HomeMy WebLinkAbout003 17COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF: A RESOLUTION TO )
ADOPT THE 2016 SOLID WASTE ) RESOLUTION NO. 03-17
MANAGEMENT PLAN, FINAL DRAFT AS A )
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DOCUMENT)
AND APPROVING ITS IMPLEMENTATION )
WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.110 requires the Jefferson County Solid Waste
Management Plan to be maintained in a current condition, and
WHEREAS, the City of Port Townsend has opted to cooperate in the
preparation of the Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, as required by RCW
70.95.080, so that it includes the City of Port Townsend's solid waste management
program, and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan shows
long-range needs for solid waste handling facilities and programs throughout the County,
including the City of Port Townsend, for the next twenty years and projected cost impacts
for the next six years, and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan has been
completed in cooperation with the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee and
the City of Port Townsend, and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Draft 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan was
made available for Public Comment and was widely distributed to potentially interested
parties in March 2016, and a public meeting to take comments on the Preliminary Draft
was held at the Tri Area Community Center on April 27th, 2016 with proper prior
notification, and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan incorporates
all public review comments received by the closing date of the Public Comment period,
including the public meeting held on April 271h, 2016, and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan has received a
SEPA Determination of Non -Significance, and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan was
adopted separately by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Resolution 16-053,
and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Jefferson Board of County
Commissioners on January P, 2016 to accept comments on the adoption of the Final Draft
2016 Solid Waste Management Plan.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that, until it may be further amended or revised,
the Final Draft 2016 Solid Waste Management Plan be adopted as the Jefferson County
planning document for the solid waste program, and that the effective adoption date
shall be January 3, 2017.
41
a •
SEAL
ATTEST:
l&�v
Carolyn.Very
Deputy Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kathleen Kler, MZnber
Kate Dean, ber
DaviW. Su Ivan, Member
Department of Public Works
Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 2
Jefferson County
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Request
To: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
From: Monte Reinders, Public Works Director
Agenda Date. January 3rd, 2017
Subject: Resolution to Adopt the Jefferson County 2016 Solid Waste
Management Plan (SWMP)
Description:
Approve a Resolution of Adoption for the Jefferson County revised 2016 Solid Waste
Management Plan.
Statement of Issue:
The Final Draft of the 2016 SWMP, completed in cooperation with the Solid Waste
Advisory Committee and the City of Port Townsend, has been adopted by the City of Port
Townsend, Resolution 16-053. The Final Draft of the 2016 SWMP must now be adopted
as a countywide planning document and approved for implementation.
Analysis:
RCW 70.95.110 requires the Jefferson County SWMP to be maintained in a current
condition. Revisions are required to the 2008 Plan to incorporate recommended changes
to long-range planning in response to legislative actions, management of the solid waste
facilities and the waste reduction and recycling programs.
RCW 70.95.080 requires each county, in cooperation with cities within the county, to
prepare a solid waste management plan; the Jefferson County SWMP was last updated
and adopted in 2008. The City of Port Townsend has opted to participate by authorizing
the County to prepare a plan for solid waste management that includes the City's solid
waste program. The SWMP must be adopted by both the Board of County
Commissioners and by the Port Townsend City Council, Resolution 16-053.
The Board of County Commissioners approved the Notice of Hearing on December 12th,
2016 which was subsequently published in the Port Townsend Leader on December 14th
and 28th, 2016.
Public comments, DOE, UTC and Jefferson County DCD comments have been
incorporated into the revised 2016 SWMP. The DOE will review the Plan one additional
time before implementation after both City of Port Townsend (Resolution 16-053) and
Board of County Commissioners Resolution are added to the Plan.
Department of Public Works
Regular Agenda
Page 2 of 2
Alternatives:
The Commissioners may recommend adoption of the Final Draft 2016 SWMP, postpone
adoption of the Plan or adopt the Plan with conditions if any substantive public comment
is received before or at meeting time on January 3rd, 2017.
Fiscal Impact:
The updated 2016 SWMP incorporates current population, waste quantity data and other
time -sensitive information. Revised fees through 2019 for solid waste operations are
established by Ordinance No. 06-1125-13 and are not affected by the revised 2016
SWMP. No capital debt is projected over the next six years by the 2016 SWMP.
Recommendation:
Approve the attached Resolution of Adoption.
Department Contact:
Tom Boatman, Solid Waste Manager, #213
Reviewed By:
l� JEFFERSON
ti
NGS COUNTY
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
SEPTEMBER 2016
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
September 2016
Jefferson County Department of Public Works
623 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Tefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) incorporates the
program planning and changes put into practice since the previous solid waste plan
was published in 2008. The Jefferson County Department of Public Works
recognizes the following organizations, and those individuals who participated, for
their significant contributions to program planning since 2008 and for their assistance
in the development of this SWMP:
• Jefferson County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee members, past and
present, and the agencies and businesses they have represented.
• Jefferson County's Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division staff.
• Jefferson County's Environmental Health Division staff.
• The City of Port Townsend.
• Washington Department of Ecology, Solid Waste Services staff.
Jefferson County residents also contributed to this document, through participation
in open forum SWAC meetings, providing information on disposal methods,
through comments received during countywide public meetings on solid waste
services, as well as through various inquiries or comments. The Board of County
Commissioners and the Public Works Department gratefully acknowledge this input
by the citizens.
Table of Contents Page ii
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction............................................................................................................
ES -1
Overview of Recommendations.............................................................................
ES -1
Waste Reduction Recommendations......................................................................
ES -1
Recycling Recommendations..................................................................................
ES -2
Organics Recommendations...................................................................................
ES -3
Solid Waste Collection Recommendations............................................................
ES -4
Waste Transfer and Disposal Recommendations...................................................
ES -4
Special Waste Recommendations...........................................................................
ES -4
Administration and Public Education Recommendations ......................................
ES -5
Implementation Details..........................................................................................
ES -6
1 Introduction
1.1
Role and Purpose..........................................................................................
1-1
1.2
Relationship to Other Plans..........................................................................
1-2
1.3
Previous Solid Waste Plans..........................................................................
1-3
1.4
Process for Updating the SWMP..................................................................
1-6
1.5
Mission Statement for the SWMP................................................................
1-7
1.6
Goals of the SWMP......................................................................................
1-8
1.7
Organization of the SWMP..........................................................................
1-8
1.8
Standard Nomenclature used in the SWMP.................................................
1-9
2 Background of the Planning Area
2.1
Introduction..................................................................................................
