HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989tqggRESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, approving the 20L9
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for
the King County Solid Waste System.
RECITALS
A. The purpose of the 20Lg Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (2019 Plan) is to plan for solid waste and materials
reduction, collection, and handling and management services and programs
in the geographic area for which King County has comprehensive planning
authority for solid waste management by law or by interlocal agreement, or
both.
B. The 2019 Plan was prepared in accordance with
RCW 70.95.080, which requires that each county within the state, in
cooperation with the various cities located within such county, prepare and
periodically update a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management
plan.
C. King County and all cities in King County except Seattle and
Milton have executed the 2013 Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement
("the interlocal agreement"). Under the interlocal agreement, King County
serves as the planning authority for solid waste.
t Resolution - 2079 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan for
the King County Solid Waste
System
D, King County worked with the City representatives serving on
the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee to develop
the 2019 Plan.
E. The 2019 Plan updates and replaces the 2001 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan approved by City Resolution 1610 adopted on
February 19,2002.
F. On April 17,20L9, the King County Regional Policy Committee,
acting as the Metropolitan King County Council Solid Waste Interlocal Forum,
recommended adoption of Ordinance 18893 for approval of the 2019 Plan.
G. April 24, 20L9, the Metropolitan King County Council adopted
Ordinance 18893, which approved the 2019 Plan.
H. The interlocal agreement sets a 120-day period for cities to take
action on the 2OL9 Plan. The 2019 Plan cannot receive final approval unless
cities representing at least 75 percent of the incorporated population of the
cities that take action in the 120-day period approve the Plan. The 120-day
period runs from receipt by a city of the Plan recommended by the Regional
Policy Committee and approved by the Metropolitan King County Council.
L After City approval the 2OI9 Plan is further subject to final
approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
2 Resolution - 2O79 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan for
the King County Solid Waste
System
RESOLUTION
SECTION 7. - Recitals Incorporated. The above Recitals are
incorporated into this resolution and constitute the findings of the Kent City
Council.
SECTION 2. - Approval of 2079 Comprehensive Solid Waste
Manaaement Plan. The City of Kent hereby approves the 2OL9
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the King County Solid
Waste System, attached as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3, - Severability. If any one or more section, subsection, or
sentence of this resolution is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this resolution
and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. - Corrections by City Clerk Upon approval of the city
attorney, the city clerk is authorized to make necessary corrections to this
resolution, including the correction of clerical errors; resolution, section, or
subsection numbering; or references to other local, state, or federal laws,
codes, rules, or regulations.
SECTION 5. - Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be
in force immediately upon its passage.
1 t\o
DANA RALPH, MAYO roved
3 Resolution - 2O79 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan for
the King County Solid Waste
System
AP
KIMBERLEY KOMOTO, CITY
AS TO FORM:
HITE, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
tltuln
Datb Adopted
tI rq ln
oa6 pu6tistieo
4 Resolution - 2O79 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan for
the King County Solid Waste
System
I
I illt!''tr
1!i"
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
tfl Kins Gounty
Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
Solid Waste Division
zorg Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan
J.rly 2o1B
Updated April 17,20L9
Alternate formats avai lable
206-47 7 -466; TTY relay : 7'l'l
www.ki n gcou nty.gov/so I idwaste
.@tzozu
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 2
Ordinance 18893 Uodated ADril '17. 2019
Acknowledg"ments
Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
kingcounty.gov/sol idwaste
Pat D. McLaughlin, Division Director
Glynda Stein, Assistant Division Director
Meg Moorehead, Strategy, Communications and Performance Manager
Jeff Gaisford, Recycling and Environmental Services Manager
Eben Sutton, Enterprise Services Manager
Aaron Jeide, Human Resources Manager
Neil Fujii, Facilities Engineering and Science Unit Manager
Bill Berni, Operations Manager
ln collaboration with:
Solid Waste Advisory Commiftee
AprilAtwood,Vice-Chair KimKaminski
David Baker Phillippa Kassover
Elly Bunzendahl Kevin Kelly, Chair
Joe Casalini Keith Livingston
Gib Dammann Ken Marshall
Karen Dawson Barb Ristau
Jean Garber Stephen Strader
Mason Giem Penny Sweet
David Hill
Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee
City of Algona City of Kirkland
City of Auburn City of Lake Forest Park
City of Bellevue City of Maple Valley
City of Black Diamond City of Mercer lsland
City of Bothell City of Newcastle
City of Burien City of Normandy Park
City of Clyde Hill City of Redmond
City of Covington City of Renton
City of Des Moines City of Sammamish
City of Enumclaw City of SeaTac
City of Federal Way City of Shoreline
City of lssaquah City of Snoqualmie
City of Kenmore City of Woodinville
City of Kent
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju$ zofi
AttA Page 3
Ordinance 18893 UDdated Aoril 17. 2019
King County Executive
Dow Constantine
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Christie True, Director
Bob Burns, Deputy Director
King CountyCouncil
Rod Dembowski, District 1
Larry Gossett, District 2
Kathy Lambert, CouncilVice Chair, District 3
Jeanne Kohl-Welles, District 4
Dave Upthegrove, District 5
Claudia Balducci, District 6
Pete von Reichbauer, District 7
Joe McDermott, Council Chair, District 8
Reagan Dunn, District 9
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -lufi zod
Att A Page 4
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17.2019
Contents
Acknowledgements
Acronyms and Abbreviations, and Common Terms
Acronyms and Abbreviations . .
CommonTerms ....
Executive Summary
Chapter I lntroduction
Summary of the Plan Organization
Chapter 2 The Existing Solid Waste System
ii
x
x
xi
xv
1-2
Policies
Figure 2-1. King County service area
The Solid Waste System
Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclables
Figure 2-2.The Solid Waste System
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-6
2-7
2-8
Transfer.
Figure 2-3. Map of transfer station locations
Processing of Commingled Recyclables ....
Figure 2-4. Locations of composting, materials recovery, and designated
construction and demolition recycling and disposal facilities
Table 2-1. Materials recovery facilities locations and tons processed in 2O17.
Disposal .. .
Figure 2-5. Current layout of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Figure 2-6. Landfill gas-to-energy process.
Solid Waste System Planning
Table 2-2. Roles in regional planning and administration . .. .
Trends in Solid Waste Management
Leading the Way in Waste Prevention, Recycling and Product Stewardship
Expanding the Collection of Recyclable and Degradable Materials . . . .
Building a New Generation of Transfer Stations.
Managing Solid Waste Disposal with an Eye to the Future.
Financing the Solid Waste System for the Long Term.
Protecting Natural Resources through Environmental Stewardship. .
Additional Planning Considerations. . .. .
Climate Change
Equity and SocialJustice. . ..
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zotS
2-9
2-10
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-"t5
2-"t8
2-18
2-19
2-19
2-21
2-21
2-21
2-22
2-22
2-25
tv
Aft A Page 5
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
Chapter 3 Forecasting and Data
Policies
Summary of Recommended Actions
Forecasting.
Figure 3-l.Transfer station service areas population 2025-2040. . . . .
Figure 3-2. Estimated share of population increase 2025-2O4Ofor
transfer station service areas ... ..
Figure 3-3. Projection of solid waste recycled and disposed 2018-2040
Current Data on RegionalWaste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal.
Figure 3-4.2015 Recycling and disposal by generator type . .
Single-Family Residents
Figure 3-5. 2015 Recycling and disposal by single-family residents. . . .
Mu lti-Family Residents
Figure 3-6. 2015 Recycling and disposal by multi-family residents
Non-Residential Generators.
Figure 3-7.2O15 Recycling and disposal by non-residential generators. . . . .
Self-haulers
Figure 3-8. 2015 Recycling and disposal by transfer facility self-haulers
Generators of Construction and Demolition Debris
Figure 3-9. 2015 Construction and demolition materials diverted and disposed
Tracking Progress.
Tonnage and Transaction Data.
Reports from the Commercial Collection Companies ......
Ecology Survey Data
Waste Characterization Studies
Solid Waste Characterization Studies.
Organics Characterization Studies
Construction and Demolition Debris Characterization Studies .
PlanningTools......
Plans and Studies
Evaluation of Technologies . ... ..
Waste Prevention and Recycling Studies .
Other Plans Considered
Chapter 4 Sustainable Materials Management
Policies
Summary of Recommended Actions
Benefits of Recycling Efforts
.. 3-13
..3-14
.. 3-14
.. 3-14
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-6
3-6
3-7
3-7
3-8
3-8
3-9
3-9
3-9
3-10
3-10
3-1 1
3-r 1
3-12
3-"t2
3-1
3-3
3-1 5
3-16
3-16
.3-17
Goal and Targets. . .
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-6
4-7
Figure 4-1. Organics: Opportunities, valuet and benefits in King County
Figure 4-2. Recycling rate over time. ..
Figure 4-3. One approach of regional cooperation toward
7006 recycling goal using collective mandatory actionS .
vzotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -July zofi
Att A Page 6
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
Tools Used to Meet the Recommended Goal and Targets
Table 4-1. Examples of successes achieved using various tools. .
Taking a Sustainable Materials Management Approach
Figure 4-4. Materials life cycle
Design and Production
Use and Reuse .
End-of-Life Management... ... .. .. .
Turning Wastes to Resources
Table 4-2. Designated recyclables
.4-15
.4-16
.4-16
.4-17
.4-17
.4-"t7
.4-18
Figure 4-5. Recycling potential of materials disposed in 2015
Priority Materials .
Organics
Priority Materials for Collection at King County Transfer Facilities . . . . .
Markets for Recyclable Materials
LinkUp - Expanding Markets for Recyclable and Reusable Materials
2015 and 2017 Market Assessments
Table 4-3. Findings from 2015 and 2017 market assessments . . .
Grants to Cities
Waste Reduction and Recycling Grants.
Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance Grants.
Competitive Grant Program.
Sustainable Purchasing ...
Collection
Residential Collection
Table 4-4. Summary of single-family collection for garbage, recycling, and
organics in King County.
Table 4-5. Single-family minimum collection standards.
Multi-Family Residential Collection.
Table 4-6. Multi-family minimum collection standards
Non-Residential Col lection
Construction and Demolition Materials Collection and Recycling .
Table 4-7. Designated facilities for non-recyclable construction
and demolition waste (July 2018).
Table 4-8. Designated facilities for recyclable construction and
demolition waste (July 2018).
4-18
4-19
.4-19
.4-20
.4-20
.4-20
.4-21
.4-21
4-22
4-30
4-30
4-3r
4-33
4-35
4-36
4-37
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotSvt
AttA Page 7
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17,2019
Chapter 5 Solid WasteTransfer and Processing
Policies
Summary of Recommended Actions
The Transfer System and Services . . . .
Figure 5-1. Locations of solid waste facilities . . . . . .
Table 5-1. Current facilities and services.
Resource RecoveryatTransfer Stations......
Services for Moderate RiskWastes
Collection of Sharps
Trends in Transfer Station Usage .
Figure 5-2. Total tons processed at transfer facilities and disposed
at Cedar Hills (1990 - 2017)
Figure 5-3. Percent of tons and transactions at transfer facilities by hauler type (2017). .
Evaluation and Planning for the Urban Transfer Stations
The Planning Process
Service Level Evaluation Criteria
Table 5-2. Key service level criteria applied to urban transfer stations
Plans for the Urban Transfer Stations
Figure 5-4. Locations of existing and planned solid waste facilities. .
Table 5-3. Timeline for the facility renovation plan. . .
Transfer Facility Siting
Siting a New South County Recycling and Transfer Station
Providing Transfer Capacity in the Northeast Service Area.
A New Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station is Recommended . . .
Other Northeast Capacity Options Considered
Table 5-4. Comparison of key characteristics of three transfer options considered
Evaluation and Planning for the RuralTransfer Facilities
City Mitigation .....
Transfer Services after an Emergency.
Processing Collected Materials
Processing Commingled Recyclables.. . ..
Processing Organics
Table 5-5. Regional compost facilities.
Emerging Processing Technologies.
Anaerobic Digestion.
Advanced Materials Recovery.
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-5
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-9
5-1 1
5-1 5
5-16
5-17
5-1 8
5-1 8
5-1 8
5-1 9
5-1 9
s-20
5-21
5-21
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-25
5-26
5-26
5-28
s-28
5-28
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufu zotS
Aft A Page 8
vil
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Chapter 6 Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal
Policies
Summary of Recommended Actions
Current Disposal at the Cedar Hills Landfill
Diversion of Waste.
Current Strategies for Waste Diversion
Potential Strategies for Waste Diversion
Operational Effi ciencies
New Area Development
The Next Disposal Method
A Disposal Method Must Be Selected as Part of This Plan's Approval. . ...
Further Development of Cedar Hills is Recommended
Table 6-1. Comparison of key disposal option characteristics (planning level estimates)
Other Long-Term Disposal Options Considered
Waste Export
Waste to Energy Facility
Next Steps .....
Technologies for the Future
Disposal of Special Wastes
Managing lllegalDumping and Litter .
lllegaldumping ...
Table 6-2. lllegal dumping clean-up responsibilities
Community Litter Cleanup. .... .. ..
Secure Your Load . .
Disposal Services after an Emergency
Restoration of Closed Landfills
Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance
Figure 6-1. Map of closed landfills . . . . .
Beneficial Reuse of Landfill Properties. . . . .
Other beneficial uses
Chapter 7 Solid Waste System Finance
Policies
Summary of Recommended Actions
Funding of Solid Waste Services and Programs
Figure 7-1. SolidWaste Division fund structure..........
Solid Waste Division Revenues.
FigureT-2. Projected sources of revenue 2017 and 2018.
Solid Waste Division Expenditures
Figure 7 -3. 2017 Budgeted expenditures
lnfluences on Future Costs and Revenue
lnterest Earnings
Waste Prevention and Recycling
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zofi
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-5
6-5
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-7
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-1 1
6-12
6-12
6-1 3
6-1 3
6-1 3
6-"t4
6-1 5
6-1 5
6-"t6
6-17
6-17
.7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-5
7-8
7-8
7-8
vtil
Att A Page 9
Ordinance 18893 Llodated Anf'l 17 2019
OperationalEfficiencies. .....!r!,!.!.
Potential Changes in the Fee Structure. . . . . .
Closure of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill . .. .. .
New Revenue Sources
Sales from the Landfill Gas-to-Energy Facility
Resource Recovery at Transfer Stations.
Fees from Materials Collected at the Transfer Stations
Chapter 8 References
Appendix A - Utilities and Transportation Commission Cost Assessment
Appendix B - SixYear Capital lmprovement Program
Appendix C - Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement
Appendix D -Waste Reduction Model (WARM) lnputs Used in Analysis
Appendix E - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix F - Descriptions of DisposalOptions Considered
Appendix G - Agency Plan Review Letters
Appendix H - Title 10 Plan Content Code Requirements
.7-9
.7-9
.7-10
.7-10
.7-10
.7-11
.7-11
zotg Compre/tensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Jufu zotS
Att A Page 10
tx
Ordinance 18893 UDdated Aoril '17. 201S
Acronyms and Abbreviations, and
Common Terms
Acronyms and Abbreviations
2001 Plan 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
anaerobic digestion
alternative dai ly cover
advanced materials recovery
Bio Energy Washington
construction and demolition debris
Capital Equipment Recovery Program
decibel
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
Washington State Department of Ecology
environmental impact statement
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program
expanded polystyrene
Federal Emergency Management Agency
greenhouse gas
high-density polyethylene plastic
household hazardous waste
interlocal agreement
lnterjurisdictional Technical Staff Group
King County Code
King County Solid Waste Division
low-density polyethylene plastic
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-
Local Hazardous Waste Management Program
Landfill Reserve Fund
Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling
materia ls recovery facility
Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
megawatt
Northwest Product Stewardship Council
polyethylene terephthalate plastic
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Puget Sound Regional Council
Public Health - Seattle & King County
polyvinyl chloride plastic
recycled asphalt shingles
Revised Code of Washington
Siting Advisory Committee
State Environmental Policy Act
AD
ADC..
AMR. .
BEW..
c&D..
CERP .
dBA. .
DNRP .
Ecology
Ers.....
EECBG . .
EPS....
FEMA...
GHG....
HDPE., .
HHW ...
t1A.....
ITSG
KCC
KCSWD.
LDPE . .
LEED'. .
LHWMP.
LRF...
MFS. . .
MRF
MSWMAC .
MTCO2e . .
MW..
NWPSC
PET..
PSCAA
PSRC
Public Health
PVC......
R45......
RCW......
sAc......
SEPA......
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zofix
Att A Page 11
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17.2019
Site Development Plan. . . Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan
SWAC.
swtF......
Transfer Plan
uAst......
uTc......
w4c......
wPR......
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Solid Waste lnterlocal Forum
Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan
Urban Area Security lnitiative
Washington Util ities and Transportation Commission
Washington Administrative Code
waste prevention and recycling
Common Terms
alternative daily cover - cover material other than earthen material which is placed on the surface of the active
face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter,
and scavenging.
advanced materials recovery - uses manual methods and advanced technology to separate all usable, recyclable,
and compostable material from the waste stream and ensure that these valuable materials are available for use and
not sent to the landfill.
basic fee - the per-ton fee charged to customers disposing of municipal solid waste at transfer facilities.
biochar - charcoal produced from plant matter and stored in the soil as a means of removing carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere.
biosolids - refers to treated sewage sludge that meets the Environmental Protection Agency pollutant and pathogen
requirements for land application and surface disposal.
clean wood - unpainted and untreated wood, including pallets and wood from construction and demolition
projects.
commercial collection company (hauler) - a private-sector company that collects garbagg recyclables, and
organics from residents and businesses.
compost - the product resulting from the controlled biological decomposition of organic waste, including yard
waste, food scraps, and food-soiled paper, which is beneficial to plant growth when used as a soil amendment.
construction and demolition debris (C&Dl - recyclable and non-recyclable materials that result from
construction, remodeling, repair or demolition of buildings, roads or other structures, and requires removal from the
site of construction or demolition. Construction and demolition debris does not include land clearing materials such
as soil, rock, and vegetation.
climate change - changes in the long-term trends in average weather patterns of a region, including the frequency,
duration, and intensity of wind and snow storms, cold weather and heat waves, drought, and flooding; climate change
is attributed primarily to the emission of greenhouse gases, including such compounds as carbon dioxide
and methane.
debris management site - temporary site where debris can be taken after a major emergency, such as flood,
windstorm, or earthquake, until it can be sorted for recycling or proper disposal.
diversion - any legal practice or program that diverts solid waste from disposal in the landfill.
xtzotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 12
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
drop box - scaled-down transfer facility, designed to provide cost-effective convenient drop-off services for garbage
and recycling primarily for self-haulers in the rural areas of the county.
equity - when all people have an equal opportunity to attain their full potential. lnequity occurs when there are
differences in well-being between and within communities that are systematic, patterned, unfair, and can be changed;
they are not random, as they are caused by our past and current decisions, systems of power and privilege, policies,
and the implementation of those policies.
G-certificate - a permit granting commercial solid waste hauling companies authority to operate in a specific area.
The permit is issued by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
green building - the practice of creating and using healthier and more resource-efficient methods of construction,
renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition of buildings and other structures.
greenhouse gas - any gas that contributes to the "greenhouse effect" such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous-
oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, chlorodifluoromethane, perfluoroethanq and sulfur hexafluoride.
host city - a city that has a county transfer facility within its incorporated boundaries.
industrial waste stabilizer - materialwhich is mixed with industrial ash to structurally stabilize the ash. King
County designates the use of construction and demolition debris residuals for industrial waste stabilizer at disposal.
interlocal agreement - an agreement between a city and the county for participation in the King County
solid waste system.
landfill $as - gas generated through the decomposition of waste buried in the landfill, which consists of about 50 to
60 percent methane and about 40 to 50 percent carbon dioxide, with less than 1 percent oxygen, nitrogen, and other
trace gases.
leachate - water that percolates through garbage at the landfill and requires collection and treatment before being
sent to a wastewater treatment plant.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design'" (LEEDo) - a recognized standard for measuring building
sustainability; the rating system evaluates buildings in six areas: sustainable site developmen! water savings, energy
efficiency, materials and resources selection, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design.
materials recovery facility - uses manual methods and advanced technology to separate collected recyclable
materials.
municipal solid waste or MSW - includes garbage (putrescible wastes) and rubbish (nonputrescible wastes),
except recyclables that have been source-separated; the residual from source-separated recyclables is MSW.
non-residential generator - businesses, institutions, and government entities that generate solid waste.
olganics - yard waste, food scrapl and food-soiled paper.
product stewardship or producet tesponsibility - an environmental management strategy whereby
manufacturers take responsibility for minimizing a product's environmental impact throughout all stages of a
product's life cycle, including end of life management.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zotSxil
Att A Page 13
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril '17. 2019
regional direct fee - a discounted fee charged to commercial collection companies that haul solid waste to Cedar
Hills from their own transfer stations and processing facilities, thus bypassing county transfer stations.
self-hauler - anyone who brings garbage, recyclables, and/or yard waste to division transfer facilities except a
commercial collection company.
social justice - encompasses all aspects of justice, including legal, political, and economic; it demands fair
distribution of public goods, institutional resources, and life opportunities.
solid waste - all materials discarded including garbage, recyclables, and organics.
special waste - wastes that have special handling needs or have specific waste properties that require waste
clearance before disposal. These wastes include contaminated soil, asbestos-containing materials, wastewater
treatment plant grit, industrial wastes, and other wastes.
standard curbside recyclables - glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed waste paper,
newspaper, and cardboard.
sustainability - an approach to growth and development that balances social needs and economic opportunities
with the long-term preservation of a clean and healthy natural environment.This approach to action and
development integrates environmental quality, social equity, fiscal responsibility, and economic vitality.
tipping fee - a per-ton fee charged to dispose waste at solid waste facilities.
vector - is an organism that does not cause disease itself but which spreads infection by conveying pathogens from
one host to another such as a mosquito or rat.
waste conversion technologies - non-incineration technologies that use thermal, chemical, or biological
processes, sometimes combined with mechanical processes, to convert the post-recycled or residual portion of the
municipal solid waste stream to electricity, fuels, and/or chemicals that can be used by industry.
waste generation - waste disposed plus materials recycled.
waste prevention - the practice of creating less waste, which saves the resources needed to recycle or dispose of it
such as choosing to purchase items with less or no packaging.
waste-to-energy technologies - recover energy from municipal solid waste and include both waste conversion
technologies and incineration with energy recovery, such as mass burn waste-to-energy, refuse derived fuel, and
advanced thermal recycling.
zero waste of resources ol zero waste - a planning principle designed to eliminate the disposal of materials with
economic value. Zero waste does not mean that no waste will be disposed; it proposes that maximum feasible and
cost-effective efforts be made to prevent reuse, and recycle waste.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zofi
Att A Page 14
XITI
Ordinance 18893 UDdated Aonl 17.2019
Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) sets strategies for managing solid waste in King County
over the next six to 20 years. Required by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.95, this Plan will guide actions
by King County, all cities in King County except Seattle and Milton, and private companies that provide curbside
collection and processing of recyclable materials.
This Plan addresses the many public and private components of the regional solid waste system, including:
The King County Solid Waste Division's (division's) operation of the Cedar Hills regional landfill, ten transfer
facilities, nine closed landfills, and many programs to prevent and recycle waste;
City efforts to promote recycling and provide for curbside pick-up of materials, either as a direct city service
or through contracts with private haulers; and
Private companies'collection of materials at the curbside and operation of processing facilities that convert
recyclable and organic materials into marketable products.
Partnerships among system participants are key to the successful implementation of this Plan. ln 2018, the final
city signed the Amended and Restated lnterlocal Agreement securing participation of all 37 partner cities through
2040.This milestone reaffirms the county's responsibility to provide disposal through 2040, allows costs and risks
to be shared across the large regional customer base, and strengthens opportunities to work together to achieve
environmental goals.
This Plan benefitted from extensive public input including nearly two years of collaboration between the division
and its two advisory committees. The input helped the Plan address time-critical service choices facing the
regional system:
Recycling. Waste prevention and recycling are long-standing priorities. Much progress has been made through
expanded recycling options and services, customer education, and other means. However the region's recycling
percentage still hovers in the low 50s and stronger markets for recyclables are needed in light of factors such
as China's recent import restrictions on recyclable materials.This Plan offers a variety of waste prevention and
recycling approaches that allow system participants to tailor approaches to their jurisdiction's needs while
working together to harmonize approaches to achieve better results for the region.
Transfer. This Plan recommends the continued modernization of the transfer system. Station upgrades are
completed or underway in all urban areas (except for Northeast King County) to improve services and meet
future needs. This Plan recommends that the 1960s era Houghton station in Kirkland be replaced with a
modern station so that equitable levels of service are available throughout the urban area including the fast-
growing Northeast part of King County.
Disposal. The Cedar Hills Regional Landfill has provided cost-effective, environmentally responsible waste
disposal for more than 50 years. Built capacity at the landfill will be exhausted in 2028 however, leaving only
ten years to put the next disposal method in place.To meet disposal needs, this Plan recommends further
development of Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity, while affirming that garbage shall not be disposed
of, nor shall soils be stockpiled, within 1 ,000 feet of the property line at the landfill, in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.To account for technological advances, this Plan does not specify the next disposal
method after ultimate closure of Cedar Hills. Evaluation of future disposal methods will begin before the next
plan update.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Whste Management P/an -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 15
xv
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Although many challenges lie ahead for the regional solid waste system, working together under this Plan, system
participants can achieve more through collective effort that continues the region's commitment to customer-oriented
environmentally responsible solid waste services.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Mana4ement PIaz -Ju$ zotSxvt
Att A Page 16
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Introd uct
AftA Page 17
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
uctl0n
This Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan) proposes strategies for managing King Countyt solid
waste over the next six years, with consideration of the next 20 years. The Plan was prepared by the Solid Waste
Division (the division) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNRP) and Parks in accordance with the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) 70.95 and in cooperation with its advisory committees - the Metropolitan Solid Waste
Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). MSWMAC represents
the 37 cities in King County that are signatories to the Amended and Restated lnterlocal Agreement (Amended and
Restated ILA), the foundation of the King County solid waste system.This Plan revises the 2001 ComprehensiveSolid
Waste Management Plan (2001 Plan), and builds upon the 2006 Transfer and Waste Management Plan (Transfer Plan).
With this Plan, the division embraces the DNRP's mission to foster sustainable and livable communities by focusing
on these critical areas: environmental quality, equity and social justice, fiscal responsibility, and economic vitality.
The division is building upon past and current efforts to increase waste prevention and recycling while advancing
green building practices in the region's communities and within its own operations.The division continues to refine
operational practices and facility designs in ways that further reduce its carbon footprint and promote the greening
of natural and built environments.The participants in the countywide solid waste management system - from the 37
cities within the county's borders to the private-sector collection and processing companies to individual businesses
and residents - are contributing to these vital efforts in their own operations and practices.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufi zotS
Aft A Page 18
1-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 20'tg
Since its inception in 1969, the core mission of the division has been to ensure that residents and businesses in the
county have access to safe, reliable, efficient, and affordable solid waste handling and disposal services. The last few
decades have brought about significant developments in the management of solid waste, stemming not only from
advances in technology and the changing marketplace, but from a widespread recognition of the importance of
waste prevention, resource conservation, sustainable development and environmental stewardship.
Over time, the management of solid waste has evolved from a relatively simple system of garbage collection and
disposal to a much more complex network of collection, transportation, and processing for garbage, recyclables,
organics (yard waste and food scraps), and construction and demolition debris. This integrated network combines
the infrastructure and services of both the public and private sectors to provide long-term capacity for solid waste
management in the region.
This Plan is organized to guide the reader through the major elements of the solid waste system. Within each chapter
are elements as described below:
Goals reflect the long-term outcomes and aspirations for the regional system. Goals should not change through the
life of the Plan.
Policies provide broad direction and authorization for services and system priorities. Policies should not change
through the life of the Plan.
Actions are targeted, specific, and time-based to implement policies and could include: programt studies,
infrastructure improvements, and regulations. Actions are built on a foundation of daily service delivery by the county,
cities, and other stakeholders. This Plan does not attempt to describe every solid waste task in the regional system. lt
lists only those that are particularly important to initiate or continue. Actions may be updated outside of the formal
Plan update process to adapt to changing conditions. The Summary of Recommended Actions table in each chapter
includes a page number to indicate where information related to each action can be found in that chapter.
Following the table of contents is a list of acronyms, abbreviations, and common terms used throughout the Plan.
A list of the documents referenced in the Plan is provided in Chapter 8. Website addresses are provided for documents
that were prepared by or for the division.
Six appendices are provided with the Plan
Appendix A is a cost assessment as required by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC),
Summary of the Plan Organization
Appendix B includes the six-year capital improvement plan required to be included in the Plan,
Appendix C is the Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement (Amended and Restated ILA),
Appendix D shows assumptions used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) model of greenhouse gas
emissions,
Appendix E includes the division's responses to the comments and questions received during the public
review period; the full text of each comment is also be available on the division's website,
Appendix F includes detailed descriptions of the disposal alternatives that were analyzed, and
Appendix G includes comment letters from Washington state agencies that are required to review the Draft
Plan.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Managemmt P/an -Ju/1 zotS1-2
Att A Page 19
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17. 2019
Review Process
State law delegates authority to the county to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan in cooperation
with the cities within its boundaries. An interlocal agreement is required for any city participating in a joint city-county
plan (RCW 70.95.080(3)).This Plan was prepared in cooperation with 37 King County cities with which the county has
interlocal agreements (all cities in the county except for Seattle and Milton).
This Plan builds upon the 2001 Plan and the Transfer Plan that was approved by the King County Council in December
2007.This Plan presents goals, policies, and actions in the following areas: the existing solid waste system, forecasting
and data, sustainable materials management, the transfer and processing system, landfill management and solid
waste disposal, and system financing.
On January 8, 2018, the Draft Plan and Draft Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS), conducted according to the State
Environmental Policy Act, were released for a 60-day public comment period.The public comment period ended on
March 8,2018.The division received 68 comment letters from 40 individuals, four organizations, five businesses, four
agencies, one King County Councilmember and 14 cities. During the comment period, the division also held three
open houses and participated in13 stakeholder meetings with varied audiences.
ln addition, the division employed a variety of communications tools in the public awareness campaign during the
60-day public review and comment period.These included on-line and in-person opportunities to comment, as
well as printed materials, a cable TV spot, press releases, and a PowerPoint presentation to support presentations to
stakeholders to make people aware of the key topics in the Draft Plan and how they could comment. Key messages
were developed early and were used in all awareness efforts. An on-line tool was also used to offer people a way
to voice their opinions on the three key issues in the Draft Plan. A total of 487 respondents (486 in English, one in
Spanish) participated in the informal on-line questionnaire (KCSWD 2018a).
The revised Plan, transmitted to the King County Council in July 201 8, considers comments, preliminary review by
the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), review by the UTC and the Washington State Department of
Agriculture, and incorporates the Executive's recommendations. The revised Plan must be adopted byl
. The King County Council,
. The Regional Policy Committee acting as the Solid Waste lnterlocal Forum (SWIF), and
. Cities representing three-quarters of the total population of the cities that act on the plan during a 120-day
adoption period.
After adoption and completion of the Final EIS the County/City-Approved Plan will be submitted to Ecology.
The Plan becomes final upon Ecology's approval.
Following is the anticipated schedule for completion of the Plan review and adoption process:
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 20
1-3
Ordinance 18893 L,odated Aoril '17. 2O19
January8-March 8,2018 Release Draft Plan and Draft EIS for 60-day public
review and comment.Complete
JanuaryS -May7,2018 Submit Draft Plan and Draft EIS to Ecology and UTC for
up to 120-day review and comment.Complete
May - July 2018
Revise the Draft Plan and Draft EIS to incorporate
Ecology, UTC, and public comments and the King
County Executive's recommendations. lssue Final ElS.
Complete
July 26,2018
Submit the revised Plan to the King County Council
(including the Regional Policy Committee) for
adoption.
Complete
Late 201 8/Ea rly 2O19 Submit County-approved Plan to the cities for
adoption (1 20-day adoption period).
Mid 2019 Submit County/City-approved Plan to Ecology for final
approval (45 day period).
Approximate dates Action Status
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -July zotS1-4
Att A Page 21
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
14r'
I
t,.t4l tr" tl
I
v-sr
t
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Policies
Maintain a public and private mix of solid waste transfer and
processing faci lities.
ES-2 Work with the division's advisory committees, the cities, and
the Solid Waste lnterlocal Forum on solid waste management
planning and decisions.
ES-3 lncorporate principles of equity and social justice into solid
waste system planning.
ES-4 Consider climate change impacts and sustainability when
planning for facilities, operations, and programs.
Att A Page 24
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
e Exis ting Solid Wbste System
The solid waste management system has evolved from a relatively basic system of garbage collection and
disposal to a much more complex network of collection, sorting, salvage, reuse, recycling, composting, and
disposal managed by the county, area cities, and private-sector collection and processing companies. lnitial
improvements to solid waste facilities and
operations have been developed further to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling
programs that strive to balance resource use and
conservation with production and consumption.
One of the early influences in the evolution of
the system was the sweeping environmental
legislation of the 1960s and 1970s, beginning in
1965 with the federal Solid Waste Management
Act, which established strict regulatory standards
for landfills and other solid waste facilities.
Washington State subsequently passed its own
waste management act, codified in Revised Code
of washington (RCW) 70.g5, and established sign at Bow Lake Transfer station encourages customers to
Minimum Functional standards for solid waste recycle more
Handling in the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) 173-304.l,n'1976, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act set even more stringent standards
for environmental protection, including requirements for the use of impermeable bottom liners and daily cover
at landfills. ln response to the more stringent regulations, the county began closing the unlined community
landfills across the region, replacing many of them with the more environmentally protective and geographically
dispersed transfer facilities that are still in operation today. With the development of the transfer network (eight
transfer stations and two drop boxes) and technological advances at the county-owned Cedar Hills Regional
Landfill (Cedar Hills), division facilities and operations were brought into compliance with the new environmental
standards, and a safe, efficient, and sustainable system of solid waste management was created. The standards
have continued to evolve over time, and transfer facilities and landfills now operate in accordance with the Solid
Waste Handling Standards (WAC 173-350) and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (WAC 173-351).
Thirty-seven of the 39 cities in King County (all but the cities of Seattle and Milton) and the unincorporated areas
of King County participate in the solid waste system. ln all, the county's service area, shown in Figure 2-1, covers
approximately 2,05O square miles. ln 2017, there were almost 1.5 million residents and about 771,000 people
employed in the service area, disposing over 931,000 tons of garbage at Cedar Hills. Studies show that even more
can be done to reduce disposal through waste prevention, reuse, and recycling.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 25
2-1
l\,Il\,Figure 2-1. King County service areaSnohomish Countyo4J0)foo@@(o(,KitepcEo.0)oo.E.-{No@No\bo'\*.r!-$N.R3s-N-N\sssAsN$NISF[goOo!q)(ooNo)Snoqualmie PassPierce Countyrc (i6gCountyBoundary- Urban Growth BoundaryCitiesUnincorporated AreaNational Forest0248rMil6Bend.LLjFCarnationfrgSammamishBellevueKerltIAubum{Seattelsland+
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
The Solid Waste System
Figure 2-2 provides a general overview of the collection, transfer, transportation, processing, and disposal systems
for garbage, recyclables, organics, and construction and demolition debris. Garbage is transported to Cedar Hills for
disposal, while recyclables, organics, and most construction and demolition materials are taken directly to processing
or compost facilities where materials are prepared for sale to manufacturers and other users. As shown, these recycled
or composted products eventually return to the market for consumer purchase.
As can be seen in Figure 2-2, this multi-faceted system uses the combined resources of the public and private sectors.
Regulations and systems for collection, transfer, transport, processing, and disposal that come into play are complex,
involving state, county, city, and private-sector responsibilities.
Collection of Solid Waste and Recyclables
ln accordance with state law RCW 81.77.020 and 36.58.040, counties are prohibited from providing curbside garbage
collection services. Legal authority for regulating collection is shared primarily between the state - acting through
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) - and the cities.The UTC sets and adjusts rates and
requires compliance with the state and local adopted solid waste management plans and related ordinances. RCW
81 .77 also includes a process for allowing cities to opt out of the UTC regulatory structure and either contract directly
for solid waste collection or provide city-operated collection systems.
The county's 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (2001 Plan)
specifies that recycling should be included as part of the basic garbage rate
for residents in most of King County. King County enacted a service-level
ordinance (King County Code (KCC) 10.18) that includes this requirement
for unincorporated areas, exceptVashon lsland, Skykomish, and
Snoqualmie Pass. The UTC then required collection companies to develop
tariffs that spread the cost and availability of recycling to all residential
garbage customers. These tariffs and service-level requirements also apply
to cities that have not opted out of the UTC regulatory structure.
Most of the garbage, recyclables, and organics collection in the countyt
service area are provided by four private-sector companies - Recology
CleanScapes, lnc., Republic Services, lnc. (formerly Allied Waste, lnc.),
Waste Connections, lnc., and Waste Management, lnc. Except for Recology
CleanScapes, which only provides contracted services, these companies
operate both through the UTC and service contracts with individual cities.
Most of the 37 cities in the service area contract directly with one or more
Most of the garbage, recyclables, and of these private companies for collection services. Eight cities (Beaux Arts,
organics colilctiori is provided by Black Diamond, Covington, Hunts Poin! Kenmore, Medina,Woodinvillg
the private sector (Photo courtesy of and Yarrow Point) and all of the unincorporated areas receive collection
Recology cleanscapes) services from these private companies operating under certificates issued
by the UTC.Two cities - Enumclaw and Skykomish - provide municipal
collection services within their own jurisdictions. Enumclaw collects garbage recyclables, and organics; Skykomish
collects only garbage.
There is a fundamental difference in how the UTC regulates residential and non-residential collection of recyclable
materials.The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 prohibits regulation of price, route, or service
2-3
=l;{
--l+9.---r-
lt
rt-E I- .l !*,a*; -.
_ e*q...-.,..-,
t
'+"*J-ta
L.
T
*q...*.'u
zotg Comprebmsiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 27
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Figure 2-2.The Solid Waste System
New
I Garbage
I Construction & Demolition Debris
(c&D)
I Recyclables
* Organics
Private Materials Recovery Facil ities
& Recyclables Facilities
Global,
Local
zotg Comprebensiue Solid W'aste Management PIan -Ju/1 zotS
Homes & Apartments
Businesses
Construction Sites
Small Scale
Organics Processing
Bio EnergyWA
of
Private
Ki
Private Composting
Facility
Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill
Private Landfill
&
Processing Facility
&
Transfer Station
Private
2-4
Att A Page 28
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
of any motor carrier transporting property. While this provision does not apply to collection of garbage and recyclable
materials from residents, recyclable materials generated by the non-residential sector are considered to be property
and are subject to a different regulatory structure. King County cannot enact ordinances that require commercial
garbage collectors to include recyclables collection as part of the non-residential collection service. Cities, on the
other hand, may include recyclables collection as part of their non-residential collection service, but cannot prohibit
businesses and other non-residential entities from choosing other vendors for this service.
Revenue Sharing Provides lncentive for Collection Companies to Enhonce Recycling
ln 2010, the state legislature amended statute RCW 81.77.185, allowing solid waste collection companies regulated by
the UTC to retain up to 50 percent of the revenue paid to them for the recycled materials they collect from households
(the statute does not apply to collection in cities with contracts for recyclables collection).The purpose of the statute is to
provide collection companies with a financial incentive to enhance their recycling programs. Formerly, all revenues from
the sale of residential recyclables were passed back to the households as a credit on their garbage bills.
To qualify for the revenue sharing, collection companies must submit a plan to the UTC that has been certified by
King County as consistent with the current Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. The Solid Waste Division
Director has authority to make this certification.
To qualifr for certification, the collection company's plan must:
. Be submitted annually for approval,
. Demonstrate how proposed program enhancements will be effective in increasing the quantity and quality of
materials collected,
. Demonstrate consistency with the minimum collection standards,
. lncorporate input from the Solid Waste Division, and
. Be submitted to the Solid Waste Division with sufficient time to review prior to UTC deadlines.
Since January 2013, all UTC-regulated areas of King County, exceptVashon lsland, have certified revenue sharing
agreements in place.
Curbside Collection in Rural Areas
When curbside recycling was initiated in King County in the early 1990s, the collection companies (operating under
UTC certificates) serving unincorporated areas were required to provide curbside recycling services as specified in KCC
1 0.1 8 for most of the county. These requirementt consistent with the 1989 Comprehensive Solid Woste Management
P/an, stated that curbside recycling would be offered to all households as part of the basic garbage service and that
yard waste service would be available to all households as a subscription service. However, some rural areas were
exempted from these requirements because their low population density or lack of participation in garbage collection
services suggested that curbside recycling might not be cost effective.
Currently, three unincorporated areas are not included in the county's collection service-level standards as specified
in KCC 10.18:
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/1 zo8
Att A Page 29
2-5
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Vashon/Maury lsland - Historically, a comparatively high percentage of Vashon/Maury lsland residents have chosen
to self-haul garbage and recyclables to the divisiont Vashon Recycling and Transfer Station; however, the number of
households subscribing to garbage service has increased over time. Waste Connections, lnc., the company providing
garbage collection service on Vashon/Maury lsland, also offers subscriptions to recyclables collection services. From
a survey of lsland residents (KCSWD 2016c), about 17 percent currently subscribe to curbside recycling services.
Organics curbside collection is not available.
Skykomish Area -The area around Skykomish is remote and sparsely populated. Residents of Skykomish and
some residents in surrounding unincorporated areas receive curbside garbage collection service from the Town
of Skykomish. Skykomish does not collect curbside recyclables or organics. Customers may self-haul garbage and
recyclables to the division's drop box facility located in Skykomish; however, separate organics collection is not
provided at the facility.
Snoqualmie Pass -The Snoqualmie Pass area is also very sparsely populated. Residential garbage collection is
available from Waste Management, lnc. of Ellensburg in Kittitas County. Curbside recycling is not available; however;
the division does provide a site with collection bins for the standard curbside recyclable materials. Organics collection
is not available.
Transfer
The division operates eight transfer stations and two rural drop boxes in the urban and rural areas of the county
(Figure 2-3). ln addition to meeting standards for the safe and environmentally sound transfer of solid wastg the
transfer network reduces the amount of truck traffic on the highways by providing geographically dispersed stations
where garbage collected throughout the region can be consolidated into fewer loads for transport to the landfill.
Transfer facilities are the public face of the solid waste system. ln 2O17 , county transfer facilities received about
917,650 tons of garbage and recyclables, through more than 952,360 customer visits.
Garbage and, at most facilities, recyclable materials from business and residential self-haulers are accepted at the
transfer station and drop box facilities.The transfer stations also provide accessible drop-off locations for garbage
picked up at the curb by the
commercial collection companies.
From these geographically dispersed
transfer stations, garbage is
consolidated in transfer trailers and
taken to the county-owned Cedar
Hills Regional Landfill in the Maple
Valley area. Recyclable materials are
transported to processing facilities
throughout the region.
Public Health - Seattle & King
County (Public Health) is the primary
regulatory and enforcement agency
responsible for issuing operating
permits for both public and private
solid waste handling facilities.This
includes solid waste, recycling, and
composting facilities. Solid waste Entrance of Algona Transfer Station
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS2-6
Att A Page 30
Ordinance 18893 Updated April17,2019
Figure 2-3. Map of transfer station locations
dHF--vu
E
c,r1p'
a
L.I
o
Cedar Falls
a
o248rMlles
FrublwEwtubE$Fr.dtuh@4S.\d.fr_@Jldl7,M 1@201 t
King County solid waste facilitieswh
t-t
LI
rr
Landflll
Transfer Stalion
Drop Box
King County Boundary
Cities
Unincorporated Area
Bothell
Redmond
Park
Yanow
Hunts
Bellewe
Sammamish
Renton
Cedar Hills Regional Landflllreh
Lake
Kent
D
{
Aubum
Federal Way
Seattle
Vashon lsland
Vashon
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Wste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 31
2-7
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17. 2019
handling regulations are codified in the Code of the King County Board of Health, Title 1 0. The permitting process is
the vehicle by which Public Health enforces the state's Solid Waste Handling Standards (WAC 173-350) and Criteria
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (WAC 173-351). Public Health inspects solid waste handling facilities and has the
authority to take corrective action for noncompliance.
Processing of Commingled Recyclables
While garbage picked up at the curb goes to the county's solid waste system, the collection companies take the
recyclable materials picked up at the curb to their own facilities for processing. The processing of recyclable materials
into new commodities begins at a materials recovery facility. Materials recovery facilities receive material loads from
collection truck, remove contaminants from the loadt sort materials to meet the specifications of the end users or
markets, and compact or bale the material for efficient shipping. As the residential collection system has moved to
commingled collection, materials recovery facilities in the region have upgraded their facilities to improve their ability
to remove contaminants and sort materials into marketable commodity grades. Any residuals, or non-recyclable
waste products, from materials
recovery facilities within the
King County service area must
be disposed of at a King County
solid waste facility.
The processing of recyclables
throughout the Pacific
Northwest is currently
handled through the private
sector. Companies that
collect recyclables curbside
are required by contract or
ordinance to deliver them to
recycling facilities. Local facilities
receive recyclable materials from
the region as well as from other
areas ofthe United States.These
Recology CleanScapes materials recovery facility private-sector facilities have
made necessary upgrades over
time to expand processing capacity to
meet demand. The three largest collection companies in King County - Recology CleanScapes lnc., Republic Services,
lnc., and Waste Management lnc., each own a materials recovery facility located within the county, shown in
Figure2-4,to process mostof the recyclable materialstheycollect. RecologyCleanScapes'materials recoveryfacility
in south Seattle opened in 2014. Republic's 3rd and Lander Recycling Center in south Seattle was substantially
redesigned in 2007 to improve its ability to sort commingled materials and in 2008 was upgraded to expand capacity.
Waste Management's Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville opened in 2002 and was recently upgraded with a
new sort line. Curbside recyclables collected on Vashon lsland are processed at Waste Management JMK Fibers'Port of
Tacoma facility, which was upgraded substantially in 2013. Table 2-1 shows the address for each facility as well as how
many tons were processed in 2017.
zozg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zofi2-8
Att A Page 32
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
Figure 2-4.Locations of composting, materials recovery, and
designated construction and demolition recycling and disposal facilities
@
G un["0 na.ycllng - Snohomish
fi, Urnny Conlalner and Recycllng
fiorc vamy
Recycling Center
@
,f,F
I J=
@
& Transfer Station
r,; Cedar Grove
@
JMK Flbers G
necovery I G
@
GApin" ne#lng
U
Snolromlsh
County
i
l
e
I
I
l
i
l
\.- .
{ **o
1
Cedar Grove
Lenz Enterprlses
L
@E
@
DTG
@,
Gunit"o
Eastmont Transfer/
Recycling
Locations of composting, materials
recovery and designated construction
and demolition recycling and
disposal facilities
'91-3,J Compost Facility
ff Materials Recovery Facilily
fr necyclable Construcllon and Demolition Waste
@ ruon-necyclable Conslruction and Demolition Wasle
m King County Boundary
2rlvllles
*{.
V
Cities
Unincorporated Area
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju$ zotS
Aft A Page 33
2-9
Ordinance 18893 Uodated April 17.2019
Table 2-1 . Materials recovery facilities locations and tons processed in 2017
Facilities that process mixed recyclables in King County are subject to regulation by Public Health under the Code of
the King County Board of Health Title 10.12, which adopts the standards of WAC 1 73-350.
Disposal
Solid waste generated in King County's service area is disposed at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill - the only active
landfill in the county. Located on a 920-acre site in the Maple Valley area, Cedar Hills has provided safe and efficient
disposal of the county's solid waste since 1965. ln 2017, the landfill received over 931,000 tons of municipal
solid waste.
Cedar Hills was originally permitted in 1960, at a time
when there were few regulations in place to govern the
design and operation of landfills. Since then, environmental
regulations have become increasingly rigorous, requiring
the placement of an impermeable, high-density
polyethylene liner and clay barrier at the bottom of the
landfill, daily cover (using soil or other approved materials)
over the waste, and frequent environmental monitoring,
among other requirements.
Over time, Cedar Hills has been developed in sequential
stages (or refuse areas) in accordance with the most
current Site Development Plan. The division has invested
considerable effort and resources to upgrade older areas
of the landfill, while designing and operating new areas
to meet or exceed regulatory requirements. Figure 2-5
shows the layout of the landfill, including the boundaries
of the past and active refuse areas as currently permitted.
As shown, Area 7 is the currently active refuse area, and is
expected to operate through 201 8 or early 201 9. At that
time, operations will transition to the newest refuse area,
Area 8.
A bulldozer compacts waste at the Cedar Hills landfill
The landfill is bordered to the east by Passage Point a transitional housing development, residentially zoned property
on the east, north, and west, and by property to the south that is zoned for mining, other resource extraction,
and similar uses. State regulation WAC 173-351-140(3Xb) requires a 250-foot buffer between the active area and
residentially zoned property, and a 1OO-foot buffer between the active area and non-residentially zoned property.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufi zotS
Recology CleanScapes, lnc.7303 8th Avenue S., Seattle 73,12"1 92,038
Republic Services 3rd and Lander Recycling Center 2722 3rd Avenue 5.,Seattle Data not broken out by jurisdiction 223,722
Waste Management JMK Fibers
1,140 Port ofTacoma Road,
Tacoma
55,144 167,394
Waste Management Cascade Recycling Center 14020 NE 190th, Woodinville 64,295 116,234
Materials Recovery Facility Tons from
King County
TotalTons
ProcessedAddress
2-10
Aft A Page 34
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 1 7, 2019
Figure 2-5. Current layout of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zofi
Att A Page 35
2-11
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
However, a special permit, approved by the King County Board of Commissioners in 1960, specified that a 1,000-foot
buffer be established around the landfill. ln the 1960s, landfilling inadvertently extended about
400 feet into a portion of the southeast buffer, but environmental regulations continue to be met in that area and
opportunities to restore the buffer are being pursued. Active use of this buffer zone is currently limited to site access
and other approved uses not directly related to land-filling operations, such as environmental monitoring and
activities at Passage Point.
The landfill has received national recognition for its operations and environmental control systems, which meet
or exceed the highest federal, state, and local standards for protection of public health and the environment. This
complex network of environmental controls includes a collection of pipes, culverts, holding ponds, and other
equipment to manage water and landfill gas, as described in more detail below.
Water at the landfill is separated into two categories for treatment. These are: 1) clean stormwater, and 2)
contaminated stormwater, which includes leachate and other water that has potentially come into contact with
garbage. Leachate is produced when water percolates through the garbage; it is collected in pipes within the landfill
and diverted to lined on-site ponds. ln the ponds, the leachate is aerated as a preliminary treatment before being sent
to the King County South WastewaterTreatment Plant in Renton.The bottom liner and clay barrier beneath the landfill
prevent leachate from seeping into the soil or groundwater. Stormwater that runs off the surface of active landfill
areas is also potentially contaminated. lt is collected in lined ponds before moving on to the treatment system. Clean
stormwater is diverted to detention or siltation ponds to control flow and remove sediment, and is then discharged to
surface water off-site.
Landfill gas is generated through the decomposition of waste buried in the landfill.The gas consists of about 50
percent to 60 percent methane, with the remainder made up of carbon dioxide and trace amounts of oxygen,
nitrogen, and other gases. Landfill gas from Cedar Hills is collected by using motor blowers to create a vacuum in
Figure 2-6. Landfill gas-to-energy process
Cedar Hills Regional Landfill BEW Public
2,550 tons of trash come into
the landfill on avenge each day. The
decomposin g organic material forms
carbon dioxide and methane gases. ln
2012 the landfill generated about 10,000
cubic feet per minute ofgas.
The gas control system minimizes gas
emissions escaping through the ground
or through the air. The gas is captured
through a network ofpipes and sentto
the Bio EnergyWashington (BEW
gas-to-energy plant on site.
The BEW plant, in operation since
October 2010, processes the landfill gas
into pipeline-quality biogas and electric
power. Along with generating
approximately 15.4 milllon
therms of clean renewable
natural gas each year. BEW
generates over 15 million kilowatt hours
ofelectricity from landfill gas each year
to help offset the facility! electricity use.
Residual impurities are destroyed bythe
plant's thermal oxidizer.
Selling biogas produced bythe BEW
plant generates 3l - t7 milllon
annually, depending on production rates
and market prices. helping to keep solid
waste disposal rates low. The renewable
natunl gas produced bythe plant each
year equals the amount ofenergy
needed to meet the natural gas needs of
over 19,000 homes in King County orto
substftuteforthe energy use of
11.2 million gallons of dieselfuel.
The gas collected from the landfill is sent to the Bio Energy Washington plant to be processed into pipeline quality gas
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -July zot8
!!
2-12
Att A Page 36
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
perforated pipes within the solid waste.The gas used to be routed to high-temperature flares, where it was burned
to safely destroy any harmful emissions. ln a public/private partnership, Bio Energy Washington, began operating a
landfill gas-to-energy facility at the landfill in 2010.The facility runs landfill gas through a series of processors that
remove and destroy harmful components and convert the methane portion of the gas into pipeline-quality natural
gas. The clean gas is routed through a nearby gas line into the Puget Sound Energy grid and is also used to power the
facility (Figure 2-6). The division is also exploring other uses for the gas, such as producing compressed natural gas for
operating vehicles. The flare system is kept in standby mode; during maintenance of the energy facility or in the event
of an emergency, the flare system can be activated to manage the gas. Air emissions from the flare system are tested
regularly and have consistently met or exceeded all applicable environmental regulations.
Solid Waste System Planning
ln addition to regulating solid waste handling and disposal, state law also established a framework for planning,
authorizing counties to prepare coordinated Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans in cooperation with
the cities within their borders. While cities can choose to prepare their own plans, all of the incorporated cities within
King County, except for Seattle and Milton, have chosen to participate in the development of this single, coordinated
regional plan for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of King County. Since July, 1988, cities have entered
into interlocal agreements (lLAs) with the county that establish the Solid Waste Division as the lead planning agency.
By the time the first Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted by the Metropolitan King County
Council in 1990, there were 29 incorporated cities participating in this coordinated effort. Since then, eight new cities
have incorporated and joined the King County system - for a total of 37 cities.
To make sound planning decisions, it is important to understand how the solid waste system operates today and
to identiff changes that might affect it in the future.This information is critical to ensuring that plans for facilities,
services, and programs meet the needs of the region in the years to come. Because the system is a combination of
public and private entities, working with stakeholders in the early stages of system planning is essential. ln addition
to working with localjurisdictions and the private-sector collection companies, the division works closely with its two
advisory committees - the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management
Advisory Committee (MSWMAC). For the preparation of this Plan, the division collaborated with the advisory
committees through a process of presentations and discussions.
The next section identifies the participants in the planning process and describes the stakeholder process that guided
the development of this plan. Also included is a brief description of the state, county, and city responsibilities in
planning the solid waste system.-
ARegional Approach
As partners in a regional system, cities share in the costs and benefits of King County's transfer and disposal system.
The regional solid waste system was formally established in King County when the county and cities entered into the
original Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement of 1988. ln 2013, the county worked with the cities to amend the original
lLA.The Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocalAgreement (Amended and Restated ILA) extends the original
ILA by 12.5 years, from June 2028 through December 2040 (the full text of the ILA can be found in Appendix C).The
longer term will keep rates lower by allowing for longer-term bonding for capital projects. All 37 cities have signed the
Amended and Restated lLA. Cities in the regional system are on the following page:
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zot8
Att A Page 37
2-13
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Algona
Auburn
Beaux Arts
Bellevue
Black Diamond
Bothell
Burien
Carnation
Clyde Hill
Covington
Des Moines
Duvall
Enumclaw
FederalWay
Hunts Point
lssaquah
Kenmore
Kent
Kirkland
Lake Forest Park
Maple Valley
Medina
Mercer lsland
Newcastle
Normandy Park
North Bend
Pacific
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
Sea Tac
Shoreline
Skykomish
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Woodinville
Yarrow Point
The Amended and Restated ILA includes several enhancements to the original lLA, including provisions for insurance
and a potential reserve for environmental liabilities. Other changes include:
. Commitment to the continued involvement of the cities advisory group (to be renamed the Metropolitan Solid
Waste Advisory Committee or MSWAC),
. An expanded role for cities in system planning, including planning for long-term disposal alternatives and in
establishing fi nancial policies,
. A dispute resolution process, which includes non-binding mediation, and
. Mitigation provisions for host cities and neighboring cities.
lssues specific to individualjurisdictions, such as the city of Bothell annexing areas in Snohomish County, may require
an amendment to the ILA that addresses that particular concern.
Both the original and the new ILA assign responsibility for different aspects of solid waste management to the county
and the cities. The county is assigned operating authority for transfer and disposal services, is tasked with providing
support and assistance to the cities for the establishment of waste prevention and recycling programs, and is the
planning authority for solid waste. Each city is designated the authority for collection services within its corporate
boundaries and agrees to direct solid waste generated and/or collected within those boundaries to the King County
transfer and disposal system.
Cooperation between the county and the 37 cities in a regional system of solid waste management has allowed
the division to achieve economies of scale that translate into lower fees for system ratepayers. A significant benefit
is the savings realized by being able to extend the life of the in-county landfill for solid waste disposal as a result
of improved recycling rates. Economies of scale will continue to be beneficial once the Cedar Hills landfill reaches
capacity and closes, and the region transitions to a new method of solid waste disposal. The benefits also extend
to the network of recycling and transfer stations that provide convenient, geographically dispersed transfer points
around the county. A regional system can operate with fewer transfer facilities than an aggregation of separate,
smaller systems.The regional system also allows use of individual stations to be balanced to reduce over- or under-
use of any one station. Examples of ways the division may influence station use are: 1) reader boards located at each
transfer station that show what the wait times are at the two nearest stations and 2) the online information available
for each station showing a picture of the inbound queue and the average disposal time after weigh-in at each station
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS2-14
Att A Page 38
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17,2019
Regional Authorities and Roles
As defined in RCW 70.95.030, solid waste handling includes management, storage, collection, transportation,
treatment, utilization, processing, and final disposal. Responsibility for solid waste handling in Washington is divided
among the state, counties, jurisdictional health departmentt and the cities, as delineated in various legislation,
regulations, and agreements. Table 2-2 lists the responsibilities for each entity, its role, and the guiding legislation.
As shown in the table, the state establishes authorities, minimum standards, and planning requirements, and
delegates responsibility for implementation to the counties and cities.
Table 2-2. Roles in regional planning and administration
Establish solid waste regulations for management, storage,
collection, transp0rtati0n, treatment, utilization, processing,
and final disposal.
Revised (ode ofWashington (RCW) 70.95
Delegate authority to the counties to prepare joint
comprehensive solid waste management plans with the cities
in their boundariel and review and approve those plans.
RCW 70.95
Washington State
Departmentof
Ecology
Set Minimum Functional 5tandards for implementing solid
waste laws and establishing planning authorities and roles.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
173-304, 1 73-350, and 1 73-351
Review the cost assessment prepared with the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan.
RCW 70.95.096
Washington Utifities
and Tronsportation
Commission Regulate solid waste collection services and rates in
unincorporated areas and in cities that choose not t0 contract
for solid waste collection services.
RCW 81.77
Washington Stote
Depaftment
of Agriculture
Review the preliminary draft plan for compliance with R(W
1 7.24 and the rules adopted under that chapter.
R(W 70.95.095 and RCW 17.24
Permit solid waste handling facilities, including permit
issuance, renewal, and, if necessary, suspension (handling
facilities include landfills, transfer stationg and drop boxe$.
Code ofthe King County Board of Health,
Title 10
Make and enforce rules and regulations regarding methods
of waste storage, collection, and disposal to implement the
state's Minimum Functional Standards.
Code ofthe King (ounty Board ofHealth,
Title 10
PublicHealth -Seottle
& Kng County (as
authorized bythe
King County Board of
Health)
Perform routine facility inspecti0ns.
Code ofthe King County Board of Health,
Title 10
Guiding Legislation,
Regulation, or
Agreement
RoleEntity
zotg Amprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zot8
Att A Page 39
2-15
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency lssues air operating permits and enforces permit compliance.
RCW 70.94WAC 173-401 and PSCAA
Regulation 1, Article 7
Solid Waste lnterlocal
Forum (SWIF)
The Regional Policy Committee convenes as the SW|F to advise
the King County Council, King County ftecutive, and other
jurisdictions, as appropriate, on all policy aspects ofsolid waste
management and planning, and to review and comment 0n
alternatives and recommendations for the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan and other planning documents.
King (ounty Code (KCC) 10.24.020C and
lntedocal Agreements
Provide transfer and disposal services for unincorporated King
(ounty and the 37 cities with lnterlocal Agreements. Lead the
development ofwaste prevention and recycling pr0grams.
lntedocal Agreements
Prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and
associated cost assessment.
RCW 70.95.080, KCCTitle 10, and
lnterlocal Agreements
Establish disposal fees at the landfill, transfer stationl and
drop boxes to generate necessary revenue t0 cover solid waste
management co$s, including:
. Facility operation,
. Capital improvements,
. Waste prevention and recycling programs,
. Grants to cities for recycling programs and special
collection events,
. Self-haul and rural service, and
. Administration and overhead.
RCW 36.58.040, K(CTitle 10, and
lnterlocal Agreements
Establish level ofservice and hours ofoperation for all King
County transfer and disposal facilities.
KCCTitle 10.10
Amend hours at transfer facilities, as necessary.KCC 10.10.020 and 10.10.025
Designate minimum service levels for recyclables collection in
urban and rural areas.
RCW 70.95.092, KCCTitle 10.18
KingCountySolid
Waste Division
Review impacts of the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management PIan on solid waste and recycling rates.
RCW 70.95
Cities
Participate in the planning process and jointly implement the
Plan with the county, provide collection services and waste
prevention and recycling pr0grams.
RCW 70.95.080 and lnterlocal
Agreements
Guiding Legislation,
Regulation, or
Agreement
RoleEntity
zotg Compre/tensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -July zotS2-16
Aft A Page 40
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
Solid Waste Advisory
Committee
Advise the county in the development 0f s0lid waste programs
and p0licies, provide feedback on proposed c0uncil actions
involving solid waste issues, and comment on proposed solid
waste management policies, ordinances, and plans prior to
adoption.
RCW 70.95.165 and KCC 10.28
Metropolitan Solid
WasteManagement
AdvisoryCommiftee
Advise the Executive, SWll, and (ounty Council in all matters
related to solid waste management and participate in the
development of the solid waste management system and
waste management plan.
K(C 10.25.1 10 and lnterlocal Agreements
Guiding Legislation,
Regulation, or
Agreement
Entity Role
Stokeholder lnvolvement in the Planning Process
ln the development of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, the division sought participation
and input from many sourcet including the cities, the division's advisory committees, the Community Service
Areas (unincorporated area community councils), commercial collection companies, the County Council, division
employees, labor unions, and the public.
ln2OO4, the Metropolitan King County Council adopted Ordinance 14971 to establish a process for the 37 cities
in the county's service area to collaborate with the division in the early stages of long-term planning and policy
development. lt set the stage for creation of MSWMAC, which consists of elected officials and stafffrom
participating cities.
MSWMAC and the long-standing
SWAC, mandated by RCW 70.95.165,
have been instrumental in the
development of policieg goals, and
recommendations presented in this
Plan. SWAC has been an advisory
group to the division since 1985, with
a membership that is geographically
balanced and includes King County
residents and representatives from
public interest groups, labor unions,
recycling businesses, the marketing
sector, agriculture, manufacturing, the
waste management industry, and local
elected officials.
Both SWAC and MSWMAC have been
working with the division to create the A joint meeting of the MSWMAC and SWAC committees
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIaz -JuQ zod
Att A Page 41
2-17
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
building blocks that form the basis for this Plan. Collaborative efforts that have helped shape the Plan include:
. Establishing progressive goals for waste prevention and recycling that will further reduce solid waste disposal,
. Conducting in-depth analyses and evaluations of the solid waste transfer system that resulted in the
development and adoption of a major renovation and replacement plan for the transfer system network,
. Conducting subsequent in-depth reviews of the renovation and replacement plan for the transfer network, and
. Evaluating strategies for extending the life of Cedar Hills and beginning to explore viable options for waste
disposal once the landfill closes.
For the current planning cycle, the division met with SWAC and MSWMAC regularly to discuss their issues and
concerns, and hear their perspectives on system planning.The contributions of these committees have been
instrumental in developing the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.The division's SWAC and MSWMAC
websites contain background on the committees as well as minutes from their meetings with the division
(http://www,kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrpholid-waste/abouUadvisory-committees.aspx).
Trends in Solid Waste Management
Leading the Way in Waste Prevention, Recycling and Product Stewardship
King County continues to gain distinction as a leader in waste prevention and recycling.Together, the division and
the cities work with collection and processing companies and local, state, and national businesses and organizations
to develop the innovative programs and services that give the county its leading edge. Some key program
developments include:
. The addition of acceptable recyclable materials for collection at the curb and at division transfer stations,
. Growing markets for a wider array of materials for recycling and reuse,
. Successful promotions that encourage waste prevention,
. An increase in product stewardship, including optimizing/reducing product packaging and shipping materials,
whereby manufacturers and retailers are assuming responsibility for recycling their products through take-back
programs at selected collection sites across the region,
. Advances in the green building industry, including a focus on creating sustainable housing in
affordable communities, and
. An increase in the number of organizations that accept materials for reuse, such as clothing and textiles, edible
food, and reusable building materials.
With this Plan, the division and its advisory committees set goals to reduce, reuse, and recycle by focusing on specific
waste generators and particular materials or products that remain prevalent in the waste stream.The division is also
moving toward a sustainable materials management approach as a way to strengthen the economy while reducing
the climate effects of materials and harm to the environment.This approach emphasizes the importance of looking
at the full life cycle of materials: design and manufacture, use, and end-of-life. Sustainable materials management is
being promoted by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology
and is discussed in more depth in Chapter 4.
2'18 zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jub zotS
Att A Page 42
Ordinance 18893 Updated April '17, 2019
Washington's legislated system for managing unwanted electronic products and mercury-containing light bulbs and
tubes illustrates the successes that can be achieved when manufacturers, retailers, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations work together on a major initiative. State legislation was passed in 2006 that requires manufacturers
of computers, monitors, and televisions - referred to as e-waste - to provide for the recycling of these products
beginning in January 2009. As a member of the Northwest Product Stewardship Council, the division helped draft
the model legislation that led to formation of the E-Cycle Washington program, which implements this recycling
service at no cost for Washington residents, small businesses, small governments, nonprofit organizations, and school
districts.The division assisted businesses throughout the county to become authorized e-waste collection sites.
Approximately 175,000 tons of e-waste have been collected since the program's inception. Likewise, the LightRecycle
WA program, which recycles mercury-containing lights, went into effect in 2015.
Expanding the Collection of Recyclable and Degradable Materials
A change in the collection of curbside recyclables has been the transition to commingled (or single-stream)
collection. With this system, all recyclables can be placed in a single, wheeled cart rather than the smaller, separate
bins often used in the past. The single cart system not only makes recycling easier and more convenient for the
customer, it is more efficient for the companies that provide collection service.
ln addition, the division and cities have worked with the commercial collection companies to implement curbside
collection of food scraps and food-soiled paper in the yard waste (organics) container. About 99 percent of single-
family customers with curbside garbage collection have access to organics (yard waste and food scraps) collection
service. Only Vashon lsland and the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Pass areas, which house less than one percent of the
county's residents, do not have this service. Studies estimate that over 50 percent of those who set out organics carts
recycle some of their food scraps.The combined food scraps and yard waste are taken to processing facilities that turn
the materials into nutrient-rich compost used to enrich soils.
Building a New Generation ofTransfer Stations
Since the approval by the King County
Council in2007 of the So/id WosteTransfer
andWaste Management Plan (Transfer Plan),
the division has been moving forward on
the renovation and replacement of the
division's urban transfer stations to update
technology, incorporate green building
features, increase recycling services, and
achieve operational efficiencies. New
recycling and transfer stations include a flat
tipping floor, areas for the collection of a
wide array of recyclables, design features
that reduce water and energy use, and solid
waste compactors. By compacting garbage
prior to transport for disposal, up to 30
percent fewer truck trips are required to
haulthe same amount of garbage.Solar panels on the south roof of the Shoreline Recycling and Transfer
Station, one of the many green features of the building
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -July zofi
Att A Page 43
2-19
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17,2019
ln 2008, the division opened the first of five new state-of-the-art transfer stations - the Shoreline Recycling and
Transfer Station.The station has exceeded all expectations for environmental excellence with its innovative design
and green building features. lt received the highest possible honor from the U.S. Green Building Council with a
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design* (LEEDo) Platinum certification.The station has also been the
recipient of 'l 5 recognition awards from national, regional, and local organizations, including the Solid Waste
Association of North America, the American lnstitute of Architects, the American Public Works Association, and the
Northwest Construction Consumer Council.
Public involvement was a crucial component of the successful design and construction of the Shoreline station.
Throughout the process, the division worked closely with the City of Shoreline, neighboring communities,
environmental groups, and local businesses and citizens to obtain their input on the project.
The facility design and public process for the Shoreline station have set the bar high for the other recycling and
transfer stations approved for construction during this planning period, reflecting:
. How to approach the planning process - incorporating early community involvement,
. How to build them - using the greenest elements possible, and
. How to operate them - pursuing operational efficiencies that reduce fuel, energy, and water use; and increasing
recycling opportunities.
Following the success of the Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station, construction began on the new Bow Lake
Recycling and Transfer Station. The design of the new Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station builds upon the
environmental achievements of Shoreline, with compactors for improved efficiency, water re-use, energy efficient
lighting, and solar panels. Providing capacity for about one third of the system's garbage, Bow Lake also offers
expanded recycling opportunities.The new recycling and transfer station was completed in 201 3 and also earned a
Platinum LEEDo certification, as well as other awards of excellence.
The most recent station to be completed, the Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station - opened in late 2017.This
same year, a site was selected for the South County Recycling and Transfer Station (SCRTS) after completion of a Final
Environmental I mpact Statement.
The selected site is just north of
the existing station. Design and
construction of the station will take
place over the next several years,
with an anticipated station
opening in2O22.
All new recycling and transfer
stations will meet green building,
safety and environmental standards;
accommodate projected growth
in the region; incorporate best
practices in transfer and transport
operations; and offer a wide variety
of recycling opportunities for
residential and business customers.
The new Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station opened in late 2017
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS2-20
Att A Page 44
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Managing Solid Waste Disposal with an Eye to the Future
Cedar Hills is the only landfill still operating in King County. Because use of the county landfill is currently the most
economical method for disposal of the region3 wastes, the division has been extending its useful life. This strategy,
recommended in theTransfer Plan, was approved by the County Council in20O7.ln December 2010, the County
Council approved a Project Program Plan enabling the division to move forward with further development of Cedar
Hills. As approved in the Project Program Plan, a disposal area covering approximately 56.5 acres is being developed -
this will extend the life of the landfill to about 2028 depending on a variety of factors, including tonnage received.
The 2001 Plan directed the division to'contract for long-term disposal at an out-of-county landfill once Cedar Hills
reaches capacity and closesi' With this Plan, the division explored a range of options for future disposal. The Plan's
recommendation is to further develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. The next disposal method to
employ after Cedar Hills reaches capacity is not specifed in this Plan, so that the latest technological advances can
be considered. Emerging technologies for converting solid waste to energy or other resources, such as fuels, are in
various stages of development and testing in U.S. and international markets. Some of the technologies are capable
of processing the entire solid waste stream, while others target specific components, such as plastics or organics.
Regardless of which long term disposal option is selected, the transfer system will still be needed to efficiently
consolidate loads.The division will continue to monitor emerging technologies and advances in established disposal
methods, recycling, and waste prevention. Although the Amended and Restated lnterlocal Agreement requires
consultation with cities at least seven years before Cedar Hills closes, evaluation of the next disposal method should
begin prior to the next plan update to ensure enough time for method selection, planning, and implementation.
Financing the Solid Waste System for the Long Term
As the division continues to modernize the transfer system, keeping fees as low and stable as possible is a
fundamental objective.
While division revenues rely primarily on per-ton fees for garbage disposal, the current priorities are to increase
recycling and prevent waste generation. Reductions in tonnage due to waste prevention and recycling have been
gradual, and the system has adjusted accordingly. However, further reductions will continue to affect system
revenues.The division will continue to identifo new revenue sourcet such as the sale of landfill gas from the Cedar
Hills landfill and greenhouse gas offsets from this and other potential sources, and will explore sustainable financing
options. The division will also work with its advisory committees and others to develop and/or revise financial policies,
and address rate stabilization and cost containment. Policies, actions and more discussion can be found in Chapter 7,
Solid Waste System Finance.
Protecting Natural Resources through Environmental Stewardship
Environmental stewardship means managing natural resources so they are available for future generations. lt also
involves taking responsibility - as individuals, employees, business owners, manufacturers, and governments - for the
protection of public health and the environment.
Building an environmentally sustainable solid waste management system in King County takes a coordinated, region-
wide effort.The division, the cities, and the collection and processing companies in the region are making concerted
efforts to help make this happen.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Managemmt P/an -Ju/y zot8
Att A Page 45
2-21
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Waste prevention and recycling are just two of the
ways in which the division and others are working
to reduce wastes, conserve resources, and protect
the environment. Other innovations and well-
established programs that support environmental
stewardship include collecting and selling landfill
gas to be converted to pipeline quality gas,
potential new composting and reuse facilities, and
providing cleanup assistance for illegal dumping.
re
The division provides cleanup assistance for illegal dumping
Additional Planning Considerations
Climate Change
Climate impacts are considered by the division when planning for future programs, facilities, and operations, in
accordance with Washington State's Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan, Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics
(Ecology 2015) and the county's Strategic Climate Action Plan (King County 2015b). Climate change is manifest in
the long-term trends in average weather patterns, including the frequency, duration, and intensity of wind and
snow storms, cold weather and heat waves, and drought and flooding. Climate change is attributed primarily to
the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG), including such compounds as carbon dioxide and methane. Planning for
climate change means taking into account both how we might reduce our effects on the climate, today and in the
future, and how changes in climate might affect our facilities and operations.
Against a baseline set in 2007, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted a Countywide Planning Policy
that targets a reduction in countywide sources of GHG emissions of 25 percentby 2O20,50 percent by 2030, and 80
percent by 2050. King County will be responsible for assessment and reporting.
At a regional level, the division and its planning participants continue to strengthen and broaden waste prevention
and recycling programs to continually improve our long-term, positive effects on the environment (discussed in detail
in Chapter 4, Sustainable Materials Management).The benefits are tangible in terms of reductions in GHG emissions,
resource conservation, and energy savings.
In
King County - Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C)
King County and thirteen cities - Bellevue, Burien, lssaquah, Kirkland, Mercer lsland, Normandy
Park, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, Seattle, Shoreline, Snoqualmie, and Tukwila -
are collaborating through the King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) to coordinate and
enhance the effectiveness of local government climate and sustainability action.Through K4C
county and city staffare partnering on: outreach to engage decision makers, other cities, and the
general public; coordination of consistent standards, benchmark, and strategies; sharing solutions;
funding; and shared resource opportunities.
All King County cities are encouraged to join this effort, which is supporting and enhancing projects
and programs in focus areas such as green building, using and producing renewable energy,
sustainability outreach and education, and alternative transportation.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS2-22
Att A Page 46
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Considerations of how division activities
and operations might affect climate
change involve both positive and negative
impacts on GHG emissions. lf areas where
GHG emissions can be expected to occur
are identified, strategies to mitigate those
emissions can be developed, for example:
. The division contracts with Bio Energy
Washington to turn landfill gas into
pipeline-quality natural gas for the energy
market.
. The division builds facilities (such as the
Shoreline, Bow Lakg and Factoria Recycling
and Transfer Stations) that are more energy
efficient to meet LEED' standards. As
previously noted, two of the facilities have
earned a Platinum rating.
Compactors at the Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station compact trash,
reducing the number of trips that county transfer trucks make to
Cedar Hills
. Garbage compactors, both for solid waste and recyclables, are being installed at all new urban transfer stations,
which will decrease truck trips by up to 30 percent saving fuel and decreasing emissions.
. ln day-to-day operations, the division looks for ways to reduce resource use and increase the use of environmentally
friendly products. Examples of operational practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the use of
compaction to reduce truck trips, reducing idling time, environmentally preferable purchasing, and exploring the
use of compressed natural gas and other low-emitting technologies in trucks and equipment.
. The Food: Too Good to Waste program also helps curb the effects of climate change. Uneaten
food accounts for 23 percent of all methane emissions - a potent climate change contributor.
When food is thrown away, all the water and energy used to produce, package and transport
that food is also wasted.The program educates people about how to plan and prepare meals to
decrease the amount of wasted food. TOO GOOD
. The division teamed up with the City of Seattle to produce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in King TO WASTE
County (Stockholm Environment lnstitute 2O12), a report that looked at greenhouse gas
emissions from several different perspectives including undertaking a consumption-based inventory.The inventory
offers a more complete picture of the county's environmental footprint, taking into account emissions associated
with the production and consumption of food, goods, and services.The report's research shows that efforts such as
reducing food waste or purchasing sustainable and low-impact products can help to create a broader and deeper
impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.
. The division has planted deciduous and evergreen trees on the Duvall and Puyallup/Kit Corner closed landfills to
create a carbon "sink" by capturing carbon dioxide through the process of photosynthesis.
The division also looks at the potential impacts of climate change on facilities and operations and determines
strategies for adapting to those impacts. For example, the division is using more drought-tolerant plants in facility
landscapes and identifuing alternate transportation routes to avoid areas where there may be an increase in
seasonal flooding.
zory Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Pkn -Jub zotS 2'23
Att A Page 47
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
In
King County - Climate Change
Proper solid waste management plays a significant role in reducing GHG emissions.That role is
recognized by both state and local governments in Washington. ln 2015, the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued its plan, Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics (Ecology
201 5), which presents a long-term strategy for systematically eliminating wastes and the use of toxic
substances. The 201 5 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (King County 201 5b) synthesizes and
focuses King County3 most critical goals, objectiveg and strategies to reduce GHG emissions and
prepare for the effects of climate change. lt provides "one-stop-shopping"for county decision-makers,
employees, and the general public to learn about the county's most critical climate change actions.
As documented in the 201 I King County Sustainability Reporf (King County 201 1), GHG emissions from
county operations (for sources other than transit) have stabilized and begun to decline. Building on
these successet achievement of the county's long-term targets is ambitious, but achievable.
King County's overarching targets:
. Communitywide: King County shall partner with its
residentt businesses, local governments, and other
partners to reduce countywide GHG emissions at
least 80 percent below 2007 levels by 2050.
. County operations: King County shall reduce total
GHG emissions from government operations,
compared to a2OO7 baseline, by at least l5 percent
by 2015,25 percent by 2020, and 50 percent
by2030.
. Department of Natural Resources and Park Carbon
Neutral Commitment:The Department became
Carbon Neutral in 2016. Both the Solid Waste
Division and the Wastewater Treatment Division
must be carbon neutral by 2O25.
Throughout this Plan, ways to reduce impacts on the
climate and adapt to changes that occur are noted.
These actions are grouped in three primary strategies: Factoria drought-tolerant plants and permeable
Mitigation - directly or indirectly reducing emissions. pavement
Examples include reducing energy use at division
facilities, reducing fuel use, using hybrid vehicles,
distributed composting facilities, using alternative fuelt and promoting waste prevention and
recycling to reduce the mining of virgin resources and emissions from manufacturing and processing
activities. Another example is the conversion of gas collected at the county3 landfill into pipeline-
quality natural gas.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zo82-24
Att A Page 48
Ordinance 18893 Updated Apfl 17, 2019
Adaptation - modiffing facilities and operations to address the effects of climate change. Examples
include designing facilities for more severe weather systems (e.9., roofs designed for greater snow
loads), using more drought-tolerant plants in
facility landscapes, and identiff ing alternate
transportation routes to avoid areas where
there may be an increase in seasonal flooding.
Sequestration - removing carbon dioxidefrom
the atmosphere and depositing it back into
natural "sinks,"such as plants and soils. Examples
include planting more trees around facilities to
remove carbon dioxide through photosynthesis,
using biochar, and using compost to replenish
depleted soils and promote plant growth.
Gas collection pipes at the Cedar Hills landfill
Equity and Social Justice
The division adheres to the King County Equity and SocialJustice Strategic Plan 2016-2022 (King County 2016b)
which emphasizes that King County is committed to ensuring that equity and socialjustice are considered in the
development and implementation of policies, programs, and funding decisions. Equity is achieved when all people
have an equal opportunity to attain their full potential. lnequity occurs when there are differences in well-being
between and within communities that are systematic, patterned, unfair, and can be changed.These differences are
not random; they are caused by our past and current decisions, systems of power and privilege, policies, and the
implementation of those policies. Social justice encompasses all aspects of justice, including legal, political, and
economic; it demands fair distribution of public aoodg institutional resources, and life opportunities.
ln solid waste system planning, the division examines ways that it may affect equity and socialjustice through its
programs and services.
. Fair distribution of transfer facilities, services at the facilities, and division resourcet such as the community litter cleanup,
school education, and green building programt helps ensure that everyone has access to services that create safer and
hea lthier communities.
. The division provides technical assistance to ensure that the benefits of green building strategies, such as lower
energy costs and improved indoor air quality, are available to residents of affordable housing developments.
. ln siting new transfer facilities, the division engages communities to ensure equal opportunity for involvement in
the siting process.The division uses demographic data to ensure that these essential public facilities are distributed
equitably throughout the county and that any negative impacts of the facilities do not unfairly burden any
community.
. ln addition to translating materials into multiple languages, the division has added a Spanish-language component
to its comprehensive outreach programs. Rather than simply translate existing materials, the division has worked
directly with the local Spanish-speaking communities to create new programs and materials in Spanish that
respond to the questions and needs of these communities, an approach referred to as transcreation.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 49
2-25
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
In
Green Building and Equity
The goal of the countyb Equity and SocialJustice Ordinance is for all King County residents to live in
communities of opportuni$r.To reach this goal, allcommunities must be equipped with the means to
provide residents with access to a livable wagq affordable housing, quality education, quality health
care, and safe and vibrant neighborhoods. Green building can play an important role in providing safe,
healthy, and affordable housing, public infrastructure, and commercial facilities, which have historically
not been built to the highest green standards.
There exists a variety of equity and social justice opportunities on any project including: education, training,
apprenticeship, procurement, material selection, contracts, public outreach, public service, community
amenities, communication, indoor and outdoor air quality, economic development job creation, and more.
King County's Sustainable lnfrastructure Scorecard, the green building rating system used for county-
owned projects not qualified for the LEED" certification, contains a Social Equity Credit as an opportunity
to address equity and social justice issues. The countyS Green Building Team is also working on
additional guidance for capital projects to utilize an equity impact review tool, designed to help project
teams to evaluate how people and places are impacted by an action, and to take into consideration
distributional, process, and cross-generational equity.
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -July zotS2-26
Att A Page 50
#Att A Page 51
Ordinance 18893
t
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Policies
Monitor and report the amount, composition, and source of solid
waste entering the transfer and disposal system.
FD-2 Update the solid waste tonnage forecast to support short- and
long-term planning and budgeting for facilities and operations.
FD-3 Monitor and report waste prevention and recycling activity,
including the amount of materials recycled, programmatic
achievements, and the strength of commodity markets.
FD-4 Continue to monitor new and emerging technologies to identify
opportunities for their use in managing solid waste and recyclables.
Att A Page 53
Ordinance 18893 Updated April17,2019
The following table includes a menu of recommended actions that the county and the
cities should implement. Under the responsibility column, the entity listed first has primary
responsibility for the action, bold indicates that the entity has responsibility for the action,
and a star (*) indicates that the action is a priority. lf the responsibility is not in bold, the
action has lower implementation priority.
Action Detailed
Discussion
Page 3-1 1
Page 3-1 2
Page 3-1
Page 3-1 2
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Standardize the sampling methodology and frequency in tonnage
reports submitted to the division and the cities by the collection
companies to improve data accuracy.
Perform solid waste, recycling, organics, and construction and
demolition characterization studies at regular intervals to support
goal development and tracking.
Monitor forecast data and update as needed.
Develop voluntary agreements with recycling companies that will
improve data reporting and resolve data inconsistencies.
Action
Number and
Responsibility
1-fd
Cities, county,
collection
companies
4-fd
County, cities,
Ecology
2-td
County
3-fd
County
Att A Page 54
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
recastl ng and Dal.;-
The monitoring of solid waste disposal, recycling, and waste prevention, and the forecasting of future trends are
fundamental to system planning.The division routinely collects data about the amount and composition of waste
and recyclable materials in the system, tracks demographic and economic trends that will affect the amount of solid
waste generated in the future, and conducts focused studies to address specific topics, such as markets for recyclable
materials, industry trends, and new technologies.
Forecasts are used to estimate the amount of material expected to be disposed and recycled in the coming years,
incorporating expected growth in population and other demographic and economic trends.This information can
be used to estimate the necessary capacity of division transfer and disposal facilities and associated private-sector
recycling facilities and markets.
Existing data and forecasts form the basis for discussions
with cities and other stakeholders about options for the
future, answering questions such as:
. How much waste are system users currently generating
and expected to generate in the future?
. How can waste generation be reduced?
. What materials can be separated from the disposal stream
and turned into a resource through reuse and recycling?Division staff review plans
. Who uses the solid waste facilities and curbside servicet
how do they choose those servicet how often do they use those servicet and what influences their choices?
. What is the best method to provide these services?
. What changes in markets and technologies need to be incorporated into our analysis of options for the future?
Forecasts, planning data, and studies used in the development of this Plan are discussed in the following sections.
Forecasting
The division uses a planning forecast model to predict future waste generation over a 20-year period. Waste generation is
defined as waste disposed plus materials recycled.The forecast is used to guide system planning, budgeting, rate setting,
and operations.The primary objectives of the modelare to 1) estimate future waste disposaland 2) provide estimates
of the amount of materials expected to be diverted from the waste stream through division and city waste prevention
and recycling programs.The planning forecast model- a regression model - relies on established statistical relationships
between waste generation and various economic and demographic variables that affect it, such as population,
employmen! consumptiont (measured as retail sales, excluding sales), and the tipping fees for garbage at division facilities.
The numbers for the sales tax base is taken from "The PugetSound Economic Forecaster" which is published by Western Woshington lJniversity.
Soles tax base ond price information ate oll adjusted for inflotion.
.t
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zotS
Att A Page 55
3-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
ln late 2007, a nationwide financial crisis severely compromised the division's ability to forecast short-term trends
in the economy. With the collapse of large financial institutions, a downturn in the stock market, a drop in housing
prices and personal income, a jump in the unemployment rate, and a general slump in overall economic activity,
the recession led to the bankruptcy of many businesses and home foreclosures. The effects of these dramatic events
touched every sector of the economy including the solid waste industry.
ln2O07, garbage tons received at Cedar Hills surpassed the one million mark, due primarily to steady economic
growth and population increases in the region over the previous few decades. Between December 2007 and
December 2012, however, garbage tons disposed at Cedar Hills declined 20 percent overall. Garbage tons dropped
eight percent in 2008 alone. The City of Seattle, surrounding counties, and jurisdictions in Oregon and California
reported similar or greater declines in tonnage, as did regional recycling firms.
The recession created a great deal of unpredictability in variables used in the division's forecast model to predict the
short-term (one to five year) trends in solid waste generation.To respond to this uncertainty, the division has adjusted its
approach to forecasting, using a more flexible system of ongoing monitoring. This evolving forecast method involves:
. Monitoring solid waste tons delivered to division transfer stations and the Cedar Hills landfill on a daily basis,
. Regularly checking regional and state-wide economic forecasts (local economic forecasts by the Western
Washington University (former Dick Conway and Associates), King County's economic forecast, and forecasts by
the Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council),
. Monitoring state-wide tax revenue streams, particularly in the home improvement sector, furniture store sales,
clothing sector, and other key markets, and
. Communicating regularly with other jurisdictions about the trends in their service areas.
This information has been used to forecast short-term tonnage and subsequent revenues for use in critical budgeting,
expenditure control, and management of capital projects over the three-to five-year period.
With the new model established in 2018, the division is able to provide a prediction for disposal for the next ten
years. After ten years, the tonnage forecast uses a long-term growth rate based on historical tonnage (described in
further detail below). The new model also assumes that a years-long Ecology-reported recycling rate of 52 percent is
sustained through 2040.
An additional feature the division included in the new model is an upper and a lower estimate for the tonnage to
be disposed.
The main characteristics of the new model are:
. Main Model
o This uses the tonnage forecast model output to forecast the next 10 years, out to 2028.
o After 2028, a historical trend is used to generate the disposal tons for the years from 2029-2040:
. This annual growth rate is 1.73 percent, and
. This historical trend is based off the disposal growth rate from "1995-2007. This period covers years after
some major changes in the system occurred during the early 1990s (Seattle leaving the system, recycling
changes, etc.) but before the Great Recession so it's an appropriate time period to use as a steady-state
historical trend.
. UpperBoundary
o This incorporates the aggressive population growth rate provided by the Office of Financial Management
(OFM) into our tonnage forecast model for the next 10 years, out to 2028.
o After2O2S,ahighgrowthrateisusedtogeneratethedisposalforyearsfrom2029-2O4O:
. This annual growth rate is 2.91percent, and
. This growth rate for disposal is based on the period from2012-2017, which has been a period of high
growth since the Great Recession.
3-2 zory Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jub zo8
Aft A Page 56
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
. Lower Boundary
o This incorporates the conservative population growth rate provided by the Office of Financial Management
(OFM) into our tonnage forecast model for the next 10 years, out to 2028.
o After 2028, a low growth rate is used to generate the disposal for the years from 2029-2040:
. This annual growth rate is 0.57percent, and
. This growth rate is from 1995-2017, which is the historical trend line plus the Great Recession
and recovery.
lncreases in population, employment, and consumption lead to more waste generated. Studies indicate that for the
long-term planning forecast through 2040, the following trends are expected:
. Population2 is expected to grow at a steady rate of one percent per year. Population growth is directly correlated
with the amount of waste generated; i.e., more people equal more waste generated. See Figures 3 -1 for
estimates for population growth in each transfer station service area and Figure 3 -2 for the projected share of
population growth in each service area.
