Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1373RESOLUTION NO. /_17_3 A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting the Final 1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. WHEREAS, the Washington State Solid Waste Management - Reduction and Recycling Act, Chapter 70.95 RCW, requires all cities and counties to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid waste management plan; and WHEREAS, the public health and safety of the residents of King County and the City of Kent require safe and efficient handling and disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS, the Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan ("Plan") is the result of joint accomplishments of the cities and the County which have depended on the citizens, businesses and recycling and solid waste management industries. Representatives of all these groups and the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) contributed to this plan through workshops, meetings, working groups, and monthly SWAC meetings; and WHEREAS, the Plan will lead King County towards its goal to further reduce the waste stream by 50% in 1995 and by 65% in 2000, and to ensure adequate services and environmental controls at King County transfer and disposal facilities. This plan is based on a 20 year forecast of the waste stream and is reviewed and updated every three years to identify changed conditions and new needs; and WHEREAS, the Plan is deemed adopted if cities representing 75% of the incorporated population approve it within a 120 day adoption period which begins when the Plan is issued, in this case September 22, 1993, and is further subject to final approval by the Department of Ecology; and WHEREAS, the Plan was endorsed by the Suburban Cities Association in June of 1993; and WHEREAS, the city has reviewed the Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as set forth in the briefing paper and the executive summary attached hereto as exhibits and agrees with the same; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The final 1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as endorsed by the Suburban cities Association and as outlined in the briefing paper attached hereto as Exhibit A, and as set forth in the executive summary attached hereto as Exhibit B to this Resolution, is hereby adopted. Passed at a regular meeting of the C~ty Council of the City of Kent, Washington this ;(p day of NOJ/embe.d" , 1993. 17 Concurred in by the May r of the City of Kent, this day of~ , 1993. KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 1-.J '73 , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the /£. day of /1i0Ve~~ 1993. /; ~/uL->1-L.eN BRENDA sol waste. res 3 a (_~J-/"'-<"_.A..../ (SEAL) Y CLERK KING COUNTY 1992 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN BRIEFING PAPER The purpose of this briefing paper is to outline the major recommendations contained in the 1992 Plan and highlight the differences between it and the adopted 1989 Plan. In 1988. King County set a waste reduction and recycling goal of 65% by 2000. The 1989 Plan established a set of waste reduction and recycling programs that helped the County meet its first interim recycling goal of 35% in 1992. It also included a schedule for upgrading the County's transfer and disposal system in order to improve levels of service. The major recommendations of the 1989 Plan were: • Implementation of curbside recyclables collection for residents in urban cities and urban unincorporated areas of the ~ounty and dropbox collection of recyclables in the rural cities and rural-unincorporated areas of the county; • Establishment of variable can rates for residential customers: • . Implementation of recycling education programs: • Implementation of residential and non-residential yard waste collection programs: • Development of a six-year schedule for transfer station planning and construction: • Closure of three of four rural landfills and continued operation of Cedar Hills Regional Landfill: • Establishment of a private COL collection and processing system. The 1992 Plan expands on the waste reduction and recycling programs already implemented so that the County can meet its next interim recycling goal of 50% in 1995. The facility schedule was also modified in response to changing conditions and the elimination of the Waste Management N.W. Transfer Station as a transfer option for northeast King County. Major new recommendations in the 1992 Plan include: • Expanding waste reduction programs. especially for businesses: • Implementation of a phased yard waste disposal ban. Phase 1 is a ban on the disposal of yard waste in refuse cans. Phase 2 is a ban on disposal at all County disposal facilities: • Provision of secondary recyclables collection service for secondary recyclables. Services can be provided by the cities or county through on- call services. disseminating information about private sector collection services or special collection events: · • Establishing voluntary nonresidential recyclables collection guidelines for suburban cities and haulers to increase commercial recycling rates: • Working to change state law to give cities and counties authority to set mandatory nonresidential recycl abl es call ecti on standards: . • Accelerating start of the Northeast Lake Washington Transfer Station from 1994 to 1993 and delays the start of the South County Transfer Station until late 1994: • Recommends analysis of the role of the transfer station to assist in the review and development of capital improvement plans for the transfer system. HM:gprogpldn\helen\br1ef.rod EXH1BITA Department of Public Works King County Solid Waste Division City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 FINAL 1992 .. COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY August 1993 ARNEXSUM pub cit Sotting It Out Together EXH1B\T_a Print~d on Rc·t:yckd Pap~r Prepared by: King County Solid Waste Division 400 Yesler Way, Room 6oo Seattle, Washington 98104-2637 Contact: Cynthia Stewart, (206) 296-4388 · TDD 296-0100 This document will be provided in braille, large print, or audio cassette upon advanced request. Executive Summary --- Solid waste management is a tremendous challenge. From 1980 to 1990 the population of King County grew 28 percent The rate at which each individual generated waste grew 65 percent from 4.3 pounds per day in 1980 to 7.1 