2-1
2.2
Description of the Planning Area.................................................................
2-1
2.3
Demographics...............................................................................................
2-2
2.4
Quantity and Composition of Solid Waste ...................................................
2-5
2.5
Existing Solid Waste Facilities...................................................................
2-12
2.6
National and Global Trends........................................................................
2-13
3 Waste Reduction
3.1
Preface to the Waste Reduction, Recycling
and Organics Chapters....................................................................................
3-1
3.2
Existing Conditions for Waste Reduction......................................................
3-3
3.3
Planning Issues for Waste Reduction.............................................................
3-5
3.4
Alternative Waste Reduction Strategies.........................................................
3-6
3.5
Evaluation of Waste Reduction Alternatives ...............................................
3-10
3.6
Waste Reduction Recommendations............................................................
3-11
Table of Contents Page iii
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
4 Recycling
4.1
Background for Recycling Programs............................................................. 4-1
4.2
Existing Recycling Programs.........................................................................
4-2
4.3
Market Conditions and Designation of Recyclable Materials ........................
4-4
4.4
Planning Issues for Recycling........................................................................
4-7
4.5
Alternative Recycling Strategies....................................................................
4-9
4.6
Evaluation of Recycling Alternatives...........................................................
4-12
4.7
Recycling Recommendations.......................................................................
4-13
5 Organics
5.1 Definitions and Goals for Organics................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Existing Organics Programs........................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Planning Issues for Organics.......................................................................... 5-4
5.4 Alternative Organics Strategies...................................................................... 5-6
5.5 Evaluation of Organics Alternatives.............................................................. 5-8
5.6 Organics Recommendations........................................................................... 5-9
6 Waste Collection
6.1
Background for Solid Waste Collection.........................................................
6-1
6.2
Existing Waste Collection Programs..............................................................
6-2
6.3
Planning Issues for Waste Collection.............................................................
6-4
6.4
Alternative Waste Collection Strategies.........................................................
6-4
6.5
Evaluation of Waste Collection Alternatives .................................................
6-6
6.6
Waste Collection Recommendations..............................................................
6-6
7 Waste Transfer and Disposal
7.1 Background..................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 In -County Transfer......................................................................................... 7-2
7.3 Waste Import and Export ................................................................................ 7-4
7.4 In -County Landfilling..................................................................................... 7-6
7.5 Alternative Transfer and Disposal Strategies ................................................. 7-7
7.6 Evaluation of Transfer and Disposal Alternatives .......................................... 7-9
7.7 Transfer and Disposal Recommendations.................................................... 7-10
8 Special Wastes
8.1 Background..................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Biomedical Wastes......................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Contaminated Soils......................................................................................... 8-3
8.4 Disaster Debris............................................................................................... 8-5
8.5 Electronics......................................................................................................8-6
8.6 Moderate -Risk Wastes.................................................................................... 8-7
Table of Contents Page iv
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
8 Special Wastes, continued
8.7 Pharmaceuticals ........................................
8.8 Other Special Wastes ................................
8.9 Evaluation of Special Waste Alternatives
8.10 Special Waste Recommendations .............
9 Administration and Public Education
............................................... 8-10
............................................... 8-11
............................................... 8-13
............................................... 8-13
9.1
Background..................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2
Existing Conditions for Administration and Public Education ......................
9-1
9.3
Planning Issues for Administration and Public Education ...........................
9-11
9.4
Alternative Administration and Public Education Strategies .......................
9-14
9.5
Evaluation of Administration and Public
10-3
10.6
Education Alternatives.................................................................................
9-16
9.6
Administration and Public Education Recommendations ............................
9-17
10 Implementation Plan
10.1
Introduction..................................................................................................10-1
10.2
Waste Reduction Recommendations............................................................
10-1
10.3
Recycling Recommendations.......................................................................
10-2
10.4
Organics Recommendations.........................................................................
10-3
10.5
Solid Waste Collection Recommendations..................................................
10-3
10.6
Waste Transfer and Disposal Recommendations .........................................
10-3
10.7
Special Waste Recommendations.................................................................
10-3
10.8
Administration and Public Education Recommendations ............................
10-4
10.9
Six -Year Implementation Schedule..............................................................
10-5
10.10
Implementation Responsibilities.................................................................
10-5
10.11
Funding Strategy.........................................................................................
10-5
10.12
Construction and Capital Acquisition Plan .................................................
10-5
10.13
Twenty -Year Implementation Schedule ...................................................
10-10
10.14
Procedures for Amending the SWMP.......................................................
10-11
Glossary
Appendices
A Participating Jurisdictions
B Siting Factors
C Funding Options
D UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire
E Environmental Checklist
F Resolutions of Adoption
Table of Contents Page v
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Executive Summary
ES -1, Implementation Summary for Recommendations ........................................ ES -7
1 Introduction
1. 1, Status of the Recommendations from the Previous Plan ................................... 1-3
1.2, Membership of the Jefferson County SWAC.................................................... 1-6
2 Background of the Planning Area
2-1, Jefferson County Population by Area................................................................ 2-3
2-2, Jefferson County Population Trends..................................................................
2-3
2-3, Solid Waste Quantities.......................................................................................
2-6
2-4, Monthly Quantities of Solid Waste and Yard Waste .........................................
2-7
2-5, Recycled and Composted Quantities by Material ..............................................
2-8
2-6, Recycling and Diversion Rates..........................................................................
2-9
2-7, Estimated Waste Composition in Jefferson County .........................................
2-11
2-8, Projected Solid Waste and Recycling Quantities
for Jefferson County.......................................................................................
