thousand (50,000) cubic yards per year; G. Control insects, rodents and other vectors; and H. Insure that reserve operational equipment shall be available to maintain and meet these standards. 10.36.220 Boundary posts. All owners or operators of landfills shall clearly mark the active area boundaries authorized in the permit, with permanent posts or using equivalent method clearly visible for inspection purposes. 10.36.230 Compaction and daily cover. All owners or operators of landfills shall: A. Thoroughly compact the solid waste before succeeding layers are added; and B. Cover compacted waste containing garbage fully with at least six inches (6") of compacted cover material after each day of operation. The health officer may allow for less frequent daily cover 9 the owner/operator can adhere to mutually agreed upon performance standards. 10.36.240 Secondary cover. After reaching the final elevation of a given area of a site, the area shall be capped with an equivalent of two feet (2') (0.61 metets) of compacted soil or other impervious material and adequately graded to allow surface water to run off. Such cover shall be completed within a time period approved by the health officer. If it is anticipated that the time interval between secondary cover and final surfacing shall exceed nine (9) months, the area shall be adequately seeded with native grasses or other suitable vegetation. Biosolids application may be approved by the health officer to enhance vegetative growth. Slopes exceeding six percent (061) shall be mulched or adequately stabilized so as to prevent or correct erosion. 10.36.250 Final cover. The finished surface of the filled area shall be covered with adequate tillable soil graded adequately to allow surface water run off, and adequately seeded with native grasses or other suitable vegetation on a schedule to be determined by the health officer. Biosolids application may be approved by the health officer to enhance vegetative growth. Slopes exceeding six percent 06) shall be mulched or adequately stabilized in such a manner so as to prevent or correct erosion. Final grades shall conforni to those specified in the approved design plan.. 10.36.260 Monitoring systems. All owners and operators of landfills shall maintain the monitoring system required in Section 10.36.110. 10.36.270 Recycling required. A. All owners or operators of landfills at which the general public delivers household solid waste shall provide the opportunity for the general public to recycle cans, bottles, paper and other material for which a market exists and which has been brought to the landfill site; 1. During the normal hours of operation; 2. In facilities convenient to the public (i.e., near entrance to the gate). B. Owners or operators may demonstrate alternative means to providing an opportunity to the general public to recycle household solid waste. 10.36.280 Dangerous wastes. Owners or operators of landfills shall not lhlowingly dispose, treat, store, or otherwise handle dangerous waste unless the requirements of the dangerous waste regulation, WAC Chapter 173-303 are met. 10.36.290 Closure and post -closure standards. A. All owners or operators of landfills shall close landfills in such a manner as to comply with section 10.34.070. B. All owners or operators of landfills shall close landfills in a manner that: 1. Minimizes the need for further maintenance; King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation I0 ........................ .......... ................................................................................................................................................................................. ............... .......... ............................................. RL - 101 2. Controls, minimizes or eliminates to the extent necessary threats to human health and the environment from post- closure escape of solid waste constituents, leachate, landfill gases, contaminated rainfall or waste decomposition products to the ground, surface water, ground water or the atmosphere; 3. Returns the land to the appearance and use of surrounding land areas to the degree possible; and 4. Allows continued monitoring of all media (air, land and water) as long as necessary for the waste to stabilize and to protect human health and the environment. C. All owners or operators of landfills must have a written estimate, in current dollars, of the cost of closing the facility. The closure cost estimate must equal the cost of closure at the point in the operating life of the facility when the extent and manner of operation would make closure the most expensive; as indicated by the closure plan. D. In addition, all facilities must have a written post -closure estimate, in current dollars, the cost of post -closure monitoring and maintenance during the post -closure period. E. Financial assurance for the closure period and the post - closure period shall be provided as described or hereafter amended in WAC 173-304-467 for public facilities and WAC 173-304-468 for private facilities. Financial assurance shall be provided for all landfills, except that inert landfills shall not be required to provide financial assurance. 10.36.300 Abandoned landfill sites. All abandoned landfills shall be maintained by the owner and/or operator so as not to create a risk to the public health. The health officer shall have the authority to require surface repairs, methane monitoring and control, surface and ground water monitoring, leachate control, and any additional measures determined necessary to protect the public health and the environment. CHAPTER 10.40 BIOSOLIDS 10.40.005 Pathogen reduction requirements. Any biosolids distributed or marketed directly to the public shall first be treated by a Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP), as defined in section 10.08.352. Biosolids that are not distributed or marketed directly to the public and are used for soil improvement, agricultural applications, silvicultural application, landfilling disposal, or application to a drastically disturbed land shall first be treated by a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP), as defined in section 10.08.354. 10.40.007 Permit requirements --Applicability. The permit requirements of sections 10.40.030 and 10.40.040 shall apply to sites that utilize biosolids treated by PSRP. Beneficial re -use of biosolids treated by PFRP shall not be subject to the permit requirements of sections 10.40.030 and 10.40.040. However, the facilities used to generate biosolids treated by PFRP shall be subject to the applicable sections of chapter 10.48 and chapter 10.68. Facilities that distribute or market biosolids directly to the public shall comply with the 'Best Management Practices for Use of Municipal Sludge" developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and 40 CFR Part 503 upon final promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency. 10.40.010 Requirements generally --Permit. A. Owners and/or operators of biosolids utilization sites shall obtain a permit from the health officer prior to utilization of biosolids on the site. A land utilization of biosolids permit application detailing site characteristics and an operations and control plan must be submitted to the health officer for review and approval. The required permit application contents are described in section 10.40.020. The health officer shall determine the degree of completeness of an application on a case-by-case basis. The owner and/or operator of the biosolids utilization site shall annually renew the permit until the site has been determined to be stabilized by the health officer. B. Applications and renewals may be approved, denied or conditioned by the health officer. The decision may be based on criteria established within the 'Best Management Practices Manual," and the "Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines" published by the Washington State Department of Ecology, the final 40 CFR Part 503 regulations upon promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency, and so as not to pose a risk to the public health or environment. Biosolids shall only be applied to soil if the soil is capable of assimilating the wastes and preventing the biosolids and Related Legislation King Coun4, Board of HOW) Code - Title 10 - 1 2 .... RL 0 potentially harmful by-products from moving onto adjacent land, into surface waters, and into ground waters. 10.40.020 Permit application contents. The application shall include : A. Biosolids characteristics, including levels of pathogens, heavy metals, PCB's and other contaminants. A description of the biosolids treatment process is also required. B. Soils, including permeability, texture, structure, Ph, cation exchange capacity and background heavy metals levels. C. Relevant site characteristics, including rainfall, ground water conditions and depth to bedrock. D. Site map showing acreage, zoning, location of site to community, location of nearby residences, roadways, property lines, etc. The location of streams, drainages, flood plains and other surface waters should be shown. General direction and degree of slope must be indicated. Any public or private drinking water supplies within two thousand feet (2,000) of the project must be shown. E. The plan for the proposed method of operations and general control of the site shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Site use, including intended crop usage. 2. Sufficient public access and controls to prevent the public from being exposed to potential health and safety hazards. 3. Biosolids application methods, rates and season. 4. Site monitoring. 5. Surface water monitoring. Environmental Checklist, or other evidence of compliance with the environmental review requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW Chapter 43.210. G. Statement signed by both the owner of the property and the operator of the project agreeing to abide by the terms of the permit. 10.40.030 Practices --Monitoring. Application rates and methods shall be in accordance with the "Best Management Practices Manual," the "Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines" published by the Department of Ecology, and 40 CFR Part 503 upon final promulgation by the Environmental Protection Agency. The health officer may require site monitoring and surface water diversion after King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 application. The health officer may require the property owner to record the permit for application of biosolids with the King County records and elections office. 10.40.040 Biosolids landfill disposal. The following requirements shall apply: A. Trenching. Where a subsurface excavation at a landfill or inert/demolition landfill is used, biosolids shall be placed entirely below the original ground surface. Trench width and depth shall be approved by the health officer based upon volume needed, depth to ground water, sidewall stability and equipment limitations. Daily cover shall be required. B. Biosolids/soil mixing. Biosolids may be mixed with soil as secondary or final cover over completed areas of refuse only at landfills or inert/demolition landfills. Such cover material shall be spread in a manner which prevents health hazards or nuisances. C. Other methods. Biosolids may be deposited at landfills using other methods approved by the health officer. CHAPTER 10.42 LANDSPREADING DISPOSAL STANDARDS 10.42.010 Applicability. These standards apply to facilities that engage in landspreading disposal of solid wastes. These standards do not apply to: A. Facilities utilizing biosolids, woodwaste or other primarily organic sludges according to the Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines WDOE 82-11, specified in sections 10.40.030 and 10.68.040. B. Agricultural solid wastes resulting from the operation of a farm including farm animal manure and agricultural residues; and C. Inert wastes and demolition wastes. 10.42.020 Perfonnance. Owners or operators of landspreading disposal facilities shall meet the minimum functional standards for perfornnance of Section 10.36.020 and the general facilities standards of section 10.34.010. Related Legislation 0 0 0 0 0 10.42.030 Locational standards. Owners or operators of landspreading disposal facilities shall meet the locational standards of section 10.32.020. 10.42.040 Minimum functional standard for design. Owners or operators of landspreading disposal facilities shall design landspreading facilities so as to: A. Provide interim waste storage facilities that meet the requirements of WAC 173-304-400 standards (i.e., for piles, surface impoundments, etc.); B. Collect and treat all run-off from a 24 (twenty-four), 25 (twenty-five) year storm, and divert all run-on for the maximum flow of a maximum 25 (twenty-five) year storm around the active area; C. Avoid standing water anywhere on the active area; D. Avoid slopes and other features that will lead to soil and waste erosion, unless contour plowing or other measures are taken to avoid erosion; E. Monitor ground water according to Chapter 10.72; and F. Control access to site by fencing or other means and erect signs. 10.42.050 Minimum functional standards for maintenance and operation. Owners or operators of landspreading disposal facilities shall maintain and operate the facilities so as to: A. Avoid any landspreading disposal of garbage or medical waste; B. Analyze solid waste according to the requirements spelled out in the Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines WDOE 82-11; C. Avoid applying wastes at rates greater than 10 (ten) times agronomic rates using the proposed cover crop, or depths greater than would allow for discing the soil by tracked vehicles; D. Provide discing of soils during the growing season and after each application of waste to maintain aerobic soil conditions, minimize odors and lessers run-off; E. Avoid applying waste to any active area having standing water; F. Conform to the operating plan and the requirements of section 10.34.030; Related Legislation RL - 103 G. Avoid food chain crops during the active life of the facility and until demonstrated to be safe, after closure, according to the closure and post -closure plans filed with the plan of operation. Specific approval in writing from the health officer is required for any landspreading disposal facility that is used to raise food crops after closure. Any new owner or operator of a closed landspreading disposal facility shall notify the health officer within 60 (sixty) days of the purchase; and H. Provide for a written contract between landowners, waste generators, waste haulers and waste operators requiring compliance with rules as a condition of the contract. 10.42.060 Minimum functional standards for closure and post -closure. A. All owners or operators of landspreading disposal facilities shall close in such a manner as to comply with section 10.34.070. B. Financial assurance. All owners or operators of landspreading disposal facilities shall have a written estimate, in current dollars, of the cost of closing the facility. The closure cost estimate must equal the cost of closure at the point in the operating life of the facility when the extent and manner of operation would make closure the most expensive, as indicated by the closure plan. In addition, all facilities shall have a written post -closure estimate, in current dollars, the cost of post -closure monitoring and maintenance during the post -closure period. CHAPTER 10.44 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS 10.44.010 Applicability. A. These standards are applicable to solid waste that are liquids, sludges, or biosolids containing free liquids as defined in chapter 10.08 and applicable under section 10.04.030 and are stored or treated in surface impoundments; B. These standards are also applicable to biosolids, sludges and septage stored or treated in surface impoundments; and C. These standards are not applicable to: 1. Surface impoundments whose facilities and discharges are otherwise regulated under federal, state or local water pollution permits; and King County Board of Health Code - Mle 10 RL - 104 2. Retention or detention basins used to collect and store stormwater runoff. 