. Employment is expected to increase at an annual rate of two percent. lncreased employment activity typically
leads to an increase in consumption and waste generation.
2 Projections for populotion and employment are based on 201 7 data frcm the Land Use Vision 2 model developed by the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC). Data provided by PSRC are based on U.S. Census and other dato sources and developed in close cooperation with the county and
the cities.
Fi g u re 3- 1 . Transfer station service a reas popu latio n 2025-2040
l,goo,ooo
11
11
1,600,000
1,400,000
Eo
Jo:'coA.
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
I Vashon
a Enumclaw
I nlgona
O Bowlake
O Renton
I Factoria
I Houghton
(| Shoreline
600,000
400,000
200,000
2025 2030
359,000
122,000
312,000
i.rii,rljliilr)
345,000
1 19,000
r,ii.ijUri!)
349,000
302,000
332,000
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zo8
2035 2040
Att A Page 57
3-3
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Figure 3-2. Estimated share of population increase 2025 - 2040
for transfer station service areas
60/o
Renton
Note:The share of population increose for the
Voshon Service areo is less thon I percent, so it
is not indicated in this figure.
3,500,000
3,ooo,ooo
2500,000
2 2,000,000
oF 1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
5o/o 3o/o
EnumclawShoreline
The projections shown in Figure 3-3 are based on the 2018 forecast.The tonnage forecast will be routinely adjusted
to reflect factors that affect waste generation, such as the success of waste prevention and recycling programs and
future events that affect economic development.
Figure 3-3. Projection of solid waste recycled and disposed 2018 - 2040
I Estimated Recycling
O rons Disposed
6 O\ O - N tY) \i In \O f\ O O\ O - (\ rn tf l.n \O N O O\ O(\ N N (\ nl (\ (\l (\ N oo (n na .n rn (n .n m fn (n $ooooooooooooooooooooooom (\ m N (\t (\ m (\t m r! (\t N N N N N N N C\ N N N N
3-4 zory Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Julj zofi
Att A Page 58
24o/o
Houghton
22o/o
Algona
18o/o
Factoria
22o/o
Bowlake
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Current Data on RegionalWaste Generation, Recycling,
and Disposal
Measuring the results of waste prevention and recycling efforts is a complex process. Discussions and data often
focus on recycling and recycling rates, when in fact waste prevention is the number one priority. While programmatic
successes for waste prevention can be assessed qualitatively, it is difficult to measure directly how much waste is
"not created" in terms of tons or percentages. What can be measured more accurately is recycling and disposal
activities. Data for these activities are available through division tonnage and transaction records, reports from the
curbside collection companies, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the division's waste
characterization studies. Using data on the types and amounts of materials recycled, combined with measures
of waste disposed, the division can evaluate its success in reaching the goals established with each successive
comprehensive solid waste management plan.
Figure 3-4 shows the tons of materials recycled and disposed in 2015 (most recent data from Ecology) by category
of waste generator - single-family residents; multi-family residents; non-residential customers such as businesses,
institutions, and government entities; and self-haulers who bring materials directly to the division's transfer stations.
More specific information on each generator type (including generators of construction and demolition debris for
recycling and disposal) follows. Recycling data comes from numerous external sources.These are described in more
detail in the section Tracking Our Progress. Note that the scale on each figure varies.
Figure 3-4.2015 Recycling and disposal by generator type
1,000,000
I Recycled
I Disposed
750,000
500,000
250,000
36,034
-
Single-family Multi-family Non-residential Self-haul
While there has been considerable progress in waste prevention and recycling over the years, there is still room for
improvement. As Figure 3-4 illustrates, the single-family sector provides the greatest opportunity to divert materials
from disposal, with about 260,000 tons of materials disposed in 2015. Single-family residents are recycling more than
237,667
137,094
235,538259,512
zotg Comprebensiue Solid W'aste Management PIan -July zotS
Att A Page 59
3-5
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
56 percent of their waste, but division studies indicate that a large portion of the disposed materials could be recycled
or reused (as discussed in the next section).The multi-family sector generates the least amount of garbage and
recycling of all sectors, but shows a need for improvement in recycling.
The data shows that self-haulers as a group are recycling the smallest fraction of their waste.That may be because
at many of the older transfer stations there is limited or no opportunity to recycle. At this time, however, two of the
division's urban stations are undergoing, or are being considered for, renovation. A major goal of the renovation plan is
to add space for collection of more recyclables and to build flexibility into the design to allow for collection of additional
materials as markets develop. Adding space for collection of greater amounts and a wider array of materials is expected
to result in higher recycling rates at the transfer stations.
With studies indicating that 70 percent of the waste that reaches the landfill could have been recycled or reused, and
specific data on what those materials are, we can focus on areas that will have substantial influence on the region's
per capita disposal rate. The following sections address each category of generator and identify some of the more
significant areas for improvement.
Sing le-Fam i ly Residents
Sixty-five percent of the households in the division's service area are single-family homes. ln 2015, these single-family
households recycled on average about 56 percent of their waste. Ninety-six percent of the yard waste and 79 percent
of the paper generated were recycled by this sector in 2015 (Figure 3-5). While food scraps and food-soiled paper
made up over 35 percent of the waste disposed by single-family residents in 2015, recycling of these materials has
increased as participation in the curbside collection program for these materials continues to grow. Considerable
amounts of the standard curbside recyclables - glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed waste
paper, newspaper, and cardboard - while easily recyclable, are still present in the waste disposal stream.
Figure 3-5. 2015 Recycling and disposal by single-family residents
Containers*30,666 Containers*5,740
Plastic bags &
Wrap
Mixed paper,
newspaper,
cardboard
Food scraps
& food-soiled
paper
Yard waste
Scrap metal
Other
materials
Tons Recycled:325,125
*Tin,
aluminum, glass, and plastic
4,619
1O3,647
160,463
15,101
3%10,336 TotalTonsGenerationz5S4,636
Yard waste 7,285
Scrap metal 689s
Other
materials 39%101,147
Tons Disposed:259,511
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufu zod
293
Plastic bags &
Wrap
Mixed paper,
newspaper,
cardboard
Food scraps
& food-soiled
paper
21,695
26,901
gg,g4g
Y/o
1o/o
32o/o
OVo
49o/o
5%
2%
8%
10%
35Vo
3%
3%
Material Tons
Disposed
3-6
Aft A Page 60
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Recommendations for improving and standardizing curbside collection for single-family residents are discussed in
Chapter 4 Sustainable Materials Management. Other recyclables found in the single-family waste stream in smaller
amounts include scrap metal, textiles, plastic bags and plastic wrap, and some construction and demolition debrig such
as clean wood and gypsum wallboard.
lf all recyclable materials were removed from the single-family waste stream, nearly one-third of the remaining, non-
recyclable materials would be disposable diapers and pet wastes.
M ulti-Fami ly Residents
Thirty-five percent of the households in the service area are in multi-family complexes. ln 2015, the average multi-
family recycling rate in the county's service area was 21 percent. While this rate is considerably lower than the single-
family rate, overall generation and disposal from multi-family residences is lower and the difference from single-family
recycling rates is less when yard waste (which is minimalfor multi-family) is removed from the calculation. As with
single-family residents, the primary areas of opportunity are in recycling food scraps and food-soiled paper and the
standard curbside recyclables, including paper and cardboard (Figure 3-6).
Figure 3-6.2015 Recycling and disposal by multi-family residents
Containers*7,348 Containers*3,969
Plastic bags &
Wrap
Mixed
Food scraps &
food waste
Yard waste
Scrap metal
Other
materials
1,014
22,752
1,206
3,315
Plastic bags &
Wrap
Mixed paper
Food scraps &
food waste
Yard waste
Scrap metal
Other
materials
9,007
18,872
44,M5
3,157
3,733
1%399 39%53,901
Tons Recycled:34034
*Tin,
aluminum, glass, and plastic
Total Tons Generation z 17 3,1 1 8 Tons Disposed: 137,084
Other materials present in the multi-family waste stream, both recyclable and non-recyclable, are similar to those
found in the single-family waste stream.
It is difficult to track multi-family recycling rates because of: 1) the varied nature of multi-family complexes, 2) the
growth in construction of mixed-use buildings that contain both residential and non-residential units, and 3) the
varied levels of recycling services provided. What is clear is the need to provide adequate space for garbage and
recyclables collection at these complexes and to standardize collection across the county.
A detailed discussion of ways to improve recycling at multi-family and mixed-use complexes is provided in Chapter 4,
Sustai nable Materials Managem ent.
3-7zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jub zo8
2oo/o
3%
63%
0%
304
9%
79o/o
Tons
Disposed
3%
7%
14%
32%
2%
3%
Material Tons
Disposed
Att A Page 61
Ordinance 18893 Updated April17,2019
N on-Residentia I Generators
Nonresidential generators - businesses, institutions, and government entities - recycled an estimated 73 percent of
their waste in 2015. Despite having the highest recycling rate of any sector, non-residential generators still present an
opportunityfor increasing King County's overall recycling rate (Figure 3-7).There are an estimated 771,000 employees
in the service area working at an estimated 49,000 businesses and organizations.The make-up of the non-residential
sector ranges from manufacturing to high-tech and retail to food services.The recycling potential for any particular
business or industry varies depending on the nature of the business. For example, restaurants and grocers are the
largest contributors of food waste, while manufacturers may generate large quantities of plastic wrap and other
packaging materials. Because of the diversity of business and industry in the region, a more individualized approach is
needed to increase recycling in this sector.
There are significant opportunities in the non-residential sector to increase the diversion of food scraps and food-
soiled paper.The largest increase will be realized as more restaurants and grocers contract with private-sector
companies to collect their food scraps for composting and more cities begin to offer commercial organics collection.
Figure 3-7.2015 Recycling and disposal by non-residential generators
Containers*24A87 Containers*5,726
Plastic bags &
Wrap
Mixed paper,
newspaper,
cardboard
Food scraps
& food-soiled
paper
Clean wood
Yard waste
Scrap metal
Carpet and
pad, furniture,
mattresses
Other
materials
10,733
237,893
t 10,940
27,186
10,303
84,524
Tota I Tons Generation r, 838,444
Plastic bags &
Wrap
Mixed paper,
newspaper,
cardboard
Food scraps
& food-soiled
paper
Clean wood
Yard waste
Scrap metal
Carpet and
pad, furniture,
mattresses
Other
materials
23,037
39,694
72,920
9,629
8,614
6,895
4,748
16Vo 96,Ul 27Vo 64,284
Tons Recycledz602,907
*Tin.
aluminum, glass, and plastic
Tons Disposed:235,537
Another opportunity for reducing overall disposal is with commercially generated paper. While large amounts of
paper are being recycled, almost 40,000 tons of recyclable paper were disposed by businesses in 2015. Paper may also
provide an opportunity for waste prevention - not just moving from disposal to recycling, but aiming to reduce the
generation of waste paper.
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -July zotS
4%
2Vo
39o/o
18o/o
s%o
2Vo
14%
0%
28o/o
Tons
Disposed
2o/o
't0%
t7%
31o/o
4Vo
4%
3Vo
2%
Material Tons
Disposed
3-8
Aft A Page 62
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Self-haulers
Self-haulers are residential and non-residential customers who choose to bring garbage and recyclables to the
transfer facilities themselves. According to on-site surveys conducted as part of the division's waste characterization
studies, the two most common reasons given for self-hauling are: 1) having a large quantity of waste or large or
bulky items to dispose, and 2) wanting to avoid the cost of commercial collection. About 37 percent of the materials
disposed by self-haulers have the potential for recycling, most significantly clean wood, yard waste, scrap metal, and
paper (Figure 3-8).
Figure 3-8. 2015 Recycling and disposal by transfer facility self-haulers
Curbside
recyclables*
Food scraps
& food-soiled
paper
Clean wood
Yard waste
Scrap
metal and
appliances
Carpet and
pad, furniture,
mattresses
Other
materials
4,781
2,096
11,723
2,571
Curbside
recyclables*
Food scraps
& food-soiled
paper
Clean wood
Yard waste
Scrap
metal and
appliances
Carpet and
pad, furniture,
mattresses
21,362
5,168
32,331
11,322
21,521
28,712
Total Tons Generation: 258,901
0%
Other
materials 49%117,252
Tons Recycled:21,233
*Glass
and plastic containert tin and aluminum cans, mixed
paper, newspaper, and cardboard
Tons Disposed:237,668
At the older stations and drop boxes where space is limited, the division provides collection containers for the
standard curbside recyclables, which include glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed waste paper,
newspaper, and cardboard. No recyclables are collected at the Algona Transfer Station due to space limitations. At the
stations that have been renovated and there is more space, additional materials such as textiles, scrap metal, used
bikes and appliances are also collected. Other materials will be collected as markets develop.There are a number of
materials still prevalent in the self-haul waste stream for which there are currently insufficient or no recycling markets,
such as treated and painted wood.
Generators of Construction and Demolition Debris
ln 2015, nearly 900,000 tons of construction and demolition debris were generated in King County. Debris from
the construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition of buildings, other structures, and roads includes clean wood,
62
23%
OVo
10%
55o/o
12%
0%
9%
2o/o
14%
5%
9%
12o/o
Material Tons Disposed
Tons
Disposed
92o/o
Tons
Recycled
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/y zod
Att A Page 63
3-9
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
painted and treated wood, dimensional lumber, gypsum wallboard, roofing, siding, structural metal, wire, insulation,
packaging materials, and concrete, asphalt and other aggregates.
Clean wood makes up about 24 percent of the construction and demolition debris that is being disposed. Other
recyclable construction and demolition materials that are being disposed include scrap metal, clean gypsum, and
asphalt shingles.
Figure 3-9 shows the composition of construction and demolition materials diverted and disposed in 2015 based
on reports from private processing facilities, Ecology data, and waste monitoring at the division's transfer stations
(Cascadia 2012a). Most concrete, asphalt and aggregates are source separated for recycling at jobsites and are not
reflected in these numbers. For more information on construction and demolition debris collection and recycling see
Chapter 4, Sustainable Materials Management.
Figure 3-9.2015 Construction and demolition materials diverted and disposed
Clean wood 35,245 Clean wooda 41,272
Asphalt
roofing 2,432
Clean gypsum 43,435
Metals
Aggregatesa
Other
recyclable
materialsb
Materials with
low recycling
potentialc
186,680
sozs83
2,462
11%99'594 Total Tons Generation z 1,049,899
Asphalt
roofing 28,891
Clean gypsum 9,802
Metals 6,707
Aggregatesa 11,178
Other
recyclable
materialsb
25Ast
Materials with
low recycling
potentialc
28%48,667
Tons Recycledz877,431 Tons Disposed:171,968
aDiverted total includes only aggregate material (asphalVconcretg brick and masonry) processed at mixed construction and demolition debris
processing facilities; it does not include aggregate materials that are source separated at jobsites, which comprise approximately 450,000 tons of
asphalt/concrete.
blncludes glass, yard waste, carpet and pad, textiles. plastics. and paper.
c lncludes painted and treated wood, painted/demolition gypsum, plastics, and other mixed construction and demolition debris.
Tracking Progress
The division uses a wide range of available data, both qualitative and quantitative, to evaluate the success of waste
prevention and recycling efforts. Over the years, the division has developed a robust collection of surveys and data
from a variety of sources to track progress. ln most cases, more than one source of data is needed to accurately
quantifr how well the region is doing in diverting materials from the waste stream. For example, to track progress
toward a target of 4.1 or fewer pounds of waste per employee per week, the number of employees in the service
area for a given year is divided into the annual tons of garbage generated by the non-residential sector, as reported
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS
4o/o
0%
5%
21%
58%
o%
Material
24o/o
17%
6%
4%
6%
15%
Material Tons
Disposed
160/o
Tons
Disposed
3-10
Att A Page 64
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
in customer surveys conducted at transfer stations and information submitted to the division by the collection
companies. Using these data, pounds per week can be calculated. The targets are tracked using aggregate data for the
service area, rather than using data by individual city or unincorporated area.
The following subsections provide information on the types of data collected, how those data are calculated, and how
reliable the data are, as well as recommendations on how the data might be improved.
Tonnage and Transaction Data
An automated cashiering system is used to track data on the tons of garbage received and number of customer visits
at division transfer facilities. ln-bound and out-bound scales weigh loads for allvehicles except fixed-rate vehicles (as
defined in KCC 10.04.020 MM), which are charged a minimum fee that assumes a weight of 320 pounds or less.These
data are used to track overall garbage tonnage and transactions at individual stations. Data for recyclables accepted
for a fee, such as yard waste, are also tracked by the cashiering system. For recyclables collected at no charge, data are
provided to the division by the hauling company that is contracted to collect them.
Reports from the Commercial Collection Companies
The private-sector companies that provide curbside collection of residential garbage and recyclables throughout
most of King County submit monthly tonnage reports to the division.These reports are also provided to the cities.
Data for single-family households are the most complete, providing the following monthly information for each city
and for unincorporated areas operating under a Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission tariff:
. Tons of garbage disposed,
. Tons recycled by materialtype,
. Tons of organic materials recycled (yard waste, including food scraps for most areas), and
. Number of garbage, recycling, and organics collection customers.
Generally, customer counts and tonnage numbers for single-family garbage, recycling, and organics are the most
reliable because they are based on weights measured at the entrance scale of either county transfer stations
(for garbage) or material recovery facilities (for recyclables).To estimate the tons of individual materials (such as
newspaper, aluminum cans, and so on), collection companies take periodic random samples and determine the
percentage of each material present in the loads. As overall recycling tonnage is weighed, tons for individual materials
are allocated based on the percentages obtained in the random sampling. The county has worked with the haulers
to develop and implement a standard protocolfor sampling in order to provide reliable estimates of the component
recyclables and contaminant materials.
The same information provided for single-family residents is provided for multi-family residents and nonresidential
generators; however, the per capita data are less accurate because the number of apartment units and business
customers is not provided. ln some cases, the same truck collects multi-family and nonresidential wastes, so collection
companies must estimate how much waste comes from each generator type. Even though some waste may be
allocated to the wrong generator type, overall changes in recycling and disposal are reflected in tonnage totals,
thereby providing a reasonable indicator of change.
Since non-residential recycling collection is open-market and because many companies besides the large hauling
companies provide commercial recycling services, a non-residential recycling rate cannot be calculated from the
collection company data.This means that an overall system-wide recycling rate cannot be calculated using these
data alone.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zofi
Att A Page 65
3-11
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Ecology Survey Data
Data on the total tons recycled come from the annual statewide survey of recycling companies conducted by Ecology.
These data supplement curbside collection data by including recyclables collected by private sector companies across
the region. Recycling companies are required by state law to report tonnage data on the survey, which asks for tons
by material type, by generator type (residential or non-residential), and by the county in which the materials were
generated. For King County, companies are also asked if materials were generated in the City of Seattle.
The division uses the Ecology survey data to estimate both non-residential and overall recycling rates. All of the recycling
tonnage reported by Ecology is counted as non-residential except for tonnage that was included in residential collection
company reports and recycling tonnage from transfer stations. Use of this accounting method means that recyclables
taken by residents to privately owned drop boxes or recycling centers are included in the non-residential recycling
tonnage. Ecology survey data are also used to estimate construction and demolition debris diversion.
While the Ecology data provide the status of statewide efforts, there are some limitations to the usefulness of the data
for local planning and evaluation, including the following:
. Because data from Ecology is not immediately available, there is about a three-year lag before the county is able
to finalize annual recycling rates,
. Data are self-reported by recycling companies, with few resources available to Ecology for checking accuracy,
. Companies make unverified estimates about the county in which the recyclables were generated, and the
reporting for data between King County and the City of Seattle has been inconsistent, resulting in tonnage
variations from year to year which seem unlikely,
. City-specific information, other than for the City of Seattle, is not available,
. The identification of residential versus non-residential sources is not reliablg
. The identity of some companies that report data is confidential, limiting the ability to veriff the quantities
reported, and some of the companies with confidential data report only statewide totals, which requires the
county to estimate allocation based upon population percentages, and
. Significant amounts of metal are reported; it is difificult to determine how much of this metal should be counted
as municipal solid waste, how much as construction and demolition debris, and how much as auto bodies, which
the county does not include in its waste generation or recycling totals.
lmproving the reliability of recycling data would greatly benefit our ability to evaluate progress in reaching our
recycling goals. The division will work with Ecology and the cities to develop voluntary agreements with recycling
companies that will improve data reporting and resolve data inconsistencies.
Waste Cha racterization Stud ies
Since 1990, the division has conducted a Waste Monitoring Program to understand who uses solid waste system
facilities, what materials they bring to the stations, how and why they use our facilities, and how satisfied they
are with the services provided.To answer these questions, the division retains consultants to conduct both waste
characterization studies and customer surveys that analyze the municipal solid waste received at county facilities
Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju$ zo$3-12
Att A Page 66
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
for disposal at Cedar Hills. For these studies, the waste stream is examined by collecting and sorting sample loads
delivered to transfer facilities in King County.These studies help the county and the cities understand the composition
of both the overall waste stream and what is received from different types of generators, such as residents of single-
family homes and apartments, non-residential customers, and self-haulers. Separate analyses are conducted of the
construction and demolition debris and organics waste streams.
The waste characterization studies are designed to provide a statistically valid picture of what is being disposed by
the different generator types. Samples are taken over the course of a full year to account for seasonal variations. The
sampling method is designed to ensure that all generator types and geographical areas are sufficiently sampled. The
studies provide a high level of confidence of what is in the waste stream. Each study, described below, is conducted
by the division as necessary to provide up-to-date information for planning purposes.
Solid Waste Characterization Studies
The most recent study of solid waste destined for Cedar Hills was conducted in 2015 (Cascadia 2015a). For this study,
421 samples were collected on 28 sampling days.The waste stream was separated into 97 categories of material. For
each material and generator classification, the study was designed to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval for
the amount of waste disposed countywide. ln other words, the study tells us that we can be 90 percent sure that the
amount of cardboard disposed in 2015 was 3.1 percent (26,112 tons) of the total waste stream, plus or minus
0.3 percent.
These waste characterization
studies are not designed to
characterize each city's waste
stream. However, based on
sampling done in a variety
of communities, the types of
materials disposed by residents
are similar, while the amounts
may differ. For example,
jurisdictions with food waste
collection programs will have
lower percentages of food in
their garbage than those without.
These differences are reflected in
the recycling rates and pounds
disposed per household for each
jurisdiction.
ln-person surveys are also Garbage at the Bow Lake Recycling and rransfer station
administered to customers bringing materials to transfer facilities (Cascadia 2015a). Customers are asked about the
types of wastes they are bringing, the origin of those wastes, reasons for self-hauling (rather than using curbside
collection services), how often waste is self-hauled, and willingness to separate out various recyclable materials.These
surveys provide a better understanding of the customers who visit the stations and, in turn, provide the proper levels
of service.The surveys are also useful in informing programmatic decisions.
Comprebensiue So/id Waste PIan -zotS
Att A Page 67
3-13
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 20't9
Customer satisfaction surveys are also conducted at the stations to evaluate the level of satisfaction with customer
service and the disposal and recycling services provided at division facilities (Cascadia 2016). The division uses this
information to monitor its performance and identifo areas where improvements can be made.
Organics Characterization Studies
Curbside yard waste collection services throughout King County accept food waste (food scraps and food-soiled
paper), and the division is now working to measure how much food waste is actually collected from residential
sources. Reports from the collection companies provide information about total tons of organics delivered to compost
facilities, but do not differentiate between yard waste tons and food scrap tons.The solid waste characterization
studies described above measure decreases of food scraps and food-soiled paper in the waste stream, but not
whether the decreases result from curbside collection or from other diversion, such as home composting.
To improve our ability to measure progress in organics recycling and establish achievable goals, the division is
conducting periodic characterization studies of organics collected at the curb from single-family households. The
division conducted its fourth organics waste characterization in2017 (Cascadia 2017b) and plans to conduct studies
every two to three years.The study looked at total organics generation, assessing how many food scraps were
disposed in the organics cart and the garbage can. The division has started planning for discussions with stakeholders
to ensure there is adequate organics processing capacity for the materials now being disposed to be processed more
sustainably in the future.
Construction and Demolition Debris Characterization Studies
ln 2001, the division began to conduct periodic characterization studies of construction and demolition debris
disposed at select private facilities by commercial and self-haulers, as well as small quantities delivered to division
transfer stations by self-haulers. The studies measure the composition of construction and demolition debris that
continues to be disposed instead of recycled. Three studies have been conducted to datg with the last study
completed in 201 1 (Cascadia 2o12a).lnformation from the waste composition studies helped to inform what materials
would be designated as readily recyclable under the new construction and demolition debris recycling ordinance
(see Chapter 4, Sustainable Materials Managementfor more information).
Planning Tools
To support overall system planning and determine appropriate rates, the division conducts focused studies to
evaluate elements of the solid waste system and its operations, emerging technologies and industry challenges, and
private-sector markets for recycling and reuse. The division will conduct additional planning studies as needed to
explore a variety of topics including best practices in solid waste management, alternative disposal technologies, and
sustainable financing.
Major studies used in development of the Plan are listed on the next page. Plans or studies approved by Council
action are noted.
zory Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS3-14
Att A Page 68
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Plans and Studies
. 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (KCSWD 2002) - This is the last adopted plan. The 2001 Plan
was approved by the King County Council in 2002.
. Solid WasteTransfer and Waste Management Plan (KCSWD 2006b) - Provides recommendations to guide the
future of solid waste management, including the renovation of the urban transfer system and options for
extending the life of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill.The plan was approved by the King County Council in
December 2007.
. Final Environmental lmpact Statement for the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 2010 Site Development Plan (KCSWD
2010a) - ldentifies development alternatives for the landfill, outlines the environmental impacts of each
alternative, and identifies potential mitigation measures, and recommends a preferred alternative.
. Project Program Plan: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 2010 Site Development Plan (KCSWD 2010b) - Summarizes the
preferred alternative for development of the landfill based on environmental review, operational feasibility, cost,
stakeholder interest, and flexibility to further expand landfill capacity if future circumstances warrant.The plan
was approved by the County Council in December 2010.
. SolidWasteTronsferandWasteManagementPlanReview(KCSWD2013)-Thedivisionconductedthisreviewin
response to a budget proviso in Ordinance 1 761 9. The purpose of the review was to assess transfer station options
and resulting impacts to cost, service and the environment. The recommendations helped inform changes to the
plans for the Factoria, South County, and Northeast County recycling and transfer station projects.
. DRAFT 201 I and 2013 Comprehensive Solid Woste Management Plan (KCSWD 201 3c). The draft updates of the 2001
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan were used as the basis for this Plan update.
. Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan (KCSWD 2O'14) - Evaluates operational and strategic planning options
and provides recommendations on implementation approaches.The study focuses on five areas: resource
recovery at division facilities; construction and demolition debris management; organics processing; disposal
alternatives and technologies; and sustainable system financing.
. Solid WosteTransfer and Waste Management Plan Review Part // (KCSWD 2015) - ln response to Council Motion 14145,
the division, in collaboration with stakeholders, continued to evaluate a mix of capital facilities and operational
approaches to address system needs over time,
including potential demand management
strategies (such as peak hour pricing or
controlled access hours) that could motivate
changes in how customers use transfer stations,
thereby potentially reducing the need for added
transfer station capacity in the northeast county.
. Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives
FinalReport,Volumes I and 2 (KCSWD 2017a)
- Summarizes the options for continued
development of the landfill based on
operational feasibility, cost, stakeholder
interest and flexibility to further expand
landfill capacity if future circumstances
warrant.Division staff review plan for centralized prolect management unit
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -July zotS
Att A Page 69
3-15
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
. Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 2017-20t8 (KCSWD 2016c) - Rate study that examines four key inputs
that determine solid waste disposal fees - financial assumptions, tonnage forecast, revenue and expenditures
projections, and required target fund balance. Fees are calculated to ensure that revenues are sufficient to
cover the costs of operations and services; funds are available for landfill closure and maintenance and capital
investment projects for the transfer and disposal system; and a reserve Operating Fund balance is maintained.The
2017-2018 Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees were approved by the King County Council in September 201 6.
. Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 2019-2020 (KCSWD 2018b) - Rate study that examines four key inputs
that determine solid waste disposal fees - financial assumptions, tonnage forecast, revenue and expenditures
projections, and required target fund balance. Fees are calculated to ensure that revenues are sufficient to
cover the costs of operations and services; funds are available for landfill closure and maintenance and capital
investment projects for the transfer and disposal system; and a reserve Operating Fund balance is maintained.
The 2019-2020 Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees were transmitted to the King County Council in July 2018.
Eva I uation of Tech nolog ies
. 2006 MaterialRecovery Focility Assessment (Cascadia 2006) - Provides an assessment of four materials recovery
facilities where commingled recyclables collected at the curb are sorted and processed.The purpose was to
quantiff and characterize materials processed at the materials recovery facilities. Materials recovery facilities
activity and capacity will continue to be
tracked as necessary to monitor the need
for improvements and to ensure there is
processing capability for additional materials
diverted from disposal in the future.
- Comparative Evaluation of Waste Export and
Conversion Technologies Disposal Options
(R.W. Beck 2007) - Provides a planning-level
assessment and comparison of various solid
waste conversion technologies and waste
export.
. Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study (HDR
2017) - Assesses the viability of several
different scenarios using anaerobic digestion
to process organic materials collected in
King County.
Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
. Kng County Waste to Energy Study (Normandeau 2017) - Evaluates waste-to-energy technologies and
recommends the technology that best matches King County's circumstances.
Waste Prevention and Recycling Studies
. Sustainable Curbside Collection P/of (KCSWD et al. 2008b) - Presents results of a pilot study to test the
feasibility and public acceptance of every-other-week curbside garbage collection. Conducted in the City of
Renton, the pilot study was performed in conjunction with Public Health - Seattle & King County and Waste
Management lnc. and was permanently implemented in 2009.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid lVaste Management Plan -Jufu zo$3-16
Att A Page 70
Ordinance 18893 Updated Apnl 17,2019
. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in King County: An Updated Geographic-plus lnventory, a Consumption-based
Inventory, and an OngoingTracking Framework (King County 2012) - Presents results from two different, but
complementary, inventories of GHG emissions associated with King County, Washington.
. Optimized Transfer Station Recycling Feasibility Study (KCSWD 2013) - Evaluates methods to optimize County
resources being dedicated to recycling activities at division transfer facilities.
. Waste Monitoring Program: Morket Assessment for Recyclable Materials in King County (Cascadia 201 5a) - Helps
identiff opportunities and establish priorities for market development and increased diversion of recyclable
materials from the waste stream. Data from the market assessment are used to guide the direction of future
recycling programs and services recommended in this Plan.
Other Plans Considered
The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is just one component of regional planning for land use,
development and environmental protection in King County.The division considers plans developed by the statg
the county, and the City of Seattle in its own planning process to ensure consistency with other planning efforts in the
region.The following list was used in the development of this Plan; in future planning efforts, the division will refer to
the newest version of these plans.
- On the Path to Sustainability and 201I Plan Amendment-Picking
Up the Pace to Zero Waste (City of Seattle 1998/2011 ) - The City
of Seattle's solid waste management plan, including goals for
recycling and waste prevention.
. 2010 Locol Hazardous Waste Management Plan Update (Watson
et al. 2010) - Presents plans for managing hazardous wastes
produced in small quantities by households and businesses
and for preventing these wastes from entering the solid waste
stream.
. The State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan: Moving Washington
Beyond Waste and Toxics 201 5 Update (Ecology 201 5) -
Presents the state's long-term strategy for systematically
eliminating wastes and the use of toxic substances.The plan
includes initiatives that focus on expanding the recycling of
organic materials and advancing green building practices.
. Kng County Strategic Plan (King County 2015a) - Presents
countywide goals for setting high standards of customer
service and performance, building regional partnerships,
stabilizing the long-term budget, and working together as
one county to create a growing economy and sustainable
Division staff conducting sampling
communities.This Plan supports each of the primary goals of
the King County Strategic Plan, with particular emphasis on environmental sustainability and service excellence.
zory Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zotS
Att A Page 71
3-17
Ordinance 18893 Updated Aoril 17. 2019
. StrategicClimate Action Plan (King County 201 5b) - Synthesizes King County's most critical goals, objectives,
strategies and priority actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change.
It provides a single resource for information about King County's climate efforts.
.20l6KingCountyComprehensivePlan(2016Update)(KingCounty20l6a)-Theguidingpolicydocument
for all land use and development regulations in unincorporated King County, as well as for establishing the
establishment of Urban Growth Area boundaries and regional services throughout the county, including
transit, sewers, parks, trails, and open space. Updates to the 2016 plan were adopted by the County Council in
December,2016.
. King County Equity and SocialJustice Strategic Plan 2016-2022 (King County 2016b) - The county's blueprint for
change that will guide policies and decision-making, design and delivery of services, and workplace practices in
order to advance equity.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zod3-18
Att A Page 72
April 1
fi
It
: "fF'1t8e*- i d'F '- u4"hfTt I
qF*
'tJ
t
€'"
1*
I
"' f" 't*#" t'""',.S*
li
s* d{&*
"tat
r' :?'till l
t
G
elt],'{t Tb"*
l.af
,*
tt t
lF.il
't
t ;c
*.rl'. 1
-nfteflit
6,\-..
a
ustaLna
Manag
a
S
' 8O!*r'
Materi
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Achieve Zero Waste of Resources - to eliminate the disposal of
materials with economic value - by 2030, with an interim goal of
70 percent recycling through a combination of efforts in the
following order of priority:
a. Waste prevention and reuse,
b. Product stewardship,
c. Recycling and composting, and
d. Beneficial use.
Set achievable targets for reducing waste generation and disposal
and increasing recycling and reuse.
Enhance, develop, and implement waste prevention and recycling
programs that will increase waste diversion from disposal using a
combination of tools:
a. lnfrastructure,
b. Education and promotion,
c. lncentives,
d. Mandates,
e. Enforcement, and
f. Partnerships.
Advocate for product stewardship in the design and management
of manufactured products and greater responsibility for
manufacturers to divert these products from the waste stream.
Prevent waste generation by focusing on upstream activities,
including encouraging sustainable consumption behaviors, such as
buying only what one needs, buying durable, buying secondhand,
sharing, reusing, repairing, and repurposing.
Work with regional partners to find the highest value end uses
for recycled and composted materials, support market developmen!
and develop circular supply loops to serve production needs.
Strive to ensure that materials diverted from the King County waste
stream for recycling, composting, and reuse are handled and
processed using methods that are protective of human health and
the environment.
Policies
s-1
s-2
s-3
s-4
5-5
s-6
Att A Page 75
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 1 7, 2019
Provide for efficient collection of solid waste, recyclables, and
organics, while protecting public health and the environment,
promoting equitable service, and maximizing the diversion of
recyclables and organics from disposal.
Promote efficient collection and processing systems that work
together to minimize contamination and residual waste, maximize
diversion from disposal, and provide adequate capacity.
Policies
s-7
s-8
Att A Page 76
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
The following table includes a menu of recommended actions that the county and the
cities should implement. Under the responsibility column, the entity listed first has primary
responsibility for the action, bold indicates that the entity has responsibility for the action,
and a star (*) indicates that the action is a priority. lf the responsibility is not in bold, the action
has lower implementation priority.
Action Detailed
Discussion
Regional Leadership
Page 4-7
Page 4-1 5
Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance
Page 4-8
Page 4-1 1
Page 4-8
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Action
Number and
Responsibility
Lead by example by improving waste prevention and recycling in
public-sector operations, facilities, and at sponsored events, as well
as through the purchase of sustainable products.
Form a regional responsible recycling forum to workwith public
and private partners to address production, use, and end-of-life
management of goods. The forum will identify ways to strengthen
recyclables markets, reduce contamination, and improve the quality
and quantity of recyclable materials through more uniform city/county
recycling approaches, education and outreach, and other means.
1-s
Cities, county
2-s
County, cities,
collection
companies*
Provide regional education outreach support and incentive programs
to overcome barriers for residents and businesses to effectively
prevent waste. Emphasize the primary importance of purchase
and product use decisions that prevent waste, and secondary
importance of recycling items/materials that couldn't be prevented.
Work in partnership with other governments, non-governmental
organizations, and the private sector to maximize the effectiveness of
these efforts.
Provide waste prevention and recycling education programs in
schools throughout the county, and help schools and school districts
establish, maintain, and improve the programs.
Continue to educate customers on proper recycling techniques to
reduce contamination of recyclables and organic feedstocks going to
the materials recovery facilities and compost facilities.
3-s
County, cities,
and other
stakeholders*
County
5-s
Cities, county,
collection
companies
4-s
Att A Page 77
lncrease educational outreach and promotion to single-family, multi-family,
and non-residential customers to encourage recycling and reduce waste.
lncrease single-family food scrap recycling through a three-year
educational cart tagging program.
Continue to develop infrastructure and increase regional and local
educational outreach, incentives and promotion to increase recycling
of food scraps and food-soiled paper.These efforts should target
single-family and multi-family residential developments, as well as non-
residential buildings such as schools, institutions, and businesses.
Provide information and technical assistance to external agencies, such
as local governments, schools, colleges, and other public and private
organizations to increase their purchase of sustainable products. Support
implementation of the county's Sustainable Purchasing Policy through
waste reduction, recycling, use of recyclable products, and green building
Work with public and private partners to support the development of
reuse and recycling value chains, including markets, for target products
and materials. Employ incentives and material-specific projects that reduce
or eliminate barriers to reuse and recycling.
Pursue product stewardship strategies through a combination of voluntary
and mandatory programs for products that contain toxic materials, are
difficult and expensive to manage, and/or need sustainable financing,
including, but not limited to, paint, carpet, fluorescent bulbs and tubes,
mercury thermostats, batteries, unwanted medicine, mattresses, e-waste,
paper and packaging, plastic bags and film, and sharps. Strategies
may include Right to Repair legislation and framework legislation for
addressing producer responsibility.
Explore options to increase recycling and resource recovery through
innovative methods and technologies.
Action
Number and
Responsibility
6-s
Cities, county*
7-s
County, cities
8-s
Cities, countf
9-s
County
1O-s
County*
tt-s
County*
12-s
County
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Action Detailed
Discussion
Page 4-1 9
Page 4-16
Page 4-16
Page 4-20
Page 4-1 8
Page 4-"12
Page 4-1 5
and 6-3
Aft A Page 78
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
of Recommended ActionsS
Action
Develop a process and criteria to amend the designated recyclables list if
conditions warrant adding or removing recyclables.
Measurement
Use the following targets to measure the progress toward the goal of zero
waste of resources:
1. Generation rate target:
. Per capita:20.4 pounds/week by 2030, and
. Per employee:42.2 pounds/week by 2030.
2. Recycling rate target lnterim goal of 70 percent.
3. Disposal rate target:
. Per capita: 5.1 pounds/week by 2030, and
. Per employee:4.1 pounds/week by 2030.
These targets should be evaluated at least every three years when data
becomes available from the waste monitoring studies.
Develop a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from disposed
waste by 2030, with 2007 emissions used as a baseline for comparison.
Detailed
Discussion
Page 4-3
Page 4-1 0
Page 4-1 1
Page 4-1 3
Page 4-5
Page 4-12
Assess and develop options if selected actions are not enough to achieve
an overall 70 percent recycling rate.
Reduce consumer use of common single-use items - for example,
promote reusable shopping and produce bags.
Work with food producers, grocers, restaurants, and schools to prevent
food waste and to increase food recovery through donation of surplus
meals and staple food items to local food banks.
Action
Number and
Responsibility
13-s
County, cities
l4-s
Citiel county
15-s
County, cities
16-s
County, cities
17-s
County
18-s
County
Att A Page 79
Action
Number and
Responsibility
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Action
Grants
Green Building
Detailed
Discussion
Page 4-1 9
Page 4-20
Page 4-1 9
Page 4-'19
Page 4-1
Page 4-32
Page 4-35
Continue to support the cities'implementation of the Plan through
the county waste reduction and recycling grant program and
allocation of Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance funds from the
Washington State Department of Ecology. The county should strive
to maintain the level of funding to cities, increasing waste reduction
and recycling grant amounts as Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance
funding decreases; and should revise or amend grant criteria to
reflect priority Comprehensive Plan actions.
Work collaboratively with cities and other stakeholders to develop a
new competitive grant program funded from the tip fee that would
be available to private entities, non-profits, and cities to support
innovative programs that help meet plan goals.
Evaluate options to transition away from recycling collection events
as enhanced recycling services are provided at renovated transfer
stations, improved bulky item collection becomes available and cost
effective curbside, and product stewardship programs emerge.
Develop a list of effective waste prevention and recycling efforts that
can be implemented using existing and new grant funds.
19-s
€ounty
20's
County
2l-s
Cities, county
22-s
County, cities
Adopt green building policies and regulations that support the
design of buildings and structures that are carbon neutral, are energy
efficient, and use recycled materials.
Assist cities in developing green building policies and practices;
encourage green building through Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design- (LEED'), Built Green*, Living Building
Challenge, and other certification programs.
Provide technical assistance and promote proper deconstruction,
building reuse, and reuse of building materials.
23-s
Cities, county
24-s
County
25-s
County
Att A Page 80
Action
Number and
Responsibility
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Action
Construction and Demolition Materials Recycling
Collection
Adopt the single and multi-family minimum collection standards.
Detailed
Discussion
Page 4-35
Page 4-35
Page 4-35
Page 4-35
Page 4-21
Page 4-28
Page 4-30 & 4-31
Work collaboratively with cities to implement building codes
that require compliance with construction and demolition debris
recycling and handling requirements contained in county code.
The county will provide outreach/promotion for city permitting and
enforcement staff.
Continue to explore options to increase the diversion of construction
and demolition debris from disposal in the landfill, particularly
for wood, metal, cardboard, asphalt shingles, carpet, and gypsum
wallboard.
lncrease regional recycling of construction and demolition materials
through education and enforcement of construction and demolition
debris recycling requirements.
Ensure that construction and demolition debris is managed in
an environmentally sound manner by privately owned landfills
via enforcement of construction and demolition debris handling
requirements contained in county code.
County
26-s
County cities*
28-s
County*
29-s
Countf
27-s
lnvolve the Vashon/Maury lsland community and service providers to
develop the appropriate type of recycling services provided curbside
and at the transfer station. lnclude Vashon in the county's collection
service standards for curbside services.
Explore options to increase the efficiency and reduce the price of
curbside and multi-family collection of bulky items, while diverting as
many items as possible for reuse or recycling.
30-s
County, UTC
3l -s
Citiel county
32-s
Cities, countf
Att A Page 81
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Action
Make recycling at multi-family complexes convenient by
implementing best practices.
Detailed
Discussion
Page4-29
Page 4-33
Page 4-33
Page 4-30
Page 4-30
Consider improvements to single-family collection services in the
unincorporated area to increase the recycling rate.
lnclude non-residential recycling services in city contracts (consistent
with state law).
Consider implementing an incentive-based rate structure for non-
residential garbage customers to encourage recycling.
Update and enforce building code requirements to ensure adequate
and conveniently located space for garbage, recycling, and organics
collection containers in multi-family, commercial, and mixed-use
buildings.
Action
Number and
Responsibility
33-s
County, UTC
36-s
County, cities
37-s
County, cities
34-s
Cities
35-s
Cities
Att A Page 82
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
a;lazft:,le M aterLals Management
ln 1989, the state adopted the Waste Not Washington Act, making waste prevention and recycling the preferred
method of managing solid waste and requiring jurisdictions to provide curbside recycling services to all residents
living in urban areas. ln King County, the division, cities, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC),
and solid waste collection companies worked together to launch a coordinated system for curbside collection of
recyclables throughout the region. Working together over the last almost 30 years, both the public and private
sectors have taken the region well beyond curbside recycling by creating myriad programs and services that foster
the recycling and reuse of materials that might otherwise be thrown away and, more importantly, that prevent waste
from being created in the first place.
Since the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted, the collection system in the region has
evolved significantly.The number of materials that can be recycled or processed for recycling and reuse has increased,
technologies for collecting materials have improved, and participation in curbside recycling has continued to climb.
Along with the growth of recycling in the region, however, comes issues that could potentially impact how much and
what materials are recycled. Since inception of the waste reduction and recycling programs, markets and processing
capacity for materials have fluctuated. Recent issues such as China's restrictions on multiple materials markets,
contamination of recyclables and organics, and almost reaching local capacity to process organic materials, are
testing the system's resilience. Working through these challenges with the cities and local haulers and processors will
ultimately strengthen recycling, collection and processing in the region.
Two key developments have added to the increase of materials collected
in single-family residential curbside recycling in the region. First is the
transition to commingled (or single-stream) collection. Since 2001,
the collection companies have transitioned to commingled recycling,
whereby allthe recyclable materials are placed in one large cart for
curbside pickup.
A second development is the addition of food scraps and food-soiled
paper to yardwaste collected curbside. ln 2001, the division began
working with cities and collection companies to phase in curbside
collection of food scraps and food-soiled paper in the yard waste
(organics) cart. Compostable food scraps and food-soiled paper, which
currently make up about one-third of the waste disposed by single-family
residents, include all fruit vegetable, meat, dairy products, pastas, grains,
breads, and soiled paper used in food preparation or handling (such as
paper towels). Food and yard waste, either separated or commingled,
are referred to as organics. Nearly 'l 00 percent of single-family customers
who subscribe to garbage collection now have access to curbside food
scrap collection. OnlyVashon lsland and the Skykomish and Snoqualmie
Pass areas, which house less than one percent of the county's residents,
do not have this service.
Food scraps can be collected in small
containers lined with compostable bags to
make it easier to recycle
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Plan -zotS
Att A Page 83
4-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
ln addition to these major developments, programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design*
and Built Green* are encouraging the building community to focus on waste prevention, recycling, and reuse of
construction and demolition debris and helping to stimulate markets for the recycling and reuse of construction and
demolition materials.
ln the 1980s, projections indicated that with the growing population and economy in the region, the amount of
garbage that residents of King County would throw away would continue to climb steeply. Through the efforts of the
county and area cities, businesses, and individual citizens, the amount of garbage disposed per resident per week
dropped from 35 pounds in the 1 980s to 1 5.2 pounds in 201 4-a reduction of almost 57 percent. This reduction in
disposal has contributed to extending the life of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (Cedar Hills) by more than 20 years.
Yet even with the increased recycling and waste prevention seen over the years, recent waste characterization
studies conducted by the division indicate that about 70 percent of all materials disposed in the landfill are resources
that could have been recycled or reused. As discussed in this chapter, identifying what these materials are and who
generates them can help us determine where future efforts should be focused to achieve ongoing improvements.
Concentrating efforts on a particular class of waste generator (e.9., residential or business) or commodity type
can yield measurable results. Four categories of information, discussed in detail herein, can be used to evaluate
the current status of waste prevention and recycling efforts and help develop strategies that will lead to future
improvements:
1. Waste prevention programs achieving results in the region.
2. Recycling and disposal rates by type of waste generator (discussed in Chapter 3, Forecast and Data), including
. Single-family (up to 4 units) and multi-family residents (in some cities may include townhomes),
. Non-residential generators, such as businesses, institutions, and government entities,
. Self-haulers, both residents and businesses, who bring materials to division transfer facilities, and
. Generators of construction and demolition debris.
3.Types and quantities of recyclable or reusable commodities that remain in the waste stream, such as food scraps,
clean wood, metals, and paper.
4.The status of markets for recyclable materials, availability of take-back options for used products, and opportunities
to partner with private-sector businesses, national coalitions, and other jurisdictions to effect change.
lnformation from these four categories was used to shape the goals and recommended actions presented in this
chapter. To set the stage, this chapter begins with a description of the benefits of recycling and a discussion of our
regional goals for the future. From there the focus moves to ways to sustain the momentum by looking at additional
waste prevention, resource conservation, recycling, and product stewardship opportunities. The chapter concludes
with a discussion of the status and challenges of collection by customer type.
Benefits of Recycling Efforts
The regional commitment to recycling has many benefits-financial, social, and environmental. Financial benefits
are probably the most immediate for many county residents and businesses. Convenient recycling services not
only provide an alternative to the higher cost of disposal, but also provide a long-term significant cost savings for
ratepayers by increasing the lifespan of Cedar Hills. As discussed in Chapter 6, Landfill Management and SolidWaste
Disposal, Cedar Hills landfill is a more cost-effective means of disposal than the other disposal alternatives currently
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zod4-2
Att A Page 84
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17 ,2019
available. After Cedar Hills reaches capacity and closes, minimizing the amount of waste that requires disposal will
translate directly into lower fees for King County ratepayers.
The social benefits of recycling can be described in terms of economic arowth and job creation. Materials diverted
from Cedar Hills for recycling must be sorted, processed, and transported. The 201 6 Recycling Economic lnformation
(REl) Report (EPA,2016) includes
information about the recycling jobs, wages,
and tax revenue benefits. The report shows
that recycling and reuse of materials creates
jobs, while also generating local and state
tax revenues.ln2007, recycling and reuse
activities in the United States accounted for;
.757,000jobs,
. 536.6 billion in wages, and
. 50.1billion in tax revenues.
This equates to 1 .57 jobs for every 1,000
tons of materials recycled. Construction and
demolition debris recycling provides the
Iargest contribution to allthree categories
(job wage and tax revenue), followed by
ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals such
as aluminum.
The Recology Store is a place to both recycle items and to purchase items
made from recycled materials (Photo courtesy of Recology CleanScapes)
The positive environmental benefits of recycling are local and ultimately global. Environmental benefits are focused in
two primary areal both of which have wide-reaching and long-term impacts. First, the release of pollutants emitted
during the production and disposal of products is decreased, reducing the potential for harm to human health and
the environment. Second, savings in energy use and associated reduced greenhouse gas emissions will result from
decreased demand to process virgin materials into products, which also contributes to a healthier planet. Figure
4-1 illustrates a circular supply loop. The figure graphically shows the opportunities, values, and benefits of organics
recycling in King County.
Goal and Targets
The goal and targets for waste prevention and recycling were established through extensive discussions with the
division's advisory committees: the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and the Metropolitan Solid Waste
Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC).The countywide goal and targets are intended to improve the
effectiveness of established waste prevention and recycling efforts.The recommended actions for implementation
presented at the beginning of this chapter were developed to provide general strategies for meeting the goal and
targets and to identiff the agency or agencies that would lead those efforts. The recommended actions are intended
to serve as a guideline for the county and cities.They do not preclude other innovative approaches that may be
implemented to help achieve the goal and targets.
Factors other than waste prevention and recycling programs and services can increase or decrease the overall amount
of waste generated. For example, the 2007 economic recession resulted in significan! unanticipated reductions in
garbage collected, stemming primarily from the drop in consumer spending and business activity in the region. When
establishing the goal and targets and measuring success in meeting them, it is important to consider the economy,
policy changes, and other factors that may be in play.
4-3zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 85
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Figure 4-1 Organics: Opportunities, values, and benefits in King County
Food, yard, and wood wastes:
Opportunities, values, and
benefits in King County
2015
To Landfill
341,200tons
(approxlmately4S%)
We reduced GHG cmlsslons by
!,730 MTCO2er by hndfllllng
Represents $11.5 mlllion in
economlc, envlronmentrl and
heelth costs
Organics in the landfill produce
methang most of which is
captured and converted to
natural gar
to
Organics recycling retains useful materials in the economy, creates
new job opportunities, converts a would-be waste into beneficial,
marketable products for farmers and gardeners, reduces the need
for petroleum-based chemicals and fertilizers, improves nutrient
recycling, and reduces the impacts from disposal.
Portion
returns to
production
To Products
I
To
food banks
tofeed people
1O000tons
Conservative estimate of
surplus, perishable food
rescued by hunger
relieforganizations.
farms
tofeed
llvestock
from Organics
Processing
To Resource Recovery
361,000tons
(approxlmately 52%)
Wr nduced GHG cnlrrions by67,680MTCO2o bycompostlng l
Nearly all organlcs currently collected for processing go to
compostlng facilities.
Othrr procesdng technologles for organics include
anaeroblc dlgestioo blochar. and co-digestion
with biosolids. *meffictonsof
ca rb o n d i oxi d e e qu iva I e nt
- Currant -
soll-bulldlng
mulch, compost, fertilizer
Gnelgy
fuels, heat
comtructlon mrterials
engineeredwood
- Potentirl -
anlmal feed soap,and
others
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zofi
Collection
Processing
Prevention
Reuse,repurpose, :
Production
plants, animals
Generation
disposed + recycled
702,000 tons
Product
Markets
home composting,
repair, and share
4-4
Att A Page 86
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Waste Prevention and Recycling Goal and Targets
Achieve Zero Waste of Resources - i.e., eliminate the disposal of materials with economic value - by 2030
through a combination of efforts in the following order of priority: waste prevention and reuse; product
stewardship, recycling, and composting, and beneficial use.
Per Capita - 20.4 poundslweek
This target addresses residential waste from single- and multi-family homes.
Per Employee - 42.2 poundslweek
This target addresses waste from the non-residential sector.
Reductions in disposal over time indicate an increase in waste prevention and/or recycling.
Per Capita - 5.1 poundslweek
This target addresses residential waste from both single- and multi-family homes.
Per Employee - 4.1 poundslweek
This target addresses waste from the non-residential sector,
Establishing waste prevention targets and measuring success in achieving them is a challenge, because data
quantiffing the amount of waste not generated is difficult to obtain. However, by tracking overall waste
generation (tons of material disposed + tons recycled) over the years, King County can attempt to identiff regional
trends in waste prevention. A decline in waste generation means that the overall amount of materials disposed
or recycled, or both, has been reduced.The county also uses data from reuse and repair, building salvage
commercial food waste prevention grants, catalog/junk mail/phone book opt-outs, and material efficiencies
spurred by product stewardship, to help determine whether waste prevention progress is being made.
Recycling will continue to be an important strategy to reduce the disposal of solid waste.The recycling goal
combines single-family, multi-family, non-residential, and self-haul recycling activity. lt addresses the amount
of waste being diverted from disposal at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill to recycling. lt does not include
construction and demolition debris (which have separate recycling goals), or other wastet such as car bodies,
which are not typically handled through the county system. ln 2015, the overall recycling rate for the county
was 54 percent.
The goal for this planning period reflects the estimated recycling rate achievable if the recommended
strategies in this plan are fully implemented (see Figure 4-3).
Overall interim recycling goal: 70 percent
OverallWaste Prevention and Recycling Goal
Waste generation rates to be achieved by 2030
Waste DisposalTargets to be achieved by 203O
Waste Prevention Targets
Recycling Target
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufi zot8
Att A Page 87
4-5
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
ttF-
What isYour Recycling Rate? lt Depends on WhatYou Count.
Currently, there are no state or national standards for what should be counted in the"recycling rate"
for a city or county. As a result, recycling rates reported by various jurisdictions may include different
materials. For examplg the recycling rate reported by some jurisdictions includes many materials
that are not managed as a part of the county's system, so they are not included in establishing the
county's recycling rate.This includes construction and demolition debris, asphalt and concrete,
auto bodies, and biosolids. Many of these materials are very heavy and can considerably increase a
recycling rate based on tons. ln addition, some jurisdictions add percentage points to their recycling
rate to account for the estimated success of their waste prevention efforts.
The division has chosen to calculate King County's recycling rate based on the known amount of
materials diverted from disposal at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. As such, it does not include
materials such as construction and demolition debris or car bodies that are handled largely by the
private sector. Neither does the division include any estimate of waste prevention, primarily because
of the lack of measurable data.
For example, based on the definition above, the countyt recycling rate in 2014 was 52 percent.
Adding recycled asphalt and concrete would raise the calculated rate to approximately 62 percent.
The rate would have been higher still if hard-to-measure materials such as car bodies and land
clearing debris were added.
Given the various methods for calculating a recycling rate, it is important to understand what
materials are being counted before comparing rates across jurisdictions.
Figure 4-2. Recycling rate over time
LOOo/o
90%
8A%
70%
60%
so%
40%
30%
20%
too/o
o%
Goal
NationalAverage Recycling Rate (2014) = 356/o
Regional Commitment to Single Stream Recycling
1990 1995 2006 ZOOT 2008 2009 2010 20Lt20I2 201.3 2014 2015
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS4-6
Att A Page 88
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
As can be seen in Figure 4-2, the recycling rate has stalled, even as waste generation has increased in recent years. The role
of individual cities will be critical in reaching our countywide waste prevention and recycling goal and targets.The way
in which each city contributes to the overall goal and targett however, may vary depending on the city's demographic
make-up and other factors. For examplq a city with a large concentration of apartments and condominiums might focus
more efforts on programs for multi-family residents.
Communities with primarily single-family homes
might focus education and promotion on food scrap
recycling for their residents.
Another factor cities may consider is the make-up
of their business (or non-residential) sectors. Cities
with many restaurants, grocers, or other.food-
related businesses might look at ways to promote
the recycling offood scraps or to partner these
businesses with local food banks to donate surplus
food to those in need. Similarly, cities with booming
construction activity may want to take advantage of
markets for the recycling and reuse of construction
and demolition materials.
Westwood Help Stop Food Waste campaign
Likewise, the county will consider the make-up of
the unincorporated area in which to focus waste
prevention and recycling efforts.
The county and the cities lead by example to improve waste prevention and recycling in their respective operations,
at their facilities, and at sponsored events, for instance:
. Some cities have held their own zero waste events and picnics,
. Thd county and many cities collect food scraps and food-soiled paper at their offices and associated sites, and
. The county enacted an ordinance to purchase copy paper that is 1 00 percent recycled content and reduce paper
use by 20 percent.
Figure 4-3 provides an example of how the region could reach a 70 percent recycling goal by collectively
implementing mandatory recycling programs.
Figure 4-3. One approach of regional cooperation toward
70o/o rec\cling goal using collective mandatory actions
1.6Vo
1.Oo/o /
'vi#-jli:=I ruon- | Family
I Residential
Mandatory Separation Recycling
lffi tffi-
I r.niiryO.5o/o I
tx."J*lffi-
Iffi
I ramily
2.5Vo ^1
lffi1.8o/o "l
lvlandatory
Sepantlon
Carpet,
lirer,
Mattlerses,
Asphalt
Shlngles,
Gypsum
Every
Other
Week
Collection
3.2Vo I
4.5o/o ./
Mandatory S€paration Food
ililandatory .
Separatlon
Woo4
Metal,
Cardboard,
Paper,Yard
Waste
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zotS
Aft A Page 89
4-7
Ordinance 18893 Updated April17,2019
Tools Used to Meet the Recommended Goal and Targets
The division and the cities have various tools at their disposal to promote waste prevention and increase recycling.
Table 4-1 below identifies these tools and cites some of the successes achieved through their use.
Table 4-1. Examples of successes achieved using various tools
zotg Compre/sensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zofi
lnfrastructure
Establishing the collection and
processing infrastructure is always
the first step. lt can be accomplished
through enhanced curbside collection
services, additional recycling options
at transfer facilities, and partnershi ps
with private-sector processing facil ities
and manufacturers/retailers, e.9., to
develop take-back programs.
New transfer facilities are being designed with dedicated areas for
recyclable materials such as yard waste, clean wood, and scrap metal.
Approximately 99 percent of single-family curbside collection customers
have access to collection service for food scraps and food+oiled paper,
along with the yard waste.
Through E-Cyde Washington electronics manufacturers have developed a
statewide network of locations for recycling televisions, computers, and
monitors. Likewise LightRecycle Washington established a network to
collect mercury-containing lights.
Educatlon and
promotlon
Educational programs and targeted
advertising play a key role in initiating
new programs and sustaining the
momentum of existing programs.
These efforts can be tailored to specific
waste generators or materials.
The division's Green Tools team provides education, resources, and technical
assistance on how to manage construction and demolition debris as a
resource rather than a waste.
Many cities provide assistance to businesses to establish and maintain
recycling programs. EnviroStars Green Business Program is a free program
that offers rebatel resources, and incentives to businesses who take action
to protect the environment and employee health and safety. Bellevue,
Kirkland and King County are founding members.
lncentives
lncentives encourage recycling.
For example, in a pay-as-you-throw
(or variable rate) type program, if a
customer generates less garbage, they
need a smaller garbage container, which
means a lower charge on their garbage
bill. lncentives can also take the form
of a give-away item that makes waste
prevention and recycling easier.
To encourage waste prevention and recycling, curbside garbage collection
fees increase with the size of garbage can that customers subscribe
to creating a "pay as you throw" (or variable rate) system. ln addition,
embedding recycling in the rate can also act as an incentive.
Some cities provide kitchen containers and sample compostable bags to
encourage residents to recycle their food scraps.
Tool SuccessesApplieation
4-8
Att A Page 90
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Mandates
Mandates that restrict the disposal of
specific materials have proven effective
in increasing recycling, particularly in
instances where there is a viable and
developed recycling market for those
materials. Mandates can be legislated
at the local, state, or federal level, or
implemented through city contracts.
ln order to discourage disposal ofyard waste, its disposal in curbside
garbage has been prohibited since 1993.
ln 2005, fluorescent lights and many electronics were prohibited from
disposal at King (ounty transfer stations to encourage the recycling of
these items and use oftheTake lt Back Network
http://www.kingcoung.gov/depts/dnrpholid-woste/programs/take-it-back.
qspx.
To increase recycling, the division requires self-haulers to separate their
materials at county transfer stations. Starting in 2018, cardboard, metal,
yard waste, and clean wood is banned from disposal at transfer stations
that provide recycling services for these materials.
Enforccment
Enforcement of program rules msures
that materials are recycled or disposed
of properly.
The construction and demolition debris program employs a King County
sheriffto enforce the recycling and disposal rules for construction and
demolition materials. 0utreach and progressive fines are issued to violators
to encourage them to learn how the materials should be handled.
Partnerchlps
Paftnerships enable a program to
be amplified by bringing in other
organizations or agencies to assist with
the program
Product stewardship efforts rely on partnerships to implement programs.
The division routinely partners with other organizations to further product
stewardship goals through the Northwest Product Stewardship Council.
Tool SuccessesApplication
The successful diversion of residential yard waste from disposal exemplifies the effective use of four of these tools.
First, an infrastructure was created to make it easy to separate yard waste from garbage. Curbside collection
programs were implemented in phases across the county, easy-to-use wheeled collection containers were provided
to residents, and private-sector businesses began turning the collected yard waste into compost for building healthy
soils.
Promotions were used to inform residents of
the availability of curbside collection as the
service was phased in. Educational campaigns
were launched to teach citizens how to compost
yard waste from their own yards for use as a
soil amendment. Because the cost of collecting
yard waste for composting was less than the
cost of disposal in the garbage, residents had an
incentive to subscribe to yard waste collection
service. Many cities provided an additional
Food:Too Good to Waste campaign shares information
with consumers about how to purchase
and store food to minimize waste
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zot8
Att A Page 91
4-9
Ordinance 18893 Updated Aoril 17. 2019
incentive by including yard waste collection as part of their basic package of collection services at the curb. Finally,
mandates were passed by the cities and the county to prohibit residents from disposing of yard waste in the garbage
wherever separate curbside yard waste collection was available. The resulting collection system for yard waste
successfully recycled almost 96 percent of the yard waste disposed by single-family residents in 2015.
Taking a Sustainable Materials Management Approach
The following discussion describes a different way to look at the waste prevention and recycling programs and
activities already in place. lt describes the advantages of a sustainable materials management approach that
encompasses the full life-cycle of materials: design and manufacturing, use and reuse, and end-of-life.
Figure 4-4 graphically depicts the sustainable materials management approach. This approach has been adopted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as the Washington State Department of Ecology in the last
update of the state solid waste plan (Ecology 2015). Sustainable materials management stillfocuses on recycling and
disposal, but by including production, design, use, and reuse, it provides an opportunity to identify more resilien!
sustainable ways to design products that prioritize durability and recyclability, and use less energy, water, and toxics.
Figure 4-4. Materials life cycle
Source: Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics, 20 I 5
Management Plan -JuQ zotS
C\no
9en$
It,a
of,life
ernent
4-10 zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste
Aft A Page 92
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17 ,2019
Decisions to reduce waste can be made at several critical stages in a product's life cycle, helping to develop a circular
supply loop:
. When manufacturers decide what goods to produce, how to design them, how to produce them, and how to
package them,
. When consumers decide whether and what to purchase, and
. When consumers adopt ways to use and reuse products more efficiently.
The following sections provide examples of programs in the different phases of sustainable materials management.
Design and Production
Food: Too Good to Waste - This program educates consumers on ways to prevent wasting food. When food is
wasted, it also wastes all the water and energy used to produce, package and transport it from the farm to table. ln
addition, about 33 percent of the single-family garbage disposed at Cedar Hills is food, which significantly reduces
landfill capacity and life.
Green Schools Food Waste Reduction and Food Share - The King County Green Schools Program assists schools
and school districts to reduce wasted food through a number of strategies:
. Encourage students to take what they will eat and eat what they take,. Set up cafeteria share tables on which students may place or take unopened, packaged foods and drinks from
the school lunch program, and
. Donate unopened, packaged items and uneaten whole fruits that cannot be re-served to students.
The goals of the School Food Share program are to minimize wasted foods and beverages and safely distribute
unwanted items from school lunch programs to local food banks and meal programs.
Use and Reuse
Threadcycle is a public education
campaign sponsored by King County and
Seattle Public Utilities that encourages
residents to donate used clothing, shoes,
and linens for reuse or recycling. Local
thrift stores and other organizations are
partners in the program and will take all
clothing, shoes, and linens regardless
of condition (except items that are
wet, mildewed, or contaminated with
hazardous materials).
The EcoConsumer public outreach
program sponsors Repair Groups and Repair€roup event provides an opportunity for resldents to bring in broken
events. Each repair event or group items for repair
operates differently, based on the needs of
the local community. lt might be a one-time event, or they may be held every few months. People can bring to these
events household items including small furniture, small appliances, personal electronics, and clothing that need to be
repaired. Experienced all-purpose fixers and sewing fixers will work on the items, and can also help residents to learn
to do their own repair.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zotS
Aft A Page 93
4-11
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 20'19
il!+-
Waste Prevention, Recycling and Climate Change
The purchase, use, and disposal of goods and services by King County residents, businesset and
governments are associated with significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emissions can occur
at all stages of a productt life - from resource extraction, farming, manufacturing, processing,
transportation, sale, use, and disposal. ln 2008, consumption-related GHG emissions in King County
totaled more than 55 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) - more than
double the emissions produced within the county's geographic boundaries (King County 2012).
As a major employer and service provider in the region, King County government is also a major
consumer of goods and services.These goods and services - especially construction-related
services - account for 27O,O0O MTCO2q or about 42 percent of the County's operations-related GHG
emissions (King County 2012).
Residents, businesses, and governments can reduce GHG emissions associated with goods and
services by choosing sustainable optiont reducing the amount they purchasq reusing and repairing
goods when possible, and recycling after use. King County is involved in these efforts through the
solid waste management services and procurement efforts that the county provides, as well as
through the county's efforts to educate residents and businesses about ways to use less and recycle
more.The county is also taking a number of steps to reduce the environmental footprint of the
products used in government operations and to reuse previously wasted resources.
Recycllng outreach - The Solid Waste Division3 Rerycle More - lt's Easy to Do campaign promotes
basic recycling of curbside materials, food scraps and yard waste. Other programs that support
increased recycling and waste prevention include the Green Schools Program, which supports
conservation in schools.
Recycling infrastructure - ln King County in 2010, about 832,000 tons of recyclable materials were
collected by private hauling companies at the curb and about 10,000 tons were collected at King
County transfer stations.Turning this waste into resources resulted in the reduction of approximately
1.6 million MTCO2e of GHG emissions.
Reusing resources - King County is helping develop, expand, and support markets for reused and
recycled products.The LinkUp program has expanded markets for recyclable and reusable materials
such as asphalt shingles, mattresset and textiles.The EcoConsumer program has expanded reuse by
promoting and supporting tool lending library projects in the county.
End-of-Life Ma nagement
Product stewardship is a life-cycle approach that is being implemented at the state, national and international levels.
ln practice, the product manufacturers - not government or ratepayers - take responsibility for their products"cradle
to cradle;" This means that manufacturers are given the authority to finance and provide for the collection, recycling
and/or proper management of their products at the end of the product's life cycle.
Management PIan -Jufu zotS4-12 zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste
Att A Page 94
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
The division is on the steering committee of the Northwest Product Stewardship Council (NWPSC) and has been
participating in the development of product stewardship strategies for commodities that contain toxic materials or
are difficult and expensive to manage, such as paint, carpe! mercury thermostats, rechargeable batteries, mattresses,
junk mail, and telephone books.
The division and NWPSC were instrumental in getting state legislation adopted to implement the E-Cycle Washington
and LightRecycle Washington extended producer responsibility programs. Both programs provide drop-off sites for
consumers to take their electronics and mercury-containing lights. The division also worked to get a secure medicine
return program implemented in King County. The program started in February 2017, and has approximately 100
locations where residents can securely dispose of unused medications.
What do I do with...? Hundreds of thousands of visitors use this application annually to find recycling, reuse, and
disposal options. Businesses and organizations maintain their listing of the materials and products they recycle, reuse,
or dispose of as a requirement of being included as a partner on this high traffic division website. One of the oldest
recycling databases in the country, What do I do with...? has evolved over almost twenty years from a printed paper
directory to a modern, mobile friendly application.The most searched-for materials are consistently: Appliances,
Batteries, Construction / Demolition Debris, Electronics, and Furniture. The division constantly seek to refine and
improve the What do I do with...? website, which currently provides information on over 100 materials.
Turning Wastes to
Resou rces
ln 2004, King County adopted "Zero Waste
of Resources"as a principle designed to
eliminate the disposal of materials with
economic value. Zero Waste does not
mean that no waste will be disposed; it
proposes that maximum feasible and
cost-effective efforts be made to prevent,
reuse, and reduce waste. The division
has been taking steps to eliminate the
disposal of materials that have economic
value and for which there are viable
markets.
King County's list of designated
recyclables is defined and updated by
Ecology's annual statewide survey of
materials that have been recycled in
Washington. The current list is shown in
Table 4-2:
Recicla Mas Facilitadores or facilitators of recycling teach recycling and
composting basics at a community event in King County
,l
.-t-trtm.F*
-i
.19:t I
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zofi
Att A Page 95
4-13
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Table 4-2. Designated recyclables
1 Plate glas is not accepted in curbside prcgrams.
2 Biodegradable plattic products must be approved by organia processing fadlity receiving the material.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid W'aste Management PIan -Ju/1 zot8
Carpetand Pad Carpet and pad remnants.
CleanWood Unpainted and untreated wood, including wood from construction and demolition projects, and pallets.
Construction and
DemolitionDebfis
Recyclable and n0n-recyclable materials that result from construction, remodeling, repair or demolition
of buildings, loads, or other structures and requires removal from the site of construction or demolition.
(onstruction and demolition debris does not include land clearing materials such as soil, rock, and vegetation.
Electronics lncludes audio and video equipment, cellular telephones, circuit boards, computer monitors, pdnters and
peripherals, computers and laptops, copier, and fax machines, PDAs, pagers, tapes and discs, and televisions.
Furniturc lncludes mattresses and box springs, upholstered and other furniture, reusable household and office goods.
Glass Oean glass containers and plate glast.
Metal
Clean ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including tin-plated steel cans, aluminum cans, aerosol cans, auto
bodies, bicycles and bicycle parts, appliances, propane tank, and other mixed materials that are primarily
made of metal.
Moderate RiskWaste
Moderate risk waste from households and small quantig commercial generators, including antifreeze,
household batteries, vehicle and marine batteries, brake fluid, fluorescent lights, oil-based paint,
thermometers and thermostats, used oil, and oilfilters.
Oryanics Food scraps and food-soiled paper; fatl oils, and grease (F0G); biodegradable plastic kitchenware and bagf;
yard waste, woody materials under 4 inches in diameter; and stable waste (animal manure and bedding).
Other Matefials lncludes latex paint, toner and ink cartridges, photographic film, tires, and other materials reported as
recycled to the Department of Ecology in response to annual recycling surveys.
Paper All clean, dry paper including printing and writing paper, cardboard, boxboard, newspaper, mixed paper, and
aseptic and poly-coated paper containers.
Plastic All clean, single-resin plastic numbers 1 through 7, including containerg bags, and film (wrap).
Textiles lncludes rags, clothing and shoes, upholstery, cultains, and small rugs.
lncludesCategory
4-14
Aft A Page 96
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
While the list of recyclable materials is extensive, available markets and infrastructure can vary from region to region
The division prioritizes materials for recycling in King County based on four key factors:
. The amount present in the waste stream,
. The ability to handle the material - both collection and processing,
. Viable and sustainable markets for the material, and
. Environmental considerations.
These factors are also used to determine the appropriate method for capturing the materials, i.e., through curbside
collection or at county transfer facilities.The division may also consider other technologies such as anaerobic
digestion or demonstration projects of other evolving technologies that promote resource recovery as ways to recycle
or reuse materials. Since the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was issued, the list of materials that
are being recycled has grown substantially.
ln2O17, over 931,000 tons of solid waste were disposed at Cedar Hills. As shown in Figure 4-5, at least limited options
in the market exist for the recycling of about 70 percent of the materials disposed.
Figure 4-5. Recycling potential of materials disposed in 2015
! Readily Recyclable
I Umited Recyclabitiy
O ruot Recyclable
For years, the Pacific Northwest has relied almost exclusively on exporting recyclable paper and plastics to China
for processing. ln early 2018, however, China made the specification for contamination so low (0.5 percent) that
it is extremely difficult to meet, essentially banning the import of 24 recyclable commodities, including unsorted
paper and mixed #3 - #7 plastic. Recyclable materials entering recycling facilities may be contaminated for a variety
of reasons, including commingling the materials in one bin, new packaging typet and resident confusion. Some
materials being collected as part of the approved recyclables list have no markets, contaminate other valuable
recyclable material, and/or create problems in the processing system (examples include plastic bags, poly-coated
paper, cartons and aseptic packaging). China's ban is intended to crack down on illegal smuggling of foreign waste
brought in under the guise of recycling, improve environmental quality, and reduce the volume of contaminated
recyclables legally brought into the country.
ln response, agencies, cities, and haulers in King County have formed the Responsible Recycling Task Force (Task
Force).TheTask Force will identiff common ground for advancing recycling given China's restrictions on acceptable
recyclables, focusing on short-, mid- and long-term actions.Tenants of responsible recycling include:
8o/o
3oa/o
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -Ju$ zotS
Att A Page 97
4-15
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
. Focus on the quality and quantity of recyclables, including reducing contamination,
. Use consistent and harmonized messaging across the region,
. Prioritize domestic processing and markets for recyclables (including the socialjustice and environmental
impacts of export),
. Create domestic demand for recycled feedstock,
. Understand that responsible recycling is not free, and
. Shift to measure recyclables that are made into new products.
While this issue presents a policy challenge for the region, it offers an opportunity to improve on recycling in the
region, reeducate the public on recycling best practices, reduce contamination, and reinforce waste prevention
messaging.
Priority Materials
The following sections describe priority materials identified by the division for recycling through curbside collection
and at county transfer facilities.
Priority Materials for Curbside Collection
Over time, new materials that can be efficiently and cost-effectively captured for recycling are added to curbside
collection programs. Adding materials for curbside collection requires sufficient infrastructure for collection and
processing, and viable and sustainable end use markets. Standardizing the materials collected across the county
simplifies recycling education, reduces confusion among consumers as to what is recyclable, and increases collection
efficiency. However, all materials listed as priorities are not required to be recycled in all city programs.
When the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted, materials collected at the curb included
newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, plastic bottles, tin and aluminum cans, glass bottles and jars, and yard waste.
Materials added since that time include food scraps and food-soiled paper; aerosol cans; small scrap metal; plastic
jugs and tubs; plastic plant pots, trays, and clamshells; plastic and paper drink cups; and aseptic containers.
Orga n ics
More than one-third of what gets disposed at Cedar Hills landfill is food scraps and food-soiled paper. Collection and
processing of these food scraps is critical to meet the county's ambitious waste diversion targets and climate change
goals. There is also a growing effort to capture a large portion of the food scraps that are still considered to be edible.
A recent division study of service management businesses and restaurants in King County (Cascadia 2017b) estimated
that approximately three-quarters of the food scraps these businesses generated was edible food. Significant
opportunities remain to reduce and prevent the tons of food scraps that are disposed.
Commercial haulers throughout King County offer organics collection to both residential and commercial customers.
Nearly all single-family households (99 percent) in King County have access to curbside organics collection that
includes food scraps and food-soiled paper products. Unpackaged food scraps and approved compostable
paper products can be collected along with yard waste in the same containers. King County and many cities have
implemented public education and outreach campaigns to promote and increase participation in food scrap
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zotS4-16
Aft A Page 98
Ordinance 18893 Updated 4pn117,2019
diversion through curbside organics collection.The division also funded a grant program to promote commercial
food scraps recycling. While participation rates appear to be increasing, there remains room for improvement.
Challenges to food scraps collection include customer access (such as at multi-family residential units where organics
collection is not required or offered by property management), participation levels in diversion programs, political
and institutional barriers, and the level of contamination of the organics collected. As collection of organics increases
it will be essential to ensure adequate regional processing capacity and reduced contamination of material.The
division is actively working with regional partners to:
Engage in long-range planning to increase organics processing capacity,
Encourage greater use of compost, and
Encourage operational changes at processing facilities to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community.
Priority Materials for Collection at King CountyTransfer Facilities
The division has identified several priority materials to collect at alltransfer stations once they are renovated or replaced:. Yard and wood waste,
. Cardboard,
. Clean wood (not treated or painted), and
. Scrap metal.
Some materials designated for curbside collection and/or as priority materials for transfer station collection are also
collected by private-sector businesses.
Markets for Recyclable Materials
LinkUp - Expanding Markets for Recyclable
and Reusable Materials
Market development is an important strategy to ensure that recyclable
materials are successfully moving from waste to resource.The division
is working to expand markets for recyclable and reusable materials
and facilitate the infrastructure that supports those markets, through
its LinkUp Program. Working with businesses, public agencies, and
other organizations, LinkUp develops projects that address specific
market barriers (from collection to processing to end-use) that prevent
or restrict a material or product from moving up the value chain for
ultimate reuse or use as a raw material for manufacturing new products.
ln recent years, LinkUp has conducted projects to improve markets for
asphalt shingles, carpet mattresses, compost, and textiles. Projects
have supported efforts, such as the development of collection and
processins infrastructure for asphatt roofins shinstes, carpet, and ff5:"jjXX|r*;lsJiltrfllitili.3!?,.n
mattresses; establishment of the hot mix asphalt pavement market for Shown here are asphalt shingles usedln
asphalt shingles; expansion of the Take it Back Network to include latex paving roads
paint, and promotion of the network to the public; public education
to promote donation of damaged textiles for reuse or recycling; and
demonstration of the use of compost for agricultural applications by King County farmers.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zotS
Aft A Page 99
4-17
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17.2019
2015 and 201 7 Market Assessments
ln 2015 and 2017, Cascadia Consulting Group conducted market assessments for the division that focused on
commingled curbside recyclables, organics, electronics, film plastics, and construction and demolition materials
(Cascadia 2015b and Cascadia 2017).
First, Cascadia conducted a preliminary analysis and ranking of potential focus materials. Evaluation metrics included
disposed tons, disposed volume, GHG emissions if recycled rather than landfilled, ability to influence the county's
recycling rate, and market strength.Table 4-3 shows the results of the preliminary analysis and ranking.
Table 4-3. Findings from 2015 and 2017 market assessments
* Materials for which the division is already engaging in market support through the LinkUp program.
Cascadia then conducted "mini assessments"of the top six ranked materials, combining two categories of electronics,
and excluding textiles and mattresses, for which the division already has market support efforts underway. Findings
from these studies, which looked at the material supply for recycling, processing capacity, and current markets,
included:
. Markets for commingled curbside recyclables, including paper, plastics, glass, and metals were generally stable
in 201 5. However, China's 201 8 implementation of their "National Sword" policy to restrict the importation of
mixed paper and mixed #3-#7 plastics has resulted in the immediate closure of a significant market for these
recyclable materials. Annually, around 138,000 tons of these recyclable materials from King County that would
normally go to China now need to be processed elsewhere. At this time, alternative export and domestic
markets for mixed paper and mixed plastics are extremely limited. Food scraps and plastic film/wrap are the
biggest contamination challenge in curbside commingled recycling.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju\ zotS
High
Food and food*oiled paper*
Clean wood
Textiles*
Film plastic (same score as textiles)
Medium
Electronia (covered by E-Cyde)
#3-7 plastics
Mattresses* (same score as #3-7 plastics)
Clean (new) gypsum
Electronics (not covered by E-Cyde)
Asphalt Shingles*
Carpet
Low
Treated wood
Painted (demo) gypsum
Tires
Overall Ranking Materials
+18
Att A Page 100
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
. Almost all organic materials collected within the King County system are being converted into compost
products, which are primarily used as soil amendments. Anaerobic digestion (a biological process that
transforms organic waste into renewable energy, and in some situations, a useable residual by-product) is an
emerging processing technology in the region. More organics processing capacity is likely needed if there are
to be significant increases in food scraps and food-soiled paper composting in King County and surrounding
regions (See Chapter 5 for more information about processing capacity). Market prices and sales of compost
products are reported to be stable. Expanding agricultural compost markets is of interest.
. Wood and plastic films have significant barriers to successful recycling. Wood markets are stable but weak and
highly dependent on use as hog fuel. Barriers to plastic film recycling occur at all points of the supply chain.
Grants to Cities
Waste Reduction and
Recycling Grants
The division provides grant funds and
technical assistance to cities to help
further waste prevention and recycling
programs and services within their
communities. Each year, King County
distributes over 51 million in grant funds
to cities; these funds are supported by
the solid waste tipping fee. All cities in
the service area are eligible for the funds. Clean wood is collected at the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Statlon
The formula for their allocation includes a
base amount plus a percentage based on the city's population and employment.
Currently, much of these grant funds is used by the cities to hold recycling collection events in their communities.
The cities and the county may be able to phase out these collection events and use the funds in other ways that
support waste prevention and recycling in their communities as enhanced recycling services are added at renovated
transfer facilities, curbside collection for bulky items becomes more cost effective and widely available, and product
stewardship programs begin to offer more options for recycling. The grant monies can be used to support a number
of activities, including:
. Encouraging and promoting waste reduction,
. Continuing to implement and improve general recycling programs,
. lmproving opportunities for the collection of specific commodities, such as paper,
. lmproving opportunities for the collection and/or composting of organic materials,
. lncreasing the demand for recycled and reused products,
. Fostering sustainable development through the promotion of sustainable building principles in
construction projects,
. Managing solid waste generated by public agencies in a manner that demonstrates leadership,
. Broadening resource conservation programs that integrate waste prevention and recycling programs
and messages, and
. Providing product stewardship opportunities.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -July zotS
Att A Page 101
4-19
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance Grants
Ecology also supports waste prevention and recycling programs in King County through the Local Solid Waste
Financial Assistance (formerly known as the Coordinated Prevention Grant) program. Funds are allocated within
the county based on population.The division uses funds allocated to the unincorporated areas to support waste
prevention and recycling efforts such as recycling collection events, yard waste and food scrap recycling, and natural
yard care education and promotion.The cities also receive funds directly from Ecology to support their own waste
prevention and recycling programs (applications are coordinated through the division).
Com petitive Gra nt Prog ram
|n2012, the division worked collaboratively with
the cities to develop a new competitive grant
program to fund innovative projects and services
that further the waste prevention and recycling
goals outlined in this Plan. Cities, commercial
collection companies, and other entitieg such
as non-profit organizations or schools, would
be eligible to apply for the grant program.The
program has not been approved by the cities
or funded through the solid waste ratq but the
division will continue to work with the cities
to identifo opportunities to initiate the new
competitive grant program in the future.
Cities use some of their grant money to hold recycling
ln the meantime, the division has initially funded collection events
a smallcompetitive grant program through the
Solid Waste Division budget with the focus on commercial food waste. A program funded through the solid waste rate
would extend reach and impact. Descriptions of the funded projects can be found online at:
your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/garbage+ecycling/commercial-grants.asp
Susta inable Pu rchasing
King County is also working to reduce the impacts of its operations by purchasing products that have recycled
content and are more resource-efficient and durable. The Sustainable Purchasing Program provides county personnel
with information and technical assistance to help them identify, evaluate, and purchase economical and effective
sustainable products and services.
The division will continue to provide technical assistance to cities by sharing contracts, specifications, and
procurement strategies. Many cities in lhe county have also implemented environmentally preferable
purchasing programs.
Another strategy to increase sustainable purchasing is to provide training and education about the benefits of
compost applications in parks and landscape projects, topdressing grass in parks, and stormwater
management applications.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/y zo84-20
Aft A Page 102
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Collection
The remainder of this chapter looks at the current collection challenges and recommendations for improvement
for three sectors of generators - single-family households, multi-family households, and non-residential customers,
which include businesses, institutions, and government entities. For each sector, the issues may vary and present
different challenges due to collection methods and the regulations by which they are governed. Construction and
demolition debris is discussed separately at the end of this chapter because of the unique nature of collecting and
processing these materials.
Residentia I Col lection
The residential garbage collection system in King County is a well-established system that serves the region in a safe,
efficient, and cost-effective manner. With the shift toward increased collection services for recyclables and organics,
customers can choose to subscribe to smaller, less expensive collection cans for their garbage. Container sizes now
range from the micro-can at 10 gallons to the mini-can at 20 gallons and on up to the large 90+ gallon cart.The
reduced fee for the smaller cans creates an incentive to generate less waste and divert as much material as possible to
the recyclables or organics carts.
Throughout King County, individual city contracts for collection of garbage, recyclables, and organics differ in a
number of aspects. Cities have entered into contracts with the collection companies at different times and then
renewed contracts as they have expired. Each time a contract is negotiated and renewed, the city may make
adjustments to their services such as changing the range of materials being collected, the collection frequency,
container types or sizes, fee structures, and more. Changes to services may also be negotiated for existing contracts.
The varying collection standards among cities that have resulted from these changes over time have led to
inconsistencies in regional education and messaging, confusion among customers, and difficulties in measuring and
potentially attaining region wide goals.
To illustrate the varying collection standards that currently exist, Table 4-4 presents a summary of single-family
collection services by city and unincorporated area, showing the types of contracts held, the collection company
serving the jurisdiction, container sizes
offered, collection frequency, and fee
structures.The recycling rates for each
jurisdiction and unincorporated area, with
and without organic materials, are also
presented for comparison. The UTC cost
assessment in Appendix A (Section 3.3)
provides additional information about the
UTC-regulated and contracted companies.
Working with the community and the
hauler, the division is exploring the inclusion
of Vashon/Maury lsland in the service level
standardt as well as other ways to improve
recycling services provided curbside and
at the transfer station. Skykomish and
Snoqualmie Pass will not be included in the
service level standards at this time because
A truck picks up in a neighborhood (Photo courtesy of Republic Services)
of their remote locations and low population densities.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS
Att A Page 103
4-21
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17. 2019
Table 4-4. Summary of single-family collection for garbage, recycling, and organics in
King County
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -JuQ zotS
s(srlue6ro 6urpn;:xa)
aleg 6ur;:l(>ag
s6N
s
rt
ao a€N
aN an sNN
s6 sNN
s s I6N
s@N
sN aN$
s s6N
sN so s6N
st sa sN aN s s\oN
sq
sN
(s:1ue6ro 6urpn1:u1)
aleg 6u11:bag
s6v
so sho
*N$
aNo
a
\o
so6
a
\o
a0s
a6{a€anb
*6 t66
son
sh6
s aho
s
\o
so\s
aho
a
\o
a a6h
a€so.t s
6
UIo{f,
3-o'6
P.= 5iiE N6 a-
IU
AE o\t
(Irvr/lsn)/sql)
;esodsr6 a6eqleg N NN N N N rtN N oN 6d NN N N NN rt oN \oN \oN oN N oN oN N N 6N @N +N N
aa1 abeqreg
ur papnl)ul s:guebrg x x x x x x x x x x x x
g
tuu.
o
t
v5
UI xaag a6eq.re9
ur papnl)ul 6u;;:{>ag X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x
(relu!M)
uolpallo) sque6rg;o
Iruanbarl LLlglOZ
=oU ==ou ==ou ==ou ==oU =oU =ou =oU =oq ==ou ==oU =oU ==ou =ou =ou =oU
3oU =oU =oU =ou =
(11e;-rauuns-6u;rds)
uolpallo) slrue6rg;o
r(ruanbar3 LLlglOZ
=ou ==og ==ou ===3 =oU =ou ==ou ==oU ==oU =oU ==ou =ou =o =ow ==ou =oU =ou =
LvEo3ro
E
Eo
l,o
ov uo;1:ello) 6ur;:{:ag
;o l:uanbarl
^/9l1z
=ou =oU =oq ==oU ==o =ou =oU
tsoq =oU ==oU =oU =oU ==oU =oU ==oU =oU
3ou =ou =ou=ou =ou ==
o
Or
yel s:;ue6rg
Prepuels
\oo o
Or
€o \oo €o €6 oo og\€o €o o6 €6 o6 66 \oo oor oo o6 oo 66 oo €o roo €o 66o6 oooANUt
35
.!E E
ye16u11:fuag
piPpuels oo \o6 oo \oa s o6 €6 sor oo \oo $\oo oo €6 €o €(tr oo $o6 o6 oo €o €6 oo s I 3
xIuolpello) abeqreg
,to1epue61 x x x x x x x x x x
I)In /pPrluo)U U UFf,U H U (.,U U U LJ U tJ U UF
=
U UF
=
U L'U U IJFl LJ U U U
fE
.9
Ig
o
L.,
ooo.