2-12
3 Waste Reduction
3-1, Ratings for the Waste Reduction Alternatives ................................................. 3-11
4 Recycling
4-1, Materials Collected for Recycling in Jefferson County ..................................... 4-2
4-2, List of Designated Recyclable Materials........................................................... 4-6
4-3, Ratings for the Recycling Alternatives............................................................ 4-13
5 Organics
5-1, Yard Waste Collection Amounts....................................................................... 5-3
5-2, Amounts of Compost Marketed by Biosolids Compost Facility ....................... 5-4
5-3, Ratings for the Organics Alternatives................................................................ 5-9
6 Solid Waste Collection
6-1, Collection Rates in Jefferson County................................................................. 6-3
6-2, Ratings for the Waste Collection Alternatives................................................... 6-6
7 Waste Transfer and Disposal
7-1, Ratings for the Transfer and Disposal Alternatives ........................................... 7-9
Table of Contents Page vi
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
List of Tables, continued
8 Special Wastes
8-1, Quantities of Contaminated Soils Handled Outside
ofCounty System............................................................................................. 8-4
8-2, Quantities of E -Waste Collected in Jefferson County ....................................... 8-7
8-3, Ratings for the Special Waste Alternatives...................................................... 8-14
9 Administration
9-1, Jefferson County Solid Waste Budget............................................................... 9-4
9-2, Goals and Policies from the County's Comprehensive Plan ............................. 9-7
9-3, Goals and Policies from the City's Comprehensive Plan .................................. 9-8
9-4, Ratings for the Administration and Public Education Alternatives ................. 9-17
10 Implementation Plan
10-1, Implementation Schedule for Recommendations .......................................... 10-6
10-2, Implementation Responsibilities for Recommendations ............................... 10-8
10-3, Funding Strategies for Recommendations................................................... 10-10
LIST OF FIGURES
2 Background of the Planning Area
2-1, Population Distribution for Jefferson County .................................................... 2-4
2-2, Monthly Quantities of Solid Waste and Yard Waste ......................................... 2-7
4 Recycling
4-1, Price Paid for Baled Aluminum Cans................................................................ 4-5
4-2, Prices Paid for Select Recyclable Materials....................................................... 4-5
5 Organics
5-1, Yard Waste Quantities Delivered to Biosolids Compost Facility ...................... 5-3
Table of Contents Page vii
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
This copy is designed for double -sided printing, with blank pages inserted where necessary so that
chapters and other sections begin on the right-hand side. Please print two-sided (if you must print at
all) and use recycled paper.
Table of Contents Page viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for the
JEFFERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
INTRODUCTION
This Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is intended to provide
guidance for the solid waste system in Jefferson County. The solid waste system
includes garbage collection and disposal, and programs for waste reduction,
recycling, organics, special wastes and the administration of those programs. This
SWMP is intended to provide guidance on program development and
implementation for these activities for the next five to six years, while also
attempting to anticipate many needs of the solid waste system up to 20 years from
now.
This document was developed in response to the Solid Waste Management Act,
Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which states:
"Each county within the State, in cooperation with the various cities
located within such county, shall prepare a coordinated, comprehensive
solid waste management plan" (Section 70.95.080).
The minimum contents of this SWMP are specified by State law (RCW 70.95.090) and
further described in Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions issued by the Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology 2010). The Solid Waste Management Act specifies that this
SWMP must "be maintained in a current and applicable condition" through periodic
review and revisions (RCW 70.95.110).
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The specific recommendations proposed by this SWMP are shown below and are
identified using a number and an abbreviation for the topic (for example, WR3 is the
third recommendation for Waste Reduction). Additional details about the
recommendations can be found in the appropriate chapter of the plan.
WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for waste reduction programs (see Chapter 3
of the SWMP for more details). Waste reduction is the highest priority waste
Executive Summary Page ES -1
management method because it preserves energy and resources, but can also be the
most difficult to implement. Nonetheless, several of the recommendations for waste
reduction have the potential to provide significant economic benefit to the residents
of Jefferson County.
High -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR1) Evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a
statewide or national level, and support those programs when appropriate
to the interests of their citizens and the business community;
WR2) Implement a program educating residents and businesses on how to
reduce the wasting of edible food;
WR3) Promotion of clothing reuse and recycling.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR4) Consider a ban on yard waste disposal as a part of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in
diverting most of this material from the MSW waste stream;
WR5) Promote smart shopping;
WR6) Promote fix -it workshops;
WR7) Publicize the availability of volume -based rates to Jefferson County
residents and businesses by County, City and waste collectors;
WR8) Expand the recognition program for the business community;
WR9) Encourage Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend to adopt
policies and practices to reduce waste.
Low -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR10) Consider appropriate bans or tipping price structures to discourage
disposal of recycling products as garbage;
WR11) Monitor and report to the SWAC waste reduction programs using
performance based measures where possible.
RECYCLING RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for recycling programs (see Chapter 4 for
more details). Recycling is working well in Jefferson County, but there is always
more that can be done and more recycling has economic and environmental benefits.
High -Priority Recommendation for Recycling:
R1) Increase promotion and public education for curbside recycling in the
unincorporated area, including at a minimum a notice provided to all garbage
Executive Summary Page ES -2
subscribers that they can save money through recycling by subscribing to a
lower level of garbage service.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Recycling:
R2) Port Townsend to consider increasing curbside recycling frequency to weekly;
R3) Jefferson County to consider adoption of a service level ordinance, specifying
that all waste collection subscribers in unincorporated areas also receive
curbside recycling service;
R4) Consider switching to a dual stream (or single -stream without glass) recycling
service county -wide;
R5) Jefferson County should consider additional steps to increase access to
curbside recycling, including contracting for recycling services in the
unincorporated areas, appropriate disposal bans and other mandatory
measures;
R6) Conduct a recycling potential assessment, contingent on the availability of
grant funding;
R7) Recycling programs that include fees to recycle difficult materials should be
considered.
Low -Priority Recommendation for Recycling:
R8) Local applications should continue to be sought for glass recycling and reuse.
ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for organics collection programs (see
Chapter 5 for more details). As with recycling, there is always more that can be done
with organics, and doing more with organics would be beneficial in many ways.
High -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
01) Promotion of on-site composting of food waste though education programs.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Organics:
02) Support of appropriate programs for commercial food waste diversion by the
County and City;
03) Support of appropriate programs for residential food waste diversion by the
County and City.
Low -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
04) Support alternative methods to divert pet waste as appropriate.
Executive Summary Page ES -3
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for waste collection programs (see Chapter 6
and Chapter 9 for more details). The current waste collection system in Jefferson
County is working well, and only one recommendation is being made at this time.
Medium -Priority Recommendation for Solid Waste Collection:
WC1) Examine benefits of a collection district for implementing universal waste
collection in Jefferson County.
WASTE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for transfer and disposal programs (see
Chapter 7 for more details). Although only a few recommendations are being made
for the transfer and disposal system in Jefferson County, these activities being
addressed potentially have program impacts and costs associated with them.
High -Priority Recommendation for Transfer and Disposal:
T&D1) Conduct improvements to the Quilcene Drop Box facility as funding is
available.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Transfer and Disposal:
T&D2) Conduct improvements to the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal
Facility based on facility assessment options and the Solid Waste Master
Plan update;
T&D3) Prepare an analysis of waste export alternatives.
SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for special waste programs (see Chapter 8
for more details). Seven types of special wastes are examined in the plan, and four of
those were determined to warrant further work.