in 1990. If this trend were to continue, per capita generation would increase to approximately 10 pounds per day in the year 2000. In addition, 218,000 new residents will live and work within the King County solid waste region, bringing the total population to 1,209,000. King County and its cities are reducing this waste stream by 35 percent in 1992 through their nationally recognized leadership in waste reduction and recycling. This outstanding accomplishment is supported by residents and businesses with commitment and enthusiasm. This 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan will lead King County toward its goal to further reduce the waste stream by 50 percent in 1995 and by 65 percent in 2000. Through this Plan, King County will also continue its nationally recognized leadership in solid waste management with state-of-the-art facilities and operations. The waste reduction and recycling success attained since 1987 has already extended the useful life of Cedar Hills Regional Landfill by several years. Under current planning assumptions, achieving and sustaining the 35 percent WR/R goal could mean the remaining capacity at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill could last for 21 years, until 2013. Achieving tl1e 50 percent waste reduction and recycling goal could yield 24 years-until 2016-and 65 percent WR/R could achieve 27 years-until 2019. King County is very proud of these solid waste management achievements. PlAN BACKGROUND This is the 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Pkm (Plan) for the suburban cities and unincorporated areas of King County. The city of Seattle prepared a pl:m for its solid waste in 1989. This Plan addresses what is needed to meet the adopted Kj.ng County 65 percent waste reduction and recycling goal by the year 2000 and to ensure adequate services and environmental controls at King County transfer and disposal facilities. This Plan is based on a 20-year forecast of the waste stream. It is reviewed and updated every three years to identify changed conditions and new needs. This update of the 1989 Plan builds on the joint accomplishments of the cities and the County which have depended on the citizens, businesses, and recycling and solid waste management industries. Representatives of all of these groups and the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) contributed to this Plan through workshops, meetings, working groups, and monthly SWAC meetings. This Plan examines the successes in implementing the 1989 Plan, identifies new needs and alternative ways to achieve them, and recommends specific actions witl1 implementation schedules and responsib iii ties. TilE PlAN The Waste Stream Forecast Table 1 shov.'S projected waste generation and reduction through tl1e year 2010. MLxed municipal solid waste disposal increased annually until 1992. In 1992 tonnage began to decline, because of waste reduction and recycling, and the decline is projected to continue until approximately 2000 when it will begin to increase again.· The County is projected to . reach its 65 percent waste reduction and recycling (WRIR) rate in 2000. It is assumed the WR/R rate would remain at 65 percent thereafter, while tonnage disposed would once again grow due to population growth. About half the unrecycled waste stream is paper, wood,:· and yard waste. Waste reduction and recycling programs and services recommended in Chapter III of tl1e Plan target tl1e , m:fjor w:lSte components listed in Table 2. 11 Table 1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Projectlons8 Tons Year Tons Tons Reduced/ Percent Generated Disposed Recycled WR/R 1987 989,500 808,000 181,500 18.3 1988 1,038,500 813,000 225,500 21.7 1989 1,138,500 . 838,500 300,000 26.4 1990 1,258,500 890,500 368,000 29.3 1991 1,346,500 914,000 432,500 32.1 1992 1,339,600 870,700 468,900 35.0 1993 1,391,500 834,900 556,600 40.0 1994 1,458,600 802,200 656,400 45.0 1995 1,538,600 769,300 769,300 50.0 1996 1,622,900 762,800 860,100 53.0 1997 1,711,900 753,200 958,700 56.0 1998 1,805,800 740,400 1,065,400 59.0 1999 1,904,900 723,900 1,181,000 62.0 2000 2,009,400 703,300 1,306,100 65.0 2001 2,064,500 722,600 1,341,900 65.0 2002 2,121,100 742,400 1,378,700 65.0 2003 2,179,300 762,800 1,416,500 65.0 2004 2,239,000 783,700 1,455,300 65.0 2005 2,300,400 805,100 1,495,300 65.0 2006 2,363,500 827,200 1,536,300 65.0 2007 2,428,300 849,900 1,578,400 65.0 2008 2,494,900 873,200 1,621,700 65.0 2009 2,563,300 897,200 1,666,100 65.0 2010 2,633,600 921,800 1,711,800 65.0 a The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils, asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste). Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals Waste Reduction State and local legislation identify waste reduction as the highest solid waste management priority. Despite important waste reduction successes through education, rate incentives, and other initiatives, waste generation continues to increase. This increase is due, in part, to King County's growing economy and population, but also because of manufacturing u·ends and consumption habits. Therefore, King County and tl1e cities ·must continue to Improve on tl1eir existing waste . tcduction efforts. With this Phm, tl1e County has developed a lnore detailed and comprehensive waste reduction strategy. This strategy identifies a plan of action for creative and innovative ways to meet economic needs while producing little or no solid waste. T:mle 2 1990-91 Waste Stream Characterizatlon Paper 29.4% Wood/Yard Waste 19.6 Plastics 9.6 Food Waste 7.0 Demolition 6.4 Metals 5.3 Textiles 4.6 Glass 2.7 Other 15.4 Source: Chapter II, Figure 11.10, and Volume II, Appendix B. Expanded Progi:'ams Recommended new waste reduction strategies would consist of both general programs focused on expanding public awareness and understanding of waste reduction and programs targeted at specific generator groups. The strategies are briefly described below. • ... Business programs would emphasize waste reduction. • Schools would be encouraged to set goals for waste reduction of specific wastes. • A countywide mass media campaign, coordinated across jurisdictional lines, would be implemented by the County. • · The County and the cities would develop waste reduction programs to meet the needs of residents, businesses, and institutions. Policy and Program Research A comprehensive analysis of