F {ueduro3
uotpellof 9[02 =;=
=
e t d,U&uG,UE E &uG =
=tJ =
=
c,uE d.t =
=
t U
ac t d =
=
G t =
=
E3
eary palerodro)u!un
Jo uorll!psunr
ocoOt
g
f5
f
t
x56o6
ttc0
E.go
J
-s6
o
o
oo
ot
o6
co
6
co
oc
,5
I
IU€
U
cooq
oU
oc6
=o6
6
ao
36!
EfcU
=Eo!ou
.Eoc
c5I
E6fuo
Eo
Eco cov
!co!c
J
od
o
oL
oJGJ
o=so
CLG
=
oc
!o
=
ttc
-g!
o
o
=
o
6;oz
!64
rctcE
Eoz
!trod
E
oz
G
6L
Eq
o
E!oE
r,ltu
\,
4-22
Aft A Page 104
36VoIG.9C6(uc'G^--F:!Uf>\-#635%3{X}6349635%29Vo32%349625%33%32%I29%7Vo2t%6WoI.9c-.,5rY qt#6or9c.=-o>,=UU(Uc58%53%54%53%44%54%52%60%53%55%I46lYo49VoDisposal&Recycling Rates(2016)d20t!oo.^n-Yis€9., EgEG€_25292326282730242628I283t29x.g!(u!fEC,co-rLo).= ct)C(!l!-o9EouxxXFeeStructurex.c!(uEa!c,:(uP. t'= onut!>._oULO|!EtJxxXxxXxXco>\ .i=TJUc(lJ(u:foc'\JQ)ori .tJ* Fc\ ct'l (uP6.EOs >^l O*ZwWEOWEOWNSWEOWEOWEOWEOWNSNSco:ou.sc(UJg= EdLJ tralqFL.Y =n Fn\or='\o -L .=FE.,aIWEOWWEOWNSWEOWWEOWEOWNSNSCollection FrequencfBegiE'ELl o)NC.o Y.o(UNGIEOWWEOWEOWNSWEOWEOWEOWEOWEOWNS96Il!L/Eor! .==6E960969696NS9696969696NSNSCart Size{gallons)b95t(!UPPl!:Py.EUt-/t E969596NSu9696969696NSxco-9,>8€sEA-PG==rixXL.,FfU|!coLJccccCityccUTCurcUTCUTCUTCType of Collection.c.9u9;rYovo\OcooN(JIRSRSR5/REREftyWMWMWMRSRSXEOWEOWEOW9696IJTCRSWMRSWMwcWM.E(uEg(U:oEg.c6ttuqC.RentonhSammamishlSeaTaclShorelineSkykomlshSnoqualmieTuhivilaWoodinvilleYanow PointSammamish KlahaniesubtoblcftierNorthe,n CountySouthern CountyVashon lslandSnoqualmie PassSubtot lUnlmotporated ArcasUnincorporated AreasTotal CountyCities52o/o28Vooigl0tfoo@@(oo)t\o\oos-Bds"Nks-sR!AG\;rN:t*slooOo!0)(cloo(to Collection Companies: d Recycling ond disposal ratu include an adjustmentto temoveRS - Republic Services estimated contaminont tonnoge from recycling totals and add itRE- Recology/CleanScapes todisposaltotals.WC - Waste Connections e PacificS Pierce County and Kng County arcas are served byWM - Waste Management Waste Management effective October 5, 201 5 (updote 1/8/16).b Caft sizes listed ote the most commonly distributed; f Bothell\ primary houler changed from Waste Monagement toother cart s'tzes are available in many jurisdictions. Recology on lanuory I , 2Ol 5 . Waste Management continues toc Collection Frequency: provide service in some annexed portions of Bothell.EOW - every other week W - weekly g Burienls hauler changed from Woste Monagement to Recolory onM- monthly NS-noservice Junel,2014;embeddedorganicswasnotincludedbeforeJunel.h Renton has every-other-week gorboge collection in areos seredby its primory houler, RepublicServices.i SeaTaCs hauler changed from Republic Services to Recology onJ u ne l, 20 1 4; embedded organ ics wos not i n cluded before J u ne l.j Maple Valley's primary hauler changed from Waste Manogementto Recology on September l, 201 4k Clyde Hill's new contract effective April 1, 201 5 includes organicsseruice in the basic aarbage fee.I Annexation areas in Sammamish still follow WC service levelsKlahanie - Rec (w) Org (W) except for EOW Dec-Feb)Aldailo-Montaine - EOW Recand OrgCamden Park & Mystic Lake (WM annexed areas)- Rec (W) Org(W, exceptfor EOW Dec-Feb)cttCLA'do.t=.-{No(l)5Il\,w
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
As shown in Table 4-4, the single-family recycling rate varies significantly among the cities and unincorporated areas,
ranging from 37 to 65 percent (combining organics and the curbside recyclables) with an average of 55 percent. While
it would be difficult to identify a single factor or factors that will ensure a higher recycling rate, there are some factors
that appear to lead to increased participation and amounts of waste diverted from disposal, as discussed in the
following sections.
Range of Materials Collected
ln addition to the materials identified for curbside collection in the last Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan - newspaper, mixed paper, and cardboard; tin and aluminum cans; plastic bottles; glass bottles and jars; and
yard waste - new materials have been added over time.These materials include food scraps and food soiled paper,
aerosol cans, small scrap metal, plastic jugs and tubs, plastic plant pots, plastic trays and clamshells, drink/coffee cups,
and aseptic cartons/containers (such as juice boxes). Some cities have added other materials for collection, such as
electronics, fluorescent bulbs and tubes, and motor oil.
Curbside collection, however, is not necessarily the most efficient and cost-effective way to capture every type of
recyclable or reusable product. Some products cause problems for materials recovery facilities because of their size
or composition, while others are better candidates for take-back programs by manufacturers and retailers to extract
potentially harmful components and recycle other components. Examples of these types of materials and their
particular challenges include the following:
. Plastic bags and plastic wrap are prevalent in the waste stream, particularly residential. Collection of plastic
bags in the recyclables cart creates a nuisance further down the line at the material recovery facilities. As the
bags move through the facility they sometimes catch in and jam the sorting machinery, and they can blow
around and cause litter problems. For these reasont curbside collection may not be the best option for plastic
bags and wrap at this time. More appropriate options for consideration may be an increased use of reusable
shopping bags and the establishment or expansion of take-back programs at the retail level. For instance, the
Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP), a national initiative, provides a network of drop-off locations for clean
and dry plastic film, including wraps, bags and flexible packaging, to be recycled.
. Electronic Products and Fluorescent Bulbs and Tubes Collecting these materials at the curb is complicated
by the fact that some ofthem
tend to break easily and
contain potentially hazardous
materials that must be safely
disposed. I n Washington
State, legislation requires
ma nufacturers of computers,
monitors, and televisions to
provide separate locations for
free recycling of these items.
Handling electronics through
product stewardship ensures
that the various components,
such as glass, plastic, and
metals, are separated and
recycled as appropriate
and that any potentially Fluorescent tubes are collected at the Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station
Management Plan -Ju/1 zotS4-24 zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste
Att A Page 106
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
hazardous materials are recycled or disposed in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Product stewardship
efforts reduce costs to local governments and their ratepayers by eliminating the costs to recycle these products.
Take-back programs have also been implemented for fluorescent bulbs and tubes. Cities such as Kent and
Shoreline and have contracted with their recycling collection companies to develop a safe, convenient program
for collecting fluorescent bulbs and tubes at the curb. The City of Bothell's garbage and recycling collection
contract includes curbside collection of electronic products and fluorescent bulbs and tubes as well as collection
at theThe Recology Bothell store.
Some cities offer collection of small appliances and home electronics not covered by Washington's current
product stewardship laws. For appropriately sized products that do not contain hazardous materials, curbside
collection is a viable and efficient option.
. Polystyrene Foam - One type of plastic that is not recommended for residential curbside collection is expanded
polystyrene foam, commonly known as Styrofoam, which includes clamshell containers for take-out foods and
blocks of plastic that are used to package many electronics and other goods. These materials are light and bulky,
can break easily into small pieces, readily mix with other materials causing contamination, and are difficult to
separate out at the material recovery facilities. ln addition, the quantity collected is so small that it takes a long
time to collect enough of the material to ship to market. Although there are challenges to collecting expanded
polystyrene foam packaging curbside, the City of Des Moines began offering its single-family residents this
service in2O12. Block expanded polystyrene foam (not packing peanuts) is accepted and residents are asked
to put the blocks in a clearly labeled plastic bag and place it next to their curbside recycling cart. This allows
the expanded polystyrene foam blocks to be handled separately from the commingled recyclables.The
cities oflssaquah and Seattle have taken another approach and banned the use ofexpanded polystyrene
foam containers for take-out foods. Other cities, such as Kirkland and Redmond, have regular or semi-regular
collection events to collect expanded polystyrene packaging.
Size of Collection Contoiner
The size of the recycling collection cart can affect recycling success. Areas where most residential customers use
smaller recycling carts have reported lower recycling rates and when larger carts have been provided the recycling
rate has increased. As more materials are identified for commingled recycling, and food scraps are added to the yard
waste cart, recyclables carts are getting larger and the size of garbage can to which customers subscribe should
become smaller.
Frequency of Collection
Adjustments to the frequency of curbside collection for garbage, recyclables, and organics can also be used to
influence recycling and disposal behaviors and reduce collection costs and truck traffic. Garbage collection across
King County typically occurs on a weekly basis. This collection schedule has been driven, in part, by the presence
of food scraps and other organics in the garbage that rapidly decompose and have the potentialto lead to
environmental or public health concerns. With separate collection of organics for recycling, there is an opportunity to
modify weekly garbage collection to benefit ratepayers and to create a more environmentally sustainable system.
One of the most important factors in determining the appropriate collection frequency for the various material
streams, particularly for organics (yard waste and food scraps), is compliance with the public health and
environmental standards in Title 1 0 of the Code of the King County Board of Health. To study the effects of changing
the collection method and possiblythe frequency of collection, in summer 2007 the division conducted a pilot
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 107
4-25
Ordinance 18893 Updated Aptil17,2019
In
Regulatory Changes Allow Adjustments in Collection Frequency Schedules
After successful completion of the Renton pilot study, a variance toTitle 10 of the Code of the King
County Board of Health was approved to allow every-other-week collection of organics (with the yard
waste) for single- and multi-family residents, as well as every-other-week collection of residential
garbage.The variance applies as long as the following standards (excerpted directly from the
variance) are met. During the next review of theTitle 10 Health Code, these variances are scheduled
to be adopted.
Residential {Single-Family} Garbage Collection
Residential garbage may be collected every other week provided that:
. Garbage is contained in a provided cart.
. A food scrap collection program is available and actively promoted to residents.
. The garbage collection and food scrap collection services are offered on alternating weeks
to ensure that customers have access to at least weekly disposal or composting options for
problematic compostables.
. Residents are instructed to bag all garbage before placing it in carts to reduce vectort free
liquids, and litter.
Residential (Single- and MultFfamily) Organics Collection (with yard wastel
. When mixed with yard debris, residentialfood scraps may include allvegetative, meat, dairy
products, pastas, breads, and soiled paper materials used for food preparation or handling;
provided that all collected materials are picked up by haulers which deliver the mixed yard
waste to a permitted transfer and/or permitted composting facility for serviced customers.
. Combined food scraps and yard debris shall be collected no less frequently than eveiy-other-
week, year-round provided that there are no leachate generation, odor, or vector problems.
. Combined food scraps and yard debris shall be collected in carts. Residents shall be instructed
to place food scraps only in the cart provided to them. Any extra customer-provided cans or
large paper bags shall contain only yard debris.
. Compostable bags may be used to consolidate food scraps placed in carts if and only if the bags
have been approved by the facility receiving the material for composting. Plastic bags shall not
be used for yardlfood debris.
. Haulers shall make available a cart-cleaning or replacement service for customers with carts
which have unacceptable residue or odor levels to avoid improper disposal of rinse water to
storm drains, yards, etc., and reduce the need for customers to self-clean their containers.
. Educationaland promotional materials from the county, city, and haulers shall inform residents
about the benefits of recycling food scraps and soiled paper; and appropriate options for
managing it including the use of approved compostable bags; and appropriate options and
restrictions for cleaning carts.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jul1 zotS4-26
Att A Page 108
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
In
Commercial/Multi-family Food Scraps Collection (without yard waste)
. Food scraps shall be collected in leak-proof, contractor-provided containers with tightly-
fitting lids.
. Containers shall be kept clean through the use of contractor-cleaning, compostable bagging,
compostable cart lining or boxing, or limiting the types of materials collected from a particular
customer.
. Containers shall be cleaned by the customer or the hauler immediately upon the request of City,
County, or Public Health personnel.
. Customers shall be iriformed of container cleaning restrictions (i.e., proper disposal of rinse
water and any residues from containers outside of storm drains, landscaping, etc.).
. Customers shall be informed of what is not acceptable in containers and the need to keep
container lids closed when not in use and inaccessible overnight.
. Collection of commercial/multi-family food scraps shall occur weekly at a minimum. Any
exception to the minimum weekly schedule will have to be justified by information on a
particular customert food scrap composition. where it can be shown that less frequent
collection can occur without leachate generation, odor, and vector problems.
study in cooperation with the City of Renton, Waste Management (the collection company), and Public Health.The
purpose of the study was to explore the public health and environmental impacts, customer responses, and effects
on potential waste diversion that would result from changes in collection. ln particular Public Health was concerned
about the feasibility of collecting meat and bones every other week in the yard waste cart and changing garbage
collection to less than weekly.To explore these concerns, approximately 1,500 Renton households participated in the
six-month pilot study to look at two different collection schedules:
. Every-other-week collection of all three solid waste streams - garbage, recyclables, and organics, and
. Every-other-week collection of garbage and recyclables and weekly collection of organics.
The pilot study showed positive results for both collection schedules tested.There were no negative health or
environmental impacts observed, and customers were highly satisfied with the collection schedules and the container
sizes provided to adjust for the shift in schedule. Study results indicated not only a 20 percent decrease in the amount
of garbage disposed, but an overall reduction in the generation of garbage recycling, and organics. An added benefit
was the reduction in truck traffic and transportation costs with the less frequent collection cycles.
As a result, the City of Renton rolled out a citywide program in January 2009 to offer every-other-week collection of
garbage and commingled recyclables, with every week collection of organics.
Renton is the first city in King County to provide every-other-week garbage collection as the standard collection
service for single family households. By 2013, Renton's disposal per household had dropped by 23 percent. While
other factors such as the economic downturn likely played a role in disposal reductions, data from all of King County
over the same time period estimated a disposal drop of 8 percent, suggesting that every-other-week garbage is a
significant tool to reduce disposal and increase recycling.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS
Att A Page 109
4-27
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Fee Structure
Curbside Recycling Services: ln nearly all areas of King County, households paying for garbage collection services
also cover the embedded cost of recycling collection services. ln most cases, unlimited amounts of recyclables can be
set out. ln contrast, the fee for garbage service varies depending on the number or size of containers each household
sets out. A variation of this pay-as-you-throw system is to couple it with a linear rate structure in which there is no
"bulk discount"for having a larger container and the price per gallon is the same across all service levels.
Consequently, King County residents have a clear financial incentive to reduce the amount they dispose and increase
the amount they recycle.
Curbside Organics Services: Sixteen cities, comprising about 55 percent of the population in the county, have
adopted rate structures that embed the cost of organics collection in the curbside garbage collection fee, providing a
further incentive for residents to reduce disposal and maximize use of the recycling options for which they are paying.
ln 2016, the average pounds of garbage disposed per household in these cities was 1 2 percent lower than the average
for the rest of King County.
Curbside Collection of Bulky ltemsfor Residents
An ongoing issue with collection is finding the most efficient and cost-effective way to handle bulky waste - larger,
individual items that do not fit in a garbage can or recycling cart. This type of waste includes recyclable items such as
appliances, potentially reusable items such as furniture, and other large items that must be disposed.
Bulky waste collection services are available
from collection companies throughout the
county; however, these services are not widely
used. Residents may not use the service because
it is expensive, ranging from 525 to S128 per
item, with the possibility of additional charges
for travel time and labor. Customers may also
be unaware of the collection options available
to them. The primary alternatives to bulky
curbside collection are self-hauling the materials
to transfer stations for disposal or recycling, or
taking them to collection events sponsored by
the county or the cities. Neither of these self-
haul options is an efficient way of handling the
materials because of the number of vehicle trips,
the increased number of transactions at transfer
stations, and the high cost of staging
collection events.
Bulky items are taken to a special recycling collection event
The current recommendation is to work with collection companies and the UTC to explore options to increase
the efficiency and reduce the price of curbside collection of bulky items. For example, the cost would be lower if a
small charge were included in the regular garbage fee, and curbside collection days were regularly scheduled and
promoted, thereby increasing the efficiency of the collection routes. Collection systems for bulky items should be
designed, to the extent possible, to divert reusable items to charitable organizations for resale, reuse community
organizations (Green Bee or Buy Nothing community groups), and recyclable items to processing facilities.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS4-28
Att A Page 110
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Si n g Ie- F am i ly Reside nti al Mi n imum Col lection Stan d ards
Single-family collection services for garbage, recyclables, and organics are well established. As discussed earlier,
however, there are many variations among the cities in the specific methods of collection and rate structures.The
division has evaluated the factors that appear to lead to higher recycling rates and an increase in the diversion of
materials from the garbage. Based on this evaluation, it is recommended that minimum collection standards be
adopted by the cities and unincorporated areas to provide the optimal service level for reducing waste and increasing
the diversion of recyclables and organics from disposal.
Working with the community and the
hauler, the division is exploring the
inclusion ofVashon/Maury lsland in
the service level standards, as well as
other ways to improve recycling services
provided curbside and at the Vashon
Recycling and Transfer Station. Skykomish
and Snoqualmie Pass will not be included
in the service level standards at this time
because of their remote locations and low
population densities.
The minimum collection standards can be
implemented as the county updates its
service-level ordinance and jurisdictions
amend their collection contracts (some of
these targeted standards may not require
changes to contracts or the county's
service-level ordinance). A description of
Curbside collection (Photo courtesy of Recology CleanScapes)
the recommended collection standards follows in Table 4-5.
Continuing education and promotion will also be important for increasing recycling and reducing wastes generated
by single-family residents. The cities and the county will increase education and promotion to encourage the
recycling of food scraps and food-soiled paper. ln concert with the commercial collection companies, the cities and
the county will also continue to focus promotions on the proper recycling of the standard curbside materials to
increase participation and reduce contamination in the recycling containers. Financial incentives will also be explored
through the fee structure for garbage and recyclables and grants to cities.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -lub zofi 4'29
AttAPagelll
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Table 4-5. Single-family minimum collection standards
xSubject to stotus of recyclables on King County's Designated Recydables List
Multi-Family Residential Col lection
Multi-family recycling has not been as successful as single-family recycling.There are a number of contributing
factors, including space constraints for collection containers and a higher turnover of residents and property
managers.These factors make it difficult to implement standardized collection services and provide consistent
recycling messaging to this diverse sector. Some local progress has been made, however, in developing consistent
design standards to accommodate waste in multi-family complexes. ln addition, in many areas of the county there is a
trend in the construction of mixed-use buildings, which contain retail shops on the lower level and residential
units above.
Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/1 zotS
Required
Materialsfor
Collection*
Mixed solid waste Newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, and
polycoated paper
Plastic bottles,jugs, and tubs
Tin and aluminum cans
Glass bottles and jars
Aseptic packaging
Smallscrap metal
Yard debris
Food scraps
Food-soiled paper
ContainerType Containers or wheeled
carts
Wheeled cafts Wheeled carts
ContainerSize Subscriptions available
for various sizes
90+ gallon if collected every other week
5maller size if collected more frequently or if
requested by customer
90+ gallons ifcollected every other week
Smaller size if requested by customer
Frequencyof
Collection
Minimum of once a
month
Minimum of every otherweek Minimum of every other week
Fee Structure Fee increases with
container size
Recyclables collection included in gadage fee
Additional containers available at no extra charge
0rgania collection included in garbage fee
Additionalcarts may be included in base
fee or available at an extra charge
Customers requesting smaller carts may be
offered a reduced rate
OrganicsGarbage Recyclables
4-30
AttAPage 112
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Mixed-use buildings present somewhat similar challenges for recycling, including:
. A lack of space for adequate garbage, recycling, and organics collection (often competing with parking needs
and other uses),
. A need for collaborative planning among property developers, garbage and recycling collection companies, and
cities early in the development process to ensure that adequate space is designated for garbage, recycling, and
organics containers in the building design, and
. Different customer types, both residents and employees, with different recycling needs.
Recycling could be increased substantially at multi-family complexes and mixed-use buildings by adopting minimum
collection standards for multi-family collection.The multi-family standards vary somewhat from the single-family
standards to account for differences in service structure. To improve recycling at mixed-use buildings, the cities and
the county must consider both the multi-family collection standards and the recommendations for non-residential
collection. A description of the recommended collection standards follows in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6. Multi-family minimum collection standards
xSubject to status of recyclobles on King CoungS Designated Recyclobla List
Required Materialsfor
Collection*
Mixed solid waste Newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, and
polycoated paper
Plastic bottles, jugs, and tubs
Tin and aluminum cans
Glass bottles and jars
Aseptic packaging
Smallscrap metal
Yard debris
Food scraps
Food-soiled paper
Re qu i red I nfor m ational
Labeling
Clearly mark
container indicating
materials that are
garbage. lnformation
should include pictures
Clearly mark containers indicating materials
acceptable for recycling. lnformation should
include pictures.
Clearly mark containers
indicating materials acceptable
for organics container.
lnformation should inrlude
pictures
ContainerType Wheeled carts or
dumpsters
Wheeled carts or dumpsters Wheeled carts or dumpsters
ContainerSize Subscriptions available
for various sizes
Service equal to garbage service Subscriptions available for vari-
ous sizes
F re quen cy of Coll ecti o n
Weekly, or more often
if needed
Weekly or more often if needed Weekly or every other week
Fee Structure
Fee based on container
size and/or collection
frequency
Recyclables collection included in garbage fee
Additional containers available at no extra charge
Subscription service available for
an added fee
Garbage Recyclables Organics
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Managemmt PIan -Ju$ zotS
AttA Page 113
4-31
Ordinance 18893 Updated Aoril 17, 2019
lncreased education and promotion are needed to improve recycling at multi-family complexes. lt will require
concerted efforts on the part of many to standardize the collection infrastructure and provide ongoing education and
promotion for property managers and residents alike.
To further increase recycling in multi-family
and mixed use buildings, the division,
in cooperation with other jurisdictions,
property managers, and owners of multi-
family properties, collection companies and
other stakeholders, has conducted several
research and pilot studies (KCSWD 2014b
and 201 6b). The findings from these studies
conclude that successfu I recycl ing
depends on:
. Collection logistics: Effective
programs place recycling containers
for convenience, access, and ease
of use; provide sufficient space and
capacity for collection both inside and
outside of the buildings; provide tools
for collection, storage, and transport
of recyclables and organics from units
to collection points; and clearly label
collection containers.
"a
Recycling and garbage containers at an apartment complex. The signs
detail what should be put in each bin
. Policies and regulations: Clear policies ensure that recycling is available and addresses issues such as
contamination. Examples might be service level ordinances, city contracts that embed recycling in garbage
rates, and building code requirements.
. Education and outreach: Effective recycling and food waste collection in multi-family buildings hinges on
education and outreach. Strategies such as door-to-door outreach, property manager trainings, and onsite
assistance have been successful. ln addition, education and outreach that addresses non-English speaking
communities is crucial.
lmproving multi-family recycling will likely require, at a minimum, the following actions:
. Clarify and strengthen building code requirements - The division! GreenTools program has been working
collaboratively with cities to develop standards that can be used for multi-family buildings. lf adopted, these
standards will help ensure that enough space is designed to allow for recycling in future construction.
. Research collection and demographic characteristics, complex by complex - Planning outreach strategies
should begin with a careful look at language and other population demographics, collection infrastructure,
tenant turnover rate, and other applicable characteristics of each complex. Outreach strategies must be
comprehensive and flexible to fit the complex. Customized combinations of outreach tactics and education
reinforcement designed to address the researched characteristics of that complex, help ensure successful
outreach which will increase recycling and decrease contamination.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -JuJ1 zotS4-32
Att A Page 114
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
. Provide manager and maintenance staff education - lnvolvement and support from the property manager
and staff is important to the long-term success of multi-family recycling. The institutional knowledge property
managers can provide and the role they play in delivering education to each tenant and at each container are
important considerations. This function should be supported with training and materials.
. Provide ongoing recycling education for residents - Recycling education needs to be provided on a
continuing basis because most multi-family complexes have high tenant turnover. Providing education materials
with the lease and at least annually coupled with information through newsletters and posters ensure that
residents get the message and it is reinforced on a regular basis.
. lnvolve collection companies to assist with service improvements and education - The collection company
should be involved to provide insight and information about complexes'recycling infrastructure systems and
to help with education outreach and
feedback to the tenants about the
quality of the recycling and level of
contamination. Companies should
monitor the recycling performance of
the complexes and tag or refuse pickup
of loads that are contaminated.
. Expand organics collection - Currently,
only a few cities are offering collection
of food scraps and food-soiled paper
to multi-family residents.The cities and
the county will need to work with the
collection companies to determine what
containers and collection methods will
work best for multi-family complexes.
Education and promotion will be a critical
component of the new multi-familyfood
scrap collection programs.
A collection truck picks up garbage at a business (Photo courtesy of
Waste Management)
Non-Residentia I Col lection
The non-residential sector comprises a range of businesses, institutions, and government entities from manufacturing
to high-tech and retail to food services.This sector has achieved recycling successes in the last few years, with a
recycling rate of almost 71 percent in20l4,according to Ecology statewide recycling data.
Unlike the residential waste stream, the types of materials discarded by the non-residential sector differ widely
from business to business. Thus, the recycling potential for any particular business or industry can vary greatly. For
example, restaurants and grocers are the largest contributors of food scraps, while manufacturers may generate large
quantities of plastic wrap and other packaging materials.
Because of the diversity of businesses in the region, a more individualized approach is needed to increase recycling
in this sector. One area with significant room for improvement is the diversion of food scraps and food-soiled paper.
The largest increase will be realized as more restaurants and grocers contract with private-sector companies to collect
their food scraps for composting, and more cities begin to offer embedded commercial organics collection.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zotS
AttAPagell5
4-33
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Strategies for increasing recycling in the non-residential sector present some of the same challenges as the multi-
family sector, including:
. The lack of consistent and/or adequate building standards for locating collection containers.
. The need for financial incentives for business owners, property managers, and tenants to take advantage of
recycling services. For example, cities that include recycling services in their garbage rate provide a financial
incentive for businesses to recycle.
. A need for consistent and ongoing technical assistance and education. lnvolvement and support of the business
owners and property managers is important to the long-term success of recycling at individual businesses or
complexes. Educating building maintenance staff about properly collecting recyclables from building tenants
is important to ensure the proper handling of recyclables. Education for employees about proper recycling
methods is also crucial.
To assess the relative size of the non-residential waste stream in different jurisdictions, the division looked at the
number of jobs located within them. About 94 percent ofjobs in the King County service area are located within
incorporated cities. More than 73 percent of these jobs are in cities where the garbage collection contracts include
recyclables collection in the garbage fee.These contracts typically define the capacity required for recycling collection
as 150 to 200 percent of the amount of garbage capacity, and target collection of the same materials as residential
curbside programs.
Non-residential customers have the option to take advantage of recyclables collection offered by their service
provider or to contract with other collection companies that may pay for the more valuable recyclable materials,
such as high-grade office paper. For cities with collection contracts, adding recycling service to their contracts and
including the cost of service in the garbage
rate does lead to higher non-residential
recycling rates and ensure that recycling
services are available to all businesses.
However, while including recycling service
in the rate requires all businesses to pay
for the service, it does not require that
those businesses use the service that the
city contractor provides. Businesses in
unincorporated King County and cities
with UTC-regulated collection services can
choose from a wide array of recycling service
providers in King County for their recycling
needs. Promotion of these services by the
county and these cities will help increase
awareness among businesses of the available
options. For example, the county's "What do
I do with...?" website (www.kingcounty.gov/ Food waste comprises a large part of the waste stream at restaurants
whatdoldowith) is one place businesses can
look for a service provider.
Another strategy that might increase recycling for some business customers is to consider a rate structure based on
weight or composition of waste, rather than the size of the container. A study was conducted to measure container
weights for non-residential wastes on five weekday collection routes in the City of Kirkland over a 12-month period
(KCSWD et al. 2008a).This study determined that businesses with large amounts of food scraps generate garbage
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zotS
tl
4-34
Att A Page 't 16
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17,2019
that is significantly heavier than the garbage generated by businesses without large amounts of food scraps. ln
Washington, non-residential garbage rates are based on the size of the garbage container. So generators of heavy
materials, such as food scraps, pay less than they might if the rates were based on weigh! as they are in some
jurisdictions across the country. Because a weight-based rate would likely cost more for generators of large amounts
of food scraps, it would provide an incentive for increased participation in organics recycling programs. Another
strategy is to offer organics collection to businesses at no additional cost or at rates less than garbage.
Construction and Demolition Materials Collection and Recycling
Construction and demolition debris is from the construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition of buildings, other
structures, and roads and accounts for approximately 30 percent of all waste generated in King County. Construction
and demolition debris includes clean wood, painted and treated wood, dimensional lumber, gypsum wallboard,
roofing, siding, structural metal, wire, insulation, packaging materials, and concrete, asphalt, and other aggregates.
The county banned the disposal of large loads of construction and demolition debris at the county-owned transfer
stations and Cedar Hills landfill in 1993. ln the following years, until 2016, the division contracted with two private
sector companies to manage the majority of the regiont construction and demolition debris.
Construction and demolition materials are typically hauled from a job site by: 1) the contractor or individual working
at the job site 2) an independent construction and demolition debris hauler permitted to handle construction and
demolition debris for recycling only, or 3) a collection company permitted to haul materials for both recycling
and disposal.
Construction and demolition debris processing of recyclable materials occurs using either source-separated or
commingled methods. Source-separated processing, which occurs particularly on large projects with adequate
space, involves sorting specific types of construction and demolition material on the job site (e.g., metals, concrete,
and clean wood) and transporting them to one or more recycling facilities. Commingled processing involves placing
all recyclable construction and demolition debris in one container and then transporting the loads to a facility that
uses mechanical and manual methods to sort the recyclable materials. Non-recyclable construction and demolition
waste should be hauled directly to a
construction and demolition debris
transfer station where the waste is
transferred to rail cars for transport to a
landfill.
The division does not accept construction
and demolition waste at its transfer
stations or Cedar Hills landfill, except
for incidental amounts. King County
Ordinance 18166, effective January 2016,
requires that construction and demolition
waste must be taken to a designated
privately-operated construction and
demolition debris recycling and/
or transfer facility. The division has
agreements with the designated facilities
that require these facilities to recycle
readily recyclable materials. These Container with construction and demolition debris for recycling
zory Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zod
AttA Page 117
4-35
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
facilities are banned from landfilling certain materials including: clean wood; cardboard; metal; gypsum scrap (new);
and asphalt paving, bricks and concrete. All other construction and demolition waste may be disposed. As markets
develop, the division will consider banning other construction and demolition materials as well.
With improvements in the ability of processing facilities to separate materials, the current trend is toward the
commingling of recyclable construction and demolition debris. lf recyclable construction and demolition debris and
garbage are commingled, however, the recyclables are more difficult to extract and the processing facilities end up
having lower facility diversion rates. These mixed loads should therefore be disposed of in their entirety.
lndependent construction and demolition debris haulers with commercial permits can transport recyclable
construction and demolition materials from job sites to either source-separated or commingled construction and
demolition debris processors.These independent haulers cannot, however, transport construction and demolition
materials for disposal. Only collection companies permitted by the UTC to haul solid waste can transport construction
and demolition materials for disposal.
The designated facilities listed in Tables 4-7 and 4-8 have agreements with the division and are a part of a network of
designated facilities where construction and demolition materials can be recycled and/or disposed. Figure 2-4, a map
in Chapter 2, shows the locations of these facilties.These facilities agree to meet criteria that the division specifies for
recycling of construction and demolition materials. The division contracts with the King County Sheriff's department
to provide enforcement that helps to ensure that materials are being recycled. Cities are encouraged to adopt
regulations that complement the King County ordinance. The division's GreenTools program is available to provide
technical assistance to cities and has a model ordinance for cities to use.
Table 4-7. Designated facilities for non-recyclable
construction and demolition waste (July 2018)
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zofi
Republlc Services
Third & Lander Recycling (enter & Transfer Station 27 33 3rd Ave 5outh, Seattle 10,358
Black River Recycling & Transfer Station 501 Monster Road, Renton M,923
WosteManagement
Cascade Recycling (enter 'l 4020 NE 1 90th, Woodinville 14,237
Eastmont Transfer/Recycling Station 7201 W MarginalWay SW, Seattle 19,654
Recycling Northwest 701 2nd Street NW, Auburn 28,086
Construction and Demolitlon Materlal
Facility
King CountyTons
Processed in2017Location
4-36
AttAPagellS
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
Table 4-8. Designated facilities for recyclable construction and demolition waste
(July 2018)
Alpine Recycling 3504 'l 12th Street E, Tacoma 2,439
DRS Seattle (managed by DTG)7201 E. MarginalWay 5., Seattle N/A
DTG Renton 701 5W 34th Stree! Renton 77,077
DTG Woodinville 5906 238th Street SE,Woodinville 18,059
DTG Maltby 8610 219th Street 5E, Woodinville 7 0,01
Maltby Container and Recycling 20225 Broadway Avenue, Snohomish 8,740
Recovery 1 1 805 Stewart Street Tacoma 6,352
United Recycling - Seattle 74 S. Hudson Street, Seattle 2,314
United Recycling - Snohomish 1 8827 Yew Way, Snohomish 23,896
Construction and Demolition
Material Facility
King CountyTons
Processed in2017
Location
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zod
AttA Page 119
4-37
-r---*
,..4
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17 ,2019
Solid Wasr
Transfer
Processing S v
I
,:@gw**
a
I
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Provide solid waste services to commercial collection companies
and self-haul customers at transfer stations, and to self-haul
customers at drop boxes.
Provide solid waste transfer services in the urban and rural areas of
the county that may be tailored to local and facility conditions and
interlocal agreements with King County cities.
Engage cities and communities in the siting and development of
facilities, and in developing mitigation measures for impacts related
to the construction, operation, and maintenance of transfer facilities,
as allowed by applicable local, state, and federal laws.
Build, maintain, and operate Solid Waste Division facilities with the
highest green building and sustainable development practices.
Provide for collection of recyclable materials at all transfer facilities
- recognizing resource limitations, availability of markets, and
service area needs - focusing on maximum diversion of recyclables
from the waste stream and on materials that are not easily recycled
at the curb or through a readily available producer or retailer-
provided program.
Policies
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
AttA Page 122
Ordinance 18893 Updated April17,2019
The following table includes a menu of recommended actions that the county and the
cities should implement. Under the responsibility column, the entity listed first has primary
responsibility for the action, bold indicates that the entity has responsibility for the action, and
a star (*) indicates that the action is a priority. lf the responsibility is not in bold, the action has
lower implementation priority.
Summ ary of R.ecommended Actions
/11,. ir:i,:.ri:l:
j i;i't 1;,; jr1,.3,', :1 rti.! i
Detailed
Discussion
Page 5-1 6
Page 5-1 6
Page 5-22
Page 5-22
Page 5-1 1
Page 5-26
Page 5-5
i,'-l
1,{.ri::i.:..1'
Aetion
Except as noted in action 2-t, continue to implement transfer station
modernization as set forth in the So/id WasteTransfer and Waste Monagement
Plan and approved by the Metropolitan King County Council in2007, including
siting and building a new Northeast recycling and transfer station and closing
the Houghton station when the new station is complete. Adapt the siting
process included in the So/rd WosteTransfer and Waste Management Planto
meet community needs in the Northeast service area.
Continue to implement a resource recovery program at new recycling and
transfer facilities to remove targeted materials from the waste stream.1.r.i. i.i l;'r.r':
,a : \,.
1.1{'1111!.\J,
Although approved for closure under the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste
Management Plan, reserve the option to retain the Renton station until the
new urban transfer facilities have been completed and the impact of closure
has been fully evaluated.
lil,:i;,
l.i'lili!i]'/
Evaluate adding a second scale and an additional collection container at the
Cedar Falls Drop Box to improve capacity.
{,.i,ir;11]i|l'
After the new recycling and transfer stations (including the new South station)
are sited, if service level assessments indicate the need for additional capacity
in the rural areas, consider siting drop box facilities.
1;1:i,:
{:,iil 1 i;1 ii,l,l i,iir t:
Periodically evaluate the level of service criteria to ensure that the criteria
remain relevant.
irr i,
i:i'rr I 'i:,,'r
Explore prospects for the transfer of commercial loads of organics through
county transfer stations.
Att A Page 123
Encourage recycling processors to continue to improve facility sorting and
processing equipment and practices to remove contaminants and separate
recyclables into marketable commodity grades.
ln collaboration with stakeholders, pursue and identify new technologies
and expanded processing capacity to serve the region, and more sustainably
manage organic waste.
Continue to evaluate and assess the feasibility of advanced materials recovery
and anaerobic digestion at division facilities.
ln the event of an emergency, reserve the transfer system for municipal solid
waste and make the recycling of related debris a priority.
ldentify potential temporary debris management sites where emergency
debris can be stored until it is sorted for recycling or proper disposal.
Action
Number and
Responsibility
8-t
Material
recovery
facilities
9-t
County, cities,
Public Health,
haulers,
processors*
1 l-t
Countn cities
12-t
Cities, county
13-t
Cities, county
10-t
County
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Action
Provide education and outreach on the proper management of home-
generated sharps.
Detailed
Discussion
Page 5-25
Page 5-26
Page 5-28
Page 5-24
Page 5-24
Page 5-6
Aft A Page 124
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
lid Wbste Transfer and Process mg
The increased focus on environmental stewardship has reshaped the role of transfer stations in managing solid waste,
creating the need for more robust and modern facilities that will facilitate a sustainable system in the future.
This chapter outlines a transfer system plan that will improve current levels of service, with the flexibility to adapt
to changing needs and emerging technologies. The chapter also discusses plans for effectively managing local and
regional emergencies.
The Transfer System and Services
The concept of a regional transfer and disposal network in King County grew out of a nationwide movement in the
1960s to impose stricter standards for protection of public health and the environment.The original purpose of the
transfer network was to replace the open, unlined community dump sites in use at the time with environmentally safe
transfer facilities where garbage could be delivered by curbside collection truck and self-haulers. From these transfer
sites garbage could then be consolidated into larger loads for transport to the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (Cedar
Hills) (see Figure 5-1).
Table 5-1 lists the locations of current transfer facilities, along with the tons of garbage, yard and wood waste received,
numbers of customers served, and recycling services provided for at each facility.
Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid lWste Management P/an -Ju$ zotS
Att A Page 125
5-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Figure 5-1 . Locations of solid waste facilities
JHts-1-._)
0
c'1yP
5
Lr
o
a
o248rMlles
Cedar Falls
King County solid waste facilitiesr{rb
li
G
LandRll
Transfer Statlon
Drop Box
King County Boundary
Clties
Unincorporated Area
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -July zotS
BolheI
Redmond
Park
Yanow
Hunls
Sellevue
Sammamlsh
Renton
Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
EWb
Lake
Kent
t
{
Aubum
Federal Way
Sealtle
Vashon lsland
Vashon
5-2
Att A Page 126
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Table 5-1. Current facilities and services
North County
Shoreline Recycling &
Transfer Stationii
2300 North l65th St
Shoreline 98133
2008 57,619 '15,927 '101,013
Standard curbside recyclablesili, appliances,
bicydes and bicycle parts, clean wood,
fluorescent bulbs and tubes, scrap metal,
textiles, yard waste, flags, plastic film and
plastic grocery bags, expanded polystyrene
foam blocks and coolers, household sharps.
Replace First Northeast
Transfer Station.
(omplete 2008.
NortheastCounty
Factoria Recycling &
Transfer Station
13800 5E 32nd 5t
Bellevue 98005
2017 142,425 697 110,461
Standard curbside recyclables, scrap metal,
textiles, appliances, clean wood, yard waste,
household sharps, and moderate risk waste
including recycling of batteries (household,
vehicle or marine), fluorescent bulbs and
tubes, thermometers and thermostats,
propane tanks.
Replace Factoria Transfer
Station.
(omplete 2017.
Houghton Transfer
Station
1 1724 NE 60th 5t
Kirkland 98033
mid-
1960s
154,547 638 128,674 Sta ndard curbside recyclables, textiles.
0ose Houghton lransfer
Station when replacement
capacity is available. Process
to review capacity needs
starting in 2018.
Central County
Bow Lake Recycling &
Transfer Station
18800 0rillia Rd South
Tukwila 98188
2013 285,874 8,023 212,035
Standard curbside recyclables, appliances,
bicycles and bicyde parts, clean wood, scrap
metal, yard waste, fluorescent bulbs and tubes,
plastic film and plastic grocery bags,expanded
polystyrene foam block and coolers,
household sharps.
Replace Bow Lake Transfer
Station.
Complete 2013.
Renton Transfer Station
3021 NE4th 5t
Renton 98056
mid-
1960s
64,569 721 87,456 Standard curbside recyclables, textiles.
(lose Renton Transfer Station
when replacement capacity is
available.
No decisions have been made
regarding closure pending
completion ofthe new South
Recycling and Transfer Station
and decisions for a potential
Northeast Station.
E.EEoni
Fp,f,
EEg
?
IUEoeo
Lt!s
g
-.9683o.!E
"E Egia Er
i:ool-lJ-o
AE
EglE'=!
ss#g.b Iu-coc,*,EO
FF(tri\l2*
b.EEIri8t
lgLF
9nr-F.OoFt{9r.= !uE.z>oUUooEgE
lal\
EForoI'lo
$3
5-3zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zot8
Att A Page 127
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
South County
Algona Transfer Station
35315 WestValley Hwy
Algona 9800'l
mid-
1 960s
154,975 N/A 145,452 None.
0ose Algona Transfer Station
and replace it with a new
South Recycling and Transfer
Station.
Site selected, anticipated
opening date in 2023.
Rurol County
Cedar Falls Drop Box
16925 Cedar Falls Rd 5E
North Bend 98045
1990 3,820 704 20,903
Standard curbside recyclables, textiles, yard
waste.
Enumclaw Recycling &
Transfer Station
1 650 Battersby Ave East
Enumclaw 98022
1993 24,169 2,163 53,601
Standard curbside recyclables, appliances,
clean wood, scrap metal, textiles, yard waste,
fluorescent tubes and bulbs.
Skykomish Drop Box
74324 NE Old Cascade
Hwy
Skykomish 98288
1980 1,522 52 3,695 Standard curbside recyclables.
Vashon Recycling &
Transfer Station
18900 Westside Hwy
5W
Vashon 98070
1999 7,674 2,302 20,013
Standard curbside recyclables, appliances,
scrap metal, textiles, yard waste, fluorescent
tubes and bulbs, household and business
generated sharps, construction and
demolition debrisi".
E.EEovrl
FEfi
Etg
?ocoeo
L
lU
E
rah
EFOEEro
$3
9xLF.o crFt\9u.= !uE.=>orrvoo0cG
F
Fctr.N
Ee9.9EUd3ctgLF
E .g,
ssfg.b gv-cco,+,EO
c-.9
*EE
E Ef;itl Er
i:ooFH
0c
i0nly paid transactions are recorded.
ii Replaced the First NE Transfer Station.
iiiStandard curbside recyclables are glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed paper, newspaper, and cardboard.
i'Construction and demolition debris is accepted for disposal.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufu zotS5-4
AttA Page 128
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Resource Recovery at Transfer Stations
Resource recovery is separation of recyclables that happens after disposed materials are received by the county. lt
is a growing aspect of division business. Historically, the division's recycling programs have been limited to source
separation by curbside customers. However, since 70 percent of the materials brought to the transfer stations could
be recycled, sorting out target materials can help reach recycling goals. The division is increasing its resource recovery
efforts. Based on a successful pilot project that separated
tons of recyclables at the Shoreline Recycling and
Transfer Station, new staffwere approved for expanded
sorting of recyclables from mixed waste at the Shoreling
Bow Lake, and Enumclaw stations. Recycling bins are also
provided near where self-haul customers unload their
cars at those stations.
ln addition to providing the standard recycling services,
Bow Lakg Enumclaw, and Shoreline Recycling and Transfer
Stations have increased the amounts of cardboard, scrap
metal, and clean wood recycled by actively removing
these materials from mixed waste with use of an excavator
and by providing additional staffto engage customers in
the separation of recyclables from mixed waste loads at
the point of disposal.
ATransfer Station Operator recovers cardboard from a mixed
load of solid waste
fr
.:
.',t11
#
{I
Is!o-o-o,
Materials Recovery bythe Numbers
ln2O17, additional staffing, recycling bins, and signage in the self-haul areas resulted in the recovery of
7,184 tons of cardboard, metal, and wood, an increase of 1,323 tons over 2016.
Services for Moderate Risk Wastes
Many common household products, such as pesticides and certain cleaning products, contain ingredients that are
toxic, flammable, reactive, or corrosive. Disposed improperly, these products, referred to collectively as moderate
risk waste, can pose a threat to human health and the environment. Moderate risk waste generated in King County is
managed through the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (LHWMP).This program is jointly managed by
5-5
20"t4
0
6
"1,184
1,190
2015
1,160
156
2,1"14
3,43"1
2016
2,8"14
286
2,761
5,861
2017
3,426
776
2,982
7,"184
Total
7,400
1,224
9,04"1
17,666
BowLake
Enumclaw
Shoreline
Materials Recovery (AdditionalTons) April 1, 2914- Dec 31,2017
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufi zod
Att A Page 129
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
King County, the City of Seattle, the 37 cities within our service area, and Public Health. The guiding policies and plans
are contained in the joint Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Watson 201 0), mandated under RCW 70.1 05.
The county accepts moderate risk waste from residents through two avenues: the traveling Wastemobile and the
stationary drop-off site at the Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station. ln addition, the City of Seattle operates two
moderate risk waste collection sites within its borders, which are open to all King County residents. Wastes collected
through these services are recycled, reused, or incinerated when necessary. None is disposed at Cedar Hills. Moderate
risk waste collection for residents is funded through a surcharge
on garbage disposal, residential and business garbage collection,
and wastewater discharge fees. Residents and businesses using
the services are not charged at the drop-off locations. Jurisdictions
receive funds from the LHWMP to provide the service.
Created in 1989, the county's Wastemobile was the first
program of its kind in the nation. lt is a mobile service that
travels to communities within King County, staging collection of
moderate risk waste at each site for two or three days at a time.
The traveling Wastemobile had 21 events in 2O"17 that served
1 1,851 King County residents, collecting 272tons of moderate
risk waste.This represents a customer increase of five percent
from 201 6. The Wastemobile also provides a mobile moderate
risk waste collection at The Outlet Collection Seattle (formerly
the Supermall) in Auburn each Saturday and Sunday .ln 2017,
235 tons of moderate risk waste were collected at this location
from 9,481 customers, six percent more customers than used
the service in 2016. The county's Factoria Recycling and Transfer
Station offers moderate risk waste drop-off service six days a
week. ln September 2017,the new Factoria state-of-the-art
moderate risk waste facility opened. lt has more capacity and
functionality than the previous facility did, enabling the division
to effectively and safely collect hazardous waste. ln 2017, a little
over 13,000 customers brought 281 tons of moderate risk waste to Factoria.
Since 2008, Factoria and the Wastemobile have also accepted moderate risk waste from small businesses. ln 2017, this
program served 267 small-quantity generator business customers and collected 18 tons of moderate risk waste.
Collection of Sharps
Sharps are medical productl such as hypodermic needles, scalpel blades, and lancets, which require special handling
to ensure their safe collection, transfer, and disposal. Without proper containment, sharps can pose a safety hazard to
workers through potential exposure to blood-borne pathogens or other disease-causing agents. Within King County,
the disposal of sharps is regulated byTitle 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health and by King County's
Waste Acceptance Rule PUT 7-1 -6(PR),9/17 .
Disposal of sharps in the general waste stream is prohibited. Separate, secure receptacles for sharps collection are
provided for residents and small businesses at the Vashon Recycling and Transfer Station with prior authorization from
the division's SpecialWaste Unit. Residents may also deposit home-generated sharps in separate, secure receptacles
at the Factoria, Shoreline and Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Stations. Business-generated sharps are not accepted
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS
The moderate risk waste collection facility at the
new Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station collects
moderate risk waste from households and small
businesses
5-6
Att A Page 130
Ordinance 18893 Updated 4pfl17,2019
at the transfer facilities, except at Vashon with prior authorization from the Special Waste Unit. Sharps generated by
medical facilities or businesses are accepted for disposal at Cedar Hills with prior authorization from the Special
Waste Unit.
There are alternative methods for the proper management of sharps. For example, some health care providers and
pharmacies will take back used sharps in pre-approved containers. There are also mail-in programs available.
Trends in Transfer Station Usage
Figure 5-2 shows the tons of garbage received at the transfer stations and the landfill over the last 27 years. The
drop in total tons disposed in the early to mid-l990s is attributable to the success of waste prevention and recycling
programs that began in the late 1 980s, the withdrawal of the City of Seattle from the county's system in 1 991, and the
ban on most construction and demolition debris from the division's solid waste system in 1993. ln 2004 the amount
of garbage taken directly to Cedar Hills decreased significantly due to an increase in the fee charged to commercial
collection companies that were hauling wastes directly to the landfill. The economic downturn is primarily responsible
for the tonnage reduction since 2007.The division does not expect a rapid return to earlier tonnage levels.
Figure 5-2. Total tons processed at transfer facilities and disposed
at Cedar Hills (1990 -2017)
1,400,000 I Transfer Facilities
O CedarHills
l,ooo,ooo
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Seventy-two percent of the garbage received at the transfer facilities in2O17 was brought by the larger, commercial
collection trucks, with the remaining 28 percent delivered by business and residential self-haulers (shown in Figure
5-3). While the larger garbage loads come from the commercial haulers, self-haulers account for 87 percent of the
customer transactions (Figure 5-3). At some of the urban stations that are operating at or near maximum capacity,
the mix of self-haul and commercial customers can cause long traffic queues and crowded conditions on the tipping
floor. Transfer station capacity depends on a number of variables such as the mix of collection trucks versus self-
haulers, available tipping stalls for each, on-site queue capacity for each, and trailer loading ability (in the case of the
1,2oo,o0o
I = q.{ l!) rt 14 \o t\ Q9 g\ o (\ (Yr .f r \o N € o\ o (\ ffr sf rr \o Nq 9l S\ g\ g\ q\ O\ O\ O\ C I O O O O O O O O Oc c o\ o\ o\ or or o\ o\ o\ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o(\ (\ N (\l (\ (\ t\ (\ nl N N N N (\ nt N a! (\
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -July zotS
Aft A Page 131
5-7
Ordinance 18893 Uodated April 17, 2019
Figure 5-3. Percent of tons and transactions at transfer facilities by hauler type (201 7)
tons transactions
I Commercial haulers
I Self-haulers
older stations with no preload compactors). The division has managed these problems, to the extent possible at each
station, by providing separate queuing lanes for the two customer types and allowing maximum separation on the
tipping floor, for safety as well as efficiency. Crowding is somewhat eased by the fact that self-haulers typically use the
stations more on weekends, while commercial transactions occur primarily on week days.
To understand who self-hauls to the transfer facilities and why, the division conducts periodic surveys of customers
through on-site questionnaires at each facility. Self-haulers consist of single- and multi-family residents and non-
residential customers, such as landscapers, small contractors, industries, offices, stores, schools, government agencies,
and increasingly, independent haulers for hire.The most common type of self-hauler is the single-family resident.
Of the self-haultrips, about 88 percent are made by residential customers, who bring in about 75 percent of the self-
haul tons. About 12 percent of the trips are made by non-residential self-haulers, bringing about 25 percent of the
self-haul tons.
The number one material disposed by self-haulers is dimensional lumber (a subset of construction and demolition
debris), followed byyard waste, other construction and demolition wastes, furniture, and scrap metal.The division's
waste characterization studies indicate that approximately 70 percent of the materials disposed by self-haulers
are recyclable.
In
Planning Capacity at New Recycling and Transfer Stations
New recycling and transfer facilities are being designed to safely and efficiently serve both commercial
and self-haul customers. When a new station is designed, maximum capacity is not targeted to occur
when the station opens, but is dependent upon vehicular projections into the futurg usually 20 - 30
years.The mix of traffic and tonnage on weekends and weekdays varies significantly, so it is usually
vehicular capacity on weekends that drive queue length, number of tip stalls, and therefore overall size
of the facility. On weekdayt tonnage drives the operation of a station.
zotg Compre/tensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zotS
72a/o
5-8
Att A Page 132
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Waste characterization studies conducted at transfer stations also survey self-haulers on-site at the transfer facilities
(Cascadia 201 6). The most common reason for transfer station visits was "large amount of garbage"(1 8 percent).
Other primary reasons for self-hauling included, "items too big to fit in garbage can;" (1 6 percent) "cheaper or saves
money"(1 4 percent),'bther"(10 percent), and "cleaning home or workplace"(nine percent). The most frequent
response from nonresidential customers was "large amount of garbage" (26 percent).
Evaluation and Planning for the Urban Transfer Stations
The county's implementation of the SolidWasteTransferandWasteManagementPlan (Transfer Plan) is underwayto
renovate the aging transfer system to better serve its customers.This investment in the transfer system will help the
division meet demands created by the growth in population since Cedar Hills began accepting waste in the mid-
1960's, by technological changes in the industry, and by ongoing
advances in the recycling and salvage of materials from the
waste stream.
The Planning Process
Since 1992, continuing growth in the county and technological
changes in the industry have intensified the need for significant
improvements and updates to the division's infrastructure.The
2OO1 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (2001 Plan)
reasserted the need for an updated transfer system (KCSWD
2002). Given the scope of changes anticipated, both the cities
and the county recognized the need for a more coordinated
approach to the planning and decision-making process. ln2OO4,
the County Council adopted Ordinance "1497"1, which prioritized
evaluation of the urban transfer station network as an integral
part of the waste management plan and established a process for
collaborative participation by the cities in solid waste planning.
Codified in KCC 10.25.1 10, Ordinance"l4gTl outlined an iterative
process of analysis and reporting that would culminate in a
plan containing recommendations for upgrading the solid
waste system. The ordinance also established a forum for cities,
division, and County Council staffto collaborate on solid waste
planning through the advisory committees - the Solid Waste The Algona Transfer Station was built in the
mid-1960's
Advisory Committee (SWAC) and the Metropolitan Solid Waste
Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC).The legislation
also created the lnterjurisdictionalTechnical Staff Group (ITSG) to assist MSWMAC with its work. ITSG included staff
representatives from the cities, County Council staff, and the division.The group was very active during the initial
stages of data gathering and analysis for the planning process, but is no longer meeting. Much of the initial work was
to evaluate the whole system and develop recommendations that would help inform and guide the direction of
this Plan.
Along with division staff the committees first analyzed various aspects of the solid waste system through four iterative
milestone reports.These reports identified the need to renovate the county3 urban transfer facilities by evaluating the
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -JuQ zotS
Att A Page 133
5-9
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17,2019
current conditions of each facility, discussed options for public and private ownership and operation of solid waste and
recycling facilities, and identified packaged alternatives for the future configuration of the transfer station network.
These four milestone reports culminated in theTransfer Plan, which provides recommendations for upgrading the
transfer station system and services; methods for extending the lifespan of Cedar Hills; and options for preparing the
landfill for eventual closure.Through the process of analysis and reporting, the division's stakeholders had a significant
role in shaping the recommendations in theTransfer Plan. At the conclusion of the process, they communicated their
support of the plan to the King County Executive and the County Council.
Before final approval of theTransfer Plan, the County Council requested an independent third-party review of the
Transfer Plan. The review was conducted by the firm Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, lnc., who fully supported the
primary objectives of the plan to modernize the transfer station system and maximize the lifespan of the Cedar Hills
landfill. Based on Gershman, Brickner & Bratton's review and the support of both SWAC and MSWMAC, the County
Council unanimously approved theTransfer Plan in December 2007.
|n20"12, as the division moved to implement the Transfer Plan, several cities raised questions about how changes in
core planning assumptions may call for a change in iflhow to proceed with the replacement of the Algona, Factoria,
and Houghton transfer stations. With a lower tonnage forecast than was predicted in 2006 when theTransfer Plan
was agreed tq and the indication that five cities were going to exit the system in 2028 resulting in an additional drop
of system tonnage, it was decided to conduct a Transfer Plan Review, starting in 2013. At the end of that process, it
was confirmed that a new Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station should be built and siting for a new South County
Recycling and Transfer Station should continue. However, siting for a new Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station
was postponed while alternative options were explored.
ln 2O'14, Council Motion I 4145 directed the division, in collaboration with stakeholders, to continue to evaluate a
mix of capital facilities and operational approaches to address system needs over time, including implementing
operational approaches such as transaction demand management strategies that would provide service for the
northeast county without building an additional transfer station; and to compare trade-offs and benefits with the
Transfer Plan.
The division transmitted a
final report to the County
Council on June 30,201 5 as
directed by Motion 14"145.
The report reaffirmed that
the siting process for the
South County Recycling
and Transfer Station should
continue, but that the siting
process for the Northeast
Recycling and Transfer
Station should be postponed.
lnstead, the report
recommended that the
division conduct a demand
management pilot to test
whether instituting longer
The new Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station opened in the fall of 2017
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zotS5-10
Att A Page 134
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
hours and peak pricing at the Factoria Transfer Station would influence customers to either use the station at different
hours or to use another station. During lengthy discussions with the division, advisory committees raised numerous
concerns about the demand management pilot, including its impact on service levels, traffic, and regional equity.
ln 2017 , with the city of Bellevue signing the Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreemenf (Amended
and Restated ILA), and higher tonnage than was forecast in 2014 coming into the system, the county concluded
that the demand management pilot as planned would likely not be effective. County Council Ordinance 18577 and
accompanying Motion 14968 canceled the demand management pilot and initiated a further planning effort for
transfer capacity in the Northeast service area. The legislation allocated one million dollars to planning work to assess
waste transfer capacity needs in the Northeast area of King County and options to meet these needs. lt also directs
the division to plan for needed transfer station capacity in the Northeast area that would be in addition to the existing
Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station. By early 2018, the remaining four cities, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Medina and
Yarrow Point also signed the Amended and Restated lLA.
Service Level Evaluation Criteria
ln the first milestone report (KCSWD and ITSG 2004), the division and advisory committees developed 17 criteria to
evaluate the urban transfer facilities. To determine the appropriate standards of performancq the division consulted
the local commercial collection companies and other experts, and applied national environmental and transportation
standards. Details on the application of these evaluation criteria to individual facilities are contained in the second
milestone report prepared by the division and advisory committees and approved by the County Council (KCSWD
2005a). Criteria to address costs and rate-setting considerations were applied during the development of system
alternatives in the final milestone report (KCSWD 2006a).
The evaluation criteria were applied to five of the six urban stations - Algona, Bow Lake, Factoria, Houghton, and
Renton.The former First Northeast station was not evaluated because it was in the process of being rebuilt.The
rebuilt station opened in 2008 as the Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station.These criteria were again evaluated
and confirmed as appropriate during the 2013/l4Transfer Plan Review process.They provide guidance for evaluating
existing stations and designing new ones, but the facility site and other constraints may mean that new facilities do
not entirely meet all criteria.
For the urban station evaluations, the 17 criteria were grouped into three broad categories - level of service to
customers, station capacity and structural integrity, and effects on surrounding communities. As expected for these
five aging facilities, the majority of the criteria were not met, resulting in decisions to reconstruct or close the stations
when sufficient replacement capacity was available.
The three categories of evaluation criteria are described below;
Level of Service
. Estimated traveltime to a facility -This criterion measures how conveniently located the facilities are for
customers, measured by the maximum travel time to the closest facility in their service area.The standard was
established as 30 minutes for at least 90 percent of the customers. lt provides an indication of whether the
transfer stations are well dispersed throughout the county.
. Time on site - Time on site measures the time to get in and out of the station, including unloading time. lt was
evaluated separately for commercial haulers (with a standard of 16 minutes) and business and residential self-
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zotS
Att A Page 135
5-11
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
haulers (each with a standard of 30 minutes). lt provides an indicator of whether a transfer station can handle
customers efficiently.
. Facility hours - lndividual days and hours of operation for each station are based on the division's usage data and
customer trends. Some of the urban stations are open in the early morning or late evening hours to serve the
commercial haulers. Currently, the only days that the entire system is closed are Thanksgiving, Christmas, and
NewYear's Day.
. Levelof Recycling Services - The final criterion in this category was whether recycling services provided at
the stations met the waste prevention and recycling policies established in the 2001 Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan.ln general, the policies directed that all stations should 1) provide for collection of
the curbside recyclables, including glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed waste paper,
newspaper, and cardboard,2) where feasible, provide areas for source-separated yard waste collection, and 3)
maintain the capacity to add collection of new materials based on market opportunities and community needs.
Station Capocity
Station capacity is likely the single greatest limitation of the five urban transfer stations, both now and in the future. lt
was measured using a number of criteria that affect daily operations, future expansion, and emergency capacity.
- Vehicle and tonnage capacity -
Two major operational
considerations measured were
station capacity for vehicle traffic
and solid waste tonnage, both at
the time of the study and over the
2o-year planning horizon. Optimal
operating capacity is the maximum
number of vehicles and tonnage
that can be efficiently processed
through the station each hour
based on the station design and
customer mix.To derive criteria that
would indicate how well a station
could be expected to perform, the
division modeled its criteria after
the transportation standards used Recycling at the Enumclaw Recycling and Transfer Station
to measure roadway capacity. The
transportation standards were modified to assign measures of capacity to transfer facilities.The optimal level
of service was defined as "able to accommodate vehicle and tonnage throughput at all times of the day, except
for occasional peak hour times. Based on the criteria, a station that provides the optimal level of service more
than 95 percent of the time is considered underutilized, meaning it offers more capacity than required for the
area it serves. A level of service in which capacity is exceeded during only 5 to 10 percent of operating hours is
considered optimal.
. Space for three days' storage - Available storage capacity establishes whether a transfer station can continue to
operate, or accept garbage, for at least three days in the event of a major regional disaster.
zory Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS
$ort lt Out
5*t:,.i r*a *:: a{aiici,lj a
*f 1,ftq,
Crrdb€r{t -
Cru .
€lre*
ttfood -.+
5-12
Att A Page 136
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
. Space for station expansion - Stations were evaluated to determine 1) whether there is space for expansion on
the existing property or 2) whether there is adjacent land available on which to expand operations. These two
standards were used primarily to determine if the station could be expanded in its current location or if a new
location would be needed to efficiently manage current and future needs.
. Meets facility safety goals - While all stations hold current permits from Public Health and meet health and safety
standards, overall safety is a concern as stations become more congested and operations more constricted.
The presence of these physical challenges at the stations does not mean they operate in an unsafe manner; it
does mean that it takes extra effort by staff and management at the stations to ensure the facilities are
operating safely.
. Roof clearance - This criterion measures a station's capacity to handle the larger commercial collection trucks.
Through discussions with the commercial collection companies, it was determined that a minimum clearance of
25 feet was needed to allow the new, larger trucks to unload efficiently. The longer truck/trailers with automated
lifts, which allow the garbage to
slide out the back of the trailers,
require higher vertical clearance
than trucks did in the past. Before
impovements were made to some
of the older stations, the collection
trucks could hit and potentially
damage station roofs, supporting
structures, or hanging lights as
they unload.
t*
The roof at the Houghton Transfer Station was raised in 2012 to
accommodate larger trucks
. Ability to compact waste -fhis
criterion examines whether the
station is equipped with, or has the
space to install, a waste compactor.
Waste compactors increase
efficiency and reduce costs by
compressing more garbage into
fewer loads for transport to the
landfill or other disposal option. When garbage has been compacted, transfer trailers can carry about one-third
more tons per trip, resulting in less traffic, less wear on local roads, less fuel use, and a reduction in greenhouse
9ases.
. Structural integrity -fhe purpose of this criterion is to ensure the facility meets code requirements for seismic,
wind, and snow events. All facilities were constructed in compliance with the applicable standards of the time
and were grandfathered in their current condition and presently meet the"life safety"standard, meaning the
station would not endanger occupants in the event of an emergency. The current standard for assessing new
transfer buildings for seismic performance is the lmmediate Occupancy standard, developed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).This standard means that the facility could be occupied immediately
following a seismic event. Because the King County Emergency Management Plan identifies transfer stations as
critical facilities in the event of an emergency, this FEMA standard applies to all new stations.
- - --j_-T-drt.:_-'--s
€!--_
"F"
?,*
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page '137
5-13
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Effe cts o n S urro u n di n g Com mu niti es
One of the division's highest priorities is to minimize the effects of its facilities on host cities and surrounding
communities. Through its advisory committees and meetings with cities, the division works to understand city and
community issues and concerns and bring their perspectives to system planning. Working together, five criteria were
developed to evaluate effects on communities.
. Meets applicable local noise ordinance levels - This criterion is to ensure that a facility does not violate state or
local (city) standards for acceptable noise levels. State and city standards are based on maximum decibel (dBA)
levels that consider zoning, land use, time of day, and other factors. Evaluations were based on the existence of
any reports of noise violations to the cities and additional noise level measurements performed at each station
by a consultant.
. MeetsPugetSoundCleanAirAgencystandardsforodors-Theprimarymeasureofodorissuesiscomplaintsbythe
public or employees. Complaints are typically reported to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) or directly
to the division. Complaints to PSCAA are verified by an inspector. lf an odor is verified and considered to be
detrimental, PSCAA issues a citation to the generator of the odor. The division also tracks and investigates odor
complaints.
. Meets goals for traffic on local streets - This criterion measures the impacts on local streets and neighborhoods
from vehicle traffic and queuing near the transfer stations.The area that could be affected by traffic from self-
haulers and commercial collection trucks extends from the station entrance to the surrounding streets.The
division hired a consultant to evaluate this criterion based on two standards: 1) that additional traffic meets
the local traffic level of service standard as defined inthe American Association of StoteTransportotion Officials
Manual and 2) that traffic does not extend onto local streets during more than 5 percent of the station's
operating hours.
. Existence of a 100-foot buffer between the active area and nearest residence -This criterion calls for a 1 00-foot
buffer between the active area of the station and the nearest residence.
. Compatibility with surrounding land uses - The final criterion used to evaluate the stations was the most
subjective and difficult to apply. lt looks at consistency with land use plans and zoning regulations, aesthetics,
and compliance with state and local regulations.This criterion was evaluated for each station during lengthy
discussions between the division and its advisory committees.
Since the level of service criteria were first applied to the transfer stations in 2005, the division has made changes and
upgrades to the system. New recycling and transfer stations have been completed at Bow Lake and Factoria, and the
roofs at Houghton, Algona and Renton were raised to meet the roof clearance standard.ln 2017, the division applied
selected criteria to the transfer stations again, using the current system conditions and an updated tonnage forecast.
Table 5-2 presents the updated results for criteria that could be affected by these changes. Although the Shoreline
station was not part of the original analysis, it is included in the update for reference.
Comprehensiue Solid Whste Management Plan -Ju$ zofi5-14
Att A Page 138
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Table 5-2" Key service level criteria applied to urban transfer stations
2. Tlme on slte meets standard for 9096 of trlps
a. commercialvehicles . 16 6in = tes NO YE5 YE5 NO NO YES
b. business self-haulers . 39 6in = tes YE5 YES YES YES YE5 YES
c. residential self-haulers .39 6in = les YE5 YE5 YES YE5 YE5 YE5
4. Recycling servlces... mcct policies in 2001 SolidWaste Plon
a. business self-haulers YE5/NO NO YE5 YE5 NO NO YE5
b. residential self-haulers YE5/NO NO YE5 YE5 NO NO YE5
5, Vehicle Copacity
a. meets runent needs YE5/NO NO YES YES YE5 YE5 YE5
b. meets 20-year forecast needs YE5/NO NO YE5*YESX NO NO NO
*This is very close; the result is within .5 percent of meeting the criteria
6. Avcrage dally handling copaciV ftons)
a, meets current needs YES/NO YE5 YE5 YE5 NO YES YES
b. meets 20-year forecast needs YE5/NO NO YE5 YES NO YES YE5
7. Spacefor 3 days storage
a. meets current needs YE5/NO NO YE5 YES NO NO YES
b. meets 20-year forecast needs YE5/NO NO YE5 YE5 NO NO YES
I l. Ability to compact waste
a. meets cunent needs YE5/NO NO YES YES NO NO YE5
oco
.E
!,Jt!J
=o€
t!
LoIUI
a!|r
g
oU€gl
o-
Eo*'go&
ot
oli0
u
Remaining criteria not listed above includes:
1. Maximum lime to a lransfer Facility
a. meetscunentneeds
b. meets 20 year forecast needs
3. Facility hours meet user demand
8. Space exists for station expansion
a. inside the property line
b. on available adjacent lands through
expansion
1 0. Meets facility safety goals
12. Structural integdty
a. Meets goals for structural integrity
b. Meets FEMA immediate occupancy
standards
13. Meets applicable local noise
ordinance levels
14. Meets PS(AA standards for odors
15. Meets goals for traffic on local streets
a. Meets LOSstandard
b. Traffic does not extend onto local
streets 9570 oftime
1 6. 100 foot buffer between active area &
nearest residence
17. Transfer station is compatible with
surrounding land use
9. Minimum roof clearance of 25 feet
zory Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 139
5-15
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Plans for the Urban Transfer Stations
Based on the application of evaluation criteria, the division and its advisory committees developed a plan to
modernize the transfer system, including the addition of waste compactors and other changes needed to provide
efficient and cost-effective services to the region's customers.
Activities approved by the County Council in theTransfer Plan include the following:
Bow Lake - deconstruct the existing transfer station and construct a new recycling and
transfer station on the existing site and adjacent property - completg
Factoria - deconstruct the existing transfer station and construct a new recycling and transfer
station on the existing site and adjacent property - complete,
Algona - close the station after it is replaced by a new recycling and transfer station in the
South County area - site selected,
Houghton - close the station when replacement capacity is available at a new Northeast
recycling and transfer station, and
Renton - close the station when replacement capacity is available.
Although approved for closure, this Plan recommends reserving the option to retain the Renton station in some
capacity, should its closure leave Renton and surrounding rural areas underserved. After the new transfer stations
have been completed, the impact of closure can be fully evaluated. Table 5-3 shows the planned changes for the
urban transfer stations and the two areas identified for construction of new stations.
The new Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station is located on the site of the old Bow LakeTransfer Station and
on adjacent property purchased from the Washington State Department of Transportation. During construction,
the facility remained open to commercial haulers and self-haulers. The new transfer building opened in July 2O'12,
immediately followed by deconstruction of the old transfer building to make way for an expanded recyclables
collection area and new scale house. The station was completed in 201 3.
The new Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station was built on the existing site and adjacent property purchased
by the division for construction of the new facility. The old station remained open as the new transfer building
was constructed. Once the new building was complete, the old building was deconstructed to make room for the
stationary moderate risk waste facitity and recyclables collection area.The new facility was completed in late 2017,
cost approximately 90 million dollars, and will not be expanded on the upper Eastgate Way property near the Factoria
Recycling and Transfer Station per Ordinance 18577 and accompanying Motion 14968.
A new South County station, estimated to cost about 1 I3 million dollars, will replace the current facility in Algona
on a site just north of the existing station. A new Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station is recommended, with an
estimated cost of approximately 133 million in2017 dollars. lnitial planning for Northeast area transfer capacity is
underway with more substantive work toward a new Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station anticipated after Plan
approval in 2019.
All new stations will be built to similar standards of service and sustainability as the Bow Lake, Factoria, and Shoreline
Recycling and Transfer Stations.There will be differences to accommodate community needs (e.g., Factoria retained
a stationary moderate risk waste facility), and each station will be appropriately sized and designed to meet tonnage
and customer requirements. All stations will have improved capacity, waste compactors, and additional space for
collection of recyclable materials.The capacity to accept yard waste and other recyclables from commercial collection
companies and to sort and remove recyclables from mixed loads will also be considered for new transfer facilities.
For each new station, the division will seek the highest appropriate environmental certification as mandated by the
County Green Building Ordinance.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zofi5-16
Aft A Page 140
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Lake Forest park Bothell
Kenmore
Klrkland
Yarow
2017
Cedar Hills
Newcastle lssaquah
Renton
1 965
2012
Lake
Nomandy Park
Federal Way
-
2008
Seattle
Burien
SeaTac
Des
Vashon
1999
Figure 5-4. Locations of existing and planned solid waste facilities
Woodlnvllle
Redmond
Bellevue
Duvall
Enumclaw
1 993
Sammamish
Maple
Carnatlon
Landfill
Snoqualmie
Bend
a
Cedar Falls
1980,s
Black
Paclflc
General areas for siting a new transfer station
Northeast
Type of facility
- New, retained or rebuilt transfer station
G Transfer station to be closed when replacement
ffi\,Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
|. Drop box
012 4 6 I
Mlles
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Lilaste Management Plan -Ju$ zod
capacity is available
AttA Page 141
5-17
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17.2019
The timeline for completing the siting, design, construction, and closure of the urban transfer stations is shown
inTable 5-3.
Table 5-3. Timeline for the facility renovation plan
1 Division recommends reserving the option to retain the Renton Transfer Station in some capacig.
Transfer Faci I ity Siting
As described earlier in this chapter, the need for new transfer facilities was identified through a comprehensive
analysis of the transfer system network, with extensive involvement from the division's advisory committees. While
general areas for site locations were identified (Figure 5-4), specific sites or specific site selection criteria were not.
The siting of a transfer facility is based on the technical requirements of operations and site constraints, such as site
size and shape; however, a successful siting effort must also be tailored to address the needs and concerns of the
service area communities. Many of the already renovated stations were rebuilt on the same site that the old station
was built on in part due to the challenges finding a suitable site in the urban area.The siting process involves a
number of steps - from development of site selection criteria to final selection of a site - and public involvement plays
an important role each step of the way. The following section describes how the division implemented the standards
and practices developed for transfer station siting during the planning process in its search for a new south county
facility site. A similar process adapted to the needs of Northeast area communities will be used to site a new northeast
county facility.
Siting a New South County Recycling and Transfer Station
The search for a site to replace the Algona Transfer Station with a new South County Recycling and Transfer Station
began in 2012. The new station will serve the same communities that are served by the current Algona station -
Algona, Auburn, Federal Way, and Pacific.
A Siting Advisory Committee (SAC) was formed to advise the division from a community and system-user perspective
by identifring community concerns and impacts, developing criteria used to evaluate potential sites, and expressing
opinions and preferences. SAC members included representatives from cities, local agencies and businesses,
chambers of commerce, school districts, commercial garbage and recycling collection companies, transfer station
users, environmental and neighborhood groupl tribes, and interested citizens.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/1 zotS
Factoria 0pen
South siting design and permit construction 0pen
Algona close
Northeast siting design and permit constructionplanning 0pen
Houghton close
Rentont close or modifr
operations
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
5-18
Att A Page 142
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
ln addition to forming a SAC, the division worked to ensure that members of the communities to be served by the
new station were aware of the project, were able to receive information about the project and had opportunities to
give input on the project. Public information efforts to non-English speaking communities included translating public
information materials into Spanish, Russian, and Korean and providing translators at public meetings. ln addition, the
division conducted an initial Equity lmpact Review (see text box for more information) to provide more information
about the communities surrounding the potential sites.
After an extensive site selection process and the completion of an Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS), the County
selected a site at 35101 West Valley Highway South, Algona, WA which is just north of the existing station. As indicated
in Table 5-3, the next phase of this project, design and permitting, will be undertaken in the next two years, followed
by another two years of construction. lt is anticipated that the existing Algona Transfer Station will continue to
operate until the new station is complete. At that point the old station will close. Up-to-date information about the
South County Recycling and Transfer Station project can be found on the division's website: www.kingcounty.gov/
d epts/d n r p/so I i d -wa ste/fa ci I iti e s/a I g o n a.a s px.
In
The Equity lmpact Review
The Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan 201G2022 (King County 201 6b) establishes a goal to 'Develop
facility and system improvements responsive to the values and priorities of residents and stakeholders
and achieve pro-equity outcomes."The purpose of the Equity lmpact Review is to fulfill that goal and to
ensure that equity impacts are considered during the siting, design, and operation of a new facility. lt
is a process to identiff, evaluatg and communicate the potential impacts on equity - both positive and
negative - of the project.There are five phases of the Equity lmpact Review which correspond to the
different stages of the project. For instance, an initial Equity lmpact Review was conducted during the
siting of the South County Recycling andTransfer Station.The review determined the populations that
would likely be impacted by the project and what the impacts might be. An expanded Equity lmpact
Review that will address approaches that will best meet community priorities and concerns will be an
integral part of the design and operation of the facility.
Providing Transfer Capacity in the Northeast Service Area
As early as the 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, the Houghton Transfer Station was identified as
being in need of replacement. Throughout the years, subsequent evaluations and studies, including the Transfer Plan,
confirmed the need for a new station and the closure of the old one.The existing Houghton station was constructed
in the mid-1960s on 8.4 acres of land.The station is bordered by the closed Houghton landfill on the north side, Bridle
Trails State Park on the south side, and private homes on the east and west sides.The station has an open-sided,
direct-dump style transfer building, a scalehouse, a modestly-sized no-fee recyclables collection area for a limited
range of materials, and trailer parking areas.
A New Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station is Recommended
Although previous plans recommended a new station, a Northeast station decision was not finalized, offering the
opportunity to re-evaluate transfer needs as part of this plan. County Ordinance 1 8577 directed that this plan ". . .
must address current waste transfer needs in the Northeast area of King County and how those needs are proposed
to be met." The Public Review Draft Plan issued in January 2018 identified three options to meet Northeast area
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -July zotS
Att A Page 143
5-19
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
transfer needs: 1) Houghton station'hs is;"2) site and build a new Northeast recycling and transfer station, and 3) a
combination of existing and/or new facilities.
After public comment and careful consideration of the three options, the option to site and build a new Northeast
recycling and transfer station is recommended, with the Houghton station to be closed after the new station is
complete. The location, services offered, and financial and transportation impacts to the community are components
of providing regional equity in transfer services in the Northeast service area. A new station will provide similar
services in the Northeast service area that updated transfer stations in other urban service areas now provide.The
Northeast area is among the fastest growing parts of the county and was the third busiest station in terms of both tons
and transactions in 2017. A new station will meet key levels of service to accommodate current and future tons and
vehicles, both on a daily basis and when emergencies require extra storage. lt would include compaction which could
decrease truck traffic from the station to the landfill by almost a third. lt would be designed to move customers through
the station efficiently, reducing customer disposal time. lt also would allow for full service recycling to help meet
county goals. A new station is the highest cost option, but its costs are in line with the cost of modern stations recently
built in other parts of the urban area. Siting a new station could take time and generate host community opposition.
lnitial planning for Northeast area transfer capacity is underway with more substantive work toward a new Northeast
Recycling andTransfer Station anticipated after Plan approval in 2019.The division will use experience gained in siting
the South County Recycling and Transfer Station to refine its approach to understanding capacity needs, evaluating
potential sites, and involving the community. Criteria for any facility that might ultimately be built in the Northeast
service area would be developed with members of that community. A first step in this process will be a dialogue to
understand the needs and concerns ofall ofthe stakeholders in the northeast service area.
Other Northeast Capacity Options Considered
The Houghton station "as is"and a combination of facilities, described below, were considered as options in the Public
Review Draft Comp Plan, but are not recommended as the best way to provide transfer capacity in the Northeast
service area.
Keep Existing Houghton Station Open
This option would keep the existing station open indefinitely and largely in its current condition.This option is the
"no action"or status quo alternative to addressing transfer capacity in the Northeast service area. lt would be the
least expensive option but would continue to provide lower levels of service for the Northeast compared to other
urban parts of the County system. Recycling options would be limited, compaction to reduce truck traffic would
not be available, and there would not be enough space to efficiently accommodate the future tons and numbers
of customers. Host city concerns about continued operation of the open sided station adjacent to a residential
neighborhood would continue.
Combination of Facilities
This option would use a combination of facilities to meet transfer capacity needs based on expected population
and employment growth, transportation corridors and other criteria to determine the types and sizes of transfer
stations needed to serve the area. lt would consider various combinations of facilities to meet transfer capacity
needs. For example, one combination that was used to develop the comparison in Table 5-4 would be to leave the
existing Houghton Transfer Station open to serve only self-haulers and site and build a separate facility elsewhere in
the service area to serve commercial haulers. Although this option could meet more level of service targets than the
Houghton station alone, it carries some of the challenges of both the Houghton "as is"option (continued open sided
station, limited space) and the new NE station option (siting a new facility, potential host community opposition).
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Whste Management P/an -July zotS5-20
Att A Page '144
Total cost per Ton (2029)1 52.39 sl3.1 1 5e.7e
GHG Reductionsfrom
Tra nsfer Stati on Recycli n g
eo2q2
(2,165 MTC02e)(32,098 MTC02e)(28,802 MTCO2e)
Level ofservice3 Will not meet any of the 6
key level ofservice criteria.
Will meet all6 key level of
service criteria.
Will not meet all6 key level of
service criteda.
Recycling
Cu6side mix,
textiles, and
cardboard.
Curbside mix,
textiles,
cardboard,
clean wood,
scrap metal,
yard waste,
appliancel and
other recyclables TBD.
Curbside mix,
textiles,
cardboard,
clean wood,
scrap metal, and
yard waste.
Risks
. Limited recycling and
fl exibilig for the system
in the future, and. Hostcityopposition.
. Siting a new station may take
time and be costly, and. Potential host city opposition.
. Limited recycling and flexibility
for the system in the future,. Sitinga newstation,and
. Potential hostcityopposition.
Comparative
Attribute Houghton'As ls"Northeast Recycling
and Transfer Station
Combination of
Facilities
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Table 5-4 Comparison of key characteristics of three transfer options considered
1 Costincludesbothcapitalandoperatingcosts.Previousestimatesofcostpertonandimpactonthecurbsiderateonlyincludedcapitalcosts
2 Using WARM model, calculates the GHG reduced by recyding at the station
3 Key level ofservice criteria: Time on site, Recycling services offered, Vehicle capacig, Average daily handling capacity (tons), 5pace for 3 days storage, and Abilig to
compactwaste
Evaluation and Planning for the RuralTransfer Facilities
Historically, the rural areas were served by small
community landfills. As those landfills closed,
most were replaced by either a transfer station or
a drop box.The Duvalland Hobart (near Maple
Valley) landfills were closed without replacement.
Currently, rural King County is served by two
recycling and transfer stations, in Enumclaw and
on Vashon lsland; and two drop boxes, in North
Bend (Cedar Falls) and Skykomish.
The Vashon Recycling and Transfer Station
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotS
Att A Page 145
5-21
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
ln 20O7 , the division applied the same 1 7 criteria used for the urban stations to the rural facilities. Because the drop
boxes are essentially collection containers covered by roof structures, there is no building per se to evaluate, so many
of the criteria did not apply. Criteria specific to the rural system were not developed because a preliminary look
indicated that the rural facilities, for the most part, met the standards set for the urban system, although they may
be open for fewer hours and days.To provide an appropriate level of service to area residents and the commercial
collectors, the division periodically reviews the operating hours of rural facilities and makes adjustments as needed.
The Enumclaw Recycling and Transfer Station, which opened in 1993, serves the City of Enumclaw and southeastern
King County.The City of Enumclaw provides its own garbage collection service and takes the wastes to the transfer
station. The station offers a wide variety of recycling opportunities and is equipped with a waste compactor. This
station met all of the evaluation criteria, with the capacity to provide a wide range of services and the flexibility to
respond to future needs.
The Vashon Recycling and Transfer Station opened in 1 999 to serve residents and businesses on Vashon lsland. This
station also met all of the evaluation criteria. lt accepts a wide range of recyclables and is also equipped with a waste
compactor. Because of its remote island location, the facility accepts some construction and demolition materials
and special wastes for disposal that the other stations do not. The division partnered with Zero Waste Vashon, a
community group focused on finding practical ways to recycle waste, to conduct a pilot program to collect yard
waste mixed with food waste.The program started in October 2015 and was made permanent in 2016.The division
will continue to partner with Zero Waste Vashon to find solutions to managing lsland waste in a cost effective and
environmentally appropriate fashion.
The drop boxes are scaled-down facilities, designed to provide cost-effective, convenient drop-off services in the
more remote areas of the county. The Cedar Falls Drop Box, which opened in 1 990, serves self-haulers in the North
Bend area. lt has three containers - two for garbage and one for yard waste - and provides a collection area for
some recyclables.This facility met all applicable evaluation criteria except for vehicle capacity, which is primarily
due to heavy weekend use. Currently, the same scale is used by both inbound and outbound traffic, which can lead
to backups on weekends when the station is most busy.The division is considering a number of improvements to
this facility, including a second scale to address heavy weekend use, another container for garbage or yard waste
collection, and expanded recycling opportunities.
The most remote facility operated by
the division is a drop box in the Town of
Skykomish. Built in 1980, the drop box
serves Skykomish and the communities of
Grotto and Baring. Skykomish provides its
own garbage collection service and takes
the wastes to the Skykomish Drop Box. The
drop box is also used by self-haulers, who
can bring garbage and recyclables to the
facility. The Skykomish facility is unstaffed;
payment is made at an automated gate
using a credit or debit card or pre-paid solid
waste disposal card.There are cameras at
the site to monitor activities, and division
staff makes regular visits to the site to
perform maintenance. ln addition, the King
County Road Services Division has a facility The Skykomish Drop Box
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zofis-22
Att A Page 146
Ordinance 18893 Updated Aoril 17.2019
next door, from which Road's staff help monitor the site. The drop box met all the applicable evaluation criteria and
appears to provide an appropriate level of service for the area. The facility received a new roof in 2008, after the old
roof collapsed under record snowfall in January of that year.
Some rural area customers may be affected by changes to the urban transfer system, primarily self-haulers who
currently use the Houghton or Renton transfer stations. When a new urban facility is ultimately sited in the Northeast
service area, the facility location may or may not adequately meet the service needs of rural areas. Should it be
necessary, the division may consider siting drop box facilities to serve residents. Construction of regional transfer
stations in these rural areas is not being considered. The division recommends deferring decisions about whether to
site drop boxes in these potentially underserved areas and whether to close the Renton transfer station until after the
new urban transfer stations have been completed and the impact on service capacity has been fully evaluated.
City Mitigation
Transfer stations provide an essential and beneficial public service. However, the stations have the potential to cause
undesirable impacts on host cities and neighboring communities, such as increased litter, odor, noise, road/curb
damage and traffic, as well as aesthetic impacts.The division works to mitigate these impacts in a number of ways,
such as collecting litter, landscaping on and around the site, limiting waste kept on-site overnight to reduce the
potential for odor, making road modifications, and siting facilities on or near major roadways to keep traffic off
local streets.
Seven cities in the division's service area currently have county-owned transfer facilities within their boundaries:
. Algona - the Algona Transfer Station,
. Bellevue - the Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station,
. Enumclaw - the Enumclaw Recycling and Transfer Station,
. Kirkland - the Houghton Transfer Station,
. Renton - the Renton Transfer Station,
. Shoreline - the Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station, and
. Tukwila - the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station.
As new transfer stations are constructed in the near future, the division will work with host and neighboring cities to
build stations that are compatible with the surrounding community. For example, during the design of the Shoreline
Recycling and Transfer Station, the division worked closely with the community to identify impacts and mitigation
measures. One result is that transfer trailers drive directly from the station onto lnterstate 5 using King County Metro
Transit's dedicated freeway ramps rather than city streets for access. ln addition, sidewalks on nearby streets were
improved; a new walking path was constructed at nearby Ronald Bog Park; trees were planted; and the portion of
Thornton Creek that flows through the site underwent significant restoration. The transfer building was also moved
farther from residences and is fully enclosed to mitigate impacts from noise, odor, and dust.
The division has also worked closely with the City of Bellevue on the replacement of the Factoria Transfer Station.
The initial plan was for a new facility to be constructed on property that fronts lnterstate 90 adjacent to the south side
of the old station. However, as a result of discussions with Bellevue, the division purchased adjacent property to the
northwest of the old station to complete the new facility.
The Amended and Restated ILA (included in its entirety in Appendix C) identifies the roles and responsibilities
of the county and the cities in the regional solid waste system. The county agrees to collaborate with host and
neighboring cities on both environmental review and project permitting. Additionally, the Amended and Restated ILA
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zod
Att A Page 147
5-23
Ordinance 18893 Updated April '17, 2019
recognizes that, in accordance with RCW 36.58.080, a city is authorized to charge counties to mitigate impacts directly
attributable to a county-owned solid waste facility. lt must be established that such charges are reasonably necessary
to lessen or eliminate impacts and the revenue generated may only be used for impact-mitigation purposes. Direct
impacts may include wear and tear on infrastructure, including roads. The city and county will work cooperatively
to determine the extent of the impacts and appropriate mitigation payments and will document any agreement.
Mitigation, including any necessary analysis, is a cost of the solid waste system and as such would need to be included
in the solid waste rate.
Transfer Services after an Emergency
Relatively common emergencies, such as seasonal flooding and winter storms, as well as major events, such as
earthquakes, can create a significant amount of debris. Debris generated during these types of events can obstruct
roadways, cause power outages, and interrupt essential services. A coordinated and effective plan ensures that debris
is properly managed to lessen the impacts on communities, the economy, and the environment in the immediate
aftermath of an emergency without causing additional problems later in recovery.
To this end, the division prepared the King County Operational Disaster Debris Management Plan (Debris Management
PIanXKCSWD 2009) for unincorporated King County. The Debris Management Plan is intended to facilitate rapid
response and recovery efforts during a disaster. The Debris Management Plan will be reviewed periodically, prior to
the storm season, and updated as needed.
The Debris Management Plan supports the 37 incorporated cities that are part of the King County solid waste system
with a framework and recommendations that can be used by the cities to develop their own operational disaster
debris management plans.The cities have the flexibility to develop a debris management plan that best addresses
their individual needs without compromising continuity within the county. Several cities have now adopted individual
plans. The City of Seattle has its own debris management plan and the City of Milton is participating in Pierce County's
debris management program.
