HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2825 Amends Resolution No. 2797
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2825
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING
THE LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SEATTLE-
KING COUNTY WITH THE PLAN ADDENDUM WITH AMENDMENT AS
PROVIDED HEREIN, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO APPROVE
SAID PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City of Renton passed Resolution No. 2797
adopting, with conditions, the Local Hazardous Waste Plan for
Seattle-King County, as amended by the Plan Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Suburban Cities Association has recommended
adoption of the Local Hazardous Waste Plan for Seattle-King County
with certain recommendations for the administration and approval of
the annual plan and budget; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton concurs with recommendations of
the Suburban Cities Association; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2797 must be amended to provide the
City of Renton approval of the Local Hazardous Waste Plan for
Seattle-King County.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION I . The above recitals are found to be true and
correct in all respects .
SECTION II. The City of Renton hereby modifies Resolution
No. 2797 and adopts the Suburban Cities Association recommendation
outlining the powers and duties of the Management Coordination
Committee as follows :
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2825
"The Management Coordination Committee will develop an
annual plan and budget and reach agreement on it through
consensus of the entire Committee. Lacking a consensus,
a majority and a minority report will be forwarded to the
King County Board of Health and the Seattle City
Council. "
SECTION III. The Mayor is hereby authorized, for and on
behalf of the City of Renton, to provide written approval of the
Local Hazardous Waste Plan as amended by the Plan Addendum,
provided the Plan is further amended in accord with the Suburban
Cities Association recommendation contained in Section II herein.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 19th day of NnvPmhPr , 1990 .
Marilyn (,Petersen, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 19th day of November , 1990 .
E ymer, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. War n, City Attorney
RES. 121 : 11/14/90
2
Local Hazardous Waste
.............
. ..............
................
Management Plan for
Seattle-King County
Final Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
for the Management of
Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste
in the Seattle-King County Region
November 1990
ADOPTED
Local HWaste
.... Management Plan for
Seattle-King County
Planning Final Plan and
Governments:
King County Environmental Impact Statement
Municipality of for the Management of
etropolitan Seattle Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste
City of Seattle
CitySeattle-Kingotittle my in the Seattle-King County Region
Department of Public
Health
Participating November 1990
Suburban
Cities:
Algona
Auburn
Beaux Arts Village
Bellevue
Black Diamond
Bothell
Carnation
Clyde Hill
Des Moines
Duvall
Enumclaw
Federal Way
Hunts Point
Issaquah
Kent
Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Medina
Mercer Island
Normandy Park ADOPTED
North Bend
Pacific
Redmond
Renton
SeaTac
Skykomish
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Yarrow Point
King County
Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
450 King County Administration Building CITY OF RENTON
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98104
(206)296-6542 MAY U 9 (q
991
November 30, 1990 :, :a
Li I Y CLERK'S OFFICE
Mr. William P. Green
Hazardous Waste Planner
Solid and Hazardous Waste Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
RE: Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County
Dear Mr. Green:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit the Local Hazardous Waste Management
Plan for Seattle-King County (Plan), as amended by Solid Waste Interlocal
Forum Resolution 90-001, for the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) final
review and approval . A final environmental impact statement is contained in
Section 4 of the Plan.
This transmittal includes the following documents:
• Seven copies of the Plan, including the amendatory addendum adopted by
the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Resolution 90-001. A final version
of the adopted Plan, with the amendatory language of the addendum
incorporated into the appropriate sections of the text, is being
prepared and should be available for distribution in early 1991 .
• Copies of the ordinances and resolutions by which the King County
Council , the Seattle City Council , the Metro Council , and the councils
of suburban cities within the County adopted the Plan.
Copies of the Adoption Concurrence forms submitted by those suburban
cities which had passed conditional Plan adoption resolutions.
• A tally of the County's suburban cities showing that nineteen cities,
representing eighty-two percent of the entire population of all the
suburban cities, have acted to adopt the Plan in a manner consistent
with the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement.
• a copy of the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee's letter
commenting on and recommending adoption of the Plan.
ti>
i
Mr. William P. Green ,
November 30, 1990
Page Two
Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
The Plan is prepared in accordance with RCW 70.105 and provides for a ,
regionally coordinated program to manage those hazardous wastes generated in
small quantities by households and businesses in King County and to protect
the environment by substantially decreasing the amount of those hazardous
wastes disposed of in municipal solid and liquid waste streams. The Plan has
been adopted by the City of Seattle, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
King County, and the suburban cities in accordance with the terms of the Solid
Waste Interlocal Agreement.
Declaration of Suburban Cities Adoption
In accordance with the terms of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement, the Plan
has been adopted by suburban cities representing three-quarters of the
population of incorporated cities that are parties to the Interlocal Agreement
and that acted on the Plan in a timely manner, thereby validating Plan
adoption for all cities that are parties to the Interlocal Agreement.
Twenty-one of the twenty-nine suburban cities passed resolutions acting on the
Plan within the time specified in the Interlocal Agreement. All twenty-one
cities that took action voted affirmatively for adoption of the Plan.
Eighteen of the cities, however, qualified their adoption with specific
conditions. Of those eighteen, sixteen have signed adoption concurrence forms
indicating that the conditions contained in their adoption resolutions have
been satisfied. The combined population of those suburban cities
unconditionally adopting the Plan and of those concurring in adoption
represents ninety-seven percent of the population of those cities that acted
on the Plan in a timely manner.
Documentation of Compliance with SEPA
The text of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) is contained in
Section 4 of the Plan. The Responsiveness Summary to the comments on the
Draft EIS for the Plan is contained in Section 5 of the Plan.
Mr. William P. Green
November 30, 1990
Page Three
Thank you for your support and assistance throughout the development and
adoption of this Plan. Ecology's comments on the Draft Plan were very helpful
in preparing the Final Plan and your encouragement during the long adoption
period was appreciated. If you have questions, please contact Todd Yerkes,
Seattle-King County Department of Health, at SCAN 667-4783.
Sincerely,
Diana Gale, Director Rodney G. Hansen, Manager
Solid Waste Utility Solid Waste Division
City of Seattle King County
-e4
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Chuck Kleeberg, Director
City of Renton Councilmember Environmental Health Division
Suburban Cities Association Seattle-King County
Representative Department of Public Health
hn Lampe, endent
Office of Water Quality
Metro
SB:kb
\sb\901127z
Enclosures
cc: Ted Hunter, Chair, Solid Waste Interlocal Forum
Shirli Axelrod, Seattle Solid Waste Utility
Scott Blair, King County Solid Waste Division
Geoff Ethelston, City of Bellevue Public Works/Utilities
Todd Yerkes, Seattle-King County Department of Health
1 .
KING COUNTY LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN -- SUBURBAN CITIES TALLY 12/10/90
Type of Action Adoption Adoption
1990 Adoption Within Participation Adoption Validation
Suburban Cities -Population Action 120 days Population Concurrence Population'
Algona 1,720 Conditional Yes 1,720 Yes 1,720
Auburn 34,150 Unconditional Yes 34,150 N/A 34,150
Beaux Arts 294 Unconditional Yes 294 N/A* 294
Bellevue 88,890 Conditional Yes 88,890 Yes 88,890
Black Diamond 1,510 No action No N/A*
Bothell 11,500 Conditional Yes 11,500 Yes# 11,5001
Carnation 1,255 Conditional Yes 1,255 Yes 1,255
Clyde Hill 3,090 Conditional No N/A*
Des Moines 15,490 Conditional No N/A*
Duvall 2,435 Conditional Yes 2,435 Yes 2,435
Enumclaw 6,390 Conditional Yes 6,390 Yes 61390
Federal Way 63,980 Conditional Yes 63,980 Yes 63,980
Hunts Point 504 Conditional Yes 504 Yes 504
Issaquah 7,390 Conditional Yes 7,390 Yes 7,390
Kent 37,440 Conditional Yes 37,440 Yes 37,440
Kirkland 37,700 Conditional No N/A
Lake Forest Park 2,800 Conditional Yes 2,800 Yes 2,800
Medina 2,960 Conditional Yes 2,960 Yes 2,960
Mercer Island 20,630 Conditional Yes 20,630 Yes 20,630
Normandy Park 6,620 Conditional Yes 6,620 No
North Bend 2,420 Conditional Yes 2,420 Yes 2,420
Pacific 4,080 No action No N/A
Redmond 35,420 Conditional Yes 35,420 Yes 35,420
Renton 39,340 Conditional Yes 39,340 Yes 39,340
SeaTac 24,000 Conditional Yes 24,000 Yes 24,000
Skykomish 243 No action No N/A*
Snoqualmie 1,545 No action No N/A
Tukwila 10,820 Conditional No N/A*
Yarrow Point 985 Unconditional Yes 985 N/A* 985
29 cities total 465,601 21 cities 391,123 20 cities 384,503
acting adopting f
100.0% - -------- 91b.J°
100.0% 84.0% 82.6%
* = adoption concurrence form signed
# = original adoption resolution amended
1sb1900329d.wk 1
FOREWORD
TO THE FINAL
LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR SEATTLE-RING COUNTY
In response to public concerns and in fulfillment of state
law and regulations, local governments in King County,
Washington, have prepared a regional, comprehensive and
cooperative plan for addressing what the state calls
"moderate risk wastes" -- hazardous wastes generated by
households and by categorically-exempt small quantity
business generators. These small but cumulatively
significant quantities of hazardous wastes tend to be
disposed of indiscriminately in the trash or down the drain,
causing environmental and public health dangers. The Plan
proposes an ambitious program to 1) reduce the amounts of
these wastes and 2) collect for proper handling the wastes
which cannot be avoided. Many local jurisdictions have
already sponsored public education, waste collection or
business assistance services to help address this issue.
The Plan builds on local experience and on identified needs
to provide a program capable of addressing the hazardous
waste problem in a comprehensive and ambitious way.
The Plan is the culmination of over three years of work by
numerous jurisdictions, businesses, community organizations
and citizens. Plan development was supported by grants from
the Washington State Department of Ecology as well as by
active participation by the department throughout the
planning process.
After workshops, surveys and other public involvement
efforts as well as development of background data and
options through 1988, a draft plan was circulated for review
in February, 1989. Following further public workshops and
hearings and incorporation of comments received, a final
recommended plan was released in August, 1989. This plan
was subjected to detailed scrutiny through the fall of 1989
by the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum, an interagency
consultative body composed of elected representatives of
King County, the City of Seattle and the Suburban Cities
Association. This August 1989 recommended plan was also
reviewed in detail by the Department of Ecology. These
reviews brought up a number of concerns or issues needing
clarification, including the role of elected officials,
independent review and oversight of the Plan, potential for
program duplication, administration of the Plan by the
Health Department, specifics of Plan implementation,
suburban cities' representation within the organizational
structure, cost effectiveness of the Plan, resources devoted
to household hazardous wastes versus small quantity
generator wastes, methods used to calculate program costs
and specifics of the evaluation program. An Addendum was
prepared that addressed these concerns, changing language ,
and specific recommendations in some cases and providing
clarifications or more specific commitments in many other '
cases. The Plan with Addendum was then accepted by all
participants in the review process. The Solid Waste
Interlocal Forum voted in January, 1990, to recommend
approval of the Plan with Addendum by all jurisdictions in
King County.
Following a mechanism incorporated in the Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement between King County and suburban cities
within the county, suburban cities were given a 120 day
period from notification of the Forum's recommendation to
act to approve or disapprove the Plan. If cities
representing three-quarters of the population of those
cities taking formal action voted to approve the Plan, then '
it is considered adopted by all 29 suburban cities (Milton,
the 30th suburban city in King County, straddles the
boundary with Pierce County and is part of the Pierce
hazardous waste plan) . '
All 21 of the cities which took action within the 120 day
period voted to adopt the Plan; eight cities did not act ,
within the designated time period, but four of those
subsequently adopted the Plan. Confusion arose, however,
because the suburban cities had varying language in their
adoption ordinances or resolutions and some ordinances ,
contained qualifying conditions. Eight cities, representing
49 percent of the voting population, adopted the Plan
contingent upon agreement being reached through the
Interlocal Forum on 1) the first year budget, 2) details of
the funding mechanism, 3) the evaluation strategy, and 4)
the manner of representation on the proposed Management
Coordination Committee. Ten cities, representing 41 percent
of the voting population, adopted the Plan contingent upon
some of the same concerns above, but also upon a process
change requiring unanimity for certain actions by the ,
Management Coordination Committee, as opposed to the
consensus approach used to date.
These issues were addressed by the Interlocal Forum in ,
August and September, 1990. Because of delays in program
implementation, a revised first year budget is proposed that
is consistent with the first year budget included in the
Plan but which reflects some changes resulting from recent
experience with on-going programs such as the overwhelming
success of King . County's Household Hazardous Wastemobile.
The latest first year budget proposal (for implementation in
1991) is attached to this Foreword and discussed more below;
a final recommendation will be made by the Management '
Coordination Committee to the two Boards of Health, who will
make the final decision as part of establishing the fee
ordinance and, in future years, as part of making any
changes to the fees. ,
Funding mechanism questions revolved around identification
of solid waste accounts. Multi-family residences (up to
four units) can be considered residential accounts for
purposes of cost allocations as long as they can be
identified; multi-family residences of five or more units
should be considered commercial accounts. Cities or private
haulers that bill solid waste customers directly will have
the flexibility to decide how to assess the fees among their
various accounts.
A strategy for Plan evaluation has been developed by a
independent consultant, which includes on-going data
collection and analysis. On a regular basis an independent
organization will conduct a review of the entire program to
determine if the direction of program implementation is
appropriate and to make recommendations for change to
improve the program's effectiveness.
The Management Coordination Committee is made up of one
representative each from King County, City of Seattle, the
Health Department, Metro and the Suburban Cities
Association. A requirement for unanimous decisions was
considered unworkable and unnecessary. Language addressing
this issue was developed and agreed to by the Interlocal
Forum, as follows:
The Management Coordination Committee
will develop the annual plan and budget
and reach agreement on it through
consensus of the entire committee.
Lacking a consensus, a majority and
minority report will be forwarded to the
Seattle and King County Boards of
Health.
This language will be incorporated into the ordinances of
the Boards of Health establishing the Management
Coordination Committee and the fees.
Several additional issues have also been addressed in
response to plan participants' concerns:
Rate equity among all the local solid waste and sewer
billing entities is a desired goal. Flexibility in local
rate setting to incorporate the Boards of Health fees is
proposed in the Plan in response to comments made during
plan development. Guidelines can be offered as to the way
fees are allocated, such as the suggestion noted above to
define number of accounts by splitting multi-family
residences at four units as residential and five or more
units as commercial. Some billing entities are able to
identify units in this way, but others are not with existing
systems. Various differences exist among jurisdictions
regarding both solid waste and liquid waste disposal costs. '
These differences will continue to exist to some degree as
long as current local billing entities want to retain the '
ability to set their own garbage and sewer rates. Efforts
will be made to offer guidelines and communicate current or
proposed practices among all billing entities in order to
make the application of fees related to the Plan as
consistent and equitable as possible given the diversity of
the current utility systems.
Start date for plan implementation needs to allow sufficient
time for utility rates to be adjusted to reflect the new
fees. Because of delays in plan adoption, the first full ,
year of plan implementation will be 1991, not 1990 as
originally proposed. A number of program elements in the
Plan are already being implemented, such as the Wastemobile,
Seattle's permanent collection facility for household '
hazardous wastes, the Health Department's Hazards Line and
Industrial Materials Exchange and Metro's small quantity
generator assistance program -- in fact, over $2 million in '
related activities in 1990. These programs will continue
without interruption into 1991. Others will be initiated as
soon as the financing mechanism for the Plan is enacted and
in effect and the interagency agreements signed which '
specify implementation responsibilities and reimbursement
agreements. These start-up activities for new programs,
including initial staff hiring steps and other ,
organizational functions, will begin immediately in 1991 but
will consume much of the first quarter. Those entities
implementing new rate increases to cover program fees will
have the flexibility to act on them during the first
quarter, so that all fees will be in effect on or before
April 1, 1991. This will ensure that the first year program
as outlined in the attached budget proposal, consistent with '
the first year budget contained in the Plan, will be
implemented in 1991.
These discussions of implementation issues will probably '
continue indefinitely but certainly throughout the
initiation phase for this major new experiment in regional '
cooperation. However, as a result of the clarifications and
agreements arrived at during the 1990 discussions, an
overwhelming majority of suburban cities concurred that
their concerns have been addressed and that they have
adopted the Plan. City of Seattle, Metro and King County
councils have also adopted the Plan. As of November 30,
1990, it is submitted to the state for final approval .
The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King
County, as addended and as further clarified in this
Foreword, presents a general proposal for an ambitious
regional program to address an emerging environmental and
public health concern. It is meant to be a dynamic program
that has the flexibility to adapt and evolve in response to r
experience in order to achieve its ambitious objectives and
to be responsive to the needs of participating agencies and
the businesses and citizens it is designed to serve. It
will therefore be modified annually through the annual work
plan and budget-setting process outlined within, and will be
subject to periodic outside evaluations and a major update
within five years.
November 30, 1990
SUMMARY OF 1991 (FIRST YEAR) BUDGET FOR THE LOCAL HAZARDOUS '
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SEATTLE-RING COUNTY, BY PROGRAM
COMPONENT, AS PROPOSED BY THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 11/16/90 '
PROGRAM COMPONENT PROPOSED 1991 TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
HHW EDUCATION $ 345,000
HHW COLLECTION $1,873,369 ,
HHW TOTAL $2 ,218,369
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS '
SQG EDUCATION $ 546, 600
SQG COLLECTION $ 250,420 ,
SQG COMPLIANCE $ 444,250
SQG TOTAL $1,241,270 '
EVALUATION
EVALUATION TOTAL $ 140,000 '
BUDGET & CONTRACTS '
BUDGET & CONTRACTS TOTAL $ 43,250
PLAN TOTAL $3, 642,889 ,
SOLID WASTE INTERLOCAL FORUM
RESOLUTION 90-001
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ADOPTING JURISDICTIONS
Regarding the
LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR SEATTLE-KING COUNTY
FINAL PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
SMALL QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE
SEATTLE-KING COUNTY REGION
AUGUST, 1989
WHEREAS, a local hazardous waste plan to manage hazardous wastes
generated in small quantities by households and businesses (herein
referred to as moderate risk wastes) was prepared in accordance with
the State Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 70.105.220(1));
WHEREAS, the Plan proposes a regionally coordinated approach to
managing moderate risk wastes;
WHEREAS, the Plan will be funded by a state tax on the sale of
hazardous substances and by fees assessed on solid waste collection, on
"self haulers" using transfer stations and landfills, and on sewage
treatment facilities;
WHEREAS, the adoption procedure identified in the Plan includes action
by the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum and the Forum was requested to
review the Plan and refer the Plan to King County and the cities within
the County that will be adopting and implementing the Plan; and
WHEREAS, Forum members have collaborated in the development of the
Plan and the Plan Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
THAT, the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum recommends approval of the
Plan, as amended in the Plan Addendum, and adoption and
implementation of the Plan by King County and the cities within the
County.
Adopted January 12, 1990
Ted Hunter, Chair
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum
SOL I D WASTE INTERLOCAL FORUM '
The following members of the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum vote DO PASS on Resolution
90-001 before the Forum this 12th day of January, 1990: '
County Executive Tim Hill 4a� or NormRiceKing County Seattle
ouncilmember Paul Barden Councilmember George Benson 1
King County City of Seattle
VACANT VACANT '
Councilmember Councilmember
King County City of Seattle '
Councilmember Bruce Lai LCOUrKImember Jim Street '
King County City of Seattle
Councilmember Lois North Mayor Doris Cooper
King County City of Kirkland '
Suburban Cities Association
EXCUSED
Councilmember Jim White Council ber erry Lukens
City of Kent City of ellevue
Suburban Cities Association Subur n Cities Association
i
FACT SHEET
Title: Final Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Description: The King County Solid Waste Division, City of Seattle Office for Long-range
Planning and Solid Waste Utility, Metro and Seattle-King County Health Department are
proposing a plan for managing hazardous waste generated in small quantities by households
and businesses in King County.
Proposed facilities and programs included in the plan are:
• Permanent collection facilities for hazardous waste generated by
households (HHW) and in small quantities by businesses (SQG).
• Mobile collection facilities for HHW and SQGs.
' Public education programs to result in the proper disposal and
ultimate reduction in the amount of household and SQG hazardous
waste generated
' Technical assistance for businesses that generate small quantities of
hazardous waste.
' Enhancement and enforcement of waste disposal regulations.
Lead Agencies and Responsible Officials
King County Solid Waste Division
Rodney Hansen, Manager
400 King County Administration Building
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Staff Contact: Scott Blair, 296-4434
' City of Seattle Office for Long-range Planning
Richard Yukubousky, Manager
200 Municipal Building
' 600 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Staff Contact: Martha Burke, 684-8056
City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility
Diana Gale, Director
505 Dexter Horton Building
710 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Staff Contact: Chris Luboff, 684-7644
u
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro)
Office of Water Quality '
John B. Lampe, Superintendent
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104 ,
Staff Contact: Dave Galvin, 684-1216
Seattle-King County Public Health Department '
Charles Kleeberg, Chief of Environmental Health
201 Smith Tower
506 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Staff Contact: Todd Yerkes, 296-4783
Responsible SEPA Official '
Gregory M. Bush, Manager
Metro Environmental Planning Division ,
821 Second Avenue MS-92
Seattle, WA 98104
Staff Contact: Jane McFarland, 684-1167 '
Licenses and Permits Required
Specific licenses and permits depend on the facilities selected for implementation. They
could include:
• Local land use and development permits;
• EPA/State identification number for collection facilities handling regulated
amounts of hazardous waste;
• Local fire department permits;
• Wastewater discharge authorization.
Authors and Principal Contributors
Scott Blair, King County Solid Waste Division
Martha Burke, City of Seattle Office for Long-range Planning
Ray Carveth, Metro Office of Water Quality
Henry Draper, King County Solid Waste Division
David Galvin, Metro Office of Water Quality
Jennie Goldberg, Metro Office of Water Quality
Ellen Kissman, City of Seattle Office for Long-range Planning
Chris Luboff, City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility
Jane McFarland, Metro Environmental Planning Division
Sydney Munger, Metro Office of Water Quality Division
Lisa Sepanski, City of Seattle Office for Long-range Planning
Wally Swofford, Seattle-King County Public Health Department
Laurel Tomchik, Metro Office of Water Quality
Todd Yerkes, Seattle-King County Public Health Department '
Date of Issue: August 28, 1989
Nature and Date of Final Action: King County Council, Metro Council and the councils
of the cities in King County will adopt and implement the plan to manage local hazardous
waste. Adoption by the jurisdictions is expected to occur through December, 1989. The
plan will then be submitted to the State Department of Ecology for approval.
Subsequent environmental review: Project-level environmental reviews will be prepared, as
required, during plan implementation.
Location of Background Material: Copies of all technical appendices are available for
review at the lead agencies named above, and at all branches of municipal and King
County libraries. The technical appendices are:
• Appendix A: Program Elements
• Appendix B: Technical Information
• Appendix C: Issue Paper
• Appendix D: Public Involvement Program
Cost of Final Plan/EIS: No charge
TABLE OF CONTENTS A
Page
�- SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
THE ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
THE PLANNING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
w.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
THEPLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
VW SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
r
ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL PLAN/EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
ow SECTION 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
LOCATION AND SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
.. Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Zoning for Hazardous Waste Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
EXISTING WASTE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
• Solid Waste Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Wastewater Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Municipal Sewerage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
�- Septic Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Storm Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
Projections of HHW and SQG Waste 1989-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
Page
SUMMARY
WHY IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN NEEDED? . . . 1
Hazardous Chemicals Become Hazardous Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Potential Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL
QUANTITY GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTES? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Goal and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Plan Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
HHW Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
HHW Collection and Waste Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SQG Education and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SQG Collection and Waste Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Evaluation ' ' * * * * ' * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Waste Management rcis and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
HOW CAN THE PLAN BE PAID FOR AND IMPLEMENTED? . . . . . . . 13
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Fee Levels and Rate Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Plan Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
HOW CAN THEY BE MITIGATED? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 � .
Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
VISION OF THE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
Page
CURRENT DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Long-term Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
�. Small Quantity Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Solid Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
�,. Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Liquid Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
.r Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
Septic Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Storm Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
w
EXISTING PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING HAZARDOUS WASTE . . . 2-31
Information and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Mw Collection and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34
o.•
ROLES, REGULATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Federal Environmental Protection A envy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
State of Washington Department of EcolM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Seattle-King, County Department of Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
Local Solid Waste Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
Local Sewer Utilities/Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
.. Local Drainage Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Local Fire and Building Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
PROBLEMS AND NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
1w
Solid Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
Liquid Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
r. Worker Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44
Impacts on the Public and the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
an
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
Pase
PROGRAM NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
Household Hazardous Waste . 2-47
Small Quantity Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49
Collection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
Small Quantity Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51
Regulation and Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55
SECTION 3: PLAN DESCRIPTION
PLAN DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Cost Effectiveness Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Targeted Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Customer Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Is There A Point of Diminishing Returns? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
HHW Education Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
HHW Education Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
HHW Collection Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
HHW Collection Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Targeted Waste Collection/Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21
SOG Education and Technical Assistance Component . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
SQG Education Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
Technical Assistance Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
SOG Collection Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
SQG Collection Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Compliance Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27
Compliance Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Evaluation Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
Plan Program Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35
PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
State Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Local Add-on to the State Hazardous Substance Tax . . . . . . 3-42
Local Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
A
Page
.. Plan Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-46
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-52
Plan Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53
�. Roles of Major Participating Local Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53
Role of Suburban Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55
Role of Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59
Recommendations for State Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59
Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60
Office of Waste Reduction Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-61
Targeted Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-61
Product Labeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-62
Amnesty Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-62
wr Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-62
SECTION 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
,OW WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: THE PLAN AS MITIGATION . . . . . . . 4-1
COLLECTION FACILITIES: POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED
MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-3
Collection and Storage Structure Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
Construction-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
LandUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Environmental Health Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Contingency Planning, for Emergencies n� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
Routing of Hazardous Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
Traffic and Circulation at Collection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
SECTION 5: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
�- APPENDIX A: PROGRAM ELEMENTS
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL INFORMATION
APPENDIX C: ISSUE PAPER (bound separately)
APPENDIX D: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DOCUMENTS (bound separately;
supplement contained in this document following Appendix B)
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
Page
TABLES
Table 1 Program Elements and Implementing Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2 Plan Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 3 Funding Allocations 1990-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 4 Solid Waste Funding Allocations and Fees 1990-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 5 Sewerage Funding Allocation and Fees 1990-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 1-1 Examples of Hazardous Household Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Table 1-2 Examples of Small Quantity Generator Waste Categories . . . . . . . . . 1-3
and Businesses Types
Table 2-1 1988 Population of Incorporated Cities and Towns in King County . . . 2-4
Table 2-2 Population Estimates and Projections for Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
and King County
Table 2-3 Estimated and Projected Western King County Land Use . . . . . . . . . 2-7
by Type (1970-2000)
Table 2-4 Business Groups Surveyed In King, Pierce and Thurston Counties . . . 2-18
Table 2-5 "High Probability" Dischargers of Contaminants by Industry Type . . . . 2-18
Table 2-6 Household Hazardous Waste Tonnage Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
Table 2-7 Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste Tonnage Projections . . . . 2-20
i�Table 2-8 SQG Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal for King, . . . . . . . . . 2-24
Pierce, and Thurston Counties
Table 2-9 SQG Hazardous Waste Management Practices for South Park . . . . . . 2-25
and N.W. Kent Areas
TABLE OF CONTENTS xi
•
Pa e
Table 2-10 Residential Contribution of Commonly Detected Metal . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Toxicants to Seattle Metro's Wastewater Treatment Plants
■. Table 3-1 Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Table 3-2 Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
w.
Table 3-3 Waste Diversion Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
.• Table 3-4 Financing and Implementation Strategies Suggested in the Draft Plan 3-39
Table 3-5 Funding Allocations 1990-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41
Table 3-6 Solid Waste Funding Allocation and Fees 1990-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Table 3-7 Sewerage Funding Allocation 1990-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48
Table 4-1 Tons of HHW and SQG Waste Projected to Enter the . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
• Environment and Municipal Waste Streams
FIGURES
Figure 1 Permanent Collection Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2 Projections of HHW Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3 Projections of SQG Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
�r.
Figure 1-1 Regulated, Conditionally Exempt and Unregulated Hazardous
Waste Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Figure 2-1 King County and Incorporated Cities and Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
..� Figure 2-2 Population Density and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Figure 2-3 Municipal Solid Waste Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Figure 2-4 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
TABLE OF CONTENTS xii
Paae
Figure 2-5 Breakdown of HHW and SQG Wastes by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
Figure 2-6 Contribution of HEW and SQG Waste to Municipal Waste Streams . 2-19
Figure 2-7 Hazardous Waste Tonnage Projections for 1990-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Figure 2-8 Disposal Methods for Household Cleaners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Figure 2-9 Disposal Methods for Pesticides/Herbicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Figure 2-10 Disposal Methods Paints/Solvents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Figure 2-11 Disposal Methods for Automobile Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Figure 2-12 Products Listed as Hazardous by King County Residents . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
Figure 2-13 Hazardous Products Identified in the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
Figure 2-14 Preferred Disposal Options for HHW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-
52
Figure 2-15 Preferred Travel Distances for HHW Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52
Figure 2-16 Public Willingness to Pay for HHW Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53
Figure 3-1 Washington hmgton State Waste Management Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Figure 3-2 Projections of HHW Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Figure 3-3 Projections of SQG Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Figure 3-4 Permanent HHW Collection Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20
Figure 3-5 Plan Implementation Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51
r�
xiii
DEFINITIONS
Hazardous Waste Waste that presents a danger or risk to human
health or the environment, from one or more
of the following characteristics: toxic,
corrosive, ignitable, reactive, persistent or
carcinogenic. By regulation, hazardous waste
does not include infectious, medical or
radioactive wastes.
Local Hazardous Waste Small quantities of hazardous waste not
regulated by federal or state laws; specifically,
household hazardous waste and small quantity
generator (business) hazardous waste.
Household Hazardous Waste Waste from residential sources composed of
old or unwanted products that exhibit any of
the characteristics of hazardous waste.
Small Quantity Generator A business that generates hazardous waste in
amount below regulatory thresholds, generally
less than half a 55-gallon drum per month or
batch.
ACRONYMS
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DOT Department of Transportation (State or Federal)
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTE Full-Time Equivalent (employee or staff person)
HHW Household Hazardous Waste
LTCA Local Toxics Control Account
PLV Passenger Licensed Vehicle
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (the federal
law that regulates hazardous waste)
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SQG Small Quantity Generator (of hazardous waste)
SUMMARY 1
This Final Plan/EIS proposes a regionally-coordinated program
to address the challenge of managing hazardous wastes gener-
ated in small quantities by households and businesses in King
County. This-plan will protect the environment by decreasing
the amount of these hazardous wastes disposed of in municipal
solid and liquid waste streams. Under this plan, households and
businesses are encouraged to reduce the amount of hazardous
products used and wastes generated by changing purchasing and
use practices and by recycling or treating wastes.
In 1989, county residents and businesses have disposed of
19,000 tons of these wastes in the trash, down the sewer, into
storm drains, or directly onto the ground. Disposal of these
wastes in this fashion can result in garbage and sewer worker
exposure to hazardous substances, disruption of services,
environmental contamination, and clean-up liability.
RAY King County jurisdictions are recognized as national leaders in
SOAP AMNn. management of small quantities of hazardous waste. In the last
rReczc three years educational programs and collection events have
�.T 0 increased citizen awareness and have created a demand for
�« better services. Despite their popularity, past household
hazardous waste collection events have collected only a tiny
portion of the total waste generated. Much of what has been
collected represents old materials stored for twenty years or
more.
In response to state regulations and public interest and concern,
King County jurisdictions have cooperated to develop a regional
program to significantly reduce the amount of these hazardous
wastes produced, to divert those wastes that are generated to
appropriate collection facilities, and to recycle or treat as much
as possible of the wastes collected.
WHY IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN NEEDED?
Hazardous Chemicals Become
Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous chemicals are widespread in our modern society.
Many hazardous substances are constituents of consumer
products used around the house, garage, garden or hobby shop,
or are used by local businesses in manufacturing or providing
services. They are as common as gasoline, paints and batteries,
printing inks, degreasers and dry cleaning solvents. Hazardous
chemicals pose a risk to human health or the environment if
SUMMARY 2
mishandled. They include toxic pesticides, caustic drain
openers, ignitable paint thinners and other reactive or explosive
materials.
When any of these hazardous substances are no longer needed,
they become hazardous wastes. Small quantities of hazardous
wastes produced by businesses and households are not directly
f regulated by federal or state programs. Household hazardous
' wastes ("HHW") are "categorically exempt", meaning they are
not considered legally "hazardous" regardless of the quantity of
Ignilawity coos" waste.
,..Y The State of Washington groups specific types of hazardous
-„ wastes into two categories; "dangerous waste" and "extremely
r..
hazardous waste". Under these classifications, businesses that
f generate more than 220 pounds of "dangerous waste" per
'-' month, or more than 2.2 pounds of"extremely hazardous waste"
per month, are subject to regulation.
A business is considered a small quantity generator ( SQG )
when it produces less than 220 pounds of dangerous waste per
month, (approximately half of a 55-gallon drum) or less that 2.2
R""""' Toxic" pounds of extremely hazardous waste per month. SQGs are
conditionally exempt from state and federal hazardous waste
regulations, as long as waste generation and storage remain
below this designated threshold level. However, they are still
responsible for managing their hazardous wastes in an
environmentally sound manner.
Cumulative Effects
Small quantities of hazardous waste from individual households
and businesses end up in municipal waste streams -- in the trash
or down the drain. Some wastes, for example, mercury, are
quite toxic, while others, such as DDT, are very persistent, and
even in tiny amounts can present problems in a municipal waste
system. However, a more important concern may be the
potential effects from many small amounts of waste from all the
households and businesses in the region added together. For
example, a small amount of paint thinner poured down a drain
may seem insignificant, but if every household in the county
discarded a cup of thinner, more than 37,000 gallons of the
hazardous solvent would enter the area's waters.
In 1989, the 1.4 million people and 100,000 businesses in King
County will produce 1.7 million tons of solid waste and, after
recycling, disposing of 1.3 million tons, as well as over 70 billion
gallons of wastewater.
SUMMARY 3
An estimated 19,000 tons of hazardous waste could be found
in municipal waste streams: 16,000 tons in the solid waste
and 3,000 tons in the sewer. In both waste streams, SQG
waste accounts for about two-thirds of the tonnage, or 13,000
tons, and HHW one-third, or 6,000 tons. If a program is not
implemented to address these wastes, the total tonnage of
HHW and SQG wastes is projected to increase to 33,000 tons
per year by 2009.
Both the City of Seattle and King County have adopted solid
waste management plans calling for aggressive recycling and
waste minimization which will result in a significant reduction
in the amount of solid waste generated. Without a comple-
mentary program to reduce hazardous wastes, the concentration
of hazardous chemicals in solid waste will increase.
Potential Problems
HHW and SQG hazardous wastes have the potential to cause a
Solid Waste variety of problems for human health and safety and the
• worker injuries environment.
• equipment damage
• landfill leachate contamination
More than 95 percent of the municipal solid waste in King
Wastewater
• worker injuries County goes to the Cedar Hills Landfill. Smaller landfills
• pipe damage operate on Vashon Island and in the rural east county.
• sludge contamination Hazardous wastes thrown in the trash endanger garbage
• discharge to water or air collectors and workers at transfer stations and landfills.
i • septic tank/drain field
groundwater contamination
• septage contamination Hazardous chemicals in solid waste can leach out of landfills,
Other Avenues possibly damaging landfill liners, complicating the treatment of
• storm drain contamination collected leachate or passing untreated into the environment.
• hole-in-the-ground groundwater
I contamination HHW and SQG hazardous wastes can also cause problems in
Storage the liquid waste stream. Acids and caustic chemicals can
• home safety/poisonings damage sewer pipes and treatment plant equipment, and en-
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS danger treatment plant workers. Also, they can pass through
the treatment plant untreated, contaminating sludge or entering
local waters. These chemicals can settle out in septic tanks or
percolate through drain fields, contaminating groundwater.
Storm drains are another pathway for hazardous wastes.
Stormwater washing off parking lots, streets and yards carries
pollutants into storm drains. Products dumped down catch
SUMMARY 4
basins and storm drains go directly into local bodies of water
untreated.
® Finally, hazardous waste stored for long periods peoples'
homes increases the risk of accidental poisonings, fires or
®
cap CC). explosions.
As can be seen, hazardous wastes of any kind or in any
amount can cause problems when disposed of in municipal
waste streams, and they do not belong in the environment. As
the population continues to grow and environmental standards
continue to get stricter, local governments must do as much as
possible to reduce hazardous waste production. A program
that effectively manages hazardous waste at the local level will
help protect public health and the environment, as well as meet
state requirements.
WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL QUANTITY
GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTES?
King County local governments are national leaders in this
emerging environmental issue. Regional HHW collection
events, called Round-Ups, have been held in 1987, 1988 and
1989. The City of Seattle operates a HHW collection facility
at its South Transfer Station, open four days each week. The
City of Bellevue sponsors a HHW collection site that is open
two Saturdays a month. The Seattle-King County Health
Department provides five collection points for pesticides and
PCBs. In addition, a private company in Seattle offers a free
service for HHW collection one day a week. Through these
events and services over 500 tons of HHW were collected in
1988 alone. Yet, this is only a tiny fraction of the hazardous
waste being generated and stored in peoples' homes.
As local governments have become more aware of the need for
HHW services, they have moved to do more. In 1989, an ad-
ditional permanent collection site is being developed by Seattle
Solid Waste Utility and Metro, and a mobile HHW collection -
service will be initiated by King County Solid Waste Division.
Bellevue is considering the continuation of its service.
Existing educational and outreach services include the Health
Department's Hazards Line (296-4692), as well as the produc-
tion and distribution of brochures, fliers and other printed
materials by many local agencies. Up to this point, however,
SUMMARY 5
resources devoted to education, especially to waste reduction,
have been limited.
Education for SQGs has included a resource guide, workshops
organized through trade associations and some surveys and
audits of small businesses. The Waste Information Network
(WIN) committee, representing small businesses and local
agencies, sponsored a successful hazardous waste trade fair and
meets regularly to coordinate other SQG activities.
Resources devoted to HHW and SQG programs by local
governments (Metro, King County, City of Seattle, Seattle-King
County Health Department) total about $1.7 million in 1989.
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
The Planning
Process State law requires local governments to develop a hazardous
waste management plan by June, 1990. All local governments
in King County (King County Solid Waste Division, Metro,
City of Seattle Office for Long-range Planning and Solid
Waste Utility, Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health and 28 incorporated cities in the county) have worked
together to develop this single, cooperative plan.
Bev..
=- Public meetings, workshops, focus groups and an opinion
' survey were conducted through the summer of 1988, as was
scoping for the draft environmental impact statement.
A Draft Plan/EIS presenting four alternative programs was
released in February, 1989. Public response indicated strong
support for the two most comprehensive -- and highest cost --
alternatives. Comments received on the Draft Plan/EIS were
considered in the development of a hybrid "preferred alter-
native," described in this Final Plan/EIS. It maintains a
comprehensive approach, but is implemented more slowly than
the most aggressive alternative.
Before it can be implemented, the Plan must be reviewed by
the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum and adopted by the County
Council, the Seattle City Council and the Councils of the other
incorporated cities in King County. In addition, the Depart-
ment of Ecology must review and approve the adopted plan to
certify that it meets legal requirements. The adoption and
SUMMARY 6
approval process begins with the publication of this document.
The various Councils will hold hearings on the Plan through
the fall and winter of 1989, providing another opportunity for
public comment.
b•e
tiv
Goal and ,� c es
This plan describes a program that will protect public health
and the environment from adverse effects resulting from the
improper handling and disposal of hazardous wastes by small
quantity generators and households. State guidelines call for
local hazardous waste management plans to focus on an initial,
five-year period and a long-term, 20-year period.
Objectives are to:
Reduce the input of hazardous substances to municipal
•- waste streams and the environment by a significant,
measurable degree;
IMinimize accidents resulting in worker and public
!1 I exposure to hazardous wastes;
i
' Allow solid waste and wastewater facilities to continue
to meet environmental discharge standards, even as the
population and the number of small businesses increase
or as the discharge requirements become more stringent;
I t l •
Foster an ethic of personal responsibility for waste
handling decisions among the public, businesses and
government.
ti" ,, •; Meet state guidelines for local hazardous waste plans, �
including: on-going informational and educational
efforts (emphasizing waste reduction) for both the
public and businesses; on-site audits of SQGs; a system
for collecting HHW; a system for handling SQG wastes
(with emphasis on private sector services); and
enforcement through local ordinances.
SUMMARY 7
Plan Description
The Plan is an intensive effort to divert the maximum amount
feasible of HHW and SQG wastes from disposal in municipal
waste streams and the environment.
The Plan addresses all aspects of HHW and SQG waste
management: HHW education, HHW collection, SQG educa-
tion and technical assistance, SQG collection, compliance, and
evaluation. These six components emphasize:
• Education for waste reduction as the top priority
(promotion of practices that reduce, avoid or eliminate
the amount of waste generated is a much more cost-
effective strategy than is collection and disposal); as
�- much as 44 percent of the HHW projected to be pro-
duced can be reduced through product substitutions,
reuse and other waste reduction methods.
• Development and promotion of convenient and acces-
sible collection options for wastes that cannot be
reduced;
• Technical assistance to help businesses improve their
hazardous materials management practices;
• Incentives for compliance with federal, state and local
regulations; and
• On-going evaluation to ensure that program goals and
objectives are being met.
Specific programs under each component are listed in Table 1.
HHW Education
wZd=PrO&LIS The HHW education component should raise awareness among
Eq" the general public and targeted audiences, and promote waste
reduction. It includes programs such as distribution of
informational materials, a central telephone information line,
school activities and promotion of safer products.
A HHW education program coordinator will be based at the
Seattle-King County Health Department. Additional staff will
.C."f.
SUMMARY
8
r
Table 1. PROGRAM ELEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
PROGRAM ELEMENTS IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
Household Hazardous Waste Education Health
• Public Information and Outreach Metro/King County/Seattle
• HHW Telephone Information Line Health
• Schools Program King County/Metro
Household Hazardous Waste Collection SeattleXing County
and Waste Handling
• HHW Permanent Collection Facilities Seattlelothers
• Mobile HHW Collection Facilities King County
• HHW Pickup Service for Homebound SeattleXing County
• Targeted Waste Collection and Recycling Seattle/King County
• Promotion of Collection Facilities Seattle/King County
SQG Education and Technical Assistance Metro
• SQG Information Development and Resources Metro
• SQG Passive Waste Exchange Health
• SQG Information Telephone Line Health
• SQG Resource Library Metro
• Promotion of SQG Waste Reduction, Metro
Recycling and Treatment Programs
• SQG Waste Characterization and Metro
Treatment Feasibility Program
• SQG On-Site Consultation Metro
SQG Collection and Waste Handling King County
• SQG Mobile Collection Facilities
• SQG Auxiliary Collection Facilities
• SQG Subsidized Collection
Compliance Metro
• Interagency Regulatory Analysis Committee All
• Enhancement of Local Ordinances All
• Response Network Metro
• SQG Surveys and Audits Health/Metro
Evaluation Health/Seattle/Metro
SUMMARY 9
be spread among a number of local agencies to implement the
various education programs.
Annual costs for the HHW education component range from
$530,000 in 1990 to $1.2 million by 1994.
HHW Collection and Waste Handling
The HHW collection and waste handling component provides
services for the safe collection of HHW that cannot be re-
duced. Program elements include general HHW collection and
target potentially recyclable wastes such as used oil and paints.
A network of six permanent and three mobile HHW collection
'w facilities is recommended to be established around the county
to provide the public with accessible, convenient disposal
' options for their hazardous wastes (Figure 1). The mobile
■• facilities will accept wastes for a short period of time at a
v given location then travel to another location, providing col-
lection services for outlying areas of the county as well as
"filling in the gaps" in the urban/suburban areas. One per-
manent and one mobile facility are proposed to be brought on
�! line each year.
The HHW collection component will be coordinated by one
halftime staff person from King County Solid Waste Division
and one half-time staff person from Seattle Solid Waste Utility.
Individual facilities will be sponsored or operated by these and
other local agencies.
Collection component costs gradually increase over time,
reflecting the increase in service and amount of wastes col-
lected. In 1990, program costs are $1.28 million, rising to
$3.27 million by 1994.
SQG Education and Technical Assistance
SQG education and technical assistance programs have two
focuses: 1)) accessible, consistent, specific information on
hazardous waste management and regulations; and 2) individu-
alized technical assistance. Printed materials, seminars and
workshops, a telephone information line and a waste exchange
will be provided. An on-site consultation program will provide
site-specific waste management information for interested
SUMMARY 10
frpM }�
SI� e� ter- s
AN61f
Figure 1. PERMANENT COLLECTION FACILITY
SUMMARY 11
businesses. Other technical assistance programs will encourage
the development of waste reduction processes or technologies
and their use by local businesses.
M
w; An estimated 23 percent of the SQG waste projected to be
produced can be reduced through improved materials manage-
ment practices. In addition, an estimated 65 percent of the
waste that will still need to be collected can be recycled.
-� An SQG education program coordinator, based at Metro, will
oversee implementation of this component in close cooperation
with the Health Department, other local agencies, the existing
Waste Information Network and business associations.
Costs for the SQG education and technical assistance compo-
nent range from $758,000 in 1990 to $1.3 million in 1994.
SQG Collection and Waste Handling
The SQG collection component provides a mechanism for ac-
cessible collection of SQG wastes. Licensed, private-sector
hazardous waste handlers will be encouraged to serve the SQG
market. Local governments will oversee the development of
and allocate resources for four SQG waste collection facilities
in the early years of the plan. These facilities will be operated
by private sector companies under contract to local govern-
ments. In addition, a disposal subsidy will be offered to
qualified SQGs to ease the initial economic burden of hazard-
ous waste disposal. Except for this initial subsidy, all costs
for waste disposal will be borne by the businesses themselves.
The portion of SQG waste that cannot be reduced or recycled
must be disposed of through permitted channels -- either
incinerated or landfilled in licensed hazardous waste facilities.
The SQG collection component will be coordinated by one
full-time staff based at King County who will manage contracts
and oversee the subsidy program.
Public costs for the SQG collection component range from
$381,000 in 1990 to $940,000 in 1994. Public financing of
the program phases out completely by 1997, with a cumulative
cost of about three percent of total plan costs.
SUMMARY 12
m i education and assistance over
Compliance Although the Planeh emphasizes
enforcement, it is recognized that a compliance function is a
necessary part of any comprehensive program. The Compli-
ance component has two focuses: first, to clarify and
strengthen the regulatory framework for HHW and SQG waste
management; and second, to strengthen the ability of local ,
governments to identify SQGs and to bring them into compli-
ance with local environmental regulations. Programs under this
a component include:
An Interagency Regulatory Analysis Committee to
I i monitor regulatory changes and to facilitate passage of
F. consistent regulations at the local level;
Survey and audit programs to identify SQGs and make
them aware of the education and technical assistance
programs available to them; and,
• A response network to provide a coordinated
inspections, referral and follow-up program.
Enforcement will be pursued for those SQGs that continue to
violate local environmental regulations in lieu of taking
advantage of these assistance opportunities.
A compliance coordinator, based at Metro, will facilitate
interagency activities.
Costs for the compliance component will be $650,000 in 1990,
rising to $1 million in 1994.
Evaluation Given that many of the programs in the Plan are new and un-
tested, an extensive evaluation effort is considered essential.
The Evaluation component will track program effectiveness,
determine how well the programs are being implemented and
whether the objectives of the Plan are being achieved. Based
on this evaluation, revisions to programs may be necessary
within the first five-year implementation period and are
expected as part of the fifth year Plan update process.
In the first year, an evaluation strategy will be developed for
all components of the Plan, including identification of data
collection needs. Evaluation will include measures of wastes
collected, participants, wastes remaining in municipal waste
streams, public awareness, changes in product purchasing and
use, changes in business processes, and costs.
SUMMARY 13
Part-time evaluation coordinators, based at the Health
Department,Seattle Office for Long-range Planning and Metro,
will oversee this effort. Other program coordinators will
participate in research design and data collection. Actual
research design and subsequent data analysis will be carried out
by consultants.
Costs of the evaluation component are $140,000 in 1990 and
$125,000 in 1994.
Waste Manazement Projections and Costs
Figures 2 and 3 present projections for hazardous waste reduc-
tion and collection over the twenty years of the Plan.
The Plan budget is summarized in Table 2. Costs total $3.7 mil-
lion in 1990, the first full year of implementation, compared to
the $1.7 million local governments are spending in this area in
1989. In 1991, program costs will be $5.2 million, rising to $7.9
million by 1994. A large portion of these costs is for the
disposal of hazardous wastes collected under the Plan, emphasi-
zing the need for maximum effort in waste reduction programs.
HOW CAN THE PLAN BE PAID FOR AND IMPLEMENTED?
Financine Managing hazardous wastes is not inexpensive regardless of the
methods used. Safely handling these wastes is much more ex-
pensive in the short term than allowing them to continue to be
disposed in the solid waste or sewer. However, in the long run,
such preventative activities will keep remedial costs and
liabilities to a minimum.
Based on public comments and input from local governments,
a combination of funding sources is recommended,with reliance
Ila on local solid waste haulers and sewer utilities through Board of
® Health fees, and state grant programs. This strategy assures
® that sufficient funding will be available.
Authorizing legislation (Initiative 97, passed by voters in
November, 1988) specifies hazardous waste plans and programs
as one funding priority for the Local Toxics Control Account.
s
SUMMARY 14
200.
TOTAL WASTE GENERATED
WITHOUT PROGRAM
10wo
9000
WASTE REDUCED
T
O
N
S 900C
MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL
1000
COLLECTED AND RECYCLED
2000
COLLECTED AAD DISPOSED
0
, 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
YEARS
Figure 2. PROJECTIONS OF HHW MANAGEMENT
25000
TOTAL WASTE GENERATED
WITHOUT PROGRAM
20000
AST E REDUCED
15000
T
O
N
S 1000.
MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL
COLLECTED AND RECYCLED
5000
COLLECTED ANDDISPOSED
0
1 3 5 9 '!1 13 15 17 19
YEARS
Figure 3. PROJECTIONS OF SQG WASTE MANAGEMENT
The top line in each figure shows the amount of hazardous waste projected over the next
twenty years assuming no program exists. At the point where the second and third lines
meet, the amount of waste remaining in solid waste, wastewater and environment will be
negligible. [Note that the vertical scales of the two figures are not identical.]
Table 2. PLAN BUDGET SUMMARY'
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2004 2009
HHW EDUCATION $531,000 731,000 811,000 986,000 1,176,000 1,046,000 1,041,000 1,041,000
HWW COLLECTION 1,281,000 1,893,000 2,423,000 2,821,000 3,269,000 5,536,000 6,791,000 7,665,000
HHW PROGRAM 1,812 2,624,000 23, 34, 3,807,000 4,445,_ 000 6,582,00087. 32 8,706,000
SQG EDUCATION 758,000 1,160,000 1,311,000 1,311,000 1,271,000 1,206,000 1,206,000 1,206,000
SQG COLLECTION 381,000 574,000 799,000 958,000 940,000
COMPLIANCE 650,000 728,000 851,000 987,000 1,090,000 1,355,000 1,338,000 1,338,000
SOG PROGRAM 1,789,000 2,462,000 2 9, 61,00023.2 6,000 3,301,000 2,561,000 2,544,4,000 2.544,000
EVALUATION 140,000 115,000 73,000 73,000 125,000 56,000 63,000 56,000
TOTAL 3,741,000 5,201,000 6,268,000 7,106,000 7,871,000 1,000 9,199,000 10,469,000 11306,000
'in 1989 dollars rounded to nearest thousand. Figures beyond 1994 are gross estimates and are subject to substantial revision at the fifth year (1994)
Plan update.
SUMMARY 16
This funding source charges the user of hazardous materials for
management and disposal, which is seen by the public as
equitable. State assistance in funding Plan implementation is
seen by local governments as appropriate, as local hazardous
waste management programs are required by state law. While
it is difficult to predict the amount of revenue to be received
from the Local Toxics Control Account, substantial state
funding is assumed. A block grant approach to disbursement
of these funds is preferred, with plan implementation funds
allocated to those areas with approved, adopted plans based on
their percentage of the state's population.
Even if the maximum level of state funding is obtained, local
funds will still be required. It is recommended that the King
County Board of Health and the Seattle City Council (acting as
the Seattle Board of Health) assess fees:
• On billing agents for solid waste collection (whether
certificated solid waste haulers or solid waste utilities),
and on "self-haulers" using transfer stations or landfills,
for 80 percent of the local share. Approximately 80
percent of the hazardous waste in municipal waste
streams can be found in solid waste.
• On sewage treatment facilities, for the remaining 20
percent of the local share to cover that portion of the
hazardous waste in the liquid waste stream.
These fees would be collected and disbursed by the Seattle-
King County Health Department.
In addition, the fees will be structured so that residential
customers will only pay for the HHW portion of the Plan and
commercial customers for the SQG portion.
User fees, such as a charge for use of HHW collection facili-
ties, may be assessed for program services. User fees can pro-
vide only a supplemental funding source, however. The effect
of user fees on customer behavior is still unresolved and will
be examined as part of the evaluation process. Decisions on
whether to charge user fees will be made by individual pro-
grams. Any user fees charged will be the same for all users.
aw
SUMMARY 17
Fee Levels and Rate Impacts
Financing for the Plan is shown in Table 3. The level of fees
needed to fund the Plan is shown in Table 4 for solid waste and
in Table 5 for wastewater. As noted in the tables, in most cases
local governments' 1990 rates or rate proposals already include
all or a substantial portion of the funds needed to finance the
Plan. Rates will most likely increase in subsequent years,
assuming that the responsible agencies or haulers elect to pass
on to their customers any fees enacted by the Board of Health
and the Seattle City Council. Rates could be raised by the cities
that manage solid waste disposal contracts, by the private
haulers who bill directly to their customers (after approval from
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission), and
by Metro and the independent sewer districts that operate
wastewater treatment plants.
Table 3. FUNDING SOURCES' 1990-1994 (dollars in thousands)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Total Program Cost $3,742 5,202 6,268 7,107 7,871
State Funding 590 590 728 728 869
Local Funding 3,152 4,612 5,540 6,379 7,002
Sewerage Agencies 630 922 1,108 1,276 1,400
Solid Waste 2,522 3,690 4,432 5,103 5,602
'in 1989 dollars
Plan Implementation
Three concurrent legislative actions will be required in order for
this plan to take effect:
All participating jurisdictions must adopt the Plan.
Suburban city adoption could be accomplished through
the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum Plan Approval Process.
SUMMARY
18
Table 4. SOLID WASTE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AND FEES' 1990-1994
(dollars in thousands)
1990 1991 1222 1993 1994
HHW Component of $1,268 1,903 2,313 2,762 3,209
Solid Waste Allocation
Seattle Contribution 470 706 858 1,024 1,190
($/account/yr) (3.36) (5.04) (6.13) (7.31) (8.50)
Certificated Haulers 624 850 934 1,131 1,325
($/account/yr) (2.63) (3.58) (3.93) (4.76) (5.58)
PLVs (King County) 174 347 521 607 694
($/vehicle) (.50) (1.00) (1.50) (1.75) (2.00)
SQG Component of $1,253 1,788 2,120 2,344 2,395
Solid Waste Allocation
Certificated Haulers 891 1,335 1,576 1,711 1,762
($/account/yr) (45.22) (67.77) (80.00) (86.85) (89.44)
Self-Haul at King 287 359 431 502 502
County Facilities
($/ton) (1.00) (1.25) (1.50) (1.75) (1.75)
Self-Haul at Seattle 75 94 113 131 131
Facilities($/ton) (1.00) (1.25) (1.50) (1.75) (1.75)
'in 1989 dollars. This table is for illustration purposes only. Actual amounts may change. The number of
residential accounts for Seattle is estimated at 140,000, and 237,000 for King County. The number of
passenger licensed vehicles (PLVs) for King County is estimated at 347,000. The number of commercial
accounts is estimated at 19,700. Charging all commercial accounts equally does not reflect the fact that some
businesses may generate more hazardous wastes than others. Estimated self-haul tonnage for King County is
287,000 and 75,000 for Seattle. These estimates are held constant over the five years shown although it is
recognized that they will need to adjusted on an annual basis. Fees for self-haulers were set to total no more
than 29% of the cost of the SQG program, which was the estimated contribution of self-haul to the
commercial waste stream.
SUMMARY 19
Table 5. SEWERAGE FUNDING ALLOCATION AND FEES' 1990-1994
(dollars in thousands)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
All Sewerage Agencies $630 922 1,108 1,276 1,400
Metro' 565 827 994 1,145 1,256
Annual Increase 0 +262 +167 +151 +111
Affecting Future
Metro Rates
Approximate Metro 0 +4¢ +3¢ +2¢ +2¢
Rate Impact'
Other'
SW Suburban 24.0 35.0 42.0 48.0 53.0
Federal Way 20.0 29.0 35.0 40.0 44.0
Midway 14.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 30.0
Enumclaw 4.0 6.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
North Bend 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.1
Duvall 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8
Snoqualmie 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5
Black Diamond 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0
V ashon 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
'in 1989 dollars. This table is for illustration purposes only. Actual amounts may change. Distribution of
sewerage costs is based on 1988 annual average gallons of wastewater treated by all municipal agencies.
These figures and relative contributions will change yearly.
'Metro treats 90 percent of the municipal wastewater handled by sewerage agencies in King County. This
funding allocation represents approximately 18 percent of the total annual budget for the Plan.
'Sufficient funds are already appropriated in Metro's 1990 budget. Future rate impacts are estimated at $0.16
per million dollars of Metro's share.
'Other sewerage districts or utilities treat 10 percent of the municipal wastewater in King County and will
cover approximately 2 percent of the total annual budget for the Plan.
SUMMARY 20 '
• The King County Board of Health must pass a rule that
sets fees and directs the Health Department to collect
and disburse the fees according to an annual implemen-
tation plan approved by both the County Board of
Health and the Seattle City Council. The rule will also
establish a Management Coordination Committee. The
Committee, composed of senior staff (e.g., utility
managers) representing the major participating govern-
ment entities (King County, the Health Department,
Metro, the City of Seattle and suburban cities) will
oversee Plan implementation.
• The Seattle City Council (acting as the Seattle Board of
Health) must pass an ordinance with the same
requirements.
In addition, Ecology must approve the adopted Plan to ensure
that it meets state guidelines. ,
Seattle, suburban cities, King County, Metro and the Health
Department will be involved in plan implementation (Table 1).
All participating jurisdictions, in voting to adopt the final plan,
will agree to take on certain responsibilities and implement
certain programs, or will clearly delegate such responsibilities
to other agencies. Commitments will cover at least the first
five-year period, at which point a major evaluation of the
program will occur.
Suburban cities have signed an Interlocal Agreement with King
County, whereby the County assumes responsibility for
planning and disposal of HHW and SQG hazardous wastes for
the suburban cities (Appendix B).
After 1990:
• The Management Committee will recommend an annual
implementation plan and budget to the County Board of
Health and the Seattle City Council.
• Both bodies will approve an annual plan and budget,
adjust fees as needed, and instruct the Health
Department to enter into the necessary interlocal
agreements, contracts or memoranda of understanding to
see that the year's work is completed.
SUMMARY 21
• The Health Department will collect the fees, prepare
necessary agreements, and disburse funds, per the annual
implementation plan.
• The other parties in the contracts or agreements will
follow the procedures necessary to accept funds in this
manner.
• The Management Committee will be supported by a
staff committee composed of program coordinators and
other program implementation staff. The staff com-
mittee will track implementation and report to the
Management Committee.
For 1990, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle Solid
Waste Utility, Metro and the Health Department will be largely
responsible for program implementation, primarily because
these agencies contributed to plan development and were able
to incorporate plan programs into their 1990 budgets. It is
expected that, after 1990, other jurisdictions will become more
actively involved in Plan implementation.
Suburban cities will be represented on the Management Coor-
dination Committee. In addition, certain jurisdictions may elect
to participate in Plan implementation by sponsoring one or
more program elements. For example, a suburban city may
choose to site a permanent collection facility within its
boundaries, actively participate in public education programs,
or join in survey or audit programs of local businesses.
Many suburban cities will participate in the response network,
enhancement of local ordinances and the interagency regulatory
analysis committee.
The private sector has a major role in Plan implementation.
Many education programs could be carried out by nonprofit
education groups or consultants. SQG education and technical
assistance efforts rely on the voluntary participation of busi-
nesses and trade associations. SQG collection will rely on
private companies for the operation of collection sites, as well
as transporting and subsequent handling of hazardous wastes.
At least some of the HHW collection services will be
contracted out.
SUMMARY 22
The State of Washington has a critical role to ensure that this
plan is fully implemented. Funding through the Local Toxics
Control Account is essential. State programs in the areas of
waste reduction, targeted waste, and enforcement and compli-
ance are important partners with local efforts. Product labeling
would be better dealt with at the state level. And, up front,
the state must approve this plan in order to meet state law and
to ensure subsequent support.
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND HOW CAN THEY
BE MITIGATED?
The primary impacts of the Plan will be positive for the
environment as well as human health and safety. The Plan
will result in a reduction in the amount of hazardous waste
generated and an increase in safe handling of the hazardous
wastes still produced.
Potential negative impacts relate to the hazardous waste
collection and handling activities proposed in the Plan. These
include collection facility siting and design, transporting of
wastes to hazardous waste handling facilities, worker and
public safety, and the amounts of waste remaining in municipal
waste streams. Site specific environmental review will occur
during facility development, and will follow State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) guidelines.
Siting of HHW or SQG collection facilities, whether permanent
or mobile, will avoid sensitive areas such as wetlands, shore-
lines, 100-year floodplains and earthquake faults to the extent
practicable, and will go through local permitting and land use
reviews. Consistency with local zoning codes will minimize
conflicts between proposed sites and adjacent land uses.
Desian A collection facility will most likely consist of one or more
hazardous materials storage containers on an impervious sur-
face. Each facility will be equipped with a variety of safety
features such as spill containment, fire and explosion protection
and ventilation. Wastes brought to the site will be sorted for
compatibility, packed and temporarily stored.
SUMMARY 23
Transport Collected wastes will be regularly and frequently removed by a
licensed hazardous waste transporting service and brought to a
licensed hazardous waste handling facility for reprocessing,
treatment or disposal. Preferred transportation routes for the
collected wastes will be identified for each site to minimize
adverse impacts. Contingency plans for spills will be
developed for each site and transporter.
Health and SafetX
Health and public safety will be major considerations in site
design and operation. Potential exposure to hazardous chemi-
cals will be minimized through facility design, operating plans,
contingency plans, safety training, exposure monitoring and
emergency procedures.
VISION OF THE FUTURE
We envision a future of hazardous chemical use that will be
very different from today. Implementation of this Plan will set
us on the road to this future.
Hazardous waste reduction and proper hazardous waste
management will be matters for civic pride in King County
neighborhoods, cities, and rural areas. Solid waste facilities
and sewage treatment plants will be essentially free of hazard-
ous chemicals, and storm drains, streams, and water bodies will
no longer be viewed as appropriate repositories for hazardous
liquid wastes. Businesses and residents alike will be proud of
\ ' the creative solutions they have found to the problems of
�• 11 hazardous chemical use.
It is the year 2010. When a King County resident goes to the
..: store, he or she is aware of the potential hazards of products
4 �� ` he or she chooses the
• she may purchase. Wherever possible,
,:T `'a' least hazardous products available to perform her cleaning, pest
control, or home maintenance tasks. Due to this consumer
reference, manufacturers are competing to put less toxic or
P P g
` hazardous items on the shelves. Product labels indicate level
of hazard and proper disposal methods. Retail outlets meet
Ar" �t .;<'���• customer demand by providing information on less hazardous
"`+„� � ;.. ,'�,r�:•��� products and prominently displaying them.
w
rm
SUMMARY 24
Some 'obs still require the use of products that may present
J �
some risk. These products are available in small sizes -- just
enough to complete the job -- to avoid the generation of un-
necessary waste, risks from extended storage, or unwarranted
OAS4USED MoTO use.
ova Car owners who do their own maintenance are careful not to
spill used oil, brake fluid, or antifreeze onto the street or pour
them down the storm drain. Used oil is readily recycled at
�+ numerous local outlets. Other wastes are collected for disposal
m
at special facilities within a few miles of each resident's home.
Ly
The use of chemical pesticides has diminished significantly.
Gardeners are educated in alternative methods for preventing or
controlling pests. Values are shifting so that using hazardous
chemicals on a lawn is seen as less desirable than the
appearance of occasional weeds. Urban pesticide runoff no
longer contaminates our local lakes and streams.
Because future King County residents own so few hazardous
chemicals, fewer poisonings occur, and children exploring
under the sink are likely to find nothing more toxic than
vinegar.
Businesses, too, are well educated about the proper manage-
ment of hazardous wastes, and no longer toss them in the
garbage or down the drain. Companies that generate the least
amount of these hazardous wastes are at a competitive advan-
tage, since disposal costs are high and have become a routine
P
part of doing business. Workers take an active interest in
careful waste management and fewer workers are injured each
year from exposure to hazardous chemicals. Forward-looking
companies take advantage of technical assistance opportunities.
A regional library and database system is available to help
businesses keep up to date on the latest waste reduction
technologies. Businesses themselves have become significant
sources of new and innovative ideas for waste reduction.
Gas stations, print shops, dry cleaners, and other establishments
store the small quantities of hazardous wastes still generated in
well-contained, well-protected areas, and dispose of them
through the services provided to address their special needs.
Barrels of accumulated wastes and ignorance of proper
handling or disposal methods are a thing of the past.
SUMMARY 25
Businesses are proud of their careful waste management
activities, and attract customers by advertising their
involvement in waste reduction and recycling. Some busi-
nesses even find the focus of their activities changing as
customer preference changes. Pest control operators, for
example, are providing a valuable service to the community
with integrated pest management practices.
The children of the 1990s and beyond will become the adults
of a generation that accepts proper management of hazardous
chemicals as a fact of daily life, whether in the home, in the
workplace, or in the management of large industries.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement (Final Plan/EIS) describes a
comprehensive program for managing hazardous wastes
generated in small quantities by households and businesses in
King County. The Final Plan/EIS proposes regionally-
coordinated programs that will protect the environment by
decreasing the amount or toxicity of hazardous waste disposed
of in municipal solid and liquid waste streams.
Both the King County and City of Seattle Solid Waste
Comprehensive Management Plans refer to the Local
Hazardous Waste Management Plan for guidance in managing
these hazardous wastes.
The Final Plan/EIS is designed to manage these wastes
according to the priorities established by state legislation.
Highest priority is given to waste reduction. The Plan
encourages households and businesses to reduce the amount of
hazardous products used and wastes generated by changing use
1b and purchasing practices. Recycling and treatment of wastes
are emphasized for remaining wastes, with collection for
disposal the lowest priority.
TIE ISSUE
Many products regularly used in the home and workplace
contain hazardous chemicals. If mishandled, hazardous
chemicals pose a risk to human health and the environment.
These chemicals can be corrosive, ignitable, toxic or reactive,
characteristics that mean both the product and the resulting
waste require special handling.
Cleaners, paints, pesticides and automobile products are
examples of household products that contain hazardous
chemicals; when thrown away, these products become house-
hold hazardous waste (HHW) (Table 1-1). Households are
exempt from state and federal hazardous waste regulations.
Some industries and commercial businesses also produce small
quantities of hazardous wastes in the course of doing business.
Dry cleaners, print shops, auto repair shops and medical labs
are examples of businesses that typically generate small
amounts of hazardous wastes (Table 1-2). A generator of
i
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-2
Table 1-1. EXAMPLES OF HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD SUBSTANCES'
REPAIR AND REMODELING AUTO BOAT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
Adhesives, Glues, Cements Vehicle Batteries
Roof Coatings, Sealants Waxes & Cleaners
Caulkings and Sealants Paints, Solvents & Thinners
Epoxy Resins Additives ,
Paints Gasoline
Solvents and Thinners Flushes
Paint Removers & Strippers Auto Repair Materials
Motor Oil
GARDENING Diesel Oil
Insecticides HOBBY AND RECREATION
Fungicides
Rodenticides Paints, Thinners and Solvents ,
Molluscides Chemicals (including Photo & Pool)
Wood Preservatives Glues and Cements
Moss Retardants Inks and Dyes
Herbicides Glazes
Fertilizers Chemistry Sets
Bottled Gas
CLEANING AGENTS White Gas
Charcoal Fluid
Oven Cleaners Household Batteries
Degreasers & Spot Removers
Toilet, Drain & Septic Tank
Cleaners
Polishes, Waxes & Strippers
Deck, Patio, Chimney Cleaners
Solvent Cleaning Fluid
Household hazardous wastes are any discarded items from
the above hazardous household hazardous substances list.
'Planning Guidelines for Local Hazardous Waste Plans, Washington State Department of
Ecology, July 1897.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-3
Table 1-2. EXAMPLES OF SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR WASTE
CATEGORIES AND BUSINESS TYPES`
SQG waste categories include (but are not limited to):
Pesticides Acids
Dyes Bases
Paints Aerosols
Thinners Batteries
Solvents Alcohols
Cleaning fluids Waxes
Coolants Adhesives
Oils Inks
Other petroleum products Flammable materials
Photographic or X-ray developers Sludges
SQG business types likely to produce wastes of interest include:
Drycleaners
Automotive service and repair shops
Automotive body and paint shops
Electroplaters
Printing and reproduction shops, photo labs
Hospitals, medical and dental facilities
Pesticide chemical applicators
Public works, school and utility shops
Construction companies
Marine repair and service shops
Paint shops
Woodworking and furniture repair shops
Machine shops
Beauty salons
Miscellaneous equipment repair and maintenance
'Analysis performed by Metro Industrial Waste Section, 1988.
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION 1-4 '
hazardous waste whoP roduces less than 220 pounds' of
hazardous waste per month falls below the state regulatory
limits and is categorized as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG)
(Figure 1-1). SQGs are conditionally exempt from regulation
by the state and federal governments. The Plan addresses
proper management of the exempt hazardous wastes from both
households and businesses.'
These hazardous wastes can ultimately end up in municipal
solid waste, wastewater and the local environment. Although
generated in small quantities, cumulative amounts of these
wastes entering the municipal waste stream may have adverse
impacts on the environment and public health. New chemical
technologies, continued use of hazardous products, and
population growth in the King County area mean that the
amount of these hazardous wastes generated will increase in
the future, unless waste reduction programs are instituted.
In 1988, an estimated 19,000 tons of HHW and SQG hazard-
ous wastes were included in municipal waste streams in King
County; 16,000 tons entered the solid waste stream and 3,000
tons were disposed of in the sewer system (Local Hazardous
Waste Plan Issue Paper, Appendix C). In addition, unquantifi-
able amounts of hazardous chemicals are dumped every year
onto the ground and into storm drains where they eventually
enter local waters.
The 1985 amendments to the Washington State Hazardous
Waste Management Act require local governments to develop
plans to manage these wastes. King County local governments
are working together to develop a comprehensive program to
manage hazardous wastes entering municipal waste streams and
the environment.
GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the Local Hazardous Waste Management
Plan is to protect the environment and public health from the
adverse effects of improper handling and disposal of H1-1W and
SQG hazardous wastes.
'Certain designated Extremely Hazardous Wastes are regulated at 2.2 pounds.