10.44.020 Design, construction and operation. All surface impoundments must be designed, constructed, and operated so as to: A. Meet the performance standards of section 10.36.030. B. Have an inplace or imported soil base/liner of at least two feet (2) of 1 x 107 cm/sec permeability or an equivalent combination of soil thickness greater than two feet (2) having a greater permeability in order to protect the underlying aquifers or a thirty (30) mil reinforced artificial liner placed on top of a structurally stable foundation to support the liners and solid waste and to prevent settlement that would destroy the liner, excavated natural soils shall be recompacted to achieve an equivalent permeability. Owners or operators shall be allowed to use alternative designs, operating practices and locational characteristics which prevent migration of solid waste constituents or leachate into the ground or surface waters at least as effectively as the liners described in this subsection. C. Avoid washout including the use of an extended liner or dikes or restriction of flow in the one hundred year floodplain and to comply with local floodplain management ordinances and Chapter 508-60 WAC, Administration of Flood Control Zones; D. Have dikes designed with slopes so as to maintain the structural integrity under conditions of a leaking liner and capable of withstanding erosion from wave action; E. Have the freeboard equal to or greater than eighteen inches (18") to avoid overtopping from wave action, overfilling, or precipitation; F. Have either a ground water monitoring system, or a leachate detection, collection and treatment system, for surface impoundments having a capacity of more than two million (2,000,000) gallons unless the health officer and the Department of Ecology require either for smaller surface impoundments. For purposes of this subsection, capacity refers to the total capacity of all surface impoundments on-site (i.e., two (2), one million (1,000,000) gallon surface impoundments on one site will trigger these monitoring requirements); G. Be closed in a manner which removes all solid wastes including liners, etc. to another permitted facility and the site King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 returned to its original or acceptable topography except that surface impoundments closed with the waste remaining in place shall meet the requirements of sections 10.32.010, 10.32.020 and 10.36.290; H. The health officer may require that the liner be inspected for wear and integrity and repaired or replaced by removing stored solid wastes or otherwise inspecting the liner or base at any time. The request shall be in writing and cite the reasons including valid ground water monitoring or leachate detection data leading to such an inspection and repair, I. Surface impoundments containing septage will also be subject to the Department of Ecology's "Criteria for Sewage Works Design' DOE 78-5 revised 1985 used to review plans for septage surface impoundments; and J. Surface impoundments that have the potential to impound more than ten (10) acre-feet of waste measured from the top of the dike and which would be released by a failure of the containment dike shall be reviewed and approved by the dam safety section of the Department of Ecology. CHAPTER 10.48 STORAGE AND TREATMENT PILES 10.48.010 Applicability. A. This chapter is applicable to solid wastes stored or treated in piles as defined in chapter 10.08 including but not limited to: garbage, sludges, biosolids, putrescible wastes (other than garbage) in place for more than three (3) weeks, other wastes not intended for recycling in place for more than three months, and to tire piles where more than eight hundred (800) tires are stored at one (1) facility. B. Other solid wastes stored or treated in piles prior to waste recycling including compost piles of vegetative waste, piles of woodwaste used for fuel, problem wastes or raw materials are not subject to this chapter but shall conform to chapter 10.68. However, if the health officer determines a facility is subject to the criteria listed in chapter 10.68.030(C)(2), then the standards of chapter 10.48 shall be applicable. C. Waste piles stored in fully enclosed buildings are not subject to these standards, provided that no liquids or biosolids and sludges with free liquids are added to the pile; D. Inert wastes are not subject to these standards. Related Legislation 10.48.020 Requirements generally. All owners and operators shall: A. Comply with the requirements of Chapter 10.32; B. Design piles located in a one hundred (100) year flood plain to: 1. Comply with local flood plain management ordinances and Chapter 508-60 WAC, Administration of Flood Control Zones; and 2. To avoid washout or restriction of flow. C. Remove all solid waste from the pile at closure to another permitted facility. 10.48.030 Putrescible wastes or leachable wastes. A. Waste piles containing putrescible or leachable materials shall be placed upon a surface such as sealed concrete, asphalt, clay or an artificial liner underlying the pile, to prevent subsurface soil and potential ground water contamination and to allow collection of run-off and leachate. The liner shall be designed of sufficient thickness and strength to withstand stresses imposed by pile handling vehicles and the pile itself; B. Run-off systems shall be installed, designed and maintained to handle a twenty-four (24) hour, twenty-five (25) year storm event; C. Waste piles containing putrescible or leachable materials having a capacity of greater than ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards shall have either: 1. A ground water monitoring system that complies with sections 10.68.010 and 10.68.020; 2. A leachate detection, collection and treatment system. For purposes of this subsection, capacity refers to the total capacity of all putrescible or leachate -generating piles at one facility (i.e., two (2), five thousand (5,000) cubic yard piles will subject the facility to the requirements of this subsection). D. Run-on prevention systems shall be designed and maintained to handle the maximum flow from a twenty-five (25) year storm event; and E. The health officer may require that the entire base or liner shall be inspected for wear and integrity and repaired or replaced by removing stored wastes or otherwise providing inspection access to the base or liner; the request shall be in writing and cite the reasons including valid ground water RL - 105 monitoring or leachate detection data leading the health officer to request such an inspection, repair or replacement. 10.48.040 Tire piles. Owners or operators shall: A Control access to the tire pile by fencing; B. Limit the tire pile to a maximum of one-half (1/2) acre in size; C. Limit the height of the tire pile to twenty (20') feet; D. Provide for a thirty foot (30') fire lane between tire piles; and E. Provide on-site fire control equipment. CHAPTER 10.52 INERT WASTE LANDFILLING 10.52.010 Applicability. These standards apply to facilities that landfill more than two thousand (2,000) cubic yards of inert wastes as defined in chapter 10.08 including facilities that use inert waste as a component of fill. inert wastes used as road building materials are excluded from this section. These standards do not apply to asbestos containing waste regulated under the Federal 40 CFR Part 61 Rules and the Dangerous Waste Regulation, WAC Chapter 173-303. 10.52.020 Requirements generally. A. Inert wastes landfilling facilities shall not be subject to sections 10.32.010 and 10.32.020, except section 10.32.020(D), slope. B. Owners or operators of inert waste landfills shall maintain a record of the weights or volumes and types of waste disposed of at each site. C. Owners or operators of inert wastes and demolition landfills shall employ measures to prevent emission of fugitive dusts, when weather conditions or climate indicate that transport of dust off-site is liable to create a nuisance. Preventative measures include watering of roads and covering the inert wastes. D. Timbers, wood and other combustible waste shall not be accepted at an inert waste landfill. E. Owners or operators of inert wastes landfills shall close the facility by leveling the wastes to the extent practicable and shall fill any voids posing a physical hazard for persons after Related Legislation King Count l Board of Health Code -Title 10 ><' RL - 106 • closure and to maintain an aesthetic appearance. A minimum of one foot (1') of soil cover shall be used to close landfills. F. Owners or operators of inert waste landfills shall: 1. Obtain a permit, as set forth in chapters 10.12, 10.16 and 10.20, from the health officer; 2. Meet the requirements of section 10.34.070.1), recording with the records division; 3. Not accept any other form of waste except inert waste; and 4. Prevent unauthorized disposal during off- hours by controlling entry (i.e., lockable gate or barrier) when the facility is not being used. CHAPTER 10.56 WOODWASTE LANDFILLING 10.56.010 Applicability. These requirements apply to facilities that landfill more than two thousand cubic yards of woodwaste including facilities that use woodwaste as a component of fill. Woodwaste is defined in Chapter 10.08. These standards are not applicable to woodwaste landfills on forest lands regulated under the Forest Practices Act, RCW Chapter 76.09. 10.56.020 Requirements generally. A. Woodwaste landfills are not subject to Section 10.32.010 and 10.32.020, except for Section 10.32.020(B)(3). Woodwastes may be used as a component of fill within a shoreline and associated wetlands only if a demonstrated and proven technology to prevent ground and surface water contamination is used. B. Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall maintain a record of the weights or volumes of waste disposed of at each facility. C. Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall not accept any other wastes except woodwaste. D. Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall prevent run-on from a maximum twenty-five (25) year storm. E. All woodwaste landfills having a capacity of greater than ten thousand (10,000) cubic yards at closure shall either: 1. Have a groundwater monitoring system that complies with Chapter 10.72 and the woodwaste landfill meet the performance standards of Chapter 10.36; or 2. Have a leachate collection and methane gas control system. F. Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall not deposit woodwaste in lifts to a height of more than ten feet (10') per lift with at least one foot (1') of cover material between lifts to avoid hot spots and fires in the summer and to avoid excessive build-up of leachate in the winter, and shall compact woodwaste asnecessary to prevent voids. G. Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall prevent unauthorized disposal during off -hours by controlling entry (i.e., lockable gate or barrier), when the facility is not being used. H. Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall close the facility by leveling and compacting the wastes and applying a compacted soil cover of at least two feet thickness. I. Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall obtain a permit as set forth in Chapters 10.12, 10.16 and 10.20 from the health officer. CHAP'l'ER 10.60 TRANSFER STATIONS 10.60.010 Applicability. All transfer stations, baling and compaction systems and drop boxes receiving solid waste from off-site shall meet the requirements of this section. Facilities receiving solid waste from on-site shall meet the requirements of Sections 10.28.010, 10.28.020 and 10.28.030. 10.60.020 Transfer stations, baling and compacting systems. Transfer stations, baling and compaction systems shall be designed, constructed, and operated so as to: A. Be surrounded by a fence, trees, shrubbery or natural features so as to control access and be screened from the view of immediately adjacent neighbors, unless the tipping floor is fully enclosed by a building; B. Be sturdy and constructed of easily cleanable materials; C. Be free of potential rat harborages, and provide effective means to control rodents, insects, birds and other vermin; D. Be adequately screened to prevent blowing of litter and to provide effective means to control litter; King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation E. Provide protection of the tipping floor from wind, rain or snow other than below grade bins or detachable containers; F. Have an adequate buffer zone around the operating area to minimize noise and dust nuisances, and for transfer stations, baling, or compaction systems, a buffer zone of fifty feet (50') from the active area to the nearest property line in areas zoned residential; G. Comply with local zoning and building codes including approved local variances and waivers; H. Provide pollution control measures to protect surface and ground waters, including run-off collection and discharge designed and operated to handle a twenty-four (24) hour, twenty-five (25) year storm and equipment cleaning and washdown water; I. Provide all-weather approach roads, exit roads, and all other vehicular areas; J. Provide pollution control measures to protect air quality including a prohibition against all burning and the development of odor and dust control plans to be made a part of the plan of operation in Sections 10.32.030 and 10.32.040. K Prohibit scavenging; L. Provide attendant(s) on-site during hours of operation; M. Have a sign that identifies the facility and shows the name of the site, and, if applicable, hours during which the site is open for public use, what constituents materials not to be accepted and other necessary information posted at the site entrance; N. Have communication capabilities to immediately summon fire, police, or emergency service personnel in event of an emergency; and 0. Remove all wastes at closure, as defined in Chapter 10.08, from the permitted facility. 10.60.030 Drop box facilities. Drop box facilities, as defined in Chapter 10.08, shall: A. Be constructed of durable water tight materials with a lid or screen on top that prevents the loss of materials during transport and access by rats and other vermin; B. Be located in an easily identifiable place accessible by all-weather roads; C. Be designed and serviced as often as necessary to ensure adequate dumping capacity at all times. Storage of solid waste outside the drop boxes is prohibited; Related Legislation D. Comply with Section 10.60.020(M); E. Remove all remaining wastes at closure, as defined in Chapter 10.08, to a permitted facility, and remove the drop box from the facility. CHAPTER 10.64 INCINERATION AND SOLID WASTE ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITIES 10.64.010 Applicability. These standards apply to all facilities designed to burn more than twelve (12) tons of solid waste per day, except for facilities burning woodwaste or gases recovered at landfills. 10.64.020 Requirements generally. A. Air pollution standards. Incinerators and solid waste energy recovery facilities shall be designed and operated in a manner that conforms with current federal, state, regional and local air pollution control regulations; B. Incinerators and energy recovery facilities storing putrescible wastes shall be confined to storage compartments specifically designed to store wastes temporarily in piles, surface impoundments, tanks or containers. The storage facilities shall meet the facility standards of Sections 10.28.010, 10.28.020 and 10.28.030. Storage of wastes other than in the specifically designed storage compartments is prohibited. Equipment and space shall be provided in the storage and charging areas, and elsewhere as needed, to allow periodic cleaning as may be required in order to maintain the plant in a sanitary and clean Condition; C. All residues from energy recovery facilities or incinerator facilities shall be used, handled or disposed of as solid or dangerous wastes according to these standards or the standards of the dangerous waste regulation, WAC Chapter 173-303; D. Each owner or operator of an energy recovery facility or incinerator facility shall comply with Sections 10.32.030 and 10.32.040. The plan of operation shall address alternative storage, and/or disposal plans for all breakdowns that would result in overfilling of the storage facility. The plan shall be made available for review by the health officer; King Count, Board of Health Code - Tittle 10 RL - 108 E. Each owner or operator shall close their energy recovery facility or incinerator by removing all ash, solid wastes and other residues to a permitted facility; F. Disposal of process water. All water from the disposal site shall be discharged into a disposal system approved by the health officer and local sewer authority. The treated discharge water shall not violate applicable water quality standards; G. Pre -use inspection and performance tests. Upon completion of the plant and prior to initial operation, the health officer and Puget Sound Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) shall be notified. The health officer shall inspect the plant both prior to and during the performance tests. A report covering the results of the performance test with all supporting data shall be certified by the design engineer of the project and submitted to the health officer; H. The owner or operator of an energy recovery facility or incinerator shall be required to provide recycling facilities in a manner equivalent to Section 10.36.270; and I. Owners or operators of energy recovery facilities and incinerators shall not knowingly dispose of, treat, store or otherwise handle dangerous waste unless the requirements of WAC 173-303 are met. CHAPTER 10.68 RECYCLING 10.68.010 Applicability. A. These standards apply to the following recycling facilities: 1. Noncontainerized composting in piles; 2. Accumulation of wastes in piles intended for treatment, recycling or utilization; 3. Facilities used for the treatment of biosolids or other solid wastes. If the health officer determines a facility operates or is likely to operate according to criteria listed in chapter 10.68.030.C, then the standards of chapter 10.48 shall apply. B. These standards do not apply to: 1. Single-family residences and single family farms engaged in composting their own wastes; 2. Facilities engaged in the recycling of solid waste containing garbage, such as garbage composting which are subject to chapter 10.48; 3. Facilities engaged in the storage of tires which are subject to chapter 10.48; 4. Problem wastes as defined in chapter 10.08. Also, see section 10.80.040. 