The county's Debris Management Plan stipulates that during emergency response and recovery, the roles within the
King County solid waste system do not change.This means that the division will continue to accept municipal solid
waste at the transfer stations to the extent possible and will maximize recycling in accordance with RCW 70.95.010 (8)
and KCC Title 10. The transfer facilities will not be used for disposal of disaster debris that could be recycled.
The debris created by a larger event such as an earthquake, would likely consist primarily of recyclable materials, such
as concrete, metal, and wood.The division's Debris Management Plan is coordinated with emergency plans prepared
by other jurisdictions to maximize the recycling of these materials. The division work with the King County Regional
Communications and Emergency Coordination Center (RCECC) and the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program
to coordinate public information and help cities and residents identifr recycling options in the event of a debris-
causing emergency. Recycling the majority of emergency debris will maximize the division's capacity to continue to
handle municipal solid waste over the short- and long-term.
ln the event of an emergency, transfer services may be suspended in the short-term.The division's priorities are to:
1 . Ensure the safety of staff and customert
2. Confirm the structural integrity of facilities and environmental control systems,
3. Coordinate with the RCECC to determine any immediate needs for division staff or equipment, and
4. Resume service.
Management Plan -July zotS5-24 zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste
Att A Page 148
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
The division will maximize the use of existing transfer facilities after an emergency through operational measures
such as increased staffing or hours. lf some transfer facilities are closed or damaged as a result of the even!
customers will be rerouted to remaining stations, and commercial haulers may be routed directly to Cedar Hills landfill
Additionally, the division and the cities may establish temporary debris management sites where debris can be stored
until it can be sorted for recycling or proper disposal. lt is recommended that potential sites in unincorporated
King County and in cities be identified by each jurisdiction in advance of an emergency. The acceptance policies at
these sites would be determined in response to the nature of the event and the debris that is generated.
Processing Collected Materials
Processing Commingled Recyclables
The division expects that the private sector will continue to expand processing capacity for commingled recyclables
as the need arises. ln addition, numerous other private-sector facilities have emerged across the county where
individual residents and businesses can bring source-separated recyclables, from paper, cans, and bottles to printer
cartridges and cellular telephones, for processing.
While the conversion to commingled collection makes recycling easier for consumers and has resulted in increased
recycling, it presents some challenges for the recovery and processing facilities. One of the challenges is cross-
contamination of materials as
they are sorted and separated.
This is a problem particularly
for the paper stream, where
materials such as plastic milk
jugs end up in the baled paper.
Plastic bags sometimes catch in
and jam the sorting machinery
at materials recovery facilities,
and they can blow around and
cause litter problems. Paper
mills overseas typically perform
additional sorting of the
materials to recover misplaced
recyclables; however, most
domestic paper mills dispose Sorting line at the Cascade Recycling Center (Photo courtesy of Waste Management)
of these materials. ln the case
of glass, even small amounts of contamination in the sorted material can reduce the quality and affect the potential
end use of the recycled glass.These problems illustrate a fundamentalconflict between the benefits of commingled
recycling (it makes collection easier and leads to increased recycling) and the need for the materials recovery facilities
and end users to minimize the costs of handling these materials.
For the processing of commingled recyclables to be most efficient it is important that consumers are careful about
preventing contamination in the recycled loads by: 1) preparing recyclables for the collection cart (i.e., rinsing out
bottles and jars, breaking down cardboard boxes) and 2) placing materials in the proper collection container
3) closing container lids to keep materials dry. Contamination in the recyclables can cause a wide array of problems
during processing, which can lead to a reduction in the value of the materials processed for market or, in extreme
zotg Compre/tensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 149
5-25
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17, 2019
cases, the disposal of entire mixed loads. This issue can best be remedied through education programs on proper
recycling techniques offered through local governments and the collection companies. See Chapter 4 for a discussion
of issues regarding markets.
As the region moves forward, the recommended role of the county and cities is to focus on increasing the supply
and improving the quality of recyclable materials delivered to processors. The value of materials for recycling can be
maximized through public education - to decrease contamination in the recycling stream and ensure that materials
are properly prepared before being placed in the recycling container - and through market development - by
encouraging businesses to invest in technologies used to sort and process recyclables.
There are materials that present unique challenges or require more definitive decisions about the optimal way to
process them, such as container glass, food-contaminated paper, compostable and degradable plastic, plastic bag
and film, plastic caps, poly-coated paper, and shredded paper.The division, along with several cities, has participated
in the Northwest Region Commingled Workgroup to identifo key issues with commingled collection and processing
and to develop recommendations for addressing them. The division will be working with the cities, the collection
companies, and processors to determine which of these recommendations will be implemented in King County.
Processing Organics
Organic waste (yard, wood and food waste) represents the largest recyclable commodity that is landfilled - 320,000
tons, more than a third of the total tons disposed at Cedar Hills landfill. Diverting these materials is key to meeting our
goals. Currently composting is the primary processing option for these materials in the region.
The volume of organics that is currently collected from King County businesses and residents for recycling is close to
exceeding the regional permitted capacity for such processing. The current amount of recycled organics represents 90
percent of the region's processing capacity.
Table 5-5. Regional compost facilities
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zofi
Jurisdiction King County City of Seattle Snohomish County TOTAL
TonsPerYear 257,829 177,315 65,800 500,944
Processor Cedar Grove:
Maple Valley
Cedar Grove: Everett Lenz: Stanwood TOTAL
Address 17825 Cedar Grove Rd 5E,
MapleValley,WA
3260 35th Pl NE
Everett,WA
5210 5R 532
Stanwood,WA
Tons PerYear 250,000 228,000 75,000 553,000
2017 Summary ol organics recycled by region
2018 Summary of organics permitted capacity by processor
5-26
Att A Page 150
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
There is only one facility in King County permitted to handle food waste. Relying on one large regionalfacility
that is operating near its maximum permitted capacity is a concern, especially if the region wants to increase the
amount of organics that are recycled instead of being disposed. This facility is pursuing operational changes to help
mitigate odor concerns, and continues to be the subject of community odor complaints. One reason that capacity
is constrained in the region is because organics cannot be transported to Central/Eastern Washington for new
processing capacity because of theWashington State Apple Maggot Quarantine regulations (RCW 17.24).
Maintaining the quality of finished product is critical to compost markets, and processing challenges include:
. Contamination of composting
feedstocks, particu la rly from
glass and plastic film.
. Composting feedstock are in
transition. Regional commercial
facilities were largely designed
for yard waste, not the mix of
food, yard, and compostable
packaging that is collected and
processed today. A need exists
for upgraded technology to
manage the new material mix.
. Processors have expressed a
desire to better anticipate the
future feedstock mi& noting a Cedar Grove Composting Facility (Photo courtesy of Cedar Grove)
need for better information on
volumes and incoming materials
to inform investments in capacity, equipment, and labor.
. Financing for technology upgrades at existing facilities.
. Composters report that market prices and sales for compost products have been stable. However, maintaining the
quality of finished product is key to maintaining adequate market demand for composg processors must balance
the costs of adding processing steps (such as for additional contaminant removal) with maintaining competitive
market prices for finished product.
lf organics diversion significantly increases in King County and the surrounding region, more processing capacity
will be needed. ln order to significantly increase diversion of organic materials that are disposed from single and
multi-family homes and businesses, a regional dialogue with exploration of alternatives and solutions for expanding
capacity is necessary. This will help minimize environmental and community impacts related to regional organics
processing and ensure an adequate capacity and infrastructure is in place for regional organics processing, including
contingency plans in the event regional capacity is constrained.
A range of options should be pursued to address organics recycling capacity including continued organics and soils
education to promote the recycling and use of organics on landscapes, market development such as local buy-back
programs, the pursuit of new technologies and additional private or public infrastructure development.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -JuQ zotS
AttA Page 151
5-27
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
Emerging Processing Tech nologies
Resource recovery goes beyond sorting to include technologies such as anaerobic digestion, advanced materials
recovery, pyrolysis, and gasification. Most of these technologies hold promise for the future but do not yet have
extensive track records in reliably handling the amount of waste in King County's system. A brief discussion of
anaerobic digestion and advanced materials recovery follows. For a discussion on pyrolysis and gasification, see
Chapter 6, Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal.
Anaerobic Digestion
ln 2016, the division hired HDR Engineering to evaluate options for adding anaerobic digestion to regional organics
processing (KCSWD 2017b). Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that transforms organic waste into renewable
energy, and in some situations, a useable residual by-product. HDR evaluated anaerobic digestion technologies using
both source-separated organics with minimal contamination, and municipal solid waste containing approximately
one third organic waste. The division required HDR to focus on local conditions, feedstocks, and markets.
While the study does not identify a clear role for anaerobic digestion in the county's solid waste system, it does
recommend further research into several small-scale anaerobic digestion options for source-separated organics, with
varying levels of public and private sector collaboration. For instance, with grant money from the division, a small-
scale anaerobic digester is being piloted on Vashon lsland. Source-separated organics-based anaerobic digestion
solutions are currently more affordable
and more reliable than municipal solid
waste-based systems. As a feedstock,
municipal solid waste typically benefits
greatly from advanced pre-processing,
which is costly and currently has mixed
success rates.
Cu rrently, source-separated organics in
King County are managed by private-sector
companies, and do not even come to the
countyS transfer stations. However, source-
separated organics are likely the best
feedstock for successful anaerobic digestion
based on minimal contamination which
lowers pre-processing costs, eases the
anaerobic digestion process, and results in a
marketable organ ic by-product.
Example of a small anaerobic digester in Redmond
(Photo courtesy of Impact BioEnergy, Inc)
Advanced Materials Recovery
Advanced materials recovery as it is envisioned at the county recycling and transfer stations would involve both
floor sorting of recyclables by division staffand installing some mechanical sorting systems at select facilities (most
likely Bow Lake, the new south station, and any other new stations). An additional consideration might be a separate
advanced materials recovery facility (public, privatg or a partnership) capable of processing sufficient mixed waste to
reach a 70 percent recycling rate for the county. This alternative would reach recycling goals more quickly than waste
prevention would, as it relies less on changes in customer behavior. However, feasible system configurations and cost
effectiveness are not yet known and would require more study, including a cost benefit analysis.
Management Plan -July zotS5-28 zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste
AttA Page 152
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
!
a;
Ordinance 18893
t-.
I
I
It
I
I
.:l
: ;..
:e
i,Ff
I
Landfill
Manage m
an d
Solid .Waste
_-a 1
I i
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17, 2019
Operate and maintain the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill to meet or
exceed the highest federal, state, and local standards for protection
of public health and the environment.
Maximize the capacity and lifespan of the Cedar Hills Regional
Landfill.
Monitor and maintain closed landfills to meet or exceed the
highest federal, state, and local standards for protection of public
health and the environment.
Plan for future disposal when Cedar Hills Regional Landfill closes to
ensure no gap in service. Siting a replacement landfill located in
King County will not be considered.
Garbage shall not be disposed of, nor shall soils be stockpiled,
within 1,000 feet of the property line at the landfill, in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement. The solid waste division shall
reserve sufficient funds to acquire any parcels from willing sellers
as necessary to establish or maintain the buffer.
Policies
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-s
Att A Page 155
Updated April 17, 2019
The following table includes a menu of recommended actions that the county and the
cities should implement. Under the responsibility column, the entity listed first has primary
responsibility for the action, bold indicates that the entity has responsibility for the action, and
a star (*) indicates that the action is a priority. lf the responsibility is not in bold, the action has
lower implementation priority.
Action Detailed
Discussion
Page 6-5
Page 6-9
Page 6-14
Page 6-'17
lmplement a bird management plan for Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Page 6-8
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Further develop the Cedar Hills regional landfill to maximize disposal
capacity.To account for technological advances, do not specify the
next disposal method after ultimate Cedar Hills closure in this Plan.
Conduct analysis of post Cedar Hills disposal options prior to the next
Plan update to ensure adequate lead time for selecting, planning for,
and implementing the next disposal method.
Continue to track evaluate, and test other disposal and conversion
technologies for their potential to handle all or a portion of the
county's future waste. Provide updates on findings to division
advisory committees on a regular basis.
To prepare for potential emergencies, work with state and regional
authorities to coordinate an updated Debris Management Plan for
King County.
lnvestigate beneficial reuse options for closed landfills, designing
monitoring and environmental systems that will facilitate reuse of the
properties, provide potential revenue, and provide continued benefit
to the surrounding communities.
Action
Number and
Responsibility
1-d
County, cities,
advisory
committees*
3-d
County, cities,
tribal
govetnments,
advisory
committees
2-d
County*
4-d
County
s-d
County
Att A Page 156
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
dfill Management
olid'Waste Disp osal
This chapter discusses the County's current disposal practices at the Cedar Hills landfill, as well as presenting
important long-term disposal choices that must be decided as part of the approval of this Plan. lt also provides
information on how special wastes are disposed, disposal of waste after an emergency is handled, and programs to
address disposal of illegally dumped waste are operated. Finally, it addresses how past disposal sites - closed landfills
- are managed.
Current Disposal at the Cedar Hills Landfill
For more than 50 years, King County has relied on the Cedar Hills landfill as a local means of cost-effective solid waste
disposal. Although another disposal method will ultimately be needed, the county has used several approaches
to maximize value for ratepayers and extend the landfill's life beyond the 2012 closure date predicted in the 2001
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management PIan. Since 2001, new practices and policies have made better use of landfill
space, new capacity has been built, the tons going to the landfill have been reduced, and studies have identified
opportunities to further develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity through the planning horizon of this Plan.
The So/id WasteTransfer and Waste Management PIan (Transfer Plan), approved by the County Council in December
2007, included the following recommendation:
"Explore opportunities for taking advantage of available landfill capacity to extend the life of this
cost-effective disposal option; revise the Cedar Hills Site Development Plan and seek to maximize
the capacity (lifespan) of the landfill, subject to environmental constraints, relative costs to operate,
and stakeholder interests."
To implement theTransfer Plan recommendation, the division is pursuing three primary strategies to extend
landfill life:
. Diversion of waste,
. Operational efficiencieq and
. New area development.
These three strategies seek to extend the life of the landfill by increasing landfill capacity and density, which are
defined as follows:
. Landfill capacity -the amount of spacg often referred to as airspace, which is permitted and available for
disposal of waste. Landfill capacity is calculated based on the height footprint, and slopes of the landfill.
. Density - how tightly materials are packed together, in this case solid waste in the landfill. A higher density
means more waste packed into a given amount of space. The density of solid waste within the landfill is a
function of both operational practices, the types of waste, and natural processes. Density is increased as waste
is compacted by heavy machinery on the face of the landfill and by the natural settling that occurs over time as
solid waste decomposes.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/y zotS
Aft A Page 157
6-1
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
Diversion of Waste
Reducing the amount of waste delivered to the landfill (waste diversion) is the most effective strategy for extending
landfill life.The division will continue to practice current methods of waste diversion and may implement further
strategies, as discussed below and in more detail in Chapter 4, Sustainable Materials Management.
Current Strategies for Waste Diversion
Waste is currently diverted from Cedar Hills through two primary methods - waste prevention and recycling and a
ban on the acceptance of most construction and demolition debris.
Waste prevention and recycling efforts have proven a successful strategy for extending the life of the landfill. During a
20-year period, an estimated 10 million tons of materials that would otherwise have been disposed in the landfill were
recycled, extending the landfill's life by approximately 10 years.
Banning most construction and demolition debris from Cedar Hills has also contributed to extending landfill life. Since
the disposal ban went into effect in 1994, an estimated 4 million tons of construction and demolition debris has been
diverted from the landfill (see Chapter 4, Sustainable Materials Managementfor more information about construction
and demolition debris recycling and disposal).
Potential Strategies for Waste Diversion
The division will continue to consider diverting a portion of the solid waste stream to another recycling, recovery,
or disposal option(s) while the landfill is still in operation. However, a cost-benefit analysis, including a comparative
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, would precede any decision to pursue early diversion because the cost of
adding a new disposal method to the cost of operating Cedar Hills may outweigh the benefits of extending landfill
life. Possible diversion options include waste conversion technologies such as anaerobic digestion, demonstration
projects of other evolving technologies that promote resource recovery, or exporting some waste to an out-of-county
landfill. Environmental, social, economic, and other criteria also would play into any waste diversion decision.
Operational Efficiencies
The division has made a series of operational changes to increase landfill capacity and density.These changes
include reducing the amount of soil and rock buried in the landfill, using more efficient unloading and compaction
equipment, and taking advantage of natural settlement. Some of the key changes and efficiencies achieved are
described below:
The division has implemented strategies to minimize the placement of soil in the landfill. For example, in the pas!
six inches of compacted soil was used to cover the entire surface of the active solid waste disposal area at the end
of each working day. Daily cover serves to control litter and discourage foraging by animals, such as rodents and
birds. However, the use of soil consumes valuable landfill space.The division now uses retractable tarps to cover
most of the waste at the end of each day to reduce the amount of soil buried in the landfill.The tarps serve the
same function as daily soil cover. At the start of each day's operations, the tarps are rolled up, and more solid waste
is placed directly on top of the previous day's waste. Soil is still used to cover side slope areas. However, as much of
this soil as possible is removed before more waste is placed, and the soil is then reused.Together, these practices
have resulted in a reduction of the volume of soil buried in the landfill.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zo86-2
Att A Page 158
Updated Apdl 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
Tippers now empty trailers and
containers rather than the walking
floor trailers previously used. Walking
floor trailers require a large, rock
covered surface for the trucks to
drive on as the walking floor rolls the
garbage out the back of the trailer.
These large rock surfaces are not
required with the tippers. lnstead, the
garbage trailers are backed onto the
tipper, which tilts the trailer, allowing
the garbage to slide out of the back
and into the refuse area.The use of
tippers not only reduces the use of
rock it also decreases unloading time
for each trailer by at least half, and
reduces damage to equipment
and tires.
Tippers empty trailers more efficiently
Heavier equipment and improved methods have increased waste compaction. Packing the waste to a greater
density allows more airspace for additional solid waste in each landfill area.
Another strategy for increasing landfill capacity is taking advantage of the natural settlement that occurs as
waste placed in each area decomposes. As this natural settling occurs, the level of the landfill drops below the
permitted height, allowing more waste to be added to bring the height of a previously filled area back up to its
planned level. To take advantage of this natural settlement, the division has delayed final closure of Areas 5
and 6, and will delay final closure of Area 7, to allow settling to occur so that additional waste can be added
before final cover is applied.
With these operational changes, more solid waste can be placed within the already designed and permitted refuse
areas.The division will continue to pursue these and other best management practices that preserve airspace and
make more efficient use of landfill capacity. The division will also work with subject matter experts to determine
best practices related to use of top lifts and temporary covers, including how long temporary covers should be
used prior to applying final cover. The division will provide a report on the best practices with implementing
actions to the King County Council no later than April 1, 2020.
New Area Development
During 2009 and 2010, the division explored alternatives for developing new refuse areas to extend the landfill life.
A wide range of alternatives was originally identified. Based on a preliminary assessment of operational and
engineering feasibility, as well as likely environmental impacts, five action alternatives were developed that would
extend landfill life for an additional three to 13 years beyond the then projected closure date. The environmental
impacts of these alternatives were evaluated in an environmental impact statement (ElS), with the Final EIS issued
in July 2010.The EIS determined that none of the five action alternatives would result in any significant
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts compared with the no action alternative (KCSWD 2010a).
The preferred alternative from the Final EIS develops 56.5 acres for a new Area 8 in the southwestern portion of the
landfill and eKends landfill life for eight to nine years. lt maximizes the use of readily available space at the landfill,
with the least amount of disruption to existing landfill structures. Garbage shall not be disposed of, nor soils be
stockpiled, within 1,000 feet of the property line at the landfill, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. At the
same time, this alternative preserves the flexibility to implement further development should it be necessary in the
future and balances the cost of future develooment and operations with savinqs to the ratepaver.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zod Att A page 1S9
6-3
UpdatedApril 17,2019Ordinance 18893
ln 2000 King County entered into a Settlement
Agreement in the following consolidated class
action cases: Anderson et al v. Cedar Grove
Composting lnc, et al(King County Superior
Court Case No.97-2-22820-4 SEA and Rickl.
and Kim M. Brighton, et al v. Cedar Grove
Composting ef a/ (King County Superior Court
Case No. 97-2-21660-5 SEA (hereinafter
referred to as the "Settlement Agreement").
Developing a new area requires extensive excavation and preparation
Following publication of the Final ElS, the
division submitted a Project Program Plan for
implementing the preferred alternative to the
County Council for approval (KCSWD 2010b).
The County Council approved the Project
Program Plan in December 2010.
Permitted Planned for Cedar Hills th 2028 In
Cedar Hills has built capacity remaining in four areas (Areas 5, 6,7 , and 8). The estimated capacities are based
on the difference between existing landfill contours (September 2,2017 aerial survey) and the approved design
contours at completion.
As the landfill ages, it settles. Airspace from settlement can be recovered for disposal. Settlement occurs due to
consolidation and to loss of mass from leachate and more importantly, gas production. As gas is collected, it is
removed from the landfill. The airspace gas once occupied consolidates and the landfill settles. Soil surcharge
can be used to accelerate settlement. Areas 5 and 6 both have areas of soil stockpiled over them to accelerate
This soil will be recovered later for other uses. Cedar Hills landfill has additional planned capacity in
8. Area 8 is currently under construction, which began in 2017 and will be ready for use in 201 8. ln
ition to Area 8, a top lift over Areas 7 and 8 is planned to bring those areas to a permitted maximum design
of 800 feet. Such activity would be done only to the extent that such activity would be consistent
the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement which requires King County to make a good faith
to keep the maximum height of areas 5, 6, and 7 of the Landfill at or below 788 feet above sea level.
table below presents current and planned capacity in cubic yards and tons by area, as of September 2,
2017.lt is based on an air space utilization of 1,600 pounds of refuse disposed per cubic yard of air space
consumed, and an average yearly 1 ,025,000 tons (forecasted between 20"17 and 2028). 1 ,600 pounds per cubic
yard is the airspace utilization achieved in Area 7 using current operational practices (compaction, daily cover
usage, and rock recovery). The terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement may impact the actual
utilization of the Area Capacity described in the table.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zofi
5 Top Lift l,g23,oo0 1,538,400 1.4
6Top Lift 1,367,000 '1,093,600 1
7 2,070,000 1,656,000 1.5
I 7,842,000 6,273,600 5.7
7&8Toplift 1,061,000 848,800 0.8
Total 14263,000 1 1,410,400 10.4
Estimated Cubic
Yards
Estimated
Number of YearsArea Capacity EstimatedTons
6-4
Att A Page 160
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
The Next Disposal Option
A Disposal Option Must Be Selected as Part ofThis Plans Approval
With permitted capacity (Area 8) at the landfl predicted to be used by 2028, the disposal option for beyond 2028 must
be selected. The selection is needed to provide substantial lead time to complete fi nancial, operational, and
infrastructure preparations, including completion of environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). lnterlocal agreements also require the county to consult with partner cities at least seven years before Cedar
Hills closes, triggering a consultation in 2021 if no new Cedar Hills capacity is built. For these reasons, selecting a
disposal option as part of approval of this Plan is essential to ensure there is no gap in the division's ability to dispose
of waste and meet contractual obligations.
Further Development of Cedar Hills is Recommended
For the Public Review Draft Plan issued in January 2018, the division used information from the Conversio nTechnology
Report (R.W. Beck 2007), the Waste-to-Energy Study (Normandea u 20"17), and an updated Cedar Hills Site Development
Alternatives FinalReport (KCSWD 2017a) to identifo three options to meet the countyt disposal needs after currently
permitted capacity at Cedar Hills is used: 1) Further develop Cedar Hills, 2) waste export, and 3) waste to energy (mass
burn) facility. After public comment and careful consideration of the three disposal options, the option to further
develop the Cedar Hills Landfl is recommended.
This recommendation willfurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity, extending the division's over 50-
year practice of managing its waste locally.The increased capacity shall not all result in either disposal of garbage or
stockpiling of soils within 1,000 feet of the property line at the landfill, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement,
but will develop new cells within the existing footprint of the landfill and increase the height from the permitted 800
feet up to 830 feet only to the extent that such activity would be consistent with the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement, which requires King County to make a good faith effort to keep the maximum height of areas
5, 6, and 7 of the Landfill at or below 788 feet above sea level. Based on the 201 8 tonnage forecast, maximizing the
development of the landfll should extend capacity through the planning horizon of this Plan. Landll life could be
extended if recycling increases, recessions occur, or more complex development approaches are used.To account for
emerging technologies, the next disposal option after Cedar Hills is not specifed in this Plan, but would be evaluated
in collaboration with regional partners prior to the next Plan update to ensure no gap in service.The recommended
further development is consistent with county policy to maximize the life of the Cedar Hills landfill. The Conversion
Technology Reporf (R.W. Beck 2007) and more recent division analysis concluded that Cedar Hills disposal is the most
economical way to handle King County's waste. Other advantages include the division's experience in landfoperation,
availability of space in a county-owned landfill with state of the art environmental controls, and collection of landfll gas
to produce renewable energy.
Developing Cedar Hills to the maximum extent feasible has the lowest rate impact of the three options considered,
the lowest greenhouse gas emissions and the lowest risk because of long-term experience in its operation. Other
benefits include that waste created in King County will continue to be managed locally, the division will maintain
control over the system, and landfll gas will continue to be delivered to the Bio-EnergyWashington facility, resulting in
pipeline-quality natural gas, revenue for the division, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Table 6-1 includes a
comparison of key attributes of the three options.
To reduce impacts on neighboring communities, King County shall implement a bird management plan.
zory Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS Att A Page 161
6-5
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17, 2019
Table 6-1. Comparison of key disposal option characteristics (planning level estimates)
1 Estimated costperton in 2029.
2 WARM model calculation for 2029. (King County 5WD). For more information, see Appendix D.
3 WARM model calculation.(Normandeau 2017).
4 Landfill options show estimated emissions in 2029.
ft+-
Models used by Regulatory Agencies to Calculate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
. TheWaste Reduction Model (WARM) is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved
decision toolfor estimating relative liferycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with disposal
options such as landfilling, compostlng, mass burry or anaerobic digestion.WARM answers the
question: Which of my next disposal options result in the lowest lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions,
accounting for both emissions and offsets?
WARM requires a profile of disposed materials, which was drawn from the divisiont 20'15 Waste
Characterization. WARM then assigns emissions to the materials and converts the emissions into
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e). Each materialS emissions represent lifecycle
emissions from mining to manufacturing to disposal. Because those emissions did not happen in
a single year or placg WARM results cannot be directly ascribed to a particular year or facility site.
WARM emissions are not precise - they represent the relative emissions of different choices
(i.e. Option A has lower emissions than Option B).WARM results from this plant landfill options show
negative values largely due to offsets created by displaclng fossil fuels with landfill-derived gas and
sequestration of carbon due to burial of organics.
. The eGGRT model creates a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory of emissions from a specific facility
(such as a landfill or mass burn facility) in a given year. This model answers the question: What are the
emissions from historically disposed materials at my landfill this year?
eGGRT default values can over-ride site'specific data so that model results and facility monitoring
data may not entirely agree.The division reports eGGRT-estimated Cedar Hills landfill emissions each
year for the Washington Department of Ecology and EPA. Year-to year eGGRT emission changes from
that specific facility can be tracked and compared with emissions from other facilities. The agencies
also use the results to set priorities for developing facility emission-reduction programs.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS
541 555 5136
(134000F
MTC02e
(78,000F
MTC02e
12,000 to 80,0003
MTCO2e
91,00tr
MTC02e/year
91,0004
MTC02e/year
1,200,000
MTC02e/year
No change No change 2% increase
5EPA, Permitting Rail Capacity, Control Siting, Sizing
6-6
Att A Page 162
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
Other Long-Term Disposal Options Considered
Waste export and a waste to energy (mass burn) facility (described below) were also considered as disposal options
in the Public Review Draft Comp Plan.Those options are not recommended as the next disposal option after current
permitted Cedar Hills capacity (Area 8) is used in 2028, but could be undertaken after an expanded Cedar Hills ultimately
closes.This plan does not consider the option of developing a replacement landfill either in King County or in another
county, in keeping with policy established in the 2001 Plan. Conditions in King County such as land availability,
environmental considerations, public acceptance, cost, and other issues would impede any effort to site a replacement
landfill in the county. ln addition, there are existing landfills outside of King County with significant capacity available.
Waste Export
This option would export waste via railto an out-of-county landfill after permitted capacity at Cedar Hills is used
by 2028. Waste export by rail is a proven disposal option used by neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of
Seattle and Snohomish County. There are several regional landfills available by rail with combined capacity sufficient
to handle the county's waste in the long term (KCSWD 2017c).This option would transfer a significant portion of
the County's waste management activities into the private sector for long hauland landfilling.This option is not
recommended as the next disposal option after 2028 for several reasons. lt has higher costs than further development
of the Cedar Hills landfill. lt requires modifuing transfer stations for rail-ready transport, division operational changes,
and requires suffcient lead time for contracting for services.
TheWaste Export option would require all of the county's waste to be exported on trains. According to the
Washington State Freight Rail Plan, it is unclear if the freight rail system will have adequate rail capacity by 2028
(Normandeau2017) to accommodate all of the county's waste. ln addition, according to the Washington State
Department of Transportation 2014"Landslide Mitigation Action Plan,"rail service can be disrupted by landslides and
flooding. lf service interruptions stretch from days to week, unsanitary conditions could occur at transfer stations
and eventually in the neighborhoods where collection services must be stopped. Scarce rail capacity and service
disruptions could increase costs and require robust contingency planning.
Waste to Energy Facility
Under this option, all of the region's municipal solid waste would be directed to a waste to energy facility built in King
County when current permitted capacity at Cedar Hills is reachedby 2028.As discussed previously, a recent study
identified a mass burn facility as the best waste to energy technology for consideration by King County (Normandeau
2017). Mass burn facilities operate successfully in many parts of the U.S. and the world.
To handle the county's projected tonnage, the facility would require approximately a 40 acre site and be designed to
handle 5,000 tons-per-day so that it could operate 20 years before further disposal capacity is needed. After 20 years,
an added/expanded waste to energy facility or other disposal method would be required. A waste to energy facility
would reduce waste to ash 90 percent by volume and 75 percent by weight, while offsetting some costs through the
sale of electricity and increasing recycling by as much as two percent by recovering metals after the waste is burned.
Non-processable, bypass waste, and ash would be transported to an out-of-county landfill by rail.This option is
not recommended as the next disposal option after 2028 for several reasons. lt has the highest cost of the options
considered, it requires guaranteed amounts of consistent feedstock, has potential for inefficient operation in early
years when less capacity is used, and it has the highest greenhouse gas emissions of the options considered. As with
waste export, rail capacity constraints could disrupt export of ash and bypass waste. At 5,000 tons per day, the facility
would be among the largest in the world with associated implementation and siting risk.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufu zotS
Att A Page 163
6-7
Updated April 17, 2019
Next Steps
Several actions will need to be taken in order to further develop the Cedar Hills Landfill beyond its current permitted
capacity.The following steps are needed at Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity:
. Move facilities currently located at the landfi ll that are on areas permitted for refuse disposal.. Revise the Project Program Plan (KCSWD 2010b) and Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives Final Report (KCSWD
201.7a) for.the'develofm_ent of Cedar Hills and cbnduct a new SEPA environmental review, since increaslng the height
of the landfi ll up to 830 feet was not considered in the 2010 ElS (KCSWD 2010a).. Apply to Public Health - Seattle and Kinq Countv for a permit modifi cation to allow the landfi ll to be exoanded uo to
830 feet in height only to the extent thafsuch niodificition would be consistent with the terms and conilitions of the
Settlement Agreement which requires King County to make a good faith effort to keep the maximum height of areas
5,6, and 7 of t-he Landfill at or below 788 fe6t abov6 sea level. -
. Develop new landfi llcells.. While Cedar Hills expansion is underway, the reqion will need to review the latest technoloqical advances and take
those into account during the next Plarf update-to properly evaluate disposal options for th-e ultimate closure of Cedar
Hills.
Given the longer life of the facility, King County will develop and implement a bird management plan for the Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill. The bird management plan shall include at least the following elements:
. An inventory of birds at least seagull-sized or larger that inhabit the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, including species and
number of kiirds, to be updated a-nnually;. Design suggestions to minimize attractiveness of the site to birds;. A description of proposed bird control methods including equipment, construction activities, permits required
(including federal and state fish and wildlife permits), and other operation and maintenance requirements related to
bird control;. Description of staff resources and training needed to implement the control plan thoroughly and completely;. Performance metrics related to bird management; and. A monitoring plan to, on at least an annual basis, assess the efficacy of the bird management plan and allow further
adaptation and improvement of the plan. lt will also provide a basi's for determining if bird use of the area changes
through time.
ln recognition of the longer life of the landfill and to ensure transparency of landfill operations, the solid waste division
shall transmit to the council each year the annual report submitted to the local health jurisdiction and the department
of ecology, as required by WAC 1 73-351 -200 (1 1 ), as amended.
Even with further development, Cedar Hills landfill capacity will ultimately be exhausted and a new disposal option will
be needed. The next disposal option is not specified in this plan so that the latest technological advances can be
considered when the choice is made.TheTransfer Plan suggested that one disposal option - waste export - is best
evaluated within 5 years of initiating service to ensure decisions consider current market conditions. Other disposal
options such as waste to energy likely require a longer lead time. Although the Amended and Restated lnterlocal
Agreement re-quires consultation with cities at least seven years before Cedar Hills closes, evaluation of the next disposal
option should begin prior to the next Plan update to ensure enough time for method selection, planning, and
implementation.In.ororOI
Factors in Selecting a Long-Term DisposalMethod
ln cooperation with advisory committees, the division identifed several criteria be used in selecting a long-term
disposal option (see below). lt is particularly important that disposal options are consistent with the
commitment of the County and its partner cities to Zero Waste of Resources by 2030. Any long-term disposal
option also must be responsive to increases in population, housing, and solid waste tonnagg as wellasthe
specific composition of King Countyb waste.The 2018 tonnage forecast projects solid waste tons increasing to
1,275,000 tons by 2028 and continuing to grow reaching 1,564,000 tons in 2040.This forecast assumes that
the region's recycling rate remains at 52 percent.
King County's Office of Performancg Strategy and Budget will engage with the Solid Waste Division and the
regional partners to develop a plan for long-term disposal, to be recommended to the King County Executive,
who will transmit legislation to the King County Council implementing the next long-term disposal method.
The Executive will transmit a progress report that outlines how this plan will be developed, including timing
for development and transmittal of this plan, to the Council by Decemb er 31 ,2021 .
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Jufu zotS
5-8
Att A Page 164
Updated April 17,2019Ordinance 18893
I$
Screening and Evaluation Criteria for DisposalOptions
The division, in collaboration with its advisory committeet has developed criteria by which disposal
options may be screened and evaluated when making future decisions.The screening and evaluation
criteria fall into six categoriet each with a number of sub-categories on the following page:
a Environmental
Human health
Climate change
Air quality
Water quality
Energy production
Resource conservation
Compatibility with waste prevention
and recycling
. Availability
Capacity
Start date
Operating life of facility
Siting, design, permitting, and construction
requirements
Operating and maintenance personnel
Financial assurance and insurability
. Social
Environmentaljustice
Socialjustice/equity
Effects on livability and character
of communities
. Contract and operational requirements
Minimum levelof waste required
Composition of waste required
Contract flexibility
Length of commitment required
Opportunity for contract reopeners
Waste not accepted/ability to handle
specialwaste
Residue disposal requirements
Compatibil ity with waste prevention
and recycling
Compatibility with current collection
and transfer systems
. Economic
Capitalcost
Financing
Operating cost
Revenue generated
Risk
. Operating history
Proven performance
Ability to handle amount of waste
Operator record
Safety record
Environmental compliance
Compliance with regulatory requirements
Ability to respond after an emergency
Ability to provide performance guarantees
Technologies for the Future
A number of other thermal, biological, and chemicaltechnologiet some established and some emerging, could
handle all or specific components of the countyS waste stream in the future (RW Beck 2007, KCSWD 2O14a, and
Normandeau 2017).
Hundreds of companies are forming, developing new methods, obtaining patents, and improving waste conversion
technology systems. Many universities, consultants, and organizations are conducting studies and producing
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Managemmt Plan -lufi zotS
Att A Page 165
6-9
Updated April 17,2019Ordinance 18893
IB
Terms
Waste conversion technologies are non-incineration technologies that use thermal, chemical, or
biological processet sometimes combined with mechanical processes, to convertthe unrecycled
portion of the municipal solid waste stream to electricity, fuels, and/or chemicals that can be used by
industry.
lncineration is a disposal method that converts waste materials into ash, flue gas, and heat using
controlled fl ame combustion.
Waste-to-energytechnologies recover energy from municipal solid waste and include both waste
conversion technologies and incineration with energy recovery, such as mass burn waste-to-energy,
refuse-derived fuel, and advanced thermal recycling.
Systems are unique technological methods for processing specified feedstockthat are developed and
patented by companies.
Feedstock is the input material used by waste conversion and waste-to-energy technologies.
reports, and partnerships are forming to fund, build, and operate facilities. Meanwhile, jurisdictions are undertaking
rule-making efforts to define terms and establish regulations that both facilitate the development of sustainable
technologies and protect the environment and the public. Waste conversion technologies are also now being defined
separately from incineration, e.g.,"Waste conversion technologies are non-incineration technologies that are used to
convert the non-recyclable portion of the municipal solid waste stream to electricity, fuels, and/or industrial chemical
feedstock" (SWANA 201 1 ).
Waste conversion technologies use thermal, biological, or chemical processes that are sometimes combined
with mechanical processes.Technologies using a thermal process include pyrolysis, gasification, and plasma arc
gasification. Hydrolysis/fermentation, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic composting use biological processes.
Depolymerization uses a chemical process.
The feedstock used by waste conversion technology systems can be municipal solid waste; selected materials
removed from municipal solid waste, such as organics; or municipal solid waste combined with sewage sludge. Each
system has unique requirements regarding the types, size, and amount of feedstock processed per day.
Below is a sampling of conversion technologies, as described by Jeremy K. O'Brien of the Solid Waste Association of
North America (SWANA 201 1 ). These technologies are not currently considered to have the capability to reliably and
cost-effectively handle allthe materials in the regional system.
Gasification is a commercially proven manufacturing process that converts such hydrocarbons as coal,
petroleum coke, biomass (such as wood and agricultural crops or wastes) and other organics to a synthesis
gas (syngas), which can be further processed to produce chemicals, fertilizers, liquid fuels, hydrogen, and
electricity. ln a gasification facility, hydrocarbon feedstock is injected with air or oxygen and steam into a high-
temperature, pressurized reactor until the chemical bonds of the feedstock are broken. The resulting reaction
produces the syngas.The syngas is then cleansed to remove such impurities as sulfur, mercury, particulates,
and trace minerals.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jul1 zo$6-10
AttA Page 166
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17, 2019
Pyrolysis is a process that involves the thermal decomposition of feedstock at high temperatures
(750'F-1,500"F) in the absence of air.The resulting end product is a mixture of solids (char), liquids (oxygenated
oils), and gases (methane, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide).The oils and fuel gases can be used directly
as boiler fuel or refined for higher-quality uses such as engine fuels, chemicals, adhesives, and other products.
The solid residue contains most of the inorganic portion of the feedstock as well as large amounts of solid
carbon or char.
Plasma arc gasification technology is a heating method that can be used in both pyrolysis and gasification
systems.This technology was developed for the metals industry in the late nineteenth century. Plasma arc
technology uses very high temperatures (7,000"F) to break down the feedstock into elemental by-products.
When municipal solid waste is processed, the intense heat actually breaks up the molecular structure of the
organic material to produce such simpler gaseous molecules as carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and carbon
dioxide.The inorganic material is vitrified to form a glassy residue.
Anaerobic digestion is the bacterial breakdown of organics in the absence of oxygen. lt can occur over a wide
temperature range from 50"F to 160'F. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste can occur naturally, as
in a landfill, or in a controlled environment, such as a municipal solid waste anaerobic digestion facility. ln the
latter, municipal solid waste is first processed for removal of inorganic and recyclable components, reduced
in size, and then placed in an airtight vessel called a digester, where the process occurs. Biogas is one of the
by-products of anaerobic digestion facility and it can be used as fuel for engines, gas turbines, fuel cells, boilers,
and industrial heaters. lt can also be used in other processes and in the manufacture of chemicals. Anaerobic
digestion would be a good option when the food waste is separated at its source from other wastes.
The division is committed to the continued exploration of these and other emerging technologies. ln addition, the
division is monitoring changing definitions, legislation and regulations, companies, and partnerships.
Disposal of Special Wastes
Most of the waste delivered to the division's facilities is municipal solid waste (garbage) from residential and non-
residential sources. A portion of the waste stream, however, requires special handling and waste clearance before
disposal because of legal, environmental, public health, or operational concerns. Of the approximately 800,000 to 1
million tons of solid waste disposed each year, between 6,000 and 9,000 tons is designated as special waste. These
special items include industrial wastes; asbestos-containing materials; off-specification, recalled, or expired consumer
products; over-sized materials; treatment plant grit and vactor wastes; and other miscellaneous materials. lt does not
include moderate risk wastes.
The division continues to educate customers on the county's waste acceptance policies through public outreach
materials and hands-on customer service. Since 1993, the division has conducted a waste screening program to
ensure that materials in the waste stream are handled in accordance with federal and state regulations (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Title 40, Subtitle D and WAC 1 73-351 ). Under this program, waste screening
technicians, in cooperation with other staff, perform random manual and visual screening of incoming loads of waste
at each transfer facility and at Cedar Hills to identi$r and properly manage any potentially unacceptable wastes.
About 1 1,000 loads of waste are screened at division facilities each year. Waste screening, combined with ongoing
surveillance and control of incoming solid waste by transfer station and landfill operations staff, is a significant step
in the county's solid waste enforcement program. ln cases where special waste policies are repeatedly disregarded,
division staff enforces compliance through a progressive process of warnings, citations, and eventually fines for
improper disposal of special wastes.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zod
Att A Page 167
6-11
Ordinance 18893
Updated Apnl 17,20'19
Under the county's Waste Clearance Policy PUT 7-2-1(PR) and Waste Acceptance Rule PUT 7-1-6(PR), the Special
Waste Unit provides a free service to customers to evaluate wastes and determine if they can be accepted for disposal
and under what conditions. Special waste staff process and provide more than 400 waste clearances for disposal
each year. Conditions for disposal could include wetting to control dust bagging, hauling directly to the Cedar Hills
landfill, specific packaging and labeling requirements, separation from other waste in a special waste disposal area, or
certification of disposal by authorized landfill staff. Procedures for disposal of special waste are often defined by local,
state, or federal regulation.
The method for handling special wastes once the Cedar Hills landfill closes will be considered during the evaluation of
alternative disposal options.
Managing lllegal Dumping and Litter
Managing municipal solid waste that is dumped on open ground is one of the division's responsibilities. lllegal
dumping and litter can cause environmental contamination and pose both safety hazards and risks to public health.
Addressing the issue of illegal dumping requires several coordinated programs and the participation of many county
departments, the cities, and other agencies. The division manages or participates in programs that strive not only to
reduce littering and illegal dumping on public and private property, but also to assist its victims.
lllegal dumping
lllegal dumping is a continuing problem for agencies, businesses, and the general public who find yard waste,
appliances, car bodiet and other wastes dumped on their personal property, on public property, and on road rights
of way. The division continues to lead the implementation of recommendations made in 2OO4by a county task force
charged with strengthening and coordinating the county's response to illegal dumping complaints. ln 2008, the
County Council adopted an ordinance to refine the county's role in enforcing laws that prohibit illegal dumping on
public and private lands.
The ordinance enhances the county's authority
to cite and prosecute illegal dumpers. For
example, it allows the county to charge a
restitution fee to illegal dumpers and, in turn,
provide monetary relief to victims of the illegal
dumping.The fee can be waived if the illegal
dumper cleans up and properly disposes of
the waste.
Coordinating illegal dumping reporting and
response through the lllegal Dumping Hotline
(206-296-SITE) is a major element in the
county's surveillance and control system for
illegaldumping.
Regional responsibilities for illegal dumping
enforcement, clean up, and prevention are
identified inTable 6-2.
Clean-up of an illegal dumpsite
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -July zofi6-12
Att A Page 168
Updated April 17,2019Ordinance 18893
Table 6-2. lllegal dumping clean-up responsibilities
The division also developed a program called the Community Cleanup Assistance Program, which enables
environmental site inspectors from the county, cities, and other agencies to issue free disposal vouchers to property
owners who are victims of illegal dumping.
Comm u n ity Litter Clean up
The division's Community Litter Cleanup Program, funded in part by a grant from Ecology, supports the cleanup of
litter and illegal dumpsites on public lands and waterways in King County.The program also supports prevention and
education, through advertising, signage, and other measures.
ln2O'16,litter crews cleaned up over 176 tons of debris from 151 sites. About 17 percent of the debris - including
items such as tires, appliances, and junk vehicles - was recycled.
Secure Your Load
ln accordance with state law, since 1994 the division has assessed a fee to the drivers of vehicles with unsecured loads
arriving at its staffed transfer facilities and landfill. An unsecured load has not been fastened in or attached to the
vehicle with tarpg rope, strapt netting, or chains, so as to prevent any part of the load or the covering from becoming
loose, detached, or leaving the vehicle while it is moving.
Washington State Department of Ecology
Provides Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance - Community Litter Oeanup Program funding for
cleanup to local agencies. Sets statewide policy.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Responds to illegal dumping of materials where asbestos is suspected, such as some demolition
materials, and addresses illegaldumping where incineration occurs.
Public Health - Seattle & King County Primary enforcement agent for illegal dumping complaints on private property.
Department of Planning and
Environmental Review
Provides code enforcement. Addresses junk and debris on private property.
Road Services Division
Responds to complaints and removes illegally dumped materials from public roads and rights of way
in unincorponted King (ounty.
Local Hazardous Waste Management
Program
Addresses illegal dumping and mishandling 0f potentially hazardous waste materials.
5olid Waste Division
Responds to complaints about illegal dumping and litter near coung solid waste facilities and
manages: programs for illegal dumping cleanup, the lllegal Dumping Hotline, county-wide illegal
dumping prevention programs, and the junk vehicle program.
Water and Lands Resources Division lnvestigates illegal dumping and litter complaints involving surface water.
Cities
Enforce municipal liftering and illegal dumping ordinances and provide cleanup of litter and illegally
dumped material from city streets and properties.
ResponsibilityEntity
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 169
6-13
Ordinance 18893 Updated Apnl 17 ,2019
According to the Washington State Department of Ecology's Focus on Secured Loads (Ecology 20O9a),road debris
causes about 400 accidents every year on Washington State highways and roughly 40 percent of litter on highways
comes from unsecured loads.
The requirement to secure loads is in the ?u/es of the Road" (RCW 46.61.655), which is enforced by the Washington
State Patrol. State law (RCW 70.93.097) and King County Code (Title 10.12.040) require the division to charge an
unsecured-load fee, which is assessed by scale operators.
ln 2006, the division launched the Secure Your Load outreach program to raise public awareness of the importance
of securing loads. The division has worked closely with the King County Sheriff's Office and the Washington State
Patrol to enforce the law, and with Ecology and the Maria Federici Foundation to raise public awareness. ln 2013, to
strengthen its deterrent effect, the fee for an unsecured load arriving at a division facility was raised to S25. Division
staff have received training from the Washington State Patrol to help them accurately identify unsecured loads and
uniformly assess the fee.The increased fee for unsecured loads supports safe, clean communities.
Disposal Services after an Emergency
The Kng County Operational Disaster Debris Management Plan (Debris Management Plan)(KCSWD 2009) outlines the
process for managing disaster debris within the boundaries of unincorporated King County and for coordinating with
the 37 cities with which King County has interlocal agreements.The Debris Management Plan is aligned with other
national, state, and county plans, including the 2O14 King County Comprehensive Emergency Monagement Plan, as well
as regulations and policies that will affect how King County manages disaster debris.
Debris management operations are grouped into three response levels - routine, medium, and high. The response
level is determined by the division based on the geographic scope and impact of an actual or anticipated incident.
Routine incidents are relatively common emergencies such as small landslides or minor flooding, which can be
supported with existing resources and require minimal coordination.
. Routine incidents are relatively common emergencies such as small landslides or minor flooding, which can be
supported with existing resources and require minimal coordination.
. Medium-impact incidents require more than routine coordination, and generally involve multiple jurisdictions.
These include incidents such as moderate earthquakes, minor or moderate flooding in multiple locations, and
storms with snow, ice, and/or high winds. The situation may require mutual aid or contract resources, and it may
be necessary for the King County Executive to proclaim an emergency.
. High-impact incidents require a high degree of coordination and generally involve requests for state and federal
assistance. These include incidents such as large earthquakes, severe flooding, or severe storms. ln most casel
an emergency will have already been proclaimed by the King County Executive.
A regional approach to planning is essential for managing the multi-jurisdictional impacts of emergencies in the
Puget Sound area and for coordinating the limited disposal capacity in western Washington. This disposal capacity is
subject to two major constraints. First most jurisdictions in the region export their solid waste to landfills east of the
Cascade Mountains. Without local landfill space, disposal capacity relies on the regiont transportation network, which
could be compromised in a major emergency. Second, the only operational landfill in King County - Cedar Hills - does
not accept for disposal construction and demolition debris - the most common aftermath of high-impact incidents -
only municipal solid waste.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju$ zo$6-14
Att A Page 170
Ordinance 18893
Updated Apfl 17 ,2019
The coordinated regional Debris Management Plan emphasizes recycling to the extent possible. The plan calls for the
use of temporary debris management sites for storage of debris until it can be sorted for recycling or proper disposal.
The division has worked with the King County Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center
to coordinate public information and help cities and residents identifr recycling options in preparation for and in
response to emergency events of all types.
The ability to respond after a major regional emergency is one criterion that will be used to select a disposal option to
be used once the Cedar Hills landfill closes.
Restoration of Closed Landfills
The division is responsible for maintaining and monitoring closed landfills that were constructed under different
standards than those that guide landfill development today. Depending on the year the landfill closed, a minimum
maintenance and monitoring post-closure period is specified in the Washington Administrative Code, but the timeline
is not definite in state law. Although most of the closed landfills have reached the end of the required minimum
post-closure period, regulations and the understanding of closure requirements have changed, requiring ongoing
maintenance and monitoring. See Figure 6-1 for the location of the closed landfills.
Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance
At seven of the nine closed landfills, the division routinely monitors groundwater, surface water, wastewater, and
landfill gas. The Bow Lake and Corliss landfills were excavated to build new transfer stations on site, so very little, if
any, waste is left and monitoring is no longer necessary. Studies are underway at the Vashon, Cedar Falls, Hobart, and
Enumclaw landfills to determine what additional actions are needed for these landfills to reach a stable state. When a
stable state has been reached, post-closure activities at these landfills may be reduced or terminated.
Under the current monitoring program, sampling data are collected from more than 180 groundwater, surface
water, and wastewater monitoring stations, and approximately 100 landfill gas monitoring stations.These data are
summarized in quarterly and annual reports submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology and Public
Health. Public Health also routinely inspects all of the closed landfills.
The closed landfills were constructed under
different standards than those that guide landfill
development today. With the exception of
portions of theVashon landfill constructed after
1989, they are unlined and do not, in some cases,
incorporate all of the environmental control
systems present in a modern landfill.Thus, the
unique characteristics of each site - in particular
the underlying geology, what lies downstream,
and the waste that was originally placed in the
landfill- play an important role in the post-closure
needs of the site.These factors also influence the
need for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of
the existing landfill control systems. Since all but
the Vashon closed landfill have reached the end A bioberm at the Cedar Falls closed landfill filters landfill gas
6-15zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jub zofi
Att A Page 171
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
Figure 6-1. Map of closed landfills
@
1$conris
1p
l
I
lI
t'-
I
I
J
*@ ' '-
i:- ]**
tr
lj
:.:
\ ,.i ..-
i - -. .'{ t-'
,,,. lii_:* "
@,..
tt-
lr;....;
t-l
'f
i
L
t.
:.{. -.r, Cedar Hills Regional Landfill::(D $uqJb
'.
"','@
Cedar Falls6.
t:;'
".''i -i :.'@i
I
l
1r:i"
1i
r .l
-
j.
(167)YI
i
-'l
I
ir :A
L.:
"r.il
f, i:
Hobart
I
r
I
't ;i' "..' .''. ' i,' ,,
I
_tr' ts"'-
il
.:i
*lI
Corner-'
l
1.,
@
1'
Ig
'l
a
$5nu"'u*
King County solid waste facilities
WqiLlll open tandfltt
A ctosed tandfltt
E KingCountyBoundary
o248
-Mlles
zotg Compre/tensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju/1 zod6-16
Unincorporated Area
Att A Page 172
Ordinance 18893
UpdatedApril 17,2019
of their required post-closure periods, each is being evaluated to determine what actions are required to bring the
landfill to a stable state. ln some cases, there may be no need to continue monitoring; at other sites, monitoring may
continue at a reduced frequency and for a reduced range of constituents found in the medium being tested.
When the Cedar Hills landfill reaches capacity and closes, the bottom liner, capped top, and extensive gas and
water control systems will inhibit releases to the environment for many years. Applicable regulations will define
the minimum post-closure period (currently 30 years). Landfill closure is guided by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery ActTitle 40, Subtitle D Part 258, Subpart F - Closure and Post-Closure Care, as well as Washington
Administrative Code 1 73-351 . The post-closure period may be shortened or lengthened based on the perceived risk
to human health and the environment. After the post-closure period, there is expected to be some reduced level of
monitoring and care to ensure the integrity of the cap and other environmental controls.
Beneficial Reuse of Landfill Properties
The county continues to examine possibilities for the beneficial reuse of closed landfill properties. While the presence
of landfill control systems at these landfills can limit the types of beneficial reuse projects that can be implemented,
such as at the Enumclaw landfill, the county has been successful in converting several properties wholly or in part to
new purposes. Future beneficial uses also could create revenue opportunities.
Houghton landfill - Athletic fields were developed on the former Houghton landfill area.
Hobart landfill - Model airplane enthusiasts and an astronomy club use the open spaces of the Hobart landfill.
Duvall landfill-The county installed an 800-MHz radio tower outside of the refuse boundary of the Duvall landfill as
part of its Emergency Communications Project.
Cedar Falls, Duvall, and Puyallup/Kit Corner landfills - Walking and cycling trails in the property buffers are used
by area communities.
Other beneficial uses
The open spaces at closed landfills,
often grassy areas surrounded by
woods, provide habitat for diverse
species of plants and animals. Closed
landfills that currently provide homes
to healthy populations of wildlife are
Cedar Falls, Duvall, Hobart, Houghton,
Puyallup/Kit Corner, and Vashon.
Grass covers have been placed over
allthe landfills, engineered to suit
the naturally occurring features and
areas of potential enhancement at
the properties. Vegetative covers at
the Duvall and Puyallup/Kit Corner
properties include planted trees and Vegetative cover at the Duvall landfill
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -July zofi
Att A Page 173
6-17
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17,2019
other vegetation to improve ground cover and water quality, as well as perches and nesting boxes for hawks and owls.
The Cedar Falls and Duvall landfills are near the headwaters of large streams and provide cover and a source of food
for birds, deer, coyote, and other woodland animals. Managing these properties as green space helps support the
county's goals and policies for habitat preservation and increases carbon sequestration (i.e., reduces the total carbon
emissions) at the properties.
Finding reuse opportunities for the closed landfill properties provides continued benefit to the surrounding
communities, but the uses need to be compatible with the ongoing environmental monitoring at the sites.The
division continues to explore beneficial reuse options for closed landfills, such as alternative energy farms (solar and
wind) and sustainable forestry.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zo86-18
AttA Page 174
.i\
:r,
i;
I
il
P
d
j
SAL
ltl
l$
$l
C.n
tft**,ilffi
*b:
Syrtem Fin
*
WbsSolid te
flFffil
t
. -- -. -- 4 -. ;^r''.. :r'"'
Aft A Page 176
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Keep tipping fees as low as reasonable, while covering the costs of
effectively managing the system, protecting the environment,
encouraging recycling and providing service to customers.
Policies
Att A Page 177
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
The following table includes a menu of recommended actions that the county and the
cities should implement. Under the responsibility column, the entity listed first has
primary responsibility for the action, bold indicates that the entity has responsibility for
the action, and a star (*) indicates that the action is a priority. lf the responsibility is not in
bold, the action has lower implementation priority.
Action Detailed
Dise ussion
the fo as division ctices:
Assess fees for use of the solid waste transfer and disposal system
at the point of service.
The fee charged to customer classes will be the same at
all facilities, unless the Metropolitan King County Council
determines a change in the rate structure is necessary to maintain
service levels, comply with regulations and permits, or to address
low income needs.
Utilize the assets of the King County Solid Waste Division
consistent with the conditions established in the Amended and
Restated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement with the cities.
The County General Fund will not charge use fees or receive other
consideration from the Solid Waste Division for use of
any transfer facility property in use as of November 6, 201 3. The
division's use of assets acquired by other separate County funds is
subject to use fees. lf the division ceases to use a property, all
proceeds from the sale or other use of such property are due to
the owner of record.
Maintain reserve funds and routinely evaluate the funds for long-
term adequacy and set contributions to maintain reasonable rate
stability.
Finance capital projects using an appropriate combination of cash
and debt depending upon the life of the asset, financial benefits
such as rate stability, and interest rates.
Use solid waste fees to fund mitigation payments to cities for
impacts directly attributable to solid waste facilities per Revised
Code of Washington 36.58.080 and the Amended and Restated
Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement.
Use solid waste fees to fund required mitigation for solid waste
facilities, including mitigation mandated by federal, state, and
local regulations and permits.
PageT-3
Page 7-9
Page 7-1
PageT-5
PageT-6
Page 7-5
PageT-5
Sr:mmary cf Recommended Actions
A,,'i,ti.:,i,ii
i!j1,.1,i,:t: j,r1,1I,:,i,tl i,
i: I .1ri.r -1,(r;''li r'r\r
'tt i"
I ri;1r 1 , .{ :',,,
Att A Page 178
Maintain a Solid Waste Division financial forecast and cash-flow
projection of four years or more.
Subject to approval from the Metropolitan King County Council,
define customer classes and establish equitable fees for each
customer class based on services provided, benefits received, use of
the system, and the costs, incurred or avoided, of providing those
services.
Consider alternatives to the current rate methodology, such as
incorporating a transaction fee into the rate structure.
Study the cost of providing services to self-haul customers, and to
other customer classes if needed.
Consider discounts for low-income customers consistent with
RCW 81.77.r 9s.
The Executive may establish an Environmental Reserve Fund with
revenue from solid waste fees for the benefit of the signatories to the
Amended and Restated lnterlocal Agreement.
Develop the procedures to establish and maintain the Rate
Stabilization Reserve.
1-t
Continued
County
County
County
County
County
7-t
County, cities
8-f
County, cities
County
2-f
3-t
4-t
s-f
6-f
9-t
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Continue to evaluate and implement fiscally responsible
operational changes to support a sustainable business model
and maintain the assets of the solid waste facilities.
lnclude a target fund balance in the Solid Waste Division
financial plan equal to at least 30 days ofoperating expenses.
Establish a minimum balance in the Rate Stabilization Reserve
to mitigate the risks associated with a moderate-level economic
recession.
Maintain the Landfill Post-Closure Maintenance Fund at a level
to ensure that environmental monitoring and maintenance of
the closed landfills wilt be fully funded through the end of their
regulated post-closure maintenance periods, as defined by
applicable law.
Continue to explore new revenue sources to help finance the solid
waste system.
Page 7-8
PageT-7
PageT-7
PageT-6
Page 7-3
PageT-9
PageT-9
PageT-9
Page 7-1 0
Page 7-l 0
PageT-7
PageT-7
Att A Page 179
Updated April 17, 2019Ordinance 18893
Summ ary of Recommended Actions
Action
When possible, manage solid waste rates through smaller, more
frequent increases, which in combination with the rate stabilization
reserve, smooths rate increases over time.
Detailed
Discussion
PageT-6
Page 7-3
Maintain the following solid waste funds:
. Landfill Reserve,
. Landfill Post-Closure Maintenance,
. Capital Equipment Recovery Program, and
. Construction Fund.
Action
Number and
Responsibility
10-f
County
11-f
County
Att A Page 180
UpdatedApril 17,2019Ordinance 18893
lid Waste S ystem Finance
Financial policies help guide the solid waste system's operations and investments.This chapter first provides a brief
summary of the division's financial structure, including descriptions of funding sources, revenues, and expenditures.
The remainder of the chapter describes a range of influences expected to have a financial impact on the division in
the future.
Funding of Solid Waste Services and Programs
King County's solid waste transfer and disposal system is a public-sector operation that is funded almost entirely by
fees collected from its customers. The division is an enterprise fund, managing nearly all of its expenses with revenues
earned through these fees.
The fees charged at county facilities, called tipping fees,
pay for the operation and maintenance of transfer and
disposal facilities and equipment, education and promotion
related to waste prevention and recycling, grants to cities
to support waste prevention and recycling efforts, and
administrative operating expenses and overhead.
Tipping fees also pay for the construction of transfer
facilities. Bonds or loans may be used for large projects, but
repayment of this debt is funded by tipping fees.
As discussed later in this chapter, through transfers into
reserve funds, the fee paid for each ton of waste entering
the system today covers the expenses involved in disposal
of that wastg even if some costs are incurred decades in
the future. Using this financial structure ensures that the
full cost of solid waste handling is paid by the users of the
system.
A summary of the fund structure is illustrated in Figure 7-1
and discussed in the following sections.
Customers pay a tipping fee at the scalehouse
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zotS
AttA Page 181
7-1
{INFigure 7-1. Solid Waste Division fund structurelnterest, loans.and grantsCapital EquipmentRecovery FundReplacement and majormaintenance of rolling stockand compactorslnterestand grants1TcEo-q)oCLIt=._!No(ot!o\oo\r;*:sEa^s'Np\s,NANNsIN't!oOg*ll0)@ooNlnterest and salvagevalue of equipmentOperating FundRevenue Sourceso4=q)Joo@@(o(l)Other Solid Waste FundsTipping Fees. Transfer facilities. Cedar HillsLocal HazardousWasteManagement ProgramGrantsConstruction andDemolition DebrisSurchargeRecyclables. Sale oftransferstation recyclables. Unincorporatedareafeeon recyclableslnterestSale of Landfill GasSolidttasteOperating FundOperating Costs. Wbste preventionand recycling.Transfer.Transport. Disposal. Landfill gas andwastewater. Cedar Hills rentSupport Services. Management. Finance. Engineering. OverheadDebt ServiceTransfers to OtherFundsftlonitoringand main-tenance ofdosed andcnstodial landfrlb. Cedar Falls. Duvall. Enumclaw. Hobart. Bow Lake. Corliss. Houghton. Puyallup/Kit CornerLandfill Reserve FundCedar Hills Regional Landfillaccounts:. New area development. Facility improvements. Cell closures. Cedar Hills post-closuremaintenancePost-ClosureMaintenance FundMonitoring and maintenanceof closed and custodial landfillsClosed landfills. VashonBond proceeds,interest, loans,and grantsConstruction FundCapital projects - transferfacilities
Updated April '17, 2019Ordinance 18893
In
How Cities Fund Solid Waste Programs
Cities fund their solid waste and waste prevention and recycling programs in a variety of ways, and
the resources available to the 37 cities in the King County system vary widely. Some cities receive
revenue from fees paid for solid waste collection services.These fees may be paid directly to the
city or to the collection company depending on who provides the collection service - the city
itself or a commercial collection company - and what contractual arrangements have been made.
ln some cases, the collection companies charge a fee that is passed on to the city to fund their
programs. Some cities also charge a utility tax. Another funding source for cities is state and county
grants (see Chapter 4, Sustainable Materiols Managementfor more information about grants). For
cities that do not receive any revenue from collection, the only revenue sources for funding waste
prevention and recycling programs may be grants and the city's generalfund.
Solid Waste Division Revenues
As mentioned earlier, the solid waste system is funded primarily by the tipping fees charged at division facilities.
The tipping fee is charged to the commercial collection companies that collect materials curbside and to residential
and business self-haulers who bring wastes to the transfer facilities themselves. ln accordance with KCC 10.08.040,
the County Council establishes the fees charged at county solid waste facilities.
There are four main types of tipping fees:
Basic Fee -The per-ton fee charged to customers disposing of municipal solid waste at transfer facilities and to
curbside collection vehicles at the Cedar Hills landfill.The basic fee accounts for about 97 percent of tipping
fee revenues.
Regional Direct Fee - A discounted fee charged to commercial collection companies that haul solid waste to
Cedar Hills in transfer trailers from their own transfer stations and processing facilities, thus bypassing county
transfer stations.
Yard Waste and Clean Wood Fee - A fee for separated yard waste and clean wood delivered to facilities that have
separate collection areas for these materials.
SpecialWaste Fee - The fee charged for certain materials that require special handling, record keeping, or both, such
as asbestos-containing materials and contaminated soil. There are two different special waste fees that reflect the
greater or lesser expense involved in handling and tracking different materials.
Other fees are charged for recyclables, such as appliances. KCC 10.12.021.G authorizes the division director to set fees
for recyclable materials for which no fee has yet been established by ordinance. These fees may be set to encourage
recycling and need not recover the full cost of handling and processing. ln accordance with state law (RCW 70.93.097),
the division also charges a fee to vehicles with unsecured loads arriving at any staffed King County transfer facility or
the Cedar Hills landfill.
Figure 7-2 shows the breakdown of revenues as projectedfor 2017 and 2018 in the 2016 Rate Study. As shown, about
90 percent of the division3 revenue comes from tipping fees.The remainder of the division's revenue comes from a
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid WasteManagement Plan -Jufu zotS
Att A Page '183
7-3
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17, 2019
few additional sources.The most significant of those is the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program (LHWMP).
Other sources of revenue include revenue from the sale of landfill gas from the Cedar Hills landfill; interest earned
on fund balances; recyclables revenue, including revenue from both the sale of scrap metals received at division
transfer facilities and from a fee on recyclables collected in unincorporated areas; fees collected from construction
and demolition disposal; income from rental properties; fees collected on unincorporated area curbside accounts to
support waste prevention and recycling education; and Washington State Department of Ecology grants to help clean
up litter and illegal dumping throughout the county, as well as to support waste prevention and recycling. Based on
economic and market conditions, revenues from these sources and interest earned can vary considerably.
Figure 7-2.Projected sources of revenue 2017 and 2018
1o/o 3o/o
1o/o I DisposalFees
I tocal Hazardous Waste Management Program Fees
I Landfill Gas-To-Energy
O SWO Other Revenues - grants, interestt and other income
I RecyclingRevenues-
including construction and demolition disposal fees
In
Construction and Demolition Debris Surcharge
Starting in September 20"15, management of the county's construction and demolition waste
changed. ln the past, the division had contracts with two private companies - Republic Services
and Waste Management - to manage the majority of the county's construction and demolition
debris. Under the new system, the division designates qualified facilities to accept and process
construction and demolition debris.
ln 2014 the division banned disposal of construction and demolition materials that have stable
recycling markets. As future markets develop, more materials may also be banned. Materials that
are brought to a designated facility for processing but cannot be recycled, will incur a $4.25 per
ton disposal surcharge that will be payable to the division.This system is designed to encourage
recycling of construction and demolition materials. For more information, see Chapter4,
Sustai nable Materials Management.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid W'aste Management Plan -July zotS
4o/o
91o/o
7-4
AttA Page 184
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17, 2019
Solid Waste Division Expenditures
Division expenditures, can be divided into four broad categories: operating costs, support service costt debt servicq
and transfers to other solid waste funds.The division maintains a target fund balance - an average balance in the
Operating Fund sufficient to cover 30 days of direct operating expenses. Operating expenses are defined to exclude
reserve funds. A rate stabilization reserve allows the accrual of funds to smooth out rate increases over time.
Figure 7-3 uses 2017-2018 projections to illustrate the various division expenditures, which are described in the
following sections:
Figure 7 -3. 2017 Budgeted expenditures
I Operating Costs
I Other Solid Waste Funds
! Debt services
I Support Services
Operating Costs
Operating costs, which constitute the majority of all division spending, include the day-to-day expenses for transfer,
transport, and landfill operations, maintenance of equipment and facilities, and management of landfill gas and
wastewater. Operating costs also include business and occupation tax, and an emergency contingency to cover some
costs related to weather-related events or other small emergencies. ln addition, all but one of the closed landfills have
met the obligatory number of years of post-closure care, but have on-going needs for monitoring and maintenance.
Since the post-closure period has expired and maintenance and monitoring is still required, those projects are now
funded bythe Operating Fund.
Also included in the operating costs category is the rent that the division pays to the county's General Fund for use of
the landfill property. Rent is based on a fair market property appraisal. An appraisal Murray & Associates in2O12
determined a rent payment schedule for 2015 through 2025. Also included in operation costs are mitigation paid to
cities for impacts directly attributable to solid waste facilities (RCW 36.58.080) as well as other mitigation related to
construction or other activities as required by federal, state, and local regulations and permits. Similar to the cities'
authorization to receive mitigation, and due to the longer life of the Landfill, the Road Services Division of the
Department of Local Services will study the ability to charge the Solid Waste Division to mitigate impacts directly
attributable to the regionalfacility, including wear and tear on nearby roads.
Another expense in this category is recycling costs.This includes grants to the cities and other waste prevention and
recycling programs and services provided by the division.
7-5
224/o
9o/o
Att A Page 185
Ordinance 18893
Updated April 17, 2019
Support Service Costs
This cost category includes functions that support operations, such as engineering, overhead, finance, administration,
and planning.
Debt Service
Debt service is the payment of interest and principal on bonds and loans. Major transfer facility capital projects are
generally financed by a combination of general obligation (GO) bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the
county's General Fund and rate dollars in the Construction Fund. lt is anticipated that with approval of the County
Council, GO bonds will be issued for future transfer facility capital projects. Repayment of the debt will not extend
beyond, and may be less than, the useful life of the facility. Additional factors that may be considered include but are
not limited to: changes in disposal method, length of the lLA, bond market/bond rates, and waste generation.
To date, Cedar Hills landfill capital projects are not funded through debt financing, but through the Landfill Reserve
Fund discussed later in this section.
Transfers to Other Solid Waste Funds
Transfers from the Operating Fund to reserve funds make up a portion of the division's costs. These reserve funds
were established to ensure that the division can meet future obligations, or expenses, some of which are mandated
by law. Contributions to reserve funds are routinely evaluated to ensure they are adequate to meet short- and long-
term needs. Paying into reserve funds stabilizes the impact on rates for certain expenses by spreading the costs over a
longer time period, and ensures that customers who use the system pay the entire cost of disposal. The three reserve
funds - the Capital Equipment Recovery Program Fund, the Landfill Reserve Fund, and the Post-Closure Maintenance
Fund - are discussed below.
Bond proceeds and contributions from the Operating Fund to the Construction Fund are used to finance new
construction and major maintenance of division transfer facilities and some closed landfill mitigation projects.
Contributions from the Operating Fund to the Construction Fund result in less borrowing, and consequently, a lower
level of debt service.
The Capital Equipment Recovery Program Fund (CERP) is codified in KCC 4A.200.680.The purpose of the CERP is to
provide adequate resources for replacement and major maintenance of solid waste rolling stock (primarily long-haul
trucks and trailers) and stationary compactors. New
equipment is purchased from the Operating Fund,
but after the initial purchase, replacements are
funded from the CERP.
By accumulating funds in the CERP, the division
is able to cover the expense of replacing needed
equipment without impacting rates, even while
revenue fluctuates. Annual contributions to
the CERP are calculated by projecting future
replacement costs, salvage values, and equipment
life. Contributions are adjusted to reflect changes
in facilities and operations that affect equipment
needs. The contributions are held in an account
earning interest, until needed.
The Landfill Reserve Fund (LRF), codified in
ffi,...,* -.
KCC 4A.200.390, covers the costs of four major
accounts maintained for the Cedar Hills landfill, which are described on the following page:
The CERP Fund provides resources for replacement and major
maintenance of equipment
7-6 zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zotS
Att A Page 186
Ordinance 18893
UpdatedApril 17,20'19
. New area development account - Covers the costs for planning, designing, permitting, and building new
disposal areas.
. Facility improvements account - Covers a wide range of capital investments required to sustain the
infrastructure and operations at the landfill, such as enhancements to the landfill gas and wastewater systems.. Closure account - Covers the cost of closing operating areas within the landfill that have reached capacity.
Mandated by federal and state law these contributions help the division prepare incrementally for the cost of
final closure of the entire landfill.
. Post-closure maintenance account - Accumulates funds to pay for post-closure maintenance of the Cedar Hills
landfill for 30 years. This account is also mandated by federal and state law.
The sum of all four accounts, based on projected cost obligations, makes up the LRF contribution from the Operating
Fund. Projected cost obligations are based on the current plan for the landfill. When Cedar Hills closes, the division
will discontinue its contributions to the LRF. After final closure, the balance of the LRF will be transferred to the Post-
Closure Maintenance Fund to pay for Cedar Hills'post-closure maintenance and monitoring.
The Post-Closure Maintenance Fund, codified in KCC 4A.200.710, is a separate fund that pays for the maintenance
and environmental monitoring of the Vashon landfill - the only closed landfill that is still within the regulatory period
set in 40 CFR 258.61 and Washington Administrative Code 173-351-600 (see Chapter 6, Landfill Management and
Solid Waste Disposal).
ln addition to the funds mentioned above, the
division is investigating the establishment of
an Environmental Reserve, as discussed in the
Amended and Restated lLA.The purpose of such a
fund would be to help to pay for any environmental
liabilities not already covered by system rates
or insurance.The fund would be retained for a
minimum of 30 years following the closure of the
Cedar Hills Landfill.
Target Fund Balance
The division's current practice is to retain an average
balance in the operating fund sufficient to cover at
least 30 days of direct operating costs'
A stormwater pond at the cedar Hills Landfi ll is part of the
Minimum Rate Stabilization Reserv" infrastructure paid for by the Facility lmprovements Account
FCS Group conducted a rate structure analysis
(KCSWD 20'l7d), and reported that the division suffered an 11 percent reduction in Basic Fee revenue over a two-year
period during the Great Recession. For comparison, during the more moderate 2001 Dot-Com Bust, Basic Fee revenue
decreased by four percent in that two-year period.
To mitigate the risks associated with a moderate-level economic recession, holding five percent of annual revenues as
a minimum Rate Stabilization Reserve balance would provide for a moderate-level recession slightly more severe than
the Dot-Com Bust, but not for an outlier like the Great Recession.
Preparing for two years of reduced revenues fits with the County's two-year budgeting cycle. Presumably, the Council
would be able to pass any needed recession response measures within two years, and the division would not need to
carry excessive reserves. The division is developing specific procedures for maintaining recession reserve monies to
include access to and replenishment of funds.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Managemmt PIan -Ju$ zotS
AttA Page 187
7-7
Updated April 17 ,2019Ordinance 18893
lnfluences on Future Costs and Revenue
ln addition to the unanticipated increases or reductions in tonnage due to the economy, there are other factors
that can be expected to influence costs and revenues.These factors, which can be projected and budgeted for with
varying degrees of certainty, are summarized below.
lnterest Earnings
The division's reserve funds are invested to earn interest during the years, or even decades, before the funds are
needed.This is particularly significant for the long-term Landfill Reserve Fund, which will finance landfill closure and
30 years of post-closure care, a period expected to run from about 2028 (the currently approved capacity) through
2058, or if expanded capacity is approved, for about 30 years after Cedar Hills reaches its maximum disposal capacity,
making interest earnings a considerable factor in the amount that needs to be put aside. ln 2013, the value of interest
earned was less than inflation. Starting in 2018, a small increase in interest above inflation is expected through 2026.
The county is looking at how the funds might be invested differently consistent with County guidelines to earn a
higher rate of return.
Waste Prevention and Recycling
As discussed earlier, revenues from garbage tipping fees cover the costs of waste prevention and recycling services
and programs. This financing structure requires the division to estimate the effects of waste prevention and recycling
on garbage disposal to reasonably project future revenues.
While the revenue stream relies primarily on garbage tipping fees, the current priorities in solid waste management
are waste prevention and recycling, which lead to reductions in the amount of solid waste disposed and therefore
in revenues received.The reduction in the amount of waste received due to waste prevention, recycling and
product stewardship has been gradual, and the system has adjusted to lower revenues. Further reductions through
increasingly rigorous waste prevention and recycling efforts will continue to affect the revenues of King County and
other jurisdictions across the state. The state's Movin g Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics, 201 5 lJpdate recognizes
that"Local governments in particular are concerned about how to sustain funding for programs when the goal is to
reduce waste disposal, the source of most funding" (Ecology 2015). The county completed a Sustainable Solid Waste
Management Study (KCSWD 2O"l4a) that looked at multiple strategies, technologies and services that the division
could employ to increase recycling and manage solid waste. One of the strategies suggested by the study is to
develop a sustainable financing modelthat is aligned with waste prevention and recycling (KCSWD 2O"l4a).
lncreased waste prevention and recycling efforts have had positive influences on the financial aspects of the system
as well. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 6, waste prevention and recycling have contributed to extending the life of the
Cedar Hills landfill, which will save money for ratepayers. Another aspect of waste prevention and recycling that has
had a positive financial effect is product stewardship. Product stewardship shifts the management of materials at the
end of their life to the product manufacturer. This shift reduces the costs to cities and counties of managing products
such as televisions, computers, and fluorescent bulbs and tubes, to name a few. The savings are most substantial
for products that contain hazardous materials and are more difficult and expensive to manage within the public
collection, transfer, and disposal system.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zofi7-8
Att A Page 188
Updated April 17 ,2019Ordinance 18893
Operational Effi ciencies
The division continually seeks to eliminate
waste and variability in its operations.This
commitment ensures the division's ability to
provide value to its customers, while improving
the quality of service, controlling costs, and
upholding the county's environmental goals.
Examples of operational efficiencies that are
producing significant and long-term results are
discussed briefly below.
Landfill Tippers
The division uses tippers to empty garbage
from transfer trailers at the landfill.The tippers Landfill tippers are an efficient way to empty transfer trailers
replaced the use of older walking floor trailers
(see Chapter 5, Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal, for more details). Tippers save staff time and other
resourcet as well as reduce equipment and tire damage.
Solid Waste and Cardboard Compactors
As discussed in Chapter 4, the transfer system in King County is undergoing major renovations to update station
technology, improve efficiencies, and enhance environmental sustainability.The installation of solid waste
compactors is one important component of that plan.The Bow Lake, Enumclaw Shoreling Factoria, and Vashon
stations currently have waste compactors. All newly constructed recycling and transfer stations will incorporate
compactors as well.
Compacting solid waste at the stations reduces the number of trips necessary to transport the waste by up to
30 percent. Fewer trips translate directly into lower costs for fuel, equipment and staff. For instance, in the first six
months of operation at the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, the use of a compactor saved almost 900 trips
and over 8,400 gallons of dieselfuel.
ln addition to solid waste compactort the division is installing cardboard compactors at many of the stations.These
compactors will allow the division to reduce the number of trips needed to pick up the bales.
Potential Changes in the Fee Structure
The division may propose changes to the current fee structure in future rate studies. Possible changes include
establishing different customer classet discounts for low income customers, and moving some costs from the fee
charged at transfer facilities and the landfill to a fee on the curbside collection bill. ln the 2014 Sustainable Solid Waste
Management Study (KCSWD 201 4), one of the recommendations was to look at revising the fee structure. The division
completed a rate restructure study in2O17 and will be discussing with stakeholders what a rate restructure might
entail (KCSWD 2017d).
To equitably allocate the benefits and costs of transfer system improvements, the division may consider different
customer classes.The customer classes would take into consideration the services provided, benefits received, use of
the system, and the costs (incurred or avoided), of providing those services. An example of a customer class would be
self-haul customers or commercial customers at the transfer stations.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 189
7-9
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
ln 2010, legislation was passed authorizing the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to approve
discounts for low-income customers under certain circumstances. For the first time, the division is proposing a low-
income discount in its 2019-2020 Rate Proposal (KCSWD 2018b).
Before changes to the fee structure are proposed, the division is studying a number of factors, including the impact
on revenue and cost, equity issues, and system-wide financing implications.These factors will be considered in future
rate studies.
Closure of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
When Cedar Hills reaches capacity and closes, the division's solid waste tipping fee is expected to increase to cover
the cost of using an alternate means of disposal. Whether it is export to an out-of-county landfill, disposal at a waste-
to-energy facility, or other conversion technology, past studies, as well as a recent preliminary study, indicate that the
cost for disposal after Cedar Hills closes will be higher (KCSWD 2017c) (see Chapter 6, Landfill Management and Solid
Waste Disposal for further discussion).
New Revenue Sources
The division is continually exploring new sources of revenue to help offset reductions in tonnage. Cities may also want
to consider additionalfunding sources to suppolt their solid waste and waste prevention and recycling programs.
Sales from the Landfill Gas-to-
Energy Facility
An example of the successful development of a
revenue source is the sale of landfill gas. ln 2009,
a landfill gas-to-energy facility began operations
at Cedar Hills, and the division began to receive
revenues from the sale of landfill gas.The facility,
which is privately owned and operated by Bio
Energy Washington , converts methane collected
from the landfill into pipeline quality natural gas,
which it sells to Puget Sound Energy.
ln addition, the environmental attributes from
the pipeline quality gas produced by the landfill Il*iP-E:T^gy washington plant at Cedar Hills landfill converts
gas-to-energy facility at cedar Hills have value landfill gas to pipeline quality gas
in the market and offer another ongoing source
of revenue. The division, rather than the owner of the landfill gas facility, Bio Energy Washington , has contractually
retained the environmental attributes associated with the project. ln January of 201 1, the County Council
unanimously approved an ordinance authorizing the division to enter into a contract to sell the environmental
attributes associated with the landfill gas-to-energy project to Puget Sound Energy. This contract is structured so
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS7-10
Att A Page 190
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
that the county shares in profits that Puget Sound Energy gets when selling the environmental attributes associated
with the gas.The division receives revenue for both the gas and the environmental attributes associated with the gas.
The revenue received by the division is highly volatile, and has ranged from 51 to 57 million per year, depending on
production rates and the market price.
Resource Recovery at Transfer Stations
Significant amounts of recyclable materials - notably wood, metal and cardboard - are disposed at the transfer
stations.The division is implementing new approaches, such as sorting the recyclable materials on the tipping floor
and banning certain materials from disposal, to recover more of these materials at the transfer stations. Revenues
from the sale of these materials help offset the costs of sorting and equipment. (see Chapter 5, Solid Waste Transfer
and Processing System for further discussion).
Fees from Materials Collected at the Transfer Stations
King County Code (KCC 1 0.12.021.G) does not require that fees for recyclables recover the full costs of handling and
processing recyclable materials. Therefore the fees can be set lower to encourage recycling over disposal. ln fact,
for materials such as the standard curbside recyclables collected at the transfer stations, there is currently no fee at
all, even though the division pays the cost of transport and processing. As collection services for more recyclable
materials are added at transfer facilities and more tons of materials are recycled, fees will be evaluated on a regular
basis and adjusted as necessary to optimize the financial and environmental benefits.
The division will continue to explore innovative opportunities, such as partnering with the private sector or other
public agencies, to earn additional revenues and achieve savings through operational efficiencies. Although, these
efforts may involve relatively small amounts of money, cumulatively they contribute to stabilizing rates for solid
waste customers.
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju/1t zotS
Att A Page 191
7-11
April 17,
,€
..i:,..::l
I
:
' 'l ,1^-
. ri."
'i*
ry
{AB@
@BB
gag
@B@g I(
t:a
t3
BE
t5.
;)-
i"ir -
,;}
,.1-
,i;
.t
- ' ,{:,
!r.,
;J'"
'.i:
".j1 ,
*rf
,&",
ta,
* lr:
't.
Gtt'I J*,
-- - a
fr, -til;Jf
T
'l:.
a'
i.
Refere
--Jtrw(
/'
t'/
7(
!'/
i
t
\\
Att A Page 193
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
rences
Cascadia. 2006.2006 Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Assessment. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division
by Cascadia Consulting Group, lnc., Seattle, WA.
Cascadia. 2009a. 2007l2OOg Construction and Demolition Materials Characterization Study. Prepared for the King
County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA.
http//www.kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/waste-monitoring/waste-documents.aspx
Cascadia. 2012a. King CountyWaste Monitoring Program: 201 1 Waste Characterization Study. Prepared for the King
County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA.
http://www.kingcounty.govl-lmedia/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/documents/waste-characterization-study-201 1.
ashx?la=en
Cascadia. 20l2b.Organics Characterization Report. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia
Consulting Group, Seattle, WA. (http://your.kingcounty.govlsolidwaste/garbage-recycling/documents/Organics-
Cha racterization-report-201 2.pdf )
Cascadia. 2015a. Waste Monitoring Program: Market Assessment for Recyclable Materials in King County. Prepared for
the King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, lnc., Seattle, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/documents/waste-monitoring-market-assessment-2015.pdf
Cascadia. 201 5b. King County Waste Monitoring Program: 201 5 Waste Characterization and Customer Survey Report.
Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA.
http://kingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/abouVdocuments/waste-characterization-study-2015.
ashx?la=en
Cascadia. 201 6. Transfer Station Customer Survey. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia
Consulting Group, Seattle, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/documents/customer-survey-2016.pdf
Cascadia. 2O17a. King County LinkUp Program 2017 Market Assessment. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste
Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA.
http://kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/programs/linkup/documents.aspx
Cascadia. 2017b. King County 2017 Targeted Business Characterization Report. Prepared for the King County Solid
Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, SeattlgWA.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/-/nedia/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/documents/business-characterization-2017.
ashx?la=en
zotg Compreberzsiue Solid Waste Management Plan -JuQ zofi
Att A Page 194
8-1
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
City of Seattle. 199812O04. On the Path to Sustainability and 2004 Plan Amendment. City of Seattle, Seattle Public
Utilities, WA. (A draft update to this plan is posted here:
http://www.seattle.govlutil/MyServices/Garbage/AboutGarbage/SolidWastePlans/SolidWasteManagementPlan/
index.htm)
Ecology. 2004. Background Paper for Beyond Waste Summary Document Financing Solid Waste for the Future.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pu bs / O407 032.pdf
Ecology. 2009b. Focus on Secured Loads. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA.
https://fortress.wa.govlecylpubl ications/pu bl ications/0907020.pdf
Ecology. 201 5. The State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan. Moving Beyond Waste and Toxics, 201 5 Update. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/wa step la n
GB8.2007. lndependent,Third Party Review of the Solid WasteTransfer and Waste Export System Plan. Prepared for
the King County Council by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, lnc., Fairfax,VA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/planning/documents/solid-waste-transfer-export-review.pdf
KCSWD. Updated monthly. Solid Waste Advisory Committee Web Page. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA.
http://you r.ki ngcou nty.gov/so I idwaste/about/swac.asp
KCSWD. Updated monthly. Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee Web Page. King County Solid
Waste Division, Seattle, WA.
http://you r.ki ngcou nty.gov/sol idwaste/a bout/mswmac.asp
KCSWD. 2002.2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA.
http://your.king cou nty.gov/so I idwaste/about/plan n i nglcomp-pla n.asp
KCSWD and ITSG. 2004. Transfer System Level of Service Evaluation Criteria and Standards. Prepared by the King
County Solid Waste Division and lnterjurisdictionalTechnical Staff Group, Seattle, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/planning/documents-planning.asp
KCSWD.2005a. Analysis of System Needs and Capacity: Using theTransfer System Level of Service Evaluation Criteria
and Standards. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattlq WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/planning/documents-planning.asp
KCSWD. 2005b. Options for Public and Private Ownership ofTransfer and lntermodal Facilities: Using theTransfer
System Level of Service Evaluation Criteria and Standards. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattlg WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/planning/documents-planning.asp
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIa,n -July zofi8-2
Aft A Page 195
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
KCSWD. 2OO6a. PreliminaryTransfer &Waste Export Facility Recommendations and Estimated System Costs, Rate
lmpacts & Financial Policy Assumptions. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/planning/documents-planning.asp
KCSWD. 2006b. Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan and associated Environmental lmpact Statement.
King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/planning/documents-planning.asp
KCSWD et al.2008a. Commercial Customer Evaluation of Waste Densities & Food Waste Recycling lmpacts. King
County Solid Waste Division, City of Kirkland, Waste Management, lnc., and Sound Resources Management Group,
lnc.,WA.
KCSWD et al. 2008b. Sustainable Curbside Collection Pilot. Prepared by the King County Solid Waste Division, City of
Renton, Public Health - Seattle & King County, and Waste Management, lnc.
https://kingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/garbage-recycling/documents/Renton_Residential_Pilot_
Report.ashx?la=en
KCSWD. 2009a. Draft King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. King County Solid Waste Division,
Seattle,WA.
KCSWD.2009b. King County Operational Disaster Debris Management Plan. King County Solid Waste Division,
Seattle, WA.