High -Priority Recommendations for Special Wastes:
SW1) Conduct more education for proper disposal of sharps;
SW2) Disaster debris designated staging areas to include the Jefferson County
Solid Waste Disposal facility and the Quilcene Drop Box site;
SW3) Develop a disaster debris strategy;
SW4) Conduct more education for public use of the MRW Facility and safer
alternatives for disposal of toxic products.
Executive Summary Page ES -4
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Special Wastes:
SW5) Identify additional staging areas for disaster debris in Jefferson County as
part of the disaster debris strategy;
SW6) Consider development of a disaster debris management plan if funding
becomes available;
SW7) Expand collection of additional types of moderate wastes at the Jefferson
County Transfer Station and the Quilcene Drop Box facilities;
SWS) Encourage Jefferson County retail locations selling pharmaceuticals to use
point-of-sale signs and brochures to promote proper disposal of unused
pharmaceuticals;
SW9) Support product stewardship programs for pharmaceuticals, as appropriate;
SW10) Investigate options for an expanded pharmaceutical drop-off program in
Port Townsend;
SW11) Support derelict vessel de -construction facility at the Port of Port Townsend,
as appropriate.
ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for administration programs (see Chapter 9
for more details). Administration and public education are critically important
elements of the solid waste system, especially in regards to the future stability of the
system.
High -Priority Recommendation for Administration and Public Education:
A&PE1) Public information and education programs will be continued through
joint Health/Public Works collaboration, and in cooperation with the City
of Port Townsend, haulers and recycling companies. These efforts will be
expanded if possible.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Administration and Public Education:
A&PE2) Funding alternatives for recycling and other solid waste programs will
continue to be explored with the goal of these programs being financially
self-supporting;
A&PE3) Programs to encourage waste reduction and recycling by the commercial
sector will be continued, and expanded if possible;
A&PE4) Conduct disposal rate reviews periodically to ensure adequate funds are
being collected to support solid waste programs and mandates;
A&PE5) Potential benefits of a collection district should be examined in the future.
Executive Summary Page ES -5
IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS
The following Table ES -1 details information contained within the SWMP about the
implementation of recommendations.
Executive Summary Page ES -6
Table ES -1
Implementation Summary for Recommendations
Recommended Activity
Waste Reduction
Lead Agency
Priority
Annual Cost
Funding Source
WR1 Evaluate and support product stewardship programs
PW
H
Staff time
Tipping fee
WR2) Educate residents and businesses about wasted food
PW/Health
H
Up to $15,000
Tipping fee/grants
WR3 More promotion for clothing reuse and recycling
PW/Health
H
Staff time
Tipping fee/ rants
WR4) Consider yard waste disposal ban
PW and City
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
WR5 Promote smart shopping
PW
M
Up to $15,000
Tipping fee
WR6) Promote fix -it workshops
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
WR7 Publicize available volume -based rates
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
WR8 Continue and expand recognition program for businesses
Health
M
Up to $25,000
Tipping fee
WR9) Encourage adoption of policies, practices to reduce waste
County, City
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
WR10 Consider other bans as appropriate
PW
L
Staff time
Tipping fee
WR11) Monitor waste reduction with performance-based measures
PW/Health
L
Staff time
Tipping fee
Recycling
R1) Increase promotion and education for curbside recycling in
unincorporated areas
Hauler
H
Up to $25,000
User fees
R2) Consider weekly curbside recycling in City
City/Hauler
M
Significant *
User fees
R3) Consider bundling recycling with garbage collection
PW
M
Significant *
User fees
R4) Consider switching to a dual stream (or single -stream without
glass) recycling service county -wide
PW/Hauler
M
NA
User fees
R5 Consider additional steps to increase curbside recycling
PW
M
Significant *
User fees
R6) Conduct a recycling potential assessment
PW
M
$25-75,000
Grants **
R7) Consider fees to recycle difficult materials
PW
M
0
User fees
R8) Local applications should continue to be sought for glass
PW/Skookum
L
NA
NA
Organics
01) Promote on-site food waste composting
PW/Health
H
Up to $25,000
Tipping fee/grants
02 Support proposals for commercial food waste diversion
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
03) Support programs for food waste diversion as appropriate
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
Notes: NA = Not Applicable, PW = Jefferson County Public Works, Health = Jefferson County Public Health, City = City of Port Townsend.
Recommendations have been abbreviated due to space constraints, see listing earlier in this section for complete wording.
"Significant" = costs could be significant but are unknown at this time.
** Implementation of Recommendation R8 is contingent upon grants or other funds to cover costs.
Executive Summary Page ES -7
Table ES -1, Implementation Summary for Recommendations, continued
LRecommended Activity JL AML Lead
04 Support methods to divert pet waste as appropriate
Agency
PW
Priority
L
Annual Cost
Staff time
Funding Source
Tipping fee
Solid Waste Collection
WC1 Examine benefits of a collection district
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
Transfer and Disposal
T&D1 Conduct improvements to Quilcene Drop Box
PW
H
Significant *
Tipping fee
T&D2 Conduct improvements to JCSWDF
PW
M
Significant *
Tipping fee
T&D3 Prepare analysis of waste export options
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
Special Wastes
SW1 More education for disposal of sharps
Health/PW
H
$5-10,000
Grants
SW2) Designate JCSWDF and Quilcene sites as staging areas for
disaster debris
PW
H
0
NA
SW3 Develop a disaster debris strategy
PW
H
Staff time
Tipping fee
SW4 More education for MW Facility and safer disposal options
PW/Health
H
$5-10,000
Tipping fee/ rants
SW5 Identify additional staging areas for disaster debris
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
SW6 Develop a disaster debris management plan
PW
M
$50 — 100,000
Grants or other **
SW7 Collect additional MRW at JCSWDF and Quilcene site
PW
M
$5-7,000
Tipping fee
SW8) Encourage retailers to promote proper disposal of
pharmaceuticals
PW/Health
M
$5-10,000
Tipping fee/grants
SW9 Support product stewardship for pharmaceuticals
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
SW10 Investigate options for drop-off of pharmaceuticals in Cit
PW/Health
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
SW 11) Support vessel de -construction facility at the Port
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
Administration and Public Education
A&PE1) Continue public education
PW/Health
H
Existing cost
Tipping fee/grants
A&PE2) Explore funding options
PW
M
Staff time
Tipping fee
A&PE3) Continue education for commercial recycling
PW/Health
M
Up to $75,000
Grants **
A&PE4) Conduct periodic rate reviews
PW
M
$25,000
Tipping fee
A&PE5) Explore benefits of establishing a collection district
PW
M
I Staff time
Tipping fee
Notes: NA = Not Applicable, PW = Jefferson County Public Works, Health = Jefferson County Public Health, City = City of Port Townsend.