'For a formal definition of HEW and SQG waste see Appendix B.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-5
HAZARDOUS WASTES
X I C CORROSIVE IGNITABLE REACTII `
H+1 Hil
ffil
Q I
0
0
•.ti-'.ti��•ti:'::-':':ti.'.•ti':•':•:'.,:':-:•ti�'•ti•'•ti :;ti�'•:�'ti�'�:ti:-':-';ti�'ti�:'�::. ',i•'•i�''•:�;::;'
A NTS
rREEff
♦.Mti
HCUSEHOLD WASTES CCMMERCIALAND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
categorically exempt less than 220 pounds greater than 220 pounds
"H HW" per month or batch's per month or batch
"SOG11
UNREGULATED CONDITIONALLY FULLY
EXEMPT REGULATED
some extremely hazardous wastes are
regulated down to 2.2 pounds or less.
Figure 1-1. UNREGULATED, CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT AND REGULATED
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS
Hazardous wastes are generated by industries, businesses and households. Current
regulations address wastes generated in amounts greater than 220 pounds per month.
The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan will address household and
conditionally exempt hazardous wastes.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-6
The Plan is designed to achieve the following objectives: ,
• Reduce the input of hazardous substances to municipal
waste streams and the environment by a significant,
measurable amount.
• Minimize accidents resulting in worker and public
exposure to hazardous waste.
• Emphasize waste management strategies that give
priority to waste reduction and recycling.
• Foster an ethic of personal responsibility for waste '
management decisions among the public, businesses and
government.
• Be comprehensive; address all aspects of the issue,
including all areas of the county, all waste streams and
targeted audiences.
• Emphasize education over enforcement as a means of
attaining compliance.
• Be flexible; allow for changes in the legal and planning
environment.
• Have the practical resources and support to ensure
implementation while recognizing the unique capabilities
and limitations of different governments.
• Involve all key parties, public and community organi-
zations, state and local public agencies, small businesses
and hazardous waste management companies in Plan
development and implementation.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
In July, 1987, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued
Planning Guidelines for Local Hazardous Waste Plans. Each
local government or combination of local governments is
required to prepare a plan based on these guidelines. King
County agencies have chosen to use a cooperative planning
strategy. Five lead agencies are participating in the
development of the King County Local Hazardous Waste
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-7
Management Plan: King County Department of Public Works
Solid Waste Division; City of Seattle Office for Long-range
Planning and Solid Waste Utility; Seattle-King County
Department of Public Health; and Metro's Water Pollution
Control Department. Other supporting participants include the
Suburban Cities Association and Metro's Environmental
Planning Division.
Development of the plan was divided into two tasks. The first
Loc 31 =ste task was to research and write an Issue Paper that documents
�1 Huard mWtrt YV^
M&�A�tt,rc;ts ca'r`t the current and future conditions affecting the management of
small quantities of hazardous waste in King County. The Issue
Paper was completed and available for public comment in
June, 1988. Section 2 of this document describes the region
and summarizes the issues, problems and needs identified in
r the Issue Paper.
k The second task was development of the management plan
Man api nate
gement
for S'atHt—Kin itself. A Draft Plan/EIS was developed following the publica-
_ that ry.n Nd B county tion of the Issue Paper. The Draft Plan was a response to the
n 'en01 IAS,
,w � needs identified in, and comments received in response to the
S°�"a " `"
� 'N Issue Paper, as well as public participation activities.
tLiud ,W Icy y .
S. "'
� R��my R* Individual "program elements" were developed to address these
f
F`"""Y two needs and comments (Appendix A). These program elements
were measured against a set of criteria to assess how well each
would contribute to the goal and objectives of the plan.
Program elements found acceptable were combined to create
the four plan alternatives presented in the Draft Plan/EIS.
Three of the four plan alternatives were evaluated against the
objectives as essential to attaining the goal of this plan; the
fourth alternative projected the effect of maintaining current
levels of effort until 2009.3
Briefly, the four alternatives proposed in the Draft Plan/EIS
were:
' Maximum Diversion Alternative: an intensive, compre-
hensive effort to divert 100 percent` of these wastes
'Appendix A contains a detailed description of the plan development methodology.
` Percent diversion is defined as the amount of hazardous waste that does not enter
the municipal waste streams or the environment because: a) the waste is not created in the
first place (waste reduction), or b) the waste is managed in a way that protects the
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION 1-8 ,
from municipal solid and liquid waste streams in the '
P q
shortest period considered possible: 10 years for HHW
and 15 years for SQG wastes. The cumulative costs of
the Maximum Diversion Alternative were an estimated
$207 million over the 20-year life of the plan, resulting
in an average cost per ton of waste diverted of $573.
• Phased Implementation Alternative: a less intensive,
though still comprehensive, effort to divert 100 percent
of both HHW and SQG wastes by the twentieth year of
the plan, at a cumulative cost of $161 million or an
average cost per ton of $664.
• Fifty Percent Diversion Alternative: this alternative
would have resulted in diversion of 50 percent of HHW
and SQG wastes in twenty years, at a cumulative cost
of $81 million or an average cost per ton of $658.
• Status Quo Alternative: described the effect of main-
taining the current level of effort (1989) to manage
these wastes over twenty years. By 2009, the Status
Quo Alternative would divert 8 percent of both HHW
and SQG wastes from municipal waste streams. The
cumulative cost of the Status Quo Alternative was an
estimated $33 million, yielding an average cost per ton
of waste diverted of $1773.
Based on comments received from the public and Suburban
Cities representatives, a single "preferred alternative," was
formulated and is presented as the Plan in this document
(Section 3).
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION '
The public was given opportunities to comment as the plan
was developed.' All documents were issued in draft form for
public review. Special efforts were made to elicit public
comment, including meetings, workshops, a public opinion
survey and focus group discussions. Public comments were
environment and the public health, either through collection and recycling, treatment or
disposal.
'Appendix D is a summary of the public participation process.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-9
incorporated into this Final Plan/EIS, and responses to
comments are contained in Section 5.
Two workshops were offered to invited representatives from
businesses, environmental and community organizations, and
state and local agencies at critical stages of plan development.
The first workshop was held on June 15, 1988, to enlist
L JA participation and ensure that the full range of conditions and
concerns would be addressed in the plan. The second work-
shop was held October 11, 1988, to continue the input from
key organizations and agencies in plan development.
In June 1988, after release of the Issue Paper, public meetings
' were held in north, south and central King County. The Issue
Paper was available for public comment from June through
August 1, 1988.
Scoping for the Draft Plan/EIS was held August 1-22, 1988.
Also during August, 1988, a telephone survey and two focus
group discussions were conducted One focus group was held
for households and the other for small quantity generators.
The household focus group was attended by eight King County
residents selected at random. The SQG focus group was
comprised of nine representatives from SQGs. The telephone
survey polled 600 residents in Seattle, unincorporated and
incorporated King County. The survey and focus groups
allowed: 1) a determination of the level of public awareness
of the issues; 2) identification of problems and needs, including
information on the kinds of services and programs the public
wanted; and 3) development of the Draft Plan alternatives.
The Draft Plan/EIS was released for public comment in
February 1989.
The King County and Seattle Solid Waste Citizens Advisory
Committees and Metro's Citizens Water Quality Advisory
Committee were briefed on the Draft Plan, as it was developed
and had the opportunity to comment.
' Three public meetings were held in north, south and central
King County, in March, 1989 to elicit public response to the
Draft Plan/EIS. In June, 1989, a workshop was held for
suburban cities staff to elicit their concerns and assess their
willingness to participate in Plan implementation; thirteen cities
were represented (See Supplement to Appendix D).
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION 1-10
The environmental reviewP rocess for the plan is in accordance '
with the State Environmental Policy Act rules. This Final
Plan/EIS serves as the programmatic (non-project) Final '
Environmental Impact Statement for the plan.
THE PLAN '
Public comment supported adoption of the Maximum Diversion
or Phased Implementation Alternatives presented in the Draft
Plan. Local governments were also supportive of a significant
level of effort for this program, although there was a concern
that costs not place an undue burden on King County citizens
and businesses. Utility costs are rising quickly throughout the
County for a variety of reasons, such as the need to institute
solid waste recycling programs and secondary sewage treat-
ment. Funding of the Local Hazardous Waste Management ,
Plan will contribute to those increases.
Some respondents also indicated that a goal of 100% diversion
was not practical and that a plan specifying 100 percent
diversion was guaranteed to fail. However, no lower goal
could be identified as any more reasonable. '
The Plan presented in Section 3 is a hybrid of the Maximum
Diversion and Phased Implementation alternatives. Under the
Plan, the comprehensive approach to HHW and SQG waste
management is maintained, but programs are brought on-line
more slowly than in the Maximum Diversion Alternative
resulting in lower overall costs for the first 5 years. In
addition, the Plan is not expected to result in diversion of 100
percent of the waste; rather, it will result in diversion of waste
to the maximum extent feasible after 12 years for HHW and ,
20 years for SQG wastes. Over 20 years, the average cost per
ton of waste diverted is $568.
SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION '
This Final Plan/EIS will be submitted to the State Department
of Ecology for approval and to the Interlocal Forum and local ,
councils for adoption during 1989. Implementation will begin
as soon as budgets allow, beginning with the 1990 budget
cycles of the key implementing agencies.
i
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-11
ORGANIZATION OF THE
FINAL PLAN/EIS
Section 2: Background provides an overview of the local
environment, projections of unregulated hazardous waste
generation over the life of the plan (20 years), current
hazardous waste management practices and programs, and the
roles and responsibilities of local and state government
agencies. Existing problems and needs are identified
Section 3: Plan Description presents the proposed program,
implementation and financing mechanisms, and the roles of the
�. major participants in Plan implementation.
' Section 4: Affected Environment, Potential Impacts and
Mitigation Measures describes environmental impacts that may
occur with plan implementation. Mitigation measures to
' minimize the potential impacts are identified.
Section 5: Responsiveness Summary contains responses to
' public comments received on the Draft Plan/EIS.
Appendix A: Program Elements describes plan development
' methodology and the "program elements," the building blocks
of the Plan.
' Appendix B: Technical Information contains background
information to supplement the Final Plan/EIS, such as detailed
budget projections.
Appendix C: Issue Paper contains the Issue Paper published
June, 1988, and is bound as a separate document.
Appendix D: Public Involvement Documents contains
summaries of all public involvement activities, bound as a
separate document. (A supplement to Appendix D can be
found following Appendix B in this document.)
I
I
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-1
This section summarizes what is known about the existing and
potential impacts of household hazardous wastes and small
quantity generator waste on health and safety and the
environment. More detail can be found in the Issue Paper
(Appendix Q. This section summarizes the findings of the
Issue Paper and the results of further analyses undertaken since
the Issue Paper was published. In addition to the
environmental impacts, the health and safety implications of
current management of these wastes are described. Upcoming
regulatory changes in waste management requirements are
assessed to determine whether current methods of handling
HHW and SQG wastes would be adequate in the future.
LOCATION AND SETTING
Natural Environment
King County encompasses about 2,140 square miles (1,366,000
acres) with elevations ranging from sea level to 8,000 feet.
The county is bounded by Puget Sound and Kitsap County on
the west, Snohomish County to the north, the central peaks of
the Cascade Mountains and Kittitas County to the east, and the
.. White and Green Rivers and Pierce County to the south.
Approximately 50 percent of the county, mostly the
mountainous eastern portion, is federal or commercial forest
land. The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan applies to
all of King County. Figure 2-1 shows the incorporated cities
\\ l�\,.� '` and towns of King County.
King County's water resources are plentiful. One goal of the
Plan is to protect these resources from the effects of
inappropriate disposal of HHW and SQG wastes.
' Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish are the largest
freshwater lakes in the county and contain a variety of fish,
including important salmon runs. These lakes are also used
' intensively for recreational purposes.
The three largest rivers in King County are the Cedar River,
' which empties into Lake Washington, and the Snoqualmie and
Green/Duwamish Rivers, which empty into Puget Sound.
Many of these rivers serve as municipal water sources, provide
habitat for fish, or are used for hydroelectric power generation.
r
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-2 .r
Lake '
Forest Bothell SNOHOMISH CO.
Park Skykomish■00,
.9 .. '
Duvall
Kirkland Redmond
' Hunt's
r Point yarrow
;tei Point a
l 1 •r.•• -�!, w'
V ClydeCation
•••—•
Medina '
Hill
Seattle Bellevue
PUGET SOUND Beaux tJ
S �' , •_ •�•• Arts
Mercer•
1(i
Island ~
uu Snoqualmie
Issaquah G ........ ,
p Renton
North ............
i Normandy _ Bend
Park ,
/ -
Tukwila
i �=
Kent
Des Moines
i61
\
Auburn Black
-` %• Diamond
Algona ,
Milton
Pacific
`z 1
Enumclaw
Scale I I 1 I 1 I 4
N 5 Miles '
PERI CE CO.
Figure 2-1. KING COUNTY AND INCORPORATED CITIES AND TOWNS
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-3
In King County, groundwater is also tapped for public and
private water supplies, irrigation, and industrial use. Most
groundwater used for drinking water is found in relatively
shallow glacial deposits that could be contaminated by surface
disposal activities.
The climate in King County, while generally temperate in the
lowlands, can range from below freezing to nearly 100 degrees
Fahrenheit. Average annual precipitation ranges from about 35
to 50 inches in the lowlands, 75 inches in the foothills, to 100
to 200 inches in the Cascades. Temperature and precipitation
may influence hazardous waste disposal practices and con-
sequent environmental effects. For example, rain may wash
wastes into soils and water systems, affecting operations of
both landfills (by creating leachate) and sewage treatment
plants. The season and weather may also influence the
public's use of hazardous substances such as solvents for
stripping paints, antifreeze added to the car radiator, or
insecticides.
Built Environment
The type and quantity of HHW and SQG wastes generated in
a region are influenced by population, population density,
number of small businesses and other factors.
Population At the present time, King County represents about 31 percent
of the total state population. As of April 1, 1988, the total
population of King County was 1,413,900. Of this total,
approximately 60 percent live in incorporated cities and towns,
D ® and the remaining 40 percent live in unincorporated areas
(Office of Financial Management, 1988). The County's 29
incorporated cities and towns cover more than 220 square
miles. Seattle, Bellevue, Renton, Redmond, Auburn and Kent
L occupy 80 percent of this area or approximately 180 square
miles. Table 2-1 lists the incorporated towns and cities of
King County and their 1988 populations (PSCOG, 1988).
' Population
Density The proportion of single family units versus multifamily units
will influence the type and quantity of household hazardous
,,. waste generated in King County. Families living in single
family residences generate different types and quantities of
® waste than those living in multifamily homes; different
. . I I
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-4
Table 2-1. 1988 POPULATION OF INCORPORATED CITIES AND TOWNS '
IN KING COUNTY'
King County (Total) 1,413,900
1
Unincorporated 571,629 '
Incorporated 842,271
Algona 1,655 '
Auburn 30,790
Beaux Arts 293
Bellevue 85,180
Black Diamond 1,330 '
Bothell (part) 9,850
Carnation 1,250
Clyde Hill 3,030 '
Des Moines 14,120
Duvall 1,910
Enumclaw 6,260
• Hunts Point 505
Issaquah 7,170
Kent 32,350
Kirkland 35,820
Lake Forest Park 2,770
Medina 2,950
Mercer Island 20,690
Milton (part) 545
Normandy Park 6,130
North Bend 2,275
Pacific 3,320
Redmond 31,710
Renton 36,940
Seattle 495,900
Skykomish 233
Snoqualmie 1,515
Tukwila 4,760
Yarrow Point 1,020
The population of King County in 1988 is estimated to be 1.4 million people,
of which 60 percent live in the 29 incorporated cities and towns.
'Puget Sound Council of Governments, 1988.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-5
programs may be required to reduce the amount of waste from
these two sources.
In 1988, King County contained approximately 617,000
housing units. Of the total housing stock, approximately 59
percent were single family units, 38 percent multifamily units,
and three percent were mobile homes. Many suburban cities,
however, had a higher proportion of multifamily units.
Unincorporated King County had fewer multifamily units than
the county as a whole and more mobile homes. The City of
Seattle has 52 percent single-family and 48 percent multifamily
homes (Moehring, 1988).
Figure 2-2 shows 1980 population density and distribution in
King County.
Population
Growth For King County as a whole, population growth during the
decade from 1970 to 1980 was 9.5 percent. Total population
in the county increased from 1,269,898 in 1980 to 1,413,900 in
1988, a 11.3 percent gain for the eight-year period (PSCOG,
1988). During this period, population increased faster in
unincorporated areas of the county than in incorporated ones.
This trend is expected to continue at least through the year
2000. By 2000, unincorporated areas are expected to have
about one-half of the County's population (King County,
1987). Table 2-2 shows population projections for Seattle and
King County through the year 2000.
Land use estimates and forecasts for King County indicate that
the county has and will continue to experience a rapid rate of
growth to the year 2000. The amount of land under residential
uses is projected to increase by 122 percent between 1970 and
2000. Land used for employment uses is forecasted to show a
similar gain, increasing by 121 percent. Meanwhile, the
amount of vacant, developable land is expected to decrease by
44 percent in the 30-year period (PSCOG, 1984). Table 2-3
shows estimated and projected land use 1970-2000.
Economy In the past, the economy of the Puget Sound area has been
dominated by the resource sector (forestry, fishing, and mining)
and the manufacturing sector (wood products, food products,
and transportation machinery). The number of people
employed in the resource and manufacturing sectors has
increased, with the exception of agriculture. However, these
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION 2-6
':}fes• .jf•„..'r.. •r: •'�L,'.. ,�• ,
X.
:�;•' Iry >�`•;�• i,c� s.:• .•:'�•' ""- -
�. �y., ,3 ::��' ..• tit •�.�•'�•v • •
tea, :� • �•:.4.. ••
inti�� •�''• y.'•�• �
• •(1' ' • a '••''
fix ;�'• +''t.� f'
•• .:nom 'Y. � :�r.Yr�••' �v,.
,: �. ::•.\tib',• .w ; ;: "•
X.
Scale 1:300,000
Figure 2-2. POPULATION DENSITY '
AND DISTRIBUTION (Adapted from PSCOG, 1982)
One dot represents 100 people.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-7
Table 2-2. POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS FOR SEATTLE
AND KING COUNTY'
1970 1980 1990 2000 2020
Seattle 530,831 493,846 496,254 507,068 521,720
Eastside King County 197,253 216,999 355,424 457,802 626,005
Shoreline 64,532 62,067 64,076 67,387 70,059
Green River Valley 98,177 106,346 133,390 156,581 192,863
Southwest King County 164,123 176,989 209,974 241,553 287,505
Southeast King County 81,109 122,462 162,159 217,514 344,025
Other King County 23,562 31,040 39,719 49,614 72,567
Total 1,159,587 1,209,749 1,460,996 1,697,519 2,114,744
'Puget Sound Council of Governments, 1988
Table 2-3. ESTIMATED AND PROJECTED WESTERN KING COUNTY'
LAND USE BY TYPE (1970-2000)2
1970 1980 1990 2000
Total Land (acres) 606,854 606,854 606,854 606,854
Residential Land 59,706 86,977 105,780 122,797
Employment Land 17,913 24,651 33,355 44,084
Vacant Developable' 266,817 208,561 175,084 140,845
Balance° 263,138 286,665 292,635 299,128
'Total acreage excludes easternmost areas of King County.
'Puget Sound Council of Governments, 1988
'Indicates acreage of land that is physically developable according to current standards and
policies of local governments.
'Includes land that is not physically buildable, such as streets, parks and similar land uses.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-8
work force because of
sectors employ a decreasing share of the w o
the increasing importance of the service sector in the regional
economy. Growth in the service sector is particularly evident
in King County, where business, health and legal services have
become almost as large in employees as the resource and
manufacturing industries. Since 1982, this sector has grown by
more than 10,000 jobs per year. Many of these jobs are in
start-up businesses and smaller, expanding enterprises.
The geographic distribution of employment growth is as
follows: fifty-one percent of the growth in employment is ,
expected to be in Seattle, 33 percent in suburban cities, and
only 16 percent in unincorporated areas. By 2000,
unincorporated areas are expected to have approximately one-
sixth of the county's jobs as well as one-half of its population.
In March, 1987, there were in King County approximately
34,500 businesses that employed fewer than 50 persons, i.e.,
"small businesses" as defined by Washington State Employment
Security (Thomas, personal communication, 1989). Based on
analysis of SIC codes, it is estimated that about 20,000
businesses are possibly small quantity generators (Appendix B).
Zoning for Hazardous Waste Facilities
State law (RCW 70.105.225) required all local jurisdictions to
amend their zoning ordinances by November, 1991 to allow
hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities in every zone
where handling of hazardous substances is permitted. Most
larger jurisdictions in King County have received approval for
their adopted ordinances or conditional approval for ordinances
in the process of being adopted. Most communities permit on-
site treatment and storage in commercial and industrial zones,
and treatment and storage off-site in industrial zones. Some
communities require conditional use or special permits.
Examples of these designations are included in Appendix B.
EXISTING WASTE FACILITIES
Existing waste handling facilities are described briefly, since
much HHW and SQG waste is currently disposed of in the
trash or into the sewer. Facilities that inadvertently handle
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-9
HHW and SQG waste include solid waste transfer stations,
landfills and sewage treatment plants.
Solid Waste Facilities
All the solid waste in King County that is not recycled
currently goes to landfills. In addition to the Cedar Hills
Landfill, which accepts over 95 percent of the region's
municipal solid waste, small landfills operate on Vashon Island
and in the rural east county as shown in Figure 2-3. Most of
these small landfills are being phased out. Duvall landfill has
closed; Cedar Falls landfill will close by the end of 1989.
Enumclaw and Hobart landfills are scheduled to close in 1992
Y� and 1994 respectively. There are also ten operating transfer
stations within the County and one drop box for solid waste at
Skykomish.
In 1988, approximately 1.7 million tons of municipal solid
waste were generated in King County (R.W. Beck and
Associates, 1988). According to the King County Solid Waste
Management Programmatic EIS, 1.3 million tons of garbage
were disposed of in 1987. The EIS projected a recycling rate
of 15 percent in 1987. Assuming nothing is done to affect the
rate of solid waste generation, population growth alone in King
County would result in increased solid waste generation. Total
tonnage of solid waste generated is projected to increase to 1.8
million by 1994, 2.1 million by 1999, and 2.8 million by 2009
unless successful recycling programs are implemented (King
i,
County Solid Waste Division, 1988).
Most of the solid wastes collected at transfer stations and rural
drop boxes operated by King County and the City of Seattle
are transported by private disposal operators. Residential,
commercial, and many industrial solid wastes are brought
together at these transfer sites and then transported to Cedar
Hills Landfill. At the landfill, these wastes are buried in areas
with special linings and are covered daily with a layer of soil.
Rainwater percolating through the landfill is intercepted by a
network of underdrains. Since the water can pick up
chemicals and other substances from the decomposing waste, it
(called leachate) is treated either on-site or at sewage treatment
plants before eventual release into the environment. The rural
landfills that do not have liners will have liners installed in
new sections or will be closed to further disposal.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-10
:01st Ar HE Transfer Station p Skykomish
Drop Boz
-Noa htoransfe� tation
North Transfer Stations ° , ,�� : Carnation landfill
ctoria Trans .ation
South Transfer Station `
Renton
,ram-`:
Cedar Hills landfill
' Cedar ails
Vasho landfill `
landfill
. =; raltsfe n Hobart
❑landfill
I-41
�'Algona�-Trans
fetati6n
i
1 Scale ILL
NS Miles Enumclaw .,
o Transfer Station
❑ landfill t = ;
O Rural Drop Boz
Figure 2-3. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-11
Both King County and the City of Seattle are implementing
other management options for the region's solid waste,
including greatly increased recycling, and considering exporting
wastes to facilities outside King County.
Wastewater Facilities
Liquid wastes (sewage and other wastewaters) from homes and
businesses are treated on-site in septic tank/drain field systems
or are collected and treated in municipal wastewater treatment
plants. Figure 2-4 shows the location of the regional Metro
and local district sewerage systems in King County, and the
areas where septic tanks predominate.
Municipal
Sewerage
Systems Metro is the regional agency responsible for the collection and
treatment of sewage and industrial and commercial wastewaters
for much of the Seattle-King County area. Metro operates five
treatment plants in a system covering much of the metropolitan
area (including part of south Snohomish County). Thirty-nine
sewerage agencies in King and Snohomish Counties contribute
sewage to Metro's large collector lines which flow to Metro's
treatment plants. These plants treat about 180 million gallons
® of wastewater per day.
® Co.*
Nine separate districts or cities in the county collect and treat
wastewater as well, accounting for about 20 million gallons per
day. In addition to Metro, the sewer districts are: Southwest
Suburban, Midway (Des Moines), Federal Way Water and
Sewer, Vashon, Enumclaw, Black Diamond, North Bend, Sno-
qualmie and Duvall. These each operate one or more small
wastewater treatment plants, all of which primarily treat resi-
dential sewage, but contain small business wastewater as well.
Treatment consists of primary (gravity settling) and, in some
plants, secondary (biological breakdown) stages; remaining
liquids are treated to kill any remaining pathogens before
discharge to Puget Sound or rural rivers, while solids removed
in the treatment processes (called sludge) are digested, then
composted or used for soil enhancement. All of the primary
treatment plants that discharge to Puget Sound are being
upgraded to include secondary processes.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-12
Metro-
Richmond Beach �'�� ''Y• '�T�`,
�1��•�34Duvall;
Metro-CarkeekPark
r
Metro-
West Point j .•
:• tib• �;�•..»..•�
Metro-Alki
Snoqualmie
< .� � :s"1,'-�' r'�'_ , ' ` r. �,i:•• ,�••.i ti =North Bend
SW Suburban- ` .
Salmon
Croak�� •,
i�
Vashon
Metro-
Renton
SW Suburban-Miller Creak
Das l �`
Moines \ -
Fad oral Way
A--¢� Redondo a4•ri '&'-}X+�
Federal Way -T
W&S-�
Lakota
a
Black Diamond I -j��
i=
1 Scale I I I I I I
N 5 Miles ri
+-0 Treatment Plant and Outfall a--EEnumclaw
High Percent Septic Tanks
Figure 2-4. MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
ti
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-13
Septic Tanks A septic tank and drain field, or "on-site" sewage treatment
system, is an alternative disposal system for wastewater from
households and small businesses generally used in less
developed areas. The septic tank collects and holds the waste-
water, allowing heavy suspended materials to sink to the bot-
tom to be decomposed by bacteria. The wastewater then flows
from the tank to the drain field. The drain field is a large
area of soil that acts like a filter removing remaining sus-
pended substances and some pollutants and bacteria.
In King County, 16 percent of single family housing units are
on septic tanks -- approximately 55,000 units (Land Develop-
ment Information System, 1986). King County's 1986 Annual
Growth Report estimates that 40 percent of new construction in
the unincorporated county is not sewered and 1,000 to 2,000
new septic system units will be added each year (King County,
1986). Approximately 14 million gallons per day of waste-
water were estimated to be discharged to septic tank systems
in the county in 1977 (Metro, 1977).
Septage is the liquid and sludge that accumulates in a septic
tank. Septage removal should occur every 4 to 6 years. In
the Seattle-King County area, septage is taken to Metro's
Renton Treatment Plant for secondary wastewater treatment.
Storm Drains Almost all storm drains in the Seattle-King County region are
separate from the sanitary sewers. The stormwater runoff from
streets and parking lots is discharged directly into the nearest
stream, river, lake or bay. In some older parts of Seattle,
storm drains are connected to the sanitary sewer. When it
rains in these areas, stormwater and untreated sewage can over-
flow into receiving waters. Combined sewers are being phased
out. Essentially, throughout the region, whatever goes down a
catch basin or storm drain goes untreated into local waters.
i DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
This section describes HHW and SQG wastes, provides
projections of tonnage generated over the life of the plan and
describes current hazardous waste management practices.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-14
Household Hazardous Waste
Household hazardous wastes are those old or unwanted
products that exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste. They may be toxic, corrosive, ignitable, reactive,
persistent, or carcinogenic, but they are exempt from federal
and state regulation because of their household origin. Table
1-1 provides a general list of HHW categories.
Specific HHW may be targeted for special management
strategies because of the quantity of waste, type of hazard,
degree of hazard, or public demand for services. A breakdown
C� of types or categories of HHW is shown in Figure 2-5. Paints
and solvents, motor oil, pesticides, and batteries were identified
as targeted wastes in the planning area.
Solvents are organic chemicals and are found in products used
for: auto, boat, and equipment maintenance; cleaning agents;
home repair and remodeling; and hobby and recreation sup- -
plies. Products with high concentrations of organic solvents
include: oil-based paints, thinners, degreasers, spot removers,
strippers, and cleaners. These products are targeted because
they contain specific problem chemicals such as benzene,
.
and tetrachloroethylene. Since these light-weight organic
compounds do not normally bind onto soil or other particles,
they have the potential to percolate through a landfill and end
up in the leachate. They may concentrate to hazardous levels
in sewer lines, pass untreated into the air at sewage treatment
plants or pass straight through septic tanks and drain fields into
the groundwater.
Paints are a high volume waste that may contain hazardous
constituents, including the solvent in oil-based paints, pigments
such as lead and chromium, and additives such as mercuric
fungicides (Morley and Associates, 1987).
Used motor oil is insoluble, persistent, and may contain toxic
chemicals and heavy metals. In addition to being potentially
hazardous, oil is also a physical nuisance at transfer stations and
landfills.
All pesticides are designed to be toxic to one or more forms of
life. Many will persist in the environment for a long time,
affecting plant and animal life. Because of their persistence in
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-15
Pesticides MON)
Aerosols (S.0e)
corrosives (S.Os) Later Faint (35.0X)
5olvests (4.0X)
Other (3.0X)
taste 011 (8.0e)
oil-Based Pam. (31.0%)
Household Hazardous Wastes
Other (9.0X) Latex Paint (1.0X)
Corrosives (4.0X)
Waste Oil (42 OX)
Solvents .4i.OX)
Oil Paint (2.0X)
SQG Hazardous Wastes
Figure 2-5. BREAKDOWN OF HHW AND SQG WASTES BY TYPE
HHW breakdown is based on experience at area collection day events.
SQG breakdown is from SCS Engineers, 1984.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-16
the environment, pesticides such as DDT, aldrin and dieldrin
have been banned. Others, such as the organo-phosphate pesti-
cides, break down in the environment in a relatively short
period of time, but are initially highly toxic and constitute a
health risk. Unwanted pesticides must be handled very carefully
to protect health and the environment.
Household and automobile batteries contain lead, silver oxide,
I II I I; I mercury, lithium, cadmium, or other heavy metal compounds
that can cause leachate contamination and create ash toxicity
problems in solid waste incineration. Automobile batteries also
contain corrosive acids that create safety hazards at landfills and
transfer stations.
Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste
Businesses that generate hazardous wastes have been regulated
through the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
the federal Clean Water act and the Washington State
Hazardous Waste Management Act for over a decade.
However, any business that generates less than 220 pounds per
month of hazardous waste or less than 2.2 pounds per month of
i extremely hazardous waste, is conditionally exempt from state
and federal hazardous waste regulations. Such businesses are
termed "Small Quantity Generators" or SQGs. They are exempt
from some of the paperwork associated with the regulations, but
still must use proper waste management procedures, or they can
be subject to fines and possible criminal prosecution.
An SQG may be either a small or large business. The typical
profile of an SQG is a business that:
• employs fifty or fewer people (in Washington, more
than ninety percent of all businesses fall into this
category); and
• produces quantities of hazardous waste that would take
more than two months to fill a fifty-five gallon drum.
Table 1-2 provides a general list of SQG waste categories and
examples of most likely types of businesses that are SQGs.
Because of the diversity of businesses thatg enerate small
quantities of hazardous waste, and the wide variety of sub-
stances used, characterizing SQG wastes is a difficult task.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-17
Waste characterization activities have been undertaken locally
and elsewhere around the country. The most common types of
wastes found have been lubricating oil, non-halogenated
solvents, paint and paint sludges, acids and caustics, and
halogenated solvents such as tetrachloroethylene, and pesticides.
A study in California for North Hollywood, for example, found
that 83 percent of SQG waste was waste oils and solvents
(SCS Engineers, 1984).
Both Metro and the Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health have continuing programs attempting to determine more
specifically which businesses are disposing of which wastes.
Audits of businesses in three areas in King County enabled the
Health Department to identify certain businesses likely to
generate small amounts of hazardous wastes (see Table 2-4).
Metro has also developed a list of industries that are likely to
discharge contaminants to the sewer system. These industries
are listed in Table 2-5. Additional details regarding hazardous
waste types, quantities, and management by small businesses
are provided in Section 4.3 of the Issue Paper (Appendix Q.
b
Projections of HHW and SQG Waste 1989-2009
�. The total of HHW and SQG hazardous waste is estimated to
be one percent of the solid waste stream based on data from
solid waste sorts and surveys (see Appendix Q. Best available
data indicate that HHW represents about one-third of the
hazardous waste in the solid and liquid waste streams by
weight (Appendix B). The remaining two-thirds of the hazard-
ous waste comes from SQGs. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 85 percent of this hazardous waste by weight is
disposed of in the municipal solid waste and 15 percent in the
liquid waste stream (Figure 2-6).
Projected tonnage of HHW generation over the life of the plan
(assuming no waste reduction programs are implemented) ap-
pears in Table 2-6. The projected tonnage of SQG waste
generation over the life of the Plan (assuming current genera-
tion rates stay constant) appears in Table 2-7. These projec-
tions provide the basis for reduction and diversion goals in the
plan. Figure 2-7 graphically describes these projections.
1
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-18
Table 2-4. BUSINESS GROUPS SURVEYED IN KING, PIERCE AND THURSTON
COUNTIES
Pesticide Users Pesticide Applications Services
Metal Manufacturing Equipment Repair
Chemical Manufacturing Constriction
Wood Preserving Motor Freight Terminals
Formulators Furniture/Wood Manufacture and Refinish
Laundries Cleaning Agents and Cosmetic Manufacture
Other Services Paper Industry
Photography Educational and Vocational Shops
Textile Manufacturing Wholesale and Retail Sales
Vehicle Manufacturing Printing/Ceramics
'Baroga, et. al., 1986
Table 2-5. "HIGH PROBABILITY" DISCHARGERS OF CONTAMINANTS BY
INDUSTRY TYPE'
Food and Kindred Products Chemical and Allied Products
Primary Metal Industries Machinery, except Electrical
Transportation Equipment Railroad Transportation
Water Transportation Air Transportation
Personal Services Business Services
Motion Pictures Miscellaneous Services
Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries s
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
Fabricated Metal Products, except Machinery and Transportation Equipment
Electrical and Electrical Machinery, Equipment and Supplies
Measuring, Analyzing and Controlling Instruments
Photographic, Medical and Optical Goods, Watches, and Clocks
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing
Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services
Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations
Automotive Repair, Services and Garages
Miscellaneous Repair Services
'Based on an analysis of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes by Metro Industrial Waste
Section, 1987
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-19
�— 2/3 from SOG Sources
15%
LIQUID 85%
WASTE
1/3 from Households O
SOLID I
WASTE
r Figure 2-6. CONTRIBUTION OF HHW AND SQG WASTE TO MUNICIPAL
WASTE STREAMS
85 percent of total Household and Small Quantity Generator hazardous waste isfound
in the solid waste stream. The remaining 15 percent is found in the liquid waste
stream and the environment. Of this, one-third of the waste comes from household
sources and two-thirds from SQGs.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-20
Table 2-6. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE TONNAGE PROJECTIONS'
1989 1994 1999 2009
Total Tonnage of Hazardous Waste 19,000 22,000 25,000 33,000
Total HHW Generated 6,300 7,200 8,300 11,000
HHW in Solid Waste 5,400 6,100 7,000 9,400
HHW in Wastewater 950 1,100 1,200 1,700
'Amounts reported in tons.
Table 2-7. SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
TONNAGE PROJECTIONS'
1989 1994 1999 2009
Total Tonnage of Hazardous Waste 19,000 22,000 25,000 33,000
Total SQG Hazardous Waste
Generated 12,700 14,700 16,700 22,000
SQG Waste in Solid Waste 10,800 12,500 14,200 18,700
SQG Waste in Wastewater 1,900 2,200 2,500 3,300
'Amounts reported in tons.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-21
24000
22000 /p
�o
�o
20000 O
�o
0/o
18000 /O1001*
/o
1.010
0
16000
T O •• HHW
O O�
N �p� O S O G
S p
14000 /O�
/O
/O
O
12000
/•
10000 •�•
100,
8000 •�•�
•
6000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
YEARS
Figure 2-7. HAZARDOUS WASTE TONNAGE PROJECTIONS FOR 1990-2009
w
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-22
CURRENT DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
HHW and SQG wastes are currently handled in a variety of
ways. Householders store hazardous products in the garage,
dispose of them in the garbage or take them to transfer
stations and landfills, dump them down the sink or storm
a L drains or directly onto the ground. A public opinion survey
conducted as part of this planning process found that many
�— --- householders routinely dispose of HHW in the garbage can or
down the drainA endix D . Some results of the survey� PP ) Y are
shown in Figures 2-8 through 2-11.
The most common avenues of disposal used by the SQGs are
landfilling or discharge into available sewers. These two
disposal methods account for approximately 60 to 80 percent
of the SQG waste generated, according to reports from other
states. Other more acceptable disposal practices such as
recycling, reuse, on-site treatment, and shipment to a licensed
TSD facility are being used by a comparatively small number
of SQGs. Surveys of disposal practices of businesses in the
region have provided some idea of the proportion of hazardous
wastes disposed of in an environmentally unsound manner.
These results are summarized in Tables 2-8 and 2-9.
In recent years, some programs and facilities to deal with
HHW wastes have become available. Programs such as HHW
collection days, HHW permanent collection facilities and
recycling opportunities are available to some degree for HHW !
disposal and treatment. However, these programs can handle
only a small percentage of the waste generated. Local collec-
tion day events, for example, provide a disposal option for
only about two percent of the population.
The rest of this section describes in more detail current
disposal practices and their effect on the solid and liquid waste
streams and the environment.
Long-term Storage
Household
Hazardous
Waste In a local residential opinion survey of the household
hazardous waste issue, it was determined that approximately 90
percent of the surveyed population have hazardous products in
t00 100
90 e0
So Do
70 70
E60 E w
L° so ri so
d b b
]0 10
70 !0
10 !0
0 =Z= 0
OARAOO LAWILL OII[ OMNI MIA OlMAN LAIWILL CMR a7mm MIR
Figure 2-8. DISPOSAL METHODS FOR HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS Figure 2-10. DISPOSAL METHODS FOR PAINTS/SOLVENTS
100 100
90 •o
so .o
70 70
E 60 E '°
"s 5 e
b .0 q .0
Io Io
m n
10 10
0 0
.AAEA.L LAIDIILL OMR O1/111 OAOOAOL MIR LAOOIIlL CMR O7tq M/IO
Figure 2-9. DISPOSAL METHODS FOR PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES Figure 2-11. DISPOSAL METHODS FOR AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS
N
DK/NR = Don't Know/No Response N
w
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-24
Table 2-8. SQG HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL FOR
KING, PIERCE, AND THURSTON COUNTIES'
Gal/Month
Gal/Month Hazardous
Hazardous Wastes
Total Businesses Waste Improperly
Group Name Businesses Surveyed Generated Disposed
Pesticide Users 29 23 33 9
Pesticide Application 145 63 27 2
Chemical Manufacturing 26 8 0 0
Wood Preserving 13 7 205 36
Formulators 13 6 0 0
Laundries & Dry Cleaners' 392 52 1133 1100
Other Services 167 56 224 196
Photography 462 59 145 14
Textile Manufacturing 13 8 4 3
Vehicle Maintenance 3241 70 533 53
Equipment Repair 118 58 46 3
Metal Manufacturing 1238 61 212 31
Construction 1342 64 53 4
Motor Freight Terminals 6 2 0 0
Fumiture/Wood Manufacturing 250 58 64 23
and Refinishing
Printing/Ceramics 831 55 219 64
Cleaning Agents and Cosmetics 17 9 0 0
Manufacturing
Other Manufacturing 111 45 15 0
Paper Industry 15 6 0 0
Education and Vocational 160 27 33 0
Shops
Wholesale and Retail Shops 169 48 0 0
Laboratories NOT SURVEYED
'Baroga et al., 1986
'Wastes given in pounds rather than gallons.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-25
Table 2-9. SQG HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR
SOUTH PARK AND N.W. KENT AREAS'
Gal/Month
Gal/Month Hazardous
Hazardous Wastes
Businesses Wastes Disposed of
Group Name Survey Generate Improperly
Pesticide Application 21 202 2
Chemical Manufacturing 0 0 0
Wood Preserving 0 0 0
Formulators 3 27 2
Laundries & Dry Cleaners' 52 3449 15893
Other Services 4 1 1
Photography 1 300 0
Textile Manufacturing 1 1 0
Vehicle Maintenance 8 963 155°
Equipment Repair 3 691 3205
Metal Manufacturing 17 3371 17
Construction 5 233 20
Motor Freight Terminals 1 95 0
Furniture/Wood Manufacturing 1 60 0
and Refinishing
Printing/Ceramics 8 219 3
Cleaning Agents and Cosmetics 1 5 0
w. Manufacturing
Other Manufacturing 2 0 0
r Paper Industry 0 0 0
Education and Vocational 0 0 0
Shops
Wholesale and Retail Shops 29 255 0
Laboratories NOT SURVEYED
'Yerkes et al., 1988
'Pounds rather than gallons
'Tetrachloroethylene ("perc") contaminated waste disposed of in dumpsters
'Oily steam cleaning waste disposed of in storm sewers (no oil/water separator present)
5100 gallons of oily, steam cleaning waste disposed of in storm sewers (no oil/water
separator present), 220 gallons of non-halogenated solvents, a regulated amount, stored
beyond the allowable deadline.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-26
the homeendiA . In addition, approximately ten per-
cent
x D)
cent of the surveyed population store their hazardous waste in
the house or garage instead of disposing of it. The stored
amounts also represent accumulated HHW brought to collection
events held in the Seattle-King County area in the past few
years. A 1982 Metro study estimated that over 100,000
pounds of banned pesticides, such as DDT and 2,4,5-T, were
L, still stored in King County households (Metro, 1982).
Small
Quantity
Generators SQGs are often unaware of appropriate disposal options for
their hazardous wastes. In such cases, wastes may accumulate
over a period of months. This practice puts SQGs at risk for
enforcement actions when accumulation exceeds the thresholds
that designate regulated generators. Long-term storage of
hazardous chemicals can also lead to property damage and site
contamination. As real estate, financial and insurance institu-
tions become more aware of the financial risks associated with
contaminated properties, these properties can become substan-
tial liabilities for business owners.
Solid Waste Stream
Nationwide surveys and local solid waste surveys and sorts
have reported values for the hazardous waste fraction of muni-
`� cipal solid waste ranging from less than 0.1 percent to over 1.0
percent by weight. For the purposes of the plan, a value of
1.0 percent is assumed. Surveys specifically targeted at HHW
have reported values in the 0.3 to 0.4 percent range. The best
r available data indicate that HHW represents about one-third of
the hazardous waste found in King County's solid waste
stream, or about 0.33 percent of the total solid waste stream.
Based on this assumption, the HHW load in the County's solid
waste is estimated at about 5,400 tons for 1990, about 4
pounds per person per year. The remaining two-thirds, or 0.66
percent of the total solid waste stream comes from SQGs. The
load of SQG wastes for 1990 is 10,800 tons.
Household
Hazardous
Waste Waste composition studies show that waste paints, used motor ,
oils, batteries, cleaners, and solvents are the largest and most
common components of HHW found in municipal garbage.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-27
A local study found that much of the HHW in the solid waste
stream is stored and periodically disposed of by drop-off at a
solid waste transfer station (Cal Recovery Systems, 1985).
Forty percent of the HHW in solid waste showed up in resi-
dential pick-up. Sixty percent is brought to transfer stations by
"self-haulers," often after long-term storage. Self-haulers were
identified in the Issue Paper as significant contributors of
HHW to solid waste to be specifically addressed in the plan.
Small Quantity
Generator
Hazardous
Waste A 1986 survey of SQGs in King, Pierce and Thurston counties
identified the dry cleaning industry as a significant contributor
of halogenated solvents to local landfills (Baroga, et al., 1986).
The primary solvent used in the dry cleaning process is tetra-
chloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or "pert"),
which is listed by Ecology as a hazardous waste. Ecology
does not allow disposal of perc in municipal landfills (WAC
173-303).
Two years ago, almost 100 percent of dry cleaner wastes were
placed into dumpsters and disposed of in the solid waste
stream. Currently, over 50 percent of the wastes are being
collected by authorized recycling firms. 1988 Health Depart-
ment audits indicate that 56 percent of the dry cleaner wastes
are being managed properly (Yerkes, et al., 1988). Improved
management practices are a result of an intensive education
and technical assistance effort by the Dry Cleaners Association.
Liquid Waste Stream
The liquid waste stream is 99.9 percent water by weight.
However, small quantities of hazardous wastes in the liquid
waste stream can significantly compromise the wastewater
treatment process or water quality, even in concentrations of
„i
only a few parts per billion. Certain hazardous chemicals,
including heavy metals and toxic organic compounds, are
frequently detected in the liquid waste stream.
The best available data indicate that 307 tons per year of
actual hazardous chemicals are found in Metro's sewerage sys-
tem. This is the amount of pure copper, zinc, benzene and
other hazardous chemicals found through chemical analysis of
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-28
translation of these data into compar-
ablewastewater. A roughp
able figures for total product tonnage that contains these
hazardous chemicals, which is the form the solid waste infor-
mation is in, indicates that 2,850 tons per year (in 1989) of the
products containing hazardous chemicals are disposed of down
the drain. This amounts to about 15 percent of the total
hazardous waste in both the solid and liquid waste streams
(Appendix C). HHW represents roughly one-third of this total.
Therefore, the amount of HHW put into local wastewaters is
estimated to be 950 tons per year. This relatively small
amount in comparison with the solid waste estimates is
supported by the public opinion survey, which found that a
very small percentage of the HHW was acknowledged to be
dumped down the drain. The other two-thirds, or about 1,900
tons per year, comes from commercial or industrial sources.
Household
Hazardous
Waste Hazardous wastes enter the liquid waste stream from daily
events in and around the home. Chemicals are washed down
the drain during routine cleaning, washing, and food prepara-
tion. The kitchen, bathroom, and utility sinks may also receive
quantities of products that are no longer used or wanted.
Although each incident may involve a small amount of
material -- a cup or a pint -- the total load of these materials
in the wastewater system is significant. Table 2-10 shows the
results of a 1984 Metro study on the residential contribution of
toxic heavy metals to the sewer system.
Small Quantity
Generator
Hazardous
Waste Estimates of the wastewater attributable to all commercial or
industrial sources range from five to fifteen percent of total
wastewater volume.
The results of recent surveys conducted by Metro and the
Health Department indicate the major contributors of hazardous
waste to the sewer system are companies using solvents in
their operations. Solvents that have been consistently detected
in Metro wastewaters and are associated with SQG industries
include: Methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene,
trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, acetone, phenol, benzyl
alcohol and dichlorobenzene.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-29
Table 2-10. RESIDENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF COMMONLY DETECTED METALS
TO SEATTLE METRO'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Residential Load'
Renton West Point
Compound Treatment Plant Treatment Plant Uses and Products
lb/day percent lb/day percent
Antimony 0.17 37 1.3 22 Flame retardant, dyes, inks,
fireworks, matches
Arsenic 0.62 36 1.2 30 Fungicides, wood
preservatives
Cadmium 0.71 26 1.3 17 Paint pigments, cigarettes, PVC
plastics, dyes, shampoos, pesticides
Chromium 0.76 2.5 3.1 2.4 Powder laundry soap, bath
soap, dyes, shampoos, pesticides
Copper 25.0 36 50.0 26 Powder laundry soap, shampoos,
kitchen cleaners
Lead 14.0 34 40.0 23 Paint products, cosmetics
Mercury 0.13 53 0.27 41 Paint pigments, thermometers,
photographic products, cosmetics
Nickel 10.0 51 28.0 40 Bath soap, powder laundry soap,
powder bleach, kitchen cleaners,
dishwasher detergent, dyes,
shampoos
Silver 0.40 9 1.1 8 Batteries, pesticides, photographic
products
Zinc 35.0 41 150.0 41 Bath soap, powder kitchen
cleaners, deodorant, pesticides,
shampoos, cosmetics, polish
'Data are in pounds per day and percentage of the total mass loading into each plant. Loadings are
calculated from data presented in Cooley et al., 1984.
'fir
.. ........ ...
SECTION 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-30
Solvents are not removed by primary treatment, which is only
a settling process. About 70 percent of the solvents are
removed by the secondary treatment process, but they are
"removed" by their transfer into the atmosphere rather than
breaking down the actual chemical compounds. These volatile
organic compounds are more likely to be broken down in the
atmosphere, by photo-oxidation, then if they were to remain in
sewage. However, atmospheric releases can contribute to local
air pollution. The remaining 30 percent is discharged with the
liquid effluent into the environment (Hasselman, et al., 1984).
Septic Tanks Septic tank systems, even more so than municipal sewerage
systems, are not designed to handle hazardous chemicals.
Contaminants pass through the systems largely untreated,
percolate through the drain field and migrate to groundwater.
® Many households in the densely populated suburban cities in
® bb King County use groundwater for drinking water supplies.
Approximately two-thirds of the county's area relies solely on
groundwater, including all of Issaquah, Federal Way, Enum-
claw, parts of Redmond, Renton, and Carnation and much of
the unincorporated county (Rolla, personal communication,
1988). Any groundwater contamination from disposal of HHW
or SQG wastes in septic tanks in these areas, therefore, can
have immediate serious consequences for drinking water.
Of particular concern are the volatile organic compounds -- a ,
class of chemicals commonly found in household and SQG
solvents and septic tank cleaning solutions. These compounds
do not readily degrade in the underground environment, do not
attach to soil particles and are, therefore, highly mobile. A
Tacoma study discovered dichloromethane and toluene in
contaminated groundwater samples (DeWalle and Schaff, 1980).
These are chemicals found in products such as paint thinners,
toilet-bowl cleaners, solvents and degreasers.
The most frequently found organic contaminant in groundwater
nationwide is trichloroethylene, an industrial solvent, degreaser
and septic tank cleaner. Trichloroethylene is also found in
products such as cleaning fluids, engine and metal degreasers,
spot removers, and floor strippers (Hathaway, 1980). Metals
from domestic on-site systems have also been found to be
responsible for contamination of groundwater supplies.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-31
Septage pumped from septic tanks in King County is trucked
to the Renton Treatment Plant and so is a source of some
hazardous chemicals from households and small businesses into
the municipal system.
Storm Drains Storm drainage systems are another avenue for HHW and SQG
wastes entering the environment. Almost all storm drains in
the Seattle-King County region are separate from the sanitary
sewers and discharge directly into the nearest stream, river,
lake, or bay. Household wastes most commonly dumped down
storm drains include used motor oil, antifreeze, gasoline, car
wash water, concrete rinse, acid masonry washes, paint rinse
and pesticides. Many small businesses have storm drain con-
nections from their sumps or operational areas, allowing oils,
greases, solvents and other chemicals to wash directly into the
storm drain system. Many fish kills that have occurred in
recent years in King County's urban streams appear to be the
result of direct dumping of a hazardous substance.
Spills may occur outdoors where hazardous substances are
washed directly into the environment to enter surface and
groundwaters. Stonmwater runoff picks up hazardous materials
that have been spilled or dumped outside. Local stormwater
runoff studies have found most of the heavy metals in storm-
water as well as organic chemicals such as oil and grease,
benzene, ethyl benzene and toluene, and some pesticides such
as DDT, lindane and pentachlorophenol (Galvin and Moore,
1982). Many of these contaminants are or have been
ingredients in household or commercial products.
EXISTING PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING HAZARDOUS WASTE
Information and Education
jSeveral existing programs provide information to households
and businesses on good hazardous waste management practices,
although they are limited in nature. The Health Department
operates the Hazards Line, a phone line which offers infor-
mation on HHW recycling or disposal. This service, staffed
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-32
FTE' receives an average of 50-60 calls per day. In
by one g P Y
Ni
addition, Ecology sponsors the statewide "Hazardous Substance
t ) Information Hotline," that answers questions about hazardous
`��;, substances in general. Ecology also sponsors a "Recycle
Hotline" that provides information on local recycling options,
weste` • � . �
�i including those for waste oil and batteries.
\"7 .. I� Public and private agencies have prepared general and targeted
�� educational materials such as brochures, newsletters, mailings
and media spots on HHW. Ecology's Hazardous Substances
Information and Education Office acts as a clearinghouse for
many educational materials. The Educational Subcommittee of
the Hazardous Waste Interagency Coordinating Committee has
a
completed bibliographyof various audio/visual and printed
N ,
P
��. •. . information on HHW (Bennett, et al., 1988).
1 Both private and public agencies have educational materials
^�.. specifically targeting SQGs. Several trade associations have
made efforts to inform their members of regulations concerning
proper waste disposal. Ecology and Metro offered workshops
and seminars, and additional state-funded workshops are being
offered by organizations such as the Waste Information
Network. The Intergovernmental Resource Center in Vancou-
ver, Washington has a two-year grant to run a technical re-
source center for SQGs. This state-funded program provides
SQGs with access to technical publications on waste reduction
and disposal. The telephone information line begun by the In-
tergovernmental Resource Center has been moved to Ecology.
Collection and Disposal
Household
Hazardous
Waste Disposal services for HHW have mainly taken the form of
collection events or "Round-Ups". However some existing
programs provide more continuous service.
During a collection event, residents bring their HHW to a
designated location. Trained personnel accept and package the
wastes for reprocessing and disposal at licensed hazardous
'FTE _ "Full-time Equivalent," or staffing at an annual full-time budgeted position
level. FTE can refer to both full and part time staff.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-33
waste facilities. In King County, four regional collection
events have been held in the last three years, and other
d collection days have been sponsored by suburban cities. Over
700 tons of HHW have been collected in these programs.
r To provide more continuous service, the City of Seattle opened
a HHW collection facility at the Solid Waste Utility's South
Transfer Station in October, 1988. The facility is open four
/ days a week including weekends. All commonly generated
A types of HHW are accepted. Seattle is planning to open a
second facility in 1990 and King County will provide a mobile
collection unit that moves from site to site for set periods of
time, starting in late 1989.
The Health Department accepts banned and restricted-use
+r- pesticides, wood preservatives, and non-leaking fluorescent light
ballasts that contain PCBs at drop-off facilities located at all
Health Department locations.
At the request of the City of Bellevue, Eastside Disposal
Service is offering a limited collection service for HHW for a
six-month trial period starting in April, 1989. This service
consists of a bi-monthly weekend drop off similar to a round-
up, and is only open to Bellevue residents.
The Port of Seattle provides collection facilities for hazardous
waste for its tenants at Shilshole Marina and Fishermans
Terminal.
As a public service, one TSD company in Seattle accepts
4 HHW for free at limited times and in limited quantities from
the general public. Another TSD also accepts HHW; however,
there is a $10 minimum charge for this service.
Most of the wastes collected by these programs are disposed of
as regulated hazardous wastes, either in hazardous waste
landfills or incinerated in hazardous waste incinerators in
accordance with state and federal regulations. Some wastes
can be recycled, for example used oil and batteries.
Used motor oil is easily recyclable; however, because of the
fluctuating dollar value of used motor oil, there is limited
economic incentive for gas stations to collect and recycle it
(Morley and Associates, 1987). The City of Seattle has estab-
lished used oil recycling locations at its two transfer stations to
.......__....... . .. . . .
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-34
helpreduce the quantity of this hazardous waste in the solid
q Y
13SED A1or waste stream. In 1989, King County will provide oil recycling
�� D,Qo facilities at its transfer stations and landfills as well. Several
� �� companies in the King County area provide recycling services
for used or contaminated motor oil: Crosby & Overton, Kent;
Al? `' Chemical Processors, Seattle; New Age Recycling, Tacoma;
w Northwest EnviroServices, Seattle; East Marginal Recycling,
m
Seattle; Petroleum Reclaiming Service, Seattle; Resource
Recycling, Kirkland; Tacoma Recycling, Tacoma; and Merit
4104
Oil, Seattle (Appendix C).
Automobile and household batteries can also be recycled.
Most lead acid batteries collected locally are sent to lead
smelters in Taiwan and overseas. Standard Batteries and
Budget Batteries accept used lead acid batteries for recycling.
Some retailers and service stations accept used batteries in
exchange for new batteries at the time of purchase. ESHB
1671, adopted by the 1989 Washington State Legislature re-
quires that all vehicle battery sales outlets accept and recycle
used vehicle batteries. The Speyer Company in Seattle accepts
mercury and mercury batteries for recycling.
The City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility is investigating paint
recycling options including reprocessing waste latex paint and
materials recovery of solvent-based paint.
AGCO Metaleck of Lynnwood, CMX of Seattle, Hallmark
Metals of Mount Vernon, LMD Silver Resources of Puyallup,
and Pacific X-Ray of Seattle accept photographic chemicals
containing silver for recycling.
Small Quantity
Generator
Hazardous
Waste Private facilities that handle regulated hazardous wastes are
also available to small quantity generators. These private
companies include waste brokers, recyclers, reclaimers and
clean-up contractors, in addition to licensed treatment, storage
and disposal (TSD) facilities.
Hazardous waste "brokers" offer collection service to SQGs,
including consultation about regulations, identification of
hazardous wastes, and transport of hazardous wastes to TSD
facilities. In King County, several TSD facilities will handle
SQG waste. However, these facilities require hazardous waste
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-35
profiles (laboratory tests to classify the wastes) before
accepting wastes for treatment or disposal. These tests are
often very expensive for the small volumes of wastes brought
in by the SQGs. For this reason, many SQGs choose not to
use the TSD services.
A number of SQG collection day events have been held in
Washington State. These programs are usually sponsored by
local governments and run by a TSD facility. Chempro also
offer an SQG collection service once a month for a fee.
All firms handling hazardous wastes must obtain permits from
Ecology and must use the uniform hazardous waste manifest
form to ship hazardous wastes off-site. These firms must also
comply with state and federal regulations.
ROLES, REGULATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Although HHW and SQG wastes are not specifically regulated
at the federal level, state and local agencies have regulatory
W roles for parts of the various waste streams. This section
provides a brief overview of the roles, responsibilities and
regulations of agencies involved in management of HHW and
SQG wastes in King County (a more detailed discussion is
included in Appendix Q.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for
enforcement of environmental laws and regulations at the
federal level. It is under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) as implemented by EPA that hazardous
wastes are defined and regulated. Household hazardous waste
is exempted from regulation at the federal level. A number of
other federal laws affect the management of hazardous waste
including the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
and the Clean Water Act.
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Within Washington State, EPA has delegated the authority to
manage hazardous waste and implement RCRA to the Depart-
.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-36
ment of Ecology. Hazardous waste generated in Washington is
regulated under the Hazardous Waste Management Act [RCW
70.105] as implemented by the Dangerous Waste Regulations
[WAC 173-303]. Small quantities of hazardous waste are
conditionally exempt, which means that such waste must still be ,
v managed appropriately. Under this act local governments are
required to develop local hazardous waste management plans,
which must be approved by Ecology. Ecology inspects facilities '
that use, handle, store, transport or generate hazardous waste.
They also sponsor some information programs for hazardous
aat��
waste generators.
EPA has also delegated to Ecology the responsibility for issuing
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. These permits are issued to all facilities that discharge
wastewater directly into surface waters. Locally, all sewage
treatment plants have NPDES permits. Permit conditions
specify allowable effluent concentrations of certain priority
pollutants, such as heavy metals.
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
The Health Department is responsible for enforcing state public
health statutes, rules and regulations of the State Board of
Health and of the Secretary of the Department of Social and
Health Services, as well as all local health rules, regulations and
ordinances.
The Health Department has broad authority to enforce existing
state hazardous waste requirements and to adopt additional
regulations pertaining to hazardous waste as it affects the public
health (R.C.W. 70.95.160, County, City or Jurisdictional Board
of Health Regulations). The Department has authority to
regulate solid waste including SQG waste and HHW in the solid
waste stream. Specific prohibitions at present are: restricted i
use pesticides,wood treating preservatives and used motor oils.
This regulation applies to all of King County except the City of
Seattle. However, since most of Seattle's solid waste is disposed
of at Cedar Hills Landfill in King County, these prohibitions
also apply to the city's waste stream.
The Health Department also permits and inspects septic tanks
upon installation and/or sale of property. The Health
Department has the authority to inspect businesses that handle
hazardous materials. This authority allows Health Department
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-37
staff to audit SQGs for both information gathering and
compliance purposes.
Local Solid Waste Agencies
Local solid waste agencies operate transfer stations,landfills and
garbage collection systems. These agencies are beginning to
deal with the problems of HHW and SQG wastes in the solid
waste stream. For example, the City of Seattle Solid Waste
Utility is drafting an ordinance to ban HHW and SQG
hazardous wastes from the solid waste stream.
The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metrol
Metro is the regional agency responsible for the collection and
treatment of industrial, commercial and residential wastewaters
for much of the Seattle-King County area. Metro's boundaries
include portions of south Snohomish County and exclude south-
western King County, Vashon Island and the Snoqualmie
Valley. Thirty-nine sewerage agencies in King and Snohomish
Counties contribute wastewater to Metro's large interceptor
sewers which flow to Metro's five wastewater treatment plants.
Metro is required, as a condition of its NPDES permit, to
control the input of stormwater and hazardous waste into its
system. Metro issues permits and authorizations for sewer
system users who discharge significant quantities of wastewater
and/or hazardous contaminants. As a condition of obtaining a
waste discharge permit, the permit holder may be required to
install pretreatment facilities, make plant or process alterations
or monitor discharges (RCW 90.48, WAC 173-208 and WAC
176-216).
Metro also coordinates the Interagency Water Quality Trouble
Call System. This system provides timely and directed
responses to reported water quality problems.
Local Sewer Utilities/Districts
All of the local sewer utilities have authority to prohibit
discharge of hazardous chemicals to the sewer system. Some
sewer utilities, including the City of Seattle Drainage and
Wastewater Utility, also have authority to prohibit such
discharges to storm drains. Such prohibitions are difficult to
enforce, however. Some of the sewer districts that are not
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-38
components of Metro provide services similar to those of the
P
large metropolitan agency.
Local Drainage Utilities
Several local jurisdictions, including King County, Seattle, ,
Bellevue, Kent, Auburn, and Redmond, have established drain-
age water utilities responsible for controlling stormwater and
urban runoff. This responsibility includes maintaining water
quality of runoff.
Local Fire and Building�Departments
Local fire and building departments, and the King County
Building and Land Development Division (BALD) are respon-
sible for enforcing the Uniform Fire Code which governs
storage of hazardous materials above designated threshold
amounts. The Code makes no distinctions between hazardous
materials and hazardous wastes. Fire departments and BALD
issue permits for storage of hazardous materials and
periodically inspect all businesses.
PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
From the discussions in the previous sections, a variety of
problems in HHW and SQG waste management can be identi-
fied, and these are discussed below. Other program needs for
both householders and SQGs were identified during the public
involvement process for the plan. These are also discussed in
this section.
Solid Waste Stream
HHW and SQG waste disposed of in the solid waste stream
may contribute to leachate contamination, resulting in
degradation of leachate collection systems and failure to
meet contaminant limits.
Ecology has issued minimum functional standards for solid
waste landfills (WAC 173-304), including a plastic liner 80
millimeters thick, a clay underliner, and a gas and leachate
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-39
collection system. At present, the King County landfill at
Cedar Hills meets the state minimum functional standards. Re-
quired safeguards are in place in the operating areas of the
landfill. However, the removal of solvents and other hazardous
constituents from the waste stream may enhance the long-term
viability of the liners and reduce leachate contamination.
M
M
'~ Contaminants that could have come from consumer products
and small businesses have been found in samples of leachate
from the Cedar Hills and the now-closed Kent Highlands land-
fills. Metro's Toxicant Pretreatment study detected phenol,
phthalates, isophorone, methylene chloride, toluene, trichloro-
ethylene, ethylbenzene, PCBs, DDE, aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin
aldehyde in the leachate (Cooley, 1984).
S, »' The rural landfills do not, at present, meet state standards.
6=777� However, these are being upgraded or closed. Duvall has
closed; Cedar Falls will close in 1989 and will be replaced
with a drop box. The County is asking for waivers from the
minimum functional standards for Enumclaw and Hobart land-
fills, which are both scheduled for closure in the 1990s. There
are no liners for these landfills, but they do have leachate
collection systems (Monk, personal communication, 1988).
The Vashon landfill has a liner.
Leachate contaminant limits may be tightened in future.
Cedar Hills is currently meeting the leachate contaminant limits
set by Metro (Monk, personal communication, 1988). However,
Metro regularly reviews these limits and state and federal ef-
fluent standards continue to get stricter. The limits could well
become more stringent. To meet the current limits, the leach-
ate must be aerated, a form of treatment, before it is piped to
Metro's Renton Treatment Plant. If the Cedar Hills permit
1 limits are made more stringent, either by decreasing allowable
concentrations of currently regulated pollutants or by adding
new ones such as metals or toxic organics, treatment would
become more difficult and expensive. Diversion of HHW and
SQG wastes from the landfill will improve the County's ability
to continue to meet those limits in the future.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-40
The proportion of hazardous waste that is disposed of in the
solid waste stream will increase as recycling programs are
implemented.
If recycling is successful, the amount of solid waste generated
in King County could be reduced by as much as 65 percent by
2000. The relative percentage of hazardous waste in the waste
stream would more than double if no comparable program
were implemented to remove it. The effect of the increased
proportion of hazardous wastes on the solid waste stream and
the environment would be correspondingly greater.
Elimination of hazardous waste from the solid waste stream
may be required by solid waste programs in the future.
At some point in the future, King County and/or Seattle may
decide to export solid waste outside the county. Receiving
waste handlers, either landfills or incinerators, may prohibit the
disposal of certain hazardous wastes or require that an effort
be made to minimize such waste in the waste stream.
Liquid Waste Stream
Certain constituents of HHW and SQG wastes in the liquid
waste stream can disrupt sewage treatment processes, or
contribute to environmental contamination of local waters,
land, or the atmosphere.
Pollutants of concern in wastewater treatment are heavy metals
such as lead and cadmium, and toxic organics such as pesti-
cides and solvents. Many such constituents can be found in
household products or in substances used by SQGs. These
pollutants can disrupt sewage treatment processes. For
example, methyl isothiocyanate, an herbicide, was recently
discharged to the Port Orchard treatment plant and killed off
the bacteria in both digesters, effectively shutting down the
plant (Engel, personal communication, 1989).
Sewage treatment decreases the concentration of some
hazardous chemicals in the effluent discharged to local
receiving waters, but the environment still receives most of
those chemicals via other routes. Hazardous chemicals, for
example most solvents, can pass unchanged through the
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-41
primary treatment system and be discharged with the effluent.
Currently, occasional exceedences of individual effluent limits
occur for some of the heavy metals. In some cases where the
concentration of a hazardous chemical is decreased in the
liquid waste stream during sewage treatment, the portion of the
chemical removed from the effluent may be discharged into the
+� atmosphere unchanged. Some pollutants including heavy
a metals, phthalates (plasticizers), some pesticides and PCBs
' settle out with solid particles in the sludge.
Future tightening of NPDES permit limitations will make
r. compliance difficult for wastewater treatment facilities.
Metro and other local districts' wastewater treatment plants
operate within limits set by state NPDES permits. All current
permit conditions for effluent discharges to Puget Sound are
being met. However, current requirements address very few
hazardous chemicals and are expected to change. In the
future, permitted limits may be lowered for currently regulated
substances and limits added for additional toxic contaminants.
Ecology is now establishing water quality standards for a
number of hazardous pollutants. These may in turn result in
more stringent effluent limitations in the future. For example,
effluent limits have not been set for many of the solvents that
currently pass through the primary sewage treatment system
unchanged. Such discharges, therefore, are not addressed in
Metro's or other districts' current permits.
Metro believes that a responsible management position is to
minimize entry of toxic substances into the system. Its
Toxicant Study (1984) concluded that, "it is prudent to take
steps to reduce the entry of priority pollutants into the Metro
system and the environment insofar as is practicable ... the
most cost-effective way to control toxicants of concern is to
not allow them to get into the wastewater or environment in
the first place."
The land application of sludge from wastewater treatment
processes can be limited by its trace metals content.
Metro's and other districts' currently reuse their wastewater
sludge in land application programs designed to fertilize the
soil. The concentration of metals such as cadmium, lead and
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-42
zinc and certain organic compounds such as PCBs or Pesticides '
limits the quantity of sludge than can be land-applied. A de-
crease of metal concentrations in sludge as well as concentra-
tions of such organic compounds as pesticides would make
sludge easier to handle in existing uses and increase flexibility
in sludge management.
Metro sludge currently meets criteria for forestry and soil
improvement applications. However, EPA is in the process of
setting standards for sludge quality which will include specific
standards for organics and metals; this may also affect Metro's
and other districts' sludge management practices in the future.
In order to meet these standards, Metro and other local
districts may have to tighten pretreatment standards for industry
and enact other source controls.
Hazardous wastes disposed of in septic systems are very
likely to contribute to groundwater pollution.
Septic tank systems rank highest of all the groundwater pollu-
tion sources in total volume of wastewater discharged directly
to soils overlying or near aquifers (U.S. EPA, 1984). Septic
tank systems, even more so than municipal sewerage systems,
are not designed to handle hazardous chemicals. Certain
chemicals can cause system failure or directly contaminate
groundwater through the drain field. Contaminants pass
through the systems largely untreated, percolate through the
soil of the drain field and migrate to groundwater, threatening
drinking water supplies. Pollution is magnified when septic
systems fail. Nationally, only about 40 percent of existing
septic systems function properly (Canter and Knox, 1985).
In King County, a significant proportion of residences and
businesses use septic tanks and many are in areas that rely on
groundwater for drinking water supplies.
Disposal of HHW and SQG waste into storm drains or
directly into streams or lakes contributes significantly to
nonpoint source pollution.
Most of the storm drains in the Seattle-King County region are
separate from the sanitary sewers and discharge stormwater
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-43
runoff from streets and parking lots directly into the nearest
stream, river, lake or bay.
Local runoff studies have found most of the heavy metals in
stormwater as well as organic chemicals (Galvin and Moore,
1982; Cooley, et al., 1984). National studies indicate that
within the most developed industrial and commercial zones, the
quality of runoff (in terms of concentration) may approach that
of treated sewage from the same area (U.S. EPA, 1983).
Direct dumping of household items, particularly used motor oil,
and SQG wastes down storm drains represents the most readily
addressed problem. Annual used oil volume in the hands of
citizens is estimated to be more than one million gallons.
Only about 15 percent of this used oil is recycled; more than
one third of the people admit to dumping the waste oil directly
into a storm drain, ditch or onto the ground (Galvin, et al.,
1982; Ridgley and Galvin, 1982). Direct dumping of other
hazardous substances, such as pesticides, is the apparent cause
of all recent fish kills in King County's urban streams. Such
incidents represent 35 percent of all the calls reported to the
Interagency Water Quality Trouble Call System (Badger, per-
sonal communication, 1988). Forty percent of Bellevue's water
quality emergency calls relate to storm drain dumping
(Hubbard-Grey, personal communication, 1988).
Pending regulation of discharges from storm drains will
require local water pollution control agencies to address
proper disposal of HHW and SQG wastes.
Under the Water Quality Act of 1987, EPA requires that
stormwater discharges be subject to a permitting process and
discharges to storm drains be reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Stormwater permits are to be issued to cities of
greater than 250,000 population by 1991 with others to follow.
Effluent requirements, similar to those for sewage treatment
plants, may be included in the storm drain permits. Diversion
of HHW and SQG wastes now dumped down storm drains will
help keep effluent contamination within permit limits.