KCSWD. 2010a. Final Environmental lmpact Statement Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, 2010 Site Development Plan
Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by HDR Engineering, lnc., Bellevue, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/facilities/cedar-hills-development.asp
KCSWD. 2010b. Project Program Plan: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 2010 Site Development Plan. King County Solid
Waste Division, Seattle, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/facilities/cedar-hills-development.asp
KCSWD. 2010c. Vashon Recycling Survey. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/documents/2010-Vashon-recycling-survey.pdf
KCSWD. 2013a. Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan Review.
http://you r.ki ngcou nty.gov/sol idwaste/a bout/plan-review.asp
KCSWD. 2013b. Optimized Transfer Station Recycling Feasibility Study. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste
Division by Herrerra, O'Brien and Company, and HDR Engineering, lnc.
http://kingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/Planning/documents/optimized-TS-feasibility-study.
ashx?la=en
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotS
AttA Page 196
8-3
Ordinance 18893 Uodated ADril 17.2019
KCSWD. 2013c. DRAFT Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/planning/documents/2013-swd-comp-plan
ashx?la=en
KCSWD. 2O14a. Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division.
http://your.kingcounty.govlsolidwaste/about/planning/documents-planning.asp#sustain-study
KCSWD. 2014b. King County UTC Area Multifamily Pilots. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia
Consulting Group.
http://kingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/Planning/documents/KC-UTC-multifamily-recycling-
project-20 1 3-fi na l-report.ashx?la=en
KCSWD. 2015. Solid WasteTransfer and Waste Management Plan Review Part 2.
http://your.kingcou nty.gov/sol idwaste/about/plan-review.asp
KCSWD. 2016a. Waste Export Evaluation, October 2016. Moorehead, Hobson, et al., page 27
KCSWD. 2016b. Multi-Family Recycling Best Practices Report.
KCSWD. 2O"l6c. Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 2017-2018. June 2016.
KCSWD. 2017a. Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives Final Report Volumes 1 and 2. Prepared for the King County
Solid Waste Division by Herrera Environmental Consultants.
KCSWD. 20"l7b. Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by HDR
Engineering, lnc.
http://wwwkingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/planning/documents/anaerobic-digestion-
feasi bi lity-study.ashx?la=en
KCSWD. 2017c. Working Draft Copy of Evaluation of Disposal Technologies. March 28,20"17.
KCSWD. 2017d. Alternative Solid Waste Revenue Structure. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by FCS
Group. November 2017.
KCSWD. 2018a. Peak Democracy/ King County Connects Evaluation for the Draft King County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan. May 2018.
KCSWD. 2018b. Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 2019-2020. June 2018.
King County. 201 1. Annual Report of King County's Climate Change, Energy, Green Building, and Environmental
Purchasing Programs. King County, Seattle WA.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/climate/documents/201 1-King-County-Sustainability-Report.pdf
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zofi8-4
Att A Page 197
Ordinance 18893 Uodated Aoril 17. 2019
King County. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in King County: An Updated Geographic-Plus lnventory, a
Consumption-based lnventory, and an Ongoing Tracking Framework. Prepared for King County by the
Stockholm lnstitute.
http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/dnrp-directors-office/climate/2008-emissions-inventory/ghg-inventory-
summary.pdf
King County. 2015a. King County Strategic Plan, 2015 Update: Working Together for One King County. King County,
Seattle, WA.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/performance-strategy/Strategic-
Pla nn ing/201 5olo20Strategico/o20Plano/o20U pdate.aspx
King County. 2015b. Strategic Climate Action Plan. King County, Seattle, WA.
http://wwwkingcounty.gov/services/environment/climate/strategies/strategic-climate-action-plan.aspx
King County. 20"16a. King County Comprehensive Plan with 2016 Update. King County, Seattle,WA.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/regional-planning/king-county-
comprehensive-pla n.aspx
King County. 2016b. King County Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan 2016-2022.Kin1 County, Seattle, WA.
http://wwwkingcounty.govlelected/executive/equity-social-justice/strategic-plan.aspx
Michaelt T., Shiang, 1.,2016 Directory of Waste to Energy Facilities, ERC, page 5.
Morris, J. 2008. Curbside Recycling in King County: Valuation of Environmental Benefits-Revised Draft. Dr. Jeffrey
Morris, Sound Resource Management Group, Olympia, WA.
Normandeau .2017. King County Waste-to-Energy Study. Prepared for the King County Department of Resources and
Parks, Solid Waste Division by Normandeau Associates lnc, CDM 5mith, and Neomer.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/planning/documents/waste-to-energy-options-
considerations.as hx?la=en
R.W. Beck. 2007. Comparative Evaluation of Waste Export and Conversion Technologies Disposal Options. Prepared for
the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Solid Waste Division by R.W Beck, lnc., Seattle, WA.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/-/media/depts/dnrp/solid-waste/about/planning/documents/Conversion_
Tech nolog ies_Report.ashx?la=en
Sound Resource Management.2006. Estimated MarketValue for Recyclables Remaining in King County's Disposal
Stream. Memorandum from Sound Resource Management Group to the King County Solid Waste Division, January
2006 (values updated by Sound Resource Management August 2008).
SWANA. 2008. The Long-Term Environmental Risks of Subtitle D Landfills. Solid Waste Association of North America
Applied Research Foundation, Dallas, TX.
8-5zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jul1 zotS
AttA Page 198
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17. 2019
SWANA.201 1. Waste Conversion Technologies, Jeremy K. O'Brien, P.E., Solid Waste Association of North America MSW
Management Magazine.
Watson, Jay 1., Liz Tennant, and Dave Galvin. 201 0. 201 0 Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan Update. Local
Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County, Seattle, WA.
http://www.hazwastehelp.org/AboutUs/pdf/Chapter4_LegalAuthority_Cover.pdf
zotg Comprebensiue Solid W'aste Managemmt Plan -Ju$ zod8-6
Att A Page ',l99
i..: i.sii rtl--:q-F$,. irrl* ili:;lt,-.,-', -fT-€\\{\
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Appendix A
Utilities and
Transportation Commission
Cost Assessment
Att A Page 201
Ordinance 18893 Updated Aoril 17. 2019
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Cost Assessment
This plan is prepared for King County and its incorporated cities, excluding Seattle and Milton.
Prepared by: King County Solid Waste Division
Contact: Meg Moorehead, Strategy, Communications & Performance Manager
Date: May 17,2Ot8
DEFINITIONS
Throughout this document:
Year 1 refers to 2O18
Year 3 refers to 2O2O
Year 6 refers to 2023
Year refers to calendar year January 1 - December 31
1. DEMOGRAPHICS
The King County solid waste system comprises 37 of the 39 cities in the county (including all but the cities of
Seattle and Milton) and the unincorporated areas of King County. ln all, the county's service area covers
approximately 2,05O square miles. There are about 1.45 million residents and 84O,OO0 people employed in the
service area.
1.1. Population
1.1.1. Population for the entire King County
Year 1: 2,L66,5OO
Year 3: 2,257,8OO
Year 6: 2,297,OOO
1.1.2. Population for the King County solid waste system
Year 1: L,472,384
Year 3: 1,503,353
Year 6: 1,533,750
1.2. References and Assumptions
Projections for population are based on data developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC; 2OL7l.
Data provided by PSRC are based on U.S. Census and other data sources and developed in close cooperation
with the county and the cities.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufi zotS
Att A Page 202
A-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
2. WASTE STREAM GENERATION
2.1. Tonnage Recycled
Year 1: I,O32,873
Year 3: L,O9O,977
Year 5: L,L79,649
(52% recycling)
(52% recyclingl
(52% recycling)
2.2. Tonnage Disposed
Year 1: 953,421
Year 3: L,OO7,056
Year 5: 1,088,907
2.3. References and Assumptions
The division uses a planning forecast model to predict future waste generation, which is defined as wqste
disposed + materials recycled. The forecast is used to guide system planning, budgeting, rate setting, and
operations. The primary objectives of the model are to: 1) estimate future waste disposal and 2) provide
estimates of the amount of materials expected to be diverted from the waste stream through division and city
waste prevention and recycling programs. The tonnage forecast is described in more detail in Chapter 3 of the
Plan.
3. SYSTEM COMPONENT COSTS
This section addresses costs associated with current programs and those recommended in the draft plan.
3.1. Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
Many programs address waste reduction and prevention as well as recycling; therefore, they are presented
here together.
3.1.1.Programs
o Education and promotion campaigns
o EcoConsumer program
r Grants to cities to support waste prevention and recycling
. Product stewardship support and promotion -'Take it Back Network"
o Construction and demolition debris waste prevention and recycling education and promotion
o Sustainable building education and promotion
o LinkUp program
. Organics management program
r Master Recycler composter program
. School programs
. Special recycling collection events
r Green Holidays program
r Transfer facility recycling
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zotSA-2
Att A Page 203
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Detail on current programs and proposed waste prevention and recycling programs, primarily
building on current efforts, are presented in the recommendations in Chapter 4 of the Plan.
3.I.2. The costs of waste reduction and recycling programs (including transfer station recycling)
implemented and proposed are estimated to be:
Year 1: SL2,L'O,O4L
Year 3: S!o,447,7o7
Year 6: 572,730,95!
3.1.3. Fundingmechanisms:
Year 1:
Year 3
Year 6
Disposal fees
Grants
Unincorporated area recycling fee
Disposal fees
Grants
Unincorporated area recycling fee
Disposal fees
Grants
Unincorporated area recycling fee
5Lr,87L,4oz
119,539
150,000
S1o,1o7,oo9
1-20,639
160,000
S12,468,313
LO2,53g
160,000
3.2. Recycling Programs - see 3.1, combined with Waste Reduction Programs
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Managemmt Plan -July zod
Att A Page 204
A-3
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
3.3 Solid Waste Collection Programs
3.3.1 UTC Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs
Data for 2OL7 and estimates for 2018, 2020 and 2O23 are shown below:
UTC Regulated Hauler Name: Waste Management of Washington, lnc.
G-permit #tG-237 720 4th Ave, Ste 400 Kirkland WA 98033
Yr1 Yr3
2017 2018 2020
Yr5
2023
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling)
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
37,974
61,060
t,346
26,487
38,378
62,5r9
1,360
27,r79
39,187
65,036
1,389
28,645
39,979
7L,403
7,4L7
30,973
UTC Regulated Hauler Name:
G-permit f: G-87
American Disposal Company, lnc.
466279$ Ave E, Puyallup WA 98371
Yr1 Yr3
2017 2018 2020
YrG
2023
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, \r\tr & recycling)
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
2,074
t,486
t,4Ll
2,096
L,522
217
t,444
2,140
1,608
r,526
2,L83
L,738
226
1,650
2222t5
zotg Comprebensiue Solid lX/aste Management Plan -Ju$ zotSA-4
Att A Page 205
Ordinance 18893 Updated ApAl 17 ,2O19
UTC Regulated Hauler Name:
G-permit f: G-60
Fiorito Enterprises, lnc. & Rabanco Companies
22OLO 76rh Ave S, Kent WA 98032
Yrl Yr3
20L7 2018 2020
Yr5
2023
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling)
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
520 526
t3,MO L3,767
25,343
36,554
25,6L3
37,438
26,L52
39,544
537
L4,536
26,68t
42,758
547
L5,7L7
UTC Regulated Hauler Name:
G-permit *zG-12
Rabanco tTD, 1600 127th Ave NE Bellevue WA 98005
1600127th Ave NE, Bellevue WA 98005
Yr1 Yr3 Yr6
2017 2018 2020 2023
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, \4rV & recycling)
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
7,848
13,300
203
9,434
7,932
13,618
205
9,660
8,099
L4,384
209
10,203
8,262
15,553
274
L!,032
zory Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1t zofi
Att A Page 206
A-5
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17,2019
3.3.2 Other (non-regulated) Solid Waste Collection Programs
Data for 2017 and estimates for 20L8,2O2O, and 2023 are shown below.
Hauler Name: Republic Services
Yr1 Yr3
2017 2018 2020
YrG
2023
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling)
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
L23,L74
232,390
5,400
L96,424
724,485
237,941
5,457
2OL,IL6
L27,r08
25L,327
5,572
2t2,430
t29,677
27t,754
5,685
229,696
Hauler Name:Recology
2017
Yr1
2018
Yr3
2020
Yr6
2023
Residential
f of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling)
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
63,872
118,391
2,324
86,337
64,552
L27,2L9
2,349
88,399
55,9r2
L28,O39
2,398
93,372
67,2M
138,445
2,447
100,961
Hauler Name:Waste Management of Washington, lnc,
Yr1 Yr3
20L7 2018 2020
Yr6
2023
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, \lff & recycling)
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
84,442
158,584
5,479
136,633
85,341
t72,6t7
5,610
139,896
87,L39
L82,32L
5,925
L47,766
88,900
L97,r40
6,407
L59,776
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufi zodA-6
Att A Page 207
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Hauler Name:City of Enumclaw
Yr1
20L7 2018
Yr3
2020
Yr5
2023
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling)
Commercial
f of Customers
Tonnage Collected (garbage only)
3,62L
4,494
3,621
2,835
3,560
4,602
3,650
2,903
3,737
4,861
3,737
3,067
3,8r2
5,256
3,8L2
3,3L6
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zofi
Att A Page 208
A-7
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
3.4 Energy Recovery & lncineration (ER&ll Programs
Not applicable - the Solid Waste Division has no such program
3.5 Land Disposal Program
3.5.1 Landfill Name: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Owner: King County
Operator: King County Solid Waste Division
3.5.2 The approximate tonnage disposed at the landfill by UTC regulated haulers is expected to be:
Year 1: 94,7L6
Year 3: LOO,O44
Year 6: LO8,L76
3.5.3 The approximate tonnage disposed at the landfill by other contributors is expected to be:
Year 1: 858,705
Year 3: 9O7,OL2
Year 6: 98O,73L
3.5.4
3.5.5
Landfill operating and capital costs are estimated to be:
Year 1: 546,973,382
Year 3: s55,355,039
Year 6: 551,868,163
Landfill funding:
Tipping fees
3.6 Administrataon Program
3.6.1 Budgeted cost and funding sources:
Budgeted Cost Funding Source
Year 1: 54O,785,7OL Tipping fees
Year 3: 540,827,859 Tipping Fees
Year 5: 552,185,563 Tipping fees
Cost components included in these estimates are:
All Operating Expenditures except for direct cost components of Transfer Operations, Disposal
Operations, and ancillary operating units.
Funding mechanisms
Around 90 percent of the division's revenue comes from tipping fees charged at transfer facilities
and the Cedar Hills landfill. The remainder comes from a few additional sources, including interest
earned on fund balances, a surcharge on construction and demolition (C&D), revenue from the
sale of recyclable materials received at division transfer facilities, a fee on recyclables collected in
3.6.2
3.6.3
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufu zofiA-8
Att A Page 209
Ordinance 18893 Updated 4pn117,2019
unincorporated areas, and grants to help clean up litter and illegal dumping throughout the
county and to support WPR. Other than grant funds, all revenue sources support all programs.
3.7 Other Programs
3.7.L
3.7.2
3.7.3
3.7.4
The Transfer Services System Program is described in Chapter 5 of the Plan. lt includes the
division's recycling and transfer stations, private facilities that handle construction and demolition
debris (C&D), and household hazardous waste (HHW) service, which is covered in detail by the
Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
The division owns and operates eight transfer stations and two drop boxes. Allied Waste and
Waste Management own and operate facilities that handle C&D. The division operates HHW
service at its Factoria transfer station and provides Wastemobile service via a contractor.
The UTC regulates the C&D facilities.
Solid Waste Division Costs
3.7.4.1 Transfer facility operating and capital costs are estimated to be:
Year 1: 56L,O22,952
Year2: $68,229,939
Year 3: 580,090,023
3.7.4.2 HHW service costs are estimated to be: NA
3.7.5 The major funding source for division transfer operations is tipping fees. Capital costs are paid
from the construction fund; bond proceeds and contributions from the operating fund (tipping
fees) are deposited into the construction fund. The cost of providing HHW service is funded by the
LHWMP.
3.8 References and Assumptions
The estimate for year 1 costs is from actual 2018 costs to-date plus projected costs for the remainder of
the year; years 3 and 6 were increased to account for inflation, tonnage projections, and expected
program additions. The collection program estimates were derived using hauler reports and a projected
rate of population increase in King County. Numbers have been rounded in most instances.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zod
Att A Page 210
A-9
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
4 FUNDING MECHANISMS
Table 4.1.1 lnventory
Table 4.1.2 Fee
Table 4.1.3 Funding Mechanism (see next tables)
Table 4.1.4 Ti Fee Forecast
[1] Basic fee
Facility Name Type of Facillty Tlp Fee
per Ton
Estimated
Transfer and
Transportation
Cost**
Transfer
Stallon
Locatlon
Final Disposal
Localion
Total Tons
Dlsposed
Total Revenue
Generated
Crip Fee x
Tons)
Klng County
Transfer Statlons Transfer Station $134.59 $61,022,952 King County Cedar Hills
Landfill 922,'t21 $1 24,1 08,265
Reglonal
Cedar
Dlrect
Hllls Landfill $1 14.00 Cedar Hllls
Lanrlflll 9,000 $1,026,000
Special Waste
Cedar Hllls Landflll $162.00 ceclar Hills
Landflll 2,300 $372,600
commerclal Haul
Cedar Hllls Landflll $1 34.59 cedar Hllls
Landflll 20,000 $2,691,800
Yard Waste/Wood TransFer Stallons
Klno Counlv $75.00 Cedar Grove
Comoostino 21,000 $1,575,000
Total 974,42L sL29,773,665
Moderate risk waste
surchargeFee per ton State tax
Basic Fee 134.59 4.73 s.o2
Regional Direct 114.00
Special Waste 162.00 5.83
Yard Waste 75.00
Tip fee per ton by facility [r]
Year One
(20181
Year Three
(202o)Year Six (2023)
All Facilities s134.s9 S140.82 s1s4.16
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zotSA-10
Att A Page 2'1 1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
4.2 Funding Mechanisms
Table 4.2.1 Fund Mechanism - Year 1
Table 4.2.2 Funding Mechanism By Percentage - Year 3
Component Tip Fee %Gtant Yo Bond %Collection Tax
Rates %Other Yo Total
Waste
Reduction
&
Recvcling
99o/o 7%IOOY"
Tra nsfer IOOYI lOOo/o
Capital Projects LOO%!OO%"
Land Disposal 700%700%
Administration !oo%!oo%
Capital Debt Service roo%LOO%
Other roo%LOO%
Component Tip Fee %Grant%Bond %Collection Tax
Rates %i
Other %Total
Waste Reduction &
Recycling 9g%o I%AOOo/o
Tra nsfer tOoo/o LOO%
Capital Projects LOOY"LOOo/o
Land Disposal LOO%TOOYy
Administration 'too%IOOYI
Capital Debt Service 100%roo%
Other too%100%
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zotS
AftAPage212
A-11
Ordinance 18893 Updated Apn!17,2019
Table 4.2.3 Funding Mechanism By Percentage - Year 5
Component Tip Fee %Grant %Bond%Collection Tax
Rates %Other %Total
Waste Reduction &
Recycling 99%!%700%
Transfer roo%100%
Capital Projects TOOo/o 700%
Land Disposal 700%700%
Administration !oo%IOO%
Capital Debts Service looo/o !oo%
Other IOOo/"TOOo/o
4.2 References and Assumptions
Revenue and operating cost projections for years 1, 3, and 6 are shown in Attachment 1.
4.3 Surplus Funds
The division develops its solid waste rate to maintain a 30-day emergency reserye in the operating fund.
Beginning in2Ot9, the division will also maintain a minimum reserve balance for economic recessions
equivalent to 5% of projected disposal revenue.
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -Ju$ zo$A-12
Att A Page 213
Ordinance 18893 Updated Apnl 17 ,2019
Attachment 1
Basic Fee
Revenues
Disposal Fees
lnterest Earnings
Grants
Landfill Gas
Rental lncomes
c&D
Other Revenue
Moderate Risk Waste Reimb Expense
Low-lncome Discount
Total Revenue
Operating Expenditures
Moderate Risk Waste
Public Health Transfer
Landfill Reserve Fund
Capital Equipment Recovery Program
Construction Fund
Capital program debt service
Cedar Hills Rent
City mitigation
CHRLF Environmental Liability Policy
Fund Management
SW Directors Office
Human Resources
Legal Support
Customer Transactions
Strategy, Communications & Performance
Enterprise Services
Contract Management
Project Management
Recycling & Environmental Services
Facility Engineering & Science
Envir Monitor & Compliance
Operations Management
Transfer Operations
Transportation
Disposal Operations
LF Gas Water Control
207a
135
730,25L,197
849,809
118,639
3,OOO,OOO
672,208
449,543
8,643,986
2,747,740
2020
743,923,a34
1,030,297
720,639
3,OOO,OOO
627334
642,669
537,707
3,672,578
(3OO,OOO)
2023
L54
770,697,O73
879,336
102,539
2,500,ooo
675,O97
64a,a92
544,23t
3,92s,L47
{.32a,41.tl
I4L
146,466,s2L 153,189,061 179,683,303
2,!4L,L40
7,O54,276
7a,739,437
6,900,ooo
6,000,OOO
13,350,OOO
3,O39,274
3,672,s7a
!,o97,69L
29,6a8,762
5,900,ooo
2,OOO,OOO
23,267,327
3,108,OOO
39,472
500,ooo
72,744,723
7,794,199
7,428 382
38,O82
4,056,591
3,273,757
3,720,642
755,709
160,346
70,M7,707
s,9I4,I55
646,447
942,8,O7
13,224,667
9,974,676
7,460,202
4,359,666
3,925,747
1,253,623
23,1.'30,9a7
6,100,ooo
2,OOO,OOO
27,7a6,O35
3,250,OOO
43,322
543,26!
L7,s34,519
2,788,O21
2,353,656
M,AT7
4,774,O49
3,884,536
4,470,947
888,660
7AA,706
12,730,957
7,429,226
808,325
\aog,ss4
76,425,961
7.r,664,137
4,973,334
5,130,726
572,aO6
70,227,554
1,659,920
\824,997
25,782
3,697,02L
3,263,234
3,769,O75
7,O34,937
(2e,42s)
1.2,150,O4r
6,374,544
4ar,068
922,2r3
7L,974,151
10,840,311
I,O79,756
5,4s6,L52
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zod
Att A Page 214
A-13
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 20'19
Shop Operations
Stores
B&OTax
Total SWD Costs
under expenditure of 29r'o in low orgs
SWD cost minus under expenditure
6,669,O10
s,967346
7,597,460
6,442,565
5,940,957
2,158,858
7,705,582
6,991,688
2,560,4s6
r44,7a2,o35
144,742,035
166,163,110
7,740 274
764,422,436
7a6,a74,267
2,O30,578
1a4,143,749
Management Plan -Jufu zo$A-14 zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste
Aft A Page 215
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Appendix B
Six Year
Capitil, I-provement
Program
D
f
Att A Page 216
osaqtaoo@@(oo)tso\ons'\S-s:.o's-NN\\A\esI\.qtuoOoSOLID WASTE DIVISION SIX-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMcEo.q)oo-E=._{No(o!ot(cIoN!EI2024 Beyond20245,53r"38520,2t347,7a25,531,3852022231,855238,810231,855238,81025,915,9636,531,385202L225,r02231,85528r,377289,81827,475,8066 531,3851o9,27320202r8,545225,702273,78228r,3777,aL3,7409,372,241697,38352,55820792L2,180zla,545265,225273,t82t8,497,7709,372,242113,300883,22567,002201853,045257,500265,22553,045257,500265,225470,000183,045188,535Actuals ThruDec 2017s4,27354,273874,570819,401216,385216,38s850,111767,792499,496I,444,396r,7L2,33647L,zU470,83574,654,021EscalatedCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Foreest2QU Adopted/2'16Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast20L7 Adopted/2?16Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2015Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow 5olid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2o16Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionProject TitleFund 3901 Contract AuditFund 3901 Contract AuditFacilities Capital Project ControlSuDoortFacilities Capital Project ControlSupportLandfill Reserve Contract AuditSewicesLandfill Reserve Contract Auditiervices[andfill Reserve Capital ProiectControl SuooortLandfill Reserve Capital PrcjectControl SupportFacilities RelocationFacilities RelocationCapital EquipmentCapital EquipmentCedar Hills Master Electrical PH2Cedar Hills Master Electrical PH2Cedar Hills Revised SiteDevelooment PlanCedar Hills Revised SiteDevelopment PlanCedar Hills Leachate ForecemainUosradeCedar Hills Leachate ForecemainUpgradeCedar Hills Area 6 ClosureCedar Hills Area 6 ClosureProj. No.103350410335041033505103350510335101033510LO33547L033547113391811339181133925Lr33925103351510335151033516103351510335110103354010335411033541
EINSOLID WASTE DIVISION SIX-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMo-g=qrfoo@@(oo)cECL0)octE=._{No(o\)oso\s*k.es:-s\N!isSesIS,qtuoOo!0)(ooN@2024 BeyondL47,46214,22I,67920245,020,5209,166,8s8202t7,567,1097,466,6937376,10620227,5s8,8747,249,217s,256,586202L579,971528,4287,269,L358,113,510L,242,3482020\7,081,62917,387,2476,7aa,0421,07t,23310,609963,27520t92,165.5317,789,325t,524,7405,t20,3823,269,8652,532,176388,9225,464233,80520186,732,9566,826,42822,36r,34720,570,556530,636525,94t600,34s1,389,595L,092,O571,4s3,3s3t47,192Actuals ThruDec2OlT14,355,8159,086,9383,446,2875,376,2945,071,9064324s,824,99327,280,8006,151,6034,585,48632r,00744,47461,708L86,763EscalatedCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2Ot7 AdoptedlZlr6Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2Or7 Adopted/20I6Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/??t'Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2077 Adopted/2?16Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/20t6Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast20L7 Adopted/20t6Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent ForecastProject TitleCedar Hills Area 7 ClosureCedar Hills Area 7 ClosureCedar Hills EnvironmentalSystemsEvaluation/l m plementationCedar Hills EnvironmentalSystemsEvaluation/lmplementationCedar Hills Environmental5\6tems ModificationsCedar Hills EnvironmentalSystems ModificationsCedar Hills Area 8 ClosureCedar Hills Area 8 ClosureArea 8 DevelopmenvFacilityRelocationArea 8 Development/FacilityRelocationCedar Hills Landfill Gas PipelineUoeradeCedar Hills Landfill Gas PipelineUpgradeCedar Hills Support FacilitiesEvaluationCedar Hills Support FacilitiesEvaluationCedar Hills Landfill Pump StationReoairCedar Hills Landfill Pump StationRepairCedar Hills Landfill North FlareStation RepairCedar Hills Landfill North FlareStation RepairCedar Hills Area 5 Top DeckProj. No.103354210335421033544103354410335451033545Ltt24I5Lt72475111s992111s9921124105rL24t05tlz4L061724706Lt29844t1298441729847tL298471129848
o4a0)loo@@(ou)tDo\o$\\ri*Nbs-N5\RS.sA6\sI\'s$oOoSOLID WASTE DIVISION SIX-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMc'Eo-0)oCLE=.-\|No@'0qt(cIoN(o2024 Beyond9,44r,864615,782202420,373,s1420237,597,38926,460,42720225,424,58320,540,5342027t,279,6t85,463,6352020992,L737,463,43t6,564,318530,45062\7rr2019240,8r93,558,9s01,236,0003,540,6252,575,000923,8762018151,608t89,67r400,o23472,024283,250291,747721,000742,630Actuals ThruDec 2017127,863I,942,7277,745,590L,346,492937,760L,9r4,rW1,679,6r?Escalated2017 Adopted/2015Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2015Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast20L7 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2Ot7 Adopled/2076Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2Ot7 AdoptedlzgI'Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionProject TitleCedar Hills Area 5 Top DeckCedar Hills Landfill LeachateLagoonsCedar Hills Landfill LeachateLagoonsCedar Hills Landfill East PerchZone RI-FSCedar Hills Landfill East PerchZone Rl-FSCedar Hills Landfill Area 9 NADCedar Hills Landfill Area 9 NADCedar Hills Landfill NFS ElectricalCedar Hills Landfill NFs ElectricalCedar Hills SCADA Master Plan-3910cedar Hills SCADA Master Plan-3910Cedar Falls EnvironmentalControl Systems Modifi cationsCedar Falls EnvironmentalControl Systems Modifi cationsEnumclaw Environmental ControlSystems ModificationsEnumclaw Environmental ControlSystems ModificationsYashon Environmental ControlSystems ModificationsVashon Environmental ControlSystems ModificationsProj. No.11298481133921tr3392tLt33922Lr3392211339231133923LL33924LL33924LLI24p41772404111583311168331116838111683811168401116840@It,
EI5SOLID WASTE DIVISION SIX-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMo-gJ0)fooA@@(oG)cECL0)oCLo.\|No(oIto\o$\\tilk.eks.N'-\NASeltIR'qtsOo!q)GIoNNo2024 Beyond119,415109,307,1402024724,6055,098,23020298,072,558827,5s65,155,6312022M,376,42819,583,5494,37't,692202t637,601637,60L637,60t47,226,92636,260,929L,479,7072020668,6041,388,503519,030909,250519,030909,251519,030L8,254,80934,rfi,56238,590,94920L91,155,3502,0L0,213300,50088L,292300,500915,101300,5009,L7r,4626,44r,6251,532,003(720,970)23,750186,2422018795,675206,000297,747283,25029t,747283,250291,7474,183,9596,275,223829,045Actuals ThruDecZOLT915,429566,343L58,37717,3244,7M6,933,0506,666,042884,4352,639,5992,503,49588,158,34888,253,33590,434,755EscalatedCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2015cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/20L6Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent ForecastProiect TitleHobart landfill Cover and GascontrolHobart Landfill Cover and GascontrolDuvall Environmental ControlsDuvall Environmental ControlsPost Closure Puyallup/Kit CornerEnvironmental Control SystemsPost Closure Puyallup/Kit CornerEnvironmental Control SystemsPost Closure HoughtonEnvironmental Control SystemsPost Closure HoughtonEnvironmental Control Systemsouth county Recycling andIransfer StationSouth County Recycling andfransfer StationNortheast Recycling and TransferStationNortheast Recycling and TransferStationHarbor lsland SafetylmprovementsHarbor lsland SafetylmprovementsBow Lake Recycling and TransferStationBow Lake Recycling and TransferStationFactoria Recycling and TransferStationProj. No.tL24104Ltz41041129849tLz984911298517L29851L729852Lt298521033497L0334971033498103349810335031033503103350610335051048385
oasfq,Joo@@(oCDt!o\o6',{as\"Ns.btr*N\SS:lRNN\'stuoOoSOLID WASTE DIVISION SIX-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMcoo.0toCLo=..\.1No(o!0)(cIoNN2024 Beyond110,190,79823,663,54320243,58214,32947,933,m2202?33,43334,43610,43313,91151,568,78515,920,07420227,765,L71r,818,r2715,75713,s051,700,0014,75r,426116.76160641,o04,622202L288,41t297,0642,W6,4r8L7,48413,113!,699,9994,751,42494160,09255,365,M720202t,96t22,620747,93444,55812,731L,700,o0r7,U4F00179,987,20765,397,5722019188,5s7L4,662550,833L38r,49440,17012,3601,699,9997,644,50058,980,53424,7L5,9762018833,s9187,272862,4M588,686221,0001,831,1543,0003,15312,00023,42r1,950,m0r,699,9997,000,0008,692,50050,L47,74t54,907,60rActuals ThruDec 201782,208,47423,65737,0669,3636,49t10s,200704,245s4,9s545,846t2,324,75712,263,88692,077,70686,223,926395,486,377333,4r8,436Escalated2OL7 Adopted/20t6Cashflow Solid WasteDivlsionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2O15Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forccast2017 Adopted/z016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2Ot7 Adoptedl20r6Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurrent Forecast2017 Adopted/2016Cashflow Solid WasteDivisionCurr€nt Forccast2017 Adopted/2016Gshflow Solid WasteDivisionProject TitleFactoria Recycling and TransferStationTransfer Station SCADA MasterPlan - 3901Transfer Station SCADA MasterPlan - 3901Cedar Falls Drop 8oxlmorovementCedar Falls Drop BoxlmprovementAlgona Transfer StationDeconstructionAlgona Transfer StationDeconstructionHarbor lsland Dock DemolitionHarbor lsland Dock DemolitionConstruction CIP OversightConstruction CIP OversightLandfill Reserve CIP OverslghtLandfill Reserve CIP OversightCERP Gpital RepairsCERP Capital RepaiBCERP Equipment ReplacementPurchaseCERP Equipment ReplacementPurchaseProj. No.104838s111239511123961115975111s97sLL24LO7\I24LO7112985011298501033507103350710335481033548lct3€5103348510334871033rA7EItr
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Appendix C
Amended and Restarcd
Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement
AtlAPage222
Lrrotnance 't66yJ Updated April 17, 2019
AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLID WASTE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") is entered
into between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington and the City of _
a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred
to as "County" and "City" respectively. Collectively, the County and the City are referred to as
the "Parties." This Agreement has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction
pursuant to formal action as designated below:
King County: Ordinance No.
Ctty:
PREAMBLE
A. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW for the purpose of
extending, restating and amending the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement between the
Parties originally entered into in _ (the "Original Agreement"). The Original
Agreement provided for the cooperative management of Solid Waste in King County for
a term of forty (40) years, through June 30, 2028.The Original Agreement is superseded
by this Amended and Restated Agreement, as of the effective date of this Agreement.
This Amended and Restated Agreement is effective for an additional twelve (12) years
through December 3 l, 2040.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufu zofi
Att A Page 223
c-1
urornance 166yJ Updated April 17, 2019
B. The Parties intend to continue to cooperatively manage Solid Waste and to work
collaboratively to maintain and periodically update the existing King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) adopted pursuant
to chapter 70.95 RCW.
C. The Parties continue to support the established goals of Waste Prevention and Recycling
as incorporated in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and to meet or
surpass applicable environmental standards with regard to the Solid Waste System.
D. The County and the Cities agree that System-related costs, including environmental
liabilities, should be funded by System revenues which include but are not limited to
insurance proceeds, grants and rates;
E. The County, as the service provider, is in the best position to steward funds System
revenues that the County and the Cities intend to be available to pay for environmental
liabilities; and
F. The County and the Cities recognize that at the time this Agreement goes into effect, it is
impossible to know what the ultimate environmental liabilities could be; nevertheless, the
County and the Cities wish to designate in this Agreement a protocol for the designation
and distribution of funding for potential future environmental liabilities in order to protect
the general funds of the County and the Cities.
G. The County began renting the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State of Washington in 1960
and began using it for Disposal of Solid Waste in 1964. The County acquired ownership
of the Cedar Hills Landfill from the State in1992. The Cedar Hills Landfill remains an
asset owned by the County.
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zo8c-2
Aft A Page 224
LrrqtnanGe 't ooYJ updated Apnt 17, 2019
H. The Parties expect that the Cedar Hills Landfillwill be at capacity and closed at some
date during the term of this Agreement, after which time all Solid Waste under this
Agreement will need to be disposed of through alternate means, as determined by the
Cities and the County through amendments to the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan. The County currently estimates the useful life of the Cedar Hills
Landfill will extend through 2025.ll is possible that this useful life could be extended, or
shortened, by System management decisions or factors beyond the control of the Parties.
l. The County intends to charge rent for the use of the Cedar Hills Landfill for so long as
the System uses this general fund asset and the Parties seek to clarify terms relative to the
calculation of the associated rent.
J. The County and Cities participating in the System have worked collaboratively for
several years to develop a plan for the replacement or upgrading of a series of transfer
stations. The Parties acknowledge that these transfer station improvements, as they may
be modified from time-to-time, will benefit Cities that are part of the System and the
County. The Parties have determined that the extension of the term of the Original
Agreement by twelve (12) years as accomplished by this Agreement is appropriate in
order to facilitate the long-term financing of transfer station improvements and to
mitigate rate impacts of such financing.
K. The Parties have further determined that in order to equitably allocate the benefit to all
System Users from the transfer station improvements, different customer classes may be
established by the County to ensure System Users do not pay a disproportionate share of
the cost of these improvements as a result of a decision by a city not to extend the term of
the Original Agreement.
zotg Comprelsensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Jufu zofi
Att A Page 225
c-3
Ljrotnance l ddvJ Upclated April 17, 2019
L. The Parties have further determined it is appropriate to strengthen and formalize the
advisory role of the Cities regarding System operations.
The Parties agree as follows
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement the following definitions shall apply:
"Cedar Hills Landfill" means the landfill owned and operated by the County located in
southeast King County.
"Cities" refers to all Cities that have signed an Amended and Restated Solid Waste
lnterlocal Agreement in substantially identical form to this Agreement.
"Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan" or "Comprehensive Plan" means the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, as approved and amended from time to time, for
the System, as required by chapter 70.95.080 RCW.
"County" means King County, a Charter County and political subdivision of the State of
Washington.
"Disposal" means the final treatment, utilization, processing, deposition, or incineration
of Solid Waste but shall not include Waste Prevention or Recycling as defined herein.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju$ zofic-4
Att A Page 226
{Jrotnance l6dvd Updated April 17, 2019
"Disposal Rates" means the fee charged by the County to System Users to cover all costs
of the System consistent with this Agreement, all state, federal and local laws governing solid
waste and the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
"Divert" means to direct or permit the directing of Solid Waste to Disposal sites other
than the Disposal site(s) 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 or any other means of using the heat of
combustion of Solid Waste that involves high temperature (above 1,200 degrees F) processing.
(chapter 1 73,350.1 00 WAC).
"Landfill" means a Disposal facility or part of a facility at which Solid Waste is placed in
or on land and which is not a land treatment facility.
"Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or "MSWAC" means the advisory
committee composed of city representatives, established pursuant to Section lX of this
Agreement.
"Moderate Risk Waste" means waste that is limited to conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste and household hazardous waste as those terms are defined in chapter
173-350 WAC, as amended.
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -July zotS
Alt APage 227
c-s
urotnance t 66vJ Updated April 17, 2019
"Original Agreement" means the Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement first entered into by
and between the Parties, which is amended and restated by this Agreement. "Original
Agreements" means collectively all such agreements between Cities and the County in
substantially the same form as the Original Agreement.
"Parties" means collectively the County and the City or Cities.
"Recycling" as defined in chapter 70.95.030 RCW, as amended, means transforming or
remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill
Disposal or incineration.
"Regional Policy Committee" means the Regional Policy Committee created pursuant to
approval of the County voters in 1993, the composition and responsibilities of which are
prescribed in King County Charter Section 270 and chapter 1.24 King County Code, as they now
exist or hereafter may be amended.
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes
including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, commercial waste,
sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof,
contaminated soils and contaminated dredged materials, discarded commodities and recyclable
materials, but shall not include dangerous, hazardous, or extremely hazardous waste as those
terms are defined in chapter 173-303 WAC, as amended; and shall further not include those
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -JuJ1 zotSc-6
Att A Page 228
urornance r6uvJ Updated April 17, 2019
wastes excluded from the regulations established in chapter 173-350 WAC, more specifically
identified in Section 173-350-020 WAC.
"Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or "SWAC" means the inter-disciplinary advisory
forum or its successor created by the King County Code pursuant to chapter 70.95.165 RCW.
"System" includes King County's Solid Waste facilities used to manage Solid Wastes
which includes but is not limited to transfer stations, drop boxes, landfills, recycling systems and
facilities, energy and resource recovery facilities and processing facilities as authorized by
chapter 36.58.040 RCW and as established pursuant to the approved King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
"System User" or "System Users" means Cities and any person utilizing the County's
System for Solid Waste handling, Recycling or Disposal.
"Waste Prevention" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated. Waste
Prevention shall not include reduction of already-generated waste through energy recovery,
i ncineration, or othenruise.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to foster transparency and cooperation between the
Parties and to establish the respective responsibilities of the Parties in a Solid Waste management
System, including but not limited to, planning, Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Disposal. .
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zotS
Att A Page 229
c-7
urotnance'toovJ
III. DURATION
This Agreement shall become effective as of
through December 31 ,2040.
updated April 1/, 2019
and shall remain in effect
IV. APPROVAL
This Agreement will be approved and filed in accordance with chapter 39.34 RCW
V. RENEGOTIATION TO FURTHER EXTEND TERM OF AGREEMENT
5.1 The Parties recognize that System Users benefit from long-term Disposal
arrangements, both in terms of predictability of System costs and operations, and the likelihood
that more cost competitive rates can be achieved with longer-term Disposal contracts as
compared to shorter-term contracts. To that end, at least seven (7) years before the date that the
County projects that the Cedar Hills Landfill will close, or prior to the end of this Agreement,
whichever is sooner, the County will engage with MSWAC and the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, among others, to seek their advice and input on the Disposal alternatives to be used
after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill, associated changes to the System, estimated costs
associated with the recommended Disposal alternatives, and amendments to the Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan necessary to support these changes. Concurrently, the Parties will
meet to negotiate an extension of the term of the Agreement for the purpose of facilitating the
long-term Disposal of Solid Waste after closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. Nothing in this
Agreement shall require the Parties to reach agreement on an extension of the term of this
Agreement. lf the Parties fail to reach agreement on an extension, the Dispute Resolution
provisions of Section Xlll do not apply, and this Agreement shall remain unchanged.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -July zotSc-8
Att A Page 230
urornance 1669J Updated April 17, 2O19
5.2 Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, the
Parties may, pursuant to mutual written agreement, modify or amend any provision of this
Agreement at any time during the term of said Agreement.
VI. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
6.1 King County
6.1.a Management. The County agrees to provide Solid Waste management
services, as specified in this Section, for Solid Waste generated and collected within the City,
except waste eliminated through Waste Prevention or waste recycling activities. The County
agrees to dispose of or designate Disposal sites for all Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste
generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City which is delivered to the
System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules, or regulations, as those laws are described in Subsection 8.5.a. The County shall maintain
records as necessary to fulfill obligations under this Agreement,
6.1.b Planning. The County shall serve as the planning authority for Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste under this Agreement but shall not be responsible for planning for any
other waste or have any other planning responsibility under this Agreement.
6.1.c Operation. King County shall be or shall designate or authorize the
operating authority for transfer, processing and Disposal facilities, including public landfills and
other facilities, consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan as well as closure and post-
closure responsibilities for landfills which are or were operated by the County.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jub zotS C'9
Att A Page 231
C-10 2oi9 Comprel)ensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zotS
urornance 166vJ updatecl April 17, 2019
6.1.d Collection Service. The 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.
6.1.e Support and Assistance. The County shall provide support and technical
assistance to the City consistent with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for a
Waste Prevention and Recycling program. Such support may include the award of grants to
support programs with System benefits. The County shall develop educational materials related
to Waste Prevention and Recycling and strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the
educational materials and will make these available to the City for its use. Although the County
will not be required to provide a particular level of support or fund any City activities related to
Waste Prevention and Recycling, the County intends to move forward aggressively to promote
Waste Prevention and Recycling.
6.1.f Forecast. The County shall develop Solid Waste stream forecasts in
connection with System operations as part of the comprehensive planning process in accordance
with Article Xl.
6.1.9 Facilities and Services. The County shall provide facilities and services
pursuant to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste Transfer and
Waste Management plan as adopted and County Solid Waste stream forecasts.
6.1.h Financial Policies. The County will maintain financial policies to guide
the System's operations and investments. The policies shall be consistent with this Agreement
and shall address debt issuance, rate stabilization, cost containment, reserves, asset ownership
and use, and other financial issues. The County shall primarily use long term bonds to finance
transfer System improvements. The policies shall be developed and/or revised through
Aft A Page 232
urornance l uugJ Updated April 17, 2019
discussion with MSWAC, the Regional Policy Committee, the County Executive and the County
Council. Such policies shall be codified at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan updates,
but may be adopted from time to time as appropriate outside the Comprehensive Plan process.
6.2 eily
6.2.a Collection. The City, an entity designated by the City or such other entity
as is authorized by state law shall serve as operating authority for Solid Waste collection services
provided within the City's corporate limits.
6.2.b Disposal. The City shall cause to be delivered to the County's System for
Disposal all such Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste which is authorized to be delivered to
the System in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local environmental health laws,
rules or regulations and is 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 such Solid Waste
and Moderate Risk Waste generated or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except
for Solid Waste which is eliminated through Waste Prevention 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,
6.3 JOINTRESPONSIBILITIES.
6.3.a Consistent with the Parties' overall commitment to ongoing
communication and coordination, the Parties will endeavor to notify and coordinate with each
other on the development of any City or County plan, facility, contract, dispute, or other Solid
Waste issue that could have potential significant impacts on the County, the System, or the
City or Cities.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jul1 zotS
Att A Page 233
c-l1
Lrrarnance toovJ upoateo Apnt 1 /, zul I
6.3.b The Parties, together with other Cities, will coordinate on the development
of emergency plans related to Solid Waste, including but not limited to debris management.
VII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES
AND OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL; USE OF SYSTEM REVENUES
7.1 ln establishing Disposal Rates for System Users, the County shall consult with
MSWAC consistent with Section lX. The County may adopt and amend by ordinance rates
necessary to recover all costs of the System including but not limited to operations and
maintenance, costs for handling, processing and Disposal of Solid Waste, siting, design and
construction of facility upgrades or new facilities, Recycling, education and mitigation, planning,
Waste Prevention, reserve funds, financing, defense and payment of claims, insurance, System
liabilities including environmental releases, monitoring and closure of landfills which are or
were operated by the County, property acquisition, grants to cities, and administrative functions
necessary to support the System and Solid Waste handling services during emergencies as
established by local, state and federal agencies or for any other lawful solid waste purpose, and
in accordance with chapter 43.09.210 RCW. Revenues from Disposal rates shall be used only for
such purposes. The County shall establish classes of customers for Solid Waste management
services and by ordinance shall establish rates for classes of customers.
7.2. lt is understood and agreed that System costs include payments to the County
general fund for Disposal of Solid Waste at the Cedar Hills Landfill calculated in accordance
with this Section 7.2, and that such rental payments shall be established based on use valuations
provided to the County by an independent-third party Member, Appraisal lnstitute (MAl)
certified appraiser selected by the County in consultation with MSWAC.
zotg Compre/tensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -July zotSc-12
Aft A Page 234
uratnance't c't'yJ updated April 17,2019
7.2.a A use valuation shall be prepared consistent with MAI accepted principles
for the purpose of quantifying the value to the System of the use of Cedar Hills Landfill for
Disposal of Solid Waste over a specified period of time (the valuation period). The County shall
establish a schedule of annual use charges for the System's use of the Cedar Hills Landfill which
shall not exceed the most recent use valuation. Prior to establishing the schedule of annual use
charges, the County shall seek review and comment as to both the use valuation and the
proposed payment schedule from MSWAC. Upon request, the County will share with and
explain to MSWAC the information the appraiser requests for purposes of developing the
apprai ser's recommendati on.
7.2.b Use valuations and the underlying schedule of use charges shall be
updated if there are significant changes in Cedar Hills Landfill capacity as a result of opening
new Disposal areas and as determined by revisions to the existing Cedar Hills Regional Landfill
Site Development Plan; in that event, an updated appraisal will be performed in compliance with
MAI accepted principles. Otherwise, a reappraisal will not occur. Assuming a revision in the
schedule of use charges occurs based on a revised appraisal, the resulting use charges shall be
applied beginning in the subsequent rate period,
7.2.c The County general fund shall not charge use fees or receive other
consideration from the System for the System's use of any transfer station property in use as of
the effective date of this Agreement. The County further agrees that the County general fund
may not receive payments from the System for use of assets to the extent those assets are
acquired with System revenues. As required by chapter 43.09.210 RCW, the System's use of
assets acquired with the use of other separate County funds (e.9., the Roads Fund, or other funds)
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Jufu zofi
Att A Page 235
c-l3
urotnance 166vJ Updated April 17, 2019
will be subject to use charges; similarly, the System will charge other County funds for use of
System property.
VIII. LIABILITY
8.1 Non-EnvironmentalLiabilitvAri sinq Out-of-Countv Operations.Except as
provided in this Section, Sections 8.5 and 8.6, the County shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City and shall have the right and duty to defend the City through the County's attorneys against
any and all claims arising out of the County's operations during the term of this Agreement and
settle such claims, provided that all fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the County thereby are
System costs which may be satisfied from Disposal Rates as provided in Section Vll herein. ln
providing such defense of the City, the County shall exercise good faith in such defense or
settlement so as to protect the City's interest. For purposes of this Section "claims arising out of
the County's operations" shall mean claims arising out of the ownership, control, or maintenance
of the System, but shall not include claims arising out of the City's operation of motor vehicles in
connection with the System or other activities under the control of the City which may be
incidental to the County's operation. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to claims
arising out of the sole negligence or intentional acts of the City. The provisions of this Section
shall survive for claims brought within three (3) years past the term of this Agreement
established under Section I I l.
8.2 Cooperation. ln the event the County acts to defend the City against a claim under
Section 8.1, the City shall cooperate with the County.
8.3 Officers, Agents, and Employees. For purposes of this Section Vl ll, references to
City or County shall be deemed to include the officers, employees and agents of either Party,
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -July zodc-l4
Aft A Page 236
urornance 16u9J Updated April 17, 2019
acting within the scope of their authority. Transporters or generators of waste who are not
officers or employees of the City or County are not included as agents of the City or County for
purposes of this Section.
8.4 Each Party by mutual negotiation hereby waives, with respect to the other Party
only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the lndustrial
lnsurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
8.5 Unacceptable Waste
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 (42 U.S,C. S 6901 et seq.) (RCRA), chapters 70.95 and 70.105
RCW, King County Code Title 10, King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, the
Solid Waste Division operating rules, and all other Federal, State and local environmental health
laws, rules or regulations that impose restrictions or requirements on the type of waste that may
be delivered to the System, as they now exist or are hereafter adopted or amended.
8.5.b For purposes of this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to have
complied with the requirements of Subsection 8.5.a if it has adopted an ordinance requiring
waste delivered to the System for Disposal to meet the laws, rules, or regulations specified in
Subsection 8.5.a, However, nothing in this Agreement is intended to relieve the City from any
obligation or liability it may have underthe laws mentioned in Subsection 8.5.a arising out of the
City's actions other than adopting, enforcing, or requiring compliance with said ordinance, such
as liability, if any exists, of the City as a transporter or generator for improper transport or
Disposal of regulated dangerous waste. Any environmental liability the City may have for
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufi zofi
Att A Page 237
c-ls
urdrnance 1u693 Updated April 17,2019
releases of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances or wastes to the environment is dealt
with under Sections 8.6 and 8.7.
8.5.c The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County for any
property damages or personal injury caused solely by the City's failure to adopt an ordinance
under Subsection 8.5.b. ln the event the City acts to defend the County under this Subsection, the
County shall cooperate with the City.
8.5.d The City shall make best efforts to include language in its contracts,
franchise agreements, or licenses for the collection of Solid Waste within the City that allow for
enforcement by the City against the collection contractor, franchisee or licensee for violations of
the laws, rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a. The requirements of this Subsection 8.5.d shall
apply to the City's first collection contract, franchise, or license that becomes effective or is
amended after the effective date of this Agreement.
8.5.d.i lf waste is delivered to the System in violation of the laws,
rules, or regulations in Subsection 8.5.a, before requiring the City to take any action under
Subsection 8.5.d.ii, the County will make reasonable efforts to determine the parties' responsible
for the violation and will work with those parties to correct the violation, consistent with
applicable waste clearance and acceptance rules, permit obligations, and any other legal
requirements.
8.5.d.ii lf the violation is not corrected under Subsection 8.5.d,i and
waste is determined by the County to have been generated or collected from within the corporate
limits of the City, the County shall provide the City with written notice of the violation. Upon
such notice, the City shall take immediate steps to remedy the violation and prevent similar
future violations to the reasonable satisfaction of the County which may include but not be
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -Jufu zofic-l6
Aft A Page 238
urornance l uu9J Updated April 17, 2019
limited to removing the waste and disposing of it in an approved facility; provided that nothing
in this Subsection 8.5.d.ii shall obligate the City to handle regulated dangerous waste, as defined
in WAC 173-351-200(1XbXi), and nothing in this Subsection shall relieve the City of any
obligation it may have apart from this Agreement to handle regulated dangerous waste. lf, in
good faith, the City disagrees with the County regarding the violation, such dispute shall be
resolved between the Parties using the Dispute Resolution process in Section Xll or, if
immediate action is required to avoid an imminent threat to public health, safety or the
environment, in King County Superior Court. Each Party shall be responsible for its own
attorneys' 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 a City violation of the requirements to comply with applicable
laws set forth in Subsection 8.5.a.
8.6 Environmental Liability.
8.6.a Neither the County nor the City holds harmless or indemnifies the other
with regard to any liability arising under 42 U.S.C. S 9601 -9675 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or as hereafter amended or
pursuant to chapter 70,105D RCW (MTCA) or as hereafter amended and any state legislation
imposing liability for System-related cleanup of contaminated property from the release of
pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances and/or damages resulting from property
contaminated from the release of pollutants or hazardous or dangerous substances
(" Environmental Liabi I ities").
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zod
Att A Page 239
c-17
urdrnance 16693 Updated April 17, 2019
8.6.b Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create new Environmental
Liability nor release any third-party from Environmental Liability. Rather, the intent is to protect
the general funds of the Parties to this Agreement by ensuring that, consistent with best business
practices, an adequate portion of Disposal Rates being collected from the System Users are set
aside and accessible in a fair and equitable manner to pay the respective County and City's
Environmental Liabi I ities.
8.6,c The purpose of this Subsection is to establish a protocol for the setting
aside, and subsequent distribution of, Disposal Rates intended to pay for Environmental
Liabilities of the Parties, if and when such liabilities should arise, in order to safeguard the
Parties' general funds. To do so, the County shall:
8.6.c.i Use Disposal Rates to obtain and maintain, to the extent
commercially available under reasonable terms, insurance coverage for System-related
Environmental Liability that names the City as an Additional lnsured. The County shall establish
the adequacy, amount and availability of such insurance in consultation with MSWAC. Any
insurance policy in effect on the termination date of this Agreement with a term that extends past
the termination date shall be maintained until the end of the policy term.
8.6.c.ii Use Disposal Rates to establish and maintain a reserve fund to
help pay the Parties' Environmental Liabilities not already covered by System rates or insurance
maintained under Subsection 8.6.c.i above ("Environmental Reserve Fund"). The County shall
establish the adequacy of the Environmental Reserve Fund in consultation with MSWAC and
consistent with the financial policies described in Article Vl. The County shall retain the
Environmental Reserve Fund for a minimum of 30 years following the closure of the Cedar Hills
Landfill (the "Retention Period"). During the Retention Period, the Environmental Reserve Fund
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Jufi zofic-l8
Aft A Page 240
urotnance I u6vJ Updated April 17, 2019
shall be used solely for the purposes for which it was established under this Agreement. Unless
otheruvise required by law, at the end of the Retention Period, the County and Cities shall agree
as to the disbursement of any amounts remaining in the Environmental Reserve Fund. lf unable
to agree, the County and City agree to submit disbursement to mediation and if unsuccessful to
binding arbitration in a manner similar to Section 39,34.180 RCW to the extent permitted by law
8.6.c.iii Pursue state or federal grant funds, such as grants from the
Local Model Toxics Control Account under chapter 70.105D.070(3) RCW and chapter 173-322
WAC, or other state or federal funds as may be available and appropriate to pay for or remediate
such Environmental Liabilities.
8.6.d lf the funds available under Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii are not adequate to
completely satisfy the Environmental Liabilities of the Parties to this Agreement then to the
extent feasible and permitted by law, the County will establish a financial plan including a rate
schedule to help pay for the County and City's remaining Environmental Liabilities in
consultation with MSWAC.
8.6.e The County and the City shall act reasonably and quickly to utilize funds
collected or set aside through the means specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii and 8.6.d to conduct
or finance response or clean-up activities in order to limit the County and City's exposure, or in
order to comply with a consent decree, administrative or other legal order. The County shall
notify the City within 30 days of any use of the reserve fund established in 8.6.c.iii.
8.6.f In any federal or state regulatory proceeding, and in any action for
contribution, money expended by the County from the funds established in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d. to pay the costs of remedial investigation, cleanup, response or other action required
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zotS
Aft A Page 241
c-l9
Lrratnance 106yJ Updated April 17, 2019
pursuant to a state or federal laws or regulations shall be considered by the Parties to have been
expended on behalf and for the benefit of the County and the Cities.
8.6.9 ln the event that the funds established as specified in Subsections 8.6.c.i-iii
and 8.6.d are insufficient to cover the entirety of the County and Cities' collective Environmental
Liabilities, the funds described therein shall be equitably allocated between the County and
Cities to satisfy their Environmental Liabilities. Factors to be considered in determining
"equitably allocated" may include the size of each Party's System User base and the amount of
rates paid by that System User base into the funds, and the amount of the Solid Waste generated
by the Parties' respective System Users. Neither the County nor the Cities shall receive a benefit
exceeding their Environmental Liabilities.
8.7 The County shall not charge or seek to recover from the City any costs or
expenses for which the County indemnified the State of Washington in Exhibit A to the
Ouitclaim Deed from the State to the County for the Cedar Hills Landfill, dated February 24,
1993, to the extent such costs are not included in System costs.
IX. CITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
L1 There is hereby created an advisory committee comprised of representatives from
cities, which shall be known as the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee ("MSWAC"),
The City may designate a representative and alternate(s) to serve on MSWAC. MSWAC shall
elect a chair and vice-chair and shall adopt bylaws to guide its deliberations. The members of
MSWAC shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing bodies and shall receive no compensation
from the County.
-21
zory Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jufu zo8c-20
Att A Page 242
urornance l6dvJ updated April 17, 2019
9.2 MSWAC is the forum through which the Parties together with other cities
participating in the System intend to discuss and seek to resolve System issues and concerns.
MSWAC shall assume the following advisory responsibilities:
9.2.a Advise the King County Council, the King County Executive, Solid Waste
Advisory Committee, and other jurisdictions as appropriate, on all policy aspects of Solid Waste
management and planning;
9.2.b Consult with and advise the County on technical issues related to Solid
Waste management and planning;
9.2.c Assist in the development of alternatives and recommendations for the
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and other plans governing the future of the
System, and facilitate a review and/or approval of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan by each jurisdiction;
9.2.d Assist in the development of proposed interlocal Agreements between
King County and cities for planning, Waste Prevention and Recycling, and waste stream control;
9.2.e Review and comment on Disposal Rate proposals and County financial
policies;
9.2.f Review and comment on status reports on Waste Prevention, Recycling,
energy/resources recovery, and System operations with i nter-j urisd i cti onal i mpact;
9.2.g Promote information exchange and interaction between waste generators,
cities, recyclers, and the County with respect to its planned and operated Disposal Systems;
9.2.h Provide coordination opportunities among the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, the Regional Policy Committee, the County, cities, private waste haulers, and
recyclers;
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 243
c-21
urotnance 16u93 Updated April 17, 2019
9.2.i Assist cities in recognizing municipal Solid Waste responsibilities,
including collection and Recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities; and
9.2j Provide input on such disputes as MSWAC deems appropriate.
9.3 The County shall assume the following responsibilities with respect to MSWAC;
9.3.a The County shall provide staff support to MSWAC;
9.3.b ln consultation with the chair of MSWAC, the County shall notify all
cities and their designated MSWAC representatives and alternates of the MSWAC meeting
times, locations and meeting agendas. Notification by electronic mail or regular mail shall meet
the requirements of this Subsection;
9.3.c The County will consider and respond on a timely basis to questions and
issues posed by MSWAC regarding the System, and will seek to resolve those issues in
collaboration with the Cities. Such issues shall include but are not limited to development of
efficient and accountable billing practices; and
9.3.d. The County shall provide all information and supporting documentation
and analyses as reasonably requested by MSWAC for MSWAC to perform the duties and
functions described in Section 9.2.
X. FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
10.1 As of the effective date of this Agreement ,lhe Forum Interlocal Agreement ?nd
Addendum to Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal Agreement by and
between the City and County continue through June 30, 2028. After 2028 responsibilities
assigned to the Forum shall be assigned to the Regional Policy Committee. The Parties agree that
Solid Waste System policies and plans shall continue to be deemed regional countywide policies
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zotSc-22
Att A Page 244
urotnance 1669J Updated April 17, 2019
and plans that shall be referred to the Regional Policy Committee for review consistent with
King County Charter Section 270.30 and chapter 1.24 King County Code.
XI. COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
11.1 King County is designated to prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and this plan shall include the City's Solid Waste
Management Comprehensive Plan pursuant to chapter 70.95.080(3) RCW.
11.2 The Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed and any necessary revisions
proposed. The County shall consult with MSWAC to determine when revisions are necessary.
King County shall provide services and build facilities in accordance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
11.3 The Comprehensive Plans will promote Waste Prevention and Recycling in
accordance with Washington State Solid Waste management priorities pursuant to chapter 70,95
RCW, at a minimum,
11.4 The Comprehensive Plans 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:
11.4.a Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and facilities
required for handling all waste types;
11.4.b Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies;
11.4.c Policies concerning waste reduction, Recycling, Energy and Resource
Recovery, collection, transfer, long-haul transport, Disposal, enforcement and administration;
and
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju/y zod
Aft A Page 245
c-23
urotnance l uugJ updated Aprir 1t,201fJ
11.4.d Operational plan for the elements discussed in ltem c above.
11,5 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.
11.6 The Comprehensive Plans will be "adopted" within the meaning of this
Agreement when the following has occurred:
11.6.a The Comprehensive Plan is approved by the King County Council; and
11.6.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
lnterlocal Agreement. ln calculating the three-quarters, the calculations shall consider only those
incorporated jurisdictions taking formal action to approve or disapprove the Comprehensive 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 Comprehensive Plan, or,
if the Forum is unable to make a recommendation, upon receipt of the Comprehensive Plan from
the Forum without recommendation.
11.7 Should the Comprehensive Plan be approved by the King County Council, but not
receive approval of three-quarters of the cities acting on the Comprehensive Plan, and should
King County and the cities be unable to resolve their disagreement, then the Comprehensive Plan
shall be referred to the State Department of Ecology and the State Department of Ecology will
resolve any disputes regarding Comprehensive Plan adoption and adequacy by approving or
disapproving the Comprehensive Plan or any part thereof.
11.8 King County shall determine which cities are affected by any proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. lf any City disagrees with such determination, then the
City can request that the Forum determine whether or not the City is affected. Such
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Managemmt Plan -Jufi zo$c-24
Att A Page 246
urornance l d6yJ Updated April 17, 2019
determination shall be made by a two-thirds majority vote of all representative members of the
Forum.
11.9 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.
1 1 .10 Should there be any impasse between the Parties regarding Comprehensive 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.
XII. MITIGATION
12.1 The County will design, construct and operate Solid Waste facilities in a manner
to mitigate their impact on host Cities and neighboring communities pursuant to applicable iaw
and regulations.
12.2 The Parties recognize that Solid Waste facilities are regional facilities. The
County further recognizes that host Cities and neighboring communities may sustain impacts
which can include but are not limited to local infrastructure, odor, traffic into and out of Solid
Waste facilities, noise and litter.
12.3 Collaboration in Environmental Review. In the event the County is the sole or co-
Lead Agency, then prior to making a threshold determination under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA), the County will provide a copy of the SEPA environmental checklist, if any,
and proposed SEPA threshold determination to any identifiable Host City (as defined below) and
adjacent or neighboring city that is signatory to the Agreement and that may be affected by the
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 247
c-25
urornance l udvJ Updatect April 17, 2019
project ("Neighboring City") and seek their input. For any facility for which the County prepares
an Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS), the County will meet with any identified potential
Host City (as defined below) and any Neighboring City to seek input on the scope of the EIS and
appropriate methodologies and assumptions in preparing the analyses supporting the ElS.
However, nothing in this Section shall limit or impair the County's ability to timely complete the
environmental review process.
12.4 Collaboration in Proiect Permitting. lf a new or reconstructed Solid Waste facility
is proposed to be built within the boundaries of the City ("Host City") and the project requires
one or more "project permits" as defined in chapter 36.708.020(4) RCW from the Host City,
before submitting its first application for any of the project permits, the County will meet with
the Host City and any Neighboring City, to seek input. However, nothing in this Section shall
limit or impair the County's ability to timely submit applications for or receive permits, nor
waive any permit processing or appeal timelines.
12.5 Separately, the County and the City recognize that in accordance with 36.58.080
RCW, a city is authorized to charge the County to mitigate impacts directly attributable to a
County-owned Solid Waste facility. The County acknowledges that such direct costs include
wear and tear on infrastructure including roads. To the extent that the City establishes that such
charges are reasonably necessary to mitigate such impacts, payments to cover such impacts may
only be expended only to mitigate such impacts and are System costs. lf the City believes that it
is entitled to mitigation under this Agreement, the City may request that the County undertake a
technical analysis regarding the extent of impacts authorized for mitigation. Upon receiving_such
a request, the County, in coordination with the City and any necessary technical consultants, will
develop any analysis that is reasonable and appropriate to identify impacts. The cost for such
zotg Comprebensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zofic-26
Aft A Page 248
\.rrqrnance toov\t upoared Apnr 1 /, zul9
analysis is a System cost. The City and County will work cooperatively to determine the
appropriate mitigation payments and will document any agreement in a Memorandum of
Agreement. lf the City and the County cannot agree on mitigation payments, the dispute
resolution process under chapter 36.58.080 RCW will apply rather than the dispute resolution
process under Section Xll of the Agreement.
XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 Unless otherwise expressly stated, the terms of this Section Xlll shall apply to
disputes arising under this Agreement.
13.2 Initial Meeting,
13.2.a Either Party shall give notice to the other in writing of a dispute involving
this Agreement.
13.2.b Within ten (10) business days of receiving or issuing such notice, the
County shall send an email notice to all Cities.
13.2.c Within ten (10) business days of receiving the County's notice under
Subsection 13.2.b, a City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to participate in
the Dispute Resolution process.
13.2.d Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the initial notice of dispute issued under Subsection 13.2.a, the County shall
schedule a time for staff from the County and any City requesting to participate in the dispute
resolution process ("Participating City") to meet (the "initial meeting"). The County shall
endeavor to set such initial meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities and to
the County.
2019 Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufi zotS
Att A Page 249
c-27
urornance r u6yJ updated April 17, 2019
13.3 Executives'Meetinq.
13.3.a lf the dispute is not resolved within sixty (60) days of the initial meeting,
then within seven (7) days of expiration of the sixty (60)-day period, the County shall send an
email notice to all Participating Cities that the dispute was not resolved and that a meeting of the
County Executive, or his/her designee and the chief executive officer(s) of each Participating
City, or the designees of each Participating City (an "executives' meeting") shall be scheduled to
attempt to resolve the dispute. lt is provided, however, that the County and the Participating
Cities may mutually agree to extend the sixty (60)-day period for an additional fifteen (15) days
if they believe further progress may be made in resolving the dispute, in which case, the
County's obligation to send its email notice to the Participating Cities under this Subsection that
the dispute was not resolved shall be within seven (7) days of the end of the extension. Likewise,
the County and the Participating Cities may mutually conclude prior to the expiration of the sixty
(60)-day period that further progress is not likely in resolving the dispute at this level, in which
case, the County shall send its email notice that the dispute was not resolved within seven (7)
days of the date that the County and the Participating Cities mutually concluded that further
progress is not likely in resolving the dispute.
13.3.b Within seven (7) days of receiving the County's notice under Subsection
13.3.a each Participating City shall notify the County in writing or email if it wishes to
participate in the executives' meeting.
13.3.c Within not less than twenty-one (21) days nor more than thirty (30) days
of the date of the notice of the executives' meeting issued under Subsection 13.3.a, the County
shall schedule a time for the executives' meeting. The County shall endeavor to set such
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -July zotSc-28
Aft A Page 250
L,rrotnance tt't'vJ updated Apnr 1/, 2019
executives' meeting a time and place convenient to all Participating Cities that provided notice
under Subsection 13.3.b and to the County,
13.4. Non-Bindinq Mediation.
13.4.a lf the dispute is not resolved within thirty (30) days of the executives'
meeting, then any Participating City that was Party to the executives' meeting or the County may
refer the matter to non-binding meditation by sending written notice within thirty-five (35) days
of the initial executives' meeting to all Parties to such meeting.
13.4.b Within seven (7) days of receiving or issuing notice that a matter will be
referred to non-binding mediation, the County shall send an email notice to all Participating
Cities that provided notice under Subsection 13.3.b informing them of the referral.
13.4.c Within seven (7) days of receiving the County's notice under Subsection
13.4.b, each Participating City shall notify the County in writing if it wishes to participate in the
non-binding mediation.
13.4,d The mediator will be selected in the following manner: The City(ies)
electing to participate in the mediation shall propose a mediator and the County shall propose a
mediator; in the event the mediators are not the same person, the two mediators shall select a
third mediator who shall mediate the dlspute, Alternately, the City(ies) participating in the
mediation and the County may agree to select a mediator through a mediation service mutually
acceptable to the Parties. The Parties to the mediation shall share equally in the costs charged by
the mediator or mediation service. For purposes of allocating costs of the mediator or mediation
service, all Cities participating in the mediation will be considered one Party.
13.5 Superior Court. Any Party, after participating in the non-binding mediation, may
commence an action in King County Superior Court after one hundred eighty (180) days from
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zofi
Att A Page 251
c-29
urotnance I u6yJ updated April 17, 2019
the commencement of the mediation, in order to resolve an issue that has not by then been
resolved through non-binding mediation, unless all Parties to the mediation agree to an earlier
date for ending the mediation.
13.6 Unless this Section Xlll does not apply to a dispute, then the Parties agree that
they may not seek relief under this Agreement in a court of law or equity unless and until each of
the procedural steps set forth in this Section Xlll have been exhausted, provided, that if any
applicable statute of limitations will or may run during the time that may be required to exhaust
the procedural steps in this Section Xlll, a Party may file suit to preserve a cause of action while
the Dispute Resolution process continues. The Parties agree that, if necessary and if allowed by
the court, they will seek a stay of any such suit while the Dispute Resolution process is
completed. lf the dispute is resolved through the Dispute Resolution process, the Parties agree to
dismiss the lawsuit, including all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims, with prejudice and
without costs to any Party.
XIV. 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
("force majeure"). The term "force majeure" shall include, without limitation by the following
enumeration: acts of nature, acts of civil or military authorities, terrorism, fire, accidents,
shutdowns for purpose of emergency repairs, industrial, civil or public disturbances, or labor
disputes, causing the inability to perform the requirements of this Agreement, if either Party is
rendered unable, wholly or in part, by a force majeure event to perform or comply with any
obligation or condition of this Agreement, upon giving notice and reasonably full particulars to
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management Plan -Jufu zotSc-30
Aft A Page 252
urotnance 1u693 Updated April 17,2Q19
the other Party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the
extent practicable to restore normal operations.
XV. 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
lnterlocal AgreementJ; provided that nothing in Section XV supersedes or amends any
indemnification obligation that may be in effect pursuant to a contract between the Parties other
than the Original Agreement; and further provided that nothing in this Agreement supersedes,
amends or modifies in any way any permit or approval applicable to the System or the County's
operation of the System within the jurisdiction of the City.
No waiver by either Party of ..r:: #ffir orthis Agreement shatt 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.
XVII. 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.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Ju/y zotS
Aft A Page 253
c-31
urornance 166vJ updated April 17, 2019
XVIII. SURVIVABILITY
Except as provided in Section 8.1,8.2,8.3, Section 8.6.c, except 8.6.ciii and Section 8.6d,
no obligations in this Agreement survive past the expiration date as established in Section lll.
Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zofic-32
Att A Page 254
rJrqtnance tot'vJ updated Apfll 1l,2919
XIX. NOTICE
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a notice required to be provided under
the terms of this Agreement shall be delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested or by
personal service to the following person:
For the Citv:
For the Countv:
Director
King County Solid Waste Division
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701
Seattle, Washington 981 04
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each Party on the date
set forth below:
CITY of KING COUNTY
(Mayor/City Manager)King County Executive
Date Date
Clerk-Attest
Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney
Date
Clerk-Attest
Approved as to form and legality
King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
zotg Comprehensiue Solid lVaste Management P/an -Ju/y zotS
Date
Att A Page 255
c-33
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Appendix
Waste Reduction Model
(WARM) Inputs
Used in Anilysis
Att A Page 256
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
WARM Modellnput Cedar
Hills
- 134,000
MTCO2e
Waste
Export
- 78,000
MTCO2e
Mass
Burnl
+ 12,000 -
80,000
MTCO2e
Notes
Materials
(2015 Waste
Cha racterization
[201s wc])
2015 WC 201s wc 2015 WC 2015 Waste Characterization was adjusted to match a
52% recycling rate2 before waste was assigned to
WARM categories. The WARM model assumes
negative emissions (an offset) due to sequestration of
organic materials. About2g%3 of landfilled materials
are organics with negative emissions.
Region
(regional/state or
national average)
Pacific
(WA)
Pacific
(WA)
Pacific
(WA)
Compared to elsewhere in the U.S., the energy
displaced in the Pacific NW is largely hydropower
instead of fossil fuels.
Source Reduction/
Recycling
(displace current mix
or 100% virein)
none
(current
mix)
none
(current
mix)
metals
(current
mix)
This field calculates offsets from recycling. No added
recycling was assumed from landfill options. Added
metal recycling (equal to 2%o on regional recycling rate)
was assumed for Mass Burn.
tandfill gas recovery
(no, recovery,
national average)
recovery recovery recovery For mass burn, gas recovery was assumed for
landfilled bypass waste.
Gas Recovery (flare,
recover for energy)
recover
for energy for energy
recover recover
for energy
For mass burn, gas recovery for energy was assumed
for the bypass waste that is landfilled.
Collection efficiency
(typical, worst,
aggressive, CA)
CA aggressive typical Cedar Hills most closely matches the efficiency
assumptions in the California regulatory collection
scenario.
Moisture
(national average,
dry, moderate, wet)
wet arid national
average
Decay rates and fugitive emissions are higher in wet
climates than in other categories.
Anaerobic digestion
(AD) (wet or dry)
wet wet wet A choice must be made in the model, but because AD
is not part of the proposal, it doesn't affect outcome.
AD digestate
(cured, not cured)
cured cured cured See above, Cured is the default.
Transport emissions
(default <20 mi,
actual >20 mi)
default 320 mi default A landfill choice has not been made but waste export
shows the closest out of county landfill.
Table 1: Waste Reduction Model uts used in Cha Table 6-1
1A2017 Normandeau Waste to Energy study was the source of these WARM estimates, but the study did not show model
inputs. While Normandeau's WARM inputs are not available, results ranged from 12,000 to 80,000 MTCO2e per year. Their
range is likely explained by a different waste composition assumption, exclusion of bypass waste disposal, and much longer
time periods (and thus larger plants burning more materials) than in this division comparison, which used 2029 as the base
year. The model inputs in the Mass Burn column are the division's assumptions of Normandeau's model inputs.
2 Paper !6.7%,PlasticI2.2%,Food 20.5%, Wood 16.8%, OtherOrganics 15.3%, Metal 4.7%,Glass 2.6%, ElectronicsO.4%,
Household Hazardous Waste 0.9%.
3 2015 Waste Categorization material categories that create WARM offsets when landfilled include corrugated containers
3%, Dimensional Lumber 77%,Yard Trimmings 6%, Mixed paperT%,andDrywall2%.