nationwide waste reduction policies and programs is needed to identify elements that would augment existing County and city programs. Research would focus on waste generation, packaging issues, and regulatory options. Options for implementing restrictions or imposing taxes on the sale of specific packaging or products could be explored with tlle lifting of the "ban on bans" in july 1993. Mc-.tsurcmcnt 1\vo methods of measurement are to be developed for waste reduction: • A method to monitor progress made tow;u·d decreasing per capita generation rates thrOLigh waste reduction. • A method of evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of waste reduction programs implemented by the County and tl1e cities. Recycling The Plan identifies needs for the recycling collection system, recyclable materiaJs markets, regional setYices, and other supports for recycling; . Collection King County and the cities have established a county-wide household recyclables collection system. Other collection smice needs addressed in the Plan include: • Household yard waste collection in all urban areas. • Secondary recyclables such as white goods, plastics (SPI codes· 3-7), bulky yard waste, and scrap metal. ·~ • A more comprehensive rural residential collection system. • Where feasible, more recyclables and yard waste collection at King County transfer stations. • More yard waste collection setYices for multifamily and commercial generators. • Nonresidential recyclables collection selYice standards and financial incentives. Recyclable Materials Designation This Plan designates recyclable materials for collection. Primary recyclables are those commonly collected and are included in minimum smice levels. Secondary recyclables are less commonly collected (see Table 3). Required Recyclables Collection The Plan designates urban and rural setYice areas that correspond to the /(jng County Comprebensive Plan. The urban minimum residential setYice level requires the following collection setYices: • Primary recyclables collected from both single-and multifamily residences. • Yard waste collection from single-family residences • Yard waste collection/drop-off se1vice for multifamily residences. • Appliance collection opportunities. • Sulk-y yard waste collection opportunities. • Textiles collection opportunities. iii Table 3 Designated Primary and Secondary Recyclables Primary Secondary newspaper polycoated paperboard cardboard high-grade office paper computer paper mixed paper yard waste (< 3' diameter) bulky yard waste wood food waste PET & HOPE bottles all other plastics glass containers tin cans aluminum cans other ferrous metals other nonferrous metals appliances (white goods) textiles The rural minimum setYice levels established in the Plan require the following drop-site collection selYices: • Primary recyclables. • Single-family yard waste collection. Optional Recyclables Collection In addition to collection required by the minimum setYice levels, the County and cities are encouraged to implement the following selYices: · • Urban and rural household polycoated paperboard collection. • Urban and rural household collection for #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LOPE, polypropylene, and polystyrene) .. • Rural household collection for primary recyclables. • Rural yard waste collection (household or drop-site). • Rural household appliance collection opportunities. • Rural household textiles collection opportunities. • Cities nonresidential recycling collection setYices. Nonresidential Recyclables f,Qllection Tbis]lan recommends that nonresidential collection sc1vice guidelines be implemented voluntarily by cities tl1at contract directly with haulers. In all other cities and in unincorporated areas, these guidelines should be implemented E\t'Cttlitt' Summmy iv by haulers with support from those cities and the County. State Jaw does not provide clear authority for cities and the County to require nonresidential recyclables collection. King County should clarify this authority to ensure better nonresidential recyclables collection service county-wide. Clean wood collection After a study to determine volume and generator information for clean wood, programs may be developed for waste reduction and the collection of recyclable clean wood materials Recyclable Materials Market Needs Recyclable materials that .need high-priority market development to support successful recycling are plastics, glass, compost, and mixed waste paper. The King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials will work to stimulate procurement through education, outreach, increased recyclable product procurement, product testing and demonstration, coalition building, coordination v.itl1 the Clean Washington Center, policy analysis, legislative initiatives, and technical assistance to businesses and governrnent. Support Servirei This Plan recommends the cities and tl1e County continue 1989 Plan support programs, including collection rate incentives, procurement policies that favor use of recycled or recyclable products, and new construction standards requiring onsite space for recyclables storage. In addition, progress will be measured by routine -recyclables collection data reporting and annual reports of progress toward Plan implementation. Regional Servirei King County should continue to provide more waste reduction and recycling infonnation to tl1e public. The County should also continue to work with cities and other agencies to achieve stronger intergovcmmental coordination and to maximize available grant assistance through the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Coordinated Prevention Grant and other programs. King County should increase 1~\t'CUIIt'tJ Summary coordination with school districts and continue to provide extensive education and anticipated public informatiOn. Re;idential Solid Waste and Recyclable; Collection''_System Except for the recycling needs and recommendations described above, the basic recyclables and solid waste collection system appears to be adequate. Nonre;idential Collection Authority U:x:al govemments need authority to set non-residential recyclables collection minimum service standards. Also, King County may need to work with the Washington Utilities and Trar1Sportation Commission to promote cross-subsidization (allowing income from one type of operation to subsidize another; for instance, solid