Ecology water quality programs are focusing more and more
on nonpoint sources of pollution. Stormwater is being dealt
with on a watershed basis through the state's nonpoint source
pollution program. Permits and plans required under this
. . I I
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-44
dress household and other generators of
program must ad
hazardous waste. Implementation of local hazardous waste
plans in the region is included as an element in the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority's Management Plan, fulfilling
state requirements.
The Lake Union Interim Action Plan also includes implementa-
tion of the Local Hazardous Waste Plan: "Implementation of
the plan will help to reduce pollution loading of Lake Union
from household hazardous wastes and from industrial effluent
from businesses located on the Lake Union shoreline." Most
of the potential industrial sources are SQGs (Office for Long-
range Planning, 1988).
Worker S afety HHW and SQG wastes in the municipal waste stream
increases the risk of accidents on the job and chronic
exposure to hazardous chemicals for garbage collectors, and
workers at transfer stations, landfills and sewerage systems.
Worker exposure to hazardous waste is difficult to measure.
Two types of exposure are of concern: 1) on-going (chronic)
exposure to low levels of hazardous substances; and 2) acute
exposure to a dangerously high level of a hazardous substance '
through accidents. Little testing has been done to measure
chronic exposure levels. Testing such levels at solid waste
facilities, for example, is difficult because conditions are
® constantly changing. Yet, tests that have been conducted
indicate current exposure limits are probably being met.
In the last two years, six incidents affecting thirteen people
have occurred at City and County transfer stations in which
workers have been hurt as a direct result of hazardous wastes
in the solid waste stream. Over 50 days of work were lost.
For example, two people were injured in a fire at a transfer
station caused by hazardous materials and forty-eight days of
work were lost (Solid Waste Utility, 1988). In another inci-
dent four people were overcome by fumes, possibly from dry
chlorine dumped in the transfer station. The transfer station
had to be evacuated (Lambert, personal communication, 1988).
The City of Los Angeles Waste Management Division has
documented injuries to trash collectors from exposure to
hazardous materials. Between February 1, 1980 and
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-45
November, 1987: 40 trash collectors experienced chemical
burns; 50 workers inhaled noxious fumes; and 120 workers
came in contact with unidentified chemicals (Fabrikant,
personal communication, 1988).
Other workers are also at risk -- everyone from sewage
treatment workers to firefighters to employees of businesses
using and disposing of hazardous materials. Firefighters are
particularly at risk when they must enter a burning building
containing unidentified hazardous materials. Washington State
Department of Labor and Industries records indicate that there
were 72 claims in King County in 1987 for incidents involving
hazardous materials (Department of Labor and Industries,
1988). These covered all kinds of occupations including
firefighters, construction workers, and machine operators.
Impacts on the Public and the Community
Long-term storage of HHW and SQG wastes in basements
and garages increases the risk of exposures and fires.
Long-term storage of hazardous wastes in the home or business
❑ poses a risk to public safety. Storage is a common option
+.. used for old, unwanted products, until some event results in
their removal. Poisonings, spontaneous fires and exposure to
hazardous fumes in the event of a fire are all likely results of
large inventories kept in the back room, basement or garage.
s
Analysis of data from the State Fire Marshal's Office indicates
that about 24 percent of reported fires in Washington, over
6,000, were caused by hazardous materials (National Fire
Incident Report System, 1988).
In addition to fires and accidents, some studies indicate that
health risks may be associated with chronic low-level exposure
to hazardous materials. A study of leukemia in children in
Los Angeles, for example, found an increased risk of leukemia
in children whose parents used pesticides in the home; the risk
increased with frequency of use (Lowengart, et al., 1987)
The Seattle Poison Control Center reports that nearly 25
f percent of calls concern poisonings from hazardous household
products. One study reported that about 30 percent of calls
received by Poison Control Centers in Minnesota involved
.................. . . . .. .. .......
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-46 ,
substances that could be defined as household hazardous waste '
(Ridgley, 1987).
Disposal of HHW and SQG waste in the municipal waste
streams and the environment can cause property damage as
well as injury.
In at least one local incident gasoline poured down a storm
drain resulted in serious and costly damage. Half of a
residential street in the White Center neighborhood of Seattle
was damaged in 1982 when between one and five gallons of '
gasoline exploded in the storm drain (Seattle Times, July 19,
1982). Numerous other such incidents have been reported.
Spills and poor management of hazardous wastes can result
in long term liability for property owners, lending
institutions and insurance companies.
SQGs are not exempt from the lifetime liability for environ-
mental contamination under state and federal Superfund laws. 1e
When contaminated property changes hands, banks, new pro-
perty owners or insurance companies may also become liable
for any clean up costs. Many lending institutions now require
purchasers of non-residential properties to furnish detailed
information concerning past uses of the property and the
potential for contamination from those uses. Some require an
independent inspection to uncover any signs of potential
contamination (Dorrigan, personal communication, 1988). For
the small business owner, for whom the business property may
be a large portion of his or her assets, liability for clean ups
can be financially devastating.
Summary As King County's population continues to grow and environ-
mental standards continue to get stronger, we must do as much
as we can to reduce all waste production, but particularly that
waste which is hazardous. A program that effectively manages
hazardous wastes at the local level will not only meet state
requirements, but will also minimize problems and help protect
public health and the environment.
..........
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-47
PROGRAM NEEDS
Existing programs directed at household and small quantity
generator hazardous waste, as described above, are limited in
scope and resources. This section describes the existing
program limitations and program needs as identified through
the public involvement process.
Education Pro,erams
Household
Hazardous
Waste Education programs should provide information to: 1) enable
the citizen to identify hazardous products; 2) encourage the
proper use and disposal of hazardous products; and 3)
encourage waste reduction and minimization including, where
possible, the use of less hazardous products. The programs
should provide continuous, consistent and practical information
through various media to reach targeted audiences.
IA number of agencies direct some education activities at
households and small quantity generators, but funding is very
limited. Several brochures, fliers and other printed materials
are available; but there is little outreach to targeted groups, for
example consumers or schools. Neither households nor busi-
nesses have access to much information on product substitution
and waste minimization.
An education program should lead to a reduction in the
amount of HHW entering the solid and liquid waste streams.
Product substitution, treating wastes at home, and recycling are
all methods that can be used to reduce the amount of
hazardous waste generated.
' The results of the survey of King County residents and the
focus group discussion indicate that the public is unaware that
household products may be hazardous. Overall, 52 percent of
the survey respondents did not, when asked, identify my
products in their homes that they would classify as "hazar-
dous". Yet at the same time, when asked if they had specific
hazardous products in their home, the vast majority had one or
more of these products (see Figures 2-12 and 2-13). Most of
these products they disposed of through the garbage (Figures 2-
8 through 2-11).
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-48 ,
i
No
90
so
70
F 60
f
i 50
0
a
s 10
!0
10
10
0- FA
CLEARERS ?EST RAIN? Am RAT EW BID
Figure 2-12. PRODUCTS LISTED AS HAZARDOUS BY KING COUNTY
RESIDENTS
i00
90
AD
70
60
v
R SO
O
b
at 40
30 -
20
10
0
CLEARERS ?EST PAIN75 Am BATTERY RED
Figure 2-13. HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS IDENTIFIED IN THE HOME ,
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-49
The focus group discussions supported these results, but at the
same time focus group participants thought education could be
effective in getting people to change their behavior. Partici-
pants in the workshops were even more specific. They felt
consumers need to be informed of what hazardous wastes are
and how to dispose of them properly. To accomplish this they
recommended education efforts in schools and for the public,
using various media, and emphasizing waste reduction and
alternative products.
Workshop participants stressed the need for education programs
that target waste reduction. They also felt that research was
needed to identify and develop nonhazardous products. Focus
group participants emphasized the importance of cost and con-
venience stating that "Some people will buy the cheapest pro-
ducts even if they are more hazardous," and "I'm not likely to
mix up a home remedy [that is less hazardous] when it's easier
to pick up a product in the store."
Small
Quantity
Generators Education programs targeted to businesses should provide in-
formation on: 1) the regulatory requirements affecting busi-
nesses, and 2) appropriate waste management technologies.
Many businesses do not know that they generate hazardous
waste, or erroneously believe that, since they do not produce
large amounts of hazardous waste, they are not subject to any
proper waste management procedures. Other businesses are not
aware that they generate amounts of hazardous waste that fall
under state regulation. SQGs are further confused by the
variety of local regulations containing different standards and
waste management requirements. Small companies lack the
time, money and personnel to make these determinations and
to keep up to date with changing regulations.
' Education programs need to provide industry-specific informa-
tion on regulations and management options in comprehensible
language. Participants in the SQG focus group had a lot to
' say about the need for accessible information. They found it
difficult to get the right information from government agencies.
They often had to contact a number of people to try to get any
answers, and information from different agencies was inconsis-
tent. Regulations appear to change constantly and are con-
fusing. They want to be able to get clear, consistent answers
without the fear that the government would be "down our
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-50
throat". Both focus group and workshop participants felt that
education programs should be specifically targeted to SQGs,
and that the best way to educate businesses was through the
trade associations targeting specific industries.
SQGs also need cost-effective, practical waste management ,
options. New technologies are needed to manage some of the
wastes SQGs typically generate. Businesses also need to be
made aware of available technologies and alternative practices. ,
Universities, private industry and laboratories are resources that
could be tapped for industry-specific solutions to waste
management problems. Participants in the SQG focus group '
thought manufacturers had a specific responsibility to develop
nonhazardous products and to help with disposal of hazardous
wastes, perhaps by taking back excess materials.
Collection Pro,zramss ,
Household
Hazardous
Waste Existing HHW collection programs have been limited in the
service they provide and the amount of waste collected.
Collection day events occur infrequently, and although they
have been well attended have collected only five percent of the
amount of waste generated annually. The area's on-going
• • collection programs -- City of Seattle South Transfer Station,
Health Department pesticide collection and others -- while
1. i
providing more continuous service, do not have adequate
capacity or accessibility to meet the public need.
As the public becomes more informed about the proper
management of HHW, demand for collection and disposal
T� e services will increase. The need for convenient, economical
"*,M disposal options is already evidenced by the record-breaking
attendance at the last several HHW round-up events in King
County. Collection options include: door-to-door or curbside
pick up, mobile collection units, permanent collection sites and
annual or semi-annual round-up events.
Seventy-four percent of the respondents to the telephone survey
indicated they would be more likely to take advantage of curb-
side pickup of hazardous wastes. However, all collection
methods included in the survey were acceptable to the majority
of survey respondents (Figure 2-14). Respondents were asked
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-51
how far they would be willing to drive to dispose of their
waste: 31 percent were willing to travel up to 2 miles and 49
percent up to 10 miles (Figure 2-15). Asked how much they
would be willing to pay for disposal, 59 percent indicated they
were willing to pay up to five dollars (Figure 2-16).
Focus group participants felt that disposal options must be
convenient and inexpensive. One person said, "The local
government has to come up with a program that is both
convenient and doesn't cost too much. I'm willing to spend
SOME money and a LITTLE extra time, but there needs to be
a balance of convenience and cost." Workshop participants felt
the present collection system is not convenient.
Small
Quantity
Generators Until recently, no collection services specifically for small
quantity generator waste existed. Hazardous waste brokers,
small-scale entrepreneurs who act as intermediaries between the
small quantity generators and TSD facilities, have begun to
serve this market. As with households, SQGs who want to
dispose of their hazardous wastes in an environmentally sound
manner have far too few options open to them. Focus group
participants thought that some kind of Round-up should be
held for SQGs.
Costs and accessibility are significant barriers hindering proper
disposal of SQG wastes. The strict regulation of hazardous
waste disposal by the state and federal governments, and the
consequently limited number of licensed TSDs, result in high
disposal costs for .all hazardous wastes, including those of
SQGs. The required laboratory testing of wastes is very
costly, especially when an expensive battery of tests must be
performed for a relatively small amount of waste. These costs
are a significant disincentive for SQGs to dispose of their
wastes in an environmentally sound manner.
r
Regulation and Compliance
The regulatory framework for disposal of HHW and SQG
wastes is inadequate and confusing. The local regulatory
mechanism is comprised of various public agencies responsible
for regulating separate elements of the solid and liquid waste
streams under the authority of various federal, state and local
40
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-52 ,
is '
D#6 How much would you be willing to pay per visit for disposal osal of your
hazardous waste at collection site? '
10%
15% < $5
$6-$9
10
4% 0 No Pay
59%
❑ DK/NR
11 %
Figure 2-14. PREFERRED DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR HHW
Q#3 Which disposal method are you more likely to use? ,
100%
�CC'}v. "Sri. 'ri:'��:•;+'•' ":;< ;<i, r•; ::.,>:;::;�
80%
70%
DK/NR
Percent of 60%
:?< Not Likely
Respondents 50%
p ® Less Likely
40%
More likely
30%
20%
10%
0%
Door Curb Special Permanent
Figure 2-15. PREFERRED TRAVEL DISTANCES FOR HHW DISPOSAL
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-53
0#4 How far would you drive to dispose of hazardous wastes?
4%
8%
�.'
3%
31%
5% ...... < 2 miles
�`. 'r' ® > 10 miles
. ...,..
4•:.mit: •4, .::.
up to 20 miles
El > 20 miles
❑ Wouldn't Drive
8 Don't Know
49%
Figure 2-16. PUBLIC WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR HHW DISPOSAL
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-54
laws. The complex interwoven nature of local agencies'
responsibilities creates a potential for gaps and overlaps within '
the regulations governing hazardous waste management and
disposal. For example, some local sewer agencies may prohibit
discharge of certain materials, including hazardous materials, to '
the sewer system. Some solid waste landfills and transfer
stations prohibit hazardous materials from the landfill, while
some facilities make no distinction between solid and hazardous ,
waste. Most often, the existing rules and regulations pertain to
both citizens and the business community, although many
people are not aware that regulations exist to manage small
quantities of hazardous materials.
lig
At this time, local regulations pertaining to SQG hazardous ,
waste management are sporadically enforced and compliance
with applicable regulations is poor. Inspections of businesses
are inadequate. The inspections that do occur focus on "regu-
lated" generators. Unfortunately, most local agencies have
insufficient funds and staff to conduct adequate inspections.
The majority of inspections of SQGs are conducted on a com-
plaint/request basis by the Health Department, Metro or the
local fire department. These
p inspections are infrequent and
usually result from an emergency situation. The lack of an
enforcement presence results in noncompliance by SQGs.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-55
REFERENCES
Badger, B., Interagency Water Quality Trouble Call Coordinator, Metro. Personal
communication, June, 1988.
Baroga, Rico, G. Kato, J. Lowe, J. Lorbeir, J. McGilton. A Survey of Small Quantity
Hazardous Waste Generators: The Puget Sound Experience, Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department, Thurston County Health Department, Seattle-King County
Department of Public Health, City of Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle,
Washington, 1986.
Bennett, Elizabeth, J.Goldberg, P. Hamilton, M. Marchi Lundt, D. Nash, J. Sammerhays-
Ayco, S. Toteff. Household Hazardous Waste Public Information and Education
Materials for Washington State, Public Education Subcommittee of the King County
Hazardous Waste Interagency Coordinating Committee, Seattle, Washington, 1988.
Bobbink, S., Seattle Poison Center. Personal communication, November, 1988.
Cal Recovery Systems. Characterization and Impacts of Nonregulated Hazardous Waste in
Municipal Solid Waste of King County, Puget Sound Council of Governments,
r.• Seattle, Washington, December, 1985.
' Canter, L.W., R.C. Knox. Septic Tank System Effects on Groundwater Quality, Chelsea,
Michigan & Lewis, 1985.
Cooley, R, et al. Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study Technical Report A2: Collection
System Evaluation, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, Washington, 1984.
Department of Labor and Industries. Claims Involving Contact with Radiation. Toxic or
Noxious Substances. 4/1/86 to 9/12/88, Olympia, Washington, 1988.
DeWalle, F. B., R. M. Schaff. "Groundwater Pollution by Septic Tank Drainfields,"
Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE (EE3): 641-646, 1980.
Dorrigan, L., Washington State Department of Ecology. Personal communication, 1988.
Engel, C., Kitsap County Sewer District. Personal communication, January, 1989.
Fabrikant, R., Sanitary Engineering Associate, Department of Public Works, Los Angeles,
California. Personal communication, November, 1988.
Galvin, D. V., R.K. Moore. Toxicants in Urban Runoff, Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, Washington, 1982.
. . I I
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-56 '
Pretreatment Planning Study '
Hasselman, S., M. Merrill Jr., J. Gall. Toxicant ,g t v - Technical
Report B: Pilot Plant Studies, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle,
Washington, 1984. '
Hathaway, S.W. Sources of Toxic Compounds in Household Wastewater, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environment Research Lab, '
#600/2-80-128, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1980.
Hubbard-Grey, S., Project Coordinator, City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility. '
Personal communication, June, 1988.
King County Departments of Parks, Planning, and Resources. 1986 Annual Growth Report, '
King County, Washington, 1986.
King County Departments of Parks, Planning, and Resources. 1987 Annual Growth Retort, ,
King County, Washington, 1987.
King County Solid Waste Division. Solid Waste Management Alternatives. Programmatic '
Final Environmental Impact Statement, King County, Washington, September, 1988.
Lambert, D., King County Solid Waste Division. Personal communication, October, 1988.
Land Development Information System. Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems in King Count
Their Land Use Implications. King County Parks, Planning and Resource '
Department, Seattle, Washington, 1986.
Lowengart, R. A., J. M. Peters, C. Cicioni, J. Buckly, L. Bernstein, S. Preston-Martin, E. '
Rappaport. Childhood Leukemia and Parents' Occupational and Home Exposures,
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 79. No. 1. July, 1987.
Metro Water Quality Division. Summary Report - Household Hazardous Waste Disposal i
Project. Metro Toxicant Program. Report No. 1A, Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Seattle, Washington, August, 1982. '
Metro. Sewage Disposal Alternatives: A Look at the Problem of Faulty Septic Tank
Systems and Alternative Methods of Sewage Disposal for King County Washingion. ,
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, Washington, 1977.
Moehring, J. Seattle Residential Development Report, City of Seattle Office for Long-
range Planning, Seattle, Washington, 1988.
Monk, M., King County Solid Waste Division. Personal communication, November, 1988.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-57
Morley & Associates, 1987. Household Hazardous Waste Management Evaluation Project -
Task Report - Draft Needs Assessment, City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle,
Washington, December, 1987.
Mortimer, R. Household Hazardous Waste Round-Up: Evaluation and Recommendations
for the City of Seattle, City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility, Seattle, Washington,
September, 1987.
National Fire Incident Report System. "Listing of All Fire Elements by Frequency of
Occurrence." Report Period: 1/1/87 to 12/31/87, 1988.
Office of Financial Management Forecasting Division. 1988 Population Trends for
Washington State, Olympia, Washington, April 1, 1988.
Office for Long-Range Planning. Lake Union and Ship Canal Water Quality Management
w_. Program Interim Action Plan, City of Seattle, Seattle, Washington, 1988.
PSCOG. Population and Employment Forecasts 1984, Puget Sound Council of
Governments, Seattle, Washington, June, 1984.
PSCOG. Population and Employment Forecasts 1988, Puget Sound Council of
.. Governments, Seattle, Washington, June, 1988.
Ridgley, S. Toxicants in Consumer Products, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Seattle, Washington, 1982.
Ridgley, S. Hazardous Waste from Minnesota Households, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1987.
Ridgley, S., D.V. Galvin. Summary Report: Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Project,
IMunicipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, Washington, 1982.
Rolla, T., Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, Technical Section. Personal
j communication, April, 1988.
R.W. Beck & Assoc. Waste Characterization Studx, King County Solid Waste Division,
September, 1988.
SCS Engineers. Development of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Small Quantity
Generators: North Hollywood Pilot Study. Final Report. Hazardous Waste
InventM, Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, California,
November 1984.
Seattle Times, "Blast Damage," page C2, July 19, 1982.
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2-58 '
s January, 1984 to March, 1988, Ci ,
Solid Waste Utility. Safes Office Quarterly Reports, ary, City
of Seattle, Seattle, Washington. ,
Thomas, J., Washington State Department of Revenue. Personal communication, January,
1989. ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
Volume 1 -- Final Report, U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C.,
1983. '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Septic Tank System Effects on
Ground Water Quality, U.S. EPA #600/2-84-107, Ada, Oklahoma, 1984. '
Yerkes, T.W., W.C. Swofford, S.A. Whitman, C. Thompsen, T. Clements. Surveys and
Audits of Major and Minor Small Quantity Business Generators in the Seattle-King ,
County Area, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, Seattle, Washington,
unpublished.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIP'T'ION 3-1
PLAN DESCRIPTION This section presents the Plan for management of HHW and
SQG wastes in Seattle and King County. Implementation and
funding are also described. Lead agency responsibilities for
the various programs are assigned.
As Ecology's guidelines require, the Plan focuses on the first
five years of implementation but also addresses a 20-year
horizon for meeting waste diversion goals. The Plan is an
intensive effort to divert the maximum amount feasible of
HHW and SQG wastes from disposal in municipal waste
streams and the environment. Over the 20-year life of the
Plan, about 313,000 tons of waste will be diverted. Total
program costs are approximately $178 million, yielding an
average cost per ton of waste diverted of $568.'
The Plan addresses all aspects of HHW and SQG waste
management. Six components are intended to provide a
comprehensive approach to the problems of managing these
wastes (as described in Section 2):
HHW Education
HHW Collection
SQG Education and Technical Assistance
SQG Collection
Compliance
Evaluation
The components emphasize:
• education for waste reduction;
• development and promotion of convenient and
accessible collection options;
• where necessary, incentives for compliance with federal,
state and local regulations; and,
e
'The figure was derived by dividing the total 20-year cost of the Plan by the total
tonnage of waste diverted. Yearly cost per ton diverted figures will vary considerably
around this average (see Table 3-3).
h�
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-2
• an evaluation mechanism for feedback on program
effectiveness.
The Plan will achieve its goal of diverting wastes from
municipal waste streams and the environment through a
combination of waste reduction and waste collection program
elements. These program elements are listed in Table 3-1.
The Washington State legislature defines hazardous waste
reduction as, "All ... practices that reduce, avoid or eliminate
the amount of waste generated." In the context of this Plan,
waste reduction refers to those wastes that are never generated
in the first place, either because the hazardous product is not
used at all, or because it is used in its entirety. An intensive
and aggressive education and technical assistance program,
targeting both householders and SQGs, will emphasize waste
reduction. Waste reduction will eliminate approximately 44
percent of HHW and 23 percent of SQG wastes that could
have been generated each year when the Plan has been fully
implemented Waste reduction goals for specific waste cate-
gories (oil, paints, solvents, pesticides, etc.) form the basis of
the overall waste reduction goal. The rationale for the waste
category specific goals is presented in Appendix B.
Waste reduction is a more cost-effective strategy for diverting
HHW and protecting public health and the environment in the
long term than is collection and disposal. The greatest single
cost to local governments in this Plan is disposal of HHW.
:- Disposal of each ton of HHW collected under the Plan will
cost an estimated $1300. That same ton of waste will cost
REDUCE local governments far less if consumers decrease their purchase
RECYCLE and use of hazardous products and therefore the amount of
". _ !., waste they generate. Similar savings for businesses result
TREAT - when waste reduction is emphasized over collection and
disposal of SQG wastes.
MWPArE
immu In addition a strategy emphasizing waste reduction is consis-
tent with the State's waste management priorities (Figure 3-1).
Figure 3-1. Washington State Waste
Management Priorities For wastes not eliminated through waste reduction programs,
collection programs will be provided, either directly by local
governments, or through the private sector. To the extent
reasonable, given technical availability and costs, recycling of
collected wastes will be emphasized. The Plan includes
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-3
Table 3-1. PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Household Hazardous Waste Education
• Public Information and Outreach
• Telephone Information Line
• Schools Program
Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Waste Handling
• Permanent Collection Facilities
• Mobile Collection Facilities
• Pickup Service for Homebound
• Targeted Waste Collection and Recycling
Paint Recycling
Household Battery Collection/Recycling
Auto Battery Collection/Recycling
Collection of Used Motor Oil
Small Quantity Generator Education and Technical Assistance
• Information Development and Resources
• Passive Waste Exchange
• Telephone Information Line
• Resource Library
• Promotion of Waste Reduction, Recycling and Treatment Programs
Waste Characterization and Treatment Feasibility
• On-Site Consultation
Small Quantity Generator Collection and Waste Handling
• Mobile Collection Facilities
• Auxiliary Collection Facilities
• Subsidized Collection
Compliance
• Interagency Regulatory Analysis Committee
• Enhancement of Local Ordinances
• Response Network
• Surveys and Audits
Evaluation
i
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-4
funding for special projects designed to test and promote
recycling (described below).
Collection goals were established based on the progressive
development of collection facilities. These facilities are phased
in over time due to financial constraints. Use of collection
facilities is expected to increase over time due to public
education and promotion efforts.
Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show how waste diversion is a combina-
tion of waste reduction and collection, for HHW and SQG
waste, respectively.
The Plan includes a variety of programs to strengthen local
regulations that prohibit disposal of HHW and SQG wastes in
municipal waste streams and to identify and work with SQGs
to bring them into compliance with federal, state and local
regulations.
While outlining specific programs, the Plan also allows for
flexibility and creativity. The specific programs described in !�
the Plan are not the only possibilities, and these programs may
be modified as new information is obtained. As the programs
are implemented, their effectiveness will be evaluated. Mar-
ginally effective programs will be discontinued or modified.
Successful programs may be expanded beyond the scope indi-
cated here. Some of the programs are experimental and can
be affected by factors outside the control of local governments,
such as fluctuating markets for recycled materials, or changing
federal or state regulations. The Plan may have to be
modified to take such changes into account.
The Plan is also flexible in terms of which agency takes
responsibility for its different elements. Suburban cities, for
example, may want to have a collection facility within their
boundaries, sponsor a public education program or participate
in SQG technical assistance or compliance programs. Such
participation is consistent with the Plan.
In short, the Plan represents a commitment from local
governments to address the problems of HHW and SQG
hazardous wastes, and outlines the strategies and the initial
implementation steps needed. It establishes waste diversion
goals, desirable levels of service, and the components needed
for a comprehensive Plan to meet state requirements. The
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-5
12000
TOTAL WASTE GENERATED
WITHOUT PROGRAM
10000
8000
WAS REDUCED
T
O
N
S 8000
3
MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL
000
COLLECTED AND REC VCIEG
2000
COLLECTED AND DISPOSED
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
YEARS
w. Figure 3-2. PROJECTIONS OF HHW MANAGEMENT
2WD0
TOTAL WASTE GENERATED
2"DWITHOUT PROGRAM
ASTE REDUCED
15000
T
O
N
S 10000
M
UNIC IPAL
DISPOSAL
COLLECTED AND RECYCLED
5000
0 COLLECTED AND DISPOSED
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
YEARS
Figure 3-3. PROJECTIONS OF SQG WASTE MANAGEMENT
The top line in each figure shows the amount of hazardous waste projected
over the next twenty years assuming no program exists. At the point where
the second and third lines meet, the amount of wastes remaining in solid
waste, wastewater and environment will be negligible. [Note that the vertical
scales of the two figures are not identical.]
t
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-6
details of the Plan are expected to change over time as
conditions change.
Cost
Effectiveness
Strategy
The approach taken in this plan has been to address all
hazardous waste generated by households and SQGs, although
certain waste streams are targeted for special attention. Some
commentors have asked whether a plan which targets only those
wastes possessing the greatest risk might not be more cost-
effective.
There are three significant questions that need to be addressed
regarding the cost of this comprehensive moderate risk waste
management Plan.
1. Are the most dangerous wastes being diverted first from
municipal disposal?
2. Are these wastes being diverted in the most cost-
effective manner?
3. Is there some point at which it is unreasonably expensive
to try and divert a larger percentage of moderate risk
waste? That is, does the goal of maximum diversion
® become unrealistic at some point?
Ideally the Plan would:
a) identify each waste stream;
b) evaluate the risk posed by g continuin to allow each waste
stream to be indiscriminately disposed; and
c) determine the cost of diverting enough of this waste
g
stream so that the risks posed would be acceptable.
Such an analysis would be not only time-consuming and
expensive, it would also be virtually impossible to obtain results
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTTON 3-7
that could be meaningfully translated into program design. This
is due to the complexity of the waste stream and the complexity
of the resulting risk analysis.
Household Hazardous Waste and Small Quantity Generator
Waste consists of hundreds of individual chemicals (see pages
2-24 and the Guidelines for Local Moderate Risk Waste Plans).
New products and new chemical formulations are being
developed and brought into the market constantly, so this list
expands rapidly. Chemical hazard is determined according to
the following characteristics and properties; toxicity,
flammability, corrosivity, reactivity, carcinogenicity, persistence
and the EP toxicity test. One pesticide product, for example,
may contain several chemicals, and may be both toxic and
flammable.
Public health risks, or occupational risks of any individual
product depend on. The chemicals contained in that product;
the hazard characteristic(s) of the chemicals; the degree of
hazard accorded to each characteristic; the quantity of the
chemical; the potential for exposure; and routes of exposure.
Risk for a given product may be different depending on whether
jj it is being assessed for a use, storage, or disposal situation.
Toxicity assessments may change for a particular chemical as
new data are published.
Environmental risks depend on other properties of a product:
Solubility and mobility - chance of moving into surface or
groundwater; persistence and degradability - how long it stays
around in a hazardous form; toxicity to non-human and non-
target species; potential for penetrating landfill liners; and,
potential for being broken down by sewage treatment processes.
Again, the risk would be different depending on its use, storage,
or disposal situation.
Liability is another risk that must be taken into account when
dealing with hazardous chemicals. There are significant liability
risks associated with occupational exposures of garbage and
sewer utility workers. In addition, future cleanups of disposal
sites caused by contamination or higher standards are a major
potential liability.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-8
A waste stream risk assessment would not only be very
complicated to perform, it is also unlikely to yield
straightforward conclusions that would allow us to rank the
hazard of each waste stream, and to establish the appropriate
level of effort to put into each.
As an alternative to performing an elaborate risk assessment of
each waste stream, the Plan tackles the issue according to a
cost-effective management strategy. The approach chosen for
this Plan was to accept the fact that each waste stream needs to
be managed, and then to calculate the most efficient and cost-
effective way of doing this.
Waste management integrates elements of waste reduction,
recycling, and disposal. Waste reduction means not producing
the waste in the first place. This can be accomplished by using
alternative processes to perform tasks requiring hazardous
chemicals, through product substitution -- using alternative, less
hazardous chemicals to perform a task, or by purchasing in
smaller quantities and using up the material. It is the highest
priority management strategy established by state law, because
it is the most protective. Where feasible, it is also the cheapest
strategy per unit of waste. The second priority is recycling, i
which conserves resources and keeps wastes away from final
disposal endpoints. Last, and by far the most expensive, is
disposal, either in a hazardous waste landfill, or a hazardous
waste incinerator.
The Plan accepts these priorities, and establishes waste
reduction and recycling goals for each waste stream (see tables
on page B-7). Each waste stream has a different potential for
reduction or recycling. The goals established were based on
knowledge available at the time, and best professional
judgement about future trends and alternatives.
For example, pesticides are considered to have a high potential
for waste reduction, while for waste motor oil, the potential is
virtually nil. Pesticides are a candidate for waste reduction
because other effective alternative methods and products can
take the place of hazardous materials. Education on the proper
use of pesticides could decrease waste significantly. There is no
alternative, at present, for motor oil, so in this case we have
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-9
assumed minimal waste reduction. The opposite is true for
recycling. There are no recycling processes for small quantities
of discarded pesticides, but almost all motor oil is readily
recycled, once it is collected.
The key to accomplishing waste reduction is education.
Whether for businesses or for households, clear, readily
available, repeated information must be provided to make this
strategy work. The education programs for both HHW and
SQG wastes are strong parts of the overall Plan in order to
provide this focus. SQGs in particular have a strong incentive
to pursue waste reduction, as this saves them the costs of waste
disposal. Industries and business organizations are already
researching and testing alternative processes and products, and
the Plan's SQG Education and Technical Assistance programs
are designed to coordinate with and provide incentives to these
private sector efforts.
Education efforts are also important to the success of recycling.
People must learn not to pour waste oil and other chemicals
down the drain, but to bring them to a collection facility. The
education programs also focus on getting basic information to
the public and businesses on what hazardous wastes are, how
they must be handled, and where and how they can handle
them.
Collection points are essential for both recycling and disposal
programs. The goal is to generate the least amount of waste,
and to strive to reduce the amount disposed to the greatest
extent possible.
Targeted Wastes
Although targets have not been established for waste stream
types, targets have been established for waste stream
management methods. A line item in the budget is identified
as "targeted wastes". The purpose of this money is to support
demonstration projects which will look at alternative ways of
managing different components of the moderate risk waste
stream. Currently a demonstration project is in progress which
investigates the possibility of recycling used latex paint, and
which will evaluate the non-recyclable latex to determine
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-10
whether it can be disposed as a non-hazardous waste. This
evaluation involves sampling, and discussion with regulatory
agencies regarding designation of the waste. Latex paint was
chosen because it is the highest volume material brought to
collection facilities as household hazardous waste, and because
it seemed likely that much of it could be handled more cost-
effectively than as a hazardous waste.
A used oil program, to evaluate methods of collecting used oil
in greater quantities, is also planned. Future candidates for
pilot projects are solvent-based paints and solvents. The goal
is to find out if there are more efficient, and higher priority
ways of handling certain waste streams.
These programs are shown as pilot or demonstration projects
because it is through a small scale effort that the cost-
effectiveness of these alternative approaches can be determined.
Not all of them will prove to be worth while on a large scale.
One example is the analysis on battery recycling done by King
County Solid Waste. It proved not to be cost effective to collect
all household batteries for recycling.
The wastes chosen first are the ones that occur in the greatest
quantities, and which have the most promise for better
management. The purpose of these efforts is finding strategies
which are the least costly, both in terms of present dollars, and
in terms of future risks and liabilities, and to manage wastes as
much as possible at the higher priorities -- waste reduction and
recycling.
On the SQG side, the programs target specific industries rather
than specific wastes. The Audits/Surveys and SQG Education
and Technical Assistance programs, for example, are starting
with the types of businesses that occur in largest numbers, and
that produce problematic wastes. Currently these are auto and
marine repair and maintenance businesses,and printing/graphics
businesses.
Customer Service .
A second reason for an across-the-board program is customer
service, and positive public response. A high priority in the
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-11
development of the Plan was to design programs that met the
needs of the public. The local experience, the experience of
other governments, and public opinion surveys have all
confirmed that the public needs a simple message and a
convenient program. For instance,when a Roundup in Tacoma
advertised that they would not accept latex paint, it was still the
highest volume item received. The message that certain
materials will be collected, but not others confuses and alienates
people. The more specific the level of discrimination (for
instance, these pesticides are okay to put in the trash, but not
those), the less positively the program is viewed.
Most SQGs generate multiple types of wastes. It would be
inefficient to perform site visits designed to provide general
education about hazardous materials and proper management,
and then indicate that programs for only two of their wastes
were available. It would also send a message that proper
handling in general is not a high priority. Selective management
compromises the credibility of the program and will cloud
enforcement activities for problem situations.
Is There A Point of Diminishing Returns?
We are only beginning to address the management of moderate
risk waste. The first objective of the Plan is to establish a basic
program that will address the needs of all the citizens of King
County. Starting at such a low level, the value of each
increment of funding is high. At first, the demand for collection
will increase as the public becomes more educated, and as
stored materials are brought in. After a period of time, there
will be a leveling out as waste reduction begins to impact the
situation, and as accumulated wastes are collected. As more
programs are added, and more wastes diverted, the incremental
value of programs may flatten and we will need to more
carefully evaluate the benefit of additional programs. This will
be an important role of the evaluation component.
The following section describes the Plan by component,onent, in
detail. Costs are summarized in Table 3-2. Waste diversion and
cost per ton of diverted waste is summarized in Table 3-3. All
> costs are presented in 1989 constant dollars. Staffing levels are
described below and may represent new or existing positions.
SECITON 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-12
In some cases, staffing levels reflect tasks that will be carried
out by a variety of people for a small portion of each
individual's time. In other cases, staffing levels reflect dedicated
positions. Some programs lend themselves to implementation
by consultants. Where this is appropriate,program coordinators
would manage contracts, and some of the funds that appear in
Table 3-2 would be used for consultants.
HHW Education
Component
A major emphasis of the HHW education program is waste
reduction. The most effective and cost-effective way to prevent
HHW from entering the environment is to reduce the amount
of hazardous products purchased and discarded and, therefore,
the amount of waste generated. Widespread education is the
best way to accomplish this end.
The goals of the HHW Education Component are:
to educate the broadest possible audience about HHW;
to promote waste reduction;
••• rY
•/ to explain the need for careful disposal of these wastes.
This will be accomplished by a series of programs designed to
achieve the following:
• to educate youngsters and young adults, and through
them, their parents, about the proper management of
HHW;
• to reach out to targeted audiences, for example
hobbyists, to provide information on managing specific
types of waste;
• to create and maintain information resources to provide
answers to citizens' questions; and
• to alert consumers to hazardous products, identify less
hazardous alternatives and encourage changes in
purchasing practices.
Table 3-2. BUDGET SUMMARY(1989 dollars, rounded to nearest thousand)
HHW EDUCATION COMPONENT 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2004 2009
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND OUTREACH 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
General Promotion and Publicity 50,000 95,000 120,000 170,000 245,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
Waste Reduction Promotion 150,000 200,000 250,000 400,000 500,000 550,000 550,000 550,000
HHW TELEPHONE INFORMATION LINE 50,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 150,000 150,000
SCHOOL PROGRAMS 175,000 255,000 235,000 210,000 200,000 160,000 155,000 155,000
ADM INISTRATION/COORDINATION 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
HHW EDUCATION COMPONENT TOTAL $531,000 $731,000 $811,000 $986,000 $1,176,000 $1,046,000 $1,041,000 $1,041,000
HHW COLLECTION COMPONENT
PERMANENT FACILITIES (Capital costs) 106,000 106,000 106,000 106,000
Operating costs 629,000 885,000 1,092,000 1,440,000 2,044,000 4,279,000 5,534,000 6,408,000
MOBILE FACILITIES (Capital costs) 33,000 33,000
Operating costs 331,000 663,000 994,000 994,000 994,000 994,000 994,000 994,000
PROMOTION OF COLLECTION FACILITIES 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
TARGETED WASTE COLLECTION/RECYCLING 100,000 125,000 150,000 200,000 150,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
ADMINISTRATION/COORDINATION 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
HHW COLLECTION COMPONENT TOTAL $1,281,000 $1,893,000 $2,423,000 $2,821,000 $3,269,000 $5,536,000 $6,791,000 $7,665,000
HHW PLAN TOTAL $1,812,000 $2,624,000 $3,234,000 $3,807,000 $4,445,000 $6,582,000 $7,832,000 $8,706,000
w
w
Table 3-2. BUDGET SUMMARY (Continued)
SOG EDUCATION COMPONENT 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2004 2009
INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES
Education Materials Development 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000
Seminars and Workshops 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Telephone Information Line 52,000 52,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000
Resource Library 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
Passive Waste Exchange 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Treatment 100,000 200,000 195,000 195,000 195,000 160,000 160,000 160,000
On-site Consultation 170,000 235,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000
Waste Characterization and Treatment 65,000 302,000 385,000 385,000 345,000 315,000 315,000 315,000
ADM IN ISTRATION/COORD[NATION 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
SOG EDUCATION COMPONENT TOTAL $758,000 $1,160,000 $1,311,000 $1,311,000 $1,271,000 $1,206,000 $1,206,000 $1,206,000
SOG COLLECTION COMPONENT
Mobile Collection Facilities 245,000 145,000 365,000 240,000 234,000
Auxiliary Collection Facilities 0 190,000 120,000 295,000 230,000
Subsidy of SOG Collection Costs 40,000 143,000 218,000 297,000 380,000
Promotion of Collection Services 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Administration\Coordination 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
SOG COLLECTION COMPONENT TOTAL $381,000 $574,000 $799,000 $928,000 $940,000
SOG COMPLIANCE COMPONENT
Regulation changes and enhancement 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Response network 254,000 246,000 316,000 349,000 349,000 349,000 349,000 349,000
Surveys 70,000 102,000 173,000 205,000 276,000 309,000 309,000 309,000
Audits 170,000 224,000 256,000 327,000 359,000 635,000 618,000 618,000
Administration\Coordination 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
SOG COMPLIANCE COMPONENT TOTAL $650,000 $728,000 $851,000 $987,000 $1,090,000 $1,355,000 $1,338,000 $1,338,000
SOG PLAN TOTAL $1,789,000 $2,462,000 $2,961,000 $3,226,000 $3,301,000 $2,561,000 $2,544,000 $2,544,000
w
Table 3-2. BUDGET SUMMARY (Continued)
EVALUATION COMPONENT 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2004 2009
ADM INISTRATION/COORDINATION 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
HHW PROGRAM EVALUATION 27,000 30,000 15,000 15,000 40,000 7,000 12,000 7,000
SQG PROGRAM EVALUATION 68,000 40,000 13,000 13,000 40,000 4,000 6,000 4,000
EVALUATION COMPONENT TOTAL $140,000 115, $73,000 $73,000 $125,000 $56, $63,000 $56,000
PLAN TOTAL $3,741,000 $5,201,000 $6,268,000 $7,106,000 $7,871,000 $9,199,000 $10,439,000 $11,306,000
Table 3-3. WASTE DIVERSION SUMMARY
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2004 2009
Tons of HHW Waste Diverted 1,059 1,484 1,930 2,209 2,765 7,296 9,350 11,050
Cost per Ton Diverted $1,711 $1,768 $1,675 $1,724 $1,608 $902 $838 $788
Accumulated Municipal Disposal (tons) 5,421 5,166 4,890 4,801 4,435 964 neg.' neg.'
Tons of SQG Waste Diverted 0 381 782 1,204 1,650 6,555 15,246 22,110
Cost per Ton Diverted WA $6,463 $3,787 $2,680 $2,001 $391 $167 $115
SQG Accumulated Municipal Disposal (Tons) 12,960 12,909 12,868 12,806 12,750 9,965 3,814 neg.'
Tons of HHW and SQG Waste Diverted 1,059 1,865 2,712 3,413 4,415 13,851 24,596 33,160
Cost per Ton Diverted $3,534 $2,789 $2,311 $2,082 $1,783 $665 $424 $341
Accumulated Municipal Disposal (Tons) 18,381 18,075 17,758 17,607 17,185 10,929 3,814 neg'
'negligible amount
w
cn
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-16
The HHW education component will be managed by an "edu-
cation program coordinator," based in the Seattle-King County
Department of Public Health (Health Department). The coor-
dinator will develop educational materials and oversee and
provide assistance to other agencies' efforts in this area. The
coordinator will work with staff from other jurisdictions and
agencies who are implementing special events and education
programs, to assure that the HHW education program is com-
prehensive, consistent, reaches all King County residents, and
is not duplicative or wasteful of effort (see job description,
Appendix B).
Annual costs for the education component range from $530,000
in 1990 to $1.2 million in 1994; thereafter yearly costs are
approximately $1 million. These funds will be allocated to
agencies performing specific education activities, according to
the level of funding available for each program element each
year. The education coordinator will be responsible for �!
establishing priorities for program development. The highest
priority programs will be implemented in the early years, and
additional and more extensive programs will come on-line as
funding levels increase.
HHW Education
Program Elements
Public Information and Outreach will actively inform and
educate the public through:
• the development and distribution of printed materials,
slide shows, and videos.
\ 1%1., 1 special events and activities intended to encourage -_
public participation in waste reduction, recycling and
MOfd `` collection activities;
media publicity; and,
• special projects aimed at target audiences or waste
streams.
I
This programis divided into two areas: General Promotion
�
� �. � ,�,
�`� and Publicity, and Waste Reduction Programs. Both the waste
reduction and general promotion activities described in Ap-
es on ; they Y un
Ap-
pendix A are examples are not tended to define
tt
the limits of possible education programs. Staff for these
programs are expected to explore new ideas and identify
specific target audiences or waste handling issues for
�„�.,, educational programs.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-17
The equivalent of two full-time staff (FTE)' will be dedicated
to these programs; however, activities will be carried out by
several agencies. Metro, the City of Seattle (Seattle), and King
County Solid Waste Division (King County) will conduct
general promotion and publicity programs, while Metro and
Seattle will also be responsible for waste reduction programs.
SW
A Telephone Information Line will provide readily available
information to all King County residents on waste reduction,
f and the proper storage, handling and disposal of HHW.
Printed information will also be available on request.
o
a ~. Currently, the Health Department Hazards Line (296-4692)
'.••�;. performs this function. This service will be expanded from
� 1.25 FTE staffing level to three FTEs by 1995.' The Hazards
V Line receives approximately 50-60 calls per day. The number
y of calls is expected to increase as public awareness increases
with implementation of the Plan.
A Schools Progmm will teach students to identify hazardous
products in the home, safer alternatives to hazardous products,
and proper disposal methods for household wastes. Homework
assignments could involve and educate parents also. The
program will be coordinated by King County, with one full-
time dedicated staff beginning in 1990. During the first year
(1990) the coordinator will be responsible for curricula and
program development. Starting in the second year (1991), two
additional FTEs will provide: a) training workshops for
teachers; b) presentation of classroom programs; and c) revi-
sion, preparation and distribution of curricula. These two FTEs
will be employed by Metro and King County.
HHW Collection
Component
The HHW collection component will feature several collection
programs that, when combined, provide an efficient and
'FTE stands for "full-time equivalent." A staffing level of "one FTE" could indicate
�r one, full-time, dedicated staff, or it could indicate that several staff spend a portion of their
time on a particular task, but that the total effort is equivalent to one full-time staff
position. This concept is used throughout the Plan to describe staffing levels.
'The expanded Hazards Line will also serve SQGs; see description under SQG
Education and Technical Assistance Component.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-18
convenient collection service for residents in all areas of King
County. These services will give the public a way to dispose
of HHW properly. The use of both mobile and permanent
facilities will provide on-going services for King County
residents living in densely populated areas and scheduled drop-
off services for those in rural King County. In addition,
collection and recycling of specific wastes such as used motor
oil, latex paint and batteries will be explored, and where
feasible, implemented on a large scale.
The HHW Collection Component will be managed by a half-
time staff person from King County and a half-time staff j
person from Seattle, who will share a full-time collection
coordinator position. A job description for the collection
coordinator can be found in Appendix B.
The collection component po ent costs gradually increase over the i
twenty years reflecting the increase in service and amount of
waste collected. Program costs are $1.28 million in 1990, and
$3.27 million in 1994 increasing to $7.7 million in 2009. _
Disposal costs are figured at $1300 per ton of waste.`
HHW Collection
Program Elements
HHW Permanent Collection Facilities will be open year round
in fixed locations for householders to take their hazardous
wastes for proper disposal. Six permanent facilities will be
-�' sited for easy access to major population centers (within ten
miles); these facilities have the capacity to respond to a large
consumer demand. The level of service (hours per week of
operation) will be continually increased to accommodate the
;q projected increase in waste to be collected.
The Plan suggests that one permanent facility come on-line
each year, beginning in 1990. Seattle has one operating
permanent collection facility located at its South Transfer
Station. A second facility is expected to open in north Seattle
in 1990. Metro is providing capital funding for construction of
'In the Draft Plan, disposal costs were estimated at $1050 per ton. Experience at
Seattle's HHW Collection Facility at the South Transfer Station indicated that this estimate
was too low. In the Final Plan, the estimated per ton disposal cost has been increased to
$1300 to reflect actual experience.
4
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-19
on
this facility. These two facilities will be operated by Seattle.
The other four permanent collection facilities proposed in the
program will be located elsewhere in King County, in either
incorporated or unincorporated areas. Suburban jurisdictions
could establish and operate permanent collection facilities with
' funding from the Plan.
tilt
Meeting this aggressive schedule will depend on several
.R
rta factors, including facility siting and permitting. The intent is
to provide convenient collection services for the maximum
number of County residents, as quickly as possible.
The facilities themselves will be simple and unobtrusive in
appearance, yet will meet all applicable health and safety
requirements (Figure 3-4).
HHW Mobile Collection Facilities will operate for a set period
of time -- a few weeks or a month -- in one location, then be
moved to other scheduled sites. These units will provide col-
lection service at regular intervals to areas of the county not
yet served by permanent facilities. The service experience of
these mobile units will be used to determine community collec-
tion needs and the most appropriate areas for permanent facili-
ties. King. County will have one mobile facility in operation
during 1990, a second in 1991 and a third in 1992. The
County will contract for the ongoing operation of these facili-
ties and coordinate scheduling with suburban communities.
The budgets for these program elements are based on data
from the existing facility at the South Transfer Station and
4W preliminary estimates from the first mobile facility being
developed by King County. Capital costs for permanent
facilities are estimated at $106,000 per facility, while mobile
units cost an estimated $33,000 to establish. The total disposal
cost for this component is based on the desired amount of
waste to be collected. This amount will increase over time as
new facilities become operational. The level of service at each
facility will also increase over time to respond to an expected
rising demand for services as public awareness increases with
Plan implementation.
If attendance far exceeds expectations, and disposal costs
threaten to exceed available funds, implementing agencies will
be able to control the amount of waste collected by controlling
hours of operation. Such a situation would indicate a need for
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-20
M
V
Figure 3-4. PERMANENT HHW COLLECTION FACILITY
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRU ION 3-21
budget revisions and a management-level decision about
whether to increase funding levels.
The intent of the Plan is to allow flexibility in facility design,
as long as the overall level of service is achieved and costs
remain within the budgeted amount. For example, the City of
Bellevue has been sponsoring a 6-month pilot collection pro-
gram for its residents. In this program, a temporary facility
collects MW from the public at a particular location two
Saturdays each month. Conceptually, this program is some-
where between a Round-up and a mobile facility. A program
of this design could potentially be continued under the Plan,
although it is not exactly like either the mobile or permanent
facilities described here, since it provides a level of con-
venience and accessibility similar to that which the Plan is
proposing to achieve.
In addition, evaluation of the collection program may show
that the level of service is adequate with fewer than six
permanent and three mobile facilities, or that more are
necessary.
HHW Pickup Service for the Homebound will help meet the
needs of residents unable to get to a collection site. The
cooperation of volunteer groups who assist the elderly or
homebound will be enlisted. The HHW Collection program
coordinator will encourage these volunteers to assist their
clients to remove HHW from their homes by bringing these
items to a convenient collection facility. The volunteers will
distribute information on product substitution and waste
reduction practices. This service could also be offered through
HHW Education Component waste reduction program elements,
such as the Hazards Free Neighborhood (Appendix A).
Targeted Waste
Collection/Recycling
The Plan's diversion goals assume that approximately 38
percent of IH-IW may be recycled, and that a relatively small
portion (18 percent) will need to be incinerated or otherwise
disposed of as a hazardous waste, when recycling programs are
fully implemented. The Plan contains $200,000 per year for
special collection and/or recycling of the targeted wastes listed
below and others as they may be identified in the future.
- These programs will be carried out by a number of jurisdic-
MW
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-22
tions. Because many recycling programs are in the very early
stages of development, estimating program costs was not
possible; the costs in Table 3-2 reflect a commitment to pursue
these programs, rather than an accurate estimate of their cost.
Collection of Used Oil. Seattle will be evaluating the effec-
tiveness and feasibility of special oil collection programs, such
as curbside pick-up or neighborhood drop-off facilities, during
the first year or two of Plan implementation. Future
implementation will depend on the results of this evaluation.
Auto and Marine Battery Collection and Recycling. Local
programs will be developed to implement a new state law
requiring a deposit on all lead/acid batteries when Ecology
promulgates specific regulations for this law.
Household Battery Collection. Collection and recycling of
household batteries at the point of sale is possible. For
example, bins could be provided for battery drop-off at
convenient locations such as shopping malls, hardware stores
and camera stores. Batteries collected in this manner or
through collection facilities will be sent to a recycling facility
by contracted hazardous waste handlers or sponsoring agency.
Paint Recycling. A large percentage of the HHW collected to
date is latex paint. Seattle is conducting studies to determine
if recycling and treatment is a viable option for latex paint. If
feasible, the latex paint will be recycled rather than disposed
of as a hazardous waste. These studies will also evaluate the
chemical composition of latex paints for hazardous components.
Potentially some latex paint can be disposed of in the munici-
pal solid waste stream with no adverse environmental effect.
In the future, it may also be possible to recycle certain
components of solvent-based paint.
Promotion of Collection Progmsms. The HHW Collection
Coordinators will be responsible for ensuring that collection
facilities and activities are adequately advertised. Promotional
materials will have two focuses: to inform County residents
about gll programs, as well as about the programs in their
vicinity. Special promotional activities will support targeted
waste collection and recycling programs.
SECTION 3
PLAN DESCRIP'T'ION 3-23
SQQ Education and
Technical Assistance
Component
The SQG Education and Technical Assistance Component has
two focuses, in response to the needs identified by SQGs
(Section 2). Programs in this component will fill the
information gap concerning waste management techniques and
regulations in three ways:
TREAT YOUR
WASTE Information will be collected and made available to
FAIRI SQGs through outreach programs;
• New waste management technologies will be tested and
perhaps developed locally;
• Technical assistance, in the form of laboratory resources
and on-site consultations will be made available to
individual, interested SQGs.
The success of these programs will depend on a close and
positive worldng relationship between sponsoring agencies and
businesses and trade associations.
For the purposes of the Plan, it is assumed that there are
approximately 20,000 businesses in King County that are also
SQGs (see Appendix B). These 20,000 businesses must be
distinguished from the thousands of businesses that are either
regulated generators or that generate no hazardous waste. Over
the life of the Plan, many more businesses than this will need
to be contacted, since many SQGs will go out of business and
many new SQGs will open.
Education and technical assistance are emphasized over
compliance in the management of SQG hazardous wastes under
this Plan.
An SQG education program coordinator, based at Metro, will
be responsible for implementation of this component.
Costs for the SQG Education and Technical Assistance com-
ponent range from $758,000 in 1990, $1.3 million in 1992-
1994, to $1.2 million thereafter.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-24
SQG Education
Program Elements
Information Development and Resources includes creation and
distribution of educational materials such as newsletters,
brochures and fact sheets. Printed materials will be distributed
to businesses in King County via mailings, collection site
promotions, seminars and workshops. Seminars and workshops
will focus on the needs of specific industries. Metro will assume
responsibility for this program, although other jurisdictions could
participate. One full-time and one half-time staff will be
TREAT YOUR dedicated to it.
WASTE
FAIRI An SQG Resource Library, housed at Metro, will obtain and
make available materials and case studies on proven hazardous
waste management techniques. The librarycould operate as a
branch of Ecology's Technical Resource Center for SQGs.
Materials available nationally will be obtained from the state-
sponsored Technical Resource Center, while the local library
will supplement this collection with local resources and
materials. The program will include a computerized data base.
One full-time staff will be dedicated to the program.
The SQG Telephone Information Line part of the Health
Department's Hazards Line, will provide a source of compre-
hensive information on hazardous waste issues including
regulations, product alternatives, information from manufac-
turers on new products or treatment technologies, disposal
options, and any other topic of concern. The equivalent of one
staff person will be added to the Hazards Line staff to respond
to SQG questions. This program could also serve as a primary
goo mechanism for the dissemination of SQG hazardous waste infor-
mation materials developed under the Information Develop-
ment and Resources program. The Hazards Line will be
equipped with a computer to take advantage of on-line
information from the Resource Library.
The Health Department
will also conduct an SOG Passive
Materials Exchanee to facilitate the transfer of unwanted
hazardous materials from the generator to a party that can use
them. The Health Department has already begun a materials
exchange called, "IMEX," or the "Industrial Materials
Exchange." One and a half FTEs currently work in the
program. Under this program, the Health Department is in
contact with businesses with information concerning usable
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-25
materials. A description of the materials listed with EVIEX is
entered on a computer and made available through a bi-
monthly catalog. The Health Department does not handle or
transport any wastes during the exchange process.
Technical Assistance
Program Elements
Metro will promote SOG Waste Reduction, Recycling
Treatment, by encouraging the development and use of waste
reduction processes or technologies by businesses, through
loans, grants and awards. A technology transfer program will
provide a means of information exchange between the
developers of new technologies and businesses interested in
waste reduction. An internship program will involve students in
technology development and transfer. One full-time staff will
be responsible for coordinating these activities.
On-site Consultation Service staff will visit businesses, at their
request, to help them improve hazardous waste management
practices. Staff will review current practices and recommend
ways to reduce waste, given the business' available resources.
This program will not be associated with any compliance
activities, such as the Surveys and Audits program. The on-site
�Y consultation service will be based at Metro and will require a
coordinator and two field staff brought on in 1990, gradually
increasing to four by 1992. The number of businesses contacted
w in 1990 is expected to be 120, increasing to 300 in the following
years as the program becomes fully staffed and field personnel
become more efficient and knowledgeable about SOG waste
management practices. At the end of the twenty-year program,
approximately 6000 businesses will have obtained voluntary on-
site consultation services.
1 The SOG Waste Characterization and Treatment Feasibility
Program will test the feasibility of treating hazardous wastes
prior to disposal and will develop prototype waste profiles for
certain SOG waste streams. The waste characterization pro-
gram will have three full-time dedicated staff and funding for
testing equipment. Since this program involves laboratory
testing, it will be based at Metro's environmental laboratory.
i
. . I
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-26
SQG Collection
Component
To date, few economical disposal options have been open to
SQGs. The Plan recognizes that more accessible SQG collec-
tion services are needed.
0
° o Local governments will encourage brokers and licensed treat-
0 o ment, storage and disposal companies (TSDs) to serve the SQG
market by allocating resources to contracted SQG collection
programs in the early years of the Plan. This will provide an
incentive for TSDs or brokers to establish dedicated SQG col-
lection services by decreasing the financial risks associated
with this kind of expansion. Once the collection programs are
set up and running, it is anticipated that private industry will
assume full operation. Two types of services, mobile and
auxiliary facilities, are recommended A disposal subsidy
program is also offered to ease the economic burden of
hazardous waste disposal for qualified SQGs.
Costs for the SQG collection component range from $381,000
in 1990, to $940,000 in 1994. The program phases out
completely in 1997. Total cost for this component is $5.1
million over the life of the Plan or about three percent of total
cumulative Plan costs.
This component will be coordinated by one full-time staff
based at King County, who will develop Requests for Proposals
for the collection sites, manage the contracts, and oversee the
subsidy program. This position will be phased out when the
private sector assumes responsibility for the collection pro-
grams and the subsidy ends.
SQG Collection
Program Elements
Mobile Collection Facilities will be set up for a short period of
time in a given location and will then move to other locations.
One mobile facility will be in operation by the end of 1990; a
second will come on line in 1992. Government support will be
phased out after five years for each facility, at which point the
facilities will be run by private companies.
Auxiliary Collection Facilities will serve businesses located in
areas of the county where fewer TSD services are available,
for example, north King County. Two collection sites will be
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-27
established in areas that do not have convenient access to TSD
facilities. It is expected that these facilities will be established
in 1991 and 1993. As with the mobile facilities, government
support of this program will be phased out after five years for
r-
each facility when the private sector assumes responsibility.
♦ These programs are highly experimental and their success will
be based on a variety of factors, including interest of the
private sector in taking on the program, the ability to site
facilities, and the willingness of businesses to use them. To
encourage businesses to use these and other disposal and
recycling options, a subsidy program is proposed.
The SQQ Subsidized Collection Program will cover 25 percent
of the disposal costs for SQGs that participate in the On-site
Consultation program, or the Survey and Audit program
(described below). The status of the business as an SQG must
be confirmed in order for the business to receive the discount.
The subsidy will begin in 1991, after a feasibility study in
1990 to determine the best way of distributing the funds. The
budget for this program is an estimate. The feasibility study
will develop more accurate cost projections based on specific
program design. The program will run for five years, after
which SQGs will become entirely responsible for the costs of
hazardous waste management. Providing a subsidy in the early
years of the program will help overcome the primary barrier to
effective hazardous waste management -- cost to individual
businesses. It is expected that once businesses are brought into
the education and compliance network, with the help of the
subsidy, they will continue to manage their wastes responsibly.
compliance
Component
The compliance component has two focuses. The first is to
clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for HHW and
SQG waste disposal. The second is to strengthen the ability of
local governments to identify SQGs and bring them into com-
pliance with local environmental regulations. Programs under
this component emphasize interagency cooperation and the
establishment of a formal mechanism to track inspections and
compliance actions. Finally, if businesses do not comply with
regulations, enforcement steps will be taken.
I
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-28
A compliance coordinator, based at Metro will facilitate
acilitate
interagency activities and is responsible for ensuring
implementation of compliance programs.
Total costs for the compliance component will be $650,000 in
1990, rising to $1.0 million in 1994 and remaining at about
$1.3 million per year thereafter.
Compliance
Program Elements
Enhancement of Local Ordinances. A few specific, identified
local ordinances prohibiting the disposal of HHW and SQG
hazardous wastes in the solid and liquid waste streams will be
reviewed and strengthened (Appendix A). The purpose of this
effort is to clearly define SQG and FH-IW management require-
ments and to make these requirements consistent across local
jurisdictions in King County.
Interagency Re ug latory Analysis Committee (IRAC). A com-
mittee of local and state agency representatives will review and
i update local regulations pertaining to HHW and SQG wastes to
'�— ensure a consistent regulatory framework across the region.
Initially, the committee will survey and analyze existing
hazardous waste regulations of all agencies and cities in King
County to identify gaps and overlaps and to recommend a co-
hesive and comprehensive regulatory network for SQGs and
households. IRAC will expand on the work done under the
Enhancement of Local Ordinances program and will provide a
mechanism for local governments to monitor state and federal
regulatory actions in relevant areas.
Both the Enhancement of Local Ordinances and the IRAC will
require designating staff at the level 0.1 FTE annually from
each of ten participating agencies. The enhancement of local
ordinances effort should be complete and phased out after five
years. The compliance coordinator will provide administrative
support for the committee. Committee members will be
responsible for overseeing proposed regulatory changes through
the appropriate processes in their own jurisdictions.
The SQQ Survey and Audit Program will enable trained staff
to visit SQGs in King County to: a) obtain information about
waste quantities, types and management practices; b)
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-29
disseminate information, identify problems and solutions; and,
c) when necessary, institute compliance proceedings.
Metro will sponsor the survey program. Surveys target all
businesses in a defined geographic area to identify businesses
that might have waste management problems. Each full-time
b staff assigned to this program is expected to identify approxi-
mately 100 SQGs each year from the businesses surveyed.
One full-time staff will be dedicated to this program in 1990,
�-- n increasing to six by 1995. Over the life of the Plan 10,500
SQGs could be identified and contacted through surveys.
AUDIT
r»�. ®r
r ----"•� Q The Health Department will sponsor the audit program. Audits
r r■w• .�
w r r•wY target specific industries for an in-depth analysis of waste
management practices; it is estimated that each full-time staff
person in this program could audit 100 SQGs per year. The
purpose of an audit is to identify ways to solve waste manage-
ment problems. Three field staff will be assigned to the audit
program in 1990, increasing gradually to 12 by 1999. Over
the life of the Plan, as many as 35,000 SQGs could be
audited, enabling the program to keep pace with economic
growth and new business formation. Coordination with exist- .
ing audit programs of solid waste or other agencies will be a
priority.
An SQG identified through a survey or audit may choose to
take advantage of the on-site consultation program for more in-
depth assistance with waste management. The primary purpose
of the Survey and Audit program, however, is to help local
governments identify businesses that do not participate in
education activities or otherwise seek out waste management
information.
The Response Network will be an interagency system to com-
prehensively address hazardous waste concerns and incidents.
Under this program, a central coordinating office or function
will be established in Metro, and a standardized inspection
checklist developed. Field staff from various compliance
agencies, such as fire or building departments, will be trained
to identify hazardous waste management problems in the
course of their routine inspections. Problems identified will be
noted on the standardized checklist and referred to Response
Network follow-up staff or to the appropriate regulatory
agency. The Response Network will also investigate
I complaints from the public.
44
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-30
The Response Network will be coordinated by one full-time
staff in 1990 and a second in 1991. In addition to existing
agency field staff, up to four full-time staff with enforcement
authority will conduct follow up inspections; one field staff
will be brought on each year from 1990 to 1993. Field staff
could work with up to 75 businesses each year. Over the life
of the Plan, approximately 5500 businesses will be visited by
Response Network staff. The coordinators and the additional
field staff will be based at Metro; existing field staff in a
variety of agencies, such as the Health Department, Fire
Departments and others, will participate in the Network.
The Network could also serve as the hub of the SQG educa-
tion and technical assistance and compliance programs. The
survey and audit programs could use it to provide necessary
interagency coordination. Field staff from these programs
would also use the standardized inspection checklist and refer
problems outside their authority to the Response Network for
follow-up.
Evaluation
Component
Ile state guidelines require that the Plan include a process for
updating and revision every five years. Given that many of
the programs included in the Plan are new, an extensive evalu-
ation program is planned. Evaluations will determine how well
the programs are being implemented and whether the objectives
of the Plan are being achieved. Based on this evaluation, revi-
sions may be necessary within the five-year planning period.
As part of the Plan update, new programs may be proposed.
Evaluation needs to occur on several levels. Evaluation of
individual programs implemented under the Plan is crucial,
since many of the programs included in the Plan are new and
untried and the success or failure of these programs will guide
the Plan update and revision process. The overall effectiveness
of Plan implementation must also be evaluated. The success
of this Plan will require a fundamental change in consumer
awareness and business practices. The ability to do this well
depends partly on careful monitoring and the flexibility to
change course, if necessary. Finally, cost-effectiveness of the
programs must be evaluated, to ensure that programs are
efficiently carried out.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-31
A number of evaluation tools can be applied. These include
the use of surveys and opinion polls of various kinds, such as
telephone surveys and interviews. Waste sorts and water
quality sampling can give a measure of the amount of hazard-
ous waste entering these two waste streams. Audits of busi-
nesses can measure what percentage of businesses are dis-
posing of their waste properly, and evaluate business waste
management practices.
In the first year of Plan implementation, an evaluation strategy
will be developed for all components of the Plan, including
identification of data collection needs for each program area.
The evaluation strategy will include monitoring levels of
hazardous waste in the municipal solid and liquid waste stream
over time to detect any changes that may be attributable to the
Plan. Evaluation will also include periodic assessment of
public awareness and changes in behavior with regard to the
use of hazardous household products. In addition, every
program will include collection of data relevant to the overall
Plan evaluation strategy.
Evaluation of the HHW collection programs will include
measures of: the amount of waste collected, the number of
participants, costs of the programs, and customer satisfaction.
The evaluation will compare the different collection options —
permanent sites and mobile facilities -- as they come on-line.
The effectiveness of publicity and educational activities on
participation rates will also be measured
The SQG collection programs will also be evaluated. All of
these programs require only a short-term public sector commit-
ment. One crucial measure of success will be the willingness
of the private sector to assume responsibility for the collection
programs at the end of that period. In any case, data similar
to the HHW collection program evaluation will be collected
and analyzed. At a minimum, these data will contribute a
great deal to an overall characterization of SQG wastes, which
will be useful for information dissemination and technical
assistance programs.
The effectiveness of both the HHW education programs and
the SQG education and technical assistance programs in
encouraging waste reduction and proper disposal will also be
evaluated. The number of people or businesses reached is one
indicator of activity, but there will also be an attempt to
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-32
measure changes in behavior. An indication of behavioral
changes may be obtained through a series of attitude surveys
over time, as well as through participation rates at collection
sites. Changes in behavior of businesses can be measured
through follow-up visits after audits, for example.
Some of the SQG technical assistancet�ro ams and the SQG
P
collection programs are intended to remove financial or other
barriers to proper disposal of SQG wastes. One indicator of
success in this area will be increased disposal of SQG waste
either through the Plan's collection programs or existing TSD
facilities.
The primary purpose of the evaluation component is to
measure progress in achieving the goal and objectives of the
Plan listed on pages 1-4 and 1-6. Regular evaluation during the
course of Plan implementation will allow participating agencies:
• to compare projections in the Plan with actual results;
• to determine the effectiveness of different types of
programs;
• to compare program elements to determine their relative
efficiency;
• to determine program costs per unit of waste diverted. '
The Plan is an overall game plan for a twenty year moderate
risk waste management program. It is expected that the
programs will evolve over the years in response to new
information, and as the impacts of implementation have their
effect. The evaluation component of the Plan is intended to be
used to identify refinements and modifications into the program
components. Such changes will be incorporated into the
process of designing the annual budget and program which will
be presented to the Seattle and King County Boards of Health
for approval.
Successful evaluation depends on appropriate measurements,
data collection, and record keeping. Some of this work is
already being done. Seattle Solid Waste performs waste stream
sampling of the solid waste from their transfer stations.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-33
Hazardous wastes are identified in this sampling. King County
Solid Waste Division's proposed 1990 budget includes a waste
stream clearance program, in addition to a waste stream
monitoring program that will start in late 1989. Seattle
maintains records at their permanent household hazardous
waste collection shed about quantities and types of wastes
collected, numbers of customers, where customers come from,
and costs of facility operation. King County will also keep
comprehensive records from their mobile collection facilities.
Public opinion surveys performed for the Plan (see Appendix
D) and at Roundups have measured public awareness and
needs regarding Household Hazardous Wastes. The Health
Department and Metro have performed surveys of Small
Quantity Generators in the South Park and north Kent areas to
determine the most common types of businesses, and the types
of wastes they produce. The recent "Waste Information
Network" trade fair for small business generators also surveyed
businesses for types of waste streams, and usefulness of existing
educational and technical assistance programs.
A study comparing costs of a permanent collection facility
versus the costs of a Roundup was prepared by Seattle's Office
for Long-range Planning, and they have received grant money
to perform a study comparing a variety of Household
Hazardous Waste Collection options in the state, and especially
in King county. Some preliminary work is also planned for next
year on developing part of an evaluation system. A consultant
will analyze evaluation techniques for measuring public attitudes
and practices over time of hazardous waste disposed in the
garbage. These techniques will be implemented to establish a
baseline of existing conditions.
Evaluaiton criteria and methodologies will need to be developed
for each type of program component: HHW Education, HHW
Collection, SQG Education, SQG Collection, Compliance, and
plan management structure. The Plan proposes that this
preliminary work be performed as the first year implementation
task of the evaluation component. The evaluation criteria will
include both activity indicators and effectiveness indicators such
as the following:
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-34
Activity Indicators:
• numbers of businesses served;
• level of participation at collection facilities;
• quantities and distribution of educational materials;
• publicity;
Effectiveness Indicators:
• changes in the quantity of hazardous wastes in municipal
waste streams;
• quantities and types of wastes collected;
• costs per unit of waste collected under different
collection programs;
• changes in public attitudes and practices;
• changes in business waste management policies and
practices;
• customer satisfaction.
The Plan proposes that the methodology for evaluation and the
analysis itself be carried out by consultants at the direction of
the Management Coordination Committee. Technical
committee staff will be responsible for day to day management
of the consultant services contracts. This work will be proposed
and performed as a part of the annual overall program and
budget approved by the Boards of Health. Actual data
collection and record keeping for specific program components
will be performed by the implementing agency.
Detailed on-going evaluation is an integral part of the plan
implementation. Because many of these programs are new, an
on-going evaluation is a necessary part of putting together
annual work programs. In addition, a separate, more inclusive
evaluation which focuses on the overall effectiveness of the
program will be conducted by an organization not associated
with program implementation, such as the University of
Washington. This organization will do periodic program
SECTION 3 PLA?N DESCRIPTION 3-35
evaluations or audits, similar to what the General Accounting
Office would do for federal programs or an Office for
Management and Budget might do at the local level. They
would evaluate the organizational structure as well as program
effectiveness.