5. Facilities engaged in recycling of solid waste stored in surface impoundments which are subject to chapter 10.44; 6. Utilization of biosolids on land for beneficial use which are subject to chapter 10.40. 7. Buy-back recycling centers. 10.68.020 Compliance by existing facilities. All existing facilities recycling solid waste not in conformance with this section shall be placed upon a compliance schedule under Chapter 10.20 to assure compliance by november 27, 1987. 10.68.030 Requirements generally. A. All applicable solid waste recycling facilities shall apply for and obtain a solid waste permit under chapter 10.12, 10.16 and 10.20. B. Applicable waste recycling facilities shall submit annual reports to the health officer and the Department of Ecology by March 1 of the following year for which the data is collected on forms supplied by the Department of Ecology. The annual reports shall include quantities and types of waste recycled for purposes of determining progress towards achieving the goals of waste reduction, waste recycling, and treatment in accordance with RCW 70.95.010(4). Such facilities may request and be assured of confidentiality for their reports in accordance with RCW chapter 42.17 and RCW 43.21. C. All facilities storing or treating solid waste in outdoor piles or surface impoundments for the purpose of waste recycling shall be considered to be storing or disposing of solid waste 9- 1. At least fifty percent (5076) of the material has not been shown to have been recycled in the past three years and any material has been on-site more than five years; or 2. Ground water or surface water, air, and/or land contamination has occurred or will likely occur under current conditions of storage or in case of fire, or flood. D. Upon determination by the health officer that subsection C of this section is met, the health officer may require a permit application and issuance of a permit under chapters 10.12, E. Waste recycling facilities shall allow the health officer and Department of Ecology representatives entry for inspection purposes and to determine compliance with this title at reasonable times. F. All applicable waste recycling facilities shall not conflict with the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan required by WAC 173-304-011. G. All waste recycling facilities shall comply with applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. 10.68.040 Woodwaste and other organic biosolids. A Facilities utilizing woodwaste not otherwise excluded under section 10.04.030 shall comply with these recycling standards. Applying woodwaste and other primarily organic biosolids, such as pulp and paper mill treatment biosolids to the land, shall be in a manner consistent with the "Municipal and Domestic Sludge Utilization Guidelines" WDOE 82-11 dated September 1982 or as hereafter amended. Only agricultural or silvicultural sites where such biosolids are demonstrated to have soil conditioning or fertilizer value shall be acceptable, provided that the woodwaste and other primarily organic biosolids are applied as a soil conditioner or fertilizer in accordance with accepted agricultural and silvicultural practice. Facilities utilizing woodwaste or other primarily organic biosolids on the land in a manner not consistent with nor meeting the requirement of the guidelines are required to meet the landspreading disposal standards of chapter 10.42. B. Facilities utilizing woodwaste or other primarily organic biosolids shall also comply with the standards of section 10.68.040. CHAPTER 10.72 GROUND WATER MONITORING 10.72.010 Applicability. These requirements apply to owners and operators of landfills, piles, landspreading disposal facilities, and surface impoundments that are required to perform ground water monitoring. 10.72.020 Standards. A. The ground water monitoring system must: 1. Consist of at least one (1) background or upgradient well and three (3) down gradient wells, installed at Related Legislation appropriate locations and depths to yield ground water samples from the upper most aquifer and all hydraulically connected aquifers below the active portion of the facility. The health officer may also require off-site monitoring of aquifers in cases where on-site monitoring detects ground water contamination in the parameters indicated in subsection C of this section. 2. Up gradient wells must represent the quality of background water that has not been affected by leakage from the active area; and 3. Down gradient wells must represent the quality of ground water passing the point of compliance. Additional wells may be required by the health officer in complicated hydrogeological settings or to define the extent of contamination detected. B. All monitoring wells must be cased in a manner that maintains the integrity of the monitoring well bore hole. This casing must allow collection of representative ground water samples. Wells must be constructed in such a manner as to prevent contamination: (1) of the samples, (2) the sampled strata, and (3) between aquifers and water bearing strata and in accordance with WAC Chapter 173-160, Minimum Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Water Wells. C. Test parameters: 1. The ground water monitoring program shall be made available for review by the health officer. The program must include, at a minimum, procedures and techniques for: . a. Decontamination of drilling and sampling equipment; b. Sample collection; c. Sample preservation and shipment; d. Analytical procedures and quality assurance; e. Chain of custody control; and f. Procedures to ensure employee health and safety during well installation and monitoring. 2. All facilities shall test for the following parameters at each monitoring well at least quarterly during the life of an active area (including the closure period) and the post -closure care period: a. Temperature; b. Conductivity; c. Chloride; d. Nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia as nitrogen; e. Sulfate; King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 RL - 110 >><>>><< f. Dissolved iron; g. Dissolved zinc and manganese; h. Chemical oxygen demand; i. Total organic carbon; j. Total coliform; k. Ph; 3. All facilities shall also test for the following parameters at each monitoring well at least annually during the life of an active area (including the closure period) and the post -closure care period. In addition, these parameters must be included in the required follow-up testing if contamination is discovered in any of the quarterly testing parameters listed in section 10.68.020(C)(2) per WAC 173-200. a. Dissolved metals of lead, cadmium, chromium, copper and nickel; b. Volatile Organic Compounds 1) Trichloroethylene 2) Carbon Tetrachloride 3) Vinyl Chloride 4) 1,2,2 - Dichloroethane 5) Benzene 6) 1,1 Dichloroethylene 7) 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 8) Acrolein 9) 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane 10) Chloroethane 11) 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 12) Chloroform 13) 1,2 trans-Dichloroethylene 14) 1-2-Dichloropropane 15) cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene 16) trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene 17) Ethylbenzene 18) Dichloromethane 19) Chloromethane 20) Bromomethane 21) Tribromomethane 22) Dichlorobromomethane 23) Chlorodibromomethane 24) Tetrachloroethylene 25) Toluene 26) Acetone 27) 2-Butanone 28) Carbon Disulfide 29) 2-hexanone 30) 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 31) Styrene 32) Vinyl Acetate 33) o -xylene 34) Total Xylenes c. Pesticides 1) Dieldrin 2) Lindane 3) Methoxychlor 4) DDT 5) 2,4 D 6) alpha -chlordane 4. Evaluation: a. The health officer in consultation with the Department of Ecology may specify additional or fewer constituents depending upon the nature of the waste. Test methods used to detect the parameters of this subsection shall be those in EPA Publication Number SW -846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - PhysicaVChemical Methods" except for total coliform which shall use the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater." b. The ground water monitoring program must include a determination of the ground water surface elevation each time ground water is sampled. c. The owner or operator shall use a statistical procedure for determining whether a significant change over background has occurred. The health officer will approve such a procedure with the guidance of the Department of Ecology. The owner or operator must express the ground water quality at each monitoring well in a form necessary for the determination of statistically significant increases. d. The owner or operator must determine and report the ground water flow rate and direction in the uppermost aquifer at least annually. e. If the owner or operator determines that there is a statistically significant increase for parameters or constituents at any monitoring well at the compliance point, the owner or operator must: 1) Notify the health officer of this finding in writing within seven (7) days of receipt of the sampling data. King County Board of Health Corte - Title 10 Related Legislation The notification must indicate what parameters or constituents have shown statistically significant increases; 2) Immediately resample the ground water in all monitoring wells and determine the concentration of all constituents listed in the definition of contamination in chapter 10.08, including additional constituents identified in the permit and whether there is a statistically significant increase such that the ground water performance standard has been exceeded, and notify the health officer within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the sampling data. 10.72.030 Corrective action program. An owner or operator required to establish a corrective action program under this section must, at a minimum with the approval of the health officer: A Implement a corrective action program that reduces contamination and if possible prevents constituents from exceeding their respective concentration limits at the compliance point by removing the constituents, treating them in place, or other remedial measures; B. Begin corrective action according to a written schedule after the ground water performance standard is exceeded; C. Terminate corrective action measures once the concentrations of constituents are reduced to levels below the contaminant limits as defined in chapter 10.08. 10.72.040 Maximum contaminant levels. Maximum contaminant levels for ground water shall be those specified in Chapter 248-54 WAC, as the primary drinking water standards (Analytical methods for these contaminants may be found in the code of federal regulations 40 CFR Pail 141) and in the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed maximum contaminant levels found in "Standards for Volatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water" Volume 50, Number 219 of the Federal Register, pages 46880-46933 or as hereafter amended. CHAPTER 10.76 METHANE • 10.76.010 Methane monitoring. All landfills except inert waste landfills shall provide for adequate venting, collecting or redirecting of gases generated by solid waste. No Related Legislation R - L 111 methane shall be allowed to migrate to or beyond the property boundary above or below the ground in concentrations greater than the lower explosive limit for methane, or in excess of one -hundred (100) parts per million. by volume of hydrocarbons (expressed as methane) in off-site structures, or in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lower explosive limit for gases in facility structures (excluding gas control or recovery system components). It shall be the responsibility of the landfill operator and/or owner to develop a sampling and testing program to monitor gas production and migration. Such program shall be approved by the health officer. 10.76.020 Construction standards for methane control. A- Applicability. This construction restriction applies to all construction activities on/or within one -thousand feet (1,000) of an active, closed or abandoned landfill that has been documented by the health officer to be generating levels of methane gas on-site at the lower explosive limits or greater levels. The distance shall be calculated from the location of the proposed structure to the nearest property line of the active or former landfill site. B. Requirements. All enclosed structures to be built within the one -thousand foot (1,000) landfill zone must be protected from potential methane migration. The method for insuring a structure's protection from methane shall be addressed in a report submitted by a licensed civil engineer to the local building department for approval. Such a report shall contain a description of the investigation and recommendation(s) for preventing the accumulation of explosive concentrations of methane gas within or under enclosed portions of a building or structure. At the time of final inspection, the civil engineer shall furnish a signed statement attesting that the building or structure has been constructed in accordance with his/her recommendations for addressing methane gas migration. CHAPTER 10.80 WASTE SCREENING 10.80.010 Dangerous waste. The health officer may screen any wastes or fill material suspected of being a regulated Dangerous Waste. The screening process may involve certified testing, a disclosure of the waste constituents and waste King Count}) Board of Health Code - Title 10 Cl RL - 112 [a generation process, and other additional information. If the health officer determines that the waste is not a regulated Dangerous Waste but still poses a significant threat to the public health, safety or the environment, lie/she may direct the generator or transporter to transfer the waste to a specified treatment or disposal site. If the health officer determines that the waste is a regulated dangerous waste he/she shall notify the Department of Ecology which shall have full jurisdiction regarding handling and disposal. The Dangerous Waste Regulations WAC Chapter 173-303 shall be considered when screening and making waste determinations. 10.80.020 Disposal site inspection and screening. If during inspections of waste the health officer observes waste suspected of being regulated Dangerous Waste because of physical properties of the waste, he/she shall have the authority to require the site operator to segregate and hold any such waste. If the health officer determines that testing is required to identify the waste, the generator shall be responsible for such analysis and if the generator is not known, the site operator shall be responsible for funding such analysis. The disposal site operator and/or attendants shall have similar authority not to accept suspect wastes. 