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotS
Att A Page 257
D-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Appendix E
Responsiveness
Summary
Att A Page 258
oao_5'!tJc)o@@(oo)t!o\oc\s'Nts.DE'?1F:EN\::sAsNN{isIS,tuoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March S, 2018 public comment peraodc!CLo)oo.!=.-{No(otlq)GIoNOl(c)mIResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)EPA has a manual that thoroughly describes theWARM model and its inputs. A reference has beenadded to tell readers where to find moreinformation.The criteria guiding the Plan's final adoption arefrom the Amended and Restated lnterlocalAgreements signed by all partner cities. The criteriacannot be changed without amending thoseagreements.Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion hasbeen added.Chapter4, Action 24-s and page 4-24 addressesservice levels county-wide and on Vashon lsland. Adiscussion of existing composting facilities anddeveloping technologies is found on pages 5-26-28.Compost facilities have been added to Figure 2-4.Table 5-5 is also added, including how much materialis handled at compost facilities. ln addition, tonnagehandled at the private MRFs (Table 2-1) andconstruction and demolition facilities (Tables 4-7and 4-8) has been added.The compost facilities in King County have beenadded to Figure 2-4.CommentTable lshould have a clearer description of the inputs,and the notes could be more descriptive in declaring whythe input variables were used for the 3 disposal methods.For example, for "Moisture" it seems evident why "wet"is selected for Cedar Hills, but not as clear that "nationalaverage" is used for Mass Burn,when the WTE plant wouldpresumably be located in King County.The final plan adoption criteria noted in the firstbullet on P. 1-3 requires cities representing % ofthe total population within the plan to act within120 days. There are a number of smaller citiesrepresented in this Plan that are marginalizedusing this sole measure. Please consider adding asecond criteria like % of the population and% ofthe number of cities...not iust population.this category should also include optimizing/reducingproduct packaging, including shipping containers.All King county residents and businesses should have accessto organics collection service or local compost facilities. lnaddition, more information should be provided aboutexisting compost facilities and new developmentalternatives."System Graphic" needs some quantification and additionalinformation, such as a figure caption explaining andquantifying material flows, numbers of private compostfacilities, transfer stations, recycling facilities, etc. so thereader better understands the relative magnitudes of thevarious segments and components.Please include the major compost facilities (such as CedarGrove) as they fall within this category and do not seem toappear on any other maps.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberAppendix D-1Chapter 1, pg 1-3Chapter 2 - Anincreose in productstewordship...p. 2-78Chapter 2 - Expondingcollection ofRecycloble &CompostableMaterials, p. 2-78 &79Chapter2-Figure2-2,p. 2-4Chapter 2- Figure 2-4.p. 2-9CommenterFederal WayClyde HillZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashon
mINResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,20t8 public comment periodo4fqt5ooJ@@(og)cECL0,6CLtt=._{No(ot$o\oc\o'\ds"es'sp\sNtNNIS.slooOotlqt(ooNo)c)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Since 2010, SWD has contracted with BioEnergy WAto produce natural gas from Cedar Hills Landfill gas.For more information, seehttos ://www.ki ngcou ntv.eov/depts/d nrplsol id-waste/faci lities/la ndfil ls/landfill-eas.aspxThank you for your comment. The mitigation sectionhas been edited.lnformation has been added under "Mitigation" forthis section on King County's overarching targets.More information on this topic has been added tothe discussion in Chapter 4 regarding a sustainablematerials management approach.An addition has been made to Figure2-2 to indicatedecentralized solutions.Thank you for your suggested edits. Changes havebeen made to these sections.CommentA system should be piloted whereby we harvest landfillgasses, other gas-producing businesses, and future compostfacilities and anaerobic digesters throughout the county andprocess them to RNG rather than flare off or carbon-cleansethem.lnstalling new distributed compost facilities on Vashonlsland and elsewhere would greatly reduce vehicleemissions, energy use, and ferry costs required for garbageand yard waste transportation to eastern King County.Decentralized AD and other renewables should be includedin " Mitigation" strategies.There is no mention of resiliency or circular economics ofmaterials. These are components of sustainability too andshould be incorporated and prioritized.Should include decentralized solutions. A smaller orangeloop should be added.The heading Expandine the Collection of Recvclable andCompostable Materials should say Expanding the Collectionof Recyclable and Degrodable Organic Moteriols.ln this section we recommend you add a paragraph thatsays: There is a convergence of issues around sourceseparated organic waste in King County. These includeurban farming, food waste diversion through a variety oftechnologies, avoidance of synthetic chemicals inhorticulture and agriculture, food banks, jobs and resiliencyissues around food, smart grids, carbon footprint, climatechange, alternative fuel vehicles, and distributed renewableenergy. This convergence will continue for the foreseeablefuture and King County will have to be flexible andinnovative to remain in a leadership role since organic wasteis such a significant organic fraction in both the waste andrecycling streams. Organic waste touches all these issues.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter2-Landfillgasp2-L2Chapter 2 - Mitigation,p.2-24Chapter2-p.49(2-24lK4CChapter 2 - p.24Policieschapter2-p.29(2-alFigure 2-2 SystemsGraphicChapter2-Page2-t8CommenterZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonlmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)lmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)lmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)lmpactBioenergy (JanAllen)
o-gJq):'oo@@(oq)loo\o$\"$d\.Q.i4s-5\sAGNsRISF\ooOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodcECLq)oCLE:-{No(l'1lOJ(cIoNo)mIwResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)There is a cost to process the materials paid bycurbside customers. The companies that process therecyclables benefit from the sales, but it can alsolower the cost of recvclables collection.Thank you for your comment. Your suggested editshave been made.The Solid Waste Advisory Committee is comprised ofresidents and representatives from the wasteindustry, cities, and other businesses. Therecurrently is one representative from theunincorporated area, a vacant agricultural position,and other vacant seats. The Division will berecruiting for vacant seats in the coming months.Waste Connection, the franchise hauler on Vashon,is responsible for initiating a revenue sharingagreement.Thank you for your comment. The sequestrationsection has been edited.Thank you for your comment. These concepts havebeen added.CommentPlease include a discussion of costs involved with processingand explain who benefits from recycled material sales.Potentiol new Composting and ReUse facilities should bementioned here.Need for Rural Area representation on Advisory Committees(it appears from the SWD web site that we are"represented" by KC Council Staff).Who is our representative on KC Council?How does that person know what we want?Please explain why Vashon lsland lacks a certified revenuesharing agreement unlike other WUTC-regulated areas inKins CounW.Production of biochar by pyrolysis of wood & yard wastewould also sequester Carbon for millennial timescales aswell as improving soil qualityThis section is critically important as it defines the keyprinciples guiding the operation of the Solid Waste Division.ln recent discussions relating to the operation of theFactoria transfer facility (including demand management)and the need for an additional transfer station in thenortheast, it was these principles that were crucial insupporting the position of cities in the northeast. Thewording in this section needs to be carefully reviewed. lt isrecommended that two additional bullets be included onpage 2-24 as follows:o Provide the same level of service to allcommunities (e.9., estimated travel time to facility,time on site, facility hours, recycling services). Consistent pricing throughout the system.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 2 - Processingof CommingledRecyclables, p. 2-8Chapter 2 - ProtectingNaturol Resources p.2-21Chapter 2 -RepresentationChapter 2 - RevenueSharing...p. 2-5Chapter 2 -Sequestration, p. 2-24Chapter 2, pg2-25Equity and SocialJusticeCommenterZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonCelia ParkerZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonClyde Hill
mI5Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo4fofoo@@(oG)cT'CL0too'c,=._!No@t!o\oos\}Ri\"G(^o's*\F\s!N'ASNISqt!sOo!0r(ooNo)NResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The Solid Waste Advisory Committee is comprised ofresidents and representatives from the wasteindustry, cities, and other businesses. Therecurrently is one representative from theunincorporated area, a vacant agricultural position,and other vacant seats. The Division will berecruiting for vacant seats in the coming months.Thank you for your comment and support of therecommended actions.Thank you for your comment.Through the LinkUp program, SWD has actively beenworking to develop markets for the use of usedasphalt shingles in paving projects. See moreinformation here:CommentIt appears the Rural Area only is represented on theAdvisory Committee by King County Council Staff?The City believes that reliable data allows jurisdictions likeWoodinville as well as other entities to make well-informeddecisions locally and, collectively, for the region. Thus,Woodinville supports the following Comp Planrecommended actions regarding forecasting and data:a!!gl: Standardize the sampling methodology andfrequency in tonnage reports submitted to thedivi6ion and the cities by the collection companies toimprove data accuracy}[91: Perform solid waste, recycling, organics, andconstruction and demolition characterization studiesat regular intervals to support goal development andtrackingfi[g!: Monitor forecast data and update as neededaaData collection and forecasting relatingto system use andcapacity, as well as growth in populations will enable theregion to accurately site waste handling facilities in areaswhere service is lacking.With the pace of technological change increasing rapidly, yetour Comprehensive Plans only being updated on a five-yearcycle (or longer) we need to forecast trends and get ourlong-range plans in step with emerging technologv. NOW.Regarding a recycling market for asphalt shingles, has KingCounty identified a universal, viable, and stable market thathas capacity for the ongoing receipt of asphalt shingles?WMW has found that there is a small market for asphaltshingles given that there has not been sizable industryPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 2, Policy E5-2Chapter 3Chapter 3Chapter 3 -Page 3-10, Generatorsof Construction ondDemolition DebrisCommenterGreater MapleValley UACWoodinvilleSeaTacWasteManagement
o-s)0t5oo@@(o&)t!s\oc\o'N\tnsuN'6RN\s5AsNNIS,FN'OoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,zOLe public comment periodcoo.qtoCLtt:.-{No(oT0)(ooNo)o)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)https ://www. kinecou ntv.govldepts/d n rplsol id-waste/prosra ms/l in ku p/shingles.aspxRecycled shingles have been used in several countyprojects including at the Bow Lake Recycling andTransfer Station and in King County Roads Servicesprojects.Thank you for your comment. SWD is dependent onthe Washington State Department of Ecology for thedata.Thank you for your comment. Figure 3-1 is showingprojected population numbers by service area thatare based on Forecast Analysis Zones. Currentpopulation numbers are not available in this format.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. Usage data for solidwaste is not as readily available as it is for energy, sowould be difficult to implementAlthough the recycling volumes are low anddisposed tons are higher in comparison, the overalltons generated by these two generator types ismuch smaller when compared to single-family andcommercial generators. SWD does have educationand outreach for multi-family and some citieschoose to provide greater emphasis on multi-familycollection. Since the beginning of 2018, SWD hasplaced a ban on certain recyclable materials beingdisposed at the transfer stations where recyclingopportunities exist. This ban has been accompaniedCommentdemand for the recycling of these materials. lf a recyclingmarket does not have complete capacity for receipt ofasphalt shingles, then demand for that market is lacking.What is King County doing to help develop a market, such asincluding recycled asphalt shingles in the county's roadpaving projects?A 3 year lag for data availability seems excessive in thisdigital age and should be decreased, efforts should be madeto acquire timely and comprehensive data relevant to waste& recvcling.The bar-graph should include current (2015) values for eacharea as a baseline.The bar grab should include several additional time points toillustrate trends (eg, perhaps also 2010, 2006,2OO2l.As demonstrated by electricity providers, when consumershave access to their usage data, they are able to reduceusage and optimize peak loads. lf consumers were aware ofthe waste quantities at various local and regional scales,they could potentially modify their behaviors. We needmore geo-referenced temporal data.The disposed volumes are very high yet recycled volumesare disproportionately low for these 2 groups comparedwith businesses & single family residential, so focusedefforts should be made to increase recycling rates amongthese 2 groups! Need more commitment to education,services, and incentivesPublic RevlewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 3 - EcologySurvey Dota p. 3-72Chapter3-Figure3-7,Transfer StationPopulation forecast2O25-2040 p. 3-3Chapter3-Figure34,p. 3-5Chapter 3 -Forecosting & Doto, p.3-1Chapter 3 - Multi-Family p. 3-7 & SelfHoulers p. 3-9CommenterZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonmIlrt
mIorResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodoa5'!t=oo@@(oo)cECL0,oCLE_{No(c'No\oc\s'\ri*Sks,p\!sAGNFVIR'sN)oOol,otGIoNo,sResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)by an education campaign and information providedto customers at the transfer stations.Figure 3-3 has been updated with the more recenttonnage forecast and corrected to more accuratelyreflect the garbage and recycling proportions.Thank you for your comment. Your suggested editshave been made. Tonnage from the special recyclingcollection events is included in the total recyclingrate (reported by Ecology).Thank you for your comment. Your suggested editshave been made to the Forecasting section, startingon page 3-1.CommentExplain why ton nages increase a nd decrease arou nd 2029As depicted, Fig 3-3 shows recycling levels at about /4 ofwhat is disposed in 2O17, while the text lists 52%6. U se agraphic more similar to the one inthe earlier draftwhich"stacked" both types oftonnages, creating a bettervisualcomparison of the total.1- Please be consistent in color use (recycling is shownas blue in a prior chart, and blue is often the containercolor associated with recycling).2 This circle graph makes it appear that the blue areais larger than the green area. (53%ov.47%l3 The category "other materials" shows OYo recycling,so please make changes as suggested by this comment.Recycling events collect "other materials" like wood,electronics, batteries, textiles, even bicycles. Presumably,these materials may be outside what was measured incoming up with these percentages (or may be less than0.5% of total diversion, and so effectively 0%). But the figuresays 0% of other SF materials are diverted to recycling.Perhaps say <lo/o and use "-" instead of "O" for the tonsrecycled. Presumably, these charts focus on MSW that thesystem is designed to handle, so options like reuse ordonation are not counted.Figure 3-5 note'a':The term 'recycled' is out of place. Put it first or delete inall 3 charts.ln Chapter 3, the Plan provides context for forecastingthe future solid waste stream for the region. While thenarrative describes how factors related to populationand economy are considered in the solid wasteforecasts, it is unclear ifthe forecasts have capturedthe potential for significant changes ordisruptions inPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 3, Figure 3-3Chapter 3, Figure 3-5Chapter 3, ForecastGommenterFederal WayFederal WayBellevue
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Forecastingsection has been edited to describe the forecastinginputs and process to the forecast more clearly.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. Most of our transferstations have covered receptacles to collect oldcardboard containers.Commentwaste characteristics and recycling markets. Forexample, the closure of some of China's recyclingimport markets and the possible increased lightweighting of packaging may drive significant changes inthe region's disposal needs.Requested chonge (p 3-7 to 3-4): Expand theForecosting section to describe how the forecastdoes or does not considerpotentiol substontiolchonges in waste streom characteristics ond/ormajor disruptions in recycling markets.Note that the forecasting oftonnage ofwaste disposed inthe landfill is done in two steps (see top two paragraphs onpage 3-5). ln the first step, a baseline forecast iscompleted which assumes the percentage of wasterecycled remains constant (57%). ln the second step, thebaseline is adjusted to exclude material diverted fromdisposal as a result of additional recycling.It is not clear in the Comprehensive Plan whether any ofthe projections that are included were prepared using thesecond step, lt would be helpful if each projection clearlystated which technique was used in its preparation.Given (1) the recycling rate has been difficult to forecastand (2) the sensitivity of tonnage forecasts and related lifeof the Cedar Hills Landfill, it is very important that readersunderstand the recycling rate assumptions used in eachprojection.Such information should be made available to the Public foreducation purposes and to further the goals of the Plan.Since wet cardboard is NOT recyclable yet I see tons ofboxes piled on top of or next to recycle bins when it's rainingeach week, having large recycle bins with lids in centrallocations where people can drop off used boxes would bePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 3, pgs 3-1through 3-4Chapter 3, Policies FD-L,FD-2, FD-3, andAction3-fdChapter 4CommenterClyde HillGreater MapleValley UACTraci Portugalo4f0tloo@@(o(/)lso\o$Nb\qis.d:'\bFN\ssAGS\SIst!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodc'ECLA'oCLE=.-{No(c'!0)@oNot(,|mI\l
mI6Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,20118 public comment periodo-gfo)=ooJ@@(0(,cT'CL!)oCLftf.-\INo@t!o\oo\aset's!3N:N\G5N':sASNN:sI\'[ooOo!0,(ooNo)o,Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The WashingtonMaterials Management and Financing Authority istasked with implementing the state law withoversight from the Department of Ecology. The lawdoes not require there to be a collection site onVashon lsland because it is a part of unincorporatedKing County, and collection sites are availablethroughout the county. For more information, seehttp://wmmfa.net/The Plan is written to be flexible, giving the Countyand cities the structure to provide collection andoutreach programs, but also the ability to adjust tochanging conditions.The Plan does not contemplate phasing out grants tocities. The Plan mentions that there may bealternative ways for cities to provide for specialrecycling collection events.Bothell provides vouchers to their residents torecycle materials at the Shoreline Recycling &Transfer Station, instead of holding recyclingcollection events.King County mails vouchers to White Centerresidents to recycle at the Bow Lake RTS instead ofholding recycling collection events in thatcommuniW.Thank you for your comment. Changes have beenmade to reflect that we will not be able to reach ourgoals without the commitment of all cities, thecounty and our solid waste partners to implementCommentgreat! Or coordinate with local schools to allow use of theirrecycle bins? Create bins where broken down boxes can beinserted but the container always has lid over too so raindoesn't ruin cardboard if someone leaves lid open.Chapter 70.95.N RCW which requires manufacturers of thecovered electronic products (TVs, computers, monitors, andportable DVD players) to provide collection services in everycounty, city, or town with a population greater than 10,000.There are no sites or collections services on Vashon, wherethe population is now 12,000+.Operation Green Fence - How does China's decision to banthe import of 24 varieties of solid waste and recyclables(Operation Green Fence) impact the ideas and goals withinthis Chapter?Chapter 4 mentions the potential to phase out therecycling grants,to cities program as enhanced recyclingservices are added to renovated transfer facilities.Although we support the need to improve services at thetransfer facilities, we feel it is important to continue withthese recycling grant programs with local cities. Theelimination of these programs will result in a reduced levelof service and an increase in illegal dumping of these typesof materials.The City of Kirkland is supportive of the Plan's goals andactions designed to increase diversion and prevent waste.The successful expansion of the landfill and creating capacitythrough 2040 is contingent upon our ability to collectivelyPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4Chapter 4Chapter 4Chapter 4CommenterlmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)Clyde HillCovingtonKirkland
oo-='o)oo@@(0o)t$o\oos\}Gis.$et"s-N-N\GRN':rAGN:tNIb,qN)OoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodT0l(cIoNCD{cItCLq,oo.ttf._{No(oResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)the recommended tools and strategies discussed inthe plan.Thank you for your comment. Actions 2-s, L2-s, and13-s are examples of actions that the division andthe cities can work together on to improve the grantprogram.Thank you for your comment. The county would notchange the grant guidelines that currently allowcities to spend those funds on recycling collectionevents without first consulting with the cities.Thank you for your support of a new grant programThank you for your comment. lmproving multi-family recycling is an important part of achieving ourgoals. King County, working with the haulers, hasdeveloped multi-family recycling best practices.These best practices can be used by anyjurisdictionthat wants to improve their multi-family recyclingprograms.Commentimplement and achieve the recycling diversion and wastereduction and recycling goals through the implementation ofthe improvements to infrastructure, education and outreach,incentives, mandates, and enforcement. However, webelieve that the region cannot collectively achieve any ofthese goals without an unwavering commitment on the partof all cities to implement most if not all of the recommendedtools such as mandatory garbage collection and recycling. lfall cities do not implement all the actions, only incrementalimprovements will occur. lt is important that the Plan alsoexplicitly express the gravity of indecision and inaction.We recognize that implementing the variety of actions in thePlan can be expensive and we encouragethe Countytocontinue to provide and even increase grant funding andtechnical assistance to all city members of the system to helpus achieve our waste prevention and recycling goals.The City of Maple Valley recommends that King Countycontinueto allow cities to use King County grant fundsfor recycling collection events and not phase out collectionevents as an option. The public relies on these events torecycle materials not collected curbside or at transferstations. Phasing out the recycling events would beperceived by the public as a reduction in City services, andcould lead to increased illeeal dumpine.We encourage the development of a new grant programto support cities and other stakeholder help meet wastereduction and recycle goals identified in the plan.Redmond supports the goal to divert 70% of garbagethrough recycling. As the region implements the GrowthManagement Act (GMA), we are seeing a significantincrease in multifamily construction. This aligns with theGMA vision to accommodate more people and jobsthrough higher densities in cities and limiting sprawl. lnlight of this planned increase in multifamily housing, weurge the Countv to work with cities on actions thatPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4Chapter 4Chapter 4Chapter 4CommenterKirklandMaple ValleyMaple ValleyRedmond]nIrg
I'lIoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,zOLg public comment periodo-glooo@@(oo)c!,CLq)oCLE:_{No(ct$o\oc\N\ci$..3s-5\!ItAsIS,qNoOoT'o,(cIoNct)oResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. This comment is alsoaddressed in the responsiveness summary for theEts.Thank you for your comment. SWD does encouragemanufacturers through the LINKUP program to userecyclable materials as feedstocks. SWD alsoparticipates on the NW Product Stewardship Councilto work at a regional level to implement programswhere manufacturers take responsibility for theproducts that they produce.Thank you for your comment. Efforts are underwayto improve education and outreach to multi-familydevelopments.Commentincrease multifamily recyclingWoodinville also supports the Comp Plan's recommendedactions 1-s through 35-s, which concern sustainablematerials management, and the goal of increasing therecycling rate in the region. The EIS states that increasedrecycling may result in a net increase in truck trips andaffect specific transportation routes (ElS at 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). Asthe rate of recycling increases, Woodinville will experienceadditional impacts related to increased tonnage and trafficto the Cascade Recycling Center. Nevertheless, Woodinvillerecognizes that increased recycling is better for the regionbecause it represents a more sustainable approach tomaterials management. With respect to the various EISalternatives for achieving increased recycling, Woodinville isopen to adopting practical and effective regulations incoordination with county efforts but while minimizingincreases in administrative costs where possible (see EIS at 1-t, t-2, r-3).On the Plan Chapter 4 Summary of Recommended Actions3-s and 28-sAmong parties to educate, can we consider manufacturers?Would/could there be an effort to work with manufacturersto reduce wasteful packaging?E.G. At a health food store I bought bags of tea in a -7 inchtall plastic barrel.At the time I had to drive 10 miles to Fairwood to recycle theplastic.I looked up and emailed the company that sold the tea andgave a packaging suggestion.They revised their packaging to a paper-like sealable bagthat could be easily thrown away.I've noted the worst garbage management amongapartment dwellers. I think they have no incentive, besideslack of training (parents should do).Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4Chapter 4Chapter 4CommenterWoodinvilleCelia ParkerCelia Parker
oa5'0))oo@@(oq)tuo\oc\\\\Ssd(^s's-NsasAS\NIst$oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodc'ECL0,oCLE=.-{No@!n,(cIoNC"(olllIResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. You raise manyimportant issues that warrant further discussion aswe move forward with implementing the Plan. Therewill be ample opportunity to discuss these issuesboth with our advisory committees and othervenues.CommentMore education/support should be provided towardeducating constituents on what/how to sort for comingleShoppers could be educated to look for recyclablecontainers and bags at their grocery store. Consider banningplastic bags in King County.Need more commitment to education and research anddevelopment. Solutions are out there. KCSW needs toprocess and implement these solutions, therefore we needto make this plan more dynamic and provide the ability toboth R&D, educate, and pilot. Need novel education paths,including promotion of short educational films about howthings are sorted at our sorting stations, how/what tocompost, and a general knowledge of plastics and the wastestream.WMW supports the exploration of a product stewardshipstrategy and concepts for the management of toxicmaterials or materials that can be difficult to manage.However, we do not advocate product stewardship orextended producer responsibility (EPR) for traditionalrecyclables such as paper and packaging for the followingreasons that we hope that King County will adequatelyconsider.EPR for paper and packaging focuses solely on the end-of-life management of materials, rather than considering thefull lifecycle impacts of materials, along their entire life.Producer focus will be on end-of-life recycling of theirproducts, instead of reducing energy and greenhouse gasoutputs and impacts along the lifecycle of the product,especially in upstream design and production of thematerials. Thus, EPR for paper and packaging will make itimpossible to change the focus on achieving broaderenvironmental goals such as reducing carbon footprints.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4Chapter 4 -Action 4-SCommenterZero WasteVashonWasteManagement
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)CommentThere is no evidence that EPR increases recycling.Successful, sustainable recycling programs are the result ofcomprehensive and sweeping local solid waste policies andprograms, such as those offered by King County in this Planthat achieve high diversion rates. These developed andthoughtful solid waste policies help drive consumerbehavioral changes by crafting successful recycling programsthat focus on social behavior changes and creating the rightlocal incentives. That is, solid waste policies are needed todrive recycling programs, not money from producers andmanufacturers.Our current system is built around local communities andaccountability. Local officials hear from their neighbors andconstituents when something is not working. Thatrelationship link between local government andcommunities will be broken with an EPR system for paperand packaging. Producers will control the programs,creating uniform statewide service offerings.There will be no role for local ordinances. Many localcommunities have created rates, bans and incentives todrive successful recycling programs. These ordinances canreflect shared local values, environmental ethos, andrespect differences in geography, population density,ecosystem vulnerability and economics. Withmanufacturers running a uniform statewide program, localgovernments have few incentives to innovate witheducation programs, variable fees, or innovative serviceoptions.Finally, EPR for packaging and paper is focused on driving tothe lowest cost as the primary goal. Consequently,producers are unlikely to pursue high performanceprograms and value assets that are important to localPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberCommenter1llINResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodoagfq,:too@@(o(l)cECL0toCLI'=._\lN(>(ot9o\oos\tSsN.ks.\5\$sAsNFVISst!o!0,(ooN\|o
oaslq)aoo@@(oo)cECL0)6'CLE=.-{No@iw!0t(cIoN{Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Recommended Action14-s has been edited to reflect your comments(removed the word "capacity"). Further discussionof possible incentives could occur at a futureconstruction and demolition materials stakeholders'meeting.Thank you for your comment. Policy FD-3 supportsmonitoring recycling markets. Further discussionwith stakeholders is needed to determine the scopeof this work.The implementation of Recommended Action 26-swould develop a process and criteria to amend thedesignated recyclables list.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your commitment to recycling.Weekly recycling pickup is allowed, but most haulersdo not collect weekly. lt may be possible to get asecond container from your hauler to accommodatevour recvcling.Thank you for vour comment.Commentgovernment contracts such as safety, compliance, naturalgas fleets, demonstrated reliability, and customer service.EPR fees are also regressive with the increased costs andfees associated with EPR born disproportionately by low-income households who spend a higher portion of theirincome on packaging than on durable goods.Regional capacity for recycling of materials is not developedvia education and enforcement of disposal bans, but, rathercreating and offering incentives will build capacity. WMWencourages King County to generate incentives to promoteinvestment in construction and demolition debris facilitiesand diversion of these materials from the waste stream. Asa result, self-regulating industry enforcement would alsoevolve in developing and shaping the market demand forthese materials.WMW recommends adding an additional action item tomonitor recycling markets, at the very least on an annualbasis, especially with market disruption factors in play suchas China's National Sword policy. We certainly supportestablishing a formal process, and related criteria, toremove materials from the designated recyclables list asmarket conditions may require. Currently, there is aninformal process to eliminate items from the list, whichgenerally involves asking processors if the facility currentlyaccepts a material stream. As previously stated, we believemore formal procedures are needed here.It would be WONDERFUL if the garbage trucks didn't collecton Avondale during morning rush hour.Allow recycling pick up to be weekly as we are always fulleach week.lncentives for using smaller trash cans?Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter4-Action14-sChapter4-Action 26-sChapter 4 - CollectionChapter 4 - CollectionChapter 4 - CollectionCommenterWasteManagementWasteManagementKurt HughesTraci PortugalTraci Portugal
InIFResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodoa5'0)=oo@@(oG)cI'CL0)oo.E.-{No(ot!o\oc\s.\$e3F:^\SASeNISl$oOo*!q)(ooN{NResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)We will review which page should be referenced forexplaining approaches to improving unincorporatedsingle-fam ily collection. The minimum standardstable shows the lowest level of service that ajurisdiction in the regional system can choose. ltdoes not obligate a jurisdiction to choose the lowestlevel. The garbage minimum is monthly becausesome cities offer once a month garbage pick-up insome circumstances and the plan acknowledges thatlevel of service. However, most jurisdictions haveweekly garbage pick-up. Because weekly pick-up is ahigher level of service than the monthly minimum, italso is a service choice allowed by the plan. The plandoes not include a change in garbage pick-upfrequency in the unincorporated area,Thank you for your comment. Although it has beendiscussed many times, the county and the citieshave not been able to reach agreement aboutmaking garbage, recycling, and/or organicscollection mandatory. The City of Shoreline doesoffer curbside yard/food waste collection servicesand could institute mandatory programs if residentswanted it.Thank you for your commentCompost facilities in King County have been addedto Figure 2-4, a map that also includes materialsCommentln reviewing the draft comp plan out for public review, CMDunn's office noticed that policy 29-s ("Considerimprovements to single-family collection services in theunincorporated area to increase the recycling rate") is cross-referenced to the discussion on page 4-28. Page 4-28discusses single-family residential minimum collectionstandards and states on the following page that "Based onthis evaluation, it is recommended that minimum collectionstandards be adopted by the cities and unincorporatedareas to provide the optimal service level for reducing wasteand increasing the diversion of recyclables and organicsfrom disposal." The chart suggests garbage collection to be a"minimum of once a month." Given the proviso responseindicating that the Division is not going to pursue reducedgarbage collection in the unincorporated areas, can you helpus understand the choice to link 29-s to that particulardiscussion and not a broader discussion of ways to increaserecvcling in the unincorporated areas?Currently, in Shoreline there is no compost program that isrequired. There is so much food waste that should becomposted. People are totally illiterate about the need forthis and how to do it. Making composting mandatory shouldbe a part of any smart waste disposal program. Pleaseconsider making this mandatory.Also educate via advertising of all kind. People think, oh it'sjust a paper cup, I am so good, I will recycle it. They have noidea how much pollution is created via the paper industry,the difficulty of recycling such cups and the lids, not tomention the stupid straws. Make waste HURT. And muchmore education ! ! ! Show people where their garbage, theirleaking oil etc. goes!!!Composting facilities are mentioned with no details-howmany? Where are thev located? Please include a discussionPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4 - CollectionChapter 4 -CompostingChapter 4 - EducationChapter4 -Figure4-7p.4-4:CommenterTerra RoseSharon EnoAnn SiemsZero WasteVashon
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)recovery facilities. ln addition, a table has beenadded to Chapter 2 that includes the names,locations, and tonnage collected at each facility. Amention of biochar has been added.More years have been added to Figure 4-2.Figure 4-5 is based on the most recent wastecomposition study, and is the most relevantinformation for this Plan. Past waste compositionstudies are available on SWD's website and canfound at:https ://www. kingcou ntv.sov/depts/d n rplsol id-waste/about/waste-monitoring/waste-documents.aspxThank you for your commentThe County does not issue exemptions. The HealthDepartment establishes minimum frequencies ofgarbage and organics collection. ln developing thisdraft Plan, the advisory committees identified theminimum standards for organics collection to be atleast every other week, as allowed by the HealthDepartment. This does not prevent cities fromhaving more frequent, weekly collection. The Countymay consider changes to collection frequencies inthe unincorporated areas in the future.Commenlof biochar, a product of pyrolysis of dried organic material, agreat soil amendment that additionally sequesters carbonfor more than millennial timescales.A longer timeline (perhaps including 1990, 2000) would beuseful to better appreciate the trends.Need to include data for several other years, such as 2O0O,2010.The Vashon lsland Laboratory offers an ideal opportunity toperform field trials or pilot programs.Cedar Grove suggests the County strongly consider nolonger providing exemptions to the requirement of weeklycurbside collection of organics. These exemptions, allowingbi-weekly residential collection, do not support Countystated goals for managing garbage and recycling for the next2O years. A firm commitment to weekly collection oforganics will increase diversion from the landfill and help theCounty reach its 70 percent goal. This is a simple buteffective way to increase participation in recycling County-wide.County studies show that one of the primary barriers topublic participation in organics programs is the fear, real orperceived, of recycling food scraps. And the allowance of bi-weekly collection of organics serves as a deterrent toPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter4-Figure4-2Recycled tons & rote p.4-6Chapter4-Figure4-5.2075 Recyclingpotential p.4-76Chapter 4 - Likewise,the County willco nsi de r.., u n i nco rpo rated dred in which tofocus...p.4-7Chapter 4 - OrganicscollectionCommenterZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonCedar Groveo-sf0)foo@@(oo)t!o\oc\s-\seux'h(^o'Fs$RN'AG\sNISqtuoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcECL0)oCLEf._!No(r)!0tGIoN\l(jmIUr
]ilIOrResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,zOtB public comment periodoag=qtoo@@(oq)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Support for organicsprocessing and products/markets will continue to bea focus in our efforts to achieve higher recyclinglevels. This is reflected in Policies S-5, S-7, S-8 andRecommended Actions 24-s, 28-s, 33-s.Commentparticipation in the program and increases the volume offood and yard waste not being diverted from thegarbage. ln the County's 2008 study, "Overcoming the lckFactor: lncreasing Participation in Food Scrap Recycling inKing County, WA", weekly collection was identified as achange that would positively impact participation by 7t% ofrespondents. Additionally, weekly collection will ensure thattransfer and processing facilities receive fresh and lessodiferous material that otherwise could have spent manyweeks decomposing in bins. The weekly flow of material,therefore, will mitigate community impacts.County resident perceptions and behaviors have evolvedsignificantly over the past 10 years towards a commitmentto keeping valuable natural resources out of the landfill andinto productive use. Weekly collection is a proven way toinfluence those who are not participating in organicsrecycling to do so. lt will also likely increase theparticipation of those already committed to the programthrough increased opportunities.Moreover, for the ratepayer, standardizing collectionfrequency would bring service equity across the cities withinthe County, and increased diversion will provide desiredflexibility regarding decisions for disposal of garbage overtheterm.More commitment to organics processing andproducts/marketing! On a societal level and with KingCounty Solid Waste as the driver we should make a societalcommitment to go organic whenever possible. Packaging,ink dies, plastics, paper products are examples of whatshould be diverted from waste to resource. King Countyorganics processing is now operating at maximum capacity.Up to 30% of our waste stream is still organic based.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter4-Organicsp4-4CommenterZero WasteVashoncT'oq,oCLEl-\lNo(ot!o\oosdIFakt"s-\s6!sAS:sI\.qtuoOo!qt(ooN{5
o-sf0)foo@@(o(,No\oc\:tS.eN.s's-s5SA\sNISs[ooOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcT'CLs)oCLo-{No(o!q)(cIoN{(rrmI{Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. lnformation on theprojects that have been awarded competitive grantsunder this program have been added to this section.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your commentThank you for your comment. A new section thataddresses issues related to china's National Swordhas been added to the Markets for RecyclableMaterials section.The list of materials in the minimum collectionstandards is based on the materials currentlycollected in all curbside programs. Opportunitiesexist to expand materials collected by all curbsideCommentKing County Solid Waste should concentrate on processingthis out of the waste stream. We should be able to divert %of this from waste to resource thereby increasing ourrecycle rale loo/o across the board ! By doing this we increasethe life span of Cedar Hills landfill, through environmentaleconomics drive markets towards more organics use, andgetus/z of thewayto ourgoal of 7O% recycle rate!Therefore: we need the ability to better sort at theindividual, hauler, and community level, and we need morecompost facilities ideally spread throughout the county. Thisencourages community participation and makes theprod ucts more accessible.Commercial grant project results are merely linked, pleasemention lmpact Bioenergy and other projects, ideallysharing knowledge and contrasting proiects:"Organics in the landfill produce methane, most of which iscaptured and converted to natural gas."ln discussing product stewardship here and the financing ofan EPR system, consumers pay more as manufacturerseither incorporate the cost of EPR in their pricing (internal)or are allowed to charge environmental handling fees(external) to recover the additional costs of participating inEPR-stvle programs.Polycoated paper and aseptic packaging (because they onceheld food) were specifically mentioned in China's NationalSword as a banned material in mixed paper being importedinto China. The future for mixed paper may not includebiologicals since this conflicts with the market desire fornon-food paper only. WMW also suggests a recognition inthe table that grades 1 and 2 plastics do have long-termstable, viable end markets. However, grades 3 through 7plastics have challenges in recycling as market disruptionscontinue.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter4 - p. 104 (4-18)Chapter 4 - p. 90 (4-40) re: RegardingCedar Hills RegionalLandfillChapter 4-Page4-1-2,End-of-LifeManagementChapter4 - Poge 4-30,Table 4-5. Single-Family MinimumCollection StandardsCommenterlmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)lmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)WasteManagementWasteManagement
mIoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,20tg public comment periodo4fO))ooa@(oo)cI'o0)oo.E=._{No(ot!o\oc\Nd*eke'!es-\5\NsAss:sIs[ooOa!A}(cIoN\Jo)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)programs to reach more consistency amongurisdictions and less contamination.Thank you for your comment. Although this Planincludes a 7O% interim recycling goal, it also includesother targets that help to assess waste reduction(per capita and per employee waste disposed andwaste generated targets). ln addition, Action 2O-sidentifies the need to develop a target for reducinggreenhouse gas emissions from disposed waste. The70% goal remains in the Plan because the majorityof the advisory committee members wished to keepit.CommentAlthough King County addresses sustainable materialsmanagement later in this same chapter, the County could bea leader in this arena by fully embracing sustainablematerials management (SMM) principles and begin adeparture from solely evaluating recycling goals based onweight, such as the County's interim goal of achievingTO%recycling.SMM represents a paradigm shift in how we look at andmanage materials by reducing environmental impactsthroughout all stages of a product's life cycle, as thesematerials move through the economy, from resourceextraction to end of life management. SMM's emphasis is onprotecting human health and the environment by advancingthe sustainable use of materials throughout their lifecycle tominimize waste and environmental impacts, includingreductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in water andenergy use.Solid waste policies should encourage true recycling and not"diversion for diversion's sake." The best way to embraceSMM is to adopt Life Cycle thinking and analysis, in whicheach material is evaluated at a broader level to determineits optimal disposition. lnstead of measuring success basedon a percentage recycled, success should be awarded forgreenhouse gas emissions reduced, for example.ln using traditional weight-based recovery or recycling rates,recovery of materials is treated the same: A ton is a ton is aton and all recovery is treated the same (recycling =composting = "counting" energy recovery). Accepting onlyweight-based recycling goals does not appropriately addressor value the solid waste hierarchy. ln particular, littlePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter4-Page4-5,Waste Prevention andRecycling Goal andTargetsCommenterWasteManagement
oa='o,5oo@@(oo)!no\oc\\\qis"Nt'o's-N\aSN.Nft;sNISsNoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcECLqroCLT'=._{No(o!0l(ooN\t{mIlgResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. You can request anadditional recycling cart or set out additionalmaterials as allowed by your local hauling companvThank you for your comment. Although this Planincludes a 70% interim recycling goal, it also includesother targets that help to assess waste reduction(per capita and per employee waste disposed andwaste generated targets). ln addition, Action 2O-sidentifies the need to develop a target for reducinggreenhouse gas emissions from disposed waste. The7O% goal remains in the Plan because the majorityof the advisory committee members wished to keepit.Commentsignificance is given to waste reduction activities or anybroader Life Cycle thinking. However, SMM compares theenvironmental outcomes of waste management, focuses onthe full life cycle, not only end-of-life management, andultimately supports more and better recycling and wasteprevention.People start to change behavior when it costs money. lt istime that we ask fees for all the garbage that is produced viathrow away containers, charge for coffee cups to go, chargemore for people who don't recycle properly etc.I'd love for recycling to be weekly, rather than bi-weekly. Wewind up with an overfull can and have left over that we haveto hold for the next 2 weeks.King County has a goal to recycle 70 percent of our wastestream, an increase from 52% today. What sorts of ideas doyou have to help us reach this ambitious goal? The goal torecycle 70 percent of the waste stream is built using flaweddata*.Consider a goal that asks cities to reduce the amount ofwaste going to the landfill (isn't that the desired outcome?)For example, if the average pounds per household is 26pounds in Kent or 23 pounds in Bellevue, cities could beasked to campaign their citizens to reduce one pound perhousehold per week.*King County uses tonnage data (total amount at the curbminus the weight of recycling and organics). This premise isflawed because1. Recycling is becoming lighter and lighter (it used to take40,000 empty water bottles to make a ton; today it takese0,000).2. There are third-party recyclers who do not report theirdata to the county or state3. There are third-party landscapers (for homes andcommercial properties) who do not report their tonnagedata to the county or state.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4 - ProductStewardshipChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingCommenterAnn SiemsDebbie ShapiroRepublicServices
t!o\oc\N\qi\..Q.kNtsqiSs:sA\sNS.NoOo!ot(cIoN{@Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your commentThank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.Commentln essence, the 70 percent goal asks for a number thatcannot be counted and is, therefore, flawed. The ONLYnumber that can be counted on reliably is the tonnage goingto the landfill. THAT is the number that should inform thegoal.The City of Auburn would like to thank the SWD for itscontinued guidance and support to assist cities as we workto reach our waste reduction and recycling goals. The effortsto enhance recycling opportunities and increase productstewardship are invaluable. We look forward to continuingworking together to keep solid waste rates as low aspossible bv reducing, reusing, and recvcling.As City Manager of the City of Carnation, I want to say thankyou for working to update the Comprehensive Solid WasteManagement Plan. Effective management of Solid Waste iscritical and it is important to be forward thinking andprogressive when making decisions on the future of thisfunction. I believe King County is taking the right steps indeveloping a great plan by accepting public comment.As King County moves forward with these services, it isessential for the future of King County to continue itscommitment to recycling. To reach our goal to recycle 70percent of our waste stream, we must continue to educatethe public on the benefits and best methods forrecycling. When in doubt, residents will most likely depositthe item into the waste stream. This education effort mustbe combined with a commitment from local government tomake certain recyclables are recycled. The recycling marketis ever changing and nothing discourages residents fromrecycling more than knowing the final destination for theseitems is a landfill.Recycle as much as is economically feasible and be willing toaccept this may well fall short of some arbitrary 7Oo/o floal.The City of bsaquah 's supportive of the Plan's goals toincrease diversion and prevent waste. As a City, we havePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingCommenterAuburnCarnationJim LoringlssaquahlnINoResponsiveness Summaryt Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo-sf0tJoo@@(o(.)coCLq)oCLE..\.1No(0
o-o_='0):'oo@@(o(r)t$o\oc\\'sciS,"ske'3s5\s!s.NrcsNIsNoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcECLqldCLT':_!No@!AI(cIoN{@1llINResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Styrofoam is collectedat both the Bow Lake and Shoreline Recycling andTransfer Stations. SWD does not have the authorityto direct what materials are collected at the SouthWastewater Treatment Plant. Styrofoam is a difficultmaterial to collect - it is very bulky, but very light inweieht.Thank you for your comment. The division evaluatesmaterials to collect at recycling and transfer stationsbased on the availability of space, cost andrecyclability.Thank you for your comment. The division evaluatesmaterials to collect at recycling and transfer stationsbased on the availability of space, cost andrecyclability.Thank you for your comments.Commenthad a strong focus on waste prevention and diversion formany years, and believe there isstill progress to be madein this area that can reduce pressure on capacity at theKing County Landfill. As a founding member of the KingCounty Cities Climate Collaboration, the City has alreadycommitted to reaching a goal of 7O%o recycling, and urgesthe County to maintainthat goal withinthe Plan andplay a strong leadership role in organizingall of the citiesto push towards that goal.Styrofoam should not end up in landfill. We generate a lot ofStyrofoam at our work site at South WW Treatment Plantand it all ends up in our local landfill. I would like to see thiswaste stream recycled but unable to generate any interestwith my coworkers. The directive needs to come from SolidWaste, with guidance and information.A separate collection bin for plastic bag waste should beprovided on VashonA separate collection for Styrofoam should be provided onVashonI am against King County instituting mandatory recyclingrequirements (like the way Seattle made it mandatory thatpeople not throw any food in the garbage or be fined. Sothey have to put all food in the yard waste even if thatencourages pests & rodents).I think the only way for more to be recycled is for morethings to be packaged in recyclable packaging. As faras Iknow, #5 plastic (PP) is not recyclable, and yet a lot of foodsare packaged in PP. And as far as I know, the net bags thatPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingCommenterTeresa AllenKevin JonesKevin lonesValerie King
tnINNResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodoaJ0)foo@@(oo)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The division is workingwith a task force to look at developing localprocessing and markets, and howto reducecontamination. Results may include a new outreachcampaign to educate residents with an emphasis onreducing contam ination.Thank you for your comments. The HoughtonTransfer Station has limited space and not enoughroom to collect metals. The person that wascollecting metals on the street was creating a safetyhazard.Thank you for your comment. The vending machinesare used in conjunction with a bottle bill that hasbeen in place in Oregon since 1971. WashingtonState does not have a bottle bill.Thank you for your comment. Your comment hasbeen shared with the City of Kirkland recycling stafffor follow up with you.Commeniapples and oranges are in are not recyclable, so I keephaving to throw those away.Thank you for seeking feedback.I think we should consider a plastics recycling facility inAmerican soil-preferably in an area that needs jobs. Wecan't rely on China to do it for us. We should also emphasizein communications to the community the importance ofrinsing containers before recycling them. Some people thinkit isn't necessary.Why doesn't Houston transfer station have metal recycle?Why did the Goverment run the person off across the streetthat recycled metal? Now guess where all that metal goes?ln the dump. Maybe harvest the landfill before closing it.ln store recycling vending machines like Oregonuses.l/we live in Kirkland in a condominium. Either the City ofKirkland and/or our homeowners are unable and/orunwilling to facilitate recycling in a meaningful way. Allmixtures of paper/ cardboard/ glass/ cans/ plastic/ clothingand food waste are routinely dumped into what aresupposed to be containers dedicated to specific recyclablesor landfill. We have no means whatsoever tostore/transport/process compostable wastes.We need meaningful and very assertive incentive/accountability at the municipal and homeowner levels thatare enabled with the appropriate resources. I doubt ourhomeowner board will attempt to hold owners responsiblefor proper recycling behavior unless there are substantialfinancial consequences. I am sure we are not alone.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingChapter 4 - RecyclingCollectionCommenterPeggy PriceNick VichasEllen WoodCurtisThompsoncECLq)oo.!t=.-{No(o!!o\oc\o's\'.ds.s3s.Fi!:sASeN$IS,t$oOo!0)(cIoN@o
o-gfq)5oo@@(oo)No\o$\\r;-$E.ks-\s\6sASNsIS,qt!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcoo.qt6CLE=.-\.1No(o!q'(ooNomI1\,wResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Additional years have been added to Figure 4-2 togive more historical context.The Forecasting section has been edited to describethe forecasting inputs and process to the forecastmore clearly.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.SWD is looking into the possibility of organicscollection and composting on Vashon lsland.Thank you for your comment. This policy allowsconsideration of the presence of toxic chemicals inproducts as circular supply loops are developed.CommentAn overall long-term targel of TOYo is established for thecounty. ln 2O!4, the overall rate for the county was 52%. ltis suggested that the following information be included inthe Plan.1. Provide additional historical recycling rates covering asmany years as possible.2. Provide forecasted recycling rates used to adjustthe baseline forecast (see comments on Chapter 3above).Vashon island would be an ideal location for a ReUse facilityCan do more with the facilities and haulers we already haveby adding services, simplifying services, and increasingeducation.Transfer stations - need to offer more services at alltransfer stations (for continuity throughout the county) suchas Styrofoam, paint, reuse, and electronics recycle. Transferstations need to be more user friendly so use is encouraged.Haulers - special but regular pickups should bescheduled for problem waste stream items.Hazardous waste - more dangerous and potentiallytoxic products should be accepted.Hours should be expanded and better advertised.Great to see mention of exploring including Vashon in theservice level standards. Organics collection should becounty-wide with distributed compost & ReUse facilities.On Policy - S-5 Work with regionol partners to find thehighest volue end uses for recycled and compostedmoteriols, support market development, and developcircular supply loops to serve production needs - we wouldlike to see an inclusion of the consideration of toxicchemicals. Unfortunately, there are a number of toxicchemicals in products which should not be returned intonew products.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 4 - RecyclingRates - Goals andTargets. Pages 4-3 to4-7Chapter 4- Reusingresources p.4-12Chapter 4 - ServicesChapter 4 - SingleFomily Res. MinimumCollection Stondards p.4-28-9Chapter 4 -Sustainable MaterialsManagementCommenterClyde HillZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero Waste WA
o-o-5'0,-oo@@(oCDcT'CL0)oCLIt-{No(oTNFResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Your suggestions havebeen added to the PlanThank you for your commentThe City of Skykomish provides curbside garbagepickup within its city limits and no curbsidecollection is provided for the Snoqualmie Pass area.The population density is not great enough to makecurbside collection of organics or a compost facilityeconomical. SWD is looking into the possibility ofcurbside organics collection and composting onVashon lslandThe information on Table 4-4 has been updated.The amount of yard waste collected and compostedis included in the targets.Thank you for your comment and commitment towaste reduction.CommentOn action L-s - Leod by example by improving wosteprevention and recycling in public-sector operotions,facilities, and at sponsored events, os well as through thepurchose of sustainable products - the plan should includespecific examples such as eliminating the use of single useplastic water bottles at all city or county-sponsored eventsOn Action 7-3 - Provide technical assistonce ond promoteproper deconstruction, building reuse, and reuse of buildingmateriols - as well as the other actions related to C & D, wewould like to see stronger actions, including requiringdeconstruction of old homes, similar to Portland, Oregon'slaw.Vashon lsland, Skykomish & Snoqualmie Pass should eachhave curbside organic collection with a local compost facilityto save transport costs & energy and divert valuablematerials from the landfill.The data for Vashon lsland have changed. We no longerhave a 4 bin system, but have a 95 gallon cart and theT%recycling rate seems too low.lncreased organics processing and compost facilities shouldbe added to this!Thanks for what you do! Having traveled to places in theworld without adequate waste management I am verygrateful for the level of cleanliness and safety that we have.OUR part as citizens is to reduce the amount of waste weproduce so your job does not become impossible as ourpopulation increases and China reduces the amount of ourwaste they are willing to take off our hands!Public ReviewDraft Ghapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4 -Sustainable MaterialsManagementChapter 4 -Sustainable MaterialsManagementChapter 4 -Sustainoble MoteriolsMonagement p.4-7Chapter4 -Table4-4.P.4-23Chapter 4 - Wasteprevention goals andtareets p 4-5Chapter 4 - WasteReductionCommenterZero Waste WAZero Waste WAZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonCordeliaScheuermann
Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal Gomments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodTNVr'o0)(cIoN6(r,Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The videos that areposted on-line are a brief summary of what isdiscussed in the draft Plan. Several policies andactions in the Plan address your concerns (e.g.Policies S-1 through 5-6 and Actions 4-s, 8-s, and 18-s).Thank you for your comment.CommentI am unable to attend public hearings, however, I havewatched the four videos and found no plans for thereduction of non recyclable garbage. For example:r Replacement of plastic bags for containing animalwaste, household garbage and for multiplecommercial uses.o Research alternatives for all other non-recyclablewaste products.r Disposal of products when recycling life has ended.o lncreasing uses and markets forrecyclablesMy name is Tyson Fritch. I live in Snohomish County butwork in Woodinville, in King County. I was reading theWoodinville Weekly the other day and there was an articletitled "Council gets the lowdown on waste". ln it you hadexplained thal"TO% of what goes to the landfill doesn'tbelong there" and that "sorting doesn't always work". Thenyou say initiatives will be more achievable by encouragingmanufacturers to use more sustainable materials. The articlegoes on to say that the three major options that are beingcontemplated are building a new facility, developing theexisting facility at Cedar Hills, or exporting the waste by railto an out-of-county landfill.What l'm writing you to say is that while I think usingsustainable materials is a step in the right direction, I thinkthere should be a bigger push to consume less altogether.We as a society have become complacent when it comes tohow much we consume. lt has become too easy to buysomething that will become useless within a few months,then throw it away. There isn't any accountability when weare able to throw something away and maintain an "out ofsight, out of mind" mentality. ln the article I think you hadmentioned that more education on what can be recycled orcomposted is in order, which I agree with. But it doesn'tconsider the fact that we are conditioned to being able toPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 4 - WasteReductionChapter 4 - WasteReductionCommenterLaurieDumouchelTyson FritchoaJ9)fc,o@@(0o)\|No(o
mINOrResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo-gl9'Joo@@(o(r)ctto"0,oCLo.\.1No@loo\oc\o'\€qis..t'8.s-\q\*5ASNRIS.l!oOo!qlGIoN@5Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The What do I do with...? application was recentlyrebuilt to modern standards including locationawareness, so that search results appear bV distanceCommentget whatever we want, whenever we want it. That cool 90'sTroll doll that everyone had? Sure, hop on Amazon, orderone that is most definitely made in China, shipped to theU.S. on container ships whose exhaust and waste are mostlyunregulated, so Amazon can put it in a cardboard box withplastic bubble wrapping with shipping labels and adhesivetape, then someone can drive it to your doorstep where youcan scratch that nostalgia itch for a few weeks. Then all of itgoes in the trash. Kind of a long example but I wanted topaint the picture of how much needless waste is created. Sowhile I think sustainable materials and proper education ofhow to dispose of our waste is a great idea, I think the morebeneficial idea is to move away from consuming so muchneedless things.The need for a new waste facility or developing the existingfacility or shipping the waste to a different facility are allinevitable, but perhaps we can delay the need for them byshifting away from a consumerist society. And let's face it,manufacturers are only going to shift to a sustainablepackaging if it's cost effective to do so. But like you hadmentioned, what we can do is educate the public on how toappropriately separate their waste and which facilities tobring which materials to (l have to lie and say I am a Bothellresident to recycle styrofoam at the Recology store inCanyon Park. Sorry.) Maybe we can couple this educationwith some sort of anti-waste agenda, because after all,recycling requires the creation of waste.I know I didn't offer much in the way of solutions to ourproblems, but waste accumulation is something l've beenthinking more about lately and one person can only reach somany people around them.Thank you for your time and have a great day.ln addition to the mothership version, each local ruralcommunity (such as Vashon lsland) should have their owncustom evergreen webpage.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4 - What do Ido with.,? P.4-13CommenterZero WasteVashon
o4f0tfoo@@(oCa)No\o$s\qis.saNbs-NssRs'AN$\sIsl$oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcrooql6o.E.__.1No(c'!0t(ctoNoCtllnIN\tResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)from the customer. At this time, SWD has no plansto reorganize What do I do with...? to provide staticwebpages for rural communities in addition to thedynam ic, resizing, location-aware application.The County has established its own criteria andtracks it. We track the known amount of materialsthat are diverted from the Cedar Hills Landfill, as isexplained on page 4-7.Thank you for your suggested edits. Changes havebeen made to the discussion on anaerobic digestionin Chapter 5.Thank you for your comment.The requested edits have been made.CommentAs we lack state & national standards, why don't weestablish our own criteria and track them?ln this section we recommend you add the following text:King County has an opportunity to offer innovationpartnerships with the private sector by offering planningassistance, coordination with transfer stations, publiceducation, and grant support for innovative demonstrationprojects that focus on the county's priorities.For example, community-scale anaerobic digestionrepresents an opportunity to manage organic waste onsite,or in community neighborhoods by converting that wasteinto both renewable energy and liquid soil amendment withzero waste with a high level of vector and odor control. Theamendment has nutrients, water, organic matter andprobiotics for supporting healthy chemical free soil and foodproduction. Rarely does an opportunity come along that cantouch on energy, water, air, soil, food, jobs, and educationsimultaneously. This one does.We support this goal and the highest priority: a. Wasteprevention and reuse.We are requestingyou edit Pages 4-22to includeWaste Management as the second solid waste haulerin the City of Bothell. The "f' notation is correctnoting we switched haulers with a contract in 2015.Dueto recent annexations, Waste Management isstill providing collection services in portions ofBothell necessitating the need to add them to the list.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4-Whatisyour recycling rate? P4-7Chapter 4 SustainableMaterialsManagement:Chapter 4, GoalChapter 4, pg4-22CommenterZero WasteVashonlmpactBioenergy (JanAllen)Greater MapleVallev UACBothell
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your commentThank you for your commentThank you for your comment. A de-centralizedsystem for some materials may be a solution to beexplored for some areas.Thank you for your comment and your generousoffer to host a new recycling and transfer facilityAny siting process will include a variety ofstakeholders, including cities.CommentWe support the use of educational methods to producemore informed consumers and producers of solid waste.The trends of more and better use ofTransfer Stations areencouraging as less tonnage is going to the Cedar HillsLandfill. Each of these facilities must be designed,constructed, and operated to ensure safe and convenientmeans for encouraging maximum recycling for private users."The 2015 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (KingCounty 2015) provides "one-stop-shopping" for countydecision-makers, employees, and the general public to learnabout the county's most critical climate changeactions," however marginal abatement cost curye net-negative carbon emission credit resulting from decentralizedAD activities, at a net-negative cost (e.g. profit). That is, localeconomies can benefit tremendously while at the same timedrastically lowering the carbon footprint of the organicwaste infrastructure. 2,050 square miles covered in KingCounty by 8 transfer stations is on avg. -256 square milesper transfer station. Current infrastructure presenttremendous opportunity to avoid ton-miles, subtractmethane emissions and clean transportation energy fordirtv.The Kirkland City Council has been consistent and resolutein its support for the siting and construction of aNo rtheast Recycl i ng a n d Tra nsfe r Station ( N E RTS) toreplacethe Houghton Transfer Station. The HoughtonTransfer Station has served our community well bykeeping our disposal rates low and byoffering aconvenient, local disposal option and basic recyclingservices to our residents and businesses. However, it hasbeen establishe4 without question, that the station isoutdated and fails to meet most of the level-of-servicecriteria in the 2OO6 Transfer System Plan. lt isincompatible with surrounding land use and lacks modernPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 4, Policy S-2and Actions 2-s, 3-s,and 28-sChapter 5Chapter 5Chapter 5CommenterGreater MapleValley UACGreater MapleValley UAClmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)KirklandFTINoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,20118 public comment periodoa)0))oo@@(o(.)c!to.0,oo.E=._{NoG'tuo\os,\\s!,sK.hks-5\SNASNIStsoOo1lqt(cIoNcl)ct)
o4f0)foo@@(o(l)c!tcl.qtoCLT'_{No(omiJrOResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2Ot8 public comment periodResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Figure 2-4, in Chapter2, is a map that shows the location of these facilitiesWe have also added compost and construction anddemolition facilities locations to this map.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andCommentoperational efficiencies and recycling amenities found atnewer transfer facilities such as Shoreline, Bow Lake, andFactoria that serve to support our region's sustainabilityand equity goals.While constructing a new NERTS is the most capital intensiveof the three transfer options in the Plan, it is clearly the mostequitable, efficient, and environmentally responsiblealternative that would provide a level of service to theresidents and businesses in the northeast County equal tothe levels of service provided in other parts of the County. Assuch, we strongly support the option to site and build a newNERTS and would welcome the opportunity to participate ina siting process with our fellow municipal and Countystakeholders. Kirkland would welcome the opportunity to beconsidered as the host city for a properly mitigated newNERTS and participate in an open and transparent publicengagement siting process that includes collaboration withthe County and stakeholders on the development of a set ofsiting criteria that recognize the specific and unique needs ofcities and their constituents living and working in thenortheast County.We would like to suggest the Plan recognize, anddemonstrate with a map, the cities that host private solidwaste and recycling facilities, such as the WasteManagement Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville or theRepublic Services transfer station in Renton. Private transferand processing facilities, while not identified as essential, arecritical to the overall operation of the solid waste transfersystem, but also have traffic, litter, noise, and odor impactssimilar to King County's public facilities - negative aspectsand costs that are often unrecognized, but are nonethelessborne, by host cities.We recommend building a new northeast recycling andtransfer station and closing Houghton. Houghton fails themajority of service level criteria for urban stations. A newPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5Chapter 5CommenterKirklandMaple Valley
mIlr,oResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo-gf0lJoo@@(oCDcT'o.0roo.It.\JNo@tso\o.\o-\.(\"N'(^s'Np\GRN'AsNsIS,gt!oOa1'A}(cIoN@@Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Transfer Station. The Houghton Transfer Stationwould be closed once the new station opens.Newcastle's concern over service availability if theRenton and Houghton stations close is noted.Newcastle's needs will be part of Northeast transfercapacity planning and stakeholder involvementThe decision about whether to keep Renton open orto close it has not yet been made. Action 2-t in theDraft Plan says that evaluation will happen after newurban transfer stations have been sited and theimpact of closure has been fully evaluated. Trafficconcerns would be a part of the evaluation of thestation. The action has been revised to replace"sited" with "completed".Commentnortheast recycling and transfer facility will provideregionalequity of solid waste services inthe growingnortheast area.The City has particular concerns over the planned closure ofthe Renton Station and the potential closing and/orreplacement of the Houghton Station. With these closures,Factoria becomes the practical and designated station forNewcastle; however, the Plan does not recognize Newcastleas being part of the Northeast Service Area. Newcastleshould be formally added to the Northeast Service Area andbe planned for accordinelv.The new Factoria Transfer station has better facilities thanRenton Transfer Station, which will attract more traffic tothe already overburdened Factoria/Coal Creek/l-405interchange area. ln addition, when the Renton Stationcloses all of Newcastle's haulers, along with other areas ofnorth Renton and the southeast, will be redirected to theFactoria Transfer Station. This is particularly concerning toNewcastle because as bad as it is on l-405, most haulers inour area will choose Coal Creek Parkway as the alternativeroute to and from Factoria. While Newcastle has designatedCoal Creek Parkway a principle arterial intended to connectlarger communities, it was not anticipated the road wouldbe used for heavy commercial vehicles. We are thereforeconcerned over the impact that increased use of Coal CreekParkway by commercial haulers will have on its pavementlife.When KCSW evaluated traffic at the Factoria Station, it onlylooked at backups on Richards Road caused by long waitlines to the station. lt did not look at the additional trafficburdens on Factoria Boulevard going to l-405 (passingthrough a main commercial/residential area with a highschool and churches). This is the main route for all KCSWtrucks going to/from the station. Moreover, it is the mainPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5Chapter 5CommenterNewcastleNewcastle
o-qfq)foo@@(o(r)cT'CLqtoCLT'3-{l\)o(om*!0)(ooNCD@Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The decision about whether to keep Renton open orto close it has not yet been made.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andTransfer Station. A process to involve cities andother stakeholders in the siting process will bedeveloped in consultation with northeast cities.The Houghton Transfer Station would be closedonce the new station opens.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andTransfer Station. A process to involve cities andother stakeholders in the siting process will bedeveloped in consultation with northeast cities.The Houghton Transfer Station would be closedonce the new station opens.Commentroute forfuture haulers going to the station via Coal CreekParkway/Factoria Blvd. when the Renton station closes.When the Renton station closes, costs to haulers willincrease with the greater congestion-related turn-aroundtime associated with taking loads to the Factoria Station.Newcastle is in process of updating its hauler contract andwithout some assurance of our primary transfer stationdestination for the next 10 years, Newcastle cannot assureits customers of reasonable hauler rates.Redmond supports the proposal to convene a committeeof Northeast Cities to establish service and capacity needsin Northeast King County. Having the committee worktogether to decide which transfer capacity option is bestfor our portion of the solid waste system service area isimportant to our community.Woodinville acknowledges and appreciates that KCSWD mustprepare a comprehensive solid waste management planthat accommodates the projected residential andcommercial growth of the region. The City also supportsthinking long-term about the costs and financing of thesolid waste transfer system that will support this projectedgrowth. ln addition, Woodinville acknowledges the need forbalancing several important factors related to solid waste-such as maintaining reasonable fees for customers,protecting natural resources through environmentalstewardship, and promoting system equity. ln this regard,Woodinville supports a solid waste system that providesconvenient access for all customers in the service areawithout becoming a disproportionate burden on anyparticular community. To date, Woodinville has managed tobalance existing waste handling with community needs, suchas limiting vehiculartraffic, and maintaining Woodinville'sbeautiful natural open spaces. However, the City isPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5Chapter 5Chapter 5CommenterNewcastleRedmondWoodinville
nrTLJNResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo4Jq)Joo@@(o(l)cEo.q)oCLE=.-{No(cIfoo\oc\\'s.ds.N's's-S\G5N'ANN*stuoOa!0)(cIoN(ooResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)A process to involve cities and other stakeholders inthe siting process will be developed in consultationwith northeast cities. One on one discussionsbetween the division and potentially affected citiesalso will be part of the project scoping and decisionmaking process. The division will adapt involvementapproaches used for previous transfer stationprojects to the needs ofthe northwest service area.Commentconcerned that siting additional waste handling facilities likethose being discussed may have significant impacts on Cityresidents and threaten the City's ability to adequatelymaintain this balance.Turning next to the Comp Plan's recommended actions onthe transfer of solid waste, Woodinville is particularlyinterested in action 1-t as it applies to planning for adequatetransfer capacity in the Northeast service area. Woodinvilleunderstands that demand management strategies cannotsubstitute for a transfer station in the Northeast service areabecause certain circumstances, such as Bellevue'sparticipation in the system, have changed since that optionwas first evaluated. With respect to the remaining threeoptions for providing transfer capacity, Woodinville requeststo be involved in the decision-making process. As Woodinvilleunderstands them, the three options include: (1) continuingoperations at the Houghton Transfer Station (whichcorresponds with "Alternative 1" Solid Waste Transfer andProcessing System Facility lmprovements in the EIS at 1-5);(2) building a new transfer station in the Northeast servicearea; and (3) building several smaller transfer sites in theNortheast service area (these last two options appear to bedifferent variations of '?lternative 3" in the EIS at 1-7).The Comp Plan states that "an advisory committeecomposed of Northeast service area residents, city, andbusiness representatives would be formed to develop sitingcriteria that would guide the site selection process," apractice that the Comp Plan indicates is consistent with KingCounty's Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan (hereinafter 'theSiting Plan") (Comp Plan at 5-19).The Siting Plan states that "[c]itizen advisory committeesshall be used to reflect the values of host communities as aneffective means of weighting criteria" (Siting Plan at C-17).Based on the Comp Plan, the Northeast service areaPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5CommenterWoodinville
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Table 5-4 was removed from the PlanThank you for your comment.Commentincludes the cities of Woodinville, Kenmore, Kirkland, andRedmond, and parts of Bellevue, Bothell, andunincorporated King County (Comp Plan at 5- 19).One point on which Woodinville seeks clarification iswhether the list of Northeast service area municipalities inthe Comp Plan is exhaustive and whether all of those entitieswill be represented in the decision-making process via theadvisory committee or some other vehicle. As noted earlier,Woodinville requests to be a part of the siting process and iscommitted to remaining engaged throughout the decision-making process.Another point on which Woodinville would appreciateclarification is the data underlying Table 5-4 (Comp Plan at5-20). Although the percentage of a jurisdiction'stransactions through Houghton Transfer Station is relevantto understanding use of that station, Woodinville would liketo obtain the data on the actual tonnage and numberoftruck trips generated by each jurisdiction's use of Houghton.Moreover, Table 5-4 does not list all of the jurisdictionsprovided for in the Comp Plan as comprising the Northeastservice area; transactions from Kenmore, Bellevue, andunincorporated King County are not listed (Comp Plan at 5-According to the Comp Plan, transfer capacity in theNortheast area will be "allocated equitably amongjurisdictions" (Comp Plan at 5-21). Those transfer station siteoptions that are geographically distant from existing wastehandling and disposal facilities should be preferred overthose site options that are in close proximity to existingfacilities (see Siting Plan at C-15, C-16). And, relatedly,Woodinville's support of the Cascade Recycling Center, theBrightwater WastewaterTreatment Plant, and the DTGRecycling Group should be taken into consideration. lf theCounty intends to build a new Northeast transfer station, thePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5Chapter 5CommenterWoodinvilleWoodinvilleo4f0,foo@@(oG)t!\oo-R\Se's-N$s!N'AGSN.\.t$oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2018 public comment period!q)(ooN(ocItCLqtoo-I'-{No(omIu,tr,
mItr)FResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodoag=qt=oo@@@(,coCLq)oo.o="{No(ot9o\oo\sd\-e'!3sN\!:iASsNISqtuoOoItlqt(ooN(oNResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. The Plan and EIS texthave been revised to include a discussion of existingCommentKCSWD would go through the siting process and conduct aseparate ElS. The current EIS draft associated with the CompPlan does not yet address the specific impacts of Northeastsites because no sites have yet been identified. Woodinvilleseeks to be an active participant in the site identification andscreening process if the County goes forward with either ofthe two alternatives involving the construction of newfacilities in the Northeast.Based upon the analysis completed in the ElS, the bestalternative may be to continue use of the Houghton transferstation, and along those lines, ensure full utilization of allexisting and possibly underutilized transfer stations to avoidthe need to construct new facilities. Creating a newNortheast transfer station would result in a loss ofvegetation and wildlife habitat, would produce CO2emissions from construction and operation, would impactnoise and transportation during construction, and involvehigh capital costs (ElS at 1-7 to 1-10). Additionally,maintaining Houghton is the lowest cost option in terms ofcapital and operating costs (Comp Plan 5-22). Regardless ofwhich alternative the county pursues, Woodinville seeks toprovide ongoing input because appropriate mitigation ofimpacts on cities is important to regional equiry.Consider extending Bow Lake Transfer Station Operatinghours to full 24 hours/day, seven days/week, 365days/year year-round or seasonally to accommodateSEA's anticipated peak- season hauling needs. Recent SEAgrowth and corresponding waste generation combinedwith solid waste collection and storage constraints havemeant that even brief weekend or nighttime closures atBow Lake prevent optimal waste hauling schedules, andcontri bute to tem porarV capacitvchal lenges atSEA.I am resident of 98059 and the Maple Hills community. lt isextremely important to me that the new plan for solid wastePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5Chapter 5 - OdorsCommenterSeattle-TacomalnternationalAirport (Port ofSeattle)Sara Thomas
o_a)0)=oo@@(oCr)\!o\o$\Ite'F:ssASNNIS,sfooOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2oL8 public comment periodcEo0)oo.Ef.-_.tNo(o'o0t(cIoN(o(r)mIw(rrResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)odor impacts in communities containingcommercial-scale composting operationsThank you for your commentThank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. SWD is analyzingorganics processing on Vashon as an option to moresustainably manage this material. lssues such asspace, configuration, safety, cost etc. are some ofthe factors that must be looked at closely todetermine if it is a feasible alternativeCommentclearly addresses odor concerns and is more comprehensiveand impactful than the current application of our clean airlaws,Our neighborhood can be plagued by odors both by CedarHills landfill and Cedar Grove composting. Clear violationsfrom both facilities are detrimental to our neighborhood,families, and property values. lt's crucial that this isaddressed in any revision of plans moving forward. Withincreased demand on Cedar Hills and plans to look for areasof potential expansion, please ensure that this is addressedso other communities don't have to experience the sameissues.Of course the waste needs to go somewhere and there is noperfect solution but please enforce facilities to manageodors effectively.Success here starts by offering more seryices at our transferstations.AD technology is standard in Europe and Asia to properlyprocess food waste. ZWV believes this is one of multipletechnologies (compost, reuse, biochar production areothers) that when coupled together complement each otherwhile doing a better job processing the full spectrum ofwaste. We are excited to get an anaerobic digester onisland this year to process pre-consumer food waste, andhope to couple it with an aerobic compost facility soon!A yard waste recycle facility should be established onVashon to avoid cost and environmental damage of truckingVashon yard waste to Cedar HillsPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - AdvancedMaterial Recovery p 5-31Chapter 5 - AnaerobicDigestion p 5-31Chapter 5 -CompostingCommenterZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonKevin Jones
mIwOrResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2Ot8 public comment periodo-qaq):too@@(oCDResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan and EIS texthave been revised to include a discussion of existingodor impacts in communities containingcommercial-scale composting operations.CommentThank you for the opportunity to provide comments onthe King County Draft Solid Waste Management Plan(Draft SWMP) and related Draft Environmental lmpactStatement (DEIS). We are focusing our comments on theair quality impacts of the current and proposedalternatives for operations by King County Solid WasteDivision (KCSWD) and its contractors. Specifically,we areinterested that the air impacts related to organicsprocessing and recycling (also referred to as "composting"in this letter) be adequately identified and considered.The Draft SWMP and DEIS discuss the current level oforganics recycling, estimated at 52o/o in 2OL4 and identifyvarious alternatives that would increase that to a goal of7O%.The air quality analysis in the DEIS discusses a varietyof general air quality issues on this topic, but does notclearly acknowledge (or discuss) the existing odor impactconditions in communities with composting operations.The summary for Alternative I (No Action) states theimpact of this choice would be increased greenhouse gasemissions and higher disposal costs, both as a result ofnot increasing the recycling rate. lt also states that theexisting organics recycling capacity is unknown, butthatincreasing to a rate of 70% will require more facilitiesand/or capacity.As the primary recipient of odor complaints for King,Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties, our agency has acomprehensive understanding of the impacts currentcomposting operations have on surrounding communities,and they are significanl. ln2o77, the Agency receivedapproximately 4,070 complaints related to odor. Of those,approximately 2,500 were directly related to thecomposting facllity in Maple Valley. Over the past 10years, nearly half of all odor complaints received wererelated to the Maple Valley facility, and more odorPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 -Composting/ AirqualityCommenterPuget SoundClean AirAgencycECL0)oCLo:.-\lNo(ot$o\o$srd\ss.kss!sA\RIS,s,tuoOo!ATGIoN(oA
o4=0tfoo@@(o(^)!!obc\c'\aj$"es's'trp\*5N'AssN*t!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodTA'GIoN(oqlcECLo!oCLt5---JNo(omIt.,{Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The Plan and EIS text have been revised to include adiscussion of existing odor impacts in communitiescontaining commercial-scale composting operations,and to discuss the potential for increased odorimpacts as a result of increased recycling andsubsequent composting of organics.Commentcomplaints were received in response to the compostingoperations in Maple Valley and Everett than all othersources of odor in our four countv iurisdictions combined.Based on the feedback we receive from the public, webelieve that these existing conditions have not beenadequately identified or evaluated inthe DEIS and will bean impediment to additional recycling because communitieswill not have the confidence that impacts will be properlymitigated . On page 5-30 of the Draft SWMP, the Countyspeaks to these issues indirectly. Specifically, it states:r More capacity will be needed to recycle more as theexisting facilities may be near their maximumpermitted capacities (p. 5-30, fl2)r Regional composting facilities were designed for yardwaste, not the mix of food, yard and compostablepackaging that is collected and processed today.There exists a need for upgraded technology tomanage the new material mix (p. 5-30, fl2, 2nd bullet)r Financing for technology upgrades at existingfacilities (p. 5-30, fl4,4th bullet)Some of these observations were identified as needed tomaintain the quality of the finished product. We do nothave specific information to comment on the existingcapacity inthe marketfor organics recycling, but it is likelythat the existing facilities are at or beyond their capacity,especially when you consider the short-term processingrates they can manage. The throughput at these facilitiesvaries seasonally for reasons beyond their control. Thecomment above regarding the original design for yard wasteis apt. Recent research has indicated that increasing thefood waste portion to L5% of the total waste stream (foodand yard waste combi ned) can double the organic emissionrate from composting operations, meaning that more foodrecycled leads to more organic emissions which contributesPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 -Composting/ AirqualityCommenterPuget SoundClean AirAgency
mIwoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo4f0)foo@@(oo)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The Plan and EIS text have been revised to includeexpanded discussions of odor impacts associatedwith existing commercial-scale composting facilities,potential odor impacts resulting from increasedorganics recycling and composting, and measures tomitigate potential odor impacts.Commentto an increase in odorous emissions. These increased odorimpacts also have not been adequately identified orevaluated.Consequently, we request that the DEIS be revised asfollows:1, Revise the Summary (Chapter 1.2f|-ables S) andChapters 3-5 to include: a description anddiscussion of existing conditions (in 2017-2018) incommunities surrounding composting facilities inthe County (and facilities used by the Countyfor organics recycling), and identification of odorimpacts caused by existing conditions so that allalternatives and impacts can be evaluatedadequately against existing conditions.2. Revise all subsequent discussions of alternativesand impacts in the Summary (Chapter l./TablesS) and Chapters 3-5 to account for, as needed,the updated description and discussion of existingconditions per item (1) above.3. Revise Chapters 3-5 to identify and evaluate odorimpacts from the proposed increased rates andtypes of recycling for each alternative (and revisethe conclusions reached related to such impacts in3 .2.2.3, 4.2 .2.3, 4.4 23 and 5.2.2.3 as needed).4. Revise Chapters 3-5 to include and evaluatespecific, reasonable mitigation measures for theodor impacts to be caused by each alternativeand describe the mitigation measures that theCounty is willing to commit to implement toaddress the odor impacts that will be experiencedin the communities for each alternative.The Draft SWMP should then be revised accordingly basedupon the revised information and analyses included in therevised DEIS.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 -Composting/ AirqualityCommenterPuget SoundClean AirAgencyt!o\oc\\\tr;-ss'o'RsNcEo-0)oCLEf.-\INo(oS,NAsNe\SI:,t!oOotA'(cIoN(oo,
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The Plan and EIS text have been revised to includespecific measures that could be implemented tomitigate potential odor impacts resulting fromcomposting of recycled organics.Thank you for your comment and support of aregional discussion.Thank you for your comment. The informationprovided is not intended to be exhaustive, butCommentln addition, it is important to note in the Draft SWMP andDEIS that capacity factors alone will not address the existingenvironment for odor impacts. The Draft SWMP and DEISdo not identify what future mitigation may be appropriatefor future composting facilities or expanded capacities atexisting composting facilities. While some specificmitigation will also be considered in future review ofspecific proposals, as requested above in (4), the Countyshould now identify in the Draft SWMP and DEIS reasonablemitigation measures for odor impacts and what mitigationthe County is willing to commit to implement to addressthe odor impacts that will be experienced in thecommunities for each alternative it is considering.The Draft SWMP plan also indicates in order to expandorganics recycling, "....a regional diologue with exploration ofalternatives and solutions for expanding copacity rsnecessary. This will help minimize environmental andcommunity impacts related to regionol orgonics process ondensure an ddequate capacity and infrostructure is in plocefor reg iona I org a nics p rocessing, i n cl u di ng conti ng e ncy p I a n sin the event regionol capacity is constroined." (p. 5-30, it3).This Agency supports that regional discussion "lfit includesthe existing facilities and systems as part of the discussion.This discussion should wide ranging in scope, and shouldinclude considerations of existing conditions andcircumstances, best practices for facilities, capacity (presentand future) and future needs. As an example, we believeit is reasonable to expect that an organics recyclingoperation can operate with no more impact on itscommunity than a landfill, transfer station, or wastewatertreatment plant. As utility provided service operations,composting is a part of that service model.This is an extremely limited list of what KC SW should beexploring. Recognize advanced technologies to deal withsubjects addressed in these comments. lnclude BiocharPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 -Composting/ AirqualityChapter 5 -Composting/ AirqualityChapter 5 - EmergingProcess Technologiesp 5-31CommenterPuget SoundClean AirAgencyPuget SoundClean AirAgencyZero WasteVashonoqf0)=oo@@(og)t!o\oc\6'Nd\"N.s's.\s$!ASNtsFSSISsNoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made durint the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcltCL0)oCLIt.-{No(o!0,(ooN(o..tmIwrO
mIDoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment peraodo-s:t0,Joo@@(o(l)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)rather an example of emerging technologies thatcould be explored.Thank you for your comment. Figure 5-3 has beencorrected.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your review of the DraftComprehensive Solid Waste Management PlanCommentproduction, algae growth as a feedstock and to process CO2,and aerobic digestion (AD) to process/purify water aretechnologies that at least should be recognized in thissection.I was looking at the comp plan draft and noticed that fig. 5.3seems to have the wrong colors for the 'transactions' part ofthe image?Thanks for offering an opportunity to submit comments. Iwould love to see a facility that can process compostablediapers. There are a number of compostable brands nowand there are services in the Bay Area, New York andCanada that offer this service. lt's time to bring it to thePNW!The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA)reviewed King County's Draft Solid Waste ManagementPlan (SWMP). Our staff has determined that the draftSWMP is in compliance with state plant pest and diseasequarantines as described in Chapter L6-47O WAC. Wereviewed the waste management plan with particularemphasis to the state's apple maggot quarantine,described in Chapter 16-470-10I WAC. The transport ofmunicipal green waste and municipal solid waste from theapple maggot quarantine area to the pest free area isprohibited without a WSDA special permit. WSDA will notrequire King County to have a special permit to shipmunicipal solid waste or green waste. However, if theconditions contained in the SWMP change and you havequestions about whether King County is in compliancewith the apple maggot quarantine rule please do nothesitate to contact me or WSDA Pest Program staff.Thank you for providing our agency with the opportunityto comment on the King County Solid Waste ManagementPlan. RCW 70.95.096 requires the Washington StateDepartment of Agriculture to review solid waste permitPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter5-Figure5-3Chapter 5 - GeneralChapter 5 - GeneralCommenterApril AtwoodJodie GalvinWashingtonDepartment ofAgriculturet!o\ocE'o-qt6CLIt=.-{No@c\6'\\st's3s^\sNANesIS.qNoOo!0,(cIoN(c'oo
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for the photos. The photo ofthe FremontBrewing digester has been replaced and mention ofthe microdigester locations added.Thank you for your comment. The name ofthecurrent document is the 2019 Comprehensive SolidWaste Management Plan with a date on the cover ofJuly 2018. 2019 reflects the expected approval datewhile July 2018 is the transmittal date to the countycouncil. The most recent data available wereincluded in the current document.Chapter 3 policies are related to collecting data (seepolicies FD-1-4) Most of our transfer stations havespace constraints that would limit co-locating acompost facility or Re-Use facility.Compost facilities have been added to Figure 2-4. Anew table is also added to Chapter 5 that includeshow much material is handled at compost facilities.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your commentCommentapplications for any increased risks of introducing aquarantine plant pest or disease into a pest free area.It should be mentioned that lmpact Bioenergy has 6microdigesters deployed in the northwest, 4 of which are inKing County: Seattle, Redmond, Carnation and Auburn(pictured below -( please, can the Fremont Brewing picturein the draft plan be replaced with these? - see commentform)Much of this section includes information on recentsubstantive issues some of which are in the process ofresolution. They include a commitment by Solid Waste tobuild a second northeast transfer station, agreement that thedemand management pilot would be cancelled, agreement byBellevue and each of the "four Points communities" to signthe 'Amended and Restated Solid Waste lnterlocalAgreement'' (a defined term in the Comprehensive Plan)under the same terms and conditions as prior signers to thisagreement, and updates on the potential closing of existingfacilities.There is concern that since this document is named "2019Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan" that future readers willassume that the document is factually more current than itactually is (particularly for the vear 20771.Should include data collection documenting volumes of avariety of materials. Many transfer stations are ideallocations for Compost and Re-Use facilities due to proximityof feedstocks.This section should be expanded with recent data, and listthe few compost facilities in the county & nearby besidesCedar Grove. lf we need more capacity, why not try somefield trials such as on Vashon lsland?Please add "all-in-one" recycle containers at all transferstations- thank youln the recent draft update to the King County Solid WasteComp Plan, it is suggested that residential recycling collectionPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - p. 161 (5-31)Chapter5-pg5-15Chapter 5 - PoliciesChapter 5 - ProcessingOrganics p. 5-30Chapter 5 - Recyclingat transfer stationsChapter 5 - RecyclingCollection EventsCommenterlmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)Clyde HillZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonJohn OlsonOlympicEnvironmentalo-sJ0)=oo@@(o(r)!.)o\ooa(rn:'\bs*N5\R-SsANNFYISs,NoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcECLq)oo'E.-\.1No(o!A'(ooN@(omI5
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Commentevents be phased out. Olympic Environmental Resourcesprovides management of residential recycling collectionevents for many cities in King County. Residential recyclingcollection events have been successful at working towardsKing County's goals of reducing waste and recycling. Theevents have been a stable and consistent service that hasremoved many millions of pounds of material from the wastestream and served hundreds of thousands of King Countyresidents.ln the nearly three decades that events have been in place,residential recycling collection events continue to accomplishthe following:r Been a stable and consistent service that hasremoved millions of pounds of material from theKing County waste stream which can be easilytracked for program results.o Providing for the collection of hard to recycle items.r Provide a successful opportunity for King Countyand county cities to work together towards acommon goal.. Reduce the instance of illegal dumping, particularlyin rural areas of King County.r Provide an opportunity to recycle bulky items thatwould likely end up at transfer stations, thusreducing transfer station "self-haul" traffic.e Used in King County cities as a way to clean upunsightly residential locations by providing alocation for residents to dispose of those items.r ln bad commodities markets (like the current stateof scrap metal and used oil), recycling collectionevents have filled a needed service where theprivate sector has reduced or eliminated service.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberCommenterResources(Paul Devine)lllIFNResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2Ot8 public comment periodo4lqt=oo@@(oo)cEo0too.T'-{No(o[a\ool.ds.shkss5\R;RANeR<IS,NoOo!gl(EIoo)c>o
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andTransfer Station. A process to involve cities andother stakeholders in the siting process will bedeveloped in consultation with northeast cities.The Houghton Transfer Station would be closedonce the new station opens.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andTransfer Station. A process to involve cities andother stakeholders in the siting process will bedeveloped in consultation with northeast cities.Commentr Provide residents with educational materials on newprograms and other recycling programs they maynot know about without coming to events.r Provide opportunities to survey residents on new orexisting City programs.r Provide residents with environmentally friendlyproducts, like worm and compost bins for organicsrecycling and rain barrel for water conservation.These items are typically produced with recycledmaterials which in turn helps support the recyclingindustry.r Enhance goodwill to City residents by providing aneeded direct government service.. Support the local recycling economy which providesjobs to many King County residents.King County has spent decades providing residential recyclingcollection event service. A well-established system is in placethat is rarely duplicated in Washington State outside KingCounty or in other areas around the United States. Reducingor eliminating residential recycling collection events would bea step in the wrong direction and reverse the positive effectsof the events listed above.The City of Auburn is looking forward to having access to amodern transfer station in the next few years andencourages the SWD to continue its equitable solid wastesystem when determining the future of the transfer systemin the Northeast portion of King CountyAfter identifliing and comparing the transfer options inChapter 5, the Plan should identify a recommended orpreferred alternative to site and build a new northeastrecycling and transfer station. This option is mostconsistent with both Bellevue's expectations in signingPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - TransferChapter 5 - TransferCommenterAuburnBellevueo4f0tfoo@@(ou)\oe\oc\sBr;-$ds-\NsASNsISsNoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2Ot8 public comment periodcEo.q,dCL.c,=._{No@!0tGIoo)omIs(r,
mIF$Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLg public comment periodo-o-='q,foo@@(oo)cECL0,oCLEf..\|No(lt\\o$\cds.ske'ks..sR-SsAs$NNISst$oOo!0)(oo(r)oNResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The Houghton Transfer Station would be closedonce the new station opens.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andTransfer Station. A process to involve cities andother stakeholders in the siting process will bedeveloped in consultation with northeast cities.The Houghton Transfer Station would be closedonce the new station opens.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andTransfer Station. A process to involve cities andother stakeholders in the siting process will bedeveloped in consultation with northeast cities.The Houghton Transfer Station would be closedonce the new station opens.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. SWD is evaluating therecycling area at the Vashon Recycling and TransferStation and may make changes to how the area isconfigured to maximize the space available.Commentthe lLAand the intent of King County Ordinance 2017-0323 and King County Motion 2O!7-O405. This transferoption provides the most efficient and equitable transfersystem for northeast King County.Requested chonge (p.5-24): Select tronsferoption 2 to "site qnd build a new northeastrecycling and transfer station" as the preferredtransfer alternotive.The City of Bothell issupportive of siting a TransferStation inthe Northeast portion of the County. Webelievethis provides our residentswith an equitablesol ution that best serves our area. Residents inBothell are payingforstations beingbuilt inotherparts of Ki ng County a nd therefore should receive a nequal level of service.This isespecially importantwhen we considerthegrowth that isanticipated inthis geographical area ofthe County. ltwould also beeasierfor residents and businesses ifthe list ofaccepted items was consistentfor each station.I am in favor of keeping the Houghton TransferStation openMention potential compost field trial & ReUse facility pilotprograms?I am a long time Vashon lsland resident. I have recycled allmy garbage up to the time that you changed the layout atthe Vashon Transfer Station. I haul all my stuff in a trailerand there is not enough room to turn around there, youcannot drive up to the recycle bins to unload. I usuallv havePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - TransferChapter 5 - TransferChapter 5 - VoshonRecycling & TronsferStotion p. 5-25Chapter 5 - VashonTransfer StationCommenterBothellTony MuroZero WasteVashon
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Comment6 cans and only one is garbage which cost me $24.25. Untilyou change the setup so we can drive along side of the bins,I will continue to take all my aluminum, plastic, papers, acarload and keep dumping them and still only pav 524.25.First and foremost, the City of Woodinville is proud to beregional partners with the other cities and entities withinand outside of King County. Despite its relatively small size,Woodinville is home to, or in close proximity to severalcritical facilities, including the Waste Management CascadeRecycling Center; the Brightwater Wastewater TreatmentPlanU DTG Recycling Group; regional trails such as theBurke-Gilman, Sammamish River, and Eastside Rail Corridor;State Route 2O2; and Northshore Athletic Fields. WhileWoodinville is honored to play a crucial role in the region,the City has devoted considerable resources to addressingand funding resolution to and mitigation of these facilities.First the Cascade Recycling Center in Woodinville is the onlyrecycling facility located within the Northeast service area(see Comp Plan at 2-9,5-t7).lt is the second busiest wastehandling facility in Northeast King County, and processes acomparable tonnage of materials to KCSWD's busiesttransfer stations, with the exception of Bow Lake (See chartbelow).1 As the home of the Cascade Recycling Center,whose service area is vast, Woodinville experiencesincreased truck traffic, litter and debris, and it requiresadditional law enforcement activity (Attachment A).Secondly, Woodinville faces the threat of negative impactsfrom various seismic scenarios related to faults at or nearthe Brightwater WastewaterTreatment Plant. For example,as noted in the Draft Supplemental EIS on Brightwater, if anearthquake affects Brightwater/s water flow storage,overflows can be anticipated at the Woodinville PumpStation (see Draft Supplemental EIS on Briehtwater, FisurePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 -Woodinville's RegionalEffortsCommenterWoodinvilleo-sfq,foo@@(o(r)t!.e\oc\s''s.lS*eu!'sNs\SN':sAsR<Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodIS,sNoOocItoqt(DoT'f..\|No(o!q'(EIo(ltoq)mIFUI
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new NE Recycling andTransfer Station. A process to involve cities andother stakeholders in the siting process will bedeveloped in consultation with northeast cities.The Houghton Transfer Station would be closedonce the new station opens.Chapter 5 has been edited to distinguish therecommended alternative from the other optionsthat were considered.CommentL++-. /r.^,--^aL,..^-. -^- /^^---r5-3). Given Woodinville's existing contributions to wastehandling in this region, the City is aware of the importance ofmitigating the impacts of waste handling and disposalfacilities on the surrounding communities (Attachment B).lThe Comp Plan refers to the Cascade Recycling Center as amaterials recovery facility, which is distinct from a solid wastefacility. Nevertheless, it is worth comparing the tonnage ofmaterials being processed in regional facilities in the solid wastesystem, regardless of whether those materials are recyclables orgarbage, because both types of facilities have similar impacts ontheir host cities. The following Factsheet on the Cascade RecyclingCenter statesthatan averageof 35 tonsof recyclingcomethrough hourly:Woodinville's conclusion that the Cascade Recycling Centerprocesses more tonnage of materials than almost every transferstation in King County is supported by comparingthis Factsheetwith the information contained in Table 5-1 of the Comp PlanConsider the RNG potential of organics for fuel security forthe SWD to act "in island mode."The NE Service Area Transfer Station (NETS) siting process isa significant upcoming process, but if this process begins in atimely manner, some details in this section of the draft Planmay be obsolete before this Plan is adopted. Formattingchanges that may increase clarity: First, please move themore generic sections on transfer station siting (and howthis was conducted as part of the SKRTS process) toimmediately before the NETS discussion to provide contextand consistency. Then introduce the (pending) NETS process.The public engagement process should seek the input thatwill help determine which specific NETS options are mostsuitable, and a generic outline of this process should bedescribed inthe Plan. Add a generic timetable and describehow decisions are reached (for example, based on the levelof service criteria) before outlining the basic options.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 p.142 DisasterPreparedness (5-12)Chapter 5, pe 5-18CommenterlmpactBioenergy(Srirup Kumar)Federal WaymIForResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo-s:t0)foo@@(0o)c1'CLo)oCLtt=.-{No(oN\oa\6',\sqis.;sE.?)S!5\$Ss-shs$SIS.tuoOo!0)(cIo(l)c)5
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The space has been removed in the word County.The "Operating Costs" section as it is written saysthat keeping Houghton open and operating "as is"would be less expensive than either a new NERTS ora combination of facilities (including a potentialoption to keep Houghton as a self-haul only stationand building a new commercial facility).CommentDescribe how the initial siting process will flesh outthesebasic options in greater detail. Make it clear that otheroptions may be considered (and this Plan is not the sitingprocess).The discussion of the NETS siting process should genericallyindicate that there are a minimum of three options for theHoughton facility, for example: 1) no action (keep as is), 2)close it and go through the siting process for a modernstation, or 3) pair itwith another new station to be sited inthe general vicinity but have limited level of services ateach.Please note drawbacks ofthe 3rd option: the operatingcosts for the two 'paired' facilities would exceed the costof operating a single modern station, and each of thepaired sites would fail to meet some service level criteriaon their own.The Plan should be edited to clarify how the currentfacility would remain as is ("no action" alternative) versusdistinguishing that from the option outlined under "Cost"(converted to a self-haul only facility); it should be clearerthat these are distinct options.Please correctThe discussion of operating cost should be revised. Thedraft Plan suggests Houghton could remain open as a self-haul station, while a second Station is sited and built, to bededicated for commercial haulers only. However, thisapproach would be more expensive to operate than asingle modern transfer station (a more cost-effectivesolution which fits with the typical weekday vs. weekenduse patterns for franchised haulers vs. residents/self-haulers).The existing Houghton Station does not meet severalService Level criteria. Please make revisions so that thePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5, pg 5-21Chapter 5, pg5-22CommenterFederal WayFederal Wayo4=gtlooA@@(oCDt!o\oc\\"ss"e'(^s-N6Ss:lAs\ssISqt$gOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcT'o.!)oCLE=.-!No(o!0t(ooo)o(tlmTD\l
mI5oResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLg public comment periodoIqf0)foo@@(oo)cItCLotoCLE:._{N(>(oNo\oc\o'\\te(tnask)F:p\GsASNsIS,t!oOo!ot(cIooooResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The language that is used under the "Level of ServiceCriteria" is referring to the transfer building and theexisting transfer station footprint. While excavatingthe landfill would be a possibility, it is not discussedin Chapter 5 because the City of Kirkland hasexpressed an interest in closing the station andlocating another station on a different site.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to build a new Northeast Recyclingand Transfer Station. The text that you are referringto has been deleted.CommentPlan does not appear to promote options that fail tomeet these criteria yet have higher operating costs.Since County transfer station labor agreements mandateshift and staffing levels, it is not apparent that operatingcosts "would be lower" for the "existing HoughtonStation" plus a "hauler-only station" than the cost ofoperating a modern, combined station. For example,while"self-hauler" station may receive lesstonnage, itwill haveseveraltimes more transactions than a hauler-onlystation. Labor agreements imply that KCSWD would findit challenging to operate and maintain Houghton transferstation "weekends only" just for self-haulers.Please revise the language so it uses the text in morerecent documents such as the Transfer Plan (KCSWD2006b) Table 2, and draft 2013 Plan, which both indicatefor Houghton: "space exists for station expansion ... insidethe property". The new North Seattle station wasreconstructed in place, demonstrating the potential forstation compatibility in a more dense setting.Constructing the Bow LakeTS involved excavating aformer landfillto create space to build the modern facility.A similar approach with appropriate mitigation and latentlandfill gas recovery will, by default, be an option whensiting any new transfer station, and as such, the Planshould not preclude this option.It is unclear how the combination of two stations wouldmeetthe level of criteria any betterthan a modernfull-service transfer station. While it is possible that 'paired'northeast tra nsfer stations might a I low bettergeographic distribution closer to distinct sets of users ina given area, all service level criteria would be met whensiting a single full-service transfer station (as evidencedbythe new Bow Lake, Shoreline and Factoria stations). ltis unlikely the siting process for a new Northeast stationPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5, pg5-22Chapter 5, pg 5-23CommenterFederal WayFederal Way
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The text you arereferring to has been deleted.The extra space has been removed.The section has been moved as suggestedThe section has been changed as suggestedCommentwould lead to selection of a location that does not meetthe travel-time criteria for this service area, since thatwould be the basis of the initial property search. Pleaseedit the text so this is clarified.Please edit this text so it does not imply the preferredapproach isto site a "commercial only" transferstation, since operating two distinct urban stationsdoes not appear to provide equitable service ormeet all level of service criteria.This paragraph should be revised to address the potentialfor a modern transfer station atthe Houghton site (inwhich case the entire menu of recycling options wouldbe designed in). Due to the higher cost of having twoseparate stations operating as a "pair" or "combination",but lacking all services expected at modern transferstations, avoid assuming ratepayers will support the"dual" or "paired" station approach.ln addition, KCSWD operations and outreach will becomplicated by havingto train self-haul customers aboutthe difference between these two transfer stations fromthe other five "urban" stations, including why sets ofcustomers are denied access to a potentially moreconvenient transfer station.Please correct typoAs mentioned earlier, please movethe "Siting" and SKRTSsection to immediately before the discussion of the longterm capacity in the NE Service Area, to provide a previewof the siting process and how itwas accomplished mostrecently. Please cite the comprehensive analysisreferenced.The Plan should note that allthe modern TransferStations have been built at or next to old landfill sitesor facility sites, in part due to the challenges of sitingPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5, pg 5-23Chapter 5, pg5-24Chapter 5, pg5-27Chapter 5, pE5-27CommenterFederal WayFederal WayFederal WayFederal Wayo-sf!t:too@@(o(4)t!o\oos\}S*suN'6g.s-\N\!.N$:lN<ISst!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2Ot8 public comment periodcoCLq)oo.c'=."\|No(o!0)GIo(,o{mI5rO
mI(,toResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,z0tg public comment periodo4f0t)oo@@@o)coCLqt6'CLro=._{No(o!oo\o$s\}*sN3=-NsN\s!hSAssNS.q!ooOotlqt(ooo)o@Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your suggested edits. Additions havebeen made to the discussion on organics processing.Thank you for your comment.Commentthese facilities in suburban areas. The Plan should notconnote that this fact is a criteria in the site searchprocess, however it is self-evident system-wide, andfollows a similar pattern in neighboring systems.The Plan should outline regional organics processingcapacity issues/limits and what actions the system cancontemplate taking in order to develop additionalcapacity in conjunction with diversion of morecompostables from MSW. Define how processingcapacity may need to be expanded in order to meetthe anticipated diversion of compostables.The Plan should provide additional information aboutplanning ways to expand organics processing capacity.Examples could include the system exploring thepotential for creating its own capacity, or contractingfor the development of additional capacity, perhaps atclosed areas of Cedar Hills landfill or other KCSWD sites.The Plan should suggest a timeline fordiscussion/planning, and potential projectimplementation.SEA enthusiastically encourages KingCountyto exploreaddingAdvanced Materials Recovery (AMR) andprocessing and Anaerobic Digestion (AD) as possibletransfer/processing options at Bow Lake Transfer station.ln2OL7, despite diverting 3,200 tons of terminal, landsideand airfield generated waste, we sent nearly 8,0O0tonsof MSW to Bow Lake Transfer Station ultimately destinedfor Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. SEA applaudstheCounty's innovative perspective on AMR and AD optionsas additional tools to support regional waste diversionefforts. SEA sees these innovative strategies ascomplimentary services applicable to residual wastefollowing aggressive waste reduction and source-separation initiatives ratherthan alternatives.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5, pg 5-30Chapter 5, pg 5-31CommenterFederal WaySeattle-TacomalnternationalAirport (Port ofSeattle)