The evaluation component of the Plan will be coordinated by
three 1/3 FTEs in Health, Metro, and Seattle's Office for Long-
range Planning. They will be responsible for ensuring that the
evaluation component is implemented, and that all
implementing agencies are collecting data in a consistent
fashion.
Costs of the evaluation component range from $140,000 in 1990
to $125,000 in 1994.
Plan
Program
Costs
All of the cost figures are based on the projected solid waste
stream tonnages through the year 2009. These were obtained
from the Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan developed by King
County Solid Waste Division.
An assumption that one percent of the solid waste stream was
considered hazardous was then made. This figure represented
a median percentage derived from available information on
waste composition studies, done both locally and nationally. It
was also assumed that fifteen percent of the hazardous waste
produced was disposed of in the liquid waste stream the
remaining eighty-five percent entered the solid waste stream.
Studies from other areas of the country indicated that about
thirty-three percent of the waste is generated from household
activities, and the remaining sixty-seven percent from
commercial and industrial sources (budget assumptions begin on
page B-8, and total Plan budgets are on pages B-16 - B-27).
The process was then expanded with the development of
diversion goals. These goals reflected the levels of reduction,
recycling and disposal that the technical committee felt were
achievable [Table B-41. These diversion goals were done on an
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-36
item by item basis, and were based on current and projected
waste handling practices and product availability. The issue of
targeting of wastes was addressed at this point. When the
diversion goals were developed, differing levels of reduction,
recycling, and disposal were considered, in effect targeting
specific wastes using the criteria of risk, economic feasibility,
and availability of alternative technologies and products.
Using this information, estimated tonnages of hazardous waste
that would need to be reduced, recycled or disposed of were
developed. Information obtained from surveys and collection
events were incorporated into these projections. Programs were
then developed around these projections.
Budgets for the various program elements were developed on
the basis of the diversion goals. These were based on the
number of staff and associated costs that were felt would be
needed to implement the programs [See Technical Appendix
B-8, Budget Assumptions]. Salaries for these positions were
based on a level of $45,000 for program coordinators, $40,000
for field personnel, $32,000-$40,000 for education staff and
$34,000 for collection staff members. The costs included
benefits. Administrative and supply costs were set at 25%-30%
depending on the program. One new car at $20,000 was
assumed for each two field personnel, with operating costs of
$1,500 per person. These elements were.brought together in
plan components, and these in turn into the Final Plan.
Costs for the disposal options were obtained from the costs of
operating Roundups and current disposal costs available
through local Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
(TSDs). These costs are weighted costs, in that they are a
composite of all the costs associated with differing disposal
options ranging from recycling to incineration to landfilling.
The costs for HHW are $1,300 per ton (actual cost figures from
both Roundups and the South Transfer Station collection facility
operation), and costs for SQG wastes are $682 per ton. The
costs differ between the two waste types because the
composition of their respective waste streams differ.
The Plan budget appears to show that the same level of
resources are being put into Household Hazardous Waste
M.
b
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-37
programs and the Small Quantity Generator hazardous waste
programs, despite the fact that SQG wastes constitute 2/3 of the
Y.. total moderate risk waste stream [Table 3.-2]. This is because
the Plan proposes that SQGs pay their own disposal costs.
ti. Disposal is the most expensive component of the program, per
unit of waste. Plan projections estimate that in 1991 the private
sector will be responsible for disposal costs from SQGs
amounting to $236,000. This is based on the projected number
of businesses who will respond to educational programs. As the
programs reach further, and as more businesses start to manage
their wastes properly, this amount will increase.
The question of whether commercial generators should pay for
their own waste disposal, or whether the costs should be borne
by the agencies was discussed during the planning process. It
was decided that SQGs would pay their own costs for the
following reasons. First, it is inappropriate for public agencies
to be funding private businesses. Waste management is a cost
of doing business, and must be accepted as such. Second,
disposal costs are a great incentive for businesses to actively
seek waste reduction strategies. This incentive would be lost if
disposal was subsidized. Third, the private sector has the choice
of passing on all costs of doing business to its customers. This
gives additional competitive incentive for waste reduction
programs, and provides a mechanism for businesses to recover
disposal costs.
It is recognized that there are small businesses who have been
accumulating wastes over a period of time, because they are
uncertain about how to deal with them. It is also recognized
that the start up costs of a management program can be
considerable. For these reasons the Plan proposed a five year
subsidy program which will be available to provide assistance to
Small Quantity Generators who want to properly dispose of
accumulated wastes, and set up a waste management program.
In order for thero ams of the Plan to be fairly-funded,
P gr the
funding mechanism has been set up so that commercial
accounts pay for the SQG programs, and residential accounts
pay for HHW programs.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-38
PLAN FINANCING
AND IMPLEMENTATION
Several options for financing and implementing the Plan were
presented in the Draft Plan/EIS. These options are summarized
in Table 3-4. Based on public comment and input from local
governments, a financing and implementation strategy has been
developed. This strategy assures that sufficient funding will be
available, and that participating jurisdictions will be able to
work together to implement a regional hazardous waste
management plan.
Financine
The Draft Plan/EIS described several options for financing
p including state funding through use of the state hazardous
substance tax, a local add-on to that tax, and local funding
/((�Z through utility rates or assessment of municipalities, as well as
user fees. These options were not all exclusive of each other,
and the final Plan assumes several of these sources will finance
the total cost of implementation.
The level of financing described below is sufficient to fund the
� �-- estimated cost of the Plan as summarized in Table 3-2. The
constraining factor is the estimate of the overall program cost.
If actual costs for some projects prove to be higher,
expenditures for other projects will have to be adjusted to
maintain the same program cost level.
State Funding
Funding from the state hazardous substances tax is considered
important for several reasons. First, a tax on hazardous
substances is seen by reviewers and respondents as the most
equitable way of funding the Plan because it places the burden
directly or indirectly on those using hazardous products.
Charging users for management and disposal of hazardous
waste better reflects the true cost of these materials. In fact,
many people wanted consumers to know the amount of tax they
would be paying since that would help educate them to perhaps
reduce their use of such products.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-39
Table 3-4. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
SUGGESTED IN THE DRAFT PLAN'
�• Financing
State Funding
• Local Toxics Control Account
• King County Add-on to the State Hazardous Substances Tax
Local Funding
• Sewer Utility Rate Increase
• Solid Waste Tipping Fee Increase
• Board of Health Fee Increase for Solid Waste Haulers
• Assessment of Municipalities
• User Fees, Permit Fees, Fines
Implementation
Voluntary Implementation
• Interlocal Agreement
• Hazardous Waste Management Committee
i Lead Agency
The information to this table is presented for review purposes only. The final Plan
financing and implementation strategy incorporates several, but not all, of these options.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-40
Fifty-three percent of the revenue generated under the state
hazardous substances tax(Initiative 97, passed November, 1988)
will be deposited in a "Local Toxics Control Account" (LTCA).
Hazardous waste plans and programs are one of the funding
priorities for this account. It is felt that funding of plan
implementation is an appropriate use of the LTCA. Local
governments feel that the state has a responsibility to help fund
programs it requires local government to implement.
Finally, state funding is considered to be a financial necessity.
Full implementation of all the programs in this Plan will not be
possible without state funds.
Estimated Level of State Funding. In the Draft Plan, it was
estimated that the Local Toxics Control Account would collect
$14.8 million in 1990. If 20 percent, or $3 million, of the
Account were allocated to hazardous waste plans and programs
and if King County were to receive an amount proportional to
its population, King County would receive an estimated
$920,000 annually.
Ecology has since reduced its estimate of the LTCA allocation.
Based on conversations with Ecology staff, it has been estimated
that approximately $3.8 million will be available in the 1990-91
biennium for hazardous waste plans and programs, or $1.9
million each year. Assuming King County were to receive an
amount proportional to its population, state funding would be
approximately $590,000 for each of 1990 and 1991.
In addition, Ecology has proposed revisions to the hazardous
waste fees charged generators of hazardous waste in compliance
with Section 16 of Initiative 97. Money collected from such fees
could be used to support implementation of local hazardous
waste management plans.
Table 3-5 summarizes funding sources, assuming this level of
state funding for 1990 and 1991.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-41
For the years beyond 1991, estimating state funding levels
becomes even more difficult. If the growth rates used by the
Legislature for the LTCA are applied, assuming the same
proportionate amount for hazardous waste plans and programs,
the funding levels would be as shown in Table 3-5.
Yr. Table 3-5. FUNDING SOURCES' 1990-1994 (dollars in thousands)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Total Program Cost $3,742 5,202 6,268 7,107 7,871
State Funding 590 590 728 728 869
Local Funding3 152 4 612 5 540 6
,379 7,002
Sewerage Agencies 630 922 1,108 1,276 1,400
Solid Waste 2,522 3,690 4,432 5,103 5,602
' in 1989 dollars
Z State funding is based on estimates. Grants have not yet been secured. Agency staff
will actively pursue state funding.
Ecology is in the process of developing the regulations gover-
ning the allocation of these grant funds. A waste management
"block grant" approach is being considered. That approach is
desirable since it would give local governments some way of
anticipating a certain level of state support. It would also
greatly cut down on paperwork and administrative overhead.
err
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-42
For purposes of this Plan, a block grant approach has been
assumed, allocated based on percentage of population.
If state funding does not meet the estimates shown here,
program funding levels will have to be reduced accordingly.
In 1990 and 1991, this would mean a reduction of $590,000
per year. Approximately $300,000 of each year's reduction
would .come from the household programs and $290,000 from
the SQG programs.
For the household programs this cut would be achieved by
limiting or delaying the initiation of certain projects.
Candidates for reduction include the school programs and
waste reduction programs. Another option would be to put off
development of a third permanent collection facility, or to cut
back the hours of existing facilities. A combination of these
options could be used to obtain a reduction of $300,000.
For the SQG programs, most of the reduction could be ob-
tained by reducing or phasing in more slowly the technical
assistance programs, such as the waste characterization and
treatment effort, and some of the information development and
resources programs. Some of these programs could be left for
Ecology to implement directly. Another option would be to
phase in more slowly the compliance programs, allowing edu-
cation and technical assistance programs to have an impact
before compliance programs are initiated.
With these program reductions, the Plan would still meet all
Ecology guidelines and would be a fully viable plan. How-
ever, the goals for waste diversion would be met more slowly.
Local Add-on to the
State Hazardous Substance Tax
Respondents expressed an interest in using a local add-on to
the Hazardous Substance Tax to help fund the Plan, primarily
because of the equity issue as described above. Yet, it was
recognized that since state legislation would be needed to
implement this option, significant lead time would be required
and its approval would be uncertain. For that reason, no
estimate of funding from this source is included in the Plan.
However, as part of plan implementation it is recommended
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-43
that this option be pursued in conjunction with other areas in
the state that are implementing local plans.
Local Funding
Even if state funding is obtained, local funds will be a major
financing source for plan implementation. It is recommended
that fees be assessed on certificated solid waste haulers, on
"self-haulers" using the transfer stations or landfill, and on
sewage treatment facilities. The fees would be set by the King
County Board of Health and the Seattle City Councils, and
collected on a quarterly basis by the Seattle King-County
� Health Department.
The cost of implementing the Plan was divided between solid
waste and sewage sources based on the proportion of HHW
and SQG waste received by each. It was estimated that 15 to
20 percent by weight of HHW and SQG wastes is discharged
into the sewerage system, and the remaining 80 to 85 percent
is disposed of in the solid waste system. Therefore, for
financing purposes, 20 percent of the local funding for the Plan
is suggested to come from fees on sewage treatment facilities
and 80 percent from solid waste haulers.
The solid waste portion is proposed to be funded as follows:
1) "Certificated" haulers (subject to regulation by the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission)
and haulers under contract to cities where the haulers
bill their customers directly will be assessed a per
ji account fee by the King County Board of Health.
Haulers of commercial garbage in Seattle will be asses-
sed this fee through the Seattle City Council acting as
the City of Seattle Board of Health. One fee will apply
to residential accounts, and a different fee will apply to
commercial accounts. In this way, residential customers
will only pay for the household portion of the plan and
commercial customers for the SQG portion.
'The King County Board of Health has jurisdiction over all of King County, except
the City of Seattle. In Seattle, the Seattle City Council is the City's Board of Health. For
all King County residents to be represented in Plan adoption and implementation, both
governing bodies must be involved.
SECTION 3
PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-44
2 Residential (passenger licensed vehicles or PLVs) "self-
)
haulers" will be charged a per vehicle fee, and commer-
cial (non-passenger licensed vehicles) "self-haulers" will
be charged a fee per ton of garbage they dispose of at
King County transfer stations and rural landfills. These
1 fees will also be set by a King County Board of Health
rule.
r
3) The Seattle Solid Waste Utility will contribute to the
L Plan implementation fund a fee authorized through a
Seattle City Council ordinance. This payment will be
based on a per account fee for each residential account,
plus a per ton fee for all non-PLV self-haul garbage
disposed of at Seattle transfer stations. 1988 tonnage
shall be used as Seattle's base year for calculating the
1990 contribution. The Solid Waste Utility rate-setting
process will determine how this amount is generated
(e.g., by transfer station fees, utility bills, etc.).
4) Other cities that bill garbage customers directly will
contribute a per account fee for all the solid waste
accounts.they handle.
The fees assessed on residential accounts and the PLV "self-
haul" fee will be used for the HHW program. The fees asses-
sed on commercial accounts and per ton fees for non-PLV
self-haul will be used for the SQG program.
The amount to be raised through non-PLV self-haul tonnage
shall not exceed 29 percent of the total SQG solid waste
contribution, the level of self-hauler contribution to total
® commercial tonnage.
® Co.*
Sewage treatment plant operators serving more than 50
customers will be assessed a fee on a per gallon basis for
a sewage and septage treated, to capture funding for that portion
of HHW and SQG wastes entering the liquid waste stream.
Septic tank owners would be charged indirectly by sewer
districts or Metro when they pump out their tanks and dispose
of the septage at a municipal treatment plant.
Funding Rationale. There were several reasons why this
funding approach was selected. One reason is to simplify
administration. Because the fees will be assessed on utilities,
haulers and sewage treatment plants, the Health Department
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-45
will have to bill a relatively small number of accounts —
about 27 haulers, 10 sewerage agencies (including Metro) and
about 45 septage haulers for all of King County. This one
funding source will provide all the local funds necessary for
Plan implementation. Local municipalities will not have to
raise funds individually. Thus the problem of obtaining
appropriations from 29 different municipalities would be
avoided.
A second reason for selecting this funding approach is relative
equity. Almost all individuals and businesses contribute to
some extent to the hazardous waste stream. Certainly the
entire King County population benefits from the proper
management of these wastes. This broad-based funding source,
where almost all King County residences and commercial
establishments will make some contribution to the costs of the
program, is therefore viewed as equitable.
Most dischargers of hazardous waste would be captured by this
funding mechanism without the double counting that would
result if King County, Metro and the municipalities raised fees
independently. Limitations to this approach from an equity
standpoint still exist, but they are less significant than the
inequities of other mechanisms evaluated. The number of
residential and commercial accounts does not translate directly
to the number of customers. Although the hauler§ may
equalize any cost that is passed on to all customers, some
inequity may still result. Charging all commercial accounts
equally does not reflect the fact that some businesses may
generate much more hazardous waste than others. Finally,
septic tank users, who may have a significant impact on
groundwater quality, are only indirectly and infrequently
1 charged for their portion of the sewerage fees.
Impacts on Rates. In most areas of the County, customers pay
their solid waste fees to garbage haulers directly. Haulers'
rates are subject to approval by the Washington State Utilities
and Transportation Commission (WUTC). If the haulers elect
to pass the fee increase on to their customers, they must ask
the WUTC for a rate increase. For cities with solid waste
utilities, customers pay rates to the city and the city contracts
with garbage haulers for collections. If these utilities elect to
pass the fee on to their customers, the city councils would
have to act on a rate increase.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-46
Metro currently treats over 90 percent of the total volume of
wastewater collected in King County. Nine additional indepen-
dent cities or sewer districts treat the rest. Twenty percent of
the local share of Plan costs will be obtained through fees -
assessed Metro and these sewer districts. Each district may
elect to use existing revenues to cover the fees or to raise rates
for its customers.
Fee Levels. The level of fees needed to fund the Plan is
shown on Table 3-6 for solid waste and Table 3-7 for waste-
water. This does not include the cost of administering the
fees.
User Fees. Jurisdictions may also choose to charge a user fee
for users of the hazardous waste collection facilities. This
n��7 would be in addition to and separate from the per vehicle or
per ton fee for self-haulers, described above, which all self-
haulers would pay. Whether such a fee would affect user
behavior, making people less willing to use such facilities and
properly dispose of their waste, is an issue that is still un-
resolved. This issue will be explored during the evaluation
process. However, if a user fee is established, the same fee
should apply to all users, and any amount collected through
such a fee would be offset against any reimbursable cost for
that jurisdiction.
Plan Implementation
The Draft Plan/EIS laid out several options for plan implemen-
tation ranging from voluntary implementation with no coordina-
tion, to having one lead agency. The selection of the funding
mechanism helps define the organizational framework needed
for implementing the Plan. If fees are levied through the
Health Department, then those fees must be set by the County
Board of Health and the Seattle City Council, and some
mechanism for distributing the funds must exist.
The Plan covers all of King County so it is considered
important to have some coordination mechanism to ensure that
the objectives of the Plan are being met. Yet at the same
time, many respondents wanted to ensure a high degree of
flexibility, so that municipalities could if they wanted, design
and implement their own programs. Finally, many respondents
wanted to avoid the creation of new political entities.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-47
Table 3-6. SOLID WASTE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AND FEES' 1990-1994
(dollars in thousands)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
HHW Component of $1,268 1,903 2,313 2,762 3,209
Solid Waste Allocation
Seattle Contribution 470 706 858 1,024 1,190
($/account) (3.36) (5.04) (6.13) (7.31) (8.50)
Certificated Haulers 624 850 934 1,131 1,325
($/account) (2.63) (3.58) (3.93) (4.76) (5.58)
PLVs (King County) 174 347 521 607 694
($/vehicle) (.50) (1.00) (1.50) (1.75) (2.00)
SQG Component of $1,253 1,788 2,120 2,344 2,395
Solid Waste Allocation
Certificated Haulers 891 1,335 1,576 1,711 1,762
($/account) (45.22) (67.77) (80.00) (86.85) (89.44)
Self-Haul at King 287 359 431 502 502
County Facilities
($/ton) (1.00) (1.25) (1.50) (1.75) (1.75)
Self-Haul at Seattle 75 94 113 131 131
... Facilities($/ton) (1.00) (1.25) (1.50) (1.75) (1.75)
'in 1989 dollars.
This table is for illustration purposes only. Actual amounts may change. The number of
residential accounts for Seattle is estimated at 140,000, and 237,000 for King County. The
number of passenger licensed vehicles (PLVs) for King County is estimated at 347,000.
The number of commercial accounts is estimated at 19,700. Estimated self-haul tonnage
for King County is 287,000 and 75,000 for Seattle. These estimates are held constant over
the five years shown although it is recognized that they will need to adjusted on an annual
basis. Fees for self-haulers were set to total no more than 29% of the cost of the SQG
program, which was the estimated contribution of self-haul to the commercial waste stream.
i
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-48
Table 3-7. SEWERAGE FUNDING ALLOCATION AND FEES' 1990-1994
(dollars in thousands)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
All Sewerage Agencies $630 922 1,108 1,276 1,400
Metro` 565 827 994 1,145 1,256
Annual Increase 0 +262 +167 +151 +111
Affecting Future
Metro Rates
Approximate Metro 0 +4¢ +3¢ +2¢ +2¢
Rate Impact'
Other'
SW Suburban 24.0 35.0 42.0 48.0 53.0
Federal Way 20.0 29.0 35.0 40.0 44.0
Midway 14.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 30.0
Enumclaw 4.0 6.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
North Bend 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.1
Duvall 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8
Snoqualmie 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5
Black Diamond 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0
V ashon 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
'in 1989 dollars. This table is for illustration purposes only. Actual amounts may change.
Distribution of sewerage costs is based on 1988 annual average gallons of wastewater
treated by all municipal agencies. These figures and relative contributions will change
yearly.
`Metro treats 90 percent of the municipal wastewater handled by sewerage agencies in King
County. This funding allocation represents approximately 18 percent of the total annual
budget for the Plan.
'Sufficient funds are already appropriated in Metro's 1990 budget. Future rate impacts are
estimated at $0.16 per million dollars of Metro's share.
"Other sewerage districts or utilities treat 10 percent of the municipal wastewater in King
County and will cover approximately 2 percent of the total annual budget for the Plan.
r
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-49
The recommended organizational structure for implementation
of the Plan, once it is adopted, will work as follows. To assess
the fees, the King County Board of Health will pass a rule and
the Seattle City Council will pass an ordinance with the same
effective date. The rule and ordinance will direct the Seattle-
King County Health Department to collect the fees on a
quarterly basis. The fees will be collected and disbursed in the
same fiscal/calendar year, per accounting procedures required
by the State. As necessary, the King County Board of Health
and the Seattle City Council will reassess fees to ensure that
sufficient funds are available to implement the program.
The rule and ordinance that set the fees- will also create an
interagency Management Coordination Committee that will
►- oversee the development of an "annual implementation plan"
and budget for disbursement of funds. The committee
membership will be composed of senior staff (similar to the
Senior Managers Committee for Plan development, Appendix
A) designated in the rule by position (e.g. Director, City of
Seattle Solid Waste Utility) and will include one representative
each from the major participating government entities, namely
King County, the Health Department, City of Seattle, Metro,
rand the Suburban Cities.
As stated earlier, the Health Department will have
representation on both the management and technical
committees. They will have staff involved in the
implementation of program elements in HHW Education and
SOG Education and Compliance. There will also be staff
committed to administering the funds collected.
The administration of the funds will be under the direction of
an annual Plan. The Plan will be recommended by the
Management Coordination Committee to the Boards of Health.
The Boards of Health will establish fee schedules that will be
collected by the Health Department to cover the costs of
operating the Plan. The budgets of the agencies implementing
the Plan will go through the normal annual review by their
respective councils. The councils retain the ultimate authority
through this budgetary process for the direction that the plan
takes.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-50
The Suburban Cities will be represented on the Management
Coordination Committee along with other implementing
agencies (King County, City of Seattle, Metro, and the Health
Department). This committee will review the annual evaluation,
modify the Plan accordingly by developing the following year's
recommended Plan and budget.
The recommended plan and budget is then presented to the
Boards of Health which either adopt them and set the
corresponding fee schedule or modify them. All departmental
budgets are analyzed by County, City of Seattle and Metro
Councils. These councils always retain the right to modify the
proposed budgets. The Management Coordination Committee
will have responsibility for Plan implementation.
If the annual plan is adopted, multi-party agreements will be
drawn up by all agencies participating in plan implementation.
These agreements will describe the scope of work that agencies
will be committing themselves to. The interlocal agreements
will be administered by the Health Department. This will be
the responsibility of the Budget and Contracts Coordinator.
These agreements will also describe the method of
reimbursement to agencies for work performed.
In addition, the Plan is developed so that all interested
suburban cities could and would be actively encouraged to
participate in any or all of the program elements. The level of
involvement of the suburban cities is only limited by their desire
to participate.
The Program Coordinators of the seven Plan Components will
work together in a staff-level committee, and will be responsible
for developing the annual plan and budget. Other staff involved
in Plan implementation will participate in this staff committee
as necessary. Although these coordinators are located in
specific agencies, this does not imply that only those agencies
will be responsible for those programs. Their duties are to
insure that the annual plan is completed with a minimum of
duplication county-wide.
The relationship between the King County Board of Health, the
Seattle City Council, the Management Coordinating Committee
and the staff committee is illustrated in Figure 3-5.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-51
King County Seattle City
Board of Health Council
Management Coordination Committee
Of King City Metro Seattle-King County Suburban
County Seattle Health Department Cities
Staff Committee
(Program Coordinators)
H HW SQG Compliance Budgets &
Education Education & Contracts
Technical M etro
Health Assistance Health
M etro
H HW Evaluation
Collection SQG
Collection
Seattle
Seattle King County Metro
King County Health
Figure 3-5. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Membership on the Staff Committee is not limited to the Program
Coordinators, but can also include representatives of other agencies
implementing program elements.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-52
The Health Department will be responsible for disbursing the
funds to participating jurisdictions on an annual basis. '
Disbursement will be accomplished through contracts,
interagency agreements or memoranda of understanding. The
Health Department will disburse the funds according to the
annual implementation plan as passed by the County Board of
Health and the Seattle City Council.
Local jurisdiction, including suburban cities as well as Seattle, '
King County, and Metro will have the opportunity to implement
programs directly if they wish. These programs would be
included in the annual implementation plans, and the
jurisdictions would enter into contracts or agreements as
described above. They will be reimbursed for their expenses
from the Plan fund according to the terms of the agreements.
Summary The funding and implementation strategy will be approved with
Plan adoption. Following this, two concurrent legislative actions
will be required:
1. The County Board of Health must pass a rule that sets
the fees, establishes the interagency Management Com-
mittee, and directs the Health Department to collect and
disburse the fees according to an annual plan approved
by BOTH the County Board of Health and the Seattle
City Council.
2. The City Council, acting as the Seattle Board of Health,
must pass an ordinance with the same requirements.
�w
After 1990:
1. The Health Department will collect the fees;
2. The Management Coordination Committee and the staff
committee (composed primarily of Program Coor-
dinators) will recommend an annual plan and budget;
3. The County Board of Health and the Seattle City
Council will amend and/or approve the plan and budget;
4. The Health Department and participating jurisdictions
will enter into contracts or interagency agreements for
disbursement of the funds, pursuant to the approved
annual plan.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-53
Plan Adoption
The procedure for plan adoption should work as follows: King
County, Metro and the City of Seattle will each adopt the plan,
by' action of their respective councils. Adoption by the subur-
ban cities will be facilitated by using the Solid Waste Interlocal
Forum Plan Approval Process. The Interlocal Forum includes
representatives from King County, the City of Seattle, and other
incorporated cities and towns in King County. After review and
referral of the Plan by the Forum, each suburban city (not
including Seattle) would have 120 days to approve or reject the
Plan as referred. If approved by municipalities representing 75
' percent of the population of those cities which have acted
within the 120 days, the Plan goes into effect. (The Interlocal
Agreement establishing the Forum is included in Appendix B.)
Adoption resolutions for the suburban cities (and perhaps larger
jurisdictions) could contain language that would permit depart-
ments to enter into agreements to implement the plan, such as
the following:
The Executive Director/Mayor/County Executive or
designee is authorized to enter into such interagency
agreements or memoranda of understanding as may be
necessary to conduct said projects, said agreements to be
in such as form as may be approved by legal counsel.
' This would minimize the need for a multitude of ordinances for
jurisdictions to accept funds from the Health Department.
Roles of Major
i Participating Local
Jurisdictions
Agencies participating in Plan development have taken respon-
sibility for implementing and operating various programs.
These assignments have been made primarily on the basis of
legal authority, expertise and willingness. It is expected that all
participating local jurisdictions will participate in program
evaluation, development of the annual implementation plan and
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-54
other activities necessary to maintain a regionally-coordinated
plan. Specific assignments may change over time, especially if '
some of the suburban cities wish to be actively involved or
responsible for program implementation. (The role of the
suburban cities will be described in greater detail in the next
subsection.)
Elements of the Plan have been performed since the early
1980's. The Health Department has operated it's Hazards Line
since 1983. Roundups were initiated in 1986 and have been
held every year since then. Both Metro and the Health
Department have been involved in audits and surveys of
businesses. These were conducted in 1986 and 1988 to
determine the disposal practices of differing commercial and '
industrial waste streams. The City of Seattle has had their
permanent collection facility for almost a year now. Metro
sponsored a very successful workshop for SQGs early this year,
and are planning to make this an annual event. The County's
mobile collection unit started operation in September.
The major agencies involved in the Plan have incorporated the
programs that they are responsible for in their respective 1990
budgets. They all anticipate initiating the new programs that
are scheduled to come on-line next year.
Health Department. R.C.W. 70.05.060 (Powers and Duties of
Local Board of Health) authorizes local health boards to enact
necessary rules and regulations and to establish fee schedules
for services for the preservation, promotion and improvement
of the public health. R.C.W. 70.95.160 (County, City or
Jurisdictional Board of Health Regulations) specifically
identifies solid waste handling as subject to local Board of
Health Regulations.
The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health will '
collect and administer the fees, and enter into agreements with
other jurisdictions for disbursement of funds. The HHW
Education Coordinator, Budget and Contracts Coordinator and
a part-time Evaluation Coordinator will be based at the Health
Department. In addition to coordinating HHW Education
programs, the Health Department will be responsible for the
HHW and SQG Telephone Information Line, the SQG Passive
Waste Exchange, the SQG Audit Program, and a member on
the Management Coordination Committee.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-55
Metro. Metro will coordinate the SQG Education and Tech-
nical Assistance Component, and the Compliance Component.
In addition, Metro will share responsibility with the City of
Seattle Office for Long-range Planning and the Health
Department for the Evaluation Component. Metro will carry
out or coordinate specific program elements, including: SQG
Information Development and Resources, SQG Resource Lib-
rary, SQG Waste Reduction, Recycling and Treatment, SQG
Waste Characterization and Treatment Feasibility, the SQG
Survey Program and the Response Network. In addition, Metro
' will participate in the HHW Public Information and Outreach
program and the Schools Program.
King County Solid Waste Division. King County will house one
half-time HHW Collection Program Coordinator and one full-
time SQG Collection Program Coordinator. The Solid Waste
Division will be responsible for the HHW mobile collection
program and will participate in the HHW Public Information
and Outreach and coordinate the Schools Programs.
Cijy of Seattle Solid Waste Utili . The Solid Waste
ty Utility will
manage two of the six HHW permanent collection sites and
participate in the HHW Public Information and Outreach waste
reduction programs. One half-time HHW Collection Coor-
dinator will be responsible for the permanent facilities portion
of the collection program. In addition, the Solid Waste Utility
is exploring targeted waste collection, such as recycling and
' treatment programs for used oil and latex paints.
City of Seattle Office for Lang-range Planning. The Office for
Long-range Planning will share responsibility for coordinating
® evaluation with Metro and the Health Department.
Role of
Suburban Cities
The suburban cities will be participating in the implementation
and operation of various programs and facilities as they see fit.
Specific areas of involvement include:
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-56
Public Education. All HHW Education programs that comply
with the Plan criteria are eligible for funding through the Plan.
Suburban cities can apply for funding to develop such programs.
All materials developed under the Plan will be available to
other jurisdictions including the suburban cities. The suburban
cities may also want to use the HHW Schools Program
curricula.
HHW Mobile Collection Facilities. All suburban cities will have ,
access to the HHW Mobile Collection Facility two times a year.
As stated in the Plan, a second mobile facility will come on line ,
in 1990 and a third is scheduled for startup in 1991. As these
facilities begin operation, they will be routed to the suburban
cities more frequently. ,
HHW Permanent Collection Facilities. One new permanent
collection facility is scheduled to be developed in each year
from 1990 to 1994 for a total of six permanent collection
facilities. These facilities will be located in areas around King
County with the highest population density to optimize the use
of the facility [Figure 1]. These facilities would be eligible for
funding of capital and operational costs from the approved plan
budget. Suburban cities expressing an interest in having a
permanent facility in their area will have priority in the siting
process. Bellevue, Kirkland other areas have already expressed
an interest in permanent collection facilities. '
SOG Information Development and Resources. All businesses '
in King County generating small quantities of hazardous waste
will have the opportunity to obtain information and assistance
from the Telephone Information Line, the SQG Resource
Library and the Industrial Material Exchange (IMEX). ,
SQG Technical Assistance Programs. All businesses in the
suburban cities will have the opportunity to call on the On-Site
Consultation Services for assistance in developing practical
waste management solutions.
SQG Auxiliary Collection Facilities. Two auxiliary collection
sites are planned to serve SQGs in the areas of King County '
where TSD facilities and services are not readily available.
These areas include northern and eastern King County.
. ..............._............ .. ...
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-57
SOG Mobile Collection Facilities. Two facilities are planned for
' operation; one in 1990 and one in 1992. These facilities will be
set up in areas around King County for a scheduled period of
time, similar to the HHW mobile collection facility services.
The suburban cities are the prime areas targeted for the
operation of these facilities.
The Response Network. This interagency network of
enforcement officials, agency inspectors and other field staff
from all jurisdictions in King County will be trained to conduct
comprehensive inspections of business operations. This network
will function to identify all aspects of hazardous waste
management problems and will refer specific problems to the
appropriate agency for a follow up inspection. Suburban cities'
agencies will be active participants in this program.
Interagency Regulato1y Analysis Committee. A committee of
local and state representatives will meet on a regular basis to
review and update existing regulations. Suburban cities will be
' represented in this committee.
SQG Survey and Audit Program. SQGs located in the suburban
cities will be either surveyed or audited through this program.
The survey and audit program will serve three purposes: 1) to
obtain information about waste quantities, types and
tmanagement practices; 2) to disseminate information to the
businesses and; 3) to institute compliance proceedings, when
' necessary. The survey and audit field staff will coordinate with
existing audit and inspection programs in each locality.
Evaluation
Suburban cities implementing programs would be responsible
for collecting data for evaluating programs.
Plan Implementation and Organization Structure
Management Coordination Committee. The suburban cities are
a member of the Management Coordination Committee that
will oversee the development of an annual implementation plan
[Figure 3-5]. The committee will recommend an annual plan
and budget to the City and County Councils and the Solid
Waste Interlocal Forum.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-58
Staff Coordinators (Program Coordinators). The staff
coordinators will work together in a staff-level committee and '
will be responsible for developing the annual plan and budget.
Suburban cities staff involved in program implementation can
also participate in this staff-level committee.
1
i
i
1
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-59
Role of
Private Sector
Participating jurisdictions may elect to administer programs, but
instead of having agency staff carry out the work, services could
be contracted.
Many of the education program elements could be carried out
by private nonprofit education groups or consulting firms, who
would enter into contracts for specific scopes of work with
® participating jurisdictions.
The SQG education programs rely on the voluntary participa-
tion of businesses and trade associations. Their involvement will
be sought and facilitated by the SQG Education, Collection and
Compliance program coordinators.
The SQG collection component calls for involvement of the
private sector in operating the mobile and satellite collection
facilities. HHW collection facilities could also be operated by
private firms under contract to local governments. It is ex-
pected that private firms will respond to requests for proposals
i and the winning firms will enter into agreements with the
agency responsible for administering these programs.
'
Recommendations
for State Action
The Washington State Department of Ecology has a critical role
to play in ensuring that this plan is fully implemented. Funding
through the Local Toxics Control Account is essential if all
programs are to be carried out as described in this Plan. State
' programs in the areas of waste reduction, targeted waste
programs, and enforcement and compliance are also very im-
portant. If local governments are to effectively manage
hazardous waste it must be done in partnership with the State.
Specific recommendations for state action are described in more
detail below.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-60
Funding Issues
Local Toxics Control Account. Fifty-three percent of the '
revenue generated under Initiative 97 (passed November, 1988)
will be deposited in the Local Toxics Control Account.
Hazardous waste plans and programs are one of the funding
priorities for this account. Once the local hazardous waste
management plans have been completed and approved, state ,
funding support will be critical for their effective implementa-
tion. Ecology should devote a certain minimum percentage of
that account to hazardous waste plans and programs, to be allo-
cated to localities based on population or some measure of the
amount of waste generated. This way, local governments would
be assured a certain level of state support. The Plan assumes '
$590,000 state funding in 1990, rising to $870,000 by 1994.
Local Add-on Tax. Local governments should be permitted to '
supplement the state hazardous substances tax through a local
add-on tax. Such a tax is an equitable means of funding hazard-
ous waste programs, because it places the burden on those using
hazardous products. Charging users of hazardous products for
the cost of management and disposal of hazardous waste better
reflects the true cost of such products. Ecology, working with '
local governments, should propose such legislation at the next
legislative session.
Block Grants. A block grant approach to disbursement of state
funds is preferred, with plan implementation funds allocated to
those jurisdictions with approved, adoptable plans based on
their percentage of the state's population.
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-61
Office of Waste
Reduction Role
Ecology's Office for Waste Reduction should expand its SQG
programs, and these programs should have a local focus. At
this time, most of its programs are focused on regulated
hazardous waste generators. Some of the programs that should
be implemented by the Office for Waste Reduction include:
• Consultation services based throughout the state so that
' they are accessible to the businesses that need advice.
Information specific to the needs of SQGs should be
developed.
• An information referral service and hotline. The pilot
Resource Library sponsored by Ecology should be
continued.
• A research and development program that would evalu-
ate treatment technologies and promote technology
transfer. Technologies applicable to SQG waste streams
would be examined along with those for larger
generators of hazardous waste.
Targeted Waste
The state should dedicate resources to implement and enforce
' the Oil Recycling Signage Law. Retailers that sell motor oil are
required to post signs informing consumers of the location of
recycling depots. This law should be enforced, and Ecology
should keep updated lists of oil recyclers for retailers' use. This
is especially critical now, since many smaller gas stations are no
longer accepting used motor oil.
The Legislature has passed a refund deposit program for lead-
acid auto, motorcycle and boat batteries. All retailers of
batteries are required to accept old batteries for recycling.
Currently only half of the stores in Washington that sell
batteries accept them back. Ecology should promulgate
implementing regulations as quickly as possible.
r
1
SECTION 3 PLAN DESCRIPTION 3-62
1
Product Labeling
New legislation passed in the 1989 legislative session modifies 1
Ecology's "Environmental Awards Program". The new program
is modeled on a Canadian program. Safe, nonhazardous pro- ,
ducts can receive the award, which can be displayed on the
product label. Unlike the original program, the award could be
displayed for more than one year, making it more attractive to
manufacturers. Ecology should move aggressively to implement
this program. This program could be a primary means of
consumer education and encouraging waste reduction. 1
Amnesty Program
Current law requires that any business wishing to dispose of 220 '
pounds or more of hazardous waste be registered with the state
as a regulated hazardous waste generator. Many SQGs may be '
generally aware that hazardous waste should be handled
"differently" but are unsure what to do with it, and can
unknowingly exceed the accumulation limits. Under an amnesty
program,SQGs could be granted a one-time grace period allow-
ing them to dispose of accumulated waste without enforcement
penalties. Ecology should establish such a program.
Compliance
Although the Plan stresses education, compliance is still an
important component of a comprehensive program. SQGs are
only conditionally exempted from the requirements of the State
Hazardous Waste Management Act. It will be necessary to rely
on Ecology for support for some businesses that are unwilling '
to correctly manage their waste, if local ordinances are not
sufficient. Ecology should be a participant in the Response
Network, and provide compliance support where necessary. '
i
1
1
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-1
IM PACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The previous chapter of this document describes the Plan to
manage small quantities of hazardous waste within King
County. The Plan consists of six primary components for local
hazardous waste management: HHW education, HHW collec-
tion, SQG education and technical assistance, SQG waste
collection, compliance with local, State and Federal regulations,
and program evaluation.
This section will provide information on the potential
environmental impacts and consequences of implementing the
Plan, as is required by the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). Measures to mitigate or minimize potential adverse
impacts will also be presented.
The Plan is a set of strategies that are not site specific.
Therefore, the environmental analysis of the Plan addresses the
general categories of impacts and mitigation that can be
identified at this time. Site-specific environmental review will
occur when specific projects with impacts are implemented
after the plan is adopted.
Potentially affected environmental areas to be discussed in this
environmental review include: water quality, earth,
environmental health (worker and public safety), land use,
drainage, and transportation.
f
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS:
THE PLAN AS MITIGATION
Through current waste management practices, HHW and SQG
waste can be discharged into surface waters or migrate to
groundwater. This can occur through direct discharges to
storm drains, surface water bodies (streams, lakes), the ground,
and through uncontrolled landfill leachate and effluent
discharged by sewage treatment plants.
Generally, the Plan will have a positive effect on the environ-
ment, particularly water quality. It is difficult to quantify the
amount of HHW and SQG wastes currently entering the
ground or surface waters, as the occurrences are dispersed in
time and space. However, local examples exist of cumulative
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-2
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
environmental impacts resulting from inappropriate disposal
practices.
In recent years, some local municipal landfills have been iden-
tified as sources of contamination. In some of the cases, the
landfills have been designated Superfund sites under the
o Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compliance and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
_ Years of receiving hazardous wastes from industry, SQGs and
households created critical conditions at the City of Tacoma
Landfill. The cost of closing this facility has been increased
due to extensive environmental contamination. The landfill
closing requires a groundwater pumping and treatment program
to restore the quality of the City's drinking water source. The
initial cost of this program is estimated at $3 million, with
costs continuing until acceptable drinking water standards are
achieved. In addition, stringent closure techniques will be
employed to reduce the risk of on-go.ng leaching from the site.
Implementing
the State minimum functional standards for land-
fills is reducing the potential of future groundwater con-
tamination from leachate. Federal and State regulations on the
appropriate management of large quantities of hazardous waste
are contributing to improved leachate and wastewater sludge
qualities. Efforts by the Seattle-King County Health Depart-
ment and Metro to identify and work with SQGs are also con-
tributing to this improvement. Metro's 1988 Sludge Quality
Report states, "Metro's sludge quality has improved since 1981,
especially in the reduction of metals. ...The continued reduc-
tion is largely attributable to a control project to reduce
corrosion of water pipes and to Metro's industrial waste source
control/pretreatment program."
The intent of the Plan is to continue reducing hazardous waste
entering the environment and municipal waste streams. This
will further reduce the potential for contamination and clean-up
responsibility. The Plan sets the goal to reduce the amount of
HHW and SQG waste entering the environment and the muni-
cipal waste streams to a negligible amount by the year 2004
for HHW and 2009 for SQG waste.
The rate at which the plan is implemented has a direct effect
on the amount of waste that has the potential to adversely
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-3
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
affect water quality. Table 4-1 indicates the tons of HHW and
SQG waste projected to enter the municipal waste streams and
environment in the fifth, tenth, fifteenth and twentieth years of
the Plan, as well as the total tonnage over this 20-year period.
Table 4-1: TONS OF HHW AND SQG WASTE PROJECTED TO ENTER
ENVIRONMENT AND MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAMS
Waste Tyne 1990 1994 1999 2004 2009 1990-2009
HHW 5,941 4,977 1,365 neg.' neg.' 44,038
SQG 12,960 12,750 9,965 3,814 neg.' 160,255
'Negligible amount
COLLECTION FACILITIES:
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND
PROPOSED MITIGATION
The education and compliance components of the Plan should
result in a reduction in the amount of hazardous waste
generated as well as increase appropriate disposal practices.
? 7 ? ? This will, therefore, increase the demand for collection
7 t 7 ? ? 7 facilities and waste handling programs.
7 ?
? ? 7 The plan proposes a combination of permanent and mobile col-
7 ? ? 7 lection facilities for household hazardous waste. It also
? ? ? proposes auxiliary and mobile collection facilities for SQGs.
? ?
? Locating and operating collection and handling programs out-
lined in the plan could have potential adverse environmental
impacts. Earth (soil, site preparation), sensitive areas, drainage,
environmental health (public and worker safety), and transpor-
tation are impact areas discussed in this section. Design and
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-4
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
engineering concepts, operations proced,=s and other measures
to mitigate potential adverse impacts are identified.
Permanent collection facilities for HHW and auxiliary collec-
tion facilities for SQGs will be located and operated at specific
sites on an on-going basis. Mobile facilities for HHW and
SQG waste will be located and operated at a site for a limited
time, and then move to another prearranged site. Detailed
descriptions of these programs are contained in Appendix A.
The State Dangerous Waste regulations (WAC 173-303) pro-
vide useful guidelines for collection site evaluation and facility
design. These include site and facility designs that minimize
the degradation of surface and ground water, air quality, ex-
cessive noise, and conditions that constitute a negative aesthetic
impact for the public using right-of-ways or public lands, or
for landowners of adjacent properties. This section proposes
mitigation for collection facilities based on these guidelines.
Site specific design, construction and operational features
would be evaluated in the environmental review for the project.
Collection and Storage
Structure Desizn
ThePe rmanent and mobile HHW collection facilities and auxil-
iary SQG collection facilities will likely include a metal shed
for temporary storage of the waste, situated on an impervious
surface, and fenced for security. Storage units considered by
the plan are prefabricated units, designed for storage of
hazardous materials and available commercially. Permanent
HHW and auxiliary SQG collection facilities will be set on
bermed or curbed concrete pads. HHW and SQG mobile units
will use temporary berms or curbs.
The storage units are available in a variety of sizes ranging
from 5 feet long and 6 feet wide, to 20 feet long, 8 feet wide
and 8 feet tall. One or more of these units could be placed on
a site to accomodate increasing capacity and waste segregation
�"P t,a� needs. The units can be moved with a forklift, and are trans-
portable on a flatbed truck. A variety of features to provide
spill containment, fire and explosion protection, and worker
Z safety are engineered into the units. Units considered could
have approval from Underwriter's Laboratories, Factory Mutual
X
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-5
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
and/or other recognized national testing organizations. This
would provide consistency where local jurisdictions have
building permit policic,s regarding prefabricated buildings.
Construction-Related Impacts
The construction of permanent facilities could introduce
short-term adverse impacts through site preparation activities.
Specific sites could require grading and/or excavation. Any
such activity would be in compliance with local grading permit
< ~; requirements to mitigate against construction-related erosion
° and sedimentation.
Emissions to the air during construction of a permanent facility
would consist of dust, dirt and exhaust from construction
equipment. These emissions will be mitigated by operating
construction equipment with standard emission control devices,
and by watering the site to reduce air-borne dust migration.
Grading and paving equipment could increase noise levels in
the vicinity of the site. Construction equipment will be
operated with standard muffler systems and during the hours
established by local noise ordinances.
Drainaze The active portion of the site will be paved with an impervious
material to prevent potential soil and groundwater contamina-
tion in the event of a spill. The impervious surface also
optimizes the ability to contain the spilled material (see
Contingency Planning and Emergency Procedures below).
Berms or curbs and portable sumps will provide additional
containment to prevent the spread of spilled materials,
mitigating the spread of adverse impacts resulting from a spill.
The curbed area of the permanent sites will likely drain to the
sanitary sewer system. This requires an industrial waste
discharge permit issued by Metro. Drainage will be controlled
through the use of lockable drains and/or catch basins, so that
contaminants are contained in the event of a spill.
Land Use Lands classified by local jurisdictions as natural, sensitive,
conservancy, rural or residential have unique properties that
could be adversely affected by collection activities. To the
SECTION 4 AECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 46
1M[PACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
extent practicable, the proposed collection sites will avoid these
lands, as well as wetlands or lands under jurisdiction of the
Shorelines Management Act.
:17-
The collection facility design and operation will minimize the
destruction or impairment of flora and fauna outside the active
portion of the facility. Landscaping of permanent facilities can
rr minimize aesthetic impacts and serve as a buffer between the
facility and adjacent properties.
f� Consistency with local zoning codes will minimize real and
4 perceived conflicts between the proposed collection site and
adjacent uses. Local zoning codes identify allowable uses for
the properties within a zone and can provide guidance for
locating potential collection sites.
Local jurisdictions will require land use and building permits
for proposed new permanent collection sites; temporary use
permits may be required for mobile collection facilities. As
facility planning is initiated, the implementing agency will
work with the appropriate local jurisdiction to identify the
permits required and permissible zoning for the proposed
activity within the jurisdiction. Locating the facility in a zone
permitting the collection activity outright will support the
compatibility of the use with adjacent uses, and reduce the
administrative procedures of changing the land use code or
obtaining a conditional use permit.
Generally, local zoning ordinances do not specifically identify
zones in which exempted household hazardous waste may be
collected. However, all local jurisdictions are required by the
State to amend their zoning ordinances to provide for hazard-
ous waste treatment and storage facilities. Appendix B pro-
vides examples of the efforts of local jurisdictions in King
County to comply with this requirement.
Although the collection facilities proposed in the Plan are not
defined as hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities by
the State, local jurisdictions may consider this zoning most
representative of the use. However, the types of wastes
managed at the proposed HHW collection facilities are pro-
'.
ducts available at retail outlets (groceries, auto supply and
hardware stores) and some SQG wastes are by-products of
neighborhood commercial services (dry-cleaners, service
SECTION 4 A-;FEC'l ED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-7
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
stations). Collection of the wastes within the zones generating
them would appear a consistent land use.
Currently, the predominant means of disposing of HHW (and
some SQG waste) is through the municipal solid waste system.
Transfer stations and landfills are currently receiving these
wastes in the general solid waste stream. These sites have
been considered as locations for permanent HHW collection
facilities. Providing for the segregation of these wastes at a
site currently receiving them would appear consistent with the
current land use activity and would eliminate the need to
L. establish a new use at another location.
The City of Seattle used this approach to facility siting, ex-
panding its waste separation capacity at its South Transfer
Station by opening a household hazardous waste collection
facility. King County transfer stations and landfills, however,
are currently operating at and beyond their capacity.
Establishing a HHW collection facility at these sites would
compromise current operations. This plan recommends that, as
King County expands its solid waste facilities, permanent
HHW collection facilities be considered in the design.
Metro wastewater facilities receive that portion of local
hazardous waste disposed of through the liquid waste stream
Wastewater treatment sites are under consideration as potential
locations for proposed collection sites. As these sites currently
handle the subject waste, separation activities would appear to
be consistent with the established land use.
Environmental
Health Risks Although generated in small quantities, HHW and SQG wastes
pose a risk to public health when stored in the home or garage
and through inappropriate disposal in the solid and liquid waste
streams. Residents or employees may be accidentally exposed
through a spill, fire or explosion, waste handlers by careless
disposal of waste, and fire fighters by unknowingly entering a
waste storage area during a fire. The appropriate disposal and
management of these wastes will serve to improve public and
worker safety.
The temporary storage of household and SQG wastes at collec-
tion facilities could increase the risk of exposure to hazardous
chemicals, spills, fire and explosion. Ecology has developed
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-8
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
special requirements for facilities managing small quantity
("moderate risk") hazardous wastes (WAC 173-303-560).
These requirements are designed to minimize the risks to
public users and facility workers. The agency developing a
collection facility will incorporate these regulations in its
operating procedures.
Responsible standard operating procedures and employee
training will be required to reduce the threat of spills, fires and
explosion, as well as exposure to hazardous chemicals. Occu-
pational health laws rank facility design and operations the
highest priority for protecting worker safety. Personal
protective equipment is considered a secondary measure, where
facility design cannot bring the risk of exposure down to
acceptable levels.
The facility design, responsible handling procedures and mhouse-
keeping measures provide the greatest minimization 0f environ-
mental health risks. These include proper ventilation,
segregation of incompatible wastes, maintaining an orderly
storage arrangement, and insuring the correct use of personal
protective equipment. Personnel training and refresher training
are crucial to successful implementation of these health
protection measures.
Although the public user will be on the collection site for a
short period of time, there is some potential risk of exposure,
/ associated primarily with the transport of wastes and the
o o possibility of spills in the vehicle. Exposure could occur as
the driver opens the trunk and fumes are released. Public
safety will be increased by informing users of safe transporting
S--- practices, and by restricting their circulation on or access to
the site, depending on the risk involved.
The risk of worker exposure will vary dramatically depending
on whether some of the hazardous wastes (paints, solvents,
motor oil) are bulked at the collection site. If the wastes are
packed in drums in their containers, the risk of exposure is
limited. Removing the wastes from their containers and
combining similar, compatible wastes in drums or bulk
containers increases the risk.
Bulking certain wastes provides for efficient recycling and
reclamation of some chemicals; disposal costs are also greatly
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-9
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
reduced with bulking. This environmental health risk analysis
assumes that some bulking of hazardous wastes will occur at
the collection sites, and identifies the following measures and
precautions for mitigation.
Inhalation and skin contact are the most likely routes of
exposure. Volatile chemicals, such as solvents, could be
inhaled directly; other chemicals could be inhaled as particles.
Proper handling procedures, facility design, and the use of
personal protective equipment will minimize these risks.
/} I Facility employees will wear eye protection and
chemical-resistant gloves and clothing at all times when
working at the facility, minimizing eye and skin contact.
Bulking will only be performed where there is adequate
ventilation. Respirators will be readily available and used
during bulking operations and prolonged work periods inside
the storage unit. Simple testing of total organic solvents using
passive dosimeters (measuring devices worn by workers that
I• indicate ) areappropriate exposure to solvents ro riate when workers are
P
involved in bulking solvents and solvent-containing wastes.
Contingency Planning
for Emergencies
,.„ A contingency plan and emergency procedures for hazardous
waste facilities, including those managing small quantity
hazardous waste, is required by Ecology (WAC 173-303-350)
and local fire departments. The protocols will identify the
means of minimizing environmental health risks in an emer-
gency situation such as fire, explosion, or release of waste to
air, soil, surface water or groundwater. The contingency plan
must contain the following elements:
• A description of actions the facility personnel must take
in such events. A hierarchy of decision-malting and
responsibility is also recommended.
• Actions in the event of receiving damaged or otherwise
threatening waste that is not acceptable to the operation;
e.g. explosives, asbestos, infectious and nuclear waste.
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-10
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
• Arrangements made with local police, fire, hospitals,
contractors, and State and local emergency response
teams, to coordinate services.
• Current list of names, addresses and phone numbers of
those qualified to act as coordinator in the event of an
emergency.
i
• A list of all emergency equipment, including location
on-site; e.g. fire extinguishing systems, spill control
T equipment, communications and alarm systems, �t
decontamination equipment.
Evacuation plan.
A trained emergency coordinator will be at the site or on call
at all times. The coordinator is responsible for a thorough
familiarity with all aspects of the facility's contingency plan,
all operations and activities at the facility, the location and
properties of all wastes handled, the location of all records
within the facility, and the facility layout. The coordinator
will have the authority to commit resources needed to carry
out the contingency plan.
Emergency Response
Action will be immediately taken when any hazardous waste or -,
substance is accidentally or intentionally spilled or discharged
into the environment where public health or the environment
are threatened. The following procedures based on WAC 173-
303-360 provide direction to the emergency coordinator in the
event of an emergency. The actions are means of reducing the
threat of worker or public exposure to hazardous chemicals and
the degradation of the environment.
The emergency coordinator will be responsible for immediately
notifying all facility personnel, Ecology and the local fire
department of an emergency. All reasonable measures neces-
sary to insure containment and mitigation of the spill would be r
implemented
Employees responsible for containing or controlling the event
would put on personal protective equipment before attempting
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-11
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
control measures. Liquid spills would be cleaned up with ab-
sorbent material; solid spills would be diluted with absorbent if
appropriate and swept up. All contaminated material would be
placed in containers and disposed of as hazardous waste. All
contaminated equipment and surfaces would be thoroughly
decontaminated before operation is resumed.
In the event of a fire, facility attendants would employ the
actions provided for in the contingency plan. Appropriate
actions will be determined on a site by site basis depending on
the facility engineering and staff training.
After all emergency events, the incident and response would be
evaluated to determine what procedures could prevent a recur-
rence, and evaluate the emergency response. Records of all
events will be kept and used to notify appropriate agencies.
Possible hazards to human health and the environment (direct,
indirect, immediate and long-term effects) resulting from the
event would be assessed and the findings reported to the
appropriate local, state and other government officials if human
health or the environment outside the facility is threatened.
Transportation Existing state and federal laws regulate many aspects of
hazardous material and waste transportation. Many of the
regulations exempt HHW and SQG waste, but hazardous waste
treatment and disposal facilities will not accept materials that
do not comply with the regulations regardless of exemptions.
The transportation of hazardous wastes collected atPe rmanent
and mobile collection facilities will meet all applicable federal
Ji K g and state regulations for transport including safety, equipment
R e standards, packaging, labeling, training and manifests. All
collected waste will be packaged in a manner acceptable to a
permitted treatment and storage facility and the ultimate
disposal site. Transporting service will be provided by a
hazardous waste transport company through a contractual
r arrangement with the implementing agency. The transporter
will be in compliance with the State regulations for trans-
porters of dangerous waste, WAC 173-303-240 through 270.
SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL 4-12
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Routinz of Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous waste transportation routing reduces the potential
exposure of individuals and property to accidental releases of
wastes. Federal regulation 49 CFR 397.9 states that unless
there is no practicable alternative, a vehicle containing hazard-
ous materials must be operated over routes which do not go
through or near heavily populated areas, places where crowds
— = assemble, tunnels, narrow streets, or alleys. Some local juris-
dictions have designated hazardous materials routes, or restrict
or prohibit transporting hazardous materials over specific
routes. An example of a local restricted route is the Alaska
Way Viaduct, located in downtown Seattle, Washington.
Alternative transport routes will be evaluated as collection sites
are identified. Preferred transportation routes from the col-
lection sites will be designated and used by the transport ser-
vice, and to the extent practicable, by the public. Locally
established hazardous materials transport routes will be utilized
where available, and those routes prohibiting such transport
will be avoided These routes will minimize adverse impacts
associated with delivery of the waste to the collection site, and
removal of the waste by the hazardous waste transport service.
In the event of a spill during transport, the transporter will
comply with notification, mitigation and containment and
clean-up procedures outlined above for spills or discharges into
the environment, as required by WAC 173-303-145.
Traffic and Circulation at Collection Sites
The proposed collection programs will vary in the volume of
traffic generated per operating period. The current H1-IW
collection service at Chemical Processors, Inc. receives an
average of 30 vehicles per operating period (6 hours/day).
The City of Seattle's South Transfer Station HHW collection
facility has the capacity to handle 60 vehicles per day.
Site access and circulation are critical for safe operation.
Potential site evaluation would assess the ingress and egress
for the site, and the capacity of the access road to safely
handle vehicle overflow. The site design will ensure adequate
space and sight distances for safe vehicle and worker
circulation.
r
x
i
f
f
SECTION 5 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 5-1
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
This chapter contains copies of comment letters received during
the public and agency review of the Draft Plan/EIS. The
interagency Technical Planning Committee's responses follow
w. copies of each of the letters. The underlined numbers in the
responses correspond to numbers found in the margins of the
comment letters, denoting discrete comments.
The 30-day public comment period for the DEIS began on
February 24, 1989, and extended through March 27, 1989.
Comment letters were received from the following agencies,
organizations, firms and individuals.
List of Commentors on the LHWMP DEIS
Public Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Puget Sound Council of Governments Regional Environmental
Affairs Committee
King County Parks Planning and Resources Development
City of Auburn Planning and Community Development
City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility
City of Seattle Fire Department
City of Seattle Department of Human Resources
Industries
Chemical Processors, Inc.
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc.
Safco Environmental and Thermal Energy Corporation
Citizen Groups
The Mountaineers
Seattle Audubon Society
Washington Toxics Coalition
Alliance for Solid Waste Alternatives
SECTION 5 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 5-2
Vashon Island Groundwater Management Advisory Committee
Metro Citizens Water Quality Advisory Committee
County Citizens for Responsible Waste Management
Community Associations Institute
Individual Citizens
Michael Piel
Karen Stevens
M.E. Blau
Peter H. Vogel
Jack Brautigan
Susan F. Colton
Gregory R. Allan
I
I
U S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1�e°sf�rFm 1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 Your � 1 '
AI�R 4 lees Seattle MAR �� 1989 •
Hire Department
efauge Hems.Chief
Rf PtY)O
A INof MD-136 ,. cnarwa noye.,Mayon
Gregory N. Bush, Manager 1909 March 70, 19A9
Metro Environmental Planning Division c,ft, tif.
MS-821 Second Avenue P..niJl;;lyC „iJt)1: Mr. Richard Yukubousky, nirector
821 S
Seattle, Washington 98104 Off1cP For Lena Ranae Plannino
Citv of Seattle
Re: Draft EIS - Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle -
King County Pear Mr, Yukubousky:
Dear Mr, Bush: I have reviewed your Local Harardogs Waste Mananement Draft
Plan/FIS. 1 find this document to be well thought out. There is
EPA has reviewed the subject document and suggests that the requirements one arer as it relates to the Seattle Fire Code (!FC) that some
for small quantity generators (SQG) be clarified. On pa a 2, paragraph 1, the clarification is renuired. in the SFC. under •Reporting of Fires•
DEIS states that SQGs 'are not currently regulated,• EPA regulations (40 CFR Section 11.?01(a) states:
1 261.5) specify conditions under which SQGs could qualify as being 'In the !rent a sire or accl�ental release of a hazardous
'conditionally' exempt, and various ways in which an SQG may be subject to material occurs fire
fire alarm ntalooerres on any ahazrroppard the
full regulatory requirements.
owner or occunant shall immediately report such fire or alarm
Enclosed is a copy of the EPA regulations and a handbook on SQG rules. to the Fire neoartment.'
For further information on EPA requirements applicable to SQGs, please contact I would like to see this reaulrement incorporated into your Draft
Nina Kocourek of our Waste Management Branch et 442-6502. 1 Plan/FiS to Provide your people and/or the public with immediate
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. assistance should an unforeseen emergency arise.
Sincerely, Should you have any questions contact Chief P. L. Hansen, Fire
Marshal, at 3A6-1450.
very truly yours,
Gerald Opatz, Chief
Environmental Review Section
Enclosure ZrIa Narrts,001e f
Seattle Fire Rpnartment
CH:r.Mn:mm
An equal employmenf opportunnfy-affirmah"ecldn employer
CRY of Semi*—Fire aeperlmeM,301 Second Aware South.Seattle.NYuvpfon 911104.1206)31141,14W
P eo m P—KiRd Gaper..
5-4
RESPONSE TO U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1. This plan addresses small quantity generators as defined
by the state Department of Ecology Dangerous Waste
Regulations. The state definition of SQGs are those
businesses generating less than 220 pounds of hazardous
waste per month or batch. Some extremely hazardous wastes
are regulated down to 2 .2 pounds or less.
RESPONSE TO CITY OF SEATTLE FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. Comment noted. Section 4 , page 9 references contacting
local fire departments as a part of Contingency Planning for
Emergencies. The SFC is specifically referenced as the plan
is intended for adoption by King County and other
incorporated jurisdictions, as well as the City of Seattle.
�I
Regional Environmental Affairs Committee
Puget Sound Council of Governments
GmCGMdm MIM 71�R�Av�{ MWM.WAMW M XVOId MI
Gregory M. Bush
March 10, 1989
March 10, 1989 Page Two
change might justify a broadened set-aside fund for
several kinds of local programs, to be supported in
Gregory M. Bush, SEPA Responsible Official part by Initiative-97. Local hazardous waste
Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
plans provide the opportunity now for the stets
METRO Environmental Planning Division and local
NS-92 governments to explore this efficient
821 Second Avenue approach.
Seattle, WA 98104 3. Relationship to Federal Programs
Dear Mr. Bush: Waste reduction is the mission of the new Pollution
Prevention Office formed by the Environmental Protection
The Regional Environmental Affairs Committee appreciates Agency. This is announced and described in the Federal
this opportunity to review the draft Local Hazardous waste 3 Register, January 26, 1989. This may benefit from, and
Mena9ement Plan (February 1989). We strongly support the provide support to, your proposed Resource Library
collaborative approach used, and in this spirit we offer the (element A-31).
following suggestions:
4. Relationship to Other Programs
1. Context
Reference: are made to solid waste, water quality, and
The hazardous waste strategy in this state is multi- groundwater programs. In addition, certain elements in
faceted and sometimes confusing. In your introductory the Plan might be presented as implementation steps
1 remarks you might note that hazardous wastes from within the various Groundwater Management Plans, and
large sources total 96,448 tons/year (1986 State therefore, eligible for funding under the Centennial
Hazardous Waste Annual Report), and that your plan Clean Water Fund. This possibility should be explored
enables households and small businesses to directly A with the groundwater lead agencies, and Ecology.
address an additional amount (from individually �}
insignficant sources) equal to 1/5th of the amount to be (One important step (based on p. 2-23) could be a search
addressed in the State Plan. for alternatives to trichloroethylene as a septic tank
cleaner.)
2. Relationship to State Plan
5. Door-to-door Pickup
a. If the barrier to an effective waste exchange
(element A-29) is threshold volume, then the Plan This action is found to be too expensive. However,
might explore a ,joint waste-exchange within our since 59 percent of household hazardous wastes are
larger region, or with the State. If this has paints (Fig. 2-5), might these be collected door-to-
merit, it should be accommodated in any waste door, perhaps at the time of home sales.
2 exchange proposed by the state in its Plan.
Special facilities located at the transfer stations
b. The state hazardous waste cleanup task force, in
might be another approach.
its meeting on December 6, 1988, was informed by
the state that a waste management block grant 6. Siting
approach might be possible. If so, this policy
Pursuing the difficult issue of siting, how many sites
might be needed, and how large? Could these be operated
in conjunction with the existing automobile inspection
...for the first time in the history of the Industrial age,business climate and quality of lVe arc becoming Increasingly and Maintenance sites?
synonymous. Today,a quality environment is an economic asset. It is also an ecological necessity.-
(Washington State Economic Development Board)
Gregory M. Bush
March 10, 1989
Page Three
Concerning size, if a 55 gallon barrel weighs 400 pounds
(probably conservative), then 100 percent reclamation
of the total local hazardous waste problem would produce
317 barrels per day (for the 13,000 tons/year of
commercial/industrial waste, and 6,000 tons of household
waste.) How many care per day would be involved for
this and the less aggressive alternatives? What does
this look like on the ground?
7. Ranking of Elements
Priorities should be based in part on a comparison of
marginal costs (the costs shown in the Appendix for each
element) comoared to the marginal reduction in the total
problem documented in the Plan. For example, how would
item 5, above, compare to other actions costing less,
but also dealing with less of the total hazardous waste
problem?
We congratulate you and the full team of authors and
principle contributors to the Draft Plan. In the above
comments we hope to focus and share with you the benefit of
our work as an environmental roundtable. Please call on us
if we can be of further service.
Very Truly Yours,
Councilmember Lois North
Chair, REAC
5-7
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
1. Comment noted.
2 . Relationship to State Plan.
a. The Seattle-King County Health Department is
currently developing a passive waste exchange program. The
program is being developed on an international basis,
coordinating with other established programs in western
United States and Canada (California, Idaho, Montana and
British Columbia) . The state Department of Ecology has not
developed a program at this time. In addition, Spokane
proposed a program but has not initiated one at this time.
The contact person with the Seattle-King County Department
of Public Health is Jerry Henderson. He can be reached at
296-4633 .
b. The Final Plan/EIS proposes the use of Local
Toxic Control Account funds as a primary funding mechanism
for local hazardous waste programs. A block grant approach
would provide efficient administration for both the State
and local jurisdictions. The result would be less money
lost in administrative overhead. The planning staff
supports the approach with the allocation of the grant funds
based on population served or on amount of waste generated
within the area.
3 . Comment noted.
4. Comment noted.
5. Door-to-door pick up is expensive in that special staff
and pick up vehicles are needed to handle hazardous wastes
A great portion of the program expense comes from the labor-
hours involved in a pick up program. This includes setting
up appointments, assigning daily schedules, driving from one
appointment to the next, and collecting and loading the
waste. In addition to the expense, this collection method
requires someone from the household available for the
appointment.
The City of Seattle is currently evaluating the potential
for recycling discarded latex paint. As opposed to solvent-
based paints, latex paints may not be hazardous. However,
not all latex paints may be suitable for recycling; about
half could remain for disposal. Analyses on the non-
recyclable latex will determine whether it requires disposal
as a hazardous waste, or whether it can be solidified and
disposed in a municipal landfill.
1
5-8
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS `
(continued)
Irrespective of how the latex paints are handled, either as ,
a hazardous or non-hazardous material, alternative
collection mechanisms to the door-to-door pick up are likely
to be more efficient. Collection at transfer stations or at
HHW collection facilities is more likely. The evaluation
element of the Final Plan ensures the effectiveness of the
implemented programs will be reviewed, and the programs
modified, as needed, to achieve the objective of diverting
the maximum amount of HHW.
A HHW collection facility currently operating at the Seattle
South Transfer Station accepts paints for households.
6. The Recommended Program proposes 6 permanent HHW
collection facilities and 2 mobile units to collect HHW.
The collection sheds are generally 8 'X8 'X20" in dimension,
and operate in an area large enough to accommodate a 15 '
buffer around the storage buildings. The current siting
criteria for the North Seattle HHW collection facility
includes considering publicly-owned lands, particularly by
the City of Seattle or Metro. Should a state Department of
Licensing inspection and maintenance site be optimally
located, the implementing agency would work with the state
to determine the feasibility of operating a HHW collection
facility on the site.
The recent experience at the Seattle HHW collection facility
shows an average of 25 to 40 vehicles per week averaging 100
pounds of waste per vehicle.
7 . Many of the programs complement one another. The
effectiveness of each program is difficult to quantify at ti"
this time. The evaluation component of the plan will
address cost-effectiveness of individual programs, as well
as the overall effort of the plan and components.
Gregory M. Bush
March 27, 1989
King Cut n)y Page 2
Parka.PIan0Ing
and X—ni—Dgmrlu"•nl ternatives will be implemented is important to any review of the
tON5i1iliA, plan and any selection of an appropriate alternative for managing
F.•:,ul.•. !m ON hazardous wastes.
(206)344-7503
It is a positive step toward effective management of household
March 23, 1989 and small quantity hazardous wastes to incorporate and emphasize
public education. There is no doubt that a change in public
thinking is necessary to create a change in public behavior--a
Gregory M. Bush, Manager change in the way we dispose of our (household and small quan-
Metro Environmental Planning Division tity) hazardous wastes. However, it appears that education,
821 Second Avenue MS-92 alone, is the avenue by which the plan intends to reduce the
Seattle, WA. 98104 production of hazardous wastes. Where possible, more persuasive
methods of reducing wastes should be used, e.g. incentives and
RE: Comment Concerning Proposed Local Hazardous Waste Management 4 penalties. According to the proposed plan, household and small
Plan for Seattle-King County quantity hazardous wastes are intended to be taken to regulated
treatment, storage and disposal ("TSD") facilities for ultimate
Dear Mr. Bush: disposition. It is unknown whether existing TSD facilities are
adequate to handle loot of all such wastes, as contemplated by
-Thank you for inviting King County's Parks, Planning and the proposed plan. Furthermore, future siting of additional
Resources Department to comment on the above-referenced draft Lo- facilities will likely be arduous and time-consuming. Therefore,
1 cal Hazardous Waste Management Plan and corresponding environmen- greater emphasis must be placed upon waste reduction than the
tal impact statement ("DEIS") . Since the department was only more uncertain and limited methods of hazardous waste treatment,
provided with a summary of the plan and the DEIS, the following storage and disposal.
comments are based upon the summary which presumably includes the
significant features of the plan and DEIS. Finally, the plan has as its goal 100% diversion of hazardous
wastes from local solid waste facilities, wastewater and the en-
The plan summary outlines several alternatives for collecting, vironment. However, the plan does not provide for adequate
handling and disposing of household and small quantity hazardous monitoring by which the plan's success rate may be determined.
wastes. Essentially, the alternatives differ, based on their We recommend that additional monitoring features be incorporated
costs and project completion dates. Reviewers of the plan, such 5 into the proposed plan including comprehensive testing of solid
2 as our department, were asked to select a preferred alternative. waste facilities, wastewater and other parts of the environment
We, however, are unable to comply with that request. In spite of for the presence of hazardous wastes once the plan is imple-
the fact that the summary is intended to digest the proposed plan I mented.
and the DEIS, it provides no information concerning the environ-
mental impacts resulting from each alternative considered. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Without this information, it is impossible to distinguish among j
the alternatives because it is impossible to correlate the added Sincerely,
cost of each alternative to a specific degree of enhanced benefit
to the environment and the general public interest.