waste collection could subsidize recyclables collection), otl1er forms of combined rates, and other mearlS of stimulating commercial recyclables collection. Institutional and Incentive Policiei Incentive Rates Aggressive recycling goals need to be supported by a rate design process that allows haulers to provide waste reduction and recycling incentives and recover costs associated with improving service. The cities, King County, and the collectors should continue to implement and maintain rate incentives that encourage waste reduction and recycling. Mandatory Collection Mandatory solid waste and recyclables collectim1 is not recommended at this time. However, the County should study the relationship between mandatory solid waste collection, participation in recycling programs, self-haul activity, and illegal dumping in order to evaluate the possibility of making collection mandatory in the future. The Transfer System Transfer system planning provides for adequate capacity for the tonnage and number of vehicles projected to use each facility .. tt also plans for required recycling services, and for envlronmeiita.l controls in the transfer system. Future expansion and configuration of the system will continue to be examined. Four planning needs have been identified: • To provide adequate tonnage capacity to serve all areas of the county. • To increase customer service capacity. • To accommodate recycling at County transfer facilities. • To plan for future decisions, such as to set level of service standards in urban and rural areas and to accommodate such changes as technological advances, new regulations, or otl1er needs. This Plan modifies the 1989 transfer system development plan based on current circumstances. This updated 1992 transfer system development plan (Figure 1) recommends that the site selection process for a new Northeast Lake Washington Area facility would begin in 1993 , and site selection for a new South County station would begin in late 1994. The Plan also recommends: • Analysis of the role of the transfer system. (including possible privatization of some services). • Development of master facility plans for those transfer stations with expansion potential. • Update of system use data. Disposal Disposal facilities are needed to serve all areas of King County. Their capacity must be adequate to meet this need over the next 20 years. Cedar Hills Regional Landfill has a disposal capacity of 45 million cubic yards, but King County should anticipate the need for additional disposal capacity beyond the 20-year planning requirement · In addition to facilities availability and capacity, compliance with King County Solid Wa$te Regulations (KCI30HC Title 10), necessa~y capital improvemei1ts. and closure and post- closure activities and funding are also identified needs in this Phm. y King County should continue to upgrade existing disposal facilities to meet the requirements of the King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10). Continuation of adequate capacity should be the primary goal for the disposal system. Recommendations for specific landfills are listed below. • Cedar Hills. Re-evaluate and revise the Draft Cedar Hills Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS in response to revised tonnage forecasts, operating experience, public comment and potential out-of-county disposal. The Plan proposes accelerating the development of Refuse Area 5. • Hobart. Continue limited operations at the landfill until the facility closes. • Vashon. Detennine the impact of a sole source aquifer designation on this landfill. Evaluate the replacement of the landfill with either a transfer station or a drop-box. Waste export, or shipment of solid waste out-of-county, would continue to be studied throughout the planning period. Closure and post-closure funding for all facilities should be assured by adjustments in contributions in the next rate period. Inactive Landfills King County has custodial responsibility for seven inactive landfills. These are Enumclaw, Cedar Falls. Duvall, Corliss, Bow Lake, Houghton, and Puyallup/Kit! Comer landfills. The city of Carnation is responsible for ti1e Carnation Landfill. The major needs identified for the landfills are monitoring, maintenance, and a set aside of sufficient funds to support the costs of monitoring and maintenance for a minimum of 20 years. The post -closure costs for the King County la11dfills are presently funded from the Solid Waste Division operating budget, the landfill post-closure maintenance fund a11d ti1e environmental reserve fund. The appropriateness and adequacy of this funding method should be evaluated upon completion of further environmental studies. Energy/R~ource Recovery The 1992 Plan docs not recommend an energy/resource recovety facility. Wa~te reduction and recycling goals are being successfully achieved and landfill resources are adequate. l~Wt'Uiitl! S/1111111111:)' CLOSE vi 5 IP'"SM :'; 0 • Houghton Transfer Station • Renton Transfer Station • Algona Transfer Station UPGRADE 5 ' • First Northeast Transfer Station UPGRADE OR REPLACE • Factoria Transfer Station • Bow Lake Transfer Station ' VJ\:'::7:tr·./ / .:-, ', SR-18/1·90 Area Transfer Station ·~·'1 c.\ , . ./ .. ~-.~..-.. _., ___ --, __ ,· 6''-.-···, 0 Cedar Fa~s. LandfiiVDrop-box .. ,_ '----, -.. / ~ "~-------- /·'-. -~, '· R_ltR A/L ',_ .. - '· /' _) ~, __ ... ------·· N + ·0 -:"ill Enumclaw LandfiiVTransfer Station _ ... ·· " Transfer facility upgrade New transfer facility Landfill upgrade TRANSFER STATIONS RURAL LANDFILLS TO BE CLOSED AND REPLACED WITH TRANSFER STATIONS • Hobart Landfill Closure of existing landfill or transfer station Drop-box Future transfer facilities locations (conceptual) NEW TRANSFER STATIONS • Northeast Lake Washington Area • Factoria Area • Middle Snoqualmie • Intersection of SR-18 and 1-90 • Tukwila Area (if Bow Lake cannot be upgraded) • South County Area • Hobart Figure 1 King County Solid Waste Division service areas :md facility recommendations. l~t·er.:lllit't! Summary Special and. Miscellaneous Wastes Special wastes are those rpixed municipal solid wastes that may require special hancUing and therefore must receive regulatory clearances prior to diSposal in the King COunty solid waste system. The Plan specifically addresses significant special wastes, including contaminated soils; asbestos; biomedical; and construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste. MiScellaneous wastes, including woodwaste and agricultural wastes, are handled outside the King County mixed municipal solid waste disposal system. Contaminated Soils Contaminated soils typically are those that contain petroleum products or other hazardous substances. Disposal of contaminated soils at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill creates impacts and contributes 1.5 perceni of the disposed tonnage. A variety of treatment processes to remove or destroy hazardous substances from contaminated soil are preferable to disposal. Treatment processes should be promoted over disposal and disposal options should be revaluated in relation to the economic and operational impacts to processors and operational impacts to the Cedar Hills LandfilL Mle;tosWaste No needs have been identified beyond tl10se for waste screening (see Enforcement). The existing system is otherwise adequate for asbestos waste disposal. Biomedical Waste Because there are no major biomedical treatment facilities to handle wastes .from medical, dental and veterinary facilities within King County, biomedical waste, including residuals from treatment or incineration, should be excluded from flow control provisions. Continued disposal at appropriate facilities in and oul~ide of King County is recommended. The adequacy of the ·cun·ent option for dispos:.il of home- generated sharps ·needs to be further assessed. Home generators of shm-ps wastes should rer.cive more education on proper disposal measures. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste vii King County has provided for CDL disposal services through two contracts with Regional Landfill Corporation for disposal in Klickitat County (expected to begin in September 1993) and Waste Management in Arlington, Oregon (to commence before mid-1994). There are many in-county options for CDL recycling and composting of land clearing debris. Planning for disposal is adequate, however better information is needed on the waste stream and operations of local recyclers and processors to support waste reduction and recycling efforts. Waste generators need to systematically plan for waste handling early in project planning and permitting. CDL materials markets also need to be further assessed. Miscellaneous Wastes :Ko sQiid waste management needs are identified and no action is recommended for the remaining miscellaneous waste streams, woodwaste, agricultural waste, sludges and septage, waste tires, and dredge spoils. Enforcement Four types of enforcement activities are carried out by the Seattle-King County Depm'tment of Public Health (Health Department) and the Solid Waste Division. • Solid u:asle handling faalilies permit mpdrements. The Health Department is responsible for permitting both public and private solid waste facilities in accordance with the King County Solid Waste Regulations. The existing enforcement system appears to be effective to ensure compliance, but staffing levels need to be evaluated. • Waste flow control. Waste generated witllin the King County solid waste planning area must be disposed at King County facilities unless its disposal is prohibited by the Division's waste acceptance policy or disposal elsewhere is specifically permitted by ordinance or the Plan. Data· indicate that total tonnage delivered to the system appears to be declining faster than anticipated. This impacts financial planning and operations and indicates a need to monitor waste viii flow control and evaluate needs for further measures. Waste from jurisdictions that are not part of this Plan must be charged a triple rate. The Plan recommends increased attention to the source of waste in order for the rate disincentive to work, public education, :and continued monitoring. · • Control of incoming waite. The Plan recommends that expanded waste screening operations at King County and private transfer stations, to ensure only allowable mixed municipal solid waste is disposed. • J!legat dumping and littering. Few data are available to accurately assess the nature and extent of illegal dumping and littering. The Plan recommends research and analysis of these problems. Based on findings, a county-wide information tracking system may be needed. Environmental Impact Statement Addendum This ·1992 Plan is substantially similar to the 1989 Plan. Although this 1992 Plan contains a number of new recommendations, they build upon tl1e same basic solid waste management programs recommended in tl1e 1989 Plan. Because of the similarity of the two plans, the probable significant adverse impacts of tl1e recommendations and alternatives in the 1992 Plan fall witl1in the range of tl10se evaluated in the 1989 Plan EIS. Therefore, ratl1er than prepare a new EIS on the 1992 Plan, the King County Solid Waste Division has decided to adopt the 1989 Plan EIS in its entirety, and prepare an addendum that contains needed additional information. Plan Recommendations· A table of Plan recommendations is found at the end of this sunuh:u1• (Table 4). PIAN DEVELOPMENT The 1992 Plan has been developed with extensive early public involvement and the active participation of the suburban cities. City recycling coordinators :tnd County staff have also Ent·utit't! Summa~y worked cooperatively to identify and resolve Plan issues. The SWAC also reviewed and commented on the Plan at each stage of its development . The Plan development process consisted.bf the three steps described in the following sections. 