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Changes have beenmade to Table 5-2.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.CommentThis item is duplicated as #6 in the chart above but thenote says "not listed." The criteria numbering is differentthan in Table 2 of the Transfer Plan (KCSWD 2006b), withthe criteria "facility hours meet user demand" omitted.This may have changed the numbering (and/or the"facility hours" criteria may be added to the list belowthe chart).Chapter 6 discusses the long- term disposal optionsassociated with the Plan. We would encourage the Countyto further develop Cedar Hills with the goal of providingdisposal to at least 2040. Although we recognize thechallenges of each of the options, we feel this is the mostcost-effective option at this time and we should maximizethe use of the existing facility prior to pursuing otheroptions which will need to be considered in the future.As recently as the mid 2O0O's, it was anticipated that theCedar Hills Regional Landfill in Maple Valley would run out ofcapacity in 2016. Largely through significant improvementsin waste reduction and recycling on the part of cities and theCounty, the life ofthe landfill has been extended through2028. The Plan presents three viable future disposal optionsthat could carry the region beyond 2028 and include thefurther development of Cedar Hills, exporting our waste toan out-of-county landfill, and siting and building a waste-to-energy (WTE)facility.We believe that it is our obligation to our rate-payers tomaximize and exhaust the use of our existing resources andinfrastructure before considering alternative methods ofdisposal. While waste export is a relatively affordable, triedand true disposal method in other neighboring jurisdictionssuch as Seattle and Snohomish County, we believe that it isour responsibility to manage our own waste in our owncounty and so do not support the waste export alternative.Similarly, while WTE is a popular disposal method in thePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5, pg. 5-15Chapter 6Chapter 5CommenterFederal WayCovingtonKirklando4fq,Joo@@(oo)l!oc\\d\"$ds-t<G5SANNsISst!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,z}tg public comment peraodcIto.!)oCLE=.-{No@tlq)(oo(,o(omIl,r
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.CommentUnited States and Europe, it is prohibitively expensive,requires a dependable stream ofwaste feedstocks, andcomes with myriad of negative environmental impacts. ltshould not be seriously considered as a reasonable disposaloption in this Plan. We believe that the preponderance of theinformation and data presented in the Plan makes thefurther development of our landfill the best disposal optionwhen weighed against waste export and incineration.We recommend the furtherdevelopment of Cedar HillRegional Landfill to provide disposal of the regions'wasteto at least 2040. Extending the life of the landfill is themost cost effective disposal option to keep disposal rateslowest. ltprovides for local management of the regions'waste, and allows adequate time to fully analyze futuredisposal options and emerging technologies around wastedisposalRedmond supports expanding the Cedar Hills landfill tocreate additional solid waste disposal capacity at leastthrough 2040. We urge King County to continue toexplore solid waste disposal options to prepare for post-2O4O, in addition to expanding Cedar Hills, as planningand implementation of a disposal option that requiresconstruction of an additional facility or disposal outside ofthe county will require a significant amount of time.KCSWD set out three options in the Comp Plan for long-termsolid waste disposal:(1) develop new capacity at Cedar Hills landfill (whichcorresponds with "Alternative 2" for Landfill Managementand Solid Waste Disposal in the EIS); (2) waste export to anout-of-county landfill (which corresponds with "Alternative1"); and (3) site, build, and operate a waste-to- energyfacility (which corresponds with "Alternative 3"). The EISpresents two additional alternatives, both of which wouldimplement emerging recovery technologies (anaerobicdigestion and advanced materials recovery), however,Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5Chapter 6Chapter 6CommenterMaple ValleyRedmondWoodinvillemIUTNResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo4fq)foo@@(oCJc!tCL!)ooo=.-{No@t!o\oc\o'N\ri*e?)F:p\GSsAssxNI\'$oOalltt(cIo(,)o
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)CommentKCSWD admits both have insufficient track records inreliably handling the amount of waste in King County'ssystem (Comp Plan 5- 31; EIS 5-3).Woodinville contends that Option (1) is the best availableoption based on existing information. One of theadvantages of Option (1) is that it is the lowest cost optionoverall (Comp Plan 6-18; EIS 5-33). Not only is Option (1)more affordable, it also takes advantage of the KCSWD'sexperience in landfill operation and is consistent with countypolicy to maximize the life of Cedar Hills landfill (Comp Plan2-2O,6-61. Yet another reason why Option (1) is the bestpath forward is that it has the lowest projected greenhousegas emissions (Comp Plan 6-17).Options (2) and (3) are less desirable than Option (1). As aninitial matter, the increased travel distances associated withOption (2) "could result in greater cumulative vehicleemissions and potentially greater long-term air qualityimpacts" (ElS 1-11, 5-8). Related to this concern,Woodinville requests the specific locations KCSWD isconsidering sending waste. The EIS states that the out-of-county disposal location would probably be in a rural area ofeastern Washington, eastern Oregon, or ldaho (ElS 5-8), andthe Comp Plan lists four specific "potential locations" forlandfill disposal (6-8). lrrespective of the ultimatedestination, however, Option (2) is not an attractive long-term solution because whatever disposal location theexported waste goes to will have a limited lifespan.Option (2) also presents challenges in terms of modifyingtransfer stations for rail-ready transport (Comp Plan 6-7; EIS5-1). Moreover, the EIS indicates that rail capacityconstraints may "increase the need for capacity increases inthe relevant rail corridors" in 2O28 (ElS 1-12). According tothe Comp Plan, scarce rail capacity "could increase costs andPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberCommentero4:t0tJoo@@(o(4)t!o\oc\o-\qi\..;tke'8.s-\s{!itAsNISqt$0OoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLA public comment periodcI'CLg,dCLE:-{No(o-Itq)(clo(r)mIUIw
t$o\oc\o':l\citFR.b:-\<S\.$SAGNe.FRrsIS,5N)oOo!0t(cIo(,NResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commentrequire robust contingency planningl' (Comp Plan 6-10). Railcapacity would also be an issue with Option (3) (Comp Plan6-10). This rail capacity issue would not arise with Option (1),however, until 2040 (ElS 1-11). Thus, Option (1) wouldprovide policymakers with 12 more years to address railcapacity and to take advantage of waste disposal technologydeveloped in those years. The EIS states that it is currentlyunknown what intermodal facilities Option (2) would relyupon to export waste but it is likely to be facilities located insouth Seattle or south of Seattle near the existing BNSFRailway and Union Pacific Railroad Tracks (ElS 5-25).Woodinville seeks to know if KCSWD is considering anyother specific rail lines or facilities for all three options andhow many facilities KCSWD anticipates would be required tosustain these options.Another negative effect associated with Option (2) isincreased traffic-generating activities at intermodalfacilities, Specifically, the EIS estimates that Option (2) couldadd 156 transfer trailer loads (312 trips) on an averageweekday, and approximately 73 transfer trailer loads (146)trips in 2028 on an average weekend day on local roads thatprovide access to the out-of-county landfill (ElS 5-25).Therefore, Woodinville currently supports Option (1),opposes Option (2), and seeks further information asKCSWD continues to evaluate the three options outlined inthe Comp Plan. The City further encourages the County tocontinue to explore Option (3), a waste-to- energy facility,as a possible long-term solution along with others thatpromote efficient and effective service with minimalimpacts to surrounding communities.The City of North Bend supports a waste to energy co-generation facility for the disposal of solid waste in KingCountv. The environmental consequences of continued usePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5CommenterNorth BendmIUIDResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo4=q)5oo@@(oOJcuCLq!oCLE=._{No(o
oaqf0)foo@@(oo)tuoEc\o'Nd\"a=.\s's-sN\sASs:tIst9gOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcT'CL0,oo.It=.-{No(o!q)(oo(,(,mIUIttResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The options that are identified and discussed arewhat have been analyzed in the draft Plan. Thecomment period was an opportunity to comment onthese options and/or to suggest other disposaloptions.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity,Commentof landfills leaves an environmental problem for futuregenerations and provides a potential exposure togroundwater pollution. Landfills are the subject ofcontroversy for populations located in proximity of thelandfill and are guaranteed to face fierce opposition whenproposed for continued use, expansion or as new facilities.The energy consumption, wear and tear on roadways, noiseand contribution to traffic congestion are all negativeimpacts of heavy vehicle trucking to landfills. All landfillshave a limited life before they run out of capacity. The life-cycle costs of a waste to energy facility as compared to thecontinued use of landfills demonstrates a greater long-termcost benefit to the citizens of the county. The need toreplace traditional energy sources with alternative energyhas demonstrable environmental and sustainability benefits.King County has prided itself in the past with providing aleadership role in the national trends toward sustainabilitylnvesting in waste to energy technology would furtherdemonstrate King County's commitment to sustainabilityand clean energy.Comment on Chapter 6 Summary of Action 2-d.lf we do not. expand existing Cedar Hills Landfill. export waste out ofthe countye build a waste-to-energy facility (l'm more in favor ofthis one, caveat problem with containing the heatand exhaust. At least inert (non-toxic) material isproduced)What are the alternatives we mav suggest?Using landfill as a means of disposal is unsustainable. lt isincredibly short-sighted and needs to end as soon aspossible. We should NOT plan for any additional landfillareas, especially not including any costly hauling to moreremote locations by rail. lnstead we need a solution thatPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6Chapter 5CommenterCelia ParkerSeaTac
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commentreplaces a mind-set of disposal with a mind-set of treatmentand waste recovery. That is the only long-range sustainablesolution.Treatment needs to begin close to the points of origin, toreduce transportation costs and the volume of waste.Locally-hosted micro-treatment facilities, probably ones thatemploy cargo-containers, is the most likely alternativeconsidering current technology today.Combining solid waste treatment with sanitary sewerconveyance systems allows for reduction of weight andleveraging recent technology advancements with aerobicmicrobes. Treatment of solid waste would become morerapid, efficient, and odorless using aerobic treatmentprocesses. This is a win-win for both solid waste and sanitarywaste treatment systems.Longer-range planning should include usingthis same waste-recovery technology to begin "mining" our existing landfillsfor recyclables and compostables and reducingtheir existingfootprints over time. We can reverse decades ofenvironmental harm, recover our land-fills, and makeproductive use ofthose propertiesonce againHow should King County dispose of its garbage over the longterm? Waste-by-rail to an in-state gas-to-energy plant.Should we expand the landfill so it lasts longer?No. Western Washington is not a good place for a landfillbecause of the amount of rain fall. A promise was made tothe community that the landfill would be expanded.Ship our waste out of County on rail? Build a waste-to-energy facility where it will be burned? Something else?Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterRepublicServicesnrIgrOrResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2Ot8 public comment periodoao_5'!tfc,o@@(oq)cEo.0,oCLE=.-{No6NoEc\sai\"ke's,\sGsh$Neslls$o!0t(oo(t5
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.CommentThere are modern landfills in our regional that extract thegas from their landfill and produce energy.ln a recent studv on lncineration paid for mv Kins Countvtax pavers , the studv estimated the cost of mass burnincinerator at 1.1 BIIION dollars! Are we really going to askour community to pay for this when there are alreadyseveral facilities already capitalized and ready to go? Thestudy group could not answer questions regarding air bourncontainments' produced at the incinerator. Mass burnincineration should not be considered in the comp plan atall. lt is not a new technology and the harmful effect onhealth are in question.Our regional has millions of tons capacity for kingcounty. Washington does have state of the art facility thatexceed our federal and state standards. Here they are listbelow.There is no need to spend 1.1 Billon dollars on a facility thatwe don't need and may have harmful effects on ourhealth. Mass burn incineration should be stricken from theComp plan.Washineton Landfill Capacity:Roosevelt Regional tandfill has approx. 2.5 mil tons ofcapacity for about 100 years and is already producingelectricity in the State of WashingtonWenatchee landfill has 30,889,197 tons leftCowlitz has 52,787,279 tons leftOreeon Landfill Capacitv:Columbia Ridge has an estimated 103 year life span, and haspermitted tons left of 265,722,O00Finley Buttes has an estimated 100 year life span, and haspermitted tons left of 100 million tonsWasco has an estimated 118 year lifespan with totalcapacity of 19 million tons, very low volumes per year.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5 - DisposalCommenterRepublicServicesoasf0tfoo@@(o(r)tuo\o$Nb\s.ee'ks*\5\SN'AG\NIS[ogOgResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodclto.0)oCLo=-{No(o!!,(oo(,(JlmIgt{
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.CommentWe encourage the SWD to continue to work with itsadvisory committees to evaluate future disposal optionsonce the Cedar Hills Landfill is no longer an option. The DraftPlan identifies the potential options, but it may not benecessary to select the final option in the Comp Plan. Thereare many factors to consider and consulting with themembers of the interlocal agreements is required.When looking at how we should dispose of garbage longterm, I would recommend a balanced long-termsolution. This solution should be efficient andinnovative. We need a system that is flexible, gives us theability to adapt to changes and prepare for the future with agoal of not using landfills. Thank you for the opportunity torespond and Carnation looks forward to working with KingCounty as we move into the future.Sieze this Opportunity - Create the Cedar Hills WildernessPreserve!Cedar Hills is an "Accidental Landfill". lt is anenvironmentally sensitive area and the worst possiblelocation for a waste facility.It's proximity to the Cedar River and lssaquah Creek make ittoo risky to continue operations. There are many manybetter locations for solid waste. At less sensitive locations, itwould be easier to incorporate new technologies andconduct research on recycling the solid waste.As leaders for the county I ask that you begin plans for thefuture to dispose of waste at a less sensitive, less populateda rea.I ask that the Cedar Hills landfill be designated a WildernessPreserve and plans be made to convert the landfill area to aNatural Area. Let's allow Nature to heal and wildlife toreturn.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterAuburnCarnationEric HudsonmIttoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodod,Jq,foo@@(o(r)coo.0)oCLo:..\INo(oNo\oc\s'\bd\-x.bs-N=5\ssASSNI:,luoG!0)(oo(rto,
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity. The ILA process inSection 5.1 would be convened at the appropriatetime in advance of Cedar Hills reaching capacity.CommentThe surrounding neighborhoods have been exposed to toxicpollution for years with unstudied health impacts. Pleaseact upon King County's environmental vision. Find a betterlocation to dispose of solid waste!After identifying and comparing the disposal optionsoutlined in Chapter 6, the Plan should identify arecommended or preferred alternative to furtherdevelop Cedar Hills as the preferred alternative giventhe Plan's analysis of the estimated capital costs,operating costs and environmental impacts of eachalternative. ln addition, any disposal option other thanfurther development of the landfill would requireconsultation with the Metropolitan Solid WasteManagement Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) asrequired by Section 5.1 of the lLA.Requested change (p.6-79): Select disposal option 7to "further develop Cedar Hills" os the preferreddisposol alternative.Duringthe presentation our City Councilexpressed concerns over the impacts of ratestructures and planning for the longterm futureof solid waste inthe region. The draft Planprovides three options for the future of CedarHills Landfill. The City of Bothell would prefer touse the existing landfill as long as possible whileworking together to determine the best possibleoption for solid waste needs in the futureThe Draft Plan outlines the major aspects of the system(finance, transfer stations, recycling options, andsustainability) and also future waste disposal options,including increasing permitted capacity at the Cedar HillsLandfill. This existing landfill is the least expensivedisposal option for our region's system, and much ofthe Draft Plan focuses on how to extend its life(through waste reduction, recycling, etc.).lt is clear thatPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterBellevueBothellFederal Wayo4fIt5c)o@@(o(,[o\o$\-Us*t3s-sd!NAG\ssIS,5t$oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,ZOLB public comment periodcEo.qtoo.It=.-{No(o!ot(Eto(t{mIUrlg
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Commentthe next more expensive disposal option would berailroad-based waste export to landfills east of theCascades, in keeping with current KCC Title 10 policy onceCedar Hills reaches capacity. Still more costly alternativesinclude siting and building incineration or digestionsystems, which produce energy as a by-product (but at ahigher cost than existing power utilities, so this energyproduction could be categorized as "cost subsidized").Further, these more expensive disposal options wouldstill require landfill disposal of residuals or ash, alongwith related waste export infrastructure, so theserelated expenses should be accounted for consistently incost comparisons.The Draft Plan estimates a capital cost of $]-l billion for a"mass-burn" incinerator - roughly four times highercapital cost than increasing permitted local landfillcapacity from 2028 through 2040. The City's preferenceis for disposal options that sensibly maximize wastediversion and recycling practices while maintainingcapital and operating cost efficiencies that are in thebest interest ofthe ratepayers we represent. As such, themore costly incineration option is cause for concern, andthe City would appreciate knowing the additional costFederal Way ratepayers would beaskedto bearifthisdisposal option were selected.The County Executive will consider input on the Draft Planto propose a recommendation for the future disposalmethod to be included in the "final" Plan.The City is,however, concerned that the process for cities toprovide advice and input as described in Section 5.lofthe Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement may beovershadowed. Related concerns are detailed in the City'scomments on Chapter 6 of the Draft Plan. Any decisionPublic ReviewDraft Ghapter &Paqe NumberCommentermIOtoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo-o-='q))oo@@(o(l)cECLq)oCLI'=..\|No(c'tso\o$N\sss.?1s-N\qiSsAsNIqt$oOo!!,(cIo(,6
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your commentThank you for your commentThank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commentother than increasing the capacity of the Cedar Hillslandfill will trigger Section 5.1and require engagementwith cities regarding alternatives and potential agreementextension.https ://www.cova nta.comWe believe that sustainability is achieved through acombination of human, economic and natural factors. Weadhere to this vision by continually striving to improve ...Modern incineration techniques as implemented in someEuropean countries and as described here(http | / / bit.lv | 2E bvZtw ).The County has outlined three options for disposal past2028. The Plan states that an opt'ton must be chosen aspart of the approval of the Plan, and outlines importantselection criteria, but does not state when or who willselect the final option. The City supports the selectioncriteria identified and would like to see a clearrecommendation from the King County Solid WasteDivision and the County Executive when the plan istransmitted to the KingCounty Council for approval. Therecommendation should reflect all six categories of theselection criteria, information presented in the Plan, andcomments received from cities and the public.It is importantthatthe Cityand Countydealwith ourcreated waste with i n ou r own borders as a priority,before considering sending our waste out of County fordisposal. Additionally, based on the data inthe Plan theWaste to Energy option isprohibitively expensive, isrdconsistentwith waste reduction and diversion goals,does not support City or County carbon reductiontargets, portends considera ble time a nd expenseforsiting and bringswith itthe potentialfor manyenvironmental issues.The Cedar Hills Landfill has been acost-effective, local method of solid waste disposal forPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 5 - DisposalCommenterJohn StoneJim Loringlssaquahlssaquaho4l9)loo@@@o)[oo\oc\s'\\s.suN.dkt-\sNFAsaNISqt$oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcEo.0toCLE=.-{No(o!!)(oo(,(omIo
\\oo\ats.ss.sRsN\s5sA.dNNIFNOg!g)(cIoo)NoResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Cedar HillsLandfill is a state-of-the-art landfill that is similar tothe one that you describe. lt is lined and collects gasand leachate. The methane gas generated bydecomposing waste is sent to a facility that convertsit to pipeline-quality natural gas that is sold to PugetSound Energy.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commentmore than 5Oyears. Extendingthe life of the landfill foras many years as possible makes the most sense for theratepayers of the County, and is consistent withgreenhouse gas emissions reduction policy andcommitments.I know in utah they dug a enormous amount of land andmade some kind of barrier with ability to drain....this landfillwas many times the normal size, it would take many yearsto reach capacity. However when it did was covered andsome kind of process or natural reaction produced energythat could be harnessed and distributed. My father helpedexcavate the site. Someone should look into that proiect!King County could certainly do a much better job in thisarea. My good friend Darrell Jones built the Sumas powerplant from the ground up. I believe when it was first built itoperated on recycled wood. lt has been operating veryefficiently since about 1993. About 2OO7 or 2008 PSE boughtthe plant.http://thenescosrou p.com/portfolio/sumas-coseneration/ln addition, moving waste out of county is immoral. Wecreate the problem here; we must solve it here.I strongly endorse the Cedar Hills Landfill expansion as thelower cost and much lower Greenhouse Gas Emissionscenario (per figure 6-7 on page 6-10 of the plan)I support transporting waste outside of King County by rail,which the City of Seattle already does, primarily becauseKing County has repeatedly failed to address communityconcerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill.I live within the area of the Cedar Hills landfill, and the odoris a significant problem. I have been repeatedly disappointedin King County's complete lack of engagement with residentsin this area about the problem of the odor. I know neighborsthat report poor air quality multiple times a week, andPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NurnberChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 5 - DisposalCommenterDee BeeBrian TateLaurieDumouchelKevin JonesMarinaSubbaiah1llIOll\'Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,20tg public comment periodo4f0rJoo@@(oOJcI,o.0toCLE=..\INo(o
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commentnothing is done. People live here, that needs to be takeninto serious consideration.When it was created, the location of Cedar Hills landfill wasa very remote area, but it is now quite populated, with thepopulation density continuing to grow. Cedar Hills hasserved the area well for decades, but it is time to move on.Landfills should be sited in remote areas with steps taken tominimize impacts on surrounding communities.Thank you for taking my feedback into considerationI support transporting waste outside of King County by rail,which the City of Seattle already does, primarily becauseKing County has repeatedly failed to address communityconcerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill.I live within the area of the Cedar Hills landfill, and the odoris a significant problem. I have been repeatedly disappointedin King County's complete lack of engagement with residentsin this area about the problem ofthe odor. I know neighborsthat report poor air quality multiple times a week, andnothing is done. People live here, that needs to be takeninto serious consideration.When it was created, the location of Cedar Hills landfill wasa very remote area, but it is now quite populated, with thepopulation density continuing to grow. Cedar Hills hasserved the area well for decades, but it is time to move on.Landfills should be sited in remote areas with steps taken tominimize impacts on surrounding communities.I strongly support transporting waste outside of King Countyby rail. Cedar Hills has repeatedly been expanded each timethe facility nears its capacity. Past promises for solutionsother than expansion at the existing site have never beenmet. The localized problems with odors only continue togrow and the mountain of garbage only continues togrow. Expansion means either growing the peak higherPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterAlikay WileyLarry Tornbergoao_5'9)5oo@@(o(,)t!o\oos\ssN3R5\$sA6sRIS,,Ft9oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLg public comment periodcE'oqloCLE=._{No@!ot(cIo(,NmICtrlr,
tuo\oo\.N.r;*ske'R3$p\NS,sANNN*FfjoOa!0,(cIo(,NNResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commentand/or expanding the area around the existing landfill. Bothare unacceptable. Unincorporated King County and those ofus living for decades in the vicinity of the land fill do notneed to continue to bear the burden (primarily safety andhealth) of the cities dumping their garbage at Cedar Hillslandfill.Thank you for the opportunity to comment.I support transporting waste outside of King County by rail,which the City of Seattle already does, primarily becauseKing County has repeatedly failed to address communityconcerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill.I live within the area of the Cedar Hills landfill, and the odoris a significant problem. I have been repeatedly disappointedin King County's complete lack of engagement with residentsin this area about the problem of the odor. I know neighborsthat report poor air quality multiple times a week, andnothing is done. People live here, that needs to be takeninto serious consideration.When it was created, the location of Cedar Hills landfill wasa very remote area, but it is now quite populated, with thepopulation density continuing to grow. Cedar Hills hasserved the area well for decades, but it is time to move on.Landfills should be sited in remote areas with steps taken tominimize impacts on surrounding communities.I support transporting waste outside of King County by rail,which the City of Seattle already does, primarily becauseKing County has repeatedly failed to address communityconcerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill and the compostfacility next door.I have lived near the Cedar Hills landfill for 29 years. Theodor is a significant problem. I have been repeatedlydisappointed in King County's complete lack of engagementwith residents in this area about the problem of the odor. Ireport poor air qualiW multiple times a month, and nothinePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterHeidi NeesMaryJoTornbergmIOr$Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo4lq,5oo@@(oo)cECLq)6'CLo=.-{No(o
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commentis done. People live here, that needs to be taken into seriousconsideration.When it was created, the location of Cedar Hills landfill wasa very remote area, but it is now quite populated, with thepopulation density continues to grow. Cedar Hills has servedthe area well for decades, but it is time to move on. Landfillsshould be sited in remote areas with steps taken tominimize impacts on surrounding communities.Thank you for considerinB my comments.Thank you for taking comments regarding Cedar Hills wasteand the areas future plans. ljust moved to Sunset ValleyFarms on Maple Valley Road and was upset to learn ourexpensive move into King County to be infiltrated by ahorrible stench first discovered after a few weeks livinghere. I have since found outthat smell to to be from CedarHills Landfill despite.I support transporting waste outside of King County by rail,which the City of Seattle already does, primarily becauseKing County has repeatedly failed to address communityconcerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill.I live within the area of the Cedar Hills landfill, and the odoris a significant problem. I have been repeatedly disappointedin King County's complete lack of engagement with residentsin this area about the problem of the odor. I know neighborsthat report poor air quality multiple times a week, andnothing is done. People live here, that needs to be takeninto serious consideration.When it was created, the location of Cedar Hills landfill wasa very remote area, but it is now quite populated, with thepopulation density continuing to grow. Cedar Hills hasserved the area well for decades, but it is time to move on.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterAmber andAndrewMarataso-sJq)Joo@@(oo)ioo\oc\\\ds.:N's-\s$s:tAG\NISs!!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodc1CCL0)oCLE=-{No(o!!,(ao(,No)mIoUI
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Equity is aconsideration in selecting a long term disposalapproach.CommentLandfills should be sited in remote areas with steps taken tominimize impacts on surrounding communities.Thank you for your time and considerationYour draft talks about "Equity and Social Justice"."Equity is achieved when oll people have an equalopportunity to ottain theirfull potential. lneouitv occurswhen there are differences in well-beina between ond withincommunities that ore systemotic, patterned, unfair, ond canbe chanoed. These differences ore not random; they arecoused by our past and current decisions, systems of powerand privilege, policies, and the implementation of thosepolicies."I maintain you are not even following your own principle. ltis UNFAIR to continually put the burden of these facilities onour neighborhoods. Our "well-being" is far from equitablefrom other comm u nities."Sociol justice encompasses all aspects of justice, includinglegal, politicol, and economic; it demonds foir distribution ofpublic goods, institutional resources, and life opportunities."Fair distribution? Not even close - we are willing to share -send it to one ofthe affluent neighborhoods!The draft talks about siting new transfer stations and that"thot any negative impacts of the facilities do not unfairlyburden any community." So in deciding whether or not toexpand the landfill and lengthen it's life, why isn'tconsideration given to OUR communities concerning anyunfair burden?We deal with odors, noise, truck traffic, garbage, rodentsand the always present burden of not really knowing if thereare any contaminants in the air that we are breathing. lsthat not burden enoush?Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - DlsposalCommenterJanetDobrowskimIolOrResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo4f0)foo@@(oo)c15CL0)oCLo=.-{No(olo\o$\.BciItsse'$?>s:s$!NAseR<IS,stsoOotot(clo(,N5
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.CommentWe moved here in 1988 and at the time, we were told thelandfill would close in 2000. 2000 came and went, and thenit was 2012, then 2028, and now 2040 (maybe). CedarGrove was established AFTER we moved in and CedarMountain Reclamation just started up in the last coupleyears. My husband and I will be dead before Cedar Hillscloses (if it ever does).The draft only has 3 options:Expand the landfill and lengthen its life thru new permitting.NOT my preference, This, to me, is a self serving option.King county permitting its own landfill to expand - howconvenient. The waythe options have been evaluated, itseems a foregone conclusion that the council will select thisoption. There seems to be a clause that states there mustbe a S90 million reserve for monitoring and maintenanceAFTER the landfill is closed. To date, there is only $25million. What has King county been doing all these years?Have they been dipping into it so as to pretty muchguarantee there will never be enough to close it? ls the 59million/year for financing refuse area development with ratedollars managed in the Landfill Reserve Fund why it's solow? I don't believe the County is truly serious about closingthe landfill and will do anything necessary to keep it openand extend its life. lf it did, it would do more to fund thisreserve. As it is, it looks like they may never have therequired reserved.The draft stated that it needs to have a 7 year period tobegin to close the landfill and take into consideration allunderlying contracts. Again, the county is not serious aboutclosing the landfill. lf they had been they would havestarted the process for the current closing date, rather thansqueeze out additional pits.Export - This option doesn't seem to be one the councilwould seriously consider, but it is our preferred option.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterJanetDobrowskio4f0)foo@@(o(/)i$o\oc\s's"s\s.s'h3s.NFiRSsAGtsFSSISs,t!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment period1'0,(oo(,N(tcE'o-qt6o-o=.-{No(omIOr{
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.CommenlClose the landfill as promised and scheduled and export thewaste.lncineration -Too many potential problems, concerningnoise, pollutants and toxins. Definitely do NOT want anincinerator located at Cedar Hills. The EIS has stated thatthis would be preferred because there would be less impacton the environment to build here.Noise is another problem, if located at Cedar Hills. Therewere several issues with the gas plant that have since beenresolved. But the plant can still be heard.Toxins (TAP) are still released from a plant like this. There isan elementary school within 1 mile of Cedar Hills. Exposingchildren to these toxins is unacceptable.Sweden is currently using incineration and it is verysuccessful there in reducing waste and generatingelectricity.The 2 things I would never like to see:1. Raising the height to 830 feet is totally unacceptable. lt'sbad enough with the noise and smell from the landfill, but toraise it, we then must SEE it. When will the assault on thesurrounding neighborhoods by King County ever quit. lfnothing else, this is ONE concession they should grant ourneighborhoods.2. Never encroach on the 1000' buffer. I know it's not inthe current options, but I will never trust King County to notchange the permitting for this area.With the growth in the surrounding areas, the landfill is nolonger "out of sight, out of mind". lt is a blight on thelandscape. Have any of the council members hiked SquakMountain or Tiger Mountain and taken in the view? Thereare beautiful views of Mount Rainier, but it is pretty muchruined with the scar of the landfill glaring right beneath themountain. Pictures are ruined by it. As the populationexpands into this-area, Cedar Hills has a bigger impact on thePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5 - DisposalCommenterJanetDobrowskililI(tr6Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLg public comment periodo4fq)foo@@(o(r)cItCLqtoCL!t:.-{No(otso\oa\s'\\}ri*eF:s\sAsNSIS$oOo!0)(.lo(ItNo)
osf0,=oo@@(oo)!o\oo\ts.sN!4t-\sN\5:sAN\sNIS5.t9oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodc'ECLA}oCLof.-{No(o!q)(oo6)N\.1mIgrtoResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The division is workingwith a task force comprised of haulers, cities andother stakeholders to develop actions to addresslocal processing, market development and addressthe contamination issues in recyclables that arecollected.Thank you for your comment.Commentsurrounding neighborhoods. lt's time to seriously, and Imean SERIOUSLY, consider closing it and select one of yourother options, preferably exporting the areas waste.I will say, since the lawsuit in 2000, the landfill has improvedsubstantially. There is room to improve - the odor does stilloccur, but not as prevalent as before.I have little hope the County will do right by the surroundingneighborhoods by closing the landfill as previous promisedand scheduled.The plan does highlight some very helpful ways it's trying toreduce the waste flow, but until manufacturers change theirpackaging, there will still be a lot of garbage, regardless ofwhere it ends up.That said, with the advent of China putting new restrictionson what sort of recyclable material it will take - what doesthat do to your projections? The material that is no longeraccepted will have to go somewhere.A Team of lnternational and National lndependent Expertswith decades of experience designing, integrating andimplementing Sustainable Solid Waste ManagementSystems including Collection, Landfill, Recycling,Composting, Anaerobic Digestion, Sewage Treatment andEnergy and Material Recovery Systems (Advanced WTE) aswell as developing regulations, producing, reviewing andevaluating scientific facts, etc. has reviewed the King CountyDraft Solid Waste Management Plan (DSWMP) and DraftEnvironmental lmpact Statement (DEIS) and is providing thefollowing assessment/comments :The DSWMP fails to evaluate and examine the advantagesand disadvantages of the very claims it makes including useof Landfills, WTE, Recycling and other key options.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterJanetDobrowskiMeghanBrookler
mI\toResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLg public comment periodoao-5q)foo@@(oOJcT'o"0)oCLE=.-{No(l't!o\o$Nd\.*.P3$sRN'AseNISt$oOotlg)(cIoo)NoResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. To ensure thatgreenhouse gas emissions for disposal optionsreceived comparable evaluation, the plan usedmodels used by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Washington Department of EcologyIt is assumed that this comment references Section4.1 of Normandeau's 2017 Waste to Energy Optionsand Solid Waste Export Considerations report. Theitems listed in that section would be considered aspossible next steps if waste-to-energy is pursued asa means of long term disposal.Thank you for your comment. The recyclinginfrastructure that has developed over the pastseveral decades is the result of a public/ privatepartnership. The recycling rate for 2O15 isCommentAccording to the information provided in the plan, landfillingis supposed to be cheap, safe and environmentally friendlyand all other options (e.g. Anaerobic Digestions and Waste-to-Energy) are presented as expansive, dangerous anddistressing thus not viable for King County. The teamconcurs that this is simply not accurate and true. Facts areignored.Especially alarming are the false Greenhouse Gas emissionvolumes given for the Cedar Hills Landfill. From a scientificperspective, the climate is warming at an alarming andunnatural pace and Greenhouse Gases from landfills,including Cedar Hills are considerable contributors to GlobalWarming specifically in contrast to other viable andenvironmentally proven alternatives such as recycling,anaerobic digestion, energy and material recovery systemsetc.The concept of landfilling is an outdated approach forhandling modern waste appropriately.When assessing the true cost of landfilling untreated andstill reactive solid waste, landfills are significantly moreadverse and environmentally detrimental than other viablealternatives. The recent King County Waste-to-Energy/Waste Export Study (prepared by the NormandeauTeam) made 27 recommendations that are vital in theprocess of evaluating viable economic-ecologic options.These key elements for King County were not included ineither the DSWMP nor the DEIS. Without this information aproper evaluation cannot take place and the plan should behalted and updated accordingly. lt is essential that acomprehensive environmental and legally defensibleanalysis with an integration of these findines be undertaken.The DSWMP does not enable but hinder the opportunity tobuild a working recycling infrastructure. The currentnumbers of 50% are questionable and it is very unlikelywithout some major changes to getting even close lo aTOo/oPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterMeghanBrooklerMeghanBrooklerMeghanBrookler
otsJ0tfoo@@(o(.)!oo\o$\\cd\.usNs:S"tsssIS,stsoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcECL0)oCLIt:-{No(o!!)(cIoG)N(omI\tResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)documented to be 54%. There is no doubt thatachieving a7O%o recycling rate will be challenging,but having a landfill does not preclude aggressiverecycling.Thank you for your comment.The Plan discusses many approaches that are usedtogether including possible long-term disposaloptions and their impacts to the environment,greenhouse gas emissions, jobs, material recoveryand revenue.The Public Review Draft Plan issued in January 2018was an updated version ofthe 2001 Plan. Data in thecurrent Plan document were further updated in2018.Thank you for your comment.The Normandeau WARM results for the 20-yearwaste-to-energy scenario that uses King county'swaste composition should be79,592 (or 80,000 ifCommentrecycling rate. Recycling faces significant challenges andthese are not adequately addressed in the plan. ln order tomove towards a7O% recycling rate a much more aggressivelocal infrastructure is required including moving away fromlandfilling.It is important to know that the current DSWMP is focusedon landfilling, which is the least sustainable option.Landfilling ranks lowest by the US EPA and comparableinternational waste management hierarchies. Landfillingoffers the public the least viable/sustainable environmentaloption and is not economical when all costs and potentialrevenue streams are included.The Draft Solid Waste Management plan fails to address anintegrated approach that offers many benefits in regards tothe reductions in greenhouse gases and otherenvironmental pollutants into air and ground, the creationof jobs, revenues, recovery of materials recycling/upcyclingand waste avoidance opportunities. These options will alsoeliminate the need for any additional landfill expansion andwill save King County and its residents hundreds of millionsof dollars.It does not seem that the DSWMP has been thoroughlyupdated and comprehensively reviewed for a number ofyears. For example, the Plan lacks current innovative andtechnical solutions.Considering that the Draft Environmental lmpact Statement(DEIS) is based on the Draft Solid Waste Management Plan,the DEIS should be withdrawn and not be finalized. lt is notthorough, it is technically inaccurate, and not legallydefensible. The DEIS process needs to be stoppedimmediately.First, it seems like the range of greenhouse gas emissionsshown in the chart on 6-14 shows the range of emissionsbetween 12,000 and 125,000 MTCO2e for the 20 year modelfor a waste to energy plant. However, I think the maximumPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 5 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalCommenterMeghanBrooklerMeghanBrooklerMeghanBrooklerMeghanBrooklerscA
t9o\oc\s'\^sN-sea's,GSshSssI\'+tsoOo!ot(cIoq,o)oResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)rounded to the nearest thousand). The highernumber in the plan was for the 50-year scenarioTonnage is projected to increase steadily after 2048.Other disposal options (such as export) could beconsidered beyond 2048 instead of building anadditional mass burn facility but the total disposalcost per ton for that combination option would addthe cost of the parallel disposal system to thecontinuing operation cost for the original mass burnfacility.No, having two different systems would not be moreexpensive than having two waste to energy facilities.The Normandeau report includes information thatcould be used to do this analysis.Thank you for your commentThe 2Ot7 Normandeau report estimated that in year2O (actually, the 21st year when all bonds are paidoff) the cost per ton for the mass burn facility dropsto purely operating cost. However, the capacity ofthe mass burn facility also is fully used in year 20. Anadditional expanded mass burn facility must be builtto handle the growing waste in the regional systemin year 21 and beyond. Showing onlythe 2048operating cost for the first mass burn facility doesnot account for the full cost of disposal given thatsignificant new capital investment (and operatingcost) must be undertaken for a new mass burnfacility. So in Figure 5-9 to show an approx. 2O-yearapples-to-apples comparison with export we did notshow either the drop of the bond payments for thefirst mass burn facility or the new capital cost for theadditional mass burn facility. A footnote to Figure 6-t has been added to say that the waste-to-energyCommentMTCO2e in the model was 80,000. The 125,OOO MTCO2ecomes from the 50 year model.lf there was too much waste for the capacity of the WTEfacility in 2048, it seems like other disposal options could beconsidered correct? ls capacity projected to increase wellabove the 4,000 ton capacity after 2048?Would having two different systems be more expensive thantwo WTE facilities? ls there analysis on this?We are strongly opposed to a waste-to-energy option. Thisdoes not make sense from an environmental or economicperspective at this time.Second, the chart on the 6-17 shows the cost/ton for WTE as5121 at year 20. However, in the model the cost/ton is S37in year 20.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 6 - DisposalChapter 5 - Disposal,p.6-L7CommenterscAscAZero Waste WAscAtnI{NResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2O1r8 public comment periodoa5'q,oo@@(oG)cE'o.g,oCLo=.-{No@
o4a!tloo@@(o(ttuo\oc\o'\ds.eh!4s-ss\G\,sA\tsHR<:lISs\)oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,20tg public comment periodcECLq)dclItf._{No(o!0)(cIo(.t(rtntI{L,Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)cost per ton actually runs through 2047, the lastyear of the initial 20-vear bond pavments.lncreasing compost facilities as a potential optionhas been added to page 5 - 3.Thank you for your comment and your commitmentto waste reduction and recycling. The division has aprogram to clean up illegal dump sites on public andprivate land.Thank you for your commentCommentPotential strategies should include increasing compostfacilities.I have been recycling since it was first introduced in Seattleby opening transfer stations to take recycling materials-newspapers, cans & bottles. lssaquah has used RecologyCleanscapes for a number of years now, and I really like theirservice. I can go to their store on Gilman and take in myhousehold batteries, block Styrofoam, defunct computerparts, small appliances, and other items that would ordinarilybe hard-to-recycle. Clean plastic bags and plastic films can berecycled now by putting them in larger plastic bags andplaced in blue recycle toters. The people at the store havebeen very helpful about telling me where I can recycle itemsthat they do not take-like old oil and car batteries. As I amable to recycle or compost almost all of my household waste,I have very little garbage and have gone to having a monthlypickup for more than a year now.I also pick up and recycle or compost items that is litter alongSE 56th St. People are dumping all kinds of items along theroadside, so I appreciate being also able to take items such asold tires, large metal pieces, and even chunks of concrete orasphalt to occasional nearby recycling events. I wish peoplewouldn't litter because it is a lot of work to pick up all theirtrash, sort it, and clean it enough so that it is suitable forrecycling or composting, but it is good that I am able to getrid of most of it. Perhaps we need some more publicannouncements on TV to discourage people fromlittering. Almost all the litter I see is obviously intentional, notaccidental litterins.There is adequate rail capacity if King County considers allrail options available and selects a landfill served by theeast/west rail corridor such as Wenatchee LF. ChoosingPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6 - Diversionof Waste p. 6-3Chapter 6 - lllegalDumpingChapter6-Page6-10,Rail CapacityCommenterZero WasteVashonJanet WallWasteManagement
nrI{FResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment peraodoagfqtfooI@@(oo)cEo-q)oCLE=.-!No(atNo\o$s\d\.skQ.?2ItsNqiS!\NASes:tIStueOotltGIo(l)o)NResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Policy FD-4 in Chapter3, action 3-d in Chapter 6, and new action 36-s alladdress monitoring, assessing and perhaps pursuingemerging technologies or other options to divertwaste from the landfill.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment. The information hasbeen added to Table 6-1, which can be found inAppendix F.CommentWenatchee LF as a waste export option would provide theCounty with another rail transportation option, especially ifand when there is a congested north/south rail corridor.The County should not limit itself to three options andshould also consider a fourth option: alternative wastediversion and conversion technologies. The County hasbeen keeping its finger on the pulse of emergingtechnologies and should give itself the option to pursuethese alternative technologies within the scope of the Plan.There may be substantial benefit, both financially andotherwise, in King County exporting a portion of themunicipal solid waste earlier in the process, in parallel toextending the life of the Cedar Hills Landfill. The Countycould consider bifurcating the management of the solidwaste stream - a portion to Cedar Hills and anothersegment of waste to be exported to an out-of-countylandfill. This strategy would present the County withanother option than the choices offered in the Plan.WMW once again requests that the Greater WenatcheeRegional Landfill (Wenatchee LF) be included in the table ofpotential locations for out-of-county landfill disposal. Seeinformation to be added at the end of this comment.Wenatchee LF currently processes 350,000 tons per yearand not 175,000 tons of refuse per year as the Countyindicated in its response to our first set of Plan comments,dated November 3,20t7. Wenatchee LF is currently also aKing County designated landfill for construction anddemolition debris disposal. We would also like to note thatWenatchee LF is 157 rail miles from Seattle, which is half thedistance of the closest landfill as identified in the Table 6-1,and it is the closest rail-served regional landfill. Utilizing theWenatchee LF as a waste export option would provide KingCounty with flexibility in both transportation and disposaloptions. Additionally, Wenatchee LF uses the east/west railcorridor, while most other identified landfills use thePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter6-Page6-6,King County's Long-Term Disposal MethodWill Be One of ThreeOptionsChapter6-Page6-7,Waste ExportChapter6-Page6-8,Table 6-1. PotentialLocations for Out-of-County LandfillDisposalCommenterWasteManagementWasteManagementWasteManagement
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2O19 Plan)Thank you for your comment. There is a discussionof potential technologies to consider in Chapter 6.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.Commentnorth/south rail passageway.(see comment letter for info onlandfill)I like the way you recycle food waste in yard waste and turnit into compost. Now l'd like you to consider somethingmore. ln Japan they recycle plastic at a whole new level. theplastic bottles they recycle like normal but the rest of theplastic they can't use they either gasify liqueff or turn intoother plastic items like decking and stuff like that.l'd like you to consider is the gasification or Liquefication.They have machines in Japan specifically in Yokohama, thatcan turn waste plastic into oil diesel and gasoline. I think youreally should look into this because these are machines thatyou can buy. You could ship them to King County. They arescalable to the amount of plastic you need to process. Theywork on the same principle. They heat up the plastic, gas isreleased and condensed into oil. This oil can be refined intogas or diesel. I hope you look into this.It seems the transportation costs & carbon footprint wouldmake these high cost alternatives. We should deal with ourown waste within our county and not export it at great costand potentiallv negativelv impact others.This seems to be an excessively costly alternative! The ashproduced seems to be a toxic byproduct needing disposal.The carbon footprint also seems to be extremely high.Expensive, the title implies that this study looks at multipleways of converting waste to energy (Let's call it massburning), Why are there varying reports on air quality issuespertaining to this technology? lf we accept this technology isthere danger that we will reuse less? What municipality willacceptthis plant? ls there existing rail orwill a rail line haveto be funded and built?The draft outlines the "path" of solid waste with 4 paths:Garbage, Construction & Demolition Debris, CompostablePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6 -TechnologyChapter 6 - WasteExport p. 6-7Chapter 6-WostetoEnergy Focility p. 6-9Chapter 6 -DisposalCommenterTim LarsenZero WasteVashonZero WasteVashonJanetDobrowskio-gf9!aooJ@@(o(f,)lso\os,s\d-es:N\sSAN:ssIS,qtuoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment period!0t(lIo(lt(r)(l)crta"q)oo"o=-{Notoml{ur
mI{CtrResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo-s:fqt:oo@@(oCDcECL0,oCLIt-{No(l'No\oos*.Sshk:'\5\5s;shsN\SIS,FN)oOg!ql(ooo,&JAResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. One of the options forlong-term disposal that is evaluated in the Plan isbuilding a waste to energy plant. The LaFargecement plant kiln might warrant more study if wasteto energy is considered as a disposal option in thefuture.CommentOrganics, and Recyclables. 3 out of 4 ultimate destinationsare within 2 miles of each other:Cedar HillsCedar GroveCedar Mountain ReclamationThe neighborhoods surrounding these areas are constantlyassaulted with noise, odors, rodents and garbage.ln addition, the County is considering granting a permit to anasphalt plant, again within 2 miles from Cedar Hills. Aren'twe lucky?When will the county EVER consider the health and wellbeing of the surrounding neighborhoods and stop permittingthese obnoxious, nuisance and potentially unhealthyendeavors.And now you want to extend the life of the landfill another22years. This is totally unacceptable and UNFAIR to thesurrounding neighborhoods.We do not support any expansion of the Cedar Hills Landfill.Waste reduction and energy production should be explored.Waste-to-Energy facilities are a proven technology thatshould be fully explored as to location, environmental, andfinancial viability. Proximity to rail facilities would bedesirable for shipment of ash to a proper and safe finaldisposal location. Recycling is an important component ofsuch a facility, as is valuable materials recovery must be acomponent to be employed prior to final ash disposal.Waste reduction by incineration alone should also beexplored as to its environmental and financial viability.There is located in South Seattle on West Marginal Way alarge rotary kiln that was part of the Lafarge-NA cementplant. Although the basic components for incineration arepresent and should be useable, emission control and feedmechanisms must be desisned and installed to ensurePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6, Action 2-dCommenterGreater MapleValley UAC
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity. The ILA process inSection 5.1 would be convened at the appropriatetime before the landfill is predicted to reach itspermitted capacity.Commentcompatibility with surrounding environs. Valuable materialsrecovery from the ash should be a component ofthis type ofwaste reduction operation. This type of high temperaturecombustion facility should be capable of handling used tires,non-hazardous contaminated soil, dredge spoils, sludge, andother such wastes. This site is served by rail facilities for costeffective transport of ash to a final disposal location.Pursuant to RCW 70.95.010(8), incineration is equivalent inthe disposal hierarchy to landfill and energy recoveryoperations.Continue a strong emphasis on education, incentives, andrecvcline.The County has a preferred future disposal method (wasteexport), per KCC Title x) - including RTS-I" RTS-3, RTS-S, RTS-16, and 10.25.060 (A) and (B).Further, the 2016 King County Comprehensive Plan (2016Update) (King County 2016a) indicates that "King Countyshould maximize the capacity and lifespan of the CedarHills Landfill"Disposal method selection results from stakeholder input,cost analysis and policy review of an array of options.ideally, this Plan will outline options and makerecommendations. However, "Approval" of this Plan initself should not be described as the mechanism wherethe next disposal method will be "selected". PerSection5.1of theSolidWaste lnterlocalAgreement (SWIA) :if nodecision is made by circa 2O2Lto expand Cedar Hillscapacity, the County will engage inadvisory committeeconsultation to seek input on the selection of the nextdisposal option for the system, along with a discussion ofextending the term of the SWIA. Note that the WTEdisposal method presumes extension of the SWIA's termPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5, pg 6 -5CommenterFederal Waytuo\oResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo4lofoo@@(oo)$.it"sd\.(^s's,5\s!tsANN.ISqt9oOocECL0)dCLE=._{No(o-It0)GIou)o)(,lmI\t{
mI{oResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodo4f0tfoo@@(o(,ctCL0)oCLof,-{No(otso\oo\dtFe'ks5\aisAsNesIS,\oOo'oq)(ooo,(r)o)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The section "DisposalServices After an Emergency'' has been updated.Commentbeyond 204O, but SWIA Section 5.1 states there is norequirement for parties to reach agreement on SWIA termextension.Regardless of the disposal option ultimately'recommended' in this plan, if that option favors closureof Cedar Hills it will trigger Section 5.1 (based on theprojected closure year).ln view of these factors, this section would moreappropriately be titled: "Overview of Major DisposalOptions for this System" and the text revised so itdoesnot infer this Plan's approval is the sole mechanism forselecting a disposal option.lf no new Cedar Hills capacity is planned for, it followsthat MSWAC & SWAC consultation would be triggered toconsider a range of disposal options followed byamendment of the Plan as needed.This discussion raises potential issues that warrant moredirect engagement with rail service providers to betterdetermine the likelihood of adverse impacts. Also, the Planshould indicate if other localjurisdictions that already exportwaste by rail have similar concerns (and if so, howtheseconcerns are being addressed).The Plan should also address what alternatives would be putinto play if the transfer system and/or the disposal methodbecame unavailable for a period of weeks. Presumably iftransfer trailers could still haulthe waste, it would betemporarily stored - likelyat Cedar Hills landfill.Thediscussion on "Disposal Services After an Emergency" (Page5-28) should be expanded to describe the need for temporaryMSW handling options in case parts of the transfer anddisposal system fail or go offline, making a clear distinctionPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6, pg 6-10CommenterFederal Way
otqloloo@@(o(,!oo\o\)NsRi$"6hs-\sN'\sANdISt!gOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made durint the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodc:oaqtooE=.-{No(ol,otGIou)(r){mt{rOResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2O19 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The typo has beencorrected. The post-closure reserves discussion hasbeen edited.Thank you for your comment. The range indicated inFigure 6-7 has been corrected to 12,000 -80,000MTCO2e.Thank you for your comment. Figure 6-7 has beenremoved.Thank you for your comments. Table 5-1 indicatesthe costs and GHG emissions for all of the options,including waste to energy.Commentfrom debris management.Typo: missing period or missing textState whether or not extending the length of time for accruingpost-closure reserves would appreciably decrease rates.Conversely, state if the necessary post-closure balanceamount b the same regardless of the total cubic yards ofpermitted capacity ultimately filled (ie., determine if post-closure funding needs may also increase if the permittedcapacity increases).There is debate regarding the accuracy or applicability ofEPA's WARM approach when applied to WTE, includinghow it accounts for biogenic C02, and presumes WTEgenerated energy fully offsets other energy sourceemissions (which still occur in spite of adding WTE-produced energy into the grid), plus the relative scale atwhich emissions and energy are produced fromconventional sources vs. WTE, and also how landfillmethane impacts are applied. These discrepancies shouldbe addressed more fully in the Plan since the WTE datashows a wide range of net emissions, presumablyreflecting such discrepancies. ln short, it is unclear in thedraft text why a wide range is shown in Figure 6-7 forWTE,Figure 6-7 is not referenced in the text (or in Appendix D).This table does not show the year for this baseline, or theMSW tonnage used to arrive at these figures.The Plan should notethatWTE isa higher-costdisposalmethod that also has higher GHG emissions than the otheroptions, and requires importing waste into the County to beburned thatwould further add to local GHG emissions. TheStrategic Climate Action Plan (SCAP 2015) summarizes "GHGemissions reduction targets adopted as CountywidePlanning Polices bv the Kine CounW Growth ManasementPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6, pg6-12Chapter 6, pg6-74Chapter 6, pg6-L4Chapter 6, pg6-74CommenterFederal WayFederal WayFederal WayFederal Way
mIooResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodosfqtaooJ@@(o(r)cECLq)oo.E=-_{No(r'[oo\oc\o'\bd\.sE!rs:sSs*ssISqN)oOo:00)(oo(,(,@Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The estimates referenced in footnote 1 were madeby consultants with deep experience with waste toenergy facilities. The division's interpretation of thereasons for the range of results is shown in footnote1.The WTE facility is sized to reach capacity in year 20,not year L l2029l. Operations would be mostefficient when the facility is at or near full capacity.The WARM greenhouse gas estimates are calculatedfor a common base year in2029.CommentPlanning Council in2Ot4 (are) to "reduce countywidesources of GHG emissions, compared to a 2OO7 baseline,by 25 percent by 2020, 50 percent by 2030, and 80percent by 2050." hternally, King County has committedto reducing GHG emissions from its operations, comparedto a 2OO7 baseline, by at least 15 percent by 2Ot5,25percent bV 2020, and 50 percent by 2030. The County hasfurther committed to achieving net carbon neutrality forthe Department of Natural Resources and Parks by 2O!7,with the Wastewater Treatment Division and the SolidWaste Division each independently achieving carbon-neutral operations by 2025.The 2015 SCAP outlines theresults of technical analysis that established specific,quantifiable pathways to achieving the overarchingGHG emissions reduction targets at both thecountywide and government operations scales." TheWTE disposal option appears to work againstachieving these targets, and the Plan does notindicate how the County will "make up" for WTE'sGHG emission increases.Footnote 1in Appendix DTable lappears to provide areasonforthe lowand high rangethat isshown inthisFig. 6-7, but says that the inputs used in the model thatgenerated thesefigures "are notavailable" which raisesconcern a bout accuracy and assumptions that resultedin these estimates.The County should verify howtherange was calculated, and an explanation added toafootnote in Figure 6-7.Assuming Fig.6-7 depicts the base year of 2028, pleaseclarify if the WTE plant is operating at full capacity (4,000tons per day), or the MSW tonnage generated within thisservice area at that time (since initially only three tr000 tonper day WTE lines are needed for this system's MSW).Please show the likely scenario of MTCO2e productionwhen WTE is atfull capacity (4,000 tons per day) andPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6, pg6-t4CommenterFederal Way
o4f0t=oo@@(oOJt!o\os)\i!-sN.Ng.s*q\R.S.sAsRI\,s\oQOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcItCL0,oCLE=-\INo(l}!qr(oootg)(otnIoResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The projected recovery rate is up to 50,000 tons offerrous and non-ferrous metals. This would increasethe County's overall recycling rate by about twopercent.The two percent increase is based on the estimatedmetal content of our waste in2029. The 2029composition is calculated using the 2015 study ofour waste characterization. The Normandeau reportfindings are based on Pasco County FL, and SpokaneWA ferrous and non-ferrous metal recoverypercentages of approximately 4% and 0.8%respectively when using advanced metal recoverysystems on mixed municipal solid waste processedat those plants, (this would mean nearly 100%recovery for our waste that contains approximately5% metal).The cost to recover the metal is included in the$21M of additive construction costs (AshEquipment, Electric Interconnect, and Site) and theoperating cost of 531.50 per ton. What portion ofthose costs are for metal recovery is not availablefrom these planning level estimates.Yes the revenue and costs are factored into the costper ton projections.Per the Normandeau report, the price per tonestimate for non-ferrous in 2028 is S888.46/ton forS7.4M dollars of annual revenue, the use of eddyCommentpresumed optimal capacity.What percentage of bypass wastes are counted towardthe "landfill gas recovery" input, and is that factored in asan additional emission in thistable?The WTE discussion indicates 'all' of this metal will berecovered. Please state the projected recovery rate.Unless there are proven and cost-effective metalsrecovery methods, it may be more realistic to not countthis2%o as a given outcome, and therefore omitthissection. Are there examples of other WTE plantsrecovering metal in this manner and at the proposed scaleof this WTE option, with data showing it economical to doso?How much does it cost per ton to recover this metal?ls that cost factored into the cost per ton projections?ls there even a cost-effective way to recover non-ferrousmetals from slag and ash once it is subjected to high heat?Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6, pg 6-16Chapter 6, pg 6-16CommenterFederal WayFederal Way
mIot\,Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo4)q,)oo@@(oo)cT'CL0)oCLE._{No@N)o\ooiqis.Nt's's5\GsANsRISt!oOo-It0tGIo(,5oResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)current separators should effectively remove about90% of the non-ferrous metals from the ash.Advanced material recovery system costs have yetto be developed for the Solid Waste Division systemThis work is being considered as part of the newSouth Countv Recvcline and Transfer Station.This table has been removed from the Plan.This table has been removed from the Plan.Yes, the WTE option initially is built to reach capacityin year 20. Bypass waste and ash would be exportedthroughout the life of the WTE facility. Theoperators of the WTE facility could seek outsidewaste until waste from our regional system uses thefacility's full capacity.For year 21 and beyond, an additional decisionwould be needed to build additional WTE capacity,export any municipal solid waste beyond thecapacity of the initial facility, or use alternativedisposal approaches.CommentThe Plan could benefitfrom acomparison regardingthecost-effectiveness of diversion/screening of metals beforethe WTE process.Presumably the 5229 million in capital costs won't bespent "as soon as" approval ofcell construction occurs. ltwould instead be spent over the period of time during cellconstruction that creates landfill capacity until 2040.Please consider clarifying this period of time.This footnote appears to be the only text reference to"Area 9" in the Plan. There is an "Area 9" represented inFigure 2.5, but it is likely different than the area thatwould be used in expanding capacity to 2O4O, so pleaseadd explanatorv text.It is not clear why the 2OL7 capital amount is higher thanthe future amount. Do these figures compare, or do theycome from a different base?This note seems to indicate that the WTE option overbuildsinitial capacity and requires waste import to run all four1,000 ton per day lines. (lt doesn't appear that the intent isto not start one of the 1,000 ton per day lines for severalyears). What is the year when our system-generated MSWprovides sufficient input that makes it economical to beginoperating that fourth line solely on waste generated withinour system? (Presumably the fourth line is not started justfor our daily MSW ton #3,001). At 4,000 tons per day,operating continuously, WTE would process over 1.4 milliontons of MSW. While WTE facility downtime will mean alower total tonnage will be burned in practice, Figure 3.3doesn't show when that level of "tons disposed" will bereached - presumably it would be years past 2040. ThePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6, pg6-t7Chapter 6, pg6-L7Chapter 6, pg6-77CommenterFederal WayFederal WayFederal Way
Response(Page numbers refer to the 20i 9 Plan)Thank you for your comment. Changes have beenmade to this section.CommentPlan would benefit from a chart showing the annual MSWconsumption by the WTE site over time, including showingbypass waste tonnage (that would not go to the WTE plantbut instead be exported by rail) at all phases of the lifespanof the WTE facility as proposed. ltwould also include a chartdepicting annual waste import, by-pass waste export andash export tonnages, as well as projected tip fee costs - atthe beginning of the waste import phase, during the wasteimport phase, and then the phase where the WTE facilityoperates at 4,000 ton per day capacity with system-generated MSW.How much will itcostto arrange for inbound rail ortruckcapacity to enable contracting for this required wasteimport? lt is unclear that other nearby MSW systemswould select disposal capacity that tapers off - unless it issomehow cheaper than their current system. The Planshould explain why an outside MSW agency or systemwould seek to enter into a contract for "waste import"into our system when Figure 6-9 shows waste export isless expensive than WTE. Clarify if the County isconsidering having ratepayers subsidize the import ofwaste from outside the system, and if this also includessubsidizing the disposal costs for that waste's ash, andhow much that subsidization would cost oursystem'sratepayers.The 2016 King County Comprehensive Plan (2016 Update)(King County 2OL6al does not explicitly endorse "massburn incineration" and instead supports looking atthepotential for energy recovery from "select solid wastematerials including organics, mixed plastics, and the non-recyclable portion of the waste stream". These optionscould be outlined in the "Technologies for Future"section of the Plan.The policy reads:Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 5, pg 6-19CommenterFederal Wayo-gaql5ooJ@@(o(r)t!o\oc\s-\^Bci\.:qs.Ns^\$5sAs$\R{ISlSt$oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcEo.qloo.T'f.-{No(l'!gl<loo)AtnI6w
mIoFResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo-sfq)Joo@@(o(,Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The tonnage forecasthas been updated and a conservative recycling rateof 52% is assumed throughout the Plan based onEcology's reported recycling rates from 2012through 2014.Thank you for your comment. Based on recentexperience, seven years may not be enough time tobe prepared, which is why it is important for arecommendation to be made in this Plan.Thank you for your comment.CommentF-27La King County should consider whetheropportunities to increase energy recovery from selectsolid waste materials including organics, mixed plastics,and the non-recyclable portion of the waste stream arebeneficial in terms of cost, the natural environment,greenhouse gas emissions and community impacts, aswell as whether any such energy recovery facilities mightbe more appropriately located outside King County.This is a lengthy chapter containing very importantinformation. lt is suggested that a summary be added thatclearly addresses the issue of what is the expected life ofthe Cedar Hills Landfill over the following periods and thekey assumptions (e.g., recycling rates) related to each.Current date throush 2028. lt is stated on page 6-5, "Withpermitted capacity at the predicted by to be used by2028," What assumption is used for the recycling rateSTYoor some other figure(s)?Current date throueh 2040. On page 6-9, it is stated "theadded capacity would be sufficient to handle forecasttonnage so that the landfill would continue to operate atleast through 2040. What assumption is used for therecycling rate57/o or some other figure(s)?See also comments related to Chapter 3,See comment above. A seven year time frame is sufficientfor planning the transition to waste export as a disposalmethod (in accordance with current KCCTitle 1O policy).Once adopted, this Plan could be amended to reflect anydifferent disposal alternative(s) selected via thestakeholder process.This phrase regarding cooperation with advisorycommittees is repeated twice, but it is not clear whenthis explicitly occurred, or if advisory committee inputwas fully considered in winnowing down options tothese three future disposal methods.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6, pg 6-5Chapter 5, pg 6-5Chapter 6, pg 6-5CommenterClyde HillFederal WayFederal WaycECL0)oCLT'._{No(l't!o\o$\'BR(\"eke'G3s.\sR-!:SAG\SYItuoOo!o)(cIo(l)5N
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes arecommendation to further develop Cedar Hills tomaximize disposal capacity.Commenth a departure from prior more collaborative and iterativeprocesses, the County engaged inthe Normandeau studywithout seeking substantive input and participation fromadvisory committees regarding the basis for the study, itscostand scope ofwork, orthe outcomes sought,Ultimately this regional system is most equitable whenCities and advisory groups are enlisted as partners who areempowered to provide input in a timely manner.Please add the text below regarding benefits ofconserving current permitted Cedar Hills capacity. Make itclear which practices (such as WRR) preserve landfillca pacity and provide va lue by delaying or avoidinginevita ble futu re costs."A comparative evaluation of alternative disposal options(R.W. Beck 2007) that are compatible with increasedrecycling and capable of handling King County's waste whilemeeting applicable regulations indicates that disposal atCedar Hills isthe most economical way to handle KingCounty's solid waste. lt is significantly less expensive thanthe projected costs of other disposal options, includingtransporting waste to an out- of-county landfill or to awaste-to-energy or other waste conversion facility.By extending the life of the landfill and delaying thetransition to a new disposal method, the county will beable to delay the unavoidable rate increases that will beneeded to accommodate this transition."This section of the Plan should make a brief but cleardistinction between the topic "current permitted capacityconseryation" before discussingthe steps and costsrequired to increase permitted capacity in the "FurtherDevelop Cedar Hills" discussion.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6, pg 6-6CommenterFederal Wayo-sa0tloo@@(oCDtu\oc\Nbssu6!4s*sN\ss\'AsNIS5t$eOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcECL0,oCLEf.-{No@!0tGIo(r)5otmIoTJ|
mIctOrResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made durint the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The suggested edithas been made.Provisions to ensure that WTE facilities receiveenough garbage usually are part of contracts foroperating WTE facilities. The arrangements if theregional system produces insufficient garbage forefficient WTE operation have not been identified.WTE costs, which were based on Normandeau 2017included the cost of ash export and export of MSWduring scheduled facility maintenance. lmport ofMSW from outside King County was not included inthe costs.CommentThe Plan should note that intermodal capacity couldbe shared, and that there is potential for cooperationamong neighboring Counties and Seattle that couldreduce rail costs or create other efficiencies of scale.Please explain what happens if the opposite occursand tons are lower than forecast. Typically a 'put orpay' cost structure applies to WTE facility economics,meaning if tonnage minimums are not met, penaltiesor payments are still assessed. lf factors like theeconomy or WRR efforts mean there is not enoughwaste coming into the WTE plant to cover the bondcosts and operation costs, or to operate at peakefficiency levels used inthis Plan's projections, whopays for this shortfall?Note that WTE operations require a steady supply ofMSW to maintain efficiency, and note that this is adrawback compared to disposal options that are morereadily scalable (e.g., changes to the total number of railcars that make up waste export trains is relativelybenien).This disposal option should include all costs associated withoperations. For example, the cost of transporting this ash andthe associated tipping fee, as well as how the potential issuesof waste export and even waste import (pertaining to railcapacity) still apply with the WTE option based on the initialcapacity target of4,0O0 tons per day. Provide an outline ofrelated infrastructure (including intermodal rail capacity)required plus how ash will be conveyed to a rail head alongwith any bypass or non-processable wastes. Please show howthe costs associated with these integral WTE operationshave been factored into this plan, in order to allow a morecomplete com parison among options.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberChapter 6, pg6-7Chapter 5, pg 6-9Chapter 6, pg 6-9CommenterFederal WayFederal WayFederal Wayo-efq)loo@@(oo)c!to.A}oCLT'f._{No@[oo\oc\6'\N-sE.hlsN\sAqi\$NI\'gNoOoT0lGIo(r)5A
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your commentThank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your review of the DraftComprehensive Solid Waste Management PlanCommentAdditional explanation should be added for how wasteswould be managed when WTE plant experiences mechanicalfailure or "down time", plus what the related costs are andhow they are factored into the price of this option, noting theassociated impacts scaled with the potential concerns raisedabout railcapacity related to waste export.We support these Policies with the ultimate goal being tonot have to expand the Cedar Hills Landfill. We do notsupport the expansion of the Cedar Hills Landfill as a stop-gap solution solely to delay the inevitable day that itscapacity is reached and simply defer the selection andimplementation of an alternative permanent waste handlingand disposal system.Consumers should continue to pay for the waste theygenerate and receive credit for the amount recycled and,thus, kept out of the waste stream. lncentives will continueto be important here.Woodinville supports recommended actions 1-f through 15-fon the topic of finance. Woodinville believes it is especiallyimportant to include sufficient funding for mitigation to citiesdirectly impacted by solid waste facilities pursuant to RCW35.58.080.Practicing "environmental economics" is key for our societyto establish a true and more equitable economic value ofwhat we consume. Whether it is the implementation of acarbon tax or creating markets for recycle, King County SolidWaste is a major engine towards implementing this concept,and we should utilize it to press forward.Keep costs as low as possibleThe Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(Commission) has completed its review of the costassessment questionnaire forthe draft ofthe King CountyComprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan),submitted Janurary 9, 2018.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 6, Policies D-1- D-4Chapter 7Chapter 7Chapter 7 -EnvironmentalEconomics P 7-1Chapter 7 - FinanceChapter 7 - GeneralCommenterGreater MapleValley UACGreater MapleValley UACWoodinvilleZero WasteVashonDano RustromWashingtonUtilities andTransportationCommissiono-o_='0)foo@@(o(ttuo\o$\N.sk(^a's*\$SSAsR<NISF[!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodc!tCL0,dCLIt..\tNo@!A}(cIoo)sOlmIo{
]nIg)oResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo450)fC)o@@(oo)cEo.0)oCLE=.-{No(l'No\o$Nojs-ekkF:5\NNA\eRYsISt$oOo!0t(ooo,5o,Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The change has beenmade.Thank you for your comment. The suggested edithas been made.Thank you for your comment. The suggested edithas been made.CommentThe cost assessment questionnaire in the Plan proposesthree tip fee increases at all King County transfer stationsduring the 2Ot7 -2O22Plan period. The tip fee increase in2017 has already been in effect for over a year, while theother two tip fee increases are projected to take effect in2019 and 2O22. As a result, there will be a rate impact toratepayers served by regulated solid waste collectioncompanies in King County in years 2019 and 2022. This isillustrated in the table shown on the following page. (seeoriginal letter)Staff has no further comment on the cost assessmentuestionnaire.ln Chapter 7,the Plan discusses the possibility of potentialchanges in the solid waste fee structure. The Plan shouldclearly articulate that the MSWMAC has a role inproviding input and feedback to the County whenchanges to the rate structure are contemplated.Additionally, additional clarification should be includedregarding what aspects ofthe rate structure could bechanged.Requested chonge (p.7-9):Add an explicitreference to MSWMAC'S role in providingfeedback to the County when changes to the ratestructure are contemploted qnd provide moredetail regarding the types of rate structurechanges thot may be considered.This was the conclusion of the 2007 Beck study, soconsider revising the text so it says that the preliminaryrecent study appears to reaffirm this conclusion. Thiswould avoid an impression that this is newly revealedor'preliminarv' information.Please add to this sentence:"...since it delays making the transition to other morecostly disposal options."Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 7, FeestructureChapter 7, pg7-LOChapter 7, pg7-8CommenterBellevueFederal WayFederal Way
o4lq)Joo@@(o(r)t!o\oS)tni\.Se'r^s'F:'^\qissAGSNIResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodS.st!QOoc!to.qtoCLo-{No(c)=!qtGIo(,5\|mIqrloResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Although the Plan would allow a future change, atthis time, the Division is not proposing to revise thefee structure. More discussion with our partnercities will need to take place before this changewould be possible.Thank you for your comment. We have added theseterms to the Common Terms section.CommentAt two meetings of MSWMAC this summer, Solid Waste staffdiscussed the possibility of revising the methodology for thecalculation of tipping fees by adding a new componentrelated to volume (in addition to a charge for weight ortonnage). lt is agreed that there is strong logical support forconsidering such a change since many of the costs incurredby Solid Waste are driven by volume (as opposed to weight)such as handling costs, transportation costs and mostimportantly landfill costs.However, there are significant drawbacks to this proposalincluding:1. lt is much more difficult to measure volume thantonnage accurately.2. fhe additional processingcould impactwaittimes, personnel requirements and requireadditional equipment.3. There may be "equity" issues due todifferences in degree of compacting. Forexample, commercial haulers may carryresidential waste that is partially compacted.Self-haulers waste in general is notcompacted.4. The billing process would become morecomplicated and potentially confusing to users(am I being double charged).Since these changes are not included in this section, are weto conclude that this proposal is off the table since it is notpractical?Common Terms p. xi: add several terms & their definitionssuch asbiosolids- organic matter recycled from sewage sludge,especially for use in agriculture, biochar- charcoal madefrom the slow burning of biomass in the absence of oxygenPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberChapter 7, PotentialChanges in the FeeStructure (page 7-9)Common Terms pg xiCommenterClyde HillZero WasteVashon
tnIlooResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodoo_5'q)foo@@(oCr)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The division will beworking with stakeholders to determine how toprovide more processing capacity for organics sothat odor concerns can be addressed.Thank you for your comment. The definitionincluded in the Plan is derived from KCC Title 1O andRCW 70.95.030.Thank you for your comment. Your suggested edithas been made.Commentand may be the key to solving many problems we humansface resulting from natural and induced changes in climate,urban and agricultural development, population growth,etc.,vector- organism that does not cause disease itself butwhich spreads infection by conveying pathogens from onehost to another, such as mosquitos and vermin.Finally, in the Draft SWMP, Alternative 3 of the SustainableMaterials Management indicates that it would expandrecycling to include curbside yard waste pickup to allresidences in King County, including those inunincorporated King County. The Agency supports that goalas it links to our goals to eliminate residential burning ofyard waste and brush to satisfo statutory requirements.However, our support for this goal does not alter ourstrong interest in seeking real improvement in the airquality impacts from organics recycling operations. Webelieve that we should be seeking a way to meet all of ourenvironmental obiectives.Definition of compost: We recommend updating thedefinition to match the new definition adopted by TheAmerican Association of Plant and Food Control Officials:Compost - is the product manufactured through thecontrolled oerobic, biological decomposition ofbiodegradable materiols. The product has undergonemesophilic ond thermophilic temperatures, whichsignificantly reduces the viability of pathogens and weedseeds, ond stobilizes the corbon such that it is beneficial toplant growth. Compost is typicaily used as a soilomendment, but may also contribute plont nutrients.Definition of leachate: We recommend that the definition ofleachate be clarified to indicate that the water percolatingthrough the landfill has the ability to pick up contaminants.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberComposting/ AirqualityDefinitionDefinitionCommenterPuget SoundClean AirAgencyZero Waste WAZero Waste WAcE'CL0toop=..\|No(ot$o\oc\\\Cds.k.!r:s\ss\Ri!:S^SRsIR'a*[joOa!0,<lo(t5@
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Commentlmpact Bioenergy is based in King County and is a well-recognized international leader in small prefabricatedportable food waste anaerobic digestion (AD)technology. The company was awarded a Washington StateClean Energy Fund Grant to build and operate a merchantcommercial food waste AD facility on Vashon lsland. Ourprivate enterprise business model relies on three valuestreams to finance and sustain operations: a tip fee fororganic waste recycling, the sale of renewable energy, andthe sale of probiotic plant food derived from digested foodwaste.We are at great risk in this endeavor if we cannot secure atip fee at a minimum equivalent to the present MSW tip feeat the County Transfer Stations.Decentralizing has the advantages of less trucking, lessdiesel fuel use, less traffic congestion, less odor issues atoutdoor composting facilities, more building of a sense ofcommunity, and diversifying the number of organicfertilizers and soil projects made from recycled organics. Yetdecentralizing has less economy of scale.We encourage and request King County to:. Continue supporting demonstration projectsfocused on source separated organics with financialgrantsr lncrease the budget for demonstration, research,and market development grantsr lmplement a transfer station rate for clean sourceseparated organics. lmplement a location in each transfer station fortransferring clean source separated organics. lmplement a policy to the County to divert both tonsand the associated tip fee for those tons to privatePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberGeneralCommenterlmpactBioenergy (JanAllen)o-gJq,fooA@o(o(.)t!o\o$\€\s.et.Ni4N=5\!N'As\SNI\'t!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcItCL0loCLo=.-\|No(c'Tql(cIoo)5(ontIrO
mIloNResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodosJ9l5oo@@(oo)cItCLa)oo.E=.-{No(ot!ooNd\.3.ht"s,\5\s!NANaNISsNoOo1lot(cIo(,(,roResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. SWD looks forward toworking with the Roads Services Division in futureprojects, as well as coordinating in on-goingbusiness.Commentasector demonstrations on a case-by-case pilotbasis. For example, on Vashon lsland where theState has already invested in an innovativedemonstration.lnstitute a competitive process for private sectorcompanies to process clean source separatedorganics. Selection should be based on price as wellas food system benefits, local community benefits,and reduced carbon footprint.Coordinate King County's LOOP program with a newKing County Urban Organics Circular Economyprogram with similar objectives andmessaging. These programs are synergistic andcompatible.Consider a mobile store for the sale of King Countyorigin recycled-content productsConsider a kiosk or popup point of sale at transferstations at non-peak periods for the sale of KingCounty origin recycled-content products.aaaKing County Road Services appreciates the opportunity toreview the draft Comprehensive Solid Waste ManagementPlan and ElS. We are very interested in ongoingcoordination and collaboration between Roads and the SolidWaste Division on issues that may affect unincorporatedKing County roads and bridges, including the following:r SitinB of transfer stations or other facilities. Traffic volume and vehicle weight information, which arekey for understanding and quantifying impacts onunincorporated area roads and bridges. Weight informationis especially critical for aging bridges on certainroads/bridges.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberGeneralCommenterKing CountyRoad Services
o4fq,=oo@@(oo)\oo\oc\o-:l\t\$.D(^o's-\5\sANs!i:!ISst!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2Ot8 public comment periodcT'CLooCLItf.-{No(o!0)(oo(,(tlmIlowResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan includesrecommendations to build a new northeast recyclingand transfer station and to further develop CedarHills to maximize disposal capacity.Comment. Rail transport, including impacts of waste export onunincorporated area roads between transfer stations andrail facilities. Continued collaboration on lllegal dumping issues inunincorporated King Countv road right of wavsAs the Plan's intent is to establish "strategies formanaging King County's solid waste over the next 6years, with consideration of the next 20 years," it iscritical that the Plan reflect the interests of thecommunities within the County's solid waste system. Aspreviously communicated in its November 3,20L7comment letter on the preliminary draft Plan, Bellevue'skey solid waste interests are generally reflected inlegislative actions taken by the King County Council inOctober 2017. The Plan should accurately reflect theserecent actions.Specifically, on October LO,2OL7, the King CountyCouncil took legislative actions that 1) cancelled demandmanagemen! 2) committed the County to planning forneeded northeast King County transfer station capacityoutside of Bellevue; and 3) established that there wouldbe no further expansion of the Factoria Transfer Stationand committed to the timely surplus of the upperEastgate Way property.On October 30,z0tl , Bellevue signed the Amended andRestated Solid Waste lnterlocal Agreement (lLA) with KineCounty. Bellevue signed the ILA with the expectation thatKing County fulfill its duties as prescribed in these recentlegislative actions and look to serye the county's futuresolid waste demands through financially prudent andgeographically equitable strategies. Bellevue is concernedthat the Plan as drafted falls short of these expectations,Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneralCommenterBellevue
mIto5Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodoa)o)foo@@(o(r)cE'CL!)oCLIt=-{No(oNo\oc\\bds.ebF\5\sAsNNISFt!oOo!q,(cIo(r)OlNResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your commentThank you for your comment. The Plan includesrecommendations to build a new northeast recyclingand transfer station and to further develop CedarHills to maximize disposal capacity.Commentparticularly as the Plan fails to identify preferredalternatives for future transfer capacity and future disposalcapacity.As currently drafted, the Plan leaves significantuncertainty regarding which options will be selected formeeting future transfer and disposal capacity needs.Without knowing the selected alternatives, Bellevuecannot endorse the Plan. Additionally, the Plan shouldclearly state the member jurisdiction role in rateplanning.Regarding the on-line survey accessed viakingcou nty. govldepts/d n rplsolid-waste/about/planni ng/comp-plan.aspx. We appreciatethe accessibility of this survey to foster general publicinput. However, its survey results are anecdotal and notstatistically valid, so results should not be reported orused in ways that improperly influence the overallplanning process and the Comp Plan recommendations.As a participant inthe King County solid waste system andhost city to the Houghton Transfer Station for over 50years, the City of Kirkland b acutely interested in ensuringthat the draft recommendationt policies, goals, andactions included in the Plan both individually andcollectively contribute toward making future transfer anddisposal services accessible, affordable, equitable, andsustainable and are supportive of the region's diversionand waste prevention aspirations. As the Plan will be theroadmap for the future of our solid waste system, wewould liketo express our desire that the King CountyExecutive make final recommendations on bothtransfersystem alternatives and disposal alternatives in the Plantransmitted to the King County Council. We stronglyencourage that the recommendations are succinct, freeof ambiguities, and reflective of, and directV derivedPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberGeneralGeneralCommenterFederal WayKirkland
o4l!t=oo@@(oo)tuo\oc\s-\\ds.e'r^o'ss\$SsAG\sISN)oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment peraodcItCL0)6'CLEl:No(o'oot(cIo(,(rl(r)tnIl0UrResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comments.Unlike the last adopted Comp Plan, this Planincludes a new chapter, Chapter 2 The Existing SolidWaste System. This chapter discusses how the entiresystem works together while later chapters focus onspecific parts of the system such as sustainablematerials ma nagement, transfer, and disposal.King County returns the valuable nutrients andcarbon from biosolids - a nutrient-rich organicproduct of wastewater treatment - to the land as asoil conditioner for agriculture and forestry. Aportion of the biosolids are also composted by aprivate company and sold as compost for use inlandscaping and gardening. These approachescontribute to sustainability by using biosolids toenrich soils, keeping them productive and healthy.The regional system relies on public and privateparticipants, with private collection and processingcompanies responsible for ensuring that recyclablematerials are reused under their contracts with thecities and county. For example, the division'scontract for processing of recyclables from countytransfer stations states "The Contractor shall ensurethat all of the recyclable materials collected fromSWD sites are recycled per King County Code [KCC10.04.020 DDDDI, which specifies that recycling ofmaterials includes transforming, remanufacturing,reprocessing, composting or re-refining materialsinto usable or marketable products, and marketingor distributine those products or commodities forCommentfrom, information and empirical data presented inthePlan and from comments received from cities and thepublic.This letter and the attached marked u p copy of the DraftComprehensive Plan constitute my official comments. Thefinal report should be integrated and not siloed. The itemsthat cannot be recycled should be put in a modern wasteto energy plant so they are recycled in that manner,produce power and dispose of the matter so it is not leftfor future generations to deal with.There should be a sustainability model wherein biosolidsare also used as fuel. There are toxins and pharmaceuticalsin biosolids. The impact of the combinations of all thesechemicals is unknown and leaves our land with potentialfor contamination. The European Union does not allowlands application of biosolids. We need to follow theirexample.The lifecycle of our recycled products should bedocumented. When we ship some recycled products toChina and other places we have no idea how they arebeing reused ordisposed of. lt is not true recycling if wedon't know the outcome of the materials.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberGeneralGeneralGeneralCommenterKathy LambertKathy LambertKathy Lambert
mI\ooResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodoa5'9)foo@@(o(r)cItCLqtdo..E,:-\|No(atNo\oc\o's\}d\.sg.s*5\ssAGs:r(R'5looOoIt0t(cIo(,(,l5Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)use other than landfill, incineration, stockpiling, oras a fuel..."The regional approach to separation of curbsiderecyclables has evolved. Some materials werecollected in separate bins when local recyclingprograms first began. Since the early 2000s curbsiderecyclables have been collected in one bin and theco-mingled recyclables brought to Material RecoveryFacilities to be sorted, baled, and sold to be madeinto new products. The one-bin approach greatlyincreased the regional recycling rate but it relies oncustomers making the right choices about placing intheir blue bin only materials accepted by theirjurisdiction's recycling program that are empty,clean, and dry. The division and its advisorycommittees have convened a Responsible RecyclingTask Force to explore reducing contaminationthrough more recycling consistency amongjurisdictions, and customer reminders aboutrecvclins best practices, and other means.Various choices regarding the size of a waste toenergy plant were offered in the Normandeau 2017report. Given the lengthy siting and constructionprocess and need for disposal certainty over areasonable time period, the waste to energy optionassumed a facility that can handle county tons for atleast 20 years before reaching capacity, after whichan additional waste to energy plant or other disposaloption would be needed. Twenty years also is moreconsistent with the plan's planning horizon andallows comparison of the three disposal options overroughlv the same time period.The Further Develop Cedar Hills option wouldincrease the landfill height 30 feet over the currentlypermitted height. The cost of increased height isCommentThe new announcement by China that they are not goingto use as much or potentially any of our recycled productscould have an impact on our recycling rate and potentiallyincrease the materials that will go into our landfill. One oftheir- concerns is that our separation methods allows forcontamination of the materials. I have seen very differentsorting methods in Germany and Denmark, whichproduces a cleaner product to be on the market andcompete with our recyclables.Many of the suppositions given in this draft report needto be reconsidered. For instance the tonnage capacity of awaste to energy plant does not need to be built at thebeginning for anticipated tonnage overthe next 20 years.We have no way of knowing what changes will happen inpackaging, regulations, recycling, reuse, etc. So building somuch extra capacity is not necessary. We should modelafter waste to energy plants in Florida and Hamburg. Theyprovide us with a clear, documented data system that issustainable and we can measure the environmentalimpacts in a much more accurate and efficient waythanlandfills.Our landfill is quickly filling up. Going up another 50 feetwill have impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods andon costs.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneralGeneralGeneralCommenterKathy LambertKathy LambertKathy Lambert
o4foJoo@@(o(l)No\oS)s\ile'g"Ns(ss:totGN*trNISst!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLg public comment periodcECL0loCL.Etl.\|No(o!!t(oo(r,gr(,llltI€{Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)included in the costs for the Further Develop CedarHills option.Capital and operating costs for the disposal optionsin Chapter 6 of the public review draft Comp Plan(January 2018) are presented as single numbers foreach option instead of ranges. Costs for the FurtherDevelop Cedar Hills options were estimated by thedivision. Costs for the waste to energy option weretaken from the Normandeau2OtT report thatpresented credible waste to energy costs drawing onrecent information and the consultant's many yearsof experience with waste to energy facilities.Chapter 6 Table 6-2 shows the waste export disposaloption to be more expensive than further developCedar Hills option but less expensive than the wasteto energy option. Page 6-10 ofthe public reviewdraft plan notes potential capacity constraintsidentified by the Washington State Department ofTransportation and Normandeau 2017.Under Washington State Special lncinerator AshStandards (Chapter 173-306 WAC) ash must bedisposed separately from municipal solid waste in aspecial ash monofill. Although standards couldchange in the future, waste to energy ash is notcurrently approved in Washington for other usessuch as roadbed material. Because Cedar Hills ispermitted as a municipal solid waste landfill, theengineering, permitting, and financial feasibility ofbuilding an ash monofill on the site would needfurther evaluation. The public review draft planassumed that the ash would be exported to anexistins out of counW ash monofill.The plan recognizes that more metals could berecycled with the waste to energy option. Thepotentialto increase recycling by as much as twoCommentThe comparison numbers for a new cell have a range thatis stated at its lowest number while the comparison of awaste to energy plant is compared at its highest pricerange.Taking the materials by rail is an expensive and uncertainoption. We already know there are times when the railsare over capacity and we have no control over the longterm costs. A waste to energy plant contains the materialsand disposes of most of the matter here and providescertainty and predictability.lf we built a waste to energy plant now, it would allow usto use our current capacity to accept the fly ash until wecan update our codes to be in line with Europeanstandards and science to declare it inert. Flyash is alsoneeded in cement and there would be a market for it. lnaddition, our bottom ash could be used for roadconstrudicn Our 1,500 miles of roads are in need of repairand in places reconstruction. Havirgthis readily availableproduct for road bed would be another asset.The metals would be recycled, which would help ourenvironment too.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneralGeneralGeneralGeneralCommenterKathy LambertKathy LambertKathy LambertKathy Lambert
mtro6Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo-o_5'0t=ooI@@(o(.)cECLq)do.T'=-{No@t!o\oc\o-\-$RilFkQ.Pis-\p\GS,sAS:sNisISsl!oOo!o)(cIo(,)cno)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)percent by recovering metals from waste to energyash is shown on Page 6-9 and Table 6-2 in the publicreview draft plan.Unlike the last adopted Comp Plan, this Planincludes a new chapter, Chapter 2 The Existing SolidWaste System. This chapter discusses how the entiresystem works together while later chapters focus onspecific parts ofthe system such as sustainablematerials management, transfer, and disposal.The regional system relies on public and privateparticipants, with private collection and processingcompanies responsible for ensuring that recyclablematerials are reused under their contracts with thecities and county. For example, the division'scontract for processing of recyclables from countytransfer stations states "The Contractor shall ensurethat all of the recyclable materials collected fromSWD sites are recycled per King County Code [KCC10.04.020 DDDDI, which specifies that recycling ofmaterials includes transforming, remanufacturing,reprocessing, composting or re-refining materialsinto usable or marketable products, and marketingor distributing those products or commodities foruse other than landfill, incineration, stockpiling, oras a fuel..."Maximizing recycling and diverting materials fromthe landfill are discussed in Chapter 4 SustainableMaterials Management. Technologies that couldrecover resources and further divert materials fromthe landfill are discussed in Chapter 6 LandfillManagement and Solid Waste Disposal.CommentAs we go fonruard we need to see how we can integrateour system and use these materials for power, for 'sale toother industries such as the cement industry and metals forreuse. There are many byproducts that are sold from theHamburg facility. Science continues to develop new ways touse these bvproducts and offset our costs.To summarize, I am requesting the following overallchanges, in addition to the detail changes in my marked upd raft:r Comprehensive, system wide information that isintegrated (not siloed) so the reader understandsboth the different system segments AND how theyfunction as a system.lnformation on the lifecycle of recycled products.Discussion of available system improvements ortechnological advancements that can maximizerecycling and minimize landfill use (includingwaste to energy, byproduct sale to industry, etc.)aPublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneralGeneralGeneralCommenterKathy LambertKathy LambertKathy Lambert
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Discussion of China's recent restriction on import ofrecyclable materials (sometimes called the ChinaNational Sword policy) has been added Chapter 4.References used in developing the plan are listed inChapter 8.Cost offsets (including revenues from sale ofrecyclable materials and electricity) identified in theNormandeau 2017 report were included in thewaste to energy cost estimates shown in the publicreview draft plan.The marked up document referenced in the letterwas the Draft Environmental lmpact Statement forthe Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste ManagementPlan. Because the mark-ups do not directly addressthe text in the public review draft plan, the detailedresponses to the marked-up document are shown inthe Responsiveness Summary for the FinalEnvironmental lmpact Statement.Thank you for your comment.CommentaAnalysis of global markets and foreign actors andhow their decisions could impact local recyclingrates, system capacitv, and landfill use.aAn appendix of source materials for all conclusionsmade or assumptions used to reach a conclusion.ln the repo(, they did not consider many of the knowncost offsets in a waste to energy facility. There are avariety of statements in the report that are incomplete ordebatable.ln addition to this letter, the attached document providesmy in-depth comments through a marked up version ofthe Draft Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.ln order to provide King County and its Citizens with themost economic and environmentally viable options, thefollowing corrective actions need to be taken:Stop the finalization of the Current Draft Solid WasteManagement Plan and Draft Environmental lmpactStatemenUConduct a detailed Feasibility Study by a Team of qualifiednational and international experts;Move forward with and lntegrated System that reduces itsGlobal Warming Effect and moves our waste system from aliability to an asseqEngage proven technologies and systems that create localjobs;Reduce the overall environmental impact, provideinnovative mitigation measures, and contribute to a circulareconomy;Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberGeneralGeneralGeneralGeneralGeneralCommenterKathy LambertKathy LambertKathy LambertKathy LambertMeghanBrooklero4Jq)=oo@@(oq)t!o\oc\\*.qi$"8'as'F:s\*5N'Ad\sR<IFt!oOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodcT'CL0)oo.Ef.-{No(o'0AI(.Io(r)gl\|mIlgtO
t'lIooResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo-g:tqt=oo@@(oo)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2O19 Plan)Thank you for your comment.Thank you for your comment.CommentHandle, process and utilize the waste where it is produced:locally;lnclude wastewater residuals and biosolids (sewage) in thesolid waste treatment program. Proven thermal treatmenttechnology is the most effective way to destroying the toxicscontained in biosolids/sewage such as flame retardants,heavy metals, dioxins and furans etc.;lnclude Anaerobic Digestion for the 50% biogenic content.ln summary, the Solid Waste Department did not accuratelyincorporate the potential and viable options that have beenrecently studied nor did it provide economic- environmentalviable solutions. Waste-to-Energy, Anaerobic Digestion andan overall lntegrated Resource Management Plan are viableoptions for King County but were misrepresented in theDEIS. Based on the studies, these options will provide morebenefits, environmentally sound technologies thatadequately destroy the toxic organic components containedin the waste and biosolids, while reducing the impact of airand ground pollution compared to landfilling.The DEIS is not thorough, is technically inaccurate, and notlegally defensible due to the poorly written Draft SolidWaste Management Plan. Both the DSWMP and DEIS needto be stopped and comprehensively rewritten. The newplans need to be prepared based on viable, crediblescientific facts and complete documents.Zero Waste Washington appreciates the opportunity tocomment on King County's draft Comprehensive Solid WosteMonagement P/on update, dated January 2018. The plan isan important document guiding management of ourgarbage and recycling for the next six years in detail and 20years generally. Zero Waste Washington is a nonprofit groupthat represents the public on recycling and zero wasteissues. We work to protect people and our natural world byadvocatins for oroducts designed and oroduced to bePublic ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneralGeneralCommenterMeghanBrooklerZero Waste WAcT'clqldCLEl.\tNo(o[oo\oos\*.cds,kQ.b>5\$s:!ARJN!V\IR'N)oOo-It0lGIoq)(,o
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Commenthealthy, safe, and continually recycled and reused. Weenvision a just and sustainable world where societyresponsibly produces, consumes and recycles.We applaud the overall approach and the waste preventionhierarchy. We are concerned, however, that the recyclingrate has plateaued. We would like to see much strongerpolicies and actions in the plan to stimulate increasing therecycling rate (even though there is a challenge with theChina Sword initiative at the moment).The CSWMP presents a very detailed analysis of the recentstatus, challenges, and proposes several alternatives forfuture development and how King County deals with solidwaste, recycling, and related issues. The main challengecenters around the Cedar Hills Landfill Facility capacity andprojected life based on estimated waste volumes in thecoming decades.ZWV is proposing that King County prioritize a de-centralizedwaste management approach which uses an integratedRegional - Distributed system. ln order to reduce wastegoing to the central landfill, ZWV recommends that KingCounty improve and expand the existing waste disposal /recycling infrastructure to increase local recycling rates,divert more organic materials to existing and newdistributed local composting and anaerobic digestionsystems, and greatly expanding waste diversion approachessuch as ReUse facilities. lncreasing the number andaccessibility of local facilities will decrease overall wastetransportation costs, road congestion and wear, greenhousegas production and waste volumes needing disposal at theCedar Hills Landfill.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneralCommenterZero WasteVashono4aorloo@@(oo)t$o\os,:l\}\6s.e's-s6RN'A$sN\Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodS,qtuocT'CLAIdCLE._!No(o!nGIo(,t(tl(olllT(t
mToNResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment periodo4)q,=oo@@(ou)Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comments.SWD continually looks for ways to improve recycling.Food waste collection has been provided at theVashon Recycling and Transfer Station since 2016.Other materials are evaluated as spaceconfigurations can be identified that are safe andallow for efficient vehicle movement.SWD agrees that an on-lsland processing facilitywould be ideal. Cost and space are constraints aswell as little assurance that should such a facility bedeveloped that residents will pay to keep it viable.SWD plans to study the feasibility of options tomanage organics generated on VashonCommentVashon & Maury lsland with its mix of neighborhoods,farms, and rural areas, presents an ideai location for newdistributed aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion (AD), orRe-Use facilities for application elsewhere in King Countyand the region.ZWV strongly support CSWMP policies that positively affectthe following:r lncreased Recycling Rates on Vashon : the newcommingled blue bin for curbside collection hasbeen a positive step forward for the lslandcommunity, however a majority of lslanders still"self-haul" their garbage and recycling to theVashon Recycling & Transfer Station. lmprovementsat the Transfer Station are needed to facilitateeasier recycling and separation of garbage andrecycling by self-haulers.. lmproved Services at the Vashon Recycling &Transfer Station including : Food Waste Collection,Construction and Demolition Debris collection,Clean Wood Recycling, Electronics Recycling, Re-UseSite for collection of reusable construction materials(windows, doors, lumber, lighting fixtures, plumbinghardware,...)o A KCSW funded feasibility study to evaluate anddesign an lsland Compost Facility to handle bothYard Waste and Food Waste. Currently Vashonlsland only recycles Yard Waste brought to theTransfer Station by self-haulers. This material iscollected and then transported off island to theCedar Grove Compost facility in East King County. Anon island facility would be more economical andeffective for Aerobic Composting of lsland Yard &Food Waste.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberCommentercECL!)oCL'E=.-{No(otso\oc\o'\bS-sks'ss5\G\NA;lN*st!eOQ!ql(oo(,d,o
Response(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)SWD periodically evaluates whether curbside foodwaste service would be used by customers.Thank you for your comment.CommentaCurbside Collection of Organics (Yard & Food Waste): As a potential future option to supplement currentYard Waste recycling at the Transfer Station, ZWVstrongly recommends the study and evaluation of anOrganics collection program to increase Yard / FoodWaste recycling and supplement the feedstock forthe proposed lsland Compost Facility.Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment onKing County's Draft Solid Waste Management Plan.Seattle-Tacoma Airport (SEA), owned and operated bythePort of Seattle, and located inthe City of Seatac (City),provides airport facilities and services to meet theregion's commercial and air cargo transportation needs.SEA isthe primary commercial generator of municipalsolid waste operating in the City and per WUTCregulations, relies exclusively on City contracted solidwaste services that use King County's Bow Lake SolidWaste Transfer Station.To date, City and County solid waste services have servedSEA with consistent, reliable, and responsive solid wastecollection and disposal services. We appreciate collectiveefforts of City and County staffand applaud yourprogressive stance on Waste minimization as evidenced inthis plan. SEA supports King County's proposed TOYowastediversion goal,which aligns closely with our own goal(60%). SEA also recognizes that achieving our wastediversion goal requires robust secondary material markets,access to material recovery services, and collaborationwith Municipal and Regional partners. ln light of thosedependencies, SEA offers the following comments andwelcomes future discussions regarding potentialpartnerships, pilot studies, or supportive efforts.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneralCommenterSeattle-TacomalnternationalAirport (Port ofSeattle)o4f0,Joo@@(o(r)t!o\oos\sNN'bF:FFRx-s\:lNISqtuoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OL8 public comment periodc1'o.0toCLE':.{No(o!0,GIo(,)o)mIow
FtIoDResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8,2OLg public comment periodoa='0)Joo@@(oo)c€CL0,oCLItf._{No(l'\!o\oc\s'N'sdtn\Q.t4$5\sSN'AssFSISt!oOoT!,(ooo)o,NResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)Thank you for your comment. The Plan is organizedwith a reference to the page number wherebackground discussion of the action can be found.Thank you for your comment. The division has sentthese comments to Lynda Ransley, LWHMP ProgramDirector.CommentWhile the plan includes a great deal of informative narrative,the connection of description to Actions is unclear and alittle confusing. lt would be much easier to digest, as a policydocument, if the text that describes each action could beplaced below each action.The City of Kirkland appreciates the work the Local HazardousWaste Management Program (LHWMP) has done to reducethe impacts of moderate risk hazardous wastes on ourenvironment through providing our residents and businesseswith a reliable, safe, and responsible disposal option througha permanent drop-off location at the new Factoria TransferStation and through periodic Wastemobile visits to thenortheast County.ln February, through the Sound Cities Association, theKirkland City Council and staff were made aware of andsurprised by a proposed 50.4% increase in the LHWMP feeschedule charged via a flat fee to our residents and variablyto businesses based upon their service levels. As proposed,the fee increase would take effect in 2019 and beimplemented incrementally over a six year period. Theproposed increase also adds to the per-ton fees charged toprivate and commercial haulers at all transfer stations whichhas a direct impact on the rates cities charge to theircustomers.We have serious concerns about the general lack ofcommunication and transparency on the part of LHWMP toits cities with solid waste interlocal agreements concerningthe fee increase and the apparent lack of any tangible ormeaningful improvement in services provided to ourratepayers in NE King County. The City of Kirkland stronglyencourages the KCSWD and LHWMP to regroup and considera less expensive, shorterterm rate proposal that runsconcurrent with the two-year King County biennial budget.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paqe NumberGeneral - FormatGeneral - LHWMPCommenterZero Waste WAKirkland
o4:t0,foo@@(oG't!o\oc\\ta\ttsaN.o'trs\GsAsRS.tuoOoResponsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 - March 8, 2018 public comment period!qt(cIo(,o)(,)cECLA}oCLE-{No(omIourResponse(Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan)The division has sent these comments to LyndaRansley, LHWMP Program Director.Thank you for your comment. Although the divisionhas completed many studies, we tried to cite themore recent studies in this Plan.CommentWe also ask that the County reassess the governancestructure of the program to ensure that the 39 cities servedby the program are better represented on the ManagementCoordination Committee (MCC) where rate proposals arevoted on and recommended to the King County Board ofHealth for approval.Finally, we request that LHWMP provide a more detailedaccounting of its proposed budget, cost drivers, and serviceimprovements included in its proposed increase and do sothrough a robust public communication and engagementprocess well in advance of final consideration and adoptionof the new fee schedule.Site more references please, tying in previous work/vettedreports already done. An example is the compost feasibilitystudv conducted bv KCSW (in 2006?) should be noted.Public ReviewDraft Chapter &Paoe NumberGeneral - LHWMPREFERENCES (8)CommenterKirklandZero WasteVashon
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Appendix F
Descriptions of
Disposal Options
Considered
Att A Page 364
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Options Considered for King County's Next Disposal Method
The division used information on waste disposal options from the Conversion Technology Report (R.W. Beck
2007), the Woste-to-Energy Study (Normondeau 2077), and an updated Cedar Hills Site Development Alternotives
Final Report (KCSWD 2OL7al to identify three options to meet the county's disposal needs after currently
permitted capacity at Cedar Hills is used. A long-term disposal method was selected from the following three
options:
o Further develop Cedar Hills,
o Waste Export, and
r Waste to Energy (Mass Burn) Facility
This option would further develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity, extending the county's 50-year
practice of managing its waste locally. To account for emerging technologies, the next disposal method would
not be specified, but criteria would be established for selecting the next disposal method. This option is
consistent with county policy to maximize the life of the Cedar Hills landfill. The Conversion Technology Report
(R.W. Beck 2007) and more recent division analysis concluded that Cedar Hills disposal is the most economical
way to handle King County's waste. Other advantages include the division's experience in landfill operation,
availability of space in a county-owned landfill with state of the art environmental controls, and collection of
landfill gas to produce renewable energy. Challenges with this option include obtaining new or modified
permits to authorize further development, relocating buildings to make room for refuse, and continuing to
be good neighbors for the surrounding community.
