Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 1965 - ATTACHMENT: 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (Adopted by Res 1965)
in oral '' Re o'urcea, r'ndPa 2o19 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan July 2018 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 unt Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Alternate formats available 206-477-4466; TTY relay: 711 .kin count ov/solidwaste 2029 Comprehensive Soltcl Waste Management Plan -July 2028 1202111 Att A Page 2 Prepared by King County Solid Waste Division Department ofNatural Resources and Parks Z0lSouth Jackson Street, Suite 70l Seattle, VVA9DlO4'3855 kingcounty.gowsoUdwaste Pat [lMcLaughlin, Division Director G|ynda Stein, Assistant Division Director Meg Moorehead, Strategy, Communications and Performance Manager Jeff Gaisfond'Recycling and Environmental Services Manage/ EbenSutton, Enterprise Services Manager Aaron ]eide'Human Resources Manager Neil Fujii'Facilities Engineering and Science Unit Manager Bill Berni'Operations Manager |ncollaboration with: Solid Waste Advisory Committee April Atwood, Vice -Chair Kim Kaminski David Baker B|yDunzendah| Joe[asa|ini GibOammann Karen Dawson Jean Garber W1asonGiem David Hill PhiUippaKassover Kevin Kelly, Chair Keith Livingston Ken Marshall Barb Ristau Stephen Strader Penny Sweet Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee City cfAlgona City ofAuburn City nfBellevue City of Black Diamond City ofBothell City of8urien City ufClyde Hill City ofCovington City ofDes Moines City ofEnumclaw City ofFederal Way City ofIssaquah City nfKenmore City ofKent City ofKirkland City ofLake Forest Park City ofMaple Valley City nfMercer Island City ofNewcastle City ofNormandy Park City ofRedmond City ofRenton City of Sammamish City ofSea7ac City ofShoreline City ofSnoqua|mie City ofWoodinville ii 2u9(omp,ebwxx�vaSolid Wa;teMxn^gv�nentfla�z 2018 King County Executive Dow Constantine Department of Natural Resources ard9adks Christie True, Director Bob Burns, Deputy Director AOmg County Cowmd| Rod OembowsN'District l Larry Gossett, District 2 Kathy Lambert, Council Vice Chair, District 3 Jeanne Koh|-WoUes,District 4 OaveUpthegnove District Claudia Ba|ducd, District Pete von Reichbauer,District 7 Joe McDermott, Council Chair, District 8 Reagan Dunn, District Q 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dVas�e.MoqgewemPZan -jZdYxmJ Acknowledgements ii Acronyms and Abbreviations, and Common Terms x Acronyms and Abbreviations x Common Terms xi Executive Summary xv Chapter 1 Introduction Summary of the Plan Organization 1-2 Chapter 2 The Existing Solid Waste System Policies Rgune2'l. King County service area 2-2 The Solid Waste System 2'3 Collection ofSolid Waste and Recyc|ab|es 2'3 Figure 2'2.The Solid Waste System 2'4 Transfer 2'6 Figure J'lMap oftransfer station locations 2'7 Processing ofCommingled Recyc|ab|es 2'8 Figure Z'4.Locations ofcomposting, materials recovery, and designated construction and demolition recycling and disposal facilities 2'0 Table 2-1. Materials recovery facilities locations and tons processed in 2017 2'10 Disposal 2'10 Figure Z'ICurrent layout ofthe Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 2'11 Figure 2'0.Landfill gas-tu'energyprocess 2'12 Solid Waste System Planning 3'13 Table 2'IRoles inregional planning and administration 2'15 Trends inSolid Waste Management 2'18 Leading the Way inWaste Prevention, Recycling and Product Stewardship 2'18 Expanding the Collection ofRecyclable and Degradable Materials 2'19 Building a New Generation ofTransfer Stations 2'19 Managing Solid Waste Disposal with an Eye tothe Future 2'21 Financing the Solid Waste System for the Long Term Z'Zl Protecting Natural Resources through Environmental Stewardship 2'21 Additional Planning Considerations 2'32 Climate Change 2'22 Equity and Social Justice 2'25 iv Loj9 Comp-ekms�voSolid Waste Management Plm-JLIY,m8 Chapter 3 Forecasting and Data Policies Summary ofRecommended Actions Forecasting 3'1 Figure 3'l.Transfer station service areas population 2O2S'2O4O 3'3 Figure 3'IEstimated share ofpopulation increase Z0Z5'2040for transfer station service areas 3'4 Figure 3'IProjection ofsolid waste recycled and disposed 2Ol8'204O 3-4 Current Data onRegional Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal 3'5 Figure 3'4.Z0l5Recycling and disposal bvgenerator type 3'5 Sing|e'Fami|yResidents 3'0 Figure 3'5.]0l5 Recycling and disposal bysingle-family residents 3'6 W1u|ti'Fami|yResidents 3'7 Figure 3'O.2OlS Recycling and disposal bymulti-family residents 3'7 Non'Residen<ia|Generators 3'8 Figure 3'7.20l5Recycling and disposal bynon-residential generators 3'8 Self -haulers 3'9 Figure 3'8.ZUl5 Recycling and disposal bytransfer facility self -haulers 3'9 Generators ufConstruction and Demolition Debris 3'9 Figure 3-9. 2015 Construction and demolition materials diverted and disposed 3'10 Tracking Progress 3'10 Tonnage and Transaction Data ]'ll Reports from the Commercial Collection Companies 3'11 Ecology Survey Data 3'12 Waste Characterization Studies 3'12 Solid Waste Characterization Studies 3'13 Organics Characterization Studies 3'14 Construction and Demolition Debris Characterization Studies 3'14 Planning Tools 3'14 Plans and Studies 3'15 Evaluation of Technologies 3'10 Waste Prevention and Recycling Studies 3'16 Other Plans Considered 3'17 Chapter 4SustainaUnle Materials Management Policies Summary ofRecommended Actions Benefits ofRecycling Efforts 4-2 Goal and Targets 4'3 Figure 4'l.Organics: Opportunities, values, and benefits inKing County 4'4 Figure 4'lRecycling rate over time 4'0 Figure 4'IOne approach ofregional cooperation toward 70Y6recycling goal using collective mandatory actionS 4'7 � ,m�COmP,u6pv�^ JO&u /K�e/Nanng,m}� ex/n-J^�,o/J Tools Used tuMeet the Recommended Goal and Targets 4-8 Table 4-l.Examples cf successes achieved using various tools 4'8 Taking aSustainable Materials Management Approach 4'10 Figure 4'4.Materials life cycle 4-10 Design and Production 4-11 Use and End -of -Life Management 4-12 Turning Wastes tm Resources 4-13 Table 4'2.Designated ecyc|ab|es 4'14 Figure 4'5.Recycling potential ofmaterials disposed in2Ol5 4'15 Priority Materials 4'10 Organics 4-16 Priority Materials for Collection atKing County Transfer Facilities 4-17 Markets for Recyclable Materials 4'17 LinkUp-Expanding Markets for Recyclable and Reusable Materials 4-17 20lSand 30l7Market Assessments 4'18 Table 4'3.Findings from 2OlSand 2Ol7market assessments 4'18 Grants toCities 4-19 Waste Reduction and Recycling Grants 4'19 Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance Grants 4'20 Competitive Grant Program 4'20 Sustainable Purchasing 4'20 Collection 4'21 Residential Collection 4-21 Table 4'4. Summary of single-family collection for garbage, recycling, and organics inKing County 4'22 Table 4'5. Single-family minimum collection standards 4-30 Multi -Family Residential Collection 4'30 Table 4'8. Multi -family minimum collection standards 4'31 Non'Residentia|{o||ection 4'33 Construction and Demolition Materials Collection and Recycling 4'35 Table 4'7. Designated facilities for non -recyclable construction and demolition waste (July 2018) 4'36 Table 4'8. Designated facilities for recyclable construction and demolition waste (July Z0l8) 4'37 wi L,oj,g Comp-ebms�veSolid Waste Management Plan -JLIY,m8 Chapter 5 Solid Waste Transfer and Processing Policies Summary ofRecommended Actions The Transfer System and Services 5'1 Figure 5'l.Locations ofsolid waste facilities 5'2 Tab|e5'l. Current facilities and services 5'3 Resource Recovery atTransfer Stations 5'5 Services for Moderate Risk Wastes 5'5 Collection ofSharps 5'0 Tends inTransfer Station Usage 5'7 Figure 5'ITotal tons processed attransfer facilities and disposed atCedar Hills (l9g0 2017) 5'7 Figure 5-3. Percent of tons and transactions at transfer facilities by hauler type (2017) 5'8 Evaluation and Planning for the Urban Transfer Stations 5'9 The Planning Process 5'9 Service Level Evaluation Criteria 5'11 Table 5'2.Key service level criteria applied tnurban transfer stations 5'15 Plans for the Urban Transfer Stations 5'16 Figure 5'4.Locations ofexisting and planned solid waste facilities 5'17 Table S'3.Timeline for the facility renovation plan 5'18 Transfer Facility Siting 5'18 Siting aNew South County Recycling and Transfer Station 5'18 Providing Transfer Capacity inthe Northeast Service Area 5'19 ANew Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station isRecommended 5'19 Other Northeast Capacity Options Considered 5'20 Table 5-4. Comparison of key characteristics of three transfer options considered 5'21 Evaluation and Planning for the Rural Transfer Facilities 5'21 City Mitigation 5'23 Transfer Services after anEmergency 5'24 Processing Collected Materials 5'25 Processing Commingled Recydab|es 5'25 Processing Organics 5'20 Table 5'5.Regional compost facilities 5'20 Emerging Processing Technologies 5'28 Anaerobic Digestion 5'28 Advanced Materials Recovery 5'28 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dVas�e.MoqgewemPZan ,mJ Chapter 6 Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal Policies Summary cfRecommended Actions Current Disposal atthe Cedar Hills Landfill d'l Diversion ofWaste 0'2 Current Strategies for Waste Diversion 0'2 Potential Strategies for Waste Diversion 6'2 Operational Efficiencies 0'2 New Area Development 0'3 The Next Disposal Method 0'5 ADisposal Method Must 8eSelected asPart ofThis P|an'sApproval 0'5 Further Development nfCedar Hills isRecommended 0'5 Table 8'l.Comparison ofkey disposal option characteristics (planning level estimates) 6'6 Other Long -Term Disposal Options Considered 0'7 Waste Export 0'7 Waste to Energy Facility 0'7 Next Steps 0'8 Technologies for the Future 0'0 Disposal ofSpecial Wastes 0'11 Managing Illegal Dumping and Litter 0'12 Illegal dumping 0'12 Table 0'Z.Illegal dumping clean-up responsibilities 0'13 Community Litter Cleanup 0'13 Secure Your Load 0'13 Disposal Services after anEmergency 0'14 Restoration ofClosed Landfills 6'15 Post -Closure Monitoring and Maintenance 0'15 Figure 6'1.Map o/closed landfills 6'16 Beneficial Reuse ofLandfill Properties 0'17 Other beneficial uses 0'17 Chapter 7 Solid Waste System Finance Policies Summary ofRecommended Actions Funding ofSolid Waste Services and Programs 7'1 Figue7'l. Solid Waste Division fund structure 7'2 Solid Waste Division Revenues 7'3 Figure 7'2.Projected sources ofrevenue 2017and 201O 7'4 Solid Waste Division Expenditures 7'5 Figure 7'3.20l7Budgeted expenditures 7'5 Influences onFuture Costs and Revenue 7'8 Interest Earnings 7'8 Waste Prevention and Recycling 7'8 �,.u9(omp,ebrx,meSolid Waxte Management Plan -/2dy,m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Operational Efficiencies 7-9 Potential Changes in the Fee Structure 7-9 Closure of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 7-10 New Revenue Sources 7-10 Sales from the Landfill Gas -to -Energy Facility 7-10 Resource Recovery at Transfer Stations 7-1 1 Fees from Materials Collected at the Transfer Stations 7-11 Chapter 8 References Appendix A - Utilities and Transportation Commission Cost Assessment Appendix B - Six Year Capital Improvement Program Appendix C - Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement Appendix D - Waste Reduction Model (WARM) Inputs Used in Analysis Appendix E - Responsiveness Summary Appendix F - Descriptions of Disposal Options Considered Appendix G - Agency Plan Review Letters Appendix H - Title 10 Plan Content Code Requirements 2029 Comprehensive .Solid 04zste Management Plan -July 2o28 Att A Page 10 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 -t ns 2001 Plan Z001Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan AO anaerobic digestion AD[ alternative daily cover AMR advanced materials recovery BEVV 8ioEnergy Washington [&O construction and demolition debris [ERP Capital Equipment Recovery Program dBA decibel DNRP Department nfNatural Resources and Parks Ecology Washington State Department ofEcology EIS environmental impact statement EE[BG Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program EPS expanded polystyrene FEK8A Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG greenhouse gas HOPE high -density polyethylene plastic HHVV household hazardous waste ILA intedoca|agreement |T3G |nterju,isdictiona|Technical Staff Group KCC King County Code K[5VVO King County Solid Waste Division LDPE low -density polyethylene plastic LEED° Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design— LHVVMP Local Hazardous Waste Management Program LRF Landfill Reserve Fund yNFS Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling W1RF materials recovery facility W1SVVK4AC Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee yNTCO2e metric tons ofcarbon dioxide equivalent MVV megawatt NVVPSC Northwest Product Stewardship Council PET po|yethy|eneterephtha|ate plastic PS[AA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency PSR[ Puget Sound Regional Council Public Health Public Health — Seattle & King County PVC polyvinyl chloride plastic RAS recycled asphalt shingles RCVV Revised Code ofWashington SA[ Siting Advisory Committee SEPA State Environmental Policy Act X -,,ojyCooprcbrx,iveSolid Waxe/Nav^gv�nentfla�z 2018 xoxPage 11 Site Development Plan Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan SWA[ Solid Waste Advisory Committee SVV|F Solid Waste |ntedoca| Forum Transfer Plan Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan UA8 Urban Area Security Initiative UT[ Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission VVAC Washington Administrative Code VVPR waste prevention and recycling r s 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 tuthe 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. cleanmmxod-unpaintpdanduntneatedwnod'indudingpaUetsandwnodfromcnnstructinnanddemn|ition projects. commercial collection company (hauler) - a private -sector company that collects garbage, recyclables, and organics from residents and businesses. cmwmpost-thepnoductresukingfromtheoontnoUedbio|ngka|decompositionofnrganicwaste 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 NC&0A-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. climmatechamge-changesinthe|ong-tenntrendsinaveogeweatherpattennsofanegion'indudingthefnsquencK 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 asflood, 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. 201�)Co)?zprebensi�)pSolid Wavte.Managaom�o? -JU�y,m8 drop box - scaled -down transfer facility, designed to provide cost-effective convenient drop-off services for garbage and recycling primarily for self -haulers inthe rural areas ofthe county. equity - when all people have an equal opportunity to attain their full potential. Inequity occurs when there are dKfeencesinweU'beingbetweenandvvithincommunitiestha1avesystematic,patterned'unfair,andcanbechanged; they are not random, as they are caused by our past and current decisions, systems of power and privilege, policies, and the implementation ofthose 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. greembmNding-thepmchceofcneatingandusingheakhierandmovenesource+effidentme<hodsofconstnuchon' renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition of buildings and other structures. greenhouse ges-anygasthetoonthbutestothe^gneenhouseefkect suchascarbondioxide,methane,nitrou* oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, chlorodifluoromethane, perfluoroethane, and sulfur hexafluoride. host city - a city that has a county transfer facility within its incorporated boundaries. industrial waste stabilizer - material which 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. interlocall agreement - an agreement between a city and the county for participation in the King County solid waste system. landfill gas - 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 I 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 inEnergy and Envimwnmmanta|Dmsigm` (LEEDm)-arecognized standard for measuring building sustainabi|ity;the rating system evaluates buildings in six areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials and resources selection, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design. materials recovery faciUity-usesmanua|methodsandadvancedtechno|ogyto separate collected recyclable municipal solid waste or MSW - includes garbage (putrescible wastes) and rubbish (nonputrescible wastes), except recyclables that have been sou rce-sepa rated; the residual from sou rce-sepa rated recyclables is MSW. non-residential generator - businesses, institutions, and government entities that generate solid waste. organics-yardwaste, food scraps, and food -soiled paper. product stewardship or producarmespomsibiUity-anenvimnmenta|managementstrategy whereby manufacturers take responsibility for minimizing a product's environmental impact throughout all stages of a product's life cycle, including end oflife management. xii ,()1y(oozp/(,brnnv,Solid Waxtc ge 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. oociaU'wstice-enoompassesaUaspect ofjustice, 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 recycab|es-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 toanother such asamosquito orrat. waste cmmversimmtechno|ogies-non-indnemtontechno|ogiesthatusethennaLchemkaLnrbio|ogioa| 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 tupurchase items with less ornupackaging. waste -to -energy technologies -ecoverenengyfrommunidpa|so|idwasteandindudebnthwasteconveoion technologies and incineration with energy recovery, such as mass burn waste -to -energy, refuse derived fuel, and advanced thermal recycling. zero waste mf resources or 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 bemade toprevent, reuse, and recycle waste. 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dVas�e.MoqgrwamPZan -JUZY,m8 This Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (P|an)sets strategies for managing solid waste inKing 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; ^ Cityefh»rtstopromotenecyz|ingandpnovdeforcurbsidepick'upofmateha|s,eitherasadirectdtyaemice orthrough 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. In 2018, the final city signed the Amended and Restated Interlocal 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 egion'srecycling percentage still hovers inthe low 5Osand stronger markets for vecyc|ab|esare needed inlight offactors such as China's recent import restrictions on recyclable materials. This Plan offers avariety ofwaste 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 orunderway inall urban areas (except for Northeast King County) toimprove services and meet future needs.This Plan recommends that the 1960s era Houghton station in Kirkland be replaced with a modern station sothat equitable levels of service are available throughout the urban area including the fast- growing NnrtheastpartufKing[ounty. 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. Toaccount 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. �� ,m�CO^Pro6ev�o 6W� J���e&�mog,Men//&n-/��co/8 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. xvi �,.mq(o^nprx6rxxivaSolid Wa;teMxn^gv�nent/lan2018 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Updated April 17, 2019 Ordinance 18893 od7cti on This Comprehensive Solid Waste ManoyementPlan (Plan) proposes strategies for managing King County's 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 nfWashington (R[VV) 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 Interlocal Agreement (Amended and Restated ILA), the foundation of the King County solid waste system. This Plan revises the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Manayement Plan (2001 Plan), and builds upon the 2006 Transfer and Waste Manayement Plan (Transfer P|an). With this Plan, the division embraces the DNRP's mission to foster sustainable and livable communities by focusing onthese 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 inthe negion'scommunities and within its own operations. The division continues torefine 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 tothe private'sectorcoUection and processing companies to individual businesses and residents - are contributing to these vital efforts in their own operations and practices. 201�)Co)?zprekensi�)pSol�dWaste*anagelnaw��-JUZ)lxm8 Since its inception in 1969, the core mission of the division has been to ensure that residentsand 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 ofboth the public and private sectors toprovide long-term capacity for solid waste management inthe region. rl This Plan is organized to guide the reader through the major elements of the solid waste system. Within each chapter are elements asdescribed below: Goals reflect the long-term outcomes and aspirations for the regional system. Goals should not change through the life cfthe Plan. Policies provide broad direction and authorization for services and system priorities. Policies should not change through the life ofthe Plan. Actions are targeted, specific, and time -based to implement policies and could include: programs, 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. It 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 bvorfor 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), ~ AppendixBindudesthesix'yearcapita|improvementp|anrequired<obeindudedin1heP|an, ` Appendix C is the Amended and Restated Solid Waste Interlocal 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 1-2 zn19(oozpr�o°xivoSolid Waxte&&woXo�nwufYa"/m8 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 Impact Statement (EIS), 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 in 13 stakeholder meetings with varied audiences. In addition, the division employed a variety of communications tools in the public awareness campaign during the 0O'daypub|icnyviewandcommentperiod.Theseindudadon'|ineandin'peonnmpportunitiestnmommentas 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 (KCSWID 2018a). The revised Plan, transmitted to the King County Council in July 2018, 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 by: ^ The King County Council, ^ The Regional Policy Committee acting as the Solid Waste Interlocal 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 Cou nty/City-App roved 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: 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dVas�eMo7qgr17zmu�a,? -,[U�yxm8 x«xPage 20 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 January 8-March 8,20l8 Release Draft Plan and Draft EIS for 60+daypublic review and comment. Complete January 8-May 7, 2018 Submit Draft Plan and Draft EIS toEcology and UT[for up to 120-day review and comment. Complete May - July 20l8 Revise the Draft Plan and Draft EIS toincorporate Ecology, UTCand public comments and the King County Executive's recommendations. Issue Final EIS. Complete Submit the revised Plan tothe King County Council (including the Regional Policy Committee) for adoption. Complete Late 201 8/Early 2019 Submit County -approved Plan tothe cities for adoption (11 20-day adoption period). K4id2Ol9 Submit County/City-appxxedPlan toEcology for final approval (45day period). 1-4 �,.mq(owprx6rxx�vaSolid Wa:te&yanoge)-nwuPlan '/LIY,m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Policies Maintain apublic and private mix ofsolid waste transfer and processing facilities. Work with the division's advisory committees, the cities, and the Solid Waste |ntednca|Forum onsolid waste management planning and decisions. ES-3 Incorporate principles of equity and social justice into solid waste system planning. ES-4 Consider climate change impacts and sustainabi|kywhen planning for facilities, operations, and programs. *mA Page 24 Updated April 17, 2019 Ordinance 18893 Tl�e Existing Solid Waste 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. Initial improvements to solid waste facilities and operations have been developed further tn incorporate waste prevention and recycling programs that strive <obalance resource use and conservation with production and consumption. One ufthe early influences inthe evolution of the system was the sweeping environmental legislation ofthe ly6Osand l97Os'beginning in l065with 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 inRevised Code ofWashington (R[VV)7OgS'and established Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling inthe Washington Administrative Code (VVA[)l7]'304.|nlg7ithe 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. In 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 (VVA[l73'35U)and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (VVA[l73'35l). Sign a\BowLake kansferSladooencourages customers co recycle more Thirty-seven of the 39 cities in King County (all but the cities of Seattle and Milton) and the unincorporated areas ofKing County participate inthe solid waste system. |nall, the county's service area, shown inFigure 2'l'covers approximately 2,050 square miles. In 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, 201�)Comprchensi�)pSol�dKaste.Maznqge�ncmPlan -,TZIZ)lxm8 *mA Page 25 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 . King County service area 2-2 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 26 ������ �����^.J ��«���� ^��������� ...-_ ~~~~,.~~ .~~.`_ _~�~.,-... Figure 2-2provides ageneral overview ofthe 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. Ascan beseen inFigure 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. Co� e[l'(l[l Of �{)|^J ���1�� ��r� ����Vc|a�` - / _ es |naccordance with state law R[VY8l77.020and 36.58.04O 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 o/ providedty'npemted collection systems. � � � � Most ofthe garbage, /ccyc|abbs,and organics coUuJiooisprovided hy the private sector (Photo courtesy of Reco|ogyUeanScapes) Theoounty's200lComprehensive Solid Waste MonogementPlan(J0OlPlan) specifies that recycling should beincluded aspart ofthe basic garbage rate for residents inmost ofKing County. King County enacted aservice-level ordinance (King County Code (KC[)l0.l8)that includes this requirement for unincorporated areas, except VashonIsland, Skykomish'and 5noqua|miePass. The UTCthen required collection companies todevelop tariffs that spread the cost and availability ofrecycling toall residential garbage customers. These tariffs and service -level requirements also apply tocities that have not opted out of the UT[regulatory structure. Most ofthe garbage, recyc|ab|es,and organics collection inthe cnuntyt semiceareaanepnzvdedbvfnurprivate'sectorcnmpaniea-Recn|ogy OeanScapes'|nc,Republic Services, Inc. (formerly Allied Waste, |ncj, Waste Connections, |nc,and Waste Management, Inc. Except for Reco|ogy [|eanScapes,which only provides contracted services, these companies �S, operate both through the UTC and service contracts with individual cities. '' -- — � ' � '� /�`o.u"=,,"u��"."=,=...`�".="uv.""��""cCuy".".one mmore of these private companies for collection services. Eight cities (Beaux Arts, Black Diamond, Covington, Hunts Point, Kenmore, Medina, Woodinville, and Yarrow Point) and all ofthe unincorporated areas receive collection 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, necvdaNes,and organics; Skvkomish 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 2019 Covpre�msi�)pSolid Vaute.Maenagemox.Plm/z'��Ycm8 2-3 *mA Page 27 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Manufac New Figure 2-2. The Solid Waste System Garbage IN Construction & Demolition Debris (C&D) es rer of ucts 1A111WN1 Homes & Apartments Businesses Construction Sites Small Scale Organics Processing NIK.Or6n "."*V:MkagyamV,Z0 Private Composting Facility Cedar Hills Bio Energy WA Regional Landfill Global, RegiOaal, & Local Markets'; Private Landfill • Recyclables • Organics King County Transfer Station Private Cpp ruction & Demolition Ma*aIs Processing Facility Private Transfer Station Private Materials Recovery Facilities & Recyclables Facilities 2-4 2019 ComprehensiveSolid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 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 toadifferent regulatory structure. King County cannot enact ordinances that require commercial garbage collectors tninclude recyc|ab|es collection as part of the non-residential collection service. Cities, on the other hand, may include recydab|escollection aspart of their non-residential collection service, but cannot prohibit businesses and other non-residential entities from choosing other vendors for this service. L* venue Shohmg Provisfesh7oe tive for Collection Co M ecyclin mr In 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 collectfrom 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 tomake this certification. Toqualify for certification, the collection company's plan must: ~ Besubmitted 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, ^ Incorporate 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, except Vashon Island, have certified revenue sharing agreements inplace. C rbsideC*Ilecti*n/n uralAreas When curbside recycling was initiated in King County in the early 1990s, the collection companies (operating under UTCcertificates) serving unincorporated areas were required to provide curbside recycling services as specified in KCC 10.18 for most of the county. These requirements, consistent with the 1989 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, stated that curbside recycling would be offered to all households as part of the basic garbage service and that yard waste service would beavailable toall households asa 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 becost effective. Currently, three unincorporated areas are not included inthe mounty'scollection service -level standards as specified 201�)Comprchensi�)pSolid W���a;,zqgaam�a,? ,mJ x«xPage 29 Vashon/Maury Island - Historically, a comparatively high percentage of Vashon/Maury Island residentshave chosen to self -haul garbage and recyclables to the division's Vashon Recycling and Transfer Station; however, the number of households subscribing to garbage service has increased over time. Waste Connections, Inc., the company providing garbage collection service on Vashon/Maury Island, also offers subscriptions to recyclables collection services. From a survey of Island residents (KCSWD 2016c), about 17 percent currently subscribe to curbside recycling services. Organics curbside collection is not available. Skykornish 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 theTown ofSkykomish.5kykomishdoes not collect curbside msyc|ab|esororganics. Customers may self -haul garbage and nocyc|ab|estothe division's drop box facility located in Skvkomish; however, separate organics collection is not provided atthe facility. Snoqualmie Pass -The Snoqualmie Pass area is also very sparsely populated. Residential garbage collection is available from Waste Management, Inc. 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. fu � [�s/cr, The division operates eight transfer stations and two rural drop boxes in the urban and rural areas of the county (Figure 2-3). In addition to meeting standards for the safe and environmentally sound transfer of solid waste, 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. In 2017, county transfer facilities received about 917,650 tons of garbage and recyclables, through more than 952,360 customer visits. Garbage and, a1most facilities, recyclable materials from business and residential self -haulers are accepted atthe 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 intransfer trailers and taken tothe county -owned Cedar Hills Regional Landfill inthe Maple Valley area. Recyclable materials are transported toprocessing facilities throughout the region. Pub|icHealth-Seattle&King County (Public Health) isthe 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 4 1AW ^ 2-6 ,myCoopm6ru,ivaSolid Wa;te2Wavugo�nentPlan2018 *mA Page 30 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 KirklaIndle, ti-' itit- ti I ti: Redmond , 1 Yarrow PA°fir ointLittitt L1,9 9-nt. 'NA\ Hunts Poketn+tititi Carpaiten Media , Bellevue , 1 Sarnmamish A , It. 't e Vashon Island Figure 2-3. Map of transfer station locations sr' 1-1 Bothell tl' I Cake et i iiShoreline i ti, Forst t iWoodinvkle . 4 Shoreline , ( ? Mercer ,t t ,itFac oda '' /41 Iand / 6,- Seattle f tidurlen / s Newcastle ;.t -Asti ,t1 4t. ttt „ SeaT Not* Park it ttt, Mohetd Federal Way King County solid waste facilities wit* Landfill Transfer Station Drop Box King County Boundary Cities Unincorporated Area lt Renton t tt„ tt ake Kent Auburn Algbna Pacific rrr illssaquahitt Cedar Hills Regional Landfill itt Covington Valtay 2, 41:11 „.; 1DiamotrL'P lEnumd,MW /---Ertdfiltdaw 0 2 4 Speedaknie \ t2Y:r \ ti,blerth „Bend 8 tiv„t 'an Cedar Falls Miles vc.Inr,hprojects SWD1working projects \ faciIitiettcomp....pla.ppstavilitestcomp,„plantartmxd Itt9/201/ 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Ma22oerne2t Plan - jzt. ly 2o28 Att A Page 31 handling regulations are codified in the Code of the King County Board of Health,Title 10.The permitting process is the vehicle bywhich Public Health enforces the state's Solid Waste Handling Standards (VVACl7]-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. } �(— [)' | ,�[} r()cf�ss|�lO0/ .—��D�|[l[]/f�u/`ecVc a ] es 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 trucks, remove contaminants from the loads, sort materials to meet the specifications ofthe 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, ornon-recyclable waste products, from materials recovery facilities within the King County service area must bedisposed ofataKing County solid waste facility. Rcco|ogy[|cao5capcsmaic/ia|srecovery fac y The processing ofnecyc|ab|*s throughout the Pacific Northwest iscurrently handled through the private sector. Companies that collect mcyc|ab|escurbside are required bvcontract or ordinance todeliver them to recycling facilities. Local facilities receive recyclable materials from the region aswell asfrom other areas ofthe United States. These private -sector facilities have made necessary upgrades over time toexpand processing capacity to meet demand. The three largest collection companies in King County — Recology CleanScapes Inc., Republic Services, Inc., and Waste Management Inc., each own a materials recovery facility located within the county, shown in Figure 2-4, to process most of the recyclable materials they collect. Recology CleanScapes'materials recovery facility 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 Island are processed at Waste Management JMK Fibers' Port of Tacoma facility, which was upgraded substantially in2011Table 2-7 shows the address for each facility aswell ashow many tons were processed in20l7. 2-8 2ojyComprcbro/�uoSolid Wa;te/NbvuX,*mt}D&m-/UIY,m8 *mA Page 32 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Figure 2-4. Locations of composting, materials recovery, and designated construction and demolition recycling and disposal facilities Snohomish County Lenz Enterprises ,,\ Cedar Grove 1 • United Recycling - Snohomish Maltby Container and Recycling DTG Maltby DTG Woodinville CasCade Recycling Center .1, \ — 0 Third & Lander ReeydingkCenter-4 Transfer Station ' United Recycling - Seattle Recology CleanScaPe Eastmont Transfer/ , Recycling Center Recycling Station - JMK Fibers Recovery 1 0 Alpine Recycling 4 "Black River Rcyri & Transfer Station R 0y CD'EG Renton tic; Cedar Grove I , k , , k1, k. Lkke` ling NorthvOst 0 kkk--- e ki Locations of composting, materials recovery, and designated construction and demolition recycling and disposal facilities Compost Facility Materials Recovery Facility Recyclable Construction and Demolition Waste Non -Recyclable Construction and Demolition Waste King County Boundary Cities Unincorporated Area 0 1 2 4 Miles vc.1,1 Frojed,SYYD,vorking,projectsVadlities_conv,plar,app,rocoveryfacilities_corn,plart2018.rnxd 5.2018 zoly Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 33 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 2-1. Materials recovery facilities locations and tons processed in 2017 Republic Services 3rd and Lander Recycling Center 2722 3rd Avenue S., Seattle Data not broken out by jurisdiction Waste Management Cascade Recycling Center l4OZONE190th,Woodinville 64,295 116,234 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 173-350. l [l[) _,��sa r Solid waste generated in King County's service area is disposed at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill — the only active landfill inthe county, Located onag2O- cmsiteintheK8ap|eVaUeyama'[edarHiUshaspnovidedsaheandefhden1 disposal ofthe couniy's solid waste since 1965. In 2017, the landfill received over 931,000 tons of municipal solid waste. Cedar Hills was originally permitted inlQ60 atatime when there were few regulations inplace tugovern the design and operation oflandfills. Since then, environmental regulations have become increasingly rigorous, requiring the placement ofanimpermeable, high -density polyethylene liner and clay barrier atthe bottom ofthe landfill, daily cover (using soil orother approved materials) over the waste, and frequent environmental monitoring, among other requirements. Overtime Cedar Hills has been developed insequential stages (or refuse areas) inaccordance with the most current Site Development Plan. The division has invested considerable effort and resources tnupgrade older areas ofthe landfill, while designing and operating new areas to meet nrexceed regulatory requirements. Figure2'5 shows the layout ofthe landfill, including the boundaries ofthe past and active refuse areas ascurrently permitted. As shown, Area 7isthe currently active refuse area, and is expected tooperate through 20l8orearly Z0l9.Atthat time, operations will transition tothe 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 nnthe east, north, and west, and by property to the south that is zoned for mining, other resource extraction, and similar uses. State regulation VVACl73'35l 140(3)(b)equivesa250'footbufferbetvveentheactiveaveaand residentially zoned property, and a I 00-foot buffer between the active area and non -residentially zoned property. 2U19Co»p/ebr b&/Wa;te ManoX,*ent}N, -/1,11Y/018 *mA Page 34 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Figure 2-5. Current layout of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 19,41/241-o, 2029 ComprehensiDe Sc/9/ Waste Management Plan - July 2028 Att A Page 35 However, a special permit, approved by the King County Board of Commissioners in 1960, specified that a 1,000-foot buffer beestablished around the landfill. |nthe l900s |andfiUinginadvertently 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 andntherapprovedusesnotdirect|ye|atedto|and'hUingopemtions,suchasenvivonmenta|monitoringand 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 ofenvironmental controls includes acollection ofpipes, culverts, holding ponds, and other equipment tomanage water and landfill gas, asdescribed inmore detail below. Water atthe 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. In the ponds, the leachate is aerated as a preliminary treatment before being sent to the King County South Wastewater Treatment Plant in Renton. The bottom liner and clay barrier beneath the landfill prevent |eachatefrom seeping into the soil orgroundwater. Stormwaterthat runs off the surface ufactive landfill areas is also potentially contaminated. It is collected in lined ponds before moving on to the treatment system. Clean stormvvaterisdiverted todetention or siltation ponds tocontrol 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 iscollected byusing motor blowers tocreate avacuum in Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 3,550tons of trash come into the landfill on average each day. The decomposing organic material forms carbon dioxide and methane gases. m onzthe landfill generated about 1mmu cubic feet per minute mgas. The gas control system minimizes gas emissions escaping through the ground u,through the air, The gas /`captured through onetwork mpipes and sent m the BioEnergy Washington (Bmn oas-tv*nem'plant vosite. Figure 2-6. Landfill gas -to -energy process BEW The uawplant, moperation since October un0,processes the landfill gas into pipeline -quality mooa,and electric power. Along with generating approximately 15.4million therms ufclean renewable natural gas each year, oow generates over 15million kilowatt hours ofelectricity from landfill gas each year whelp offset the facility's electricity use. Residual impurities are destroyed uvthe plant's thermal oxidizer. Public Selling mogasproduced bythe BEW plant generates s1'$7million annually, depending on production rates and market prices, helping mkeep solid waste disposal rates low. The renewable natural gas produced u'the plant each year equals the amount wenergy needed mmeet the natural gas needs of over 19,000homes mKing County ",m substitute for the energy use of 11.2 million gallons of diesel fuel. 1-he gas collected from the landNI is sent to the Bio Energy Washington p�anl to be processed into pipeline quality gas 2U19(oopm6r b/id Wa;te&anoXrment -/�Iy/m8 *mA Page 36 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. In 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. �O|�'��6�tP �Vst�[D �|�����O _ - Waste _ � In 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 (ILAs) 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. Tomake sound planning decisions, bisimportant tounderstand how the solid waste system operates today and to identify 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. In addition to working with local jurisdictions and the private'sectnrcoUectinn companies, the division works closely with its two advisory committees - the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAQ and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAQ. For the preparation of this Plan, the division collaborated with the advisory committees through aprocess nfpresentations and discussions. The next section identifies the participants inthe 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. Aupartners inaregional system, cities share inthe costs and benefits nfKing [ounty'stransfer 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 Interlocal Agreement of 1988. In 2013, the county worked with the cities to amend the original ILA. The Amended and RestatedSolid Waste Interlocal Agreement (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 Q.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 ILA. Cities in the regional system are on the following page: 201�)Comprchmsi�)pSol�dHasteMalzagoemPlan -,TZIZ)lxm8 xuxPage 37 Algona Des Moines Maple Valley Sea Tac Auburn Duvall Medina Shoreline BeauxArts Enumclaw Mercer Island Skykomish Bellevue Federal Way Newcastle Snoqua|noie B|ackDiannond Hunts Point Normandy Park Tukwila Bothell Issaquah North Bend Woodinville @uhen Kenmore Pacific Yarrow Point Carnation Kent Redmond Clyde Hill Kirkland Renton Covington Lake Forest Park Sammamish The Amended and Restated ILA includes several enhancements tothe original ILA, 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 financial policies, ^ Adispute resolution process, which includes non -binding mediation, and ~ Mitigation provisions for host cities and neighboring cities. Issues specific toindividual jurisdictions, such asthe city nfBothell annexing areas inSnohomish County, may require anamendment tothe ILA that addresses that particular concern. Both the original and the new ILA assign responsibility for different aspects nfsolid waste management tothe 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 toanew method ofsolid 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 anaggregation ofseparate, smaller systems. The regional system also allows use of individual stations to be balanced to reduce over- or under- usenfanyonestation.Examp|esnfwaysthedivisinnmayin0uencestationuseam:l)readerbnavds|ncatedateach 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. �o,,yCoxzp/cbrnsivoSolid WaueManagement }lx-/2�'Iy,m8 x«xPage 38 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 � 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 departments, 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 tothe counties and cities. Washington State Department of Ecology Table 2-2. Roles in regional planning and administration Establish solid waste regulations for management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.95 and final disposal. Delegate authority to the counties to prepare joint comprehensive solid waste management plans with the cities RCW 70.95 in their boundaries, and review and approve those plans. Set Minimum Functional Standards for implementing solid Washington Administrative Code (WAQ waste laws and establishing planning authorities and roles. 173-304, 173-350, and 173-351 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Review the cost assessment prepared with the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 0W 70.95.096 Regulate solid waste collection services and rates in unincorporated areas and incities that choose not tocontract for solid waste collection services. Washington State Department of Agriculture Review the preliminary draft plan for compliance with H[W 17.24 and the rules adopted under that chapter. Public Health 'Seattle &0ng County (as authorized by the King County Board uf Health) Permit solid waste handling facilities, including permit issuance, renewal, and, ifnecessary, suspension (handling facilities include landfills, transfer stations, and drop hvxes). Code ofthe King County Board of Health, UUelO Make and enforce rules and regulations regarding methods ofwaste storage, collection, and disposal Nimp|ementthe state's Minimum Functional Standards. Code of the King County Board of Health, Title l0 Perform routine facility inspections. Code ofthe King County Board of Health, hUelO 201�)Comprebmsi�)pSol�dVaste.Mo7qgaeu���JU�y,mJ 2-15 *mA Page 39 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 H~`^"'"°°~"'"''°"""'`~""�"'"'~`'�""""""'""'"~ Agency Regulation 1, Article 7 Solid Waste Interloxcal Forum (SWIF) The Regional Policy Committee convenes asthe 8N|Fto advise the King County Council, King County Executive, and other jurisdictions, nsappropriate, onall policy aspects nfsolid waste management and planning, and toreview and comment on alternatives and recommendations for the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and other planning documents, King County Code (K[{ 0.24.020[ and |nterlma|AgnzmcNts King County Solid Waste Division Provide transfer and disposal services for unincorporated King County and the ]7cities with |Nednm|Agreements. Lead the development nfwaste prevention and recycling programs. |nterloco|Agreemmnts Prepare the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and RCW7��80, KCC Titlel0, and associated cost assessment. Interlocal Agreements Establish disposal fees at the landfill, transfer stations, and drop boxes to generate necessary revenue to cover solid waste management costs, including: Facility operation, Capital improvements, -Waste prevention and recycling programs, ^Grants tocities for recycling programs and special collection events, ^Self -haul and rural service, and Administration and overhead. K[W]6.58.040 N3Title l0,and |ntedvm|Agmements Establish level ofservice and hours ofoperation for all King County transfer and disposal facilities. Amend hours at transfer facilities, as necessary. KCC 10.10.020 and 10.10,025 Designate minimum service levels fxmmdoNeeod|ectionin urban and rural areas. RCW0.95.092,KCC Titlel08 Review impacts of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan on solid waste and recycling rates. Participate in the planning process and jointly implement the Plan with the county, provide collection services and waste prevention and recycling programs. R[W7O.9S.08Oand |ntedma| Agreements �,.u9(o^nprx6rxxiv,Solid Wa;te2Wav^gv�nentfla�z-/UIY,m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Solid Waste Advisory Committee Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee Advise the county inthe development nfsolid waste programs and policies, provide feedback on proposed council actions involving solid waste issues, and comment on proposed solid RCW 70.95.165 and KCC 10.28 waste management policies, ordinances, and plans prior to Advise the Executive, 8N|[and County Council inall matters related tvsolid waste management and participate inthe development nfthe solid waste management system and waste management plan. NI1O26]1Uand |ntedoo|Agreements Stakeholder Imvi4vememtinthe Planning Process In the development of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, the division sought participation and input from many sources, 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. In 2004, the Metropolitan King County Council adopted Ordinance 14971 to establish a process for the 37 cities inthe oounty's service area to collaborate with the division in the early stages of long-term planning and policy development. It set the stage for creation of MSWMAC, which consists of elected officials and staff from participating cities. W1SVVMACand the long-standing SVVA[ mandated bvR[VV70.95.l65' have been instrumental inthe development ofpolicies, goals, and recommendations presented in this Plan. 6VVA[has been anadvisory group tothe division since lg85,with amembership that isgeographically 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 SVVACand K4SVVK4AChave been 4,0 � working with the division to create the A joint meeting of the MSWMAC and SWAC committees 201�)Comprchensi�)pSol&K&steMauzagemem��-JZdY 2m8 *mA Page 41 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 SVVA[and W1SVVMA[ websites contain background onthe committees as well as minutes from their meetings with the division (h/tp://wm/w/kinycoun0/guvldeptaldnqxso8d'mms/alaboutladuisoq+mnmmit/ees.uspx. eq Leading i ]pWay in Waste- Preyen|'[)n/ ]ecyc|`n{]an,� ���JU[���F�y���r���'�� / �/ — — Stewardship r 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 awider array cfmaterials 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 atselected collection sites across the region, Advances in the green building industry, including a focus on creating sustainable housing in affordable communities, and ` Anincrease inthe number oforganizations that accept materials for reuse, such asclothing 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 isdiscussed inmore depth inChapter 4. � � 2C),"yCoozp/ekrn^�v,Solid Wa:te8YannX,*entPlan -/1,11Y/m8 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 inJanuary JO0y.Asamember ofthe Northwest Product Stewardship Council, the division helped draft the model legislation that led toformation ofthe E'[yc|eVVashington program, which implements this recycling service atnocost 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. Ex Danrfi�(] ) - z' Coe �� ec1[)D«�D(��Vc a�`���D/�Ut�[Jra[ - ' / _ -_ � auk ate(�a 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 inthe 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. In 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- familycustomenwithcurbddegarbageco||ectionhaveaoesstonnganio(yardwasteandfondsoaps)coUectinn service. Only Vashon Island and the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Pass areas, which house less than one percent of the coun<y'sresidents, donot have this service. Studies estimate that over 50percent ofthose 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 toenrich soils. �iJ`|'�'[)Oa \](�����(�[](���t'{)F]r'�|-'�F��fo[�+�|`[)Fls Budding � Generation - Transfer Stations ��Mm Solar panels onthe south roof ofthe Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station, one of the many green features of the building Since the approval bvthe King County Council inZ007ofthe Solid Waste Transfer and Waste /NonugonnentPlun(Transfer Nan)' the division has been moving forward on the renovation and replacement ofthe 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 aflat tipping floor, areas for the collection ofa widearnayofnecyc|ab|es'de»ignfeatu/es that reduce water and energy use, and solid waste compactors. Bycompacting garbage prior totransport for disposal, upto3O percent fewer truck trips are required to haul the same amount ofgarbage. 201�)Comprebensi�)pSolid Waste Maenagelnau��-,TZIZ)lxm8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 In 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. It received the highest possible honor from the U.S. Green Building Council with a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design' (LEEDI) Platinum certification. The station has also been the recipient of 15 recognition awards from national, regional, and local organizations, including the Solid Waste Association of North America, the American Institute 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 tnbuild them -using the greenest elements possible, and ^ Hovvtoope/atethem-pursuingopemtiona|efhdenciesthatveducefue|'energy,andwateruse;andincveasing 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 2013 and also earned a Platinum LEED°certification, aswell asother awards ofexcellence. The most recent station tnbecompleted, the FactohaRecycling and Transfer Station - opened inlate 2Ol7.This same year, a site was selected for the South County Recycling and Transfer Station (SCRTS) after completion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement The selected site isjust north of the existing station. Design and construction ofthe station will take place over the next several years, with ananticipated station opening in2022. All new recycling and transfer stations will meet green building, safety and environmental standards; accommodate projected growth inthe region; incorporate best practices intransfer and transport operations; and offer awide variety ufrecycling opportunities for residential and business customers. The oewFaUoriaRecycling and Transfer Station opened in�ate2Ol7 � 2o9Cooprcbro blid Waste Management Flm�1,11Y,m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 xwv � � � � � « 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 ofthe vegiun'swastes, the division has been extending its useful life. This strategy, recommended in the Transfer Plan, was approved by the County Council in 2007. In 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 closes.' 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 asfuels, are in various stages ofdevelopment and testing inUland international markets, Some of the technologies are capable of processing the entire solid waste stream, while others target specific components, such asplastics ororganics. Regardless ofwhich long term disposal option is selected, the transfer system will still beneeded toefficiently 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 Interlocal 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. F'DaDc^nOt�{�-�[l �- ''� V\/���(� �V01(�DO �'|| _ _- _/_- �- - n l[�|�uq(] /�Ta |Ul � 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 mevenues.Thedivision will continue toidentify new revenue sources, such asthe sale oflandfill 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 todevelop and/or revise financial policies, and address rate stabilization and cost containment. Policies, actions and more discussion can be found in Chapter7, Protecting Natura Stewards �| O r Environmental stewardship means managing natural resources so they are available for future generations. It also involves taking responsibility - as individuals, employees, business owners, manufacturers, and governments - for the protection ofpublic health and the environment. Building an environmentally sustainable solid waste management system in King County takes a coordinated, region- wideefhort.Thedivision'thedties,andthecuUectinnandpnocessingcompaniesinthenegionaremakingcnnoerted efforts tohelp make this happen. 201�)Comprekensie)pSol�d W�uteManagoam�a,,? �,m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste prevention and recycling are just two ofthe ways inwhich the division and others are working toreduce wastes, conserve resources, and protect the environment. Other innovations and well - established prugramstha<supportenvironmenta| stewardship include collecting and selling landfill gas tobeconverted topipeline quality gas, potential new composting and reuse facilities, and providing cleanup assistance for illegal dumping. The division provides cleanup aoislanoefor illegal dumping ^& °JK� ~�~��K���� ��h������~K��� �-�����`°�������~������ ����~~��H~~. °~.0 Planning °|. . Considerations �U �� ~�, "`^ .., ~~ ~~. .~ 'mate /- laDc[^ � � 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 7oxics (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 inclimate 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 percent by 2020, 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:ecyc|ingpnogmmstncontinuaUyimpnovenur|ong-term'poddveefectsontheenvironment(discuoedindetai| in Chapter 4, Sustainable Materials Management).The benefits are tangible in terms of reductions in GHG emissions, resource conservation, and energy savings. �'E"T King County-K~it'es Climate CoUUaboKat'on(K4C) King County and thirteen cities — Bellevue, Burien, Issaquah, Kirkland, Mercer Island, 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 staff are partnering on: outreach to engage decision makers, other cities, and the general public; coordination of consistent standards, benchmarks, and strategies; sharing solutions; funding; and shared resource opportunities. All King County cities are encouraged tojoin this effort, which is supporting and enhancing projects and programs in focus areas such as green building, using and producing renewable energy, sustainabiUtyoutreach and education, and alternative transportation. 2019Comp/eben/iz)eSolid Waxte Manogo�nentPlan '/TZZIY 2018 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Considerations ofhow division activities and operations might affect climate change involve both positive and negative impacts onGHGemissions. |fareas where GHGemissions can beexpected tooccur are identified, strategies to mitigate those emissions can bedeveloped, for example: ` The division contracts with BioEnergy Washington toturn landfill gas into pipeline -quality natural gas for the energy ` The division builds facilities (such as the Shoreline, Bow Lake, and FactohaRecycling and Transfer Stations) that are more energy efficient tomeet LEED°standards. As previously noted, two ofthe facilities have earned aPlatinum rating. Compactors atthe FactzhaRecycling and Transfer Station compact trash, reducing the number oftrips 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 byupto30percent, saving fuel and decreasing emissions. ^ In day-to-day operations, the division looks for ways to reduce resource use and increase the use of environmentally friendly products. Examples cfoperational 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 toWaste 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 ofwasted food. ^ The division teamed up with the City of Seattle to produce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in King County (Stockholm Environment Institute 2O12)'areport that looked atgreenhouse gas emissions from several different perspectives including undertaking a consumption -based inventory. The inventory offers 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 onglobal 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 identifying alternate transportation routes to avoid areas where there may be an increase in seasonal flooding. ,m�){ox9xnJaosiz),Solid |0s//Waoog,mcnuPlan -,Tz^Zycm8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 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. In 2015, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued its plan, Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics (Ecology 2015), which presents a long-term strategy for systematically eliminating wastes and the use of toxic substances. The 2015 King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (King County 2015b) synthesizes and focuses King County's most critical goals, objectives, and strategies to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change. It 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 2011 King County Sustainability Report (King County 2011), GHG emissions from county operations (for sources other than transit) have stabilized and begun to decline. Building on these successes, achievement of the county's long-term targets is ambitious, but achievable. King County's overarching targets: • Communitywide: King County shall partner with its residents, 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 a 2007 baseline, by at least 15 percent by 2015, 25 percent by 2020, and 50 percent by 2030. • Department of Natural Resources and Parks 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 2025. 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: Mitigation - directly or indirectly reducing emissions. Examples include reducing energy use at division facilities, reducing fuel use, using hybrid vehicles, distributed composting facilities, using alternative fuels, 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 county's landfill into pipeline - quality natural gas. Factoria drought -tolerant plants and permeable pavement 2-24 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 48 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Adaptation-modifyingfac|Ujesandoperatkonstnaddnsotheefhect ofclimate change. Examples include designing facilities for more severe weather systems (e.g., roofs designed for greater snow keds),using more drought -tolerant plants in facility landscapes, and identifying alternate transportation routes toavoid areas where there may beanincrease inseasonal flooding. Sequestmtion-mmovingcaHbondioxidehom the atmosphere and depositing hback into natural ^sinks;'suchasplants and soils. Examples include planting more trees around facilities to remove carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, using biochar,and using compost toreplenish depleted soils and promote plant growth. Gas collection pipes atthe Cedar Hills landfill �[][]'�ya[)r1�[]�`�| |Lj\�'(_(� _ / '/ _ - - - The division adheres tothe King County Equity and Socia/JushceStrategic Plan Z070-20ZZ(King County 20lOb) which emphasizes that King County is committed to ensuring that equity and social justice 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. Inequity 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 ofthose policies. Social justice encompasses all aspects of justice, including legal, political, and economic; it demands fair distribution of public goods, institutional resources, and life opportunities. In solid waste system planning, the division examines ways that it may affect equity and social justice through its programs and services. ^ Fair distribution of transfer facilities, services at the facilities, and division resources, such asthe community litter cleanup, school education, and green building programs, helps ensure that everyone has access to services that create safer and healthier communities. ^ The division provides technical assistance toensure that the benefits ofgreen building strategies, such aslower energy costs and improved indoor air quality, are available to residents of affordable housing developments. ^ In 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. ` In addition to translating materials into multiple languages, the division has added a Span ish-la ng uage 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. 201�)Comprebensi�)pSol�dV&uManagememPlan /��y �,m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Green Building and Equity The goal of the county's Equity and Social Justice Ordinance is for all King County residents to live in communities of opportunity. To reach this goal, all communities must be equipped with the means to provide residents with access to a livable wage, 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 Infrastructure 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 county's 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. 2-26 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 50 Att A Page 51 Forecast% and Data Ordinance 18893 Policies 01, Updated April 17, 2019 Monitor and report the amount, composition, and source nfsolid waste entering the transfer and disposal system. FD'3 Updatetheso|idwastetonnagefnnecasttnsuppnrtshnrt-and long-term planning and budgeting for facilities and operations, Monitor and report waste prevention and recycling activity, including the amount ofmaterials recycled, programmatic achievements, and the strength ofcommodity markets. F0'4 Continue tomonitor new and emerging technologies toidentify opportunities for their use inmanaging solid waste and ecyc|ab|es. ^ *mA Page 53 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 �� � �����������M����^���^� �D������������������������ Actions 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. If the responsibility is not in bold, the action has lower implementation priority, Action Standardize the sampling methodology and frequency intonnage reports submitted <othe division and the cities bythe collection companies to improve data accuracy. Perform solid waste, recycling, organics, and construction and demolition characterization studies at regular intervals tosupport 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. Detailed [)is[UsSiOD Page3'll Page3-l2 Page3'l Page3-12 ^mA Page 54 Updated April 17, 2019 Ordinance 18893 ~ F,Qrecastingand Data ThemonkohngofsoUdmastedisposa|'necycUng,andwmstepnyention,andthefoneca/tingoffutunetnendsae 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 tngenerate inthe future? How can waste generation be reduced? ^ What materials can beseparated 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 services, how do they choose those services, how often do they use those services, and what influences their choices? ^ What isthe best method toprovide these services? ^ What changes in markets and technologies need to beincorporated into our analysis ofoptions for the future? Forecasts, planning data, and studies used in the development of this Plan are discussed in the following sections. �������_����.���� � ^~..~~-~�~.�n", �� The division uses a planning forecast model to predict future waste generation over a 20-year period. Waste generation is defined aswaste disposed plus 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 pxngmms.Theplanning forecast model —a regression model relies onestablished statistical relationships between waste generation and various economic and demographic variables that affect it, such as population, employment, consumption' (measured as retail sales, excluding sales), and the tipping fees for garbage at division facilities. , Thenumbers forthemles taxbaseutaken from "The Puget Sound Economic Forecaster" which ispublishedby Western Washington University. Sales tax base andprice information are olladjusted forinflation. 201�)ComprebensivcSolid Waste Mav?qge�no��a,,?/�Zy �,()z8 *mA Page 55 |nlate 2OO7 anationwide financial crisis severely compromised the division's ability toforecast short-term trends in the economy. With the collapse of large financial institutions, a downturn in the stock market,adrop inhousing 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. |n20O7 garbage tons received atCedar Hills surpassed the one million mark, due primarily tosteady economic growth and population increases in the region over the previous few decades. Between December 2007 and December 2Ol2'however, garbage tons disposed at Cedar Hills declined 2Opercent overall. Garbage tons dropped eight percent in20OOalone. The City nfSeattle, surrounding counties, and jurisdictions inOregon and California reported similar u/greater declines intonnage, asdid 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 toforecasting, using amore flexible system ofongoing 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 [ound|)' ^ 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 in20l8'the division isable to provide prediction for disposal for the next ten years. After ten years, the tonnage forecast uses 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 2O4O. 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 ofthe 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 isl73percent, 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 I 990s (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. ~ Upper Boundary • This incorporates the aggressive population growth rate provided by the Office of Financial Management (}Fk8)into our tonnage forecast model for the next l0years, out to2O2O. • After 2028, a high growth rate is used to generate the disposal for years from 2029-2040: ^This annual growth rate isl9lpercent, and ` This growth rate for disposal is based on the period from 2012-2017, which has been a period of high growth since the Great Recession. 3-2 ,01yCoxp/ekrn^z.'�)eSolid Waue&anug^ment/lam-/1dy,m8 x«xPage 56 ^ Lower Boundary • This incorporates the conservative population growth rate provided by the Office of Financial Management (}FK8)into our tonnage forecast model for the next l0years, out to2O28. u After Z0Z8'alow growth rate isused togenerate the disposal for the years from2O29'Z040: ^This annual growth rate isO.S7pencentand ^Thisgnowthrateisfroml905'20l7,whichisthehistorica|trendUnep|ustheGeatRecession and recovery. Increases 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: ` Population 2 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'lfor estimates for population growth in each transfer station service area and Figure 3 -2 for the projected share of population growth ineach service area. ^ Employment is expected to increase at an annual rate of two percent. Increased employment activity typically leads toanincrease inconsumption and waste generation. 2 projections foxpopulammand employment ore bmedun2n,7dumfrom the Land Use Vision 2mmdel developed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (Psxc).Data provided uyPsxcare based onusCensus and other data sources and developed mclose cooperation with the county and the cities. 0. 800,000 CL 600,000 400,000 ZOO'00O Figure 3-1. 11,000 329,000 288,000 340,000 11,000 ',86,000—� 34A,0OU |atbD2{)25-2040 11,000 312,000 s"! "Mn� \w z Vashon Enumclaw Algona ^ d�Factoria Houghton 40, Shoreline 2o1,qCmpreh,ux2i�)xSolid Waste /Wr-nng,mmv/&m�?.'�Yvm8 *mA Page 57 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Figure 3-2. Estimated share .f pop iation increase 2025 - 2040 for transfer station service areas Note: The share of population increase for the Vashon Service area is less than 1 percent, so it is not indicated in this figure. 6 % Renton 2 0/ /0 •-r • Enumclaw Shoreline 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. Projectio of solid waste recycled and disposed 2018 - 2040 '0 Estimated Recycling 3,500,000 • Tons Disposed 3,000,000 2,500,000 LPI 2,000,000 0 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 r. 00 CT 0 CO CT 0 N N re) rY1 rY1 re') re) 0 C) 00000000 0 o rs4 N N NNNNNN(NN N N 3-4 207.9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 58 Current ����� ���� ������`�����A =~~..~._,.� �~~�~~° ~�., ..~-��".=..~~" and� � Disposal L�AU »� as .— G`—..,_.~~t.~~,./ ..,_~y._..,.�� I Measuring the results of waste prevention and recycling efforts is a complex process. Discussions and data often focus onrecycling and recycling rates, when infact 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 ofwaste disposed, the division can evaluate its success inreaching 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 inmore detail in the section Tracking Our Progress. Note that the scale on each figure varies. 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000 Single-family Multi -family Non-residential 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 26O'OOOtons ofmaterials disposed in2OlS. Single-family residents are recycling more than 201�)Cowprekms1.*e)pSolid WastrManagemcwPlal? -J�/)/xm8 *mA Page 59 56percent oftheir 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 asagroup are recycling the smallest fraction uftheir waste. That may bebecause 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 atthe 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. - arn| V /`|} �r�\�u!en.� -s / percent of the households in the division's service area are single-family homes. In 2015, these single-family households recycled on average about 56 percent of their waste. Ninety-six percent of the yard waste and 79 percent ofthe paper generated were recycled bvthis sector inJ0l5 (Figure 3'5).While food scraps and food -soiled paper madeupover35pevcentofthewastedisposedbysing|e'fami|yresidentsin20l5'recyc|ingofthesemateria|shas increased as participation in the curbside collection program for these materials continues to grow. Considerable amountsofthestandavdcurbsidevecydab|es-g|aoandp|asticcontainers'tinanda|uminumcans'mixedvva/te paper, newspaper, and cardboard -while easily recyclable, are still present in the waste disposal stream. Figure 3-5,2Ql5 Recycling a� 0(disposal Containers* Plastic bags & VVmp Mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard Food scraps &food'soi|ed paper Yard waste l% 103,647 293 Scrap metal Other materials 5% 3% 15,101 10,336 Tons ;325,125 Tin, aluminum, glass, and plastic bvsiO*|e-fa00i|yresidents Total Tons Generation: 584,636 Plastic bags Wrap Mixed paper, cardboard Food scraps &food*oi|ed paper Yard waste Scrap metal Other materials l0l'l47 Toms :259,511 3-6 201yGx,2pvrken/iz)eSolid Waste /&aooXomrtRlw2'/TUIY 2018 *mA 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 debris, such as clean wood and gypsum wallboard. IfaUnecvcaNemateha|svvoreremovedfnomthesiny|e-famik/vvastestrean\neadvone-thinjofthenemaining nonrecyclable materials would be disposable diapers and pet wastes. - �. U- -aUl'|V ]��s^r1[�F)is / _ Thirty-five percent of the households in the service area are in multi -family complexes.|n2Ol5'the average multi- family necyc|ingmteinthecounty's service area was 2lpercent. While this rate isconsiderably 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 minimal for mu|ti-fami|y) is removed from the calculation. Aswith single-family residents, the primary areas of opportunity are in recycling food scraps and food -soiled paper and the standard curbside recyc|ab|es' including paper and cardboard (Figure3'O). Fi{lUre 3-6, 2015 *Iecyc|iriQ and disposal by r'�,uKti-faDliky residents Containers* Plastic bags & VVep Mixed paper Food scraps & food waste Yard waste ___ Scrap metal Other materials �MIN���� 0� ON B% 06 1,014 9% l96 1,206 399 Tons ;36,034 °Tin, aluminum, glass, and plastic Total Tons Generation: 173,118 Plastic bags& Wrap Mixed paper Food scraps & food waste Yard waste Scrap metal Other materials 7% Z% 18,872 3,157 53,901 Tons Disposed: 137,084 Other materials present in the multi -family waste stream, both recyclable and non -recyclable, are similar to those found inthe 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 gnowthinconstn/ctionnfmixed'usebui|dingsthatcontainbothvesidentia|andnon'residentia|units,and3)the varied levels of recycling services provided. What is clear is the need to provide adequate space for garbage and ecyc|ab|es collection atthese complexes and tostandardize collection across the county. Adetai|eddiscusdonofwaystoimprovmvecydingatmu|ti'fami|yandmixed'u»ecomp|exesisprovidedinChapter4' Sustainable Materials Management. 201�)C��ebens/�)pSolid H&ste.Mv��ezt -Pla,,?