In addition, the summary neither clearly identifies the agencies Bryan Glynn
which will have roles in executing the proposed plan nor the Director
roles of the participating agencies. This information is impor-
tant to any in-depth review by this department. If we are to par- BG:SES:ses
ticipate in the implementation of the plan, e.g. by zoning for
hazardous waste collection and transfer facilities or by perform- cc: James C. Tracy, Manager, Building and Land Development
ing some other duty, a prior knowledge of our responsibilities Division
would assist us in assessing the feasibility of the various al- ATTN: Ralph Colby, Manager, Technical Services
ternatives. Certainly, a more precise description of how the al- Jerry Balcom, Supervisor, Code Development
Susan Stewart, Planner
5-10
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM KING COUNTY PARKS, PLANNING AND
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
1. It is regretful that the department received the summary
rather than the full Draft Plan/EIS.
2 . The hazardous waste management alternatives described in
the draft plan were not site specific. When specific
programs are proposed for implementation following the
adoption of the plan, site specific environmental reviews
will be required. The net result of implementing the Local
Hazardous Waste Management Plan will be improvement of the
environment and the municipal waste systems.
3 . The Draft Plan/EIS evaluates several hazardous waste
management alternatives for public review. The Final
Plan/EIS identifies agency roles and responsibilities and
describes plan implementation. The implementation approach
was developed based on comments received on the Draft, and
was further reviewed by affected agencies before the Plan
was developed.
4 . Waste reduction is the highest priority for the plan, in
keeping with the Department of Ecology's ranking. It is a
central component of the Plan. Education, especially for
households, is a primary means of changing behavior.
Therefore, education is an essential part of the waste
reduction program.
However, other techniques are included in the Recommended ,
Plan. These include various incentives to encourage Sqgs to
properly handle their waste, including technical assistance
and a limited subsidized disposal program. The Plan also
proposes a compliance program for small quantity generators
comprised of audits, surveys and follow-up inspections.
Load-checking of waste from self-haulers at transfer
stations is an additional compliance proposal.
Research for the plan included discussions with TSDs in the
region to determine the capacity of existing facilities. In
addition, the TSDs reviewed the Draft Plan/EIS. Adequate
capacity exists for handling the waste collected through the
proposed programs. Increased volumes may, in fact, benefit
some reclamation and treatment processes, and other
economies of scale.
5. The evaluation component of the Final Plan ensures the
effectiveness of the implemented programs will be reviewed,
and the programs modified, as needed, to achieve maximum
5-11
RESPONSE TO KING COUNTY PARKS PLANNING AND RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT (continued)
effectiveness and efficiency. The budget for the plan
includes funding for program evaluation. The evaluation
Will include monitoring waste streams to measure changes in
the amount of Hazardous waste being disposed. In addition,
the plan will be evaluated and updated on a five-year cycle.
BOB ROEGNER,MAYOR PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ULP I
MARY McCUMBER.PLANNING DIRECTOR s ' 25 WEST MAIN,AUBURN,WA NMI (iregory M.Bush
(209)931.3090 14xal I Iazardous Waste Management Plan For Scatde-King County Draft EIS
March 31,1989
Page Two
March 31,1989 Ref.No.89-206
The management of hazardous materials in both small and large quantities must receive equal attention
during collection,storage and transportation. In particular,there is noway to ensure that unstaffed
Gregory M.Bush,Managertolleclion sites designed to receive small amounts of hazardous waste will be operated in a safe manner.
Therefore,we would recommend that permanent collection silts be attended on a 24 hour basic. A
Metro Environmental Planning Division 2
821 Second Avenue MS-92 - collection fee may be necessary in order to provide such services,but would significantly improve safety
Seattle,WA 98104 and management of the collection facilities.
Re: Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan For Seattle-King County Draft EISA Mobile collection or roundup sites are difficult to manage,in that incompatible materials must be kept
3 segregated. This requires numerous round trips to storage sites,or restricting the items which are
The following comments are related to the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan and Draft collected. This process may result in a costly and unproductive collection service.
Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS). In responding to the DEIS,we have broken our comments
into two areas including policy and procedural issues,and technical issues. Infrequent or irtegular collection days have riot yielded a quantity of household wastes that would justify
such a program. Alternatively,the City would favor a program that allows a homeowner or business
owner to drop off wastes at a convenient site. This alternative would not preclude local collection of
Policy and Procedural Issues certain materials on specified days,and delivering them to a designated permanent collection facility.
It is our understanding that the process for completion and adoption of the plan is two fold. Furst,the
DEIS provides technical information related to hazardous waste management issue and the four Condusiori
proposed alternative management strategic& Secondly,comments received through the DEIS comment
period will be used to shape the content and selection of a specific management strategy and The City fully recognizes the value of addressing hazardous waste management on a regional basis.
implementation policies. This strategy will become the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan However,adoption and implementation of a regional program requires significant policy consideration
transmitted for adoption by each participating jurisdiction. and commitment of financial resources for implementation. We strongly encourage you to provide
sufficient opportunity and process to ensure that these decisions can be resolved with the participating
While the process for review and comment on the DEIS provides sufficient opportunity to discuss the jurisdictions prior to moving forward with the adoption process. Thank you for the opportunity to review
technical merits of the draft Plan and it's recommendations,there has not been an opportunity in this the DEIS. If you have any questions,please give me a call.
1 process to discuss financing obligations,implementation responsibilities or policy"implication.
Management of hazardous waste is obviously a regional issue. However the means to achieve this Very truly your;
regional management are diverse,and require careful consideration. In addition,the Plan will be
inefreclive unless it can be agreed upon by all participating jurisdictions. Within the context of the DEIS Department of Planning
and Plan process,there is no apparent forum or Process for reaching a consensus on the Plan's ultimate do Community Development
recommendations.
11 would be the City's expectation that an appropriate forum for discussion of regional policy issues
would be conducted prior to requesting that the Plan be adopted by each local jurisdiction. This process Mary Mccumber
would ensure,or indicate whether the Plan can be agreed to baud on a regional consensus,and would Director
allow for appropriate decisions to be made regarding selection of a lead regional agency,regional
program financing opportunities and responsibilities,and local implementation and financing MM:aw
responsibilities. Failure to reach this consensus prior to requesting action on the Plan individually,may
significantly jeopardize the Plan's adoption and implementation by local jurisdictions due to these cc Bob Roegner,Maya
significant policy questions Pat Dugan,Finance Director
Bob Johnson,Fire Chief
Frank Currie,Public Works Director
Technical Issues Suburban Cities Planning Directors
Suburban Cities Public Works Directors
Overall,the Cil:concurs with the technical analysis provided in the DEIS. There are sufficient Suburban Cities Fire Chiefs
alternatives evaluated in the DEIS from which to develop a quality hazardous waste management plan.
The following outlines a few specific comments related to the technical analysis.
5-13
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM CITY OF AUBURN
1. Recognizing the need for regional consensus on the plan,
the lead agencies responsible for developing the Local
Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County have
worked throughout the process to involve the suburban
cities. A representative of the Suburban Cities Association
was a designated member on the Technical Planning Committee
(TPC) responsible for drafting the plan. Suburban cities
elected officials and technical, planning and administrative
staff were encouraged to review the Issue Paper and
participate in scoping for the DEIS during August, 1988 .
The lead agencies have continued to identify and provide
further opportunities for participation by suburban cities.
Each suburban city received notification and, at a minimum,
a summary of the Draft Plan/EIS released February 27 , 1989.
The Draft Plan/EIS was a policy issue on the March 1, 1989
and April 19, 1989 meeting agendas of the Solid Waste
Interlocal Forum; three of its members are selected by the
Suburban Cities Association. Members of the TPC made a
presentation on the Draft Plan/EIS at the April 12 , 1989
meeting of the Suburban Cities Association.
To facilitate discussion on the developing Final Plan with
the suburban cities, a workshop was conducted on June 7,
1989 . Both elected and administrative officials from the
cities were invited to participate. Eleven cities sent
representatives. Informational material provided at the
workshop was sent to cities not represented, with a mail-
back form to submit with any comments.
The suburban cities will continue to have the Solid Waste
Interlocal Forum, the Suburban Cities Association and
representation on Metro as forums for discussing the Final
Plan.
3 . The HHW and SQG collection sites will be operated by
trained personnel. In the event HHW is stored on the site
during non-operating hours, the collection shed will be
secured by locked doors and fencing. Attempts will be made
to site the shed at locations with 24-hour a day personnel
activity, such as a solid waste transfer station or
wastewater treatment facility. However, it would be
prohibitively expensive to exclusively staff a HHW
collection facility on a 24-hour basis.
3 . Well-designed sorting areas and trained staff have
enabled Round-up events to operate safely. Permanent and
mobile collection facilities will use trained staff and
storage sheds that are engineered with safety features,
including compartments for segregating wastes.
5-14
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM CITY OF AUBURN (cont. )
4 . The Plan includes collection of HHW at permanent
locations and by mobile facilities as a means of increasing
convenience and accessibility. The collection program will
include the transporting and treatment/disposal of the
collected waste.
4
I M 1 I 1 1 i 1 I 1 I 1 I i 1 f 1
ADf(
City of �,„„x t,,d r,r W dri 11, .1:,,
" �� PoSlOflceBox90012•Bellewe. Wi0migton•9R0099012 25N SCG subsidy should he phased out early in rte 20 year
Bellevue�-{f'o2
9`SHINGt � planning cycle. Government can help establish proper waste
management programs but may not be able to provide business
subsidies throughout time.
March 27, 1989
• City of Bellevue Sewer Utility may not support an increased
7 sewer rate to finance the plan. Their efforts are geared at
Gregory M. Bush, Manager keeping HM's out of the sewage waste stream and an ongoing tax on
sewer utility customers represents an unfair burden.
SEPA Responsible Official
Metro Environmental Planning Division
B21 2nd Avenue MS-92 The City of Bellevue may agree to pay a portion of the cost
Seattle WA 98104 based on population if An evaluation identifies that it is an
equitable assessments.
Dear Mr. Bush: I 8 • A tax on HM products more equitably charges those that use
V them. A user fee on col.lection services does not encourage
City of Bellevue staff have reviewed the February, 1989 Draft proper disposal.
Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-Kinq County.
The- document and proposed alternatives represent an. extremely • Several of the SQG programs identified in the Flan seem to
comprehensive program and an overwhelming effort. We commend the
fell under state role (le, DOE's Waste Reduction and Recycling
1 authors and principal contributors. However, due to the complex- Division). The following high cost program elements should be
ity of the proposed program, the variety of potential final plan.
options, and the potential financial obligations the City of coordinated by the state with information/assistance provided to
Bellevue is concerned that this draft plan represents the only local programs: SQG Telephone Information Line; Promotion of SQG
opportunity to comment and influence what is detailed in the Waste Reduction, Recycling end Treatment Programs; SQG Waste
final plan. Chtrecterization and Treatment Fetsibility; Hazardous Meterials
Disclosure Ordinance.
In addition to our request to have additional opportunity to
It is unclear whether consideration res given to combining HHW
comment on the development of the final plan we have the follow-
ingcomments on the draft plan. and SQG Waste Collection at the same sites. It could streamline
O the number of sites end ttaff needed. May need to be run by
private TSD's to accomplish. Bellevue would be interested in
2 Small Quantity Generator (SQG) plan components should he reviewing a cost comparison.
budgeted separate from Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) compo-
nents.
• Cen Response Network element end Surveys and Audits element be
3 • The final plan should attempt to divert 1001 of the HHW and incorporated into existing inspection /response programs (ie,
SQG waste within 20 years. Fire department inspections, Har. Mat and Water Quality response
programs) by adding training and new personnel. 24 new inspec-
tors Cin the Response Network and Surveys and audits elements
Cons should be done on using all mobile
visit like a lot. An onelueA big
may identify duplication in site
units that visit different sites on a regular weekly schedule
visits already being done. A bg coat is arranging and travel to
(ie, 1 mobile unit that covers 2 regular (permanent) sites each site.
4 -Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday of week 1 at site A, Friday,
Saturday, Sunday and Monday of week 2 at site B). Siting and
zoning for mobile units should be simpler. Yearly Roundups are J A Is there an artificial escalation in cost eted sap s due to all
not an acceptable option since they do not provide regular, 1 7 the program elements being developed end budgeted separately?
!� Are there arses where efforts can be combined?
ongoing service.
• It is unclear whether the development of tte program and ' Finance and Implementation should be determined after more of
the final plan details are identified. A system tc• ensure plan
program costs take education/waste reduction efforts over time ! 13 implementation should be established. Participating juridic-
5 into consideration. It seems that even with population tions should be involved in the decision
.
increases, wastes should not continue to increase given the
comprehensive and costly education efforts o.tlined in the
Maximum Diversion and Phased Diversion alternatives.
Utility offices are located at 301 - 116th Avenue S.E . Suite 230
Again the authors and principal contributors to this draft plan
should be commended for their extensive effort and thoroughness.
Please call myself at 451-4476 or Sarah Hubbard-Gray at 453-4895
to discuss our comments and concerns. Thank you for the opportu-
nity to review and subm4.t comments.
Sincerely,
Damon Diessner
Director
DD:sk
cc: Chuck Mize, City Manager's Office
Toni Cramer, Design and Development.Department
Geoff Ethelston, Water and Sewer Utility
Chris Dewey, Fire Prevention
Sonja Alexander, Risk Management
•• - Rob Odle, Planning
Rick Kirkby, Legal
i
bush.ltr
I
Ast
x
5-17
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM CITY OF BELLEVUE
1. See response to City of Auburn, item 1.
2 . Small Quantity Generator plan components are financed
and budgeted separately from Household Hazardous Waste
components. The fee structure establishing separate fees
for household and commercial solid waste accounts is
described in the finance part of Section 3, Plan
Description.
3 . The goal of the plan is to reduce the input of hazardous
substances to municipal waste streams and the environment by
a significant, measurable amount. The Final Plan/EIS
recommends an intensive effort to divert the maximum amount
of HHW and SQG wastes feasible from disposal in the
municipal waste streams over the next twenty years. One
hundred percent diversion is the ultimate goal of the
program implementation. However, it is realistic to acknowledge that some amounts of hazardous waste will elude
the diversion programs and enter the environment.
4 . The Technical Planning Committee, responsible for
developing the plan, concurs that yearly Round-ups are not
an effective means of providing regular, on-going HHW
collection service. The plan proposes a mix of permanent
and mobile collection facilities to provide an optimum level
of service in the region.
5. Waste quantity projections were made based on the
following procedures. 1) HHW and SQG wastes are currently
1% of the solid waste stream. 2) HHW and SQG wastes are
currently disposed of in the solid waste and liquid waste
streams at a ratio of 85% to 15% respectively. 3) Tons of
HHW and SQG wastes were projected by 1% of the King County
Solid Waste Department projected tons of solid waste over
the next 20 years and increased those projections by 15% to
account for the portion in the liquid waste stream. 4)
Waste reduction goals for each category of hazardous waste
were derived through best professional judgment. 5) The
reduction goals were used to project the tons of waste
reduced each year.
Even an aggressive and optimistic reduction program will
result in continued increase in amounts of SQG waste and
HHW. This is a result of projected growth in the region,
and knowledge and technology available at this time. It is
Possible that innovations in waste reduction and recycling
over the next 10 to 20 years will allow even higher
reduction goals to be reached.
6. The subsidy element of the SQG program is recommended
for the first five years of the plan. This program element
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM CITY OF BELLEVUE (cont. ) 5-18
does not provide a long-term business subsidy. Rather it is
an inducement to affecting wide scale changes as rapidly as
possible. An individual SQG would not receive funds for the
five years. The funds will be made available to initiate
proper waste management procedures. The subsidy offers the
SQG a way to offset the costs associated with profiling,
testing and equipment that are incurred as they begin to
manage their wastes properly. The SQG must agree to
specific changes regarding their waste management practices
and must qualify as an SQG before money is made available.
7 . The financing mechanism proposed includes fees levied on
solid waste haulers and on sewage treatment plants,
instituted by the King County Health Department. This fee
would be collected on an annual basis. Details of the
financing program are described in the finance part of
Section 3 .
8 . The Final Plan/EIS assumes funding from the current
Local Toxic Control Account revenues for the implementation
of local moderate risk waste plans. Further, it recommends
the State grant authority to local governments to institute
a local addition to the hazardous substance tax (a tax on
the first "possessor" of hazardous materials in the state) .
Neither of these sources will be sufficient to fund the
entire plan, and it could take a minimum of one to two years
before a local addition to the hazardous substance tax could
be approved by the legislature. Therefore, local sources of
funding are necessary to supplement state funding,
especially in the initial years of the plan.
User fees were considered for HHW collection programs, but
are not recommended due to the potential for creating a
disincentive. The amount of revenue raised through a user
fee would be insignificant in off-setting the actual
handling and disposal costs.
9 . The Final Plan/EIS includes recommended actions and
activities for the State to consider implementing. These
include consultation and an information referral service.
10. The concept of using a common facility to collect HHW
and SQG waste has been considered locally and by the State.
The Department of Ecology is considering changes to the
Dangerous Waste Regulations that would allow this.
Currently, HHW is unconditionally exempt from the
regulations, SQG waste is not. If the exemption issue and
the liabilities associated with handling and tracking SQG
waste can be resolved, it would become feasible to provide
both collection services at one location.
5-19
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM CITY OF BELLEVUE (cont. )
11. The survey and audit portions of the plan are designed
to work with and enhance the efforts of local inspectors.
This is accomplished by giving the local inspector access to
a core group of individuals that have dedicated time and
specific training to perform geographic surveys or industry
specific audits. The audit and survey personnel will be
trained on the SQG portion of the dangerous waste
regulations, and in waste reduction methods and waste
management options. This staff will educate and negotiate
with SQGs, as well as inspect.
This program, as well as the other recommended in the plan,
�m will be evaluated on an annual basis. Modifications to the
programs will occur on an as needed basis to ensure their
® effectiveness and efficiency.
12 . Cost reflect resources estimated to capitalize and
operate the program elements, based on available
information. While each element was developed as
independent pieces of plan components to determine
effectiveness and relative cost, the final cost estimates
were made for each component (i.e. , education, collection
and compliance) . The analyses of the plan components has
reduced overlap and redundancy to the extent possible at the
planning level, and eliminated artificial cost escalation.
This analysis is presented in Appendix A, Program Elements:
Compatibility with Existing Programs and Plans.
13 . See Section 3 for a description of the recommended
financing and implementation elements.
Genrge M. Bush
Your \ April 3, 1989
Seattle ( Page Two
Department of Iluman Resources —
A system of small grants was proposed for research into innovative substi-
0—A kimom.D111- tutions of less harmful materials to replace harsh materials currently in
Charles noyei.Mam
use.
Convenience
r
April 3, 1989 f' 1� Convenience is considered second only to education in importance for an
effective program. Each person questioned has had a personal experience
in which they found it awkward to safety dispose of hazardous waste. Those
who have made telephone calls for information say they have received
Gregory M. Bush, Manager conflicting advice on handling, storage and disposal.
Metro Environmental Planning
821 2nd Avenue, M/S 92 While aware and supportive of hazardous waste roundups, citizens found they
Seattle, WA 98104 occurred rarely and were confused about locations, materials accepted, and
safe transportation of volatile items. They felt that people would become
Dear Mr. Bush: accustomed to permanent sites, and that a mix of collection sites, mobile
units, roundups and assistance for the homebound is desirable.
Our staff has conducted informal interviews with a number of citizens and
community leaders to provide a basis for the following comments on the Suggestions relating to convenience included paying for the costs of
Draft Plan/EIS for Hazardous Waste. hazardous materials at the point of purchase. Higher costs passed on by
manufacturers are seen by some as the best method to ensure accountability
Those interviewed generally agreed that the Maximum Diversion Alternative from manufacturers, retailers and purchasers. Higher costs might dis-
should be adopted and implemented in 1990 as proposed. Some people courage the use of dangerous materials. Such a strategy was seen as
suggested that public concern over the cost of this program might make the consistent with the philosophy of the recently passed Initiative 97.
Phased implementation Alternative more acceptable, but felt an increase in
funding for education would be necessary for at least five years to make it was also suggested that retailers dispose of used hazardous materials.
the latter alternative effective. The goal of 100% diversion of hazardous For example, auto supply stores could accept used batteries and hardware
waste was seen as essential. stores might pay a rebate for an empty paint can. Those supporting this
Education idea felt retailers could gather such materials rapidly and in large enough
quantities to dispose of them safely and at minimal cost.
Education is seen as the most important aspect of any acceptable program. Regional Approach
The Maximum Diversion Alternative is most desirable because it emphasizes
education of all segments of the population from small businesses to house- Planners were commended for having worked cooperatively on a draft Plan
1 holders. Concern was expressed that in order to reduce costs, planners with a regional approach. This regional approach is seen as vital in
might opt for the less effective alternatives. These alternatives provide achieving a consistent regional information network. Educational programs
less assistance to small business owners who produce two-thirds of the would also be enhanced and gain valuable spillover within a regional
small quantities of hazardous wastes. Readers of the plan support incen- framework.
tives and technical assistance to small businesses whom, in their view,
have limited budgets and staff time. When a program is ready for implementation in Seattle's neighborhoods, our
Reduction of Hazardous Wastes - A Priority staff would be glad to assist in bringing interested citizens together to
Y develop plans for community education. If our Department can be further
assistance, please call Anita Lammert (684-0269) or Patty Whisler (684-0270).
Many of those questioned would have preferred more emphasis placed on waste I I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Draft Plan EIS.
2 reduction in the discussion of alternatives. They point out that waste
reduction is the State of Washington's highest priority, and that any local Sincerely,
plan should reflect that goal. They also suggest that the most economical
way to handle hazardous wastes is to prevent unnecessary purchase and use.
A'
"\
David R. kimoto
DRO:pw:mt
An equal empbymenl opm iunay-aff—awe actbn ernpbyer 2-6-15776.1/2
Cilv of Sealtle–Department of Human Resources.Alaska Bldg.618 Second Avenue•Seallle.WasMnglon 98104 2222.205/58.1 0101
{` n•d m nr•yr crit n.in
.� M L
5-21
RESPONSE TO CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
1. Support for education on waste reduction and SQG
technical assistance is noted. The final plan is a hybrid
of the maximum diversion and the phased-implementation
alternatives. It still includes an aggressive education and
technical assistance component. Thirty-four percent of the
1990 budget is proposed for education.
2 . Waste reduction efforts for households is budgeted at
$150, 000 for 1990, and will include disseminating
information on specific alternative products at point of
purchase to aid consumers in making products decisions.
Proper waste management and reduction information for SQGs
will be disseminated through trade associations, and surveys
and audits. A grants program for developing innovative
technology is also included. The SQG waste reduction
component has a proposed budget of $758, 000 in 1990.
3 . A primary objective of the Plan is to make it easier for
households and SQGs to manage and dispose of hazardous waste
properly. The recommended collection programs for HHW and
SQGs are designed to be convenient. Survey and focus group
data indicates that most people are willing to drive a
maximum distance of 10 miles to dispose of their HHW.
Therefore, a network of permanent and mobile HHW collection
sites providing, at a minimum, that level of service is
recommended. The recommended satellite collection sites for
SQG waste will increase convenience for the disposal of
hazardous waste.
4. See Response to City of Bellevue letter, item S.
L. Retailers accepting hazardous waste may be a feasible
option for certain types of waste. Vehicle batteries and
household batteries are wastes that could be collected in
this manner.
Other wastes may present more of a problem. Retailers could
be required to design and build special holding facilities
that meet current building and fire codes. In some
municipalities, storage of these wastes would not be
possible due to conflicting building and fire codes. If
retailers were to accept HHW for storage, a mechanism would
need to be developed to distinguish the exempted waste from
others.
6. Comments noted.
it
Too Mr. Gregory Bush
March 27, 1989
Page 2
„�,. Financing
March 27, 1989 I believe a tax on hazardous materials sold in each jurisdiction
IN i T should be implemented whether that be on a state or county basis.
I hope these comments are helpful to you in your efforts to develop
the local hazardous waste management plan.
Mr. Gregory Bush I would like to point out that I have not had the opportunity
Manager, Metro Environmental to discuss this plan with my fellow board members on the Solid
Planning Division Waste Advisory Board, so the opinions expressed in this letter
821 Second Avenue MS-92 reflect my own.
Seattle, Washington 98104
Sincerely,
Subjects Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan 1
Dear Mr. Bush:
I have read the draft of the above referenced plan and can appre- Michael P. Keller
ciate the effort that went into its formation. It has been well Vice President - Operations
thought out and presented in a very clear manner. With this in MPK/psh
mind, I would like to make the following comments
Diversion Goals
I believe the goal of 1008 diversion over 20 years (rather than
10 years) is more appropriate. Realistically, I would expect
1 70-808 diversion to be a significant accomplishment. I think
that the recycling of small containers and quantities of wastes
(including paint) will continue to be difficult and greater
emphasis should be placed on waste exchange, minimization, and
product packaging.
I,
Household Collection Programs
I believe the most realistic and cost effective program should
include a combination of permanent sites and round-ups. I think
2 mobile units would be less effective as a major tool. I further
believe that private operation of these collection sites should
be considered because of their expertise in handling, safety,
treatment and management of hazardous waste. I personally think
they will be more cost effective as well. I think the role of
Seattle-King County should be concentrated towards education
rather than operation.
Subsidization of Small Quantity Generators
3 I believe businesses, large or small, should pay their proper
share of waste treatment/disposal and do not believe they should
be subsidized. It is a legitimate cost of doing business.
CHE_MICA PROCESSORS.INC
Park 9015.Swte 400•2203 Au Dori Way South.Sea Ne.Wasr—gion 96134
t206023 •EAx 223 779t
5-23
RESPONSE TO CHEMICAL PROCESSORS
1. The Final Plan/EIS does not include a 100% diversion
goal over 20 years. Recognizing that complete diversion is
unlikely, the plan states that the maximum amount feasible
will diverted, over the life of the plan.
2 . Cost/effectiveness analyses were conducted for
permanent, mobile and Round-Up collection techniques for
HHW. Round-Ups were found to be more expensive for the same
level of service provided by a permanent facility. Mobile
facilities may not be as effective in collecting quantities
of HHW as permanent facilities or Round-Ups. They are
proposed in the plan as a means of providing a higher level
of collection service (over Round-ups) -to areas where
Populations do not support a permanent facility. Evaluation
it of the programs over the first five years of implementation
will lead to refinement of the services and improvement of
their effectiveness.
The plan does not preclude the involvement ofrivate
indust p
industry in service provision. Agencies implementing
specific programs are responsible for utilizing the most
cost/effective means. To date, private industry has been
contracted for services at the Round-up events. King County
will contract with a TSD firm to provide its first mobile
facility.
3 . See response to City of Bellevue, item 6.
4 . See response to Cit of Bellevue, item 8.
Gregory M. Bush, Manager March 27, 1989 1
Metro Environmental Planning Division j Benefits for the public are significant.
Mall Stop 92
821 Second Ave
Seattle, Wa 98104-1698 Our own management's expertise In re-use / recyoling, facility
management re-use / recycling , disposal procursment management,
Elected Representatives, and safety training & contingency plan Implementation, In and of
themselves, project significant positive results based on the
Senior Management Committee Managers,
Technical Planning Committee Members, reasonablyaccurate general market conditions found Isurveys on
the
which the Seattle - King County local Hazardous Waste
Management
plans are based 6 projected.
We have reviewed the Seattle King Co. local hazardous waste
management plan In detall . As a local firm, and representative of Based on Implementation of our effective known management
the Thermal Energy Corporation Of Denver, with a corporate lit a procedures we have calculated and projected the following
time residency In King Co. Washington, we have developed environmentally preferred results and conservation of economic
management techniques, recycling, re-use mechanisms, related resources.
transportation systems and procurement methods, resulting In
economic resource conservation while maintaining environmentally
prioritized methods for the management and handling of H.H.W. b H.H.W. MAXIMIZATION PLAN
S.Q. Wastes.
Projected Benefits Under Effective Proven Management Systems:
We have discovered slight oversights In portions of the proposed
plans that should be Implemented In the Interest of the public H.H.W. Collection Component - 20 Year Period
tax payers and their representative governments concerned with
environmental health . I. Collection Facilities 6 Disposal - 6 73,469,000
With proven expertise In respect to operation of collection, re- II. Contributed Services Estimate 20 Year Value - e 72,320,818
use / recycle, Transportation and management of smaller III. Environmental Waste Management Priorities
quantities of waste and personnel training, we offer the
following recommendations to the H.H.W. 6 S.Q. waste maximum 46% Re-use / Recycling by June 1991
alternatives for Implementation.
S.O. WASTE MAXIMUM DIVERSION PLAN
Firms with established In-field expertise for the mlwagement, ,
handling, re-use / recycling, transportation and disposal of
smaller quantities of wastes ( i.e. moderate risk wastes ) whom Projected Benefits Under Effective Proven Management Systems
are willing to contribute their services In the name of local
governments for . 1. Collection Facilities 6 Waste Management Disposal , Re-Use /
Recycling - f 64,837,993 ( 20 Year )
1. The preparation, updating and/or the Implementation of
local hazardous waste plans. ll. Environmental Waste Management Priorities
90% Re-Use / Recycling by June 1991
2. Designation of zones 6 facilities to be used upon
Implementation of local hazardous waste plans should be
coordinated. They should be given these responsibilities
prioritized In the area of their Individual maxlmum H.H.W. PERMINANT 6 MOBILE
abilities 6 expertise In order to contribute planning ( SAFCO ALTERNATIVE )
management to the Individual elements of the maximum
phased, fifty percent or status quo alternatives as decided
by counsel from the public Input. 1 Add broker / transporter to Increase direct availability of out
of state facilities which promotes Increased ecceseebllity for
maximization of prioritized waste management activities of re- By these facts, If the S.O.G. Mob IIa and Satellite facilities
use / recycling end economic resource conservation. were put Into place, a projected Increase to the costs of
$.O.G.s' would have to be added to the existing projections made
See RCW 70.106.160 (7) , 6 RCW 70.106.006 (10) , 6 RCW 70.106.2203 under the plan.
6 FR 86966-7 DEC 31, 1980
The and result for the maximum alternative for S,O.G.s' would be
Special Note. The public In paying for these services and has an additional t 296,078,016.00 or a total of ! 449,769,600.00
this pre-empted right. which Is a 2012.64 per ton.
These figures equlvllote to a 442.76 per barrel for the small
S.O.G. MOBILE b SATELITE FACILITY quantity generators.
( SAFCO ALTERNATIVE )
2 Smell quantity generators simply cannot stand for these excessive
Implement a S.O.G. choice of doorstop transportation pick-ups costs and the Seattle King County plan will fall .
direct to facilities, primarily out of state, without Assessing the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan's recognition
Intermediate collection or storage, thus avoiding the public and that no licensed Incinerator or lend fill exists In the state of
environment to unneeded exposure to literally tons of S.O.G. Washington ( Sea Summary, Page 10 ), It should be of paramount
wastes and dramatically Increasing the availability of I Interest to the State. It's business's and citizens, that this
prioritized management practices of re-use / recycling and proposed alternative be Implemented as a significant factor In
economic resource conservation. safety, participation and cost effectiveness to all concerned.
See RCW 70. 106.160 (7) , RCW 70.106.220 (3) and FR 86968-7 Of a special note, we should also consider the Inability of most
DEC 31 , 1980 local T.S.D. 's to recycle moderate risk wastes, being ■
Special Note. The S.O.O. I9 paying for these services and hes significant factor In reaching the re-use / recycling priorities.
these pre-empted rights. Our alternative plan for transport direct to recycling facility
for moderate risk wastes, demonstrates a clear and positive
alternative which best exemplifies and promotes the King County
CURRENT TRENDS re-use / recycle program.
3 In er y
The projections made by staff of representative costs for
handling and disposal from local handlers and T.S.D.'s, were
reasonably accurate at the time they were taken.
I
I es E. Johnson
Projections and plans however must be updated as regulatory and said t, Sofro Environmental
market conditions change.
4 THE CURRENT MARKET TREND
i
Chempro, a Seattle T.S.D., has recently publicized a S.O.G.
program In the Independent Business Association Monthly Bulletin
describing their S.O.G. program.
This plan circumvents the Metro Moblla 6 Satellite plans In It's
entirety.
Additionally, a cost of + 8.00 per gallon for S.O. wastes Is
being charged.
5 Environmental site Impact necessities for mobil• or 5 Significant factors concerning legal Issues and potential
satellite slte would be ellmineted as the potential Impact, barriers elevlated by Safco Environmental Plan
environmentally, would be alleviated by the fact that these
sites would not exist.
1 I . Technical recommendations are eliminated as recycling Is
2. Fees to fund this program should only come from S.O.G.
performed.
business that generate S.O.G. waste.
a. Targeted Industries should pay for Increased garbage and
sewer surcharges. 2. On site verification of S.O.G. status Is available by
Inspection of qualified brokers who do not went to Illegally
In. accept regulated generators as conditionally exempt. Those Individual S.O.G. businesses should be alleviated generators.
from this surcharge If they participate In an ongoing
recycling program subject to spot Inspections by the
health department.
3. Cercla liability Is eliminated as the targeted waste streams
are detoxified when recycled or liability assumed by the
C. In this manner, non - hazardous waste generators are not I legality of transport recycler.
negatively affected by the S.O.G. who does generate
wastes and the S.O.G. who participates fully Is not
affected by the S.O.G. who does not. 4. D.O.T. transportetlon concerns ere non exlstent for S.O.G.
businesses es the broker / transporter sasumes them.
d. This also reduces the every day citizens tax burden •s
cost associated.
6. Site selection difficulty Is eliminated because selection
13. Page 1-11 paragraph 3 discusses the role of local U.S. state sites are not needed.
In S.O.G. arena.
By changing WAC 173-303-070(8) (G) (c) to read 6. Known costs of disposal exist and subsidies can be assessed
(c) Permitted . . .. . . Out of state,with written permission
If needed at all .
of that facility : or this would mean that the S.O.G. would
be unable to dispose of dangerous waste In the sewer or !
public landfill . 7_ S.O.G. will be appreciably more willing to accept
significantly lower costs by facility direct recycling vs
14. EFFECTIVENESS: paragraph 3 of page 6-16. ballooned expense via collection facility and local T.S.D.
facility cost add-ons; which are In many cases un-affordable
As effectiveness vie costs and performance are a significant
by S.O.G. small business.
Issue as stated, It seems appropriate that a cost effective
program with proven high performance history would pre -
ellevlete higher cost 8. Profile costs are less expensive out of state and can be
g potential end program Ineffectiveness preformed at a minimal expense If done by a S.O.G. qualified
unknown, before their unknown systems are Implemented. broker at no or little excess expense or trouble.
As evidence, our company Is Involved with the recycling of
dry cleaner's waste using the suggested alternatives above i
resulting In a 66% success rate over 2 years ( per yerkes 0. Dedicated funds for satellite or mobile collection
Atel , 1988 ) . Thus living proof ( See page 2 - 29 tat I facilities need only be loaned to broker / transporter, as
paragraph ) that this planned alternative exists. profit Itself Is reasonable enough to repay taxpayers money.
We have assessed the budget and based on the previously noted
assumptions, found that the local tax payers and smell quantity 10. With lower Disposal costs, the subsidy of 26% can be
generators would be paying an estimated $200,427,611 .00 In Increased thus positively Influencing S.O.G. 's desire to
rec/cle their wastes.
5 excess funds based on our real world experience In this market
with the exact same target S.O.O. groups.
Approximately 90% of the wastes can be recycled at R.C.R.A.
authorized facilities through out the nation thus bringing Into
compliance local governments of the state's law, R.C.W.
70. 106. 160 with the second highest alternative " Recycling " and
the purpose of WAC 173-303-010(7) encourage reduction,
recycling. . . . to the maximum extent possible.
I
5-28
RESPONSE TO SAFCO ENVIRONMENTAL/THERMAL ENERGY CORPORATION
1. Safco HHW Permanent and Mobile Alternative. In
conformance with the State' s hazardous waste management
priorities, the plan places major emphasis on waste
reduction through education and technical assistance
programs. In addition, collection programs targeting wastes
such as used motor oil, auto batteries, household batteries
and -paints emphasize recycling. Recycling of hazardous
waste is the second tier in the State's management
priorities.
The plan does not preclude involving private industry from
providing collection and recycling services. Agencies
implementing specific programs proposed in the plan will
utilize the most cost/effective techniques for providing
services.
2 . Safco SQG Mobile and Satelite Facility Alternative. Any
facility operating under Federal and State laws to recycle,
treat, destroy or dispose of hazardous waste is eligible to
provide such services to the SGQs addressed in the plan.
One intent of the plan is to encourage the hazardous waste
handling industry to develop options for the proper
management of SQG waste. A transporter meeting all
applicable Federal and State laws that proposes to provide ,
doorstep service is not precluded by the plan.
3 . Current Trends. Projections in the plan for waste ,
generation, reduction and collection, and their associated
costs are based on best available estimates at the time of
plan development, and are subject to change as regulatory
and market conditions change. Budgets and waste projections
will be updated annually based on program evaluation data.
If implementation experience shows program costs to be
substantially lower than projected, budgets would be
adjusted accordingly. If implementation costs are higher
that projected, programs will be modified, the goals for
waste diversion will be scaled down, or budgets will be
increased over plan projections.
4 . Current Market Trend. Chemical Processors, Inc.
(Chempro) has developed a service for SQGs, providing
another option for the management of this waste category.
This is consistent with the intent of the plan.
Chempro' s service does not increase the cost to all SQGs.
Generators (including SQGs) select the service that best
meets their specific needs. No generator is required to use
this particular service.
The plan does not identify specific TSD firms to provide
services for either HHW or SQG waste collection. Services
5-29
RESPONSE TO SAFCO ENVIRONMENTAL/THERMAL ENERGY CORPORATION
(continued)
and facilities that can most cost/effectively be provided by
private industry will be competively bid by the public
agency implementing the program.
5. Significant Factors. 1. Technical assistance will
promote waste reduction as well as identify recycling
opportunties.
" 2 . The plan does not preclude brokers or TSD operators the
opportunity to verify SQG status. The plan encourages the
development of additional services for SQGs.
3 . and 4 . The liability of the generator of hazardous waste
remains until the compound is destroyed or significantly
altered. The generator is concerned with DOT regulations as
it is liable for any damage caused by the waste during
transport.
5. Safco' s proposal to provide door-to-door collection
service for SQGs expands the options available to these
businesses. The plan proposes the development of mix of
collection options which includes mobile and satelite
facilites. These facilites will require sites on which to
operate.
6. See Current Trends response regarding P g g projected costs.
See response to City of Bellevue, item 5, regarding SQG
subsidy.
7. and 8. The plan encourages the development of private
waste handling options for SQGs. A greater number of options
on the market should promote competive pricing of services.
9. Dedicated funds for the satelite and mobile collection
facilites would pay for staff and equipment to run the
facility for a limited period of time. If the facility is
profit-making, the operator may be required to assume all or
part of these costs. These funds would then be reallocated
to another SQG program.
10. If implementation costs are lower than projected, the
program could be expanded, or funds reallocated to another
program experiencing cost overruns. This decision would be
made by the budget-authorizing body, likely the King county
Board of Health.
11. See above, Response 5.
12 . Funding of the SQG programs will be generated from fees
levied on commercial and non-residential accounts of solid
waste and wastewater utilities. These fees will not be
5-30
RESPONSE TO SAFCO ENVIRONMENTAL/THERMAL ENERGY CORPORATION
(continued)
levied solely on identified SQGs, rather they will be spread
among all businesses as a cost of managing waste in the
region. The HHW program costs will be spread among all
residential accounts in the county. Some households and
businesses may not directly use hazardous materials and
generate hazardous waste. However, most if not all use
services that generate these wastes such as drycleaners,
automotive servicing and printing services.
Similarly, the City of Seattle solid waste recycling program
costs are reflected in all its residential accounts, not
just in those participating. These programs benefit all
businesse and residents in the region. Fees based on
tonnage (solid waste) or gallonage (wastewater) will serve ,
to promote general waste reduction and benefit those who
produce less waste.
13 . The State Department of Ecology is currently reviewing
WAC 173-303-070. Section (8) (G) (c) may be changed if the
State determines it is beneficial to waste management
programs and the environment to do so. '
14 . The awarding of contracts for waste management services
will consider demonstrated cost/effectiveness in '
implementing waste management priorities. If recycling and
treatment are more cost-effective than other waste
management options, and promote the State' s waste management
priorities, it is likely these methods will be favored in
selection process.
1 1 t i e t
The Mountaineers
30011udAvenueWest Seattle.Wa�hing1on98119 (206)284 6310 Gregory M. Bush, Manager
-- March 29, 1989
011ANCNES IN TACOMA.EVOTE II,OLYMVIAAND ntiIIN IMM page 2
March 29, 1989
Gregory M. Bush, Managerits implementation and success. As citizens it is our respon-
SEPA Responsible Official sibility to ensure that our unique quality of life is enhanced
Metro Environmental Planning Division as the region continues to grow and prosper.
821 Second Avenue, MS-92
Seattle, WA 98104-1598 Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.
RE: Draft Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan Sincerely,
THE MOUNTAInNEERS
Dear Mr. Bush:
As the largest conservation and outdoor organization in Carsten Lien
the Pacific Northwest, The Mountaineers' 11,000 members are President
deeply concerned that hazardous wastes be managed in an environ-
mentally sound manner. Hazardous waste, regardless of its source, CL/nl
needs to be rendered inert to avoid any possible harmful impacts.
The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County cc: Rodney Hansen, Manager
provides several options for minimizing those impacts due to King County Solid waste Division
household hazardous wastes and small quantity generators in the
business sector. Currently, there is not an acceptable strategy Richard Yukubousky, Manager
in place for managing these wastes. City of Seattle Office for Long-range Planning
The Mountaineers, as concerned citizens, realize the respon- Diana Gale, Director
sibility of safeguarding the environment for future generations. City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility
In light of these concerns we find that the 508 Diversion and
Status Quo alternatives are unacceptable. We cannot afford the John B. Lampe, Superintendent
future costs that the neglect and mismanagement of these wastes Office of Water Quality
will bring in the future. Our past experiences must guide our Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
future practices.
I
The remaining two alternatives provide a well-thought-out
1 course of actionfor eliminating the maximum amount of hazardous
wastes from the waste stream. The proper handling and disposal
of these wastes will pay dividends well into the future.
In meeting these goals a variety of approaches need to be
2 implemented. Programs emphasizing hazardous waste reduction
through environmentally sensitive alternatives and practices
need to be given the highest priority. Recycling and exchange
of these wastes also contribute to cost effective management.
Treatment and disposal options should be the last resort method
3 in dealing with this problem. Existing transfer stations should
be considered as sites for this part of the approach.
Legislative efforts need to be undertaken to assure that
4 the cost of hazardous materials on the open market reflect their
inherent disposal costs as well as those of production. We need
to be reminded that there is "no free lunch."
The Mountaineers heartily applaud this hazardous waste
management effort. Everything possible must be done to ensure
.TO EXPLORE STUDY PRESERVE AND ENJOY THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE NORTHWEST
5-32
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM THE MOUNTAINEERS
1. Comments Noted. The Final Plan is a hybrid of the
Maximum Diversion and Phased Implementation alternatives
presented in the Draft Plan/EIS . Programs are designed to
divert the maximum amount of HHW waste feasible within a 10
to 15 year timeframe, and 15 to 20 for SQG waste.
2 . The plan will promote the State waste management
priorities; waste reduction and the recycling of targeted
wastes will be pursued by education and technical assistance
and through specially-designed collection programs.
3 . The City of Seattle currently operates a HHW collection !
facility at its South Transfer Station. Other existing
transfer stations will be considered during specific site
selection processes.
4 . The Final Plan/EIS presents recommended actions to be
considered by the State, including a local add-on to the
State Hazardous Substance Tax. This would place part of the
cost of plan implementation directly on hazardous
substances. See the Section 3 discussion on "State Role and !
Recommendations for State Action" .
!
!
1
i
i
1
t ► I so Wim a i i t 1 i 1 1 1 i i
ALLIANC: FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES 5) The Interagency Committee alprckic:h to dealing with household
14140 - 56th Avenue South hazardous waste and small quantity generator waste should be
Tuxwila, Washington 98168 , continued since it brings together the expertise from Metro, the
Solid Waste Departments and the Health Department. Such a group
should monitor the implementation of the preferred alternative
and initiate a public process for any proposed future changes of
March 27, 1989 ;;i - �, the Plan.
Gregory Bush, SFPA Responsible Official Ttnank you for the opportunity to make comments on the Draft
Local Hazardous Waste Management Plann Plan and EIS which is an excellent first step in local
Metro Environmental Planning Division MS-92 comprehensive planning for hazardous waste.
621 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Bush;
The Interagency staff from Metro, Seattle Solid Waste Alliance for Solid Waste Alternatives
Utility, Seattle-King County Health Department, Seattle Office
of Long Range Planning and King County Solid Waste Division have
initiated an excellent planning process for dandling hazardous By:
wastes from households and small businesses. The Draft Local
Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County offers a Gabriella [filar-Heffner
full range of well developed alternatives. Our comments on the (206) 632-1545
Plan and its alternatives are as follows:
1) We support the Maximum Diversion Alternative which has a goal
of reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated by the
1 household sector by 439 and diverting 1008 of it from disposal in Alliance for Solid Waste Alternatives Meuioer Groups
the Metro sewer system or the Cedar Hills Landfill. Hazardous
wastes from smell quantity generators under this scenario would Black River Quarry Coalition, Tukwila
likewise be reduced by 229 and most would be diverted from improper Citizens Alert, Skagit County
disposal by 2004. Coalition Against Incineration, Spokane
County Citizens Against Incineration, Snoqualmie-Preston
2) We realize the cost of this alternative is staggering. EnvironTental Task Coalition, Cedar Hills Area
However, the cost of continuing with the status quo is also Geesnleace
enormous and should be included in any further discussion of No Dump, Cedar Hills Area
2 alteratives. The most equitable financing of the necessary Norpoint Coalition, Tacoma
programs is through a tax on household products that contain Residents Against Trash, Redmond
hazardous substances. TTd s incorporates the cost of disposal Safe Waste Management Now, Whatczm County
in the price of the product. Soos (reek Action Alert, Auburn
Puget Sound Group, Sierra Club
3) The emphasis in dealing with household hazardous waste should Washington Toxics Coalition
be on education. FY3ucational efforts should stress alternative,
3 less toxic products and appropriate disposal practices.
Collection facilities should also be available to the public
either at transfer stations or existing TSD facilities. If space
at King County transfer stations is unavailable then the County
should invest in nubile collection units.
4) Waste audits should be emphasized for small quantity
4 generators. Eiucatiional materials can be developed targeting
specific industries which describe successful product
substitutions or changes in a manufacturing process that results
in a reduction in the toxicity and quantity of the waste residue.
1 2
5-34
RESPONSE TO ALLIANCE FOR SOLID WASTE ALTERNATIVES
1. Comments noted.
2 . See response to The Mountaineers, item 4 . Plan funding
is detailed in Section 3, Financing.
3 . The Final Plan/EIS proposes mobile collection facilities
for HHW. King County is currently working on the
development of the first of these units.
4 . Waste audits for SQGs are proposed in the plan. ,
5. Section 3 , Implementation, outlines the proposed
regional interagency plan implementation strategy.
i
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
rr rr rr rr r rr rr r� �r r rr rr rr rr rr rr rr � r
I,, , �,I.I,.., 1 t••e. CCAI/Corenly Citizens for Respc•nstl•le Waste MafraUpn'r'.t
Comments on tiro
LOCAL. HAZARDOUS WASTE FLA11 FOR SEATTLE 1'II4G COLIWIYt
Draft Flan and Envirc•nnrrrrtal Impart Statea-unt.
Fehruai y 1999
tic el)", N.* Efreslr
tletro Envirrnimental Planning Di`.iston 4 I Overall Approacht
ti[-qr The various agencies are to be applauded for cooperating on
[101 Sec-urrd /lvef!!re y :�� I this effort. The overall approach of the draft plan and EIS seem=_
Sratl.le, WA 98104 sof-end and reasonably thorough. A reasonably wide range and
diversity of specific elements for reducing the amount of small
quantity hazardous waste reaching the environment are analyzed.
Dear 11c. Bresht However, the four constructed alternatives derived from these
elements do not adequately nor accurately reflect the most
Fnclo.red are ccmmficsnts from t:CAl/County Citi.7evrs for Responsible effective and/or efficient ways in which hazardous waste can be
Waste Management, on the LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLAIT FOR SEATTLE- controlled using these elements. This must be corrected in the
IIWG COUNTY: Draft Plan and Errvironnre,-rtal Impact Statement, final document) specifics are given below.
Frbru.at-y 1989. Also, the manner in which the analyses of alternatives are
We approriat:e the time you ha-�e talen in prep•»ring the draft presented in the draft plan are, in partv misleading, and certainly
Flan and EIS, avid the opp••rturrity to commpnl: rife it here and in on, not optimum for informed decision mating. This must be corrected
�ra1 t,est:imfnry of the hearings. Vith the r_hartges and in the final document; specifics are given below.
j!-atir•rt r put]ined helow inrorporatpd. the ficial plan wit 1. we
fetal he a Sri]id document for dpr_iding manarlement strategies for Comments on Summary
snrr)I geeantity hazardous waste in Virg CorerrtV. (references are to page numbers in the Draft Flan and EIS)
5-12 et al
Sivrcerely. �J The scales are not the same on figures showing HHW and SOG
/ tonnages for each alternative. This is misleading to anyone
-� -- comparing the effectiveness of these two foci of the plan, and may
r 1 lead to poor analysis and decision making. All comparative figu, es
Laterence: B. Istvan I should use the same scale. If this will make the HHW figures too
President small for legibilityo they may be blown up, but still to a physical
CCAI/Country Citizens fr•f size smaller than the SOO figure, and a prominent note placed
Responsible Waste Management calling attention to the difference in scale. It would also be
helpful to put tonnage amounts under the labels for each area in
the figures, regardless of the scales used.
B-14 et al
2 In the cost tables, total 20 year cost end cost per ton
diverted should be include for the separate HHW and SOB elements
of each alternative.
S-23 Comparison of Alternatives
This section needs major revision.
First, our comments above relate to Jeeping separate the
analyses for HHW and SOB, and Showing their cumulative costs acrd
effects. We feel this is critical for choosing the best plan for-
dealing
ordealing with the total small quantity hazardous waste problem.
i SinceSOO is 2/3 of the total tonnage, and since the plan shows
every dollar spent on SOB control may have more effect than a
dollar spent on HHW, it is imperative that the majority of effort
go toward SOC programs. This is not the case under any of the
alternatives presented in the draft.
4 between
Ma::tmum Diversion alternative shows an approximate: balance
dollars spent on HHW and SOB, with considerably more tens
of SOB being diverted. However, the problem being addressed in the
i ( Ahct I cc (`�� „
t�ffecl eAC./Cncy
frlan is uncc•ntrol led entry of wastes into the we te, tons cost/ton tons tons missed/
5 and la,rdf it l). Thumeb
Thus, we fec1 a re lnfc•rnial rve anal ysis wc.r.ld a dvrtd 20yr (last) missed $mill. spent
(a thr? tans if,iss0d (those not reduced or cc•I luted) urIII er each
f,Iternaltve.
Dur Table. I shows this analysis. VGn can see that HHW
both the maximum and phased HHW alternatives (and even the 541%
allernat.ive) are as "effective" as the maximum SDG alternative. max 137,655 $ B83 (755) 32,723 269
Also, the "efficiency" of the maximum SDG alternative does not even I
approach that of either the maximum or phased HHW alternatives. phased 100,857 $ 924 (757) 69,521 746
A table such as our Table 1 should be presented in the plan
S141,mary (and eleswhere as appropriate). 50% 51,995 $1012 1795) 118,383+ 2,250
Second, in the current Phased alternative (and the 50�. status quo 17,724 $1653 (1633) 152,654+ 5,210
alternative as well) SOG programs are cut batt: much more severely
than HHW programs. This is backward from what c•ught to be done if
the Maximum Alternative is not implementable. Thus. an I
Sore
alternative including programs for ma>:imum diversic•n of SOG coupled
6 wi t_an HHW program o =_
level similar tphased diversion ov the firt max 223,467 $ 387 1254) 117,289 1,357
fi,.:e years of 50% diversion. should be included in the plan. It
will have less cost than the current Maximum Diversion alternative, phased 142,085 $ 480 (252) 198,671 2,912
but cofisiderablt-more effect than the current Phased Alternative.
Des,igiiing an even more intensive mar,imum SDG program may also be I 50% 71,409 $ 401 (128) 269,347+ 9,408
i Lis,of iari. Io terms of the total amount of dangerous wastes which
slip by into the landfill or water, we lose only a little by
status quo 1,062 63781 (3042) 339,694+ 84,501
delaying HHW programs, but we lose a lot if SOG progi ams are '
delayed or pursued less vigorously. `
5-24
Cumulative costs for 20 years should be shown. in or adjacent
7 to Figure lir.
• S-25
The financing analysis loots only at 1990, a highly anomalous
year. This must be changed. See full discussion at comments en
Section 5-3, below.
conm.e..ts o.. Sr-c_ti!n f-Pednm. in fact he enr.our aged. tr• rt—elr•f. alternative •rPn.+r it..;
using the ir.formaliorr in the ,!raft e..d pr esvnted at: the hear).-go.
Diversion Gc•als
8 Only a 100% dtversiou goal car, be acceptable fon- tiny County. Tlrg_-deferred al ternativ_- - nt;re• final nlar�sli;•uld rcflfcti tlrt-L
cvjjjirt hill ing;; this mev be, but is not limited ta�_cn�e of the
Thus, fost
either the Ma::imum or Phased alternative lar another as alternative scer.aric.s in tht• draft plane
described above) should be preferred. _
HHW Collection I comments on Section 2
A mi:: of permanent and mobile collection sites, targeted
pickup, and roundups should be used (see commeryts at 3-11 and 2-9
9 eleswhere). A diversity of options will maximize participation. Are more recent tonnages and projections available than the
KC should not put all its eggs in one basket, and should remain sources cited? Would updated numbers change the analyses in any
open to new ideasl (p.s. We feel the draft plan does a reasonable material way? Short answers to these questions would help assu,e
job of keeping with this philosphy). 1 4
-T that the problem has not changed with the onset of recycling
SOO Subsidies programs and decrease in disposed waste seen over the last 9 mr•irtl.s
in the county.
Proper disposal should, ultimately be a cost of doing business;
all Programs should be designed to lead to this. In the interim. 15
2-14 Figure2-5
direct subsidies in order to facilitate proper disposal may be It would be helpful to include a similar pie chart for SOO
10 appropriate. Businesses should not be encouraged to become wastes.
dependent on subsidies. however. nor should the subsidy programs
interfere with development of collection, recycling arid disposal 2-28
services by the private sector. Since 60% of garbage is not self-hauled, that 60% of HHW Ito the
Educationo audits. refevenr_e info. etc. will reflect a waste stream comes from self-haul may show a high reluctance on the
substantial, continuing "sr•bsidy" by gr..ver-nment, of course. 1 (� part of individuals to throw haz. wastes "in the trash". Has this
(p.s. the same arguments apply to HHW as well.) V been fully factored into the programs proposed in the plan. And
Financing they potential acceptance and effectiveness?
The hiqh volume of HHW in self-haul may also reflect use of
Every effort should be made to avoid charges which will transfer stations by SOGs. Has this been explored and factored
discourage proper disposal. Ultimatley, this means shifting all into the plan, especially ramifications for transfer station
charges to the point of purchase; this will also encourage use of i operation and lead inspection?
1 1 nom-hazardous products. In the interimp a min of product tarees and
waste handling or disposal fees is appropriate. We dc• not see 2-29
nominal charges at collection points as seriously limiting Is the plan perhaps underestimating the potential for' SOO waste
participation in hazardous waste programs. Please note the reduction arid collection, given the rapid suCCPSS of the (rron-
comments on deciding finance policy at 5-7. 17 governmental) effort to properly handle drycleaning wastes?
Local vs. State What were the pressures which have brought about this change?
Howcan similar pressures be brought to bear on r ethetypes of
Both state and local education of SOGs is appropriate. The key business? The plan should explore these questions and use the
is, King County should root wait for state action. FC is 31%: of the I answers in designing and implementing SOO programs.
state (and perhaps more for such purposes); this is more than
1 sufficient clout to work effectively with business groups, trade 2-36
associations. and large and small businesses, and to set upil our 18 Table 2-10 does not list private TSD ar.d related facilities.
own programs. We should serve as a model for the state, not wait The appropriate list should be included in the final plan.
for the state to take the lead.
2-50
Administration 1 The ideas from SOO focus groups should be given high credence.
See comments at 5-12. Use of trade associations to bring about waste reductio.,, and
A missing I.ey issues Alternative to be Adoptedcontrol should be given high priority.
We feel that a Maximum Diversion alternative, augmented to 2-55 on
increase SOO diversion, is the most appropriate. If this is not All of the recommendations for state legislative action seem
feasible, a hybrid alternative as described at S-23 above. is very good, and should be pursued. But some of these can be pursued
13 the second preference. Anything with less impact on waste rerchinq by King County unilaterally, and should so be done until state
the environment, we would consider not acceptable. action occurs. See also comment at 5-4 on local tax on cc•nsun.er
Also., section 3-1 states that one of the four alternatives in products.
the draft will be selected as preferred in the final plan. This
is not the case! Policy malers and the public must have the
conm,enls c,n ic•!i._3
L
comme, oil Sec t}�•�� 4_
3-1
See Comment Oct deveIo in and ct,c•a 4-2
p g Sing alternatives. at Gectien� the relative environmental costs of less aygressrve HIMve,-sus
Is tISSIng k.ey Issue2, above. 4
g
f. less agres-ive SOG programs should be clFarly and prc•mrICI I.tly
3-2 Table 3-1
disr_ussed.
Policy mal iog would be better served if tons diverted and 4-3 Tables 4-1, 4-2
remaing in the waste stream were separated by NNW and SQG. /]C The waste entering the environment should be separated by HHIJ
3-11 2 5 and SQG. (refer to comments and our table in comments c•rn Summary.
abc•ve).
No supporting data to justify dropping round-ups is presented
20 (here or anywhere else in the draft plan). Given their existing 4-9
popularity and success, keeping round-ups at least initially) in 26 A reference is made to the environmental health rist,l analysis.
cortiUunction with the other HHW collection proQramsp would seem What is this and where (when) is it?
wise.
Also, our calculations from the data presented in the planf� 4-12 fourth paragraph
indicate round-ups are about equally cost effective as the overall L The first sentence would better read: "Alternative transport
HHW programs in the plan.
routes would be evaluated as part of the process of identifying
collection sites". Surely the sites should not be identified befo,e
3-15
2 1
14c- suppor-ting data is included in the plan to show picl:up as transport is considered.
being "prohibitively expensive".
3-'15 coma,e„ts on Section 5
Changing exemptions for only some SOGs should be e::plored. Was 5-2
2 n this perhaps one Of the pressures causing dramatic change in the A priority from the superceded Hazardous Waste act is
L drycleaning industry? We do not believe this option should be 28 irrelevant. Please eliminate the last sentence in the paragraph
dismissed out-of-hand. Qescriptic•n.
3-17 on figures 3-1, 3-2 etal 5-2
Please use the same vertical scale on HHW and SQG charts and
Could some remedial dollars be used to fund pro-grams in this
diagrams. (refer to full discussion in comments on Summary above.) 2 plan (such as SOC audits, for example)? this possibility should be
e>:plored.
3-22 on Tables 3-5, 3-6 et al r
Sepauating "missed" tonnage (municipal disposal) from 5-3, 5-7 on Tables 5-1, 5-2 et al
"knowledgeably disposed" tonnage (collection and disposal) would The cost analyses use only first year revenue projections.
greatly facilitate understanding and review of the plan. which are highly skewed compared to later years. For example. over
20 years king County's share c•f Local Toxic Control Account will be
3-23
2 A 62.38 million per year, not 6.92 million! The analyses and tables
v{ Need HHW cc•1lection be run by government? Operation by TSDs o, also are only for the Maximum Diversion alternative. Both costs
other private business should be e::plored and costed in the plan. and revenues change dramatically in later years and with other
potential alternatives. -
3-47 Figure 3-10 This should be reflected in the financing sections. The
The bc•ttc•m band is not labeled. The second band also seems analyses and tables should be rethought and reworked to shc•w
mislabeled. projected revenues and cc-at allocations for the first five years,
and every fifth year therafter, and total 20 year planning period.
3-51 last paragraph
HHW should be removed in the title before Status Quo. The chosen shoutfinonlno structure will not likely cs enat-ge each
Dollar signs need to be added as appropriate. year, and thus should not be based on Aust one year's analysis,
especially such an a„amalous year as 1990.
3-52 Table 3-13 5-4
The number for SOO Accumulated Municipal Disposal does not Can Ving County Unilaterally put a tar, on consumer purchase of
compute from data in the Appendix. This should be rectified. O hazardous materials? This wc•uld be separate from the add-c•n
3described in the plan, and raise considerably more money. This
j option should be explored in the plan.
31 �_`• Is the pi ejected 16 cent. MEMO increase per mc,-MO per year? of ,
E-27
wh:,t?
37
The rows HIM Generated:Co1]ection Oval/HMCollected do not
-t
compute. This should be rectilied. and any changes carried thrc•ugh
The stated 45%. HHW - % SOG split is incorrect. It is I the spreadsheets and analyses.
actually 47%-53% for the first year, and then changes to a 8-27
prepoderance for HHW.
3 AVX Costs for two collection sites are shown for 1989, but not
5-12 included on the Program totals. Are these already funded? If not,
3 In our opinion, only the Management Committee or Lead Agency their- costs should be included heie.
would seem viable. Either will also require interlocal agreements. I B-27
It is not clear if costs for mobile facilities include handling
comments an Appendix. A 3
and dispasP17 This should b. clarified.
A-18,19 Round-ups
B-29
Disposal is given a single dollar amount. This should be a
Cumulative 1990-2009 totals for all rows )tonnages and fs)
cost per ton, as it is in the other program elements described. should be given.
No total cost/ton is given, yet this element is eliminated from
the scenarios (except status quo) based on cost. A uniform B-59
cost/ton comparison should be provided for this program element, sr,d ditto
all others.
At $6B2/ton disposal test (see comment at B-15 below), it B-73
represents 323 tons, for a total program cost of $1263/ton. This ditto
comparable to the costs cited in the draft plan for other HHW
collection alternatives (for instance at S-15).
The discussion on A-19 is a strong argument for (at least
33 initially) con t.inuing round-ups, regardless of which alternative
set of programs is chosen.
comments on Appendix B
B-12
Refers to the draft Programmatic EIS. A note that the final
saw no significant change in tonnage estimates (if true) would be
reassuring.
B-15
The cost for disposal of an average mixed waste lot is shown as
3 4 f681.59/tun. This is quite different from the $1050/ton cited at
8-13, and apparently used in calculations in the draft plan. This
discrepancy must be rectified, including beina sure all analyses in
the plan are based upon comparable calculations.
B-15
35 Paints 12 G 13 highlight the lag time in SOO program effect.
This argues for Immediate maximum SOO programs, even if HHW must
then be delayed.
8-15
Point 14 is confusing. Are some words missing?
B-15
Point 16 has a word repeated.•
B-c^.2
3 No money is included for plan updates in 1999, 2004 and 2009.
Should this not be included?
5-40
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE
WASTE MANAGEMENT
1. Every attempt has been made to use consistent scales in
figures in the Final Plan/EIS to show comparable
information. Where this is not possible, notation is '
clearly made on the figure that the scale is different.
2 . Tonnage amounts have been added to the appropriate '
figures.
3 . The summary of the Draft Plan/EIS did not present the ,
level of detail suggested in your comment due to the number
of alternatives discussed. The summary of the Final
Plan/EIS does provide a greater level of detail for the
plan. '
4 . The Final Plan/EIS presents separate analyses for the
SQG and HHW components, as well as their financing and '
budgets. Note that the SQG component costs are only for
those publicly-sponsored programs and do not reflect total
SQG waste management costs. Most of the disposal costs will
remain a private-industry cost. Therefore, the total cost ,
for SQG waste management is substantially more than the
total program cost for diverting household hazardous waste.
5. Table 4-1 provides information on the tonnage of local
hazardous waste projected to enter the environment and the
municipal waste streams.
6. Conceptually, the plan is a hybrid of the maximum
diversion alternative and the phased implementation
alternative presented in the Draft Plan/EIS. The SQG
component projects reaching its goal of maximum diversion
feasible in a timeframe closer to the maximum diversion
alternative. This reflects the importance placed on
managing this waste stream.
7. Appendix B shows the cumulative costs for the plan over
20 years, although budgeting emphasis is on the first five
years of plan implementation. Substantial evaluation will
occur during the fifth year which could result in revisions
to the programs and consequently their budgets. The 1990
budget is detailed in the plan as in most cases the
implementing agencies have identified 1990 programs and
budgets. This provides a baseline or the program level '
currently committed to. Financing for the first five years
of the plan is shown on Tables 3-5 and 3-6.
8 . The plan is projected to divert the maximum amount of
local hazardous waste feasible; accomplishing this within a
10-15 year timeframe for HHW and 15-20 years for SQG waste.
Although 100% diversion is the ultimate goal, it is
5-41
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE
WASTE MANAGEMENT (continued)
unrealistic to assume that at some point within the planning
horizon, every amount of such waste could be diverted.
9. The plan proposes 6 permanent collection facilities and
3 mobile facilities for the collection of HHW.
10. See response to City of Bellevue, item 6, regarding the
SQG subsidy.
11. See response to City of Bellevue, items 7. and 8. ,
regarding financing.
12 . The Final Plan/EIS includes a major education effort
for both households and SQGs to be implemented on the local
level.
13 . See 6. above.
14 . Tonnage estimates and projections are based on the most
current, reliable base data.
15. See Figure 2-5b.
16. See 14 . above.
17. Metro's Industrial Waste Section and the Seattle-King
' County Health Department have been working with targeted
industries to encourage appropriate hazardous waste
management and disposal practices. These efforts have been
assessed and incorporated into the plan's SQG programs.
' 18 . Table 2-10 referred to in the Draft Plan/EIS was
omitted by mistake. It is not an appropriate function of
' this plan to identify and perhaps seemingly promote private
hazardous waste management firms.
19 . Input from surveys and focus groups has been used to
design the plan's HHW and SQG program elements.
20. Analysis of using Round-ups as an effective means of
collecting HHW shows them having greater cost for the same
level of service provided by a permanent facility. Part of
this analysis is the convenience factor for the user, as
' well as site operation. Permanent and mobile facilities
will provide a more cost-effective, convenient and safer
operating mechanism. The effectiveness of permanent and
mobile facilities will be continually evaluated.
`, 21. Appendix A describes door-to-door pick up service in
detail.
P
5-42
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ,
WASTE MANAGEMENT (continued)
22 . Hazardous waste regulations are set by the federal and '
state governments. The purpose of this plan is to develop
and implement programs for managing wastes to comply with ,
such regulations. As specific regulations appear to warrant
change or modification, the participating local governments
will work with the appropriate regulating agency to advocate
those changes. '
23 . Implementation of specific programs will be done in the
most cost-effective manner. The plan does not preclude the ,
use of private operators from providing collection services.
24 . Environmental costs associated with inappropriate '
disposal of local hazardous waste is not readily available.
Section 4 discusses landfill clean-up and closure costs that
have been affected by unacceptable levels of constituents in
the soils and groundwater. These levels can be, in part, '
attributable to the disposal of HHW and SQG waste. The
precise level cannot be computed, however.
25. Table 4-1 separates waste entering the environment by '
HHW and SQG waste.
26. The environmental health risk analysis is presented in
Section 4 .
27. Transport and access to a potential collection site is
one of the criterion used in site evaluation.
28 . This plan is guided by WAC 173-303-070, the current
State Dangerous Waste Regulations.
29. The current allocation of the State Local Toxics
Control Account has specific line accounts including
Remedial Actions, Local Hazardous Waste Planning, and Plan
Implementation. Funds allocated from a specific line
account must be use for that designated purpose. The plan
assumes the Local Toxics Control Account will provide 31% of
the implementation budget.
30.- A local jurisdiction cannot unilaterally impose a sales
tax on consumer items. Appropriate legislated procedures
must be followed.
31. The projected increase in Metro sewer rates is based on
$. 16 per month per $1 million in Metro's wastewater
treatment operating budget. The projected increase in
Metro' s rates can be found in Table 3-7 in the Plan
Description section.
5-43
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM COUNTY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE
WASTE MANAGEMENT (continued)
32 . Section 3 , Implementation, outlines the proposed
regional inter-agency implementation strategy for the plan.
33 . Disposal costs for Round-ups are higher (reflecting
different waste handling contracts currently in effect) , as
are handling costs. In 1988, handling one gallon of waste
at a Round-up cost $7 . 35, while the same gallon handled at
City of Seattle 's South Transfer Station cost $4 .50. (From
City of Seattle report, "Household Hazardous Waste:
Implementing a Permanent Collection Facility") This cost
differential, the logistical difficulties of sponsoring
Round-ups, the health, safety and environmental risks posed,
the lack of convenience for users for the rational for not
recommending Round-ups in the Final Plan.
34 . The cost to dispose one tone of SQG waste is $681. 59 ; a
ton of HHW costs $1050 to dispose.
35. The Final Plan proposes aggressive SQG waste reduction
and collection program components.
36. The plan focuses its detail on the initial 5 years. A
plan update is scheduled in the fifth year of the plan. It
' will likely schedule the next plan update.
Each year of the plan has a budget for program evaluation.
' This information could be used to modify plan implementation
through the annual program budgeting process.
37. These spreadsheets have been revised.
38 . The referenced collection sites are funded in 1989 and
1990 budgets.
39 . Operating costs for mobile facilities includes handling
and disposal.
z
f� • 7'he maximum program also makes long-term economic sense
{y when one considers the relatively low costs of diverting the wastes
�uihib!/[ through waste reduction, versus the potential cleanup costs of
7 ,o wastes that are not channeled into proper management. State, local,
�G'1L/l� I and County governments around the nation are paying millions of
C dollars to clean up Superfund sites including solid waste landfills
which have been contaminated in large part by unregulated HHW and
w.shingwnN„pmmC,»po,aN^ SQG wastes. Unless current practices are changed, King County and
619 lu,hw Gem Build,,g•se.Na.wn 90101•W61622e695 the City of Seattle face a likely prospect of having to pay in
the future for improperly disposing of today's hazardous wastes.
March 26, 1989 Likewise, Metro may well be held financially accountable at some
future point for discharges of toxicants into Puget Sound. As long
as hazardous wastes are comingled with solid wastes and wastewaters,
the involved utilities can anticipate an array of expenses caused
Mr. Gregory M. Bush by equipment failure, disruption of operations, and worker injuries.
Metro Environmental Planning Division These current and future costs can be avoided by working aggressively
MS-9 I to reduce hazardous wastes and remove them from the local waste
stream, as proposed under the maximum diversion alternative.
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104 It is important to note that the maximum diversion alternative
is the most efficient of the four alternatives, resulting in the
lowest cost per ton of wastes diverted.
Dear Mr. Bush:
I am writing on behalf of the 4,500 members of the Seattle • Finally, the maximum program also makes sound administrative
Audubon Society to comment on the Draft Local Hazardous Waste sense by reducing liability and increasing certainty.