1 :· · Draft Plan Development Development of the Draft 1992 Plan began in early 1991. In order to identify countywide concerns, two county- sponsored workshops were held to discuss the 1992 Plan. Suburban cities' elected officials, administrators, and managers, SWAC members, recycling coordinators and representatives of the haulers and recycling businesses participated in these meetings and workshops. Three community meetings were also held at locations potentially affected by the Plan's transfer facility siting recommendations. Based on the input received at these meetings and research conducted by Solid Waste Division (SWD) staff and consultants, the Draft 1992 was produced and distributed for review and comment in August 1992. A 90-day public review period began upon issuance of the Draft Plart The Plan was widely distributed for review and comment by those affected by it · King County conducted public meetings, hearings, and briefings for elected officials in addition to taking 'WTitten comments. The SWAC and the Suburban Cities Staff Policy Group reviewed and commented upon the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan was formally reviewed by Ecology per RCW 70.95 and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission reviewed the Cost Assessment (Volume II, AppendLx K). Final Plan Development . This Final Plan was revised based on strategies developed by tl1e public, suburban cities staff, SWAC, and the Staff Policy Group of the Suburban Cities Association during and after the Draft Plan review period. Based on the comments received, issues needing review and revision were identified and strategies were developed to address the conccms raised. Consensus was gained on revision strategies through meetings with the Staff PoliL)' Group, suburban cities rct.:ycling coordinators, the SWAC, and Ecology. May 1991 -February 1992 Early Public Involvement August -1992 Draft Plan Issuance August -November 1992 Public Comment Period August -December 1992 Ecology-Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Review December 1992 -June 1993 Consensus Building with Suburban Cities and Ecology & Final Plan Development July 1993 Final Plan Issuance 3rd Quarter 1993 Forum Review 3rd Quarter 1993 Ecology Final Review 1st Quarter 1994 Cities and King County Adoption Process Completed Final Plan Submitted to Ecology With Adoptions for Approval Figure 2 Comprehensive Solid Wa~tc M:magcmcnt Pl:m review and Jccision-makin~ process. ix l~rcculit'IJ Summmy X Based on the consensus achieved during the preceding process; the Suburban Cities Association has adopted by resolution support for the final plan. Plan Adoption Plan adoption is the third and final stage. Pending Ecology's concurrence that the Final Plan and Suburban Cities Association recommendations are in compliance with RCW 70.95, Plan adoption will be voted on by suburban the cities and then the King County Council. The Plan is deemed adopted if cities representing 75 percent of the incorporated population approve it within the 120-day adoption period, which begins when the Plan is issued. Ecology would grant final approval once these steps are completed. (The Plan process is shown in Figure 2.) PLAN ORGANIZATION VOLUME I Annotation of 1992 Draft Plan Comments Executive Summary Chapter 1: Plan Development A. Planning Background B. Relationship to Other Plans C. Administration D. Planning History E. Process and Schedule Chapter II: Planning Area A. Existing Conditions B. Waste Strean1 Analysis C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Summary Chapter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling A. Waste Reduction B. Recycling Chapter IV: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems A. Solid Waste and Recyclables Collection [3. Transfer System Cntillth? S11mmnry C. Disposal D. Inactive Landfills E. Energy/Resource Recovery Chapter V: Special ~d Miscellaneous Wastes '· A. Contaminated Soil .·il .- B. Asbestos Waste C. Biomedical Waste D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste E. Agricultural Waste F. Woodwaste G. Other Special Wastes Chapter VI: Enforcement A. Solid Waste Handling Facilities Permit Requirements B. Waste Flow Control C. Control of Special Wastes D. Illegal Dumping and Littering Chapter VII: Financial Systems A. Financing Operations B. Grants Environmental Impact Statement Addendum Glossary References Related Legislation VOLUME II Appendix A:. Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Waste Generation Forecast Methodology Waste Characterization Study Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Recycling Markets Assessment I _:- Appendix E: Appendix F: Waste Reduct_ion and Recycling Progran1s Resource Guide to Recycling Centers in King County Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix 1: Appendix]: Appendix K: Resource Guide for Recycling and Disposal Altematives for Construction, Demolition. and Land Clearing Debris Mixed Waste Proeessing Feasibility Analysis Landfill Reseive Fund Agricultural W:L'itc and Woodwaste \VUTC Solid Waste Cost Assessment xi Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation Description Chapter Ill -Waste Reduction. and Recycling WASTE REDUCTION 111.1 Business waste reduction 111.2 County in-house program 111.3 Holiday waste reduction 111.4 Green teams 111.5 Multimedia strategy 111.6 Targeted waste reduction 111.7 Packaging analysis lll.8 Identification of reducible waste 111.9 Waste reduction data 111.10 Consortium building 111.11 Intergovernmental coordination lll.12 National activities lll.13 Rate incentives RECYCLABLES COLLECTION Required Collection 111.14 Urban household collection of primary recyclables lll.15 Rural drop box collection of primary recyclables 111.16 Urban single-family household yard waste collection Expand business waste reduction program by developing model office display, and recognize businesses that incorporate waste reduction into company practices. Form a networking committee to expand and create new waste reduction programs for County In-House program. Expand waste reduction programs targeting consumers and businesses during the holiday season. Increase number of Green Teams school program sites to include all schools. Purchase videos on waste reduction for airing on public access television and participate with other jurisdictions and television media to buy air time to promote waste reduction. Develop and implement one waste reduction program per generator type (residential, business, and institution). Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packaging and design and identify excessive and nonrecyclable packaging. Identify categories of waste which can or cannot be reduced to target eliminating reducible waste. Identify existing waste reduction efforts by the private and public sectors. Establish a waste reduction consortium with trade associations and manufacturers. Increase intergovernmental coordination to increase influence on waste reduction decisions. Develop proposals for establishing industry consortiums, intergovernmental coordination and national coalitions to promote waste reduction in products· and packaging. Continue to encourage waste reduction and recycling through such rate-related incentives as mini-can garbage service, special recycling service rate for non- garbage customers, distributing cost 6f recycling among all rate payers, and establishing substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service levels. Provide household collection of paper, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PET and HOPE), yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter), glass containers, and tin and aluminum cans from all urban single· and multifamily residences Provide rural single-and multifamily residences with drop-sites for collection of the same materials collected at urban households Provide household collection of yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter) from urban single-family residences in unserved urban areas xii Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. 