/Z��Y,mJ *mA Page 61 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 N()n-�es'dpnha 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 opportunity for 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 o/industry varies depending on the nature ofthe 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 toincrease recycling in this sector. There are significant opportunities in the non-residential sector to increase the diversion of food scraps and food- soiledpaper.The|argestinceasewiUbeea|izedasmoerestaumntsandgroceocontmctvvithprivate'sector companies tncollect their food scraps for composting and more cities begin to offer commercial organics collection. Figure 3-7.7(}15 RecVC| Containers* Plastic bags & VVmp Mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard Food scraps &food -soiled paper Clean wood Yard waste Scrap metal Carpet and pad, furniture, mattresses Z% 18% 5% Z% 14% 237,893 110,940 27,186 10,303 84,524 Other materials 16% 96,841 Tons :602,907 °Tin, aluminum, glass, and plastic i� OaDd disposaU hvnOP-[es'deDf'a| generators Total Tons Generation: 838,444 Plastic bags & vvmp Mixed paper, newspaper, cardboard Food scraps &food-soi|ed paper Clean wood _____ Yard waste 10% 17% Scrap metal Carpet and pad, furniture, mattresses Other materials 2% 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 ofwaste paper. 3-8 2m9Coozp/cbon^ivvSolid Waxte/WavoXr*ent}l, -/1,11Y/018 *mA Page 62 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Se �� /_ ]aiJ 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 disposedbyse|f-hau|eohavetheputentia|fnrvecyr|ing'mostsignificant|ydeanvvood,yavdwaste'scmpmeta|'and paper (Figure 3-8). FiQL're ]-8,2015 RecVc Curbside recyclable* Food scraps &food'soiled paper Clean wood 0% 10% - 2,096 Yard waste Scrap metal and appliances Carpet and pad, furniture, mattresses 12% O% ll'723 Other materials O% 82 inqand dis A, .)O58|bvtransfer facility se|f-h@<!|eKs Total Tons Generation: 2G8,901 Tons :21,233 Glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed paper, newspaper, and cardboard Food scraps &foxod'soiled paper Clean wood 14% 5,168 32,331 Yard waste Scrap metal and appliances Carpet and pad, furniture, mattresses 5% 12% 1,322 21,521 Other materials 49% 117,252 Tons 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 astextiles, 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 astreated and painted wood. /�eDerat{)rs [)f/—[lDst[U[L'{}D and lerl()k�{)A u � �` ' ���|s In 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, 201�)Co)?zprekensie)pSoliaWaote.MalzqgelnauPlan �,m8 *mA Page0 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 201 2a), 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 all! ld demolition materials diverted and �,�"isposed Clean wood Asphalt roofing Clean gypsum Metals Aggregatesa �� U% 5% ._ 21% Other recyclable 2,462 matel Materials with low recycling potentialc Tons 877,431 % ��I k, " I 35'Z45 43,435 186,680 507,583 O ll9699,594 Total Tons Generation: 1,049 ,399 Clean wooda roofing Asphalt Oeangypm Metals Aggregatesa Other Materials potentialc with recyclable mateha|sb low recycling 7%41,272 O% 0% 15% 9,802 28,891 25,451 'l78 Tons Disposed: 171,968 altotal includes only aggregate material (asphalt/concrete, brick and masonry) processed at mixed construction and demolition debris processing facilities; xdoes not include aggregate materials that are source separated mjoueites,which comprise approximately *ao,0ootons m asphalt/concrete. *mc|uoesglass, yard waste, carpet and pad, textiles, plastics, and paper. c Includes painted and treated wood, painted/demolition gypsum, plastics, and other mixed construction and demolition debris. Tracking �� �y��������� ^~~��.._-^_. The division uses a wide range of available data, both qualitative and quantitative, toevaluate the success ofwaste 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. In most cases, more than one source of data is needed to accurately quantify how well the region is doing in diverting materials from the waste stream. For example, tutrack 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 3 -10 ,01yCooprek^osivvSolid Waur *mA Page 64 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, aswell asrecommendations onhow the data might beimproved. |n �- /uD��O����u � [aPsa{|iA[l 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. In -bound and out -bound scales weigh loads for all vehicles 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. Re[)(}r1��«0l |���(-[)����t����| Co Reports - - - - ecrti[)n(-(]��OaD��s - r 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 cfgarbage disposed, ~ Tons recycled bvmaterial type, ^ Tons of organic materials recycled (yard waste, including food scraps for most areas), and ^ Number ofgarbage, 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 protocol for sampling in order to provide reliable estimates of the component ecyc|ab|esand 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. In 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 areasonable indicator ofchange. 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 becalculated from the collection company data.This means that an overall system -wide recycling rate cannot be calculated using these data alone. 2019Comprxk,osio Solid W,�s/ /N(v7^ga1)7mv.PZam-/z'�lycm8 x«xPage 65 Ecology � 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 usefulnesscfthe 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 reliable, ~ The identity cf some companies that report data is confidential, limiting the ability to verify the quantities reported, and some of the companies with confidential data report only statewide totals, which requires the county toestimate allocation based upon population percentages, and ~ Significant amounts ofmetal areeported; itisdifficult todetermine how much ofthis metal should becounted asmunicipal solid waste, how much as construction and demolition debris, and how much as auto bodies, which the county does not include inits waste generation orrecycling totals. Improving 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 tudevelop voluntary agreements with recycling companies that will improve data reporting and resolve data inconsistencies. Whs1p/~harac1pn7ah()n SiuJ`(^s 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 L,ojq Com�cbms�voSolid Waste Man,,-ige�nmmFNm��'Iy,m8 x«xPage 66 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. S(].^JWaste [- ]ara[tei'Za1'[)Fl StUdps The most recent study of solid waste destined for Cedar Hills was conducted in 2015 (Cascadia 201 5a). For this study, 421 samples were collected on2Osampling days. The waste stream was separated into 97categories ofmaterial. For each material and generator classification, the study was designed to achieve a 90 percent confidence interval for the amount of waste disposed countywide. In other words, the study tells us that we can be 90 percent sure that the amount nfcardboard disposed in20l5was 3.l percent (2O'll2tons) ofthe total waste stream, plus orminus 0.3 percent. These waste characterization studies are not designed to characterize each dty'swaste stream. However, based on sampling done inavariety nfcommunities, 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 nffood in their garbage than those without, These differences are reflected in the recycling rates and pounds disposed per household for each In -person surveys are also administered to customers bringing materials to transfer facilities (Cascadia 201 5a). 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. ZIM opt Garbage at the Bo\N Lake Recycling and -Franster Station 201�)ComprchmsiepSol�dWaste .1W(v7qgamu�an -JU/y,mJ *mA Page 67 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 identify areas where improvements can be made. /l�(]an��\/-���[����'/���()� ���r����s - cv � _� _ _ __ _� 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 nforganics delivered tocompost facilities, but do not differentiate between yard waste tons and food scrap tons. The solid waste characterization studiesdesoibedabovemeasuedecreasesoffoodscmpsand/ood'soi|edpaperinthewastestveam'butnot 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 in 2017 (Cascadia 201 7b) 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 sustainab|yinthe future. /-Ons1[U[t'0n and Demolition Debris/-�ara[ter'Za '.Jon �1 ' JC)D�`U{�|Ps In 2001, the division began to conduct periodic characterization studies of construction and demolition debris disposed at select private facilities by commercial and se|f-hau|ers,aswell as small quantities delivered todivision 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 date, with the last study completed in2011 (Cascadia 20112a). Information 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 Management for more informatinn). 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. 2oiy(o^gTek^x,maSolid Waste Management Flan -/LIY,m8 xuxPage 68 11ans and Studies ^ 200/ Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (KCSWID 2002) - This is the last adopted plan. The 2001 Plan was approved by the King County Council in 2002. ~ Solid Waste Transfer and Waste 84onugementPlan(KCSVVDZ0O0b) -Pnovidesecnmmendationstoguidethe 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 OecemberZOO7. Final Environmental ImpoctStotementfor the Cedar Hills Regional Londh11Z070Site Development Plan(K[SWD 201 Oa) - Identifies 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 LondfiI120 10 Site Development Plan (KCSWD 201 Ob) -Summarizes the preferred alternative for development cfthe landfill based onenvironmental review, operational feasibility, cost, stakeholder interest, and flexibility to further expand landfill capacity if future circumstances warrant.The plan was approved bythe County Council inDecember 20lO. ^ Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan Review (KCSWID 2013) -The division conducted this review in response to a budget proviso in Ordinance 17619. The purpose of the review was to assess transfer station options and resulting impacts tncost, 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. ^ DKAFT207land 20/3 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (KCSVVD2Ol3d.The draft updates ofthe 200l Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan were used as the basis for this Plan update. ^ Sustainable Solid Waste Management Pion (K[SVVD2014)-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 Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan Review Po/ 0(N[SVVO2Ol5)-In response toCouncil Motion l4l45' the division, in collaboration with stakeholders, continued to evaluate a mix of capital facilities and operational approaches toaddress system needs over time, including potential demand management strategies (such aspeak hour pricing nr controlled access hours) that could motivate changes inhow customers use transfer stations, thereby potentially reducing the need for added transfer station capacity inthe northeast county, ^ Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives Final Report, Volumes 7and Z(KCSVVDZOl7a) Summarizes the options for continued development ofthe landfill based on operational feasibility, cost, stakeholder interest, and flexibility tnfurther expand landfill capacity iffuture circumstances warrant. Division staff review plan for centralized project management unit 201�)Comprekensiz)xSolid Vasto&a�nqgemax��-,TZIZ)l 2m8 3-15 *mA Page 69 ^ Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 2017-2078 (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 ProposedSolid Waste Disposal Fees were approved by the King County Council in September 2016. ^ Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees J079-J020(KC5VVD20lOb) Rate study that examines four key inputs thatdetemoineso|idwastedisposa|fees-hnancia|assumptiuns,1onnagefonycastnevenueandexpendkunes 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 ProposedSolid Waste Disposal Fees were transmitted to the King County Council in July 2018. Fv �vu u a1iOnOf -T-o[ '11,10 [)O'��s � ^ 2006 Material Recovery FocilityAssessment (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 quantify and characterize materials processed at the materials recovery facilities. Materials recovery facilities activity and capacity will continue tobe tracked as necessary to monitor the need for improvements and toensure there is processing capability for additional materials diverted from disposal inthe future. Comparative Evaluation nfWaste Export and Conversion Technologies Disposal Options (R.VK Beck2UU7) - Provides planning -level assessment and comparison ofvarious solid waste conversion technologies and waste export ^ Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Studv(HOR 20l7)-Assesses the viability ofseveral different scenarios using anaerobic digestion toprocess organic materials collected in King County. Cedar HiUsRcgiona|LandhU ~ King County Waste to Energy Study (Normandeau 2017) -Evaluates waste -to -energy technologies and recommends the technology that best matches King County'scircumstances. Waste -Ireven|()n and Recy[ / ,l _ �nO�1�'e\ �- _ ^ Sustainable Curbside Collection Pilot (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, Inc. and was permanently implemented in2009. ,01yCnmp,ek^x,h)aSolid Waste Man^grment}Nn-/2dy,m8 *mA Page 70 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ^ Greenhouse Gas Emissions /nKing County: AnUpdated ic-/lusInventory, oConsumption-based /nventory,and onOngoing Tracking Framework (King County 2Ol2) -Presents results from two different, but complementary, inventories of GHG emissions associated with King County, Washington. ^ Optimized Transfer Station Recycling Feasibility Study (KISVVDZUl3)-Evaluates methods tooptimize County resources being dedicated to recycling activities at division transfer facilities. ot Waste Monitoring Program: Market Assessment for Recyclable Materials /nKing County ([ascadia20l5a)-Helps identify 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. -)eF ] � � aDs`_/- O��|u���u 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 state, 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 inthe development nfthis Plan; infuture planning efforts, the division will refer to the newest version ofthese plans. ^ Onthe Path to Sotainohilityand 2D/7Plan Amendment -Picking Upthe Pace k/Zero Waste (City ofSeattle l9O8/J011)-The City ofSeattle's solid waste management plan, including goals for recycling and waste prevention. ^ 20/0Local Hazardous Waste A4unugon,entPlanLpx}ute(VVatson etal. 2010-Presents plans for managing hazardous wastes produced insmall quantities bvhouseholds 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 7oxicsZ0l5Update (Ecology 2Ol5)- Presents the state's long-term strategy for systematically eliminating wastes and the use oftoxic substances. The plan includes initiatives that focus onexpanding the recycling of organic materials and advancing green building practices. King County Strategic Plan (King County 2Ol5a)-Presents countywide goals for setting high standards cfcustomer service and performance, building regional partnerships' stabilizing the long-term budget, and working together as one county tocreate agrowing economy and sustainable communities. This Plan supports each ofthe primary goals of the King County Strategic Plan, with particular emphasis on environmental sustainability and service excellence. ff� Division staff conducting sampling 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxS01idWasteManagomuPlan 2m8 *mA Page 71 ` Strategic Climate Action Plan (King County Z0l5b)-Synthesizes King County'smost critical goals, objectives, strategies and priority actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change. It provides single resource for information about King [ounty'sclimate efforts. ^ 2076 King County Comprehensive Plan (2016 Update) (King County 2016a) -The guiding policy document 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,20l0. ^ King County Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan 2016-2022 (King County 2016b)-The mounty'sblueprint for changethatwiUguidepn|idesanddecision'maNng.dedgnandde|iverynfsemices,andvvorkp|aoepocticesin order to advance equity. �,.mq(o^nprx6rxxivaSolid Wa;teMxn^gv�nent/lan2018 x«xPage 72 pdated April NI OW"' Sustaina Mater Manag Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Policies r 9 ~ oal Achieve Zero Waste of Resources - to eliminate the disposal of IFF" materials with economic value -by2O3O'with aninterim goal of 70percent recycling through acombination ofefforts inthe following order ofpriority: a. Waste prevention and reuse, iz Product stewardship, c. Recycling and composting, and d. Beneficial use. S'1 Set achievable targets for reducing waste generation and disposal and increasing recycling and reuse. S-2 Enhance, develop, and implement waste prevention and recycling programs that will increase waste diversion from disposal using a combination oftools: a. Infrastructure, Lz Education and promotion, c. Incentives, d. Mandates, e. Enforcement, and [ Partnerships. S-3 Advocate for product stewardship inthe design and management ofmanufactured products and greater responsibility for manufacturers tndivert these products from the waste stream. S-4 Prevent waste generation bvfocusing onupstream activities, including encouraging sustainable consumption behaviors, such as buying only what one needs, buying durable, buying secondhand, sharing, reusing, repairing, and epurpodng. S-5 Work with regional partners tofind the highest value end uses for recycled and composted materials, support market development, and develop circular supply loops toserve production needs. S-G Strive toensure that materials diverted from the King County waste stream for recycling, composting, and reuse are handled and processed using methods that are protective ofhuman health and the environment. ^mA Page 75 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Policies IN NP S'7 Provide for efficient collection ofsolid waste, recyc|ab|es,and organics, while protecting public health and the environment, promoting equitable service, and maximizing the diversion of nsyc|ab|esand organics from disposal. S-8 Promote efficient collection and processing systems that work together tominimize contamination and residual waste, maximize diversion from disposal, and provide adequate capacity. ^mA Page 76 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 :o f ty; dti olll'i ti'+ ni' Summary of Recommended Actions 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. If the responsibility is not in bold, the action has lower implementation priority. Action Regional Leadership 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 work with 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. Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance. 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. Detailed Discussion Page 4-7 Page 4-15 Page 4-8 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. Page 4-11 Page 4-8 Att A Page 77 Ordinance 18893 �� � ���������Yl������— ����Tl��T��T�J��T ���������������^���� ��x~ v�v= Updated April 17, 2019 " ����������� .i ����L������.� Action Increase educational outreach and promotion tosing|e-family,mu|i#amik\ and non-residential customers to encourage recycling and reduce waste. Increase single-family food scrap recycling through athree-year educational cart tagging program. Continue todevelop infrastructure and increase regional and local educational outreach, incentives and promotion toincrease recycling offood scraps and food -soiled paper. These efforts should target single-family and multi -family residential developments, aswell asnon- residential hui|dings such asschools, institutions, and businesses. Provide information and technical assistance toexternal agencies, such aslocal governments, schools, colleges, and other public and private organizations ioincrease their purchase ufsustainable products. Support implementation ofthe county's Sustainable Purchasing Policy through waste reduction, recycling, use of recyclable products, and green building. Policy and Infrastructure Work with public and private partners tnsupport the development nf reuse and recycling value chains, including markets, for target products and materials. Employ incentives and mate ria I -specific projects that reduce or eliminate barriers to reuse and recycling. Pursue product stewardship strategies through acombination ofvoluntary and mandatory programs for products that contain toxic materials, are difficult and expensive tnmanage, 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 toRepair legislation and framework legislation for addressing producer responsibility. Explore options toincrease recycling and resource recovery through innovative methods and technologies. Detailed [)i5cV5siOD Page4lA Page4l6 Page 4-16 Page 4-20 Page 4-1O Page 4-12 Page4-l5 anU0'3 *mA Page 78 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Summary of Recommended Actions Action 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. 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: Interim 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 4-10 Page 4-11 Page 4-13 Page 4-5 Page 4-12 Att A Page 79 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Summary of Recommen Action Grants e 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. Green Building 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. Actions Detailed Discussion Page 4-19 Page 4-20 Page 4-19 Page 4-19 Page 4-1 Page 4-32 Provide technical assistance and promote proper deconstruction, Page 4-35 building reuse, and reuse of building materials. Att A Page 80 Ordinance 18893 Summary of Recommen Action Construction and Demolition Materials Recycling e 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. Increase 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. Collection Involve the Vashon/Maury Island community and service providers to develop the appropriate type of recycling services provided curbside and at the transfer station. Include 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. Adopt the single and multi -family minimum collection standards. Updated April 17, 2019 Actions 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 Att A Page 81 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 S f Recommended Actions Detailed []i5[UssiOD Consider improvements tosingle-family collection services inthe Page4'2y unincorporated area to increase the recycling rate. | Include non-residential recycling services incity contracts (consistent Page4-3] with state |aw). � Consider implementing anincentive-based rate structure for non- Page4-33 residential garbage customers toencourage recycling. | Update and enforce building code requirements toensure adequate and conveniently located space for garbage, recycling, and organics collection containers inmu|ti-fami|y,commercial, and mixed -use Page 4-30 Make recycling atmulti-family complexes convenient bv Page4-30 implementing best practices. | *mA Page 82 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 stainable Materials Management |nl08gthe 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. In King County, the division, cities, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC), and solid waste collection companies worked together tolaunch acoordinated 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 2007 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted, the collection system inthe 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 toclimb. 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 ofthe waste reduction and recycling programs, markets and processing capacity for materials have fluctuated. Recent issues such asChina's restrictions onmultiple 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 tnthe increase ufmaterials collected insingle-family residential curbside recycling inthe region. First isthe transition tocommingled (or dng|e'steam)collection. Since200l' the collection companies have tonsitinnedtocommingled recycling, whereby all the recyclable materials are placed in one large cart for curbside pickup. Asecond development isthe addition offood scraps and food -soiled paper toyavdwastecollected curbside. |n2O01,the division began working with cities and collection companies tophase incurbside collection offood scraps and food -soiled paper inthe yard waste (organics)cart. Compostab|efood scraps and food -soiled paper, which currently make upabout one-third ofthe waste disposed bvsingle-family residents, include all fruit, vegetable, meat, dairy products, pastas, grains, breads, and soiled paper used infood preparation orhandling (such as paper towe|s).Food and yard waste, either separated o/commingled, are referred Loasorganics. Nearly lO0percent ofsingle-family customers who subscribe Logarbage collection now have access tocurbside food scrap collection. Only VashonIsland and the Skvkomishand Snoqua|mie Pass areas, which house less than one percent ofthe countytresidents, dunot have this service. Food scraps can becollected iosmall containers lined with compogab�ebags no make it easier to recycle 201�)Compre�ensi�)pSol�d Wastr.Managemezt PZm-,TZIZ)lxm8 *mA Page 83 in 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 tostimulate markets for the recycling and reuse ofconstruction and demolition materials. In 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 1980s to 15.2 pounds in 2014-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.g., 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: ^ Sing|e-fami|y(upto4units)andmu|ti-fami|yesident»(insomedtiesmayindudetownhomes)' ` 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 ofconstruction 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 ofmarkets for recyclable materials, availability of take -back options for used products, and opportunities topartnervvithprivate'sectorbusineoes,nationa|coa|itions,andotherjuhsdictionstoefec<change. Information 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. � || ow � � (u ` Thenegiana|commitmenttonecyc|inghasmanybenefits-finandaLsodaLandemvironmentaiFinanda|benefit 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, LandfillManayement andSolid Waste Disposal, Cedar Hills landfill is a more cost-effective means of disposal than the other disposal alternatives currently 4-2 2uiy(oop/(,brnnv,Solid Waxte Man,,X,*mu/lan-J1^1Y,m8 x«xPage 84 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 available. After Cedar Hills reaches capacity and closes, minimizing the amount ufwaste 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 growth and job creation. Materials diverted from Cedar Hills for recycling must be sorted, processed, and transported. The 2016 Recycling Economic Information (RB)Report (EPA,2OlQincludes information about the recycling jobs, wages, Al", and tax revenue benefits. The report shows that recycling and reuse ofmaterials creates jobs, while also generating local and state tax revenues. |n2007,recycling and reuse activities in the United States accounted for: ^ 757,000joba' ` $36.dbillion inwages, and $6.7 billion in tax revenues. This equates tol.57jobs for every l,000 tons ofmaterials recycled. Construction and demolition debris recycling provides the largest contribution toall three categories (job,wage, and tax nsvenue)'followed by ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals such as aluminum. in ,61, `~~�~��~�~�^—~~��� � WM �L ' ��^ ^ — The Reco|ogy Store is a p4ceto both recycle items and to purchase items made from recycled materials (Photo courtesy o[Rpco|ogyUeanScapes) The positive environmental benefits ofrecycling are local and ultimately global. Environmental benefits are focused in two primary areas, 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 toahealthier planet. Figure 4-1 illustrates a circular supply loop. The figure graphically shows the opportunities, values, and benefits of organics recycling inKing County. «����X �K��� ��������� ��~^~.y ~~,.�� 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 (SWAQ 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 identify 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 tohelp 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 significant, 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 beinplay. 2019 Covp,ekensiepSolid Waste MaxagelneuPlan -J��Y 2ci8 *mA Page 85 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Fig ire 4-1 Organics: Opportunities, values, anc benefits in Kii g County Food, yard, and wood wastes: Opportunities, values, and benefits in King County 2015 To Landfill 341,200 tons (approximately 48%) We reduced GHG emissions by 3,730 MTCO2e* by landfilling Represents $11.5 million in economic, environmental and health costs Organics in the landfill produce friethane, most of which is captured and converted to natural gas. To food banks to feed people 10,000 tons Conservative estimate of surplus, perishable food rescued by hunger relief organizations, To farms tofeed livestock To Resource Recovery 361,000 tons (approximately 52%) 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. We reduced GHG emissions by 67,680 MTCO2e by composting Nearly all organics currendy collected for processing go to composting facilities. Other processing technologies for organics include anaerobic digestion, biochar, and co -digestion with biosolids, *metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 000 Portion returns to production To Products from Organics Processing - Current - soil -building ulch, compost, fertilizer energy fuels, heat construction materials engineered wood — Potential animal feed, soap, and others 4-4 2019 Comp ens e Stild Waste MoManagement Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 86 /- 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. & m Per Capita -20.4poonrs/week This target addresses residential waste from single- and multi -family homes. Per Employee -42.2 pounds/meek This target addresses waste from the non-residential sector. e� Reductions in disposal over time indicate an increase in waste prevention and/or recycling. Per Capita -5.1 pounds/week This target addresses residential waste from both single- and multi -family homes. Per Employee -4.y 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 quantifying 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 identify 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'nesidentia|'andse|f-hau|necyc|ingactivity.|taddnssestheamnunt of waste being diverted from disposal at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill to recycling. It does not include construction and demolition debris (which have separate recycling goals), or other wastes, such as car bodies, which are not typically handled through the county system. In 2015, the overall recycling rate for the county was S4percent. The goal for this planning period reflects the estimated recycling rate achievable ifthe recommended strategies in this plan are fully implemented (see Figure 4-3). Overall interim recycling �`° 1411 70 perc nt 201�)COMPrChvoiDC SOI�dVas�e.MoqgewemPZan -JUZYxmJ *mA Page 87 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 � u\1A, hat is Your Recycling Rate? It Depends on What You Count. Currently, there are nostate cvnational standards for what should becounted inthe "recycling rate" for acity orcounty. As a result, recycling rates reported by various jurisdictions may include different materials. For example, 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. In 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 ofthe lack ofmeasurable data. For example, based on the definition above, the county's 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 ifhand-to'measuematerials such as car bodies and land clearing debris were added. Given the various methods for calculating arecycling rate, it isimportant tounderstand what materials are being counted before comparing rates across jurisdictions. |Goal | | | .0111111111011—� National Average Recycling Rate (2O14)=35Y6 Regional Commitment to Single Stream Recycling 0% —r 1990 1995 200620072008 2009 2010 20112012 201320142015 4-6 2019 Comp?-ebensive Solid Waste *mA Page 88 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 AacanbeseeninRgue4'2,theecvdingra1ehasstaUaievenaswastegenerationhasincreasedinecentyeao.Thpnde of individual citieswill becritical in reaching our countywide waste prevention and recycling goal and targets. The way in which each city contributes to the overall goal and targets, however, may vary depending on the city's demographic make-up and other factors. For example, a city with a large concentration of apartments and condominiums might focus more efforts nnprograms for multi -family residents. Communities with primarily single-family homes C77", might focus education and promotion onfood scrap _—_:--��-^�-.-_'.�-�— /r�yux`g/m u/�x /��/��/c` Another factor cities may consider isthe make-up nftheir business (or nnn'nsidentia|)sectors. Cities with many restaurants, grocers, orother food - related budnesoesmight|ookatwaystopromute the recycling offood scraps ortnpartner these businesses with local food banks todonate surplus food to those in need. Similarly, cities with booming construction activity may want totake advantage nf markets for the recycling and reuse ofconstruction and demolition materials. Likewise, the county will consider the make-up o/ the unincorporated area inwhich tofocus waste prevention and recycling efforts. � Westwood Help Stop Food Waste campaign The county and the cities lead by example to improve waste prevention and recycling in their respective operations, attheir facilities, and atsponsored events, for instance: ` Some cities have held their own zero waste events and picnics, ^ The 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 100 percent recycled content and reduce paper use bv20percent. 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 nf[egi0M@oc.o*pe(ationtoward 70% recycling goal us�ng collective mandatory actions AN[ 2.2% Ad lti- �.5Y6 .� �'''~^ Non- m�� 1.�� m � � �enow| Rn�mp*m| ~~'~ ~~�mum ��v� �m�m����/I � Mandatory Separation x�v�i"u� Mandatory Separation Food Cardboard, Paper, Yard Waste '`~'~ ~~Rn~� ffm�* � �~Mandatory . = ' ` wv� �wmi� � eparation ' me��'� 11� 2019 Covp,ekendve Solid Wa.�te&av,qgewu�zt PZm'JU,�Y 2m8 *mA Page 89 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 00 Re commended � /� �� / `ec(]DODOenw{�u u(la and �- argets 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 acNeved Uis�ng valrious tools promotion Establishing the collection and processing infrastructure balways the first step. |tcan beaccomplished through enhanced curbside collection services, additional recycling options attransfer facilities, and partnerships with private -sector processing facilities and manmfactureo/retai|co,e.g,N develop take -back programs. Educational programs and targeted advertising play akey role ininitiating new programs and sustaining the omentum of existing programs. These efforts can hetailored to specific waste generators ormaterials. Incentives encourage recycling. For example, inapay-as-yu-thmw (or variable rate) type program, ifa customer generates less garbage, they need osmaller garbage container, which means olower charge nntheir garbage bill. Incentives can also take the form nfogive-away item that makes waste prevention and recycling easier. New transfer facilities are being designed with dedicated areas for recyclable materials such asyard waste, clean wood, and scrap metal. Approximatelv99 percent of single-family mrbsidecollection customers have access tocollection service for food scraps and food -soiled paper, along with the yard waste. Through [CydeWashington electronics manufacturers have developed a statewide network nflocations for recycling televisions, computers, and monitors. Likewise UghtKemdeWashington established anetwork 10 collect mercury- contain i ng lights. The division's Green Tools team provides education, resources, and technical assistance nnhow tomanage construction and demolition debris ma resource rather than a waste. Many cities provide assistance tnbusinesses Nestablish and maintain recycling programs. EnvimStaoGreen Business Program isafree program that offers rebates, resources, and incentives tobusinesses who take action to protect the environment and employee health and safety. Bellevue, Kirkland and King County are founding members. Tnencourage waste prevention ondmmding,mrbddegxrbanem|hchnn fees increase with the size nfgarbage can that customers subscribe Ncreating o^poyasynuthmw"(ormhaNemte)system.|nadditinn, embedding recycling inthe rate can also act manincentive. Some cities provide kitchen containers and sample mmpnstab|ebags to encourage residents to recycle their food scraps. 4-8 �,.u9(omp,ebwxxiv,Solid Wa;te2Wav^gv�nentfla�z-/1,11Y,m8 *mA Page 90 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Mandates that restrict the disposal nf specific materials have proven effective inincreasing recycling, particularly in instances where there isaviable and developed recycling market for those materials. Mandates can helegislated atthe local, state, nrfederal level, nr implemented through city contracts. Enforcement ofprogram rules ensures that materials are recycled nrdisposed of properly. Partnerships enable a program to heamplified bvbringing inother organizations oragencies tvassist with the program In order to discourage disposal of yard waste, its disposal incurbside garbage has been prohibited since 1993. |n2005, fluorescent lights and many electronics were prohibited from disposal atKing County transfer stations toencourage the recycling of these items and use m[the Take |tBack Network h Toincrease recycling, the division requires self -haulers tosepamtetheir materials atcounty transfer stations. Starting in2Ol8,cardboard, metal, yard waste, and clean wood isbanned from disposal at transfer stations that provide recycling services for these materials. The construction and demolition debris program employs aKing County sheriff Nenforce the recycling and disposal rules for construction and demolition materials. Outreach and progressive fines are issued toviolators toencourage them tnlearn how the materials should bchandled. Product stewardship efforts rely on partnerships Nimplement programs. The division routinely partners with other organizations k/further product stewardship goals through the Northwest Product Stewardship Council. 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 Promotions were used toinform residents of the availability ofcurbside collection asthe service was phased in. Educational campaigns were launched toteach citizens how tocompost yard waste from their own yards for use asa soil amendment. Because the cost ofcollecting yard waste for composting was less than the cost ofdisposal inthe garbage, residents had an incentive tnsubscribe tnyard waste collection service. Many cities provided anadditional Food: Too Good toWaste campaign shares information with consumers about how hopurchase and store food iominimize waste ^I "'t I=� 201�)Comprchensi�)pSolid WaStCMvagen7CmPlan -,TZIZ)lxm8 *mA Page 91 incentive bvincluding yard waste collection aspart oftheir basic package nfcollection services atthe 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. �-�A.~ Sustainable �� � ` U �� � /� U���&����� {VV�����U�t� VU����������������� �� ����������� V ~��, ~�=� The following discussion describes a different way to look at the waste prevention and recycling programs and activities already in place. It 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 ofthe state solid waste plan (Ecology 2Ol5). Sustainable materials management still focuses nnrecycling and disposal, but by including production, design, use, and reuse, it provides an opportunity to identify more resilient, sustainable ways todesign products that prioritize durability and recydabiUty,and use less energy, water, and toxics. Figure 4-A VlaterWs ffo cycle ~^aWW~. . 2om{oxlo/ebrnsiveJo&lWaste /0aoogrme�2t.%,'/Vy _,m8 *mA Page 92 Decisions toreduce waste can bemade atseveral critioa|stagey|napuoduct'siifecvdohe|pingtudavdopadro/|ar supply loop: ` When manufacturers decide what goods toproduce, how todesign them, how toproduce them, and how to package them, ^ When consumers decide whether and what topurchase, and ` When consumers adopt ways touse and reuse products more efficiently. The following sections provide examples of programs in the different phases of sustainable materials management. Design and D�],��[��()O - c/ — — — 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. In 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 tureduce wasted food through anumber ufstrategies: ` Encourage students totake what they will eat and eat what they take, ^ Setup 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. ���PyJ UReuse � ThreadcyclebapubUceducation campaign sponsored byKing County and Seattle Public Utilities that encourages residents tndonate used clothing, shoes, and linens for reuse orrecycling. Local thrift stores and other organizations are partners inthe program and will take all clothing, shoes, and linens regardless ufcondition (except items that are wet' mildewed, n,contaminated with hazardous materials). The Eco[onuumerpublic outreach program sponsors Repair Groups and events. Each repair event or group operates differently, based on the needs of the local community. It 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 tobe 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. `IWA141116 Repair Group event provides anopportunity fu items for repair esidentsro bring in broken 2019 Covzp/ekensh)pSol�dK&steMaenagemem.Plm2m8 *mA Page 93 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 nd-o aste Prevention, Recycling and Climate Change The purchase, use, and disposal of goods and services by King County residents, businesses, and governments are associated with significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Emissions can occur at all stages of a product's life - from resource extraction, farming, manufacturing, processing, transportation, sale, use, and disposal. In 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 270,000 MTCO2e, 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 options, reducing the amount they purchase, 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. Recycling outreach - The Solid Waste Division's Recycle More - It'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 - In 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, mattresses, and textiles. The EcoConsumer program has expanded reuse by promoting and supporting tool lending library projects in the county. e Management Product stewardship is a life -cycle approach that is being implemented at the state, national and international levels. In 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. 4-12 2o19 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 94 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, carpet, 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 ofunused 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 seeks to refine and improve the What do I do with ... ? website, which currently provides information on over 100 materials. �-°���^k��� �,������ ��� n��.".V". nn��-,�~_~, �~° Resources |nZOO4 King County adopted "Zero Waste nfResources" asaprinciple designed to eliminate the disposal ofmaterials with economic value. Zero Waste does not mean that nnwaste will bedisposed; it proposes that maximum feasible and cost-effective efforts bemade toprevent, reuse, and reduce waste. The division has been taking steps toeliminate the disposal ofmaterials that have economic value and for which there are viable markets. King [ounty'slist ofdesignated n«yc|ab|esisdefined and updated by Ecology's annual statewide survey of materials that have been recycled in Washington. The current list isshown in Table 4-2: �� ' Recic|aMasFad|i|adoresorbci�ka\oaofrecycling teach recycling and composting basics soacommunhyevent ixKing County 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dKasteMvagomu�an -_)U�y,mJ *mA Page 95 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Carpet and Pad Table 4-2. Designated recyc Carpet and pad remnants. males Clean Wood Unpainted and untreated wood, including wood from construction and demolition projects, and pallets. Construction and Demolition Debris 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. Electronics Includes audio and video equipment, cellular telephones, circuit boards, computer monitors, printers and peripherals, computers and laptops, copier, and fax machines, PDAs, pagers, tapes and discs, and televisions. Furniture Includes mattresses and box springs, upholstered and other furniture, reusable household and office goods. Glass Clean glass containers and plate glass'. Metal Clean ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including tin-plated steel cans, aluminum cans, aerosol cans, auto bodies, bicycles and bicycle parts, appliances, propane tanks, and other mixed materials that are primarily made of metal. Moderate Risk Waste Moderate risk waste from households and small quantity commercial generators, including antifreeze, household batteries, vehicle and marine batteries, brake fluid, fluorescent lights, oil -based paint, thermometers and thermostats, used oil, and oil filters. Organics Food scraps and food -soiled paper; fats, oils, and grease (FOG); biodegradable plastic kitchenware and bags2; yard waste, woody materials under 4 inches in diameter; and stable waste (animal manure and bedding). Other Materials Includes 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 dean, 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 containers, bags, and film (wrap). Textiles Includes rags, clothing and shoes, upholstery, curtains, and small rugs. 1 Plate glass is not accepted in curbside programs. 2 Biodegradable plastic products must be approved by organics processing facility receiving the material. 4-14 .2o1.9 Comprehen, s e Mo Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 96 While the list cfrecyclable materials isextensive, available markets and infrastructure can vary from region tnregion. The division prioritizes materials for recycling in King County based on four key factors: ` The amount present inthe waste stream, ` The ability tohandle 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 nrdemonstration projects ofother evolving technologies that promote resource recovery as ways tnrecycle orreuse materials. Since the 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was issued, the list of materials that are being recycled has grown substantially. In 2017, over 931,000 tons of solid waste were disposed at Cedar Hills. As shown in Figure 4-5,atleast limited options in the market exist for the recycling of about 70 percent of the materials disposed. F'*ure 4-5.RecV[kiO fiG|nf!nateHa|6r1iso8sedin2015 111 Readily Recyclable � UrnbedRecvc|abiti Not Recyclable For years, the Pacific Northwest has relied almost exclusively on exporting recyclable paper and plastics to China for processing. In 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 avariety of reasons, including commingling the materials in one bin, new packaging types, 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 mcyz|aNeslegally brought into the country. |nresponse, agencies, cities, and haulers in King County have formed the Responsible Recycling Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force will identify 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: 201�)Comprebensi�)pSolid ��e.Ma1zq.goort Plm/��Y,m8 *mA Page 97 . 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 social justice and environmental impacts cfexport)' ~ Create domestic demand for recycled feedstock, ` Understand that responsible recycling isnot free, and ~ Shift tomeasure recyc|ab|esthat 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. Dr'{)��|Vk��|(����|s ' '`/ '^' ^ ' ' The following sections describe priority materials identified by the division for recycling through curbside collection and atcounty transfer facilities. )w riority aterials f*rCwrbside 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 aspriorities are not required toberecycled inall city programs, When the 200lComprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted, materials collected atthe 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. (\ , 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 201 7b) 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 4-1 � noig CoffzpTebms�vrSolid ^te&anagement Plm�1,11Y,m8 x«xPage 98 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 isactively working with regional partners to: Engage inlong-range planning toincrease organics processing capacity, Encourage greater use ufcompost, and Encourage operational changes at processing facilities to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. KX D[i(]r'1V at(�r'a / S f/u[^ � ._o ect`()�) �� �^�[] [��U�1y T'aUsfo[ ���'|^1^F�s - ' �' County _ - The division has identified several priority materials to collect at all transfer stations once they are renovated or replaced: ^ Yard and wood waste, ` Cardboard' ` Clean wood (not treated orpainted)'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. ���������� �����������~U�� ~~.,.,~�~~ "~~, ..~_~'�~_..°=~"`_ �v^ _'UH D—��Dan'1`�O Markets for -r - r - �v �- ��f���^��X� ���`�" «^°:�^ � `{`cV� / a D Market development isanimportant strategy toensure that recyclable materials are successfully moving from waste toresource. The division isworking toexpand markets for recyclable and reusable materials and facilitate the infrastructure that supports those markets, through its LinkUpProgram. Working with businesses, public agencies, and other organizations, LinkUpdevelops projects that address specific market barriers (from collection to processing toend'use)that prevent orrestrict a material orproduct from moving upthe value chain for ultimate reuse oruse asa raw material for manufacturing new products. |nrecent years, UnkUphas conducted projects toimprove markets for asphalt shingles, carpet, mattresses, compost, and textiles. Projects have supported efforts, such asthe development ofcollection and processing infrastructure for asphalt roofing shingles, carpet, and mattresses; establishment ofthe hot mix asphalt pavement market for asphalt shingles; expansion ofthe Take itBack Network toinclude latex paint, and promotion ofthe network tothe public; public education tupromote donation ofdamaged textiles for reuse urrecycling; and demonstration of the use of compost for agricultural applications by King County farmers. Developing markets for asphalt shingles has been one focus ofthe UnkUpprogram, Shown here are asphalt shingles used in paving roads 2U19Co)?zprekensi�)pSol�dK���a�rzqgev7.mu.P1m/��Yxm8 *mA Page 99 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 �O1� J�017K� ��v/����uz'u.' Mar <et Assess rTleil|s |n2Ol5and ]0l7,[ascadiaConsulting Group conducted market assessments forthedividonthathocusednn commingled curbside mcyc|ab|es,ovganics, electronics, film plastics, and construction and demolition materials 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 an* 2017 market as5essment5 m= NWAFAMEEM 0 Food and food -soiled paper* Clean wood Textiles* Film plastic (same score as textiles) Medium Electronics (covered by E-Cycle) A9'7p|asUo Mattresses* (same score as #8'7p|astio) Clean (new)gypsum Electronics (not covered bvE-[yc|e) Asphalt Shingles* Carpet Low Treated wood Painted (demn)gypsum Tires * Materials for which the division is already engaging in market support through the LinkUp program. [ascadiathen conducted "mini assessments" ofthe top six ranked materials, combining two categories ofelectronics, 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, ~ Markets for commingled curbside necyc|ab|es, including paper, plastics, glass, and metals were generally stable in 2015. However, China's 2018 implementation of their"National Sword" policy to restrict the importation of mixed paper and mixed #347 plastics has resulted in the immediate closure of a significant market for these recyclable materials. Annually, around l38'000tons ofthese 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 incurbside commingled recycling. 4-1 � � �,.oivCo^gTek^x,�voSolid Waste MavnXement}Nn-/2dy,m8 Aft Page100 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 x� ^ 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 tobestable. Expanding agricultural compost markets iscfinterest. ^ Wood and plastic films have significant barriers to successful recycling. Wood marketsare stable but weak and highly dependent onuse axhog fuel. Barriers toplastic film recycling occur atall points ofthe supply chain. ants to Cities N�\|eDe'4Ucti[)n and �e[V[nC]G[aDrs The division provides grant funds and technical assistance tocities tmhelp further waste prevention and recycling programs and services within their communities. Each year, King County I ",��^ imp� uumvuLezover +/"" ion mym.Lm./ tncities; these funds are supported by the solid waste tipping fee. All cities in the service area are eligible for the funds. Clean wood iscollected a'the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station The formula for their allocation includes a base amount plus apercentage based onthe chy'spopulation 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 toimplement and improve general recycling programs, ^ Improving opportunities for the collection of specific commodities, such as paper, ^ Improving opportunities for the collection and/or composting of organic materials, ^ Increasing 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. ,m�)Comp,,6,vsd)eSolid Vaue/Wazvog,mcnu/Za,?-/z,�lycm8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 S{}|^rJWaste '^[]a8(_'a 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). Competitive Grant _-)rogram |n2Ullthe division worked collaboratively with the cities todevelop anew competitive grant program tofund innovative projects and services that further the waste prevention and recycling goals outlined in this Plan. Cities, commercial collection companies, and other entities, such asnon-profit organizations orschools, would beeligible tnapply for the grant program.The program has not been approved bythe cities nrfunded through the solid waste rate, but the division will continue tnwork with the cities toidentify opportunities toinitiate the new competitive grant program inthe future. |nthe meantime, the division has initially funded asmall competitive 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 ofthe funded projects can befound online at: � �K U���^y����U�� ��������,���� -~~~~~~~°."~"~�°~~ Purchasing Cities use some o[their grant money rohold recycling collection events 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 the county have also implemented environmentally preferable purchasing programs. Another strategy to increase sustainable purchasing is to provide training and education about the benefitsof compost applications in parks and landscape projects, topdressing grass in parks, and stormwater management applications. 2U19 Coo-zprebms�vpSolid Waste Manqge�nentD&m�1,11Y,m8 Aft xPage 10 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. �es'/1e[lt�a| Co e[|'(}D The residential garbage collection system in King County isawell-established system that serves the region in 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 vecyc|ab(esurorganics 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 UT[cost assessment inAppendix A (Section 3.3) provides additional information about the UT['rugu|atudand contracted companies. Working with the community and the hauler, the division isexploring the inclusion ofVashon/MauryIsland inthe service level standards, aswell asother ways tnimprove recycling services provided curbside and atthe transfer station. 5kvkomishand Snoqua|miePass will not beincluded inthe service level standards atthis time because of their remote locations and low population densities. A truck picks up in a neighborhood (Photo courtesy of RepubHc Services) 2019 Comprekmsie)pSoUWaste Mauagexnrnt Plan 2oz8 Aft Page103 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 4-4, Summary of single-family collection for garbage, recycling, and organics in Ki g County 2.4 ca Ta 11" v) 31 up o L'4° cc a; 4, 03.1 u U. 3 Collection Frequency (s)!LRE,Jo 6u!pniNa) aleH buHDADali (sp!uebio bu!pnpu!) aleLr! bu!!)/(DeH (IAA/IsnD/sql) lesods!a a6eclie aad abeciRD u! papnpul sp!uguo aad abecpeD u! papnpul 6uHDADeH (Jaw!AA) uo!pallop sp!uebJojo buanbaJd L 1/9 inz (1lej-Jawwns-6upds) uo!palioD sp!uebio jo buenbald L 1/9 inz uo!pamoj buipApa jo Apuanlowd L 1/9 in 1.1ej sp!ue6.10 pepuels 1.LeD bu!IDADe pepueis Type of Collectiona uo!palloD e6ecin9 A.LolepueLAI 3111 / PalluoD /uedwoj uo!pailoj 9 Lnz PeAv paleiodAoDu!un AO uo!p!pspnr- 0, 0 0 0 0 LU 1,0 10 0 a Cs, a, 40 42 *-• 0 0 uJ a) 04 a.° 42 LL, cc N lfl r r0 01 • 10 VI • 2 0 uJ 1,1 • 0 1,11 0 1? • sr) 00 (11 017,1 2 2 u 40 0 z 0 4)1 0 LI 40 40 01 01 Tt 71' 42 ca. 42 2 -o oc -a cc 4-22 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 104 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ra ul o C *— 0 v CC (D!uebio 6u!pnpxa) ale8 6uipADa8 (sp!ue6io 6u!pnpu!) 6u!pbaH ()Intosrp/sql) lesods!so abecpeD aad a6ecile9 u! papnpui sp!ue6J0 Bad abecpeD u! papnpul 6u!pbad Collection Frequency, 0) 1 N ver (0 111 Cr/ Type mfCo||ect|on" (Jalu!m) uonoamoD sD!ue6Jojo buanbaJj L/91.9z (llej-Aawwns-6u0s) uonoamoD spiue6.10jo buanbaij L/9 inz uo!pallop 6u!pbad JO buenbeijL L/9 10z JJ sp!ue6J0 plepuels ;JeD bu!pbaH piepuei.s uo!palloD a5egJe9 AimepueiAl Din / PeAiuoj Auedwoj uonoalloD 9 inz eaiy pawJothopu!un JO UOppSprir 3 N c 0 CC N rn89- ,0 co CO N X X o 0 0 0 0 wi ,0 010' ‘.0 0, 0, 1- 2 1 2 cc • 1 c 1 0 I 0 0, E 6 i z z 0, z Lfl z z o o E o o 6 cu 0 Qi° -02 1 4 •E ,.., cc CO q i .y . . • . , _ . .E. 0E R A ( z 0 : ...„, , 4 9, .6 Q .0 cs 0E 0)':5 ---.."15 •-•:'N' (uu 41*'a., 0 ,ra,`.-.' ,,, 1-- ,:L,, ,,, ,... )0 7- , , ,,, , ,7. _ ._! E- - O, Z -0 O (11EQLOL.,. E Q z sn Li v, a s._ 0. , 0 Ci., O CC 0Z CO' ' '''. CD 4-'6 E° -z z ' 2 z- : . E "...0_ c_5 cu --- •—, --z --_ 0 '''. •O 0 o 2 — ...., CO ...., ....>', ''',,, E 0- -4-, — 4 ,... -0 ,..... E .,..., Q., o 2 '-"-^ 0 — -0 E c--r) 'e - - z E t ...., ,,, L) p, 'S' iFf L,' CU CO o E -0 so cu o „....,.. o , iu --o- 0, ,z 0 Q., z •-- ,:5 .--: Z 0 ,... Q., ..- --- •E' 9, 0 .,., °' o > E cn -6 so 0. cu 0 .2.. -o -.0 ..7-1: 1 i ` N'', .w!, -0 z '--- vi) C3,' 2 5.-,' .., -„..., 0 o o •&- cli Q.,2 l.1 0 .0: 0 0 ' OCW cu,-.C:' 0..':3 -. 0' OCW 0.,' OZ1Z --9 0:W .1:3 Q., ,....._ 0' 0 ..6. ...... 6 0 0 ,0-0 0.; .0 .t.', a) 1° 0 0 -E. E E o Q-, Q, 0 . . t. e , • - - . . . 0 . • 0 Z . '.5 • -9 • 9 . . .: ".• CUL' 0' tjZ !Z . q '' C5 Z Q' iS ‘... 0 E 0 U .-.C...:: 0 a) .._, :t;" 8' 6' ' - -, Nv ' ':. 1 ' ' 0: ""- '`' ,... .6 a l/ Lel-ic l.) 0 LJ LU Z -0 n in areas sery 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan - ju. ly 2018 Att A Page 105 4-23 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* FMaterials Coll cted In 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 clarnshells, drink/coffee cups, and aseptic cartons/containers (such asjuice 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 o/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 reasons, 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 shoppingbagsandtheestab|ishmentorexpansionoftake'backprognamsattheretai||eveiForinganue,the Wrap Recycling Action Program (VVRAP)'a national initiative, provides anetwork ofdrop-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 atthe curb iscomplicated by the fact that some of them tend tobreak easily and contain potentially hazardous materials that must besafely disposed. |nWashington State, legislation requires manufacturers ofcomputers, monitors, and televisions tn provide separate locations for free recycling ofthese items. Handling electronics through product stewardship ensures that the various components, such asglass, plastic, and metals, are separated and recycled asappropriate and that any potentially Fluorescent tubes are coUecteda,the Facto on 2o,,y(oxzprcbrmnv,Solid Waste Management }lan-J1^1Y,m8 Aft xPage 106 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 atthe The Recn|ogyBothe||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 isaviable 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 clarnshell 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. In 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 in 2012. 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 of Issaquah and Seattle have taken another approach and banned the use of expanded polystyrene foamcontaineofortake'outfoods.Othercities,suchasKirNandandRedmond,haveregu|arorsemi'regu|ar collection events tncollect expanded polystyrene packaging. Size of Collection Contai er 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 *f Co/lecti*n 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 potential to 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 ofthe 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 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health. To study the effects of changing the collection method and possibly the frequency of collection, in summer 2007 the division conducted a pilot 201�)Comprebensi�)pSol�dKaste.Manage�ncmPZo? -,[U�yxm8 Aft Page10 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Regulatory Changes Allow Adjustments in Collection Frequency Schedules After successful completion of the Renton pilot study, a variance to Title 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 the Title 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 vectors, free liquids, and litter. Residential (Single- and Multi -family) Organics Collection (with yard waste) • When mixed with yard debris, residential food scraps may include all vegetative, 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 every -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 yard/food 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. • Educational and 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. 4-26 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste 11/lanagement Plan - july 2018 Att A Page 108 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Commercial/Multi-family Food Scraps Collection (without yard waste) ^ Food scraps shaUbecoUectedin|eak'pvoofcontractnr-pn/vdedcontaineowithtight|y' 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, urPublic Health personnel. ^ Customers shall be informed 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 cfcummercia|/mu|h-fami|yfood scraps shall occur weekly ataminimum. Any exception to the minimum weekly schedule will have to be justified by information on a particular customer's 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. In 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 tolook attwo 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 intruck 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 toreduce disposal and increase recycling. 201�)Co�nprekensie)pSol�dV&s�e.ManagemcmPZm2018 Aft Page109 Fee Structure Curbside Recycling Services: In nearly all areas of King County, households paying for garbage collection services also cover the embedded cost ofrecycling collection services. |nmost cases, unlimited amounts ofrecyc|ab|escan be set out. In 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 s-you-thvzvv4otemistocoup|eitvvitha|inearmtestructuveinwhich1heneisno "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 SSpercent o/the population inthe county, have adopted rate structures that embed the cost of organics collection in the curbside garbage collection fee,providing further incentive for residents to reduce disposal and maximize use of the recycling options for which they are paying. In 2016, the average pounds of garbage disposed per household in these cities was 12 percent lower than the average for the rest ofKing County. Curbside C*11ection of Bulky /te»nsfor Res/d e mts 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 asfurniture, and other large items that must bedisposed. 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 itisexpensive, ranging from $25to$l28per item, with the possibility ofadditional charges for travel time and labor. Customers may also beunaware nfthe collection options available tothem. The primary alternatives tnbulky curbside collection are self -hauling the materials tntransfer stations for disposal orrecycling, or taking them tncollection events sponsored by the county orthe cities. Neither ofthese self - haul optiunsisanef06entwayufhandUngthe materials because ofthe number ofvehicle trips, the increased number oftransactions attransfer stations, and the high cost ofstaging collection events. 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 ofthe 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. L,c)9Coozprebm��ve Solid Waste Management F�m��'Iy,m8 Aft A Page 110 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ilvReside: tia//W/,itnuinCollection Stand,*rds 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 nfmcyc|ab|esand organics from disposal. Working with the community and the hauler, the division isexploring the inclusion ofVashon8NauryIsland in the service level standards, aswell as other ways toimprove recycling services provided curbsideand atthe Vashon Recycling and Transfer Station. Skykomish and Snoqua|miePass will not beincluded in the service level standards atthis time because oftheir remote locations and low population densities. The minimum collection standards can be implemented a»the county updates its service -level ordinance and jurisdictions amend their collection contracts (some of these targeted standards may not require changes tocontracts orthe county's service -level ordinance). A description of 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. In 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 ecydab|esand grants tocities. 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dVas�e.MoqgewemPZan -,[U�yxm8 *mAPage 111 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Required Materials for Collection* la b!e 4-5 SiDg|e-fnmi|y mini0OUMO collection 5taDr(Grd6 Mixed solid waste Newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, and Yard debris polycoated paper Food scraps Plastic bottles, jugs, and tubs Food -soiled paper Tin and aluminum cans Glass bottles and jars Aseptic packaging Small scrap metal Container Type Containers orwheeled Wheeled carts Wheeled carts carts Container Size Subscriptions available 90fgallon ifcollected every other week for various sizes Frequency of Collection Minimum ofonce o month 90+ gallons if collected every other week Smaller size ifcollected more frequently nrK Smaller size ifrequested bvcustomer requested by customer Minimum of every other week Minimum of every other week Fee Structure Fee increases wkh Remdab|ocollection included ingarbage fee Organics collection included ingarbage fee container size Additional containers available a\noextra charge Additional carts may hrincluded inbase fee or available at an extra charge *Subject to status of recyclables on King CountytDesignated Ke(ydaNuList U —am ' y U��s_ /�{`nt�a / — Co� {`[1^[)n Customers requesting smaller carts may be offered a reduced rate Multi -family recycling has not been assuccessful as single-family recycling. There are anumber ofcontributing 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 <othis diverse sector. Some local progress has been made, however, in developing consistent designstandavdstnaccommodatewasteinmu|ti-fami|ycnmp|exes.|naddition'inmanyaveasofthecountytheveisa trend inthe construction ufmixed'use buildings, which contain retail shops onthe lower level and residential units above. �,.u9(omp,ebwxx�vpSolid Waste Manvgv�nentfla�z 2018 Aft A Page 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 inthe 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 m'/l^mUm coUe[ti{JD s[aA� Required Materials for 6I Mixed solid waste Newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, and mJmwted paps Plastic bottles, jugs, and tubs Tin and aluminum cans Glass bottles and jars Aseptic packaging Small scrap metal Yard debris Food scraps Fnod*ni|edpaper Required Informational Labeling Clearly mark containers indicating materials that are garbage. Information should include pictures Clearly mark containers indicating materials acceptable for recycling. Information should include pictures. Clearly mark containers indicating materials acceptable for organics container. Information should include pictures Container Type Wheeled carts or dumpsten Wheeled carts mdumpsteo Wheeled carts mdumpsters Container Size Subscriptions available for various sizes Service equal to garbage service Subscriptions available for vari- ous Frequency ufCollection Weekly, mmore often ifnoded Weekly or more often if needed Weekly or every other week Fee Structure Fee based on containe size and/or collection frequency Recyclables collection included in garbage fee Additional containers available at no extra charge *Subject to status of recy(lalloon King (ounty�Designated 8ecydablesList Subscription service available for an added fee 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dN���-_,;,zqge1)7au.PZm2m8 Aft A Page 113 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Increased education and promotion are needed to improve recycling at multi -family complexes.|twill 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, incooperation with other jurisdictions, property managers, and owners of multi- family properties, collection companies and other stakeholders, has conducted several research and pilot studies (K[SVVD2Ol4b and 20l6b).The findings from these studies conclude that successful recycling dependson: ^ Collection logistics: Effective programs place recycling containers for convenience, access, and ease ofuse; provide sufficient space and capacity for collection both inside and outside ofthe buildings; provide tools for collection, storage, and transport ofnecyc|ab|esand organics from units to collection points; and clearly label collection containers. xlll.'�,'�'�'11'1`", 14 Recycling and garbage containers atanapartment comp�cx.The signs detail what should bcput ineach 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 cloor-to-door outreach, property manager trainings, and onsite assistance have been successful. In addition, education and outreach that addresses non-English speaking communities is crucial. Improving multi -family recycling will likely require, at a minimum, the following actions: ^ Clarify and strengthen building code requirements -The division's GreenTools program has been working collaboratively with cities to develop standards that can be used for multi -family buildings. If adopted, these standards will help ensure that enough space is designed to allow for recycling in future construction. ^ Research collection and demographic characteristics, complex byconmpAeo-P|anningoutneachstmtegies 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 tofit the complex. Customized combinations ofoutreach tactics and education reinforcement, designed to address the researched characteristics of that complex, help ensure successful outreach which will increase recycling and decrease contamination. 2oi9Cnmp,eknusvaSolid Waste MavuXr�nmtAm-/LIY,m8 Aft A Page 114 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ^ Provide manager and maintenance staff education - Involvement 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 itisreinforced onaregular basis. ^ Involve 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 tohelp with education outreach and feedback tothe tenants about the quality of the recycling and level of contamination. Companies should monitor the recycling performance of the complexes and tag orrefuse pickup ofloads that are contaminated. ^ Expand organicscollectiom-[unently' only afew cities are offering collection offood scraps and food -soiled paper tomulti-family residents.Thecities and the county will need towork with the collection companies tudetermine what containers and collection methods will work best for multi -family complexes. Education and promotion will heacritical component ofthe new multi -family food scrap collection programs. K|{)[)_Res^de[]1`a Co� Think Cleam, AcoUection truck picks op garbage ata business (Photo courtesy of Waste Management) Thenun'esidenta|secto,comphsesarangeofbusinesses,institutons,andgnvennmententities from manufacturing tohigh-tech and retail tofood services. This sector has achieved recycling successes inthe last few years, with a recycling rate of almost 71 percent in 2014, 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 cffood scraps, while manufacturers maygenemte|ange quantities ofplastic wrap and other packaging materials. Because of the diversity of businesses in the region, a more individualized approach is needed to increase recycling inthis sector. One area with significant room for improvement is the diversion offood 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. 201�)Comprekmsie)pSolid K&u.Manqgaaw�an -July �,m8 Aft A Page 115 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 advantageof 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. Involvement 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 isalso 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 of jobs 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, suchashigh'gradeofhcepaper.FordtiesvvithcoUectioncontects,addingvecyc|ingservioetotheircontmctsand including the cost ofservice inthe garbage rate does lead tnhigher non-residential recycling rates and ensure that recycling services are available toall businesses. However, while including recycling service in the rate requires all businesses to pay for the service, itdoes not require that those businesses use the service that the city contractor provides. Businesses in unincorporated King County and cities with UTC'negu|atedcollection services can choose from awide array ofrecycling service providers inKing County for their recycling needs. Promotion ofthese services bythe county and these cities will help increase awareness among businesses ofthe available options. For example, the oounty's "What do |dowith ... ?