Management Plan for Seattle-Kin Count (and Draft EIS on the Plan) . _ By reducing the volume of wastes produced in the first place,
We appreciate having this opportunity to offer our perspective. and by ensuring the environmentally sound management of the local
We are pleased with the quality of work that has obviously hazardous waste stream, the involved governments can minimize their
gone into preparing this document, and we commend the involved
exposure to llabilit roblems stemming from potentia contam nat on
governments and agencies for working together in a regional spirit. incidents. These liabi !ty risks are not insignificant, and they can
Although regional coordination undoubtedly can prove challenging be costly. In contrast, opting for less than the maximum alternative
at times, it is well worth it to work together to promote efficiency leaves the agencies open to liability problems. (We recognize that
and consistency in the management of the local hazardous waste stream. undertaking a local hazardous waste management program creates some
We urge you to continue with this regional approach as you move liability problems as well, but believe that the liability exposure
into implementation of the plan, is greater where a known source of contamination is not being
diverted to proper management.)
Our specific comments are as follows.
- State law re vires local overnments to ado t a oal of 100
ercent diversion. Opt ng or either the max mum or p ase a ternatives
1. The Seattle Audubon Societ recommends selection of the maximum wou a cons stent with this, although the maximum diversion goal
diversion alternative (A ternat ve ) which sets a goal o would achieve it more quickly. In addition the maximum diversion
diverting 00 percent of household hazardous waste (HHW) and alternative would reduce uncertainty about the future acceptability
small quantity generator (SQG) waste from the municipal solid of the region's solid wastes which may be landfilled out of region
1 waste stream, wastewater, and the environment in as short a or out of state. (It is quote possible that receiving landfills
period as possible (10-15 years) . We recognize that this is will require the diversion of all hazardous wastes from any waste
costly in the short-term, but believe the costs are well worth stream they handle to reduce their own risks of contamination.'
it, and that it will prove the cheapest approach in the long-run. This requirement could be imposed in the foreseeable future--
perhaps sooner than the timeframe for achieving even the maximum
• Although local hazardous wastes constitute a relatively small diversion alternative.) Adopting the maximum diversion alternative
volume of the municipal waste stream, even small amounts of these would mean moving as quickly as possible in achieving these goals,
wastes can create significant environmental and health problems and thus would contribute more certainty about the prospects of
when mismanaged. It makes sound environmental sense to adopt a environmentally sound--and legally acceptable--waste management.
goal of diverting all of these wastes from mismanagement within Ip contrast, opting for less than a 100 percent goal leads to un-
the shortest possible timeframe. Putting a strong effort into certain consequences.
waste reduction and recycling now will help to prevent costly contami-
By selecting the maximum diversion alternative, the involved
nation problems in the future.
I I f 1 1 I ! I f f 1 e t
! ! t t 4
3
agencies and governments can cast a vote simultaneously for environ- hinges on
mental, economic, legal, and administrative prudence.
It should be noted that the educational programs can be expected
to have several paybacks. Through an aggressive outreach program
2. In our view, the Maher level of funding required for the the public at large will become more attuned to the proper management
2 maximum diversion alternative is well worth the cost. of hazardous wastes--and more aware of the extent to which most of
us use hazardous products In our home. Hopefully this will prompt
Our basic reasons for supporting the maximum alternative are people to begin to reduce the quantity of hazardous products they
discussed above. We believe it is incumbent on the involved agencies use, as well as ensuring the proper management of the wastes they
to ensure that HHW and SQG wastes are diverted from improper manage- do create. This should significantly reduce the local hazardous
ment as quickly and effectively as possible, and that a-strong waste problem. It also could result In a decrease in the non-point
emphasis is placed on waste reduction. We find the phased alternative source
popollution
llutiouget Sound, which is attributed
ttributpeoplels use.
least in
he
rs
den
(Alternative 2) to be inadequate in 1) its emphasis on waste reduction, part to
2) its emphasis on SQG wastes, and 3) its compliance component. We find the maximum diversion alternative is the only one
The phased alternative would allow significant volumes of hazardous that places adequate emphasis on waste reduction and education.
waste to remain improperly managed for an unacceptably\long period
of time.
The maximum diversion alternative is the only alternative 4. We support the combined a roach of ermanent dro -off facilities
and mobile units for co ection o HHW as roposed under the
described that we believe has a good chance at significantly altering maximum lealternativeuni , prov ded this Hwould Supp emented by
current consumer decisions and current waste management practices. pickups or the housebound and curbside collection of batteries,
We-have some questions about whether elven the maximum diversion waste oils, and other targeted . wastes.
alternative moves quickly enough and provides sufficiently convenient
collection programs, but believe it would be a credible effort in We do have some question about whether the number and type
the right direction. In selecting among alternatives It is not
just a matter of the volumes of waste that will be diverted and the of facilities proposed under even the maximum alternative will
re co be convenient enough to encourage proadspread participation in
intensity of effort and re
rate at which they will diverted; it is also a matter the bringing HHW to the collection points. For this reason we would
sources devoted to the program components. suggest using the early years of this system as a test period to
We find the maximum diversion alternative to be the only one with evaluate whether the system la convenient enough. Also, we feel
enough resources devoted to waste reduction and SQG wastes to be
effective. that this set of facilities must be supplemented by the curbside
pickup programs described under the maximum alternative. We seriously
doubt that a less aggressive approach will be effective in removing
3. We want to em hasize the Importance of waste reduction and
significant quantities of HHW from the waste stream.
the importance of education programs in ach eving t.
3 5. We are leased to see that the lan focuses on both HHW and
A strong emphasis on waste reduction is critical to the success �, although only under the max mum aversion alternative
of a responsible local hazardous waste management program. A
concerted, long-term program to promote waste reduction is the only do we feel both waste streams are adequately dealt with. It
way to significantly shift people's behavior with regard to toxics will be important to keep this balanced approach when it comes
and other hazardous materials. Not only can a strong waste reduction
down to funding decisions.
program promote signficant changes in people's behavior in the home,
Ideally we would like to see every business paying its own
but it can have a spill-over effect into the way people do business
in society at large. way for hazardous waste management. We recognize, however, that
many small businesses are marginal, and that the cost of proper
As well as being the most environmentally sound approach to hazardous waste disposal is high. We feel comfortable supporting
hazardous waste management (and being the State's top management limited public subsidy of SQG wastes,believmplye
because so many of
priority) y these businesses are marginal and we believe It is very important
p y), waste reduction clearly is the most cost-effective waste to ensure that the wastes are adequately managed. We could support
management technique. As noted in the draft plan, It costs $200a subsidy of,say,25 percent of collection costs and provision of
per ton hazardous waste diverted through waste reduction, versus mobile and satellite disposal facilities as proposed under the
$1,300 perer ton of hazardous waste diverted through collection.
maximum diversion alternative, rovlded that businesses using the
Education programs are of critical importance to the success subsidized facilities agree to gh a waste audit/waste management
of both the HHW and the SQG waste programs. Only with adequate consultation and to follow through on recommended waste reduction
measures.
outreach can people be convinced to change their habits. It is '
important to ensure that this program component is adequately
funded, because the success of the program in changing behavior
6
and assistance provided at the local level. Ideally the state and
6. We have a few thoughts on financing the local governments would have complimentary roles in an integrated
program. program. While the Seattle-King County program can and should
6 We recommend an approach that supplements state montes with attempt to prod the state to deliver some meaningful assistance
in this area, we do not recommend waiting for the state to launch
a reliable source of funds dedicated to hazardous waste management. a comprehensive SQG program. The local program should move forward
Several of the funding avenues described in the plan would provide with as comprehensive an effort as possible. It can always be adapted
this. if and when the state is able to assist.
Our first preference is to raise local revenue through a local We hope that you find these comments helpful. If you have
add-on tax levied at the int of urchase of hazardous roducts. any questions, please feel free to contact me at 782-5004.
ThTs is the most equita a approach ecause the cost o proper
hazardous waste management is being footed by those who benefit Sincerely,
from using the hazardous material. Also a tax at the point of
purchase could effectively prod consumers to change their behavior
and switch to a non-hazardous product where substitutes exist.
We strongly recommend exploring the possibility of this type of Liz Tennant
funding. Even if this were not to prove politically viable in Toxics Subcommittee
the near future, we would recommend pursuing it, perhaps in con-
Seattle Audubon Society
junction with others needing to fund county/local hazardous waste
planning efforts. If local governments were to jointly voice a
desire for this type of funding to the State legislature, the chances
of approval would be greatly Increased.
In the absence of a local add-on tax, we have no strong feeling
about the most appropriate funding mechanism. Conceptually it makes
sense to charge homeowners when they dispose of HHW at a City or
County facility (since they benefited from the product), but we
have some concern that this may prove counter-productive. People
already need to demonstrate a certain degree of commitment to proper
waste management to be willing to drive their wastes to the HHW
drop-off site. Given the transportation barrier, we question whether
it is wise to create an additional disincentive to proper management
of HHW by requiring people to pay for it. We recommend exploring
what types of incentives could be built into the funding system
to encourage people to properly dispose of their wastes.
7 7. We strongly recommend a continued regional a roach as this
plan moves into the implementation phase. G ven the nvolved
agencies' intertwined roles in hazardous waste management, and given
the benefits of a regionally coordinated system (efficiency and
consistency) , we think this plan should be regionally administered.
This should be done through some formal mechanism, such as designa-
tion of a lead agency or through a formalized interagency committee,
similar to the one that developed this plan. It is our impression
that the regional committee approach was found to be quite workable
and largely satisfactory. Given this apparent success we would
tend to favor the inteagency coordinating committee option. This
approach has the added benefit of ensuring that all of the involved
agencies feel responsible for the success of the program as a whole.
8. p.s. Please don't wait for the State to address the SQG problem.
Clearly it is appropriate for the state government to play a
significant role in providing technical assistance and other support
programs for SQ generators. It also is appropriate to have outreach
1 8 1 E e1 g� r"a
5-47
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY
1. , 2 . and 3 . Comments noted. See response to The
Mountaineers, paragraphs 1 and 2 .
4 . The plan proposes a HHW collection component with
permanent and mobile collection facilities. Service to the
homebound is envisioned to be provided by existing volunteer
service .programs.
The plan proposes demonstration projects to determine
alternative methods of collecting certain targeted wastes.
In some cases, curbside collection will considered. Prior
to implementation, a variety of collection options will be
evaluated, including curbside and drop-boxes.
The final plan includes a strong evaluation component during
the first five years of implementation. Program evaluation
will be used to improve the effectiveness of the programs,
and to guide the development of new ones.
4► 5. See response to City of Bellevue, item 6.
6. See response to City of Bellevue, items 7 and 8 .
7. See Section 3 , Plan Description, for the outline of the
regional, interagency implementation strategy.
�1
Washington Toxics Coalition 2
March 20 1989 and sever system Prevention is always cheaper than cleanup We can be expected to
have to pay for the consequences of improper disposal at some point,and migration of
Gregory M Bush Manager the toxics combined with monetary inflation will conspire to raise cleanup costs
Metro Environmental Planning Division
Ms 42 Education versus Collection
921 Second Avenue
Seattle.WA 98104 While we strongly favor the Max Alternative,we consider the Phased Alternative to be
a reasonable second choice In addition to its 20 year deadline for 100%diversion,the
RE Comments on Draft Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan Phased Alternative has a strong education component We do not favor cutting
education in favor of collection Education represents prevention—collection
Dear Mr Bush represents recycling and disposal Thus education is necessary to achieve the preferred
diversion method For many hazardous substances the best available disposal options
The Draft Plan and Environmental Impact Statement is an excellent piece of work It is are less than ideal From an environmental as well as economic point of view.waste
thoroughly researched,veil organized and clearly written The authors are to he reduction is the management practice of choice In order to maximize waste reduction it
commended for producing an extremely useful document which outlines the problem is necessary to foster a new awareness—indeed a new ethic—among both individuals and
and provides a range of alternative solutions whose impacts,both environmental and businesses The key to building this awareness is education
economic are analyzed in great detail This document will be a most valuable planning
tool We are pleased to see that the cooperative efforts of so many individuals and Citizens must be told the importance of avoiding unnecessary toxics,and they must be
agencies have yielded work of such high quality,and we hope that this joint process given specific,accurate.and useful information on available safe alternative products
will result in adoption and implementation of a comprehensive and balanced hazardous and strategies The Washington Toxics Coalition is actively engaged in collecting
waste management plan information on alternatives to household toxics.with a special emphasis on pesticides
With regard to pesticides in particular,a simple substitution of one product for another
The Plan Alternatives is usually not possible The education must be more in-depth.taking account of life-
cycles,timing,multiple control methods,and monitoring Overly-simplified educational
The only alternatives worthy of serious consideration for adoption are the Maximum materials can result in failure of alternatives methods Frustrated by such failures.
Diversion Alternative(Max)and the Phased Implementation Alternative(Phased) It is citizens can be expected to abandon their commitment to environmentally preferred
clear from the graphs on pages 12-22 that only these alternatives achieve significant products and return to purchasing toxics with renewed vigor We urge that
diversion of hazardous waste from the municipal(i a improper)disposal system The implementation of the Plan include ample support for high-quality educational
Status Otto Alternative would allow a serious situation to get worse at such a rapid rate materials and services
that we could never hope to gain control of it While the Status Otto is not a realistic
course of action,its inclusion in the Plan serves as a useful baseline against which to With regard to collection,the mobile vans seem it good way to achieve cost-effective
measure the other alternatives The Fifty Percent Alternative,while achieving 50% collection services
diversion in 20 years,has no specific time limit for achieving 100%diversion Looking Household Hazardous Waste versus Sall Quantity Generators
at the graphs on pages 19 and 20,it is clear from the slow rate of convergence that"
100%diversion is a long way off if indeed it occurs at all We do not feel that a goal as
Since SOGs produce more hazardous wa to than households do,it may be tempting to cut
important as 100%diversion of hazardous waste should be assigned such a vague and
distant time horizon We are doing the planning now,so we should take this funding for the HHW component of the Plan in order to save money We urge that a
opportunity to phase out improper disposal of dangerous wastes balanced approach be maintained It is true that HHW is more expensive to divert than
SOG waste—HHW involves more individuals and more different chemicals Households
We are left then with the Max and Phased Alternatives Were money no object,the are the major source of a number of components in the hazardous waste stream But
1 choice of the Max Alternative would be clear The issue is justification of the added cost more importantly.in addressing the problem of HHW we are targeting the bulk of the
of Max diversion We believe the added initial costs are well invested Both the Max and population This is the group that must be reached if we ever hope to achieve a long-
Phased Alternatives achieve the same diversion rate in 20 years,but over those 20 term solution to the hazardous waste problem Educational efforts and programs aimed
years the Max Alternative diverts 117,000 tons(48%)more hazardous waste than the at HHW will also affect SOGs through pressure exerted by citizens who work in and
Phased Alternative at an added cost of 28%,a much more economical diversion rate patronize small businesses.
2 There are two additional cost savings gained by choosing the Max Alternative We would Funding the Plan
like to see these savin gs estimated in the Final Plan The first is the avoided disposal cost The Maximum Diversion Alternative will be expensive to implement It is important
of the additional hazardous waste which is reduced or recycled under this plan These
savings mould he realized immediately The second avoided cost is the eventual that it he funded in ways which are equitable,which provide incentives for the
4 3 environmental damage land required cleanup expenses)resulting from the improper preferred management priorities and which seek to encourage an economy based on
the true costs of producing and using hazardous materials In this regard we favor
disposal of the incremental 117.000 tons of hazardous waste in the municipal landfill
4516 University Way N.E.Seattle,WA 98105,(206)632-1545
funding based on taring the sales of hazardous products,and we disfavor fees for
disposal of HHW Fees for disposal of SQG waste are acceptable
In the Plan it is stated that hazardous substance lazes are the most equitable funding
mechanism and the one endorsed by the citizens of Washington through Initiative 97
These taxes tend to restore the true costs of using hazardous materials and provide a
disincentive for their purchase by collecting cleanup costs in advance The projected
income from the State 1-97 tai and from county add-on taxes are shown to be small in
relation to the total cost of the Max Alternative.If this is the case,we suggest that the
tax rates are too low If the citizens of Washington are going to pay for a safe
environment,and if the hazardous substance tax is the fairest way to do it.then the
rates will have to be set high enough to do the job Why not add on a 5%tax or a 10%tax,
or even a 25%tax if that is what is required?Hazardous substance taxes should be
comparable to taxes on gasoline,liquor and cigarettes
Fees for disposal of HHW are a disincentive to proper disposal In fact if these fees were
set at the true cost of disposal,most households could not afford to use the services at all
Since nominal fees(in the$5 range)contribute almost nothing to the funding base,we
think they could be dropped Disposal must be made easy It is purchase that should be
discouraged With regard to businesses,user fees for disposal make more sense
Regulations and enforcement can be designed to prevent significant illegal dumping,
and disposal fees can be an incentive to develop new processes and techniques utilizing
less toxic materials
Ieplementation
We think that a cooperative approach to implementation of the Plan is to be preferred
because it avoids duplication of efforts,maximizes coordination between governments,
and ensures uniformity of services We can see some advantages to both the committee
and the lead agency organizational structures.Our enthusiasm for a lead agency
5 structure would depend upon which agency was chosen One positive argument for the
committee structure is provided by the Plan itself If this document is indicative of the
type of cooperation to be expected from the committee,we think that structure may
well he the way to go
Conclusion
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Draft Plan We look forward to seeing
the Final Plan when it is released and will be pleased to comment on it as well.
Sr I,
Philip tckey
House old Toric .o rdinator
5-50
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION
1. Comments noted. See response to The Mountaineers,
paragraph 1.
2 . An estimate of avoided disposal costs attributable to
reduction and recycling efforts can roughly be equivalent to
the following.
HHW: 159 ,410 tons X $682 (disposal cost/ton) _ $108 million
SQG: 109 ,534 tons X $1300 (disposal cost/ton)= $104 million
3 . Section 4, Affected Environment, discusses costs
associated with municipal landfill clean-up costs that are,
in part, attributed to local hazardous waste disposal.
4 . Section 3 , Plan Description, describes the proposed
funding for the plan.
5 . Section 3 of the plan describes the regional inter-
agency plan implementation strategy.
CWQAC Comments on rManagement Draft Plan/EIS
CWQAC Task Force March 24, 1989
30 Years of Partnership Page 2
Citizens'Water Quality Advisory Committee-- appointed by the Melru C uuncil
to provide citizen advice on water quality. - While the maximum divsersion plan costs more, it reduces
March 24, 1989 waste more quickly, thus removing or keeping it out of
the environment.
- The more waste diverted now means less waste to clean up
TO: Greg Hush, Manager later on.
Metro Environmental Planning Division
- Maximum diversion will reach goals faster and appears to be
FROM: Nancy Faegenburg, Chair the most cost effective.
CWQAC Local Hazardous haste Task Force
- Monitoring and evaluation as the plan is implemented can
SUBJECT: CWQAC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE modify plan elements later if the initial maximum efforts
MANAGEMENT PLAN/EI8 are successful.
3 Program Elementst
The Citizens' Water Quality Advisory Committee, appointed to advice The task force would like to see the following elan elements
the Metro Council and staff on regional water quality issues and highlighted:
programs, has set up a special task force to review and comment on the - Incentive programs encouraging research into new
Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan now being developed by member products (Appendix, page 9).
agencies and small cities.
- Outreach programs to small businesses, particularly
Following are our comments on the draft plan: those offering loans or grants for use of alternative
1 products and field testing of such products.
(1) Overall comments on the Plan/EI8:
We believe that this plan is timely and very much needed. Program elements should emphasize reduction.
- Research for less hazardous products
- The City of Seattle's success in its recycling efforts
is an indication that citizens are ready to work on - Improved manufacturing processes (waste exchange or
recycling efforts on a personal level. reuse).
- The plan presents a wide variety of elements that can be Education/Collection plan elements
combined into a viable program to address the hazardous - Education efforts will be most effective if disposal/
waste problem. collection of hazardous waste is convenient.
- The final plan must ensure the committment of all - Connect education efforts to specific collection events.
jurisdictions to successful plan implementation.
- Curbside pickup may have been too readily dismissed in
- The final plan should emphasize reduction, alternative the plan. Possible options include product-oriented
products and prevention. (targeted) recycling. (Costs for curbside pickup
should be included so that people will understand the
2 (2) Alternatives: costs and impact involved.)
Members of the task force recommend implementation of the - The Dian should emphasize convenience. As stated
maximum diversion alternative the plan appears to encourage accumulation of hazardous
materials in homes. Instead, the plan should encourage
- The hazardous waste problem needs to be addressed continuous disposal or elimination of these materials.
head-on; this can be done most effectively under the
maximum diversion plan. - could have a regular schedule of mobile units (e.g. four
times a year) in neighborhoods for collection of hazardous
- This appears to be the best way to reach small businesses. waste. one month may be too long a time to be in one
-"-mr=TRC3 location.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,821 Second Ave.,M.S.95,Seattle,WA 98104-1598 0 684-1138
Comments on L11W Management Draft Plan/EIS Comments on LHW Management Draft Plan/EIS
CWQAC Task Force March 24, 1989 CWQAC Task Force March 24, 1989
Page 4 Page 3
7 (7) financing:
The task force sees a combination of local toxics control - It is important that a special hotline shone number be
account funds (Initiative 97), solid waste and sewerage included in any information going out to the public.
utilities and some kind of municipal assessment as the best way People could use this number to find out not only where to
to share costs according to how waste is generated. dispose of hazardous materials but when the next mobile unit
would be in their neighborhood.
Task force members feel that the plan should place some burden Encourage revisions to fire codes covering how
on the hazardous material user by increasing the cost. This -
way, those who do not purchase hazardous materials would benefit, hazardous materials are stored and sold. Orient con-
and everyone who does use these products would share in the sumers to new products and new behavior.
ultimate cost of disposal. w
�} (4) Evaluation:
Monitoring and evaluation of the plan need to be highlighted.
- Who will evaluate?
- What are evaluation criteria?
- Nhat data are to be collected?
The local hazardous waste management plan needs to be made as
flexible as possible. If, for example, collection of hazardous
waste with mobile units was found to be more effective than
collection at a permanent site, the option to adjust the
program to include additional mobile units is necessary if
this would made disposal/collection more effective.
The task force recommends ongoing monitoring, with a
major evaluation milestone in five years.
5 (S) implementation:
We recommend a hazardous waste management committee as the
bestway to implement the plan. A structure is already in
place and works well, similar to the present informal
system.
This should assure communication among jurisdictions and keeping
jurisdictions active in implementation. Local jurisdictions
will have the flexibility to work out plans and program elements
in their area with opportunity for approval and oversight from
the group.
6Incentives:
Need to use positive incentives. An example might be
waiving the tipping fee if people bring waste to a
transfer station. The plan should not have "negative"
incentives.
- The task force approves of having small businesses
subsidized for a period of time. Positive incentives
will be particularly important to help small businesses
come into compliance.
I
5-53
RESPONSE TO METRO CITIZENS WATER QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. (1) Comments noted. The final plan emphasizes waste
reduction, alternative products and prevention in
conformance with the State waste management priorities.
Section 3 , Plan Description, describes the programs proposed
for HHW reduction and education, waste reduction and
technical assistance programs for businesses. Section 3
also identifies the local jurisdiction adoption process and
the implementation strategy for the plan.
2 . (2) The Final Plan is a hybrid of the Maximum Diversion
and Phased Implementation alternatives presented in the
Draft Plan/EIS. Programs are designed to divert the maximum
amount of HHW feasible within a 10 to 15 year timeframe, and
15 to 20 years for SQG waste. The plan proposes an
evaluation component which can identify appropriate
modifications to the implemented programs as well as
identify new programs for implementation.
3 . (3) Waste reduction is a major emphasis of the plan.
Programs include research, outreach and consultation to
improve manufacturing and waste handling procedures, and
w waste exchange for business, as well as a comprehensive
education program for households. The plan encourages new
technologies and research through the program element
"Promotion of SQG Waste Reduction, Recycling and Treatment" .
The plan proposes a network of mobile and permanent
collection facilities for HHW. The objective is to provide
accessible collection options for King County residents.
Education efforts will be tied to collection services as
well as conducted independently.
W..
The plan does not intend to encourage accumulation of
materials in the home. A primary objective is to reduce the
generation of HHW by encouraging use of less hazardous
products. Where this is not possible, convenient,
accessible collection services will enable households to
! ` dispose of their HHW as needed on an on-going basis.
Evaluation of the mobile facilities program will aid in
determining the appropriate length of stay at each site.
The Telephone Information Line (the Health Department
Hazards Line) will provide both waste reduction and waste
disposal information.
The state is currently reviewing the Unified Fire Code
article on hazardous materials storage. Where Fire Code
issues relevant to the management of SQG .wastes arise in the
future, the proposed IRAC would address them.
�t
5-54
RESPONSE TO METRO CITIZENS WATER QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(cont. )
Curbside pick-up of targeted wasted, specifically waste oil,
is under consideration. Cost of curbside pick-up for all HHW
is included in Appendix A.
4. (4) Section 3, Plan Description, for a description of
the Evaluation Component.
5. (5) Section 3 outlines the regional interagency
implementation strategy.
(6) Comments noted.
(7) See Section 3 for description of the proposed financing
machanism for the plan. .
t 1 t
Rt.3 Box 338-CG • The implementation option or using a formally reaygnized
Vashon.WA. 98070 V ccKrrdinating committee seems best.
March 26. 1989
Thank you for considering our comments.
Gregory M.Bush,Manager
SEPA Responsible Official
Metro Environmental Planning Division �"9
821 Second Avenue MS-92
Seattle,W A. 98104
Frank�ackson Dan Chasan
Dear Mr.Bush: Vice Chairman Chairman
The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-king County has I Vashon Groundwater Advisory Committee
been reviewed from the standpoint of the Vashon Island cititzens'
Groundwater Management Advisory Committee. Living on an island
designated as a critical water supply area and with no current on-island
means for disposing of hazardous waste,we are certainly happy to see this
.,plan. We submit the following comments:
1 •The mobile collection units would be an important asset for protecting
Vashon Island's groundwater. We sure hope one will serve us.
• The mobile collection units should be designed to meet any State
Ferries requirements for transporting hazardous materials. Currently
2
gasoline and other such materials come the island on special ferry
runs Ino other passengers allowed). The schedule for the mobile
station should be coordinated with those ferry runs. i
3 •We favor the maximum diversion alternative,with three mobile units
phased in by 1994 and aimed at 100%diversion of HHW in 10 years.
•We favor funding through use of Initiative 97 tax and/or local add-on
4 taxes on hazardous substances. Fees assessed to those bringing in
hazardous materials will only lead to more substances being
improperly disposed of,and ending up in the groundwater.
• We applaud the emphasis on education in the plan. We would like to
5 see an education program aimed at people using septic systems,and
especially at people buying homes with septic systems who have
been accustomed to homes connected to sewers.(Septic tanks are the
primary means for disposal of household waste on the island. The
island has only one small sewer system.)
5-56
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM VASHON ISLAND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
1. King County Solid Waste Department is currently
developing its first HHW mobile collection program. Vashon
Island is one area targeted for initial service under this
program.
2 . The transporting of hazardous waste from the island will
be in compliance with all Federal and State transportation
regulations.
3 . Comments noted.
4 . See response to The Mountaineers, item 4.
5. Comments noted.
6. Section 3 outlines the regional interagency plan
implementation strategy.
a 1*1= iii■. t ► ;
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc.
+.:'-il N F '.Kyl�od W.:.
Podland.0-j-,9771A . /�� A waste Managemenl Company,
1:03)281-2722
fes(503)20484 6957
Gregory M. Bush, Manager
Metro Environmental Planning Division I March 6, 1989
M.S. 92
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
Gregory Bush, Manager
re; Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan Metro Environmental Planning Division .-
M.S. 92
Dear Mr. Bush: 821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
I am writing to respond to the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
proposed alternatives public information document. I am concerned
about the proper disposal of hazardous waste. I encourage adoption I want to take the opportunity to compliment your agency for your
of the maximum diversion alternative. publication "Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan". As the
General Manager of Oregon Waste Systems, which is constructing
I am not a smell business owner, nor part of an environmental group. the landfill in Gilliam County, south of Arlington, Oregon, I
However, I believe this issue to be very important. It is my hope view your plan as a perfect compliment to our efforts toward
that Seattle can adopt a conscientious plan, and perhaps set the stage greater pollution control. The ultimate solution is to segregate
for other communities throughout the united States. the wastes out of the municipal waste stream and dispose of the
materials in the most appropriate manner. while this may add
I believe hazardous wastes are directly connected to the rise in costs to the generators and producers of the hazardous material,
cancer and other tragic illnesses that so many of us have had to it will cause those products and services to more accurately
face. While the maximum alternative say appear expensive, if we reflect their true costs. This will result in waste
begin to figure in the human cost, as well as dollar cost spent I minimization, reduction, or substitutions at the point of
in dealing with the repercussions of improperly handled toxic manufacture or use.
waste, then the maximum alternative cost begins to look less and
lees expensive, and more reasonable. Again, congratulations on your work to date. I wish.you success
in its adoption.
I have a Clinical Rehabilitative Services Credential, a Master's
Degree in Special Education, and I have worked in rehabilitation OREGON WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
for several years. I encourage and support all of us taking up the
challenge of making and keeping our city clean and liveable.
Please feel free to contact me if any further information or discussion Richard A. Daniels
is desired. Vice President i General Manager
In support of the maximum diversion alternative, RAD:lm
Sincerely,
151,1--j.(?1r-e.�.-
SusAn F. Colton
,�t
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM SUSAN F. COLTON 5-58
Comments noted.
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM OREGON WASTE SYSTEMS, INC.
Comments noted.
I
! 1 1 � ► � � f i I t
Lerch 22. 1?R9 1svvl s. Therefore, the ea o unt of we c to methmeticly attributed to
households fa soy too high. In rho ebao—e of industrial d1e-
Marthe Durka - MAR
,� ,, charges, the household contribution would not be measurable In
Seattle Long-Range Planning i�� Not.ro's plant liquid Influent or sludge discharge&.
Municipal Building, R■. 200
Seattle, WA 96104 ' 6. 5OG compliance could exceed 90k In leas then five years if a
program similar to MoLro's Industrial Pretreatment Group were used.
Re: Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan EIS - Written CommentsThe cost would be conmiderebly loss then the 100% diversion plan.
w
4 About 25% of the current SOG& could bacon* non-hazsrdoua waste
To Whom It May Concern, generators If the they get the right Information and pursue
reasonable operating practices.
I have revlowed the referenced EIS An its entirety. I have genera]
comments and recommendations followed by EIS specific comments. My 7. The 25% BOG subsidy is necessary but should be progressive. The
experience as a registered chemical engineer, small business consultant lerg• aheetmetal shop should pay full ;here while the smell
on hazardous waste Issues and personal environmental concerns (surface radiator shop should have a 65% subsidy. The moclal Polley burden
water and &optic systema) gives me direct experience on these issue&, i& eonalderablY different across the size spectrum of BOG&.
The general comments are the following: 6. Sources of funding not considered in the plan could be extension&
of exlating methods. For example, Metro's Industrial waste die-
1. The plan, like virtually ell other regulatory EISs, does not charge surcharge and aeleccly. city gerbeg0 b111 surcharges are
approach the problem from a prlorlty/coat/bonaflt method. If the 6 reasonable, have low 1■pl aentotion coat end the y are aquiteDle.
plan did so, they would come up with the following priority:
A. Smell quantity generators - small businesses. 9. Do not administer the program by committee. Set up specific BOG
b. Small quantity generators - large business&&, end HHY orgenlzetions within 'County Health and Metro. That la
C. Household waste to surface disposal. 7 whar• the pro)&et spec
ifie expertise in located. If a committee is
d. Household waste to septic disposal. needed, make it advisory to the protect Implamentetion committee.
a. Household waste to solid waste disposal. Bo sure and include other agencies that have some of the some goals
f. Household waste to sanitary mower disposal. like the Puget Sound Yater Ouelity Authority.
The first two on the list constitute more then 90% (versus the
plana ascertlon of 66%) of the hazardous waste. It could be 10. All TSD facilties do not have the patience, training or incont)live
virtually eliminated in less then 3 years for lean than the to handle the limited knowledge of the SOG. TSD& do not have an
proposed costs. Items c and d are worthy of pursuit only where 8 incentive to properly designate and handle small quantities of
they directly cause an environmental concern. The lent two have V waste. However, the BOG hes sufficient Intelligence to be stepped
virtually no cause for concern though they are worth addressing on through the process and stick with it. Consider a BOG targeted
a much lower resource priority then the plan propose•, booklet as a benefit to both Lhe BOG and the TSD facility. It
would be a plain English, woof-technical manual.
2. The plan's intent to tackle the problem at the source Is the most
cont effective approach. For example, taking care of the problem 11. There are several evenuas of education, direct training or restric-
with secondary &&wage treatment 1s 3 - 10 times more expensive per tion the! &re not Inelud&d in the plan. They are:
pound of waste, e. Homeowner Aa.oclet= In naw and existing housing develop-
ments that enforce -optic system disposal/maintenence and
3. The plan's narratives on why SOGs do not comply In oxcallent. I surface ester requirements. This could be required through
find that most of them very such went to comply but the system the County building permit process - especially in
makes It very difficult for than. I strongly recommend a stepwise, envlronm&nta]ly aensitly watersheds.
2 logical, simple English booklet on what waste is covered, designs- b. Market a "Homeowner'a Ecology Guide" that would cover septic
tion&, paperwork, glossary, disposal logic diagrams, etc. system requirement&, solid waste management, surface water
protection and many other household environmental concerns.
4. Tone down the politically nice "come and see whet we have" type of c. Many •&pact& of the plan dovetail with the Puget Sound Yater
educational programs and focus on functional materiels that have a Quality Authority. Septic &Vat&&& and other surface water
"how to" format. Forgot the pictures and regulatory aspects and management Issues are notable examples.
got down to getting the waste alianated or placed where it belong&.
12. Through the new business license system, small quantity generators
5. The amount of HHY is grossly over estimated because it is indirect- 0 could b• requirod to have a screening audit prior to starting
ly derived from erronooua data. The amount of industrial waste business.
3 dlacharged to the sanitary mower predicted by Metro's 1984 Toxicant
Pretr&atnant Planning Study (TPPS) in way too low. I consult to Specific comments on the plan are the followings
many of the sampled companies. The current amount of toxic weate
received by Metro Is, on the average, about one third the 1984 1 1 1. Page 1-4, SOGs are not "unregulated". Sea YAC 173-303-070(4).
source of cadmium is entirely industrial end It Is erroneously
ateted that some comes fro■ households. Metro could pay the
Pao« 2-16 Is more appropriate. These two pages should be consistent, companys to install cadmium removal system& plus 10 year& of
operating coats and still wake a huge profit for the public by
2, Page I-5, even with industrial and residential growth, It should upgrading the marketability of the plant sludge.
not be automaticly assumed that waste generation will Increase. An
analogous situation with industrial sewer pretreatment has reduced 30. Alot of the bureaucratic work should be contracted to private
toxicants over 65% In less than 4 year* despite a large Increase in C firms. Espacielly those concerning specialty expertise such as on-
1 A industry and population. European experience with hazardous waste J alt• consulting, waata minimization/allalnation methods, etc. This
1 Indicates a drop in poundage but an increase in concentration. It route would be more thorough and cost effective,
is a common fault of waste stream analysis to predict tonnage
Increases by simple extrapolation. In the free market system, 11. The budget• for plan components should allow flexlbility over time.
usually waste streams will shrink as the cost, hassle end/or regu- 16 For example, a shift of funds from educational materials to tachni-
lations make disposal more difficult, cal assistance programs may be prudent as the total program gets
going. A periodic feedback and review process should be set up to
3. Page 2-9 does not properly reflect the current and reasonably Implement this flexibility.
expoc.t.od success of curbside recycling.
12. The impacts and mitigation section is honest. We can't quantify
4. Page 2-29, the detection of toxic substances in Metro's influent the Impacts but they do exist. The key Is to prlortlze, do It,
has drasticly changed since 1984- I don't believe a full organic measure the reaultS, stop part of the program when certain levels
scan has been completed since then. The pre-1984 data is not ere ochievad and Intltiota a maintenance program. Do not start a
reliable for today's projections. To do so Is misleading the buraacracy and let it run forever.
public on the impact of old industrial contribution versus todays
Industrial and household contribution. Toxic organics are probably 13. SOG collection at satellite facilities should be minimized. The
no longer measurable. Metals are about 1/3 what they were In 1984. most hazardous and higher volume materiel& should go straight to e
The table indicates 307 tons par year of toxicants go to Metro. 17 TSD facility, The collection of waste in one spot from slot of
This is more then three times the current rete. Indeed, more then users is not consistent with currant land use. Current land use Is
35% of the metals in Metro's current effluent naturally occurs in only one fecility's volume at one site. The Impact is more algnl-
the domestic water supply. ficent an the collected volume Is increased. The Metro facilities
currently take in hazardous constituents but not at concentrations
5. Table 2-10 appears to be based on Metro'a Toxicant Pretreatment that deaeign&to them as hazardous. An a collection site, Metro
Planning Study. That study erroneously concluded the difference I would then be taking in materials that ocutelly ere designated as
13 influebetween Metro's Industrial monitoring date and the Sewage plant hazardous. This fs not consistent with the currant Metro land use.
nt is a household contribution. A comparison of the pre-1984 I take issue with page 4-6. The operating details should be more
and current Metro plant influent date shows the results of the TPPS complete. Will these collection sites be subject to Ecology faci-
study are wrong. Further, a simple mass balance of household water lity permlts? This Should be not prior to the final EIS. Hoke
consumption and heavy metal concentrations In the source materiels sure the facility permitting decisions are consistent with indus-
Indlcate the metals would be below detection limits at the planttrlel sppllcotio�ns.
6. In 1984, toxic organics once attibuted to households, actually I 14. Th• effectiveness of these programs is not demonstrated by simply
originated from industry. For example, butyl phthelates were 1$ at&ting that other municipalities have done the some thing or that
1 thought to orgin&te from plasticizors In synthetic clothes. It I V a cartoln number of calls were received. What are the directly
actually was from dye penetrants used to inspect aluminum parts. ■e&ouroble reSul ta?
Virtually all companys have eliminated this type of dye penetrant,
The statement on page 2-40 on Metro detected organics is not valid I 15. It 1• not demonstrated that a 25k BOG subsidy Is a sufficient
because of much more strict pretreatment enforcement since 1984. i 19 indueasent for proper dipsoaal.
7. The statement on page 2-42 regarding eliminating the pollutant at I I hope these comments are useful. Thank you for the opportunity to
the source Is very good and should be emphasized, submit them. If you have any questions, pluses give as a call at
868-7804.
8. Forget the "come and sea ■e" type of education. Devote the resour-
ces to the "go out and help them" type. The statements on page 2- Sincerely,
50, bottom of 51 and 54 should be emphasized - especially about a
concise, readable, atepwlae booklet for BOGS. This is Lhe area of
greatest payback.
Gregory R. Allen, P.E.
9 Th• statements regarding Metro sludge quality and cadmium levels is
114 ••ally fixed. Require the few (loss then 10) cadmium alectroplat- ccz Ray Carveth, Metro Environmental Lob
era to close loop that part of their plating operations. The
5-61
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM GREGORY ALLEN
1. The analysis during plan development showed SQGs
producing approximately two-thirds of the local hazardous
waste (that waste addressed by this plan) , based on
available solid waste and wastewater data. The Technical
Planning Committee, representing solid waste and wastewater
utilities, has not found data supporting your assertion that
SQGs contribute more than 90% of these wastes.
2 . Comments noted. A booklet, as you recommend, will be
considered as a part of the SQG technical assistance
program. On-site consultation and other technical
assistance programs should provide the "how-to" emphasis you
suggest.
3 . The plan's estimates are based on the available data for
both the solid and liquid waste streams. The majority of
the hazardous waste is found in the solid waste stream.
Recent waste sorts have consistently found a level of
hazardous waste in solid waste similar to that used in the
plan estimates and projections.
Admittedly, the data are limited and difficult to
extrapolate from. It is also difficult to compare between
waste streams. As a result of the limits on the available
data, a number of planning assumptions were made to move the
plan forward and develop management solutions. During plan
implementation, the program evaluation component will
(� collect new data upon which program and plan revisions will
be based.
The waste diversion estimates used in the plan are based on
the best professional judgment of SQG waste management
staff. Appendix B documents the process used to generate
reduction and disposal projections.
A. If the plan projections are realized in a shorter
timeframe than identified in the plan, revisions to programs
will be made as a result of the evaluation process.
5. The SQG subsidy program will be developed in the first
years of plan implementation. The concept of a progressive
subsidy to help the very small quantity generators is
compatible with the current thinking for this program and
will be explored.
6. See "Financing" in Section 3 of the plan for proposed
plan funding
7. See Section 3 for the outline of the proposed regional
interagency implementation strategy.
5-G2
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM GREGORY ALLEN (cont. )
8 . Research based on interviews with generators and
hazardous waste handlers shows that more accessible disposal
services for SQGs are needed to increase participation in
proper waste management practices. The SQG component
proposes incentives to broaden the TSDs role in SQG waste
management. These include establishing SQG mobile and
auxiliary collection facilities.
9 . Comments noted. The HHW education program will include
a number of mechanisms to inform the public. Those
described in the Final Plan/EIS are examples of educational
efforts that could be implemented.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan supports the
implementation of plans to manage HHW. However, it leaves
specifics of program development to local hazardous waste
plans. Opportunities to coordinate education efforts will
be utilized where possible.
10 . Comment noted and will be considered in the
implementation of the SQG audit program.
11. Correction made in Final Plan/EIS.
12 . Assumptions were made based on future population growth
and current solid waste projections to project future
tonnage of local hazardous waste, in the absence of any
programs to address them. As disposal costs escalate and
recycling is subsidized, per capita generation will likely
decrease. Similarly, as programs are put in place that do
increase "cost, hassle and/or regulation" , it is logical to
assume that some impact on the generation of hazardous waste
will occur. This is reflected in the projections for waste
reduction resulting form plan implementation.
The projections for solid waste generation over the next 20
years are part of the most current projections used by King
County. They show total solid waste generation before
recycling and waste reduction are subtracted because local
hazardous waste data are based on percentage composition
prior to major recycling efforts went into effect. For
planning purposes, it is assumed that hazardous waste in the
municipal solid waste stream will increase in percentage of
composition due to the presence of the major recycling
programs, if no programs are implemented to address
hazardous waste.
13 . Data from Metro's Toxicity Pretreatment Planning Study
were used to represent wastewater conditions in the absence
of more recent and complete data. While this data set is a
few years old and does not reflect the latest trends, it
remains the best source for generalizations about the
5-63
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM GREGORY ALLEN (cont. )
wastewater stream. These data represent an upper limit on
hazardous waste in wastewater and are useful for general
planning purposes. Heavy metal levels have decreased in
recent years, as the Final Plan/EIS notes, due to various
source controls applied in the water supply and sewerage
systems. Organic analyses continue for the collection
system and treatment plants. They show a variety of
hazardous organic compounds in the wastewater. Even purely
residential wastewater contains measurable amounts of
organic priority pollutants and metals at levels well above
background water supply.
Metro's Toxicity Pretreatment Planning Study did not derive
household contribution of toxicants by subtracting
industrial monitoring data from treatment plant influent.
The study sampled numerous locations in Metro's collection
system over a two-year period and assembled data on
industrial, commercial, residential, inflow and other
sources. A model was then developed to incorporate all
these data into a picture of influent source composition.
The model showed, among other things, that the predicted
industrial contribution was much larger than Metro's
permitted industries contributed based on direct industrial
monitoring. This finding led Metro's Industrial Waste
Section to focus more attention on the non-permitted
business dischargers, for the most part, SQGs. Treatment
plant sampling continues to find numerous organic toxicants
in the wastewater influent at all five Metro plants,
including the small, predominantly residential ones. Metro
analyses and those of EPA and other sources confirm that
household wastewater does contain detectable, measurable
1 quantities of heavy metals and organic compounds.
Sources of individual chemicals tend to be multiple; they
come from a variety of sources which can change over time
(by day, week, month, season) . TPPS analyses detected
plasticizers (butyl phthalates) in residential wastewater
samples as well as in commercial land use samples,
industrial samples and landfill leachate samples.
Monitoring in Metro ' s sewerage system continues to detect
toxic organics, including butyl phthalates, and metals.
14 . The attached table list some of the possible uses of
cadmium. It suggests that an "easy fix" for cadmium sources
is not available. In addition to those uses found on the
table, cadmium can also be found in tires.
15. The plan proposes education, technical assistance and
increased collection opportunities for SQGs. SQGs will be
referred to the proper type of vendor for the services they
i�.
5-64
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM GREGORY ALLEN (cont. )
require. Consultants or equipment vendors offering these
services will benefit from increased demand due to this
strategy.
16. One intent of plan implementation is to be as flexible
as possible. The evaluation component will provide feedback
on the strengths and weakness of specific programs and allow
for changes and modifications, as necessary. Annual budget
and program review will occur based on results of experience
and evaluation. A plan revision and update is scheduled for
the fifth year of the plan.
17. Collection operations proposed in the plan will comply
with all relevant local, state and federal requirements.
18 . Note above discussion on evaluation component.
19 . The proposed subsidy is only one program of the SQG
component. No one program will accomplish the goals of the
plan. However, the subsidy is considered to be a viable
element of a successful plan.
Excerpted from:
Key Manhole 1987
Results
Page 3 - 10
POSSIBLE INDUSTRIAL USES OF HEAVY METAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED
IN KEY MANHOLE SAMPLING
COMPOUND NAME POSSIBLE USES
CADMIUM The primary use of cadmium is as a
sacrificial metal, especially in
airframes. Other uses include: in
solder for aluminum; electroplating
(primary use) ; electrodes for cadmium
vapor lamps; photoelectric cells; Ni-Cd
storage batteries; dentistry (in
Mercury-Cadmium amalgums) ; Cadmium salts
used medicinally for swine and poultry;
porcelain and pottery (produces an
iridescent effect) ; reagent for
1 determination of sulfur; tellurium;
selenium; photography; process
engraving; lithography; dyeing and
calico printing; paint (cadmium yellow) ;
galvanoplasty; manufacture of special
mirrors; lubricant; analysis of
sulfides; manufacture of phosphores;
manufacture of glass (yellow colored) ;
nuclear reactor controls; nematocides;
semiconductors; manufacture of silver
1 alloys; rectifiers; plant fungicide;
Arsenic tests (catalyst) ; color for
soaps; color for textiles, paper,
rubber; printing inks; fireworks; X-ray
screens; scintillation counters;
catalyst for organic reactions; is
present in tobacco.
how 401111111111 min tbw AIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4
7 March 1989
A^ I
amu,` /'Ile
`�A ,./� rye/ 1 Jack Brautigam
surrt,� Ak MAY(1r—�lUl�t b(kp'S`1�/� RN, ll1P�. 3043e,WAndStreet
c-�- ( Seattle,WA 98107
(SIO
I l►tr �t1�DJS W�� �1 � h ry 1 4ef2�1 VYK�►Q Gregory M.Bush
Q'1 Metro Environmental Planning Division
MS 92
Sea Second Avenue
Sea
ttle,WA 98104-1598
s�N
Dear Mr.Bush:
I have carefully studied the four proposed alternatives for managing hazardous wastes and feel
the maximum diversion alternative offers our best hope for adequate protection of public health
MICHAEL na , and the environment.
77611 Sr 767msr
SWOUAL6w w"MMS With maximum emphasis on public education and prevention of hazardous waste contamination,
= the long term costs of cleanup and disposal can be minimized. We should also be thinking about
incentives for responsible hazardous waste management(as for solid waste),with strong support
for use of safe alternatives.
7ltankyou for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Oack Bnutigam
5-66
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM MICHAEL PIEL
Comment noted.
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM JACK BRAUTIGAM
Comments noted.
i
i
i
1
i
N
Letter to Mr. Gregory Bush
Page 2 of 2
3¢ March 1989
Unfortunately, this means that homeowners and other taxpayers
Mr. Gregory M. Bush, Manager must bear more of the cost than businesses, causing what would be
Metro Environmental Planning Division perceived as an unfair addition on top of already burdensome
M.S. 92 taxes and levies. I do not feel that I am responsible for the
821 - 2nd Avenuet] choices any business has made regarding its hazardous waste
Seattle, Washington 98104-1598 L because I would choose to handle it properly if I owned a
business. Therefore, instead of subsidies, I would suggest
having the program loan the clean up cost to the business, with a
Dear Mr. Bush: I pay back over time (including interest). This seems more fair,
and everyone contributes to better survival chances.
This letter is written to express my opinion about the
information presented in the "hazardous Waste Management Plan I hope that these comments are helpful to you in your
Public Information Document" circulated recently. I appreciate I consideration of alternatives.
having this opportunity.
From the circular, all the plans as presented sound like viable
options (though the 'do nothing' alternative is like cutting our I Since
throats). So far, in the environmental clean up plana, the
household and small quantity generators of waste have "fallen
through the cracks", and they constitute quite a large collective
portion of the whole. M. E. Blau
At this time, I support that option called the 'maximum diversion
alternative'. I don't think many people realize at this time
that what we have done over the years of neglect is deadly: the
systematic poisoning of our air, water and earth is slowly
(though now accelerating) killing off everything, not just
humans, frequently in painful manners. Hazardous waste is
exactly that: life-threatening to all living things, especially
as it accumulates without attention.
I do request, however, that you make clear, no matter which
alternative you choose, what the proposed alternative's fiscal
policy will be. I am assuming some kind of users' fee or tax
will be levied. It is suggested that, if you charge a fee at the
collection stations, you will chase away those who will say "I
can throw it in the garbage for freet why should I take the time
1 and pay money to properly handle this?" Any fees should be
spread out over everyone, as all contribute to the problem.
Thus, within your funding management I suggest that all
households bear a pro-rated fair share based on the percentage of
hazardous waste generated by households and divided by dwelling
units or persons per house. Sewage usage or some other standard
unit could also be used for pro-rating.
Businesses should also bear their fair share on a similar
pro-rated basis. I noticed that the alternative I like proposes
"financial subsidies" for small quantity generators (is this
another word for businesses?) to encourage compliance.
5-68
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM M.E. BLAU
1. Comments noted.
The plan financing is described in Section 3 .
2 . Section 3 describes the proposed financing of the plan.
The HHW component will be financed through fees levied on
residential solid waste and wastewater. The SQG components
will be funded by fees levied on commercial wastehaulers.
This is to ensure that households are paying for managing
HHW, and businesses are paying for SQG waste.
f 1 1
PETER H.VOGEL _
uvn...i....
POST OFFICE BOX I096
Cou►sVluc WASHINGTON 08230 Vogel 2
T.L.I.—A2041479 30255
The first alternative may be the best because of the
lntenelve program needed to break through public realetance. Even
March 13, 1989 I ten years is a long time to maintain such an effort.
Gregory M. Bush, Manager
Metro Environmental Planning Division
821 Second Avenue MS-92 I sincerely hope that you can develop a plan that clearly
Seattle, WA 98104 states what all households and businesses must do, how compliance
will be monitored, and what enforcement will consist of.
bear Mr. Bush:
I have read the summary of the Local Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Plan for Seattle-King County and have the following comments. Very truly yours,
1. As far as one can tell from the summary there 1• no //SF7 1�L
specltic method tor, or assurance of, meeting the collection LL U�
1 schedules In any of the first three alternatives. Public apathy Peter H. Vogel, P E.
could leave the facilities and equipment standing idle and the
subsidies unused or, on th• other hand, the budget for these items cc: Martha Burke
could be unequal to meeting the demand by a concerned citizenry.
Regardless of which alternative is chosen, should there not be
contingency plans for correcting or accommodating unexpected
variations in progress? If compliance lags, which residences and
businesses will be the first subjects of enforcement? Should not
this be predetermined to prevent charges of unfairness and
insufficient lead time? It compliance exceeds the collection
schedule, who will provide the necessary additional equipment,
facilities, and subsidies in advance of the financial schedule?
2. 1 did not see any basis in the report for the
2 anticipated amounts of hazardous vast• reduction, nor any mention
or any actions that could ba relied upon to effect such changes.
How can households and small generators reduce their wastes? How
can the reductions be monitored? who determines an acceptable
level of reduction? If not acceptable, how can further reductions
be required and enforced?
3. With regard to the Phased Implementation Alternative,
are there, In reality, small quantity generators who would find
3 twenty years lead time necessary and fifteen years insufficient?
Would not either fifteen or twenty years be viewed as an
opportunity to postpone working on reducing and recycling
techniques?
4. In the Fitty-Percent Diversion Alternative, . who will be
in the halt that Is complying? It it in optional, how will fifty
percent be reached? Could not this alternative result In Ill
feelings and disenchantment for those attempting to comply and a
diminution of their efforts?
5-70
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM PETER H. VOGEL
1. The program evaluation component is designed to monitor
and analyze the effectiveness of the various programs during
the first five years of implementation. This information
will be used to change, modify or add programs. Initially,
this will be done through the annual program and budget
process, and then through the plan update and revision in
the fifth year.
2 . Assumptions on hazardous waste reductions are found in
Appendix B, pages B-3 to B-6. Section 3 , Plan Description
identifies specific programs for acheiving waste reduction,
monitoring and enforcement.
3 . The final plan proposes to accomplish the goal of
diverting the maximum amount of local hazardous waste
feasible in a timeframe of 10 to 15 years for HHW and 15 to
20 years for SQG waste.
4 . Please not that the final plan is a hybrid of the
maximum diversion alternative and the phased implementation
alternative described in the Draft Plan/EIS.
t i 1 i
,t
UP,
MR 6 ism
lBARTOF PUCLIC 1"
sow L�OL( u,�10
� - mn Wusrc u�mio�
i
alp
-
a4- - ---- -- - -- nL, -- - ---
CR
an At
_
4�
k5wz,y
(OC, y-3_tz_z
top' aw
�'ciri�lR,��i/ �JL��� _ ,✓erg: irts�o�tersen��Y Fi�rr+t /fie NK-✓3E� K['.So.-.aw.r�r6
w-
5-72
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM KARIN STEVENS
The goal of the plan is to significantly reduce the amount
of hazardous waste being inappropriately disposed of by
households and certain businesses. It is beyond the scope
of this planning effort to implement a ban on the
manufacture and distribution of hazardous materials.
■
-Wtr-v� Ate ,-� -raj, y
Ar
41
�.S J/Jhi a S b�BhZ
5-74
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM ROBERT L. CASALE
1. The Final Plan is a hybrid of the maximum diversion and
the phased implementation alternatives presented in the
Draft Plan/EIS.
2 . Section 3 , Plan Description, presents the financing of
the plan implementation.
3 . A regional, interagency implementation strategy is
proposed for the plan.
APPENDIX A PROGRAM ELEMENTS A-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HOW THE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
PROGRAM ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
Household Hazardous Waste Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Waste Handling . . . . . . . . . . A-18
Small Quantity Generator Education and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . A-27
Small Quantily Generator Collection and Waste Handling A-35
Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-39
Program Elements not Included in the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-46
APPENDIX A PROGRAM ELEMENTS A-2
,
This Appendix contains detailed descriptions of each of the
program elements in the Plan, beginning on Page A-7 It also
describes the history of Plan development.
HOW THE PLAN
WAS DEVELOPED In July, 1987, the Department of Ecology issued Planning
Guidelines for Local Hazardous Waste Plans. Each local
government or combination of local governments is required to
prepare a plan based on these guidelines. King County
agencies have chosen to use a cooperative planning strategy.
Five lead agencies are participating in the development of the
King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan:
King County Department of Public Works Solid Waste
Division; City of Seattle Office for Long-range Planning and ,
Solid Waste Utility; Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health; and Metro's Water Pollution Control Department.
Other supporting participants include the Suburban Cities
Association and Metro's Environmental Planning Division.
The senior managers and office directors of the five lead
agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding that
designates the roles and responsibilities of each agency and
established the Technical Planning Committee. The Technical
Planning Committee is charged with the responsibility of
developing the plan. The Memorandum of Understanding also
requires a Senior Management Committee to review and
approve the work of the Technical Planning Committee (Figure
A-1).
The Technical Planning Committee developed a goal statement
and set of objectives to meet Ecology's guidelines, as well as
identified problems and needs. These guidelines require, at a
minimum, the following issues to be addressed and programs
to be considered:
• consideration of state hazardous waste management
priorities;
• ongoing information and education efforts for both the
public and businesses that emphasize waste reduction;
• local ordinances that address hazardous waste in the
solid and liquid waste streams;
• on-site audits of businesses that are likely to be SQGs,
by targeted industry;
Elected Representatives
Executive/ Mayor/ ' Metro Council Board Suburban
King County Seattle City Water Quality of Health Cities'
Council Council Committee Councils
Senior Management Committee
Rod Hansen, Richard Yukubousky, Diana Gale,Director, John Lampe, Chuck Kleeberg, Manager,
Manager, Director, Solid Waste Utility, Superintendent, Environmental
Solid Taste Division, Office for Engineering Office of Health Division,
Department of Long-range Planning, Department, Water Quality, Seattle-King County
Public Works City of Seattle City of Seattle Metro Department of
Public Health
Technical Planning Committee
Scott Blair, Martha Burke, Chris Luboff, Dave Galvin, Todd Yerkes, Geoffrey Ethelston
Henry Draper City of Seattle, City of Seattle Metro Seattle-King County Cynthia
King County Office for Solid Waste Utility Office of Department of Pruitt-Davidson
Solid Waste Division Long-range Planning Water Quality Public Health Suburban Cities
Association
Figure A-1. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
a
W
APPENDIX A PROGRAM ELEMENTS
A-4
a system for collecting HHW or otherwise diverting ,
•
HHW from improper disposal; '
• efforts that target selected wastes or waste sources;
• a system for ultimate handling of the hazardous wastes
collected (if not provided by the private sector);
• monitoring, surveillance and enforcement programs;
• assignment of lead responsibilities and time frames for
implementation; and
• a revision process and schedule for plan updates.
Using the guidelines, Plan goal and objectives (Section 1), the
Technical Planning Committee developed specific strategies for
addressing the management of HHW and SQG wastes -- the
components described in Section 3: HHW Education; HHW
Collection; SQG Education and Technical Assistance; SQG
Collection; Compliance; and Evaluation. The programs in
each component are the building blocks of the Plan. These
program elements were identified from potential programs and
activities suggested by public comments and other research
efforts.
A variety of factors were investigated and described for each
suggested program element:
• what would the program do?
• how would the program meet the state's waste
management priorities?
• what safety or environmental issues would the program
solve or create?
• how compatible would the program be with existing or
proposed programs?
• what would it cost?
• are there any legal or logistical barriers to
implementation? and
• what experience exists locally or elsewhere to
demonstrate program effectiveness?
From the guidelines, goals and objectives listed above,
evaluation criteria were developed to test the effectiveness of
proposed program elements in meeting the Plan's goal and
objectives (Table A-1). Only those elements which adequately
met the criteria are incorporated. Each program element was
compared, if necessary, with similar elements that would
achieve the same result. When programs appeared to be
redundant, the most effective program was chosen.
APPENDIX A PROGRAM ELEMENTS A-5
Table A-1. EVALUATION CRITERIA
• Meets state and local legal requirements.
• Diverts significant amounts of hazardous waste from municipal waste streams.
• Promotes state management priorities in descending order reduction, recycling,
treatment, incinerations, solidification/stabilization, and landfill.
+� Is cost-effective compared to other elements that achieve the same result (on a cost
per unit waste diverted basis).
• Fosters public awareness.
• Is responsive to the needs and processes of the targeted audiences (e.g., convenient,
accessible, promotes involvement and participation).
• Fosters generator responsibility (results in changes in user behavior).
• Encourages private sector innovation in the development of solutions (stimulates
entrepreneurial creativity).
• Is compatible with solid and liquid waste systems' plans and operations (enables
waste management facilities to continue meeting all standards and permit
requirements; reduces liability to agencies).
• Promotes worker and public safety.
• Has synergistic potential (builds upon and complements existing programs and
proposed program elements.
• Is environmentally sensitive (no significant adverse impacts).
I
• Is feasible (can be set up and will actually work).
APPENDIX A PROGRAM ELEMENTS A-6
Eliminated Program
Elements
In addition to the Program Elements in the Plan, several
program elements were investigated and eliminated from
further consideration for a variety of reasons:
HHW Home Audits. This labor intensive effort is not
considered effective enough to justify its expense. An
insufficient number of households would be reached in
comparison with other methods of educating the public.
HHW Waste Exchange. The small amounts of wastes that '
households donate rarely permit effective exchange. The li-
ability concerns are great, as a person could unknowingly be
exposed to mislabeled or contaminated products. "Over the
fence" exchanges between neighbors could be encouraged via
the Hazards Free Neighborhood, the Telephone Information
Line or other methods.
HHW Door-to-Door or Curbside Pick up either by
appointment, at the curb during regular solid waste or
recyclables pick up, or in a similar fashion by a separate
contractor. Although any of these collection options offer the
maximum public convenience, they are all prohibitively
expensive; collection costs can be up to ten times higher than
other collection programs. Safety concerns are also
unresolved; for example, wastes left unattended in the sun may
explode; improperly packed wastes may spill or mix; and
people and animals may be inadvertently exposed.
Elimination of SOG Exemptions to change existing state
regulation to treat all SQGs as regulated generators. This
would require state legislation and administration; it could not
be done at the local level. It would also reduce flexibility and
possibly promote illegal practices. Enforcement would be
extremely costly.
HHW 'Round-ups" are not considered desirable due to the
high collection cost per ton and the logistical problems with
organizing enough events to collect a substantial amount of
waste. To date, the Round-ups in King County have relied on
hundreds of volunteers from local agencies, as well as the
support of businesses and community groups. Relying on this
mobilization to serve a relatively few households is becoming
more and more difficult. '
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE EDUCATION
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND OUTREACH
The public information and outreach program would provide information about proper
disposal of HHW, recycling, waste reduction and other issues. The goal of this program is
to bring about a long-term change in consumer behavior by educating the public to recycle,
to dispose of wastes properly and to buy and use products that do not contain hazardous
constituents. Program strategies and activities may include:
• development and dissemination of printed materials, such as posters, fact sheets,
flyers, brochures, booklets, utility bill inserts and bus placards;
development of durable traveling displays, slide shows and videos for presentations
and workshops;
• communication with reporters and producers, writing a newspaper column or series
of feature articles, staging media events, production and distribution of PSAs or paid
advertisements, regular appearances on radio or TV talk shows; and
r special events.
In addition, special projects would be undertaken to target specific audiences such as self-
haulers or specific waste streams such as used motor oil. This program is divided into two
main categories: a) General Promotion and Publicity and; b) Waste Reduction Promotion.
Sample projects are listed below and described on the following pages.
GENERAL PROMOTION
AND PUBLICITY
• Hazards Free Neighborhood
• Education at Municipal Solid Waste Facilities
• Storm Drain Stenciling
• Garbage Can Stickers
WASTE REDUCTION PROMOTION
• Oil Recycling Education
• Promotion of Oil Recycling Opportunities
Product Packaging Alternatives
• Product Labeling
• Promotion of Safer Products
• Citizen Waste Treatment Program
A-7
GENERAL PROMOTION AND PUBLICITY
HAZARDS FREE NEIGHBORHOOD '
A "Hazards Free Neighborhood" program would inform communities of the environmental
and safety implications of improper handling and disposal of certain household products.
The program would emphasize using safer product alternatives and waste reduction. By
pooling community resources, the program would give individuals more HHW handling
options. The program aims to motivate individuals to reevaluate which products they buy
and use, and to encourage behavior changes in this regard. Each participating member of ,
the neighborhood would receive a sticker or decal to display. The logo indicates that the
household has helped in keeping the neighborhood "hazards free". '
The formal parts of the program would be run by a coordinator who would organize
neighborhood volunteers. Volunteers would be responsible for the following:
i o distributing information;butrng brochures p
o coordinating waste recycling and disposal efforts;
o coordinating an informal product sharing effort.
Increased awareness could lead to informal waste exchange programs and other cooperative
HHW management efforts. For instance, citizens could pool resources and take their
neighbors as well as their own recyclables to the recycling center. Products that are no
longer needed by one individual may be usable by another, leftover paint or oven cleaner
could be given to a neighbor to use. The only limit to potential activities is the creativity
of the participants.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
This program requires substantial commitment from individuals and would probably be
most successful in communities that already have close ties. Other communities might not
do so well at a coordinated effort.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Crimestoppers is an analogous program that was successful at reducing crime through a
cooperative neighborhood watchdog effort.
EDUCATION AT MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
This program would provide users of solid waste disposal facilities -- transfer stations,
landfills and recycling centers — with information about proper disposal of hazardous
wastes. Users of these facilities, called "self-haulers," contribute a large proportion of
hazardous wastes to the municipal waste stream. Signs and self-serve kiosks containing
informative literature would be placed at solid waste disposal facilities. Facility staff
would be trained to answer questions and provide information on correct methods of
hazardous waste disposal. Both householders and commercial waste generators use these
facilities and, therefore, both would benefit from these efforts.
A-8
COSTS
One kiosk $2000
Staff training (per site) 7000
Annual retraining 3300
LEGAL ISSUES
If hazardous waste is turned away from the transfer stations without legal and convenient
disposal alternatives, illegal dumping could occur.
STORM DRAIN STENCILING
Ecology currently sponsors a storm drain stenciling program. Interested volunteers use a
stencil to apply the message: "DUMP NO WASTE. DRAINS TO STREAM" to the
pavement next to storm drains. Environmentally benign paints are used. Under this
program, staff would obtain permission from local street use agencies or private property
owners to apply the stenciled message, recruit volunteers and organize stenciling events.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Ecology's stenciling program has proved to be a very popular one.
�.. GARBAGE CAN STICKERS
A sticker would be affixed to all garbage cans and residential dumpsters stating that
�. hazardous household chemicals should not be dumped in the trash. The sticker would refer
readers to the Hazards Line (operated by the Health Department) for information on proper
disposal. The stickers could be distributed by a) affixing them to cans and dumpsters prior
to delivery to customers; b) mailing to customers to stick on the cans themselves; or c)
sticking on during collection by garbage contractors or by specially-assigned personnel.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
If legal disposal options are not readily available, illegal dumping may result.
�,. COST
50,000-125,000 stickers $15,000420,00
,. POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Distribution of stickers presents some logistical difficulties. Costs of distribution, for
example, mailing or staff costs may be too high in comparison with the program's
usefulness.
This program is compatible with agency-run collection contracts where garbage cans are
supplied. Implementation would be more difficult where private contractors pick up trash
or where customers purchase their own cans.
A-9
This program would be most effective if supported by regulatory bans on disposal of '
household hazardous waste in the solid waste stream. This would require political action
and could be difficult to enforce. '
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
In early 1989, the City of Seattle distributed trash cans to all residents eligible for and
interested in curbside pickup. These cans have either a sticker on the inside of the lid or 1
an embossed message on the lid. The label indicates that citizens should call the Hazard
Line for disposal information. There has been an increase in the number of phone calls
received at the Hazard Line, although many questions are regarding solid waste disposal.
In the future, label information could be revised to alleviate this problem.
The Environmental Health Division in San Diego, California has a "Curbside '
Enforcement/Education Program" that involves putting labels on residential garbage cans
and dumpsters. The program is also developing a tag system to identify hazardous wastes
that have been disposed in the trash. Haulers will place a tag on the trash can when '
hazardous wastes are found and informs the citizen of proper disposal options.
A-10 '
WASTE REDUCTION PROMOTION
OIL RECYCLING EDUCATION
Public education concerning oil recycling is an important component of a successful oil
recycling program and therefore, of a HHW management effort. Education would include:
o public service announcements on radio, TV and in newspapers;
o educational films and videos shown in schools, at fairs, home shows and other
events;
o development of pamphlets, flyers, coloring books and other educational materials for
different age groups;
o special information or programs at recycling centers;
o bus placards and billboards.
6 The only limits to promotional activities are funding and the imagination of program
coordinators.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Oil recycling diverts used oil from the liquid and solid waste streams, storm drains and
disposal on the ground. Better management of oil will result in benefits to water quality,
as well as conserving a non-renewable resource.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Snohomish County Solid Waste Division has developed videos promoting the proper
disposal and recycling of used motor oil. Ecology has developed pamphlets on recycling
and disposal of used oil.
r.
PROMOTION OF OIL RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES
This program would increase recycling capacity for used oil, by:
• encouraging more businesses to accept used motor oil. Candidate businesses include
' service stations, "speedy" oil change shops, automotive repair shops and/or retailers;
• encouraging state enforcement of RCW 19.114 which requires retailers selling more
than 100 gallons per year of oil to post signs listing nearby oil recycling depots;
• providing lists of oil recyclers to the retailers;
• promoting the sale of plastic combination drain pan/oil containers;
• encouraging recycling centers to accept oil
• promoting the collection of used oil at transfer stations.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This program will provide more collection options for used motor oil. This will result in
less oil entering the municipal waste streams and the environment.
A-11
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS '
This program would be compatible with existing collection and education programs.
Increased enforcement of RCW 19.114 would make recycling opportunities more visible to ,
the public. Solid and liquid waste facilities would benefit from used oil collection
programs.
LEGAL ISSUES '
Oil contaminated with chlorinated solvents must be disposed of as a hazardous waste.
PRODUCT PACKAGING ALTERNATIVES
Under this program, product packaging alternatives would be developed and promoted.
Specific activities would include:
• researching consumer behavior on product purchasing;
• exploring incentives for and working with manufacturers and retailers to encourage
the marketing of products in smaller sizes (which would result in less left-over
product and therefore less waste);
• exploring options such as selling concentrates to be mixed at home; and
• promoting these ideas and alternatives to the public.
Goals for certain priority waste stream (e.g., paints) could be set, with sales figures, ,
surveys or waste characterization studies used to evaluate progress.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES '
Promotion of smaller-sized products would reinforce the top state waste management
priority of reduction. Over time, purchasing behaviors would be altered.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT '
Promotion of smaller packages would result in less excess product, less exposures and less
waste, thus positively affecting worker and public health and the environment.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
This program is compatible with existing programs.
LEGAL ISSUES
There are no legal issues.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Manufacturers and retailers may be reluctant to change current marketing and packaging
practices, or to promote alternatives. Public may be unwilling to change purchasing
practices.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Almost all HHW programs in this country promote buying smaller amounts of hazardous
products. None offer incentives or have worked directly with manufacturers or retailers on
this issue.
A-12
European consumers are much more willing to purchase concentrates and mix usable
solutions at home, according to the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association. Why
this is, and what it would take to change American behavior are not known.
PRODUCT LABELNG
Under this program, consumers would be alerted to products that have special environ-
mental and safety implications. Manufacturers would be encourage to convey a number of
messages, via labels, including proper disposal methods and promotion of waste minimiza-
tion. The labels could also flag recyclable products or those that contain hazardous
materials. Less hazardous products could be awarded an "Environmentally Safer" label,
similar to the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval." Labels could be affixed to the
products themselves or signs or stickers could be placed on a shelf near the product.
° This program would target all consumers and provide necessary information for shoppers to
select less hazardous products. Labeling at the point of sale makes information highly
visible and accessible to consumers.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
' Product labeling would promote waste reduction by encouraging consumer selection of
safer products and proper waste management behavior.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This program would enhance worker and public health and protect the environment by
reducing the amount of waste generated.
yr. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
This program is compatible with existing and proposed programs. Enforcement of product
labeling and motor oil recycling information requirements could be combined-
LEGAL
ombinedLEGAL ISSUES
Labeling products would require state or federal legislation, as local ordinances are
ineffective for products made out-of-state. Such requirements might be construed to
conflict with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the enactment
of laws that interfere with the free flow of goods in interstate commerce. Manufacturers
may view marking their product libelous; therefore, liability may be an issue.
Labeling on shelves can be mandated at the local level but would be more effective if
mandated at the state level.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
As the use of labels increases, their effectiveness diminishes.
Industry support may be difficult to obtain.
Enforcement may be difficult, unless retailers support the project.