10.80.030 Notice requiring screening. When such wastes are identified as being suspect dangerous wastes the health officer may issue a notice for requirement of screening. This notice will specify requirements which must be met to satisfy the screening process and a schedule for compliance. 10.80.040 Excavated material inspection and screening. The health officer shall have the authority to inspect and screen any excavated dirt, dredge spoil, soil or other material intended for use as upland fill if the material is suspected of containing contaminants at significant levels to endanger the public health, safety or the environment. The health officer may require the suspect material to be tested to identify the contaminant(s) and/or the concentration. If the material is determined not to be a Dangerous Waste, but still contains a significant level of contaminants which could create a problem from: becoming airborne (breathing or nuisance odor), skin contact, leaching into surface or ground waters or entering the food chain, or contains a level of contamination above that specified in the Washington State Model Toxic Control Act Regulations (WAC 173-340) for soils, the health officer can regulate the material as solid waste. Persons excavating soils in any areas of unincorporated King County or the incorporated cities that encounter a significant quantity of suspect material - such as leaked or spilled fuel oil (Bunker C or Diesel), gasoline, or other volatile (odorous) compounds, slag, industrial waste, or other solid waste - shall contact the health officer for determination of appropriate handling and disposal. CHAPTER 10.84 UNLAWFUL, DUMPING 10.84.010 Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to dump or deposit or permit the dumping or depositing of any solid waste onto or under the surface of the ground or into the waters of this State, except at a solid waste disposal site for which there is a valid permit; Provided, that nothing herein shall prohibit a person from dumping or depositing agricultural waste resulting from his/her own activities onto or under the surface of ground owned or leased by him/her when such action does not violate statutes, ordinances, or create a nuisance. 10.84.020 Identification of responsible person. A. Whenever solid waste dumped in violation of this title contains three (3) or more items bearing the name of one (1) individual, there shall be rebuttable presumption that the individual whose name appears on such items committed the unlawful act of dumping. B. When the health officer investigates a case of unlawful dumping and finds no identification in the solid waste, nor other evidence, he/she may then order the property owner to remove said solid waste from his/her land. Where this occurs on private land the property owner or occupant shall be responsible for removal. Where this occurs on public land the appropriate governmental agency shall be responsible for removal. EFFECTIVE DATE. April 28, 1992. King County Board of Health Code - Title 10 Related Legislation RL -11 3 SOLID WASTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington and a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "County" and "City" respectively. This agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction pursuant to formal action as designated below: King County: Motion No. 7143 City: PREAMBLE This Agreement is entered into pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW for the purpose of cooperative management of solid waste in King County. It is the intent of the parties to work cooperatively in establishing a solid waste management plan pursuant to Chapter 70.95 and with emphasis on the established priorities for solid waste management of waste reduction, waste recycling, energy recovery or incineration, and landfilling. The parties particularly support waste reduction and recycling and shall cooperate to achieve the goals established by the comprehensive solid waste management plan. The parties acknowledge their intent to meet or surpass applicable environmental standards with regard to the solid waste system. The parties agree that equivalent customer classes should receive equivalent basic services. I.. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions shall apply: "Basic Services" means services provided by the King County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division, including the management and handling of solid waste. "Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan" means the comprehensive plan for • solid waste management as required by RCW 70.95.080. "Designated Interlocal Forum" means a group formed pursuant to the Forum Interlocal Agreement comprised of representatives of unincorporated King County • designated by the King County Council, representatives of the City of Seattle designated by the City of Seattle, and representatives of other incorporated • cities and towns within King County that are signatory to the Forum Interlocal Agreement. Solid Waste baerlocal Agreement "Diversion" means the directing or permitting the directing of solid waste to disposal sites other than the disposal site designated by King County. "Energy/Resource Recovery" means "the recovery of energy in a usable form from mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis of any other means of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves high temperature (above 1,200 degrees F) processing." (WAC 173-304-100). "Moderate Risk Waste" means "(a) any waste that exhibits any of the • characteristics of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation under this chapter solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold for regulation and (b) any household wastes which are generated from the disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household substances." (RCW 70.105.010) "Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial • wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and discarded commodities but shall not include dangerous, hazardous • or extremely hazardous waste. "System" means King County's system of solid waste transfer stations, rural and regional landfills, energy/resource recovery and processing facilities as authorized by RCW 36.58.040, and as established pursuant to the approved King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. S "Waste Recycling" means "reusing waste materials and extracting valuable materials from a waste stream." (RCW 70.95.030) "Waste Reduction" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated but shall not include reduction through energy recovery or incineration. "Landfill" means "a disposal facility or part of a facility at which waste is • placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility." (RCW 70.95.030). • Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement RL - 11 5 II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the respective responsibility of the parties in a solid waste management system which includes, but is not limited to: Planning, waste reduction, recycling, and disposal of mixed municipal solid waste, industrial waste, demolition debris and all other waste defined as solid waste by RCW 70.95.030, and moderate risk waste as defined in RCW 70.105.010. III. DURATION This Agreement shall become effective on July 1, 1988, and shall remain in effect through June 30, 2028. IV. APPROVAL This Agreement shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for its approval as to all matters within its jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be filed with the City Clerk, with the Clerk of the King County Council and with the Secretary of State of the State of Washington. V. REVIEW AND RENEGOTIATION 5.1 Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of any provision of this Agreement other than those specified in Section 5.2 below during the six-month period immediately preceding the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement and during the six month period immediately preceding each succeeding fifth year anniversary thereafter. Such request must be in writing and must specify the provision(s) of the Agreement for which review/renegotiation is requested. Review and/or renegotiation pursuant to such written request shall be initiated within thirty days of said receipt. 5.2 Review and/or renegotiation shall not include the issues of system rates and charges, waste stream control or diversion unless agreed by both parties. 5.3 In the event the parties are not able to mutually and satisfactorily resolve the issues set forth in said request within six months from the date of receipt of said request, either party may unilaterally request the Forum to review the issues presented and issue a written recommendation within ninety days of receipt of said request by the Forum. Review of said request shall be pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Interlocal Agreement creating the Forum and pursuant to the Forum's bylaws. The written decision of the Forum shall be advisory to the parties. 5.4 Notwithstanding any other provision in this paragraph to the contrary, the parties may, pursuant to mutual agreement, modify or amend any provision of this Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement. Solid Waste Interlocal agreement L-11 R 6 VI. GENERAL OBLIGATION OF PARTIES 6.1 KING COUNTY a. Management. King County agrees to provide county -wide solid waste management services for waste generated and collected within jurisdictions party to this Agreement. The County agrees to dispose of or designate disposal sites for all solid waste including moderate risk waste generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to King County in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental health laws, rules, or regulations. b. Planning. King County shall serve as the planning authority within King County for solid waste including moderate risk waste but shall not be responsible for planning for hazardous or dangerous waste or any other planning responsibility that is specifically designated by State or Federal statute. c. Operation. King County shall be or shall designate or authorize the operating authority for transfer, processing and disposal facilities, including public landfills, waste reduction or recycling facilities and energy resource recovery facilities as well as closure and post -closure responsibilities for landfills which are or were operated by King County. d. Collection Service. King County shall not provide solid waste collection services within the corporate limits of the City, unless permitted by law and agreed to by both parties. e. Support and Assistance. King County shall provide support and technical assistance to the City if the City seeks to establish a waste reduction and recycling program compatible with the County waste reduction and recycling plan. The County shall develop educational materials related to waste reduction and recycling and strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the materials and will make these available to the City for its use. Although, the County will not be required to provide a particular level of support or fund any City activities related to waste reduction and recycling, King County intends to move forward aggressively to establish waste reduction and recycling programs. f. Forecast. The County shall develop waste stream forecasts as part of the comprehensive planning process and assumes all risks related to facility sizing based upon such forecasts. g. Facilities and Services. County facilities and services including waste reduction and recycling shall be provided pursuant to the comprehensive solid waste plan. All personal and real property acquired by King County for solid waste management system purposes shall be the property of King County. Solid Waste Interlocal AgrfflnWU •I 0I RL - 117 6.2 CITY a. Collection. The City, an entity designated by the City or such other entity as is authorized by state law shall serve as operating authority for solid waste collection services provided within the City's corporate limits. b. Disposal. The City shall by ordinance designate the County disposal system for the disposal of all solid waste including moderate risk waste generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City and shall authorize the County to designate disposal sites for the disposal of all solid waste including moderate risk waste generated or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except for solid waste which is eliminated through waste reduction or waste recycling activities consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. No solid waste generated or collected within the City may be diverted from the designated disposal sites without County approval. VII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES AND OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL In establishing or amending disposal rates for system users, the County may adopt and amend by ordinance rates necessary to recover all costs of operation including the costs of handling, processing, disposal, defense and payment of claims, capital improvements, operational improvements and the closure of landfills which are or were operated by King County. King County shall establish classes of service for basic solid waste management services and by ordinance shall establish rates for users of each class. • VIII. LIABILITY 8.1 Except as provided herein, the County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and shall have the right and duty to defend the City through the . County's attorneys against any and all claims arising out of the County's operations and to settle such claims, recognizing that all costs incurred by the County thereby are system costs which must be satisfied from disposal rates as provided in section VII herein. In providing such defense of the City, the County shall exercise good faith in such defense or settlement so as to protect • the City's interest. For purposes of this section "claims arising out of the county's operations" shall include claims arising out of the ownership, • control, or maintenance of the system, but shall not include claims arising out of the City's operation of motor vehicles in connection with the system or • other activities under the control of the City which may be incidental to the County's operation. • Solid Waste Interlocal 4mment » RL - 11 8 8.2 If the County is not negligent, the City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County for any property damages or personal injury solely caused by the City's negligent failure to comply with the provisions of Section 8.5-a- 8.3 In the event the County acts to defend the City against a claim, the City shall cooperate with the County. In the event the City acts to defend the County, the County shall cooperate with the City. 8.4 For purposes of this section, references to City or County shall be deemed to include the officers, employees and agents of either party, acting within the scope of their authority. 8.5.a. All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to the system for disposal shall be in compliance with the resource conservation and recovery act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), RCW 70.95, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8, and all other applicable federal, state and local environmental health laws, rules or regulations. The City shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of section 8.5.a. if it has adopted an ordinance requiring solid waste delivered to the system for disposal to meet such laws, rules, or regulations and by written agreement has authorized King County to enforce these within the corporate limits of the City. 8.5.b. The County shall provide the City with written notice of any violation of this provision. Upon such notice, the City shall take immediate steps to remedy the violation and prevent similar future violations to the reasonable satisfaction of King County which may include but not be limited to removing the waste and disposing of it an approved facility. If, in good faith, the City disagrees with the County regarding the violation, such dispute shall be resolved between the parties in Superior Court. Each party shall be responsible for its attorney's fees and costs. Failure of the City to take the steps requested by the County pending Superior Court resolution shall not be deemed a violation of this agreement; provided, however, that this shall not release the City for damages or loss to the County arising out of the failure to take such steps if the Court finds that the City violated the requirements to comply with applicable laws set forth in this section. 