^mebdte(wwm/kinycounty.0ov/ whotdokdnwith)isone place businesses can look for aservice provider. Food waste co ~ prises a �arge part of the vvaste stream at restaurants Another strategy that might increase recycling for some business customers istoconsider arate 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 201,9 Comp�-ebms�voSolid Waste Management 'J2�'Iy,m8 Aft A Page 116 that is significantly heavier than the garbage generated by businesses without large amounts of food scraps. In Washington, non-residential garbage rates are based on the size of the garbage container. Sogenerators ofheavy materials, such as food scraps, pay less than they might if the rates were based on weight, 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. io0st[U[tUri and le ri,i o 1'c)A aten'a s /-{}||t��t'[�� ��'4 �(��yT - - _ /_ '[)(] g 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. In the following years, until 2016, the division contracted with two private sector companies to manage the majority of the region's 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, or3) a collection company permitted to haul materials for both recycling and disposal. Construction and demolition debris processing nfnecyc|ab|emateha|succuousingehheroouoe'aepaetednr commingled methods. Sou rce-sepa rated 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 behauled directly toa construction and demolition debris transfer station where the waste is transferred torail cars for transport toa The division does not accept construction and demolition waste atits transfer stations orCedar Hills landfill, except for incidental amounts. King County Ordinance l8l0(ieffective January 20lti requires that construction and demolition waste must betaken toadesignated privately -operated construction and demolition debris recycling and/ nrtransfer facility. The division has agreements with the designated facilities that require these facilities torecycle readily recyclable materials. These Container wkhconstruction and demo|iLiondebris for ocyc 201�)Co)?zprebensie),Sol�d WastrManagememPlm,mJ Aft A Page 117 facilities are banned from landfilling certain materials including: clean wood;cardboard; metal; gypsum scrap (xyw); 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. If 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. Independent construction and demolition debris haulers with commercial permits can transport recyclable construction and demolition materials from job sites to either sou rce-sepa rated 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 toensure that materials are being recycled. Cities are encouraged toadopt regulations that complement the King County ordinance. The division's GreenTools program is available to provide technical assistance tocities and has amodel ordinance for cities touse. TaUe 4_7,Designated facilities for n[)n-reCV[l8b e construction and de[��0|it[C>8 waste (|U|V 2018) Third& Lander Recycling Center &Transfer Station 2733 3rd Ave South, Seattle 10,358 Black River Recycling &Transfer Station 501 Monster Road, Renton Cascade Recycling Center l4O20NElV0th'Woodinville EostnumLTm inyStation 7201 W Marginal Way SW, Seattle 19,654 Recycling Northwest 701 2nd Street NW, Auburn �,.mq(o^nprx6rxxiv,Solid Wa;te&av^gv�nent/lan-/1,11Y,m8 Aft A Page 118 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Tab e 4-,8. Designated facilities for recyclable construction and demolition waste (July 2018) Alpine Recycling DRS Seattle (managed by DTG) DTG Renton DTG Woodinville DTG Maltby Maltby Container and Recycling Recovery 1 United Recycling - Seattle United Recycling - Snohomish 3504 112th Street E, Tacoma 2,439 7201 E. Marginal Way S., Seattle N/A 701 SW 34th Street, Renton 77,077 5906 238th Street SE, Woodinville 18,059 8610 219th Street SE, Woodinville 7,010 20225 Broadway Avenue, Snohomish 8,740 1805 Stewart Street, Tacoma 6,352 74 S. Hudson Street, Seattle 2,314 18827 Yew Way, Snohomish 23,896 2029 Comprehensive Sold Waste Management Plan -July 2028 4-37 Att A Page 119 n Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Solid Was Transfers Processing Sys Ordinance 18893 Policies M m 01 Updated April 17, 2019 Provide solid waste services tocommercial collection companies and self -haul customers attransfer stations, and toself-haul customers atdrop boxes. T-2 Provide solid waste transfer services inthe urban and rural areas nf the county that may betailored tolocal and facility conditions and intedoca|agreements with King County cities. T-3 Engage cities and communities inthe siting and development of facilities, and in developing mitigation measures for impacts related tothe construction, operation, and maintenance oftransfer facilities, as allowed by applicable local, state, and federal laws. T-4 Build, maintain, and operate Solid Waste Division facilities with the highest green building and sustainable development practices. T-5 Provide for collection ofrecyclable materials atall transfer facilities - recognizing resource limitations, availability ofmarkets, and serviceaneaneeds-focudngonmaximumdivenionnfecyc|ab|es from the waste stream and onmaterials that are not easily recycled atthe curb orthrough areadily available producer orretailer- provided prngram. ^mA Page122 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 �� � �����������������^���^� ��J]���Tl�����7K�����������������^��K���K� Actions The following table includes amenu ufrecommended 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. If the responsibility is not in bold, the action has lower implementation priority. Action Except as noted in action 2-t, continue to implement transfer station modernization as set forth inthe Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Monuyement Plan and approved by the Metropolitan King County Council in 2007, 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 inthe Solid Waste TronsferundWaste MonogementPlan to meet community needs inthe Northeast service area. Although approved for closure under the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan, reserve the option toretain the Renton station until the new urban transfer facilities have been completed and the impact of closure has been fully evaluated. Detailed Discussion Page5-l6 Page5-l6 Evaluate adding a second scale and an additional collection container at the Page 5-22 Cedar Falls Drop Box toimprove capacity. After the new recycling and transfer stations (including the new South station) are sited, if service level assessments indicate the need for additional capacity inthe rural areas, consider siting drop box facilities. Page 5-22 Periodically evaluate the level of service criteria to ensure that the criteria Page 5-11 remain relevant. Explore prospects for the transfer ofcommercial loads oforganics through Poge5`Z6 county transfer stations. Continue to implement a resource recovery program at new recycling and Page 5-5 transfer facilities to remove targeted materials from the waste stream. ^mxPage 123 Ordinance 18893 �� � ���~���l����-������~ ���]����l0�T�7K�� ���~���������������� Updated April 17, 2019 " ����������� �����L�����.� Action Detailed [licn/c,zinn ~....~..... Encourage recycling processors tocontinue toimprove facility sorting and processing equipment and practices Loremove contaminants and separate mcyc|ab|esinto marketable commodity grades. |ncollaboration with stakeholders, pursue and identify new technologies and expanded processing capacity tnserve the region, and more sustainab|y manage organic waste. Page 5-25 Page 5-26 Continue to evaluate and assess the feasibility of advanced materials recovery Page5-28 and anaerobic digestion atdivision facilities. |nthe event ofanemergency, reserve the transfer system for municipal solid Page5-24 waste and make the recycling of related debris a priority. Identify potential temporary debris management sites where emergency Page5-24 debris can be stored until it is sorted for recycling or proper disposal. Provide education and outreach on the proper management of home - generated sharps. ^mA Page124 _ Transfer ������ ��� Processing �y �/ �u���� ������ 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. -����������������y������ �K��� ������~���� , ..`_ ^..~..~.`~, ^~�~�,_... .~,.~~ Services The concept of a regional transfer and disposal network in King County grew out of a nationwide movement in the I 960s 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 trucks 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). Tab|e5-1Uststhe|ocatonsofcunerktransfe/fad|ities,a|ongeiththe0onsofgadbage,yandandwoodwasteneceived numbers of customers served, and recycling services provided for at each facility. 'VA O'NAW Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station 201�)Cmmp/ebensiz),SoIV Waste &auagemem���)U�y,mJ Aft Page125 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 1 1 Vashon Vashon Island Figure 5-1. Locations of soiid wast faciIites Bothell LI i , Shoreline / Lk_ Forest I ii; Woodinville , , \ Park t \ i „ , Shoreline,t‹.enr„no4rtt, '',„,1 i IDuvatt, Kirklandie , w il V.' Redmond iii„ Seattle Yarrow Paine, Runts ' Clyde 1-01 Medinie2 i\ Bellevue mprcei ' /Factona ' 101anci Newcastle 'i: Issaquaniio „.„ 1 ' eii ( r 4- Cedar Hills Regional Landfill kTuk Burin e n -0 I 1 11114 r ' 1 Rento eaTa Normandy , 4 //-4 I Rare. if „ ilow Lake Des moici.,0„, „„ i Kent Sammamish Carna* , erz i„ Federal Way 1 .4/ King County solid waste facilities Landfill Transfer Station 'gm Drop Box King County Boundary Cities Unincorporated Area Auburn ona „Devington "aPie IDiamondyi Snonealmie 0 2 4 8 Cedar Falls Miles ycfkIfIr1,1,projeastSWD,,vottftNprojects,facifities_Ompfi.”,4P0a6Nes_wn,,P.20,7-.. 10W017 5-2 2019 ComprehensLe Solid Waste Management Plan -j-,Lo, 2018 Att A Page 126 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 North County, Shoreline Recycling & Transfer Station" 2300 North 165th St Shoreline 98133 Factoria Recycling & Transfer Station 13800 SE 32nd St Bellevue 98005 Houghton Transfer Station 11724 NE 60th St Kirkland 98033 Central Coun Bow Lake Recycling & Transfer Station 18800 Orillia Rd South Tukwila 98188 Renton Transfer Station 3021 NE 4th St Renton 98056 1960s 2013 mid- 1960s Table 5-1, Current facilities and services 57,619 142,425 154,547 285,874 64,569 15,927 8,023 721 101,013 110,461 128,674 212,035 87,456 Standard curbside recyclablesw, appliances, bicycles 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. 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. Standard curbside recyclables, textiles. Standard curbside recyclables, appliances, bicycles and bicycle parts, clean wood, scrap metal, yard waste, fluorescent bulbs and tubes, plastic film and plastic grocery bags,expanded polystyrene foam blocks and coolers, household sharps. Standard curbside recyclables, textiles. Replace First Northeast Transfer Station. Complete 2008. Replace Factoria Transfer Station. Complete 2017. Close Houghton Transfer Station when replacement capacity is available. Process to review capacity needs starting in 2018. Replace Bow Lake Transfer Station. Complete 2013. Close Renton Transfer Station when replacement capacity is available. No decisions have been made regarding closure pending completion of the new South Recycling and Transfer Station and decisions for a potential Northeast Station. 2cay Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -Jtay 2018 Att A Page 127 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 /� �.�... Algona Transfer Station 3815 West Valley Hwy Algona 98001 Cedar Falls Drop Box 16925 Cedar Falls RdSE North Bend 98045 Enumclaw Recycling & Transfer Station 16508aUanbvAve East Enumclaw 98022 Skykomish Drop Box 74Q24NEOld Cascade ' VashonRecycling & Transfer Station l8Y0OWestsideHwy SW Vashon 98070 id- l960 990 99 980 999 154,975 N/A 704 ll@ on 20,903 53,60 3,69 Standard curbside recyclables, textiles, yard Standard mrbddeemdob|es,appliances, clean wood, scrap metal, textiles, yard waste, Uuomsent tubes and bulbs. Standard curbside recy(lables. Standard curbside emdoh|es,appliances, scrap metal, textiles, yard waste, fluorescent tubes and bulbs, household and business generated sharps, construction and demolition debrisil. Close Algona Transfer Station and replace itwith anew South Recycling and Transfer Station. Site selected, anticipated opening date in2O2l Only paid transactions are recorded. Replaced the First NETmndorStation. Standard curbside recyclables are glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed paper, newspaper, and cardboard. ,Construction and demolition debris isaccepted for disposal. 5-4 �,,oiq Covp/ekms�vaSolid Wamte&avqge�nemPlm-JLIY,m8 Aft xPage 128 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Resource recovery is separation of recyclables that happens after disposed materials are received by the county.It 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 tothe transfer stations could be recycled, sorting out target materials can help reach recycling goals. The division is increasing its resource recovery efforts. Based nnasuccessful pilot project that separated tons ofecyc|ab|esatthe Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station, new staff were approved for expanded sorting ofvecyz|ab|es from mixed waste atthe Shoreline, Bow Lake, and Enumclaw stations. Recycling bins are also provided near where self -haul customers unload their cars atthose stations. |naddition toproviding the standard recycling services, Bow Lake, Enumclaw, and Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Stations have increased the amounts ofcardboard, scrap metal, and clean wood recycled bvactively removing these materials from mixed waste with use ofanexcavator and byproviding additional staff <oengage customers in the separation ofnecyc|ab|esfrom mixed waste loads at the point ofdisposal. ater^aUs Recovery by the Numbers Ahaosfe/Station Operator recovers cardboard from umixed load of so�icl waste MME�b In 2017, 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. Spr\/`(Ps -' rL Moderate R'\ 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 201�)Co��prebensiepSol�dWaste Mo7qgewpx��-,TZIZ)l2m8 Aft Page129 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 thejoint LocalHazardous Waste Management Plan (Watson 2010), mandated under RCW 70.105. The county accepts moderate risk waste from residents through two avenues: the traveling VVastenxobi|eand the stationary drop-off site at the Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station. In 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, orincinerated when necessary. None isdisposed atCedar Hills. Moderate risk waste collection for residents bfunded through asurcharge ongarbage disposal, residential and business garbage collection, and wastewater discharge fees. Residents and businesses using the services are not charged atthe drop-off locations. Jurisdictions receive funds from the LHWMP to provide the service. Created inl9O9 the oountytVVastemobikewas the first program ofits kind inthe nation. |tisamobile service that travels tocommunities within King [ounty, staging collection of moderate risk waste ateach site for two orthree days atatime. The traveling VVastemobi|ehad 2levents in20l7that served ll'85lKing County residents, collecting 27Ztons ofmoderate risk waste. This represents acustomer increase offive percent from 2O16.The VVastemobi|ealso provides amobile moderate risk waste collection atThe Outlet Collection Seattle (formerly the Supe,ma||)inAuburn each Saturday and Sunday. |n20l7' Z35tons ofmoderate risk waste were collected atthis location from0,48l customers, six percent more customers than used the service in20l0.The county'sFacturiaRecycling and Transfer Station offers moderate risk waste drop-off service six days a week. In September J0l7,the new Factmria state-of-the-art moderate risk waste facility opened. |thas more capacity and functionality than the previous facility did, enabling the division tueffectively and safely collect hazardous waste. |nZ0l7,alittle over 13,000 customers brought 281 tons of moderate risk waste to Factoria. M" I � *hhn �A The moderate risk wmuecuUcc/ionfacility a\the new Fa4o/iaRecycling and Transfer Station coUocb moderate risk wms|cfrom households arid smaU businesses Since2008 Factoria and the Wastemobile have also accepted moderate risk waste from small businesses. In 2017, this program served 267 small -quantity generator business customers and collected 18 tons of moderate risk waste. Co _ pa`[)[l ()� S -iJrDs r Sharps are medical products, 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 asafety hazard to workers through potential exposure to blood -borne pathogens or other disease -causing agents, Within King County, the disposal of sharps is regulated by Title 10 of the Code of the King County Board of Health and by King County's Waste Acceptance Rule PUT 7'l'6(PR)'9/l7. Disposal ofsharps inthe general waste stream isprohibited. 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 Speda|VVasteUnh.Residentsmaya|sodeposithome'generatedsharpsinsepamte,oecueeceptades at the Factoria, Shoreline and Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Stations. Business -generated sharps are not accepted 5-6 2ojyCoozpreb^x,�uoSolid Waue/Navugrment}Dlan-/LIY,m8 Aft Page130 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 ufsharps. For example, some health care providers and pharmacies will take back used sharps in pre -approved containers. There are also mail -in programs available. T�_ds ~T�asfer StationUsage Figure 5'2shows the tons ofgarbage received atthe transfer stati ons and the landfill over the last Z7years. The drop intotal tons disposed inthe early tumid'l99Osis attributable tothe success nfwaste prevention and recycling programs that began inthe late lg80s'the withdrawal cfthe City nf Seattle from the countytsystem inlggl'and the ban onmost construction and demolition debris from the division's solid waste system inl0q3.|n2O04'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. FiQure5-2.T#t |tUOs processed Jttransfer facilities and disposed 0Transfer Facilities Cedar Hills �M Ln r, M ON 0 N M 'q' Ln ID r� W 0', 0 �N ON R ON ON r04 r-4 N r4m Seventy-two percent of the garbage received at the transfer facilities in 2017 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 onanumber nfvariables such asthe mix ofcollection trucks versus se|f- hau|ers,avai|ab|etippinggaUsforeach'on'sitequeuecapacityfureach'andtrai|er|oadingabi|ity(inthecaseofthe 2019Co)?zprekens1.*e)pSolid WasteMvagoent Pla,,? -,[U�yxm8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Figure 5-3.Percent «ftons and transactions 8ttransfer, fadhties b«hauUeKtype /2017\ transactions Commercial haulers ��Se|f-hau|en older stations with no preload compactors). The division has managed these problems, to the extent possibleateach station, by providing separate queuing lanes for the two customer types and allowing maximum separation on the tipping floor, for safety aswell asefficiency. Crowding is somewhat eased bythe 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 ateach facility. Self -haulers consist ofsingle- and multi -family residents and non- residential customers, such aslandscapers, 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 -haul trips, about 88 percent are made by residential customers, who bring in about 75 percent of the self- haultons.Aboutl2percentofthetripsaemadebvnon'eddentia|se|f-hau|ecs,bringingaboutZ5percentnfthe self -haul tons. The number one material disposed by self -haulers is dimensional lumber (a subset of construction and demolition debris), followed by yard 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. 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 future, usually 20 - 30 years. The mix of traffic and tonnage on weekends and weekdays varies significantly, soitisusually vehicular capacity on weekends that drive queue length, number of tip stalls, and therefore overall size nfthe facility. Onweekdays, tonnage drives the operation ofastation. 5-8 2019 Covp/e�ensLeSolid Waste Management Plan ',TUIY 20)8 Aft Page132 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste characterization studies conducted at transfer stations also survey self -haulers on -site at the transfer facilities (Cascadia 2016). 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"(11 4 percent), "other"(1 0 percent), and "cleaning home or workplace"(nine percent). The most frequent response from nonresidential customers was "large amount of garbage" (26 percent). [����8���`���� � ��.�.�.��.�~.. � |/ =�������.������������������������~�����.����� �� U-�.=..."k.. ��� ��� Urban Transfer Stations �� ^ ~- " ~.." ^°., " ~� ^�.._. The county's implementation of the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan (Transfer Plan) isunderway to renovate the aging transfer system to better serve its customers. This investment in the transfer system will help the dividonmeetdemandscreatedby<hegrowthinpopu|ationsinceCedarHiUsheganacceptingmasteinthemid' 1900's'bytechno|ngica|changesintheindustry,andbyongoing advances inthe recycling and salvage ofmaterials from the waste stream. � � //P . U| /a[l[l|�lL] Process � Sincelg92 continuing growth inthe county and technological changes inthe industry have intensified the need for significant improvements and updates tothe division's infrastructure. The J00lComprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (20OlPlan) reasserted the need for anupdated transfer system (K[SVVD 2O0Z).Given the scope ofchanges anticipated, both the cities and the county recognized the need for a more coordinated approach tothe planning and decision -making process. |n2OU4' the County Council adopted Ordinance l407l'which prioritized evaluation ufthe urban transfer station network asanintegral part ofthe waste management plan and established aprocess for collaborative participation bythe cities insolid waste planning. Codified in KCC 10,25.110, Ordinance 14971 outlined an iterative process ofanalysis and reporting that would culminate ina plan containing recommendations for upgrading the solid waste system. The ordinance also established aforum for cities, division, and County Council staff tmcollaborate onsolid waste planning through the advisory committees - the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SVVA[) and the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSVVK8AC).The legislation also created the Interjurisclictional Technical Staff Group (ITSG) to assist MSWMAC with its work. IT3Gincluded 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 toevaluate the whole system and develop recommendations that would help inform and guide the direction of this Plan. The Algona Transfer Station was bui| mid-l960's n1he Along with division staff, the committees first analyzed various aspects ofthe solid waste system through four iterative milestone reports. These reports identified the need to renovate the county's urban transfer facilities by evaluating the 2019 Covp/ekensi�)pSol�dK(steMp2agrmem�a,,?/��Yxm8 Aft Page133 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 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 the Transfer 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 asignificant role in shaping the recommendations in the Transfer Plan. At the conclusion of the process, they communicated their support of the plan tothe King County Executive and the County Council. Before final approval of the Transfer Plan, the County Council requested an independent third -party review of the Transfer Plan. The review was conducted by the firm Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., 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 the Transfer Plan inDecember Z007. In 2012, as the division moved to implement theTransfer Plan, several cities raised questions about how changes in core planning assumptions may call for a change in if/how 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 to, 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 anew Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station was postponed while alternative options were explored. In 2014, Council Motion 14145 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 tothe County Council onJune 30'2UlSas directed bvMotion l4l45. 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 bepostponed. Instead, the report recommended that the division conduct a demand management pilot totest whether instituting longer � ` 201,9 CoffzpT(,km vJo6d Wa;teManagement fln-/1,11Y,m8 Aft xPage 134 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. In 2017, with the city of Bellevue signing the Amended and RestatedSolid Waste Interlocal Agreement (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. It 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 ILA. Service -eVe| Eyakot'Un[r1er'a In 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 performance, 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 inthe 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 inthe final milestone report (KCSVVD20O0a). Theeva|uationchtehaweneapp|iedtofiveofthp»k/urbanstations-A|gona,BowLake,FactnhaHoughtnn'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 2013/14Transfer 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: LevelofS � ^ Estimated travel time 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. It provides an indication of whether the transfer stations are well dispersed throughout the county. ^ Timeonsite-Timeonsitemeasunsthetimetogetinandoutofthestation'indudingun|oadingtime|twas evaluated separately for commercial haulers (with a standard of 16 minutes) and business and residential self- 20�Comprchensi�)pSol�dKasmMazagemem.Plm-,[U�y2m8 Aft xPage 135 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 haulers (each with a standard of 30 minutes). It provides an indicator of whether a transfer station can handle customers efficiently. ^ Facility hours - Individual 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 New Year's Day. ^ Level of 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. |ngeneral, the policies directed that all stations should l)provide for collection of the curbside recyc|ab|es' including glass and plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans, mixed waste paper, newspaper, and cardboard, 2) where feasible, provide areas for sou rce-sepa rated yard waste collection, and 3) maintain the capacity to add collection of new materials based on market opportunities and community needs. St*tion Capacity Station capacity is likely the single greatest limitation of the five urban transfer stations, both now and in the future. It 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 ofthe study and over the ZO-yearplanning horizon. Optimal operating capacity isthe maximum number ofvehicles and tonnage that can beefficiently processed through the station each hour based on the station design and customer mix. Toderive criteria that would indicate how well a station could beexpected toperform, the division modeled its criteria after the transportation standards used tomeasure 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. �is o'm C rcl Recycling at the Enumclaw Recycling and Transfer Stafion ^ 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. L,"igCoop/ekrnnv,Solid Waste Ma, ^Xemw,}lan-J1^1y/m8 Aft xPage 136 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ^ Spaceforstotion expansion — Stations were evaluated to determine 1) whetherthere 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 orifanew location would beneeded toefficiently 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 astation's capacity tohandle 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 tn slide out the back ofthe trailers, require higher vertical clearance than trucks did in the past. Before impovementswere made tosome cfthe older stations, the collection trucks could hit and potentially damage station roofs, supporting structures, orhanging lights as they unload. ^ Ability to compact waste —This criterion examines whether the station isequipped with, orhas the space to install, a waste compactor. Waste compactors increase efficiency and reduce costs by compressing more garbage into fewer loads for transport tothe 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 gases. ~ The roof aithe Houghton Transfer Station was raised in2O|2io accommodate larger trucks ! ^ Structural integrity —The purpose of this criterion is to ensure the facility meetscode 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 Immediate Occupancy standard, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEW1A).This standard means that the facility could beoccupied immediately following aseismic event. Because the King County BnergencyMunugement Plan identifies transfer stations as critical facilities in the event of an emergency, this FEMA standard applies to all new stations. 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dKaste zagocat Plaa -,Ta�yxm8 Aft Page137 Co mumities One nfthe division's highest priorities istominimize the effects ofits facilities onhost 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 ofnoise violations tothe cities and additional noise level measurements performed at each station byaconsultant. ~ Meets Puget Sound Clean AirAgency standards for odors -The primary measure of odor issues is complaints by the 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. If 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 localstreets - This criterion measures the impacts on local streetsand neighborhoods from vehicle traffic and queuing near the transfer stations. The area that could beaffected bytraffic from self - haulers andcommencia|coUectiontrucksextends from the station entrance tothe surrounding streets. The division hired a consultant to evaluate this criterion based on two standards: l)that additional traffic meets the local traffic level of service standard as defined in the American Association of State Transportation Officials Manual and 2) that traffic does not extend onto local streets during more than 5 percent of the station's operating hours. ^ Existenceofa 100-foot buffer between the active area and nearest residence -This criterion calls for al00-fnut buffer between the active area ofthe 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. It 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. In 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. 5-14 L"igComprebrx,�veSolid WasteManagement }lm-/LIY,m8 Aft xPage 138 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 5-2, Key service evel criteria app 2. Time on site meets standard for 90% of trips a. commercial vehicles < 16 min = yes ied to urban transfer stations b. business self -haulers YES YES c. residential self -haulers < 30 min = yes YES YES 4. Recycling services meetpolicies in 2001 Solid Waste Plan < 30 min = yes a. business self -haulers b. residential self -haulers S. Vehicle Capacity a. meets current needs b. meets 20-year forecast needs Average daily handling capacity (tons) a, meets current needs b. meets 20-year forecast needs a. meets current needs b. meets 20-year forecast needs 11. Ability to compact waste a. meets current needs Remaining criteria not listed above includes: 1. Maximum Time to a Transfer Facility a. meets current needs 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 9. Minimum roof clearance of 25 feet YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES YES YES YES YES *This is very close; the result is within .5 percent of meeting the criteria. 10. Meets facility safety goals 12. Structural integrity a. Meets goals for structural integrity b. Meets FEMA immediate occupancy standards 13. Meets applicable local noise ordinance levels 14. Meets PSCAA standards for odors YES YES 15. Meets goals for traffic on local streets a. Meets LOS standard b. Traffic does not extend onto local streets 95% of time 16. 100 foot buffer between active area & nearest residence 17. Transfer station is compatible with surrounding land use 2029 Comprehensive ,3rolia7 Waste Management Plan ssliely 20z8 5-15 Att A Page 139 | «� ���r l |��k ������� V �� -� ' � � � � 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 tothe n*giun'scustomers. Activities approved by the County Council in theTransfer Plan include the following: 8uwLuko-deconstructthe existing transfer station and construct a new recycling and transfer station on the existing site and adjacent property complete, Factoria - cleconstruct 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 isavailable, 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 Lake Transfer 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 2012, immediately followed by cleconstruction of the old transfer building to make way for an expanded recyclables collection area and new scale house. The station was completed in20ll 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 cleconstructed to make room for the stationary moderate risk waste facility and mcyc|ab|es collection area. The new facility was completed in |ateZ0l7' 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. Anew South County station, estimated 1ocost about ll3million dollars, will replace the current facility inAlgona onasite just north mfthe existing station. A new Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station isrecommended, with an estimated cost of approximately 133 million in 2017 dollars. Initial planning for Northeast area transfer capacity is 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. 5� 9Co^-zp/ebrnnvrSolid Wa;te8JanuX,ment}lm-/LIY,m8 Aft A Page 140 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Figre 5-4. Locations of existing and planned so ti Lake Forest Park 'VOW Shoreline, 2008 1. Seattle Bothell Bothell it Woodinville Kenmore Kirkland Redmond Hou h Yarrow Point it Jdunts Reit*, Clyde Hill ti,L Medina Bellevue BeauxArts yactortal,,,, Mercer Island( 2017 Newcastle 1 Vashon Burien Tukkila ltin) SeaTac 1999 Normandy Park Bew Lake l 2012 Des Moines Kent til t 1 i it Federal Way t Auburn .141,4 itentine Algpna 1065 Pacific General areas for siting a new transfer station Northeast Type offacility New, retained or rebuilt transfer station 5 Renton Sammamish id w ste facilities Duvall Carnation 111111111 Cedar Hills Regional Landfill tt) r(r) Covington Maple Valley Black Diamond \'‘‘a Enumclaw 1993 Transfer station to be closed when replacement capacity is available ! ' Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 'Gm Drop box Skykomish 1980's Snoqualmie \ North Bend Cedar Falls 1980's 0 1 2 4 8 Miles 2029 Comprehens29e Sol97 Waste Management Plan -July 2018 5-17 Att A Page 141 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 The timeline for completing the siting, design, construction, and closure of the urban transfer stations is shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3^][i0Me|ioe for, the fab|itv h2D*vafion plan South siting design and permit construction open Algona close Northeast planning design and permit construction open Houghton close Kenton/ close mmodify operations I Division recommends reserving the option to retain the Renton Transfer Station in some capacity. (� ra ns/er "ad |.V�� |.�� �� —h .DO , �, 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 o/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 she 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 oninpart due tothe challenges finding asuitable site inthe 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. ���� K] � �k (— 1 [} �|UnOa /v��VV�{}u.// `-{)��.V/`��cVc � � � � '�Tr {° Station |�lO �[lu / /�D�/cF _/.�O(lD � The search for a site to replace the Algona Transfer Station with a new South County Recycling and Transfer Station began in2UlIThe new station will serve thesamecommunitiestha<anesenedbv\hecu,entNgonastation— A|gona,Auburn'Fedena|VVay,andPachic. A Siting Advisory Committee (SAC) was formed to advise the division from a community and system -user perspective by identifying 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 ofcommerce, school districts, commercial garbage and recycling collection companies, transfer station users, environmental and neighborhood groups, tribes, and interested citizens. 2u,,yCoozprekrns�vvSolid Waste MwzoX,*ent}lm-/2dy,m8 Aft A Page 142 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 In 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. In addition, the division conducted an initial Equity Impact Review (see text box for more information) to provide more information about the communities surrounding the potential sites. After anextensive site selection process and the completion ofan Environmental Impact Statement (E|S)'the County selected asite at35l0l WestValley Highway South, Algona, WA which is just north of the existing station. As indicated inTab|e5'3'thenextphasenfthisproject,dedgnandpe/mitting,wi||beundertakeninthenexttvvoyeao'fo||ovved by another two years of construction. It is anticipated that the existing Algona Transfer Station will continue to operate until the new station iscomplete. 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.kinycounty.yovl depts/dnqxtolid'wmste/fac/litiesla6yonu.uspx = The Equity Impact Review �011, The Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan 2076-2022 (King County 2016b) 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 Impact Review istohu|DUthat goal and to ensuethat equity impacts aeconsideedduring the siting, design, and operation nfanew facility. |t is a process to identify, evaluate, and communicate the potential impacts on equity - both positive and negative - of the project. There are five phases of the Equity Impact Review which correspond to the different stages of the project. For instance, an initial Equity Impact Review was conducted during the siting of the South County Recycling and Transfer Station. The review determined the populations that would likely be impacted by the project and what the impacts might be. An expanded Equity Impact Review that will address approaches that will best meet community priorities and concerns will be an integral part ofthe design and operation rfthe facility. ]r]V^r1'[)O ra�]sf"[/-�Da['�V �[) t - z - Capacity �-/ � - -ie�vN or- leaSt 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 TransferP|an, confirmed the need for a new station and the closure of the old one. The existing Houghton station was constructed in the mid-1 960s 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 sca|ehouse'a modestly -sized no -fee /ecydab|esco||ection area for a limited range ofmaterials, and trailer parking areas. A New NOr1 'iea � `pcV� / � � |nOarid � Although previous plans recommended a new station, a Northeast station decision was not finalized, offering the opportunity tore-evaluate transfer needs aspart nfthis plan. County Ordinance l8577directed 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 201�)C6mp,m6ovs1.*e)eJo&d Was/ /Waoogvment86n-,Tz^Z)1 2()z8 Aft A Page 143 transfer needs: 1) Houghton station "as is;'2) site and build a new Northeast recycling and transfer station, and 3) a combination ofexisting 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 tothe 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. It would include compaction which could decrease truck traffic from the station to the landfill by almost a third. It would be designed to move customers through the station efficiently, reducing customer disposal time. It 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 inother parts ofthe urban area. Siting a new station could take time and generate host community opposition. Initial 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. 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 of all of the stakeholders in the northeast service area. Ot lerk][}n-�����[�Ua�'�y[{)���'�p��/1 — — r -/ 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 Exis tin If Houghton Station *pre 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, |twould bethe 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. Cmrnisinati#nof 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 toserve the area. |t 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, itcarries snmeofthecha||engesofbnththeHoughton"asis^optinn(continuedopensided station, limited space) and the new NE station option (siting a new facility, potential host community opposition). 5-2 4" 2019 Comprebm��ve Solid Waste Management Plan /aly,m8 Aft A Page 144 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 5-4 Com parison of key characteristics or t Total cost per Ton (2029)1 $2.39 -iree transfer options considered ihiniOn ces $9.79 GHG Reductions from Transfer Station Recycling (2029)2 (2,165 MTCO2e) (32,098 MT(02e) (28,802 MTCO2e) Level of Service3 Will not meet any of the 6 key level of service criteria. Will meet all 6 key level of service criteria. Will not meet all 6 key level of service criteria. Recycling Curbside mix, textiles, and cardboard. Curbside mix, textites, cardboard, clean wood, scrap metal, yard waste, appliances, and other recyclables TBD. Curbside mix, textiles, cardboard, clean wood, scrap metal, and yard waste. Risks • Limited recycling and flexibility for the system in the future, and • Host city opposition. • 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, • Siting a new station, and • Potential host city opposition. 1 Cost includes both capital and operating costs. Previous estimates of cost per ton and impact on the curbside rate only included capital costs 2 Using WARM model, calculates the GHG reduced by recycling at the station 3 Key level of service criteria: Time on site, Recycling services offered, Vehicle capacity, Average daily handling capacity (tons), Space for 3 days storage, and Ability to compact waste Evaluation and Plannina for the Rural Transfer Fad 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 Duvall and 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 Island; and two drop boxes, in North Bend (Cedar Falls) and Skykomish. The Vashon Recycl ng and Transfer Station ities 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan - 2ca8 Att A Page 145 In 2007, the division applied the same 17 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 ofthe 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 inl9g3 serves the City ofEnumclaw 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 tnfuture needs. The Vashon Recycling and Transfer Station opened in 1999 to serve residents and businesses on Vashon Island.This station also met all of the evaluation criteria. It accepts a wide range of recyclables and is also equipped with a waste compactor. Because ofits 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, toconduct a pilot program tncollect 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 Island 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 ofthe county. The Cedar Falls Drop Box, which opened inlyQ0 serves self -haulers inthe North Bend area. It 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 tuheavy 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 bv the division isadrop box inthe Town of Skykomish.Built inlgO0'the drop box serves Skykomish and the communities of Grotto and Baring. Skykomishprovides its own garbage collection service and takes the wastes tothe SkvknmishDrop Box. The drop box isalso used byse|f-hau|eo'who can bring garbage and recyc|ab|estothe facility. The Skykomishfacility isunstaffed; payment is made at an automated gate using acredit ordebit card orpre-paid solid waste disposal card. There are cameras at the site to monitor activities, and division staff makes regular visits tothe site to perform maintenance. In addition, the King County Road Services Division has afacility The Skykomish Drop Box 5~22 2w9Coozprebwxxiv,Solid Wa;te&av^gv�nentPlan -/2dy,m8 Aft A Page 146 next door, from which Road's staff help monitorthe 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 inJanuary nfthat 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 itbe 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. »"` Transfer stations provide an essential and beneficial public service. However, the stations have the potential to cause undesirable impacts onhost cities and neighboring communities, such asincreased 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 inthe division's service area currently have county -owned transfer facilities within their boundaries: ` Algona - the Algona Transfer Station, ^ Bellevue - the FactohaRecycling and Transfer Station, ~ Enumclaw - the Enumclaw Recycling and Transfer Station, ~ Kirk|and-theHoughtonTensferStatinn' ~ Remtom-theRentnnTiansherStatinn' ^ 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 Interstate 5 using King County Metro Transit's dedicated freeway ramps rather than city streets for access. In 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 isfully enclosed tomitigate 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 Interstate 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 nfthe old station tocomplete 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 201�)Comprc�ensiz)pSol�dM@steManagement PZm/��ycoz8 Aft A Page 147 recognizes that, inaccordance with R[VV36.5DD80 acity isauthorized tocharge counties tomitigate impacts directly attributable to a county -owned solid waste facility. It 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 inthe solid waste rate. Relatively common emergencies, such as seasonal flooding and winter storms, as well as major events, such as earthquakes, can create asignificant amount ofdebris. Debris generated during these types ofevents can obstruct roadways, cause power outages, and interrupt essential services. Acoordinated 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 Plan)(KCSWD 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 asneeded. 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 mounty'sDebris 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 byother jurisdictions to maximize the recycling of these materials. The division works 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 identify recycling options in the event of a debris- causingeme»gencyRecydingthemajorityofeme»gencydebrism/iUmaximizethedivision'scapadtytocontinueto handle municipal solid waste over the short- and |ong-term. In the event of an emergency, transfer services may be suspended in the short-term. The division's priorities are to: l. Ensure the safety ofstaff and customers, 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. L,oig Com�ekms�voSolid Waste Management Plan ��'Iy,m8 Aft 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. If some transfer facilities are closed or damaged as a result of the event 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 besorted for recycling or proper disposal. It 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. ���K�xr�����~���� �-��kU��K-f��^� &8����� Processing ~_~="".-.-^~-~~ .."~~�.- -' � /_ [[l[Pss|n[l `~{l[n��|n(] � c� euJ /`��� y�au �` / es The division expects that the private sector will continue to expand processing capacity for commingled recyclables as the need arises. In addition, numerous other private -sector facilities have emerged across the county where individua|msidentsandbusinessescanbringsource'separatedrecyc|ab|es, from paper, cans, and bottles toprinter cartridges and cellular telephones, for processing. While the conversion to commingled collection makes recycling easier for consumers and has resulted in increased recycling, itpresents some challenges for the recovery and processing facilities. One ofthe challenges iscross- contamination ofmateha|sas they are sorted and separated. This isaproblem particularly for the paper stream, where materials such asplastic milk jugs end upinthe 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 ofthe materials torecover misplaced vecyr|ab|es; however, most domestic paper mills dispose nfthese materials. |nthe 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 fundamental conflict 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 tominimize the costs nfhandling these materials. Sorting ne at the Cascade Recyc ng Center (Photo courtesy of Waste Management 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) dosing container lids to keep materials dry. Contamination in the necyc|ab|escan cause awide array ofproblems during processing, which can lead to a reduction in the value of the materials processed for market or, in extreme 2019 Comprebensie)p��Wasle Managem. ent ]-'Ian/ZZ�y 2018 Aft A Page 149 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 cases, the disposal ufentire mixed loads. This issue can best beremedied through education programs onproper 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 pub|iceducation-todecreasecontamination 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 identify 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. }[)() � �[����|nO uF{]aD|[s � � 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. e 5-5. HeQiDn@| compost facilities 17825 Cedar Grove Rd SE, Maple Valley, WA Tons Per Year Lenz: Stanwood 52lO0B2 Stanwood, WA 553,000 201,9 CompT(,bm�ve Solid WanteManagement Flm-j2dy,m8 Aft xPage 150 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 There isonly one facility inKing County permitted tnhandle food waste. Relying onone large regional facility that is operating near its maximum permitted capacity is a concern, especially if the region wants tuincrease 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 the Washington State Apple Maggot Quarantine regulations (RCW 17.24). Maintaining the quality of finished product is critical to compost markets, and processing challenges include: ^ Contamination ofcomposting feedstocks, particularly from glass and plastic film. ^ Composting feedstocks are in transition. Regional commercial facilities were largely designed for yard waste, not the mix of food, yard, and compostab|e packaging that iscollected and processed today. Aneed exists for upgraded technology to manage the new material mix. ^ Processors have expressed a desire tobetter anticipate the future feedstock mix, noting a need for better information on volumes and incoming materials toinform investments incapacity, equipment, and labor. ^ Financing for technology upgrades atexisting 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 compost; processors must balance the costs of adding processing steps (such as for additional contaminant removal) with maintaining competitive market prices for finished product. � sk Cedar Grove Composting Facility Photo courtesy of Cedar Grove) If organics diversion significantly increases in King County and the surrounding region, more processing capacity will beneeded. In 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 inthe event regional capacity i»constrained. Arange ofoptions should bepursued toaddress 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. 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dK���azagel�,zemPZan -JZdY 2m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Emerging Processing �� � � �� �� ��� | �� �� V �� � � U �� �� .~..-.��...�� .~ ...^ U��K ` ��8��� .~��.�� Resource recovery goes beyond sorting toinclude technologies such asanaerobic digestion, advanced materials recovery, pyrolysis, and gasification. Most of these technologies hold promise for the future but dunot 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. A[lae[[)�_ ��Digestion_ �(�- In 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 sou oe'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 ecommendfurthereseanchintosevera|smaU'sca|eanaerobicdigestinnoptionsfnrsnune*epamtedorganics,with varying levels of public and private sector collaboration. For instance, with grant money from the division, a small- scaleonaevobicdigesterisbeingpi|otedonVashon|dand. Sou ne'separated organics -based anaerobic digestion solutions are currently more affordable and more reliable than municipal solid waste -based systems. Asafeedstock, municipal solid waste typically benefits greatly from advanced p/e'processing' which iscostly and currently has mixed success rates. Currently, soune'separated organics in King County are managed bvprivate-sector companies, and donot even come tothe county's transfer stations. However, source - separated m»ganicsareUke|ythebest feedstock for successful anaerobic digestion based onminimal contamination which lowers pre-processing costs, eases the anaerobic digestion process, and results ina marketable organic by'pnoducC Advanced Mater�a [� - `/`e[()\/e[V � hamp�cofasmaUanaerobic digester inRcdmond (Photo courresy cfhnpoctBioGnergXInc] Advanced materials recovery as it is envisioned at the county recycling and transfer stations would involve both floor sorting of recyclables by division staff and 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, private, 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. 2o9Coxpmkru,ivvSolid Wante/Nav^gr*m,86o-/LIY,m8 Aft xPage 152 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Landfihl Managem and Solid � Disposa Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Policies 01, Operate and maintain the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill tomeet or exceed the highest federal, state, and local standards for protection ofpublic health and the environment. D-2 Maximize the capacity and |Kespanofthe Cedar Hills Regional D-3 Monitor and maintain closed landfills tomeet m/exceed the highest federal, state, and local standards for protection ofpublic health and the environment. D-4 Plan for future disposal when Cedar Hills Regional Landfill closes to ensure nogap inservice. Siting areplacement landfill located in King County will not beconsidered. D_5 Garbage shall not bedisposed of, nor shall soils bestockpiled, within 1,0OOfeet ofthe property line atthe landfill, inaccordance with the Settlement Agreement. The solid waste division shall reserve sufficient funds toacquire any parcels from willing sellers asnecessary toestablish ormaintain the buffer. *mxPage 155 893 Updated April 17, 2019 summary of Recommended Actions 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. If the responsibility is not in bold, the action has lower implementation priority. Action Detailed Discussion 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. nvestigate 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 o the surrounding communities. Implement a bird management plan for Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Page 6-5 Page 6-9 Page 6-14 Page 6-17 Page 6-8 Att A Page 156 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 nc Management Solid Waste Disposal This chapter discusses the [bunty's current disposal practices atthe Cedar Hills landfill, as well aspresenting important long-term disposal choices that must bedecided aspart ofthe approval nfthis Plan. |talso 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 -aemanaged. C ������� �n~���������� �����~���-��,J���L�~UU�� Landfill ..._..� ~~._^��~^_..=, .~� ~."~- ~_~-�~~=" Hills 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 Plan. Since 2OOl,new practices and policies have made better use oflandfill 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 Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan (Transfer P|an)'approved bythe County Council inDecember 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 the Transfer Plan recommendation, the division is pursuing three primary strategies to extend landfill life: `Diversion ofwaste, ^Operational efficiencies, 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: ^ LandfiUoapacity-theamountofspaceoftennehenedtoasaimpaue,vvhichispermittedandavai|ab|efor 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. ,m�)Comp,ebmosie)pSolid |0s/ /Nanogrment86n-/z,��ycm8 Aft xPage 157 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Reducing the amount of waste delivered to the landfill (waste diversion) is the mosteffective 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 Sntec�es for 6sTeDVe[sbn Waste is currently diverted from Cedar Hills through two primary methods — waste prevention and recycling and a ban onthe acceptance ofmost construction and demolition debris. Waste prevention and recycling efforts have proven a successful strategy for extending the life of the landfill. During a 20-yearpehod'anetimatedl0miUiontonsofmateria|sthatwou|dnthenwisehavebeendisposedinthe|andfiUwene 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 Management for more information about construction and demolition debris recycling and dispnsa|). ]{)|en|�| �����(�O�(�\ [r`[V\�`\1(� �l�V(�rs{][] — Strategies _ _ _ The division will continue to consider diverting a portion of the solid waste stream to another recycling, recovery, nrdisposal optinn(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 asanaerobic 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. Operationa ��� . . u//{-|e[lc|ps 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 past, six inches of compacted soil was used to cover the entire surface of the active solid waste disposal area at the end cfeach 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 isplaced directly ontop ofthe previous day'swaste. Soil isstill used tocover side slope areas. However, asmuch of this soil as possible is removed before more waste is placed, and the soil is then reused. Together, these practices have resulted inareduction ofthe volume ofsoil buried inthe landfill. 6-2 ,,oig(oxzprck^xxivaSolid WaxeManagement fla�z-/1,11Y,m8 Aft xPage 158 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ` Tippers now empty trailers and containers rather than the walking floor trailers previously used. Walking floor trailers require alarge, rock covered surface for the trucks to drive unasthe walking floor rolls the garbage out the back ofthe trailer. These large rock surfaces are not required with the tippers. Instead, the garbage trailers are backed onto the tipper, which tilts the trailer, allowing the garbage <oslide out ofthe back and into the refuse area. The use of tippers not only reduces the use of rock, italso decreases unloading time for each trailer byatleast half, and reduces damage toequipment and tires. , Tippers empty trailers more r0cicm�y Heavier equipment and improved methods have increased waste compaction. Packing the waste to a greater density allows more airspace for additional solid waste ineach 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 isapplied. 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 oflandfill capacity. The division will also work with subject matter experts todetermine 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 tothe King County Council nolater than April l'ZOZO. MJ���� Area K����y��|����������� .~~_.. ^ ..`_~. ~-,_.._.-~��...._..~ 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 clate.The environmental impacts of these alternatives were evaluated in an environmental impact statement (EIS), 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 201 Oa). The preferred alternative from the Final EIS develops 56.5 acres for a new Area 8 in the southwestern portion of the landfill and extends landfill life for eight to nine years. It maximizes the use of readily available space at the landfill, with the least amount ofdisruption toexisting landfill structures. Garbage shall not bedisposed 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 development and operations with savinqs to the ratepaver. 20-79 Covnprp6, siveJo6*d Waste /0»n^gome?x86x-/Z�1)1zm8 Aft Page159 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Developing a new area requires extensive excavation and preparation In 2000 King County entered into a Settlement Agreement in the following consolidated class action cases: Anderson et al v. Cedar Grove Composting Inc, et al (King County Superior Court Case No. 97-2-22820-4 SEA and Rick 1. and Kim M. Brighton, et al v. Cedar Grove Composting et al (King County Superior Court Case No. 97-2-21660-5 SEA (hereinafter referred to as the "Settlement Agreement"). Following publication of the Final EIS, 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 Capacity Planned for Cedar Hills through 2028' 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 settlement. This soil will be recovered later for other uses. Cedar Hills landfill has additional planned capacity in Area 8. Area 8 is currently under construction, which began in 2017 and will be ready for use in 2018. In addition to Area 8, a top lift over Areas 7 and 8 is planned to bring those areas to a permitted maximum design elevation of 800 feet. Such activity would be done only to the extent that such activity would be consistent ith 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. The table below presents current and planned capacity in cubic yards and tons by area, as of September 2, 2017. It 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 2017 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. 6Top Lift 1,367,000 7 & 8 Top Lift 1,061,000 Total 14,263,000 6-4 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 160 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 /`���h�� sU{�sa r /\D|'(��l r— (^[Yp'1asPart. -()[Th^s P.aD's A | ��)�oVa/ r With permitted capacity (Area 8)atthelandOpredicted tobeused bv2028 the disposal option for beyond 2028must be selected. The selection is needed to provide substantial lead time to complete fi nancial, operational, and infrastructure preparations, including completion ofenvironmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Interlocal 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 disposal option as part of approval of this Plan is essential to ensure there is no gap in the division's ability to dispose ofwaste and meet contractual obligations. FUM��F[)��y�|[)[)[DeD�(��[eca[ — Development - — �. �� Recommended \|\ For the Public Review Draft Plan issued in January 2018, the division used information from the Conversion Technology Report (R.VKBeck 20O7)'the N/oste-tu-Ene/gyStudy (Normandeau2Ol7),and anupdated Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives Final Report (KCSWD 201 7a) to identify three options to meet the county's 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 Land0isrecommended. This recommendation will further develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity, extending the division's over 50- yearpmcticeofmanagingitsvvaste|ocaU>.Theinc:easedcapadtyshaUnotaUnesu|tineitherdisposa|ofgarbageor 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 8OO 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 tumake agood faith effort to keep the maximum height of areas 5,tiand 7ofthe Landfill atnrbelow 788feet above sea level. Based nnthe 20l8tonnage forecast, maximizing the development of the landfll should extend capacity through the planning horizon of this Plan. Landfil 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 specified 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 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 landfbperation, avai|abi|itycfspaceinacounty'ovvned|andfi||vvithstateoftheartenvironmenta|contro|s,andcu||ectionof|and8|gas toproduce renewable energy. Developing Cedar Hills tothe maximum extent feasible has the lowest rate impact ofthe 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 landfill gas will continue to be delivered to the Bio-Energy Washington facility, resulting in pipe|ine'qua|itynaturu|gas'/evenueK»rthedivision'andreducedgreenhousegasemis»ions.Tab|e0'lindudesa comparison of key attributes of the three options. To reduce impacts on neighboring communities, King County shall implement a bird management plan. ,0.x[o�7zp,«6oni�)eJo&/WasteManagement Plan -jZdy/m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 6—1. Comparison of key disposal Opt|0M ch@r8[t2[isf|[S (plaODirig level estimates) i* CW emhouSx IS��0m��mg�� `',�� ��, ~*� O\uonmz No change SEPA, Permitting (78,000) 12,000 to80,O00` r No change 2% increase Rail Capacity, Control l Estimated cost per ton in2029. 2NARM model calculation for029. (King County SWD). For more information, ueAppmhD. lWARM model calculation, Nonnandeao0l7}, 4 Landfill options show estimated emissions in20Y. m Siting, Sizing Models used by Regulatory Agencies to Calculate Greenhouse Gas Emissions ^ The Waste Reduction Model (VVARKA) isaU.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-appnoved decision tool for estimating relative lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with disposal options such as landfilling, composting, mass burn, 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? VVARK4 requires profile ofdisposed materials, which was drawn from the division's Z0l5Waste Characterization. WARM then assigns emissions tothe materials and converts the emissions into metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e). Each material's emissions represent lifecycle emissions from mining to manufacturing to disposal. Because those emissions did not happen in a single year or place, 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 plan's landfill options show negative values largely due to offsets created by displacing fossil fuels with la ndfi I ]-derived gas and sequestration ofcarbon due toburial uforganics. ^ 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 atmylandfill 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. 6-6 2019(ompr^be"x�b,Jb&/Wa,te Plan. '/T2,11yu»8 Aft xPage 162 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 � c �� � sii wo N*ns ^ Waste export and awaste toenergy (mass burn) facility (described below) were also considered asdisposal 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, inkeeping with policy established inthe ]00lPlan. Conditions inKing County such asland availability, environmental considerations, public acceptance, cost, and other issues would impede any effort to site a replacement landfill in the county. In addition, there are existing landfills outside of King County with significant capacity available. asie Ex This option would export waste via rail to 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 haul and landfilling. This option is not recommended as the next disposal option after 2028 for several reasons. It has higher costs than further development ofthe Cedar Hills landfill. |trequires modifying transfer stations for rail -ready transport, division operational changes, and requires sufficient lead time for contracting for services. The Waste 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 (Normandeau 2017) to accommodate all of the county's waste. In addition, according to the Washington State Department of Transportation 2014"Landslide Mitigation Action Plan;'rail service can be disrupted by landslides and flooding. |fservice interruptions stretch from days to weeks, unsanitary conditions could occur at transfer stations and eventually inthe neighborhoods where collection services must bestopped. Scarce rail capacity and se/vice disruptions could increase costs and require robust contingency planning. \�t��[}����yz _ �'/ _ N6���� _ �� �`V / 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 reached by 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. Nmn'processab|e'bypassvvaste,andashwou|dbetmnspnrtedtoanout'of-county|andfiUbyraiiThisoptinnis not recommended as the next disposal option after 2028 for several reasons. It 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 beamong the largest inthe world with associated implementation and siting risks. 2n�q C0777prekenSiVcSOlidWaste MaN.(,,gewou.P1m/Zdy 20,z8 Aft xPage 10 Ordinance 18893 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 II that are on areas permitted for refuse disposal. • Revise the Project Program Plan (KCSWD 2010b) and Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives Final Report (KCSWD 2017a) for the development of Cedar Hills and conduct a new SEPA environmental review, since increasing the height of the landfi II up to 830 feet was not considered in the 2010 EIS (KCSWD 2010a). • Apply to Public Health — Seattle and King County for a permit modifi cation to allow the landfi II to be expanded up to 830 feet in height only 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, 6, and 7 of the Landfill at or below 788 feet above sea level. • Develop new landfi II cells. • While Cedar Hills expansion is underway, the region will need to review the latest technological advances and take those into account during the next Plan update to properly evaluate disposal options for the 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 birds, to be updated annually; • 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. It will also provide a basis for determining if bird use of the area changes through time. In 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 173-351-200 (11), 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. The Transfer 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 Interlocal Agreement requires 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. Factors in Selecting a Long -Term Disposal Method n cooperation with advisory committees, the division identified several criteria be used in selecting a long-term disposal option (see below). It 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 tonnage, as well as the specific composition of King County's 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 Performance, 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 December 31, 2021. 6-8 2°19 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 164 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Screening and Evaluation Criteria for Disposal Options The division, in collaboration with its advisory committees, has developed criteria by which disposal options may be screened and evaluated when making future decisions.The screening and evaluation criteria fall into six categories, each with a number of sub -categories on the following page: • Environmental Human health Climate change Air quality Water quality Energy production Resource conservation Compatibility with waste prevention and recycling • Economic Capital cost 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 • Availability Capacity Start date Operating life of facility Siting, design, permitting, and construction requirements Operating and maintenance personnel Financial assurance and insurability • Social Environmental justice Social justice/equity Effects on livability and character of communities • Contract and operational requirements Minimum level of waste required Composition of waste required Contract flexibility Length of commitment required Opportunity for contract reopeners Waste not accepted/ability to handle special waste Residue disposal requirements Compatibility with waste prevention and recycling Compatibility with current collection and transfer systems A number of other thermal, biological, and chemical technologies, some established and some emerging, could handle all or specific components of the county's waste stream in the future (RW Beck 2007, KCSWD 2014a, 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 2029 Comprehensive Solid [X/aste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 165 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste conversion technologies are non -incineration technologies that use thermal, chemical, or biological processes, sometimes combined with mechanical processes, to convert the unrecycled portion of the municipal solid waste stream to electricity, fuels, and/or chemicals that can be used by industry. Incineration is a disposal method that converts waste materials into ash, flue gas, and heat using controlled flame combustion. technologies recover energy from municipal solid waste and include both waste conversion technologies and incineration with energy recovery, such asmass burn wsste-to-ene»gy, refuse -derived fuel, and advanced thermal recycling. Systems are unique technological methods for processing specified feedstock that 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 tofund, 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 feedstocks" (5VVANA201l). Waste conversion technologies use thermal, biological, or chemical processes that are sometimes combined with mechanical processes. Techno|ugiexusingadherma|processindudepyro|ysis,gasNcatun,andp|asmaao gasification. Hydrolysis/fermentation, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic composting use biological processes. Depo|ymerizationuses achemical 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 2011). These technologies are not currently considered to have the capability to reliably and cost-effectively handle all the materials inthe 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 befurther processed toproduce chemicals, fertilizers, liquid fuels, hydrogen, and electricity. |nagasification facility, hydrocarbon feedstock isinjected with air oroxygen and steam into ahigh' temperature'pressurizedreactorund|thechemica|bondsofthefeedstockarebvoken.Theresu|tingreachon produces the syngas.The syngas is then cleansed to remove such impurities as sulfur, mercury, particulates, and trace minerals. �,.oiy(o^gp-xbe,uiv,Solid Waxe Man^grment}Dla,-/2dy,m8 Aft Page166 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Pyrolysis isaprocess that involves the thermal decomposition nffeedstock athigh temperatures (750'F-1,500'F) in the absence of air. The resulting end product is a mixture of solids (char), liquids (oxygenated oi|s),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 ofthe inorganic portion of the feedstock a»well aslarge amounts ofsolid 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 industryinthe|atenineteenthcentury.P|asmaavc technology uses very high temperatures (7,0007) 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 isvitrified tuform aglassy residue. Anaerobic digestion is the bacteria[ breakdown of organics in the absence of oxygen. It can occur over a wide temperature range from SO°FtolOU"E Anaerobic digestion ofmunicipal solid waste can occur naturally, as in a landfill, or in a controlled environment, such as a municipal solid waste anaerobic digestion facility. In 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'productsofanaenobicdigestionfaci|ityanditcanbeusedasfue|forengines'gasturbines'fue|ceUs,boi|eo, and industrial heaters. It can also be used in other processes and in the manufacture of chemicals. Anaerobic digestion would beagood option when the food waste is separated atits source from other wastes. The division is committed to the continued exploration of these and other emerging technologies.|naddition, the division is monitoring changing definitions, legislation and regulations, companies, and partnerships. «��������U ���� ���t ~��� ����0�� �r-�-��" �" ��� °=" �°~�� Most ofthe waste delivered tothe division's facilities ismunicipal solid waste (gadzage)from residential and non- residential sourzes.Apnrtiunofthewmgesteam,hnwever,nequinesspeda|hand|ingandwastedeamncebefoe 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 materia|s;nff-specification' recalled, orexpired consumer products; over -sized materials; treatment plant grit and vactor wastes; and other miscellaneous materials. It 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 l0D3.the division has conducted awaste 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 173-351). 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 identify and properly manage any potentially unacceptable wastes. About 11,000 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. In 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 nfspecial wastes. 201�)ComprebensiepSol�d Waste Managoeat Plan ���,m8 Aft xPage 167 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Under the cuunty'sWaste 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, orfederal regulation. The method for handling special wastes once the Cedar Hills landfill closes will be considered during the evaluation of alternative disposal options. | ~ Illegal �� ^ �� Litter �K��o�AK�/� U�y������ LvK��M��U���� ���o� ~~^~~^��^^"Z� ^-��^� ~^'^'`^"^^�� ~°^" Managing municipal solid waste that is dumped on open ground is one of the division's responsibilities. Illegal 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. r1 ' eUa wu[nD|nO � r �� Illegal dumping is a continuing problem for agencies, businesses, and the general public who find yard waste, appliances, car bodies, 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 2004 by a county task force charged with strengthening and coordinating the county's response to illegal dumping complaints. In 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 oounty'sauthority tocite and prosecute illegal dumpers. For example, itallows the county tocharge a restitution fee to illegal dumpers and, in turn' provide monetary relief tnvictims ofthe illegal dumping.Thefee can bewaived ifthe illegal dumper cleans upand properly disposes of the waste. Coordinating illegal dumping reporting and response through the Illegal Dumping Hotline (206'396'SITE) is major element inthe county'ssurveillance and control system for illegal dumping. Regional responsibilities for illegal dumping enforcement, clean up, and prevention are identified inTable 0'Z , Clean-up o[aoi -gal dumpsite 2uig(oopr(,brmiveSolid Waxe/Nav^gv�nent/ln-/1,11Y,m8 Aft Page168 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 6-7' Illegal dumping clean-up PespOAsi|`iRies Washington State Department of Ecology Provides Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance Community Litter Cleanup PmommfunNngfox cleanup to local agencies. Sets statewide policy. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Responds Nillegal dumping N[materials where asbestos bsuspected, such asome demolition materials, and addresses illegal dumping where incineration occurs. Public Health - Seattle & King County Primary enforcement agent for illegal dumping complaints on private property. Department nfPlanning and Environmental Review Provides code enforcement. Addmoe junkanddebrbonphvatepmpeUy, Road Services Division Responds Ncomplaints and removes illegally dumped materials from public roads and rights ofway inunincorporated King County. Local Hazardous Waste Management rmymm Addresses illegal dumping and mishandling of potentially hazardous waste materials. Solid Waste Division Responds Ncomplaints about illegal dumping and litter near county solid waste facilities and manages: programs for illegal dumping cleanup, the Illegal Dumping Hotline, county -wide illegal dumping prevention pmgoms,anddle]unkvehidepmgmm. Water and Lands Resources Division Investigates illegal dumping and litter complaints involving surface water. Enforce municipal littering and illegal dumping ordinances and provide cleanup of litterand illegally dumped material from city streets and properties. 