A-13
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Germany has a "Blue Angel" emblem program that identifies environmentally safer '
products. This emblem is displayed on over 450 products.
Iowa's Groundwater Protection Bill of 1986 requires stickers to be placed on products that '
need special disposal. Signs are posted at the end of store aisles to explain the purpose of
the sticker. Compliance, however, is poor.
'
PROMOTION OF SAFER PRODUCTS
Research would be conducted to evaluate products and compile lists of those that are less
hazardous than others in various product categories. Once this information was compiled,
it would be made available to the public. In addition, the development of safer alternative
products where none are currently available would be encouraged. Targeted product types
would include pesticides and cleaning products, though all hazardous product categories
could be addressed.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program would contribute to waste reduction, the top state waste management priority.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Promotion of safer products would directly and positively affect public health and the
environment.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
This program would be compatible with existing programs.
LEGAL ISSUES
Trade secrets would hinder research into existing products.
Public agency endorsement of one product over another could present legal difficulties.
Selection criteria would have to be clear, rigorously followed and unimpeachable. An
alternative approach would be to fund an independent party, such as a nonprofit
organization, to develop and publicize the information.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Other than the legal issues, there are no potential barriers.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Washington Toxics Coalition "Home Safe Home" program included promotion of some
name brand alternatives. Alternative, make-it-yourself recipes are available from a number
of sources.
i
A-14
CITIZEN WASTE TREATMENT
Educational materials would be developed to instruct citizens on ways to handle and
dispose of certain household hazardous wastes at home. This program encourages
householders to recycle wastes where feasible, and to "treat" certain wastes so they become
non-hazardous and may be disposed in an environmentally sensitive manner. Examples of
"treatments" for specific wastes are listed below:
it
1. Paint solvents: Allow used paint solvents to sit until paint particles settle. Decant
the solvent for reuse and dispose of the paint particles in the garbage.
2. Latex paint: Allow small amounts of unwanted latex paint to dry in a well
ventilated area and dispose of the solid paint in the garbage.
3. Drain cleaners and antifreeze: Flush down the drain with plenty of water.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Information should stress safety and protecting against possible exposures.
LEGAL ISSUES
Liability if injury results when procedures are not followed correctly, for example, if
solvent-based paints are allowed to dry rather than latex, and significant exposure to
+ solvent fumes results.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Minnesota has produced fact sheets encouraging citizen involvement in waste reduction,
including paint drying and solvent settling.
In Missouri, information is provided to encourage volatilization of solvent-containing
products in a "volatilization box". Missouri also publishes a list of products that might be
considered hazardous but are acceptable in municipal landfills, allowing citizens to
distinguish hazardous from non-hazardous wastes.
HHW TELEPHONE INFORMATION LINE
i
HHW Telephone Information Lines provide residents with the latest information on proper
storage, handling and disposal of household hazardous waste. The telephone line will have
a publicized toll-free number available to King County residents. The telephone service
will provide publicity for HHW programs and events, in addition to waste management
information.
f .
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Phone lines promote proper handling of hazardous wastes and can provide users with
information emphasizing the State's higher waste management priorities.
A-15
�K
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The information provided by the phone line staff would include recommended procedures
that minimize risk and promote public safety.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
The Seattle/King County Health Department operates the Hazard Line. Additional phone
lines would be compatible with this program. Phone lines can promote HHW collection
facilities and programs.
COST
Costs would be dependent on the number of trained staff answering the phone line. Costs
for a 1 FTE program are:
Year 1 Year 2
Staff (per FTE) $40,000 $60,000
Admin/supplies 10,000 15,000
LEGAL ISSUES
Liability if injury or problems result due to incorrect or misinterpreted information.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
None.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Seattle-King County Health Department Hazard Line has averaged over 735 calls per
month for January through July, 1988. Ecology's Hazardous Substance Information Line
has responded to 550 calls/month in 1988.
SCHOOLS PROGRAM
A comprehensive schools program would teach children and adults about the health and
environmental effects of hazardous products and about personal responsibility for proper
hazardous waste management. Such a program would require:
• Development and distribution of curricula, such as lessons on identifying hazardous
products in the home for young children; safe use and disposal of hazardous waste
in related high school classes such as art, woodshop and driver training; case study
materials and standardized courses for use in two- and four-year colleges.
Widespread distribution of materials would be encouraged.
• Teacher training and workshops to prepare teachers to use curricula.
• In-school programs, including traveling presentations on HHW alone or in
conjunction with other environmental topics such as water quality, recycling, etc.
New programs developed under the Plan would be coordinated with existing
programs.
A-16
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
School programs contribute to waste reduction, the top waste management priority.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
People informed about HHW through the schools program, by their children or from their
own attendance, will use and dispose of hazardous products properly, increasing safety in
the home and decreasing the risks associated with these products in the waste stream.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
The proposed schools program will enhance existing school programs. Coordination may
be possible through the State Office of Environmental Education.
COST
Year 1 Year 2
Staff 1.0 FTE $40,000 $40,000
Admin/supplies 20,000 20,000
Workshop presentations 40,000 40,000
Curricula development 70,000 65,000
Travel expenses 5,000 10,000
4. Teacher Training 0 40,000
In-school programs 0 40,000
LEGAL ISSUES
There are no legal issues.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
The procedure for instituting a new curriculum requirement in grade schools is long and
_ difficult, and would probably require state action. However, school boards can be
encouraged to offer these programs, for example, by including discussion of HHW in the
existing hazardous materials requirements for science classes.
}
King County has 20 school districts that would need to be approached separately.
Obtaining credit for teacher certification and continuing education may be difficult.
v
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
As part of Metro's Water Quality School Program, a 2/3-time staff person travels to
schools and presents a half-day general water quality workshop including a section on
HHW. Children are encouraged to take home a worksheet that helps them identify
hazardous products in their home. After parents sign a form acknowledging that the
ip "toxics hunt" assignment was completed, students receive a "Clean Team" pin.
Participation in the home hunt is about 65-70 percent. Metro does not have enough staff
to meet the current demand for presentations. "Sleuth," a full-length curricula developed
by Metro in 1982 and distributed by the Office of Environmental Education, is still used
and requested and has been reprinted several times. The Ecology's Litter and Recycling
section devotes two full time staff to teacher training in solid waste issues. This program
includes some information on HHW.
A-17
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION AND WASTE
HANDLING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
HHW PERMANENT COLLECTION FACILITIES
Permanent collection facilities provide citizens with a convenient place to dispose of their
household hazardous wastes. The facility itself would be any type of structure that is in
compliance with local regulations. Permanent collection facilities would be staffed with
trained personnel, open year round and sited for maximum accessibility. They can be sized
to handle any volume of waste, depending on size and density of local population,
available disposal capacity or other factors. Wastes collected would be separated and
stored until they are transported to a licensed TSD facility by a licensed hauler. The
method of waste handling and disposal after collection would be negotiated between site
operators and the TSD.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORI'T'IES
Collection facilities provide citizens with a disposal option for HHW. Recyclable items, +�
such as waste oil or batteries that are collected can be easily recycled or treated, promoting
the state's highest waste management priority. Collection facilities also provide an
opportunity for educating people about alternatives to hazardous products, thereby reducing
the amount of waste generated.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Sanitation workers run the risk of exposure to hazardous substances when HHW is mixed
with municipal solid waste. By separating these wastes, collection facilities reduce the
chances of these accidents. On the other hand, HHW collected in large quantities present
the risk of exposure to the workers who handle them. When the wastes are collected and
stored in an orderly fashion, workers can be trained to handle them safely.
HHW that accumulates in peoples basements and garages increase the risks of exposures
and fires. Collection facilities allow householders to remove these items, reducing these
risks. There are risks associated with transport of the waste to the facilities; householders
run the risk of spills or exposure in the case of a spill.
In no collection options are provided, the wastes remain in people's garages and basements
or are disposed of in the municipal garbage, poured down the drain or onto the ground.
All these methods of disposal have environmental and health implications. Collection
facilities mitigate these risks by providing an alternative disposal option.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Collection facilities are compatible with existing programs and other programs under
consideration in this plan.
A-18
COST
No Costs are dependent upon program design and will vary considerably.
Start up costs for the City of Seattle pilot project are:
Site design and preparation $20,000
Hazardous waste shed 50,000
Equipment* and permits 5,000
Training 10,000
Planning and administration 20,000
Staff 34,000 per FTE
Disposal 1,300
per ton
LEGAL ISSUES
Since HHW is exempt from federal and state hazardous waste regulation, the only laws and
regulations that apply to the program are for temporary storage of hazardous materials.
Collection facilities must comply with local fire and building codes. (Under current fire
f and building codes, no distinction is make between a hazardous "waste" and a hazardous
"material".) Collection facilities can help localities meet state "minimum functional
+. standards" for diversion of hazardous waste from the solid waste stream.
r.
Despite the fact that HHW are exempt under state and federal hazardous waste laws,
collection facility sponsors do not escape long term liability under Superfund for their
contribution to ultimate disposal sites. However, this liability may be less onerous for
local governments than the potential liability if a municipal solid waste landfill becomes a
Superfund site because of mishandled household hazardous waste.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Cost is the primary barrier to implementing a collection facility. As Seattle's experience
demonstrates, start up costs for a relatively small (though full service) facility are
significant. Disposal costs are substantial.
l Permanent collection facilities require space. Adequate room must be available for storage
of hazardous waste, a buffer zone around the storage facility for fire prevention purposes,
room for queuing the cars. King County Solid Waste Division considers the volume of
traffic at its transfer stations too great to accommodate the increased activity from a
collection facility for HHW.
Collection facility sponsors may find it inconvenient to accept certain wastes that are
difficult to dispose of such as dioxin containing wastes or unidentified wastes.
L DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
In Washington, the City of Seattle set up a facility at the city's south Transfer Station.
Thurston and Whatcom Counties sponsor small scale HHW collection /facilities. Chempro,
a Seattle-based TSD offers a free collection and disposal service for HHW, one day a
week. San Francisco, San Bernardino, Santa Monica and other California localities also
have household hazardous waste facilities. Anchorage, Alaska is developing a collection
facility.
A-19
HHW MOBILE COLLECTION FACILITY
A mobile HHW collection facility would provide citizens living in areas of the County not
served by permanent facilities with an accessible disposal option. A portable facility, a
shed or container, would be transported to convenient locations on a schedule. The collec-
tion facility would be set up and operated for two to four weeks in a single location, then
moved on to the next scheduled stop. Stops would be chosen based on accessibility, safe
transportation of wastes, land use and zoning and similar considerations.
All local permitting requirements and safety regulations would be followed. Worker safety
and emergency response training would be required of all site personnel. Wastes would be
removed from the site as needed, by a licensed transporter or TSD firm. Wastes handling
and disposal methods would be negotiated by the facility operators and the hazardous waste
disposal firm.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES '
This is a collection program. Collected wastes would be managed according to the state
priorities, when possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Collection diverts HHW from municipal waste streams and removes wastes from long-term
storage, contributing to improved environmental quality, public and worker safety.
Facility staff may risk exposure to HHW. These risks can be mitigated by emphasizing
safety in facility design, worker training and operating procedures (including providing
personal protective equipment when needed).
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
Mobile collection complements other education and collection programs by providing HHW
disposal options to citizens in rural areas of the county.
COST Per Facility:
Staff (based on operating hours) 34,000 per FTE
Truck rental 5,000
Collection Shed 25,000
Berms, fencing 4,300
Set Up 7,600
Permits and equipment 4,000
Disposal costs 1,300 per ton
LEGAL ISSUES
Local land use, building and fire codes must be followed in each jurisdiction hosting a
facility.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Meeting some code requirements, may be difficult and expensive.
Siting difficulties.
A-20
. . . ........... . ........... ...
HHW PICKUP SERVICE FOR THE HOMEBOUND
This program would provide a HHW collection service for residents, such as the elderly or
disabled, who are unable to commute to a collection facility. Community service groups
such as Community Home Help, chore services, and others would be contacted and
encouraged to include collection and disposal of their client's unwanted hazardous products
as part of their services. Field personnel or volunteers in these programs would dispose of
wastes at local HHW collection services. These personnel would be given brief training on
the safe handling and transport of HHW.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program will promote proper disposal of HHW.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Hazardous wastes would be diverted from the waste stream and removed from long-term
storage in the garages and basements of an especially vulnerable segment of the population,
reducing risks to public health and the environment. Exposure risk to volunteer staff is
similar to that of a householder bringing wastes to a collection facility or a roundup.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
This program would be an extension of existing services provided to the homebound. This
program would complement other proposed HHW collection programs by providing
disposal options to an additional segment of the population.
f DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
A pilot program in San Diego collected HHW from 25 homes per day. Santa Monica
offered pickup service for the homebound in conjunction with a roundup; 35 pickups were
made during the one time event.
A-21
TARGETED WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING
PAINT RECYCLING
This program element addresses methods for handling paint "wastes" after they have been
collected.
The goals of the paint recycling project are: a) to investigate methods for recycling both 1
latex and solvent-based paints; b) where recycling proves feasible, to implement recycling
programs for paints collected as household hazardous wastes; and c) where recycling is not
feasible, to investigate alternative disposal methods.
Currently, paints are disposed of by landfilling or incineration, the lowest waste
management priorities. Latex paints are generally not highly toxic (with the exception of
some old lead-based paints, and paints that contain mercury as a fungicide). Solvent-based
paints contain recoverable materials such as solvents and metal pigments. '
Latex recycling involves mixing the collected paints into a reusable paint product that can
be sold at low cost. Recycling for solvent-based paints involves recovering solvents and
metal pigments.
The private sector (paint manufacturers) would be involved in the actual preparation of they
recycled latex paint. Incentives that are necessary for private sector involvement include:
1) a potential market for the product; 2) adequate profit margin; and 3) support and
assistance from the agencies involved in collection of latex paint. Reduced disposal costs
make paint recycling an attractive program to agencies responsible for disposal of large
volumes of collected paint. The value of the recoverable materials from solvent-based
paints may make solvent-based paint recycling a profitable option as well.
STATE WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
This program is an attempt to manage a significant portion of the collected household
wastes at a higher priority level than is currently done.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS
Workers involved in paint collection and reprocessing will be exposed to the waste, but
with adequate equipment and safety precautions, dangers are minimized.
Recycling wastes rather than land disposal or incineration is beneficial to the environment.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Collection facilities and programs will be a major contributor of paint wastes. This program
is a method of handling the collected wastes in a safer and more cost-effective manner. It
will benefit the entire collection program. The City of Seattle Solid Waste Utility is
conducting a pilot paint recycling project.
A-22
LEGAL ISSUES
There are some legal questions that are being investigated in the pilot phase, especially in
relation to the recycled latex paint product. Areas that need to be investigated before the
product can be marketed on a large scale include: 1) product labeling; 2) product quality;
and 3) manufacturer responsibilities.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
The potential barriers to paint recycling are technical feasibility; economic feasibility;
institutional acceptance by paint manufacturers; and product marketability.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Preparation of a recycled latex paint has been done on a small scale in California.
Detailed feasibility and implementation questions were not fully addressed. Recovery of
solvents and metal pigments from solvent-based paints is not a new technology, but use of
these processes for small quantities of different types of products has yet to be tested.
HOUSEHOLD BATTERY COLLECTION AND RECYCLING
An estimated 17 million household
batteries are purchased and disposed of annually in
King County. This program would provide an alternative disposal option other than the
solid waste stream. Under this program, household batteries would be collected and
recycled. Collection would take place at shopping centers, transfer stations and other
appropriate locations. Receptacles would be distributed and batteries periodically picked up.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program emphasizes recycling.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The heavy metal content of household batteries can cause contamination of leachate from
landfills and ash from incinerators. Reducing the number of batteries in the waste stream
will reduce potential environmental contamination from heavy metals.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
This program would be compatible with existing solid waste recycling programs.
COST
Project design $15,000
Implementation (publicity, outreach, staff training) $30,000
LEGAL ISSUES
None.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Markets for recycled batteries would have to be investigated.
I
l
A-23
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Japan has a very successful national battery recycling program. The Thermal Reduction
Co. in Whatcom County has a household battery recycling program that accepts mercury
oxide and silver oxide button cell batteries. The batteries are collected and sent to Albany,
New York and Lake Oswego, Oregon for recycling.
AUTO BATTERY COLLECTION/RECYCLING PROGRAM
Local programs will be developed to implement a new state law requiring a deposit on all
lead-acid batteries when the Department of Ecology promulgates specific regulations for
this law. Programs to investigate potential markets for used lead-acid batteries would be
encouraged.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
A deposit system would encourage recycling of lead-acid batteries.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Each lead-acid battery contains 1 gallon of lead-contaminated sulfuric acid. Ecology
estimates that 25% of the 1,2000,000 used batteries generated each year are unaccounted
for. Reducing the number of batteries entering the municipal waste streams improve
worker and environmental health.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
Three of five battery manufacturers in the state have programs for recycling. The battery
industry interest group, Battery Council International, has developed model legislation on
battery recycling and supports a program that enhances the existing recycling chain.
LEGAL ISSUES
Lead acid battery recycling is not exempt from federal Superfund liability.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
The recycling of batteries is dependent upon foreign markets, which must be assessed.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Rhode Island has a deposit on car batteries since 1987. Minnesota and California passed
similar state legislation in 1988 that bans batteries from municipal landfills, requires
retailers to accept used batteries and recycle them and to post signs to alert customers of
the landfill ban.
A-24
COLLECTION OF USED MOTOR OIL
If feasible, used motor oil would be picked up from residences a) during normal collection
of garbage or recyclables, or b) by separate contractor. Residents would leave oil out for
collection in any unbreakable, leak-proof, closed container. Non-conforming containers
would not be picked up. Special containers could be provided on request or made
available at stores where oil is sold. Oil would be picked up and transported in a separate
contained compartment of the collection truck. Individual containers would be carried to a
central location for consolidation or the oil could be poured into containers on trucks.
Collected oil would be screened for potential contamination with halogenated solvents,
PCBs or other materials that would cause the used oil to be classified as a hazardous
waste. Uncontaminated oil would be transferred to large holding tanks and picked up by a
recycler. Contaminated oil would be managed as a hazardous waste.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This is a collection and recycling program.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The potential for spills during collection and handling could be limited by careful handling
hr• practices and containment on trucks and at bulking and storage areas.
There is a potential for vandalism of containers waiting for collection.
The net result of the program would be to capture both oil and hazardous constituents that
are currently entering the environment in an uncontrolled manner.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
This program would be compatible with solid waste collection systems operated by city
agencies. Unincorporated areas of King County contract out their collection services to
private haulers and would have to negotiate additional services with the haulers.
Ecology is supportive of curbside pickup, and could provide some technical assistance in
development and evaluation of the program.
LEGAL ISSUES
King County's ability or inability to contract directly for curbside collection services.
Hazardous waste generator status for collection company may be necessary.
Potential liability for oil spills, and for management/disposal of material that turns out to
be hazardous waste. This would be largely a liability for the collection company. Careful
contract provisions and oversight regarding proper containment, procedures, etc. would
limit, but not eliminate, agency responsibility.
Insurance negotiations.
A-25
1�
BARRIERS
Serving apartments may be difficult.
Hazardous waste issue can deter collectors. i
May not be feasible for King County given collection regulations.
DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE
An oil collection program has been established in Milpita, California. The service
reportedly reduces the incidence of worker injury and truck cleaning costs.
A-26
SQG EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SQG INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT AND OUTREACH
An information and outreach program would inform SQGs about proper handling and
disposal of hazardous waste, current applicable regulations, and waste reduction. The
program would also promote collection services. Written materials for specific industries
or specific waste types would be distributed using a variety of methods, including the SQG
information telephone line, resource library, trade associations, the media, and waste
handling companies. The program has two sub-elements:
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT: Materials explaining SQG waste reduc-
tion and recycling options would be developed and distributed. Materials would be
industry and waste-stream specific, with an emphasis on practicality of implementation.
�1
SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS: Seminars and workshops would inform SQGs of waste
reduction and recycling opportunities, providing the chance to share information and obtain
answers to technical questions. In order to encourage participation, confidentiality would
be protected, and no compliance or enforcement authorities would be involved. Events
could be sponsored by trade associations or consultants with no connections to enforcement
agencies to ensure SQG participation.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Outreach and educations efforts provide the information businesses need to follow the
waste management priorities to the greatest extent possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This program encourages the proper management of hazardous wastes, which positively
affects worker, public and environmental safety.
COMPATIBELITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
The SQG information and outreach program is compatible with existing education programs
sponsored by Metro's Industrial Waste Section, the Health Department, Ecology, the
Hazardous Waste Interagency Coordinating Committee, and industry association efforts.
The proposed program would enhance and expand existing programs.
COST
Educational Material Development
Staff 0.5 FTE $20,000
Newsletters, brochures 75,000
Seminars and Workshops 25,000
Staff 1.0 FTE 40,000
Admin/supplies 10,000
LEGAL ISSUES
•t None.
A-27
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Government interference with private sector hazardous waste market.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Seattle/King County Department of Public Health's Hazardous Waste Disposal: A Guide for
Businesses booklet has been well received.
SQG PASSIVE MATERIALS EXCHANGEI
In a passive materials exchange, a broker acts as a clearinghouse for unwanted hazardous
products, matching up businesses that have such products with those that can use them. The
broker never takes possession of the materials but acts as a referral service through a hone line
bro p g p
or a newsletter. A feasibility study will be conducted in 1989 by the Health Department. Results
of this study will determine the best implementation strategy for this program.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program emphasizes waste reduction, the state's top waste management priority, in that
hazardous products are used up, rather than being disposed of.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Participants in the materials exchange run some risk of injury from exposure to hazardous
materials. Materials would be transported either by the donor or the recipient; risks to health and
the environment are similar in this instance to SQGs transporting wastes to collection sites or
TSDs.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
The feasibility study would determine whether a materials exchange geared to the needs of SQGs
would be compatible with existing programs and plans.
COSTS
Staff 1.5 FTE $57,000
Admin/supplies 13,000
Phones/misc 5,000
Printing/mailing 20,000
LEGAL ISSUES
Liabilities for both donors and recipients for materials handled
Status of SQG wastes as "hazardous" when traded or donated to a business that can use them
would have to be clarified.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Business concern about contamination of wastes and quality control in industrial processes.
A-28
SQG TELEPHONE INFORMATION LINE
Telephone lines provide businesses with the latest information on proper storage, handling
and disposal of their hazardous waste. The trained staff would give referrals and
information on regulatory issues, product alternatives, manufacturer information, legal
assistance and any other relevant topics of concern. Information would be available to
40 phone staff through the Resource Library (see Program Element: Resource Library).
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Phone lines promote proper handling of hazardous wastes and can provide users with
information emphasizing the State's higher waste management priorities.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The information provided businesses concerning the handling of SQG hazardous waste can
include recommended procedures that minimize risk and promote public and worker safety.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Phone lines provide publicity and information about other SQG programs and events.
COST
Costs would be dependent on the number of trained staff answering the phone line. Costs
for a 1 FTE program are:
Staff (1 FTE including benefits) $40,000
Administration and supplies 10,000
Rent 600
Telephone 1,000
Miscellaneous Supplies 400
LEGAL ISSUES
Liability issues concerning the types of information given to business over the phone.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
None.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Health Department Hazard Line has averaged over 735 calls per month for
January-July, 1988. Ecology's Hazardous Substance Information Line has responded to 550
calls/month thus far in 1988.
A-29
SQG RESOURCE LIBRARY
A local SQG library would provide SQGs with a wide variety of information on handling
their hazardous wastes. The SQG library in King County would be a branch of the
state-sponsored SQG Resource Center in Olympia, Washington. Materials specific to King
County would supplement those available through the state-sponsored library. Literature,
case studies and expert contacts for waste reduction, recycling and treatment, as well as
worker safety and health, would be available. Requests for information will be made
through the SQG Telephone Information Line.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program would provide information to encourage SQGs to reduce their wastes, use
alternative processes and products, and at a minimum, use appropriate disposal methods for
wastes that are generated.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Information is essential to the appropriate management of hazardous wastes. When these
wastes are managed and disposed of carefully, public health and the environment benefit.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
This program would be a "satellite" of the Ecology library; as such, it is an expansion of
an existing program It is recommended that the Ecology library continue to receive
funding.
Having these information resources locally available would also increase the ability of the
SQG Telephone Information Hotline to answer SQG questions.
COSTS
YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Staff 1.0 FTE $40,000 $40,000
Admin/supplies 10,000 10,000
Materials and Data acquisition 10,000 20,000
Computer system 15,000 5,000
LEGAL ISSUES
None.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Finding technical information appropriate for SQGs.
An agreement with the resource center in Vancouver would have to be negotiated.
Continued state sponsorship of the existing program is not certain.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Intergovernmental Resource Center (IRC) operated a SQG Technical Resource Center
in Vancouver, Washington during 1988 with funding from Ecology. The service was
successful in creating an awareness of disposal options and waste reduction options for
SQGs. Ecology has since taken over the service.
A-30
PROMOTION OF SQG WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND TREATMENT
PROGRAMS
Under this program, the research and development of waste reduction, recycling and
treatment technologies by industry, private and public research and development labs, and
universities would be enhanced Programs include:
A needs assessment to identify priority waste streams, to be conducted by a broad-
based technical advisory committee;
• Waste stream analyses and development of prototype waste profiles for SQG waste
streams;
• Loans, grants or awards to encourage private development of new waste reduction
processes or technologies;
�- Internship programs or development of endowments for research assistantships for
chemistry, engineering and related science graduate students to test new products
and technologies for waste management;
• A newsletter for exchanging technical information, ideas and discussing problems;
• Pilot projects to determine the feasibility of various waste reduction, treatment or
r recycling methods. Government agencies could conduct pilot projects. Many
government agencies such as parks department, utilities, school districts are
generators of hazardous wastes. These entities could develop and implement
programs to reduce their own wastes using methods and strategies that could be
copied by SQGs. Examples of such programs include Integrated Pest Management
instead of pesticide use in parks, utility rights-of-way and other areas; substitution of
less hazardous products in government shops and garages; agency-wide purchasing
policies and programs that choose non-hazardous products over hazardous ones; or
consolidating solvent wastes, for example, for in-house treatment and recycling.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program emphasizes waste reduction, the top state priority for waste management. It
also encourages waste treatment and recycling.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Less waste would be produced, therefore, directly and positively affecting worker health
and environmental safety.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
These waste reduction projects complement federal small business loans and grants
programs. They also complement small informal discussion groups such as the University
of Washington's "lab group" which shares information and discusses technical issues. The
Puget Sound section of the American Chemical Society would like to enhance the
promotion of chemical careers by getting involved with waste reduction technologies. This
program element provides the up-to-date information required for the success of other
recommended program elements: Information Telephone Hotline, SQG Resource Library,
seminars and workshops, and On-Site Consultation.
A-31
COST YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Staff (per FTE) $40,000 $40,000
Admin/supplies 10,000 10,000
Needs assessment 10,000 20,000
Waste stream analysis 20,000 20,000
Newsletter and technology transfer 0 60,000
Incentive/awards program 20,000 50,000
LEGAL ISSUES
There are no legal issues associated with this program.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Trade secrets and patents could inhibit the free exchange of information.
Certain local codes may present barriers to the on-site treatment of wastes.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
North Carolina has a Pollution Prevention Pays program that provides grants and loans to
businesses to institute waste reduction.
The Minnesota Technical Assistance Pro (Mn TAP) coordinates an internship program
with the University of Minnesota.
Illinois has a Hazardous Waste Research Institute.
SQG WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND TREATMENT FEASIBILITY
Under this program, government would:
• identify SQG waste streams that contribute hazardous wastes to municipal waste
streams;
• characterize those waste streams;
• identify treatment technologies that would make it possible to dispose of these
wastes in municipal waste streams rather than as a hazardous waste.
Businesses that generate candidate waste streams include jewelry businesses, small metal
plating businesses and photo processors (metal recovery, pH balancing and cyanide
detoxification). Where proven feasible, treatment technologies would be tested, and the
private sector would be encouraged to use these treatment processes.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Treatment of wastes is emphasized.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This program would identify additional SQG waste streams for treatment and would
increase the proportion of treated wastes entering the municipal waste streams. The
A-32
By decreasing the toxicity of wastes entering the municipal waste streams, this program would
help sewage treatment plants meet discharge limitations and lower leachate toxicity at solid waste
facilities.
COSTS
Staff YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Planning & management 1.0 FTE $45,000 45,000
Operations & analysis 1-2.0 FTE 0 45,000
Equipment 0 150,000
Lab analysis 0 40,000
Admin/supplies 20,000 22,500
LEGAL ISSLTES
Any necessary permits would have to be obtained. Whether a pilot treatment facility would
require a Part B permit would have to be determined.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Technical feasibility.
Business unwillingness to participate.
SQG ON-SITE CONSULTATION
This program would provide businesses with the opportunity to request an On-Site Consultation
on hazardous waste management. Experts would walk through the business, provide information
on environmental compliance and help establish best waste management practices specific to that
business. This would be a consultation program only, and would not be linked to any
inspection/enforcement program.
This program is similar to the SQG Audits and Surveys but, since there is no referral or
enforcement/compliance component, it allows businesses the opportunity to receive direct
assistance the first time without enforcement and penalties.
It is estimated that one FTE field staff will contact an average of 75 SQGs per year. This
includes actual on-site review, research and follow-up time.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
The program emphasizes waste reduction efforts, the DOE's highest waste management priority.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This program fosters best waste management practices and so, positively affects health, worker
and environmental safety.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
This program is comi..atible with other proposed SQG education and technical assistance
programs.
A-33
COST
YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Staff (coordinator - 1.0 FTE) $40,000 $40,000
Staff (field - 4.0 FTE) 80,000 120,000
Supplies 30,000 52,000
Vehicles 20,000 23,000
LEGAL ISSUES
Liability for providing technical recommendations.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
None.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Department of Labor and Industry provides a non-enforcement on-site consultation service
to businesses upon request for worker safety regulations.
A-34
SQG COLLECTION AND WASTE HANDLING PROGRAM
ELEMENTS
SQG MOBILE COLLECTION FACILITIES
A mobile collection facility would be set up in a convenient location where SQGs could
bring their wastes for a designated period of time. SQGs would complete the appropriate
paperwork and waste profiling prior to bringing the wastes to the collection site.
Facilities would consist of a commercial step-van or trailer truck used to transport
equipment to the temporary collection site and store wastes until they are removed by a
licensed hazardous waste hauler. The collection facility would be equipped with all
appropriate safety features as required by the local fire departments and permitting
agencies.
Under this program, local governments would subsidize the collection facility for five
years. The facilities would be operated by licensed hazardous waste facility personnel.
After the five year period, hazardous waste handling companies would be given the option
to assume full operation of the facility.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORI'T'IES
The waste handling firm's contract with government would emphasize preferred
s management alternatives for the collected wastes such as recycling and treatment.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Environmental health benefits increase as wastes are properly managed There may be a
INV potential for spills during transport of wastes to the mobile facilities. Precautions can be
taken to ensure safe transport of wastes.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
A mobile collection facility augments private sector disposal services with assistance from
government.
COST
Costs FOR 1 SITE:
Staff (3 FTE/site) $105,000
` Trucks (5 year lease) 100,000
Equipment,berms and fencing 10,000
Set-up costs 5,000
Planning and Training 25,000
LEGAL ISSUES
A mechanism must be instituted to ensure that only wastes from small quantity generators
are accepted.
Liability for the wastes would have to be assessed
A-35
Companies transporting their own wastes to the mobile facility site will need to comply
with DOT regulations.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Site selection may be difficult.
Unknown cost of disposal to be subsidized will be of concern.
SQGs may not be willing to incur costs.
TSDs require that all wastes be profiled before they will be accepted and very expensive
for SQGs. Some method would need to be developed for handling waste Profile
requirements.
AUXILIARY COLLECTION FACILITIES FOR SQG WASTE
Government would establish one or more "auxiliary" facilities for the collection of SQG
wastes. These facilities would be run by licensed TSDs under contract. All facility
preparation and the first two years of operation would be financed by government. Disposal
costs would be covered by the SQG. Wastes collected at the auxiliary facilities would be
transported to the TSD for treatment or disposal.
Currently, most TSDs are concentrated in the industrial areas of south Seattle. This
concentration has occurred for two reasons: 1) the TSDs' market of large industrial
generators is located in this area; and 2) land use and other permits for TSD facilities are
easier to obtain in industrially-zoned areas. However, SQGs located in distant parts of the
county must travel to these facilities to dispose of their wastes properly; this distance
constitutes a significant barrier to small businesses, in terms of time spent on.waste
disposal and associated costs. Under this program, auxiliary facilities would provide more
geographically accessible collection options for SQGs, while demonstrating to the TSDs
that they have a market in "outlying" areas. Because the wastes handled would be
,
conditionally exempt, permitting of auxiliary facilities may be simplified. If the TSDs
running the facilities were willing to assume ownership of the wastes collected, the
facilities would be classified as "generators" rather than "TSD facilities." Under these
circumstances, permit requirements are much simpler.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program emphasizes collection and proper disposal of SQG wastes, the lowest waste
management priority.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
A significant amount of SQG wastes would be diverted from the municipal solid and liquid
waste streams, resulting in environmental benefits.
This risk SQGs incur while transporting wastes to collection sites decreases when the
collection sites are close to the place of business. Wastes would be handled by trained
personnel and transported from the auxiliary facilities to the TSD by licensed haulers.
A-36
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Auxiliary facilities would be compatible with existing programs and plans. The
effectiveness of this program for SQGs would be enhanced by generic waste profiling (see
Promotion of SQG Waste Reduction, Treatment and Recycling Programs).
COST
Funds will be granted to a TSD or broker, under contract, to set up the site and run it for
two years. After that, the site will become the responsibility of the contractor. The
contractor will identify and purchase a site. The SQGs will be responsible for disposal
costs.
COST PER FACILITY YEAR I
Staff (3.0 FTE) $105,000
Storage units 30,000
Site design & preparation 20,000
Equipment and permits 10,000
Training/planning/admin 25,000
*Staff will actually be hired and trained by a TSD or broker under contract. These staff
will not be agency personnel.
LEGAL ISSUES
Whether or not the auxiliary facility would have to obtain a Part B permit (become a full-
fledged TSD) must be determined. If only SQG wastes are accepted, and if the contractor
assumes ownership of the wastes (and liability for them under Superfund), the facility
might be considered a "generator." This would require relatively little permitting and
paperwork. On the other hand, if the auxiliary facility would require a Part B permit, the
difficulty of obtaining this permit might outweigh the economic advantages of the
government funds, making the project unfeasible.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Siting of facilities may be difficult.
PROMOTION OF COLLECTION SERVICES
Current TSD services do not adequately meet the needs of SQGs for a variety of reasons,
including cost, accessibility, paperwork and other convenience factors. Staff would be
assigned to work with TSDs to overcome these problems, where possible. Areas where
agency staff could bridge the gap between TSDs and SQGs include: a) helping TSDs tailor
publicity to targeted SQG audiences; b) promoting privately run broker "milk-run" services,
in which entrepreneurs pick up a specific waste stream at scheduled intervals from clients;
and c) sponsoring and organizing trade association collection days, or "round ups" for
SQGs in a specific industry.
A-37
r
SQG SUBSIDIZED COLLECTION SERVICES
Government would subsidize up to 25% of SQG disposal costs. There are several ways in
which this program could be implemented: 1) the subsidy would be offered in
conjunction with the technical assistance and compliance programs such as the On-Site
Consultations and Surveys and Audits, 2) the program would be offered at the government
sponsored collection services such as the Mobile collection and Auxiliary services. The ;
subsidy would be offered to certified SQGs only. The number of times an SQG could
qualify for the subsidy would depend upon program implementation.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Where feasible, the waste management priorities would be followed-
ENVIRONMENTAL
ollowedENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
The monetary incentive will promote proper disposal of hazardous wastes.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Difficulty in confirming that businesses are SQGs.
TSDs would be required to keep additional paperwork and records of SQGs and keep them
separate from regulated hazardous waste generators.
Appropriateness of government role in the hazardous waste disposal industry.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The state of Florida has sponsored a SQG collection day allowing the SQGs to dispose of
their first barrel of waste at no charge.
A-38
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM ELEMENTS
ENHANCEMENT OF LOCAL ORDINANCES
In the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan Issue Pater (Appendix C), certain existing
regulations relevant to hazardous waste disposal that may or may not apply to SQGs and
households are identified. As part of plan implementation, these regulations should be
reexamined to clearly define SQG and household hazardous waste management require-
ments. The effect of strengthening these regulations and making them consistent across all
jurisdictions would be to effectively ban disposal of undesirable wastes in the municipal
solid waste and liquid waste streams. Specifically pecifically these regulations and responsible
agencies are:
1. Metro resolutions Nos. 2315 and 3374 should be amended to state that households
and SQGs are prohibited from disposing of hazardous waste into the sewer system
(Metro).
r._ 2. The Board of Health Rules and Regulations 8 should be expanded to place
additional bans on all those substances defined as household hazardous wastes by
Ecology (Health Department).
3. Regulations that prohibit household hazardous waste and SQG waste from solid
waste transfer stations should be standardized The King County Board of Health
Rules and Regulations 8, hazardous waste bans, should be adopted by all local
jurisdictions (solid waste agencies throughout the county).
4. Regulations prohibiting hazardous wastes from local sewer systems should be
standardized (sewer utilities throughout the county).
5, Load checking of self-haul vehicles (residential and commercial) at transfer stations
and landfills should be required (agencies that manage transfer stations).
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Clearer prohibitions against disposal of household hazardous and SQG wastes in municipal
solid waste and sanitary sewers will help remove undesirable wastes from these waste
streams. Publicizing and enforcing bans would promote higher waste management
priorities.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Proper disposal of hazardous wastes will result in increased public and worker safety and
#■ir environmental quality.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Inconsistencies between existing regulations would be eliminated, making hazardous waste
management simpler. Existing programs would be expanded.
A-39
COSTS
Agency staff time (0.1 FTE x 10 agencies) $40,000
Admin/supplies/legal consultation $10,000
LEGAL ISSUES
The legality of all proposed changes would have to be determined.
i
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Decision-making bodies may be reluctant to change existing laws or to provide necessary
funding to implement changes.
Banning of these wastes from municipal solid waste and liquid waste streams requires that
alternative disposal methods and/or more environmentally sound replacement products are
available.
Enforcement of these bans may be difficult. Violators would have to be caught in the act,
since tracing the source of hazardous waste in these waste streams is virtually impossible.
Bans must be adequately publicized to be effective.
THE INTERAGENCY REGULATORY ANALYSIS COMMITTEE (IRAQ
The Interagency Regulatory Analysis Committee would review existing hazardous waste
regulations of all agencies and cities in King County. Regulations would be examined to
determine if they are applicable to small quantity generators and to identify gaps, overlaps
and inconsistencies. The committee's goal would be to create a cohesive and
comprehensive regulatory framework for handling of SQG wastes. The committee would
address SQG treatment, handling and storage regulations, disposal restrictions and
enforcement. Where appropriate, the committee would recommend passage of new
ordinances. The following issues should be examined by the IRAC:
1. Increasing enforcement authority at the local level, so that SQGs have a greater
incentive to comply with existing regulations. Stronger penalties for noncompliance
should be examined.
2. A Hazardous Materials Disclosure Ordinance requiring SQGs to report their
hazardous waste generated and methods of disposal (see Program Element:
Hazardous Materials Disclosure Ordinance).
3. Examine state regulations and recommend amendments addressing special provisions
for treatment, recycling and reduction of SQG hazardous wastes to encourage SQGs
to follow the state waste management priorities.
At a minimum, the committee would require: 1) commitment of staff time and resources
by the major regulatory agencies, such as Metro, solid waste and surface and waste water
agencies, and the Health Department; 2) a designated committee coordinator (this position
A-40
could be rotated); 3) input from agencies that are less directly involved; 4) representation
by Ecology.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Currently, SQGs have little economic or legal incentive to comply with applicable
hazardous waste regulations. A tighter regulatory framework, incorporating appropriate
incentives, would encourage SQGs to follow the management priorities.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
A increase in the number of SQGs properly managing their hazardous wastes would result
in improved environmental quality and worker safety.
COMPATIBILITY WrM EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS
The regulatory changes resulting form this analysis should make enforcement and education
programs easier to implement by providing a clearer and more cohesive regulatory
framework, and therefore, greater incentive for SQG compliance.
COST
Agency staff time (0.1 x 10 agencies) $40,000
Admin/supplies/legal consultation $ $10,000
(75-200 hours/yr)
Jp
LEGAL ISSUES
The IRAC would recommend changes in ordinances and regulations. The legality of all
recommendations would have to be determined. This would include consistency with state
and federal hazardous waste laws.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
The committee would identify gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies with existing regulations,
but would not have the authority to make changes. The committee would bring issues to
the attention of the appropriate decision-making authorities. Decision makers may be
reluctant to change existing laws, or to provide necessary staff and funds to implement
those changes.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE
A disclosure ordinance would require businesses in King County that do not have an
EPA/Ecology hazardous waste generator identification number to report the hazardous waste
they generate and the methods of disposal. The information could be used to:
1) identify SQGs;
2) characterize SQG waste generation and disposal patterns;
3) help technical assistance programs assess potential for waste reduction;
4) provide historical data of hazardous materials use on a particular over a period of time;
5) determine compliance with disposal regulations; and
6) identify generators that should be regulated by the state but have failed to comply.
i A-41
This disclosure information would also be useful to lending institutions, real estate
companies and insurance companies that need to know about hazardous materials use on a
particular site. Users of the program would be charged a fee to offset costs of the
program.
A disclosure program would be simplest to implement if reporting requirements were
associated with existing, mandatory operating or permitting programs. Reporting could be
incorporated into any of the following: 1) business license renewals; 2) fire department
permits and inspections; and 3) health department surveys/audits. This provides the
necessary incentive to report and takes advantage of existing data collection systems rather
than creating new ones..
Variation: This information could also be obtained through Ecology. Ecology currently
requires regulated hazardous waste generators to file annual reports of hazardous waste
activity. This requirement could be extended to SQGs, without actual regulation of SQG
storage, handling and disposal of hazardous waste.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
The ordinance would not address the hazardous waste management priorities directly. By
making the SQGs more visible to enforcement agencies, the ordinance encourages
generators to dispose of hazardous wastes properly.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
A disclosure ordinance could positively affect public and worker health and the
environment by identifying hazardous waste generators and encouraging proper disposal.
LEGAL ISSUES
An ordinance or resolution must be passed in all jurisdictions.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Opposition from businesses.
Issue of confidentially of information collected
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
California: Hazardous waste generators must submit a biennial report to the Department of
Health Services Toxic Substances Control Division.
Anchorage, Alaska: Anchorage has an ordinance that requires all businesses that use or
store 220 pounds of hazardous materials or waste to provide the local fire department with
a written list of such materials.
Mountlake Terrace, Washington: All businesses applying for or renewing business licenses
in Mountlake Terrace are asked to complete a form disclosing the type and quantity of
hazardous materials used and stored. The City is currently drafting an ordinance that will
make this reporting a requirement. The form does not identify hazardous wastes. The
information is currently on file at the local fire department.
A-42
Clark/Skamania County, Washington: The Clark/Skamania County draft Moderate Risk
Waste Management Plan proposes an SQG identification system that would require all
businesses to acquire a local identification number to purchase
hazardous materials.
Other cities that have hazardous materials disclosure ordinances include Philadelphia and
Cincinnati (from: Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, Local Management Options, The
International City Management Association (ICMA) c. 1987, 1120 G. Street Northwest,
Washington, D.C. 20005).
RESPONSE NETWORK
The Response Network would provide a coordinated system to address hazardous waste
incidents and concerns. The Network would coordinate inspections of businesses that use
hazardous materials and/or generate hazardous wastes. The Network would be comprised
w. of agency field personnel and a coordinator.
Field staff from regulatory agencies, such as Metro, the Health Department and fire
r.. departments, would be trained in hazardous waste regulations and the safety concerns of all
agencies. A standardized checklist would be prepared to list specific problem areas
encountered by SQGs and regulated hazardous waste generators. Field staff would use the
checklist during site visits to identify potential hazardous waste management problems. If
the agency is not prepared to handle the situation at the time of the inspection, the
checklist is forwarded to the Response Network, where the problem would be referred to
the appropriate agency for initial action and follow-up, if necessary. The Response
Network would also have field staff dedicated to conduct follow-up inspections.
An important component of this program is training of field personnel. Training would
describe participating agencies' inspection authority, procedures and goals, and identify
information needed by each participating agency to trigger an inspection or enforcement
response to an identified problem. A computer database to manage the case load would be
required
The Response Network could serve as the hub of the SQG education, technical assistance
and compliance programs. The survey and audit program (see Program Elements) could
use the Response Network to prevent overlap and provide the necessary interagency
coordination.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
This program will improve the management of SQG waste. It will increase public
awareness, provide incentives to reduce the generation of waste and promote generator
responsibility.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This program would improve environmental, public and worker safety by increasing public
awareness about hazardous waste management and encouraging proper disposal.
A-43
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
The workload of participating agencies for inspection and enforcement would increase.
The program would coordinate existing programs to cut down on overlap and unnecessary
inspections while directing attention to specific problems.
COST YEAR 2
YEAR 1 YE
Response Network Staff (1-2.0 FTE) $40,000 $80,000
Compliance Inspection Staff (1-4.0 FTE) 40,000 80,000
Admin/supplies 20,000 40,000
Training programs 19,200 19,200
Supplies, rent 20,000 20,000
Vehicles 40,000 3°000
Consultant to develop database 50,000 0
Computer system 25,000 2,000
LEGAL ISSUES
There are no legal issues.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
This program would require a great deal of interagency cooperation.
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR SURVEYS AND AUDITS
The Health Department and Metro would conduct an on-site visit of every small quantity
generator in the county within the time frame of the adopted plan. Two approaches would
be used: 1) surveys of all businesses in a designated area and; 2) audits of businesses in
targeted industries.
Audited SQGs would be given specific information and technical assistance to improve
waste management practices. The audit would follow a standardized procedure. The SQG
would be given a period of time in which to institute changes. Information from the
audits and surveys would be forwarded to the Response Network (see Program Element).
If enforcement action is necessary, the Response Network would inform the appropriate
agencies. Enforcement actions may be taken at this time. Each FTE would contact
approximately 200 - 300 SQGs per year.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORI'T'IES
The survey and audit program would provide regulatory agencies access to SQGs that they
do not now have; waste management priorities would be emphasized through technical
assistance to businesses.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Proper management of SQG wastes by more businesses will result in increased worker
safety, as well as public health and environmental benefits.
A-44
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
The Health Department has conducted audits and surveys in the past. Under this program
these audits would be resumed and an enforcement component added.
COSTS
The primary costs associated with this program are for additional personnel.
YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Geographical Surveys (1-6 FTEs) $40,000 $80,000
Industry Audits (3-12 FTEs) 120,000 160,000
Administration/supplies 40,000 60,000
Vehicles/equipment 40,000 26,000
LEGAL ISSUES
The Health Department currently has the authority to conduct such audits and to require
#hr businesses to comply with existing regulations.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Audits are time consuming, as is providing site-specific technical assistance. This program
would require a major expansion of Department resources.
Success of this program depends on a) availability of appropriate technical information; b)
cooperation between regulatory agencies.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The Health Department past survey program was well received by the business community
and afforded a good opportunity for education. The surveys and audits provided valuable
information concerning SQG waste characterization and management practices.
A-45
PROGRAM ELEMENTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLAN
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE EXCHANGE
redistribution of partially used
A household hazardous waste exchange involves the reds P Y
containers of common household products that contain hazardous ingredients. These include
paints, pesticides, cleaners and lawn care products.
Waste exchanges can operate actively or passively. Active exchanges occur when the
waste broker accepts possession of the wastes from a household generator and redistributes
this to another household. With a passive exchange system, the broker does not take
possession of the waste, but rather acts as a clearinghouse, matching up households that no
longer need the product with those that can use it.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Waste exchanges reduce the amounts of hazardous wastes disposed of by providing an
alternative method of disposal to homeowners. Essentially, the exchanged products are
never thrown away but are used up, therefore reducing the amount of waste generated.
ENVIRONMENTAL
AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Citizens run the risk of possible exposure to hazardous materials and injury from
improperly labeled containers. There may be cases where the label on the product does
not match the contents of the container. With mislabeled containers, incompatible products
may be stored together, increasing the possibility of injury, fires or releases of noxious
fumes.
Participants in the waste exchange also run the risk of exposure or accident during
transport of materials.
If an active waste exchange were established, a site would need to be obtained to separate
and store these products. The site would need to be conveniently located to serve the
public, and health, safety and neighboring land use considerations would need to be taken
into account.
COMPA'T'IBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
The Health Department wold like to explore this option further, using the Hazards Line as
a resource.
COSTS
Staff $40,000
Admin/supplies 10,000
Printed materials/brochures/mailing 20,000
LEGAL ISSUES
Liability for accidents or misuse of products involving exchanged wastes or mislabeled
containers.
A-46
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Convenience to the public Training and safety issues for active exchange program: site
selection for storage, management of storage facility and disposal system for unwanted
items.
HHW DOOR-TO-DOOR OR CURBSIDE PICK-UP
Household hazardous wastes would be picked up a) from the home by appointment or b) at
the curb during regular solid waste or recyclables pick-up. Trained personnel would
transport the waste in specially-equipped trucks. In option a, someone would have to wait
at home for the pick up. Personnel would be able to question the householder concerning
the identity of any unlabeled or questionably labeled wastes and to screen out any wastes
that are non-hazardous or otherwise unacceptable to the program. In option b, wastes
would be placed at a designated pick-up station where they would be collected and
transported to a TSD for proper handling and disposal. There would be no opportunity to
question the homeowner about unlabeled or unacceptable wastes in option b.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIOR=S
This is a collection program, and as such, does not emphasize any of the higher waste
management priorities.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
This program offers the most convenient and accessible collection service possible.
Householders would benefit from the removal of unwanted hazardous substances from the
home. Most risk of exposure would be incurred by program staff, who would be trained
to handle the materials. Leaving wastes at designated stations may invite vandalism and
pose a risk of exposure to neighboring communities.
These wastes would be diverted from improper disposal with resulting benefits to the
environment. '
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
This program would be compatible with existing programs.
COSTS
Assuming a 10% participation rate (57,000 households/yr) collecting 1,998.5 tons of waste:
Admin Staff/supplies (2 FTE) $ 162,000
Trucks (175 x $30,000) 525,000
Staff (2FTE/truck = 350) 1,600,000
Disposal 2,100,000
Equipment 10,000
TOTAL $4,397,000
LEGAL ISSUES
Liability concerning wastes left at stations. Potential worker and community exposure to
wastes.
A-47
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
Collection costs for this program can be up to ten times more expensive than other
collection options based on a dollar per ton collected analysis. In option a, homeowners
will have to remain home until wastes are collected.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION DAYS (ROUND-UPS)
Collection days provide citizens with a periodic opportunity for disposal of household
hazardous waste. A collection site is set up at one or more locations for a short period of
time (usually one or two days). Citizens bring old and unwanted hazardous products to the
collection site. The site is staffed by personnel who collect, sort and pack the FH-1W.
Wastes collected are then transported by a licensed hauler to a TSD facility where they are
treated, recycled or disposed of.
In King County, these events have typically been funded by local government agencies and
staffed mainly by volunteers.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Collection events have been shown to increase public awareness about HHW. They
provide concerned citizens with an acceptable disposal option and are an opportunity to
educate citizens and promote waste reduction practices.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Collection day personnel are under some risk of exposure to hazardous materials; however,
training and careful site management can mitigate these risks. Providing collection options
to households reduces health and fire risks from the storage of these hazardous materials.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
Collection days are compatible with existing programs. Local governments and
Metrocenter YMCA have considerable experience in sponsoring these events.
COST
These costs assume one collection event per year.
Disposal $220,000
Equipment and supplies 20,000
Governmental staff 40,000
Site staffing 71,000
Consultant management services 20,000
Contingency 37,000
TOTAL $408,000
A-48
LEGAL ISSUES
Household hazardous waste is exempt from state and federal hazardous waste regulation.
The only laws and regulations that apply to the program are for the temporary storage of
hazardous materials.
POTENTIAL BARRIERS
None.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
Nationwide, collection days have a solid history of successful events. Since 1981, over
850 collection day type events have been held in the United States. King County has the
distinction of having sponsored the most successful of these events. King County has also
been holding collection days for a comparatively long time. Metro conducted one of the
first collection days in the United States in 1982, when a pilot collection day was
organized for residents of a selected Seattle neighborhood
6
ELIMINATION OF SQG EXEMPTIONS
Small Quantity Generators of hazardous waste are conditionally exempt from state
regulation under RCW 173.303.070. This program element recommends regulation of all
SQGs down to zero pounds of hazardous wastes. SQGs would be subject to the same
laws as "regulated" hazardous waste generators. The state would take enforcement
P
responsibility.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
Enforcement by Ecology would encourage SQGs to follow the waste management priorities.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ASSESSMENT
Proper management of SQG wastes by more businesses will result in increased worker
safety, in addition to public and environmental health.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS
Amend RCW 173.303 to regulate all quantities of dangerous waste generated by businesses.
Dangerous Waste Generators would be subject to the current handling and disposal laws.
COSTS
Increased enforcement staff
Legislation costs
LEGAL ISSUES
Opposition from small quantity generators of hazardous waste.
Regulation of SQGs would limit the types of programs local governments could implement.
For instance, any collection programs would have to become licensed as a TSD facility.
A-49
BARRIERS
The program would have to be implemented at the state level.
Regulation of SQGs would reduce flexibility of SQGs programs.
Tightening the regulations may promote more illegal practices by SQGs who don't have
the means to comply, and don't want to get fined for improper management.
The regulated dangerous waste inspection/enforcement section of Ecology is understaffed.
Adding another 32,000 businesses to the inspection list would require a sizable increase in
enforcement staff.
DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVENESS
The City of Seattle is conducting a study to determine if recycling is a viable option for
latex paint. The studies will develop a protocol for screening "waste" latex paint to
determine if some paints are technically not hazardous wastes at all.
A-50
t k ,u ` "rt
NVA,WAS boa"v
* 4 r# z a. ,VSs e 3� v
g:+ K'�" '.'3 '` u f .4+ c ,ahs'`. ' kb'^✓r 4 .
t
ism
�NJa «�.+`,�'Ayy�yAr i's ��r''»h�
44
pfg,'«-� 'N.- .a � W„w s�.� ��`. � �� �'•w� �,4c �„�`�'rf`a��`�,e ,� `� a�`�
Y D��'t9' M €a1R yiz ysKglow
a�
94,
WIN
� b��`$ �� -§�"�43^` °�'�t> Tb.Y°Jut'. k y"d�; '� �.'� R f• �" "� Qh +� ry y�,:
'^�' '' 'fin.� '��' �',+•^ r'� ;:�" "`a r ',. _ �e g a v 1 �i t ..
V � �
� Vo ckrt
Lly�y ,gyp .-
ir
r
u
�� �• � ter
� 4
ry
5Y t n \ r
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION B-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACILITY SITING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF HOUSEHOLD AND SMALL QUANTITY
GENERATOR HAZARDOUS WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
TONNAGE PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION ASSUMPTIONS . . . . B-3
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . B-5
HHW AND SQG WASTE REDUCTION RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL
GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8
ADOPTION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9
EXAMPLES OF FACILITY SITING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10
BUDGET SUPPLEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16
COORDINATOR JOB DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-30
1990 STAFFING COMMITMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-32
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-33
SUPPLEMENT TO APPENDIX D (PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DOCUMENTS) D-1
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION B-2
FACILITY SITING ,
Zoning requirements for hazardous waste collection facilities are
still being written in compliance with RCW 70.105. The
deadline for local governments to complete this process has
been extended to November, 1991. It is most likely, however,
that these facilities will be treated under the conditional use
sections of local zoning codes. The zoning requirements for
Cities of Bellevue and Seattle begin on page B-10.
LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF HOUSEHOLD
AND SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE
The Department of Ecology Planning Guidelines for Local '
Hazardous Waste Plans (July 1987) define household hazardous
wastes as follows:
Household Hazardous Wastes means any
discarded liquid, solid, contained gas, or sludge,
including any material, substance, product, ,
commodity, or waste, used or generated in the
household, regardless of quantity, that exhibits
any of the characteristics or criteria of dangerous
waste set for in Chapter 173.303 WAC.
Washington State Department of Ecology has developed rules
explaining how generators of regulated hazardous waste can
determine whether the wastes they generate are hazardous or
not (WAC 173.303). If they are hazardous wastes, they must be
handled, sorted and disposed of according to the provisions of
the regulations. Ecology defines Small Quantity Generator
Hazardous Wastes as:
any discarded liquid, solid, contained gas, or
sludge,including any material,substance,product,
commodity, or waste, used or generated by
businesses that exhibits any of the characteristics
or criteria of dangerous waste set for in Chapter
173.303 WAC, but which is exempt from
regulation as dangerous waste.
TONNAGE PROJECTIONS
The base tonnage estimate for the quantity of solid waste
generated in King County (including the City of Seattle) is
found in the King County Programmatic Draft Environmental
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION B-3
Impact Statement -- Solid Waste Management Alternatives
(June 1988). These base estimates do not take into account
solid waste recycling or reduction programs. Solid waste
tonnage projections are summarized in Table B-1:
` Table B-1. SOLID WASTE TONNAGE PROJECTIONS
Year Tonnage
1994 1,836,000
1999 2,106,300
2009 2,818,600
The HHW and SQG tonnage projections used in this Plan are
derived by applying the following assumptions to the base
tonnage estimate for solid waste quantities in King County
through the year 2009, assuming the existence of no local
programs to address these wastes.
HHW and SQG hazardous waste tonnage projections are
presented in Figure 2-7.
80 to 85 percent of the HHW in municipal waste streams is
found in the solid waste stream. The remaining 15 to 20
percent is disposed of in the sanitary sewer system. For waste
projection purposes, an 85/15 split is assumed. In addition, an
unquantifiable amount is disposed of directly into the
environment, via storm drains or direct dumping onto the
ground.
HHW in the King County solid waste stream is 33P ercent of
the total hazardous waste in municipal waste streams. SQG
waste accounts for the remaining 67 percent.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
REDUCTION ASSUMPTIONS
Reduction percentages are the result of an item by item
i. analysis of the types of hazardous wastes typically found in the
King County waste stream. The Technical Planning Committee
then used its collective best professional judgement, using the
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION
B-4 ,
'
following assumptions to project by what percentage g a given
waste stream can be reduced within a specific timeframe
(Table B-2).
Table B-2. REDUCTION GOALS FOR HHW, BY
WASTE TYPE
Waste Tine 1990 1994 1999 2004 2009
Latex Paint 0% 8% 58% 73% 73%
Oil-Based Paint 0% 8% 42% 55% 55%
Used Oil 0% 0% 0% 10% 10%
Pesticides 0% 4% 41% 55% 55%
Solvents 0% 0% 20% 32% 32%
Corrosives 0% 4% 41% 55% 55%
Aerosols 0% 4% 49% 64% 64%
Waste stream specific assumptions are listed below:
Latex Paint. As a result of education programs, people will:
make better estimates of how much they need for a particular
job, and buy less; give away left overs; dry out residues and
put in the trash. As a result of education and promotion of
alternative purchasing practices, people will buy smaller cans
when they only need a little bit. Paints that need not be
handled as hazardous wastes will be identified and disposed of
in alternative ways. Newer paints will contain fewer and
fewer hazardous ingredients.
Oil-based Paint. As a result of education programs, people
will: make better estimates of how much they need for a
particular job, buy less, and give away left overs; use latex
paint wherever possible. As a result of education and
promotion of alternative purchasing practices, people will buy
smaller cans when they only need a little bit.
Oil and Vehicle Batteries. Waste reduction in these categories
is not possible at present. The top priority is recycling.
Pesticides. As a result of education programs, people will:
have a better understanding of the potential hazards of
excessive pesticide use; learn to use pesticides properly
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION B-5
(according to the label); buy smaller quantities; use alternative
methods and safer products for pest management; become more
tolerant of non-damaging pests.
Solvents. As a result of education programs, people will: buy
smaller quantities according to their need; learn to reuse some
solvents.
Corrosives. As a result of education programs, people will: a)
buy alternative, safer products;buy smaller quantities according
to their need.
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR
PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS
Although there are fewer SQG businesses to reach than there
are households in King County, these businesses contribute
twice as much hazardous waste to municipal waste streams.
' The following industries will be targeted for services, surveys
and audits under the Plan: automotive repair, body and
maintenance shops; dry cleaners; machine shops; marine repair
facilities and boat yards; photoprocessors, printers, graphic
artists, and lithographers; pesticide applicators; furniture repair
and woodworking shops; medical, dental, veterinary, and other
labs, clinics and offices; miscellaneous equipment repair and
maintenance; circuit board manufacturers; metal platers; paint
and coatings manufacture; and construction. Targeting specific
industry types with detailed, directly applicable information will
have greater impact than general activities.
There are 101,000 businesses licensed in King County
(Chisholm, personnal communication, 1988). Metro's Industrial
Waste section has determined that approximately 32,000 of
these generate some type of pollutant, based on SIC
characterizations. Allowing for some inaccuracy in the
assignment of SIC codes, for firms that are no longer in
business, and for the number of companies that actually
dispose of hazardous wastes in municipal waste streams, it is
estimated the 20,000 businesses are SQGs in King County.
A majority (up to 80 percent by some estimates) of the
business licenses issued in King County fall within a ten mile
radius of downtown Seattle. By some estimates, 96-98 percent
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION B-6
of the businesses in King County are considered small
businesses (Puget Sound Council of Governments, 1988). The ,
majority of small businesses generating hazardous wastes are
SQGs, rather than fully-regulated hazardous waste generators.
The Small Business Administration indicates that four out of
every five small businesses fail within the first five years of
operation. Additional companies will be started every year that
need to get information for the first time and be introduced to
available programs.
Collection goals are based on best professional judgment and t
input form hazardous waste handlers and treatment, storage and
disposal companies. The percentage breakdown of wastes by
waste stream is based on survey data from the Health
Department (Yerkes, et al., 1988) and a North Hollywood,
California study (SCS Engineers, 1984). Table B-3 shows the
percentage breakdown.
Table B-3. SQG WASTE STREAM, BY WASTE TYPE
WASTE TYPE PERCENT OF WASTE
STREAM
Latex Paint 2%
Oil-Based Paint 2%
Used Oil 42%
Halogenated Solvents 9%
Non-Halogenated Solvents 32%
Corrosives 4%
Heavy Metal Sludge 1%
Other Wastes 8%
HHW AND SQG WASTE REDUCTION,
RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL GOALS
Waste reduction, recycling and disposal goals for HHW and
SQG waste, by waste type, are given on Tables B-4 and B-5.
Table B-4. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL GOALS
1990 1994 1999 2004 2009
Types of Waste RED REC DISP RED REC DISP RED REC DISP RED REC DISP RED REC DISP
Latex Paint 0% 4% 4% 6% 12% 12% 58% 20% 10% 73% 23% 5% 73% 23% 5%
Oil-Base Paint 0% 7% 0% 8% 24% 1% 420/. 38% 2% 55% 43% 2% 55% 44% 2%
Solvents 0% 7% 0% 0% 24% 1% 20% 57% 0% 32% 68% 0% 32% 68% 0%
Waste Oil 0% 4% 2% 00/0 12% 5% 00/0 720/6 4% 10% 89% 2010 9% 89% 20/0
Pesticides 0% 0% 8% 4% 0% 25% 41% 00/6 40% 55% 00/0 45% 55% 00/0 45%
Vehicle Batteries 0% 50% 0% 0% 820/0 0% 0% 86% 00/0 10% 900/0 0% 9% 91% 0%
Corrosives 0% 7% 00/0 4% 24% 1% 41% 32% 7% 55% 36% 990 55% 36% 9%
Aerosols 0% 00/0 8% 4% 00/0 25% 49% 090 33% 64% 0% 36% 64% 00/0 36%
Other 0% 0% 8% 00/0 00/0 25% 00/0 00/6 75% 090 090 1000/0 0% 00/0 1000/0
Table B-5. SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL GOALS
1990 1994 1999 2004 2009
Types of Waste RED REC DISP RED REC DISP RED REC DISP RED REC DISP RED REC DISP
Latex Paint 0% 0% 00/0 6% 4% 3% 18% 12% 10% 36% 24% 2090 45% 30% 25%
Oil-Base Paint 0% 0% 090 8% 4% 00/0 24% 14% 2010 48% 28% 4% 60% 35% 5%
Solvents
Halogenated 0% 00/0 090 0% 8% 290 100/0 24% 6% 20% 48% 12% 25% 60% 15%
Non-Halogenated 0% 00/0 00/0 1% 90/0 20/6 4% 28% 7% 8% 56% 16% 100/0 700/6 20010
Waste Oil 0% 00/0 00/0 2% 90/0 0% 6% 320/6 2% 1290 64% 4% 15% 8090 5%
Adhesives 090 00/0 00/0 1% 1% 1090 4% 4% 3290 8% 8% 64% 100/0 100/0 806/o
Pesticides 00/0 00/0 0% 1% 1% 10% 4% 4% 32% 8% 8% 64% 10% 100/0 8090
Corrosives 0% 0% 00/0 1090 2% 1% 30% 6% 4% 6090 12% 8% 75% 15% 10010
Dioxins/PCBs 00/0 0% 0% 1% 00% 11% 4% 00/6 36% 8% 01yo 721Y6 100/0 00/0 90%
Vehicle Batteries 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 1% 00/0 36% 4% 0% 7290 8% 090 900/0 100/0
Heavy Metal Liquids 01yo 0% 00/0 5% 5% 2% 16% 16% 8% 32% 32% 16% 4090 40% 2090
Heavy Metal Sludges 0% 00/0 0% 2% 1% 9% 6% 6% 28% 11% 12% 56% 15% 15% 70%
Other 0% 0% 0% 9% 3% 0% 28% 10% 20/6 56% 20% 4% 70% 25% 5%
tz
J
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION B-8
BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
The budget for the Recommended Program can be found
beginning on page B-16. The budget is arranged by
component, and within each component, by program element.
Administrative and coordination costs are indicated. The HHW
components appear first, followed by the SQG components and
the Evaluation component. The HHW Collection component
budgeted is supplemented by additional tables providing
detailed calculations of operating and disposal costs, levels of
service, and amounts of waste collected and number of users
served. These supplemental tables can be found on pages B-
28 and B-29.
Salaries include benefits and are budgeted at the levels
indicated in Table B-6. Job descriptions for the program
coordinator positions can be found on pages B-30 and B-31.
1990 Staffing commitments for the five major implementing
agencies are described on page B-32.
Table B-6. BUDGETED SALARY LEVELS BY POSITION
Program Coordinator $45,000
Field personnel $40,000
Education program $32,000 to $40,000
Collection program $34,000
Administration and supplies: 30% of salary for collection
personnel; 25% of salary for all other personnel.
Vehicle costs: one new car at $20,000 per 2 FTE (field
personnel); $1,500 per year operating cost per person.
Per ton disposal cost is estimated at $682 for SQG wastes.
Except for the disposal subsidy program, all disposal costs are
the responsibility of the SQGs.
Waste handling (disposal) is estimated at $1300 per ton for
HHW. This figure is derived from experience at local Round-
ups and the City of Seattle HHW Collection Facility at the
South Transfer Station. Regulations governing hazardous waste
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL INFORMATION B-9
treatment and disposal facilities are changing rapidly.
Therefore, this figure can be expected to change over time.
The mobile facilities, due to set-up and tear-down
requirements, are assumed to be in operation 36 weeks per
year, rather than the 52 weeks available to permanent facilities.
ADOPTION PROCESS
The Plan must be adopted by the various city councils and the
County Council. For the suburban cities, the adoption process
will use the Interlocal Forum, as described in Section 3. A
copy of the agreement explaining the Interlocal Forum process
can be found beginning on page B-32.
REFERENCES
Chisolm, Washington State Department of Revenue. Personnel
Communication, 1988.
Puget Sound Council of Governments.ents. Population and
Employment Forecasts, Seattle, Washington, 1988.
SCS Engineers. Development of a Hazardous Waste
Management Plan for Small Quantity Generators: North
Hollywood Pilot Study Final ReportHazardous Waste
Inventory. Southern California Association of Governments,
Los Angeles, California, November, 1984.
' Yerkes, T.W., W.C. Swofford S.A. Whitman
C. Thompsen, T.
Clements. Surveys and Audits of Major and Minor Small
' Quantity Business Generators in the Seattle-King,, Count, Area,
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, Seattle,
Washington, unpublished.
Off ice Of The Mayor 1
City of Seattle
Charles Royer, Mayor
October 28 , 1987 '
Earl Tower, Manager '
Solid and Hazardous Waste Program
Department of Ecology ,
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504-8711
Dear Mr. Tower : '
In compliance with the requirements of the State Hazardous ,
Waste Management Act (RCW 70 . 105 ) , the City of Seattle has
designated eligible zones for treatment and storage facilities
for hazardous wastes .
we have already met most of the specific requirements as
outlined in the July, 1987 "Zoning Guidelines" . we have
included definitions of on-site and off-site treatment and
storage facilities . Off-site treatment or storage of hazardous
waste is permitted in industrial zones . On-site treatment and
storage of hazardous waste is permitted as an incidental or
accessory use in commercial or industrial zones . The specific
language included in the Code is enclosed .
At this time, we have not included the siting criteria in the
Code because we want to wait until these criteria are finalized
in order to determine how best to include them. Contingent
upon Ecology finalizing these criteria in a timely manner , we
will meet the final requirement before June 30 , 1988 .
Compliance with the zoning designation requirements will be
conducted independently of other local governments . we will be
coordinating with King County and Metro in development of our
Moderate Risk waste Plan, however .
Sincerely,
Charles Royer
Enclosure
B-10
An equal emoloyment 0000rtumty affirmative action emoloyer
1200 Municioa1 Building,Seattle,Washington 98104.12061 625-4000
i t
6. Production of parts to be assembled into a finished and twent feet (120' ) in length constructed to
product.
individual specification
7. Development of film on a wholesale basis. 7. Productioin of large durable goods such as motorcy-
8. Production of items through biological processes,
— cies, cars manufactured homes, airplanes, or heavy
such as pharmaceuticals and industrial purifiers, farm, industrial, or construction machinery;
manufactured tty bioengineering techniques. 8. Manufacturing of electical components, such as semi-
9. Production of items such as paint and coatings, dye- conductors and circuit boards, using chemical
stuffs, fertilizer, glue, cosmetics, clay, or processes such as etching or metal coating;
pharmaceuticals that require the mixing or packaging 9. Production of industrial organic and inorganic chemi-
of chemicals.
cols, and soaps and detergents; and
"Manufacturing, Heaves means a manufacturing use, typically 10. Conversion of solid waste into useful productions or
having the potential of creating substantial noise, smoke, preparation of solid waste for disposal of another
dust, vibration and other environmental impacts or pollution, location t�y processing to change its physical form or
and including but not limited to:
- chemical composition. This includes the off-site
1. The extraction or mining of raw materials, such as treatment or storage of hazardous waste as regulated
quarrying of sand orrg ave; ty the State Department of Ecology. The on-site
2. Processing or refining of raw materials, such as but treatment and storage of hazardous waste is
not limited to minerals, petroleum, rubber, wood or
— - — considered an incidental or accessory use.
woodup 1p, into other products; ...