8.6 City is not held harmless or indemnified with regard to any liability arising under 42 USC § 9601-9675 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or as hereafter amended or pursuant to any state legislation imposing liability for cleanup of contaminated property, pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances. Solid Waste interlocal agreement RL - 11 9 IX. FORUM By entering into this Agreement, the County and City agree to enter into and execute a Forum Interlocal Agreement. Such agreement shall provide for the establishment of a representative Forum for consideration and/or determination of issues of policy regarding the term and conditions of this Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement. X. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10.1 King County is designated to prepare the comprehensive solid waste management plan and this plan shall include the City's Solid Waste Management Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 70.95.080(3). 10.2 The initial comprehensive plan prepared under the terms of this Agreement shall be submitted to the King County Council and the designated interlocal Forum by December 31, 1988. The plan shall be reviewed and any necessary revisions proposed at least once every three years following the approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the State Department of Ecology. From the effective date of this Agreement until the 1988 plan is approved, the 1974 Solid Waste Management Plan as approved in 1977 by DOE shall be used to meet the requirements of RCW 70.95.185 as directed by the State Department of Ecology. King County shall provide services and build facilities in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 10.3 The Comprehensive Plan will promote waste reduction and recycling in accordance with Washington State solid waste management priorities pursuant to chapter 70.95 RCW, at a minimum. 10.4 The comprehensive solid waste management plan will be prepared in accordance with chapter 70.95 RCW and solid waste planning guidelines developed by the Department of Ecology. The plan shall include, but not be limited to: a. Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and facilities required for handling all waste types; b. Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies; C. Policies concerning waste reduction, recycling, energy and resource recovery, collection, transfer, long-haul transport, disposal, enforcement and administration; d. Operational plan for the elements discussed in Item c above. 10.5 The cost of preparation by King County of the Comprehensive Plan will be considered a cost of the system and financed out of the rate base. Solid Waste Interlocal agreement 7 *I •I 10.6 The Comprehensive Plan will be adopted when the following has occurred: a. The Comprehensive Plan is approved by the King County Council; and b. The Comprehensive Plan is approved by Cities representing three-quarters of the population of the incorporated population of jurisdictions that are parties to the Forum Interlocal Agreement. In calculating the three-quarters, the calculations shall consider only those incorporated jurisdictions taking formal action to approve or disapprove the Plan within 120 days of receipt of the Plan. The 120 day time period shall begin to run from receipt by an incorporated jurisdiction of the Forum's recommendation on the Plan, or, if the Forum is unable to make a recommendation, upon receipt of the Comprehensive Plan from the Forum without recommendation. 10.7 Should the Comprehensive Plan be approved by the King County Council, but not receive approval of three-quarters of the Cities acting on the Plan, and should King County and the Cities be unable to resolve their disagreement, then the Comprehensive Plan shall be referred to the State Department of Ecology and the State Department of Ecology will resolve any disputes regarding Plan adoption and adequacy by approving or disapproving the Comprehensive Plan or any part thereof. 10.8 King County shall determine which cities are affected by any proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. If any City disagrees with such determination, then the City can request that the Forum determine whether or rot the City is affected. Such determination shall be made by a two-thirds majority vote of all representative members of the Forum. 10.9 Should King County and the affected jurisdictions be unable to agree on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed amendments shall be referred to the Department of Ecology to resolve any disputes regarding such amendments. 10.10 Should there be any impasse between the parties regarding Plan adoption, adequacy, or consistency or inconsistency or whether any permits or programs adopted or proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then the Department of Ecology shall resolve said disputes. XI. FORCE MAJEURE The parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable event beyond the control of either party to this Agreement. Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement RL - 121 »> XIII. WAIVER No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of any subsequent breach whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement. XII. MERGER This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representation and/or agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes the entire contract between the parties except with regard to the provisions of the Forum Interlocal Agreement. XIV. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other entity or person except those expressly described herein, and no other such person or entity shall be entitled to be treated as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement. XV. SEVERABILITY If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement RL 12 XVI. NOTICE IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below: CITY KING COUNTY MAYOR KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE DATE: DATE: PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. CLERK - ATTEST CLERK - ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY CITY ATTORNEY KING COUNTY DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY DATE: c33modelsw4 Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement DATE: RL - 123 FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, the City of Seattle, and the cities and towns set forth below, all municipal corporations located within the boundaries of King County, hereinafter referred to as "County" and "Cities". This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction pursuant to formal action as designated on the signature pages. I. PREAMBLE This Agreement is entered into for the purposes of establishing a Forum composed of representatives from the Cities and the County that will consider issues of policy regarding terms and conditions of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement entered into individually between each City and the County. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the Forum and the terms and conditions by which the parties shall discuss and/or determine policy and development of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. III. DURATION This Agreement shall become effective on July 1, 1988, and shall remain in effect through June 30, 2028. IV. APPROVAL This Agreement shall be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology for its approval as to all matters within the Department's statutory jurisdiction, if any. This Agreement shall be filed with each City clerk, with the Clerk of the King County Council, and the Secretary of State of the State of Washington. Solid Waste Mkrk al agreement RL 1 24 V. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES The scope of the responsibilities of the Forum is as follows: 1. Advise the King County Council, the King County Executive and other jurisdictions as appropriate, on all policy aspects of solid waste management and planning. 2. Consult with and advise King County Solid Waste Division on technical issues related to solid waste management and planning. 3. Review and comment on alternatives and recommendations for King County comprehensive solid waste management plan and facilitate a review and/or approval of the plan by each jurisdiction. 4. Review subsequent proposed interlocal agreements between King County and Cities for planning, waste recycling and reduction, and waste stream control. 5. Review and comment on disposal rate proposals. 6. Review and comment on status reports on waste stream reduction, recycling, energy/resource recovery and solid waste operations with interjurisdictional impact. 7. Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators, local government with collection authority, recyclers and County planned and operated disposal systems. 8. Provide coordination opportunities between King County Solid Waste Division, Cities, private operators and recyclers. 9. Aid Cities in recognizing municipal solid waste responsibilities, including collection and recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities. Solid Waste Interlocal agreement VI. MEMBERSHIP 6.1 The Forum shall consist of a 12 member group of representatives of unincorporated King County designated by the King County Council, representatives of the City of Seattle designated by the City of Seattle, and representatives of other incorporated cities and towns within King County that are signators to this agreement designated by the Suburban Cities Association. Members of the Forum shall be established on the most current population estimates as published by the Washington office of Financial Management. Currently, unincorporated King County composes 41 percent; Seattle, 36 percent; and Suburban Cities, 23 percent of the total population. The calculations are determined as follows: Members Unincorporated King County 12 x 41% = 4.92 5 Seattle 12 x 36% = 4.32 4 Suburbs 12 x 23% = 2.76 3 Total 12 + Chair 6.2 In calculating the number of representatives on the Forum, all numbers .5 and greater are to be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Proportional representation of the Forum will be reviewed once every five years during the life of this agreement and necessary revisions shall be made to the proportional representation according to the formula set forth above based on population change as established by the most current census. 6.3 In addition to the 12 members of the Forum, a citizen chair shall be selected or removed by a majority vote of all members of the Forum. Each representative shall have an equal vote on all Forum decisions. the Chair shall vote only in the case of a tie on any vote of the Forum. VII. MEETINGS Unless otherwise provided, Roberts Revised Rules of Order shall govern all procedural matters related to the business of the Forum. There shall be a minimum of two meetings each year and not less than 14 days written notice shall be given to members prior to such meeting. Four or more members or the Chair may declare an emergency meeting with 24 hours written notice to the members. The first meeting shall be held no later than March 1, 1988, and the time, date and location shall be set by King County after consultation with the representatives of Seattle and the other cities and towns. Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement RL - 126 :;:' ::::: ::::'' :': ::: >::::::::::::>:::>X.::::::>::>:::>:::....::::.::>:.>::>::»>::::::»::>::::::»>::::::::»:....::::::::>:::>:::::>:: . VIII. BYLAWS 8.1 The Forum shall, within sixty days after its first meeting, adopt bylaws for the operation of the Forum. Such bylaws shall recognize that this Forum shall function in the place of the Puget Sound Council of Governments Committee on Solid Waste and the Solid Waste Management Board of the King Sub -regional Council. This Interlocal Forum shall not report to nor have responsibilities to or for either committee or council. The King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee formed pursuant to RCW 70.95.165 shall continue pursuant to its statutory functions and, in addition, shall advise the Forum on solid waste matters. 8.2 The bylaws shall provide, among other things, that the Forum shall make an annual written report to the public, and the parties to this Agreement on Forum activities and the status of the solid waste systems in King County. The bylaws may also provide for such other reports as deemed necessary. 8.3 The bylaws shall also provide for the manner in which the Forum will provide its consultative and participatory advice regarding the solid waste management plan. IX. STAFFING AND OTHER SUPPORT Staffing, supplies and equipment for the Forum shall be supplied by and through the Puget Sound Council of Governments, its successor, or other entity. Reimbursement to the Puget Sound Council of Governments for such staffing, supplies and equipment shall be agreed upon and paid by King County from monies collected from the solid waste rates and charges, after considering recommendations by the Forum to King County. The Forum shall submit an appropriation request to the County by May 31 of each year or such other mutually agreed upon date. King County may, subject to approval by a two-thirds vote of all constituted representatives of the Forum, terminate the staffing with Puget Sound Council of Governments and provide such staffing, supplies and equipment by other means. Solid Waste Interlocal agreement RL - 127 X. FORCE MAJEURE The parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement when failure to perform was due to an unforeseeable event beyond the control of any party to this agreement. XI. MERGER This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiation, representation and/or agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes the entire contract between the parties except with regard to the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement. XII. WAIVER No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or any subsequent breach, whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement. XIII. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other entity or person, except those expressly described herein, and no other such person or entity shall be entitled to be treated as a third party beneficiary of this Agreement. Solid Waste Interlocal 4reement RL 128 8 XIV. SEVERABILITY If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth below, pursuant to the legislative action set forth below. CITY Mayor ate Pursuant to Ordinance No. Clerk -Attest Approved as to form and legality City Attorney ate Solid Waste Interlocal 4remnmt KING COUNTY King County Executive Date Pursuant to Ordinance No. erk-Attest Approved as to form and legality King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date c33-forumsw. C) King County Public Rules Public Rules _ and Regulations RL -129 Solid Waste Acceptance Policy Department of Public Works/ Solid Waste Division PUT 7-1-2(PR) KCC 10.04 uTy'24, 1992 1.0 SUBJECT TITLE: Waste Acceptance Policies for King County Solid Waste Division Solid Waste Handling Facilities. 1.1 EFFECTIVE DATE: 1.2 TYPE OF ACTION: Superseding PUT 7-1-1(PR). 1.3 KEY WORDS: (1) Solid Waste Disposal; (2) Waste Acceptance Policy; (3) Solid Waste Facility Operation; (4) Clearance of Solid Waste 2.0 PURPOSE: To specify policies for the acceptance of waste at King County solid waste facilities. 3.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED: Applicable to the Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division. Waste generators and transporters in King County are also affected. 4.0 REFERENCES: 4.1 King County Code, Title 10, Solid Waste. 4.2 King County Department Policies and Procedures, PUT 7-3-2 (D -W). 4.3 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 4.4 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR Part 61. 4.5 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of November 14, 1990, 42 U.S.C. 7450- 7459, Title VI - Stratospheric Ozone Protection. 4.6 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Regulation III, Article 4, Asbestos Control Standard. 4.7 King County Board of Health Code, Title 10, King County Solid Waste Regulations. 4.8 Washington Administrative Code 173-303, State Dangerous Waste Regulations. 