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 ofillegal dumping. Jitter C 3 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. In 2016, litter crews cleaned up over 176 tons of debris from 151 sites. About 17 percent of the debris - including items such astires, appliances, and junk vehicles - was recycled. Sn ����[(� You v���ivau] In accordance with state law, since 1994 the division has assessed a fee to the drivers of vehicles with unsecured loads arriving atits staffed transfer facilities and landfill. An unsecured load has not been fastened in or attached to the vehicle with tarps, rope, straps, netting, orchains, soastuprevent any part nfthe load orthe covering from becoming loose, detached, w/leaving the vehicle while itismoving. ,m�)Comp,u6,nsd)eSolid Was/ /Nanngrmeu.PZam-,T,�ycm8 Aft Page169 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 According to the Washington State Department of Ecology's Focus on Secured Loads (Ecology 2009a), 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 "Rules 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 isassessed byscale operators. |nZO00 the division launched the Secure Your Load outreach program to raise public awareness of the importance nfsecuring loads. The division has worked closely with the King County Sheriffs Office and the Washington State Patrol to enforce the law, and with Ecology and the Maria Federici Foundation to raise public awareness. In 2013, to strengthen its deterrent effect, the fee for an unsecured load arriving at division facility was raised to $25. 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. r- R 11 The King 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 2014 King County Comprehensive Emergency Management 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 isdetermined bythe division based onthe geographic scope and impact ofanactual oranticipated 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 aslarge earthquakes, severe flooding, u,severe storms. |nmost cases, anemergency will have already been proclaimed bvthe 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 region's transportation network, which could becompromised inamajor emergency. Second, the only operational landfill inKing County - Cedar Hills -does not accept for disposal construction and demolition debris - the most common aftermath of high -impact incidents only municipal solid waste. ~ 4 201,9 CompT(,bm��ve Solid Waste Manqge�nmmFNm/2dy,m8 Aft Page170 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 The coordinated regional Debris Management Plan emphasizes recycling to the extent possible.TheplancaUsforthe 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 identify recycling options in preparation for and in response toemergency events ofall types. The ability to respond after a major regional emergency is one criterion that will be used to selectadisposal option to beused once the Cedar Hills landfill closes. Restoration of Closed | anc ��k U�V � � 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-dosueperiod'vegu|ationsandtheundeotandingofdosuenequiementshavechanged':equihngongoing maintenance and monitoring. See Figure 6'lfor the location ofthe closed landfills. _10SL_C [)sure M()Di|[)[inO and K����|enanc�� c, - 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 isleft and monitoring isnnlonger necessary. Studies are underway atthe 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 ofthe closed landfills. The closed landfills were constructed under different standards than those that guide landfill development today. With the exception of portions ofthe Vashnnlandfill constructed after l98g'they are unlined and donot, insome cases, incorporate all ofthe environmental control systems present inamodern landfill. Thus, the uniquecharacte/isticsofeachsite—inparticu|ar the underlying geology, what lies downstream, and the waste that was originally placed inthe landfill — play animportant role inthe post -closure needs ofthe site. These factors also influence the need for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the existing landfill control systems. Since all but the Vashonclosed landfill have reached the end A bioberm at the Cedar Falls closed landfill filters landfill gas 201�) Covp,4ensi�)pSolid WastrMv7agrment Plan -,TZIZ)lxm8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Flg ire 6-1 Map of closet landfills King County solid waste facilities t iTffTf 1 Open landfill Closed landfill King County Boundary Cities Unincorporated Area 0 2 4 Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 8 Cedar Falls Miles v,ondng,majenk«aarcres cornm_ar Aapplracnmes_compfaa,zoi7mm 10»i2017 6-16 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 172 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 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. In 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 Act Title 40, Subtitle D, Part 258, Subpart F - Closure and Post -Closure Care, as well as Washington Administrative Code 173-351.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. enefi� is Reuse of _andfi 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. der benehcia lases 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 all the 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 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste. Management. Plan -July 2018 6-17 Att A Page 173 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) atthe 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. � � �,.mq(o^nprx6rxxivaSolid Wa;teMxn^gv�nent/lan2018 Aft Page174 age Solid Waste System Fi na,; Att A Page 176 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Policies 0� Keep tipping fees aslow asreasonable, while covering the costs cf effectively managing the system, protecting the environment, encouraging recycling and providing service tocustomers. ^mxPage 1n Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 �� � �����������������^���^� ��J]���Tl�����7K�����������������^��K���K� Actions 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. If the responsibility is not in bold, the action has lower implementation priority. Action Adopt the following as division practices: Assess fees for use ofthe solid waste transfer and disposal system atthe point ofservice. ^ The fee charged tocustomer classes will bethe 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, ortoaddress low income needs. Utilize the assets ofthe King County Solid Waste Division consistent with the conditions established inthe Amended and Restated Solid Waste |ntedoca|Agreement with the cities. ^ The County General Fund will not charge use fees orreceive other consideration from the Solid Waste Division for use of any transfer facility property inuse asofNovember 6'20l3.The division's use ofassets acquired byother separate County funds is subject touse fees. |fthe division ceases touse aproperty, all proceeds from the sale orother use ofsuch property are due to the owner of record. ^ Maintain reserve funds and routinely evaluate the funds for long- term adequacyand set contributions to maintain reasonable rate stability. Finance capital projects using anappropriate combination ofcash and debt depending upon the life ofthe asset, financial benefits such asrate stability, and interest rates. Use solid waste fees tofund mitigation payments tocities for impacts directly attributable tosolid waste facilities per Revised Code ufWashington 30.58.O8Oand the Amended and Restated Solid Waste |nter|oca|Agreement. ^ Use solid waste fees tofund required mitigation for solid waste facilities, including mitigation mandated byfederal, state, and local regulations and permits. Detailed Discussion Page 7-9 Page7'l Page 7-5 Page 7-6 Page 7-5 Aft xPage 178 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 summary 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. • Include a target fund balance in the Solid Waste Division financial plan equal to at least 30 days of operating 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 will be fully funded through the end of their regulated post -closure maintenance periods, as defined by applicable law. 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 81.77.195. Continue to explore new revenue sources to help finance the solid waste system. 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 Interlocal Agreement. Page 7-8 Page 7-7 Page 7-7 Page 7-6 Page 7-3 Page 7-9 Page 7-9 Page 7-9 Page 7-10 Page 7-10 Page 7-7 Develop the procedures to establish and maintain the Rate Page 7-7 Stabilization Reserve. Att A Page 179 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 summary of Recommended Actions Action Maintain the following solid waste funds: • Landfill Reserve, • Landfill Post -Closure Maintenance, • Capital Equipment Recovery Program, and • Construction Fund. Detailed Discussion Page 7-6 When possible, manage solid waste rates through smaller, more frequent increases, which in combination with the rate stabilization reserve, smooths rate increases over time. Page 7-3 Att A Page 180 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste Finance System Financial policies help guide the solid waste system's operations and investments. This chapter first provides a brief summary ofthe 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. ���^�^��� ��� ���K~°� ����� ����y~��� ��� ����������� Funding "��|. . ~~U ��~~UU�� �Vx�.,� Services ~^ ~° Programs ^° "° -^ �� `— ^ ^ ^-^— ^^^~ �J' ^^^ King County's solid waste transfer and disposal system is a public -sector operation that is funded almostentirely 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 ztcounty facilities, called tipping fees, pay for the operation and maintenance oftransfer and disposal facilities and equipment, education and promotion related towaste prevention and recycling, grants tocities tnsupport waste prevention and recycling efforts, and administrative operating expenses and overhead. Tipping fees also pay for the construction oftransfer facilities. Bonds orloans may beused for large projects, but repayment of this debt is funded by tipping fees. As discussed later inthis chapter, through transfers into reserve funds, the fee paid for each ton ofwaste entering the system today covers the expenses involved indisposal ofthat waste, even ifsome costs are incurred decades in the future. Using this financial structure ensures that the full cost ofsolid waste handling ispaid bythe users ofthe system. ISM Asummary cfthe fund structure isillustrated in Figure7'l and discussed inthe following sections. Customers pay atipping fee arthe sca�chouse 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dU���a),zq.goeu����2m8 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 on fund structure CU IJ rr5 00) vr 'a c (t) 0 c 2 cf, _c, -0 z-u- c rt5 C CO 7-2 202.9 Comp-ehe s e Ma Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 182 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 So ���=T7�� 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. In 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 Materials Management for 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 begrants and the dty'sgeneral fund. id Waste D^V's^{)n Revenues As mentioned earlier, the solid waste system is funded primarily by the tipping fees charged atdivision 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. In 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. Specia|WasteFee-ThefeechavgedforoeMainmateha|sthctequivespeda|hand|ing'necovdkeeping'orboth'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 10.1 2.02].G authorizes the division director to set fees for recyclable materials for which nofee has yet been established by ordinance. These fees may beset toencourage recycling and need not recover the full cost of handling and processing. In 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 projected for 2017 and 2018 in the 2016 Rate Study. As shown, about 90 percent of the division's revenue comes from tipping fees. The remainder of the division's revenue comes from a ,m�)C6mp,rbevsd)eSolid Waxte/WhvogommxPlan -/z,��ycm8 Aft xPage 183 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 ba|ances;ecyc|ab|es revenue, including revenue from both the sale ofscrap metals received atdivision 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 ofEcology 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 Disposal Fees Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Fees I*Landfill Gas-Th'Enegy ~ -W SWD Other Revenues - grants, interests, and other income Recycling Revenues including construction and demolition disposal fees Construction and Demolition Debris Surcharge Starting in September 2015, management of the county's construction and demolition waste changed. In 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 toaccept and process construction and demolition debris. In 2016, 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 Chapter 4, Sustainable Materials Management. 7-4 2o19{oxpm6e°^i.'�)eSolid Wam,MavnXommv.%, '/TUIY/m8 Aft xPage 184 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 So 'r1 VV��}p �l'\/'�'{][) �xD(���/1`1U[ps - - - -r -' Division expenditures, can bedivided into four broad categories: opemdngmsts'mpmrt service costs, debt service, 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. Arate stabilization reserve allows the accrual offunds tosmooth out rate increases over time. Hgue7-3uses20l7'2Ol8pnojectionstoiUustratethevahousdivisionexpendhons'whichanedeschbedinthe following sections: Operating Costs Other Solid Waste Funds I* Debt Services 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. In 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. Sincethepost-dosuvepehodhasaxpinedandmaintenanceandmonitoringisstiUvequived'thosepnojectsavenow 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 by Murray & Associates in 2012 determined a rent payment schedule for 2015 through 2025. Also included in operation costs are mitigation paid to cities for impacts directly attributable tosolid waste facilities (RCVV38.SO.00O) as well as other mitigation related to construction or other activities as required by federal, state, and local regulations and permits. Similar tnthe 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 tothe regional facility, including wear and tear nn 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 bvthe division. *mxPage 185 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Support Service Costs This cost category includes functions that support operations, such asengineering, 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. It 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 ILA, bond market/bond rates, and waste generation. Todate, Cedar Hills landfill capital projects are not funded through debt financing, but through the Landfill Reserve Fund discussed later inthis section. Transfers toOther 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- termneeds.Payingintorese/vefunds 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[apita|EquipmentRecoveryPnogmmFund'theLandfi||ReserveFund,andthePost-OusuaW1aintenance Fund —arediscussed 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 ispurchased from the Operating Fund, but after the initial purchase, replacements are funded from the [ERP Byaccumulating funds inthe CERP,the division isable tocover the expense ofreplacing needed equipment without impacting rates, even while revenue fluctuates. Annual contributions to the CERPare calculated bvprojecting future replacement costs, salvage values, and equipment life. Contributions are adjusted toreflect changes infacilities and operations that affect equipment needs. The contributions are held inanaccount, earning interest, until needed. The Landfill Reserve Fund (LRF), codified in accounts maintained for the Cedar Hills landfill, which are described on the following page: KCC 4A.200.390, covers the costs of four major , � The [ERPFund provides resources for replacement and major maintenance ofequipment 7-6 2019 CompTekensiv,Solid WasZeManagement Flm-j2dy,m8 Aft xPage 186 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ` Nmwareadenelopmmmmtacomunt-Coverstheoo/tsforp|anning'designing'permitting.andbui|dingnem/ disposal areas. ^ Facility improvements account - Covers a wide range of capital investments required to sustain the infrastructure and operations atthe landfill, such asenhancements tothe 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 ofthe entire landfill. ^ Post -closure maintenance account - Accumulates funds to pay for post -closure maintenance of the Cedar Hills landfill for 30years. This account isalso mandated byfederal 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- ClosureK4aintenanceFundtopayfo,CedarHiUs'post-c|osuvemaintenanceandmonhoring. The Post -Closure Maintenance Fund, codified in KCC 4A.200.71 0, 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 setin40CFR2SO6landVVashingtonAdministmhveCodel73']5l'6UO(seeChapte/O,LandfiUyWanagementand Solid Waste Disposal). |naddition tothe funds mentioned above, the division isinvestigating the establishment of an Environmental Reserve, asdiscussed inthe Amended and Restated |LA.Thepurpose ufsuch a fund would betnhelp tupay for any environmental liabilities not already covered bysystem rates orinsumnce.Thefund would beretained for a minimum nf30years following the closure ofthe Cedar Hills Landfill. Target Fund Balance The division's current practice istoretain anaverage balance inthe operating fund sufficient tocover at least 3Odays ofdirect operating costs. Minimum Rate Stabilization Reserve FCSGroup conducted arate structure analysis (KCSWD 2017d), and reported that the division suffered an I I 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 byfour percent inthat two-year period. Agormwaie/pond at the Cedar UiUsLandhUispart ofthe Infrastructure paid for bythe |aci|kyimprovements Account 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 Dwt-[nmBust, but not for anoutlier like the Great Recession. Preparing for two years ufreduced revenues fits with the Cuunty'stwo-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 tuand replenishment offunds. ,m�){ovp/m6enoi�)pSolid Wasle/Wavogement8lan-/z,��ycm8 Aft Page187 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 I I [u � | � � � � I In 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 ofcertainty, are summarized below. |[)teresr ���[]�DUs _ � 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 Z05O'orifexpanded capacity isapproved, for about 30years after Cedar Hills reaches its maximum disposal capacity, making interest earnings a considerable factor in the amount that needs to be put aside. In 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 ofreturn. aste Prevention �[lr� ����V[|�n(] — - / c, Asdiscussed earlier, revenues from garbage tipping fees cover the costs ofwaste prevention and recycling services and programs. This financing structure requires the division to estimate the effects of waste prevention and recycling ongarbage disposal tnreasonably project future revenues. While the revenue stream relies primarily ongarbage tipping fees, the current priorities insolid 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 Moving Washington Beyond Waste and Toxics, 2015 Update 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 ManagementStudy (KCSWID 2014a) 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 model that is aligned with waste prevention and recycling (KCSWID 2014a). Increased waste prevention and recycling efforts have had positive influences on the financial aspectsofthe 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. 2o,,yCoozprekxns�vvSolid Waste MannXrmenl}�, -/LIY,m8 Aft Page188 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 �' _A�///[i e|]OF^\ The division continually seeks toeliminate waste and variability inits operations. This commitment ensures the division's ability Lo provide value toits customers, while improving the quality ofservice, controlling costs, and upholding the county'senvironmental goals. Examples ofoperational 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 atthe landfill. The tippers replaced the use ofolder walking floor trailers (see Chapter 5, Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal, for more details). Tippers save staff time and other resources, as well asreduce equipment and tire damage. � 'AW _ ` LandN1 Tippers are an ethcient way to empty transfer Trailers 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, Shoreline, Factoria,and Vashon stations currently have waste compactors. All newly constructed recycling and transfer stations will incorporate compactors aswell. 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, inthe first six months of operation at the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, the use of a compactor saved almost 900 trips and over 8'4OOgallons ofdiesel fuel. In addition to solid waste compactors, the division is installing cardboard compactors at many of the stations.These compactors will allow the division <oreduce the number oftrips needed <opick upthe bales. -loteDt'a /-���U[�s'n�-hE` _ �, -ee S|[[][tUre The division may propose changes to the current fee structure in future rate studies. Possible changes include establishing different customer classes, 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. In the 2014 Sustainable Solid Waste ManoyementStudy (KCSWD 2014), one of the recommendations was to look at revising the fee structure. The division completed a rate restructure study in 2017 and will be discussing with stakeholders what a rate restructure might entail (K[SVVD20l7d). Toequitably 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 customer class would be self -haul customers orcommercial customers atthe transfer stations. 201�)Cowprebensi�)pSol�dM@sleMo7qgamu�a,,?/Tzdy �'m8 Aft xPage 189 In 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 Before changes tothe fee structure are proposed, the division isstudying anumber offactors, including the impact on revenue and cost, equity issues, and system -wide financing implications. These factors will be considered in future rate studies. �_� ��Kos l, �i:i �of of ^����� U��� «~,J | a ��~Y r u UU| . Regional LandfilldfiAl When Cedar Hills reaches capacity and closes, the division's solid waste tipping fee isexpected toincrease to cover the cost nfusing analternate means ofdisposal. Whether itisexport tnanout-of-oountylandfill, disposal atawmste' 0o'energytad|ity,orctherconveoiontechno|ogy,pas</tudies,asweUasaecertpe|iminarystudy,indicatethatthe cost for disposal after Cedar Hills closes will be higher (KCSWD 2017c) (see Chapter 6, Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal for further discussion). Revenue ew Sources The division is continually exploring new sources of revenue to help offset reductions in tonnage. Cities may also want to consider additional funding sources to support their solid waste and waste prevention and recycling programs. Sa|es/rnUO 1'�e _ - 'hit ���F(]V-��|/|.V ��/ � _a[)u/�� / Anexample ofthe successful development ofa revenue source isthe sale oflandfill gas. |nZ0OC\ alandfill ga*to'enengyfacility began operations atCedar Hills, and the division began toreceive revenues from the sale oflandfill gas.Thefacility, which is privately owned and operated by Bio Energy Washington, converts methane collected from the landfill into pipeline quality natural gas, which itsells toPuget Sound Energy. |naddition, the environmental attributes from the pipeline quality gas produced bvthe landfill gas-to-ene»gyfacility atCedar Hills have value 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. |nJanuary of20ll'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 .� The 8ioEncrgyWashington plant u|Cedar UiUs and@|convcr\s �andN|gas \opipeline quality gas L,oig Com�ebms�uoSolid Waste &avage�n"ntD&m-JUIY,m8 Aft xPage 190 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 $1 to $7 million per year, depending on production rates and the market price. Res�,-)urce Recovery at Transfer Stations Significantamountsofnecyc|ab|emateha|s—no<abk/wood'meta|andcan1boavd are disposed a<the transfer stations. The division isimplementing new approaches, such as sorting the recyclable materials onthe 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 Ma�eria Co `— ecter1at r King County Code (KCC 1 0.1 2.021.G) does not require that fees for recyclables recover the full costs of handling and processing recyclable materials. Therefore the fees can beset lower toencourage recycling over disposal. |nfact, 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. 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dVas�e.MoqgewemPZan -JZdYxmJ ated Apri Att A Page 193 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 [ascadia.2000 2006 Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Assessment. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by[ascadiaConsulting Group, |nc,Seattle, WA. Cascadia. 2009a. 2007/2008 Construction and Demolition Materials Characterization Study. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division bvCascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA. httpxYwvvvukingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/so|id+waste/about/waste'monitoring/waste'documents.aspx Cascadia. 2012a. King County Waste Monitoring Program: 2011 Waste Characterization Study. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division bvCascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA. httpihwvvvxkingcounty.gov/—/media/depts/dn,p/ o|id+waste/about/documents/wmste'characterization'study'2011. ashx?|a=en [ascadia.20l2LzOrganics Characterization Report. Prepared fortheNngCounty5o|idVVageDivisionbvCascadiu Consu|ting6voup'Seatt|e,VVA.(http://your.kingcounty.gov/soUdwmste/garbage'ecyr|ing/documentS/0rganics' [haracterization'veport'2UlIpdf) Cascadia. 201 5a. Waste Monitoring Program: Market Assessment for Recyclable Materials in King County. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., Seattle, WA. http://your.kingcountygov/o|idwaste/about/documents/waste'monituring'market-assessment-20l5.pdf Cascadia. 2015b. King County Waste Monitoring Program: 2015 Waste Characterization and Customer Survey Report. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA. httpxYkingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/dnrp/ o|id-waste/mbout/documents/waste'chamcterization'study'Z0l5. ashx?|a=en Cascadia. 2016. Transfer Station Customer Survey, Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA. Cascadia. 2017a. King County LinkUp Program 2017 Market Assessment. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by[escadiaConsulting Group, Seattle, WA. http://kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/so|id'vvuste/pvograms/Unkup/dncuments.aspx [ascadia.Z0l7b.King County Z0l7Targeted Business Characterization Report. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by[ascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA. http://vwvxkingcnunty.gov/—/media/depts/dnrp/ n|id+waste/about/documents/budneo'characte,izatinn'2Ol7. ashx?|a=en 201�)Comprebmsi�)pSol�dKasteManagaamPlan ,mJ Aft Page194 City of Seattle. l998/20O4.Onthe Path toSustainabi|ityand 2004Plan Amendment. City ofSeattle, Seattle Public Utilities, WA. (Adraft update tothis plan isposted here: ht<p://mvvvxseatt|e4ov/uti|/k4yServices/Garbage/AboutGarbage/So|idVYasteP|ans/So|idVVasteW1anagementP|an/ index.htm) Ecology. 2004. Background Paper for Beyond Waste Summary Document Financing Solid Waste for the Future. http://wvvvxecy.wa.gov/pubs/0407032.pdf Ecology. 2009b. Focus on Secured Loads. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. https://Kortvessma.gov/ecy/pub|ication»/pub|ications/O9O7OZO.pdf Ecology. 2015. The State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan. Moving Beyond Waste and Toxics, 2015 Update. Washington State Department ofEcology, Olympia, WA. http://wwvxecy.wa.gov/wastep|an GBB. 2007. Independent, Third Party Review of the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Export System Plan. Prepared for the King County Council bvGershman'Brickner&Bratton'|nc'Fairfax, VA. httpxYyour.kingcounty.gov/so|idwaste/about/p|anning/documentdso|id'waste-transfu/'export'vevievxpdf KCSVV[lUpdated monthly. Solid Waste Advisory Committee Web Page. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. KCSWD. Updated monthly. Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee Web Page. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. KCSWD. 2002. 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. httpxYyour.kingcounty.gov/o|idmaste/about/p|anning/comp'p|anasp KCSWD and ITSG. 2004. Transfer System Level of Service Evaluation Criteria and Standards. Prepared by the King County Solid Waste Division and |nterjurisdictiona|Technical Staff Group, Seattle, WA. httpxYyour.kingcountygov/o|idwaste/about/p|anning/ducument*p|anningasp K[SVV[12005a.Analysis ofSystem Needs and Capacity: Using the Transfer System Level ofService Evaluation Criteria and Standards. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. httpxYyour.kingcounty.gowso|idwaste/about/p|anning/document*p|anningasp KCSWD. 2005b. Options for Public and Private Ownership of Transfer and Intermodal Facilities: Using the Transfer System Level of Service Evaluation Criteria and Standards. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. httpxYyour.kingcounty.govbo|idwaste/about/p|anning/ducument*p|anningasp 2o,,yCoozp/cbrn� vJolid WmnzeMan oX,*ent}�, -/LIY,m8 Aft xPage 195 KCSWD, 2006a. Preliminary Transfer &Waste Export Facility Recommendations and Estimated System Costs, Rate Impacts & Financial Policy Assumptions. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. http://your.kingcountygov/o|idwoste/about/p|anning/document*p|anningasp KCSWD. 2006b. Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan and associated Environmental|mpactStatement. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. http://ymur.kingcountygov/so|idvvaste/about/p|anning/dncument*p|anning.asp KCSWD et al. 2008a. Commercial Customer Evaluation of Waste Densities & Food Waste Recycling Impacts. King County Solid Waste Division, City of Kirkland, Waste Management, Inc., and Sound Resources Management Group, Inc., 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, Inc. httpsxYkingcounty.gov/—/media/depts/dnrp/n|id+waste/garbage'mcyc|ing/documents/Rentnn_Residentia[Pi|ot_ Reportashx?|a=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. KCSVV[120lOa. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, 2010 Site Development Plan. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by HDR Engineering, Inc., Bellevue, WA. httpxYyour.kingcountygov/n|idwaste/fad|ities/cedar-hiUs-deve|opmentasp KCSWD. 201 Ob. Project Program Plan: Cedar Hills Regional Landfill 2010 Site Development Plan. King County Solid Waste Division' Seattle, WA. httpxYyour.kingcountygov/o|idwaste/f ci|ities/cedar-hiU*deve|opmentasp KCSWD. 201 Oc. Vashon Recycling Survey. King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA. KCSVV[l20l3a. Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan Review. KCSWD. 2013b. Optimized Transfer Station Recycling Feasibility Study. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division bvHermro'O'Brien and Company, and HOREngineering, Inc. httpxYkingcounty.gov/—/media/depts/dn,p/o|id+«aste/about/P|anning/documentdoptimized-TS4easibi|ity'study. ashx?|a=en 201�)C��ebensi�)pSol�dWasteManagelneuPlan 2m8 Aft xPage 196 K[SVV[lZ0l]cDRAFT Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. httpxYwww.Nngcounty.gov/—/media/depts/dnrp/u|id+waste/about/p|anning/documentaQ0l3'owd'comp'p|an. ashx?|a=en KCSVV[120l4a. Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division. http6youckingcnuntygov/o|idwaste/about/p|anning/document*p|anning.asp#sustain-study KCSWD. 2014b. King County UTC Area Multifamily Pilots. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division by Cascadia Consulting Group. httpxYkingcounty.gov/—/media/depts/dn,p/o|id+waste/about/P|anning/documents/K['UT['mu|tifami|y'ecyr|ing' pruject-2Ol3'hna|'eportashx?|a=en K[SVV[l20lISolid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan Review Part l KCSWD. 2016a. Waste Export Evaluation, October 2016. Moorehead, Hobson, et al., page 27. K[SVV[12Ol6b.Multi-Family Recycling Best Practices Report. KCSWD. 2016c. Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 2017-2018. June 2016. KISVV[l20l7a.Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives Final Report, Volumes 1 and 2. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by Herrera Environmental Consultants. KCSWD. 2017b. Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by HDR Engineering, Inc. http://vwvukingcounty.gov/—/media/depts/dnrpbo|id+vaste/abuut/p|anning/documents/anaevnbic'digestion' feasibi|ity'study.ashx?|a=en KCSWD. 2017c. Working Draft Copy of Evaluation of Disposal Technologies. March ]8,20l7. KCSWD. 2017d. Alternative Solid Waste Revenue Structure. Prepared for the King County Solid Waste Division by FCS Group. November 20l7. KCSWD. 2018a. Peak Democracy/ King County Connects Evaluation for the Draft King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. May ZOl8. KCSWD. 2018b. Executive Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Fees 2019-2020. June 2018. King County. 2011. Annual Report of King County's Climate Change, Energy, Green Building, and Environmental Purchasing Programs. King County, Seattle, WA. http6youckingcounty.gov/dnrp/c|imate/documents/Z0ll'King'[ounty'5ustainabi|ity'Report.pdf L,ojq Com�cbm��ve Solid Waste MrmXemauPlm��'Iy,m8 Aft xPage 197 King County. 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in King County: An Updated Geographic -Plus Inventory, a Consumption -based Inventory, and an Ongoing Tracking Framework. Prepared for King County by the Stockholm Institute. http://ymur.kingcountygov/dnrp/UbraryYdnrp'directoo'office/cUmate/2008'emioions'inventory/ghg'inventory' summary.pdf King County. 2015a. King County Strategic Plan, 2015 Update: Working Together for One King County. King County, Seattle, WA. httpihwww.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/performance'strategy'budget/pedbrmanoe'strategy/Strategic' P|anning/2Ul5962OStrategic�/�20P|an962OUpdate.aspx King County. 20l5b.Strategic Climate Action Plan. King County, Seattle, WA. King County. 20l6a.King County Comprehensive Plan with 20l0Update. King County, Seattle, WA. http://vwvxkingcounty.gov/depts/executive/pedbrmance'stmtegy'budget/regiona|'p|anning/king'county' comprehensive'p|an.aspx King County. 2016b. King County Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan 2016-2022. King County, Seattle, WA. http://vwvukingcounty.gov/e|ected/executive/equity+sndaHustice/stratoyic'p|an.uspx Michaels, 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.Z0l7.King County VVaste-to'Energy Study. Prepared for the King County Department ofResources and Parks, Solid Waste Division bvNurmandeauAssociates Inc, [DKASmith, and Neomer. http://vwvuWngcounty.gov/—/media/depts/dnrp/o|id+waste/abuut/p|anning/documents/waste-to'energy'option* conddemtions.ashx7|a=en R.W. Beck. 2007. Comparative Evaluation of Waste Export and Conversion Technologies Disposal Options. Prepared for the King County Department nfNatural Resources and Parks, Solid Waste Division bvR)W.Beck, |nc,Seattle, WA. httpxYwww.kingcounty.gov/—/media/deptddn,p/o|id+waste/about/p|anning/documentu/Conveoion_ Techno|ogies_Reportashx7|a=en Sound Resource Management. Z0Od Estimated Market Value for Recyc|aNcsRemaining inKing County's Disposal Stream. Memorandum from Sound Resource Management Group to the King County Solid Waste Division, January ZU06(values updated bvSound Resource Management August 2008). SVVANA.2008.The Long -Term Environmental Risks ufSubtitle DLandfills. Solid Waste Association nfNorth America Applied Research Foundation, OaUas'TX. 201�)ComprchensiepSolid Waste Management Plan -,[U/y,mJ Aft Page198 SWANA. 2011. Waste Conversion Technologies, Jeremy K. O'Brien, P.E., Solid Waste Association of North America MSW Management Magazine. Watson, Jay L., LizTennant, and Dave Galvin. 2010. 2010 Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan Update.Local Hazardous Waste Management Program inKing County, Seattle, WA. http6\wwvuhazvvastehe|p.org/AboutUs/pdf/[haptepL_Lega|Authority_[over.pdf � �,.mq(owprx6rxxivaSolid Wa;teMxn^gv�nent/lan2018 Aft Page199 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 201 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 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, 2018 DEFINITIONS Throughout this document: Year 1 refers to 2018 Year 3 refers to 2020 Year 6 refers to 2023 Year refers to calendar year January 1— December 31 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. In all, the county's service area covers approximately 2,050 square miles. There are about 1.45 million residents and 840,000 people employed in the service area. 1.1. Population 1.1.1. Population for the entire King County Year 1: 2,166,600 Year 3: 2,257,800 Year 6: 2,297,000 1.1.2. Population for the King County solid waste system Year 1: 1,472,384 Year 3: 1,503,363 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; 2017). 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. 2029 ComprehensiDe .Solid Waste Management Plan - july 2018 Att A Page 202 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 2. WASTE STREAM GENERATION 2.1. Tonnage Recycled Year 1: 1,032,873 Year 3: 1,090,977 Year 6: 1,179,649 2.2. Tonnage Disposed Year 1: 953,421 Year 3: 1,007,056 Year 6: 1,088,907 (52% recycling) (52% recycling) (52% recycling) 2.3. References and Assumptions The division uses a planning forecast model to predict future waste generation, which is defined as waste 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 • Education and promotion campaigns • EcoConsumer program • Grants to cities to support waste prevention and recycling • Product stewardship support and promotion — "Take it Back Network" • Construction and demolition debris waste prevention and recycling education and promotion • Sustainable building education and promotion • LinkUp program • Organics management program • Master Recycler composter program • School programs • Special recycling collection events • Green Holidays program • Transfer facility recycling 2029 C©mprehensiue Silid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 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. 3.1.2. The costs of waste reduction and recycling programs (including transfer station recycling) implemented and proposed are estimated to be: Year 1: $12,150,041 Year 3: $10,447,707 Year 6: $12,730,951 3.1.3. Funding mechanisms: Year 1: Disposal fees $11,871,402 Grants 118,639 Unincorporated area recycling fee 160,000 Year 3: Disposal fees $10,167,069 Grants 120,639 Unincorporated area recycling fee 160,000 Year 6: Disposal fees $12,468,313 Grants 102,639 Unincorporated area recycling fee 160,000 3.2. Recycling Programs — see 3.1, combined with Waste Reduction Programs 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 204 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 3.3 Solid Waste Collection Programs 3.3.1 UTC Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs Data for 2017 and estimates for 2018, 2020 and 2023 are shown below: UTC Regulated Hauler Name: G-permit #: G-237 Waste Management of Washington, Inc. 720 4th Ave, Ste 400 Kirkland WA 98033 Yr 1 Yr 3 2017 2018 2020 Yr 6 2023 Residential # of Customers 37,974 38,378 39,187 39,979 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 61,060 62,519 66,036 71,403 Commercial # of Customers 1,346 1,360 1,389 1,417 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 26,487 27,119 28,645 30,973 UTC Regulated Hauler Name: G-permit #: G-87 American Disposal Company, Inc. 4662 70th Ave E, Puyallup WA 98371 Yr 1 Yr 3 2017 2018 2020 Yr 6 2023 Residential # of Customers 2,074 2,096 2,140 2,183 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 1,486 1,522 1,608 1,738 Commercial # of Customers 215 217 222 226 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 1,411 1,444 1,526 1,650 2o2y Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 205 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 UTC Regulated Hauler Name: G-permit #: G-60 Fiorito Enterprises, Inc. & Rabanco Companies 22010 76th Ave S, Kent WA 98032 Yr 1 Yr 3 2017 2018 2020 Yr 6 2023 Residential # of Customers 25,343 25,613 26,152 26,681 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 36,564 37,438 39,544 42,758 Commercial # of Customers 520 526 537 547 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 13,440 13,761 14,536 15,717 UTC Regulated Hauler Name: G-permit #: G-12 Rabanco LTD, 1600 127th Ave NE Bellevue WA 98005 1600 127th Ave NE, Bellevue WA 98005 Yr 1 Yr 3 Yr 6 2017 2018 2020 2023 Residential # of Customers 7,848 7,932 8,099 8,262 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 13,300 13,618 14,384 15,553 Commercial # of Customers 203 205 209 214 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 9,434 9,660 10,203 11,032 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 206 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 3.3.2 Other (non -regulated) Solid Waste Collection Programs Data for 2017 and estimates for 2018, 2020, and 2023 are shown below. Hauler Name: Republic Services Yr 1 Yr 3 Yr 6 2017 2018 2020 2023 Residential # of Customers 123,174 124,485 127,108 129,677 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 232,390 237,941 251,327 271,754 Commercial # of Customers 5,400 5,457 5,572 5,685 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 196,424 201,116 212,430 229,696 Hauler Name: Recology Yr 1 Yr 3 Yr 6 2017 2018 2020 2023 Residential # of Customers 63,872 64,552 65,912 67,244 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 118,391 121,219 128,039 138,445 Commercial # of Customers 2,324 2,349 2,398 2,447 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 86,337 88,399 93,372 100,961 Hauler Name: Waste Management of Washington, Inc. Yr 1 Yr 3 2017 2018 2020 Yr 6 2023 Residential # of Customers 84,442 85,341 87,139 88,900 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 168,584 172,611 182,321 197,140 Commercial # of Customers 5,479 5,610 5,925 6,407 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 136,633 139,896 147,766 159,776 2029 Comprebensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 207 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Hauler Name: City of Enumclaw Yr 1 Yr 3 Yr 6 2017 2018 2020 2023 Residential # of Customers 3,621 3,660 3,737 3,812 Tonnage (garbage, YW & recycling) 4,494 4,602 4,861 5,256 Commercial # of Customers 3,621 3,660 3,737 3,812 Tonnage Collected (garbage only) 2,835 2,903 3,067 3,316 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 208 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 3.4 Energy Recovery & Incineration (ER&I) 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: 94,716 Year 3: 100,044 Year 6: 108,176 3.5.3 The approximate tonnage disposed at the landfill by other contributors is expected to be: Year 1: 858,705 Year 3: 907,012 Year 6: 980,731 3.5.4 Landfill operating and capital costs are estimated to be: Year 1: $46,973,382 Year 3: $55,365,039 Year 6: $51,868,163 3.5.5 Landfill funding: Tipping fees 3.6 Administration Program 3.6.1 Budgeted cost and funding sources: Budgeted Cost Year 1: $40,785,701 Year 3: $40,827,859 Year 6: $52,185,563 Funding Source Tipping fees Tipping Fees Tipping fees 3.6.2 Cost components included in these estimates are: All Operating Expenditures except for direct cost components of Transfer Operations, Disposal Operations, and ancillary operating units. 3.6.3 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 201,9 Comprehens e Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 209 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 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 3.7.1 The Transfer Services System Program is described in Chapter 5 of the Plan. It 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. 3.7.2 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. 3.7.3 The UTC regulates the C&D facilities. 3.7.4 Solid Waste Division Costs 3.7.4.1 Transfer facility operating and capital costs are estimated to be: Year 1: $61,022,952 Year2: $68,229,939 Year 3: $80,090,023 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. 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 210 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 4 FUNDING MECHANISMS Table 4.1.1 Facility Inventory Facility Name Type of Facility Tip Fee per Ton Estimated Transfer and Transportation Cost** Transfer Station Location Final Disposal Location Total Tons Disposed Total Revenue Generated (Tip Fee x Tons) King County Transfer Stations Transfer Station $134.59 $61,022,952 King County Cedar Hills Landfill 922,121 $124,108,265 Regional Direct Cedar Hills Landfill $114.00 Cedar Hills Landfill 9,000 $1,026,000 Special Waste Cedar Hills Landfill $162.00 Cedar Hills Landfill 2,300 $372,600 Commercial Haul Cedar Hills Landfill $134.59 Cedar Hills Landfill 20,000 $2,691,800 Yard Waste/Wood Transfer Stations King County $75.00 Cedar Grove Composting 21,000 $1,575,000 Total 974,421 $129,773,665 Table 4.1.2 Disposal (Tip) Fee Components Fee per ton Moderate risk waste State tax surcharge Basic Fee 134.59 4.73 5.02 Regional Direct 114.00 Special Waste 162.00 5.83 Yard Waste 75.00 Table 4.1.3 Funding Mechanism (see next tables) Table 4.1.4 Tip Fee Forecast Tip fee per ton by facility [1] Year One (2018) Year Three (2020) Year Six (2023) All Facilities $134.59 $140.82 $154.16 [1] Basic fee 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 211 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 4.2 Funding Mechanisms Table 4.2.1 Funding Mechanism By Percentage — Year 1 Component Tip Fee % Grant % Bond % CollectionTax Rates Other % Total Waste Reduction & Recycling 99% 1% 100% Transfer 100% 100% Capital Projects 100% 100% Land Disposal 100% 100% Administration 100% 100% Capital Debt Service 100% 100% Other 100% 100% Table 4.2.2 Funding Mechanism By Percentage — Year 3 Component Tip Fee % Grant % Bond % Collection Tax Rates Other % Total Waste Reduction & Recycling 99% 1% 100% Transfer 100% 100% Capital Projects 100% 100% Land Disposal 100% 100% Administration 100% 100% Capital Debt Service 100% 100% Other 100% 100% 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 212 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 4.2.3 Funding Mechanism By Percentage — Year 6 Component Tip Fee % Grant % Bond % CollectionTax Rates % Other % Total Waste Reduction & Recycling 99% 1% 100% Transfer 100% 100% Capital Projects 100% 100% Land Disposal 100% 100% Administration 100% 100% Capital Debts Service 100% 100% Other 100% 100% 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 reserve in the operating fund. Beginning in 2019, the division will also maintain a minimum reserve balance for economic recessions equivalent to 5% of projected disposal revenue. -12 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 213 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Attachment 1 2018 2020 2023 Basic Fee 135 141 154 Revenues Disposal Fees 130,251,197 143,923,834 170,697,073 Interest Earnings 849,809 1,030,297 879,336 Grants 118,639 120,639 102,639 Landfill Gas 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 Rental Incomes 612,208 621,338 675,097 C&D 849,543 642,669 648,192 Other Revenue 8,643,986 537,707 584,231 Moderate Risk Waste Reimb Expense 2,141,140 3,612,578 3,925,147 Low -Income Discount - (300,000) (328,411) Total Revenue 146,466,521 153,189,061 179,683,303 Operating Expenditures Moderate Risk Waste 2,141,140 3,612,578 3,925,147 Public Health Transfer 1,058,216 1,097,691 1,253,623 Landfill Reserve Fund 18,739,437 29,688,762 23,130,987 Capital Equipment Recovery Program 6,900,000 6,900,000 6,100,000 Construction Fund 6,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Capital program debt service 13,350,000 23,267,327 27,786,035 Cedar Hills Rent 3,039,274 3,108,000 3,250,000 City mitigation - 39,872 43,322 CHRLF Environmental Liability Policy 572,806 500,000 543,261 Fund Management 10,227,554 12,784,723 17,534,519 SW Directors Office 1,659,920 1,798,199 2,188,021 Human Resources 1,828,997 1,828,382 2,353,656 Legal Support 25,782 38,082 44,817 Customer Transactions 3,691,021 4,056,591 4,774,049 Strategy, Communications & Performance 3,263,234 3,273,757 3,884,536 Enterprise Services 3,769,015 3,720,642 4,410,987 Contract Management 1,034,931 755,109 888,660 Project Management (29,429) 160,346 188,706 Recycling & Environmental Services 12,150,041 10,447,707 12,730,951 Facility Engineering & Science 6,374,588 5,914,155 7,829,226 Envir Monitor & Compliance 481,068 686,847 808,325 Operations Management 922,213 942,807 1,109,554 Transfer Operations 11,978,151 13,224,667 16,425,961 Transportation 10,840,311 9,914,616 11,668,137 Disposal Operations 9,079,756 7,460,202 8,913,334 LF Gas Water Control 5,456,152 4,359,666 5,130,726 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan - july 29z8 Att A Page 214 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Shop Operations 6,669,010 6,482,565 7,705,582 Stores 5,967,386 5,940,957 6,991,688 B & 0 Tax 1,591,460 2,158,858 2,560,456 Total SWD Costs under expenditure of 2% in low orgs SWD cost minus under expenditure 148,782,035 148,782,035 166,163,110 1,740,274 164,422,836 186,174,267 2,030,518 184,143,749 - 4 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Manaeo7ent Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 215 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 216 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 2 re 0 o1- 2 0 a. 2 o_ ›.7 X Cl) 0 u) .7J 0 2024 Beyond Ch N01 o N 01 00 " 01 , M N 0 IN 347,782 01 00 01 01 te I I , 1 r t IN N 0 N r 231,855 238,810 r00 01 01 . 238,810 01 00 01 .. 01 , 01 i 6,531,385 t r I I I I I 1 I - IN o I I NI 01 r, U1 1.0 10' 00 .4 M I ' 281,377 289,818 VD 01 , 01 4 00 01 ' 111 00 CO xrci' CO 01 ' I 109,273 I I I I I 0 N01 0 IN I I01 01 00 , <01 0 V-Ii 1.6 NI NI I ' 273,182 281,377 7,813,740 ' oi01 00 01 0,1. 0-I M az. ' r 1 co CO00 IN at '.0 62,668 x r r I cr, <4 0 N , r. 01 r'F NI 1.0 cr 01 c <-100 N 01 - 01‘-i 01 273,182 01 -. 01 00 00 t..I ' 9,312,242 01 - . 01 - 00 00 NI o o 00 00 e-I 0 IN 53,045 257,500 265,225 Ln •ct 0 fri M 257,500 Ln ni 01 Lri LID CV ; ; ; ; 470,000 ; Li') ..ct 0 M. CO x-I 188,535 ; ; ; ; Actuals Thru Dec 2017 04 01 54,213 874,570 .-i01 0 ,:r 00' ..-1 00 00 , 4 04 216,385 850,111 N CO IN IN rtr r-- I r ' ' 00 01 , 01 00 1 00 01 . 00 03 00 M M Ni '-ri 1-- .-1 471,204 470,835 01 r, 01 00 .4. <-1 I Escalated Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Project Title Fund 3901 Contract Audit Fund 3901 Contract Audit Facilities Capital Project Control Support Facilities Capital Project Control Support Landfill Reserve Contract Audit Services Landfill Reserve Contract Audit Services Landfill Reserve Capital Project Control Support Landfill Reserve Capital Project Control Support Facilities Relocation Facilities Relocation Capital Equipment Capital Equipment Cedar Hills Master Electrical PH2 Cedar Hills Master Electrical PH2 Cedar Hills Revised Site Development Plan Cedar Hills Revised Site Development Plan Cedar Hills Leachate Forecemain Upgrade Cedar Hills Leachate Forecemain Upgrade or .2 u VD 10 10 ,.. Cedar Hills Area 6 Closure 6' Z • D.0 00 o tl ..i- 0 L.01 m, M o m 01 (41 4 Lri 0 M m 01r o('1 m 0 01 (11 04 0 '-ri M m o .-1 01 00 01 01 01 ,r m01 rm rn o((1t-1 m 00 mi 01 00 - 01 m r m 01 N 01 01 rn Lr, NI 01LO 01 rn <-1 -1 01 4(1 01 0 0-4 1.0 m r n o m 00 44 0 00 c-I if, m 00 0 •--, 0 00VI 0 m 0 00M m 00 0 m 00 (11 0 00ul m co 0 , 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 217 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 0 1- 0 a. 1- 2 .rt C.) X 0 co 0 cn 2024 Beyond 00 00 rt.': 00 v-I 00 1"-- tI) - 00 N ,t... t . 1 . . `4. N 0 00 t I 4 5,020,520 t t $ $ 00 00 00 00 M N 0 N00 t , i , i 00 vi 00 00 s: m 00 00 00 r-2 r 1 t 1 , 00 CO N. M. i•-: fsi N 0 IN 7,558,874 7,249,217 0 00 00 tii .-, N 0 N 0000 0000 0000' 0000 00 CO 00 , , , , 000 00 0' 00 (‚- r-4 ,r, rri00 e.-I . , , , , , , , , , , 00 00 00 Vi" N 0 N 0 N 00 00 00t 0 , 17,387,247 , $ p ' 000 M M N N t a , , 1 p00 p .1 p 00 00 ch400 ,-t40 0 NI 00 (00 00 - si' 00 N 00 a,' co IN ,-I' i . .. . 0 .4. 00 00 400 t--i" 00 00 0 04 Lc; 00 00 CO a; 40 N cr.,' . . .00 00 - ,,,..4. .00 00 00- ,t 40 ,r 00 00 00 00 00 e, N 40 400 , (00 00 6,826,428 t p , p „ 22,361,347 40 L00 1./1 6 r--, VD N t ' 530,636 ,-I 00 01 Lc; r., ul 600,345 411 o-, L.41 a; co M 00 400 0 ,...4. 00 0 M 400 01 rri Lr, 00 00 00 Actuals Thru Dec 2017 14,355,815 CO M 01 03 0 01' 3,446,287 p00 00 00 , 00 ,i, 10 0 01 c-rl. N 0 Lii 432 , 00 00 00 00ci ... 00 27,280,800 00 0 40 00 tf, (6 4,585,486 321,007 44,474 00 0 r,.. t-4' 40. , 00 40 , 00 Escalated Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast Project Title Cedar Hills Area 7 Closure Cedar Hills Area 7 Closure Cedar Hills Environmental Systems Evaluation/Implementation Cedar Hills Environmental Systems Evaluation/Implementation Cedar Hills Environmental Systems Modifications Cedar Hills Environmental Systems Modifications Cedar Hills Area 8 Closure Cedar Hills Area 8 Closure Area 8 Development/Facility Relocation Area 8 Development/Facility Relocation Cedar Hills Landfill Gas Pipeline Upgrade Cedar Hills Landfill Gas Pipeline Upgrade Cedar Hills Support Facilities Evaluation Cedar Hills Support Facilities Evaluation Cedar Hills Landfill Pump Station Repair Cedar Hills Landfill Pump Station Repair Cedar Hills Landfill North Flare Station Repair Cedar Hills Landfill North Flare Station Repair Cedar Hills Area 5 Top Deck 6 Z *O" 00 (0)fr, r,,, ,1- Lt1 M 0 v-I 00 00 0 ,r ,r ol fYI M 0 c-I 00 00 00 0 00 ,r ul fYI M 0 c-i 00 if, 00 N 00('4 01010 641 N cr, ,r) "-i00 c-i 04 00 00 4 ul ,, ,t. N -1 '-' 40 00 NI 40 o -1 00 00 00 oo 00 ,r 00 co o., rsi 00 00 r-- 00 00 cr, N 00 00 00 004 B-2 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 218 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ce 0 ce 1-- LLJ 2 0 ce a. a. Oct cL X 0 F) 1— co 2024 Beyond ,T ,c, 00 c-i' 00 ,o- 00 < < . 00 00 r- „tir s•-• •.o . , . 1 t t cr N 0 N 20,373,514 I 1 I I I M NI 0 N 00 CO rn h: 01 1,1 h: e t I I 26,460,427 I I I f I I I I I 1 I N N 0 NI 5,424,583 20,540,534 q-I N 0 N CO r-I ID 01' N N r-Z , r 1 5,463,635 1 t 1 • 1 t 1 , i o N 0 co I, r-I ,-.1• 01 Cr, 00 , ID d. , t 1 00 e-I Cr,.... 00 ID 00 .... , 530,450 1 i 1 00 ID I 1 I I I ChQ -100 0 NI 01 00 00 0 00 00. . 00 ID 00 06. t 0 0 0 (r5 m NI ,....i. ' 00 ID .q• 00 MI' 1 2,575,000 1 1 1 ID 00 00 00 1 f I I I 00 r-I 0 NI 00 O 0 .-"f tr< <-1 , i t I I I 00 .... 00 t-i I 00 00 0 •zr d NJ 0 <-1 •zr 00 00 , 00 NI 291,747 721,000 742,630 Actuals Thru Dec 2017 t1 , 1 1 t I I I ID 00 e -I I N I., . ,i, 00 00 , 0 01 in Vt. 00 .-/ 1,346,492 0 ID r, II, M 00 01 0 %-. i 4. 1-I a, e-r. M 1-I SD Cif r- ID MI 11 10 F2 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Project Title Cedar Hills Area 5 Top Deck Cedar Hills Landfill Leachate Lagoons Cedar Hills Landfill Leachate Lagoons Cedar Hills Landfill East Perch Zone RI-FS Cedar Hills Landfill East Perch Zone RI-FS Cedar Hills Landfill Area 9 NAD Cedar Hills Landfill Area 9 NAD Cedar Hills Landfill NFS Electrical Cedar Hills Landfill NFS Electrical 00 01 00 00 ...... VIII 0 -0 00 11 CTI L./ 00) Cedar Hills SCADA Master Plan- 3910 Cedar Falls Environmental Control Systems Modifications Cedar Falls Environmental Control Systems Modifications Enumclaw Environmental Control Systems Modifications Enumclaw Environmental Control Systems Modifications Vashon Environmental Control Systems Modifications Vashon Environmental Control Systems Modifications d Z • '6 00 ,1- 00 o) 00 00 a, 00 00N 01 m M00 ,--I c-I 004 00 00 00 NI 00NI m M 1-1 00 00 00 00 M 00 m <-t 00 00 004 00 011 d- 000 01 M 00<-1 , 00 00 001 010 00 0 •a NI 00 00 ID 0111<-, co m 00 SD <-1 00 00 ID 00 (00 co SD c-I ,-.111 0 00 ID 011 o •3- 00 SD -1 00 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 219 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 2024 Beyond ul N O t I0 O M 01 0 N C< N O N r r r r v o 40 V N h co M N 01 01 O r r r N 0 N r r r r r 00 0 L11 o CO tO 00 V1 N CO M Lt1 N N N N 44,376,428 01 d' t0 0M0 00 01 H N O1 <Nt M H o N O l0 NZ. l0 ' O l0 n t0 ' O l0 n l0 N 01 Lt1 N CY N 01 O N 00 M O h 01 Cr rl ' ' ' N O N l0 40 OM t0 M * O 0 l0 C3 Ni 01 O 0 t0 Nt(t N 01 O 0 l0 18,254,809 00 L1 .<-1 V M 38,690,949 ' r , r r 01 C. N O CO l6 e�-1 H ' M rN� v O fV 0 O00 O OM N N <-t 00 300,500 N 4 0, 01 0 O00 O OM N ri w 01 6,441,625 M N IMf1 e-1 b n 25,750 N OH0 CO O N ill N l0 lf1 IN 206,000 291,747 283,250 291,747 C0S N Cl5 N IN ,I- 1N <-1 N i0f1 01 CYt 1-1 d N N Lfl N le, 829,045 Actuals Thru Dec 2017 N Cr �,n-1 O1 V M l00 t0 158,377 ' N M e-1 ' Vim` 1N O O M 01 tf5' 6,666,042 884,435 ' {MJ1 tfi M l0 N 2,503,495 V-' fl1 ttl N 00 00 M M VM11 N 06 CO 000 h M CY O 01 Escalated Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast Project Title Hobart Landfill Cover and Gas Control Hobart Landfill Cover and Gas Control Duvall Environmental Controls Duvall Environmental Controls Post Closure Puyallup/Kit Corner Environmental Control Systems Post Closure Puyallup/Kit Corner Environmental Control Systems Post Closure Houghton Environmental Control Systems Post Closure Houghton Environmental Control System South County Recycling and Transfer Station South County Recycling and Transfer Station Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station Harbor Island Safety Improvements Harbor Island Safety Improvements Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station O Z 'p O. Cf O N CF N H N V O N 0' N H H 05 CI' 00 01 N N t4 01 v 00 01 N H H H 00 00 01 N H H H ul 00 01 N H H N N 00 01 N N N N Ll1 CO 01 N H H t`� 01 Cf' M M O N f` 01 V M M 0 H 00 a, ct M M O N 00 GI C M M CD H M O Ll M M 0 H M 0 to M M CD H t0 O il'1 M M H t0 0 V , M M CD H Ltl 00 M 00 Ct B-4 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 220 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 1- 0 a. 1- 2 .rt C.) X 0 w 1— co 0 cn 2024 Beyond 00 00 00 00 23,663,543 `4. NI 0 r NJ 00 0 01 00, 00 J 47,933,022 , m NI 0 NI . t . . . 00 34,436 , . 00 , ... 00 . „ . 00 co r, 06 40 0100 00 00 r, o NI <-1 NI NI o NI 00 00 ,A 40 r, 00 NI 00 00 000 00 t .00 00 111 , 00 . 00 0 00 . ' <-1 0 0 r, ' 4,751,426 00 00 00 00 00 s-4 <-1 41,004,622 .-t NI 0 NI 288,411 297,064 CO „xi.. 0 0 . , 17,484 t 01 , 00 , ' 01 01 01 01 01 UD ,r NI 00 ,-i' 0 N. NI 01 0 O ..40 .....1 01 N <I" ,r ai LID m 0 0 N N 00 40 01 04 0 N 40' N 747,934 ' 44,558 ' 00 00 00 <-1 0 0 0 0 N ,--1 i 7,644,500 N, 0 NI N.: CO 01 a; ri <-1 N IN 0 N.: 01 rO ..,-; 40 Cri e-1 0 NI 188,657 t . 00 00 , . . 650,833 cr 01 00 <-I 00 00 1-Z. 0 ci, , 12,360 . , 01 01 01 0. 1' 01 00 '-4 ' 7,644,500 00 01 0 ooc5 0000 0000 00 40 00 01 <-1L'i ,-.1 00 04 0 N 833,591 04 00 04 00 ' 862,444 588,686 . ' o . 00 N N 1,831,154 3,000 m 0 . 0 04 <-1 23,421 o o o 6' 0 00 a) 010 01 cri 01 40 7,000,000 o 0 01 US) 00 00o N 00 0001 40 .--1 UD 0 40 Actuals Thru Dec 2017 82,208,424 00 01 40, 00 04 37,066 00 40 rn a t ,00 00 01 6 , 0 0 N 01 o e-I. 104,245 In 40 40 00 00 Lri t.-I tn N., 00 NI 4004 40 co co 00 UD 92,077,706 86,223,926 395,486,377 LO m ,r ca. <4 ',I- rn m Escalated 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Current Forecast 2017 Adopted/2016 Cashflow Solid Waste Division Project Title Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station Transfer Station SCADA Master Plan - 3901 Transfer Station SCADA Master Plan - 3901 Cedar Falls Drop Box Improvement Cedar Falls Drop Box Improvement Algona Transfer Station Deconstruction Algona Transfer Station Deconstruction Harbor Island Dock Demolition Harbor Island Dock Demolition Construction CIP Oversight Construction CIP Oversight Landfill Reserve CIP Oversight Landfill Reserve CIP Oversight CERP Capital Repairs CERP Capital Repairs CERP Equipment Replacement Purchase CERP Equipment Replacement Purchase 6 z • .8" La 01en 00 cl. 0 1-1 40 V1 NJ 00 00 40 01 01 NI 00 , <-I 00 01 441 00 04 Ln N 01 0 00 <-I N 0 00<-1 00 04 00 00 N 0 Gr NI <-I 00 0 0 00 01 N 444 k4 cp 0 00 01 NI -1 -1 00 00 01 0 441 N. 0 111 00 441 0 -1 00 .7. in 00 00 0 <-1 00 ,r L40 frl 440 0 <-1 441 00 00 01 01 0 04 0 oo •:r 00 00 0 .--1 0000co M 01 0 444 r-, 00 M 00 0 -1 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 221 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 222 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. City: 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 31, 2040. 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management. Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 223 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 in 1992. The Cedar Hills Landfill remains an asset owned by the County. C-2 2OI9 Comprehensiue Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 224 H. The Parties expect that the Cedar Hills Landfill will 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. It is possible that this useful life could be extended, or shortened, by System management decisions or factors beyond the control of the Parties. I. 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 tune -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. 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2o28 Att A Page 225 L. The Parties have further deteiuiined it is appropriate to strengthen and foiinalize 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 Interlocal 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. C-4 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 226 "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 pei uiit 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 173.350.100 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 IX 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. 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 227 "Original Agreement" means the Solid Waste Interlocal 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 volt' Comprehens Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 228 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, incineration, or otherwise. 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. . 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 229 III. DURATION This Agreement shall become effective as of through December 31, 2040. IV. APPROVAL , and shall remain in effect 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. If the Parties fail to reach agreement on an extension, the Dispute Resolution provisions of Section XIII do not apply, and this Agreement shall remain unchanged. 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 230 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. 2029 Comprehensive Sc/td Waste. Management.Plan -Jule 2028 Att A Page 231 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 XI. 6.1.g 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 C-1 °OIy Comprehensive ,Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 232 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 City 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 JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES. 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. 2029 ComprehensiDe Solfd Waste Management Plan - july 2018 C-11 Att A Page 233 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 In establishing Disposal Rates for System Users, the County shall consult with MSWAC consistent with Section IX. 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. It 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 Institute (MAI) certified appraiser selected by the County in consultation with MSWAC. C-12 2019 Comprehensive Svalid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 234 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 infoiiiiation the appraiser requests for purposes of developing the appraiser's recommendation. 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 deteimined by revisions to the existing Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Site Development Plan; in that event, an updated appraisal will be perfoliiied 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.g., the Roads Fund, or other funds) 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 20z8 C-13 Att A Page 235 will be subject to use charges; similarly, the System will charge other County funds for use of System property. VIII. LIABILITY 8.1 Non -Environmental Liability Arising Out -of -County 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 VII herein. In providing such defense of the City, the County shall exercise good faith in such defense or settlement so as to protect the City's interest. For purposes of this Section "claims arising out of the County's operations" shall 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 III. 8.2 Cooperation. In 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 VIII, references to City or County shall be deemed to include the officers, employees and agents of either Party, C-14 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 236 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 Industrial Insurance 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. § 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 under the 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 2029 Comprehensizze Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2az8 C-15 Att A Page 237 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. In 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 If 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 If 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 C-1 201y Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 238 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(1)(b)(i), and nothing in this Subsection shall relieve the City of any obligation it may have apart from this Agreement to handle regulated dangerous waste. If, 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 XII 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. § 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 Liabilities"). 2029 Comprehensive Sblia baste M. aroagement Plan -Jule 2028 C-17 Att A Page 239 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 Liabilities. 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 teinis, insurance coverage for System -related Environmental Liability that names the City as an Additional Insured. The County shall establish the adequacy, amount and availability of such insurance in consultation with MSWAC. Any insurance policy in effect on the teiinination date of this Agreement with a term that extends past the termination date shall be maintained until the end of the policy tei in. 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 VI. 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 C-1 2o2y Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 240 shall be used solely for the purposes for which it was established under this Agreement. Unless otherwise 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. If 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 If 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 peitititted 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 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan - july 2018 Att A Page 241 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.g In 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 Quitclaim 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 9.1 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 alternates) 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 - C-2 2C29 Comprehensive Solid Taste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 242 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 inter jurisdictional impact; 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; 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 C-21 Att A Page 243 9.2.i Assist cities in recognizing municipal Solid Waste responsibilities, including collection and Recycling, and effectively carrying out those responsibilities; and 9.2.j 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 In 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, the Forum Interlocal Agreement and Addendum to Solid Waste Interlocal 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 C-22 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 244 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 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management.Plan -Jule 2018 C-23 Att A Page 245 11.4.d Operational plan for the elements discussed in Item 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 Interlocal Agreement. In 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. If any City disagrees with such determination, then the City can request that the Forum determine whether or not the City is affected. Such C-24 2oJ Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 246 deteluiination 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. 11.10 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 law 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 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 C-25 Att A Page 247 project ("Neighboring City") and seek their input. For any facility for which the County prepares an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 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 EIS. However, nothing in this Section shall limit or impair the County's ability to timely complete the environmental review process. 12.4 Collaboration in Project Permitting. If 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 36.70B.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. If 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 C-2 2019 Comprebensiue Solid Taste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 248 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. If 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 XII of the Agreement. XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 13.1 Unless otherwise expressly stated, the terms of this Section XIII 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. 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management.Plan -July 20z8 C-27 Att A Page 249 13.3 Executives' Meeting. 13.3.a If 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. It 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 C-2 2o2y Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 250 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 -Binding Mediation. 13.4.a If 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 dispute. 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 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 20z8 Att A Page 251 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 XIII 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 XIII 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 XIII, 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. If 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 2029 C©mprehensiue Solid LYlaste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 252 the other Party, such obligation or condition shall be suspended only for the time and to the extent practicable to restore not iiial 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 Interlocal Agreement]; 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 peiinit or approval applicable to the System or the County's operation of the System within the jurisdiction of the City. XVI. WAIVER No waiver by either Party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other temin 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. 2029 Comprehens0De Solzd Waste Management. Plan -July 2028 C-3 1 Att A Page 253 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 III. C-32 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Manaeo7ent Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 254 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 City: For the County: Director King County Solid Waste Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, Washington 98104 IN 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 Clerk -Attest Approved as to form and legality Approved as to form and legality City Attorney King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Date 2029 Comprehensive Solid fT./aste.Management.Plan -July 2018 C-33 Att A Page 255 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 256 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Table 1: Waste Reduction Model (WARM) inputs used in Chapter 6, Table 6-1 WARM Model Input Cedar Hills -134,000 MTCO2e Waste Export - 78,000 MTCO2e Mass Burns + 12,000 — 80,000 MTCO2e Notes Materials (2015 Waste Characterization [2015 WC]) 2015 WC 2015 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. About 29%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% virgin) 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% on regional recycling rate) was assumed for Mass Burn. Landfill 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 recover for energy 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. 'A 2017 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 16.7%, Plastic 12.2%, Food 20.5%, Wood 16.8%, Other Organics 15.3%, Metal 4.7%, Glass 2.6%, Electronics 0.4%, Household Hazardous Waste 0.9%. 3 2015 Waste Categorization material categories that create WARM offsets when landfilled include corrugated containers 3%, Dimensional Lumber 11%, Yard Trimmings 6%, Mixed paper 7%, and Drywall 2%. 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste. Management.8lan -July 2018 Att A Page 257 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 258 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) EPA has amanual that thoroughly describes the WARM model and its inputs. Areference hasbeen added totell readers where tofind more The criteria guiding the P|an/s final adoption are from the Amended and Restated |ntedoca| Agreements signed byall partner cities. The criteria cannot be changed without amending those agreements. Thank you for your comment. Your suggestion has been added. Chapter 4'Action 24*and page 4-24addresses service levels county -wide and onVashon Island. A discussion ofexisting composting facilities and developing technologies isfound onpages 5-26-28. Compost facilities have been added toFigure Z~4 Table 5-5isalso added, including how much material ishandled atcompost facilities. |naddition, tonnage handled atthe private PWRFs(Table 2-1)and construction and demolition facilities (Tables 4-7 d 4-8) has been added. The compost facilities inKing County have been added toFigure 2-4. Comment Tab|elshou|d have aclearer description ofthe inputs, and the notes could bemore descriptive indeclaring why the input variables were used for the ] disposal methods. For example, for ''w1oistue" it seems evident why ''wet" is selected for Cedar Hills, but not as clear that "national average" is used for Mass Burn, when the VVTE plant would presumablybe located in King County. The final plan adoption criteria noted inthe first bullet on P. 1'3requires cities representing Y4of the total population within the plan u/act within 120days. There are anumber ufsmaller cities represented inthis Plan that are marginalized using this sole measure. Please consider adding a second criteria like %ofthe population and %of the number ofcities ... not just population. this category should also include optimizing/reducing product packaging, including shipping containers. All King county residents and businesses should have access toorganics collection service orlocal compost facilities. |n addition, more information should beprovided about existing compost facilities and new development alternatives. "System Graphic" needs some quantification and additional information' such as afigue caption explaining and quantifying material flows, numbers ufprivate compost facilities, transfer stations, recycling facilities, etc so the reader better understands the relative magnitudes ofthe various segments and components. Please include the major compost facilities (such asCedar Grove) asthey fall within this category and donot seem to appear on any other maps. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Appendix D-1 Chapter 1, pg 1-3 Chapter An increase in product Chapter 2 - Expanding collection of Recyclable & Compostable 19 Chapter Figure2~4 Commenter >-• Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon (13 .._ 70 i CD '0 QJ 1:5 0) u_ >•• T.3 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan - rtly 2028 Att A Page 259 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Since Z01lSVVDhas contracted with 8ioEnergyVVA toproduce natural gas from Cedar Hills Landfill gas. For more information, see https://www.kin«countv.«ov/depts/dnrwso|id vvaste/fad|ities/|andfiUs/|andfiU-nas.aspx Thank you for your comment. The mitigation section has been edited. Information has been added under "Mitigation^for this section onKing [nunt/soverarching targets. More information onthis topic has been added to the discussion inChapter 4regarding asustainable materials management approach. Anaddition has been made toFigure 2-2toindicate decentralized solutions. Thank you for your suggested edits. Changes have Comment Asystem should bepiloted wheebywehamest|andfiU gasses, other gas -producing businesses, and future compost facilities and anaerobic digesters throughout the county and process them toRNGrather than flare off o,carbon-cleanse them. Installing new distributed compost facilities onVashon Island and elsewhere would greatly reduce vehicle emissions, energy use, and ferry costs required for garbage d yard wastet rtti to easternKing County. Decentralized ADand other mnewab|esshould beincluded in "Mitigation" strategies. There bnomention ofresiliency orcircular economics of materials. These are components ofsumoinabi|itytoo and should beincorporated and prioritized. Should include decentralized solutions. Asmaller orange loop should be added. The heading Expanding the Collection ofRecvdabband [ompomab|eMaterials should say Expanding the Collection ofRecyclable and Degradable Organic Materials. |nthis section werecommend you add aparagraph that says: There is a convergence of issues around source separated organic waste inKing County. These include urban farming, food waste diversion through avariety uf technologies, avoidance ofsynthetic chemicals in horticulture and agriculture, food banks, jobs and resiliency issues around food, smart grids, carbon footprint, climate change, alternative fuel vehicles, and distributed renewable energy. This convergence will continue for the foreseeable future and King County will have tobeflexible and innovative toremain inaleadership role since organic waste issuch asignificant organic fraction inboth the waste and recycling streams. Organic waste touches all these issues. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 2 - Landfill gas Chapter 2 - Mitigation, Chapter p49(2- Z4)K4[ Chapter p24 Policies Chapter p29(2-4) Figure 2-2Systems � Graphic 00 --i c-J 0) 00 co 0 N 'C-U- a al _c o Commenter Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon Impact Binenergy (Srirup Kumar) Impact 8inenergY (ShmpKumar) Impact Bioenergy (5h/upKumar) c (o >. 00 4-, C1) 0 (0 '''..-C a 2019.Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -Juy 2 018 Att A Page 260 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) There bacost to process the materials paid by curbside customers. The companies that process the necydab|esbenefit from the sales, but itcan also lower the cost ofne |b| Ucti Thank you for your comment. Your suggested edits have been made. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee iscomprised of residents and representatives from the waste industry, cities, and other businesses. There currently isone representative from the unincorporated area, avacant agricultural position, and other vacant seats. The Division will be recruiting for vacant seats inthe coming months. Waste Connection, the franchise hauler onVashon, isresponsible for initiating arevenue sharing agreement. Thank you for your comment. The sequestration section has been edited. Thank you for your comment. These concepts have been added. Comment Please include adiscussion ofcosts involved with processing and explain who benefits from recycled material sales. Potential new Composting and ReUsefacilities should be mentioned here. Need for Rural Area representation onAdvisory Committees (it appears from the 5VVDweb site that weare "represented" byK[Council 5tafU. Who isour representative onKCCouncil? How does that person know what *ewant? Please explain why Vashon Island lacks acertified revenue sharing agreement unlike other VVUT['regu|atedareas in King County. Production ofbkoharbypyrolysis ofwood & yard waste would also sequester Carbon for millennial tinnesa|esas well as improving soil quality This section iscritically important asitdefines the key principles guiding the operation ofthe Solid Waste Division. |nrecent discussions relating tothe operation ofthe Factoriatransfer facility (including demand management) and the need for an additional transfer station inthe northeast, itwas these principles that were crucial in supporting the position of cities in the northeast. The wording inthis section needs tobecarefully eviewed. It is recommended that two additional bullets beincluded on page I'Z4asfollows: * Provide the same level ofservice toall communities (e.g,estimated travel time tofacility, time onsite, facility hours, recycling services) * Consistent pricing throughout the system. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 2 - Processing of Commingled Chapter Protecting Natural 8esourcesp. � 2`2l Representation Chapter 2-Revenue Chapter Sequestration, p.2-24 L.r) rs4 — . co Cs1 z 110 0 O. cr) 5.... oo 0) _ Cr 0 UJ --, Commenter Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon 05 x— co eL as .— U Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon = ± (3.) -0 U 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 261 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The Solid Waste Advisory Committee iscomprised of residents and representatives from the waste industry, cities, and other businesses. There currently isone representative from the unincorporated area, avacant agricultural position' and other vacant seats. The Division will be recruiting for vacant seats inthe coming months. Thank you for your comment and support ofthe recommended actions. Thank you for your comment. Through the UnkUpprogram, SVVDhasacdvelybeen working todevelop markets for the use ofused asphalt shingles inpaving projects. See more Comment Itappears the Rural Area only isrepresented onthe Advisory Committee by King County Council Staff? The City believes that reliable data allows jurisdictions like Woodinville aswell asother entities tomake well-informed decisions locally and, collectively, for the region. Thus, Woodinville supports the following Comp Plan recommended actions regarding forecasting and data: ° J-fd: Standardize the sampling methodology and frequency in tonnage reports submitted to the division and the cities bythe collection companies to improve data accuracy ° 2-fd: Perform solid waste, recycling, organics, and construction and demolition characterization studies at regular intervals tosupport goal development and tracking ° 3-fd: Monitor forecast data and update as needed Data collection and forecasting relating tosystem use and capacity, aswell asgrowth in populations will enable the region toaccurately site waste handling facilities inareas where service islacking. With the pace oftechnological change increasing rapidly, yet our Comprehensive Plans only being updated onafive-year cycle (or longer) vveneed toforecast trends and get our long-range plans instep with emerging technology. NOW. Regarding recycling market for asphalt shingles, has King County identified a universal, viable, and stable market that has capacity for the ongoing receipt nfasphalt shingles? VVPWVVhas found that there isasmall market for asphalt shingles given that there has not been sizable industry Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 2, Policy ES-2 m ,tu. a ro U Chapter 3 Chapter 3— Page 3-10,Generators o/Construction and Demolition Debris Commenter cu a. (l) .4.., >. ro cu CU — s_ as (.9 > Q, 'Es 0 0 SeaTac Waste Management 2a7,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2078 Att A Page 262 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) hups://www.kin«oountv.:ov/depts/dnrp/so|id- *asue/promr ms/inkuwshin«|es.aspx Recycled shingles have been used inseveral county projects including atthe Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station and inKing County Roads Services projects. Thank you for your comment. SVVDisdependent on the Washington State Department ofEcology for the data. Thank you for your comment. Figure 3'1isshowing projected population numbers byservice area that are based on Forecast Analysis Zones. Current population numbers are not available in this format. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment.Usage data for solid waste isnot asreadily available asitisfor energy, so would bedifficult toimplement Although the recycling volumes are low and disposed tons are higher incomparison, the overall tons generated bythese two generator types is much smaller when compared tosingle-family and commercial generators. SVVDdoes have education and outreach for multi -family and some cities choose toprovide greater emphasis onmulti-family collection. Since the beginning ofZ018'SVVDhas placed a ban on certain recyclable materials being disposed atthe transfer stations wheeeqo|ing opportunities exist. This ban has been accompanied Comment demand for the recycling ofthese materials. |farecycling market does not have complete capacity for receipt of asphalt shingles, then demand for that market islacking. What isKing County doing tohelp develop amarket, such as including recycled asphalt shingles inthe count/sroad paving projects? A3year lag for data availability seems excessive inthis digital age and should bedecreased, efforts should bemade toacquire timely and comprehensive data relevant towaste & recycling. The bar -graph should include current (2Ul5)values for each area as baseline. The bar grab should include several additional time points to illustrate trends (eg, perhaps also 2010, 2006, 2002). 4ademonstrated byelectricity providers, when consumers have access totheir usage data, they are able toreduce usage and optimize peak loads. |fconsumers were aware of the waste quantities atvarious local and regional scales, they could potentially modify their behaviors. VVeneed more geo-referencedtemporal dat The disposed volumes are very high yet recycled volumes are disproportionately low for these Zgroups compared with businesses & single family residential, sofocused efforts should bemade toincrease recycling rates among these Igroups! Need more commitment toeducation, services, and incentives Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 3 - Ecology Survey Data p. 3-12 Transfer Station Population forecast Chapter Figpne3-4, � p. 3-5 Forecasting & Data, p. 3-1 4 - . • , . 1 Qj 4.: Z N 9' CY) rn as E z _c 0 izi (...)1.4.., z Commenter Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon a) 4-, ,..) co ts N > 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan - July 2018 Att A Page 263 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) byaneducation campaign and information provided tucustomers atthe transfer stations. Figure 3-3 has been updated with the more recent tonnage forecast and corrected to more accurately reflect the garbage and recycling proportions. to if, c -5 u tlo ., .c CD >'• p a) — 0.0 ci CO ui CD 4" ..0 a 0 4' ...0 4-; o 4-'.c c -o cu 1., C) ' E E -o c 0 o .— 0 - h.- (o 1..0 .— o a; 4 ..c>)- >- -o c )- CC a) -Z3 0 C 4- ,-- CU if Cc0 0 0.) 0 0_ >• - CU ej _le 0 E, s_ . sis cs co> — a) _c CO TO 1714 I-- -C o ‘... Thank you for your comment. Your suggested edits have been made tothe Forecasting section, starting onpage 3'l. Comment Explain why tonnages increase and decrease around ZOZ9 As depicted' Fig3'3 shows recycling levels atabout 1/4of what isdisposed in2017,while the text lists 52Y6.Use a graphic more similar tothe one inthe earlier draft which "Stecked''both types oftonnages,creating abeuervisua| comparison ofthe total. 1. Please be consistent incolor use (recycling is shown asblue inaprior chart, and blue isoften the container color associated with recyding). 2 This circle graph makes itappea/that the blue area is|a/gerthanthe green area. (53Y6v.47Y6) o The category "other nnateha|s^ shows0Y6 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 in coming up with these percentages (or may be less than O.5%nftotal diversion, and soeffectively 0%).But the figure says 0%ofother 5Fmaterials are diverted torecycling. Perhaps say <|%and use '''^ instead of ''O" for the tons recycled. Presumably, these charts focus on ,N5vVthat the system i, designed to handle, so options like reuse or donation are not counted. FiXure3'5 note'a': The term 'recycled' isout ofplace. Put itfioto/delete in all ]charts. In Chapter ],the Plan provides context for forecasting the future solid waste steam for the region. While the narrative describes how factors related to population and economy are considered in the solid waste forecasts, itis unclear if the forecasts have captured the potential for significant changes ordisruptions in Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 3, Figure 3-3 0) (1) = 0) LI- Cri (t) 0 -C C.) Ln Chapter 3, Forecast Commenter Federal Way >.. ro To a) -0 O.) U- a) c cu 0) CO 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 264 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Forecasting section has been edited todescribe the forecasting inputs and process tothe forecast more clearly. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Most ofour transfer stations have covered receptacles tocollect old cardboard containers. Comment waste characteristics and recycling markets. For example, the closure of some of China's recycling import markets and the possible increased light weighting of packaging may drive significant changes in the eXinn's disposal needs. Requested change /o3-1 to3~V:Expand the Forecasting section to describe how/ thcfo'rcuot does ordoes not consider potential substantial changes /nwaste stream characteristics and/or major disruptions /n recycling markets. Note that the forecasting nftonnage ofwaste disposed in the landfill isdone intwo steps (see top two paragraphs on page 3'h).|nthe first step, abaseline forecast is completed which assumes the percentage ofwaste recycled remains constant (57Y6). |nthe second step, the baseline isadjusted toexclude material diverted from disposal asaresult ofadditional recycling. |tisnot clear inthe Comprehensive Plan whether any of the projections that are included were prepared using the second step. It would be helpful if each projection clearly stated which technique was used in its preparation. Given (1)the recycling rate has been difficult tnforecast and (Z)the sensitivity oftonnage forecasts and related life ofthe Cedar Hills Landfill, itisvery important that readers understand the recycling rate assumptions used in each projection. Such information should bemade available tothe Public for education purposes and tofurther the goals ofthe Plan. Since wet cardboard isNOT recyclable yet | see tons of boxes piled ontop ofornext tnrecycle bins when it's raining each week, having large recycle bins with lids incentral locations where people can drop off used boxes would be Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number r-i 0,1 0 to a ,i. rri m cl) elo 4-, a. ii3 2 Chapter 3, Policies FD- cr a as (..) Commenter F._ a) TS 0 Greater Maple Traci Portugal 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 265 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Washington Materials Management and Financing Authority is tasked with implementing the state law with oversight from the Department nfEcology. The law does not require there tobeacollection site on Vashon Island because it is a part ofunincorporated King County, and collection sites are available throughout the county. For more information, see http://wmmfaoet/ The Plan is written tobeflexible, giving the County and cities the structure toprovide collection and outreach programs, but also the ability toadjust to changingd The Plan does not contemplate phasing out grants to cities. The Plan mentions that there may be alternative ways for cities to provide for special recycling collection events. Bothell provides vouchers totheir residents to recycle materials atthe Shoreline Recycling & Transfer Station, instead of holding recycling collection events. King County mails vouchers toWhite Center residents to recycle atthe Bow Lake RTS instead of holding recycling collection events in that community. Thank you for your comment. Changes have been made to reflect that wewill not be able to each our goals without the commitment ofall cities, the county and our solid waste partners toimplement Comment great! 0rcoordinate with local schools toallow use oftheir recycle bins? Create bins where broken down boxes can be inserted but the container always has lid over too sorain doesn't ruin cardboard ifsomeone leaves lid open. Chapter �95.NRCWwhich requires manufacturers ofthe covered electronic products (rVs computers, monitors, and portable DVDplayers) toprovide collection services inevery county, city, ortown with apopulation greater than 1O,O00. There are nosites orcollections services onVashon'where the population isnow 12'000+. Operation Green Fence How does China's decision toban the import of24varieties ofsolid waste and recyc|ab|es (Operation Green Fence) impact the ideas and goals within this Chapter? Chapter 4mentions the potential tophase out the recycling grants to cities program as enhanced oqo|inQ services are added torenovated tranderfad|ities. Although we support the need to improve services at the transfer facilities, we feel it isimportant tn continue with these recycling grant programs with local cities. The elimination of these programs will result in reduced level of service and an increase in illegal dumping of these types of materials. The City ofKirkland bsupportive ofthe P|an's goals and actions designed tnincrease diversion and prevent waste. The successful expansion ofthe landfill and creating capacity through 2O4Oiscontingent upon our ability tocollectively Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 4 Chapter 4 cr. .3.1 a as _c o cr tu a ro _c o Commenter --72 ra E >- m tao ro o )... .... CO ..... Clyde Hill c 0 t,,, 0 o U Kirkland 2o.79 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaeaeszt Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 266 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) the recommended tools and strategies discussed in the plan. Thank you for your comment. Actions Z~s,lZ-s'and l3'sare examples ofactions that the division and the cities can work together ontoimprove the grant program. Thank you for your comment. The county would not change the grant guidelines that currently allow cities tospend those funds onrecycling collection events without first consulting with the cities. Thank you for your support of a new grant program. Thank you for your comment. Improving multi- family recyc|inOisanimportantpartofachievinQour goals. King County, working with the haulers, has developed multi -family recycling best practices. These best practices can be used by any jurisdiction that wants toimprove their multi -family recycling programs. Comment implement and achieve the recycling diversion and waste reduction and recycling goals through the implementation of the improvements to infrastructure, education and outreach, incentives, mandates, and enforcement. However, "ve believe that the region cannot collectively achieve any of these goals without anunwavering commitment onthe part ofall cities toimplement most ifnot all ofthe recommended tools such asmandatory garbage collection and recycling. |f all cities donot implement all the actions, only incremental improvements will occur. |tisimportant that the Plan also explicitly express the gravity ofindecision and inaction. VVerecognize that implementing the variety ofactions inthe Plan can beexpensive and we encourage the County to continue toprovide and even increase grant funding and technical assistance toall city members ofthe system tohelp usachieve our waste prevention and reqo|inXgoa|s. The City of Maple Valley recommends that King County continuetuallow cities to use King County grant funds for recycling collection events and not phase out collection events as an option. The public relies on these events to recycle materials not collected curbside or at transfer stations. Phasing out the recycling events would be perceived bythe public asareduction inCity services, and could lead to increased illegal dumping. We encourage the development of new grant program to support cities and other stakeholder help meet waste reduction and recycle goals identified in the plan. Redmond supports the goal to divert 7O%ofgarbage through recycling. As the region implements the Growth Management Act (GPWA)' we are seeing a significant increase in multifamily construction. This aligns with the 6IVIA vision to accommodate more people and jobs through higher densities in cities and limiting sprawl. In light ofthis planned increase inmultifamily housing, we urge the County to work with cities on actions that / Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Commenter Kirkland >- a.) ro > a) o_ ro 2 Maple Valley -a c 0 E -o aJ cc 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 267 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. This comment isalso addressed inthe responsiveness summary for the Thank you for your comment. SVVDdoes encourage manufacturers through the LINKUP program touse recyclable materials asfeedstocks. SVVDa|so participates on the NVVProduct Stewardship Council tuwork ata regional level to implement programs where manufacturers take responsibility for the products that they produce. Thank you for your comment. Efforts are underway toimprove education and outreach tomulti-family developments. Comment increase multifamily recycling Woodinville also supports the Comp P|an'srecommended actions l*through 35-s' which concern sustainable materials management, and the goal ofincreasing the recycling rate in the region. The EIS states that increased recycling may result inanet increase intruck trips and affect specific transportation routes (EIS at1'1,1'2,l'3).As the rate ofrecycling increases, Woodinville will experience additional impacts related toincreased tonnage and traffic to the Cascade Recycling Center. Nevertheless, Woodinville recognizes that increased recycling is better for the region became itrepresents a more sustainable approach to materials management. With respect tothe various EIS alternatives for achieving increased recycling, Woodinville is open toadopting practical and effective regulations in coordination with county efforts but while minimizing increases inadministrative costs where possible (see EIS at1' Onthe Plan Chapter 4Summary ofRecommended Actions 3-sand Z8's Among parties toeducate, can weconsider manufacturers? VVou|d/cou|dthere be an effort tnwork with manufacturers tureduce wasteful packaging? E.G.A,ahealth food store | bought bags oftea ina~7inch tall plastic barrel. Atthe time | had to drive lO miles to Fainwoodto recycle the plastic. | looked upand emai|edthe company that sold the tea and gave apackaging suggestion. They revised their packaging toapaper-like sealable bag that could be easily thrown away. I've noted the worst garbage management among apartment dwellers. | think they have noincentive, besides lack oftraining (parents should do). Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number C B 0. ( II _c 0 0. n 3 _c U Chapter 4 Commenter c o o 03 s_ ro ro = a) (..) Celia Parker 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaemeszt Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 268 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period OJ E E 0 _C F- 0 C >- ',7-, v) c 0 co 0 CU CU +, E 0(--) a.) vi o a) '6 0.0 _c a, vi 4-, = "73 (13 (1) C s_ _C .4 o o ›- 4- CU vs +.; G jE '?"5 4-,c C a, 0 E E E faL- E •4.?; 8 E _c. c >- o4-, 4-, u ns -;,- t 0 L._ _c > 0 0 4-, s.... 4:o v) .v) ,::)..- Ct. 0 4, E -c o c a) i . g E°> - 0(1) ! o 0_ _c = -16 venues. 2 0 a) 0 cu 0 ZS rt; 0 -C> t 0 0 v) a_ a) C 0 u' rti 0 7 0.0 C CD '47 s_ 0 2 TI.; CU .17 03 s_. 0 0 0 0 0 CI) 0 73 0 s._ CL O. 0 (1) no o a) " 0) 7) •wc 4-4 o u no no c _ca 2 73 C .0 vs bO s_ a) _0 u ra c o o_ 0 C 0 (0 4-V) Q) a) c -0 ro 0 E' ro _C CD CU 0 2 22 C c E ° '4] E -5 E ,(13 E °- 0 0)> 0.) Z 73 -o o CU C >. = a, 0 _c a) cu > o L- c CL .0 -0 C U Q) E 0 co c _c -0 (1) E E a) c 0. E C -C (13 ou E 0 CL _C ro CL 0 (o 0 cl) 0 0.1 0 0 c cu' 4-, (o 0 (1) 0 o5 cc _c 4c _c ra E 9— (0 z 0 _c 0 c 0 E 0b� 4-, ro _c 0 _c vs- 0 CO 91 ttO .470 0 VI 0 4-, ro 0 ro 91 c CU 4-, 91 (0 CU _C 73 c (73 91 co Q. .+0 CI) ttO C) 0 (0 CU c bA (0 0 CO 91 0. E E 91 C91 2 (0 (1) 4-, 91 4-, 2 0_ ro 0 c ro 0 Cll 91 0 0 - VI 2 c o (0 0 a) .o.2- — 4--Ws 0 o o 4-• cr E f30) (I) 4- ro 0 0 03 4-, -4, t 8 c cu •3 vs 4- la° > C (-) 40 cc • 4?: b.0 C) 00 C CO -C3 LLJ M ...-. (0 (I) 2 >. L")' E o_ :1-.2 0.00 o, 3 c _c 4'1- _aro ou> 0.0c atm _to 4- -0 vs Q. 4-, V.) (0 — 0_ (0 444 °- 0. Q) .17 ° " U CI) C c C 4-, 0 _C 0) ciri -o (5) E :c ‘2,c)(1) ›. " wv " :13 >"7, ) a; -0 vi > "0 (0 C -0 )" C 0 • - >- -1;<' 0 a3, 0 E M CU L. L.. Ll 9 73 CU 0 0) 91 00 't:To ru C. 0 (0 0_ (0 0.. 0 Cl. w 0) _C OA 'L7 0) 73 0 OS _C (11 -C +-, (0 --.ra 0) (0 E Q.) E 00 ra ra E - a; .s_ Eu" _C ttO 0 ("0 91 4-, ro E 46 L.) 0 E cu 4- 0) -C 4-, 4- 0 b.0 >- CI) s_ CU 4(5 0 CU 4- -0 2 (0 C be U CU (u E _c -0 _c .- c ° -0 '46 U C -C 0 .0 b.0 OA 4' Q) Q) U (0 T-/- 0 al -C bp>. u>. cLS- u -j (0 c(3) 4=a) 7:5c c 0c (0 cb.A twc Lu zi 007) (0 C CU CU (1) E 4- tr) (0 ee (1) 2 0- 00 (0 -0 ct3 W ra v;• Ci) E91 °- U 4-, • - -C .C,A7 F-v). co • - 0 0 i."5 ‘-• -0 0. (1) (1 0 0_ 0 cl) E 00 0 0 _0 (0 00 -CI c0 _C 91 91 (0 0 00 ro aJ 0. '5 .E CIS E a) a) 00 ca C (0(0 2 2029 Comprehenioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 269 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Comment v, ,--0 c E ...E' 0 c ,-,,, ro eta 0 L. ._ -I-' "0 73, OD " -0 C a., zi LE m CL -C4_, 73 ''') , 'ci-) 4-, >•• .40 U >••• co ° 0 > s... 0 MOCUC'EULna. U E 0 t/) OD ‘.., • - -.• VI V) 0. n3 o >'• a) y_ — >). I.- CL U to o.) o) c.) u • 0) c C On 0 0'c'u) -0 0 2 ..„(73 c° a_ U c CU .,"- 9 — c (..) 0. c L..? a) te.-3 a) cL, >., a) a) ra -'-• o 0) .(.1 03 03 _C CIO C.) " > a' '-'" a) to t?. ,' .c (L) r- •_E 4- C CU 0 u .0 c - CU Cu 0_ s_ ro co > 4... .- = cuocoroo-crou• co -c = 0 _c _c 0-) _c 0 L E F- 0 u 0. 4-, 4-, -0 4-, — -0 -0 c -0 CO (1) C 0, 0_ ro ,,, 0. CU -0 vi .,.., L_ 1°0 E m 4-- C (1) ...0 _ to " . 03 4., s... • Es o ,- _ 4- 44 'a-) c 4t- 0 > ro c o) C , <1.) 0 to 0 5 caTococ§v) it . C.) LE a) 4, •- 03 0 4-. Q) -CI 03 E (-) 0) -0 2 -'-' 0 c 0 — vi CL CU _ .1., 0 ..c ... •-,- E > ;. .s > ab 6 v., ..,-, v, — LC•;'.t.„ _5 c3Eo ;:t; (0 a) 0 E -.Y 4-, c 0 to •- .... ‘,, _, c 4._Ect. .47.-. 5,_ 0 C CO cocn3L-0 a) ,-, 0 o ID o c L_ ,..., CD 0 i... u 00 c.) c 03 u 0 U 0 0) 4., 0 — u E' -,.- To v' a' -c 5: • cu u ›.. c __ 0 Q) 2 c (1.) 'V 0 -0 > ° 4."(Li Oc '-,42 (1) CO > 0D0 rt, ro > 70> 0> c0 cct 2 i cE 0 _0 0E 4 . . . .,7 2 0 E 2 ;_, cc E ,_ •- _c - ,- > a) 0 a) "Il C3- u.;" ,?..;. C C (u CU tIO cu '-' co 4- CU L) CZ c • - C ••-- ..= 2 c), 0)T, n (t c >a' 5 ,.. o co — 0 c _c 0 a) c 0 _c cio 4-- -ts ,.. -5 ,- o • - E o -= "c5 0) u E o ,- ) ) 4-- V4-, U V cu E <-) cu >. :1.1 E > — a C 0 .._ ...._ 0, 0 (0 > -c o (1) Q) (..) 0 -0 F- 0 -0 s-. s- 0) E 0.0 0) ..-w- CL 0 0 4., CIO C T..- ro 0 0 -0 0 C ,_ C • exo ...- ca. to C 03 c CI -I-. r'3 E 0 +-, o 4-, ro 0 = a (a c ro ,.. 4-, 0 > 0 o 0 cu -C3 ( "cu cra ,.. U-I 'aj <3.3 N > 0 co 0 tia c 0) 0 0 IL. .1-, 0- 0- Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Commenter 2 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Pla12 - jle 6/ 2 0 1 8 Att A Page 270 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Recommended Action 14-shas been edited tnreflect your comments (removed the word ^capacity^).Further discussion ofpossible incentives could occur atafuture construction and demolition materials stakeholders' meeting. Thank you for your comment. Policy FD-3 supports monitoring recycling markets. Further discussion with stakeholders isneeded todetermine the scope ofthis work. The implementation ofRecommended Action 26* would develop aprocess and criteria toamend the designated ecydab|eslist. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your commitment torecycling. Weekly recycling pickup isallowed, but most haulers donot collect weekly. |tmay bepossible toget a second container from your hauler toaccommodate your |i Thank you for your comment. Comment government contracts such as safety, compliance, natural gas fleets, demonstrated reliability, and customer service. EPRfees are also regressive with the increased costs and fees associated with EPRborn disproportionately bylow- income househo|dsvvhospendahiDherportionoftheir income on packaging than durable d Regional capacity for recycling ofmaterials isnot developed via education and enforcement ofdisposal bans, but, rather creating and offering incentives will build capacity. VVK8VV encourages King County togenerate incentives topromote investment inconstruction and demolition debris facilities and diversion ofthese materials from the waste stream. As a result, self-regulating industry enforcement would also evolve indeveloping and shaping the market demand for these materials. VV[WVYrecommends adding anadditional action item to monitor recycling markets, atthe very least onanannual basis, especially with market disruption factors inplay such as China's National Sword policy. VVecertainly support establishing aformal process, and related criteria, to remove materials from the designated emr|ab|es list as market conditions may require. Currently, there isan informal process toeliminate items from the list, which generally involves asking processors ifthe facility currently accepts amaterial stream. Aspreviously stated, vvebelieve more formal procedures are needed here. Itwould beWONDERFUL ifthe garbage trucks didn't collect onAvondale during morning rush hour. Allow recycling pick uptobeweekly asweare always full each week. Incentives for using smaller trash cans? Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number vs esi c 0 411 0 < d' (15 Ct. ro _c 0 v) Chapter 4 - Collection Chapter 4 - Collection �Chapter 4 Collection Commenter a) 0 ro 4-. C CU E to c ro 2 (1J 0 ro 4-, C CU E OA c as 2 Kurt Hughes Traci Portugal � Traci Portugal 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 271 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8-March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) VVewill review which page should bereferenced hx explaining approaches toimproving unincorporated single-family collection. The minimum standards table shows the lowest level ofservice that a jurisdiction in the regional system can choose. It does not obligate ajurisdiction tochoose the lowest level. The garbage minimum ismonthly because some cities offer once amonth garbage pick-up in some circumstances and the plan acknowledges that level ofservice. However, most jurisdictions have weekly garbage pick-up.Because weekly pick-up isa higher level ofservice than the monthly minimum, it also isaservice choice allowed bythe plan. The plan does not include achange ingarbage pick-up frequency inthe unincorporated area. Thank you for your comment. Although ithas been discussed many times, the county and the cities have not been able toreach agreement about making garbage, recycling, and/or organics collection mandatory. The City ofShoreline does offer curbside yard/food waste collection services and could institute mandatory programs ifresidents wanted it. Thank you for your comment Compost facilities inKing County have been added toFigure 2-4,amap that also includes materials Comment � In reviewing the draft comp plan out for public review, CM Dunn/soffice noticed that policy Z9's(^Cunsider improvements tosingle-family collection services inthe unincorporated area to increase the recycling rate") iscross- referenced tothediscusaiononpage4-Z8.Page4-Z8 discusses single-family residential minimum collection standards and states onthe following page that "Based on this evaluation, itisrecommended that minimum collection standards beadopted bythe cities and unincorporated areas toprovide the optimal service level for reducing waste and increasing the diversion nfeqo|ab|esand organics from disponai^The chart suggests garbage collection tobea "minimum ofonce amonth.^Given the proviso response indicating that the Division isnot going topursue reduced garbage collection inthe unincorporated areas, can you help usunderstand the choice tolink Z9'stothat particular discussion and not abroader discussion ofways tnincrease recycling in the i td ! Currently, inShoreline there isnocompost program that is required. There issomuch food waste that should be composted. People are totally illiterate about the need for this and how todoit. Making composting mandatory should beapart ofany smart waste disposal program. Please consider making this mandatory. Also educate via advertising ofall kind. People think, ohit's just apaper cup, |amsogood, | will recycle it. They have no idea how much pollution iscreated via the paper industry, the difficulty ofrecycling such cups and the lids, not to mention the stupid straws. Make waste HURT. And much more education!!|Show people where their garbage, their leaking oil etc. goesM Composting facilities are mentioned with nodetails-how many? Where are they located? Please include adiscussion Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number c 0 lo 0 a) o (....) ) cr 0 as _c U Chapter Composting Chapter 4 - Education Chapter 4 - Figure 4-1 Commenter cli v.) cC as I— 0 c c 2,... as in (1) c < Zero Waste Vuyhon 4 2ca9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaement Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 272 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) recovery facilities. In addition, atable has been added toChapter Zthat includes the names, locations, and tonnage collected at each facility. A mention of biochar has been added. More years have been added to Figure 4-2. Figure 4-5 is based onthe most recent waste composition study, and isthe most relevant information for this Plan. Past waste composition studies are available nnSVVD'svvebdteand can found at: hups://www.kin«countv.:ov/depts/dnrwto|id vvaste/about/waste-monitorinn/waste- documents.aspx Thank you for your comment The County does not issue exemptions. The Health Department establishes minimum frequencies of garbage and organics collection. |ndeveloping this draft Plan, the advisory committees identified the minimum standards for organics collection to beat least every other week, asallowed bythe Health Department. This does not prevent cities from having more frequent, weekly collection. The County may consider changes tocollection frequencies in the unincorporated areas inthe future. Comment of biochar,aproduct of pyrolysis ofdried organic material, a great soil amendment that additionally sequesters carbon for more than millennial timesoa|es. Alonger timeline (perhaps including l99lZO0O) would be useful to better appreciate the trends. Need toinclude data for several other years, such amZ000 2010. The VashonIsland Laboratory offers anideal opportunity tu perform field trials orpilot programs. Cedar Grove suggests the County strongly consider nn longer providing exemptions tothe requirement nfweekly curbside collection oforganics. These exemptions, allowing bi-weeklyresidential collection, donot support County stated goals for managing garbage and recycling for the next 20yeao. Afirm commitment toweekly collection of organics will increase diversion from the landfill and help the County reach its 70percent goal. This isasimple but effective way tnincrease participation inrecycling County- wide. County studies show that one ofthe primary barriers tn public participation in organics programs isthe fear, real or perceived, ofrecycling food scraps. And the allowance ofbi- weekly cu||ection of organics serves as a deterrent to Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter Figure 4-2 Recycled tons & rate p. 4-6 2015 Recycling Chapter 4 - Likewise, the County will ted area in which to in u . — c as St29 0 Cr 1- 4-, 0. as - 0 C 0 (..) a) — 0 u Commenter Zero Waste Vashnn CD 4-, vi ro 0 NI -C ul M > Zero Waste Vashon (1.) > 2 0 73 (0CV 0) U 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 273 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Support for organics processing and products/markets will continue tobe afocus inour efforts toachieve higher recycling levels. This is reflected in Policies S-S'S-7, 5-8and Recommended Actions I4-s,I8-s,33-s. Comment 4-, More commitment toorganics processing and prod ucts/marketinA!0nasocietal level and with King County Solid Waste asthe driver vveshould make asocietal commitment togoorganic whenever possible. Packaging' ink dies, plastics, paper products are examples ofwhat should bediverted from waste to resource. King County organics processing isnow operating atmaximum capacity. Upto30Y6ofour waste stream isstill organic based. 4-+-'cl) o 4- _. .._ •— fl3 • . as s- >•• C ' S3 -0 C (0 0 -0 ,a) 4-, = E _E L.. E -6 , CU 4- v) O3 73 ai ci) _c ..„ , . a3 > ,.- 0 40 , -0 -° " c (...) (i) c —(1) cc ., ..,..., L. 03 > (f) v) .-- •..., 0 •• -0 a3 ra" -92 - CI• -6 vi .., CU 4_, c.,,, 73c CUC E a)>0W . - m vs 4 - crz t > 73 :".-Y a- .(T) C 0 > E c 0 0 ma) E c .-C- ....-- — 0 _C 0 ..0 ...0 ,_, v) 0 —0 — C ° ,_ 7:3 (0 • - vs 4-, 0 " 4-'n V) ti° a"0 • - as • - C EU_ (U (.„› 0 C :i..-, o 4-, g L., .— tip . N ia- .. CU 40 0 _c 7 as 0 s— 0 0 0. L. — (6 0.- v, a, l § 0 0 )- > 0 C +a U (4) a) E c a) 1:3 Li- 0 :.-0) >. cl, - 1....i3- > -0 t^ )••• - 0 - E '- C as 40 c C a) E 00 0 0 T.) .._ --- .i.c,-, u iT) cil CU ...§ .t....' )- — CU .5 _c -C M I-- E c 0 u 4) (0 >. 0) u 0, 0 >" :Z) vs 0 " >• ,, 0 -0 E vs L. , - cu CU > . u .— 5- -o 0 s4-- vs o (4 -0 ...7., 4_, • " a -• > cr) .- _•-g .47, _ .-.‘ as -1--, 4- 0 ,....vi — o 25 U o- a) t, ;.-.. „.1 C 0) cu E.. — 0 0 > ft3 " -0 CU a) . LT) 0- CU a) #a VI = c:T. fa. 0 •47; tf.), 4.4 40 40 o 21' vs o " _C a) ai o 0a,C2,.,U,),74a) co L.. • - )... L- (.) to -c0m'>u " _•.44CC—oc--.:, . as -Cs 0. C r<"72—..17,-LaE-),, _o—(cc1) •4C.,„,°Uc.;. . .-,10, . • — C 4-, CU • 0 - C .° E U .. - )- '42 )) 74 >,0_000 c c -0 cu 0.0 cLI . 0 0 C CI -c > "--"5 C 4-, al to ,...• 0) U 44 c 0 0 4- '"' V' >" 0 „RL 0 C • - 4-4 ' - .. .,-, . ° s... 0 as 0 0. 9_ ra 0 4-, 40 C k... (...) a) ci3 • - _C 4.u_ 0 0 0 0. a) )... c •4-- L.. 4- , 0 CU „ ,'••• > .is m E ... o c?,...-2 2 • - C c U v) .F., • - • - 0 0- -.• .... L.) 4- 4-, 1T1 (1)) _LI) 4- 4-, Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 4-4 Commenter a) 4, v) ra F) o -c ,_ VI a) (a NI > 2a7,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Mrnaement Plan - July 2018 Att A Page 274 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Information onthe projects that have been awarded competitive grants under this program have been added tothis section. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Anew section that addresses issues related toChina's National Sword has been added tothe Markets for Recyclable Materials section. The list ofmaterials inthe minimum collection standards isbased onthe materials currently collected inall curbside programs. Opportunities exist toexpand materials collected byall curbside Comment King County Solid Waste should concentrate onprocessing this out ofthe waste stream. VVeshould beable todivert 8 ofthis from waste toresource thereby increasing our recycle rate l0%across the board! Bydoing this vveincrease the life span ofCedar Hills landfill, through environmental economics drive markets towards more organics use, and get us8ofthe way toour goal nf70Y6recycle rate! Therefore: we need the ability to better sort atthe individual, hauler, and community level, and vveneed more compost facilities ideally spread throughout the county. This encourages community participation and makes the products e accessible. Commercial grant project results are merely linked, please mention Impact Bioene«wand other projects, ideally sharing knowledge and contrasting projects: "Organics inthe landfill produce methane, most ofwhich is captured and converted to natural gas." |ndiscussing product stewardship here and the financing of anEPRsystem, consumers pay more asmanufacturers either incorporate the cost ofEPRintheir pricing (interna|) orare allowed tocharge environmental handling fees (emerna|)torecover the additional costs ofparticipating in EPR'sty|e programs. Polycoated paper and aseptic packaging (because they once held food) were specifically mentioned inChina's National Sword asabanned material inmixed paper being imported into China. The future for mixed paper may not include biologicals since this conflicts with the market desire for non-food paper only. VYPWVValso suggests arecognition in the table that grades land Zplastics dohave long-term stable, viable end markets. However, grades 3through 7 plastics have challenges inrecycling asmarket disruptions continue. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 18) Chapter F,9O(4- 40)ne:Regan]ing Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Chapter Page4-]2, End -of -Life Management Ci rY? 1:3 CI- L. c7) Tin z z cs n. .z -E , Ln Le) ,ti) "i• CO -C:) E ,---- -c a t:3 0 u La.. (—) Commenter Impact BioenergY (Srirup Kumar) Impact BioenergY (ShrupKumar) Waste Management +-, c a) E a) tr) C CO CO 2 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 275 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) programs toreach more consistency among vs -0 CID _C >.- a) c -0 v) .0 1- 4-, CU ,7_ ... Cl.) 0 0 N a) 44-. c0 2 c,, 1--..)' 0 71 CU -C _4- , - -,E, •?..' v).< 0) 13.0.a.) •- . c 0 0) = 75 tn ttO tp_ 0 r. o ., 4-, • - ,,, V) C cu (V,:3 La 3 ...,. tto tn , .13, n3 CU E --4. ._, 0),,-, -0 v) cu as a. 0 cu co„,,,coucE E 2 0 o—:-> -403 0u >- 4‘vv-)', E c-a., ..,_ 7,._ u cll -C " ca E •=7. E m 4-•• 4-, a) 4-' :5„ v, 0 0 .0 t I 3 0- 73 >-' "C "0 <3" c (000L- cu t''') E o n) s_ 5 0 0 na:-'a v, , a.) +, ,,, -.. -0 ,.... u 0) .4., c CID 0) C M (3) L.- 4-' C a) 0 -c m Tj -c a) 'no' a) (1) -' _c cp ,,-- 1-- o 6a ._C_ 4-' .2..- 70 sb .4--; Comment 0) _0 0 ...e 0 ° o •-• .S 7- >. (3) C ('D . > ,, L (1) to 4- 03 v) C 70 a).a'b° 4Cv-,, 4so-_-'_- cb((1.3,p -• CF.U-., =0(>-).0p = 03 u C cL) -._-'0c- ‘>C0-2,„-, -'4Lsu0."20>.-,2-s,),•• _•.4C0CEvmv-U,.i, _--..0E00>5 . -*22-s-0C2-- ._cr3 - , > (3 c 4-, cocu-u c-cE30) = cu 0op - .tv-...) OtMca.) ,E,..r.•.••,, .4.C") (o fa g a.) , c 4- 0 c 4-, -u- .- - 0 -C C - -I-' a .sw >• 4-, as 4.1) co aL.) '-) c too 0 0 c 4-, v) 1,5 (U -0 -so ,-- c t...) c •- (13 >- 03 03 _C " a -.. = -0 4-• .-0.T ,7_E v Q1 2 2 c 0 `.) 03 g C- o -0= c E‘-, 4av), 4E- (41c-) '-'+Un0cma,"t. _.f0C0t0C-2.-)., 4CCtM0,ac5aU)n3 ._±-4.c(00c(c-I0')), _T44c(caEc-r-,y-),,) -.1a5c0"rc--i.3s,' _•ucEmt'c-A3u,.)0 )c2am--E' f003 E a.5 o : (3>) - 40(-13 (c0 C0 , ,c... 0 M 4-. E 4-. -C 2 .— v) cs_ E o= o o) F., cu a) _c ro .- •47, +-, 4...1 '.-, i- to oc) •-- t' c., ;) , '4----, S al .- C 0 4-, 1... 4-' c 2 0 s_ 03 4-, 0 CUE ..._ -0 • CD ;) >- a) 15) 23 C (1) _C c3) CU s_ C 0 23 t) (...) _ 0 -0 bA c -- CU 0) >4.. 1- c0 ,T) 0E = 4_, (3 (3.) A- -0 (11 0 m0o b00Uc4- •o UCLC:U3.' 00,0 ,uC u i tCc0'..).('. ) -42uCg(0.1O4, 4•4E vv‘,v=0;.),,') ••1 -n 70-0 0 C >. -(1) 0 "cu 0>. VI) •e--3s :•>(c01)s -..'.7o0.-.,_ (C ,a) a to ti 4- co •c-.. -0 c cv u• c o cl) 76 a) '-') 0 9 -1.-' (- 0 E u 0 L' • -v•-' E '47-,- na) -C t- oca.as c a) oijera‘nc o) v) a) .4.-..... o o (1) n3 VI 4-, Rs "0 bp 0 bA 0 4-.• -,....„ 4.-+ 0Cua Uo .<v) .0 ) -40....•40 .2 " O.; •---- ?... 0. >CD Evs l"Ca 0. oco E >•u 00300c„'- -0 c --_+01 --4GC00--i,, .-4.v00aaLu-).)s, 04c> .. 40' 0)0 UJ.0') a.-s tA,,,(ac-.:A,,,..c_..4 Io .0 44° T.0 4-.EjcL10av:- 0 •'•••°M0 i>a..).. 7-0 -Ei30 2-- to Q) cu ', 4-, >, tio ,• -so 0 CU c 0 4.-* C .7, > ro -- a a, 0 = u c E .r, > Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number -cs L•ri' 2 4 2 CU 0 0 co C (13 0- CU 0 > ( j L. CO- c °- +64 >-• b.() _C (U (O 0 > AG I-- Commenter 4-, C a) E a) „ ao v, c ("0 CO 2 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -411(6/ 2018 Att A Page 276 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. You can request an additional recycling cart orset out additional materialsU d by your local hauling company. v) OJ a) o. - CIA C tn c F.- ,, a, — c ' 5 • c .. 0 ro 0 a: •S .-E -0 N **E 174 ' 0 = ) g 2 r,• 4-, t.) _C .4-, ('.) < ,.,- a) • - CU0 " 4-' -^ C a) 0 (1) o 0 tis a) o ET a =u) LA -c 17.1 .4--; , to ro -- 4-, -0 0 .0 < p ,T, -25 3 E (1) E +..; .— 0.3 ,a) C 7-)...._ CU G' (0 >. — 71) ''''" (-0 E OJ 0 .--:-. > gE .r.E' -,0 jEa Luv) 1 1 _ .6_, a) ._ , ,.. -c ca 4-, 4.... cl) 4., -o • E >. -C 2 Li) (1.) v., C U 4-, C ra .(Ts ?..- orow°-()Eo L- LI-. -C (1) >- „,'•f,•,)• a cy 44:0"- mv' 7" . 5 4ao 12 s ' - -0 L. u a) •.,,— c bo a) 4--',,, L ci) ., _ c = a) ,... c (.‘c _E- u -c o) iti a) a) ' i • - E 46 .2.-- : C 5 6.1). Cr Z) 40 :,-; Comment significance isgiven towaste reduction activities orany broader Life Cycle thinking. However, SPWMcompares the environmental outcomes nfwaste management, focuses on the full life cycle, not only end'of-|ifemanagement, and ultimately supports more and better recycling and waste People start tochange behavior when itcosts money. his time that vveask fees for all the garbage that isproduced via throw away containers, charge for coffee cups togo, charge more for people whodon't recycle properlyt I'd love for recycling tobeweekly, rather than biweeNy.VVe wind upwith anoverfuUcan and have left over that wehave tohold for the next 2weeks. King County has agoal tnrecycle 7Opercent ofour waste stream, anincrease from 52%today. What sorts ofideas do you have tohelp usreach this ambitious goal? The goal to recycle 7Opercent ofthe waste stream isbuilt using flawed data~. Consider agoal that asks cities toreduce the amount of waste going tothe landfill (isn'tthat the desired outcome?) For example, ifthe average pounds per household is36 pounds inKent or2]pounds inBellevue, cities could be asked tocampaign their citizens toreduce one pound per household per week. *King County uses tonnage data (total amount atthe curb minus the weight ofrecycling and organio).This premise is flawed because 1.Recycling isbecoming lighter and lighter (it used tntake 40'0OOempty water bottles tomake aton; today ittakes 90,N0). 2.There are third -party necyc|erswho donot report their data tothe county orstate 3.There are third -party landscapers (for homes and commercial properties) who donot report their tonnage data tothe county orstate. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 4 - Product Stewardship Chapter 4 - Recycling tto c 3 Li .1- " (i) 0 rzi _c 0 Commenter Ann Siems Debbie Shapiro 25 = 0_ CU W .- ?.. 0..) V) 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan - 2018 Att A Page 277 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Comment In essence, the70 percent goal asks for anumber that cannot be counted and is, therefore, flawed. The ONLY number that can becounted onreliably is the tonnage going tothe landfill. THAT bthe number that should inform the The City ofAuburn would like to thank the SW0for its continued guidance and support toassist cities aswework toreach our waste reduction and recycling goals. The efforts toenhance recycling opportunities and increase product stewardship are invaluable. VVelook forward tocontinuing working together tokeep solid waste rates aslow as possible AaCity Manager ofthe City ofCarnation, | want tosay thank you for working toupdate the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Effective management ofSolid Waste is critical and itisimportant tobeforward thinking and progressive when making decisions onthe future ofthis function. | believe King County is taking the right steps in developing agreat plan by accepting public comment. AsKing County moves forward with these services, itis essential for the future ofKing County tocontinue its commitment torecycling. Toreach our goal torecycle 7O percent ofour waste stream, vvemust continue toeducate the public onthe benefits and best methods for recycling. When indoubt, residents will most likely deposit the item into the waste stream. This education effort must becombined with acommitment from local government to make certain recydab|esare recycled. The recycling market isever changing and nothing discourages residents from recycling more than knowing the final destination for these items is a landfill. Recycle asmuch asbeconomically feasible and bewilling to accept this may well fall short of some arbitrary 70% goal. The City ofIssaquah issupportive ofthe Pbn'sgoals to increase diversion and prevent waste. As aCity, "ve have Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 4 - Recycling an c o >• 0 a.) rs '65 ic. (15 0 Chapter 4 - Recycling Chapter 4 - Recycling Commenter C 0 -0 Z < C 0 CD C ‘... (13 0 Jim Loring Issaquah 201.9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaemeat Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 278 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Styrofoam iscollected atboth the Bow Lake and Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Stations. 5VVDdoes not have the authority todirect what materials are collected atthe South Wastewater Treatment Plant. Styrofoam is a difficult material tocollect —itisvery bulky, but very light in weight. Thank you for your comment. The division evaluates materials tocollect atrecycling and transfer stations based onthe availability ofspace, cost and Thank you for your comment. The division evaluates materials tocollect atrecycling and transfer stations based onthe availability ofspace, cost and Thank you for your comments. Comment had astrong focus onwaste prevention and diversion for many years, and believe there bstill progress tobemade inthis area that can reduce pressure on capacity at the King County Landfill. Asafounding member ofthe King County Cities Climate Collaboration, the City has already committed toreaching agoal of7Oy6recycling, and urges the County tomaintain that goal vvithinthe Plan and play a strong leadership no|c in organizing all ofthe cities to pushtowards that goal. Styrofoam should not end upinlandfill. VVegenerate alot of Styrofoam atour work site atSouth VVVVTreatment P|ant and itall ends upinour local landfill. | would like tosee this waste stream recycled but unable togenerate any interest with mycoworkers. The directive needs tocome from Solid Waste, with guidance and information. Aseparate collection bin for plastic bag waste should be provided onVaohon Aseparate collection for Styrofoam should beprovided on Vashon | amagainst King County instituting mandatory recycling requirements (like the way Seattle made itmandatory that people not throw any food inthe garbage nrbefined. 5n they have toput all food inthe yard waste even ifthat encourages pests &rndents). | think the only way for more tnberecycled isfor more things tobepackaged inrecyclable packaging. 4afar as| know, #5plastic (PP)isnot recyclable, and yet alot offoods are packaged in PP. And asfar as | know, the net bags that Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 4 - Recycling Chapter 4 - Recycling Chapter 4 - Recycling 40 c '..0 >. (..) a) ct cr 'a-) a (13 _c L.) Commenter c a) = co 0 cu ci") i— Kevin Jones Kevin Jones 0.0 c a) .c a) Ti > 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -I-4y 2028 Att A Page 279 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The division isworking with atask force tolook atdeveloping local processing and markets, and how toreduce contamination. Results may include anew outreach campaign toeducate residents with anemphasis on reducing t i ti Thank you for your comments. The Houghton Transfer Station has limited space and not enough room tocollect metals. The person that was collecting metals onthe street was creating asafety hazard. Thank you for your comment. The vending machines are used inconjunction with abottle bill that has been inplace inOregon since 1971.Washington State does not have a bottle bill. Thank you for your comment. Your comment has been shared with the City ofKirkland recycling staff for follow up with you. Comment apples and oranges are inare not recyclable, oz|keep having tnthrow those away. Thank you for seeking feedback. | think weshould consider aplastics recycling facility in American soi|—prefob|yinanarea that needs jobs. VVe can't rely onChina todoitfor us. VVeshould also emphasize incommunications tnthe community the importance of rinsing containers before recycling them. Some people think it isn't necessary. Why doesn't Houston transfer station have metal recycle? Why did the Goverment run the person off across the street that recycled metal? Now guess where all that metal goes? |nthe dump. Maybe harvest the landfill before closing it. In store recycling vending machines like Oregon Kwelive inKirkland inacondominium. Either the City of Kirkland and/or our homeowners are unable and/or unwilling tofacilitate recycling in a meaningful wayAll mixtures ofpaper/ cardboanyglass/ cans/ plastic/ clothing and food waste are routinely dumped into what are supposed tobecontainers dedicated tospecific ecyc|ab|es orlandfill. VVehave nomeans whatsoever to sto/e/transport/processcompostab|ewastes. VVeneed meaningful and very assertive incentive/ accountability atthe municipal and homeowner levels that are enabled with the appropriate resources. | doubt our homeowner board will attempt to hold owners responsible for proper recycling behavior unless there are substantial financial consequences. |amsure vveare not alone. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 4 - Recycling Chapter 4 - Recycling Chapter 4 - Recycling taa •c 73 >, 0 a) •:t c 4., 0 CI cU co - 0 U U Commenter Peggy Price Nick Vichas Ellen Wood c 0 .) a. .1f2 E 4-, ,... 0 = -C U I-- -22 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste aaage t Plan -July 1018 Att A Page 280 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Additional years have been added toFigure 4-2to give more historical context. The Forecasting section has been edited todescribe the forecasting inputs and process to the forecast more clearly. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. SVVDislooking into the possibility oforganics collection and composting onVashonIsland. Thank you for your comment. This policy allows consideration ofthe presence oftoxic chemicals in products ascircular supply loops are developed. Comment Anoverall long-term target of7O%is established for the county. |nZ014,the overall rate for the county was 5ZY6. It is suggested that the following information beincluded in the Plan. l. Provide additional historical recycling rates covering as many years aspossible. 2. Provide forecasted recycling rates used toadjust the baseline forecast (see comments on Chapter above). Vashon island would be an ideal location for a ReUse facility. Can domore with the facilities and haulers wealready have byadding services, simplifying services, and increasing education. Transfer stations need tooffer more services atall transfer stations (for continuity throughout the county) such as Styrofoam, paint reuse, and electronics recycle. Transfer stations need tobemore user friendly souse isencouraged. Haulers — special but regular pickups should be scheduled for problem waste stream items. Hazardousvvage—momdangerousandpotentiaUy toxic products should beaccepted. Hours should beexpanded and better advertised. Great tnsee mention nfexploring including Vashoninthe service level standards. Organics collection should be county -wide with distributed compost& ReUsefaci|ities. On Policy S5Nork with regional partners tofind the highest value end uses for recycled and composted materials, support market development, and develop circular supply loops tnserve production needs we would like tosee aninclusion nfthe consideration oftoxic chemicals. Unfortunately, there are anumber oftoxic chemicals inproducts which should not bereturned into new products. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter Recycling Raues—Soa|sand Targets. Pages 4-3 to 4-7 Chapter 4 - Reusing tn CU c.) .,— ir- a) v) .:t. ct sa. co u Chapter Single Family Res. Minimum Collection Standards p. 4-28-9 Chapter Sustainable Materials Management Commenter = ± Cll 10 >. U Zero Waste Voshon CV 4-, tol CO 0 -C a) CO NI > Zero Waste Vashon < Cll 0 ro 0 43 NJ 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 281 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Your suggestions have been added tothe Plan Thank you for your comment. The City ofSkykomishprovides curbside garbage pickup within its city limits and nocurbside collection isprovided for the Snoqua|miePass area. The population density isnot great enough tomake curbside collection oforganics oracompost facility economical. 5VVDislooking into the possibility uf curbside organics collection and composting on Vashon|dand The information on Table 4-4 has been updated. The amount of yard waste collected and composted bincluded inthe targets. Thank you for your comment and commitment to waste reduction. Comment � 0naction 1-s-Lead byexample byimproving waste prevention and recycling /vpublic-sector operations, facilities, and otsponsored events, oswell osthrough the purchase ofsustainable products — the plan should include specific examples such aseliminating the use ofsingle use plastic water bottles at all city or county -sponsored events. 0nAction 7-S Provide technical assistance and promote proper deconstruction, building reuse, and reuse ofbuilding materials —aswell asthe other actions related toC&D'*m would like tosee stronger actions, including requiring deconstructiunofold homes, similar toPortland, Oregon's Vashon|dand, Skykomish&Snoua|miePass should each have curbside organic collection with alocal compost facility ,osave transport costs & energy and divert valuable materials from the landfill. The data for VashonIsland have changed. Wemulonger have a4bin system, but have a96gallon cart and the 7% recycling rate seems too low. Increased organics processing and compost facilities should be added to this! Thanks for what you do! Having traveled toplaces inthe world without adequate waste management |amvery grateful for the |cvd of cleanliness and safety that we have. OUR part as citizens is to reduce the amount of waste we produce ,oyour job does not become impossible a,our population increases and China reduces the amount ofour waste they are willing totake off our hands! Public Review Draft Chapter& Page Number Chapter Sustainable Materials Management � Chapter Sustainable Materials Management Chapter Sustainable Materials Management /z4'J Chapter Table4-4. Chapter Waste prevention goals and targets p 4-5 � Chapter 4-Waste Reduction Commenter Zero Waste WA Zero Waste WA al 4., sn Zero Waste Vuyhon Zero Waste Vashon c c CD E s— 0 vs = 0.1 CU D 0 0 N > 0 V) -24 207.9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Oe t Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 282 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The videos that are posted on-line are abrief summary ofwhat is discussed inthe draft Plan. Several policies and actions inthe Plan address your concerns <e.g. Policies S'lthrough S-6 and Actions 4*' 8*' and 18' 4J c <1J E E 0 Li " 7 0 >- 4C2 7 0 >- Y C co _c I— Comment |amunable toattend public hearings, however, |have watched the four videos and found noplans for the reduction ofnon recyclable garbage. For example: ° Replacement ofplastic bags for containing animal waste, household garbage and for multiple commercial uses. ° Research alternatives for all othernon'eqo|ab|e waste products. ~ Disposal ofproducts when recycling life has ended. ~ Increasing uses and markets for recydab|es Myname isTyson Fritzh.|live inSnohomish County but work inWoodinville, inKing County. | was reading the Woodinville Weekly the other day and there was anarticle titled "Council gets the lowdown unvvaste"|nityou had explained that ^70%ofwhat goes tothe landfill doesn't belong there" and that "sorting doesn't always worK' Then you say initiatives will be more achievable by encouraging manufacturers to use more sustainable materials. The article goes ontnsay that the three major options that are being contemplated are building new facility, developing the existing facility atCedar Hills, orexporting the waste byrail toannut'of-countylandfill. What I'm writing you tosay is that while | think using sustainable materials isastep inthe right direction, |think there should beabigger push toconsume less altogether. VVcasasociety have become complacent when itcomes to how much weconsume. It has become too easy to buy something that will become useless within afew months, then throw itaway. There isn't any accountability when we are able tothrow something away and maintain an "out of sight, out ofmind" mentality. |nthe article | think you had mentioned that more education onwhat can berecycled or composted isinorder, which | agree with. But itdoesn't consider the fact that vveare conditioned tobeing able to Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number CI o as cr c .0 0 CO -C3 _C CU U CC a, v 1 as cr +.4 (0 _C U „c u -0 QJ CC Commenter OJ _C L.) 7 CD 0 z iti D _, 0 -C l) ._ s- u_ C 0 0 >, H 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 283 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The What do|dowith ... ? application was recently rebuilt tomodern standards including location awareness, so that search results appear by distance Comment v, >. c .,, o cu 0 0 a, a) ) 0 .' ; > a) ° 0ci c E -5 0) L.,.. 0 (o 4j L. • - > _0 L.. 4.4 a) ...... E 4-4 4,0 P. (7) 0 au (13 it? m raommom c'r) 0- •,-,c 4-. c., —,„ '3 a ,), -0 ,,- "" 0 a) E a" c as C >• 4- , IFS ra CU E x cu ,, o C CO m E• _:t... L4.- OD c r).• a ii) , _c > u a) -cs ,-• 0 m .4::' • C .4-' — M co -C a3 >••-C U -C3 claM E E V) to c 'a o as a) > > +Z E u 0 0 w1C>D.. -4LaaC>44)).' 14°.0v:--.3,') • VuaCiC)) <EC3U .X.°I>aF_I)-coa) __.)c„Cco_'cLa-).' `4.oaUa),..V-rvca ‘,0Cu,7.U..),- *•-Cc-Ou c-j1--0 - .4.... — , 0 ro cu 4•••• 4_, a.) --e- ii .co _c _TS -•,C--. 0C ,t0io..0..•.46-, Lv-i-,, —s2_).0, CI) Vi " my) ti C 0., • - LE c • c - b.° 1-0 D 0 1.. 4.9 3 00 (ctl _c .2 to o = o 0 C >. .4j C _c 4.) o ,_ a) -, o 0 .c v, cl) a) a) ro rua) ca - c co -C - -4-.. 0 c.) V) — C to .10 0 CD • - >•• ' - m as .,.., - ry, c 5- 'rI5c +..'' :••• & -C >s >' .-E aa a) v)(1j c -c u co 0 , a) 0 7a) c c • co o a) c >,a3n_c .rooTit.) ,aEo 4-4 ca > (3) 0.) 40 ,.., CO v) ED. (I) " -c a) -..,' • a) -o ro CU 0° -0j 5 '+6 „,0 a; to -0 ,4_•3) 4.4 5 4_, 0 4.4 C ai cc 0 . >, 0 L. 4- >. 4.- V) ro co _ 0'n_ (a o LE as v., _E C CU 0 -o E; t 4, u 3 cu .- a) .0 > M 0 L .1 E Cta ° >a j . I; . "- -CM a )E C! 41) .4 .9 • S - " " "E r °C • TiC a) V) 0 Z ..C5 Z -0 V — 0 .0 ‘') 0 .0 s-- E ra 4-.) ra )..) aa 0 , -c --- 4-- >•. rt cu u c›r) a) (u v) a) +-)oorat-Jc8 4-+,13 _c c _(1) 0 0 c a) u 4-) v) >-• 2 ..-,---, 0., E M — 4-' • '= c as a) 0 .,.., a) •a‘r,c-'.°)4.') 40c0mau-), " E 4, .+ 0 o L".6 60 470 D. _ Ca -.vCc5O.) '..a-). _..4-0-) . 4c°00-4 _ >L_. -.4v-.4, Mc 00C>U . .c_cEctc_s 7oay>3) . vL0" -)• 4c"0-o4 . ‘050a-i'- 4'--4,c . v •- 0 - 0 -, U__.-00 0 0 r3 6 -9:1 0 U C c '- -C 4...) E ••••)4 — c tu) cu >. ) > +0 0 ,tic 0 >o_• c L2 )0.. -0 a) 7-= 5 .4C C " C C -.° >" -C >•• C ..C) C C RS a) _c 5 a) tt.: _c 2 1-- s,.... .c --,., E rji E <9" .5 L.' c..) 2.) — 0. |naddition tothe mothershipversion, each local rural community (such asVashonisland) should have their own custom evergreen webpage. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter What do Commenter Zero Waste Vayhon 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maactemeszt Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 284 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) from the customer. Atthis time, SVVDhas noplans to reorganize What do | dovvith—?to provide static vvebpaOesfor rural communities inaddition tothe dynamic, resizing, location -aware application. The County has established its own criteria and tracks it. VVetrack the known amount ofmaterials that are diverted from the Cedar Hills Landfill, asis explained onpage 4-7. Thank you for your suggested edits. Changes have been made tothe discussion on anaerobic digestion inChapter 5. Thank you for your comment. The requested edits have been made. Comment Aawelack state & national standards, why don't we establish our own criteria and track them? In this section werecommend you add the following text: King County has anopportunity tooffer innovation partnerships with the private sector byoffering planning assistance, coordination with transfer stations, public education, and grant support for innovative demonstration projects that focus onthe ouuntyspriorities. For example, community -scale anaerobic digestion represents anopportunity tumanage organic waste onsite, o/incommunity neighborhoods byconverting that waste into both renewable energy and liquid soil amendment with zero waste with ahigh level nfvector and odor control. The amendment has nutrients, water, organic matter and probiuticsfor supporting healthy chemical free soil and food production. Rarely does anopportunity come along that can touch onenergy, water, air, soil, food, jobs, and education simultaneously. This one does. VVesupport this goal and the highest priority: a.Waste prevention d reuse. VVeare requesting you edit Pages 4-2Ztninclude Waste Management as the second solid waste hauler in the City of Bothell. The "f notation is correct noting we switched haulers with a contract in 2015. Due to recent annexations, Waste Management is still providing collection services in portions of 8c*heU necessitating the need to add them to the list. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter What is your recycling rate?P. 4-7 (ll SD as .,,S 4.., V) = C (1.) G) E Cll — t3.0 a a) M 4-, C M as as u 2 2 Chapter 4, Goal Commenter Zero Waste Vashnn c CCS >- te (1) E ° _ CO .Tt Greater Maple Valley UAC = a) 0 co 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Jrzly 2018 Att A Page 285 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment Thank you for your comment. Ade-cerura|ized system for some materials may be a solution to be explored for some areas. Thank you for your comment and your generous offer tohost anew recycling and transfer facility. Any siting process will include avariety of stakeholders, including cities. Comment � VVesupport the use ofeducational methods toproduce more informed consumers and producers ofsolid waste. The trends ofmore and better use ofTransfer 3tatonsae encouraging asless tonnage isgoing tothe Cedar Hills Landfill. Each ofthese facilities must bedesigned, constructed, and operated toensure safe and convenient means for encouraging maximum recycling for private users. "The ZOl5King County Strategic Climate Action Plan (King County ZO15)provides ^one-stop-shopping"for county decision'maken'employees, and the general public tolearn about the count/smost critical climate change actions'" however marginal abatement cost curve net - negative carbon emission credit resulting from decentralized AD activities, at net -negative cost (e.g. p,ofit).That is, local economies can benefit tremendously while atthe same time drastically lowering the carbon footprint ofthe organic waste infrastructure. 2'050square miles covered in King County by8transfer stations isonavg. ~25§square miles per transfer station. Current infrastructure present tremendous opportunity toavoid ton'mi|es,subtract methane emissions and clean transportation energy for The Kirkland City Council has been consistent and resolute inits support for the siting and construction ofa Northeast Recycling andTransferStation (NERTS)to replace the Houghton Transfer Station. The Houghton Transfer Station has served our community well by keeping our disposal rates low and byoffering a convenient, local disposal option and basic recycling services to our residents and businesses. However, it has been established, without question, that the station is outdated and fails tomeet most ofthe |eve|'of-semice criteria in the 2006Transfer System Plan. It is incompatible with surrounding land use and lacks modern Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 4, Po|icyS-2 and Actions Z~s,3~s, �andZ8* Chapter 5 0. m _c U i_n 0- as _c U Commenter CU 0. r° o 2 < ro cu (.9 > Greater Maple co - >.- CO II' rt5 E = ......... •Q 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste gement Plow July 2028 Att A Page 286 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Figure 2-4`inChapter 2'isamap that shows the location ofthese facilities. VVehave also added compost and construction and demolition facilities locations tnthis map. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tobuild anew NERecycling and Comment operational efficiencies and recycling amenities found at newer transfer facilities such asShoreline, Bow Lake, and Factohathat serve tosupport our regon's sustainabi|ity and equity goals. While constructing anew NERTSisthe most capital intensive ofthe three transfer options in the Plan, itisclearly the most equitable, efficient, and environmentally responsible alternative that would provide alevel ofservice tothe residents and businesses in the northeast County equal to the levels ofservice provided inother parts ofthe County. Ay such, vvestrongly support the option tosite and build anew NERT5and would welcome the opportunity tn participatein asiting process with our fellow municipal and County stakeholders. Kirkland would welcome the opportunity tobe considered asthe host city for aproperly mitigated new NEKT3 and participate inanopen and transparent public engagement siting process that includes collaboration with the County and stakeholders onthe development ofaset nf siting criteria that recognize the specific and unique needs nf cities and their constituents living and working inthe northeast County. VVewould like tosuggest the Plan recognize, and demonstrate with amap, the cities that host private solid waste and recycling facilities, such asthe Waste Management Cascade Recycling Center inWoodinville orthe Republic Services transfer station inRenton. Private transfer and processing facilities, while not identified asessential, are critical tnthe overall operation ofthe solid waste transfer system, but also have traffic, litter, noise, and odor impacts similar toKing Count/spublic facilities — negative aspects and costs that are often unrecognized, but are nonetheless borne, byhost cities. We recommend building a new northeast recycling and transfer station and closing Houghton. Houghton fails the majority of service level criteria for urban stations. A new Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number in ti o_ as _c U Chapter 5 Commenter Ts c co Maple Valley 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 287 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Transfer Station. The Houghton Transfer Station would beclosed once the new station opens. Newcastle's concern over service availability ifthe Renton and Houghton stations close isnoted. Newcastle's needs will be part of Northeast transfer capacity planning and stakeholder involvement ‘_ 0 a) (1) c _c c c) cji a) 4— cu a c) 0 c C 1 -0 2 (V C 0 -0 C a a.) co 0, 4.70 cv ; a).ro ro 0 47-1 co -0 ...... v) a) > > cu • — c cll .ZU 0 -... -7:3 > s" >. a.) 5 (i) _ o Ct) c _i:2 _ ..., aj ',.. 0 z 4.-4 L- ..- CO ''' 4- C 0.3 C tri'D > C 0 Q) -C cu n (13 a) i, a) - • -' a) -c cu " _o 'JD cl) ,, ,a) o. (o +al a) 0 4-, >• ro 4c a.) c o. o o o E Es n3 v) >-. a) 0_,_ c ra CD 4- U 0 0 _C ) V) 77 CU -C C " > -C 7./1 Ti aj (L3 .,..,E c'n 17 § (I) CU U RS -C 0 " " E o F— 4., 0 Z .— (..) v t Comment � northeast recycling and transfer facility will provide regional equity ofsolid waste services inthe growing northeast area. The City has particular concerns over the planned closure of the Renton Station and the potential closing and/or replacement ofthe Houghton Station. With these closures, Factohabecomes the practical and designated station for Newcastle; however, the Plan does not recognize Newcastle asbeing part ofthe Northeast Service Area. Newcastle should beformally added tnthe Northeast Service Area and beplanned for accordingly. The new FacmriaTransfer station has better facilities than Renton Transfer Station, which will attract more traffic to the already overburdened Factoria/Coa|Creek/|-405 interchange area. |naddition, when the Renton Station closes all of Newcastle's haulers, along with other areas uf north Renton and the southeast, will be redirected to the Factoria Transfer Station. This isparticularly concerning to Newcastle because as bad asitison 1'405' most haulers in our area will choose Coal Creek Parkway asthe alternative route to and from Factnria. While Newcastle has designated Coal Creek Parkway aprinciple arterial intended toconnect larger communities, itwas not anticipated the road would beused for heavy commercial vehicles. VYeare therefore concerned over the impact that increased use ofCoal Creek Parkway bycommercial haulers will have onits pavement life. When K[3VVevaluated traffic atthe FactuhaStation, itonly looked atbackups onRichards Road caused bylong wait lines tothe station. |tdid not look atthe additional traffic burdens onFactohaBoulevard going tn|-4O5(passing through a main commercial/residential area with a high school and churches). This is the main route for all K[SVV trucks going to/from the station. Moreover, itisthe main Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 5 L.r) s_ a) 4-, o. as 0 o Commenter a) as c) a) z a) 9) as t..) a) z 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 288 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The decision about whether tokeep Renton open nr toclose bhas not yet been made. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnbuild anew NERecycling and Transfer Station. Aprocess toinvolve cities and other stakeholders inthe siting process will be developed inconsultation with northeast cities. The Houghton Transfer Station would beclosed once the new station opens. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnbuild anew NERecycling and Transfer Station. Aprocess toinvolve cities and other stakeholders inthe siting process will be developed inconsultation with northeast cities. The Houghton Transfer Station would beclosed once the new station opens. Comment route for future haulers going to the station via Coal Creek Parkway/Factoria Blvd. when the Renton station closes. When the Renton station closes, costs tohaulers will increase with the greater congestion'np|atedtum'avound time associated with taking loads tothe Factnria Station. Newcastle is in process of updating its hauler contract and without some assurance ofour primary transfer station destination for the next 1Oyears, Newcastle cannot assure its customers ofreasonable hauler rates. Redmond supports the proposal to convene acomnoittee of Northeast Cities to establish service and capacity needs in Northeast King County. Having the committee work together to decide which transfer capacity option is best for our portion of the solid waste system service area is important to our community. Woodinville acknowledges and appreciates that K[SVVDmust prepare acomprehensive solid waste management plan that accommodates the projected residential and commercial growth ofthe region. The City also supports thinking long-term about the costs and financing of the solid waste transfer system that will support this projected growth. |naddition, Woodinville acknowledges the need for balancing several important factors related tosolid waste — such as maintaining reasonable fees for customers, protecting natural resources through environmental stewardship, and promoting system equity. In this regard, Woodinville supports asolid waste system that provides convenient access for all customers inthe service area without becoming a disproportionate burden onany particular community. Todate, Woodinville has managed to balance existing waste handling with community needs, such as limiting vehicular traffic, and maintaininOVVundinviUe's beautiful natural open spaces. However, the City is Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 5 Chapter 5 Lc) a co _c u Commenter a) -7) to u a) z -o c o E -o cu cc a) '5 lEs o o 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 289 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) C 4-, • ..4 C V) C c rci Ln 0 . a) 0 al 2 ,... cu 73 4-, " C) (1) O.1 -.- V) -cs a) > c u o c C 0) -0 5 0 • - -00) Cu) .° +"'Ls -0 > .47" i. .... 0 7' Q) C •C 2 a,' , 1 3 0 - - , "••' a) .,., Vl D .." 4'4V) C 0 ft' 1:0 0- ,s '- v) s_ '44 v, >••• c ro i4:-...• a) ...D a) moroc_D 4., 0. CU •4:4- o - ro 4-, _,„ -z-u 0 0 4_, 0 C>C4.0',UCMC CL • , TS 0 _c, CUCUCC0..5Q)4.- .4?... -C) 0 • " 0 o"..... n3 () -5 o_ _c .4 0) 3 a) .0 „." _c > o r, •.476 •..,-`13 ..° -.... ---- t ui cu .c u (u 0 _c 4.... 0 _c _c 4-.' °- ° 2 ai o .... .-, — 0. _c .) 0 cu F--- iar) u 4 CO) --,- c a) § c (c3 2 .7) _c 0 .-2 ,.. a) ...., 0. a) <_-c •., E I.) -0 03 Comment concerned that siting additional waste handling facilities like those being discussed may have significant impacts onCity residents and threaten the Cit/sability toadequately maintain this balance. a) as 0 cu tail , a) 7C v) 7-- -I: _CI -; -8 ro 0 (u 5 '5 -0 Ln a) o o c c c .2.1 ..172 cu 0 cr > _C >-0 m '5 o i- s.... 0 c 0 co 0 cl3 r•-• 0 = co ,-, U r. ..,.., . ci, , u o,, c.) -5 8 el 0 . -C OD 7 • c.'""' C I-U v) -) CL 4-. as •- (1) 4., c ...4 V) v-I -`- ro ro 0ri3 r3 u 4-- • bp 4-, , , c < ..... ,,_ 4-, 4-- I-- - -C "' V) 0 s..- c el 4., a" •••- l.) • - -0 ,i,. 0 4-, .,_, ,_ 0 - -6,- E 0 w co -o cu u 7.3 • - m v' z c 45. +-, E — l'a- .° 4" -C L- • - c c 5:. 4-, V) V) 70 E , 0 , 0 L.) C v, E -4.9 (..) _c 0 (...) ___c o a) 0 a) •S 0) 4.?, .rn v) 0 :-, M tap • - , a) +-. ra cD Cp- Cv) s- 2 oc ? 4'U.' • ? E 0 CO vl CL *4-:), Ca 4-, O--0003C1) 0 no > ro 1-2 cal .....,- o _c 0- 'eu- C , H >°) E L0 - a) c ,..) - 03 0 ,••• cl, .-- 0 c (LT Z 1:1 4•64, 4.4„, cuE _c" (1;) .E..1 4.2 2 2 .4_,>. lu- >a)" 1 i c 0 al (1) C (,_, c 4., , ,.. , , CD -C 1- 7_ ,, 0) ---. •,,_. „Cl..), 0 C V) as , E ,..‘" _, CD ccs to ru (0 c-,...:...Q.u.)._c,.... 0 4-' • - CD ,_ 4-4 .44 • 5 _c , .., ) CU LI •-• 0 ' 4-, 4., 4-, > 4' ,_ n:, .— 0 s_ 73 0 C _0 ,_ b3 4-, C a 0 0 4-, C co o_ a) 0 1;3 0 v>.,- co — ai .c. x '- -0 '4- " o > s_ > "0 -0 t,to m 0 ftS •• 0 U C a ) 1. )) • 4. .1 ' C U 0 ...5 C " C C4 C 4 4 4 >S- C v.) ei al 4' CO 4-, 4- > CO 0 0 • -C, 'f3 -(3 (13) 4E' SY, us .- as cu 0 c l.:f el '4-- ,-• - 0 's7) .= c ' — " as ") a) 0 _c ,.. 4., ,.. 0 ei L, _0 ki. .,-, a, 0)0) 2 73 ., 0 r_ ::,3 ,:-.. 73 (1.) s /D ....... a) 8 It: Ql- 0 H -0 ....--- .0 CL > 0 4-, = 0 (-) CI. ---- rt3 Z La as to o ao c C 0 • .:R, 3 :7; 7 _C -C .1 v) ,--1 '4 ' >I: _0 ..",,.;• 3 k- :12,-1 ,,Q2 0.., 0 > 0„) C 4- +-, 6) (..) CU CO E E coc 0 •••142 vi 40 0 +-' C 0 c - („) c +-+ 1._ v", • - C UL • - >. o > Ecu'cccu o 7 1:3 0 0 _c 0 4-, • - 0 4-, -0 -C `-' 0 ,-- 0.) us al 0 - co - (U 0 isa s• a) cu —a. 73 0)M" 1:34° .4.'7,(3) ..,' -U 4.-.9 73..1* .7.,.!' ms.'"'n 441)417. 2 roc .°- -50 a) •c 71 i r..) To „nu ..,o -, Q) -,,3 „,t- ! _c1)+-. a7 4:M 'L(13 ,.:.) EC +-C... _C ,,, 0 .c,/ al ,- _C OA a' o > c v) M .47; tiO E (I) c- V) 0 Q) = (1) 0 V' 0 V1 U (4.) 0 .0 0 C 4-, C 0 Z 0 f0 - 4-- fa." 4-'444 7 ......— a' 'CS 9 a) CL 0 +-, (13 0 . (1. (L) 44 .0 C" ..0 cu c > 0 o o al ,c0 0 2,.?-,, (3-. ..4c _2?) .- u tto 73 cuE't7'uoca)—tvo n .42. ro 0 .40 0 co -c 0 s._ s- _ _c _c I- (-) -ID L.) CL U if) F— v) 0 c0 Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number sn s_ a) 4-, o_ as o Commenter cu = > c 0 0 2 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t -Jaz), 2028 Att A Page 290 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Table 5-4 was removed from the Plan. Thank you for your comment. Comment includes the cities ofWoodinville, Kenmore, NrNami and Redmond, and parts ofBellevue, Bothell, and unincorporated King County (Comp Plan atS- 19). One point onwhich Woodinville seeks clarification is whether the list ofNortheast service area municipalities in the Comp Plan isexhaustive and whether all ofthose entities will berepresented inthe decision -making process via the advisory committee orsome other vehicle. Asnoted earlier, Woodinville requests tobeapart ofthe siting process and is committed to remaining engaged throughout the decision - making prncess. Another point onwhich Woodinville would appreciate clarification isthe data underlying Table 5-4(Comp Plan at 5'Z0).Although the percentage ofajurisdiction's transactions through Houghton Transfer Station isrelevant tounderstanding use nfthat station, Woodinville would like toobtain the data onthe actual tonnage and number of truck trips generated byeach jurisdiction's use ofHoughton. Moreover, Table 5'4does not list all of the jurisdictions provided for inthe Comp Plan ascomprising the Northeast service area; transactions from Kenmore, Bellevue, and unincorporated King County are not listed (Comp Plan at5' According tothe Comp Plan, transfer capacity inthe Northeast area will be"allocated equitably among jurisdictions" (Comp Plan at5'2I).Those transfer station site options that are geographically distant from existing waste handling and disposal facilities should bepreferred over those site options that are inclose proximity toexisting facilities (see Siting Plan at['15'['15).And, re|ated|y, VVoodinviUe'ssupport ofthe Cascade Recycling Center, the BriXhtwater Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the DTG Recycling Group should betaken into consideration. If the County intends tobuild anew Northeast transfer station, the Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Ln o. ra _c u in c. no _c u Commenter a) .5 c 'Es o 0 a) '5 c 'Es o 0 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan .-.Jrzly 2018 Att A Page 291 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. The Plan and EIS text have been revised to include a discussion of existing Comment K[SVVDwould gothrough the siting process and conduct a separate EIS. The current EIS draft associated with the Comp Plan does not yet address the specific impacts ofNortheast sites because no sites have yet been identified. Woodinville seeks to be an active participant in the site identification and screening process ifthe County goes forward with either of the two alternatives involving the construction of new facilities in the Northeast. Based upon the analysis completed inthe EIS, the best alternative may betocontinue use ofthe Houghton transfer station, and along those lines, ensure full utilization nfall existing and possibly underutilized transfer stations to avoid the need toconstruct new facilities. Creating a new Northeast transfer station would result inaloss of vegetation and wildlife habitat, would pmduceCO2 emissions from construction and operation, would impact noise and transportation during construction, and involve high capital costs (EIS at1'7to1'1O).Additionally, maintaining Houghton is the lowest cost option interms nf capital and operating costs (Comp Plan 5'22). Regardless of which alternative the county pursues, Woodinville seeks to provide ongoing input because appropriate mitigation of impacts on citiesis important to regional Consider extending Bow Lake Transfer StationOpe,atng hours tofull Z4houo/day\seven days/werk,365 days/year year-round orseasonally toaccommodate SEA'santidpated peak, season hauling needs. Recent SEA growth and corresponding waste generation combined with solid waste collection and storage constraints have meant that even brief weekend or nighttime closures at Bow Lake prevent optimal waste hauling schedules, and contribute totemporary capacity challenges at5EA. |amresident of98O59and the Maple Hills community. |tis extremely important to me that the new plan for solid waste Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 5 Chapter 5 - Odors Commenter (l3 4- Sara Thomas E _ ° o co (-, ,(13 !-- c 0 ..,7, 0 a_ t Q) -1- r_n3 i..." o -I-. Q) Q) c a • - V, c.) 4 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -Jul 2(118 Att A Page 292 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) odor impacts incommunities containing commercial -scale composting operations. Thank you for your comment Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. 3VVDbanalyzing organics processing onVashonaxanoption tomore sustainab|ymanage this material. Issues such as space, configuration, safety, cost etc. are some of the factors that must belooked atclosely to determine ifitisafeasible alternative Comment clearly addresses odor concerns and ismore comprehensive and impactfv|than the current application ofour clean air mxa. Our neighborhood can beplagued byodors both byCedar Hills landfill and Cedar Grove composting. Clear violations from both facilities are detrimental toour neighborhood, families, and property values. It's crucial that this is addressed inany revision ofplans moving forward. With increased demand onCedar Hills and plans tolook for areas ofpotential expansion, please ensure that this isaddressed soother communities don't have toexperience the same issues. 0fcourse the waste needs toOosomewhere and there isno perfect solution but please enforce facilities to manage odors effectively. Success here starts byoffering more services atour transfer stations. ADtechnology isstandard inEurope and Asia toproperly process food waste. ZVVVbelieves this isone ofmultiple technologies (compost,reuse, biocharproduction are others) that when coupled together complement each other while doing a beuerjobpmcessing the full spectrum of waste. VVeare excited toget ananaerobic digester on island this year toprocess pre -consumer food waste, and hope tocouple itwith anaerobic compost facility soon! Ayard waste recycle facility should beestablished on Vashontoavoid cost and environmental damage oftrucking Vashonyard waste toCedar Hills Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 5 - Advanced Material Recovery p 5- 31 Chapter 5-Anaerobic Digestion p 5-31 Composting Commenter Zero Waste Vashon a) +.0 in ro c o o -c in ai al N > Kevin Jones 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 293 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) +-. ao x c 4-• v.) 1.r) LT, CD 4- -0 0 C c vi co 0 tla C .0 0 ra 0 C ..0 0_ 7 • - ro cu v, ,-' cu _c LE c _ ro u r) 0 .•j v, to c a) oi c 2 13 •,,, 'c'T, E c 0- 0 ,..,- E E u 40 E 8 n -o 0 0 a) u °) > ...) c co 42 EU_ .• .r ), 'I' u ro c C CO • - o a) O E' >- ,cu E al - •- E > 0 E _c ro -0 0 I- _C 0 u Comment T .,, ..,) c CU -no >0 cv l.) co 0 _c °_-) C 4- ,, ... ro • no °.° 46 a) -c .1-+ 4.-. U a) n3 10 -d 0 -' To (..,'- 0 CO' Lnc -C 4" 4-,' c co c •,L,_, Q., 0 QJ , .L.L E -0 0 ro ,.,) ow 6- Lo -.-' 2 (3.1 ,_ro -0, 4.„..-, E 4- - •E' -0 2' E o .F)7, - -2 0 ai -0 -0 a) - c ,-- -,- c (7, E 5 TO CI) ,„a) 7 To m -u c "' ro -w t',1 0 °- .(1-i 0.) co c 0.) ro v 4- ° E E a 0 0 , A u U ,, E 0. if) .„- ro -, _ _E• ro E L- WE 0,2 ›' 'CC, o c 0 4-, '5 - .41-. .- --,- -0 _c v., 0 -0 r0 , 0 C Ury U .1 4-. - DC E • - 0 0_ +' 0_ 4-, rO 2 CO -CR0 0 - CU if) • - • _c4a-l), 44L.''.'. -4aCc-Ul, 000E, <407u0, (c2c1o) _4_10_.7-2., "-,0vm._,,. +,-L,.-,,• ._ row 0 c,w2w_- .c'a0uU)r c>5 ccCU Lnc60_•-o: ,Lo ro -= .S. C v, .42. - _0 4.-. CL = > u 0 -0 0 Z a) m M (13 ..,- c CD -o 7 -0 , 0 u 0 m '-' Ta22 SE -nT•-0 0t,,4.E+O :6. 0),_ u > 6 0 ro 0 0 L- C _c c • u E) oi_ r.LO > To To -0 E .- _c on a) _ >... 113 V) (00 4-, W c ..c c c a) 0 o u L3 _c., .•,,,.., ,... L._ 4-, LI CL ,_`-• 4-, -0 -Q 2 • - ro 0 0- U--- _E c ro c, 2 --- • - Lr) (....) 4-, (75 (1.1 Li" u ol,) .6 ro c •- as 4-, ro •- cID >... ai elo ru +4_..o ,_ >-• aa Lri a) ..O u c Ea_ 72c 1 v7c4:2 , i: 5E' - i : - uUM-0! V 'EE 4: V 1C)L ' " ' • : . 477° :CU °° H c > .4.7, c M L- u _C C M .1-. ri3 o., ,_ co a) '5 a) 0 ''' (1) op ' s. oN, 120 ,.„CD C CU o_ .=.1.., :4 „‘.- ro 0 4- 4.' 0 _c E E o T<' ,-- 1- o > r•-• o u u i- ._ a) c a) ..ta • > M - ' - ' •: -LjUM ° -0 c ro ro vi cu- aJ in vi '4.7 0 ro .- _c ai Li F2 E ,> 0 c ‘- E cTi • ,-, L_ CU 0 tio ,,, 0 0,) 0 _c _co n , 0 4- (I) U , -.0 .1-, ,-,. 5 a j J- .,-. U c 0 ,s 0 ro._c2 ro o_ -o ). - <.a(11-0O3 -0ai +('>1. 4'V-- 50 r0co u ,,,0 >. ›.- a 5S.• o o ro -0 0 L-I C CU ...._ o ,-,-773) 0 _C b.o 0 ._ L_ --- ' 4-- • - > N - -0 CU ,- ELE3 RS C a.) T0eD r> -7 E +4 o5., ao) CU 0 VI c C U ,- • ,7 C ‘- 0 ro To> ,...‘ (L) ,._, 0 c, - - .5 Lrl .- 4- 0) in > ,„ , _, ,_ c . , .-t 4- 17:1 ..,_ ro - CU OA Cl- (-NI = - _c CU > 0 T T cm c car, (0 i br,:t 1 -c'EuTw- .! -02>-2 71:0.,En:5 ;EM i co"" 7 :::: 4-1 -' 700 C 0-0-0 a.)71, < ..(u u as ro ro u >- ,.._ Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number ,._ CU CL CO _C U < -...„ to c V/ 0 > 0., , .4' C CO 0 7 U CS Commenter 75 0 7 0 v) CIO 7 , -....L., > a) OD 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Pla.)7 -July 2028 Att A Page 294 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) as ni c '-- 4-, -0 _61' 0 > _c a) c M cl- 0) _C 1- vi o C • a) 0 4-1 4-1 7 0) E °- -co' c 0 c CU c ci .c ._E a) (.0 I- nIS M CU 0 0 ..174 o - a) ..= b.0 0_ .- 0., +-. E 0 u 0 .•S La tn7) .S 0 ti 0 11.3, 4-, u C ,•-• 0 c E -0 u r0 .- E 0 0 c VI 0 U Cr 0 0 Comment complaints were received in response to the composting operations in Maple Valley and Everett than all other sources ofodor inour four county jurisdictions combined. CU C CU 0 >- .,,>.. (I) E eL E .3Z E 6- •,-, °_-) ,r° o -0 a) ra accEa,_6+_,oz ra o -0 4-• 'n E CU CD U E a) ,•,-, 7, u 0 0 0) u ti , _ u 0,_.) ,_ u c _C 0) •-• , i40 cis 4-+-, _a co 4.4 ' , ,- * 0 0- 4- ‘-' -,--' C aj Z' ' t-.. ''') E ,_ _0 ,-. 0.) C C ‘-' -CS a) _C2 73 -0 0 Ln 7 ,-,-, • - CU L') EfE CU) ID 0) •.0 0 0.1 co a > +',0 20 2 .•'a_,-,' 0 -)ca) CU M 0.0 -0 -o>zccro.._ a) cu o- b.o • ' - = 1,17, cu r33 _0 (a f15 E 0 -0 CU 5, u - > 4-, o u v, 2 0 * - ' -o 1:3cu E a) 0 C ° '-^ 73 co 0_ a) --- , ,'- LE) -0 rC o F 5 >-• r0 _4- -L-i--I--05 t 0 .0 u ,47J ';----, •E .'-^_ P `8 ,.,,, -0 0 0 10.0 • 0 —4_, 0.0 4-+ 0 C 5, = 7 0 tto • 0 '° (1..1 o . c c•,) c, -C u r-si I-U c:i (1) -0 cy., -0 -o Lr) ,.„ 00 s-- 0_ _ I-.10 ---- 7 --".,_. 0- °X •,-- '- - 0 -° -C 0 „,, -ii .1. LI) E .) 44 . 0 rn, „,„ aco ° , tic ,-.- /4 (uc) cn3 2-3 F_ • 0 •-• 7) a) -0 a/ a) 0 17 -0 "=•.,7, C C .47., r 0 , 0 ..,-, -40c_, ° a) E &I -,' 0 -0 a) ° -,L) 7) ,.._0 0_ -E _C " b rt3 _,CC_U, 'rT) 4- c c 0.0 .0.,Z .K) a) -C 4-• C .-, C u 0 . . , 7: r0 4- . 4,=-uai ° > 1.0 ..0 > :-=. ..c, 4.4 Z - . _.- (-) :C2 0 - , 42 E -•"C'c--' .4-' 0 CL co u ' ..bl) 0 0) rc) ''' .- n a) ur 0- 6- ' 413 2 ,_ a a) c . , ,- VI r, I.41 CU 6 .,--, u .,-- ,_ (2) 2 • - r a3 _C 0 t 4-, 4-. > 0 C 4r-0j +--.' --•C.°Ca40 El -0 C M '‘7-, -Ci__ ° L4 0 ,._ai ,_ = to c - - -`X-'- a aa _C ,M +-, *-, (.7) a_ ,SL,) 'E _c o ru r0 .,..., CU ,_. >,- 0) CU -0 C ro -, ,.2 -7, a) -._m a) a) u - L._ f- • - u -,-, c 4- • - ,,,, 23 .U.0 m r0 ,7, -c a-, -1-• -C CI) +-, '• 6E _'cLL' -0C CU 0 u _C u -0 ,4 0 • - vn 0 ry 0 u L- '4=, LD -ot0o • r0 E ro a -0 0 v, 0 C -0 2 o E 4--, _, 0.0 c . = L.. (.„ c° co u <V bi) '-^ 0 0. u0E u ',EL,' ro Ln -5 c o L4 u En C 4., 2. a(-.)) C r0 o.0 0) '- 2 0o- --r 0 a) L>.)" 0) Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number u 0 4-, 0- (0 _C U < -....._ b.0 c 0 0 c C 0 L.) >. ri3 7 0- Commenter 73 C 7 0 (A a) Of) c ..,TE a3 a' >. c 0.1 b.0 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 295 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) vi 0 C.) 0 -0 -0 •.'E (LI 7 CU = 73 7) 1E; ',I cji ,.., .- .-c L,./ 4-r c 0°MajW 4' u" c Li E 0 (%' E a a) L_ tij 9- c u C) • - 0 73 U D 0_ E - 4- ro ,_ • - _c (...) La -0 0 u c -a x Q., '0 E ra ro 0 op - .-)7EEc'13 - C 0 *- • - .47'' W U 0 - U C -0 ,i.,) +6 >. aJ c i5 c 12) ro -0 .7:. -. a C cu .LA CO 0 a) ro -0 E c 0 c E ro (.0 _c a) ro ,taC cu CL 4-, .1.-' 0.0 ..-= -C X • - 0 I- a) a 0 E Comment to an increase in odorous emissions. These increased odor impacts also have not been adequately identified or evaluated. 0 ro -0 a) .> a) _0 i _c .-, ro ..c .uLc) .L., CD CS a.) ,.. a) Z 0- V1 CU o -0- 7:3 -0 C C >,.. '.- - -0 0 VI ".. Oa ‘-,-, ro Q) CU Q../ - C ,-, fo fo ---• _ C -0 4-, Cl.) 73 0 4-' R3 _0 -0 .7, 0 -i 0 ro 4-, co 0 (T) 3‹ ' u aj 0 a., CU , c 0 7 co 0-' C s2 0cs -a g7-,--, 2 . 0 , .773 EC Cc0,-‘0(-)-°- 7 • - , >, 0.1 0 L. um .- 0 _ cu 4-, ,., ,.,, ru -0 :i5 ruLnou U - . M '-;I a) 117, 0 c m .- 0._C VI Cl v., c c-, 0 E 7‹ ro a) .- a) c %-i 1 C7- Li) c c 4- C 0) CU . - M 0 - 2 .- >- 4 7 rn E , E 4-, ti ,... -0 u 0 -0 L^ 0- -r-, u cu cr) c .c C.JCI' E °-•7Cu I._ 0 • - 0 --- " a) to -0 • - „,_, -C3 ‘- rn 0 a) >, „'-' 0 0 m 0c 4 a 73 a 0- cc3 a) ro (u _-,,a +-,00Z7 rt3 Q.) 0 o ao4_, ro co u c , 0 E 73 a 5 to c-, E a a) a.) 5 -0 0 CU u Q.) C 5 a, -c = 0 ..c 0 Eo c) c — _c o cc u u u 4.-. 4.- .- ro ro cG ro ,r) 4-, 0 CC ‘-1 rni -0 CD C VI co '5 CU --0 1... ro ro 0a,_) rc•'a'' u . -C LI) a 'I) 4- aj LID 4-' .- 0 u 0- 0_ . - 4-, C CU (1.) 0.) 0.) 0 -0 73 CU • - .-' _C > C .1-' CU 0 C , al u- •47_, 4 0 0 4-. 4-' ° (13 4.4 4-' C ro ,- u --- ro -0 co 0 C a3 C c1-1 0. CD °E CU '' '- CU -C >.- u, bl) 0 . --.. a) ro oi --r" ,<°- . c -0 0 -0 ,-• _ 70 D ro u 0 .-, •>A; '4n073 ou .c (0 co _0 0crUEaa°-cu >. E in •>-`PQ) -0cu ro -0 • - M .„..7, 1.) Li "" CU c _c N, u • CO fa) .... ,-, E 4- c , ro cr 0 .) Ln CU 0 CU ' -0 b.0 I) -C .-.3 V,,... c ÷-, '' . - 0 • - •- • ro co t.1 -a cu E 0 42 -0 ._ aj _C .- > 0 ,..,:j 5 a) 0 -C3 0 73 4-, .., 0) _c . a) 0., -a c o -0 ,_ Lc) ,... 44 (r) CC VI 0 ro L.) ro .'=. ro -C 0 a) o _c 0- vi - LI) a) .5 a) Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number .:( .....„.. tia 0 Ln 47, 0) 0 CL c CO L _C 0 U U >. (13 7 0- Commenter 73 C 7 0 Lr) ..,:7 4.4 c 0.0 7 CU >., U b.0 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste 0e, t Plan -}-1(i_y 2 018 Att A Page 296 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The Plan and EIS text have been revised toinclude specific measures that could be implemented to mitigate potential odor impacts resulting from composting ofrecycled organics. Thank you for your comment and support ofa regional discussion. Thank you for your comment. The information provided is not intended to be exhaustive, but Comment In addition, itbimportant to note in the Draft SVVm1P and DE|5that capacity factors alone will not address the existing environment for odor impacts. The Draft SVVIVIP and BE|5 do not identify what future mitigation maybe appropriate for future composting facilities or expanded capacities at existing composting facilities. While some specific mitigation will also be considered in future review of specific proposals, as requested above in (4)' ,he County should now identify inthe Draft SVVK8Pand DE|3masonab|r mitigation measures for odor impacts and what mitigation the County is willing to commit to implement to address the odor impacts that will be experienced in the communities for each alternative itisconsidering. The Draft 3VV,NP plan also indicates in order to expand organics recycling . '' orrgk/no/diok,gue with exploration of alternatives and solutions for expanding capacity is necessary. This will ho/n minimize environmental and community impacts related to regional organics process and ensure on odo9uoto capacity and infrastructure is in place for regional organics processing, including cont/ngcncyp/ons /nthe event regional capacity bconstrained. ''(p.5'30,if3). This Agency supports that regional discussion ''|fitinc|udr, the existing facilities and systems as part of the discussion. This discussion should wide ranging in scope, and should include considerations of existing conditions and circumstances' best practices for facilities, capacity (present and future) and future needs. A, an example, we believe it is reasonable to expect that an organics recycling operation can operate with no more impact on its community than a landfill, transfer station, or wastewater treatment plant. As utility provided service operations, composting is part of that service model. This isanextremely limited list ofwhat KCSVVshould be exploring. Recognize advanced technologies todeal with subjects addressed inthese comments. |ndudeBiochar / Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number i..r) L_ cu RSCD U < ........ tio c in E U 0- < ---.. to L.. in C:1 CU E 0 0 CO Cr Chapter Emerging Process Technologies � p5-31 Commenter -0 C = CU CO = '- r° (1) U C CU CIA -0 C = +4 ,- ILO ru D CU U 0.) bn Zero Waste Vashon 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Wizste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 297 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) rather anexample ofemerging technologies that could be explored. Thank you for your comment. Figure 5-3has been Thank you for your comment. c ro cl_ 4-, c (u cr-t E ro a) " ao 0 ro , c -C ,15 4-, 2 ow t', Cll n:5 5 o >. w 4— C = CU 0 -C ›.. EU. .....Y c,_ 2 E c o I—L) Comment � production, algae growth asafeedstock and toprocess CO2, and aerobic digestion (AD)toprocess/purify water are technologies that atleast should berecognized inthis section. | was looking a'the comp plan draft and noticed that fig. 53 seems tohave the wrong colors for the 'tmnsactions'part of the image? Thanks for offering anopportunity tnsubmit comments. | would love tosee afacility that can process cnmpomob|e diapers. There are anumber ofconnpogab|ebrands now and there are services inthe Bay Area, New York and Canada that offer this service. It's time tobring ittnthe PNVV! The Washington State Department of Agriculture (VSDA) reviewed King [ounty's Draft Solid Waste Management Plan (SVV,WP).Our staff has determined that the draft SVVK4Pisincompliance with state plant pest and disease quarantines as described in Chapter 16-470 WA[. We reviewed the waste management plan with particular emphasis to the statc's apple maggot quarantine, described in Chapter 16470'10IvVA[. The transport of municipal Xecn waste and municipal solid waste from the apple maggot quarantine area to the pest hoe area is prohibited without aVVSDA special permit. VVSDAwill not require King County to have a special permit to ship municipal solid waste or green waste. However, if the conditions contained inthe SVVMPchange and you have questions about whether King County is in compliance with the apple maggot quarantine rule please donot hesitate tocontact mcnrVV5DAPest Program staff. Thank you for providing our agency with the opportunity tocomment onthe King County Solid Waste Management Plan. RCVV 70.95.096 requires the Washington State Department of Agriculture to review solid waste permit Public Review Draft Chapter& Page Number Chapter 5 - Figure 5-3 Chapter 5 - General co ,... Cll C CU (.7 in L_ cu +, ra. ra _c U Commenter Jodie Galvin 40- -0 o o CI) E 2 4 •‘1., 7E C +4 ....' S. _c co 0 .., a. •— as < 2079 Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan 2018 Att A Page 298 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for the photos. The photo of the Fremont Brewing digester has been replaced and mention of the microdigesterlocations added. Thank you for your comment. The name ofthe current document isthe Z019Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan with a date on the cover of July IOl8.Z019reflects the expected approval date while July ZO18isthe transmittal datetuthecounty council. The most recent data available were included inthe current document. Chapter policies are related tocollecting data (see policies FD'14)Most ofour transfer stations have space constraints that would limit co -locating a compost facility orRe-Use facility. Compost facilities have been added toFigure 2+4.A new table isalso added toChapter 5that includes how much material ishandled atcompost facilities. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment Comment applications for any increased risks of introducing a quarantine plant pest or disease into a pest free area. Itshould bementioned that Impact Bioenergyhas 6 microdigesteodeployed inthe northwest, 4ofwhich are in King County: Seattle, Redmond, Carnation and Auburn (pictured below -( please, can the Fremont Brewing picture inthe draft plan bereplaced with these? — see comment form) Much of this section includes information on recent substantive issues some of which are in the process of resolution. They include a commitment by Solid Waste to build asecond northeast transfer station, agreement that the demand management pilot would becancelled, agreement by Bellevue and each of the "four Points communities^to sign the "Amended and Restated Solid Waste |ntedoca| Agreement" (a defined term in the Comprehensive Plan) under the same terms and conditions as prior signers tothis agreement, and updates on the potential dosing of existing facilities. Them is concern that since this document is named ^I019 Solid Waste Comprehensive P|an^ that future readers will assume that the document isfactually more current than it actuallyis Should include data collection documenting volumes ofa variety ofmaterials. Many transfer stations are ideal locations for Compost and Re -Use facilities due toproximity of feedstocks. This section should beexpanded with recent data, and list the few compostfacilities inthe county & nearby besides Cedar Grove. |fvveneed more capacity, why not try some field trials such asonVashon island? Please add ^aU-in*ne^recycle containers atall transfer stations- thank you |nthe recent draft update tothe King County Solid Waste Comp Plan, itissuggested that residential recycling collection Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter p,t6I(5- 31) to to o_ I sa. ra _c U Chapter 5 - Policies Chapter 5 - Processing Chapter Recycling �attransfer stations Chapter Recycling Collection Events Commenter Impact BioenergY (ShrupKumar) = ± .3.) -0 >- o Zero Waste Vashon Zero Waste Vashon c 0 0 0 c _c 0 Olympic 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 299 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Comment V, C tip V, 0 -0 CL, Q., C ..,C ra •1-, U • - • - ,-- ,_ _c 0 C U •v)-- >- as (11 n 0 >, > 4-, 2 0 (1) u •' tab M '' 3 V) — c, 2 c _c (1) a E C 0 CU _c 4-) CU • >• C co = -C 4-, • VI as 4-4 C CU C...) (3) 0 s.- • - .).' -C ao O a) m .>-• (0 7, -c 2 ,..) 0 v, >.. u -0 0 4-.:, ,.., ca VI E 0 . c •‘-1 sC C t.- 2 2 4- C 7U°CU4-0 CU 0 _a '4"'(0— ,a, -s-s 4- - ra) 0 L' CU b.0 " c ro 0 of .i--"j 2. 4-, ' 14:: ,4- as a) c (1) _ '- 0 -.0voC-' S- -6 It, '23 u _Cc(1U) (C-cuD., ) 7) C1)>3 1:vWs 0 CU •f•I2 -' Ca " a3 0)0 V) 0 )a)EL " E -c -s00 (13 >-- a) E - 4-, fa , >. _4C CU tc-ip •+ >••• • - • .2 = 4-) V) V) .s.) c 0 CU t) v-, 4- o LE _C 4- C 4..) a) -0 0 Q) '''' M V, 0 -•----. 1.- a) ,... a) „,,.., 4_ .i7,. - c C 0 0 a " 4-) > as (1) 4-4 C C 0 0 '47) m .4-, 0 0 tO o „,, L.. no = • - 5. a) 4- ,-,775 c .0' s- 73:) v) 0. o 3 6 >- ..c c 0°-E0 .4---, LI) 0 40-3, j0 00 0 0 1...) 0 Q) ••,), — 14_ s- -CS -0 u -0 (1) as U 4- 4-, c t_' C C TLI a) (I) s4c -0 -0 .c ..c, _CI 0 4-; 4-, as C Z C V) (1) 0 til L.) = o a) G) > . - (7) cr) m •-, E t- _c — ,- -o 10 as c - ,., CU a) tn 0 , OA >s• .,_, to a) E as CU — a) o -0 u lats a) c -5 o 4-, ' 3 3 0 C 7 3, 25 'E 5- -t-As -0 n L 0 0 4- -4.C., 0 WS 0 Si 0 ca a) • 4 c 4-, C . ° bn c o ,.3 ) C ) ra _C t 4-s co a) — 0 0 ra CU C > --G -- ,_ c C -0 (L) 1 "7, , R - 0 )7) as tx0 ''' - ,:.: .:.,) bp >•• C,..R c *- ft3 al a5 ° _ = „. as 4- C ''''' 0 a) CU 4-, E c > u 0 _c V' 0 0 _c C CO a) 0 -0 , ,,, 4' (-) - . '. > (_,) Q) 0 -0 0 LS E i..) ai -0 ,... . -0 •D .- -c s-, -cs c.0_ 4.1 +., 0- m E > >.. a E (1) .,.., 0 cD s_ > E 73°''' e n CC a' C . v) >. tv no as 7t,' '5 c 0 _ CU c) . - _, (-) (13 ..- 6 s- : 6 1._ 73 c Z E -0 0 CU , ,- , 0 s_ 0 -0 .,313 CU (7) 47-, (11 ro u c -0 vi e, (0 > cu o 0 a) c ..0 c 71, o c — 0 v) > E a, +., . +., 04-, 0 C > C (1) t,c, C ra -0 Q) (1, -C -0 si- • • • • • • • 0•3 0 (1) C C3J E 27) 4-' TA 0.) Q.) 0-'.- (1) (..) ..X.*=' Q) 1-(1) 4.aVI LI) — 1- --, Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Commenter (I) C Q., > c.) CV L- CI M 0 Z vs as C) a. w — -42 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste 0e, t Plan - jaly 2°18 Att A Page 300 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tobuild anew NERecycling and Transfer Station. Aprocess toinvolve cities and other stakeholders inthe siting process will be developed inconsultation with northeast cities. The Houghton Transfer Station would be closed once the new station opens. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tobuild anew NERecycling and Transfer Station. Aprocess toinvolve cities and other stakeholders inthe siting process will be developed inconsultation with northeast cities. Comment ° Provide residents with educational materials onnew programs and other recycling programs they may not know about without coming toevents. ~ Provide opportunities tosurvey residents onnew or existing City programs. ~ Provide residents with environmentally friendly products, like worm and compost bins for organics recycling and rain barrel for water conservation. These items are typically produced with recycled materials which inturn helps support the recycling industry. ° Enhance goodwill toCity residents byproviding a needed direct government service. ° Support the local recycling economy which provides jobs to many King County residents. King County has spent decades providing residential recycling collection event service. Awell-established system isinplace that is rarely duplicated in Washington State outside King County orinother areas around the United States. Reducing oreliminating residential recycling collection events would be a step inthe wrong direction and reverse the positive effects ofthe events listed above. The City nfAuburn islooking forward tohaving access to modern transfer station inthe next few years and encourages the SVVDtocontinue its equitable solid waste system when determining the future nfthe transfer system inthe Northeast portion ofKing County After identifying and comparing the transfer options in Chapter 5'the Plan should identify arecommended or preferred alternative tusite and build anew northeast recycling and transfer station. This option is most consistent with both 8d|cvuc',cxpcctatinns in signing Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 5 - Transfer Chapter 5 - Transfer Commenter C s._ 7 7 < Bellevue 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 301 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The Houghton Transfer Statonwmu|dbedosed once the new station opens. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tobuild anew NERecycling and Transfer Station. Aprocess toinvolve cities and other stakeholders inthe siting process will be developed inconsultation with northeast cities. The Houghton Transfer Station would beclosed once the new station opens. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tobuild anew NERecycling and Transfer Station. Aprocess tninvolve cities and other stakeholders inthe siting process will be developed inconsultation with northeast cities. The Houghton Transfer Station would beclosed once the new station opens. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. SWDbevaluating the recycling area atthe VashonRecycling and Transfer Station and may make changes to how the area is configured tomaximize the space available. Comment � the ILA and the intent ofKing County Ordinance 2Ol7' 0323 and King County Motion 20l7-u05.This transfer option provides the most efficient and equitable transfer system for northeast King County. Requested change (z5-24): Select transfer option 2ux "site and build onew northeast recycling and transfer station" osthepreferrod transfer alternative. The City ofBothell issupportiveofsiting aTransfer Station inthe Northeast portion ofthe County. VVe be|ievethisprovides our residents with anequitable so|u\ionthatbest serves our area. Residents in Bothell are payingforstations being built inother parts ofKing County and therefore should receive an equal level ofservice. This isespecially important when vveconsider the growth that bantidpatcdin this geographical area ofthe County. |twou|dalso be easier for residents and businesses ifthe list of accepted items was consistent for each station. |aminfavor ofkeeping the Houghton Transfer Station open Mention potential compost field trial &RaUsefacility pilot programs? |amalongtime VashonIsland resident. | have recycled all mygarbage uptothe time that you changed the layout at the VashonTransfer Station. | haul all mystuff inatrailer and there isnot enough room toturn around there, you cannot drive uptothe recycle bins tounload. | usually have Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 'ci3 4- c ro l' Ln 05 CI ro _c u Chapter 5 - Transfer Chapter Voshnn Recycling& Transfer Transfer Station Commenter a) _c t c0 2 c 2 >. c 0 F- Zero Waste Vashon -44 201.9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 302 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) 4...; c (3.) E E 0 (..) s._ m 0 >. ,.. o 4- c 0 .... co I— Comment 6cans and only one bgarbage which cost me$24.l5.Until you change the setup sowecan drive along side of the bins, i...-' >. Ts 70 c' t10 co 4-.• u 0 CD .10 C co CU (0 vCctau,0nnU)_rvca)) co • 4.-• ro — uc0E-0o)_ 0Exra°_) . _ -.„u0(a0.°),• *„5Ea„,• T,aG''-o.))-' -20n, (4,c,CJc-U,, c>++_.-- '(cL7i.Tc)., T..n,, _-4c§10-.7,.)4' --C9ca .'.4a"c.ci-),' ,,S,u,3, _•4oQc•'a-n4)-) .acau-c_ , •-4v'c5v-c-uo,') 4 ( CU 0catUv-,) ,00n-' 2 .V2c5o)-.- 4aF4fotcC-oUt.,o ^e-.,.-.• ( . 0>i_E2.o._, ,-- 1.•••• as o c u -r5 C 0 0_ C .1. a) „ ,).- = (1) > 4-, -.C3 CI) a) ,,•, C -C 4- 4-- C •- V) co "0 C ' CD -J U >„ . - „," .4" _4,crc-- n . .tio E OD ro .1-,_ C > ..0 -0 co 2 La LO v, in: ii T) 0 0 :--- co ,.... • (1) 5 2 4-, 4-, LU ri, ,•., 0 .47, 5 o cl) c 4- cu 0- (u v; -if ° -o 4-/_. ,„ a) o c 0 -0aucn3 — <.1>.-"...4(2_-13', —Eu- 4(v-1:5', 000) 0( 0 _auoc 40) 0E•o-)• .. c_o-, S0 (-:42 _0 fo L.. > o >.co E -0 CD '-- 4-' .,7- Q) CU ° :1 CL ...... .1, ...... (U 0- ro U 4_, • .4-, cu •-§ -r-....."" ',,,,, ti5 x (1) -C •• (13 co +4 C s_ ..... ..10 CV >. 5.. 4-, _c - c n c 7 - tla <--i = w E (u 4- 0 ^ 17,' „ ,''- w :.',7.: C C cu 4-, a . 4- a) L.) a) co a 4-, S3 CU E"-Goc ..,- ,„ :1-• L) D cli c E -0 ,- -0 Li U CU -0 i.) -c4., +a as . u -, CU c, :1-' 0 .- ,,-- a.) sr) ..i: u o. .4-• `.' — L) VI 4-' co ;-' c +., (.>)-__,"• .(1-,) a) v.' orsj "c cu> ,-(u c vs a) (I) 4.„, 0 .- • c ct c' esi .,L) -0 uo ,.... c.) >. >.• C C v,^ 0 •Zro 0.) 4" s.... (0 CU 4-, ... 0 0._ .1.4 0 U a.) 4- CU -o a-,- ,.- 0 ') a . - C#'C C D( E + a.) cll v) C o ro -0 — •-- (-) 0 , = co •- , ,cov' co° Cl-„, rau a) ‘4.1'.1 .,.,u +•,2 23 c' 3 ) ( I -7 L9C C S' C 4- .0 oL7c,c>-n a) too E 0.0 -c c o .-fst '63 ---, 0 Ts ''' •ct:' m > o c 0 0 (...) >, •E•;. _le 4c.J.,.) 0 0 4-, .- ._c , 7..) (-) rc-, co. 17, > 0 a, al 4_,a) 0- v, (i) ..r,. c ,_ ca 0 .c ..-e: o C c. . ) 20 . 0 . S (0 V) 4'2-- 4-, CD (1) 0 V) Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number (0 C 0 *Eio 0) cc vs , 11) Ln •..7. s_ .-E cu 4-., -0 4- 0. 0 ,..,‘- CO 0 ,....'. _C 4- U LU Commenter CU = > C 'ES 0 0 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 303 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period CU a_ 4-, CU 0) an co 0.) 00 C an m ra > 1:i3 M CU CU (30 4m Ca. cC C - I_ ca "0 cu .0 u E 0) 0 p.) ,... u_ CL >- I- 'CS t..) b.0 as 0 t10 ta*, ci., .1..2 E > _c o u rot.) .,u Ow u E 2 • (....) 4.- in c , 110 0 CU v, ca 71' aj u>. 4- c Cs.-i >- , II 12 ‘ a--, a0 s- _C C 0 E uuCt.., 0 C 0 03 uI.n CC Ia0 a3 '4- as _C a) :0 v) 0. E cu .0 ,-, >- ..c a) i:-, tn 1:3 E a) M '0 _c a -,In all-fl -0ra .610 73 I- L) _c ...c as 0 a)• ,- 0 LL as *-, '0 i''_'' 1-) ttO c) E a) › C m u ,. ra al o Cij C an 11) to 0 .v., -0 tu ..,>.• 5 co .,.. = r° o _c o > c an vl -C 73 C 0 tiO •'''' 0 •.•.,:_,- ?_.' CU 0_ a) an C > -C CIO = „.; 4-, • • _C E? U E •- a, ,_ ,...,- 0 040 ,,4 CL IY- > _0 ts0 E ,aj8E .-, zs.-.., 0., 0 (0 as U •c: 5- •c_- E to ID . 0 _c as Cs ra talQ) u IcTi = 2 .4., +7, .0 0 Thank you for your comment. ,_o (3) a) v, 0 c (0 Ev? o • cu 4- -o 00 E c 2 a) ra o u a) n3 c o 4-, 4-4 a) 7.) a) (-) (0 E CO 0. 0 L- C co -0 ('3 C C Lc) w (00 vi - 0 -0 ILO C a' 0) v) 47, = C 0 v) — 0_c 0 -U.- .0 >. 47, .stli CU -C IiI 110 CC (3) 1.1) _C -0 5 -8 o c 00 C a) CU Z 0 )4. 0 0 I- C o o 2 Q) a, V) ) -- aS C c V) a) > 0. 0 . :-50)Co.co c o s_ c 0 c co '4"L" 0.1 4-, 0 C 1-(0 0.1 co ›. 0 C -) g F- 4-' -0 0 ) s_ C vs 42 CO 10 0 ro 0) -o %-ca -c c 4-4 (1) -C -C> -C C C 7 C 00 cu `3, E_ a, Ln- E ..c = -8. E c 0 c a) a) a) 00 co u ra -c ...,- cu u (0_c &.... 4-J a) _C C -C 1- 2.). 1-, 0 -0 I- 0 U 2.? that were considered. . _ 0 0 C as c u I- c 0 ., ro c0,0 -W 4., -'-d 0 -C0 u, aJ u - 737-(1) X Q) C2, 4 ar.0 +-Iv, E _o a) U _Cl vi 0,1 CL 0 4-1-.DE .+2'-jra >3) 73c 2 ciju F_v) cl, (0 73 2 w 0 ai ,.... to v, E ° al ID 1.11 .0 - 00 —0.0 -v7„, *>,- z , cv) -C 30 Lo u LL. 0 c 0.) 0 -C o a) 0 o a) . 0 " 17a1:1 .•.., vs ro :47-J- 0 CL c .47 VI _co tio 0- c les 0)7 ct 0 --6 1) 0a 0 4-9 4" Z .-4-' IQ,U -ona- 4",.; I•Pc13 r-Ic, .__OC 0„(19 (1) 1..L.Hi) Li) P2 cu 0_ E c ,U ' or ° LT." V { f '. )( ' ' 0 Zu -CZ • zU 0 fro C4_,c roc ..4...(U c rAci," __c4_,=E3L) .15cu 0a) -r) F D 0 c 0 _a) CL SU13 CC 4 It7., u 0 -atn r0 0 uu0W22c D4e E n,-00 0 -0 (11I, 0 0.- 0) .0 212 C 0 C (0+, I.Lra'J: ) tCouo CU ,r_>•t,422-,4 Euc0_ c EE02 ccau, c u) •I7c- CU CU E vi c _o u LTa r0 _C C C W I,1 4-I c ,.,., r0 cu as g -Q° -51-: ccu 06' .'ma) `7 .... v) u (-' 73°- a.)' LI) F a) a) Lao co -a o a) _o zw .E .-,u4""—'-_c8u .tn () 00 0a)_ _c -7.„_v0.,. 0i :IE- _c S "=a-vc-u 1— (0 E FE .ii= Ce-0111 11 br) 0. cu o_ (13 _c rs3 (0 33) -0 33) - based on the level CL au a) s_ 0 4- -0 CU _C 31) CI) r0 C0 C.) a) 0 of service criteria) • 201.9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -}-117_)/ 2018 Att A Page 304 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The has been removedi the word County. The "Operating Costs" section asitbwritten says that keeping Houghton open and operating "as is" would beless expensive than either anew NERTSnr acombination offacilities (including a potential option tokeep Houghton asaself-haul only station and building new commercial fad|ity). Comment Describe how the initial siting process will flesh out these basic options in greater detail. Make itclear that other options may be considered (and this Plan is not the siting process). The discussion of the NETS siting process should generically indicate that there are aminimum cfthree options for the Houghton facility, for example: 1) no action (keep as i$' Z) dose it and gothrough the siting process for a modem station' or 3) pair it with another new station to be sited in the general vicinity but have limited level of services at each. Please note drawbacks of the Jrd option: the operating costs for the two 'paired' facilities would exceed the cost of operating a single modern station, and each of the paired sites would fail to meet some service level criteria ontheir own. The Plan should beedited to clarify how the current facility would remain as is(''noaction" alternative) versus distinguishing that from the option outlined under "Cost" (converted to a self -haul only facility); it should be clearer that thdistinct options. Please correct The discussion ofoperating cost should berevised. The draft Plan suggests Houghton could remain open asaself- haul station, while a second Station is sited and built, to be dedicated for commercial haulers only. However, this approach would be more expensive to operate than a single modern transfer station (a more cost-effective solution which fits with the typical weekday vs. weekend use patterns for franchised haulers vs. residents/self- haulers). The existing Houghton Station does not meet several Service Level criteria. Please make revisions sothat the Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number NI NI LA b.0 CL 1..n- C't 3 ra. as _c U Commenter Federal Way >- m To 47) -Es Q.) LJ- 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 305 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The language that isused under the "Level ofService Chteha^isreferring tothetmnderbui|dingandthe existing transfer station footprint. While excavating the landfill would beapossibility, itisnot discussed inChapter 5because the City ofKirkland has expressed an interest inclosing the station and locating another station on a different site. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnbuild anew Northeast Recycling and Transfer Station. The text that you are referring tohas been deleted. Comment Plan does not appear topromote options that fail to meet these criteria yet have higher operating costs. Since County transfer station labor agreements mandate shift and staffing levels, itisnot apparent that operating costs "would be lower" for the "existing Houghton Station" plus a "hauler -only station" than the cost of operating a modern, combined station. For example, while ^se|f-hau|er" station may receive less tonnage, itwill have several times more transactions than a hauler -only station. Labor agreements imply that K[3VVDwould find it challenging to operate and maintain Houghton transfer station "weekends only" just for self -haulers. Please revise the language soituses the text in more recent documents such asthe Transfer Plan (KCSVVD 2OO6b)Table Z'and draft ZOl3Plan, which both indicate for Houghton: ^spaceexistsforstationexpandon—inside the property"The new North Seattle station was reconstructed in place, demonstrating the potential for station compatibility in more dense setting. Constructing the Bow Lake TSinvolved excavating a former landfill tocreate space tobuild the modern facility. Asimilar approach with appropriate mitigation and latent landfill gas recovery will, bydefault, beanoption when siting any new transfer station, and assuch, the Plan should not precludethis It isunclear how the combination nftwo stations would meet the level ofcriteria any better than amodern full - service transfer station. While it is possible that 'pained' northeast transfer stations might allow better geographic distribution closer todistinct sets ofusers in agiven area, all service level criteria would bemet when siting asingle full -service transfer station (as evidenced bythenew Bow Lake, Shoreline and Factoriastations}.|t i, unlikely the siting process for ^ new Northeast station Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number C\I Cil LC) a) 0. L.6 1) a. as 0 Commenter >.. a3 To ‘... a) -tp CD U- >.. ra To L.. a) "0 CD U- 2029,Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan -}-14 2018 Att A Page 306 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The textyou are referring to has been deleted. The extra space has been removed. The section has been moved assuggested. The section has been changed assuggested. Comment would lead toselection ofalocation that does not meet the travel -time criteria for this service area, since that would bethe basisofthe initial property search. Please edit\hetext sothis isclarified. Please edit this text ,okdoes not imply the preferred approach istosite a "commercial on|y''transfer station, since operating two distinct urban stations does not appear toprovide equitable service nr meet all level ofservice criteria. This paragraph should be revised toaddress the potential for modern transfer station a\the Houghton site (in which case the entire menu of recycling options would bedesigned in).Due tothe higher cost ofhaving two separate stations operating asa^pai,^or^connbination^' but lacking all services expected atmodern transfer stations, avoid assuming ratepayers will support the ^dua|''o/''paired''station approach. |naddition, KCSVVDoperations and outreach will be complicated byhaving totrain self -haul customers about the difference between these two transfer stations from the other five ^urban^stations, including why sets of customers are denied access toa potentially more convenient transfer station. Please correct Asmentioned earlier, please move the "Siting"and SKRT5 section toimmediately before the discussion ofthe long term capacity inthe NEService Area, toprovide apreview ofthe siting process and how itwas accomplished most recently. Please cite the comprehensive analysis referenced. The Plan should note that all the modern Transfer Stations have been built atornext toold landfill sites orfacility sites, inpart due tothe challenges ofsiting Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number M NI LA to CI iii. Cii a as _c 0 Commenter >-. fu 73 5:::13 7:5 CU Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 307 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your suggested edits. Additions have been made to the discussion on organics processing. Thank you for your comment. Comment these facilities in suburban areas. The Plan should not connote that this fact is criteria in the site search process, however it is self-evident system-wde'and follows similar atvein neighboring The Plan should outline regional organics processing capacity issues/limits and what actions the system can contemplate taking in order to develop additional capacity in conjunction with diversion of more compostab|ex from M5VV. Define how processing capacity may need to be expanded inorder tn meet the anticipated diversion ofcompostab|es. The Plan should provide additional information about planning ways toexpand organics processing capacity. Examples could include the system exploring the potential for creating its own capacity, or contracting for the development ofadditional capacity, perhaps at closed areas ofCedar Hills landfill orother KCSVVDsites. The Plan should suggest a timeline for discussion/planning, and potential project implementation. SEA enth usiamica|lyencourages King County toexplore addingAdvancedMaterials Recovery (AMR)and processing and Anaerobic Digestion (AD)aspossible transfer/processing options atBow Lake Transfer r,ahon. |nZO17'despite diverting 3'2OOtons ofterminal, |andside and airfield generated waste, w:sent nearly 8'OOOtons of MSVVto Bow Lake Transfer Station ultimately destined for Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. SEA applauds the County's innovative perspective on AMR and AD options as additional tools to support regional waste diversion efforts. SEA sees these innovative strategies as complimentary services applicable toresidual waste following aggressive waste reduction and source - separation initiatives rather than alternatives. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 0 CO I J.) bt, CI Lii• s_ CU 4, 0_ as _c U e-I Cr) LA tIO CL Lri• s- CU O. as _c U Commenter >- as -ra ‘.... -0 U- as Li— E o o _ s t' ° c o ,co 0 in_ ---- cis r_ru t a) t"-- 0 4- as (11 CL as CU c • — CU (I) — '',Z V) 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 308 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Changes have been made toTable 5'2. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment This item isduplicated as#6inthe chart above but the note says "not listed." The criteria numbering is different than inTable 2ofthe Transfer Plan (K[SvVD2006b)'with the 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 below the chart). Chapter 6 discusses the long- term disposal options associated with the Plan. VVewould encourage the County to further develop Cedar Hills with the goal of providing disposal to at least 2040. Although we recognize the challenges of each of the options, we feel this is the most cost-effective option at this time and we should maximize the use of the existing facility prior to pursuing other options which will need to be considered in the future. As recently asthe mid 200s, itwas anticipated that the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill inMaple Valley would run out of capacityin2016. Largely through significant improvements in waste reduction and recycling onthe part ofcities and the County, the life ofthe landfill has been extended through ZOZ8.The Plan presents three viable future disposal options that could carry the region beyond 2O28and include the further development ofCedar Hills, exporting our waste to anout'of-countylandfill, and siting and building a"vage-to' energy(WTE)fad|ity. VVebelieve that itisour obligation toourrme1ayerstn maximize and exhaust the use of our existing resources and infrastructure before considering alternative methods of disposal. While waste export isa relatively affordable, tried and true disposal method inother neighboring jurisdictions such asSeattle and Snohomish County, vvebelieve that itis our responsibility to manage our own waste inour own county and sodonot support the waste export alternative. Similarly, while VVTEisapopular disposal method inthe Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 5, pg. 5-15 Chapter 6 Lo it 0. ro (...) Commenter >- ro To -0 U.. c 0 to . .5 o (....) o ro ..... L_ _ 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 309 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnfurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment United States and Europe, it is prohibitively expensive, requires adependable stream ofwaste feedstocks, and comes with myriad ofnegative envimnmenta|impacts. It should not beseriously considered asa reasonable disposal option inthis Plan. VVebelieve that the preponderance ofthe information and data presented inthe Plan makes the further development cfour landfill the best disposal option when weighed against waste export andi i ra^i VVerecommend the furthcrdevelopment ofCedar Hill Regional Landfill to provide disposal of the regions' waste tnatleast 204O. Extending the life nfthe landfill isthe most cost effective disposal option to keep disposal rates lowest. |tprovides for local management ofthe regions' waste, and allows adequate time tnfully analyze future disposal options and emerging technologies around waste disposal Redmond supports expanding the Cedar Hills landfill to create additional solid waste disposal capacity at least through 2040. We urge King County to continue to explore solid waste disposal options to prepare for pns,' 2040' in addition to expanding Cedar Hills, as planning and implementation ofa disposal option that requires construction of an additional facility or disposal outside of the county will require a significant amount oftime. KCSVVDset out three options inthe Comp Plan for long-term solid waste disposal: (1)develop new capacity atCedar Hills landfill (which corresponds with "Alternative 2^for Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal inthe E|5>;(2)waste export toan out -of -county landfill (which corresponds with "Alternative 1^); and (3)siue, build, and operate avmste-to- energy facility (which corresponds with "Alternative ]^). The EIS presents two additional alternatives, both ofwhich would implement emerging recovery technologies (anaerobic digestion and advanced materials ecovery)'however, Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 Chapter 6 L0 'Cr) 0 (13 u Commenter >- CU ro > a) a ro 2 -a c 0 E -0 0 = a) '5 c :E3 0 0 -52 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaement Plan 2028 Att A Page 310 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Comment >. -C 4- 73 V) C -0 C 4., C c C) Ca VI ro -a 0 C 4._ ra n3 L_ 8., 0 a) ' 0 C . w OL) R C s_ •• tn 0 -0 a) >...-'-' O3 47, 0. CU 0 -_,.... 0- 0 V) 8 .' 0_ al _co 0 a) •---- -C ).- . < CU co 0.) 't.)-- c o LE >.. ,,,.. 4., 4., (0 CO 0 v) c 4> 4., C -C, . . O3 .5.,. ‘.° CU 5 (a C o 0_ >„ •- C 4" ' - V' 0 " a) - o ,..) -Y c..) (13 o (4 C .g 4.4 -c u 0 0 4-4 ,,.., ,, _ccoo ,a, ,._ ,.... c -0 .-- OJ u CD , c •--, o 4-3 - ro 0 c c > > OIS 5 co — - 4 (73 ° (4-, 76 E (i) 4" 0 a3 Ca L- .4:5 a.) MC-CUE4:.+M!.- E ,..c -c•-ii3 0.- ai 0— L. c 4-' a) -0 - 4-' 0 -0 (1) " V) -0 - 4_, s-, C u) CO 0 c CD E 0_ .4---• >4 4-- E mu r,-) 0 a E — (-) < ro 2 u a) '-- - e 0 =a 7..4 0_ o. _ 4" '-^ '0 E = • - 4- ro -° a) -..F, 46' 0 E 0- 4- - CU 47- 4- CO ,.....„, 4.- L.;-) 0 --- 0 .47, V) • 'Ci • — --- E , co, L. (1) Li.) c ,,,, -0 all -10 ea C 2 E ___ 0 _ U0 • N. a) = _T:) To u ro (Li) ." > as 4-, i-il ° '..FS 3 ti 2 g t,,, ..,_ . 0- --- V) ra ,-- 0 0 im 2 0.0 0. 0 vi • -0 0 L) 1.7j a m -0 .- > --•-• u > r° .s -co -0 ----Uj ,`C) 4, _c a) co ,.. co 0.0 -I-, In C 0 D 5 CU C.1 re' (r o.o_c 4_ > 0 4.411 0 > as 0 r-1.' rn s- 4.- , ‘44' C (0 -C4-. CM ( cm LU • ^ ,-1°C) a., ..le +. ; .4c, as •-• o -c (1) vi 4' a, ,,,, . ‘•0 c I.° -a ‘,) -0 cu (,) - ,„. Co •- „a co 0 H n u 0 _ >. -733 04 0 4.3 cu o _ o I: -„ F.. 73 cu 1-,1; 0 2..) o_ , 7, -0 L) 4-, n3 .- ci, -5 v, ...2_ .- CZ .0 (0 _ u )-- tu -C CL) li) v, -° 7)C IP C • V) 0 .1.)-‹ lIS c (4 r° _ 4.-. CU :.47-' -- ‘... • 1... v) 1,- LU U • - 0 4 44co ( o C C 0 C 0 -0 °- _6 i- oc • E - r pc 4', .., 0 . 0 C E.) .c v> V) -. O3 C s.- = E >" 'cri u ca 0 VI 0 .. 0 C •-• a) a) 0 v' o 1:5_ en- ? 0 - Oro _cns (.2 -5 0% .....0 co- . ,...., . -,, ___.r4 ,.„ 1. ...., , ,,, , ,-- - ---5 .i___c ,c.5_"' >-• o. .1,2 o c 2...,0v) .a.s .0o) — 4-, 2 4-, 0 • -C ra a ci> 0 73 0 +.,,.. 0 c J • 4 - • - t - 0 .4-73„„ 0- o c n 0 C C 0. -0 > X 0 i ns as '-` •-- '-`.. C E -, o 0 ro - 0.) cu X ,., ,._ . 0 0 (73 o E a.) a. rsi a. tip _c 0 u cu .,-, 12 -a ...., a) o .,-, L.r) u _C -C Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Commenter 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 311 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment >. c C 0 •iii ;IT bJ3 .- 4--. >.• "0 -0 • c, c -0- 4.E' >-. •(,1,-) C -13 ,„, a) TI.), /9 Ilt >4 • s•• s- v)0'- (SS C Cs) .— ,9_ ±...., * n3 ---. -0 a., 0_ > r-I V, 4-, --- -I-' Ln a) •-• _0 0. ....... n3 0. +, c‘i u •R ).4 •- „, -cs E c v, 0 u, _,- •-, cu u..1 c ,- c 0 0 •E '47 'wo 44.-• U .4:' M 0. in- a) v) —° -0 2 4‘,) 0 — 4'0.0 0 ° Q) V) 4-, 0- , " rz3 • c ..c C ,A• >.. ,rt, .2 0 > , f t$ L. - 0 8 '4:12 • 4-, "0 Z a) > v.) v) — CU ' 4- ca 0 ED — a) o u .- -- va a) > • E cl) 1---, 04 0 -, s—I (10 0) u • — .I-, :— = C >. v, , r-i 4-* 4- • - a., ...c ro .1-, a, V.; ° 4- C•4 0 )- > 73 ° 0 C 0 V) 0 ra a) E •i-, -c iI5 iii •ii IP c co r0 ._,. CU ..,. Q) as L0 , ,- -1-. •- -v) 0 0 u", CI 6 -'e ea1.., r.,- — (1) '''' 4, c.) ,--.6_ 0 _o c .- x 47--) 73 cu E 4- 0 .'n 0 CO 7:3 (1) 4-' C — u >. CU ,- ....E - cu c r0 ra .5 a) c -c >. a) a) 4-4 I- a) a) .4.-)>" 0- 2 LE) >• .c v , . 0 • ci 70 5 ° 0 cti E ..7 00.>_=0_c 0) c 00 CO 0 r-s U 0) Vs — "0 • 0 L.0 rsi c E 7E1 c i- 0 — ° ' 0 ct3 -2 — =-L-I ..c 4_, c 76 c _ .4_, , ... u) ._ 4- -0 (13 <L1 4-• .1-, C -0 >, :4-7, as rsi al C .1-, 4-4 4-, • — ro a, ,,, r-... a) u 13 v, ao -, a3 —,,, , 9 C 4-, CO u C :1) 2 CU ° •,_ , ... >,- ).. 0 M -C CU a) — 4.-' 1- ,..- >11 6 .L..) ,...a., ca. +-, .4..,_ c 0 ,5 4- U c -0 ,-, ‘.., ci., 0) .I-, v9- ,_, (13 N ,.., a) a) in i5 0 v) r 1) - c - _c r0 v.; .- ._ .- 4.., „..,>• "0 >, .- a) 4-, '1"3 4_, --- ro .•_= = 4._ = Ti- . — 47, •- c -c c _c E a_ E o 4"-' a) 4-' o v 4-, C ‘... al 4, • - 0 )- 'CU CU = 1-_, 4-, c o Q., .5..L! -he " s'' r0 = c 2 <Du E 0 0 ..„ ms .,-, •:,.-_, v) a) 0 a 4 C >— t).0 <Duo -0 -c 75_ a), 0 a) a) l'i, c 0 c c C a. " (1) y_ ooc x -_,•5, as. _ CI C 2 -0 E) o 0 oa .- 4.- t ajo cEao a c 2co 6_co,F.- 0 4-+ U n3 0- The City ofNorth Bend supports awaste toenergy co- generation fad|ityforthedisposa|ofsn|idwogeinKing County. The environmental consequences ofcontinued use Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 Commenter North Bend -54 2a7,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaement Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 312 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The options that are identified and discussed are what have been analyzed inthe draft Plan. The comment period was anopportunity tocomment on these options and/or tosuggest other disposal options. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnfurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment oflandfills leaves anenvironmental problem for future generations and provides apotential exposure tu groundwater pollution. Landfills are the subject of controversy for populations located inproximity ofthe landfill and are guaranteed toface fierce opposition when proposed for continued use, expansion orasnew facilities. The energy consumption, wear and tear nnroadways, noise and contribution totraffic congestion are all negative impacts ofheavy vehicle trucking tolandfills. All landfills have alimited life before they run out nfcapacity. The life - cycle costsofavvastetoenepgyfaci|ityascomparedtothe continued use oflandfills demonstrates agreater long-term cost benefit to the citizens of the county. The need to replace traditional energy sources with alternative energy has demonstrable environmental and sustainabi|itybenefits. King County has prided itself inthe past with providing a leadership role inthe national trends toward sustainabi|ity. Investing inwaste toenergy technology would further demonstrate King County'scommitment tosustainobi|ity and clean energy. Comment onChapter 6Summary ofAction 2-d. |fwedonot ° expand existing Cedar Hills Landfill ° export waste out ofthe county ° build avvage-to-energyfacility (|'mmore infavor of this one, caveat problem with containing the heat and exhaust. Atleast inert (non-toxic)material is produced) What are the alternatives we may suggest? Using landfill asameans ofdisposal isunsustainable. It is incredibly short-sighted and needs toend as soon as possible. VVeshould NOT plan for any additional landfill areas' especially not including any costly hauling to more remote locations by rail. Instead we need solution that Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 Chapter 6 Commenter ti ,._ ro ci. ro 05.— u 0 ro h- ra v) 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 313 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment replaces amind-set ofdisposal with amind-set oftreatment and waste recovery. That bthe only long-range sustainable solution. Treatment needs tobegin close tothe points oforigin, to reduce transportation costs and the volume of waste. Locally -hosted micro-treatmentfaci|ities' probably ones that employ ca,Qo'containeo'isthe most likely alternative considering current technology today. Combining solid waste treatment with sanitary sewer conveyance systems allows for reduction ofweight and leveraging recent technology advancements with aerobic microbes. Treatment ofsolid waste would become more rapid, efficient, and odorless using aerobic treatment processes. This isawin-win for both solid waste and sanitary waste treatment systems. Longer'mngep|anning should include usingthis same waste - recovery technology to begin ^mining''our existing landfills for ecydab|esand compostab|esand reducing their existing footprints over time. VVecan reverse decades nf environmental harm, recover our |and'fi||s'and make productive of those rtiagain How should King County dispose ofits garbage over the long term!VVaste'by+rai| to an in -state gas -to -energy plant. Should weexpand the landfill soitlasts longer? No. Western Washington is not agood place for a landfill because ofthe amount ofrain fall. A promise was made to the community that the landfill would beexpanded. Ship our waste out ofCounty onrail? Build avvaste-to' ene/gyfaci|itywhereitwi||beburned!Somethinge|se! Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number (a V) 0 O. E5 1..0 t1.1 0. Ca _C U Commenter .(..) :6 C 0_ W v., E.U1 . — ?_ V) 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste gement Plan - July 2018 Att A Page 314 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) 0 as , 0 v, 0) = n = c c a' rt, o a. 0- „, -c a) a) cu 0) > E -c r:-- E t' . c o ,4... 0- u as 0 u c ra >. ..., 0 .. 41 0 '13 o 4- -0 • - -Es c c o (I) (L) >- E .1,-'-' -- E E c o "Tc ro u ro = (3) E 1— ,... Comment There are modern landfills inour regional that extract the 4-, C 0 0 ° • ' C 2. E 0 - - C co t u C — g rn u(1) a) moo C 0 M 0 VI t° ‘.... 0 4..) 0 o -a0) 4.). ra E a) .0 . 0 44' (i) as • 4, vi co 0 +.' 0.0 c 0- 0.0 ... CU - :c'-ca4-, 7: •,-44: ,73 -a 0 ...I co— ns La a) c • c (0 ,_ 4-) (1) c 4.) ra 4-' -C 15 V) 4-, _ 0 4_4 _ 5- F- ..occo >. „ ,_ ro .,.., 1.... -0o r,-. • - 0 a u cr.) M 0•F-3- >4 Cl3 CD 0.0 taf) . CL `1:- 4.- tao ro a.) " 0 C V) E ci) as 76 4" i-5 M 0 • - 4-, 4-, c0 Eu_ 0 co 03 0.0 • ' E 0 Q) cu , „,,- (r) - C -C >. 4-, .71-' 4- • ,,, -0 c 03 • - 5 o ' "0 la 1flN3I 'r0--,.._ :0 C Vu) 4aV.4') 130)0 Mro 0E „ ,_cro v, as ,.., s_.' c >. 0 > 0 eia) cu „, o ao 4-, rts cu -54) '3- 4) u 0 4- _c ...., e-i CIS CIS 0.) Zo 0 0 (0 C 4-- >. n3 .0 C 0 e, 1:5 1:3 , 0- co as 0 C C 0) 0 c ro v) 0- s_CU C "0 -0 4-' • - 0 ° 0 0 -5 .V7) E 4" 76 +4, .;-+ 'a o „„0-)Ca° "0) CU 2 o - _c - o- c ...E "a) a) E .4-' 0 v.) (» ra 4- C C C u ru 0 0 CM0E4CCU0'.-0 E —4- L,D" c ,..M ..._V) M -a >•.„, . .y2 o 12:2 ., ..T (0 -C 2 CU 0 „ ..0 .,.., c — ±...._ c (1, 0 ,.. > 0 c .5 . ra '5 = o — a) c — a) ,-, 0 V) VI o . - as -c t...) u a) .0 h- 0) -C 4-, E 0 " c 4- 0 C a) C --Y ,.,-, "C. 4., _, U V) -0 CU 73 — — )- c 0 • • > .4_7 :1' >, .0 ,,_(73 t .0 — -0 C C ,- 13 0 .0 al 0 ...I CD ')!,3 .- 0 ...0 CI z -0 ...c c v, .....Q, Is ro 5 -C U > o ao v) . C 5 0 0 = 2 IA >. 4-, 4- eV 13 a) 1) V' 0t- 0al oCo 01 ,,, C .- ,-I 4-, CO fa "co cri' 4-0.) -C V) iv oo — 1.. Ni 1.1=— (um ,.„› (3. oc • • 13 >.• 0 ro *-' C 0 IC 00 (.) 0 0 0 -0 h. •-• _,a _ 4) n3 C 0 7, I: 0 .1".e. o 8 ,,, ...6. c > • • a. cu - 2), CC (.) Q.) > U 0 ro _C VI -0 RS c ..0 (0 -0 c as C' as ea 0)4--. >. ra 0 ro a) _c 0, ...,_ ci a)-C s_ .:1- C E as CD u Ca c >. 00> 10i o 0-i 00 00a) c _o) -- cs- (3) 0 r-1 0 .0 a... (II IN -0 = >4 a, a) .- E E 00 > °mu 1-(1 E `-1 C'' a) Lc .- 0 -o 0 es) ti I ‘-.4 0 4-, -C CU 0 (3) ."C • - 0.) , a, , ci) t c cr) _o (13).,1 4- 0 E',...— > c o i3. ,c c., c v, (13 -6 ,- , co 0. a) _ > ro U O. i.L. 0- u Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number ro 0 0 0 0 E:3 ' LD L. CU 4-, 0 as _C 0 Commenter u v) .0 0 .- 0_ 0) cu CC V) 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 315 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills tu maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment � We encourage the SVVDtocontinue towork with its advisory committees toevaluate future disposal options once the Cedar Hills Landfill isnolonger anoption. The Draft Plan identifies the potential options, but itmay not be necessary toselect the final option inthe Comp Plan. There are many factors toconsider and consulting with the members ofthe inter|oca|agreements isrequired. When looking athow weshould dispose nfgarbage long term, | would recommend abalanced long-term solution. This solution should be efficient and innovative. VVeneed asystem that is flexible, gives usthe ability toadapt tochanges and prepare for the future with a goal ufnot using landfills. Thank you for the opportunity to respond and Carnation looks forward toworking with King County asvve move into the future. Siezethis Opportunity Create the Cedar Hills Wilderness Preserve! Cedar Hills isan "Accidental LandfiU^ |tisan environmentally sensitive area and the worst possible location for a waste facility. It's proximity to the Cedar River and Issaquah Creek make it too risky tocontinue operations. There are many many better locations for solid waste. At less sensitive locations, it would be easier to incorporate new technologies and conduct research onrecycling the solid waste. As leaders for the county | ask that you begin plans for the future todispose ofwaste ata less sensitive, less populated area. | ask that the Cedar Hills landfill be designated a Wilderness Preserve and plans be made toconvert the landfill area to a Natural Area. Let's allow Nature to heal and wildlife to Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal ro v.) 0 a v) i3 tri 0. U Commenter c L.. Z _0 0 < c 0 70 as c L. as 0 c 0 Le) 10 D 1 0 w 2079 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -Jul 2018 Att A Page 316 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment.The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnfurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. The ILA process in Section 5.1would beconvened atthe appropriate time inadvance ofCedar Hills reaching capacity. Comment The surrounding neighborhoods have been exposed totoxic pollution for years with unstudied health impacts. Please act upon King Countysenvironmental vision. Find abetter location todispose f solid waste! After identifying and comparing the disposal options outlined in Chapter f`the Plan should identify a recommended or preferred alternative tofurther develop Cedar Hills as the preferred alternative given the P|an's analysis of the estimated capital costs' operating costs and environmental impacts ofeach alternative. In addition, any disposal option other than further development ofthe landfill would require consultation with the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (N1SvV[NAI) as required bySection 5.1ofthe ILA. Requested change (p.6-19): Select disposal option 2 to 'further develop Cedar Hills" as the preferred disposal alternative. Duhngthcpresentation our City Council expressed concerns over the impacts of rate structures and planning for the longterm future of solid waste in the region. The draft Plan provides three options for the future of Cedar Hills Landfill. The City ofBothell would prefer to use the existing landfill as long as possible while working together todetermine the best possible option for solid waste needs in the future The Draft Plan outlines the major aspects of the system (finance'transfer stations, recycling options, and su/tainabi|ity) and also future wage disposal options, including increasing permitted capacity atthe Cedar Hills Landfill. This existing landfill isthe least expensive disposal option for our region'» system, and much of the Draft Plan focuses on how to extend its life (through waste reduction, recycling, etcJ. Itisclear that Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number (6 tn 0 0 Ln ES (.c. 0 as c L.) Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Commenter CU > CU Q.) CO = CI) ..E 00 CO >-, a) To t1.5 CU U- 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 317 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Comment a) ra u tr) c c a) 4-) • - 0 > to >- • -0 >. 71-1 4_, bp --• _ O.O 0 0 C C CU ‘JooaJc 0 a) NJ ‘,-, aj 4,, 0- ``' in 4"' 73 sr, ....- _C •"'" -0 4- 4.-• LS vs 0 0 CU 0 7) ..‘"- (T, 0 v, op _c c 750 *41-, 0° 8 y_ 0 v) C. ' ', 1- a) --' I) " cs. L" .0 o ° a) 0 L.. 4- ° .473 47= 0 1- 0 °6 D u cu - -0 Y 0 73 ra = ,.,- c 4-, E cT5 0 :FL ro u-) kr) .)..• c . bp a) a) a)4- 47) CL , °_ '7v003) 44s°-...+ as..j. —•6+-1.' ,,c3_ >0.y_._ -01o..-4 -•-0=c 7y_3- • (0-05 0sa..)) .0 .- c 0 tO a) 0to s c a) l3.13 .t0u '0_ o • -0 . - co ,zu 40 :__ 79 z s..) cpcu ._v) 0.,x cj +-. c _C CU ,..,) . ,,.0 0 R .0 L. . — a) ,,, ,... a) C) 47- tj-i in vi c C t -0 t,C5 CU C C as Z C 0 0 .() 0la ,.• -.... 4_, ,_ CU 0 4.) 3 aa0o ...o - — • -V) ° t:CQ) -00 cuL C CU- - U ra a) 0) u .c -0 4-) L. u c ca 0 (r) - — 0 (1) a) C" LE c 4- a) 0 C) _c -4-4_, C G.) ra .- c ° Q) C .--y_ La u 0 (a LE) ...E — 0- > 'Fs 2 < c .47, cu ‘•••4 — V) QI 4-' 0 . -- ..0 1 v) CD - NCrt5 .0-0 - a) 0 4.>,,,., .,.,o o c s_ E ° '- E `" (° a) 0 ft' 4- — 0 . E _c ..) 4.- 73 0 'Z.,- a) a) co cu vs ....• •,.... ,_ c •- a) C o o -c- 0 s.... 0 c a) a C34c vrs —4c7-.• ••o-•• - --0D -• 4u-, C,o_ Q,to) -0o=p 0,0 0aa0UCO'-".Cv.-- ra ,...5 > 00 .a)) t) a i .7a , o CU 0 (1) _c 4-' t).0 C., Q.) 0 .0 ).5 4-' 4-, 4- 4, ,,, , 4-, 0 cO co 0 c O0 co '47.• a," > b..) s- E"caooT3c m0-2. ‘- Q) • - (N J7 a) a) 7; *-- cru o. a., , 4:1 C 0) _C 0 •:-... C 0- ,,Lj 2 4-, ._C a) 4-, a) s.) (a NI ra ,-a> o ,.. .E -c ,4-' 0—0cao c E 0 4o. tr) > 0 az) 0. " o 4- ca, o 4-' = C C +_ — ,(‘UnC0.5vc-4 _0'-'1 , :'1--' :>ICra ,..."0"..' • 0-" —.4m-. 44'c..-,.,.,U' ,4-' aa3) cvos }- L0 .70 -0 c c v) ro 0_ 4- 4-• 0 M 0 > Lri 4- +., -C 0 a • - 0 a.' i3 a) v.' • 0 •C > - c -C .- '1"' Q.) -0 ....r• .1.-• a) ,_ .."._, u .0 a) ••••‘. 0 C v) >. ..C +-• L.. r° .0 -C - ° a) c cu " ,_ c u •c ,- ro .- 0 - a 1 u0 ao -C . 4- o =-a .c , cb 76 c .3 C Q) C > ‘-- -0 73 • ".- -.- E ° aJ -o .1-;_ r° 0- 0 (...) c C " CU c.) 0 C ,... rcs al a.) • - Q) U as 4--+ • x coc -o 40a) - uras 7a3) 0 C 0-v2 4c0> ca 0 0>10-C a) 0- tu' 0 a) a) E ca >o oc.0 00 (...) Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Commenter 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan 6/ 2018 Att A Page 318 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment Thank you for your comment Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnfurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tufurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment other than increasing the capacity ofthe Cedar Hills landfill will trigger Section 5.1and require engagement with cities regarding alternatives and potential agreement extension. https//wwwzovan,a.com VVcbelieve that sostainahi|ityisachieved through a combination ofhuman, economic and natural factors. VVe adhere to this vision by continually striving to improve ... Modern incineration techniques as implemented in some European countries and asdescribed here The County has outlined three options for disposal past 2028. The Plan states that an option must be chosen as part ofthe approval ofthe Plan, and outlines important selection criteria' but does not state when or who will select the final option. The City supports the selection criteria identified and would like to see a dear recommendation from the King County Solid Waste Division and the County Executive when the plan is transmitted to the King County Council for approval. The recommendation should reflect all six categories of the selection criteria, information presented in the Plan, and comments received from cities and the public. Itisimportant thatthcCityand[ountydca|vvithour created waste within ourovvnborders a»apriority, before considering sending ourvvasteout ofCounty for disposal. Additionally, based onthe data inthePlan the Waste toEnergyoptionisprohibitive|yexpensive, iaxx consi»tentwith waste reduction and diversion goals, does not support City o,County carbon reduction targets' portends considerab|etinoeand expensefor siting and brings with itthepntentia|forma ny environmental issues. The Cedar Hills Landfill has been a cost'effective local method ofsolid waste disposal for / Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal co 0 Ct. v) ifl . 1.0 ,'Cli CL e0 -C U co 0 0 C. (A EI . (JD 505 0 (13 -C U Commenter John Stone bO 0 —J --, = Cr as 0 _ 0 as = 0 co 0 _ 0 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 319 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Cedar Hills Landfill isagate-of-the'artlandfill that issimilar to the one that you describe. |tislined and collects gas and |eachate.The methane gas generated by decomposing waste is sent toafacility that converts it to pipeline -quality natural gas that is sold to Puget Sound E Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment more than 50years. Extendingthelife ofthe landfill for asmany years aspossible makes the most sense for the ratepayers ofthe County, and isconsistent with greenhouse gas emissions reduction policy and commitments. | know inmahthey dug aenormous amount ofland and made some kind ofbarrier with ability tndrain .... this landfill was many times the normal size, itwould take many years toreach capacity. However when itdid was covered and some kind ofprocess ornatural reaction produced energy that could beharnessed and distributed. PNyfather helped excavate the site.Someone shouldlook ithat project! King County could certainly doamuch better job inthis area. Mygood friend Darrell Jones built the Sumaspower plant from the ground up. | believe when itwas first built it operated onrecycled wood. |thas been operating very efficiently since about l99lAbout ZOO7orZOV8PSEbought the plant. http://thrnrsconmupzom/po/tfo|imsuma*cowrnrratinn/ |naddition, moving waste out ofcounty isimmoral. We create the problem here; we must solve it here. | strongly endorse the Cedar Hills Landfill expansion asthe lower cost and much lower Greenhouse Gas Emission scenario (per figure 6-7 on page 6-10 of the plan) | support transporting waste outside ofKing County byrail, which the City ofSeattle already does, primarily because King County has repeatedly failed toaddress community concerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill. | live within the area ofthe Cedar Hills landfill, and the odor isasignificant problem. | have been repeatedly disappointed inKing [ounty'scomplete lack ofengagement with residents inthis area about the problem ofthe odor. | know neighbors that report poor air quality multiple times aweek, and Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal ri3 ,,, 0 0 v, ES LO 0 as 0 U Commenter a) CU co CU CU a) co 1--- c (1 Laurie Kevin Jones _c c rc •,7_- _0 al _C2 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaement Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 320 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tnfurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment nothing isdone. People live here, that needs tnbetaken into serious consideration. When itwas created, the location ofCedar Hills landfill was avery remote area, but itis now quite populated, with the population density continuing togrow. Cedar Hills has served the area well for decades, but itistime tomove on. Landfills should be sited in remote areas with steps taken to minimize impacts onsurrounding communities. Thank you for taking my feedback into consideration. |support transporting waste outside ofKing County byrail, which the City ofSeattle already does, primarily because King County has repeatedly failed toaddress community concerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill. | live within the area ofthe Cedar Hills landfill, and the odor isasignificant problem. | have been repeatedly disappointed inKing County'scomplete lack ofengagement with residents inthis area about the problem ofthe odor. | know neighbors that report poor air quality multiple times aweek, and nothing isdone. People live here, that needs tobetaken into serious consideration. When itwas created, the location ofCedar Hills landfill was avery remote area, but itisnow quite populated, with the population density continuing togrow. Cedar Hills has served the area well for decades, but itistime tomove on. Landfills should be sited in remote areas with steps taken to minimize impacts onsurrounding communities. | strongly support transporting waste outside ofKing County by rail. Cedar Hills has repeatedly been expanded each time the facility nears its capacity. Past promises for solutions other than expansion mthe existing site have never been met. The localized problems with odors only continue to grow and the mountain ofgarbage only continues to grow. Expansion means either growing the peak higher Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number as v) 0 0 v) ES LID CU 43 0 ea _C U Chapter 6 - Disposal Commenter >. a) § >, = < ET CU sa c 0 1— ?.