Recommendations have been abbreviated due to space constraints, see listing earlier in this section for complete wording.
* "Significant' = costs could be significant but are unknown at this time.
** Implementation of Recommendations SW6 and PE3 are contingent upon grants or other funds to cover costs.
Executive Summary Page ES -8
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. ROLE AND PURPOSE
This Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) was prepared to provide a guide for
solid waste activities in Jefferson County. This document was developed in response
to the Solid Waste Management Act, Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW), which states:
"Each county within the State, in cooperation with the various cities
located within such county, shall prepare a coordinated, comprehensive
solid waste management plan" (Section 70.95.080).
The Solid Waste Management Act also specifies that these plans must "be
maintained in a current and applicable condition" through periodic review and
revisions (RCW 70.95.110), hence the need for this update to the previous plan.
As indicated above, RCW 70.95 delegates the authority and responsibility for the
development of solid waste management plans to the counties. Several other
governing bodies may wish to participate in the planning process or conduct their
own plans, including cities, Tribes, or Federal agencies. By State law, cities may
fulfill their solid waste management planning responsibilities in one of three ways:
• by preparing their own plan for integration into the county's plan,
• by participating with the county in preparing a joint plan, or
• by authorizing the county to prepare a plan that includes the city.
The City of Port Townsend, which is the only incorporated municipality in Jefferson
County, has authorized the County to include the City in their planning process (see
Appendix A).
The various Tribes in Jefferson County generally use local facilities for recycling and
waste disposal. Because this SWMP may impact their current and future solid waste
management options, the Hoh, Quinault and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes were
notified of this plan update. Federal agencies with significant facilities and activities
in Jefferson County should also review this plan because of the potential impacts to
their operations.
The minimum contents of this SWMP are specified by State law (RCW 70.95.090) and
further described in Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-1
Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions issued by the Washington Department
of Ecology (Ecology). To summarize, solid waste management plans must contain:
an inventory of existing solid waste handling facilities, including an
assessment of any deficiencies in meeting current disposal needs (see Section
2.5).
the estimated needs for solid waste handling facilities for a period of twenty
years (see Section 2.4).
• a program for the development of solid waste handling facilities that is
consistent with this SWMP and that meets the Minimum Functional
Standards. The development program must also take into account land use
plans, provide a six-year construction and capital acquisition program, and
provide a financing plan for capital and operational costs (see Chapters 7, 9
and 10).
• a program for surveillance and control (see Chapter 9).
• an inventory of solid waste collection needs and operations, including
information on collection franchises, municipal operations, population
densities of the areas covered by either franchised or municipal operations,
and projected solid waste collection needs for a period of six years (see
Chapter 6).
• a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element that provides for
reduction of waste quantities, provides incentives and mechanisms for source
separation, and provides opportunities for recycling source -separated
materials (see Chapters 3, 4 and 5).
• waste reduction and recycling strategies, including residential collection
programs in urban areas, drop-off or buy-back centers at every solid waste
handling facility that serves rural areas, monitoring methods for programs
that collect source -separated materials from nonresidential sources, yard
debris collection programs and education programs (see Chapters 3, 4 and 5).
an assessment of the impact that implementation of the SWMP's
recommendations will have on solid waste collection costs (see UTC Cost
Assessment Questionnaire in Appendix C).
• a review of potential sites for solid waste disposal facilities (see Appendix B).
1.2. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
This SWMP must function within a framework created by other plans and programs,
including policy documents and studies that deal with related matters. Two of the
more important documents are the Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-2
(adopted in 1998 and most recently revised in 2014) and the City of Port Townsend
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (adopted July 1996 and currently undergoing a
significant update). Other important documents include the Jefferson County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan and the State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan
(the "Beyond Waste plan").
1.3. PREVIOUS SOLID WASTE PLANS
Washington State enacted RCW 70.95.080 (requiring counties to develop solid waste
plans) in 1969, and subsequently Jefferson County wrote their first plan in the 1970s.
The most recent plan was adopted in 2008, and this document is intended to serve as
a revision to that plan. Table 1-1 shows the recommendations from the 2008 plan
and the current status of those recommendations.
Table 1-1
Status of the Recommendations from the Previous Plan
Recommendationsi0:
Waste Reduction, Public Education
Status
WR1) County and City staff, with the SWAC's assistance, will periodically re-evaluate the
Accomplished and
County's overall goal for waste diversion and its components, including waste reduction.
ongoing
WR2) The County and SWAC will continue to investigate procedures for estimating the
Accomplished and
effectiveness of the waste reduction programs.
ongoing
WR3) County solid waste staff, with the assistance of the SWAC and other members of
the community, will continue to research and promote options for reuse, including but not
Accomplished and
limited to, brochures advertising local opportunities (including thrift and secondhand
stores), reuse at the County's Moderate Risk Waste Facility, expanded presence in the
ongoing
local media, and expanded use of County and City web sites.
WR4) The County and City need to expand in-house waste reduction, recycling and
procurement programs. Providing education, leadership and other assistance to
Ongoing -
businesses to implement similar programs will also be pursued. *
PE1) Public education will be given a very high priority. Public education must include
Accomplished
activities such as;
• classroom presentations and other outreach through the schools (PE2).
Ongoing
• presentations and booths at special events and other locations (PE3).
Ongoing
• education for the County's Moderate Risk Waste Facility will be expanded (PE4).
Accomplished
• education and promotion for the City's Biosolids Compost Facility, on-site composting
Ongoing
and worm bins will be expanded (PE5). *
• a public education component must be included in all waste reduction, recycling or
composting programs, and public education must continue to be a primary element of
Ongoing
program maintenance in the City and County (PE6).
• the County will conduct outreach to inform citizens and businesses of the true costs
of all components of the solid waste system, and any alternative funding options that
see RA1
may be considered by the County and City (PE7).
• the County, through a cooperative effort by Public Health and the Department of
Public Works, will expand education and enforcement addressing illegal dumping
see RA3
(PE8, see also Recommendations RA4 and S1).
* These recommendations were retained in the current SWMP.
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-3
Table .. 00: Plan, continued.
Waste Reduction, Public Education, continued
• the County, with assistance from the SWAC, will conduct a recognition program for
Accomplished
businesses that reduce and/or recycle a significant portion of their wastes (PE9).