Features used in the re-evaluation of this option include:
o New landfill cells would be developed at the Cedar Hills landfill,o The permit and the landfill would be modified to increase the height of the landfill from approximately 800 feet to
830 feet to the extent that such modification would be consistent with the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement, which requires King County to make a good faith effort to keep the maximum
height of areas 5, 5, and 7 of the Landfill at or below 788 feet above sea level,
r Division facilities currently located in areas permitted for refuse disposal would be moved,r High-efficiency collection systems would continue to deliver landfill gas to the Bio-Energy Washington facility,
resulting in pipeline-quality natural gas, revenue for the division, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
o The added capacity would be sufficient to handle the forecast tonnage, maximizing disposal capacity at the
landfill,
e Consistent with long-standing practice, new development would be financed through rate revenues managed in
the landfill reserve fund,
r As Cedar Hills reaches capacity, previously described evaluation criteria would be used to select the next disposal
method, and
o A new disposal method would need to be ready for service when the new capacity at Cedar Hills is exhausted.
Further Develop Cedar Hills
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jul1 zotS
Att A Page 365
F-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Waste Export
This option would export waste to an out-of-county landfill after currently permitted capacity at Cedar Hills is
used in 2028. Current county policy establishes export to an out-of-county landfill as the choice for disposal after
closure of the Cedar Hills landfill. Waste export by rail is a proven disposal option used by neighboring
jurisdictions, including the City of Seattle and Snohomish County. There are several regional landfills available by
rail with combined capacity sufficient to handle the county's waste in the long term. (Table 5-1XKCSWD 2OI7cl.
This option would transfer a significant portion of the County's waste management activities into the private
sector for long haul and landfilling. Challenges include modifying transfer stations for rail-ready transport, cost,
lead time needed for contracting and division operational changes, and potential rail service disruptions that
might arise from rail capacity constraints and weather events.
Features of this option include:
r The county would enter into a contract to export waste after current permitted capacity at Cedar Hills is
used by 2028,
o Waste would be exported to a yet-to-be determined out-of-county landfill,
o The out-of-county landfill would produce energy from landfill gas using an efficient collection system,
o The county would negotiate revenue sharing or energy credits with the out-of-county landfill for the
county's share of waste that produces landfill gas that is then harvested for energy,
o Waste would be transported to the out-of-county landfill by rail, the preferred transport mode, based on
travel time, equipment requirements, payload, and capital costs (KCSWD 2OL7cl,
o The division would buy container-ready trailers to transport rented rail-ready containers from transfer
stations to a rail intermodal facility,
o The division would modifo its transfer stations so that municipal solid waste can be loaded into railroad
shipping containers, and
o The division would contract for an intermodal facility to transfer containers from trucks to rail.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Ju$ zo8F-2
Att A Page 366
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Toble 6-1. Potentiol locations for out-of-county londfill disposol
a Co-generation facility captures waste heat from burni ng landfill gas i n gas turbi nes, and uses it to make steam to generate more power in a steam turbi ne.
The water used to produce steam is continual ly cooled, condensed a nd reused The co-generation facility ca ptures waste heat from the gas-to-electricity
pla ntfor use by anadjacent property owner.
b Finley Buttes has the potential to expand to a permitted capacity of400 million tons.
c Simco Road Regional La ndfill is currently expanding to a permitted ca pacity of 420 million tons.
1. Columbia
RidgeLandfill
and Recycling
Center
Gilliam
County,
OR
Waste
Management
325
12.8 MW gas-
to-electricity;
plasma gasification
demonstration plant
354,275,000 329,000,0001 1990 2150+
2. Roosevelt
Regional Landfill
Klickitat
Coung,
WA
Allied Waste
lndustries
dba Regional
Disposal Co.
330
20MWgas-to-
electricity co-
generation facility',
244,500,000 120,000,000{'1990 2LL0+
3. FinleyButtes
RegionalLandfill
Monow
County,
OR
Waste
Connections 352
4.6MWgasto-
electricity; co-
genention facility.
158,900,000b 131,000,000r 1990 2250+
4. SimcoRoad
Elmore
County, lD
ldahoWaste
Systems
628 210,000,0m'200,000,000 2000 2100+
5. Greater
Wenatchee
Regional Landfill
Douglas
County, Wl
Waste
Management 157
Planned gas-to-
electricity, initially
1.6 MW expanding to
3.2 MW
42,000,000 36,000,000 1960 2LLO+
EotrutIo
to
t^o
3
Ha8
.= 'E f'
E sH
Eoo,iE
g$
t a^EE.O9
EEge
Es,
i!5
€€
UJ
co
Gu
3
u!c
FIE:ioa>o
otr
3o
=oTttrcl!$Z
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste PIan -zotS
Att A Page 367
F-3
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 't7, 2019
Waste to Energy Facility
Under this option, current permitted capacity at Cedar Hills would be exhausted in 2028 and then all of the
region's municipal solid waste would be directed to a waste to energy facility built in King County. As discussed
previously, a recent study identified a mass burn facility as the best waste to energy technology for consideration
by King County (Normandeau 2017).
This option would reduce waste 90 percent by volume and 75 percent by weight, while offsetting some costs
through sale of electricity and increasing recycling by as much as two percent. Challenges include facility siting,
cost, providing guaranteed amounts offeedstock, having unused capacity at the beginning ofthe operating period
with potential inefficient operation during periods when less capacity is used, possible shutdowns due to waste
deliveries below the system's requirements, rail capacity constraints for ash and bypass waste export, and other
factors.
Features of this option include:
r For the first 20 years of operation (2028-2048), the facility would be designed to minimize waste that
bypasses the facility because it is too bulky or exceeds facility capacity, resulting in a 5,000 tons-per-day
plant built on a 4O-acre site with five lines that could handle 1,000 tons per day each,
o To handle forecast tons, additional capacity would be required beyond 2048, or sooner if the actual
tonnage increases faster than forecast,
r The mass burn facility would include a tipping floor, pre-incineration screening of non-processable
materials at transfer stations, an infeed hopper, combustion chamber, ash collection, metals recovery,
and emissions scrubbing systems that use activated carbon and selective catalytic reduction
technologies to keep dioxin and other potential emissions below permit limits,
r The facility would burn municipal solid waste to produce steam, which turns an electrical turbine to
create electricity. Washington State does not currently consider electricity from a mass burn facility as
renewable,
o The ash produced as a by-product of the process would be screened to recover all remaining metal
for recycling,
o After screening, ash would be transported to an out-of-county landfill where it would be buried
separate from the municipal solid waste in an ash monofill. Various groups are researching beneficial
use of incinerator ash; however, in Washington State the ash must be disposed in an ash monofill, and
. Non-processable and bypass waste would be transported to an out-of-county landfill.
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zodF-4
Att A Page 368
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Is
Waste-to-Energy in King County and the United States
ln the late 1980s, both King County and the City of Seattle planned to convert from burying
municipal solid waste in a landfill to sending waste to a mass burn facility. Protests bythe
public and environmental groups led both jurisdictions to abandon plans to build mass burn
facilities and instead shift emphasis to recycling and waste reduction, along with exploring
waste export to out-of-county landfills. However, during the past decade, technological
advances in mass burn facilities and the emergence of other potentially viable waste
conversion technologies have resulted in renewed interest in these options for long-term
disposal once Cedar Hills has reached its permitted capacity.
The King CountyWaste-to-Energy Study (Normandeau 2017) identified a mass burn facility as the
best waste-to-energy technology to consider for the county's solid waste system. There are77
individual waste-to-energyfacilities in 22 states listed in the EnergyRecoveryCouncil20T6
DirectoryofWostetoEnergyFacillties(ERC2016).Sixtyof thefacilitiesare mass burn, 13 are
refuse-derived fuel, and four are modular. Mass burn is the most common waste-to-energy
technology, representing 78 percent of the industry technology in the United States. Most
facilities were built before 1996. The most recent plant was built in Florida in 2011 (operational
in 2015) and is a 3,000 tons per day facility. ln the United States, 3,000 tons per day is the upper
capacity limit on the aging facilities from the 1990s. Small units with capacity of 1,000 tons per
day or less have been buik and some have been redesigned to expand capacity. A 5,000 ton per
day faciliry as proposed for King County, would be the largest mass burn facility in the United
States.
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste PIan -zotS
Att A Page 369
F-5
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Appendix G
Agency Plan
Review Letters
Att A Page 370
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17.2019
ll.tll f lf lfA*l,{ll*{ittrfy
rlt.FARItott',NI (-)r rf_{.}l {}f ;t'
fo}*lAlrtrlErTr'nnrllrliir' ' Jlillr lngltr 4lsil$r' lf r tofrrr.r& Flelrrqlf*fi riln!r&.14.i*'r l.l-r.';f ,i{tlr.rrtlhn
May ?, ?018
Itd McL,rughlin
King County Solid tff*stn Divkian Direercr
Ilcp4rtment of Nntrrrnl Rcsourues md Perkr
101 S. Iackion $t Suite ?01,
Sesttlc WA 98lM
&or The DmIt Comprrhcuiw$olid lTrule lllmagtment PlruoJlnrlryS0l$
Sssr Pol Mcl"rsghlin:
"fhmk you for fte opportuniry to revic* {nd iornmcrtt ofl rhls Plan,
Ws fuund it wall-wrlttsn rnd be*rrtifully prsduccd, l#* commend yoo* {s \rycllo oB yurr enrly rnd
widcspn:axl puhlie inwlv*naflt 1trrrcrrr{ ancl thre Divirionrl ruponrivencan* $own t* thr: rmhty nf
eo$msnllt illd OpiniOns cxprt*red.
BgsidEs ourrongrilulations. Ecnlogy'ri lonnal aorllnsntr cm lnnsmjtted wtth lhis lanar.
IYc luok hrffint m reviewingynur Finrl Drnfi.
Sinotrtiy, .
-doe &
AT
md Mrtrtirls Milrlgcnlcnr
Enclosure
egi FEtsr Christlrnffrn
Bclh Humphrcyr
g
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zot8
Att A Page 371
G-1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
I(IIT6 COUIITY
'AI,IUARY
ISTS F8€UMINAftV DfiAFTSOUN WATE il'AilAcEMEiIT PLA'{
Review Ccrnmentr by: Vic*l f,olgan
Solld Warte Flanner, ltlWFO
MaV 7, 2018
The goalr cf ttte roiid r'raste plannlng Frocesr in tc lurther re*lute lhe lotal effisunt of $iaste mdterlall
produced by using effucllv* waste reductlon, recyeling and outreach melhEds, propcrty dlrposlng the
wastE remalnlng, and achievlng csmplilncc with $tate and loeal environmental redulatisns.
Fcology's review comments are offercd ts d$rlit fin6, County ln polishln6 on already cnmprrhensive.
appruuable, ureful. and baautifutpraduced solld rrJarte $anagErn€nl plan,
Cumprchensive Plan develnpnrent ir not en e*ry arslgnmeni considerfng lhe multitude pf respon*lhlllti*s
confronllng Xln6 Counly, fculogy reeognirer lhe exterrrhre effnri made ln dewloplng nfld ilpdf,ttn* thl{
Frnft Comprehenslve Solid Waste Mnnagement Pltn. ln nddltion, tlre Plan presented to Ecfhgy h.J
undergdne and h stfll undergoln8 a ihorsu8h rcvlew by the l(ing eountv Solld Warm Advleory Cammittee
{SWAC}, the Metropoliian Solid Waste Managenrent Advi:ory fomrnlttee l[/lSWMAc], Kfirg County cllier,
hardln6 :crvice pruviders. Trlbal reprassntillveE. the publtc, arrl other krterected prrtles ln th€ County.
Thlr Flan, fuunded on well"caqrelved and execuled prevlous Plrns. furthers lhe strit€gle$ and tool$ Khg
County will usr a* {t mntlnues to perfotrn lts joh of solld warte handllng and w6lle r€duction wlthin lis
jurMlrtion.
Ts be as complele ar posrible, po4loni of thls Plfin luere rnvlewed by staff who cpeclallre h ths fleldr ol
facillltes" srSinicr, rclld wastc hapdllrr6 and Cedar Hllls landllll. Thcir comments are lncluded ln
Ecology's commerrts balow, uhich are organlaed as followr:
1. Procrdural ll€ms that must be addrersed pricrto Eeolfitv approval
l. cantent lrcm! lhat must |re *ddressed Frlor to feology appraual
l. illghly recornmended rhanges
{, Othercomm€ntc
You wlll note lhat, rather than usa Ulvisloor in lower case ar can oflen be seen ln legbtathm languago
land as done h your Flanf , I've capltallred the word here. rlnce lt tr used throughout as a name.
PFOCEOURA1 ITEII,IsTHAT MUff Bg ADDNES5ECI FftIOR TO PIAI{ APPf;OVAt
&erolutlanr of Adoptlon: Khr6 €ourrty, lB citie$, ilnd other entlllcs wlth intarlscal agrcemsnts need to
iipFrove the uprlatert Cnmprehensi've Soltd Waste Management Plrn {CSWMP} prtor tn Eenlogy's
approvel of the final draft, Pleiis€ include a Etatome nt assudng thal the ptan accaptance prccesl
os$lned ln the lfltedncqllgreement hsr been hrttllkd,
f coio{t.(nrnlr0ntnto [ni$FgtuElr Solrrrl flrd tlqndadeu* ryrrl*i,finpa{'lr!il|Pla't - frt*1
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju/1 zotSG-2
Att A Page 372
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
tnrluslqn of letters: Please lnelueJe wlthln the Plan the lette ru from both ihr StdtE Drpartmtn! of
A6rlcullure and the Washlngton Utllltics and TranrpcrtaliQt Cornmlsslch t{nt ln relFons€ t€ thEir
allowed 45-dly revlew, al*ng wlth thcs* Ecology csmgnsnts otl lhe Prellmlnary Dtolt.
SEPA gomplctlem Ar ol lhis wrltlng. ysu. prsgrammatic Sttte Ervironrnerrtdl Follcy Arl {sEFl}
Envlronmental lrnpoct Statement producetl for thlf PIan, fu sut ef ltr revlew pariod snd lit€ly in ttl
romment rqsponse phi$r. Ple{ss cnsure lhis lmprct Statem€nt iE llnnl on or before the dats rhB Ftnal
tlrdft C$WMF is submitted, and please ensure r copy of the notice informing intrrested Fartles lhat ysur
lrnpact St{t€rnenl ls now fihel, l* lnsluded ln the Flnal Dnft C$WMP'
SU,AC Pflrtl€lpatlon: Per Chapter ?0,95.167{31 RcW, after tha '/i/aste rsthrEllDn ;rnd rtc.ycling elemerrt 6l
thF Plan 15 approvftd try ihe loeal le6lrlallv* authority, but bafore rit 1s Eubrnlttctl ts EcologY lor appraval,
tfte SWAC rnvgt hqld another meetlng to review the Finsl Orsft nf this elentunt, Please verify SWAC
plrticipiitlrrn with llr notes/mlnutes mntalning dircucsion of thls revie$/.
CO'{TENT ITEMSTI{AT MUST BE ADORESsEO FBIOR TO ECOTOGV APFROVAL
D.te Adlurtnlent to fitstoratlon of eh*cd Lrndffllr {Pafe 6-241
The fiw-year period stated on page 6-14 lc frqff WAC 17J-3ol-309. Beraure ChdFler 173-l0l WAC was
repeal*d ln 1985 when Chapter 173-304 WAC went lnts effed, the fhelear perlpd ls not appllcable and
rhould not be cited, For lhare landfllls that closed before 19s5 {the efhrtive date of f,hipter 173-3Q{
WAfl, fte appllcabie r*gufaticnr are thos* of the Cdde sf the Hing County Bootd cf Health, Titb 10.
Upd:te ISWFA lnformetlon t9agc ih'18f
Slnce thlr Oraft Plan rvils pr€sent{ct lor rwiew before the l*glshturt passed lhe eapitaf Eudget In rnfd-
Jnnu{ry, !018, the Local Sofid lA/aste Flnanclal Asslstance {tSWFAl progra.n ir nqlv funded and rwll-
underurry.sadly, the amount of funding at dildhle wrs reduced oilc€ agaln for lrilplonr€nHlhf proje{tl
hut enforrentent F.ograrn$ srefe funded at laveh eornporxble to the lart fundlng cycle. Th€ Wa.rhln&ton
tl€pnrtfircnt of Ecology adnrinisters LSWFA ln kin6 County on behrlf sf many ol the ruburban tllies. as
wall ar fur the DlvBion and Klng Ccunty Publh Health,
|lhFortgnt Additlanr {P*cr rr* xllr l-tgl
. Ple*re ad*l tlw wsrd 'legal" after the rlrord hnv' in the diwnltn deflnltiqtt to rule out lllegal
dunplng ar an optlor:.
r Plsure add a regirt*red rnarh to lhe Leadcrrhlp ln Eneryy and Envlmnmental Deihns ILEEDI
dafiFilion, lho procedlng tEEDr acronynr, and to lts firgt menthn inthe tr$ oft pa8€ I-13,
TtIfi }II-Y RECOMMENDED (HA il6f5
Flaa Yrrr 1 {Fag6 A"ll: ploer€ eonrider chlngtng yaur Year 1 oi it1i5 Plan tn aOX8, or hrtlef l0l9. nt Plnn
implerneIlatlon beglnr once the P[dn h*s beet! approved,
Iq*lil tdntn.trti to n!r&F tourrt$ Sdllrl.ind fflardo$r Wilht tLmflprflanl P{ln - FttF tr
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufi zofi
Att A Page 373
G-3
Ordinance 18893 Updated April '17, 2019
More Addltlrns {Fag* xF$l}r DefinlnE'adva*ced mitctidl reeovert' tfid 'naierlal ruc$very facilttt'
wolld elso facilitate lay readers'unrlersianrliog ef csmnrqn t$rm u$€d ln our lndrmtry"
Cornpo*ting rnd Food Rcrovory Facllatlrr; Ssmewhere in Chapter I it 'itj6uld be good to btjlld ln a map
or perhapr add to Ffgurc t4 the ftrr€nt romFostln; arld fosd-rescue hcilitier,
Factorla's F€aturg: (Pale t-t0h Hnre ls a great ftrronrot[onal] oppartunaty lo ln:erl more lnformatlon on
lhe green feiturer rt Factoria,
T*ble +-f Posltlonlng {Fagc 4.19h Flea:c conrider muving this tnble up $ile paratraph up ta
immedletcly follow lhe refurence ts Trble 4-l in tfis texl {plrelrrg it ot the nnd of the second paragnph
ln '1015 and I0l? Market Assessmentrttl io lncreasa ssction cohesion.
Blue SkV Dlseurslon frrg* 4-20|: Al it was sq rptly put on page 4"20 of tlre Draft CSWMP "glven *poetcd
rhanger ln Chinn'r import pollcleC' lt would be ueful to aeld r brief desgtptlon on the impactl feh lry thc
divilhn and how tt hr$ bcan rtrctlng t$ Chlna $*ord*r Nrtlonnl $wrrd*r Elue $ky develaFments.
flrll caprclty {Fage 5-roll ll Ts flFp{rent lhEI the Wast€ Export rcenarln wlll requrre farEruEt€r ruil
;aFnsitv lhsn $rlll thd Wists-to-[n€r&y oplt€fi. Cdn thar diference be €$timaled, perhapr ln perrantage
terms? To r*hlrh option ls the recond ltJterrenl of thlr lraragraph referrlngf
FiSuruTlller lFlErr 5-1t ro 6-161r Cotsldrt rddln6 allher ti+ wo.rd 'Anafyrls' Er ihe wdrd .tttlrlrate. cr
sF$loprif,i€ to the titlcs of the FiEurEi rfpeering cn these p4gcs to relnforee tlra ldra rhare are not cirt{r
lton€ Frole{ilong, hul ln "tniryiis lthatl focusel on sevEral hcV fildtorr ' ds Etatdd ln Vour introdusrlon td lhis
teclion. Alsq plense ftlsr thc readsr tasny tlr$, table or llsl {.rs! AddltlorlrlAppendh rvggesrlon belawf
that niay expand on the rsnlsntr af the.re flgures,
Flgure F8l Wlthou! caraful tetdlrtg, Flgure 6-8 appears to rhot{ a ccnstderable arnount frsm racyclln6,
re:idusls ts a lay perron having iu:t laqk*d at lhe Wasle-ts-[nergy palt af the 6rapht; frsce{tln& it,
Fler${ redlaw this Bf nph lo lnelude the $thHr 5trplur perceflt of recyclable mat€dil$. unlesq th€re *ar il
{crtiift F$lnt ysu tv€t6 irylng to make by rhot+ing a msd€it galn wlth a rather inllared grlph, lf ro,
plerse descrlbe the purp65e for the 6raph {as lri ln (he te$.
Fricc uf Srocarc {Psge 7-f0l: Hpw w{rukJ rerrhiug the ?0K dfwrrlon goal at Csrlrr Halh, gtvan tlre
nsccs!trry lncrepre in ttrganltr, tomportin8, a*d fsod recytllnFr affrct output gf the Land{ill.Ga*tc"
Energy plant?
Addltlonal ApFendln A table listlng eech ol the cost ceiegorle: urtr] ta gerrrnle Flgur*r ti"3 and {i.6
espertrlly uruuld malte nn exeellpnt rppandlx. *nd verify lhe eomparing-applos-to-apples approeclr ihs
0ivlcion l$ atternFtlnE here,
oTtrER coMtvtEt{Ts
Those thal ilBt€st changol
FrdL{t Coblf!l{r!}16 itnd'C$sntt't nlrI CeBpnilri]re fulld t{rSrr ilrnrqurxrl lttrn, lirrrill $1l0ilt.- Nalr I
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zodG-4
Aft A Page 374
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Unllorm Cqlor Us€: Please consider kaeping the color uced ln all the llgures tn Chapter l: Forecasting
and Bata. consistrnily representlflg the snme indlcator {rerytllng ls tlsnoleel by blue in fili{ure l-3 and by
greeR In flgrrru 3-4, as atr examplel, to avold eonhlrlun"
Oallnlng Termr:
r (Page x| After rach plartlc li*ied ln the acronymr, tt may be benefielatla add a snnall recycltrg
$ymbolcsritaanlng lhe carrespondlng palymer number - thus taklnE advnoia8e of 6 rather
ur*expectad teaching opporrurity I
r lneludinB'EFS tc the acronym list it alro iw8ested.
r {Fege riii} Fleasr consirlsr addlng to waste prstletttlon *n exatnple, sueh as rhooslng to ptlrchlse
Items wllh letr or rlo Farkaging"r lt would be gosd tn verify thflt the Utlllila.r rnd Transportation Comtnirslcn is nill using W in lt:
ncronym - | hpard or reld $mewhere thot they do not inTmor*.
. ln the "Permitied Capaclty Planned for €tdar Hllts throu8h l0t8'r lext bo& romt s{t/on tnd
ronrpof,fs seenn to he lh€ rarrFcl t€fms rather than corlofdcfforl and ronso/idafcr fsre u5e on
poge 2.6), or does the olrrision se€ tlreie t! synonymr?
r {Page 6-61 lt mighr he helpful to prerent your definlllon of being 'a good nelghbol, slnce thar
drfinition seem$ to varv Brertly anrang people,,,.
Iqllstd Rcrflons€ [!vo{s {Fa6s 6-14ft Separatfng each dtflnitlon of the thret levals by bfill€tr hrrr
wrruld make the d*fioitlofls eriFEr to read rnd hcate ln th€ do,rumefit, ar well u tvauld rdd emphuls ta
thir lmportant cone€pl 0n what to €xp€6t [n fln emrrBency.
fiefedefice$ The websiter glv*n fsr many of the referencrl are grfiat tooh lur thos* of ui that llhe lo do
iurth*r reseanh. ls it porrible to add to thp cltatlonr wlthout wtbsltel where the materlal can be
oblaitrcd $r at leagt add an introdrlctory Frra[raph sn Benenl Xuldane for contactln6 the gourcer f,l
the baglnnlng of Chapter S?
Labeled Appendlt€sr lt may be helpfu! lnr the relder lf each Appcndlx were labelsd as t{t its cont€nt$,
ruuch lSke tha Ehapteru of the Flan are, erpeclally in the Table of CEnU[],
oTHrR COMMCilTS
cornm€ilti that applaud $,orlt ongolng or alraadY tomplete:
i Sslrstton rnd plrcemont of the phrtographr ln the Plan made for eary re*ding as dld th* prsr,a,
thankfully abrent the 'normal' rep*tlifue referenre! old*chooi teehnltal r,rrrlter: ernplov.
i The blue t{xl boHei ur{d throughnut that erplaln uriiommon idrrnr o. {re*lf,llrad cnnrept* ar*
very rrrefeofi*d afid fuftller add to thq clarily and re adabllity of thls Plar.
> Noted ard applauded are llre ept, well"wsrded deflnitlsn: of eqstt? and sqitalnabillty ln the
spenlnE Pager of the Flan.
Eislrtf 6dmnhinE to lilrlg' €o|r$tt'r th.f! CornlalwnripScfld lv.$a *linad6lllEnt lb& fi.Llrt {, t01t - fue }
zotg Compre/tensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -zotS
Att A Page 375
G-5
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
r Figure !-i: curmnt tayoirl 6f C€dar Hllls Lrndflli llluslrates the pdnciple thilr "a pi(ture aF werth
i lhousrnd words,n said rnap being guite easy to lnterprel, ar weil ar nlcely coloredl
i Exailples glven on '.vays to improve troffi[ rnnnademenl flt tffin$fqr clat[on! Srven sfi p{gF 1- 14
are inspiredl lt's likefy sitfe to ar$ume that ihe online site would be compntlbfe wlth celt phone
viewing *nd lhe rcader haords will be pla*d in optlmal Uewlag lacations. lloah for*,ard to
thelr implernentationl
r Afiothe r lnspiratlsnpl irjea is the &epoir Groupr ched on page 4-Ll *a Sreat waste reduelionf
lurtalnable materials manage{nent $trategy. wlth the add€d benelit of rnnrnrunity-building that
ean help *a* eqully ksues.
i;. Especially regardln6 Chapt€rs 2. d and 6, fcology appreciate the brorcl vifw Klng County
donlinue$ to take ln balanclflE lrndlllon|l materiEli msnagement wlth tuFtalnable materlals
mffnag€mqnt prrcticer and antiripated developrnentr ln naw wattc handling technologias.
suc{eEs nol {r$Xy rfilulrai carefrrl plannlng rnd strrtc*ir p*blic Involvement, but alio lntultion
otld finesse lo.(hieve. Well donel
-i Transfer Station Upgraded f'lelv Conrtfiletlon.' Ecologfl l.lorthwest Regional Offlce sittJust
uphlll frorn thc fle$r Factarl* Trsnrfer Station, drtd we have vlsited * and ured at Frlvnte l(ing
csunty citarpns - lhe new facllitler;l [fturr(faw, Shorellne and 8cw Lake, We fuund thess
facllltles easy to a€cefi, thoughtfully taid out, itdfftd *lth rkillet! peeple, nnd efflelent ln
cperation, We tommend ar well ar appreclate lhs Oivirlon's careful design and coftstrurfion oF
thesc tranlfer rt;rtlons, whi*h incorporated uany elementi of iustalnable bulldtng that wlll rdd
to thFlr longBvity, lower the dsst of th€lr upkeap, and pravide staff with rupedor wo*lng
cond{tiunr. Ancl sgfltn. well done!
Berpectfrlft $Dnr
-iato
Itted,
Vfcti Colgon csr*
R*glonal Flannlng G snd Mrrterials Management
WA tlept, cf icolngy, NW W2ft Pmgrar:r
1190 X60th Ave.5[
Bellevue WA 98CI08-545I
4t5/64s-7?34
vcol46l@ecv.iua.tov
DTFAR?tvtFNT oli
ECOLOGY
stnt€ ol Wathlngton
t(qlqly (olrlmtur lb HrlrF &HFlf Salld s{td d.r!tdsbr l9n{u f,iin,lil|]nlnl lltn * ptFo {
zotg Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management PIan -Jufu zo8G-6
Att A Page 376
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Service Date: February 8,2018
STATE OF WASHINGTON
UTI LITI ES AN D TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1300 S. Evergrcen Park Dr. 5.W., P.O. Box 47250 o Olympia, Washington 9850+7250
(360) 664-1160 o TW (360) 586-8203
February 8,2018
Meg Morehead
King County Solid Waste Division, DNRP
King Street Center
201 S. Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
King County Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Cost Assessment
Questionnaire, TG-180044
Dear Ms. Morehead:
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) has completed its
review of the cost assessment questionnaire for the draft of the King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan), submitted Janurary 9,2018.
The cost assessment questionnaire in the Plan proposes three tip fee increases at all King County
transfer stations during the 2017 - 2022 Plan period. The tip fee increase in20l7 has already
been in effect for over a year, while the other two tip fee increases are projected to take effect in
2019 and2o22. As a result, there will be a rate impact to ratepayers served by regulated solid
waste collection companies in King County in years 2019 and,2022.Thrs is illustrated in the
table shown on the following page.
Respect. Professionalism. lntegrity. Accountability
RE
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management P/an -July zofi
Att A Page 377
G-7
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Letter to Meg Morehead
TG-180044
Page2
2017" 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
*The 2017 tip fee has been in place since January 1, 2017, therefore customers have already
experienced the rate effect of this ttp fee increase.
Staff has no further comment on the cost assessment questionnaire. Please direct questions or
comments to Greg Hammond at (360) 664-1278, or by email at greg.hammond@utc.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Steven V. King
Executive Director and Secretary
cc: Vicki Colgan, Department of Ecology, Regional Planner
zotg Compreltensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju$ zod
Alt King County Transfer
Stations - Projected
Disposal X'ees
Per Ton Disposal Cost
Per Ton Increase
Projected Rate Increases
Residential
Monthly rate increase for
one 32-gallon can per week
service
Commercial
Monthly rate increase for
one-yard per pick up service
$134.59
$14.42
$1.06
$s.47
$134.59
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$l4l.66
$7.07
$0.52
$2.68
$r41.66
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$14r.66
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$147.33
$s.67
$0.42
$2.15
$27.16
$2.00
$10.30
G-8
Aft A Page 378
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Service Date: June 14,2018
STATE OF WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1300 S- Evergreen Park Dr.5.W., P.O. Box 47250 o Olympia, Washington 98504-7250
(360) 664-1160 r TTY (360) 586-8203
June 14,2018
Meg Morehead
King County Solid Waste Division, DNRP
King Street Center
201 S. Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
RE:Revised l(ing County Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Cost
Assessment Questionnaire, TG-180451
Dear Ms. Morehead:
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) has completed its
review of the revised cost assessment questionnaire for the draft of the King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan), submitted May 18, 2018. Staff reviewed
this plan and the prior cost assessment questionnaire under the previous Docket, TG-I80044.
The cost assessment questionnaire portion was updated at the request of Department of Ecology
due to the fact that the plan period began in20l7, which was one full year out of date when filed
with the Commission.
There was a relatively large change to the overall recycling rate in this revised cost assessment.
From 20 1 7 to 20 1 8, the recyclin g rate dropped 5 .4 percent, to an overall recycling rate of 52
percent. This is due to a 14 percent increase in garbage tonnage disposed, and an 8 percent
reduction in recycling tons processed. The County proposes two tip fee increases at all King
County transfer stations during the 201 8 - 2023 Plan period. These tip fee increases are expected
to occur inZO2O and2023. As a result, there will be a rate impact to ratepayers served by
regulated solid waste collection companies in King County in years 2O20 and,2023. This is
illustrated in the table shown on the following page.
Respect. Professionalism. lntegrity. Accountability
zotg Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -Jul1 zofi
Att A Page 379
G-9
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Letter to Meg Morehead
TG-180451
Page 2
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
Staff has no further comment on the cost assessment questionnaire. Please direct questions or
comments to Greg Hammond at (360) 664-1278 or by email at greg.hammond@utc.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Johnson
Executive Director and Secretary
cc: Vicki Colgan, Department of Ecology, Regional Planner
zotg Compreltensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July zofi
All King County Transfer
Stations - Projected
Disposal Fees
Per Ton Disposal Cost
Per Ton Increase
Projected Rate Increases
Residential
Monthly rate increase for
one 32-gallon can per week
service
Commercial
Monthly rate increase for
one-yard per pick up service
$134.s9
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$134.s9
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$r40.82
$6.23
$0.46
$2.36
$140.82
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$140.82
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$ls4.l6
$13.34
$0.98
$s.06
$19.s7
$1.44
$7.42
G-l0
Att A Page 380
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
STATE OFWASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU LTU RE
Division of Plant Protection
P.O. Box 42560. Olympia, Wash ington 98504-2560. (360) 902-1 800
March 7,2018
Ms. Meg Moorehead
Strategy, Communications, and Performance Manager
King County Solid Waste Division
Department ofNatural Resources and Parks
King Street Center
201 S. Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Dear: Ms. Moorehead,
The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) reviewed King County's Draft Solid Waste
Management Plan (SWMP). Our staff has determined that the draft SWMP is in compliance with state
plant pest and disease quarantines as described in Chapter 16-470 WAC. We reviewed the waste
management plan with particular emphasis to the state's apple maggot quarantine, described in Chapter
16-470-10l WAC. The transport of municipal green waste and municipal solid waste from the apple
maggot quarantine area to the pest free area is prohibited without a WSDA special permit. WSDA will
not require King County to have a special permit to ship municipal solid waste or green waste. However,
if the conditions contained in the SWMP change and you have questions about whether King County is in
compliance with the apple maggot quarantine rule please do not hesitate to contact me or WSDA Pest
Program staff.
Thank you for providing our agency with the opportunity to comment on the King County Solid Waste
Management Plan. RCW 70.95.096 requires the Washington State Department of Agriculture to review
solid waste permit applications for any increased risks of introducing a quarantine plant pest or disease
into a pest free area.
ffr,t*
JimMarra, Ph.D
cc: Leah Doyle
zotg Comprehensiue So/id Waste Management P/an -Ju/y zofi
Att A Page 381
G-r 1
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Appendix H
Title ro Plan
Conrent Code Requirements
Att A Page 382
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Att A Page 383
Ordinance't8893 Updated April 17, 2019
The following describes how the Plan meets these Title IO.24.30 Plan content requirements
F. A current inventory and description of solid waste collection needs and operations within
each respective jurisdiction, which shall include:
1. Any franchise for solid waste collection granted by the utilities and transportation
commission in the respective jurisdictions including the franchise holder's name, the business
address for the franchise, the area covered by the franchise and the rates charged in
comparison to disposal costs;
Most of the required information can be found in Appendix A - Utilities and Transportation
Com m ission Cost Assessment:
o Specific information regarding UTC-regulated haulers including G-certificate permit
numbers, addresses, customers served and tons collected as well as six-year
projections for both can be found on pages A-4 through A-5.
o A m?p, Solid Waste Collection Company Service Areas, is included on page H-6
o More general information regarding non-regulated hauler areas (cities with
contracts), including number of customers and tons collected as well as six-year
projections for both can be found on pages A-5 through A-7.
. Appendix A" pages A-2 throughA-14 provides details on the system component costs
and funding mechanisms. Pages A-13 and A-14 includes information on division
revenues and expenditures, including disposal costs.
o Attachment A includes a tariff page from each hauler serving unincorporated King
County and UTC-regulated cities for the residential curbside rate, the disposal rates,
and a link to the entire UTC franchise tariff.
o Table 4-4 on pages 4-22 and 4-23 inChapter 4 identifies which hauler is serving
which city and unincorporated area along with other contract and collection
information.
2. Any city solid waste operational plan, including boundaries and identification of
responsibilities;
By signing the Amended and Restated lnterlocal Agreement, all of the 37 cities in the King
County solid waste system have agreed that the King County Solid Waste Division is the
planning authority for the system, therefore the cities don't have their own solid waste
plans.
Att A Page 384
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,201S
3. The population density of each area serviced by a city operation or by a franchised
operation within the respective jurisdictions;
Appendix A, page A-1, includes the population projections for the entire King County
system.
The area served by the regional system, including cities and the unincorporated
areas, is shown in Figure 2-L, page2-2.
Chapter 3 discusses the current and projected population of areas served by the
transfer stations (which encompasses all of the cities and urban areas).
The City of Enumclaw provides solid waste collection to a population of 11,490. The
City of Skykomish services a population on 200.
a Po lation of areas served UTC lated haulers include
4. The projected solid waste collection needs for the respective jurisdictions for the next
six years;
o Chapter 3 includes details of solid waste generation projections for the future.
o Chapter 4 discusses current and future collection issues (pages 4-2Lto 4-35).
o Table 4-4, on page 4-22 and 4-23, includes information on haulers, contracts, and
collection needs/service types in each jurisdiction.
5. Analysis of operating economics, travel distances and economically optimal locations
of solid waste facilities;
Route efficiency is essentialto operating economics, travel distances, and economically optimal
locations of solid waste facilities as described below:
a
o
a
a Chapter 5 discusses planning for the Transfer System. Figure 5-1, page 5-2, shows
where each of the transfer facilities and Cedar Hills Landfill is located. The map
shows that the facilities are well-distributed to maximize the efficiency of the
system.
Table 5-1 lists each station and how many tons and transactions each received in
20t7.
Area Population
Beaux Arts 300
Black Diamond 4,335
Hunts Point 4L5
Kenmore 22,580
Medina 3,2O5
Woodinville 11,660
Yarrow Point L,040
Unincorporated King County 245,920
a
Aft A Page 385
Ordinance 18893
a
a
a
Updated April 17 ,2O19
The Plan discusses the need to site and build a new transfer station in the Northeast
part of the county, but does not identify a site.
The Plan discusses the Level of Service criteria (including travel distance, which is an
indicator of route efficiency) and siting criteria (developed as part of the Solid Waste
Transfer and Waste Management Planlthat will be used in the siting process. These
criteria take operating economics and location into account.
A map, Census Tract Travel Time to Nearest Solid Waste Transfer Station, included
on page H-7, shows that the travel times to the nearest station meet the Level of
Service criteria. This criterion indicates how conveniently located the facilities are for
customers (including commercial haulers concerned with maximizing route
efficiency), measured by the maximum travel time to the closest facility in their
service area. The standard was established as 30 minutes for at least 90 percent of
the customers. lt provides an indication of whether the transfer stations are well
dispersed throughout the county.
G. A review of potential areas that meet the siting criteria as outlined in RCW 70.95.165.
The siting process for the NERTS has not progressed to a point where any potential sites
have been identified. A budget request to start a preliminary siting process was submitted
for Council consideration, but has not yet been approved.
o The Plan discusses the siting process (pages 5-18 through 5-20) that was used for the
South County Recycling and Transfer Station and will be adapted for NERTS.
o Action l-t also states that the siting criteria identified in the Solid Waste Transfer
and Waste Management Plan, Appendix C, will be adapted to meet the community
needs in siting a new NERTS. Appendix C identifies the same elements to review that
are included in RCW 70.95.L.
Att A Page 386
Updated April 17,2019Ordinance 18893
[lttill*:1 .,1fr
ln
iilistlf;rilI
+
I
llfiI!
II
IIiIITE
lrllrr
Att A Page 387
Updated April 17,2019Ordinance 18893
6
-&
=d;
ii:l
.+
rI
Iil
flrI
E
To-
sf;
E#.EFEls
E$
$H
,E
oril
E6EfEE@EEg
EEceS*Efip.HEII
Att A Page 388
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
ATTACHMENT A
American Disposal Company, lnc. G-Permit G-87
Serves Vashon lsland
https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedlndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/American%20Di
RncEtvf,D Nov 0J,1016 wA. UT. & TRANS. coltM- ORTGINAL TG-l6t 184
st]B I u29il6
FOR Afnff.{t- lJ,tC OrVIY
llacket: 'l'6'l6l l,81
.4ae*la Dute: Decemhrr 8, J0l6
Efrbctiv Data: .lunuu4' l. 2lll7
3 nsbsi Psge rao-il4.
VshEn
Amsrsn lNCo GStilamslpffirt tlmbsr
l€de
stuq.
Udslp
ffi{.
lLftr
tt
I 1o 6dld geste rlllec!fil cut€l{re FcJflllrB (*hm nt*ed}sd ?ndr$t6 str*88 trlrffi rd6d] lr
rs-ldffild pm€{ty. Thb iEhrds *El€ lr$,lf diElqF, eptele8. €o€rlnenE, moia€ tqrc,
4qdsnlrmi. etc,, nlE€ srole lB Ed d€cily lo ttE otr$8flt ol 8*h reldifid uM, rldri.
Whm EqulEd by a tffil gffi'mt gmhe Evd odlHe, sdd ffialE *cts, eurbslde
Hydrlg. Bnd |sntffiEle Eflb mu8l be pros{rEd ftr slrql&fmfy6^rlnge, dudem, msdt6 aEffi,
csdo.dffiE, srd apalmnl bu*tlgs ol 168 nEn _ eddenbd uIs, 6lleB asuDe le baed
la ltE pr.fetty q*ctr s lw9g6
Sg#*tge4rffiErltlhr$d6itd{ ; rErhhlfhd0c: ffi.Wdf Rslcbg
€m'AlEsf k'f* tuqtt9 F{m&t ruq*g; lX rM dd ty mdFqr
1 r tlcaslp6ofth.*B El$od lo Ec}tllng prog.m {s rtwn on p6ge 13.
2: l)EcllpBnhEE Eldet l, tE d#Bl€ Frugm sre Ehsn m poge
-
3: h rddhr ta th€ Fcydklg EiE etwn .bss, I rcldho &bl,lr$fi oa t spd*:i.
hrctcbrl sftiE olri m llrll FsOr arpln
n lhlE is 8ad!l
b€|ff Wly ln ltE toSoMDg svl6 se:
lor6 DEtsi tot tOdtE l,l@amb€r
No. 7f-Dale:By:
Aft A Page 389
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
RECEIVED NOV 03,2016 WA. UT. & TRANS. COMM. ORICINAL'IG.16I IS4
v
184
.4xenda Dale' Llffelmb€r 8, 1(ll6
Eflettivt Dutc: January I , !(l I 7
No"Hsviasd Prgo Hs.
lbmetPermit l{umbff: Amxicnn l}ieposalCa lnc G:87
llg n 930 * Oigladsi FFd6
CftargsF ifr hb nesn sFplt whefi stlBr hsmE id lhe lErilf rEifically refar lc lhia item.
AF Tvoe ol Matadal I
i€rtMT
oEf
tFr
i ef
sr
Hf
oar
3 Eer
mt
et
t3r
gel
n ml
p4r
per
!gr
Sfsl€ r.hsfrsa hE€ lra F€c yEld, pe4 loh. 6lc. lhclrd€ dr8rp4 Eaeeorad lor apecbl corfimoditisa {tir€8,
ap!fiiinc€s- a,rbeaios, slr"l sr Epeciat condliurg sl Bach speeific drpmal aita, Altrch addliry|sl
EfiEglB s ner€€aary-
Ho. TCr oate:Br
L
Att A Page 390
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019
Rabanco LTD Permit G-12
https://www.utc.wa.gov/resulatedlndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/Rabanco%2017
D%2Odba%20Eastside%2c%2OContainer%20Haulineo/o2OG-I2%2OTariff%20tl.odf
Serves Unincorporated King County, Beaux Arts, Hunts Point, Kenmore, Medina, and Yarrow Point
R"ECErvrD MAY 31'2018 wA. rff. &;Tfitll$.coMM. (}RTGTNAL rG-180484
Y
11No-28th Revised Page N0-
Nainelperdtt Number: Rdb8nco LTD G"1 2
tAmbs of
ljnhs or Tip€
ol CmbiraE
F €qwdy
of
Swi@
CdbE46
S€ruie
Rsle
RelEl€
Swice
Flab
Yffi] ll
o.n*."" I Is*i* ne" I I
O$o{rd
C{dEirEr
Rnbl
2(, dbtlon can Wtirti LlWR sE-o5 sg.z3 5923 I I tio 42
'l {;en 5C 23 s9?3 I I so 53
2 GAn I/YI''EOWR wz.w F9-23 s9.23 I I $I_O6
J L;gh wtirhuwlt Sitz- 1tt tig_:.3 IS.ZJ I I 5',1_bL
4 f;blt trYG'bTJl,ytt sg :l3 $9:l3 I I sz 7t
5 Can 364_56 $9.23 19.23 I I $2.8b
32 G5l Toter WGiEOWR r"l z-!t3 6S.23 $9-23 I I Itt -ug
6a Lid tolet wwkuwx 121-:'2 5C_'z3 $g_zJ I I til ull
qfi f;tl I6lFr sq ?3 3q 71 II st Ra
t cen MG/EOWR s4-66 9s.23 $9-23 I I so.53
I
stn ?3 I sl aa
z0 G€l Totef {N EOW Ornadcs $8-82 I I $1-O9 gee oeoe 26b
{itt Rri, Pha IOtar I :lj c4 tee mte '.t4 G8l Be$ Pmot Totgr f22.fl)lt fa. I7 $ee nole 6
I Oter I Ea 43 sde /lt)te a
in this llem spply:
l To solld wagte coll€.ildn. curbslde recydlng (where notedl and ydrdwaslc aerulxs {wher6 no{ed) fur
ltsklefi[al proFerty. Thie hclud* sing{e lamily dweilhge, dqplexes. epafifiedt3. mobila homes.
conddminiufns. ets., whelE $ereire lg blled direeuy t6lhe occllpant df esch r*idential unil, €nd/ot
When aEqulled by a loebl govelnm€nt seilice lerrel ordindnce. sdld w6sle colleclidtr, drrb3lde
recy€llr|g, and yardwssle sereioe must be provided for slngl+fsmily d$B[ings, duplaxas, d'roblle nofiles,
condominiums, and apartrnent buildhgs ol le3s lhan 4 residenliEl rmits, where s€rvhe ls billed
b the prbp€rty or/ner or fifrtager.
belovr appv in the following serube arc6:Apprndh A
Swir€ Cod6r: Wc-Wadrfy Gabege; EOW6€v{t Olh6 W@k Gtrbsga: trtcri,hd}tly 6rhgs: wR.WEkly Rac}cl}ng
EollrR-Ewry O[8. Wsk ReclE{ing: MFi.aq$ty RrcFlhE: l*r dhffi urad by mrnslt
1: DescriFionirules rElated lo recycffng prog.€dr are shol,vn on F ge 25-
2: Descriptiofi/rules relat€d to yildw6ste program arc sho$n 6n p6ge 28-
3: h €ddilion lo the rec)rling rater sho/vn ebove, s .ecy,rling debit/tcr€ditl ol t$0.161 {A} sppll€$-
4: Rccyding rate3 shown 6bove ale subiecl to sn ddditiooal recydlng prodesging suicharge of l0.t6 per month.
The reclrfliflg piooessing surcha.ge on this pag€ wlll expffe: Oecemblf 3l, I0{8
Recycllng nrtor on &l3 prgr .xpifi on:Jsnurry 31,2019
ay: rflp 0FFJC|{L USEDab:lb.
Att A Page 391
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
r
RECEMI) MAY 3I, l0lff WA- IlT. & TRAN$" C:O[IM. ORIGINAL TG-180,18{
stJB 0?/l2lt8
Granting lirri-f/{e'r'r*ians pe.r f.}rder 0J irr lloc*el tU-/.f/},18,,
Agendu Llnn-' Jrr{r' 16, Jtil$
ffirtiw flnlc: -"lugarr t, J$lS
RrM EEnMTrsd€
tlxreJPmriiNmbpr Ratsrcc LTD &.ll
drit!dt lr!.
dtllsB!
t*mbs rl feqwy
r{
BHe
GlEge
$*e
l*
*lrf.b
$r*o
Re
CFbdd
ltm
tadr
20 salb* can r,YGI'lVFi s8 03 $1',t .it7 $!t.15 I I ss.4?
t (3n WGflfiR s1!.s3 sl t.4 7 st?.75 I I r.{j-3:,
I Can WGil.VR s?2 .ln stt d?*r!.?5 I I $r.06
J L;IN l,vUIrrVt{:[tta?:IT2 15 I 5'r.ss
jt Can Itr/tr,WR $43.23 it 1-4?3tt.75 | I a2 12
5 Csn wq&r/R s54.58 iir.4?flz./5 I I s:.ti.9
32 GEt Isla{wg,wR I12.S3 trr 1-47 s1z-t5 I I tl.0s
f4 Gat lal*{rivti/WFl 121.92 $i1.47 $12.?5 I I t1.86
lli ISal ,oter l,rJL;T|rYH sEt ol :l1! 47 st?15 I I I1.8€
1 Lbn M{iJwtt 5a-66'f,i 1-4r II2.r5 I I sr.53
R€clEle Orrv it2.47 I
Vinlslstd {'lnlu n13.r5 t I t1.s6
I
3r2.93 I 13 sa lFE ndfu tr
5?2.UU I slt lI da ndfs ti
t32. I g I t8.43 sr naCE I
in &is iiEm appty:
l Tq sn$d tfasle Eaf,eclion, arrbaids res|Elirlg {hfi€rE rolad I End yardwE6ia Eervices (wtlge noted} for
r€Eidmlial prssrly. ThiE in€lude8 sir$te larnily dwetrngs, dudsx€s, sparlrr€nls, rloBl6 h6msE.
csndo{rinirrrfls. alc-, *h€rs s$ui.e ie idl€d direttly b lhs ocrxjpB.d af aach residslfel rfiiL dndor
Wher equirec by r locsl gEi'l€firfienl sErvieE lsv€lordina*rce, solid ivasle collectiIi, curhsid€
l€c}tling, and Jardweste service mu6i b€ provadBd for eirgle{amily dxrEllings, dupa€Ef. mab&e hornee,
mndorniniure- ard apartrnenl b{rildings o{ bee Sran 4 reailentigl unita, wlxra mruice is hilled
b ih6 proFerty qmer or manager.
b€low spply in !1s foalowing EeffjL:€ area:Lppondlx E
FEqtEEy d SaE CddEr: Wcrwdrtt3dbag*: Fal.tG.€sy Stle. rtn* &.66gEr fi6'tldHy G[6!0G;
EClt!*:Eq (ncr WE| ttlqdrg. MRElionlt*f 6*!dnng; tr'l 6dE! @d br @Fr.qf
HolE 1: OEqeripliortruleis rEtstEd lo reeycling prqrr8n! are Eltatln cr! fagB ?5-
l{olg 2: Oessdplionfules rEtaH !c }Errtrs€€le prog{am Ere 6hown on psgE ?fi.
lrlola 3: ln sdddiofi lo ItrE :sycfrng rahB Eho,fln abovs, q reqpling d€tr1(H€dltl of ($0.16| {Al ryrlies-
F,lol€ {: HEcycling rats8 strorv{l abov€ arE su&JEet to an additimd raqrctilg proces&trlg rur.hrrge ol 10,55 p€I mon&.
Ttta recyc&rg pfocssBi,rg si-cdurge oc {ris gage u,il e:gire: Decsmbor 3't, I0ll
R€cycling truia on thlB pqo cl+irs on:JEflurry 31. lflg
Dala:30ts
(Fsr ffisi;d Us6 C*ryj
ilo. TG-ay &fllr r)l,'l'ICUL tfSE3el€:
Att A Page 392
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
TarfiNo- 11
Ccnpany Hrrn6lpirntt Htrnbif:
Roolrhrud fr*b l{eme{a}Edt*lc tlrdi. Cff{rrur HdE Rffi Cmk- nrb{s C6idG
sfi Ravsad Paga tlo. 3!l
RSsnoo LTE St2
lLm lr30 - ntss.rsd F*s
Glurgc* ln tblr imnrapply t{h.n 6lhr.l!€rnc ln ttr teflff $F€eincd[ rdsr b th$ lbdfi"
DlsDoGd CiF {nrrni or locafo.rl TIEG df llrlart !Fc€ lor Dlroo6d
|llo cdjfilv trflrsfar;lillrv!!r, nfid l*rdnlF fi*r*wtt tr13d_59 astof!
m counB r8nffor sl|tions ffd lendflIs sDrdel r$eNlr 51{5-OO os ioa
Him cdrntv llisldef crflma ilrd larrlflli yard$Gh 875-00oGrlwl
Rabenoo Treast{r Stc[on 6aftfln t134.5€ oif bo
eDffeo Triurslrr Sb[on Gt}L 166-75 DCr ftr'l
tbrhcnTfillilbr su$arft uerrhil:rctr !lF$ -in nrr lM
Bleck Fdriar ?rm*for Stetlon tn E85.?5 o€r hd
€fid Rrrcorl6fl ha Mh&rum chearr E7 mOffhsd
.and Rtcor/fv hc.DsrEltum &Dr6d&trE.ffibffrnfit
L{t6 Flrcorrar" he :onffstc E grrrnoE 112.50 lafl'ald
atillla Ttiln*ltr Strllrm n{l*r4m s?935 n r ltrt
;ider Grovr gorfloca0m- hc.varduiBh s3?-50 b.r b't
Strt3l^'ltdh6r fr'ls fft p€r fard. pGr l!fi. ric. lndudo chergcr s€rssrd for +Gcttl cofifiorltl6c {drua
rFp{encss, asb€sbc, rlc.} or *prcbl condim& at.sch rf,€cllh dlcpcJ rhr. Atts.tr Edctldmtt
lhsrls rs rrcrtrrr{.
Ellcctlv*2il1?
N0- T6 llals:By:
R[CEtlrnD i\aov 15,1016 wA, uT. & TRAII{S. COMM. ORIGINAI Tc-l6ntd
FOn 0[.',FI{:IAL fffE Otrt y
Oodeet-' rci-l6l2l4
^4ge.rda Date: ,lanuary 26,2017
Elltttir llate: Jantnn, 1.2fi17
Att A Page 393
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Fiorito Enterprises, lnc. and Rabanco Companies G-Permit G-50
https://www. utc.wa.govlresulatedlndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/Fiorito%20Ent.
%20 Rab a nco%2oCo%20 db a%20Ke nt-M eri di a n%2OD i so%20 G - 60%20T a rif f %2ON o%2027 .p df
Serves unincorporated King County
RECETVED MAY 3I, 2OI8 WA, UT. & TRANS, COMM. ORTGTNAL TG.I8O4S5
sriB 0?/12/ls
r
I)ocAer.' IC-/$0J8J
Grailing larifrtruileirur per tlnler (ll tn Lrmket ?il-/df1{85
Agenda llue: Juh' 26,21118
Elletthv Date ' Augu-rt I. 2018
NEmB/Femil Humb6; ffi Ed.rr.ee ts I mHk@G, Bm
a*tlffitr
}{l*a!r ol
lh. * ftF .l
Gdrgc
Sot@
fricF!
SdE
R*
Yr.dfrE I
$orefu
{kg-6
GrEFc
zll odtm sn Wtl,bUWlt su.7u st.c('*t'n I I
1Cil tvcrEowR t1&03 37.ilt $|12 I I 3{] G{
7{jfi wtvL(Jwlt tt gl s?att 51-313CsITYGIEOWRr37 t5t lt? :{}s$22 I I $1.s6dCs#t.{z I I 52_615Cs3t ill ts.22 I I s3J6
#w toEr w{.*tuw}{11{-tr IT.il]$r.a I I s'l:7
Ba ftC Tnlar EZ,{26 tr.ttt t{r-iza I I 51 27
S g:* TolE.tt.$0 Itl.t2 I I 31a,
! {-;rn M&UWR 56,irE rr_fi}rll,itz I I 3n *3
R*rde Onh ss-0il tt
r10{E I I 51i r
l To solid waEt€ collectlon, clr{bBi{a r€ryEling (*'htra noHi ilrd ytrdw6slE *iviosE ({he.E ndEdl lor
rB*lentisl pEFrty. Thia includee dngle tBmily dmllings. du$es6. Egarkn€{lh, mctr horru,
wrdominitm, eac., sh.F Batrias is billsd almty b Ere dxrryanl trf asch .sfiJ€nlld unil and/or
Whtr BqrEd by s lo€l gowrvEd eruiff ks€l f,.drisms, so{d *uta caaaclin, cubsiie
I€q{iirE, nd yaripa5ta sryix must ba pwued ft* singb-fady drellingll dlph(Es, rEbilE hm€*
ffirdominiHrs. qnd apgrhedt buiHing8 cf lss thm I rE€idErttid ufiltg, whsre sfrtc€ iE blgd
a6 th€ !tropsly o{nq 6r rnarE€Er,
golrrtr'€$f ObEn.dr R.c!{r'q; l&ilutltfl&t*s! artossrrB.daf Mlry
l: Qsssifionlrulps GlBbd tq Kldilg pEg,m sn E ro*n m pa€El3-
2: gmiptiortfil€B GlEl€d lo tsrdwEBb paDgm eE lfown on FEgE 2l-
3: h rddirhn !o the rsclrling r.e€ lrFs{t SoyE. a refclilg d6biUi6ndit) of it€.{{XA} qDtiEs.
'a: Reyf&tg rEt€E Ehown EboMe ffi rilbi*llb€n Edlitioflel raErrling proflising surchar0F of l0.Sl pfi noldh.
Tha Ec|E[ng p@€sirq surclsrg8 rn S*B psgE sif 6rpiE: D*:rrbae 3t , !01 t
nEElr.llrE lihr m tftla prEE qFlrr m:Jsrory3{.2fi11
if, tds it€m Epdla
Ratro bdw spply in ltE hlltring sffi'G ErF:ApFmdlxA
Sm Codc WGcI9d4 Gst|8r:$Jde$lgq
hsusd gt:
ilo. Tg osb:-- By:
Att A Page 394
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
RACE|VED ITiOV 15,IO16 WA. t]T. & TRANS. COMM. ORIGINAL TC.I6III?
suB rt/14/16
F{,ft o*'FiC ISt {.r$i' flA't r
&x'*et.' fc-l6l2l7
Agtnda Llate: Detvntful)1, ?fi16
L,'f?.cttve DaN: ,hmuary t,I(rl7
tI 8lh Rrvisid F.eg6
f{enijPemit f'll]dltb€ri Fimr fatrFam, la. i Rrbm r:ep'r-, . G.i{
n&Hiltr*
Ns-
t
llgrr! ?30 - Dlsooad Fa€6
CharErE ln lhii iliri {pory '*h6n ollrsr Ftcntf it1 ihc tsfli Ep.dfically .Efff b l}ir lltri-
tllsFOcel ERa (narn6 Or locemnl Typ6 0t f,lat ftt F6a lor DlenoBd
KkrQ trgufitv lrrlslrr sliedon8 8rirl Laficllllh nrrbcer S13il.,5g ocl lfit lAl
Kblg coLiiry rffflar sE$onc effl L*ndnlk 90cdd Ysisll 3162.(n o.r lon tAl
R$antr Taengler S.tellon oeftitrc $I3t1.58 oer todl {Al
Rabinao Trir!cfulr gt*ioft CD,L t92-23 oer lon {Al
lhct( Fuvr|f Trenshr St Bofi trDL 18tl 8{l ilf lon aAl
Cidgr Gros* Cornmrtlm- lftc-Ytrdrvaaia {O-gS ost(fi lA}
Slib ${t0l$tr lrra sru fsr ysd, Fff bn, .lc- lrichda cha€a$ ar$ss8id lor ipGdil oodrnodl$63 {gr's"
appllensgs, Edb.6lo6, atc-l of ipddal oonduofii at Gitch sg6cit[ diroosd *lle. Afiscr! addtbnst
Bhcils it noc€taery.
alrB 1,2017flnts-Dalr:
Sata:By:f,io,
Att A Page 395
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Rabanco LTD, G-12
https://www. utc.wa.gov/resulatedlndustries/tra nsportation/TransportationDocuments/R%2OLTD%20-
%2OAlliedo/o2oWaste%2ooP/o2OKento/o2c%20Rabanco%2OCos%2c%20Seaf ac%2ODisp%2OG-
72%2OTariff%2026.pdf
Serves unincorporated King County and Black Diamond
RECETVED MAY 3I, TOIS WA. TI'T. & TRAN$. COMilI. ORICINAL TG-ISO.II?
suB 07lt2llE
Do&,et: tC.t80.r87
Qruntutg lar.ifffter.'rsiorlr per Oi'der {ll in Irrx/tet IV.}8W87
Agen{a Dnte: July 26.2(118
Afpdirr lhrc,: lugrlrr I, 2$18
r
Cstrgany NemElP8milNuobtr: tu!ros.r:
Treds *t
hrffi!a
l}rir fn
Foqcxy
d
6-t tESsre
tti.
ftErd!
Sdvs
YffiEi
elFE
Otrd
CilrLlG
2n ddks en 37 (S 3qffi tt IU-tr
TCffi :t7 ffi sss I I 3n [i
?cff w.$, I I 51-11
3 tltrt f,7 &A srl.sl I I $136
rl Gm Ita(JELrWt{5l{t5 r I/.ttrt $J-!Ft I I t2 22
5Ctr ITYG,ECrVYR I{t t.s3 f,t.06 so.g{l I I t2.77
:tz t*t loter $/(ilhul,vH fI5-5|t f/.{x ss.sl I I $'l.l l
fi ('a! I olsr wtirtulrytt 52:t2J 5r.{t5 $r.$l I I 11 {ia
gG Gd TolBr warEol,r/R 33e?{3?.!6 s{l.so I I 5t a6
lcs nltirt{Jwl.a 5Il-t]:t 57_tE 3$ 55
Rwdeonlv 3a.rs II
\11 m I
( I I To mlid waate ollectioft, {lsbe*re rbqvcling (shffi rcH) md yardmBle smrc {wh* rdedl aor
EsdsnllEl proF€rty. Ths indudc ainqle lEmily d*slilrgE, dlploffi,4arkffib. mcbils lsrc.
{sdEminhffi, Etc., {fie{e E€rvics as bill€d alf€cDy b t}€ ffiLFant of €Ech mEidanlid umt rrdior
WhEn ESjiEd by r loei gdEftcnrrn swim lfllEl ofitirarE€. sddd wsF c*diffi, ffbsidE
Ecyding, ild yHdmBlE sruaE must be prwfrd fo. singa+fant drellings. drpl€r€a, mbile hm,
ffldBminiffi, .nd spErblHtbu3ings sf lEs lhil .l ffiiffiid w-lts. whtrs swis iE blad
e th€ !(op€dly arld q lnsfii4Br,
:!6.Wd9esgq €grS-EEf O*Eirrd G..ugE ll]{t*'tf Glrbryq *tuWcd? ncf*T
€$lrR.Csrf Ofrq lvak fa61dnt; fth*loirff *ef*qE t$ tu! I& E! mF ql
flob t: OmltbrvlulBo Elabd lE ref,)Tlng prog.a{T BE *rM il psgr23"
NBE 2: D€scrbthrdslgs €l6lFdlo FrderdrtE prsgr€.n aaE dEwn on pEgF El.
t{ots 3: b addirion lr! lhE rEc}'Etu}g BIE€ stsm *!vE, a roq/dtq dEblu{€rEditi Et tgt}. lgxAl Eppli6s.
Nob d: Ro€tcftrg tsE€ 6hown Ebave ar€ sulrie.t b €n.adrlitfiEl rgstElirE p.ffiing slrchE ge of fo,{i p€r mon$!.
lhs rEcyclirq Fro*s€ing surcitrgs on thie p€glg titr a|Firs: Itscrnbea gl , 2O'l t
AlFddhA
Recycllqg rrfier m *rie prgc arpke m: Jrruxyll. !0ll
Fabg in lrp ibm apdrc
b€1tr aFply in lh€ foilwi.rg wim srpe;
Jwl 21}rs
WrdlE.r, EuEilEss Uni Sor&ollBr
Date:
gy:
OEIE:Itli.
Att A Page 396
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
RECEIVEN MAY 3I, 2OI8 WA, I.I'T. & TRANS. COI}IM. ORICINAL TG.T8O{8?
stJB 07/t2118
t-"fiX rsFFI{'lAt f.r.\'? CrVIf
fiocker: fG-18{118?
G r* n t ittg'I'o ri!]' R a' is i o x pt r ( hd er il I m l.kx'&e t fn I tl],t,S 3
-lgenda lhtt: Jul 26. lil l ll
E-l,fbct ivt tr)sre; .{u#r"rl l. lt}I8
Rselged Ptge
NsmeFettltn'tttnbtf Fk*!ft*lt
I Srh
€sa
It$g a,
hb q Tlp.
d*llffi
€rn 0&
kde
FeYE
tul*Ri&t
tll{ E 61t
lsM. I I
.'ftr ll
ophe
Co?ffs
Ml
ZDellffisn hqffitlffiw '-D6 5.1 r 3S t13-&5 I I ;).4d
1 Cen lrz.Ja fl,l.gt I I t'.55
? Can 324 l7 aa $1t.38 t13.&5 I I ll.rr
3 gsn .s ltr..ts tlJ.AA I I 166
a c€n 35n St 37 06 $1?.3s 513.&6 I I t
5 (]an l5t nJ /.h tlE.3S f, 13.85 I I
3? flal Tfr&r 3tss4 $?.06 112.39 t13.85 I I t:
IK.Effi 12J.tS a.ut slz.J9 f,t 3n5 I
g5 Grl T.r*B 'rllgrEc.*g YYW $32.7ir 7.tlE l1?.3S s:3.a5 I I 165
I U€N reEg#Ilr.{'a.l t6.u3 a.ua t12-3S 5tf,.45 I I
3a,ts I
Yard€.lF i:lr*!t1l m ft! ffi I
tt
l ls rq,lid s|l6 eolltrl,fl:, eubsde re{ycBq {*fiere rlea€d} qnd fsrdaEds s*rvc€s (*trpre noted} lor
.Erdef{ld rffipefiy. lt*. hdudes rnBb bmlly &€lllrgB, drrptera*, dpa(fl€nls, rncfiile htrner
crlldEmlnhtfirs, d6,. Ntlcf€ s4ndoe * blllad drEctt! to the ot{xsanl {l egcb re4ktefiEsl lml! srlds{
Wflen rlqllftd 4 s leal g{vE run€rt sarvloe ietd ordlFdnCe, sotld *art€ c(isetion, cilrbslde
naqrlirq, sDS tBrdmele esylce nruBf be o{oelrtsd lor rf|glFlm*y dwattrHs. d!*lses, rubfle ttrrs,
cafiomlnhl]}rg, rd epsnment ilildlgg ol les6 Sxsn t regldslfld utt3, ldtlere rgfyba la ullad
la &le foserty qrrmr {. lnEndgs.
1: Bescfiothaltuler ralEled b r€cf€llnq g{gafln sr€ sho*! dl Foge lg.
!: l;e3{,-triplh&hles r€lEiEd !e !fl{nrEste progrrn are rhoern m FagF 3D-
3: ln Eddbn tl] lhe rec,ldlng rst68 sh{r#r ddr€, E rEEyetrg dsK.|tcrettt} El f{S-t6l {Al apdtes
{: RecrdlE i8!e5 Bhorn atoffi sa" rnbJact to sn dddlal.ll ,gc}€lF!g lfocss€*rg rl'JEfr€rge sf t+.*6 pef mnrBl
T'le rec*dlng p.soesslnq lurshsgs on [i6 F€g* tfl e,qlrE: {}ec.motr t{, AnE
n Fllg.lern .sFpay:
Rccyf,llE fllil an tfilr plgi a$l.. cn:fiffi3l.llltt
Fstes [€lo* sFly in ilE i!*silnE servlffi rcs:{pfl.ndr E
Eff R€ t tuSd Rsrdq: Xiiktq klds: uttudd ny cffport.
fdr Wurwdr Erb{$ FflAl}Et6t
uflll contnaer
t" ?oi8s!18oele: Jur*
ilD. i6'fde:Ey
Aft A Page 397
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
RfCEIVED T{OV 15,1016 WA" TIT- & TRAN$" COMM" ORTGINAL TG.T61T16
$uB tt/t{Jt6
5u ftevtsid fu$ neo,No.a6 *4
Ya
Itsn6lFtfitt Humber: &rbaruLrE$rl
iFm 23d - Dtals3d Fre*
chargff ln this iGm xsry nfiin olhEr rismi h !h6 ieltr spe.*liea{y r.fEr b thi6 llc{n_
E{cF6sslslh (nem6 0r lscdiofil TvpG of Mstrfia!Fo€ !tr Dlssosal
KE1o Gol.'r& ll3ngtar;lrfldfE rnd Lrfirllllts aEllbeor $134.59 ficrl€fi fAl
l(tslg fioutly uanst|r Eleflon8 ERal Landlllk Emftdw#r S1ff2.0O o€r lon lAl
Rab€ndo Trenrhtr Stlllon Bettdm $131-59 0.r tori lAl
Rabeftm.rreEstrl St'lldn Itlt_fgt-23 o.r lon aAl
Etstch tr'1tt Tfttn$tf StaUon :m 38S.60 D6r lEn JAI
C8dar Gmve CorlrEo6lino. lnc"Ytt lhflecl,t a{1,9S d*r idn JAI
Sldb Whdft*r l66s sne S€r yird, psr bl!, alc.. lnctudc cltugia* as3qtgrd lor rpadal tonunodilire {ilr68,
epp{lenocr, #bc6bc, r!n} tr sp€cll} aondEans et {ach ipAclfrc dtspord r[a. Atttc! adittlonal
sfifsd* s! fllcesrary.
l$sr6d ay: RlcjrlryaHr.n. tlivl8im frnuqilq4
bsrr Dilf: firill€fiSGr 15,20tB Eftacltvr DsE: Jeruaru 1. 201?
/FErOr$e{rll Usr OfiIyJ
Detc:B!:Do*6i Flo. TGi-
FOII- CIFfi?{Ut ffSg CIrVIf
Dotket T'{;-1612/,6
Agenda llate: Dercm!rcr t]. Jfltd
f,-ffertJr,sflarr: Januaty l, ]{II 7
Att A Page 398
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Waste Management of WA G-237
https://www.utc.wa.sovlregulatedlndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/WM%20-
%2oNorth%2oSound%20and%2}WM%20-o/o2OMarvsville%2OG-237%2OTariff%2OL9.pdf
Serves unincorporated King Countv and Woodinville
RECE]VED MAY II, IOIS \ryA. UT. & TRANS. COMM. ORTGINAL TC.I8O{I5
TariffNtr- !! Sth Revi-q€d Page No- ?4
Company Name/Pernrit Number: Warte Ma:ragement of Washingtcn, lnc,lC.23?
Resistfred Tmde Name: Wa:te Manae€lnenl * North $ound and Waste Management .. Marvsville
lhm ilXl - Rcsideorinl Scrvicr - Monthlv Rltet lContinusd on nert nesc)
ftrter in thir item rpply
il i 'l o solid q'stc lolloctian" cwbsidc rcrlthng ad yunlwasrc colltstlm eniDcs for rcidcntul prepcrty. fhi: rmludcs rrnglc
{amily dwclhng:, duplexcs, apartmmts. mbilc horffi, mndlrminuros, ch., rhm micc is hillcd dircctly ra dr ncrpanr of cruh
rrdc*tial uro1 und;m(11 Wbm rcqurrcd by r lcal govmnmnt scrvicc hvcl $:drnsnec slid *xrtc callcclrm, cuborde ralcling, end yud*'crE mlcE
mu:tbc provtdrd fnr ricgblamily d*rlling:, duplsts, rxrbilc h+rcs, cmrdomiorum: nnd *putrnenr huildinps of lms than ! rc:rden{ial
unils, *hoc micc is billcd to tlrc pffiFcrty fmff or mnn!ff.
[1]hrhcfullo*rngscrytctsrEs: t'ltcscmiee ar*:requrrtdbyKrngf'ounry!'ode'l-rllet$.mntarncdinti-f17asdcssrhdin
Appcndir A.
Itlunbtr of Fritr or
ftne dCrntrirer
f'rquoey cl
kninll{0il*1l
{c}
Grrhrgr
$crriee ltetr
[rri
Addithml
fen
f,tryclc
Smt* ltetc
35 $r[on
Yrnlrtutr
knicrllrh
Sd ffdlor
Yrrdncfr
Srrrim *-r,tr
{6 Grllon
frdnrrc
Ssvkrft*e
l{mi{trn wfirFfirtn tt ul 58.8:39 26 lrl ]i fil ll
I C*n lil{,'E0Wn s7.id s8.$tq.llt tnt ll sir lx
I Can WfirtOtYR trt.4B 58.$?19.16 10.15 sil.31
tfrs wfr,[oltqt 12d.?1 38.$1 t{, :6 trat li fit11
lCm wfim0$rlt 331,6.1 t8 8?fr) tf,tl0.1t $r l.]3
lCm.w{ilt{lwR 5.+?.4'l tE.$2 t9 t6 t0.15 $lJ]
i Crne lI'CIEOIIR tu.36 s8 g)iq:6 trs.15 $t l.ll
$C*rN lt'{i,,Eot{h s6l {}58.8!t*-t6 t0.35 $l l.l3
I l0 ealhlr L'ert wti,!EQlrn 1t$.61 t0.61 58.8!t9,16 1il.-]!!il.1J
I 15 ralhn ftrt wriF{rwR ll6 6t gl6 64 gt.8:s9.:6 ;lu.]i f t1 _11
li ealhu Ctrr lilGrEOWR $8.01 $,it 5t.8?g$.t6 l$.35 *!l l1
1 6l ealho Cut lryciu0$fl{126.r r :6. il tr8.81 3S.16 ,1fi.15 ffl J3
l96cilhnCrlt WCr[t]lvn 111 ir tll tt 18.8?t9.16 fil.]5 fi l.tl
Frequency of lsrirx Cod*.q:
M6-M*nrhly Gubage
EOWR-EWr! 0ther We€k Recyele.
SesrFr$ti{riln*er rehred t0 recyeling pmgrnm rre }hr$'n on page !S.
Descriptiolrfrules relatrri trr yardwnste progrlm ire Bhown on pqge 4.
Noies fdr t}rs ileil rre $n pag* E.
R*cycling rsl*s *hown abov* are subjoct tn a recyellng "tredir:/debit of sxljlIE per nmn{h l'r:r ctslomers id tlttr *rti{:c
arsos delerih*rl in Appendices A and B.
ft,eeycllng c+nrmodity "crsdia> fr+.,ulqtldebit {cfur€s} on this p{ge expirr: N!SIJL3!!S
Recycling ratts shown above are subject to an additional recyrling processing zurchargc of !fu!{.!!t grer
monrh" The reclcling pmcessing suruharge on this page rvill expire: Qg[!gg.!!!!!![{C}
irsued by: Michael A- Weins&eiq Senior Pricing Manager" Pocilic Nor*rwe*t Marka Area
Issue drte:t0t8lt
(Far ffflicial Use Only)
Date:
,.tIIDocke{ No. Tfi-Date:.laly
Att A Page 399
Ordinance 18893 UpdatedApril 17,2019
R-ECEMD OCT 14, t0l6 WA. UT" & TRANS. COMM. ORTGINAL Tc-l6t 132
TariffNo" $ lst Revised Page Nn. lg
Company Name/Pemrit Number: Wa*te Managenrent af Warhington, tnc.1G.13?
Registered Tracle Name: Waste Marngement . North Sound and Wa*te Management -Marysville
Item 130 - Diroornl Fffs
Charges in thi* item rpply n hen other itenrr in rhe tariff -rpecifically refer ts this item.
Disporfll ritp {nsme or locrlicn)Tvne of Mnterirl F'eer inr diroorrl
$nnhamish Caunty Transl-er Stations lvtCW $ 105.0{l pr ton
l.Ion-&.er1clahle
CDI-$ 105.S{l rxr ton
Special Wase $ 20ll.0ll pr lon
Shelco Trflnsfer litation MSW S l05.0ll pr tnn
Non*R.rcyclable
CDL S 105.011 lxr ton
$pecial Waste S l0ll.0ll per ton
King Caunty Trnnsfer Stations lv!,SW S 13,1.59 lAl uer ton
Snecial Wasie t 161.00 (.tl oer ton
WM of $eattls l"ranstbr Statisn MSW S tJ.t.50 (A! per ion
CDL tfr'ante f 1S8.15 uertun
State rvhsther fees are per ylrd, per lon. elc. lnclude chargas ar*essed for rpecial cammrdilies ltires,
applianc*, asbest{ts, etc.} or rpeeial condilicnr at eadr specific disporal sifte- .A,ttach additional sheets as
Bec€3.cary.
Issued by: Michael A.funior lbicing Manager, Pacific I'lorthse.-* hlarker Arsa
OFFICHL llSE0rYllt0t6f-i.?
{For
Erra:
J^?
Dcrcket !lo- Tfi-[Jate: Deeember lil16
l7
prl'
Aft A Page 400
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019
Waste Management South Sound G-237
https://www.utc.wa.gov/resulatedlndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/WM%20South
%2OS o u n d%20 a n dYo2OW M%2OS e attl e%20 G -237 %2OT a r iff %2ON o%2023 . o df
Serves unincorporated King County,
RECEIVED MAY I I.2OI8 WA. LIT. & TRANS. COMM. ORTGINAL TC.I8O4O9
TariffNr. !! ?th Revised Fage No.22
Company Name/Fermit Nunrb€r: Wa-rte Manngernent of Washingto,n, lnc"iG-?3?
Registered Trade Narne: Waste hlanageruent * South Sound and Waste lvtanagemenl of Seattle
Item 100 - Resideatinl Servicr - $lonlhlv Rrtts lContinued on next nere)
R{$r ln rftlf ltsm tpFt}'1(lI lbmlid*nslcctlxtinqcwlrdcrccycltnpandyrrdua:{crollstronsuceforrcsrdentralprupcrty thisrrcludarnglr
famly dmlhng-r, dupltrF, rpanmdts, nnbilc hom, qlndominiums. car-, r'hm *ruirc rs billod dircctly to thu omrprnt oicuh
csi&rtial uror; sdtir
flf lVhcn rcquirtd by a lo*ll govcmmcnt rcwicc lctrl ordimmc wlid rryxtc ccllcction, rurfisi<lc rroglir4; md ynnt*a$c setricr
must hc pruvidod for singlofrmrly dmllirgs" dugrlcrcl. mhilc hom, mndorrrniurm and lparrnant burldingr of las thm I
csidcmisl miLl uhrrr rwicc is biilcd m thr proprt3r o*ner m mtr&gBr
(31 ln tir
lrcqr:mey of Scrviru
F"OWR=EVErl,u*Er
lVmk ilubagc; h{$=Hsnddy Grbsgc;
W*h Recyclinp;Yrnl l,t'trdc
l\,locs lor dris rtem ar8 on Fage 4!"
DesrriptirxVruies related lo rsycling program:rre showu on pagr !!-
Ll.scriptiodrule,s relatsd ro Vanlwaste program ure shrrwn on page !4.
Recyeling ratrs showt chore ere subject lo ir roeyelinf! {.Lsedit:{debil of5[!l!E per trrrnfh Inr cust$nrers in dr srvice
ff€8$ de$cribed in .{ppendir A"
Recycling <crediFrdebit sdju$rrbenR trbovE $n lfti$ p6ge e.(pilr: Ilcftfib*r 31. 2llli
Rccycling tEtes $hcrvn alow are subject lo *n a.k ifiaoel rtlcycling pro{ALsicg $urclraigs oflq!!,J[A] per .non& Tlte
rerycling processrng sucharge on ilris pngr- wdl exprru: Octoht* 31. 2lllE {C}
Issued by: Michael A. Weiffitein.Senior hicing Manapr. Pacific Northwesr Market Area
lszuedate: Mayll,20t8 Effer*rnd$n*um$lri0**iulyi
Number of tJnis or
'fvnr nf frrrmincr
Freqr*ncy of
Service
Carbagr $ervite
Rate
Itecrcle $ervite
llrte
l5 Callnn
l'ard*asie Senire
fl*t*
64 fiallilt
Yrrd*arte
Seruis l{*t*
t)6 Galhn
Yanhvasre
lenir* llate
Llini{'rur{2{1 p*l I ilcrF{)tvk,'wY 7.82 $s 4{clt fxl n? tR
I (atr MG,EOTVtr'ltu'Y ,B 7l s9 40 $ t0_00 $1l 0f 512,t0
Mlcr&L-andl$ sall wfiiEotltu\lr $9,t'7 s9.40 Itl.{x,I t.u0 5lt,.IU
Minr{ilr{!0 cel.l \tr{i/EowRit}Y 3t1 11 $r) 40 lo{n I t,00 l:.t0
I L'an vc,EowR try gr8.8r)s{.40 $ll)_00 I LUI 1t.20
I L'{rE 11fi/EowR'wY llt_66 59.4{t 5 ttL00 lilt fi!t2l0
1Cflls iVCIEOWR,'ISV f:i?q t9 40 tt),00 flr r0
{ L*a*s t\{j/EowEl$Y $4$.68 s9.ilo tti.00 ilt.00 $l] 10
! L'ilLs \VC/EOWRl'!Y t58.Sr $9.40 i t0"00 ILtQ t_LJ0
I 1l Bellnn sn MGiFtlwRrwY 8-8?s9 4{ils00 il f*)l? ?o
t .}{l edlo* csrt \tti,EolvRnw't3,J3 s9 40 $t0,00 il100 sll.:0
I fi Rallon c$l HG,EOWn,\YY 9.?t l9.it{,t0-{xt 5r r.0$5l]:r]
I "15 ealloo cut \!G,tutsR/wY f?0 6t ss dfi t0,0$t:.0{r r?.20
I 6{ Eallo:r rst wtrrto\ifR\[Y f30.JJ s9.40 5I0,00 I t.00 t2 20
M erlln* cil{wtitE{}w&'wY 41.frt 59.q{l 3 lt].o$I t.00 il:.20
Docket !'io. TG-Date:
Att A Page 401
Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 20'19
RECf,ryED OC'T I{.1016 WA. UT. & TRANS. COMM. ORIG1NAL TG-T6III4
TariIINo. !! lrr Revised Page No. 34
Company Name/Pemrit Number: Wa*te Managennent of Washington, l*c.iG-f3?
R.es,istered Trade Name: Waste Mansperireni * Soulh Snund and Wart*Managernent - lenttle
Item 130 - Disnorsl Fecs
I'trargat in lhis itsm apply when odre,r iiemE in the hritf*pecifically refrr lo this item.
State whethe.r fees ars per ldrd, per toq etr;. Include charges asr€*ssd for sperial commodities {tires,
appliancer" asheslos, etc., or special conditions at cach specifie firposal site. .A.ttach additional slrt€b ar
neF4ssary..
lssued by: Michael A trVeirstrin. g€sior
lsssed{te: Ociober 14, 2CI16
Pricing Manager, Pacific Nnrthwesl Markrt Area
v
{ror offif }/69 ftH}neroiria,l" pe' ord,r
31
tll &rcketTG-l6tl3'l
Doc*el l.io- TG-Date:
Dale:Deceff*er }ITI6
Disp'osal *rte {name or lncation}TyFe of Materirl Fees for dlsnos{
Kine Countv Transfer Station MSW S 13459 (A) per ton
$pwial Waste $161.00 {Af per tan
WM of $eattle Transfer Station MSW t f 34,$9 {.4} per ton
King County CDL
Warte S 10fi.15 f,{} per tqn
Att A Page 402