3. The milling ofry ain or refining of sugar, except Section 14. Section 23.84.028 'O" of the Land Use Code is
when accessory to a use defined as food processing hereby amended to read as follows:
for human consumption or as a retail sales and
service use; "Open Space" means land and/or water area with its surface
1. Poultry slaughterhouses, including packing and open to the sky or predominantly undeveloped, which is set
freezing of poultry; aside to serve the purposes of providing park and recreation
5. Refining, extruding, rolling_ or drawing of ferrous opportunities, conserving valuable natural resources, and
or non-ferrous metals, or the use of a non-induction structuring urban development and form.
foundary for ferrous metal;
6. Mass production of commercial or recreational vessels "Open Space, Recreational" means an outdoor area which is of
of any size and the production of vessels one hundred appropriate size, shape, location and to o raphic siting, and
2908c/DRAFT/Lou WHEREAS, the City of Bellevue has complied with the State
Enviroomental Policy Act and with the City's Environmental Procedures
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON Ordinance; now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. THF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS: -
AN ORDINANCE relating to onsite and offsite
hazardous wast* storage and treatment facilities; Section 1. Bellevue City Code (Land Use Code) 20.10.440
amending Bellevue City Code (Land Use Code)
Transportation and Utilities Notes and Chart ♦re amended as follows:
20.10.440 transportation and Utilities Notes and
Chart, 20.50.024.
s� WHEREAS, in 1985 the Washington Legislature passed House Bill 975
N
as amendments to Chapter 70.105 RCW, the State Hazardous Waste
Management Act (the Act); and
WHEREAS, in July, 1987 the State Department of Ecology published
zoning guidelio os which fulfill a requirement of the Act and make the
legislative requirements mandatory; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 1907 the City of 8*11evue submitted to the
Department of Ecology a letter of intent to comply with zoning
designation requirements for halardous waste treatment and storage
facilities by June 30, 1988, and
WHEREAS, this ordinance reflects the state mandated requirements s
t{iat hazardous o:aste treatment and storage facilities must be allowed in
zones in which the handling and processing of hazardous substances is
not prohibited, escept residential zones; and ■
Land Use C
Chart 20.10.4.40
USES IN LAND USE DISTRICTS TRANSPORTATION & UTILITIES
o � �
W+0 S �' + i i ti" a Cry + • ♦ ti
JSF
C�OE u a D v` i
AFF L►MC USE R.ITSISSCATSON G I • I Ou I wr Iwq Iwa iwat i w. I ws Iwre Iwrs wee I:"I ro i 0 ICu I u I G: I r.e I V I I al I a I i II• Ce
ao co lao cao uo
4 ��"��T..�o��r,Fs i I i I I I ( I I i I I ( III III I I I A
n WAWTtt .aSoops ;[,�.r..� CIAAA rK)P. C CIC C CIC CIC CICICICIC. ICICICICICIC
•7 -CTCO orf•--j TPA S►OIT.TGv I I I I I I I
•ler I KA ri► ALJ TAAr MLA00�A•T S I I I I I I I I I I
.71. �OTCJra.W
vf.K'-t T1lA�ST.rfGvI I P I I I P I I I a I I I
..--I^'SU1K:S.C.c3•..oTC/
+ I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I P I C I I P
rrfGr.r
.-LAAO- I I
I "-s sif:cs -F��w.u . IC JC
IC2 CICICICICICICICICICIC C C C C
'Orr'S T.AAC< TF♦A..<C�u.w - I I Ic
I Ic
I I I Z I2 I I I I
IIfil.u,.Wc i Q I P IPI ? I P I F F ; o
1 1 IrIrIPI I I I I ' IFI I � I ? 151o151
`A""i �'�`�"
-No 33
1
I ..-R..o.M ,' I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � ICICICICI :. I I I ISI �i ar l =-...,�•�C.:aG< �...GFl
�TirS Aa.0 S"L=.�
.1 I �=� U<Troy+MCACCAr.A
IcI ` ICI `' I `' ICI ` ICICI - ICIc cICICICICIC I � I I I � I ► C ► Ci .
I ••Csr.•.tQ Sit'"r•CMfi
ICICI C C C C C C C C 1 1 1 1 1 — � c .
I ICICIcICICcI _
:ocxurnrrvSil7Fv ' IPIPIPI ? 1 = IPIPIPI = I = IPI = 1 ? IF IP IPI ? IF IP ( I � I " MPII '
•fszk.La VTrlftlr Mriv I C I C I `- I - I C I C I C I C L C I C I C I C I CIC C I C I C I C I C I C I C C C C C C
_ II � III
I�� •�..�.a�COUS-:AS i :U�..yT
="T:77c '<L'.7C=! :AS:a I I ( � I I ( I I I I ';
.. _ IIIIIIiIIIIlilill� IIIIIIIIII
e•••�•!O uses in ne E�rtltretn .:NC C
Cl are=a,---:n Saccon 2C.L`?Oto.
Ke I (Crernance ...J. b:.aS. Sec cr. ;,
i y
P PE.PMITTEO USE
I
C •C:NCIT)CNAL USE. (see Parr Zo._CS or °ir,
i PC •PE .MIT-c7 suCrK:o o4n zvenneo urn e-c.rr.enT crry
(set ?ar, ZQ_CC.)
A .ACAIINIS;AATIVE CONCTCNAL USE(slt Part
B-13
Land Use Code 13'
NOTES: USES IN LAND USE DISTRICTS—TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES ,
1. Rail Transportation is limited to only Right-of-Way in OU districts.
2. Aircraft Transportation is limited to only Heliports in OU, CED-0-1, CSD-0-2 and CSO-OLS districts. '
3. Commercial lots and garages are those lots and garages which provide vehicular parking for the
pubfic generally for a fee and do not include lots and garages which provide the required parking '
for other uses.
4. Utifities: Local Storage. Distribution & Substations are rimited to those utilities serving only the com-
munity surrounding them as part of the storage and disribution network All other utilities are classified
Utilities: Production, Generation, Disposal, Processing b Treatment Plants, Regicnal Storage, Distribu-
tion b Substations.
S. Permitted only as a subordinate use to a permirted or special use in CED-0-1, C60-0.2. CED_MU
and CED-OLS disulc:s.
6. The location of an off-site parking facility must be approved by the Director of Design and Deve!cp-
ment. See Section 20.25A.050F.
(Ord. 2945, 2.2-82, Sencn 5)
7. Park and Rice. A Park and Pool Lot or other carccol facility is re_ufa:ed as a park anc rice. A park M
and rice providing no more than 50 parking spaces, anc utilizing e parking area ci an exis:rng
use shall be regulated as an accessary use under Senor, 20.20.200. Any other Park anc Rice re-
quires a conditional use permit. (Ord. 3690, 8-4-86, S{_::Cn 1)
S. Commercial parkins facilities are limited to spaces in surface lots wnicn are not requires pursuant
to Secaon 20.25A.C50. Cornmerc:al lots must comply with the requirements of Pargrgh
20.25A.050.0. (Oro. 3747, 1.20.07, Sec:icn 1)
9. Accessory pa;kind requires acc,cva! thrcucn the review process required for the primary lard use
wnicn it serves pursuant to Sec:,on 20.10.==0. (Ord. 37,17, 1-20-87, Sec:,on 1)
10 . Onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities as defined by I
20.50.02a are only permitted as administrative conditions use aDorovals
as a suborainate use to a permitted or special use . These faciiities
must comply witn the ):ate sitinc crizerla as aaoptea in accor.ahce with
0'4 70 . 10521n
.
11 . Offsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities as derined by
20•-0 .�2"- must comply with the State Sitino criteria as acoDtec in
accordance wi :n .'A '10. 105 .210.
B-14
i
Section 2. Bellevue City Code (Land Use Code) 20 50.024 is amended
by the addition of the following definitions.
HAZARDOUS WASTE. All dangerous and extremely hazardous waste as
Nan Campbell, Mayor
defined in Rf11 70.105.010 except for moderate-risk waste.
Approved'as to fore:
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITY, ONSITE. These are
facilities which treat or store wastes generated on the same site Richard L. Andrews, City Attorney
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITY, OFFSITE. These are
facilities which treat or store wastes generated on properties
other than those on which the facility is located.
tZ Assistant City Attorney
N
HAZAROCUS WASTE STORAGE. rho holding of dangerous waste for a
`
f
temporary period as regulated by State Dangerous Waste Regulations,
Attest
Chapter 173-303 WAC.
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT. The physical, chemical, or biological
processing of Jangerous waste to make wastes nondangerous or less
dangerous, safer for transport, amenable for energy or material
Marie K. O'Connell, City Clerk
resource recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume
Published
Section 3. This ordinanco shall take effect and be in force five
days after its passage and legal publication
PASSED by the City Council this day of
1987, and signed in authentication of its passage this day
of 1988.
(SEAL)
' 20149 `mm /m/ 1992 1993 /mw /mm /mm /w, /rm /no /mm mw/
wSPONmmi
AGENCY NNW EDUCATION COMPONENT
xstm*/mq County mmu INFORMATION AND OUTREACH
Stiff (/ FIE) 40,000 140,000 w0.000 140,000 $40'000 $40,000 140,000 140.000 140.000 v^o.000 140.000 x^v.000
umm/suppxss 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
General Promotion and Publicity
Media publicity 5.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000
E"pu*wwo, involvement activities a.mm 50,000 15,000 125.000 200,000 200,000 50.000 50,000 so'000 $0.000 50,000 so'000
p,owmtauon* 20,000 25,000 25,000 25.000 nmm 25,000 25,000 25,000 /5,000 m.mm 25,000 25,000
wu,o/mwu/" Waste Reduction Promotion
Staff // FIE) 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40,000 40.000
mw."/sumnss 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Waste reduction ,om/mater.o/v 50.000 50.000 50.000 /00.000 /50.000 150.000 200.000 /00.000 200.000 200.000 200.000 200.000
Waste reduction v'mrmm 50,000 /00.000 /m.mm ,m.mm 300.000 300,000 300,000 300.000 300,000 300.000 300,000 100.000
»wlm NNW TELEPHONE INFORMATION LINE
mvo (/'3 no 40,000 60.000 80.000 80,000 /00.000 /m.mm 120,000 /m.mm /m.mm /m.mm /m.mm /m.mm
ww."/=w^w 4,000 15,000 20.000 20,000 /5.000 30.000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
wng Cojnm SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Staff // nm 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 110,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000
wo'^/wppow 20,000 20.000 20.000 20,000 20.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000
mmnw* development 40.000 35,000 25.000 10,000 5.000 5.000 ».mm 5.000 5.000 S.mm 5.000 5.000
wwung/*vmuvum 30,000 30,000 20,000 10.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000
omcher training o FIE) o 40.000 ^o.mm 40,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 10.000 .o.mm 10.000 10,000 5,000
40,000
Workshop presentations 1/ FIE) 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40.00010,00040,000 �
In-school programs (` FIE) ^ 40.000 40,000 40,000 ^o.mm 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 �
»moVSuppxw 5.000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000
.w/m mwma/RATxm
NNW Education program coordinator (/,oFm 4S.000 45,000 45.000 45.000 45.000 45.mm ^s.mm 45.000 45,000 0,000 45.000 45.000
w"/*su*/.m 11.250 n.mm 11.250 11.250 11.250 11.250 11.250 11,250 1/.250 x.nm 11,250 11.250
- ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ------------'----------------
mmEDUCATION COMPONENT TOTAL mo/.nm 1131,250 ^m/.nm 1914.2011.111.2So m.m./m 11.046.250 11.046.250 m.ow./m ^..om.:m m.*m./w m.ow./m
~^
i & x o ' 1L.' 11116 __ % x * ^ �= ^ ' . ,
nmmo ' mo/ 2003 mw 2005 2006 mm/ mm nmoTWENTY YEAR CUMULATIVE
1111SMm111.11
wmwn NNW EDUCATION COMPONENT
Netrw mvcavoty PUKn INFORMATION AND OUTREACH
Staff (/ no 140.000 140.000 140.000 140.000 $40,000 140.000 $40,000 140.000
wv.*supp:w 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
General Promotion and Publicity
mm'^ *monty 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000
li"mts/pmoc 'mmlmwntact ,uits 50,000 50,000 50,000 $0,000 50.000 m.mm $0.000 50,000
p,w~muww 25.000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25.000 25,000 25.000
w*n/um'uo Vista Reduction Promotion
Staff (/ FIE) e.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40,000 40.000
w*`*==xw 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 .o.mm
Waste reduction mm/111ou,.^/6 200.000 200.000 700.000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200.000 200,000
w^te reduction progress 300,000 300,000 300.000 300,000 300.000 300.000 300,000 300.000
mw/m NNW T(nHoME INFORMATION 1,111k
m^x (1-3 FIE) .m.mm /m.mm /m.mm /m.mm /m.mm /m,mm /m.mm /m.mm
mm`*6uw»ss 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000
^"nCcunn sHOm PROGRAMS
Staff |/ no 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
m*."/suw/.w 10,000 `o.mm 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000
Curricula development 5.000 5.000 5.000 S.mm 5.000 5.000 S.mm 5.000
mmuog/mvmwuon 5'mm 5.000 5.000 5.000 S.mm S.mm 5.000 5.000
Teacher training (I Fill 5.000 S.000 5.000 5.000 5'000 S'000 5.000 5'000
wxxshw presentations |/ Fn/ ^o.wm 40,000 40,000 ^o.mm 40.000 40.000 40,000 40.000
in-school programs |/ FIE) 40,000 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40.000 40.000 40,000
/rov"V6uwxes 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000
ww/m mwmm/w/xm
NNW Education program coordinator (/.ono 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000
*m.v/oupp/'w ".nm 11,250 11,250 11.250 11,250 11,250 11.250 11,250
-'--------------------------------'---------'-----------'--------------------------------------------------'
mmEDUCATxmm.mom mx« w.w/.,m w.w/./m w.w/.rw 91.041.250 w.o^/.rm m.w`.,m w.w/.ao w.w\wm 620.010.000
~~
.�
1120/11 /mw /991 /mo lit) .eu /eo /mm /99/ 1998 /em 2000 nm/
NNW COLLECTION COMPONENT
awu/wwu" PERMANENT FACILITIES
m».m/ mmo / 3 4 5 o v o 6 1 o o o
Planning and administration 20,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 o o o o o o o o
Site design and prop 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 o o u o o o o o
NNW storage structure 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 o o o o o ^ o o
Equ.pment (mwus. /p*w, m,u. mc) 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 o o o o o o o o
Permits /.mm /.mm /.mm /.mm o o o o o o o v
Training 10,000 10,000 10.000 10.000 o o o o o o o o
mm| 1106.000 *oo.wm $106,000 1108.000 so to so to so w so w
`
��^� ngmmv |
vmo 132,500 `o/.mo /w.wo 306,000 336.500 352.920 428.400 w^.vo ^m.wm 428.400 449,500 58/.400 |
w"m/u=//w o./m 41,140 48,620 m.ym m./m 88.230 w/.xm /m.un 107/00 101.100 v/."m 145.350
015pwo/ wo.m, 545.475 o^o.mv /.m/.vm /.623.024 1.952.044 2.386.464 2.155.*09 3.235.e/ 3,143.532 4,1/3.66/ 4.315.451
Total 1529,257 xmwm 11.011.55911.440.37811.043.774 12.313./94 12.923.564 13.213.053 w.m.m/ 14.211,032 w/m.om 15,04/.209
PERMANENT FACILITIES TOTAL um, 1135,251 1991.176 11.19/.55911.546.31812.043./74 12.393./14 12.923.964 13,273.0511 o.771.03/ 64,219,032 v4,185.561 15,042,209
ling Co** MOBILE FACILITIES
Capital Costs
Collection structure /5.000 25.000 o o o o o o o v o o
Beres, fencing 4.300 4.300 o o o o ^ o o o o o
Permits /.000 /.mm o o D o o o o o o o
Equipment 3,000 3.000 o o o o o o o o o o
wta/ 133 300 $33 300 10 so so so m to w 10 so so
Operating Costs
nw' 68.000 135.000 204.000 204.000 204.000 204.000 204.000 204.000 201.000 204.000 204.000 204.mm
mwm/Suwxw 17,000 34,000 51,000 51.000 $1,000 o.mm $1,000 $1.000 51,000 51.000 $1.000 51,000
»wm /wm 5.000 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15.000 /5.000 15,000 /5.000 15,001)
Sit up Is x *w` /.nm 14,400 21.600 21.600 21,500 21,600 21,600 21.600 21,500 21.600 21.500 21,600
Dispose) o^.mm 468,000 102,000 ,m.mm ,m.mm 702,000 707,000 102.000 102,000 102,000 702,000 102,000
Total $331,200 $662,400 x:n.mm ^wo.wm 1993.600 1193.600 1193,400 1993,600 1993,500 1913.600 1993.500 1993.500
mmuE FACILITIES COSTS 1384,500 11695,10D 1913,800 1993,600 1193,000 1913.600 1991,100 1913.500 1113.600 1993,600 1993,100 1393.600
TOTAL FACILITIES COSTS $1,099,151 N.mm.w^ 12.191.15912.531.11813.031.374 w.mo.w^ 13.11F.504 o4.266.851 w./m.ow 15,277.137 w.ov.m/ ^5.035.809
mwo/"/x'ng Co~* PROMOTION OF COLLECTION FACILITIES 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25.000 ,.mm 25,000 /.mm /.mm ,.mm 25.000 /.mw
mwu/"*.ng County TARGETED WASTE mum/mwREou/NG
=^a m/ collection 50,000 50,000 50,000 /m.mm /00.000 /m.mm 100,000 /00.000 /00.000 /w,mm 100.000 /00.000
Recycling pilot projects m.mm 50,000 50,000 m.wm o o o o o o o o
",mvam implementation o 25,000 50,000 $0,000 50,000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 100.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000
(wo* Ioil paints, mwenw
a=xmmm|ON
Seat/^ *HW Collection program coordinator 10.5 no 22,500 n.om 22,500 22,500 22'500 22,500 2?'500 n.Soo 22,500 22,500 22.500 22 500
w"o County mmCollection program ommiwum m.S FIE) 22,500 22,500 n.ym 22.500 22,500 22,500 72.500 22.500 n.Soo n.nm n.Soo 22.500
mw`n/wppnw n./m n./m 11,250 11.250 11,250 11.250 n,/m 11.250 x.,m 11,250 n./m 11,250
--------'--------------------'----------------------'-----------------------'----------------------
mmmuEc/xmmMPomn/ mm' 11,261.001 o/ vm /m 12,422,409 mwn �mm /� oo 13,650,044 «^ /mm^ w �mmv 15,021.941 ^� m� �x wmm m 15,299,059
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
---.-------_-----_-----------_-------------_-------__------------'_------_-------------_--_-------. .
mwPLAN mu/ m.m,.m/ x,.m\oo 13.233.653 13,807,476 14,444,614 w.m\,w 15.245.06" 15.511./51 16.014,19/ 16,512.112 m.mo.m' 11.340.30900
~~
4M
0-0 %wi Im ow dw 11=
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2001 TWENTY YEAR CUMULATIVE
No COLLECTION COMPONENT
Sesttle/Ostre PCINANENT FACILITIES
capital Costs 1 5 1 0 d 6 6 1
Planning and administration 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0
Uts design and Orae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NNW storage structure 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment (rings, fences, arta, etc) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Permits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total so so so to so to to so
Operating Costs
Stiff 612,000 517,000 112.000 112,000 012.000 612.000 612.000 412,000
Admin/Sylimlies IS3,000 153,000 153,000 153,000 153,000 153,000 153,000 153.000
Disposal 4.460,101 4.109,912 4,188,982 4,931,441 5.100,221 5,275,895 5,453,860 5,143.108
Total 15,225,101 15,314,182 1S.S33,982 15,698,441 $5,865,221 16,040,895 16,218,860 $5,406,308
PERMANENT FACILITIES TOTAL COST 15,725.101 $5.114.962 1S.533.98? 15,696,447 $5,855,227 16.040,895 18,218,860 $6,408,300
Ung County 110111E FACILITIES
Capitol Costs
Collection structure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
for@&, fencing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Permits 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total $o 10 to so so 10 to so
Operating Costs
Stiff 204.000 204,000 204,000 204,000 201,000 204,000 204,000 204,000
Admin/Supplies 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51.000 51,000 51,000 51,000
Truck loose 15.000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 t5'000
Sot ye (I i year) 21,600 21,500 21,500 21,100 21,600 21,600 21,600 21.100
Disposal 102,000 107,000 102,000 102,000 702,000 702.000 102,000 102,000
Total 1913.100 1993,500 1193,500 $113.500 1993,600 1993,600 $191,600 1913.100
010111E FACILITIES COSTS 1993'600 $193,600 1993,100 1913,800 1993.500 1993.500 1993.500 1913,600
TOTAL FACILITIES COSTS 16.219,301 16,3118,42 15.521,582 14,690,041 $6,858,627 11.034.495 11.21?,450 11,401,101
Seattle/king Cov"tY PROMOTION OF COLLECTION FACILITIES 1,000 7.000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Suttle/king Covoty TARGETED VASIF COLLECTION/RECYCLING
Vogt@ oil collection 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Recycling pilot ofo)octs 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
Prolrim ispil"otition 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
(18til toll Pointe, solvents)
ADMINISTRATION
$settle WNW Collection program coordinator (0.5 Fill 22,500 22,500 21,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22.500 27.500
King Covftty NOV Cc I I act ion iralrom coordinator 10.5 F If 1 72.500 22,S00 22,500 72,500 22,500 21.500 72,500 21.500
Aftiflisv00lies 11.250 11,250 11.250 11,250 11.750 11,250 11.250 11.150
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .............................................. .................................................
NOV COLLECTION COOOMENI IOYAJ 15.462.551 16,131,812 14,790.1132 11,953'111 11,122.011 11.211,145 11.415.110 11.16S.151 1101,401,1111
................................................................................. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I........................................... ...
NNW PLAN TOTAL V.523.801 11,613.012 17,032,012 11.194,541 18.163,327 11.338,935 11.516.160 14.106,11011 1123,111,134
//nVwo /mm /n/ /mm /913 1994 /mm /em Till 1198 till 2000 nm/
mmEDUCATION COMPONENT
Metro INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES , |
Education materials development
Stiff (os ng 20,000 20,000 20.000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 /o.mm 20,000 20,000
Ne*wtor, brochures, moywv. /5.000 /5.000 /5.000 15.000 ,S.mm 15,000 /5.000 /5.000 /5.000 /5.000 /5.000 /5.000
Seminars and wDmshoo,
Staff |/o} 40,000 40,000 10,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 w.mm
wo'"/6upp//w 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000
Resource Library
Stix (1.0 FIE) 40.000 40.000 40,000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40.000 40,000 10.000 40.000 40.000 40.000
mm.*suppxw 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10.000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000
mu,.o* and data ^ow'"mon 10,000 20,000 20,000 *.mm ,^.mm 24.000 24,000 ,^.mm /^,mm *.mm /^,mm //.mm
m"pumn "*um 15.000 S.000 5.000 /.mm /.mm /.mm /.mm /.mm /.mm .,mm /.mm /,000
°w/m m[moNE /NFoRM^,xm LINE
Staff (. 2 FIE) 40,000 40.000 10.000 80.000 10,000 00,000 80.000 80.000 80.000 60,000 80.000 80,000
Admin/supplies 10.000 10,000 20,000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000
wwt/phones/u.m 2,000 2,000 ^.mm 4.000 $4,000 14.000 14,000 14,000 ^^.mm 14,000 wmm $4,000
wealth PASSIVE WASTE Eoxmo
m^n (/.5 nH 51,000 51,500 56.500 S6.500 $5.500 56,500 56,500 56.500 55.500 51,500 $6,500 55,500
w"/n/suwow 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13.000
Phones/,w`aws/sc 5.000 5.000 S.mm *.000 5.000 5.000 S.000 5.000 5,000 S.000 5.000 5.000
Printing 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 ?0.000 20.000 20,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Metro /EoHN/ov me|n/NCE PROGRAMS
Waste reduction, recycling end treatment
Staff |m Fp) 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40'000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000
*w."/supp//w 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
widv assessment 10,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 o o o o o o o
Waste stream ana/'st$ m.DOO 20.000 30.000 30.000 10.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5,000 S.000 5.000
m*^/.tux and technology transfer o 50.000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45.000 emw 45.000 45,000
/ncinu"w*vo,w program 20,000 50,000 w.mm m.mm 50,000 $0.000 60.000 60.000 00,000 50.000 50,000 60.000
On'ptsm"su/tauw
mm*naux \/.o Fm 40,000 40,000 w.mm 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40.000 w.mw 40,000 40.000
Field staff (1-4 FIE) 80.000 120 000 /60.000 /60.000 ,w.mm /60.000 /60.000 `m.mm 161).00o 150.000 150.000 /m.mm
uwm/sulipow 30,000 52.000 n.mm 52.000 52,000 $2.000 57.000 $2,000 $2,000 52,000 52,000 52 000
Vehicles/transportation 20,000 /3.000 4.500 4.500 4.om ^.ym ^.ym ^.ym ^.mo ^.ym ^.ym *.om
Vista characterization and treatment
Staff (planning and sanigi°wt /.o FIE) 45,000 45,000 45.000 ^5.000 45'000 45.000 45.000 45.000 45,000 0,000 45'000 45,000
omx (operations and analysis 1-2 FIE) o 45.000 10.000 90.000 90.000 10.000 90,000 90.000 10,000 90.000 10,000 e.000
Equipment o /m.mm 50,000 90.000 50.000 50,000 20.000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20.000 20,000
[8111 analysis o 40.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000
Adm*/suppnw 20.000 22.500 60.000 60.000 00.000 40.000 10.000 10.000 60.000 60.000 10.000 80.000
wuw mmm|SomnON
mm Education coordinator |/.vFTE} 45.000 45.000 45,000 45.000 0,000 115,000 45.000 45,000 45.000 ^S.000 45,000 45,000
w"/v/suppxw 11.250 x.,m n./m n./so ././50 11.250 n.,m n.,m n.,m 11.250 n./m n.,m
------------------------------------------------------------------'----------------------''
mmEDUCATION COMPONENT mnx mm.,m m./w.,m x/.m.,m ^/.x/.xmm.n\,m 1/.236.250 w.nm.rm N.nw.,m m.om./w w.xm.,m 111204.250 m.xm./w
4 41 � � W
I / ` / » A I A U 4 K 1 N .
//10/19 200/ 2003 2004 2005 2005 2001 2008 2001 TWENTY YEAR CUMULATIVE
mwEDUCATION COMPONENT
Netr^ INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES
Education materials development
Staff 10.5 FIE) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20.000 m.mm 20,000
Movs/ouo . *omvmv. mstNv .. /5.000 /5.000 /5.000 u.mm u.mm /5.000 15,000 /5.000
Seminars and vomsh^w
xm* /m| 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
w"'"/supp/'w 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Resource Library
Staff 11.111 FIE) 40.000 10,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000
Am`"/w~nw 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Materials end data acquisition *00 24.000 24.000 24,000 *.mm 24,000 24,000 *.mm
Computer system /.000 /.mm /.mm /.mm /.mm /.mm /.mm \mm
ww'm IFxmoNE wv~A'xm JIM[
Staff (/ , Fn) 80.000 10.000 10.000 00.000 80.000 80.000 10.000 80,000
w»'*supp»es m,000 20,000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000
Romt/phones/m`sic 14,000 14,000 14.000 14.000 $4,000 w000 14.000 14.000
vw'* PASSIVE WASTE EICxANm
omr' |`.onn S1,Soo m.m^ m.mo 55'500 m.Soo m.Soo so,Soo 56,500
w*/njovwn~ 13,000 11.000 13,000 13,000 13.000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Phone$/veh.*w9/1c 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 S.mm 5.000 S.000
Printing 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 m.mm 20,000 20.000 20,000
Notre /Fmw/ox ASSISTANCE PKGRAIIII
Vista reduction, recycling end treatment
xmn (`vnl` 40,000 40,000 40'000 40,000 40,000 40.000 110,000 40,000
wain/supplies 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Needs assessment o o o o o o o o
Vista strmpami/rsto 5.000 5.000 S.000 6.000 5.000 5'000 5'000 5'000
Newsletter wm technology transfer 45,000 45,000 45,000 45.000 m.mm 45.000 45.000 45,000
|went/vss/wards program 10.000 10.000 60,000 60.000 40.000 60.000 10.000 60.000
On-site consultation
Coordinator {/.v "IE) ^o.mw 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Field stiff 1/-4 Fm) /10.000 /60.000 /50.000 /m.mm 'w.mm /w.mm /60.000 /40.000
ww/n/suw/`w o.mm 52,000 s.mm 52,000 y.mm 52'000 $ mm 52.000
^*.uw^*"rieflo,mt"* 4.mo ^.om ^.ym ^.um ^.om ^.mm 4.500 ^,ym
wvmcheracm'.m*~ end treatment
wmn {vw^".ng and ""owwwt 1.0 FIE) m.mm ^s.mm 6,000 ^S.mm 45.000 0,000 45.000 m.000
vmn (operations end analysis t-2 FIE) 90.000 10.000 10,000 10,000 90'000 90,000 90.000 90,000
(qu/ppent 20,000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20 000 20,000
Lob analysis /w,mw /00.000 /00.000 100.000 100,000 /00.000 /00.000 /00.000
*w.^/suppnw 60,000 60.000 80.000 60.000 50.000 60,000 60.000 00.000
wotm wm/"onm/xm
$96 Education wominvm, |/.V ;m) *5.000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 0,000
*m/"/ww}.w n.,m n.xm 11.250 11,250 n.,m 11,250 n.,m n.xm
----'----------------------'------------------------------'---------------------------------------------
mmEDUCA/mwwmPOxm xxw w.om.xm w.nw./so 1/.201.250 11,106,250 v'.nm.,m 11.206.250 11,206,250 v/.nm.nm 121.934.000
��
//nxm /mm /o/ .mm mm /cw 1e95 1996 /991 /mw 1999 2000 aw/
mmoxLaxION COMPONENT
King County mmuE FACILITIES u ww/. 1990 and mm}
m^n (private industry) 1105,000 1105,000 $210.000 1210.000 m*.mm 1105,000 1105.000 so w so w to
Trucks m year loose) 100,000 o 100,000 ^ o o o 0 o v o o
Equipment, berms, floating 10.000 *,000 20.000 10.000 10.000 5.000 5.000 v o o o o
o
Setup costs 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,0005,0005,0000 " o v �
o v o o
mmm`� wm *^m/� 25,000 25,000 25,000 10.000 4,000 4.000 4,000 o �
m.o m"n* AUXILIARY rmnunem(I IN 19e1 AND 1993)
omy, (private /w"m,,) o 105,000 /m.mm 210,000 210,000 210.000 105.000 106,000 v " o o
Sheds and storage volts v 30.000 v 30,000 v o v " o o o o
Site design and Preparation o 20,000 v 20.000 o o v o o o o v
Filuipsont and permits v 10,000 $.mm 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 ^ v o o
/mm.ng/pwmml/adum o 25.000 10,000 25,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 v o ^ v
ling county um SUm/mm SOG DISPOSAL mmm ^ 1143.000 1211,000 wn/.mw 1380.000 1541.*0 so m so so 10 w
Consultant costs (program setup) 40,000
nm of waste collected and ,m*/ed or disposed)
PROMOTION OFCOLLECTION SERVICES
Staff (o.» FTE) 120.000 ^20.000 $20.000 $20.000 $20.000 120.000 120,000 $20.000 to so so so
wm,.u/=m`om*utw" 20.000 20,000 20,000 p.mm 20,000 20,000 20.000 20.000 o " o o
King County ADmmvmmxm
mmCollection coordinator (/ Fit) 45,000 45,000 45.000 45.000 45.000 45,000 45,000 45.000 o o o o
mm/*=wxw 11,250 11,250 11,250 11.250 n.om x.om ".00 n.mm ^ o v o
------------------------'-----------------------------------------------------------------'---------'-------------
mmCOLLECTION COMPONENT TOTAL $38/.250 $514.250 o/o.nm 1921.250 8940.150 111/.250 m35.264 1211.250 so so so so
s 1 4 1 1 1 a 4 t r t t 4r-- I 1 4 1 1 4 4
1120111 1002 2001 2004 2005 2004 2001 2006 2001 IVENTY YEAR CUKUIAIIVE
SOC COLLECTION COMPONENT
king County MOTILE FACILITIES 12 total, 1990 and 19921
Staff (pIWI industry) so 10 so to $0 10 so so
Trucks IS year I•aN) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
foulpes"t, berms. fencing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Setop costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Planning and training 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
king County AUXILIARY FACILMES(1 IN 1991 AND 1993)
Stiff (orivats Industry) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sheds and $tariff suits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site design and preparation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
loulosent and permits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ira in Ing/018110111/adol" 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
king County ?III 11111411Y of M DISPOSAL COSTS so to $0 so so 10 so so
Consultant coots (program letup)
(21111 of volts collected And recycled of disposed)
PROMOTION OF COLLECTION SERVICES
Staff 11.5 FT[I so so so so so so to so
Materials/distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
long County ADNINISTRAIJON
M Collection coordinator (1 FIE) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
Adoin/evoplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------- ------------------------------
M COLIECTION COMIONETIT TOTAL so so so so so so so so 65,1111,000
t!j
w
,/mxm /mm /s/ /992 /eu nw /935 /mm /o, /xm 1999 2000 mm/
owmxmmxo mxmxm/
Regulatory Agencies vEGUunmm^mno AND EmmmnMEm
|wu xm// (0./ Fn/vfencr) $40.000 140,000 ^20.000 ^m.mm 120,000 15.000 15,000 Is.mw w.mm 15.000 15.000 15,000
wom/suwow 10,000 10,000 5.000 S.mm 5.000 /./m /./m /.250 /./m /./m /.,m /./m
Enhancement mlocal ordinances
omo N./ "n/ijanc/| 40,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 o o o o v o o
Admm/supp).w 10.000 10.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 o o o o o o o
owm osmxPL/mm
Response network
omo (/ , n() 40,000 80.000 10.000 80.000 80.000 80,000 80.000 80.000 80.000 WOOD 80.000 80.000
*m/wsuppow 10,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20.000 20.000 20,000 20.000 70,000 20,000 20,000
ww.ues/ww.pment 20,000 /.mm `.ym /.om /.am /.ym /.om ..ym /.om /.ym /.ym /.ym
»"~.ng for participating agencies 15.200 19,200 19,200 19,200 15,200 19./00 /9.200 /9.700 19,200 /1.700 m.nm m./oo
Suw/'w. rent 20 000 m.wm 20.000 20,000 20,000 20 000 20'000 20,000 20'000 20,000 20 000 20.000
upsu/u*t 50,000 o o o n o o v o o o »
mupuur system 25,000 ,.mm ,.mm ,.mm ,.mm 2,000 ,.mm 2.000 ,.mm ,.mm ,.mm ,.mm
w,m Response network follow-up mspacuw*
omo (1-4 FIE) 40.000 80.000 ,m.mm /50.000 160.000 1140.000 /00,000 100.000 /60.000 /60.000 /60.000 /50.000
Vehicles/equipment 20.000 3,000 23.000 0,000 6.000 6,000 1,000 0.000 ^mm umw 5,000 6.000
ww.o/supp^os 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 40.000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40.000 40.000 40,000
wt," Su,.^,&
*tax f/'^ nE} 40,000 80.000 /m.mm /40.000 200,000 2w.m0 ,w.mm ,w.mm ,m.000 /40.000 240.000 ,wmm
mmm/suppo^^ 10.000 20,000 m.00o 40,000 50,000 50.000 60.000 60.000 10.000 50.000 $0.000 10.000
wm`c/woww/pment 20,000 /.sm 23,000 4.500 21.000 r.Soo 9.000 9,000 9,000 1,000 1.000 9,000
mw/* wo.m
avn 13-12 FIE) 120,000 /60.000 200.000 240,000 210.000 no.mm 310.000 400,000 ^m.000 480.000 480,000 480,000
wo/"/suwow 30.000 40.000 m.mm 60.000 10,000 10.000 90,000 /00.000 110,000 120,000 /m.mm /m.mm
wm`uw/ww'pm~t 20.000 24,500 1,000 r/.ym 9.000 30,500 12,000 33,500 15,000 35.000 11,000 11,000
nmm mmmom^nON
nmCompliance coordinator |/ FIE) 45,000 45.000 45.000 45.000 45.000 46.000 45.000 45,000 45.000 45.000 45.000 45,000
mw`*=wow x./m 11,250 11,250 ./.rw x.»m 11,250 11.250 11.250 111.2m 11,250 v.,m 11.250
----------------------------------'--------'-----------------------------------------------------------------
mmmxPL|ANs mxmxm mm/ 1150.450 v,n.mm 1850,950 wmv.mwm.mm.mm w."o.nm 11.182.200 11.251,100 w.205.200 11.355.100 m.:m.nm 11,338,200
'----'-----------------'---------------------------------------'---------------------------------------'
mmPLAN TOTAL 11./81.950 17.482.450 12.9111.0013./21.45013.30/.150 13,316.100 m./u.om 12,111,200 12.411,450 vx.S /.mv 12.544.450 12.541.450
1/20m9 mm mm mw 200S 2001 om/ 2008 20mmmnYEAR mwmmuo
mQGvwNFLmNCx COMMENT
11108w,v Alsocies oEGmmmmCNwNEv mm ;oNAxmmw/
/mu ' om/rm./ no/"vw",) 15.000 ^5.000 o5.000 651000 ^5.000 15.000 15.000 15.000
ww/**upwnss 1.250 /.xm /.250 \mm /.,m \mm /.xm /.»m
[°ho~omw t of local ormw"wo
Staff m./ vm/aoenm) v v o v o o v o
wwmmvpoxw v o o v v o o o
Nitro mmCON"'11ANCE
Response network
Stiff (/ ' »FIE) 10.000 80,000 80,000 80.000 60.000 10,000 80.000 00.000
mm/n/vupvnss 20.000 20,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20.000 20.000 20,000
mwmvw°w»oont /.ym /.mw `.ym ..mm /.ym /.ym /.mw ..mm
»wm*v for wnt*io*wvagencies 19.200 11,200 m.m* 19,200 .9.200 .,.nw 19,200 m.*m
Supplies, mm 20,000 20.000 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
xmw/ta* » « " ^ » » « »
wmp"w, system '.mm 2.000 2,000 2,000 ,.mm ,.mm ,.mm ,.mw
wotm Response network m|u"-u, mspwxm~
Staff (1-4 IT[) /60.000 /60.000 /60.000 /80.000 /60.000 1110.000 .60.000 /10.000
w*`*"wGovwwenx «.mm 0.000 1,000 6,000 5.000 ^.mm 6,000 6.000
*m/*«up»^ss 40.000 ^o.mm ^o.mm 40.000 40.000 ^v.mm ^o.mm 40,000
Nitro Surveys
wm'f "'onF) ,w.mw x^o.mm 240.000 ,w.mm 210,000 240,000 240.000 240.000
Admwvupp/i4s 50.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 10.000 60.000 60.000
w*w"m°ovwog° ».mw 9,000 1,000 9.000 9.000 9,000 9.000 1.000
wm/w mm.m
Staff (mxFIE) 480.000 110.000 460.000 4#0.000 MAD 460'000 480'000 400'000
*m/wwo ^66 /m.wm /m.mm 120,000 120,000 /m.mw /m.mm /m.mm 120.000
mokicm^mv /vveo 18,000 18,000 11,000 18,000 18,000 .o.ww 11,000 11,000
Notr" Mm/mwmnw
wmCompliance coordinator 11 FIE) ^».mm 45.000 w.mm ^o.mm ^o`mm 45,000 45.000 45,000
wmwm"pp/m" 11.250 11,250 11,250 11.250 11,250 11.250 11.250 n.nm
------'----------'---------------'--'—`—.--'---'-------'---'--'-------'-----'-----------'-----'----'-------------------
mwmWLmuCE COMPONENT TOTAL 11111311200 11.330.200 $1,331,200 11,131,200 11.331.200 11,131,200 $1,131,200 $1.330,200 ^23.113./50
------------------------'—'---'---'--_--------'------'------------'----'--'--_------------------------------------
mmnwmTAL 112.544.00 12.144.450 62.544.4so 112.S411.450 12.544.450 112.544.00 12.544.150 12.114.4m 153u1s.150
voxm /mw /911 /zo .mm /cw 1995 /mw /m, 'mm itm ?000 nm/
PROGRAM EVALUATION COMPONENT
osm1xmEmluyMs7no Evaluation Coordinator 11 FIE) 45,000 45.000 m.mm 45.000 45,000 m.mm 45.000 411,000 45,000 46.000 m.mm 45,000
NOW Ewm*w evilwuon/,oilem 13.100 20.000 10.000 10.000 20.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10,000 5.000 5.000
mmCollection *m/us*on/"pdom 11,500 10,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 2,600 2.000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 2,000
mmEducation eva/uationluodate 34.000 20.000 5.000 5.000 20.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 7.000 2.000 2.000 2.000
mmCollection e*luatw*vPdom 20,400 10,000 ;.mm 3,000 10,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 o o " »
nw-compowmevawm/w/updat13.800 10.000 S.000 - 5.000 10.000 2.000 ,.mw 2.000 vmm 2,000 2.000 2.000
ir / mvm. salary mwupdate 11, r 2-5 mw
extra *mm=^. *m`uon. ,ww`".njyrs add ^5.mm)
--------'-----------------'------'--'-----------'----------------------------------'-------------------'--'----------'
EVALUATION COMPONENT TOTAL 140.200 115.000 13.000 13,000 /25.000 13/000 13.000 13,000 61.000 6//000 $1.000 $6,000
----'-----'---------------------'----'--------------------------------------------------------------------------
xmoMMExmovwoRAxmmL m.nx.w/ 15.201.621 16.210.1091/.101.9211/.11/.324 18.250.914 11.011./94 1111.nS.xm 11.921.641 $1.204.562 w.m/./n 19.940,169
�n
a" ow IL gm am 4w
�
vm� 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001 200/ 2000 2001 TWENTY YEARoUNULm|=
FAMAN mowmmmCOvM m
==,=.=`,=,===,,,`,``,.,,,``.,=,,,,=,.==`,==,,,,==============`.,^===,`.,==,==,==,=`.======`==================,
HEALMISEA /uMETRO Evolution Coordiastor 11 M) 45.000 45.000 45.000 4s.000 45.000 45,000 4S.000 45.000
NOV Fdvestion evolvItieft4pilsto 5.000 5.000 $1000 5.000 5,000 5.000 5.000 5.000
NOV Collection @v8mm*R/vpd4tm 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2,000 2,000 2.000 2.000
mm [duatio" eve*mmn/vow 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2,000 2.000 2.000 2.000
mmCollection .w/wmww,wm" o o o o o v " o
m06mesp/=pco evowmwnhodsw /.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000
|r / *mm. wury from vodomw. r 2-5 from
Mrs mm ,00m. *w.xww. ,wmmnjIre wm ^o.wm|
-----------------'--'-----------'------'----'----------------------------------------'-----------'-----------'--'-----
EmmmuwmMom TOTAL 56.000 m,000 56,000 $1,000 $1.000 56.000 51.000 $1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vmvmmxmovmmxANmwL vw./m.m/ vw.,n.m, 110,432.532 vw.mw.:/ 110,763,711 810.939.44S mun.^m 1111,306,1511 1111.830.11114
1119 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1991 1991 1991 1999 2000
HHW COLLECTION COMPONENT SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
OWN lonnalt Generated 1,310 1,480 6,650 1,623 1,001 1,200 1,391 1,100 1,613 1,030 1,260 1,493
Targeted waste diverted: 011 8.01 8.01 1.01 0.01 1.01 8.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 8.01 8.01
011 Diverted Itons) $05 516 532 540 511 516 592 101 125 142 161 619
Remaining WHIN 5,805 5,902 1,116 1,211 1,446 1,624 1,105 1,992 1,161 1,301 1,599 1,114
Collection and Disposal (percent) 4.51 3.21 5.01 6.91 1.11 9.91 10.31 11.11 11.51 12.31 13.11 13.51
Ion, 261 191 308 431 494 154 101 115 129 909 994 1,054
collection and Recycling (percent) 0.01 5.81 9.01 12.11 13.31 11.11 19.11 22.91 25.51 21.11 31.91 34.51
Tons 0 345 548 160 060 1,134 1,341 11103 1,130 2,120 2,421 21698
Nutt generated/user tons) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
number of viers 5225 10131 11130 23653 21015 35110 40631 41541 $3111 10511 68393 15010
Permanent Sites 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 5 1 0 6
number of fTE (3.0/uttr hour)/sits 2 1.95 1.81 1.43 1.1 1.65 1.13 2.1 2.03 2.1 2.1 2.4
tvl rite of usesle/hr 1.2 2.6 2.5 3.3 2.1 3.1 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.1 1.6 5.4
Art open to public/wk 25 26 25 19 24 22 23 21 21 21 28 32
collection loll/gear (tons) 61 351 491 153 114 1,248 1,502 11831 21120 2,489 21800 3,211
mobile Sint 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
svl number of tttff(ftt)/sits 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
number of users/hr 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Art open to public/wk 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
wlslyr open to the public 31 35 36 36 31 36 30 36 36 31 38 36
collection Soil/year (tons) 100 ISO 360 540 $41 540 940 540 540 $40 540 $40
number of users/yr 3100 3600 1200 10800 10100 10800 10600 10100 10800 10100 10800 10110
TOIAL HHV waste collected Itons) 161 531 451 1,193 1,354 11111 21042 2,311 2,110 3,029 3,410 3,151
a
N
00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2009
HHW COLLECTION COMPONENT SUPPLEME14TARY INFORMATION
NNW lonnol• Cenereted 8,140 8,993 9,253 9,530 9,813 10,101 10,113 10,123 11,053
Targeted nits diverted Oil 8.0% 8.01 8.01 8.0% 8.01 8.01 8.0% 6.01 1.0%
Oil Diverted (tons) 199 119 140 162 185 809 833 658 681
Ileeuininl NNW 8,041 8,214 8,513 8,168 9,028 9,298 9,510 9,815 10,169
Collection end Disposal (percent) 13.11 12.11 12.21 11.91 11.81 11.11 11.9% 11,8% 11.11
Tone 1,050 1,044 1,031 1,042 1,012 1,094 1,129 1,163 1,194
Collection and Iecycllel (percent) 34.91 35.41 35.81 36.11 38.28 36.2% 36.21 31.21 36.31
Ions 2,809 2,921 3,049 3,161 3,212 3,369 3,410 3,512 3,661
Waste lonersted/waerltonel 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
number of users 11192 19425 11122 64169 81616 89255 91911 94101 91620
pertinent Site$ 1 1 1 6 6 5 1 1 1
number of fel 0.0lour bourUsite 2.85 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
til rete of usesle/Tir 5.1 5.5 5.1 5.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.0
Tire open to pullie/at 38 t0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
collection Joel/Feer Itons) 3,320 3,431 3,541 3,166 3,193 3,923 4,051 4,195 4,341
Mobile Situ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
mrl number o1 stifflltel/sits 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
nuebsr of users/Ar 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
lire coon to public/wt 25 2S 25 25 25 25 25 21 25
rat/fr open to the public 36 36 36 31 36 36 31 31 36
collection 6oell9ssr Items) 540 540 540 $40 540 540 540 540 540
nwab$r of ut$rs/rr 10800 10800 10800 10100 10800 10800 10600 10800 10800
TOTAL NNW waste collected (tont) 3,810 3.911 4,011 4,201 4,333 4,453 4,596 6,175 4,681
W
N
COORDINATOR JOB DESCRIPTIONS
GENERAL DUTIES OF ALL COORDINATORS
• Participate on staff committee, and make recommendations to Management
Coordination Committee on annual implementation program. Review interagency
agreement for implementation to ensure that overall program fits within the bounds
and budget of the Plan;
• Ensure that annual work plan is established in coordination with all component staff,
reflecting program goals and priorities;
• Track overall component costs and effectiveness, participate as necessary in regular
evaluation, including definition of evaluation criteria and methodology, and
recommend program revisions;
• Ensure successful implementation of Plan components.
HHW EDUCATION COORDINATOR (1 FTE -- Health Department)
SQG EDUCATION COORDINATOR (1 FTE -- Metro)
Manage educational and outreach programs:
• coordinate with agency education staff in development and implementation of
specific program elements.
• ensure that materials/activities are consistent and complete.
• maintain communication/information flow, so that all involved agencies know what
educational opportunities are available, and have access to them.
• develop and maintain on-going relationships with media, public organizations,
business groups etc. to provide information and gather feedback.
• Explore and assess the feasibility of education and outreach opportunities as they
arise; assist program staff in prioritizing opportunities.
HHW COLLECTION COORDINATOR (0.5 FTE -- King County Solid Waste Division)
(0.5 FTE -- Seattle Solid Waste Utility)
• Coordinate with local project managers to ensure regional consistency in data
collection and management, and regional compliance with highest priority waste
management strategies in disposal contracts.
• Ensure regional promotion of collection services.
• For permanent facilities: 1) actively promote the establishment of permanent
facilities in suburban cities; 2) work with staff in host communities in performing
siting process, site design and construction, equipment purchase, development of
contracts for services, and in preparation of procedures and training as needed.
• For mobile facilities: 1) oversee development of mobile units, and contracts for
implementation; 2) ensure conformity with waste handling priorities and site set-up
procedures for public and environmental protection; 3) choose operation locations
and ensure equitable service throughout the region.
• Research feasibility of special collection for targeted wastes; promote implementation
of special services where appropriate.
B-30
SQG COLLECTION COORDINATOR (1 FTE -- King County)
• Develop RFP for collection facilities (mobile and auxiliary) and oversee contracts
for implementation;
• Ensure promotion of collection facilities;
• Develop RFP for design of subsidy program; oversee contract, and implement
according to consultant recommendations.
COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR (1 FTE -- Metro)
• Facilitate interagency communication with regard to compliance programs.
i0 Work with management and field staff in agencies not directly responsible for
compliance programs to ensure their participation.
• Provide staff support for and monitor the activities of the Interagency Regulatory
Analysis Committee and Enhancement of Local Ordinances efforts.
Monitor regulatory activities of the state and federal governments that have a
bearing on HHW and SQG hazardous waste management.
EVALUATION COORDINATOR (1 FTE -- Health, Metro, Seattle Long-range
Planning)
• Facilitate research design, identify data collection needs and development of RFPs
for evaluation.
• Manage evaluation contracts
• Conduct or manage contracts for baseline data collection (e.g., waste sorts, public
awareness surveys, water quality testing).
• Assure that results of evaluation efforts are given to Management Coordination
Committee annually to contribute to annual work plan review and approval.
BUDGETS AND CONTRACTS COORDINATOR (Health)
• Oversee collection of solid waste and wastewater fees.
• Administer the accounts containing collected fees.
• Oversee the interagency agreements between the Health Department and other
implementing agencies that permit disbursement of funds.
B-31
STAFFING COMMITMENTS -- 1990
Responsible
Program Level Agency In Budget? New?
HHW Education Coordinator 1 FTE Health 1 1
Info & Outreach Metro' 0 0.25
1 K.C. 1 1
Seattle 0.25
Waste Reduction 1 Metro 0 0.25
Seattle 0.25
Telephone Line (HHW only) 1 Health 1
Schools 2 Metro 0 0.5
K.C. 0.5 0.5
HHW Collection Coordinator
Permanent 0.5 Seattle 0.5
Mobile 0.5 K.C. 1.32 0.8
Permanent Collection Staff 4 Seattle 4 3
Mobile Collection Staff 2 K.C. 2 contracted
SOG Education Coordinator 1 Metro 0 1
Info Devel. & Resources 1.5 Metro 0.5 1
Resource Library 1 Metro 0.5 0.5
Telephone Line (SQG only) 1 Health 1 1
Waste Exchange 1.5 Health 1 0.5
Waste Reduction etc. 1 Metro 0 1
On-Site Consults 3 Metro 0 3
Waste Characterization 1 Metro 0 1
SQG Collection Coordinator 1 K.C. 0 1
SQG Collection Promotion 0.5 K.C. 0 0.5
Compliance Coordinator 1 Metro 0 1
Enhancement of Local Ords. 1 10 agencies
IRAC 1 10 agencies
Response Network 1 Metro 0 1
Field staff 1 Metro 0 1
Surveys 1 Metro 0 1
Audits 3 Health 3 3
Evaluation Coordinator 0.33 Metro 0 0.33
0.33 Health 0 0.33
0.33 Seattle (OLP)' 0 0.33
TOTAL 35.5 17.8 26
'Metro has a cap on filling new positions; at the same time the Metro Council adopts the Plan, they will
authorize the new positions.
2inlcudes 0.3 FTE for targeted recycling
'This position cannot appear in the budget until a funding source has been identified; when the fee
setting ordinances are adopted, OLP will go through the steps necessary to create this position.
B-32
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement B-33
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, ereinafter re erred 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.
"Disposal " means the final treatment, utilization, processing, deposition, or
incineration of solid waste but shall not include waste reduction or waste
recycling as defined herein.
"Diversion" means the directing or permitting the directing of solid waste to
disposal sites other than the disposal site designated by King County.
"Energy/Resource Recovery" means "the recovery of energy in a usable form from
mass burning or refuse derived fuel incineration, pyrolysis of any other means
B-34
of using the heat of combustion of solid waste that involves high temperature
(above 1 ,200 degrees F) processing." (WAC 173-304-100) .
"Moderate Risk Waste" means "(a) any waste that exhibits any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste but is exempt from regulation under this
chapter solely because the waste is generated in quantities below the threshold
for regulation and (b) any household wastes which are generated from the
disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household
substances. " (RCW 70. 105.010)
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid
wastes, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial
wastes, swill , demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts
thereof, and discarded commodities but shall not include dangerous, hazardous
or extremely hazardous waste.
"System" means King County's system of solid waste transfer stations, rural and
regional landfills, energy/resource recovery and processing facilities as
authorized by RCW 36.58.040, and as established pursuant to the approved King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
"Waste Recycling" means "reusing waste materials and extracting valuable
materials from a waste stream. " (RCW 70.95.030)
"Waste Reduction" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated but
shall not include reduction through energy recovery or incineration.
"Landfill " means "a disposal facility or part of a facility at which waste is
placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility." (RCW
70.95.030) .
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.
-2-
V. REVIEW AND RENEGOTIATION B-35
5. 1 Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of any provision of
Ills Agreement other than those specified in Section 5.2 below during the
1 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
t 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 an
` this Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement, y provision of
VI. GENERAL OBLIGATION OF PARTI S
E
6. 1 KING COUNTY
a. ana emen . 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
ccllected 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• Tann Ing. 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. aeration. 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 r
landfills which are or were operated by King County. esponsibilities for
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.
-3-
B-36
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, t
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.
9. Facilities and Services. County facilities and services in
waste
reduction and recycling shall be provided pursuant to the comprehensive solid
waste plan. All personal and realProperty acquired by King County for solid
waste management system purposes shall be the property of King County.
6.2 CITY
a. Collection. The City, an entity y 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 @r
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
-4-
1.
B-37
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 prote-t
the City's interest. For purposes of this section "claims arising out of the
county's operations" shall include claims arising outof 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.
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
8.5. a. if it has adopted an ordinance requiring wsolid ith hwaste u�delivered rements f toction 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
E rFmedy 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.
-5-
w
B-38
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 10.95.080(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 low
required for handling all waste types;
b. Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies; ab
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.
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
-6- '.
i
B-39
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
wo 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
not 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.
f
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.
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.
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.
-7-
E.
B-40
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. NI
XV. SEVERABILITY
If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal , invalid Id
or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and
effect. oil
XVI. NOTICE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date
set forth below:
CITY KING COUNTY
MAYOR ING 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 ING COUNTY DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
DATE: DATE:
c33modelsw4
FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT B-41
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
tha Clerk of the King County Council , and the Secretary of State of the State
of Washington.
V. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
The scope of the responsibilities of the Forum is as follows:
I . 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 B-42
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.
1. 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.
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 signatory 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% - 2.16 1
Total 11 t 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.
- 2 -
r
VII. STINGS
r I3-43
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
L 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
L representatives of Seattle and the other cities and towns.
;r
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
y
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.
y 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.
i
1
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.
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.
- 3 -
X1 !! B B-44
i
This Agreement merges and supersedelatprior
theeiub�ectomitterraf this ion
I and or agreements between the parties r ln ctgbetween the parties except with
Agreement and constitutes the entire contra
regard to the provisions of the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement.
XII. KAg
No waiver by
either party of any term or condition of this Agreement itishall
be deemed or construed tofute theasamewaiver
or afdlfferentother
provislon of this
teor condon or
any subsequent breach, whether
Agreement.
XIII. THIRD °AOTV RrNEFICIARY_
This Agreement is not entered into withthe
intent thatibed it shall
ein, a benefit
any other entity or person, except those exp ,
no
other such person or entity shall be entitled to be treated as a third party
beneficiary of this Agreement.
XIY. Uy RAMI IT
If any of the provisions contained in this rshalltremainare eln fullgforce
invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions
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 KING COUNTY
ing County scut ve
Mayor
ate
Date
�
Pursuant to Ordinance No. Pursuant to Ordinance No.
C er -Attest
Clerk-Attest
to form and legality Approved as to form and legality
Approved as
ng County
City Attorney Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
ate c33-forumsw.
ate _ 4 _
1
i
1
1
t
1
i
1
t
I
D-1
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
FROM THE SEATTLE-KING COUNTY
LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WORKSHOP FOR SUBURBAN CITIES
Sponsored by:
Y
King County
Metro
City of Seattle
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health
June 7, 1989
i
D-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
INTRODUCTION 1
GENERAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS 2
SERVICES 3
EDUCATION 4
P
ROUND U S 5
COSTS, RATES, BILLING PROCEDURES 5
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS 7
PERMANENT FACILITIES 7
MOBILE FACILITIES 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Handout Packet
Appendix B: Follow-Up Letter to Suburban Cities ,
i
D-3
Summary of Comments from the
Seattle-King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Workshop for Suburban Cities
INTRODUCTION
A workshop for representatives of the suburban cities was held the
evening of June 7, 1989, in hearing room #2 at King County Building and
Land Development in Bellevue. The purpose of the workshop was to
discuss specific recommendations for implementing and funding local
hazardous waste programs. Eleven cities were represented: Bellevue,
Clyde Hill, Enumclaw, Hunts Point, Issaquah, Kirkland, Medina, Mercer
Island, Redmond, Renton, and Yarrow Point.
The workshop was hosted by the Technical Planning Committee and
moderated by Pam Bredouw of Shapiro and Associates, Inc. Information
was presented on the following topics:
• Management Plan Update - Martha Burke, Seattle Office for Long-
range Planning
Recommended Preferred Alternative - Dave Galvin, Metro
• Suggested Financing Options - Todd Yerkes, Seattle-King County
Department of Public Health
• Proposed Implementation Strategy - Scott Blair, King County Solid
Waste Division
• Adoption Procedure - William Green, Department of Ecology
A packet of handouts supplementing the speakers' comments was
distributed to all participants (see Appendix A). Copies of the handout
packet and a cover letter (see Appendix B) were mailed to all jurisdictions
the day after the workshop to elicit further comments and questions.
A question and answer period followed the presentations. Below is a
summary of the questions and comments from the participants (organized
1
i
D-4
by subject), and the accompanying responses from the Technical Planning
Committee.
GENERAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
• There needs to be public education BEFORE the cities are asked to
approve the Plan.* It would greatly help the cities in handling the
concerns of the citizens.
• From the suburban cities' viewpoint, it would be helpful to have a flow
chart of the hierarchy of who would be in charge, how many people are
involved, and the range of salaries of the staff all the way down to the
level of inspector. The suburban cities are concerned about another
layer of staff and how that relates to the money customers are putting
into the Plan. They would like to know how much money is going for ,
staff and how much is actually going toward implementation.
• There should be more involvement from the Suburban Cities. The
opinions expressed by tonight's participants may not be the same as
those of the Suburban Cities.
• There should be an interlocal agreement where cities decide who should
attend the Plan's management meetings and represent their interests.
The Management Committee that will oversee the Plan will have
representation from the Suburban Cities. During much of the Plan
development, the Suburban Cities were represented on the Technical
Planning Committee. Cynthia Pruitt-Davidson, from the City of
Redmond, represented all of the Suburban Cities. Unfortunately, such
responsibility is not included in city budgets and after a while Cynthia
was no longer able to continue. No other representative was sent to
replace her.
• Look into the way in which the Washington Citizen Insurance Authority
operates. This could provide a method for structuring the involvement
of the suburban cities in managing the Plan.
• The Seattle-King County Hazardous Waste Management Plan should
mention the King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
and how they work in conjunction with each other. Likewise, the City
2
D-S
of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan should mention the Hazardous Waste
Plan.
The final Seattle-King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
will discuss how it coordinates with the King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan. Seattle will do the same.
SERVICES
• Who will provide the services to the cities?
King County is responsible for providing services to those cities that
signed the Interlocal Agreement. Cities, however, can participate in
' Plan implementation if they so desire. Metro and the Health
Department also may be involved with the small quantity generators.
• If Bellevue establishes its own program, can adjacent cities choose to
have Bellevue handle their hazardous waste?
If Bellevue's (or any city's) program is funded by the Plan, it must be
open to all County residents. Cities that adopt the Plan do not need to
identify or provide services for their own residences, unless they want
to.
• Are there boundaries for services?
No. Citizens will be able to take their hazardous waste to any facility
funded under the Plan in the County.
• Does the Plan address suppliers taking back unused products that would
become hazardous waste if discarded (paint, batteries, used motor
oil) ?
The Plan discusses collection and recycling of batteries at the point of
sale in the Targeted Waste parts of the program. As part of the used
motor oil program, we will be looking at finding more collection sites
(such as gas stations), as well as the possibility of curbside collection.
In (Recycled used motor oil is not considered a hazardous waste.)
Programs for other recyclable wastes (such as latex paint) will
probably not involve suppliers.
3
i
D-6
• Will it be possible to use existing inspectors?
Yes. As part of our Response Network, a general inspection form is
being developed for use by building inspectors, fire departments, Metro,
etc. A fire inspector who notices a potential problem with a water
pipe when he is conducting his fire inspection will fill out a portion of
the form, turn it into the Response Network, and it will be forwarded
on to the proper department or agency. There will be cross-training
(paid) for all inspectors; however, this is not intended to create "one-
stop" inspections but allow a method for alerting proper agencies when
potential problems exist. If something does not look right, there would '
be a mechanism to report it.
EDUCATION ,
• Explain why the Plan allocates increasing amounts of money to
education and waste reduction over the years.
The Plan proposes a two-pronged approach: (1 ) long-term through
education, reduce the amount of hazardous waste being produced, and
(2) short-term, handle the large amounts of waste currently in the
community. Pound for pound, education is more cost-effective than
collection and disposal.
• Given tho increasing costs over the years, do you expect increasing
amounts of hazardous waste to be generated even after the education
measures are implemented?
Costs will naturally go up over time as the Plan addresses a larger
percentage of the waste. During the first year, only 10% is being
addressed. If we decided that, as of January 1990, we would keep all
hazardous waste out of the landfills, we would have to implement a
program that would cost $12 million immediately. Such a significant
amount all at once would have serious impact on ratepayers.
Also, the Plan takes into consideration that the population of the
County will increase over the years. Therefore, even if individuals
generate less waste, there will be more of them contributing to the
total amount.
4
D-7
ROUND-UPS
• How much hazardous waste was collected at the last two round-ups?
Approximately 1-3% of what is in the waste stream.
• Why does the Plan recommend discontinuing round-ups?
The Plan recommends that round-ups not be held on a regional basis, as
in the past. Our ability to handle the waste in this manner is at
capacity. Events held on the same day are not serving enough people
well enough. This does not, however, preclude individual cities
sponsoring local round-ups.
COSTS, RATES, BILLING PROCEDURES FOR HOUSEHOLD
HAZARDOUS WASTE
• How will the funds to pay for this program be raised? Will users of the
collection facilities be charged?
Most likely, there will be no direct charge to use collection facilities
for household hazardous waste; a charge would act as a disincentive.
Also, it is not possible to charge what it actually costs to collect and
dispose of the hazardous waste.
Solid waste haulers will be charged and most likely they will pass this
cost on to their customers; therefore, citizens will be paying for the
services through increased bills.
What is the billing procedure? What amount will be tacked on by the
contractors?
Contractors will be charged based on their accounts. The contractors
will then pass the charges along to their customers, if they so choose.
Cities will receive the same information as a double-check of the
figures.
5
D-8
• In the survey you conducted last summer, what rates were people
willing to pay?
There was no survey question about rates. People did mention that they
would be willing to pay a user fee of up to $5.
• People are going to start complaining more and more about increased
rates. How can the cities explain it to their citizens' satisfaction?
Provide them with an option of a variable can rate for their garbage. By
recycling, they will reduce the amount of garbage produced and
therefore the amount paid. It is recognized that this will not be a
significant drop because a large portion of the cost is for collection,
which is a fixed cost.
The Plan calls for a gradual increase in level of service, so rates do not
dramatically increase all at once.
Clark County had a similar situation with increasing rates. The
citizens were charged $9 to pay for clean-up of the old landfill, which
had been placed on the National Priorities List (the EPA's published list
of the most serious abandoned or otherwise uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites nationwide, identified for possible remedial cleanup under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act [CERCLA or Superfund]). Shortly thereafter, they were assessed ,
$.75 for the hazardous waste plan implementation. At a public meeting,
one man commented that he would rather pay $.75 now to manage the ,
waste going into the new landfill than be charged another $9 or more a
few years down the road to clean up another NPL site.
When looking at the Plan's 1990 budget for household hazardous waste,
a large portion of the first year's cost is already included in existing
budgets, so the incremental increase is not great.
• What would it cost a city to operate its own facility?
There are no comprehensive figures, but cities will be reimbursed for
the program. However, this does not mean that cities will be given a ,
blank check. Cities will have to develop capital and operating budgets,
submit them to the Management Committee for review and approval. If
6
D-9
their program is compatible with the Plan then an agreement would be
made between the city and the Health Department to provide
appropriate reimbursement.
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
• Explain the assistance to small businesses and the costs to those
businesses.
The Plan proposes to provide and pay for technical assistance to
businesses upon request. This will allow a small quantity generator to
call and ask for assistance in order to adjust his manner of operating.
There will be no charge for the assistance. The first five years of the
SQG program will be the most expensive because of the satellite and
mobile facilities, and disposal cost subsidy.
• Concern was expressed about the inequity of charging the homeowners
' to subsidize the small quantity generators.
Funding for the SQG program will come from small quantity generator
revenues; households will not be subsidizing small quantity generators.
SQG collection facilities will be funded for the first five years. After
that time, it is expected that private industry will take over. The
subsidy of collection costs for SQGs will be in effect through 1994,
after which it will be discontinued and SQGs will be responsible for the
entire waste management cost. The subsidy is intended to help defray
the costs of disposing of small quantities of hazardous waste;
currently, costs are high, especially when analysis is included.
PERMANENT FACILITIES
• How does the Plan fit in with the State plan for siting hazardous waste
facilities ?
These are two separate plans that deal respectively with small and
large quantities of hazardous waste: our Hazardous Waste Management
Plan, and the State's plan for siting hazardous waste facilities
(describes how to manage the actual waste and includes siting
criteria). Different issues are covered in the plans; however, the
7
D-10 ,
State's siting criteria could be used in siting our proposed permanent
facilities. Local jurisdictions would have the ultimate authority to
approve or disapprove siting within city limits based on their own
criteria. ,
• Who has the ultimate authority when there are conflicts with local
codes?
Local jurisdictions have the ultimate authority. The State and County
have to comply with the local land use, zoning and fire department
permit regulations.
• How will the permanent sites be determined?
The Plan doesn't designate where the permanent sites will be located.
Recommendations will be made by a Management Committee that will
receive input from staff coordinators whose responsibility it will be to
see that certain levels of service are provided countywide. Cities who
ask for sites will be addressed first, followed by other cities being
contacted to see if they would consider locating a facility in or near
their city.
• What is the timeframe for approving a permanent site?
The first site (South Transfer Station) took about eight months. For
i the second site in north Seattle, we anticipate about a year-long
process from site selection to operation. The experience of these two
will help streamline the process for the remaining sites.
• Hasn't the deadline already passed for cities to adopt the siting
criteria (zoning and land use)?
The State Legislature has extended the deadline to November 30, 1991 .
• Has Renton been ruled out as a possible site for a permanent facility?
No. Any city may request to be considered for a permanent site.
8
D-11
MOBILE FACILITIES
' When will the mobile units be phased in? If the Plan does not propose
p p pose
to hold further round-ups, cities need to know where to tell their
citizens to take hazardous waste.
We anticipate having one mobile facility operating by fall 1989, with
two more within the next couple of years. Currently, there is one
permanent site at the South Transfer Station, and the City of Seattle is
now in the process of siting a second one in the north end. Other
permanent facilities will be sited. Needs and costs are being balanced
so as not to have a rapid increase in fees.
According to information we received from the surveys last summer,
' people are willing to drive up to 10 miles to dispose of their hazardous
waste. Using that information, we placed 10-mile radius circles
around the County and determined that six permanent facilities would
meet this driving distance requirement. The purpose of the mobile
units is to service the areas not included within the 10-mile radius of
" a permanent facility.
• Scheduling of the mobile facility will be important.
When scheduling the mobile facility, we will make sure all
communities have access to it. The facility will be scheduled
throughout the County, e.g., Vashon for approximately two weeks and
then Issaquah two weeks, etc.
• Will the mobile facilities be staffed and are there plans to handle
waste that is dropped off at the site after the unit is moved?
These are issues that need to be addressed. We will be contacting many
of the 29 states that currently have permanent hazardous waste sites
to learn how they have handled these issues.
It would be better to have hazardous waste dropped off at a closed site
rather than dumped down the drain. This issue, however, is one that
will be addressed.
9
D-12
• Won't it be difficult to find locations for the mobile facilities?
Mobile facilities willrobabl not be located in residential areas.
P Y
Commercial or industrial areas within easy access of residential r
communities would be preferable. Citizen and City Council concern
about liability and risk will be addressed in siting.
Florida has been operating mobile facilities statewide for three to four
years; their program is very similar to the one we are proposing. Most
of their sites have been in commercial parking lots, like a Southcenter.
We will be consulting them to see how their program operates.
10
Distribution List
Final Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan
State Agencies
' Office of the Governor
Department of Ecology
' Department of Transportation
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
Department of Social and Health Services
Utilities and Transportation Commission
Planning and Community Affairs
Joint Select Committee on Preferred Solid Waste Management
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
King County
King County Executive
King County Council
Department of Solid Waste
Department of Parks, Planning and Resources Development
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO)
Metro Council
Executive Director
Office of Water Quality
City of Seattle
Mayor's Office
Office for Long-Range Planning
' Engineering Department, Solid Waste Utility
j Department of Human Resources
Fire Department
Suburban Cities
City of Auburn
City of Algona
City of Beaux Arts Village
City of Bellevue
City of Black Diamond
City of Bothell
City of Brier
i�
City of Carnation
City of Clyde Hill
City of Des Moines
City of Duvall
City of Enumclaw
City of Hunts Point
City of Issaquah
City of Kent
City of Kirkland
City of Lake Forest Park
City of Medina
City of Mercer Island ,
City of Milton
City of Normandy Park
City of North Bend
City of Pacific '
City of Redmond
City of Renton
City of Skykomish '
City of Snoqualmie
City of Tukwila
City of Yarrow Point '
Regional Agencies ,
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Port of Seattle
Tribes '
Duwamish Tribe
Muckleshoot Tribe '
Tulalip Tribe
Citizens Groups '
Alliance for Solid Waste Alternatives
County Citizens for Responsible Waste Management
Leagues of Women Voters - King County
Metro Citizen Water Quality Advisory Committee
The Mountaineers
Puget Sound Alliance
Seattle Audubon Society
Vashon Island Groundwater Management Advisory Committee
Washington Environmental Council
Washington Toxics Coalition