111.17 111.18 111.19 111.20 111.21 Recommendation Urban multifamily onsite yard waste collection seNice Urban household bulky yard waste collection seNice Urban household appliance collection seNice Urban household textiles collection seNice Nonresidential recycling seNice guidelines implementation and promotion Optional Collection 111.22 111.23 111.24 111.25 111.26 111.27 111.28 Urban and rural household polycoated paperboard collection Urban and rural household collection of #3-7 plastics Rural household collection of primary recyclables Rural drop-site collection of yard waste Rural household collection of appliances Rural household textiles collection Nonresidential recycling collection seNice contracts Other County Collection Programs 111.29 Recyclables collection at King County Solid Waste Facilities 111.30 Yard waste drop sites 111.31 Yard waste disposal ban 111.32 Incentives to buy-back centers 111.33 Appliance recycling resource list 111.34 Secondary recyclables collection events 111.35 Primary Recyclables Education Campaign Description Ensure yard waste collection seNice options are available to urban multifamily dwellings Ensure household collection seNice options for yard waste too large or in excessive amounts for regular household collection are available Ensure large appliance collection seNice options are available to urban households Ensure collection seNice options are available for textiles on a regular basis Ensure that businesses have minimum recycling seNices available to them Evaluate the inclusion of polycoated materials (milk cartons, butter and frozen food packages) in household collection programs Include #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LOPE, polypropylene, and all other plastics) in household collection programs Collect primary recyclables at the household from rural single-and multifamily residences Provide on-call household or drop-site collection of yard waste Collect appliances from rural households Collect used clothing and fabrics from rural households Initiate collection contracts to provide minimum recycling seNices to businesses. Continue current level of primary recyclables includi~g yard waste seNices at existing facilities where feasible; collect these and other materials as needed at upgraded and new facilities Ensure the provision of yard waste drop sites or seNices in the northeastern, near- south, and eastside areas of the County Implement a phased ba~ on yard waste disposal at County disposal facilities Evaluate the feasibility of providing financial incentives to existing private buy-back centers 1o encourage them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials Maintain and distribute a resource list of appliance dealers and recyclers capable of accepting, collecting, ·or recycling used appliances and who meet the new Federal Clean Air Act CFC regulations Coordinate special collection events countywide (urban and 'rural) for secondary recyclablos Develop and implement a campaign to increase public awareness of household collection seNice of primary recyclables. xiii Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation CITY/COUNTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS 111.36 Collection rate incentives 111.37 111.38 111.39 111.40 Procurement policies Recycling space standards for new construction City annual reports Data reporting by haulers, recyclers, cities COUNTY REGIONAL PROGRAMS 111.41 King County Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials 111.42 Business recycling program 111.43 King County employee recycling program 111.44 School education program 111.45 Other WR/R education 111.46 Clean wood collection 111.47 Master Recycler Composter program Description . .i' 'I Contif1ue to establish rate incentives for solid waste collection that encourage participation in recycling programs (see Recommendation 111.13) · Continue the adoption of procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or recyclable products Continue to develop new construction standards that require onsite space for collecting and storing recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential structures countywide Continue annual reports to the County on progress toward implementing the Plan's required programs and achieving established diversion goals Continue to provide collection data from household and nonresidential collection programs Continue to foster the development and expansion of recycling markets in King County and the region Continue to assist businesses and institutions in developing and implementing WR/R programs in the workplace Continue to provide recycling opportunities in the workplace to King County employees Continue to work with cities, school districts, haulers and recyclers in the delivery of school educational and collection programs Continue existing education programs and community events, develop new programs in the areas of yard waste and mixed waste paper collection, and develop and coordinate a comprehensive media campaign aimed at multiethnic and other groups Study and develop programs to increase waste reduction and recycling opportunities for clean wood waste. Continue to train community volunteers in recycling and composting techniques Ewmlit'l! StlllllllfiiJ' xiv Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation Description Chapter IV -Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems COLLECTION IV.1 IV.2 IV.3 IV.4 IV.5 IV.6 IV.? IV.8 IV.9 IV.10 IV.11 IV.12 IV.13 IV.14 IV.15 IV.16 IV.17 IV.18 Collection authority Evaluate mandatory collection WUTC rate review Rate incentives Waste Management Northwest Northeast