• sustainability concepts will be included in public education materials (PE10).
Accomplished
• the initiatives addressed by the Beyond Waste plan will be a high priority PE11 .
Ongoing
PE12) Public information and education programs will be implemented and expanded
through a joint Health/Public Works agreement, and in cooperation with the City, haulers
Accomplished
and recycling companies. *
PE13) A review will be conducted periodically of the public education program and other
components of the solid waste system to evaluate the need to update or revise terms
On-going
used so as to provide more meaningful communication.
Recycling
R1) The County will continue to strive to meet a 50% goal for waste reduction, recycling,
Accomplished/On-
composting and waste diversion. *
going
R2) In order to meet the goal of improved recycling economics, existing recycling
programs will be examined to increase their cost-effectiveness. Expanded recycling
Accomplished/
programs may require additional financial support. The SWAC will continue with its
Periodic
proactive role in addressing these issues. The County and City will continue to explore all
funding and contract options for the recycling program.
R3) Public recycling containers should be available throughout the County. Options for
locating these on County/City or other public property will be pursued, and incentives for
Accomplished
encouraging private businesses to host recycling containers will be examined.
R4) The County and City will encourage market development for designated and
potentially recyclable materials. Participation by the business community and economic
Inactive
development agencies will be encouraged, and priority should be put on finding feasible
local alternatives for problem materials such as the potential use of glass as aggregate).
R5) The County and City will continue to support and encourage private efforts to divert
On-going
recyclable materials from non-residential sources.
R6) A Recycling Potential Assessment (RPA) will be conducted in Jefferson County,
Inactive
contingent on grant funds being available for this. *
R7) The County will continue to evaluate the possibility of pulling recyclable and/or
Accomplished
reusable materials from solid waste after it is dumped on the floor of the Transfer Station.
R8) Any proposal for a mixed waste processing or composting system must include
Terminated
conducting an RPA and a demonstration or pilot project.
Composting
Cl) The County will continue to partner with the City of Port Townsend to maintain and
expand their biosolids composting operations. If the supply of compost increases above
Accomplished
demand, the County and City will utilize the finished product on County and City
properties and projects, when applicable.
C2 The County will promote organics reduction methods through the education program.
On-going
C3) Small-scale vermicomposting projects will be encouraged at schools and other
Accomplished,
locations. Home composting of food waste will be encouraged with public education on
*
Ongoing
the proper methods for vermicomposting or incorporation into compost bins.
C4) The feasibility of collecting food waste from commercial sources will be examined.
On-going
C5) Encourage composting and other alternatives for food waste generated by
*
On-going
businesses and institutions.
Waste Collection and Transfer
WC1) Certificate haulers and municipal contracts will continue to use variable rate
structures such as volume -based rates, and recycling discounts will be implemented by
the certificated haulers to encourage recycling by their residential customers. The
Abandoned
implementation of recycling discounts will require that the County first adopt a service
ordinance addressing this rate structure.
* These recommendations were retained in the current SWMP.
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-4
Table 1-1. Status of Recommendations from the 2008 Plan, continued.
Waste Collection and Transfer, continued
T1) The County will continue to evaluate options for maintaining drop box service in the
Accomplished
unincorporated areas of the County.
Disposal
L1) Old dump sites that are known to exist in the County must be documented and
On-going
inspected, with the goal of developing an assessment of their long-term liability.
WE1) The implementation of a "north -south corridor" to serve the western ends of both
Accomplished by G -
Jefferson and Clallam Counties is recommended, although further discussions will be
Cert haulers
needed to determine implementation details.
Regulation and Administration
RA1) Solid waste operations in Jefferson County shall be financially self-supporting, and
the County and City should continue to pursue options for different fee structures that
Accomplished
achieve this goal.
RA2) The County should continue to pursue and investigate all opportunities for
On-going
regionalization of solid waste management programs.
RA3) Enforcement of City and County litter and solid waste ordinances should be given
On-going
top priority.
Special Wastes
S1) Increased education efforts will be conducted by Jefferson County Public Health to
*
Ongoing
target residential medical waste and encourage proper disposal of it (see also PE8).
S2) Public Works will continue to pursue and cooperatively manage a collection program
Ongoing
for residential sharps.
S3) Public Works and Public Health will participate in statewide or other programs for
On-going
pharmaceutical wastes.
S4) The City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, with assistance from the SWAC,
On-going
will continue to contribute to the discussion of septage disposal issues and problems.
S5) Existing opportunities for reuse (through reuse stores) and recycling of construction
and demolition wastes will be promoted to homeowners and building professionals by the
On-going
County as part of the public education efforts conducted for waste reduction and
recycling.
S6) County staff and SWAC will participate in future discussions to evaluate the feasibility
On-going
of a regional C&D landfill.
S7) Jefferson County staff will explore the feasibility of including a waste exchange in the
On-going
design for the new transfer station.
S8) The County may participate in the state -mandated program anticipated to go into
Accomplished
effect January 1, 2009.
S9) Restaurant inspectors from Jefferson County Public Health will educate restaurant
On-going
owners and employees about proper handling and disposal practices for grease, and
encourage recycling of this material where appropriate.
S10) The County will consider methods to encourage conversion of grease (and other
Inactive
waste materials) to biofuel.
S11) A tipping fee will be instituted at the Jefferson County Waste Management
Accomplished
Facility/Biosolids Compost Facility for land -clearing debris.
S12) On-site management of land -clearing debris will be strongly encouraged.
On-going
S13) Existing collection efforts for MRW, including regional cooperation, will be continued
*
Accomplished
and possibly expanded where feasible.
S14) More education is needed for MRW, especially for non-toxic alternatives and waste
*
Accomplished
reduction.
* These recommendations were retained in the current SWMP.
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-5
1.4. PROCESS FOR UPDATING THE SWMP
The County has regularly monitored the progress made in implementing the
recommendations of the 2008 plan, and has frequently reviewed this progress with
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) and others. The 2008 plan continued
to provide valuable guidance and direction for solid waste programs in Jefferson
County well into 2015, but several changes led to the need for a new plan including
combination of the requirement to evaluate the current plan each five years and
significant changes in the fee structure.