4.9 Washington Administrative Code 173-304, Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling. 4.10 Clean Air Washington Act of 1991, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1028. RL -130 Solid Waste Division PUT 7-1-2 (PR) Effective Date: July 24, 1992 KCC 10.04 5.0 DEFINITIONS: 5.1 "Animal Waste" means carcasses or parts of carcasses, manures, and waste by-products from rendering plants, fish processors, or animal operations such as feedlots, poultry houses or dairies. The term also includes dewatered sludge from pretreatment of wastewater emanating from rendering plants, fish processors, or animal operations such as feedlots, poultry houses, or dairies. 5.2 "Animal carcasses, exposed to pathogens" means waste animal carcasses, body parts, and bedding of animals that are known to be infected with, or that have been inoculated with, pathogenic microorganisms infectious to humans 5.3 "Asbestos -containing waste" means any waste that contains more than one percent asbestos by weight. 5.4 "Biomedical waste" means and is limited to carcasses of animal exposed to pathogens, Biosafety level 4 disease waste, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents, human blood and blood products, pathological waste, sharps waste and other waste determined to be infectious by the generator's infection control staff/committee. 5.5 "Treated biomedical waste" means biomedical waste that has undergone treatment consistent with Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health and is no longer considered capable of transmitting a disease. 5.6 "Biosafety level 4 disease waste" means waste contaminated with blood, excretions, exudates, or secretions from humans or animals who are isolated to protect others from highly communicable infectious diseases that are identified as pathogenic organisms assigned to Biosafety level 4 by the Centers for Disease Control, National Institute of Health, Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories, current edition. 5.7 "Bulky CDL waste" means dense, bulky materials typically resulting from construction, demolition and land clearing activities. These materials include but are not limited to asphalt, concrete, masonry, stumps and rocks. Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 RL -131 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 5.8 "Construction waste" means solid waste originating from the construction of buildings, roads, and other structures. Generally, waste generated during construction consists of new materials and may include, but is not limited to: concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized or plastic piping, sheet rock (also called drywall or plasterboard) and plaster. Certain components of the construction waste stream are considered to be inert and certain components are considered to be non - inert. In no event shall construction waste include dangerous or extremely hazardous waste of any kind, garbage (as defined by K.C.C. 10.040.020), sewage waste, animal carcasses, chemical waste, petroleum waste, or asbestos. • 5.8.1 "Inert construction waste" means inert components of construction waste including, but not limited to: concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, masonry, plastic piping, glass, dirt, and gravel. • 5.8.2 "Non -inert construction waste" means components of construction waste which are not considered to be inert waste including, but not limited to: wood, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, steel, copper, aluminum or galvanized piping, sheet rock, and plaster. Some components of • non -inert construction waste can be composted, including non- treated, non -painted wood. • 5.9 "Container" means a device used for the collection, storage, and/or transportation of solid waste including but not limited to reusable containers, disposable containers, detachable containers and fixed or detachable tanks. 5.10 "Contaminated soils" means soils containing contaminants at • concentrations greater than cleanup levels established by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) and which are not a dangerous waste. • 5.11 "Cultures and stocks" means wastes infectious to humans and includes • specimen cultures, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents, wastes from production of biologicals and serums, discarded live and attenuated • vaccines, and laboratory waste that has come into contact with cultures and stocks of etiologic agents or blood specimens. Such waste includes • but is not limited to culture dishes, blood specimens tubes, and devices used to transfer, inoculate and mix cultures. • • RL -132 Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 5.12 "Dangerous Waste" means solid waste designated in WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-103 as dangerous waste. 5.13 "Demolition waste" means solid waste originating from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads, and other structures. Demolition waste may include, but is not limited to: concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, glass, dirt, gravel, steel, aluminum, copper, galvanized or plastic piping, sheet rock, plaster, pallets, asphalt floor tile, and carpeting. Certain components of the demolition waste stream are considered to be inert waste, and certain components are considered to be non -inert. In no event shall demolition waste include dangerous or extremely hazardous waste, liquid waste, garbage (as defined by K.C.C. 10.040.020), sewage waste, animal carcasses, chemical waste, petroleum waste, or asbestos. 5.13.1 "Inert demolition waste" means inert components of demolition waste including, but not limited to: concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, masonry, plastic pipe, glass, asphalt floor tile, dirt, and gravel. 5.13.2 "Non -inert demolition waste" means components of demolition waste which are not considered to be inert waste, including, but not limited to: wood, composition roofing, roofing paper, shakes, shingles, linoleum, steel, aluminum, copper piping, galvanized piping, sheet rock, plaster, pallets, and carpeting. Non -inert demolition waste is not suitable for composting if the wood fraction has been treated or painted. 5.14 "Drum containers" means rigid containers larger than 5 gallons made of fiber, plastic, steel, or other nonferrous metal materials. 5.15 "Dusty materials" means material which may cause ambient air quality standards for suspended particulates to be exceeded at the transfer • station during unloading or at the active area of the landfill during placement, as specified in PSAPCA Regulations I, Section 11.03. Dusty materials include materials such as sheetrock dust, silicone dust, saw dust, fiberglass dust or any other loads which become airborne when unloaded. , 5.16 "Empty" means all waste has been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from the type container, e.g., pouring, pumping, or aspirating. For containers to be , considered empty under this Rule they must be treated in the following manner: • • • • • Solid Waste Division PUT 7-1-2 (PR) Effective Date: July 24, 1992 KCC 10.04 ■ Containers in excess of 25 gallons must have at least one end removed. ■ Containers which once held acutely hazardous waste must be triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent or cleaned by an equivalent method to be considered empty. ■ Containers which once held substances regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act must be emptied according to label instructions or triple rinsed with an appropriate solvent. ■ Cylinders of compressed gas are empty when the pressure in the container is equivalent to atmospheric pressure. 5.17 "Hazardous Waste" means solid waste designated by 40 CFR Part 261 and regulated as hazardous waste by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 5.18 "Extremely hazardous waste" means solid waste designated in WAC 173- 303-070 through 173-303-103 as extremely hazardous waste. 5.19 "Health Department" means the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 5.20 "Household hazardous waste" means all waste which would meet the characteristics or criteria for designation as a State Dangerous Waste or Extremely Hazardous Waste under WAC 173-303 except that it is generated at a residence and is exempt. It includes, but is not limited to cleaning agents, pesticides, solvents, motor fuels, crankcase oil, and chemicals used for home repair and remodeling, auto, boat and equipment maintenance, and hobby and recreational uses. 5.21 "Human blood and blood products" means discarded waste human blood and blood components, and materials containing free-flowing blood and blood products. 5.22 "Improperly handled waste" means waste handled other than in accordance with PSAPCA Regulations III, King County Board of Health Code Title 10, WAC 173-303, WAC 173-304, this public rule, or any other applicable provision of local, state, or federal law. RL -134 Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 5.23 "Industrial Waste" means by-products from manufacturing operations such as scraps, trimmings, packing, sludges, spill residues and other discarded materials not otherwise designated as Dangerous Waste under Chapter 173-303 WAC. Industries producing industrial wastes include, but are not limited to those providing the following products and services: textiles, synthetic fibers, lumber and wood products, pulp and paper products, plastic materials and resins, synthetic rubber products, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, miscellaneous petroleum and coal products, rubber and miscellaneous plastics, machinery and mechanical- products, pipelines, printing and publishing services, electrical services, petroleum refining, and wholesale petroleum marketing. Also included in this definition is ash from incinerators that burn waste products for fuel, such as waste -to -energy incinerators or hospital incinerators. 5.24 "Inert waste" means nonhazardous, nondangerous solid waste which will not dissolve, oxidize, or degrade under expected conditions of disposal including saturation, anaerobic biological conditions, aerobic biological conditions, varying pH conditions, exposure to leachate, and temperature extremes. 5.25 "KCSWD" means the King County Solid Waste Division. 5.26 "Land clearing waste" means waste resulting from site clearing and includes, but is not limited to: stumps, tree trunks, brush, other vegetation, plant waste, rocks, mud, and other mineral waste. Most vegetative land clearing waste may be composted. 5.27 "Liquid Waste" means any waste material that is determined to contain free liquids by Method 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test), as described in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods" (U.S. EPA Publication No. SW -846). 5.28 "Mixed municipal solid waste" means waste consisting of solid waste generated by residences, stores, offices, and other generators of wastes that are not industrial, agricultural, or demolition wastes. 5.29 "Official of the King County Solid Waste Division" means the Solid Waste Division Manager or his/her designee. 5.30 "Pathological waste" means waste human source biopsy materials, tissues and anatomical parts that emanate from surgery, obstetrical procedures and autopsy. Pathological waste does not include teeth, human corpses, remains, or anatomical parts that are intended for interment or cremation. Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 �zL -135 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 5.31 "Private vehicle" means a vehicle which is licensed to an individual and which is not being used for hire or consideration. 5.32 "PSAPCA" means the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 5.33 "Regulated refrigerant" means a class I or class II substance as listed in Title VI of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 5.34 "Sharps waste" means hypodermic needles, syringes with needles attached, IV tubing with needles attached, dental scalers, scalpel blades, and lancets that have been removed from the original sterile package. 5.35 "Sludge" means a solid or semi-solid material consisting of settled solids combined with varying amounts of water and dissolved material which contains less than 40 percent solids by weight and is not a liquid waste. 5.36 "Total petroleum hydrocarbons" means the sum of petroleum hydrocarbons as determined by current test methods approved by the State Department of Ecology. 5.37 "Vactor waste" means waste collected in trucks equipped with a vacuum. Vactor waste can be either wet (catch basin or storm drain cleanout, etc.) or dry (loose insulation, soot, etc.) 5.38 "Waste Clearance Policy" means Public Rule PUT 7-2-1 (PR) or future amendments of that rule. 5.39 "White goods" means major appliances, such as refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, stoves, water heaters, washers and dryers. 5.40 "Yard waste" means waste resulting from maintenance or removal of vegetation, including, but not limited to: brush, branches, leaves, flowers, shrubs and small trees. Yard waste shall not include animal excrement, rocks, garbage, solid waste other than yard waste, demolition debris, moderate risk waste, biomedical waste, dangerous waste, or extremely hazardous waste. RL -136 Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 6.0 POLICIES: King County solid waste facilities are designed, constructed, and operated primarily for the handling and disposal of mixed municipal solid waste. Waste other than mixed municipal solid waste may be accepted without conditions, accepted only under certain conditions, accepted only with waste clearance authorization, or prohibited. A description of King County's acceptance policies for various waste types is described below and are organized according to the above listed categories. For an alphabetized listing of waste types, see Appendix 9.1. 6.1 Accepted Wastes. The following types of waste are accepted at King County solid waste facilities without restriction: 6.1.1 Mixed municipal solid waste. 6.1.2 Yard waste is accepted at any KCSWD facility. However, composting of yard waste at home or at centralized facilities is encouraged. Some transfer stations and rural landfills have provisions for collecting segregated yard waste for composting. Call 296-4466 for information on yard waste composting options. 6.2 Conditionally Accepted Waste. The following materials are accepted at King County Solid Waste Division facilities only when conditions specified below are met: 6.2.1 Aerosol cans or pressurized containers are not accepted in large quantities. Ten or fewer containers mixed in with household garbage are acceptable. Pressurized containers may also be taken to the Household Hazardous Wastemobile. Call the Health Department's Hazards Line at 296-4692 for information. 6.2.2 Individual dead animals weighing less than 15 pounds may be disposed in the general waste stream. For dead animals weighing more than 15 pounds, or dead animals disposed in quantity, see Section 6.3.2 of this rule. 6.2.3 Human blood and blood products which are absorbed by materials such as bandages, sanitary napkins, or commercial absorbents so that the fluid will not be released from the material and\or become airborne during normal solid waste handling procedures, is accepted at KCSWD facilities. See Section 6.3.6 for free flowing or fluid human blood and blood products. Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 RL -137 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 6.2.4 Construction, demolition and land clearing waste, is accepted at KCSWD facilities only as provided below. 