-. ,.... cz -1 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 321 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment and/or expanding the area around the existing landfill. Both are unacceptable. Unincorporated King County and those of usliving for decades inthe vicinity ofthe land fill donot need tocontinue tubear the burden (primarily safety and health) ofthe cities dumping their garbage atCedar Hills landfill. Thank you for h | support transporting waste outside ofKing County byrail, which the City ofSeattle already does, primarily because King County has repeatedly failed toaddress community concerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill. | live within the area ofthe Cedar Hills landfill, and the odor isasignificant problem. | have been repeatedly disappointed inKing [nunty'scomplete lack nfengagement with residents inthis area about the problem ofthe odor. | know neighbors that report poor air quality multiple times aweek, and nothing isdone. People live here, that needs tobetaken into serious consideration. When itwas created, the location ofCedar Hills landfill was avery remote area, but itis now quite populated, with the population density continuing togrow. Cedar Hills has served the area well for decades, but itistime tomove on. Landfills should besited inremote areas with steps taken to minimize impacts on surrounding communities. |support transporting waste outside ofKing County byrail, which the City ofSeattle already does, primarily because King County has repeatedly failed tnaddress community concerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill and the compost facility next door. | have lived near the Cedar Hills landfill for Z9years. The odor isasignificant problem. | have been repeatedly disappointed inKing [nunty'scomplete lack ofengagement with residents inthis area about the problem ofthe odor. | report poor air quality multiple times amonth, and nothing Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number as no v) (r) 0 0 O. O. o 3 , cm 3 . Lip up ct 'ci; 0_ as 0 as _c _c U 0 Commenter 0 o.) Cll 1.11) Z 0 --, ,„ — 17' T. s_ ro _0 c ,•- 2029,Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -Jul 2018 Att A Page 322 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) (.0 2 v, v, il) = m 1 o " c ra coc 3 a-. ... a, o _ _c cu E 4_, E - c)ro 0 •.,-. coo- s... , (...) T 0 o >. ,..., 0 I.- .47; CI µ- -0 • - = C 1:3 o cu (1) >,. E •`-.1! u co -c cu E h- ,... Comment isdone. People live here, that needs tobetaken into serious consideration. When itwas created, the location of Cedar Hills landfill was avery remote area, but iti,now quite populated, with the population density continues togrow. Cedar Hills has served the area well for decades, but itistime tomove on. Landfills should be sited in remote areas with steps taken to minimize impacts on surrounding communities. Thank you for considering nnycomments. Thank you for taking comments regarding Cedar Hills waste and the areas future plans. | just moved toSunset Valley Farms onMaple Valley Road and was upset tnlearn our expensive move into King County tobeinfiltrated bya horrible stench first discovered after afew weeks living here. | have since found out that smell totobefrom Cedar Hills Landfill despite. |support transporting waste outside nfKing County byrail, which the City ofSeattle already does, primarily because King County has repeatedly failed toaddress community concerns regarding Cedar Hills Landfill. | live within the area ofthe Cedar Hills landfill, and the odor isasignificant problem. | have been repeatedly disappointed inKing County'scomplete lack ofengagement with residents inthis area about the problem ofthe odor. | know neighbors that report poor air quality multiple times aweek, and nothing isdone. People live here, that needs tobctaken into serious consideration. When itwas created, the location ofCedar Hills landfill was avery remote area, but itisnow quite populated, with the population density continuing togrow. Cedar Hills has served the area well for decades, but itistime tomove on. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number To v., 0 0 V) -64 LD L- CU +, 0 (ti U Commenter C as -, - 5 E c « 0 (13 cl3L..(0 2 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 323 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) To v, 0 0. vs 13 .,-, . = °.), Cr 0) LLI , 4-) 0 C — 0.) M E LI° E •47, 0 0 c.., cu 0 7-u o c ,... c o 0 >4 a) k' •-• -C3 0 CD C O. -C 0 0- F- u al Comment Landfills should besited inremote areas with steps taken to minimize impacts onsurrounding communities. Thank you for time d consideration ..... — 0 4--, 0 CU 0 -0 • z 0 O.) •-- 0) L. 4-, al --,:: 0 4-' > CU . - n3 u. ""i5 . .... : 6 ...... al -C • .... 444 C C 1+- 0 4-, 5 4-, 0 0 CO CU toi) 0 c3 • ..,:' cu ° 4-' .c..- co 41) 0 .- - L. 0 0 4-, c ro c`19 0 • - 0 0 c • - • - -c L., 0- .-s-' 0 0 4.- -0 E° 4., c 0_ E v) CU 2 a L., :o .t..„. , 0 eta = _. (.) 0 6' .„ 'a-c 4"' w, • ..0 4-, ,._ 0 --, u ....„ -e." 0 0 • -- Z cu ,.0 • . 0 a, -o v) o Z 0 4., o ,.., Q., 0) L... L.. 4., 4, 0 E C ) z • • . . . ...9_ ..) ,- 4- (., a) , ° •--, 4., ..... 4" (..) E d 4-, --. U .- .7i -a •:.-.50.`u a) _c-cl 4t3 Q.) Q., '-- t L.. 4-, 4- _C C (13 a ,i t ,__E _o a) .9 cucS• c Q-, 4- 4.., (1) 0 c..;' '4") -"6 +.4 cu 4-, .- _c 0 C ,.. 0) FE .4-, o - .--_-. -..„ 4-, • 0- •-• (u L1.1 Z q.) S.) z-:4C0cc _ao, -.S44c'6C-,,, --(a0>cUu_ E cu 0 s... 4-' cu 0 S.... L.1 ,;.-4.Q70acwu.J-.,s,, •-400a,(--,1. -z 4-, Z • - Cu C 45 .1 c E L. c ru 0.) 0_ > y_ v; vl 0 o c ° 0 -'u (4) cc op 4 til .;00 .q0•_ 4-, -c6cvor.;) ..,.., 0 0 _.0ec0at,.-n,)-) cu r_c-l-c0asli)•° .4ctccc-na, iZctus; v _.. •-- 0 s.„ (-70 -F., 4- a t‘'CQt`..-),.` 4-, vi 0. 1..._ s... o -:t'cri-31;, 5 c:) oi• ;cE a5 0 o E cu M 0 -C 0 0 0 ,_ ,, _ .a c o ---' 2 a) o . ..,..) 0.-„4-, ra "z o 145 -6-, ..,v, a b"- coc c c‘"c" — (j — -0 0 -C •- c v) E ,a,) as co -a 4-' o.Q4 -a 0 cz) >- 4-, ,_ 4_, .. 0 40 R 0 ,,V3 Z ›... Cl.) •Z -0 Z 5, "- 0 .,-• ..... s... .4.4 cu 0., _0 c ,,c 0 vs • -- 0 ,t,4 0 4.,,, Z -C 0 ‘5 5 7-13 8 _0 CO . 0 -- • 03 t10 ---, 4-, 4-4 4- 0 C3 44' '6.-.) — 4.4 -0 '..- ›, .1.... 4, 0 z .-".. V) 4-, • - -1-' < ..... 0.., '-'3 0 _0 0 -0 m cu >- 0 t..) -a u o o.. — ..7-: 0 4- `.. ...t.' 0. U- V) I- .1'. -a a) u Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number RS v.) 0 O. v) — CI Lo s... a) 4-, o_ co (...) Commenter 12 (1 4-, Lo . a) _0 C 0 CO 0 2a7,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaement Plan -J-nly 2018 Att A Page 324 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) ro 0 .,, 0 v, cu — n 1 7) '- a ra c a) co U 0 _c a) I- > cu 4..; -0 c a.) ,.., . a., ›- +-, 6 o 42 0- 0 ro 0 c.) ,.. .„ L.- .4--7 0_ 0 'a v) q.- -0 .- _ c -0 (- ) a) >- E •N- -- E E c o ') ra 0 1- ,- Comment Nemoved here in198 and atthe time, wmwere told the landfill would close in2UOU. 2OOOcame and went, and then itwas Z01Z,then Z028'and now Z040(maybe). Cedar Grove was established AFTER wmmoved inand Cedar Mountain Reclamation just started upinthe last couple years. K4yhusband and | will bedead before Cedar Hills closes (if itever does). tic 0 Q) C 4, tto _E 4-, - 01 (0 .- .Z-7 4-, +a VI , 1/). " V) c V) • 0 0.) • - (11 C 0 -•1.- (1)0 a) as Ln a) _c :1-.5 4-, -§- 0 4-. 0 ..0 a) >- -,, P i-• c -c 0-0i g`^a)wir"D-c-4E'—° 4, 4, V) U c .5 as _ x; o a) a. mu' — 4' ..cm =-; ,._ a) x ra 7:5 .--._ - 4., '--. 4-, , C • - 4-, c_ . - 0_ 0 6) ns 0) CU 4-, U ro tio _c 5 , 4-' 73 QJ >- to 0 C 44- ()) — 0.1 • - 0 t0.-- > a.) -C4., .-C ''4., 'IP 4P -P co ?.. In -CI >" CU (3 -C >.• ;14' C 4., ,..., Z.,-; 0.0 •-• - ti' C 0 c p o cu 0 c _c a, c c4,0 0.0 „,- • c., „co+, 77. 1,14 0 -CS c - >. -0 -- 0. - E_ Co 4., U , > 0 14 J- ,s4 • - cis _c ,_, .-1-• -.Y 0 c ›.. C s-. 7.1 c . t-_- C ..c 4-4 ,.., 4- 0 co 0 v) a) `"0 M .... Cl/ F.J co E v, — u . , u = Qus , = . ,—F0- 1• -CtlI3)a L-C°U -'3>Cca :t40.-)., '+-,- :4=u103>c•• 1—00,3 4c0sCC-DU-.) E,Ca>1_) . -1->eCi• aCctaL)o).). 0 2C. U —.• ,0_-.. 1—cC:a3 2_E4(01-I) "a) )-C4 +, " 2.4' ra .-- E 0 4-- 0 -C a) a) >.' E >- -- Mo , , 4_, -...... '0 fa TS 0 C 05 '- -: 4, as ,-CELs 43) vs C-c/}CL")-'CCi.-- as al m LL.1 r,-. — cu I- = > (0= = (1) -00- _c cu -Luz 0 tn 0 -0 < F C i ttO Fc -0 ...-- 4-, ro L_ 0 (s0L-)S -o 0 .- c a) L.. 0 CD 0 C — -0 ++ C _ 0 a) CU C 0 -o ,- = > _c z -,p 000,54-, 0 0. ."P t..) _c +, 1) CD " ' C -0 C >• '414. ote 0 0, r-- u >. a.) •- al Ca 0 4-s -C s•cs _Cs 0- QJ c > .- c (..) 0 ro .... C1) c E v, •- 4_• -0 CU cs c C' c CU C13 • - ,_ 0 vi -c -0 a c„, CU 73 0 (II 73 1:). • 4 . — - 040 U.' (7)m 4-..0occ 0 'Za 2CC., - as .,., U c _c _C 0 I- 0) .F.0 -0 ";' '- n O. o ra o "c I-- -C) 0 U vs to ILI Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number (13 vs 0 CL vs ES up a) ..., 0_ (0 o Commenter ') o a) _o a o as 0--, 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2°18 Att A Page 325 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan includes a recommendation tofurther develop Cedar Hills to maximize disposal capacity. Comment Close the landfill aspromised and scheduled and export the waste. Incineration —Too many potential problems, concerning noise, pollutants and toxins. Definitely doNOT want an incinerator located atCedar Hills. The EIS has stated that this would be preferred because there would beless impact onthe environment tobuild here. Noise isanother problem, iflocated atCedar Hills. Thee were several issues with the gas plant that have since been resolved. But the plant can still beheard. Toxins (TAP) are still released from a plant like this. Them is anelementary school within 1mile ofCedar Hills. Exposing children tothese toxins is unacceptable. Sweden iscurrently using incineration and hisvery successful there inreducing waste and generating electricity. The Ithingp | would never like tosee: 1. Raising the height to83Ofeet istotally unacceptab|e. It's bad enough with the noise and smell from the landfill, but to raise it, vvethen must SEE it. When will the assault onthe surrounding neighborhoods byKing County ever quit. If nothing else, this isONE concession they should grant our neighborhoods. Z. Never encroach onthe lOOO buffer. | know it's not in the current options, but | will never trust King County tonot change the permitting for this area. With the growth inthe surrounding areas, the landfill isno longer "out ufsight, out ofnnind^ |tisablight onthe landscape. Have any ofthe council members hiked Squak Mountain orTiger Mountain and taken inthe view? There are beautiful views ofMount Rainier, but itispretty much ruined with the scar ofthe landfill glaring right beneath the mountain. Pictures are ruined by it. As the population expands into this area, Cedar Hills has a bigger impact on the Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 0 0. v, E, ,.0 sti.5 0 a, _c ,...., Commenter ....2 (.) ..., 0 ,... cu .0 . 0 ..._ 2079 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Pla17 -1-116/ 2018 Att A Page 326 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The division bworking with atask force comprised ofhaulers, cities and other stakeholders todevelop actions toaddress local processing, market development and address the contamination issues inecyc|ab|esthat are collected. Thank you for your comment. Comment surrounding neighborhoods. It's time toseriously, and | mean SERIOUSLY, consider closing itand select one ofyour other options, preferably exportinXtheaeaswaste. | will say, since the lawsuit inZUOC\the landfill has improved substantially. Thereismomtoimpnove—theodordoesstiU occur, but not asprevalent asbefore. | have little hope the County will dnright bythe surrounding neighborhoods byclosing the landfill asprevious promised and scheduled. The plan does highlight some very helpful ways it's trying to reduce the waste flow, but until manufacturers change their packaging, there will still bealot ofgarbage, regardless of where itends up. That said, with the advent ofChina putting new restrictions onvvhatsortnferydab|emateria|itvviUtoke-whatdoes that dotoyour projections? The material that isnolonger accepted will have to go somewhere. ATeam ofInternational and National Independent Experts with decades ofexperience designing, integrating and implementing Sustainable Solid Waste Management Systems including Collection, Landfill, Recycling, Composting, Anaerobic Digestion, Sewage Treatment and Energy and Material Recovery Systems (Advanced VVTE) as well asdeveloping regulations, producing, reviewing and evaluating scientific facts, etc. has reviewed the King County Draft Solid Waste Management Plan (DSVVN1P)and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE|S) and is providing the foUowingassessment6omments: The DSVV[WPfails toevaluate and examine the advantages and disadvantages ofthe very claims itmakes including use Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 - Disposal rz 8 a .8 i..0 ,1.5 0 as _c c..) Commenter , 2 - - , 2 00 tt 0 0 2( 1 ) a 32 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 327 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Toensure that greenhouse gas emissions for disposal options received comparable evaluation, the plan used models used bythe U.lEnvironmental Protection Agency and the Washington Department of Ecology. It isassumed that this comment references Sectkon 41ofNormandeau'sZ017Waste toEnergy Options and Solid Waste Export Considerations report. The items listed inthat section would be considered as possible next steps ifwmsue-to'energyispursued as ameans oflongterm disposal. Thank you for your comment. The recycling infrastructure that has developed over the past several decades isthe result ofapublic/ private partnership. The recycling rate for ZOl5is Comment � According tothe information provided inthe plan, |andfiUing issupposed tubecheap, safe and environmentally friendly and all other options (e.g. Anaerobic Digestions and VVaste' to'Energy)aepmsentedasexpansiwe,danOerousand distressing thus not viable for King County. The team concurs that this issimply not accurate and true. Facts are ignored. Especially alarming are the false Greenhouse Gas emission volumes given for the Cedar Hills Landfill. From ascientific perspective, the climate iswarming atanalarming and unnatural pace and Greenhouse Gases from landfills, including Cedar Hills are considerable contributors toGlobal Warming specifically incontrast toother viable and environmentally proven alternatives such asrecycling, anaerobic digestion, energy and material recovery systems etc The concept of|andhUingisanoutdated approach for handling d te appropriatel When assessing the true cost of|andfiUinguntreated and still reactive solid waste, landfills are significantly more adverse and environmentally detrimental than other viable alternatives. The recent King County Waste-to- Energy/Waste Export Study (prepared bythe Normandeau Team) made 27recommendations that are vital inthe process ofevaluating viable economic -ecologic options. These key elements for King County were not included in either the DSVVK8Pnor the DE|lWithout this information a proper evaluation cannot take place and the plan should be halted and updated accordingly. |tisessential that a comprehensive environmental and legally defensible analysis with anintegration ofthese findings beundertaken. The DSVV[WPdoes not enable but hinder the opportunity to build aworking recycling infrastructure. The current numbers of50%are questionable and itisvery unlikely without some major changes tngetting even close toa70% Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number a3 Ln 0 0. Ln 3 . 'Cb- a as _C U ca Ln 0 0. vn 3 . sai 0 as _C 0 Chapter 6 - Disposal Commenter (0 to 0 2 co a; CU on 0 2 co K8eghan Bronk|er 2019.Comprehensive Solid Waste gem t Plan -Jul 2018 Att A Page 328 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) documented mbe54&There bnodoubt that achieving a7O%recycling rate will bechallenging, but having alandfill does not preclude aggressive Thank you for your comment. The Plan discusses many approaches that are used together including possible long-term disposal options and their impacts tothe environment, greenhouse gas emissions, jobs, material recovery and revenue. The Public Review Draft Plan issued inJanuary 2UlD was anupdated version ofthe 2001Plan. Data inthe current Plan document were further updated in 2018. Thank you for your comment. The NormandeauWARM results for the 3U-year wasue-to-energyscenario that uses King Countys waste composition should be79'592(or 8O'000if Comment recycling rate. Recycling faces significant challenges and these are not adequately addressed in the plan. In order to move towards a70%recycling rate amuch more aggressive local infrastructure isrequired including moving away from |tisimportant toknow that the current DSVVPWPbfocused on|andfiUing,which isthe least sustainable option. LandfiUinXranks lowest bythe USEPA and comparable international waste management hierarchies. Landfi||inQ offers the public the least viable/sustainable environmental option and is not economical when all costs and potential revenue streams are included. The Draft Solid Waste Management plan fails toaddress an integrated approach that offers many benefits inregards to the reductions ingreenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants into air and ground, the creation ofjobs, revenues, recovery ofmaterials neqo|ing/upcyding and waste avoidance opportunities. These options will also eliminate the need for any additional landfill expansion and will save King County and its residents hundreds ofmillions of dollars. Itdoes not seem that the D5VV[WPhas been thoroughly updated and comprehensively reviewed for anumber of years. For example, the Plan lacks current innovative and technical solutions. Considering that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE|5)isbased onthe Draft Solid Waste Management Plan, the DE|5should bewithdrawn and not befinalized. |tisnot thorough, histechnically inaccurate, and not legally defensible. The DE|Sprocess needs tobestopped immediately. First, it seems like the range ofgreenhouse gas emissions shown inthe chart on6'l4shows the range ofemissions between 12,O0Oand 1Z5'000MT[OZefor the ZOyear model for awaste toenergy plant. However, | think the maximum Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Commenter co _c bp 0 (1) 2 2 co ro _c to 0 cu 2 2 co K8eghan BrnnWer Meghan a L) vi 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2°18 Att A Page 329 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) rounded tothe nearest thousand). The higher numberin the plan was for h 5scenario. Tonnage isprojected tnincrease steadily after 2O48. Other disposal options (such asexport) could be considered beyond 2U48instead ofbuilding an additional mass burn facility but the total disposal cost per ton for that combination option would add the cost nfthe parallel disposal system tothe continuing operation cost for the original mass burn No, having two different sysuemswnu|dnotbemom expensive than having two waste toenergy facilities. The Nonnandeaureport includes information that could beused todothis analysis. Thank you for your comment The 2Ol7Nonnandeaureport estimated that inyear 2O(actua|ky,the 21styear when all bonds are paid off) the cost per ton for the mass burn facility drops topurely operating cost. However, the capacity of the mass burn facility also isfully used inyear 20. An additional expanded mass burn facility must bebuilt to handle the growing waste in the regional system inyear 2Iand beyond. Showing only the 2O48 operating cost for the first mass burn facility does not account for the full cost ofdisposal given that significant new capital investment (and operating cost) must beundertaken for anew mass burn facility. So in Figure 6'9toshow an approx. ZOiear app|es-to'app|escomparison with export we did not show either the drop ofthe bond payments for the first mass burn facility orthe new capital cost for the additional mass burn facility. Afootnote toFigure 6' 9hasbeenaddedtosaythatthevvaste-to'enerOy Comment � IVITCO2einthe model was 0lOOO.The 1lS`0O0IVITCO2e comes from the 50 year model. If there was too much waste for the capacity of the WTE facility in2O48kseems like other disposal options could be considered correct? |scapacity projected toincrease well above the 4,000 ton capacity after 2048? Would having two different systems bemore expensive than two VVTEfacilities? |sthere analysis onthis? VVeare strongly opposed toawaste-to-energyoption. This does not make sense from anenvironmental oreconomic perspective at this time. Second, the chart onthe 617shows the cost/ton for VVTEas $121atyear 30.However, inthe model the cost/ton is$37 Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal Chapter 6 - Disposal 0 0 v, 1":5 i..d ki r-.. (15 LO -C 0 CS- Commenter < 0 li) < 0 (r) Zero Waste WA < 0 VI -72 2029.Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 330 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) cost per ton actually runs through ZO47 the last year of the initial 20bond payments. Increasing compost facilities asapotential option has been added topage 6-3. 4-) CU E c E 0 D o > C C Q) E E O Us 0 )4-- ... -c F- -0 vs ra m u c _a o c '5 c o to 0 3 _C .4-4 I--- (7) • 0. LLO > 10 U - 2 ao, 23 -CP- C ,--L- C13 0_ -0 U 0 - 4-, 0_ • -0 as 4-, 0 Thank you for your comment Comment Potential strategies should include increasing compost o o V1 (1) u a) 0 c , There badequate rail capacity ifKing County considers all rail options available and selects alandfill served bythe east/west rail corridor such asWenatchee LF. Choosing >.. ro ‘C) .- cu - .- a) c E ‘4.- u D o b.0 c 0 = 0 L.. 1(1),_ >... F) U 4-',,, _c " (65 v) • IP - = 5 0 a5 •-v-' 4-, -C .t.' a) 0 o - ...Y ._(-) •-") c.,,E , 0. "c E •- .I-, c 4., ,.. 4:: ,„ 0 S..) 0) .... ro 0 -C 0" v) C n3 0 ro ro E c o 0 1:5 , 0 1... > ,-r3 CI- ,- G) - -CD >ss 0 --... 2 ma) a 2 ro" E 4' CU b.0 CD_ C - b.0 .c o) a) ro co CU L. -0 - ,- > • a) (..) c c o ro }- E 4/) . 4-, .._ si's ao 4-- as 0 ro -• .c > -• _c -c -0 - c to o 0 •-• a) u , (13 9 cu> =>.0 o ,40 CU 4-4 as > u o .1-• 0 _c .- u m 73 -c 2 E, ca)E5-c)..,> o 0 OD '•-• 0 CO -Ci3 -o 0 ...„ co a3 C 4-, - a) o - ,-, 0eL 4-, 13 c ,- a) Tu cu( " E c-r) "3' -0 c.) s... • .4-. _0 co to ,, E ' vi‘ I E ° (-) 75 0 (1) ..o c > u cu ‘... 0 u. ._ u 03 c -0 c .1.-' . CU 0 he .... C • 0_ -0" CO cl) ro co ,.„ - 0 co ;u - _ . 0 lit- 'sf) C (13 a) u 4..• to , u., 0 cu -0 a 0_ • - co ,t'a a) 1- 4-) o to c +, (0 - 0 _o $-•("Q) 0_ 0 .._ a. 71.7. " 73 co 0- 0., E 77; in c 0 a) 0 ,•-', - E .1...• . 0 0 , 0 0 u 4..) ' tfl M La o .4', .."' +.• a) E c a) to r0co C0u1) 0• -_c - - .us...., k-- —o-r ,1•--•' --+Ca _0aJ cu co> .0 c). ° . 0- v) " c ,C13 _ ow . ..-- cu V'c -LEs > rv, - - -c:3 > -2 2 a) °- v) St U >s t' -C s U C +-' sZU > 3 LJ co (1) ( 0- •-s 0o a •,..7., ,... ,t, -0 uEas 0opE oc , -- 4- m .c a) C. 0 0 -0 trs > c 0)'- 0 7:311.-. - (.4 0 al ›.. 4-," s- roc :=4' co° Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter Diversion of Woste p. 6-3 ri) Chapter Page6-10, Rail Capacity 00 CU F.-.. LID LUD CU c- co • E _c 0 L) CD Commenter Zero Waste Vashon = co Waste Management 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 331 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Policy FD-4inChapter 3'action 3'dinChapter U'and new action 35'sall address monitoring, assessing and perhaps pursuing emerging technologies nrother options todivert waste from the landfill. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. The information has been added toTable U'],which can befound in AppendixF. Comment Wenatchee LFasawaste export option would provide the County with another rail transportation option, especially if and when there isacongested north/south rail corridor. The County should not limit itself »othree options and should also consider afourth option: alternative waste diversion and conversion technologies. The County has been keeping its finger onthe pulse ofemerging technologies and should give itself the option tnpursue these alternative technologies within the un of the Plan. There may besubstantial benefit, both financially and otherwise, inKing County exporting aportion ofthe municipal solid waste earlier inthe process, inparallel tu extending the life ofthe Cedar Hills Landfill. The County could consider bifurcating the management ofthe solid wastestneam—aportiontoCedarHi||sandanother segment ofwaste tobeexported toanout'of-county landfill. This strategy would present the County with another option than the choices offered inthe Plan. VVMVVonce again requests that the Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill (Wenatchee LF)beincluded inthe table of potential locations for out-of-countylandfill disposal. See information tobeadded atthe end ofthis comment. Wenatchee LFcurrently processes 35O'OOOtons per year and not l75,OOOtons ofrefuse peryea/asthe[oum* indicated inits response toour first set ofPlan comments, dated November 3'2017.Wenatchee LFiscurrently also a King County designated landfill for construction and demolition debris disposal. We would also like to note that Wenatchee LFisl57rail miles from Seattle, which ishalf the distance ofthe closest landfill asidentified inthe Table 6'l' and itisthe closest rail -served regional landfill. Utilizing the Wenatchee LFasawaste export option would provide King County with flexibility inboth transportation and disposal options. Additionally, Wenatchee LFuses the east/west rail corridor, while most other identified landfills use the Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number King County's Long - Term Disposal Method Will Be One of Three Options Chapter Pageh-7, Waste Export 06, 41. i al o CD c c rts .7: ct' 0 -a 4— C cu (.0 0 > „) as _o ii z 0 -c co 0 0 .- 0 Commenter 4-, c a) +-, c a) 4, c a) E a) E a) E a) 13.0 °-° 4-, v) (13 C +-, v) ct, C CD 4-, ra ce) C rts 113 c13 ro rts co 2 2 2 -74 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Pla.)7 -July 2028 Att A Page 332 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. There isadiscussion ofpotential technologies toconsider inChapter 6. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Comment north/south rail passageway.(seecomment letter for info on landfill) | like the way you recycle food waste inyard waste and turn itinto compost. Now I'd like you toconsider something more. |nJapan they recycle plastic atawhole new level. the plastic bottles they recycle like normal but the rest ofthe plastic they can't use they either gasify liquefy n,turn into other plastic items like decking and stuff like that. I'd like you toconsider isthe gasification orLiqueficadon. They have machines inJapan specifically inYokohama, that can turn waste plastic into oil diesel and gasoline. | think you really should look into this because these are machines that you can buy. You could ship them toKing County. They are scalable tothe amount ofplastic you need toprocess. They work onthe same principle. They heat upthe plastic, gas is released and condensed into oil. This oil can barefined into gas or diesel. | hope you look into this. It seems the transportation costs & carbon footprint would make these high cost alternatives. VVeshould deal with our own waste within our county and not export itatgreat cost and potentially negatively impact others. This seems tnbeanexcessively cos lyaltemative!Theash produced seems tobeatoxic byproduct needing disposal. The carbon footprint also seems to be extremely high. Expensive, the title implies that this study looks at multiple ways ofconverting waste tnenergy (Let'scall itmass buminX)'Why are there varying reports onair quality issues pertaining tothis technology? |fvveaccept this technology is there danger that vvewill reuse less? What municipality will accept this plant? |sthere existing rail orwill arail line have tobefunded and built? The draft outlines the "path"ofsolid waste with 4paths: Garbage, Construction & Demolition Debris, Compostable Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number . LD 4-.• RI 0 ›. to 0 c u 1— Chapter Waste Export �6-7 co ko 4- • vi a. •ia . ,..., LD 0 4_, 0.) (13 (1) U 11.1 Chapter 6 -Disposal Commenter c cu 0 nr3 —.1 E ._ Zero Waste Vashon a) 4-, v) ro S 0 -c ai co NI > Janet Dobrowoki 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 333 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. One ofthe options for long-term disposal that isevaluated inthe Plan is building awaste toenergy plant. The LaFarge cement plant kiln might warrant more study ifwaste toenergy isconsidered asadisposal option inthe future. Comment Organics, and Recyc|ab|es.3out of4ultimate destinations are within Zmiles ofeach other: Cedar Hills Cedar Grove Cedar Mountain Reclamation The neighborhoods surrounding these areas are constantly assaulted with noise, odors, rodents and garbage. |naddition, the County isconsidering granting a permit to an asphalt plant, again within 2miles from Cedar Hills. Aren't we lucky? When will the county EVER consider the health and well being of the surrounding neighborhoods and stop permitting these obnoxious, nuisance and potentially unhealthy endeavors. And now you want toextend the life ofthe landfill another ZZyeao. This istotally unacceptable and UNFAIR tothe surrounding neighborhoods. VVedonot support any expansion ofthe Cedar Hills Landfill. Waste reduction and energy production should beexplored. VVaste-to-Energyfacilities are aproven technology that should befully explored antolocation, environmental, and financial viability. Proximity torail facilities would be desirable for shipment ofash toaproper and safe final disposal location. Recycling isanimportant component of such afacility, asisvaluable materials recovery must bea component tobeemployed prior tofinal ash disposal. Waste reduction byincineration alone should also be explored astoits environmental and financial viability. There islocated in South Seattle onWest Marginal Way a large rotary kiln that was part ofthe Lafarge -NA cement plant. Although the basic components for incineration are present and should beuseable, emission control and feed mechanisms must bedesigned and installed toensure Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number -55 CV C 0 .e.) < t.6 (ii 0 (15 _c (....) Commenter cu 0 r° o 2 < 1— D CU ._ 4., ...... co cu c) = s— co (.9 > 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan -}-26 2018 Att A Page 334 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) O./ = 0 I cn 0 -C T.) c CO Q) 0- co ._ -cs u 0- CU E. — —, 4-0 cu _c cu — F_ > 0) -, ..._° a) ..c - CU (u 5- E -c C-- E 0 E -r-, r-6 °L., ...... o 4.- a 47- 0 0 0 ..0 "" • C >, n r- -0 03 4-, o,..,— 0 — '0— >, ‘.... 0 = fa) ro ,.... 4---, a 0 -C a 0 M 0 4-' CO ..1- -0 • "" Q) (..) 0 ,-CI' j 2 I - ri 42 111 >• C --. c CU - E E 0 -0 .= . ._ c 0 , a) E ° M ° E cu F- s_ 0 '47.; CI Comment compatibility with surrounding environs. Valuable materials recovery from the ash should beacomponent ofthis type of waste reduction operation. This type ofhigh temperature combustion facility should becapable ofhandling used tires, non -hazardous contaminated soil, dredge spoils, sludge, and other such wastes. This site is served by rail facilities for cost effective transport of ash to a final disposal location. Pursuant toR[VV7O.95.OlO(8)'incineration isequivalent in the disposal hierarchy tnlandfill and energy recovery operations. Continue astrong emphasis oneducation, incentives, and The County has preferred future disposal method (waste export)' per K[[Tb|e 10 including RTS'1, RT3'3' RT5 5' RTS- 16'and lO2S.O60(A)and (B). Further, the 2016 King County Comprehensive Plan (2016 Update) (King County 2015a) indicates that "King County should maximize the capacity and |ifespanofthe Cedar HiUsLandfiU^ Disposal method selection results from stakeholder input, cost analysis and policy review ofanarray ofoptions. ideally, this Plan will outline options and make recommendations. However, ''Appnnva|^ofthis Plan in itself should not bedescribed asthe mechanism where the next disposal method will be "selected". Per Section 5.lofthe Solid Waste |nter|oca|Agreement (5VV|A):ifno decision ismade bycirca Z011toexpand Cedar Hills capacity, the County will engage inadvisory committee consultation toseek input onthe selection ofthe next disposal option for the system, along with adiscussion of extending the term ofthe SVV|A.Note that the VVTE disposal method presumes extension nfthe SvV|A'sterm Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number LC) tt) 40 CL L. CU +-. CL CO _C L.) Commenter >. OS 76 ,.. a) Cll U- 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 335 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8-March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The section "Disposal Services After an Emergency" has been updated. Comment beyond2O4O but SVViASection 5lstates there isno requirement for parties tnreach agreement on5VV|Aterm extension. Regardless ofthe disposal option ultimately 'necommended' in this plan, ifthat option favors closure of Cedar Hills it will trigger Section 5.1 (based on the projected closure ycar) In view of these factors, this section would more appropriately betitled: "Overview ofMajor Disposal Options for this System" andthe text revised soitdoes not infer this P|an'sapproval isthe sole mechanism for selecting disposal option. |fnonew Cedar Hills capacity isplanned for, itfollows that M5vVA[ &SvV4Cconsultation would be triggered to consider a range of disposal options followed by amendment ofthe Plan asneeded. This discussion raises potential issues that warrant more direct engagement with rail service providers tnbetter determine the likelihood nfadverse impacts. Also, the Plan should indicate ifother |oca|juhsdictinnsthat already export waste byrail have similar concerns (and ifso, hovvthcsc concerns are being addessed). The Plan should also address what alternatives would beput into play ifthe transfer system and/or the disposal method became unavailable for aperiod ofweeks. Presumably if transfer trailers could still haul the waste, it would be temporarily stored - likely atCedar Hills landfill. The discussion on"Disposal Services After anEmergency" (Page 5-28) should beexpanded todescribe the need for temporary yWSVVhandling options incase parts nfthe transfer and disposal system fail orgoof ine.makinQa clear distinction Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 0 ,-1 th el)) sa. ti..,. a ro _c 0 Commenter as ICS 5C:"U- 75 Q) LL 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Pla17 -1-116/ 2018 Att A Page 336 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The typo has been corrected. The post -closure reserves discussion has been edited. Thank you for your comment. The range indicated in Figure §-7has been corrected tolZ'O0O'0lO00 MT[O2e. Thank you for your comment. Figure 6-7has been mmmmo. Thank you for your comments. Table 6-lindicates the costs and GMGemissions for all ofthe options, including waste tnenergy. Comment from debris management. Typo: missing period ormissing text State whether ornot extending the length oftime for accruing post -closure reserves would appreciably decrease rates. [onvcoc|K state if the necessary post -closure balance amount is the same regardless of the total cubic yards of permitted capacity ultimately filled (i.e, determine if post - closure funding needs may also increase if the permitted capacity increases). Thee is debate regarding the accuracy or applicability of EPA'svVAKm1 approach when applied tovVTE' including how itaccounts for biogenic [02' and presumes VVTE generated energy fully offsets other energy source emissions (which still occur in spite of adding VVTE' producedenergy into the grid), plus the relative scale at which emissions and energy are produced from conventional sources vsVVTE' and also how landfill methane impacts are applied. These discrepancies should be addressed more fully inthe Plan since the vVTE data shows awidc range of net emissions, presumably reflecting such discrepancies. In short, it is unclear in the draft text why awide range isshown inFigure 6'7for Figure 6-7bnot referenced inthe text (or inAppendix D). This table does not show the year for this baseline, nrthe ,W5vVtonnage used toarrive atthese figures, The Plan should notethatVVTEbahigher-cost disposal method that also has higher GHGemissions than the other options, and requires importing waste into the County tnbe burned that would further add tolocal GHGemissions. The Strategic Climate Action Plan (S[APZ015) summarizes ''GHG emissions reduction targets adopted as Countywide Planning Polices by the King County Growth Management Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number cr --.1 L.6 to a ,j5.. 05 C. as _C U Commenter as 75 0.) as Ti 0) Federal Way a3 To GJ 0..) 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 337 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The estimates referenced infootnote lwere made byconsultants with deep experience with waste to energy facilities. The division's interpretation ofthe reasons for the range ofresults isshown infootnote _ The VYTEfacility is sized toreach capacity inyear ZO' not year 1(Z0Z9).Operations would bemost efficient when the facility isatornear full capacity. The WARM greenhouse gas estimates are calculated for acommon base year in2OZ9. Comment Planning Council in 2014(ane)to "reduce countywide sources of GHG emissions, compared to a 2007 baseline, by 25 percent by 2020' SO percent by20][\ and 80 percent hy2O5O.^Internally, King County has committed to reducing GHG emissions from its operations, compared to 2007 baseline, by at least 15 percent by 2015' 25 percent by 2020' and 50 percent by20]O. The County has further committed to achieving net carbon neutrality for the Department of Natural Resources and Parks by2OI7' with the Wastewater Treatment Division and the Solid Waste Division each independently achieving carbon - neutral opeetionsbyZOZ5.Thel0l5SCAPnut|inesthe results oftechnical analysis that established specific, quantifiable pathways toachieving the overarching GHG emissions reduction targets at both the countywide and government operations sca|es.^ The vVTE disposal option appears to work against achieving these targets, and the Plan does not indicate how the County will ''make up" forvVTE's GHG emission increases. Footnote linAppendixDTab|eIappearstoprovide a reason fo,the|ovvandhigh rangethatisshown in\his pig.6'7'butsaysthatthe inputs used inthe model that generated thescfiQu,cs"are notavai|ab|e^which raises concern about accuracy and assumptions that resulted inthese estimates. The County should verify hov,the engewascalculated, and anexplanation added toa footnote inFigure 6'7. Assuming Fig.6'7 depicts the base year of20I8, please clarify ifthe VVTEplant isoperating atfull capacity (4'OUU tons per day)'o,the K45VV tonnage generated within ,his service area atthat time (since initially only three 100Oton per day VVTE lines are needed for this sys em's PW5VV) Please show the likely scenario of MT[OZe production when VVTE is at full capacity (4'000tnns per day) and Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number cr ,-1 th to a & 45 a ro _c 0 Commenter rts To 'cii -cs CU LJ • 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 338 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The projected recovery rate isupto5O'OOOtons of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. This would increase the [ount/soverall recycling rate byabout two percent. -0 )_ >. 4-, 4- CO o a) •-• E 0) v) co 4-, N sts 73 C CU co " 0- s-1 s-- CU CL ,„,. ',.--,s- • ,._ 0 v) c E 0 , , co CU 0 4-, *-- co 4-. 0 0 CO O.) o -0 0 L's ,_ c- •D z _c v"t3CU..Pa3s-CtIO• 0 4-' s_o) „:, a' ,N, c 4--. 0 '7 .4-, v) v) u c -5 s---- 0 c '-- = E • , co '..... co a) a) u 0 4-...1-..n.romco• 4-, 0 s_ E c a)..sou tA cu cma . 0 CO > ›••• CO 3- 4-, .40 U 0 co eso ,- c c.) E a) cu 0 ,,?- _C ,- 0 0 C I,,L 0 >. 4-, 0 Cg .— c u o cc > O. s.- v) (0L... ul CU cu -o c „, _c 0 c :- ,T3 ---. s_ > • - CU 0 co -0 -C 4•4 0. cu _.,v) (7) 4-, +0. Ti .4 co .- '-') - CU ' - 0 4-;' • C rc v,o0C6) 9. C 444 0 '-- E = ,.- a) 0 0 co S.- > _C v.) C • CU (1) ,_ 4...1 C ...0 u re) C " 00 0 0) (D 0 73 -1-3' (.3 La CU to ii, tr, 4-, 4- (3.) C 0 <3.) V) o E L, _c 0 4, cu 0.) 0 E -C CNI 0- 0. .0 2 I- -(.n. 1))0 4-, 4- v) 0 0 0) _ c 4-, 0 4-, C • - -0 0 4-, 0 CO 4- EU. co v) 0 0 -0 ; co c o c u > 0 CU ' c O. CU C 4-, 4-, 3- ›.- Q. 8 0 73 o ---- 1._ ,:zt. CU • a) - 00 00 m 0) 00 .2 _c CL • V) 4-' a) co ai 0 • - 2 2 -ii 2 c ,••• C as CU C CU 4- ru 73 C' ,.- ai c vl (- - 4.... ......... Z 0 -0 '`.1. 0- 0) -V). Comment presumed optimal capacity. What percentage ofbypass wastes are counted toward the "landfill gas recovery" input, and isthat factored inas an additional emission inthistab|e? The VVTE discussion indicates 'all' of this metal will be V) 4-, 0../ c '-' 4- i 0 u -0 0_ s_ (1) a --, c 0 c 0 3- c E a) v, -0 o 0 CU (1) 0 u 0 v) 4-, , co .4-, C 0 0 E as (- --0.- a 0 0 a) u •,- 4-, +.., 0 0 c 4- CD cf) ca o c ca ,,„ c 4-, ,.„X 0 ..' C ' „ , c C s...,- --co 0 V) o • ."' '447, o -c . --V' U 0 4" -C CU CU 47.. 3- I-, in- 0 v) co ...E Q.) o 0 2 0 C 0 4- (1) 0- 0 0 C.) 4- .- v) a) o _C U E 0 1 0- C 0 u (1.) 2 0 4- a) a 4-, v) 0 t.) CU -C 4-, 0 4- C • - -0 2 0 4-, u as 4- 4-, v) 0 u 4- co 4- - VI 0- 00) c O :E 0 4-, > (I) 0 00a) a) •--, o c >. .cn (0.1_, a) CU (...) > C U -C a) v) ,I- 4- co CI) 4-, c v) co o (4) to co co C CU E > 0 6.) s... 4- O./ a) Ta 4-, a) L' E Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number LO -1 L.6 110 0. - CL) 0) 4- 0. co _c t) Commenter Federal Way >- co To s_ cu cu u_ 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Jitly 2028 Att A Page 339 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) current separators should effectively remove about 90%ofthe non-ferrous metals from the ash. Advanced material recovery system costs have yet tobedeveloped for the Solid Waste Division system. This work isbeing considered aspart ofthe new South County Recycling and Transfer Station. This table has been removed from the Plan. This table has been removed from the Plan. Yes, the VVTEoption initially isbuilt toreach capacity inyear 2O. Bypass waste and ash would be exported throughout the life ofthe VVTEfacility. The operators ofthe VVTEfacility could seek outside waste until waste from our regional system uses the facility's full capacity. For year 2land beyond, anadditional decision vvuu|d beneeded tobuild additional VVTEcapacity, export any municipal solid waste beyond the capacity ofthe initial facility, oruse alternative disposal approaches. Comment � The Plan could benefitfromacomparison negandinQthe cost-effectiveness ofdiversion/screening ofmetals before the VVTEprocess. Presumably the $2Z9million incapital costs won't be spent "as soon as" approval ofcell construction occurs. |t would instead bespent over the period oftime during cell construction that creates landfill capacity until ZO4O. Please consider clarifying this period oftime, This footnote appears to be the only text reference to "Area 9^ in the Plan. There is an "Area 9^ represented in Figure 2.5'but itislikely different than the area that would he used in expanding capacity to 2040' so please add explanatory text. Itisnot clear why the ZO17capital amount ishigher than the future amount. Dothese figures compare, ordothey come from a different base? This note seems to indicate that the VVTE option overbuilds initial capacity and requires waste import to run all four 1000ton per day lines, (It doesn't appear that the intent is to not start one of the 1000 ton per day lines for several yeao).What isthe year when our system- generated w15VV provides sufficient input that makes it economical to begin operating that fourth line solely on waste generated within our system? (Presumably the fourth line is not started just for our daily yW5VV ton #3'001). At 4'000 tons per day, operating continuously, vVTE would process over l.4 million tons ofMSVV. VVhi|cVVTE facility downtime will mean a lower tnm| tonnage will be burned in practice, Figure 9.3 doesn't show when that level of ''tons disposed" will be reached - presumably it would be years past 2040. The Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number h. c-I t.s, ttO CI L6, CI ro _c o N. —1 us b.0 CI tri, CI. (13 _c U Commenter >- a3 To ‘... 73 Q.) LL Federal Way >, as To 73 (3) U- 2019.Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan -}-26 2018 Att A Page 340 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Changes have been made tothis section. Comment c t -0 ,-. el) > ' C c ro co c a) 4-' :t.' E ro , '-"rr, :—, (J) 0 aJ 4-• v) s co 0 +-, co ,-5, 1-12 4- (C) 4- > cu ,, tio > _c > — .- _c u 0 '-'' 0 ro +••• .i-, a) 0 .411 75 — v) _ T b.0 0 ro (.0 73 0,' L_ ',7, cy, _c 0 .., E Ti:, 0 1 • —. 0_ U _c > 0 __, cc) _C) " -'-- a 8 ra as .-7, ro v'°- _cu4 m >_0" _5: o_a) E I—LU 0 -0 I- rij ,,, ru c c 4- t).° tLb' Li) 0 c0 - 5 (1.3 _c -I, > Llo +-• c•-• a:, c ›.- 2 (1)- (.° "n c +,W -a 4-2 C 2 LI° Lnal •-• 2Ln -0 0 t' c _c -o c 0_ Ed) Q.) -I- c ifi c a) x a) t' -i'm t_1_,5 , o a3 — _C • — co c o. 4--• 0- _c cu 0- cu c _a o -a ra *.i ._E o to LI " W E -4-• °- 4- CD -0 v) 4-• 4-, E L/1 CO I_ 4-, 0 -0 +, E = m 0_ 0 u — s --, c cu ). c a 0 c _ a F, u_ x ._ La im ,_ Z > • - 0 ,,) S- ..-- c 5 if, m ,— v) ,,,-, 4—, aj C 0- •-, a) U R3 ro C _c -s-, 0 4-.+ ._L-n vi 0 cu L_ ,r) 0 ..-- ..J. up ' 0 ra .i.-i o > a) f3 '=• +.• u 3- -,- co 4-, E 4- 0 _C • - -0 ro -0 a, s- 0 " — > uu cu +-, _, 4-, I , C 40 _c > U 0.3 C l0 •,- (A E.' 42 ra c " .-1-' " 75 0 c u V---, 0 LT) Z •7-, u ,_ , ,'"" >a) 4,7). 4-',„ 0 ro 4_, ro _c 4-• ro 7 s-, co > 0 •E, r0 ro 0 •L'w" -c ,13 c OZE N > .— -0 c Li 0_ 3 '-• _c • —7 7, ij a) .Ln 4-'„ -C r-E 4-' 4CE > -E, ° - -C E, • -C 0 0.1 o .,., xa a) > c C c la° -C (1) Lh (I) ' E 0 . C U i,.,•L- r74 C `-' 0 a) — 0 a) — • m 0_ ?., E —= 0 " 171' `^- • a j > a a) The 2Ol0King County Comprehensive Plan (Z015Update) (King County 2016a)does not explicitly endorse "mass burn incineration" and instead supports looking at the potential for energy recovery from "select solid waste materials including organics, mixed plastics, and the non - recyclable portion of the waste stream"These options could be outlined in the "Technologies for Future" section of the Plan. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number cr) i-i 6 bn 0_ „6. u a) +.) a ra _c 0 Commenter > ra To i_ cu -o cu u_ 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 341 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The tonnage forecast has been updated and aconservative recycling rate of5Z%isassumed throughout the Plan based on Ecology's reported recycling rates from2Ul2 through20l4. Thank you for your comment. Based on recent experience, seven years may not beenough time to beprepared, which iswhy itisimportant for a recommendation tobemade inthis Plan. Thank you for your comment. Comment F-271a King County should consider whether opportunities toincrease energy recovery from select solid waste materials including organics, mixed plastics, and the non -recyclable portion ofthe waste stream are beneficial interms ofcost, the natural environment, greenhouse gas emissions and community impacts, as well aswhether any such energy recovery facilities might be more appropriatelylocated \ id King Co This is a lengthy chapter containing very important information. Itissuggested that asummary beaddedthat clearly addresses the issue of what is the expected life of the Cedar Hills Landfill over the following periods and the key assumptions (e.g,recycling rates) related toeach. Current date through ZUZ8. |tisstated onpage 6-5'"With permitted capacity atthe predicted by tobeused by 2028'^ What assumption isused for the recycling rate 57% orsome other fiOure(s)? Current date through ZO40. Unpage h'9'itisstated "the added capacity would besufficient to handle forecast tonnage sothat the landfill would continue tooperate at least through ZO4O.What assumption is used for the recycling rate 57%o/some other figure($? See also comments related toChapter 3 See comment above. Aseven year time frame i»sufficient for planning the transition towaste export asadisposal method (in accordance with current KC[Title 1Upo|icy). Once adopted, this Plan could beamended to reflect any different disposal alternative(s) selected via the stakeholder process. This phrase regarding cooperation with advisory committees is repeated twice, but it is not clear when this explicitly occurred, orifadvisory committee input was fully considered inwinnowing down options to these three future disposal methods Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 1..r) Lb to Lci, o_ as o Chapter 6, pg 6-5 Chapter 6, pg 6-5 Commenter E al -2:5 >, T.3 Federal Way Federal Way 2a7,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 342 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) co 2 — D 1 7.) '- c r° c °) ro U 0 CU — _C a) H > a) +:• -0 C ,_ _ a) o., >- E E t '‘0' 0 42 a u 03 0 u o ,..,- >.. u 0 ,_ '-c, o_ o a) v) L.- C '... 0 Qi CU >- E •N E E U CD I-- ,- Comment Inadeparture from prior more collaborative and iterative processes, the County engaged inthe mormandeaustudy without seeking substantive input and participation from advisory committees regarding the basis for the study, its cost and scope ofwork, orthe outcomes sought. Ultimately this regional system ismost equitable when Cities and advisory groups are enlisted aspartners who are empowered to provide a) _Y r0 2 , CC 0 D 1.0 LE CI) 0 co > > a) CL C CIO ,_ (V , a) a3 U 5 -o b.0 .. _c 3 •-t a) — >4Y3 0 4-' 3°T-c 4-• U 0_ -0 Z _C C 4- 73 c fa a) as 5 -c > o a) a, 3 rt ra 0 rt3 r- CL u u u .= cu .1 c LE c 0 +n-.3 r0 -C tla rcs .., a) — ta0 -' C 0_ -0 4-40 QS C a, L,.7', ('-' 1- V) • - -0 0.) .E. — (7) 0 - L.) >, -0 c 0_ .. • - as 0_ c rX 0 - .,_, o 01 • - c ri3 _c a) C c C LE5 _c z -c vloroo a >- " > (I) > — 0 +-• 01 IC, „, bl) .1-• co ,_ C > ro - C r0 > -- — c g c , 0 rp co m c ro ro 0 , 4--' c • - .0 u 0- 4_ 0., a 0 4-, r0 c- o u, b o c 0 0 b.0 ,_ .I-' c u ro • - C •,7„) ro C 4- Z u •LL.' 4-• c 0.) -+8c ro0)v0 ° ,, z (-.4 73 774 .0 • - co c ,-,-,..., ,, al b.0-C o , ns, t, C a, co u ro = - ci, •.,7, a 0) bA „,,,, •_, v, .=, s._ 9 E • - C 70 ->•• 2 ,, , co -oDa, CC E.) E 0 0 -+S .-, a) a) -0 -0 0.1 4-, C C -C ro 0 co — 0 01 73 4-, U 0 C •• c • - ro -0 .._ .'-' Qs n._ 4-, C c ro s_ 0) 0, — E LE 0.) r0 co .L., 4-a5 > -10;3 a'''o—a_ It- 5 E a) Q' (Li E ' -u C , ro as C 0 -0 +' Qj Z 0 C5 a)ca) , a TI) CO 4-, rcs c r0 l) c '-' a) co -Cs 0 _c o C 0 0 .L!_, >- 17..) rcs CL L) CU 4-4 .,._• 1-.) . . 0_ 4c , cu .i. , a) C .4.7 4, 0 u W ,-,1 a 42 w - 0 •.,c > L-. _C M = .4-, cu u c •-• 0 .,, v) -'- ± 4- rO -CS a) u Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number tx) (0 b.0 0_ ., 4. u 0) 4-, 0 r0 _c U Commenter > ro r0 s_ 0) -0 0) u_ 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan J2zy 2018 Att A Page 343 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The suggested edit has been made. Provisions mensure that NTEfacilities receive enough garbage usually are part ofcontracts for operating VVTEfacilities. The arrangements ifthe regional system produces insufficient garbage for efficient VVTEoperation have not been identified. VVTEcosts, which were based onNormandeau2Ol7 included the cost ofash export and export ofINSVV during scheduled facility maintenance. import of IVISYVfrom outside King County was not included in the costs. Comment � The Plan should note that intennoda| capacity could be shared, and that there is potential for cooperation among neighboring Counties and Seattle that could reduce rail costs or create other efficiencies of scale. Please explain what happens ifthe opposite occurs and tons are lower than forecast. Typically a 'put or pay' cost structure applies to VVTE facility economics, meaning if tonnage minimums are not met, penalties or payments are still assessed. If factors like the economy orVVRR efforts mean there is not enough waste coming into the VVTE plant to cover the bond costs and operation costs, o,tooperate atpeak efficiency levels used inthis P|an'sprojections, who pays for this shortfall? Note that VVTE operations require steady supply of yW5VV to maintain efficiency, and note that this is a drawback compared to disposal options that are more readily scalable <e.g,changestothe total number ofrail cars that make up waste export trains is relatively This disposal optk/nshou|dindudeaUcnstsasaociatedwith operations. For example, the cost oftransporting this ash and the associated tipping fee, aswell ashowthepotential issues ofwaste export and even waste import (pertaining tnrail capacity) still apply with the VVTEoption based onthe initial capacity target of4'OOOtons per day. Provide anoutline of related infrastructure (indudinVinternooda| rail capacity) required plus how ash will beconveyed toarail head along with any bypass nrnon'pnsesoab|ewastes. Please show how the costs associated with these integral VVTEoperations have been factored into this plan, inorder toallow amore complete comparison among options. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter 6, pg 6-7 tus Le 0_ as _c 0 eto L6 CL as _c 0 Commenter �� Federal Way >- co Ts -Ts (1) U- >- ca To a) "0 (1) U- 2029,Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -_)71(6/ 2 018 Att A Page 344 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your review nfthe Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Comment Additional explanation should beaddedfor how wastes would bemanaged when VVTEplant experiences mechanical failure or^downtime^'plus what the related costs are and hnvvtheyare factored intotheprice ofthis option, noting the associated impacts scaled with the potential concerns raised abouti| capacity related to waste export. VVesupport these Policies with the ultimate goal being tn not have toexpand the Cedar Hills Landfill. VVedonot support the expansion ofthe Cedar Hills Landfill asastop- gap so|utionso|e|ytoddaytheinevitab|edaythaths capacity isreached and simply defer the selection and implementation ofanalternative permanent waste handling and disposal system. Consumers should continue topay for the waste they generate and receive credit for the amount recycled and, thus, kept out ofthe waste stream. Incentives will continue tobeimportant here. Woodinville supports recommended actions 14thmugh 16-f on the topic of finance. Woodinville believes it is especially important toinclude sufficient funding for mitigation to cities directly impacted by solid waste facilities pursuant to R[VV 36.58.080. Practicing "environmental economics" is key for our society toestablish atrue and more equitable economic value of what vveconsume. Whether itisthe implementation ofa carbon tax orcreating markets for recycle, King County Solid Waste isamajor engine towards implementing this concept, and wesho|d utilizeitto press forward. Keep costs as low as possible. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commbsion (Commission)has completed its review ofthe cost assessment questionnaire for the draft ofthe King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (P|an)' submitted ]anurary9'2O18. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Chapter(i Policies D-1 -"-° Chapter 7 Chapter 7 Environmental Economics P 7-1 Chapter 7 - Finance Chapter 7 - General Commenter a) Ez. L.. a.) ctS a) ,_ (.9 D CU — 73 > Greater Maple Valley UAC a) C o o Zero Waste Vashon DanoRustmm Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 345 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The change has been made. Thank you for your comment. The suggested edit has been made. Thank you for your comment. The suggested edit has been made. Comment The cost assessment questionnaire in the Plan proposes three tip fee increases atall King County transfer stations during the ZUl7—ZOZZPlan period. The tip fee increase in Z0l7has already been ineffect for over ayear, while the other two tip fee increases are projected totake effect in ZOl9and Z022.Asaresult, there will bearate impact to ratepayers served by regulated solid waste collection companies inKing County inyears ZOI9and 2UZZ.This is illustrated inthe table shown onthe following page. (see original letter) Staff has nofurther comment onthe cost assessment questionnaire. |nChapter 7,the Plan discusses the possibility of potential changes in the solid waste fee structure. The Plan should clearly articulate that the yW5VV[WAC has a role in providing input and feedback tothe County when changes tothe rate structure are contemplated. Additionally, additional clarification should beincluded regarding what aspects of the rate structure could be changed. Requested change (p.7-9):Add an explicit reference to&SINMA['srole in providing feedback tothe County when changes tothe rate structure are contemplated ondorovide/nore detail regarding the types nƒrate structure changes that may beconsidered. This was the conclusion ofthe 2007Beck study, so consider revising the text soitsays that the preliminary recent study appears to reaffirm this conclusion. This would avoid an impression that this is ncvv|y revealed or 'preliminary' information. Please add tothis sentence: "...since it delays making the transition to other more costly disposal options." Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number 0) 0) u_ 4-, CL (a _C U 4-. L.) = '— ti Chapter 7, pg 7-8 Commenter 0) = > 0.) 0) CO Federal Way Federal Way zo19 Comprehensive Solid Waste gement Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 346 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 1 7, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) cu 4-. ..c co 4-, <Li a; at tio(u to •- > .i., c 0,..) _c ,-. ro _c u 0 0 L.) CU 4) s... 40 Z LE 0 c o +.., 0 c a) 4- O " CU L > 40 0 0 .- a) c c ca -0 vs U O. C .- =‘4 :1)0 c -0 .° CD M in" ,_ 4." • roc '5 0 0 cl.) ai cu ai a) ,i) 4_, 4-, z c 0_ _c 6 t_-; . a) to , 0 L. -0 4)— --_,.. ...c Q) • — > Thank you for your comment. VVehave added these terms tothe Common Terms section. Comment 4- 4- S- '-- I bi) RS 8 0 0 (7) v, 0 0 > Opc tu) 0 v1.2 0 Lc..i. E ' _ ••• - 0 s''' 0 _C 0. 0 0 4... a) cu exo 4- 0 In VI E E...E c.) gl,v, 0 - u ra vs 4-, up u 0 as cu 0 co 0 0. C0- ....,> cu -,-z '4:- 4-0 G., -0 C U .- vi -' E c') 2 = too c cu (..) 0 (7) 0 = CU ,_ ra v0 E a_ro p C 0) '44C1a1j0 -C(Cu. .41o1 0o> .-.YH2 c00vbi3O 'tr,a-2, -CoC "—Cc>c,''. -.C,arU..."., 2 7,2 ,_, a) ..175 a) 70 (f) .2 C..) ... .0 C ro _c v, +-.. -0 Cli 0 CI) 4-, ,zu a) 0 E co s_ ,... o 0 0 '5 o >... (CO2. 0 'c' 4200Uz) > (0 000E00Ea)0 2 CI .., 4-4 c 0 4-, c > CD .7... rts V) .- CCS >. c C 0 u E E (0 -0 ,r, -0 (13 — V, 0 0 a) 4-"c CL L'a *- u u ' a, a) E Ea_ ai >-' ---- 0 L) , ba G., .i.... 0 u M CL Tb CU u., C CU ' - 4- C13 -0a.0 4., 0 u, ; •- z. 0 -c t 4.- cuwo ,.., c ro c (a as c 7. .(.) ci) a) 5 2.2 5 c 0 4- CU > CL a.) '0 TI.) 2 - E c- _to VI u c = 2 ° E (.; 0 L-. — a) To 'di 11 b4 'IT 2' c a, 1,7 ,,, 0)00c Ec u,uG e0"0 0 C. Ca a—- 0 E 2o Y0) -o5 ' - c -ac)r_ -.- ,-- La.)) cLu^ 7•T4-.A-.3-.4—=c, 4_..c 4 n 0.0D ro -caEE _,- +9 I- 4 o i- o cux Lu cn 8 — —L13 • • • • 0 c (0 0 0 0 -0 1.9 C CU -0 CD 4- -0 4- 0 7.3 c — .. . 0 0 c CL 0 2 L- ro cu E CriDo 444a--c c-c u a) a) v, 0 a) 0 13 o rs- aS 47' Common Termsp. xi: add several terms & their definitions such as biosolids-oqganicmauermqo|edfnmsewaOedudOe, especially for use in agriculture, bio:hap charcoal made from the slow burning ofbiomass inthe absence ofoxygen Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number C u- CD CU 4-, CU tio a R .c — cu cu m 4-, tio +, a. c u ra co 0 _c _c .0 U 0 v) Common Terms pg xi Commenter .._ 1 CD >- U Zero Waste Vashon 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 347 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The division will be working with stakeholders todetermine how to provide more processing capacity for organics so that odor concerns can be addressed. Thank you for your comment. The definition included inthe Plan isderived from K[[Title lOand RCVV7O.95.03U. Thank you for your comment. Your suggested edit has been made. Comment and may bethe key to solving many problems wehumans face resulting from natural and induced changes inclimate, urban and agricultural development, population growth, etc., vector- organism that does not cause disease itself but which spreads infection byconveying pathogens from one host to another,h as mosquitosd vermin. Finally, in the Draft SVVMP' Ahcmmivc 9 of the Sustainable Materials Management indicates that it would expand recycling to include curbside yard waste pickup to all residences in King County, including those in unincorporated King County. The Agencysuppnrts that goal a, it links to our goals to eliminate residential burning of yard waste and brush to satisfy statutory requirements. However, our support for this goal does not alter our strong interest in seeking real improvement in the air quality impacts from organics recycling operations. We believe that ,,e should be seeking way to meet all of our environmental Definition ofcompost: VVerecommend updating the definition tomatch the new definition adopted byThe American Association ofPlant and Food Control Officials: Compost—istheproduc manufactured through the controlled aerobic, biological decomposition of biodegradable materials. The product has undergone mexophilitand thennophilittemperatures, which significantly reduces the viability ufpathogens and weed seeds, and stabilizes the carbon such that disbeneficial u/ plant growth. Compost is typically used ososoil amendment, but may also contribute plant nutrients. Definition of|eachate:VVerecommend that the definition of |eachatebeclarified tnindicate that the water percolating through the landfill has the ability to pick up contaminants. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number < ........ 0.0 c V.: 0 0 ,... 0 C 0 CT c 0 ..0. c QJ 0 Definition Commenter 0 C = , 0. cr, ..L ›.. tao co cu C CI' l01:1 Ci. C.) < < CU 4-, V) co ° QJ N Zero Waste WA zot9 Comprehensive Solid Waste cern t Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 348 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17,2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) 4-; C (3.) E E 0 0 " c 0 >. " 0 4- M 0 >• C co F- Comment (3J 4-• co 4-, > Lb2a).0 . ()42 13 -0 (0-Lw° >aS . 022 . 4a.-- n3 ,(1...) ...,0 c0 °C• . ro 40s-- .4 — -0 CL ea ., a.) o E c o " „,,- •L_— U Lo a) (13 0 c ',_-- '15 ca --= :..= -0 o a) -0 -, >0 " LaraEraca,c aii ra ro c ,,., CL cs3 , •L-;-, -CS ,... „, •„,0 a) " W CO ...E (7) u -0 CU >` .4-4 a) 000 -0 0 c CU .- 0 4.., 1.- 0.) .."'"' ° • b.0 — a) 4- VI 0. 0 n3 4- (-) CU u taraccE-1-"c'E-cijai co ro cO -C — 1- 0- 4-1 (-) 0 0 4-, > 5 0ell ,.. 0 (13 CU 4.0 .E -le V) 'E-- ro CU L. (Ls as > a) 0CLU_ 0_ ., 4-' • - 7 cs- v) CU s- E .- cu cil c E ra L.. • I__ .c"-- > C 0 U cu C.) CU .47.S (13 (Is 4- 4>- -0 a) CUU 4V-I' 0VVI1 -=0cb4U ul cis 4-- oi sa• 111 ci) Vs 0 L1.0 QJ E (13 a) >4 0C •a0-)N Qc-Q, ECO u C co Lc u ..- u a) OJ - 4- s.... '-^ )._ o v) _c 4_, bi, (1) ,._ 4-, CU 0 c .?.. 0_ — V/ VI .4c -0 (13 (3) 0 •- ro ..0 0 -0 0 ...c c v> SOO (13- 0. 0 ..„, pp Tcs L._ D s.... C s- L'3_ C All C — 0 E a) CU -0 a) 0 008 -0 0 ›.. co 4-• 0 0 OE •44, 0) CS 0. ,a) 0. " M -0 V) C w (a 0 CU C 0 0 0 C CU • CU - ro .- 0 C c = L.. ra c = o 0 C 0 -0 CU v) -.0 0 al 0 V/ c +- c o (13 a) L.. a, 73 >,., 0 _a a) -0 -C (I) 4-, cu t.- 0 C • ( 1)' 0 0 v) 0 4-, fa s- c ta., 4-, CO 4,.... OJ • tv " CU C 0 a) 4-4 4-4 T.0C...., 0 Evsao°) 'U rtC>oiS 9 0 04a0, 0 CU .._.." (0 co 4-4 .. C CL 0 '6 u 0., 0 , a) c u 4_, 4- 047o ..... o a) — ca — — 0- •5 u rt3 es L.- (Ls — 4-, — co • • Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number co L_ cli C (3) (...7 Commenter C co >' an co CL c3) Os E ° _c .7t 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 349 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. SVVDlooks forward to working with the Roads Services Division infuture projects, aswell ascoordinating inon-going business. Comment sector demonstrations onacase-by-cosepilot basis. For example, onVashon Island where the State has already invested in an innovative demonstration. ° Institute acompetitive process for private sector companies toprocess clean source separated organics. Selection should bebased onprice aswell asfood system benefits, local community benefits, and reduced carbon footprint. ° Coordinate King Count/sLOOP program with anew King County Urban Organics Circular Economy program with similar objectives and messaging. These programs are synergistic and compatible. ° Consider amobile store for the sale ofKing County origin recycled -content products • Consider akiosk orpopuppoint ofsale attransfer stations atnon-peak periods for the sale ofKing County origin recycled -content products. King County Road Services appreciates the opportunity to review the draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and EIS. VVeare very interested inongoing coordination and collaboration between Roads and the Solid Waste Division onissues that may affect unincorporated King County roads and bridges, including the following: ° Siting oftransfer stations orother facilities °m Traffic vol ume inf ormation, which are keyfor understanding and quantifying impacts on unincorporated area roads and bridges. Weight information isespecially critical for aging bridges oncertain roads/bridges. Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number co CD- c cu (.9 Commenter v, cu >-• ,,, 4-, . c 5 n s- 0 (u v) U Ts ba m c 0 cL 2029,Comprehensive Solid Waste t Pla17 -Jay 2018 Att A Page 350 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) b.0 C = 0 '- 0 >s M CU a) u vi a c ro 0 E 0 -0 I- C1J t ai +.% c 7 a C CV 4- CD a) -0 o u E• - '-' To - -2 O' 0ro o_ u 0 0 L_ 0 0 -0 0 c 47, cu >. 0 M .1,I ,.._6- -0.+7:7 tilcuL_ .x_E - 4- ro tE L- 4-, m o v-, -C a., C = Comment ° Rail transpo/tindudingimpa�sofwas��expo�on unincorporatedarea roads between transfer stations and rail facilities ° Continued collaboration onIllegal dumping issues in unincorporated Ki County road right of ways Lr) 0 ‹ -a) a) D C ."' up u-, E .- cu a.) a.)› = -c +-, r•-• - C u *-, x .4-' 4-,>, 0 T-i O.) • - C +a 0" (1) - >•• 0 07 -C3 0 U 4- C - ' W '''' rsi a) 0 a) u.' _C vl (1.) ,- 4_, al ^ C..' -; 0 47.. a) c ro 4-, rn ro 'El >, t' E z Tti •"'" NI 0 -0 C M ..,_ 0 4-' ML- o s- .-- • • ro >, ,- c u CU 0 -in a-, -C C • E - _c - C W a 0 0 ° o 4= a, cli 4, c c .' ->, 10 2 _c -r, a., v, a) ro • -.0 +.'C a) r0 a- +CUa uC-7• -0R_3 _a. CE 0C,_ ca c _H 0 -s- CO .1-, >., .4-7, R3 ty0 .4-• - +a ''. CU rsi u c v) c 75 > CL • § 4-' 0 = ' - ' - " m CU - +a a) +-, wrovi'mE.2E°m-oc 7,-, E >•• - 4-, ua" 0 ,- CI) 1.7 0 0 0) cvt4 L.' CU <c >..uu o_u___OL_ 73 c ,_ 5._ -o CO M 0 4-' Z E 4- .(7.) o 'z a) tio m 42, a 73 .0 co aj v) +a c -0 E u L.., L.- 0.) 0 a) CU CU a - m _c 4- o_ 0 -. '1) L.).- c .., .,., taoco!,3roL_ C ro 4-, 0 -C I-_, .- u 5 4-, ^ ,-' '- a) 45 a) -0 •- ...,- ._,,, _c .,, D 4-, ro L, L- Lo u _C U CO •- co 0_ r+-, .-:" ,- , ., _ou_ 0 c 4-, .p," t',, 2 ' ,1,-,a-Orn OE 4-• L_ M .0 -o c 1,c . CI) W E 0.0 = 0 ,, >• c m ) 0 ';" • ^ C -.FJ (1) ro 0 cCxaL' 0 N1 c ID 0.) - 0 - .. Tij s_ .C,12 >- c 't op ., co a) 52- 0 a) 0 _c - 0 E c 15 t E z E (I) 0 a) -c 0) 4- •,- c4= (.7) oto ai 73 0 co 0 u u C C 73 'En C +a a) D m CU 4-, -0 0 0_ 0 a) = CU C CO inuEco_omL.L., CIO 4_, -0 -0 C ro 4-, a_ , c. - C.,,c 2 , _C c o +-. a) ._ (0 73 c — _, Lr, U CU !) ; i -51-.1) :C>V) 73:: . ,)-: i +-, C a0 a > a) ) ' - VI _c _0+ ,DE -c, _0(1) _ca" Jo ja) -C.1-, c t4 tic) CU .7, .6.0- o - -C -1 0 4-, '-', > 0 a) ''• 0-0 L., 'Z' - 4-, 7.5 CU + co - cu , _„ 4-. _o a) a-, 0.0 '''' C -0 •-w 4- 0 co Lo = 0 mc o- 1,0- cu •- c 6 _. > .4:0) >- rn '- CL, ''' u 0 Tt, roC . 0 - ›-• M CU V) CU .1-, _o co cLE 0- o -0 +-, (1) 5. 0 .9 c nn Tri IS tiO 4_, Ln = - •- - 0 m ca)oE„,t0-3a)_c Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number To L.., a) c a) w Commenter cu z a)> Tu co 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 351 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Thank you for your comment CIO C .7.3 (13'- (...)› -0 -a) 02 = 0- 7-)c ro 0 cu )- c .0 L... -C _c '5 1- Q) I_ ()C ft3 4- ro -0 0 u EE 2 72 7)0v ) 0 ro 0_ u 0 Ln 4- c •- D" Ln o -0 0 c -47-, a) s_ 0 4- -0 D cl)C 4.-a) rox o >. E cv.' E c 4-, (., o v, 0 -0 — 2 _c c ) as i 0 ro tn 0 ,.._ Cl. 4 0 -0 -C3 vi o) C 7.3.- 0 ) -o c 0 s... U 4-, C = C ro 1- 4- CU 0- C (3) c c SI > CIO R3> • - - 4-, .5.... 2 >. 4-, 4- U c >ajv ) C' 04730V ) ,,...,WE Cn 3 . 474.°C C 0. CU ro to_ a) Ln ro :5- :7- s... 0 cu 0. C EM- C. °E (/) Ul 7-- C FES CC1 -C ro (3) •-•• C) ..., CU a) 0. E a_ n 6 c 0 c _C a.) Q) 4-, cu ro •,--' _c E 0:, _c ,4- 4-4 1- OA 2 •i cu vi o C6 4- -> s- >4-, • CL3 ! .4>-, 0.1 (3-)t' D +7 . ts LA 6..0 Z al L.) E G c s_ 0 a U 0) •+-' C a3 C ro 4' ro Ln c ro w 0. as u Q o E u 0 ot. +0' 3- L.1 QJ U c 0 C 4-, = 0 - U 0 C (3) - r"' 2 ro t_ a— CI o a) 7-0 0 > fa " 48 E o E CO CU •5 -0 . s_ ro +.., cu 0 x a) • o '- 0_ 4-• 0 c c c 0 0 0 co ‘,2 ro -0 0 ro (3) u , u -0 0- 0 ,.-- > 0 >... v., t , , V) > -• v) ,- CO). 0 0 a.,>, a. =4-, CD 0 c L,-, ).") - t)4 0 -C u., ,. (3) '- +-) CU `, b.0 •- Z '•-• 0. C .L.-) C -C v-) 000 ' - CI -' v') v) • - co ci) c 4- c -0 C 0 +-, ro v) o --...,fa > -0-- - -C v) > (72. 7 4--) (3) > 3 V) 0-C )10 .1--) - .0 E _C/ a.) > > 0 s- to .,,5- 0 .7 > M 0_ C C .0'aj ° TO MI '- 0 2 .LJ E C 73 0 s_ (1340 U 47, ro -; C L, on '10 0 0_ ro clI ro a) c _c .„ _ cc '-_ 4-, C rn z 0. 73 VA 0 E -0 ro • s7_ c -0 c _c cu 0 c ,r, • 7 Cli > 0 CL 44+.(3) :C,-U,•• ILCE- ) - 44-' C =>;Q)-c0Q 0 CE. °-:n 0vc:i0s_ u tn !c4-, .:>o1 > c 7!-o.:Jv: (CQ:>a cu,_c0:C. 27:UC L 0 40 z -, a.) c 0 > 7 ro 0 CI C ._. -0 4-' ''''• .4.7, 4-4 0 .- 4-, y_ >, cci _C ,-LI-C 0 0 ° 0 TO 4-4-0 4-' 4-, -0 0 -jz.3 E v) = E 4-, E Z C U 0 0 4-„, CU 0 0 1.- 21.2 c ro a.) Ln > c o ro rz .- _o -0 - > .- D --Lii 0 ') Q.) '+_, '1-'' U ,- Atj ro , ,_ ,r2 o 0) E CL C c E c c 2 , c a. 0 ro 0 u -0 000 m u 0 C i'L -Ea) L1) CU V) b.0 0 = - _E D'E -' 0 1-HQ) CU Q., c a) a) _c ° .._E i 4- L.) •E - ro c _ 0,.,= > .0 +-, a) 0.47., Of > _C X 0.) 0 .. r0 0 r3 ro _C > 4-' 0 0 •U C ° ro c 4-, _c - z u E aim o. ‘_ 49 E ,.. a) 7 +' CU 4-- CU 4-, 0.., 0) .4-Z, 1- .,...., -C (f) VI ' - ro c c ro "--,. ra ra . ..c 4-, ,.„ . 41-, a -.5 vi' u E E o rT3 E z w o u 4-, Li 0 113 2 .+7.‘.) 0 =-"'''-- 04 7 2 : CU 0 ro c < .0 >. .i.., ro u .00 ro 2 x >. _ I.J.J v 4-, C11 ro 0 0 5- (3)(13 Commenter 73 )13 E-94 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaemeat Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 352 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comments. Unlike the last adopted Comp Plan, this Plan includes anew chapter, Chapter ZThe Existing Solid Waste System. This chapter discusses how the entire system works together while later chapters focus on specific parts ofthe system suchassustainab|e materialstransfer, and disposal. King County returns the valuable nutrients and carbonfrombinso|ids—anutrienthchoq;anic pvodu'tofwastewotertoatmcnt—tnthe|andasa soil conditioner for agriculture and forestry. 4 portion ofthe binso|id,are also composted bya private company and sold ascompost for use in landscaping and gardening. These approaches contribute to sustainabi|hy by using bioso|idsto enrich soils, keeping them productive and healthy. The regional system relies onpublic and private participants, with private collection and processing companies responsible for ensuring that recyclable materials are reused under their contracts with the cities and county. For example, the division's contract for processing ofemz|ab|esfrom county transfer stations states "The Contractor shall ensure that all ofthe recyclable materials collected from 5VVDsites are recycled per King County Code [K[[ 10.U4.UZ0DDDD]'which specifies that recycling nf materials includes transforming, emanufacturing, reprocessing, composting or re'refiningnnateria|s into usable ormarketable products, and marketing o/distributing those products orcommodities for Comment from, information and empirical data presented inthe Plan and from comments received from cities and the This letter and the attached marked upcopy ofthe Draft Comprehensive Plan constitute myofficial comments. The final report should beintegrated and not si|oed.The items that cannot bcrecycled should be put inamodern waste toenergy plant, sothey are recycled inthat manner, produce power and dispose ofthe matter ,oitisnot left for future generations todeal with. There should bcam$ainabi|hy model wherein bicno|id, are also used asfuel. There are toxins and pharmaceuticals in bivsn|ids. The impact of the combination, of all these chemicals is unknown and leaves our land with potential for contamination. The European Union does not allow lands application vfbinso|ids. We need to follow their example. The |Ueop|e of our recycled products should be documented. When we ship some recycled products to China and other places we have no idea how they are being reused nrdisposed of. It isnot true recycling if we don't know the outcome of the materials. / Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number General General To c a) Commenter 4-, 'a.5 E as _1 >- _c 4-, ra 4-, -0 E as _1 ...c 4-, co _o E as _1 ..c i-, as 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2°18 Att A Page 353 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) use other than landfill, incineration, stockpiling, nr The regional approach to separation ofcurbside ecyd bb»hasmmlved. Some materials were collected in separate bins when local recycling programs first began. Since the early ZO0Oscurbside recydab|eshave been collected inone bin and the co -mingled erydab|esbrought toMaterial Recovery Facilities tobesorted, baled, and sold tobemade into new products. The one -bin approach greatly increased the regional recycling rate but itrelies on customers making the right choices about placing in their blue bin only materials accepted bytheir jurisdiction's recycling program that are empty, clean, and dry. The division and its advisory committees have convened aResponsible Recycling Task Force toexplore reducing contamination through more recycling consistency among jurisdictions, and customer reminders about recycling best practices, and other means. Various choices regarding the size ofawaste to energy plant were offered inthe NonnandeauZ0l7 report. Given the lengthy siting and construction process and need for disposal certainty over a reasonable time period, the waste toenergy option assumed afacility that can handle county tons for at least ZOyears before reaching capacity, after which anadditional waste toenergy plant orother disposal option would beneeded. Twenty years also ismore consistent with the p|an'splanning horizon and allows comparison ofthe three disposal options over roughly the same time period. The Further Develop Cedar Hills option would increase the landfill height 3Ofeet over the currently permitted height. The cost ofincreased height is Comment The new announcement byChina that they are not going to use as much or potentially any of our recycled products could have an impact on our recycling rate and potentially increase the materials that will go into our landfill. One of their- concerns is that our separation methods allows for contamination of the materials. | have seen very different sorting methods in Germany and Denmark, which produces adeaner product to be on the market and compete with nurrecydab|es. Many ofthe suppositions given in this draft report need to be reconsidered. For instance the tonnage capacity of waste to energy plant does not need to be built at the beginning for anticipated tonnage over the next 20 years. We have no way of knowing what changes will happen in packaging, regulations, recycling, reuse, etc. So building so much extra capacity i,not necessary. We should model after waste to energy plants in Florida and Hamburg. They provide us with adcar, documented data system that i, sustainable and we can measure the environmental impacts in a much more accurate and efficient way than Our landfill isquickly filling up. Going upanother 5Ofeet will have impacts onthe surrounding neighborhoods and on costs. Public Review Draft Chapter& co iii c Q) (9 no $._ cu c G) (9 rcs 'cii c a) (9 Commenter 4-) 'cli E ro _1 >- 4, (0 ..... 56 E ro _1 >. 