The first step in producing an updated SWMP was to work with the SWAC, County
and City staff, State Ecology staff, Jefferson County residents and other interested
parties to produce a draft of the revised plan. The formation, membership makeup,
and role of the SWAC are specified by RCW 70.95.165. As required by State law, the
Jefferson County SWAC includes individuals representing various interests in solid
waste issues and functioned in a review and advisory capacity throughout the plan
development process. The membership and affiliations of the people who were
SWAC members during the development of the amended plan are shown in Table 1-
2. The SWAC members not only represent the interests of their respective agencies
and businesses, but as residents and members of the community they also represent
the public's interest. The Jefferson County SWAC has been proactive throughout its
existence by assisting with the County's solid waste budget, outreach efforts, and
communication with the Board of County Commissioners.
Table 1-2
Membership of the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
AlMembers
Cairns, Chair
Area of Representation
Port of Port Townsend
Appointment
Date
6/17/2013
Expiration
Date
6/17/2017
Kent Kovalenko, Vice -Chair
D.M. Disposal, Murre 's Disposal
7/1/2013
7/1/2017
Lisa Crosby
District #1 Citizen Representative
11/4/2013
11/4/2017
HenryFly
District #1 Citizen Representative
7/21/2014
7/21/2016
Alysa Russell
Skookum Contract Services
11/9/2015
11/9/2017
Kathleen Kler
Board of County Commissioners
Ongoing
John Merchant
City of Port Townsend
4/4/2011
4/26/2015
David Zellar
City of Port Townsend
10/12/2015
10/12/2017
Jenifer Taylor
District #2 Citizen Representative
12/24/2014
10/12/2017
Bart Kale
Citizen at Large
10/12/2015
10/12/2017
Jean Ball
District #3 Citizen Representative
11/9/2015
11/9/2017
Alternate Members
Terry Khile
Port of Port Townsend
6/17/2013
11/4/2017
Chad Young
D.M. Disposal, Murrey's Disposal
2/13/2012
2/13/2016
Current as of December, 2015.
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-6
SWAC members were actively involved in the development of this SWMP by
reviewing, commenting and providing input on draft chapters, and also by assisting
with the ratings of the alternatives being considered. The alternatives considered in
Chapters 3 through 9 were rated by the SWAC according to several criteria, and the
average of their ratings were used to determine which alternatives should be
pursued and the priority level for the recommendations that are based on those
alternatives. The alternatives that were considered were generally based on program
service gaps and other needs identified in the "planning issues" section of each
chapter. The alternatives are not intended to provide policy direction and should not
be confused with the recommendations, but in some cases the alternatives and
ratings provide background information as to how the recommendations were
intended to be implemented.
The process of updating and adopting this SWMP consisted of the following steps:
• preparation and review of revised chapters for comment by the SWAC
members and County staff.
• compiling the revised chapters into a complete draft for review and comment
by the SWAC members and County staff.
• development of a SEPA checklist for the draft SWMP.
• determination of cost and rate impacts using the Cost Assessment
Questionnaire provided by the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (UTC).
• review of the Preliminary Draft SWMP by the public, Ecology and UTC.
• incorporation of public, UTC and Ecology comments to produce the Final
Draft SWMP.
• review of the revised Preliminary Draft SWMP by the SWAC and Ecology.
• adoption of the Final Draft by Port Townsend and Jefferson County.
• submittal of the Final SWMP with resolutions of adoption to Ecology for final
approval.
• after final approval by Ecology, the process of updating the SWMP was
completed and the implementation period for the new SWMP began.
1.5. MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE SWMP
The Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan uses the following mission
statement for guidance in program operations and development:
Jefferson County and its partners should conduct and promote activities
that contribute to a reduction in waste. To the extent possible, solid
waste should be viewed as a misplaced resource. At the same time, it
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-7
should be recognized that actions need to be taken "upstream" from the
point of waste generation to prevent the wasteful use of resources.
The solid waste system in Jefferson County, as in other areas, continues to adjust to
many external conditions that affect needs and operations. Likewise, this SWMP
must be able to adjust to changes in order to continue to provide useful guidance. As
these changes unfold, it is intended that the above vision statement will continue to
provide guidance for the solid waste system.
1.6. GOALS OF THE SWMP
In addition to meeting the requirements of State law and other mandates, the goals
established by Jefferson County for this update of the Solid Waste Management Plan
(not in order of priority) are to:
maintain a solid waste system that provides a high level of public health and
safety, and that protects the natural and human environment of Jefferson
County.
• maintain an economically responsible program for solid waste management
that recognizes the needs for environmental protection and service to the
citizens of the County.
• continue to implement, to the extent possible and in descending order of
priority, a solid waste management system that;
o reduces the waste stream,
o promote reuse,
o promotes recycling, and
o minimizes the amount of land required for future waste disposal.
• promote the use of private industry to carry out the components of the solid
waste system, if feasible.
• encourage cooperative and coordinated efforts among government agencies,
private companies and the public to support the goals of this SWMP.
• be consistent with other existing resource management and local plans.
• incorporate flexibility to accommodate future needs.
These goals are intended to be an expression of the vision for the planning process
and the plan itself, as well as providing additional guidance for the long-term (20
years or more) implementation of the plans recommendations.
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-8
1.7. ORGANIZATION OF THE SWMP
This plan is organized into the following additional chapters, each addressing
particular elements of the County's solid waste management system:
Chapter 2: Background Information
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction
Chapter 4: Recycling
Chapter 5: Organics
Chapter 6: Waste Collection
Chapter 7: Transfer and Disposal
Chapter 8: Special Wastes
Chapter 9: Administration
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan
Chapter 2 provides important information about demographics, waste quantities and
other factors common to the remaining chapters. For the specific elements of the
solid waste system, Chapters 3 through 9:
• review existing programs, activities and policies in Jefferson County and the
City of Port Townsend for each element of the solid waste system.
• identify needs, problems, or opportunities not addressed by existing activities
and programs.
• examine alternatives to meet the identified needs, problems and
opportunities.
• evaluate the alternatives.
• recommend future programs or actions as appropriate to the needs and
abilities of the County's and City's residents, businesses and service -
providers.
• present implementation schedules and costs for the recommended programs
and facilities.
Following Chapter 10, the appendices provide information required for a SWMP,
including a list of siting factors, the UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire, the SEPA
Checklist, and resolutions of adoption for this plan.
1.8. STANDARD NOMENCLATURE USED IN THE SWMP
This SWMP attempts to provide a standardized approach for the use of capitalized
letters when referring to government agencies, including:
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-9
• City: When capitalized, this refers to the City of Port Townsend. When not
capitalized, it refers to cities in general.