6.2.4.1 Construction, demolition and land clearing waste will be accepted at County facilities when delivered in a private vehicle with a load capacity of less than or equal to 1,500 pounds. For the purposes of this section, vehicles licensed for 8,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) or less will be considered to have a load capacity of 1,500 pounds or less. Materials delivered under this paragraph are subject to the following conditions: a. Asphalt, concrete, masonry, stumps, rocks and other bulky items must be no greater than two feet by two feet by two feet in size and weigh less than 200 pounds. b. All waste materials must be in lengths of eight feet or less. 6.2.4.2 Non -inert construction and non -inert demolition waste are not considered to be construction and demolition waste for the purposes of implementing Title 10 of the King County Code and will be accepted at King County solid waste handling facilities as provided below: a. Bulky CDL waste must be no greater than two feet by two feet by two feet in size and weigh less than 200 pounds. b. All waste materials must be in lengths of eight feet or less. The provisions of paragraph 6.2.4.2 will be rescinded when an ordinance is enacted which directs CDL waste to specific facilities. Such an ordinance enactment is expected no later than June 1, 1994 and may occur in early 1993. Notice will be provided at KCSWD facilities at least thirty days before the enactment of such an ordinance. RL -138 Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 0I is PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 • 6.2.5 Cultures and stocks of etiological agents, associated biologicals and laboratory waste other than sharps are accepted at King County solid waste facilities when treated according to Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health. Materials must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form indicating that the waste has been treated. 6.2.6 Dusty material shall be disposed of in the following manner: 6.2.6.1 To the extent possible, dusty material shall be separated from other types of solid waste. Dusty material will be accepted at transfer stations and landfills in mixed loads if it is the lesser ingredient of the waste and does not create a health hazard during unloading. 6.2.6.2 Loads of dusty material shall be containerized in plastic bags or wetted to the extent that they are no longer dusty materials as defined in Section 5.15 of this Public Rule. 6.2.6.3 Dusty loads may be required to unload only at the Cedar Hills Landfill if dust cannot be adequately controlled at other solid waste facilities. Loads delivered to Cedar Hills must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.2.7 Food products, including beverages, which are outdated, off - specification or damaged and are in excess of one cubic foot solids and/or 5 gallons of liquids, must be approved in writing by the KCSWD prior to disposal. Waste clearance is required if disposal at Cedar Hills Landfill is needed. 6.2.8 Household hazardous wastes other than motor oil, oil-based paints, wood preservatives and banned or restricted -use pesticides are accepted at Solid Waste Division facilities. The Solid Waste Division recommends that materials be used completely before disposing of empty containers. If materials cannot be used, they should be disposed at a dedicated household hazardous waste facility such as the Household Hazardous Wastemobile. Contact the Health Department's Hazards Line (296- 4692) for more information on available disposal facilities. Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 RL -139 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 6.2.9 Human excrement shall not be deposited in the solid waste stream for disposal. It should be disposed in a sanitary sewer or approved on-site sewage disposal system. Disposable diapers, adult incontinence products and other materials contaminated with feces may be placed in the solid waste disposal system as long as solid fecal material has been removed. This section does not apply to facilities or institutions which are prevented by state or county regulation from handling used diaper products. 6.2.10 Insulation is accepted at any KCSWD facility unless the insulation contains asbestos or fits the definition of dusty material. See Asbestos -containing waste (Section 6.3.3) for disposal of asbestos insulation. See Dusty material (Section 6.2.6) for policies related to the disposal of dusty waste. 6.2.11 Laboratory waste. See Biomedical waste (Section 6.4.3) or Treated biomedical waste (Section 6.3.4) for waste from medical laboratories. Other types of laboratory waste are regulated according to the type of waste generated. 6.2.12 Medical waste. See Section 6.3.4 and 6.4.3 for treated and untreated biomedical waste, respectively. Waste from medical facilities which is not biomedical waste or treated biomedical waste (i.e. office waste, cafeteria waste, etc.) is accepted at KCSWD facilities. 6.2.13 Odorous waste. Loads of waste with highly offensive, irritating or noxious odors may be required to be mitigated in some manner or to be disposed directly at the Cedar Hills Landfill. Waste clearance is required for materials disposed directly at Cedar Hills. 6.2.14 Oversized materials. All materials disposed at KCSWD facilities must be eight feet in length, or less. Oversized materials which cannot be broken down or cut into lengths of eight feet or less may be accepted at the Cedar Hills landfill with an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.2.15 Polystyrene packaging material is accepted at KCSWD facilities if bagged to prevent littering during transport and disposal. 6.2.16 Propane tanks are accepted if they are small and empty. Small tanks are defined as those with a capacity of 10 gallons or less. Larger tanks, full tanks or tanks which could be refilled may be taken to the Household Hazardous Wastemobile. Call the Health Department's Hazards Line at 296-4692 for information. RL -140 Solid Waste Division PUT 7-1-2 (PR) Effective Date: July 24, 1992 KCC 10.04 6.2.17 Roofing material. See Construction, demolition and land clearing waste (Section 6.2.4). If roofing material contains asbestos, see Asbestos -containing waste (Section 6.3.3). 6.2.18 Tires. Up to four vehicle tires will be accepted from noncommercial customers only. Tires may be taken to any KCSWD transfer station or rural landfill. Call the Solid Waste Division at 296-4466 for information on tire recycling and processing. 6.2.19 White goods containing regulated refrigerants may not be disposed at KCSWD facilities after July 1, 1992. Other white goods are accepted at KCSWD facilities from noncommercial customers only. Recycling of appliances is encouraged, call 296-4466 for information on recycling. 6.3 Special Waste. The following types of waste will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill under the terms of an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form as described in King County's Waste Clearance Policy, providing that nothing in this rule shall prevent special waste generated on Vashon Island from being disposed at the Vashon Landfill when such disposal is indicated on an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.3.1 Animal excrement is accepted at Cedar Hills only under the following conditions: animal excrement which is mixed with bedding material and which is not acceptable for composting and cannot be disposed in a sanitary sewer system will be accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill when accompanied by an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.3.2 Dead animals weighing more than 15 pounds, or dead animals disposed in quantity should be taken to a rendering plant, veterinary clinic, animal shelter, pet cemetery or buried on the property owners property, so long as no nuisance is created. If none of these methods are available, dead animals may be accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill when accompanied by an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form. See Section 6.4.1 for policies related to disposal of animal carcasses exposed to pathogenic organisms. 6.3.3.2 Loads of asbestos -containing waste will be accompanied by • a PSAPCA Notice of Intent to Remove or Encapsulate Asbestos. If the waste is not regulated by PSAPCA, a Waste Clearance Decision Form is required. Additionally, all asbestos -containing waste must be accompanied by a Waste Shipment Record as required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). 6.3.3.3 Loads of asbestos -containing waste must be containerized as described in the King County Board of Health Code, Title 10 and Regulation III of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. 6.3.3.4 Landfill officials shall require 24 hour advance notification of all deliveries of asbestos -containing waste material. Notification shall consist of a telephone call from the generator, asbestos abatement contractor, or hauler to an official of the KCSWD at the landfill, providing the official with the name of the generator, quantity of asbestos -containing waste to be delivered, method of asbestos containment, and the date and time of projected delivery. 6.3.3.5 Items which contain only nonfriable asbestos may be unloaded mechanically. All other items must be unloaded by hand. During placement the hauler will: a. Place the asbestos -containing waste in the trench or container without rupture of the disposal bags. b. Place heavy containers and materials in an area of the trench or container dedicated to those materials. Heavy containers and materials shall not be placed on top of plastic bags. � RL -141 Solid Waste Division PUT 7-1-2 (PR) Effective Date: July 24, 1992 KCC 10.04 6.3.3 Asbestos -containing waste shall be disposed of in the following manner: 6.3.3.1 Asbestos -containing waste shall be accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill on Tuesdays and Fridays only, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Asbestos may be received • at the landfill on days other than Tuesdays and Fridays at i the sole discretion of the Solid Waste Division, depending on staff availability. 6.3.3.2 Loads of asbestos -containing waste will be accompanied by • a PSAPCA Notice of Intent to Remove or Encapsulate Asbestos. If the waste is not regulated by PSAPCA, a Waste Clearance Decision Form is required. Additionally, all asbestos -containing waste must be accompanied by a Waste Shipment Record as required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). 6.3.3.3 Loads of asbestos -containing waste must be containerized as described in the King County Board of Health Code, Title 10 and Regulation III of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. 6.3.3.4 Landfill officials shall require 24 hour advance notification of all deliveries of asbestos -containing waste material. Notification shall consist of a telephone call from the generator, asbestos abatement contractor, or hauler to an official of the KCSWD at the landfill, providing the official with the name of the generator, quantity of asbestos -containing waste to be delivered, method of asbestos containment, and the date and time of projected delivery. 6.3.3.5 Items which contain only nonfriable asbestos may be unloaded mechanically. All other items must be unloaded by hand. During placement the hauler will: a. Place the asbestos -containing waste in the trench or container without rupture of the disposal bags. b. Place heavy containers and materials in an area of the trench or container dedicated to those materials. Heavy containers and materials shall not be placed on top of plastic bags. RL -142 Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 6.3.4 Treated biomedical waste. See Animal carcasses exposed to pathogens (Section 6.4.1), Biosafety level 4 disease waste (Section 6.3.5), Human blood and blood products (Section 6.2.3 and 6.3.6), Cultures and stocks (Section 6.2.5), Pathological waste (Section 6.4.11), or Sharps waste (Section 6.3.14). 6.3.5 Biosafety level 4 disease waste or other substances which the biomedical waste generator's infection control staff person or committee determines may create a significant risk of disease will be accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill when treated in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health and accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.3.6 Human blood and blood products which are in free flowing or fluid form and which cannot be incinerated, poured via a utility sink drain or toilet to an approved sewage treatment system, or otherwise treated or disposed.in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health may be accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill when packaged in a leakproof container and accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. See Section 6.2.3 for human blood and blood products in absorbed form. 6.3.7 Catch basin residue and vactor waste must be dewatered to the extent practicable. These wastes are accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill or other facility designated by the KCSWD when accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. Waste Clearance Decision Forms may be issued on a yearly basis for cleaning of facilities in areas not likely to receive highly contaminated runoff. Where contamination is likely, or if the generator or hauler notices suspicious odor or coloration, a separate waste clearance will be required for each such site. Testing of the residue will be required and a special waste fee charged. 6.3.8 Containerized liquids in excess of five gallons shall be delivered to the Cedar Hills Landfill or other designated facility for disposal and must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.3.9 Contaminated soil will be disposed in the following manner: 6.3.9.1 Contaminated soil shall be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill and must be accompanied by an Waste Clearance Decision Form. A completed Generator's Waste Profile Sheet and Generator's Certification of Representative Sample must accompany the Waste Clearance Application Form when requesting disposal clearance. Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 RL -143 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 6.3.9.2 All deliveries of contaminated soil to the Cedar Hills Landfill must be scheduled in advance with an official of the KCSWD, providing the official with the name of the generator, quantity of soil to be delivered and the time of projected delivery. Landfill officials require a minimum 24-hour advance notification. 6.3.9.3 Oil -contaminated soils containing total petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of 3 percent may cause damage to equipment operation or environmental protection system operation and may be denied entry. 6.3.10 Drum containers will be accepted only under the following conditions: 6.3.10.1 Single drums which are empty as defined in Section 5.16 of this Public Rule, have lids removed and holes punched in sides, and are generated and transported by private individuals, may be disposed at transfer stations. All other drums will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill or other designated facility, and must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.3.10.2 Full drums are regulated according to their contents. 6.3.10.3 Whether empty or full, plastic, fiber and metal drums must: a. have at least one end removed, or b. have been cut in half, or C. have been crushed, and d. be labeled non -hazardous. 6.3.11 Fuel tanks will be accepted for disposal at the Cedar Hills Landfill only and must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. Fuel tanks must be empty as defined in Section 5.16 of this Public Rule. Tanks which once held acutely hazardous waste must be accompanied by a receipt or certification from a hazardous waste handler stating that the tank has been cleaned. Tanks must have both ends removed or be punctured with several holes prior to being transported to a King County disposal facility. RL -144 Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 0i 0� PUT 7-1-2 (PR) • KCC 10.04 6.3.12 Industrial Waste shall be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill or other designated facility, and must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. A completed Generator's Waste Profile Sheet and Generator's Certification of Representative Sample must accompany the Waste Clearance Application Form when requesting disposal clearance. 6.3.13 Restaurant grease. Grease and fats from restaurants should be disposed at rendering facilities. Materials not suitable for rendering will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill and must be accompanied by an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form. Liquids must be minimized. 6.3.14 Sharps waste will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill and must be containerized according to Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health. Sharps waste disposed at Cedar Hills must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. The KCSWD strongly suggests that home -generated sharps not be disposed with household garbage. Please consult your physician, pharmacist or solid waste collection company for alternative disposal methods for home -generated sharps. 