Lake Washington Houghton First Northeast Facto ria South County Algona Bow Lake Renton Enumclaw Hobart New transfer facilities Role of Transfer System System Use Data Collection DISPOSAL IV.19 KCBOHC Title 10 compliance IV.20 Capital construction plan. IV.21 Financial assurance IV.22 Cedar .Hills Regional Landfill IV.23 Hobart Landfill IV.24 Enumclaw Landfill l£reC111il'IJ ~imzmary Pursue state legislation to clarify nonresidential recycling authority of counties and cities to set recommended minimum service standards for nonresidential collection of recyclables. Study relationships between mandatory collection, self-haul activity, illegal dumping, and participation in recycling programs. Continue to seek changes in statutes and in the WUTC rate review process to allow haulers to recover costs related to nonresidentiaf recycling service level improvements called for in the Plan. Continue to implement rate incentives that will encourage waste reduction and recycling (see also Chapter 111, Recommendations 111.13 and 111.36). Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system. Begin site selection in 1993, completion in 1999. Close in 1999, after new Northeast Lake Washington is completed. Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible. Build new facility. Add MRW services if feasible. Build new transfer station. Begin site selection in 1994. Close after new South County Transfer Station is completed in 2000. Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible, or build a replacement in Tukwila area. Close Renton after Factoria and Bow Lake expansions or Tukwila replacement facility is built. Landfill closed. Replaced with new transfer station in 1993. Close landfill in 1994. Place on hold pending the outcome of Growth Management Act initiatives Develop a study on the role of the transfer system. Collect current data on transfer system usage, programs, and regulations. Continue monitoring compliance. (a) Accelerate development of the Refuse Area 5, Cedar Hills. (b) Delay Vashon new area development and final cover projects. (c) Adjust costs associated with Capital Construction Plan with updated estimates. Adjust contributions to individual accounts in next rate period. Modify draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS. Maintain existing load restriction and continue operation until capacity is reached. Close in 1994. Landfill closed. Closure procoss initiated. XV Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation IV.25 Vashon Landfill IV.26 Waste export INACTIVE LANDFILLS IV.27 Inactive Landfills Description . (a) Seek clarification on impact of a sole source aquifer designation for Vashon .i Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill. (b) Evaluate . ';' .- replacement options for the Vashon Landfill. (c) Evaluate leachate storage, · _ transport, and treatment alternatives and select alternative. · Evaluate economics of out-of-county alternatives with continued operation of Cedar Hills; include back-up level operation necessary for Cedar Hills. Conduct further study and evaluation to determine what actions may be necessary to manage inactive landfills. Chapter V -Special and Miscellaneous Wastes CONTAMINATED SOIL V.1 Recycling and treatment BIOMEDICAL WASTE V.2 Treatment and disposal V.3 Flow control exclusion V.4 Home-generated sharps education v.s Home-generated sharps disposal Promote recycling/treatment. Analyze disposal options and the costs and benefits of in-County vs. out-of-County disposal. Continue to allow treatment and disposal outside of King County. Remove biomedical waste references from flow control provisions. Develop and distribute additional education materials for home generators of sharps waste. Continue to evaluate the adequacy of current disposal options for home-generated sharps. CONSTiiWCTION, DEMOLITION, AND LAND CLEARING WASTE V.6 Source separation V.? Onsite assistance V.8 · Resource guides and brochures V.9 Workshops V.1 0 Waste exchange V.11 Permitting V.12 Disposal ban V.13 Waste screening 1/.14 Record keeping Encourage a policy of source separation for COL. Promote an increase in the number of dispersed locations receiving COL recyclables. Conduct onsite waste audits. Develop broad distribution network for the "Resource Guide.' Develop new .brochures to target various audiences, e.g., COL generators and recyclers. Conduct workshops in conjunction with building trades organizations Expand the work of the IMEX group to add components of demolition and construction waste into its listing. Expand the County's procurement policy to cover COL materials most easily recycled, such as asphalt, untreated wood, and compost made from land clearing debris. Develop incentives to enG:ourage recyclers to locate in King County or expand their existing operations. Develop monitoring program for non-contracted recyclers. Develop, in conjunction with DOES and city permit agencies, a waste reduction and recycling plan requirement for commercial and residential building, grading, or subdivision permits. Study imposition of a disposal ban on specific COL materials. Evaluate instituting a waste screening program. Monitor the disposal of COL waste. J~w'C:ulive SrmmuiiJ' xvi Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued) Rec. No. Recommendation Chapter VI -Enforcement WASTE FLOW CONTROL V1.1 V1.2 Waste flow control education Enforcement CONTROL OF INCOMING WASTES V1.3 Vl.4 VI.S Expanded waste screening Staff training Regulation of private transfer stations ILLEGAL DUMPING AND LITTERING V1.6 VI.? V1.8 V1.9 Evaluate current systems Central monitoring system Abatement of illegally dumped waste Model litter control ordinance hrecutit't! Summmy Description Develop waste flow control education program. Increase enforcement of flow control and waste acceptance policies. Allocate resources for routine observation of unloading, periodic load checks, and documentation of screening activities at transfer stations. Provide additional training for employees to screen wastes. Establish screening and record keeping requirements at private transfer stations. Evaluate current monitoring, enforcement, and cleanup systems. Develop a central system for monitoring illegal dumping complaints and countywide enforcement activities. Research provision of revolving fund for abatement. Research and draft a model ordinance to address litter and illegal dumping concerns.