4-. ro 4-) 03 E ro _1 >. -IJ (0 2a7,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaement Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 354 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) included inthe costs for the Further Develop Cedar Hills option. Capital and operating costs for the disposal options inChapter 6ofthe public review draft Comp Plan (January ZO18)are presented assingle numbers for each option instead ofranges. Costs for the Further Develop Cedar Hills options were estimated bythe division. Costs for the waste toenergy option were taken from the No,mandeauZO17report that presented credible waste to energy costs drawing on recent information and the consultant's many years ofexperience with waste to energy facilities. Chapter hTable 6-Zshows the waste export disposal option tobemore expensive than further develop Cedar Hills option but less expensive than the waste toenergy option. Page 6'l0ofthe public review draft plan notes potential capacity constraints identified bythe Washington State Department of Transportation and Normandeau2017. Under Washington State Special Incinerator Ash Standards (Chapter 173-300VVAqash must be disposed separately from municipal solid waste ina special ash monoDU.Although standards could change inthe future, waste toenergy ash isnot currently approved inWashington for other uses such asroadbed material. Because Cedar Hills is permitted asamunicipal solid waste landfill, the engineering, permitting, and financial feasibility of building anash monofiUonthe site would need further evaluation. The public review draft plan assumed that the ash would beexported toan existing out of county ash monofill. The plan recognizes that more metals could be recycled with the waste toenergy option. The potential toincrease recycling byasmuch astwo Comment The comparison numbers for a new cell have a range that is stated at its lowest number while the comparison of waste to energy plant is compared at its highest price range. Taking the materials by rail is an expensive and uncertain option. vVealready know there are times when the rails are over capacity and we have no control over the long term costs. 4waste toenergy plant contains the materials and disposes ofmost ofthe matter here and provides certainty and predictability. If we built a waste to energy plant now, it would allow us to use our current capacity to accept the fly ash until we can update our codes to be in line with European standards and science to declare it inert. p|yash is also needed inocmentandtheewou|dbeamorketfo/it.|n addition, our bottom ash could be used for road construction. Our 1'5O0miles ofroads are inneed of repair and in places reconstruction. Ha,irgthio readily available product for road bed would be another asset. The mcmb would be ,rcydoi which would help our environment too. / Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number co c Q) (.9 ro c a) (9 co c a) (9 General Commenter 4-) '6 E ro _1 >- 4-, ro 4-) E co _1 >- 4-4 co E co _1 >. 4-, co Kathy Lambert 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 355 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) percent byrecovering metals from waste to energy ash isshown on Page 6-9and Table 6-Zinthe public review draft plan. Unlike the last adopted Comp Plan, this Plan includes anew chapter, Chapter ZThe Existing Solid Waste System. This chapter discusses how the entire system works together while later chapters focus on specific parts ofthe system suchassustainab|e materials management, transfer, and disposal. The regional system relies onpublic and private participants, with private collection and processing companies responsible for ensuring that recyclable materials are reused under their contracts with the cities and county. For example, the division's contract for processing ofsmz|ab|esfrom county transfer stations states "The Contractor shall ensure that all ofthe recyclable materials collected from SVVDsites are recycled per King County Code [K[[ 10.U4.UZ0DDDD]'which specifies that recycling of materials includes transforming, remanufacturinQ, reprocessing, composting or re'refiningnnateria|s into usable ormarketable products, and marketing ordistributing those products orcommodities for use other than landfill, incineration, stockpiling, or Maximizing recycling and diverting materials from the landfill are discussed inChapter 4Sustainable Materials Management. Technologies that could recover resources and further divert materials from the landfill are discussed inChapter 6Landfill Management and Solid Waste Disposal. Comment � As we go forward we need to sec how we can integrate our system and use these materials for power, for 'sale to other industries such as the cement industry and metals for reuse. There are many byproducts that are sold from the Hamburg facility. Science continues to develop new ways to theseuse To summarize, |am requesting the following overall changes, in addition to the detail changes in my marked up dmft: ° Comprehensive, system wide information that is integrated (not si|oed) so the reader understands both the different system segments AND how they function as a system. 0 information on the lifecycle of recycled products. * Discussion of available system improvements or technological advancements that can maximize recycling and minimize landfill use (including waste to energy, byproduct sale to industry, etc.) Public Review Draft Chapter& Page Number General To $... a) c a) 0 �General Commenter +, 'a3 E co _1 >- _c 4, CU +, 'C 13 E co _1 >- _c 4, ra Kathy Lambert 2079 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 356 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Discussion ofChina's recent restriction onimport of recyclable materials (sometimes called the China National Sword policy) has been added Chapter 4. References used in developing the plan are listed in Chapter 8. Cost offset (including revenues from sale of recyclable materials and electricity) identified inthe Normandeau2Ol7report were included inthe waste to energy cost estimates shown in the public review draft plan. The marked updocument referenced inthe|etuer was the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Because the mark-ups donot directly address the text inthe public review draft plan, the detailed responses tothe marked -up document are shown in the Responsiveness Summary for the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for your comment. Comment ° Analysis of global markets and foreign actors and how their decisions could impact local recycling rates, system capacity, and landfill use. ° An appendix of source nomzhab for all conclusions made or assumptions used to reach acondusion. In the report, they did no, consider many of the known cost offsets in awaste toenergy facility. There area variety of statements in the report that are incomplete or debatable. In addition ,o this letter, the attached document provides my in-depth comments through ama,ked up version of the Draft Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan. |norder tnprovide King County and its Citizens with the most economic and environmentally viable options, the following corrective actions need tobetaken: Stop the finalization ofthe Current Draft Solid Waste Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Conduct adetailed Feasibility Study byaTeam ofqualified national and international experts; Move forward with and Integrated System that reduces its Global Warming Effect and moves our waste system from a liability to an asset; Engage proven technologies and systems that create local jobs; Reduce the overall environmental impact, provide innovative mitigation measures, and contribute to a circular economy; / Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number General To C (1) (.9 General �General To C 0.1 0 Kathy KathyLambert KathyLambert +-, 'CI-1 _0 E co _, >- _c — ro c ro (1) _c bp 0 (l) 2 2 co 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan - 2018 Att A Page 357 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. Comment Handle, process and utilize the waste where it is produced: locally; Include wastewater residuals and bioso|idb(se*aAe)inthe solid waste treatment program. Proven thermal treatment technology is the most effective way todestroying the toxio contained in bioso|id$sevvage such as flame retardants' heavy metals, dioxins and furansetc.; Include Anaerobic Digestion for the 5O%bioenic content. In summary, the Solid Waste Department did not accurately incorporate the potential and viable options that have been recently studied nor did itprovide economic- environmental viable solutions. VVaste-to'EnergyAnaerobic Digestion and anoverall Integrated Resource Management Plan are viable options for King County but were misrepresented inthe DE|3.Based onthe studies, these options will provide more benefits, environmentally sound technologies that adequately destroy the toxic organic components contained inthe waste and bioso|ids,while reducing the impact ofair and ground pollution compared to|andfiUing. The DE|Sisnot thorough, istechnically inaccurate, and not legally defensible due tothe poorly written Draft Solid Waste Management Plan. Both the D3VVN1Pand DE|3need tobestopped and comprehensively rewritten. The new plans need tnbeprepared based onviable, credible scientific facts and complete documents. Zero Waste Washington appreciates the opportunity *z comment onKing [ount/sdraft Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan update, dated January 2Ol8.The plan is animportant document guiding management ofour garbage and recycling for the next six years indetail and ZO years generally. Zero Waste Washington is a nonprofit group that represents the public on recycling and zero waste issues. VVework toprotect people and our natural world by advocating for products designed and produced tube Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number aa 6.5 c U) (.7 General Commenter ra _c too a) 2 2 co < a) +-, 0 (1-J NJ 2a7,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste Maaaement Plan -Jul 2018 Att A Page 358 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Comment healthy, safe and continually recycled and reused. VVe envision ajust and sustainable world where society responsibly produces, consumes and recycles. VVeapplaud the overall approach and the waste prevention hierarchy. VVeare concerned, however, that the recycling rate has plateaued. VVewould like tosee much stronger policies and actions in the plan tostimulate increasing the recycling rate (even though there isachallenge with the China Sword initiative at the moment). The [5VVMPpresents avery detailed analysis ofthe recent status, challenges, and proposes several alternatives for future development and how King County deals with solid waste, recycling, and related issues. The main challenge centers around the Cedar Hills Landfill Facility capacity and projected life based on estimated waste volumes in the coming decades. ZVVVisproposing that King County prioritize ade'cent/a|izpd waste management approach which uses anintegrated Regional Distributed system. In order to reduce waste going tothe central landfill, ZVVVrecommends that King County improve and expand the existing waste disposal / recycling infrastructure to increase local recycling rates, divert more organic materials toexisting and new distributed local composting and anaerobic digestion systems, and greatly expanding waste diversion approaches such asReUsefacilities. Increasing the number and accessibility oflocal facilities will decrease overall waste transportation costs, road congestion and wear, greenhouse gas production and waste volumes needing disposal atthe Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number ra 'c.f.). c a) (.9 Commenter a) 4-, as o o -c ,_ Lel <ll a3 NJ > 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 359 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses to formal comments made during the January 8 — March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) 4- C E E o (.) n 0 >- o 4- = o,._ >,.. - ra _c F- bi) c (...) (...) O.) > 0 ..1. E .- 0 4-, v) CO ,... 0 4- o 0 >- n C T---i o u 0 1.13 "C +-, O) 4- CO U CO C w) a) ,-7) a) L- 70com 5 o as +), 4-; 0 .4-7, 0- r3 C ).... ns 43 _C a) a_ 4-, v 4-. E v) > O c s..1 a) IP (13 2 c > (*) 40 (73 cis -1-' a) , ‘,-) u (1) u >., •‘.-: c ._ WU cu0 trz rts E 0 0 u_ CO u (10 o 0 .c c o o (04-' o u. > 0 o al CU _ ' v) CD v) = as 0 y__ CO 4- • - • c ,.., cu c 7-) 0 c 0 0 cn ci, (.) v, u cu -0 4-0 v.) , as --- v) CO c C3 4--' C w) 0) cb 0 ,_ , (0 . v) 4..) 4-, 0 4-, a) al _c 0 n0 in -0 iv 4-, 4-i tv (2.) ea c1.0 ...o - o_ a) as Comment L. c o-,-, 0 cu 4-. 0 = 4-, a) E a.) -0 o . .4-7, ci) -1-,) E u c• cc m c < c -8 c 0., • `..L' 2 c c -12 -0 o 0 ,...- ,- o 4- 0 •, . c 0 CI) 0 (..) ,_ ...-'-' ., >.• ) > 7) a) 0 c c ,... (3.) 0 -0 03 _c }7, C .7) 4-4 0 CO C c6l)4-0-3 a) au > -C 0 -,-, ,_ 0 0- 4-, E u., as 4-+ _ -6- rp c ,-,-) . `' (I) tak) m 0) 06 - o tz Ea 40 0 .47-7 C c U u __ C vi, _ CU 7,, 0 (i) 7) a) = >. '-ic ‘ - 4-' co 1:, 0 _C - 4-, ()) CU v) C 0 4-, ,-, 0 0 4-, 0 -0 -....- 4•-• 4-) -,-) m c --- 4-, ra c- a3 CD >._ 0 CO 0 -0 c E c .4. ., ...„ _-.,oc-. m0 bao „ -.,-0, cO) 0cras_ - • 0 tL-c-)O -0C• -0o- .2 "u147 L>u . OW>n3 -4: . V) 0 ,: 0 -•. (i) .,. 1- -0 _cc• '''' ,_ 4-- .- 0 w CI) tap C a) _0 0 a) 4- n3 70 ,-• >. c(1).) 03 -0 0 0 ,,,C) -5 R mc ..-",- >. .4.7.' z e, u; .0 -0 c 03 C 3- •,c, 0 X E 7_ ,,,a) (3) CU ._ = _0 C L- -0 0 L .9 ru, , „ : ,- • cu o E e.;.1 -0 ,-- (0 C ,,, _t 1 ) a) c cl) ,,-- cu. - cc," 0 •- t• l'3, (a • _C 0 '-' 0 - CU v-, u- c ).- -„„ ..., a) tIO 7-7', CU ^ a) c "Cu- "' " :- U 4..., L. c o 4-, (0IU as- >- v) > (0 +-, .- ...- C 4- -0 0 0 o 4., 0 0 0.6 " c4- E E .(- vs 0 4-, 130 0 v, >. 0 0. .- (t) (-) a) 0 .-- L- o v';' 4-cc-<)ou tu) '5 a) o > 0 > -0 _c w 1.-) a) Tv 0 as 4.), 0 cuccuo4-' --0cc00a.1 0.-‹ CO M„ 0 5 : .11-c> .c , 4"cv2) uC>c 00 ›U 4cCO3,oU,, (>as.9-)• L--E9.0- 40"i-v C,CfiO) C > 0 ,_ L-• 0) E 0 >.. 0, JD G.) ,,, C.) y._ - , ,,,, a- 4.-• bfl a) (13 rn Lii) -0 Tv) c . c L-• E a.) E 0- +-,(i) 0 c a) n3 0 0,1 C 0 .0 o c „ "-' ifj E CU -0 . - " 4- a; 4- a) ,_ a) 4.' 0 L. > 4- - 0 -0 00 > • (0 a) L.. _ 1- (..) 0 i.7) — ..c • < -0 >- .:..-: i- u • 0 o a) u_ > 41:2 15 cc (13 IV 4., Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number Commenter 2 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -1-1(6/ 2018 Att A Page 360 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) SVVDperiodically evaluates whether curbside food waste service would be used by customers. +-; c a) E E 0 u m 0 >, , m 0 >-• c ro _c 1— Comment ° Curbside Collection ofOrganics (Yard & Food Waste) : As a potential future option tosupplement current Yard Waste recycling atthe Transfer Station, ZVVV strongly recommends the study and evaluation ofan Organics collection program toincrease Yard /Food Waste recycling and supplement the feedstock for the proposed island Compost Facility. a) c -C i o v +-• Q.) ,T -0 ----0 > 3 CCD a - -a ._ Cli -C3 Z-; C u• 0 Lo 4-, ---- _c c •E in o E a_ co 0,-CIJOCUp‘-05-j +-' ..- 0 L- t- .1-• > Q) c ,4- 0 0 E co c ro 0_ u 03 > ,f) rrl ,_ 0 C 7:3 -CS >- 'f) 4—• ra (I) •- u a) •,-, - ,- C 0 • c .' C ,...,C , 7 .,.., 0 a)-.,-4 c a a 0 0 -c cu a° t24 > c +-, „ ,..., 4_, .4--, VI ro — •— ,..., k.., Q) n'3 < — C''' S- P Q.) - On _c 1-1-1 -C3 • - " _C CU C ,_ +-+ .> • - v C c — D Q.) • c fs Lri 0 - o Li) x c o 0_ — — — .5 4-,_ .._ -0 u ro u •— a) +_. '«.• RS • - >. 4-' CR (0 s- ,_ E cu- 0 E E a V) (L) a a) .,- 0 .c r_- 0 c ro a) u ....• v, ozi-00 _cmoa),- >-• 0 d) cu _v) .. •,--; v) H -u.7,45 70 cvi-i13 cuco 0 b.0 .< bp _C - a) 0 73 QJ . _ .).-• > CU cp .- v) tli -0 tn t i._ rt.) rrb00c a a) u v.) (I) E .. -c M 03 -I-' a) u ,_ 76u (Dr.., az° t:',„ t.3 0 4- 4-+Ln CU — _, CO >-. (1) 4-' — E •-• - L..) , 2 La) , c 0. E 0 E u H ot +0,0 . 3 a 0_ *-0 a • - CU 0 _c 5 ra ra v; in 0_ co 0_ ro in •'''' ai -0 L ' c '' u") QJ 113 .L.1 7. • c - •— ._ '- ° (15 c 6 c •E , >. ro y . t _ c.„, a 73 ai , ro E 8 Lc") ra .,, a-) 70 . u ra _c in , 0 ,_ n , • - -I-, QJ 40 u 4-, D ra _c L'' 0 0 - > v) .1-' >- C v, _o " 0 c . . • •> . . (15" v 'a ) . .:C t.' : ' '4 f Ew Ln° ow . (114° ,I)v) S 3- '') 7u, 0 C 8 m 61 0 LU , uu C C 45 , , ,L. ) 0 0 0 0 ci _c u .5 L__ 73 — v) 0 C 0- U Q -0 Q) CL • - QS 0- 7,.; C -0 (7) -‘52 0 U D -C L- (1) •'=,' a, W a) t 5 C tn -05 CO C ''' 0 ,-• La-, 'A .,. ca '.7, v) 4-, o ro 0 a) V) 0 < ,-,,, E :,7, •c, 4- a o.0 E c 0 LE _c c 45 71 C c (r) c 2 6 , o 0 ra o o - , z VI Q) — • 7_, . .7 v, a) ra 5 u •,--, ,-- 0_ '-,L• ^-,_ 0 ,_ in ,, ,c 0 c ,..0 - u CU — ra 1- c.r) u a)'6 — 'o ra 3 ic 3 o_ Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number co 'GT) C 0) (.9 Commenter ro ,- E 0 0 TO t u c o ,ra o cl_ -- ci) a) 4, E o 4, •,. ra a) a tra +-, L- 1.) c • - 0,1 v.) 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2018 Att A Page 361 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) Thank you for your comment. The Plan isorganized with areference tothe page number where background discussion ofthe action can befound. .•-• E c ar) a) to vs o vs s_ 03 0_ 0.. C 0 v• '5 _c a) C CC CL) E -23 E c o >- u --I -0 o (i) >. "C 0 4-- E = E -11G 4-, C Cl) U 1.- -C Comment � While the plan includes agreat deal ofinformative narrative, the connection ofdescription tuActions isunclear and a little confusing. |twould bemuch easier todigest, asapolicy document, if the text that describes each action could be placed below each action. v) c cu o L.) '"as tso ) 0 '49-i --0 cu 03 a) 4, ,.. a 0 r 0 0 0 v) ca 0 0 :'-' 4-, vi ,„ u •- _c as as c LL cu 4' -c (1) o 0 = '6) -0 c ,_ — o L. QS Q) C _11 ).4 0 ,—r30 • -L..'.,..-41-.4' vra) '5 s= .c 5 c'' ' 73 N 17 0 inh- ce. L- " o_ c -7.: cu s- 00 -..c ro w_4.- Q. ' a) -D c 7 = a) • OA -0 " - CD 4- -.4., .‘ 0)4-, _c = 4-.. a) 03 a) -0 U 0 m u E •- c c 44-' Q. C )... ,- ,-- „ , o vs .- ,- _c a) c-.• -•-• 1- CE) I73 SA C >-E- -6 o u a) ..3 6) 4-4 ...E cu co vs 0 1:1„, Q. 74-, 46 > 73 . 2 0 'cu- . > .4' 0 r4 13 ..) o o _, 4-, '7) r0 sr) • -cs (u a) .c." _c c ‘') c D. o_al) cu a) v) E ro o L.) N .x a) - v• (1) Q) = .5 c Di ca_ T, a) _Cs .c o 0 - -C (a 5 > 0 a) o 4-, 0 .,..• 4-, C, - -0 ro Lil no c -,.-r., no -cs _c ,-(1) W ID 1:5 7.,-7- 0 .i..5 4E4 _c c (u as Q. -0 a) 0 M 4-) r0 v, ra 0 _ , •,-:-.) C Q.)-cs c•:,) u" v, E u -C (..) a, ro 73 vl („, 1 ... >. >.• _c a) sil.) 6.) c .° -°ti tyj0 u 0 .- ?_.• ,- S.- s- c v) Z • - (U t ,r) a) 'Es E a) - o. a) 4- - ca. aa '13 2, -CA tr-/S) 2 :2 ." 0_ 0. _c 0 s.- o >.' 4..:. . 7 co_ .c o t7o ?; a) pa ct 4- i C 0 - - •-• c o 4-, - li,.... L.22 a' c --cu '2 tio - -° >- c cu a) o 0 o " o -, 6) 0. 0.0 4-' tO ° CL 4-. 4-' 2 o a) c a) co v• 0 C:1- 0. 0 .0 >u • 1) C .- 4ac-a) •0C- o cu " as au ra CL.0 cu.- C c Q) >.. VS 0 4-4 = co C c a) a) c o " o m" ro 4--',„, ...c cu 0 cs a.• L.) 4-) ro E tio " 4-' Q) c 0 Q) '17. .4-=) -C 0 • - .0 4-• '''' 5 V) • E'-') •' C 4- " 110 0. es s .-.° °) as x c 6) (U . fa CU s_ _c ._ 4_ a, Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number General Format Ct. i -1 TO L.. 0) C (1) t..9 Commenter �� Zero Waste WA C as -le S2 4 207,9 Comprehensive Solid Waste t Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 362 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Responsiveness Summary: Responses toformal comments made during the January 8—March 8, 2018 public comment period Response (Page numbers refer to the 2019 Plan) The division has sent these comments toLynda Rangey, LHVVK4PProgram Director. Thank you for your comment. Although the division has completed many studies, wetried tocite the more recent studies inthis Plan. Comment VVealso ask that the County reassess the governance structure ofthe program tuensure that the 39cities served by the program are better represented onthe Management Coordination Committee (M[C)where rate proposals are voted on and recommended to the King County Board of Health for approval. Finally, werequest that LHVVMPprovide amore detailed accounting ofits proposed budget, cost drivers, and service improvements included inits proposed increase and dosn through robust public communication and engagement process well inadvance offinal consideration and adoption ofthe new fee schedule. She more references please, tying in poviouswmrk/vetted reports already done. Anexample isthe compost feasibility study conducted byK[3VV(in Z0U6?)should benoted. / Public Review Draft Chapter & Page Number RFFERENCE3KH Commenter TS C t1:5 1._ Zero Waste Vashon 2029 Comprehensioe Solid Waste Management Plan -Aly 2028 Att A Page 363 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 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 Waste -to -Energy Study (Normandeau 2017), and an updated Cedar Hills Site Development Alternatives Final Report (KCSWD 2017a) 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: • Further develop Cedar Hills, • Waste Export, and • Waste to Energy (Mass Burn) Facility. Further Develop Cedar Hil s 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: • New landfill cells would be developed at the Cedar Hills landfill, • 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, 6, and 7 of the Landfill at or below 788 feet above sea level, • Division facilities currently located in areas permitted for refuse disposal would be moved, • 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, • The added capacity would be sufficient to handle the forecast tonnage, maximizing disposal capacity at the landfill, • Consistent with long-standing practice, new development would be financed through rate revenues managed in the landfill reserve fund, • As Cedar Hills reaches capacity, previously described evaluation criteria would be used to select the next disposal method, and • A new disposal method would need to be ready for service when the new capacity at Cedar Hills is exhausted. 2029 Comprehensive .Solid [T. aste.Management Plan -July 2.28 Att A Page 365 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 6-1)(KCSWD 2017c). 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: • The county would enter into a contract to export waste after current permitted capacity at Cedar Hills is used by 2028, • Waste would be exported to a yet -to -be determined out -of -county landfill, • The out -of -county landfill would produce energy from landfill gas using an efficient collection system, • 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, • 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 2017c), • The division would buy container -ready trailers to transport rented rail -ready containers from transfer stations to a rail intermodal facility, • The division would modify its transfer stations so that municipal solid waste can be loaded into railroad shipping containers, and • The division would contract for an intermodal facility to transfer containers from trucks to rail. F-2 2019 Comprehens e Solzd Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 366 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 1. Columbia Ridge La ndfil I and Recycling Center 2. Roosevelt Regional Landfill 3. Finley Buttes Regional Landfill 4. Simco Road 5. Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill Tab Gilliam County, OR Klickitat County, WA )o-e Waste nagement Allied Waste Industries dba Regional Disposal Co. Morrow Waste County, Connections OR Elmore County, ID Douglas County, WA Idaho Waste Systems Waste anagemen 330 352 628 OLJtO 12.8 MW gas - to -electricity; plasma gasification demonstration plant, 20 MWgas-to- electricity co- generation facility'. 4.6MWgas-to- electricity; co- generation facility. Planned gas -to - electricity, initially 157 1,6 MW expanding to 3.2 MW y 354,275,000 244,600,000 158,900,000h 2 0,000,000` 42,000,000 sposa 329,000,000* 120,000,000* 3 ,000,000* 200,000,000 36,000,000 1990 1990 2000 1960 2150+ 2110 2250+ 2100+ 2110+ a Co -generation facility captures waste heat from burning landfill gas in gas turbines, and uses it to make steam to generate more power in a steam turbine. The water used to produce steam is continually cooled, condensed and reused The co -generation facility captures waste heat from the gas -to -electricity plantfor use by anadjacent property owner. b Finley Buttes has the potential to expand to a permitted capacity of 400 million tons. c Simco Road Regional Landfill is currently expanding to a permitted capacity of 420 million tons. 2029 Comprehensive Sold Waste Management P/an -July 2028 Att A Page 367 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste to Energy Faciiity 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 of feedstock, having unused capacity at the beginning of the 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: • 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 40-acre site with five lines that could handle 1,000 tons per day each, • To handle forecast tons, additional capacity would be required beyond 2048, or sooner if the actual tonnage increases faster than forecast, • 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, • 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, • The ash produced as a by-product of the process would be screened to recover all remaining metal for recycling, • 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. F-4 201,9 Comprehens e Solid Waste Management Plan -July 1018 Att A Page 368 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste -to -Energy in King County and the United States |nthe late 19O0s,both King County and the City ofSeattle planned tnconvert from burying municipal solid waste in a landfill to sending waste to a mass burn facility. Protests by the public and environmental groups led both jurisdictions to abandon plans to build mass burn facilities and instead shift emphasis turecycling 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 inthese options for long-term disposal once Cedar Hills has reached its permitted capacity. The King County Was te-to-En ergy 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 are 77 individual waste -to -energy facilities in 22 states listed in the EnergyRecovery Council2016 DirectoryofWaste toEnergy Facilities (ER[ZOl6). Sixty ofthe facilities are mass burn, 13 are refuse'derivedfue|, 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, In 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 orless have been built and some have been redesigned toexpand capacity. A5'O0Oton per day facility, as proposed for King County, would be the largest mass burn facility in the United 201�)COMPrChel?SiDxSOI�dVas�e.MoqgewemPZan -JZdYxmJ Aft A Page 369 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 370 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ,Oxik 1)1 I )/ Pat lidel...htighlin King' tty Solid Waste Divi.sion Dirmior De tin IlL of Natural .Resoure-c an i l'arks 201 Jaelcsi.„in Snite 701, Seattle WA, 98104 Re: The Drail Comprehensive Solid Waste menteal. Plan, jalitillry 2018 Dear Pat Mel chant. you far the onporturaly to review and comment on this Plan, We found it well -written and halvah 1u1l oduced. We etammenti you., as well_ on your early and widespread 1 1111e N,'0 ivgmcnt proce.38., ,and itt,c Division's resporisivetwvi shown to Me variety or uoinments and opinions expressed. . . BesIdes. our coupatulations, ficolort 's formal conmients are transintited ewitli this letter. We look ronviirel to reviewing ytsar Final Draft SirteetelY. ?n,liC'eiMent, C58,1, at:fp:, Al Regional Planning., liranis udPtUteriak Matiagement Ear los.tire cc; Peter Christiansen Rath klumphrtys 2029 Comprehensive Soh' cl Waste Management Man - jzt. ly 2018 Att A Page 371 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 KING COUNTY JANUARY 2018 PR Ltfw1I AftY f)ftAFT SOUR G,dASTE MANAGEfvtENT PLAN Review Comments by: Vicki Colgan S•ollid Waste Platrner, NWRO May 7, 2018 The g ail of t14e solid waste plailnrrtg process is to further reduce tlrr tdrtad antourit crf waste naatcrials produced ' using e feutFv v:aste re trttk in, ycling and outreach methods, properly disposing, Sing, the waste remaining, and achievirap c'ornpalianee with state and focal environmental reguhations, Ecology a,pprov'a b a°tnkents ate offered to assist King in polishing an already corlaore- lenspvc. nd bAeautiifuI produced solid waste nnanageiment plank Comprehensive Plan developrnunt is not an; easy assignment considerlrlg the nnra{t ttrdt of rd slt0wrlsib litius confronting icing, Comity, Ecnldygy recognit:•es the extensive effort mad u s`rI developing and irpdatinE; this Draft Comprehensive Solid Waste Ntanagenrent Plan, In addition, the Pan presented to Ecology has clrtderp one and is still ktrid01%0ing'a thtnri ughi review by the King County Solid Waste Advi'Sory Committee (SWAC), the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee NSW MAC}, King County cities, liatrding service provides, Tribal representatives, the Public, and 01her interested ;Tonics in the County. This Plan, founded on well-concelyedi .and executed orevintis Plans, frrrttiers tJ°ee steategie:s trd to ),Is King County will use as it cord:inites to perform 'itsjob of solid waste handling and waste reduction within its jLJfI561t1011, To b as ctan plate as passible, portions of this Plan wverc reviewed by staff vvtro specialize .i`tt tMre facilities, organics, solid waste handling and Cedar° Mlllls landfill. Their comments nts are included in Ecology's comments below, which are organized as follow f.. Procedural items that must be addressed prior to Era lw gy approval 2.. content: items that mot be addressed prior to Ecology approval 3. Highly recommended changes 4. Other comments You will note that, rather than use 'division' in lower case as can often be .seen in legislature tan age land as delft in your Plan), I've capitalized the word here„ $i used throughout:as a name PR CEf1UR,AdITEMSTHAT MUST' EA'ODRESSEDPRI !f$T NAPPR VAL Resolutions of Adoption Kling and other entities wwrith interrlcwcal agreements need to approve the updated Comp -eh Maraagenient Plan {CSWMPl prior to Ecology's approval of the final draft., Please include a statement assuring that the plan acceptance process outlined it the interlocal agreement has been fulfilled, ,lard :elki G-2 2019 Comprehensf e Solid UY%aste Ma2zagement Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 372 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Indus OP Of Agriculture. an the allowed 4.S-dayrevie t Pride withirt. the Pia n the betters from both the State Departitmtritf etf Utilities and Trairsporta(iorn Crirrmtrmission sent in response to their these Ecology comments ments on the Preti inary Draft. SEPA Campletiant As of this writing, your prograamnmatic State Environmental Policy Act {SEPA) 'Environmental Irn,itaet Statement produced for this Plan, is out of its review period and likely in its comment response phrase,. Please ensure this Impact Statement is final on or before the date the Final Draft CSWMP is suabrnitted•, and please ensure a copy atf the notice informing rrn'terested parties that your Impact Statement is now final, Is included in the Filial Draft C.SWMP. SINAC Participation: Per Chapter 70.95 1.67(3) 'RCW, after the wir. f rorincih n and rec «ling element of the Plan Is approved by the local legislative authority, but before itis submitted tci Frttlol y fear aiplir'ovat,. the SWAC must hold another meting to review the Final Draft of this element. Phase verify Sy AC participation with Its notesrretinr.itrs containing discussion of this review, CONTENT ITEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESS Olt APPfit VAL Rate, Adjosimnent to flt:storation of Clasped Landfills (Pa The five-year period stated on page 6-24 is from WAC 173.301-309. I3eca:i 5e Chapter 17:1 301 WAC was repealed lam 1985 when Chapter 173 304 WAC. went into effect, the five-year period is not applicable and should not be cited. for those landfills that closed before 1985 the effective date of Chapter` 1.73-304 WAC.j,'the applicable regu ations are those of the Code of the King County BOOrd of Health„ Title'10., Update. LSWFA. Information (Page: 4-18) Since this Draft Plant was presented for review before the Legislature passed the Capital Budget In mirJl lianuary„ 2.018, the bra l50lid Waste financial Assistance OW EA) program is now funded and well underway, Sadly„ the amount of funding available was reduced once again for implementation projects but enforcement programs werre funded at levels comparable to the last funding cyclee'The Washington Department of Ecology administers LSWFA in King County on behalf tit ian.imY Of the suburban cities„ as t ell as fret tfm llivisiclrt and King County Public Health. cirtant Addatto•ns (Pages x — ail, 2491 ■ Please add the word 'le gal° aFter the word "Any' in the diversion definition to"rule o" d:u.rr ping: 35 an option,. rr Please add a registered mark to the Leadership in Energy .and E definition, the preredirtg LEED'' acronym, and to its, first rrmerrtion in the text en page 2-19.. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED CHANGES Plan Year 1 {Page A-aj: '.4"tact r;h implementation begins once. the Plan t, w kn r'car ytimi:s0ro lid y PP r?'n 4ie:b a� Design*. (LEER) 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 373 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Fwltarr i Additions (Pages x1 dI : Defining 'advanced material rertpvery' arid''matorix l to would also facilitate lay readers undo i1 ending of common Wrm trsod in nut inrinrstry.. sl Compost:ing a,ndl Food Recovery Facilities; Somewhere in Chapter 2 it would be good to boil d' in a rrtap or perhaps aced to Figure 2-4 the r`inrrent ccumpostlag and food -rescue facilities. Factorla's. Features (lake 2-2ti'): Here is a great: {promotional) opportunity to insert more information on the glee features at Factoria. Table 4-3 Pmnsithanittg 11Page4-19» Plea: econ siderrnoving this iablo itptarn.l intrn ollow the reference to Table 4-3 in Uie text ing at of tl'le ere in '201.5 ail ket: Assessments"`) to increase sectrnn cc hesion. rh rno paragrawl Blue Sky Disco (Page 4-20):. As it was so aptly put ran page 4-2C1 of tlpi f raft, i a4VP f 'given expected e.hanges in China's na's impart rrolicles"' It would tie useful to add a brief dr;sci•ii;'t -introit on the pa cis felt fry the division and how it has lirnanii reacting to Chula Sword-4 National Swerrd --s glue Sky developments, Ftall Capacity (Page 6-i0): ft is apparetrt f] capacity than will the Waste -to -Energy o terms? To which option Is the second statement of this paragraph referring? ltrn waste: Export scenario will require far greater Tall in: t, itrt thus difference be estimated, perhaps in percentage Figure Titles (Pages 6-11 to 6-16): Coin idea° adchag eerie afirrrcttrriate to the titles of the Figures appearing on these p stone projections, but an "analysis )drat] focuses on ;severaI section: Also, please refer the reader to any new table or fis that may expand on the contents of these figures. Figure -8: Mtn,. rinreful reading, Figure 6.8 aiapeirrs to 5 residuals to a lay person h-nvirng rust looked at the Wa,:st Please redraw this graph to iriclirde the tither 50-Iplus 1p Cc train point you were trying to make by showing a rnodes please describe the purpose for the graph (as is] In the text. wrs •lw°sIs" ot the word `t reinforce the. idea these are not cast-iar- ors" as stated in your introduction to this Additional Appendix suggestion (view] a considerable amount ftrirtt rmtyting vp,1rtnpfth graphs.preceding it, cyclable materials, unless there wSFati a n i hGln a rather Inflated graph, If so, Price of Success {Page'-1t'?r: How would rftitd101ig; the. 20% diva rsitnrt goal at Cedar Hit,lfs, given the necessary increase In organics, actnnposting, and fool' recycling, affect output of the Landfill. -Gas -to - 'Energy' plants? Ad Brit nal Appendix: A tafple listirog each of th cost categories used 4.1 generate Figures especially would Make inn ex l?iwissiori is atternpii,ng here: npa ring -apples -to -ripples an p G-4 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 374 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Uniform Color Use: Please consider keeping the colors used in all die fig LINS in Chapter 3: Forecasting and Data, CO nsiste rWy representing, the same indicator (recytiing is denoted by blue in we 3-3 and Inv green in Figure 3-4, as an example), to avoid confusion Defining Terms: • (Page x) After each plastic listed in the acronynts,, i rry he beneficial to add a small recycling, symbol containing the correspCinding polymer number — thus taking advantage Oa rather unexpected teaching opportunity! * Including 'EPS,to the acronym list is also suggested, I, (Page xiiii Please consider adding to waste prevention iOXatriPIP0siich choosing to ountase i terns with less or no oackogin& or It: woold he good to verify that the Utilities and Transportation Commission is, still urijW in its Lai7ronyrn heard or read 5orriewhere that they do not anymore,. . Iri the, "Permitted Capacity Planned for Cedar Hills through 2028" teAl boX, comPrection and comports seem, to be the correct terms rather than conspilitforion and consohdares (see use etri page 2-6), or does the Division see these as synonyms? I, (Page 6-6 t might he helpful to pre,sent your definition of being 'a good neigniaor% since that definition seems to vary greatly among people—, Colleted Response Levels (Page 6-24). Separating each definition of the threo levels by bullets hero wonlii make the definitions easier to read and locate in the docuillent, s we I I would add em phasis tci this important concept on what to expect tn an ernergency.. fleferences7: The websites given for many of the references are great tools for those of us that like to do further research, is it possible to add to the citations without websites where the material can be obtained or at least add an introductory paragraph on gerieral guidance for contacting the so uircest the beginning of Chapter 8? Labeled Appendices: It may be helpf Lit .tor the reader it each Appendix were lane ititich like the Chapters of the Plan are, especially in the Table of Contents OTHER COMMENTS Comments that applaud work ongoing or already complete: ccmten s, Selection and placement of the photographi in the Plan made tor easy reading as did the prose, 'thankfully a hs:ent the 'normal' repetitive references old-schooi technicwriters ern pitiy. The blue text boxes, used throughout thatexplain uncommon terms or speo:ialized concepts are very welco*Od and further add to the clarity and readability of this Plan. Noted and applauded are the apt, well -worded definitions of equity and sustainablit opening pages of the Plan, tccilkilgy 2MIO li King, 01411014 07-4,11. FiAloo hr.r.k,:41," ri41 pl,ik .4071 30.1$ —P4A0 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 375 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Figure 2-5: Current Layout. of Cedat I°fibs dfil ilktstrates the principle that '"a pictu a thousand words,' said map being quite easy to interpret, as well as nicely coloredl Ala Examples given on ways to improve traffic„ rrlarrag,errlera ,at transfer stations given on page 2-14 are inspire tit it's likely safe to assume that the online site would be compatible with cell phone viewing and die reader boards will be placed in optimal viewing locations, l look. forward to their nrpie mental ion] Another irrspirati aaaal idea is tlif sustainable materials manager can help ease equft:y issues. ls.per'.itally regard continues to tlrl nag,emen Success not only re and finesse to achie nt sir ups cited tan page 4-111, xductl traf the added benefit of rommunit a -building that. apters 2, 4 and 6, Ecology ap rg alancing traditional materials nianageinentwith sustainable mate s and anticipated developments in new waste handling technologi ryes careful planning and strategic public involvement, but also irttultlon Well dnnel Transfer Station Upgrades/ New Construction: Ecology's Northwest tiogional0ffice si'ts�trst uphill' frorn the new F ictoria Transfer Station, .and we have visited anti used as private King; County citizens —the new facilities al! Enumclaw, Shoreline and bow Lake, We found these Mat easy to access, thoughtfully laid out, staffed with skilled people, and efficient in operation. We' commend as well as appreciate? the Division's careful design and construction of these transfer stations,, which incorporated many elements of sustainable building that will acid to their longevity:, lower the cost of their upkeep, and provide staff with superior working conditions.. And again, well done! oce Vic I Regional Plataraircf;a f r ills and Materials Manal,enrent. W A Dept, of froo y,, W21t Programa 31,90 160,1h Ave, Ift kl vile WA 8008-5452 425/6499-7224 w+ . 1 , r:rae'Ara Eby: E Ef"'A11T Nf r. ECOLOGY '4"�rr'i°wI"§lF4tr�rt tr,akyrg C rm+rtnerars Sir k.Vr paCan+nra s 8 ra3 wax w� G-6 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 376 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Service Date: February 8, 2018 STATE OF WASHINGTON UTILITIES A D TRANSPORTATIONCO ISS 1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr, Se W., P.O. Box 47250 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7250 (360) 664-1160 • TTY (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 RE: 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 in 2017 has already been in effect for over a year, while the other two tip fee increases are projected to take effect in 2019 and 2022. 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. This is illustrated in the table shown on the following page. Respect. Professionalism. Integrity. Accountability. 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 377 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Letter to Meg Morehead TG-180044 Page 2 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 2017* 34.59 14.42 $5.47 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 $134.59 $141.66 $141.66 $141.66 $147.33 0.00 $7.07 $0.00 $0.00 $5.67 $0.00 $0.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.68) $0.00 *The 2017 tip fee has been in place since January experienced the rate effect of this tip fee increase. $2.15 Total 27 $10.30 , 2017, therefore customers have already 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 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 378 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 STATE OF WASHINGTON Service Date: June 14, 2018 UTILITIES A T A SP TATI C ISSI 1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr. S.W., P.O. Box 47250 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7250 (360) 664-1160 • 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 King 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-180044. The cost assessment questionnaire portion was updated at the request of Department of Ecology due to the fact that the plan period began in 2017, 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 2017 to 2018, the recycling 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 2018.— 2023 Plan period. These tip fee increases are expected to occur in 2020 and 2023. As a result, there will be a rate impact to ratepayers served by regulated solid waste collection companies in King County in years 2020 and 2023. This is illustrated in the table shown on the following page. Respect. Professionalism. Integrity. Accountability. 2029 Comprehensive .Solid Waste Management Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 379 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Letter to Meg Morehead TG-180451 Page 2 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 2018 134.59 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total $134.59 S140.$2 $140.82 S140.$2 $154.16 $0.00 $6.23 $0.00 $0.00 $13.34 $19.57 $0.00 $0.46 $0.00 $0.00 $0.98 $1.44 $0.00 $2.36 $0.00 0.00 $5.06 $7.42 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 2O2 Comprehensive Solid Waste MaManagement Plan -July 2028 Att A Page 380 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 1 EPA T STATE OF WASHINGTON ET FA ICULTU E 'vision of Plant Protection P.O. Box 42560 Olympia, Washington 98504-2560• (360) 902-1800 March 7, 2018 Ms, Meg Moorehead Strategy, Communications, and Performance Manager King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural 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 16-470-101 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 pemit. 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. LiRe,ger s, 11 4 1 Jim Marra, Ph.D. cc: Leah Doyle 2029 Comprehensive Solfcl Waste ./VIanagement .Plan -July 2018 Att A Page 381 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 382 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 383 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 The following describes how the Plan meets these Title 10.24.30 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 Commission Cost Assessment: • 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. • A map, Solid Waste Collection Company Service Areas, is included on page H-6 • 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-6 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. • 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. • Table 4-4 on pages 4-22 and 4-23 in Chapter 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 Interlocal 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, 2019 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 2-1, page 2-2. • 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. • Population of areas served by UTC-regulated haulers include: Area Population Beaux Arts 300 Black Diamond 4,335 Hunts Point 415 Kenmore 22,580 Medina 3,205 Woodinville 11,660 Yarrow Point 1,040 Unincorporated King County 245,920 4. The projected solid waste collection needs for the respective jurisdictions for the next six years; • Chapter 3 includes details of solid waste generation projections for the future. • Chapter 4 discusses current and future collection issues (pages 4-21 to 4-35). • 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 essential to operating economics, travel distances, and economically optimal locations of solid waste facilities as described below: • 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 2017. Att A Page 385 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 • 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 Plan) that 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. It 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. • 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. • Action 1-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 70.95.1. Att A Page 386 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 387 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Att A Page 388 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ATTACHMENT American Disposal Company, Inc. G'PermitG'87 Serves VashonIsland https://wwvvutc.wa.gnv/reAu|ated|ndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/AmericanY&IODi snosa|%Z0Comnanv%2O|nc%ZOVashonY6Z0Dispnsa|Y6ZOG'87%Z0Tariff%ZUNo%2U1ndf ` - _ 21 � In trx, PMpeny off mote �: ="pbes.~' � - . wes fates an ItHs Tene expire on, le�sue Data- November 14�� _ - _� ~Effeawe DRte-. Janary 1, 1 JFLV=~�&`~'- 0=1� _____�~__- rDaL-� By, Aft A Page 389 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 RECEIVLL) NOV 03 2016 WA III_ &I"RANS_ COMM. ORIGINAL °Ill-161184 Tariff No 1 a Revised Pape No. 34 Company Name.Permli Numter American Disposal Co Inc 047 Registered Trark. Name(s) Vashon Disposa Item 230-- Disposal Fees Charges in ;his dem apply when other items in the tariff speolically refer Llo this item, Damsel site (name or labehon) Type el Material Fee for asposal King Dourly Landlill $134.59 (A) ,,,,,f ton Per per per Per $ per per per per per Per $ per Per per per $ per per per per per per per $ per per per per per per Stela whether lees are per yeal, per ton, etc. Include charges a Seed for special commodities (firee. appliances, a.hesles . els) or special oandliens at each spec" deposal site. Mach ediftional sheets as necessary. Es -sued By: Heather GaTlene Ism fa Date: November-I2016 Effective D,ate, January I. 2017 (For Oftkiar Use Only) DDCkai No. TG, Dale: ..,........._____...._._.... ___....._.............. - -- i'i.,/R OF FICI.A L FIS1 Il Dockets T(r- ,16 18'.1 :1Fentiti L)ctie2. ijecer?lber 8„ 2016 Dttie: dczeluaty I 2017 Att A Page 390 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Rabanco LTD Permit G-12 https://www.utc.wa.goviregulatedIndustriesitransportation/TransportationDocuments/Rabanco%2OLT D%20dba%20Eastside%2c%20Container%20Hauling%20G-12%20Tariff%2011.pdf Serves Unincorporated King County, Beaux Arts, Hunts Point, Kenmore, Medina, and Yarrow Point RECEIVED NIAV 31, 2.018 WA. tJT. & TRANS. COMM. ORIGINAL TG480484 SUER 07/12/18 Tariff No. 11 Company Name/Permit Number: Rabanco LTD 0.12 Registered Trade Narne(s) rEansicie eisrional, Rabanoa Corn panes. Patience Connerenrs 28th Revised Page No. 21 [tern 100 - Residential Service Monthly Rates (continued on next page) Rates in this item apply: (1) To solid waste collection, curbside recycling (where poled) and yardwaste services (where noted) for residential property. This includes single family dwellings, duplexes, apartrnents_ mobile homes, condominiums, etc., where service is billed directly to the occupant of each residential unit., and/or (2) When required by a local government servicelevel Cfrdinarre„ solid waste collection, curbside recycling, and yardvvaste service Must be provided for single-family dwellings, duplexes, mobile homes, condominiums, and apartment buildings of less than 4 residential units, where service is billed to the property owner or manager_ Rates below apply in the following service area: Appendix A Raabe, of Unita or Type at Containers Frequency of Service Garbage Service Rate Recycle Service Rate tam:waste Or -to SeNICE Rate 20 gallon can Vli/G/E0WR 58.05 $9,23 $9,23 1 Can WGEOWR $12.93 $9.23 $9 23 2 Can WGEOWR $22,00 $9,23 $9.23 3 Can WGIECAIVR $32.18 $9.23 $9.23 4 Can WG/EOWR 843.23 $9,23 $9.23 5 Can WGEOWR $54.56 $9,23 $9.23 32 Gal Toler WG/EDWR $12.93 $9.23 $9,23 64 Gal Toter WGEOWR $21.92 $9,23 $9.23 96 Gal Toter WG/E0WR 832.01 $9.23 $9.23 1 Can MG)1E0WR 54.66 $9.23 $9.23 Recycle Only $10.23 Yardwaste Only $10.23 20 Gal Toter (N) EOIN Organics (limrted avallabffily) $8,82 32 Gal Bear Proof Toter 512.93 64 Gal Bear Proof Toter $22.00 96 Gal Bear Proof Toler S32.18 Optiona Container Rental 80.42 $0 53 $1.06 $1 59 $2.12 $2,65 $1.09 $1.66 $1 86 $0,53 $1.86 $1,09 see page 26b $3.94 see note 8 S6 17 See note 8 $8.43 see note 8 Frequency of Senate Codea: WG=Weekly Garbage; EOWG-Every Other Week Garbage; IiiiGalLabntaly Garbage WRWeoei Recycling SOW R=Every Otter Week Recycling; ailR=Pitorrlhly Recycling; List ofhers used: by company: Note 1: Debcriplionrrules related lo recycling program are shown on page 25. Note 2. Description...rules related to yardwaste program are shown on page 26. Note 3: In addition to the recycling rates shown above, a recycling debitil credit) of ($0.16) IA) applies,. Note 4: Recycling rates shown above are subject to an additional recycling processing surcharge of $0.55 per month, The recycling processing surcharge on this page will expire December 31, 2018 Recycling rates on thiS page expireJanuary 31, 2019 Issued By: Rick Waldren, Business Unit .Controller Issue Date: June 15, 2018 Effective Date: August 1, 2018 (For Ofaciav Use Orgy) Docket No. TGii Date: B y: FrIR OFFICIAL USE OA TY Att A Page 391 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 RECEIVED MAY 31, 2018 1.,VA. UT. & TRANS.: COMM. ORIGINAL TG-180484 SUB 0732/18 Tariff No. l'l 29t11 Revised Page No. 23 Company .NarnelPennil Number Roberto° LTD G-12 Registered Trade. Name(s) Ens-zufe Ctisttesat Rabareo Cemb.uroes Rattnece Commences nerbk. 100 - Residential Service - Monthly :Roles l continued on, next page'', FRates in this item apply: (1) To said waste cloaection, ,curbside racy:ling (where needy and yard...Neste serwices (whore noted) for residenlia property. This inclodes single family dweilings, duplexes., apartments, mobile homes, condominiums, elc., where service is billed directly to the occupantof each. residential unit. and'or (2) When required by a local government service level ordinance, solid 'waste collecttn, curbside recycling, and yardwaste service rust be provided for single-family dwellings, dup.exes, motOie .homes, condominiums, and apartment buildings ,of be than 4 residential 'units, where service is billed: to the property owner or manager, Rates below apply in the fel:wing er area: ititppendix10 Number nt' Ft7en nerey Garaage Recycle Yardwaste i OpOnnat tJmis or kyee el' &" enter Seroce Organ Coreanet ett tortlethers SMetace Pate Rate Service Rale NentO 20 gallon can WG1WR .58.05 $11.47 $12.75 $0,42 1 Can 'WGIVIIR $12.93 $11.47 $12.7.5 SO.53 2 Can 'WG(WR $22.00 $11.47 $12.75 $1,0(1 .3 Can ,A(IGIViR $32,18 $11.47 $12.75 $1.59 4 Can WG)WR $43.23 $1147 $12.75 $2.12 5 Can WGWR $54.56 $11.47 $12.75 $2,65 32 Gal:Teter WGIVR $12.93 $11.47 $12.75 $1,09 64 Gal Toler 'WG(WR 521.92 $.11.47 $12.75 11.86 96 Gar Toter 'WGINR $32.61 $11.47 $12.75 $1.86 1 Can 14GWR $4.,66 .$11.47 $12.75 $0.53 Recycle Only $12,47 'Yaniwaste Only 313.75 $1.86 32 Gal Bear Proof Toter $12.93 ,53.04 see,note- 8' 64 Gal Bear Proof Toter 622.00 38;17' see note 8 96 Gal Bear Proof Toter $32.16 58.43 see' note S' I= metre Inge d ..Serwrge Cages: kV GhtfterJey Garage; k.r.Nint2,,ereery Maur Week Clarbane VICi z Oarrl RI y Garbage; YUFt rUNeekty Rec yet erg b:Ctttit,E417,, Other Week .1,-cyclteg, ItitieVbeltny Recymhrtg; Lalothers used by vameany. Note 1: Descriptionirules related to recycling program are shown on page 25. Note 2: Description/rulesrelated to yerdwaste program are shown or page 26, Note 3: In .addition to the recyciing rates shown above, a recycling deb4(tcreditt of (50.15) (A) applies.. Note 4: Recycling rates shown above are subject .to an addition recycling processmg surcharge of 50.55 per month. The recycling !processing surtharge on this page 'w.iti expire.: December 31, 2018 Recycling rates on thie ,page expire on: January 31, 20111 tssued By Rick: Waldten, Business Unit Controller Issue Date June 15, 2018 Effective Date: August 1, 2018 )For Official' Use Orolyi Docket No,. TG- Date'. By. POP 011.1(1.4.1. tISE 0. . Tic . I I 1. 484 Rel'ithAtIS per Oe'der 01 in Otheket T6-180484 Agenda Date: July 26,2018 iffiTtive Date: August 1, 2018 Att A Page 392 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 RECEIVED & TRANS. COMM. '.:6-161214 tariff N. 11 51.11 Pg N. 39 f..1 a.otme kaaareeCarrplanfes, Raterfaz tivirlethan Company NarnelPerrnin No be :: :Rabance LTD G-t2 Registered Trade: Pitarneis) Eaais,gte' Lispasal, Carfare,. ' Changes in this nom - *iii!! - - - n cth n n lTh triffectlicallyrr&r tc,1111 lirn. ispo ',:ir -r(n3m Df lo ron T i ,iii-.:rai DI . . Kino County lransfer stations and larldfills oartiaee $134. . Kiing COW*/ transfer stations and Irdffi spec waste $145.09 per ton Kling County transfer stations and landfills yardi•waMe $71300 pr041 Rebelled 1rnrSbibcn garb -age $134.59 per ton Rat:lane°, Transfer SL'0 COL $95.75 per ton Rabancp Transfer S0ocn vardwaste $53.„50 per n Brad( Rive' Triir Slln COL Land Recovery rind Minimum Charge $7.„ . 1,1r 1cad Land Recovery linc, Demolition & D&1is $890 per yard Land Recovery Mc. concrete & Slump- $12.50 per yand seagie Transfer Stations ,gartiarde $79.„-'35: i on cdar Grtvr C potftq Itic. yar. $37.50 per ton Stalls io.itmetrier rees:aire per yard, per ton, etc. Include charges assessed for special cornmorktbes itires, apprianioes„ as:bestos, etc.) or spedai conditions at each specific disposal site. Attacti additional sheets as necessary_ Issued By: Rick Waldren, Busiri . —Unit Controller Is.stie Date, November 15,. 20113 Et1iD0. danuay 1.2017 (Fox Uric? U On/yrt Docket No.. Tc:3-, i ;, 2 ' by. FOR OF/-JCJAL IL)SE ONLY Doc,ket: IG45121 4 ,.1.,gerula Date: Januaty .26., 2017 1'4fli2etive Date: „Amway 1., 201 Att A Page 393 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Fiorito Enterprises, Inc. and Rabanco Companies G-Permit G-60 https://www.utc.wa.goviregulatedIndustriesitransportation/TransportationDocuments/Fiorito%20Ent. %20Rabanco%20Co%20dba%20Kent-Meridian%20Disp%20G-60%20Tariff%20No%2027.pdf Serves unincorporated King County RECEIVED MAY 31, 2018 WA.. UT, & TRANS. COMM. ORIGINAL TG-180485 SUB Q7112/111 Tariff Nip. 27 35-th Revised Page No.. 2.1, Company Name/Permit Number: Fargriv Lverwise& Oz. &mu..., cmisircr , ci-um Registered Trade lilarrvaisi Kenl-Werdon U4444 ConlagaN. 7,-1-kee %awe Se.k-.. of Ke+11. & Re:pub% Servet.. areientl necn 100 - Residential Service -- Monthly :Rates (continued on next trawl Rate -a. in this. riem apply, ill To sulid waste collection, curbside recycling (where noteat and yardwaste seances (where noiet) for residential property.. This includes single family dwellings, duplex -es, apartmentsmobitr homes_ condominiums, etc., where service is billed directly ID the occupant of each residential unit andlor (2.p When required by .a local governmer4 service level ordinance, solid waste ccaeolion, curbside irecyning, and yardwaste service must be provided for singre-farrity dwellings, duplexes, mobile- homes, condominiums, and apartment duadings of less than 4 residentia units„ where 'service lE bled to the pnaperly owner or manager, Rate-abelow apply in the hallowing ericasarea: Appendix A Numbew ed Unit& or Ipe it Coniainv, 1,a,aLrf.cy a Serme '...it .sc,,,.... kale HrE5,-Lic ',Serv"Ke Rave lrairdeta5re ( Chwears; frierme knte ,::,,Wur4 05,1tOrker kert4 20 gallon can WGEOWR 39.79 $7.90 $9.22 1 Can WG,€OWR 316.06 $7.90 39.22 30:63 2 Can lialGrECOAR $23.90 $7.90 V.22 $1,31 3 Can INGAEOWR 337_19 $7.90 $9.22 4 Can WGEOWR 34956 $7.90 $9:' $2,61 5 Can WGrEOWR $59,43 $7.90 $9.22 $326 32 Gar Toter WGEOWR 314.77- $7.90 $9.22 $1.27 64 Gal Toter WGEOWR $23:26 $7.90 V.22 3127 96 Gal Inter loliCirEOWR $31.62 $7.90 $9.22 $1..27 1 Can MGOWR $6.78 $7.90 3922 $0,65 -Recycle Only $9.64- Yardwasie Only $10,46 $1_87 keq.lency roF Serpre Lin*, WC;70,4feek*y GaraaT; i.slefi2 En.,eyy C.Mer iNeek.6arnage k+WirAia-en- ny 1arba9r "Oottleveekly .,.er7,.rtr,g !LC-Me.-7.,Try, ()trier Week ker2rinw. kd ';'.i.JAssrlithly ker).61,9, UM liter& krle-d.:71 aye puny Note 1: Deacriptionlrules feleiaed to recycling program are shown on page.23. Note 2: Descripturfirules ,ielated ha yardwaste program are shown on page 24 .. WIE 3: in addition to the recycling rates shown above.. a recycling deb10lcreclitint430.14)(A) applies_ Note 4: Recycling rates shown xrive ere sUbfeCt ila an additional recycling processing surcharge of $9.34 per month. The recycling processing surcharge on this page, wilt expire: December 31, 2012 Recycling rates an thde page expire an Jemmy 31, 2019 Issued By: Rick Waldren, Business Unit Cont/oiler Issue Date: June -15,. 21318 .Effective Dale: August 1,. 2018 (For Official Use Only,1 Docket No. 'TG-. Bate: By: /-0R (WHLI,41,. (AlY Ducker 485 (Wanting 11a-yrkeTisirms per (filler 117 Dacia TG-18C4 85 Agenda Dale: ..:1* 26,..201 figeDive Date: August 1, 2018 Att A Page 394 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 CE 1. NS.1. 2/14/16 k ' 217 27 ii tt P + o. 3 +"15 4errrtit NR.d'!"FSB"uan3rrnes. I e Cat r TadN 1€ea L� ^s s ..AY E�4 tis e c aa0. & Y� aWc ieru s 14c S it�82 233 -- itii1i f"L to �i'Yi 1 h gt irffi i i hem p" %` ' 4 `igetr r3Cl' i` it rrt irl t12 teat"ti p tica Y •••••t i s aI &tie Y' r Iot atieN) rat teriut f rr' [7i 2 a1 it1 County ira sr turir2r'Y utld dtil 13 . 9 p r t rw (A) } ttr Candt It per i i i.d 1 2. A 2ae Trarfi 6iu 1atiu $134. to r Cup A) f :: 1 Tr is f r i ti rewL 52(23. r A); 9f c. ' 0NL Cid i Y, tau (A) cedar r3ro 22 p a tis , it r" astd .95 pet i 'A Stara(Wier 't7 t t ark t Y d,p Ru. Irr hide chargea e ap iia s . . e&�. er k 2d4ic 114 t each sped l i sit .'.. ter t 7�t rSYr nz2rtiitu ki2re „ i it At64 adrklti rlal I . ued 84.. Ri82 t °a1ttrd2rr. Ihi dirt lter 144"a Ctai _ Na rr idr 1 , 201 tTua tl1'ei , 2017 r�� tT i1 Jl Ct li 13ie. fit:: Agent' Att A Page 395 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Rabanco LTD, G-12 https://www.utc.wa.goviregulatedIndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/R%2OLTD%20- %20Allied%20Waste%20of%20Kent%2c%20Rabanco%20Cos%2c%20SeaTac%20Disp%20G- 12%20Tariff%2026.pdf Serves unincorporated King County and Black Diamond RECEIVED MAY 31, 2018 WA. UT. & TRANS.. COMM. ORIGINAL TG-180487 SUB 07/12/18 Tartfi No. 26 1711 Revised Page No, 21 Company Name'Permit Number: Ratcrice LTD G-12 Registered Trade Narneisl P4,64r. ar-,...cs Rahamcc,Cr.,7..arit, S.". T. as,ceer..* tern 1 Le - Residential Service -- Ittlorehi Hales ,teDntinued on next pagei Rates in this kern appir (1 i To antirt waste collection, Ckubsde recycling (where notedi and yardwasie Se.rpoz.rs (where noledi for residential: property. This includes single family dwellings, 000ex-es., apartments,. mobile homes, condarniniums„ etc.., where service is billed directly to the occupant of each residential until andier (2 t Wen rept:ted by a local government service levet ordinance., solid waste co/Sect:on, curbside recycling_ and yardwaste service must be pruirded for singe -far* dwellings, duplexes, mobile homes... condominiums,, end apartment buidings of less tha.n it residentiet units, where enice is bibej to the property owner Of manager. Rates below apply in the following service area: Appendix A Ni,itir, ex c4 U7rn. a C.,047o.n,s, f'Pnqusency Strttm Zallaw. Ratr Recyor '4.ae, 'rant...ale t Servem Paw Otah9474 Herta 20 gallon can kivaiErawR sla 73. $7.06 $9.99 $0.44i 1 Ciw: WGEOWR Si5.54 $79.6 $9.99 $0.55 2 Can iftiGEOWR $26:17 $7.06 $999 $1.11 .3 Cain illitlE.OWR $37.7.7 4 Can WCWEOWR $511,5 t $7.06 $9,99 $222 5 Can WGtEOWR $61.53 $'7.)6 $9.99 $2.77 32 G.4 Toter Vli1GtEOWR :$15.64 $7.06 641 Gat Toter ViGtE.OWR $23.23 $7.06 $9.99 96 Gia Teter litirGlE.OWR $312.74 $7.06 $9.99 $1.66 1 Can MGEOWR $6.03 $7.06 $999 $0.55 Recycle Only $8.19 lardwaste Only $11.90 it inavancir elf Sftrurm Lc. -lie, ie v C.,,,An eescy Note t:-. Descnotionfrules relined lo Note 2, Da 5 crip Lio remles related to Note 3.: in addition to the recycling Note 44: Recycano rates shown above The recycling processing surcharge 2..rtlage. g.i.1,01,,,`L, ':v.,,,Fry COI, iiveft eArtage, Mti7,00,Kriqu'_;arbau,r mo4kr:Pie,40,=04,:e2irnq '&0,6 kmf.very Omer Week RerlAnAng, ivR,morlot14, cz,ec.),Intrg Le milers uts,clo? compi.yrr rec.:Nei; program are shown on page23. yardwaste program are shown on page 24. rates shown above, a. recycling clehinicredit) of (50.16)ilAi applies. are subtictio an additional recycling processing surcharge of $0 A5 per month. on tits page wilt expire: Decanter 31, 2018 Recycling rates DR this page expire [irk January 31, 20119 issued By: Rick Vitaldren, Business Unit Controller Issue Dale: Jure 15, 2013 Effective Dale. August 1, 2016 (For Clfacie' Use acetyl Docket No. TG- Oater By: FOR OFFICIAL LISL 'LI Doekei: 134 80487 Granting Tad, evesirms per Order 01 in Likel TG-1804$7 Agenda Owe: July 26,2013 lAciive Date: Augiot 1, 2018 Att A Page 396 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 t '1 1 t°'' L MAY 31, 2018 WA. UT. 4 TRANS. COM . OR1.(:1N L G-1' 1:1>a 7 SUR 07112/ 8 Taint No. 26 19th Revl0edl E'ap; : ND1. 25 Carllpany NernorPerrnfl Number. ru+ dve,.,a.71"Z ne12 1egsteted Trade Nansew'st n. y ucdb fs•ne4re, rl,/N e:Qiu Cal#5.4a scw T',1,' Dal nem 100 -- Residentia Service - F colts1Y Pates rc0n11rloerl on next aeueg Rates rat: Ihrs l98971 app?y: f Trx a ltd waste collection, ,;wbade rec}clog lwhere rioted land wera3neale 9018180 (w1'+e"1e naked} for tie 8n IY15Ie11y. 'TVs includes saigle Tensity dwellings, plexes, apahrdenls, ,mobile saes.. 1,011 it7irsY Tr9, eke., vA'tere service' billaldirectly t0 91e ocreparil of each realr1errlaal vrtlL art3r0a 1 1 men r 1P a 1 19ma*tes rryoo9 service 'evel ordinance, solid a was18co4eclion, curbside recyalPr g, �r yarcYan2ske skrwl a nluat be p(ovlded 10r s igle tetmtly Javel*?ng8., d1ts1[:9es. mobile hums, £`8rd0rninhans, Ida dTnteirl'.tsulOC.,Tarwgs•oat'1e Man 410810e9.liaiunits, ,81'rereSt'Pv isk'ti11e91 10 he 1rglrertg ownerrar ry 91ee., Rates oelow apaky in the inaLN 1ng service area: Appen pax8 /4:sofe'r 0r Left of' luau el Ce,tesee, i:61 R'ie'b d' £'titie`V:1 Garbage :'i9okLe Rale 9a... 5reneoz R2; 1am/ 018 ',:e Rae, 1S+V .Z1 *abi,ygple e: 0, 9•L.gfi:v PCrlea '1'd4 Cerlaitett" Ro,ud 20agaiI can gar.+time a "xas 10.76 37.05 31239 50.49 1 Can Ym9ECANR 1113 315.54 37.06 512.39 513.115 K.55 2 Can eeC Cc'88P5Nw 326. 17 57.06 512.a9 513 91.1!1 3 Can woa.c1 iRmi v 337.77 57.06 512,39 513.115 51.65 4 Can VoreE.c+dars.vo'vcw 350.51 57,06 $12.39 51.3:.85 52.2'2: 5 Can 'w10U'a'E09414llieY\Y 5131,33 37.06 512.39 51335 52.7'7 32 Gal Teter ®asfrcawraass ei 515,54. 312.39 513.65 64 Gal Teter a rr:;a.TOVIOlwlaaw 3223.23 57.06 312.39 513.., 51 55 96 Gal Totes VeCOECIAI18 51Y 532.T. :$7.06 'S12.39 1 Can krCe cwFavwwe 56.03 3.7.06 512.39 Recycle Ordw '5a.19 '9arCrat ante, r gl@q� 313.4D su14..53 5 a.51: i.`"P�0`r0a 690,0a Zr xr Md1.e1 •p , t� s, e',7`a"ma'd. 90 `11 9W"11rcl. kIT 05 Va1.a-t11>a'�1.s#p 5o55 o a 'l#mrrk'*g t°#r3:91881 fle a v'819 F112`i iti a Fa`kx:`N1583; 41rF1' 668,a119 Fs x'.`, '�'e14 e.01 "KYa:H`R v�a•Srtl CP7 5559 a'S1tm: Node 1: 0escr1`otic opines, related 1lecy cling tyogiar1 are shown an, purge 29. NDIe 2. DeseN.ptiofOidesselaled t1,6aad189te program are shown Cart page 30. Note'3: En addition to the rec}?'`ing sales shorwn alsthe, a recycling dett60C1eclit ar t50-'459 t+a;r a 9iea. Note 4: Re[,y089 rates 91Cwn &Dore ark. 58931Ec1 to an add9Y191981 ree}Ci(th pr'00aesvlg 8 •0t $eti'.:4€N T NTt0rrtd11. The recycling pfacessfrrg; sra19ha21e on arts page wil e9olre: Decentbe ' 31, 2111T3 •Pacyciing rakes-i5t1 tills page expiry ow, Jarman 31, 2919 I6118i lly. Rick waldren. Business Unit Contnxver Issue Dale. June '15;. 2018 Elective Date.: 9u9os1 1,•. 2618 1' ' C'nCas' Else 0r1r1°) Docket N0. '11G- irate: Cti�;, FOR OJ'J'.� 1 Att A Page 397 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 ECE1VED NOV 15, 2016 %VA. 11'F. & TitANS. CON1M„ 0 1C11NAL "1'C-161216 SEIB 12/14116 Tait No. 26 50i Revised Pa., Nici 44 Company NaineiPerinit Number: esteem LTD es 7 7? Registered trade Nurnels) Reputes Denson. Rabanse Dame, es 'ees TRE Dope,. kliere 230 — Disuosai F s is Charges in this (lern apply wirer. other kiethe el the tariff specifically roles' ta this Moen. Daposal see (parse or location) ayp.3 pf matepai 5. i fel Disposal King County bansfur station and Landfilis garbage 5134.59 per ton (A5 King County transfer station,s and Pandfilts special waste $162.00 per tun (A5 Reliance- 7eeni4fal Station garbail $154.59 per ton (054) Ptabartualiansfet Station CDL $552_23 pee ion (A) Steck River Transfer Station CCP 'ii0..50 per ton (A) Cedar Grieve Co . fisting, tric. y, C ' . ip 40.95 pot to (A) State whether roes are per yardper ton, et., Include charges assossed got si .cial cotes/iodates Sffes. apoia ii.is, Ps tr' Sled, lett 1 Of si„ tsar Canadians at sad% siti Kia disPasal sits`, Attelth 8681140al shoots as TieheeeeTe. issued By. kick Veal:iron., Disc ourses' lases Date: 'Novembr 15, 2015 Si Date. January 1, 2017 (Sea °Masai Use ony) Docket No. iCs" Datti Sy. PDR 1(1 1 L OiS11„).' L'acket.- 11i-16121( „4geiltici 1.)eite: L„).0.2teloJher- 22, 201 fiflectrtie Iih. ,!II1 W1 1 2017 Att A Page 398 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste Management of WA G-237 https://www.utc.wa.goviregulatedIndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/WM%20- %20North%20Sound%20and%20WM%20-%20Marysville%20G-237%20Tariff%2019.pdf Serves unincorporated King County and Woodinville RECEIVED MAY I I, 2018 WA. CT. & TRANS. COMM. ORIGINAL TG-180415 Tariff No, 19 5th, Revised Page No, 24 Company Name/Permit Number: Waste Management of Washington Inc./C1•23 7 Registered Trade Name: Waste Management - North Sound and Waste Management - Maisv1Ie Item 100 Residential Senice Monthly Rates iContinited on rtextt page) Rates in this item apply 11, In, solid s1't Ik,ti oicaubsi.de. recycling and yarthraste col leetiori seracies tor rii.clential properly. 'This, includes single Iltarolv .along, diaplexes„ apar1111CMIS, mobile homes, ,c sindominiums„ cies where service is billed directly to the occupant pi/each residential unil; .aniter ,I,2 When required by a nical government mcc level. ordinance sorid waste collection, curbside recycling., and terdwa. r'ice must he provided Mr sionle-famtly dwellings, duplexes, as:Mile homes, condominiums and apartment buildings ofless than 5 residential units, when: service is. billed to the properly owner or manager it In the following serhce area:The service area required by' 'king CA.1111116y COLIC MC 1 (1, containedeonne n ei -2_37 as described. in Appendix A Number of Units or Type itcnotainer Frequenq of Servion1Note 2.1 _ AO , Garbage Seniee Rate Lad Additional (lis ,.., Recycle Service Rate S.. r.i,, i on Vardwaste. Service Rate 64 Gallon Vardwaste Semite Rate 46 Gallon Vliedwage Service Rate Simi -Can WG/Eri•WR Sg.93 S2 $9.26 $10,33 5 i 1 53 1 Can Nici/E0Wit S7.54 3.&82 $9.26 :$10.35 SII.31 1 Can WGEOWR S1.5.4g $4,82 :1426 510.35 51I.33 2 Can W(110WR S24.72 S5.82 $9.26 $10.35 5 i.1.33 3 Cans WG/L0W11. $33.64 5S62 $9.16 1111.35 51.31 ,i, Cans WillOWIt. $42.49 $102 59.26 510.35 $11.33 5 Cans WGIOWR 13336 56.82 $9.26 $10.35 S i 1.33 6 Cans 114i;EOWR $63,32 $$.82 119.26 31003 S i 1.31 1 20 gidiem Can i1/1/EOWII. $10.61 511161 56/82 $9.26 316.13 511,31 1 35 :gallon Can WfilCorla. 316.64 S i 6.64 SS/82 $9.26 31,0.15 Si ..,...., 33 gallon Can Nt(1,10WR S5.111 nil SKIC2 N9.26 514.33 S. i 12;3 3f:4/y1ton Can _ WillOWR 32/6„1E • S26.11 36.82 .59.76 61.0.33 511.53 1 96 gallion Can WCIDWR 513.31 533.51 562 '$9,26 1i11/35 31,133 Frequency of Smvite Codes: MG -Monthly Garbage Wcir,Weekly ciarbage.., COW R/sliisert,, Other Week Recycle.; Diescriptionitoies related to retrycling program are slitirWitorlpa.ge 26. Descrionorterates retated Lo sardwasle prograrti are shown on page Notes for this item are on, pime :25.. Recycling rates' above are slibjeet 'io a vecycl ,:,crectit>idebit or <53.62> pci monthfor eu.sionlets in the service areas descrilnial 11 ApperM/wes A mid B., Recycling. crunroodity <credit- rre,ixareindeliii, rdrargo) on this pc'ite expire.; December 31. 2010 Recycling rates s,hown above am subject to an additional recycling, processing surcharge of SO.461A} per month.The recycling processing surcharge on this page will expire: October 31,2018 (C) Issued by:: Michael A. Weinstein, Senior Pricing Mana.ger„ Pacific Nothwa...st. Market. Arca Issue date, May 1 I, 2Oi1 (For Official Use Only) Docket No. To- Date: EffectiWtVAiigiht./1„0212180,VL.Y DOCkrt: 1.64 NOP geneiii, Dare: .104, 26,2018 Dale. ,A2IgUM 1, 20/8 Att A Page 399 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 'RE _' 1 1 OC.7 14, 1016 "4'4`"aim. TT. TRANS. COM. " . ORIGINAL T 161 -2 Tari t Nil 19 i st R..ct iscd Pa pc No. 39 Company Na rie Permit Number: Waiste Management oil -Washington, tnc 16-237 Registered Trade: Name: Waste lvlartagerneni: North Sound and Waste Management Marysr�ltc Item 130 Charges in this items. a: ,hers other It in the tari:ffspeerf cal1y refer to this item. Disposal site (name or kmaathori) Type i f ti1.atrriat Deers for disposal Snohomish County Transfer Stations S''*'" 1 .(11i p iton \'n•n-;Rec} .tahie CDL $ 105.00 per ton Special Wi.aste $ 2t)t1.Nlt per ton Size co Transfer ion MSW 14.+1d per tuna N;on-Rec a lahtc CD : S 1(]R.(11 per ton Special "a;ste S 21^t.t)t1lrurton King C ounty 'Trarlsfr Stat,trts t3 $ 134.49 (; per ton Special. Waste $ 162.00 (A) per ton of S att8 Transfer Stat;a n S i ° $ 1.34. +9 (A) per ton CM Waste. S 1 t 1.1 per tarn State whether fees are per %yard, appliances, asbestos, etc.) :or special conditiirns a:t ea la, specific disposal sttc;_ Attach addiiiona.i sheets as necc sari. r ton, ete. Include charges assessed far pecial commodities Ib I, wed. by: ^licta Issue date:: tlrtc l Docket No. TO - in. Senior t"ric:in 1*9aa 14, 2t11F% O.^'al1.1'" 6102 (For 0E4100tt rOrkeliN IS per f.la„altr i:)1 'Art °het '1 i-t"61132 Date: tgt 1 m°try. 1 ec'reta cr S', 20165 L2,tcetire 1. rte.:..attain ' 1, 1017 Att A Page 400 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 Waste Management South Sound G-237 https://www.utc.wa.goviregulatedIndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/WM%20South %20Sound%20and%20WM%20Seattle%20G-237%20Tariff%20No%2023.pdf Serves unincorporated King County, RECEIVED MAY 11,2018 WA, UT. & TRANS_ COMM. ORIGINAL I:G-180409 Thr1rfNo. 23 7th Revised Page No. 22 Company Name/Permit Number: Waste Management of Washinghan, IneIG-237 Registered. Trade Name: Waste fslana,gement South Saund and Waste Management of Settle Item, .160 - Residential Service - Monthly Rates (Continued: On next pace) Rator in ibis :item sprit,: ( I ) do solid WilSie colleminn, cubsucle recycling and. yordwoste eothonon services 'Cor restriential properly. this includes stngk family dwettungs, dtptexes® apariments„ .mobile homes, condominiums, etc., where service is bitted directly to the occupant of cue h residential unit anctrur (2) lilyMen required. by a local governmem service level ordinance solid wage collect:inn, curbside recycling. cold yard -yaw sem:cc mudbc otovidea for sungle-Mmily dwellings,. duplexes, mobile. homes conthumnitnus pod uparlment beildutRas of less than 3, restulemtal units, where sc.rvize is 'billed to the property covner 0.T. manager. Number of Units or Type of Container breme.ney of Service Garbage Seritee Rate Recycle Service Rate 35 ,Crillon Yardwaste Service Rate 64 Cailari Val -Musk Service Rate 90 (ration Yardwarne Servic:e Rate 51004:au42.0 ga .?, ,KIGIOSMAICY $7.52 S9.40 WA Si 1110 $1.2.20 1 Cm NIGEOWRIWY: 38.7 I 59.413 .310.110 SI 1 .00 312.20 Si ime-Caol 1, 0 pit ',KGB:MR/WY 39.61 59.40 $101.10 SI 1.00 $1.2.211 Minik '2' ', .t WG.TOWIZAVY $1 I .2/3 S9.40 510200 SI 1110 312.20 I: Can WGICIWWWY $ I A.S0 59413 S I CV 511.110 S 1.2.26 2 Cans $28.6)6 $9.40 $10_00 SI 1.00 $12..20 3 Cans W1I,10WRAVY 53/4,15 S9.40 $ [MOO SI. I .00 51.2.10 4 Cans 4111101/4/.010' 348.65 .5.9.40 .S PI 00 SI 1 /00 512.20 3 Carb: WGTOWRASN 358.61: S9.40 5.10.00 SUMO 312.20 1 1J.1 gallon cart fail° YORIS/5/ SV' $9.40 S111.00 $1.1_00 512.20 1 20 gallon can WIllOWFt/vey $13.33 59.40 S I EV S 11,00 51.2.20 I: 33 gallon can SiGILOWRAVT $9,72 $9.40 $ I MOO S 1 1,00 $12„20 1 35 gallon eau WGIOW/RAVY 320.65 59.40 S 10„00 Si 1.00 S 1„2„20 1 64, galion cart w/GT1WR/3/410/ $30.3.3 .59.40 S 1.01) Si IMO 512.211 1 96, eailon cam uI,TIARitiV.V $4 1.,6 I 59.40 SIPA SI I „Illhl $12..20 'remit:my of Service Cock-s: WO,--Weekty Oarbage EOSVC=hvcry Other Week Corkage; .PAGYAlonihly tiorbage: ONNIR=ticary Other Week Recycl.ing; WY, ---Weekly Yard Wasre Notes 'hp this item are on page .23, lkscription/tines related to recycling program are shown on large .24. Descriptiorgolles related, to yardwaste program are shown on page 24„ Recycling rates gitown above are subjectto a, feCyC1i.k2 --7.-troclivAebit of <S142> per month: fim L'CiStottwr:;. in the serviee areas descriltod11 Appendix. A. Recycling ‹rtedirs"dehit adjustments above on this page expire: December 31..2018 Recycling rates $hoyyti above are subject to an additninal tecycting pibeessing rancbarge of VLSI (AI pet nicsetda. The recycling processing surcharge or this page wilt e,xpite, October 11_ 2018 .(C) Issued by: Michael A. Weinstein„ Senior Pricing Manager, Pacific Northwest .Market Area Issue date: Mayll, 2018 Ettect*AtypAgginle 1 e y (For Official Use. Or:41 Docket: 161 80109 Docket No, TG Date: aggendee .Daie Jetty 26,20.18 Effective Date: it umityl 1, 2018 Att A Page 401 Ordinance 18893 Updated April 17, 2019 RECEIVED 0(2'1" 14, 2016 WA. 111. & TRANS COMM. ORIG1NAL T(1-161134 refit)" No, 23, 1st Revised Page Nid 34 Fornpany N ante/Permit Nuniber: 'Waste Managengent Washington. Inc Registered 1 Trade Katlic Waste M,ariagerneol Siteth Soting and Waste klanagetnerit - Seattle Item 230— isposal 1' Charges in this item apply svhen °tiler items in the tariff specifically refer to this item. (disposal site (name or location( King County Frank- fcr Station 17),:pe 1 Material kilSW 1 for disposal al 134.59 (A per tt-in„ Special Waiste 162.111) lipt) per too WM of Seattle Transfer Station MSV $ 134.59 (A) per ton King County l'UL, kkaste $ 108.15 (A) pii ton State hether fees are per yard, per on, ate. Inciu 1e, charges assessed for special' commodities (tires:, appliarices, asbestos, etc, or spotital conditions at each specific disposal site. Attach, additional sheets as net.tessary, Issued by: Michael ilk Weinstein, Senior Pricing klanager, Pacific Northwest Market Area, Issue datei October 1,4, 2016 Ellocusgata, oNL 10 6 21:: 1:1;3ji, 467 c'ffwiabWh.9tiktf)-)?evi.,,,,,,ions Docket No Ili- Date- - Att A Page 402 iaUir