6.3.15 Sludge from wastewater treatment plants may be accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill if accompanied by an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form. The sludge must be in a non -liquid state. See Industrial waste (Section 6.3.12) for industrial process sludges. 6.3.16 Vactor waste. See Catch basin residue (Section 6.3.7). 6.3.17 Other waste. Other materials may be designated as special waste by an official of the KCSWD due to special handling needs or specific waste properties. 6.4 Not Accepted. The following loads will not be accepted at any KCSWD solid waste handling facility under any circumstances: 6.4.1 Animal carcasses exposed to pathogens in research, including bedding and other waste from such animals, should be treated according to Title 10 of the code of the King County Board of Health will be accepted only at the Cedar Hills Landfill and must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.4.2 Banned or restricted -use pesticides. Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 RL -145 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 6.4.3 Biomedical waste, untreated. Biomedical waste which has not been treated in accordance with Health Department Solid Waste Regulations is not accepted at King County solid waste handling facilities. 6.4.4 Burning or smoldering material. 6.4.5 Explosives, including fireworks, detonators, blasting caps, and ammunition. 6.4.6 Hazardous/dangerous waste. Including waste from small quantity generators. 6.4.7 Non -containerized liquids. 6.4.8 Motor oil may be taken to the Household Hazardous Wastemobile or other facilities which recycle used oil. For information on the Wastemobile or on other options call the Health Department Hazards Line at 295-4692. 6.4.9 Motor vehicles and vehicle parts. King County solid waste facilities do not accept vehicles or vehicle parts for disposal. Vehicles and parts may be taken to salvage or wrecking yards. If a vehicle cannot be salvaged, a waste clearance application may be approved. Proof of ownership must be provided. 6.4.10 Motor vehicle batteries, or lead -acid batteries, are to be returned to retail outlets when purchasing a new battery. If you do not need to purchase a new battery, call 1 -800 -RECYCLE for information on collection centers. 6.4.11 Pathological waste. 6.4.12 Uncontaminated, or clean soil. 6.4.13 White goods containing regulated refrigerants are not accepted at King County solid waste facilities for disposal after July 1, 1992. 6.4.14 Wood preservatives. 6.5 Site attendants, cashiers, facility supervisors, or officials of the KCSWD may deny entry to incoming loads under the following circumstances: RL -146 Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 6.5.1 Loads suspected of containing waste which is regulated hazardous/dangerous waste or any loads suspected of containing improperly handled waste, burning waste or untreated infectious waste may be denied entry until such time that a Waste Clearance Decision Form is issued. Suspicious loads may be identified by the following means: ■ Visible observation of regulated materials, or of labeling, smoke, fumes, or the presence of liquids, suggesting the presence of regulated materials. ■ Highly offensive, irritating or noxious odors which cause discomfort to employees, customers or surrounding residents or are otherwise indicative of regulated materials. ■ Past problems have been identified with the waste generator or hauler which have not been resolved. 6.6 Waste which may cause damage to the KCSWD solid waste handling equipment or environmental protection systems may not be accepted for disposal, at the discretion of the KCSWD staff, e.g., bulky waste, non - containerized liquid waste or sticky, viscous materials. 6.7 The Director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee shall have the authority to declare an emergency authorizing the disposal of materials otherwise requiring conditions or clearance under this rule, which could pose a threat to public health or the environment if not disposed immediately. 6.8 The Director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee is authorized and responsible to enforce or scark anfc: -n. c" -V„ LIlt: prosecutor's office of this Public Rule pursuant to the civil penalty provisions of King County Code Title 23. 7.0 PROCEDURES: Action by: Action: Generators/ 7.1 Determines appropriate disposal Transporters facility for types of waste generated. King County 7.2 Checks loads of waste arriving at King County solid waste handling facilities. Denies access to or gathers information sufficient to support enforcement actions against persons with prohibited loads. Solid Waste Division Effective Date: July 24, 1992 8.0 RESPONSIBILITIES: RL -147 PUT 7-1-2 (PR) KCC 10.04 8.1 Generators and transporters of waste are responsible for ensuring that the waste is properly treated, handled, and disposed. 8.2 KCSWD is responsible for ensuring that King County solid waste facilities are available for use by the residents of King County for municipal waste handling and disposal, and that these facilities are constructed and operated in conformance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. 9.0 APPENDICES 9.1 Summary of King County Solid Waste Acceptance Policies M2/put712.fin August 2, 1993 „ King County Public Rule O Public Rules and Regulations • RL - 14 8 Document Cooe No Clearance of Solid Waste Disposal 'PUT 7-2-1(PR) • King County Waste Disposal Facilities KCC 10.10.030 Departmentnsswno Agenc Effective Date Department of Public Works/Solid Waste Division ” July 24, 1992 Approved / -16 • 1.0 SUBJECT TITLE: Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal at King County Solid Waste Disposal Facilities. • 1.1 EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1992 • 1.1.0 File Date: • 1.2 TYPE OF ACTION: Superseding PUT 7-2 (PR) • 1.3 KEY WORDS: (1) Clearance of Solid Waste; (2) Solid Waste Disposal; (3) Waste Clearance Policy; (4) Solid Waste Facility Operation; (5) Health Department Solid Waste Clearance. • 2.0 PURPOSE: To specify procedures for clearance of solid waste for disposal • at King County Solid Waste Division Facilities. Wastes affected by this Public Rule include those types identified in Public Rule PUT 7-1-2 (PR) and subsequent revisions as requiring clearance from the Solid Waste Division for disposal at County facilities. 3.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED: Applicable to the Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division. The Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division, and users of King County solid • waste disposal facilities are also affected. • 4.0 REFERENCES: • 4.1 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Regulation III, Article 4, • Asbestos Control Standard. 4.2 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 4.3 King County Code, Title 10, Solid Waste. • 4.4 King County Department Policies and Procedures, PUT 7-3-2 (D -W). • 4.5 King County Board of Health Code, Title 10, King County Solid Waste Regulations. • 4.6 Washington Administrative Code 173-303, State Dangerous Waste Regulations. • 4.7 Washington Administrative Code 173-304, Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling. • • Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal King County Waste Disposal Facilities Effective Date: July 24, 1992 RL -149 PUT 7-2-1 (PR) 4.8 Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, more commonly known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC, Section 6901- 6991i. 4.9 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR Part 61. 5.0 DEFINITIONS: 5.1 "Container" shall be as defined by the waste acceptance policy. 5.2 "Contaminated soils" shall be as defined by the waste acceptance policy. 5.3 "Dangerous Waste" means solid waste designated by WAC 173-303-070 through 173-303-103 as dangerous or extremely hazardous waste. 5.4 "Hazardous Waste" means solid waste designated by 40 CFR Part 261 and regulated as hazardous waste by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 5.5 "Health Department" means the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 5.6 "Improperly handled waste" shall be as defined by the waste acceptance policy. 5.7 "Industrial Waste" shall be as defined by the waste acceptance policy. 5.8 "KCSWD" means the King County Solid Waste Division. 5.9 "Official of the King County Solid Waste Division" means the Solid Waste Division Manager or his/her designee. 5.10 "PSAPCA" means the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 5.11 "Special waste" means all wastes which require waste clearance, as specified in the waste acceptance policy. 5.12 "Waste Acceptance Policy" means King County Public Rule PUT 7-1-2 (PR) or future amendments of that rule. 5.13 "Waste Clearance Application Form" means documentation provided by the Health Department or KCSWD which, when completed by the generator, provides information on the characteristics of the solid waste load and specifications regarding an acceptable method of disposal. RL -150 Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal PUT 7-2-1 (PR) King County Waste Disposal Facilities Effective Date: July 24, 1992 5.14 "Waste Clearance Decision Form" means documentation provided by the KCSWD to generators based on information provided in the generator's application. The decision form specifies conditions for disposal of materials regulated under this public rule. 6.0 POLICIES 6.1 All incoming loads of special waste must be accompanied by a Waste Clearance Decision Form. 6.2 Waste Clearance Decision Forms are issued by KCSWD after review of a completed Generator's Waste Clearance Application Form. Copies of the Generator's Waste Clearance Application Form are available from KCSWD and the Health Department. A Generator's Waste Profile Sheet and a Generator's Certification of Representative Sample are also required for certain waste types specified in the waste acceptance policy. 6.3 Forms completed by the generator are returned to the KCSWD or the Health Department depending on the type of waste being disposed. Instructions and addresses for returning forms are contained on the forms. 6.4 Special waste loads may be subject to certain conditions which will be specified on the Waste Clearance Decision Form. These conditions include, but are not limited to: 6.4.1 A particular solid waste handling facility to which -the waste must be taken. 6.4.2 A disposal schedule to which the transporter must adhere. 6.4.3 An acceptable haul route to which the transporter must adhere. 6.4.4 Conditions for handling or packaging the waste prior to disposal. 6.5 Special wastes will be charged a special waste disposal fee as specified by King County ordinance. The manager of the Solid Waste Division, or his/her designee shall have the authority to make exceptions to the special waste fee for a certain type of waste when it can be clearly demonstrated that the waste type does not have unique operational, administrative, public health or environmental impacts. 6.6 The number of types of special waste loads accepted at the Cedar Hills Landfill may be limited by weather constraints, such as frozen ground, heavy rains or high winds, or by operational constraints. Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal King County Waste Disposal Facilities Effective Date: July 24, 1992 PUT 7-2-1 (PR) 6.7 Available daily and yearly landfill capacity, in terms of both numbers of incoming vehicles and total tonnages, is restricted for special wastes to quantities to be determined by the KCSWD. The KCSWD reserves the right to allocate this capacity. 6.8 The generator will produce, at the request of the Health Department of the KCSWD, laboratory test data from representative samples, material safety data sheets, or other documentation that the waste being disposed of is not a regulated Hazardous/Dangerous Waste or otherwise being improperly handled. All such documentation will be attached to the Waste Clearance Application Form. 6.9 The Generator's Waste Clearance Application Form should be submitted to the applicable agency at least two weeks prior to the anticipated start of disposal activities. 6.10 If material being disposed is generated at regular intervals and is consistent in its composition, a Waste Clearance Decision Form may be issued allowing disposal over a period of up to one year. 6.11 The Director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee shall have the authority to declare an emergency authorizing the disposal of materials otherwise requiring clearance under this rule, • which could pose a threat to public health or the environment if not disposed immediately. i 6.12 Enforcement. The director of the Department of Public Works or his/her designee is authorized and responsible to enforce or seek enforcement through the prosecutor's office of this Public Rule pursuant to the civil penalty provisions of King County Code Title 23. 7.0 PROCEDURES Action by: Action: Generator 7.1 Determines if Waste Clearance is needed and obtains application form from the KCSWD or the Health Department. Returns completed application to the Health Department with Generator's Waste Profile Sheet and Generator's Certification of Representative Sample if the waste is contaminated soil, or industrial waste. For all other waste requiring clearance, the completed application is returned to the KCSWD. RL -152 Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal King County Waste Disposal Facilities Effective Date: July 24, 1992 PUT 7-2-1 (PR) a KCSWD 7.2 Reviews Waste Clearance Application received from generator. Completes Waste Clearance Decision Form and sends to Generator. Keeps a copy of both forms in files. Health 7.3 Reviews Waste Clearance Application received from Department generator. Completes Waste Clearance Authorization Form and forwards to KCSWD. Keeps a copy of the form in files. Sends copies of completed form to Region 10 of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Northwest Regional Office of the State Department of Ecology. KCSWD 7.4 Reviews Waste Clearance Authorization received from Health Department and Generator's Application Form. Completes Waste Clearance Decision Form and sends to Generator. Sends copies of completed form to the Health Department, transporter and engineering consultant, if any. A copy of the completed approval form is kept in the KCSWD files. Generator 7.5 Provides transporter with copy of Waste Clearance Decision Form. Transporter 7.6 Presents Waste Clearance Decision Form to KCSWD staff at cashiers booth with each load of approved waste delivered. Retains form during unloading. Loads of asbestos -containing wastes must also provide Waste Shipment Records to the landfill cashier. KCSWD 7.7 Keeps records of cleared wastes entering landfill. 8.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 8.1 All those generating solid waste for ultimate disposal at KCSWD disposal facilities are responsible for ensuring that the solid waste is not being improperly handling and that, when required, a Waste Clearance Decision Form accompanies the solid waste loads. 8.2 Transporters of solid waste to KCSWD facilities are responsible for not knowingly transporting improperly handled waste, and for presenting a Waste Clearance Decision Form as requested by King County officials or facility attendants. Clearance of Solid Waste for Disposal King County Waste Disposal Facilities Effective Date: July 24, 1992 RL -153 PUT 7-2-1 (PR) 8.3 KCSWD is responsible for ensuring that King County solid waste facilities are available for use by the residents of King County for municipal waste handling and disposal, and that these facilities are constructed and operated in conformance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. 8.4 The KCSWD is responsible for requiring transporters to present an approved Waste Clearance Decision Form at the disposal facility prior to unloading materials covered by this Public Rule. The KCSWD has the authority to check incoming loads to ensure that the waste being delivered is consistent with the waste described on the Waste Clearance Approval Form. 8.5 Officials at the KCSWD and Health Department are responsible for processing Waste Clearance Application Forms and for maintaining records of materials approved for disposal. 9.0 APPENDICES 9.1 Generator's Waste Clearance Application 9.2 Generator's Waste Profile Sheet 9.3 Generator's Certification of Representative Sample 9.4 Health Department Waste Clearance Authorization Form 9.5 Solid Waste Division Waste Clearance Decision Form M2:put721.fin June 15, 1992