• County: When not capitalized, this refers to counties or county authority in
general. When capitalized, this refers specifically to Jefferson County. In the
latter case, the term may apply to the County government, to the
unincorporated area outside of the City, or to the entire County (including the
City). Examination of the context will help clarify the exact meaning of the
term. In cases where the term is referring to the County government, it could
mean either the Public Works Department or Public Health (unless otherwise
specified).
• State, Federal and Tribes: These words are almost always capitalized, on the
grounds that these almost always refer to a specific state government
(Washington State), as well as only referring to specific tribes affected by this
SWMP and to a specific national government.
In a similar fashion, "Compost Facility," "Transfer Station," "Recycle Center,"
"Moderate Risk Waste (or MRW) Facility," Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal
Facility (or JCSWDF) and "Drop Box" are capitalized when these are used to refer to
specific facilities in Jefferson County.
This SWMP also uses standard nomenclature to distinguish between different types
of solid waste and recycling containers. The term "drop box" may be used for solid
waste or recycling collection boxes, "dumpsters" refers to the solid waste collection
boxes generally used by individual businesses, "containers" generally refers to the
large metal boxes used to collect recyclable materials, and "recycling bin" or "totes"
refers to the smaller boxes used by households for curbside recycling. Recycling
containers used by businesses are generally wheeled and so are called "carts."
This SWMP also attempts to pay careful attention to the use of "should," "shall," and
"will." The word "should" is used to denote a guideline or a suggestion, or to
recommend a specific course of action. The terms "shall" and "will" are used to
denote a stronger obligation, with "will" being the strongest term in this plan for
those activities that require action.
More information about the definitions used in this SWMP can be found in the
Glossary which follows Chapter 10.
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1-10
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA
2.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides basic information that is used in later chapters of this SWMP,
including information on the geography, demographics, current and projected waste
generation patterns, and existing facilities in Jefferson County.
2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA
An understanding of the physical and environmental conditions in Jefferson County
is important because it provides a frame of reference for discussions of existing solid
waste practices and future solid waste handling needs. Additional information on
the physical characteristics of the County can be found in Appendix B.
Overview
Jefferson County is located on the Olympic Peninsula in northwestern Washington
State. The County is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Clallam County to
the north, Puget Sound and Hood Canal to the east, and Mason and Grays Harbor
Counties to the south. The Olympic Mountains cut through the middle of Jefferson
County, forming a significant geographic barrier for east -west travel. The County
has a total area of approximately 1,800 square miles.
Topography
The topography of Jefferson County is extremely varied, with a range of elevation
from sea level up to almost 8,000 feet. The dominant topographical feature is the
Olympic Mountains, which comprises a major portion of the County. These
mountains are a densely wooded wilderness with numerous streams and steep
slopes. The remaining area of Jefferson County is comprised primarily of rugged
foothills and coastal terraces.
Geology and Soils
The Olympic Peninsula is a region of complex geologic history, with several layers of
sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks occurring in a variety of stages of
deformation as a result of major tectonic activity. Repeated glaciation of the area has
modified rock formations to create deposits of unconsolidated clay, silt, sand and
gravel on much of the lowlands and foothills of the Olympic Peninsula.
Two major bedrock features occur on the Olympic Peninsula: the peripheral rocks
and the core rocks. The peripheral rocks are Miocene to Eocene in age and consist of
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-1
sandstone, argillite, and conglomerate that are layered with basaltic volcanic rocks of
the Crescent Formation. The peripheral rocks are folded and faulted. The core rocks
are also Miocene to Eocene in age but are more deformed than the peripheral rocks.
Metamorphic lithology and textural characteristics are common in the core rocks.
Climate
The climate of Jefferson County is generally maritime in character with cool dry
summers and wet mild winters, but the Olympic Mountains have the widest range of
rainfall in the United States. The average annual rainfall in Jefferson County varies
from 19 inches in Port Townsend (in the northeastern corner of the County) to over
130 inches on the western side of the Olympic National Park. Snowfall is heavy in
the mountains and it remains at higher elevations until late in the summer. Little or
no snow is experienced at lower elevations during most winters.
2.3. DEMOGRAPHICS
Current Population and Demographics
According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, the 2014
population of Jefferson County was an estimated 30,700 people. The one city in
Jefferson County, Port Townsend, had 9,355 residents in 2014, or 30.5 percent of the
population. Table 2-1 shows the County's population distribution for 2010 and 2014.
Future Population/Demographics
Evaluating growth trends in an area's population is useful in determining future
trends in solid waste generation. Table 2-2 shows historical and projected population
figures for Jefferson County. As shown in Table 2-2, the population of Jefferson
County is expected to increase significantly by 2040. The projected 2040 population
of Jefferson County (40,093 people) represents a 32% increase over the current (2015)
estimated population.
A significant portion of the current and future population in Jefferson County is
expected to be people who are 65 years old and older. Figure 2-1 shows the
current (2010) population distribution by age group for Jefferson County
compared to the age distribution for Washington State. This factor is important for
the solid waste system for several reasons, not the least of which is the impact to
the types of services desired by this segment of the population. The lower mobility
for some of the people in this age group means that more curbside and on-site
services will be needed in the future. The presence of a large number of retirees
has a mixed impact on the finances of the system because on one hand these
people are on a fixed income but on the other hand many are doing well
financially. The presence of a large number of retirees has actually raised the
average income level for Jefferson County.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-2
Table 2-1
Jefferson County Population by Area
2010
ii
2014 2014,
Area Population
Percentage
Estimated Percentageo
Incorporated Area:
9,639
---
Port Townsend 9,113
30.5%
9,355 30.5%
Unincorporated Areas:
15,965
5.0%
Discovery Bay CCD 6,720
22.5%
NA
Oak Bay CCD 10,092
33.8%
NA
Quilcene Bay CCD 3,066
10.3%
NA
West End CCD 881
2.9%
NA
Subtotal, Unincorporated 20,759
69.5%
21,345 69.5%
Total Population 29,872
32,017
30,700
Notes: Data for Port Townsend is from the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Data
by Census County Division (CCD) is from the Census Bureau's web page for American
Factfinder.
NA = Not available, estimated population figures by CCD for 2014 are not available.
Table 2-2
Jefferson County Population Trends
Notes:
1. Population figures are from the Office of Financial Management.
2. Percent change calculated by dividing the increase from the previous year by the
amount in the previous year, and then expressed as a percentage. For the historical
data, the percent change represents a ten-year period, but for the projected figures it
is only for a five-year period.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-3
PopulationYear Total
Historical:
1960
9,639
---
1970
10,661
1.1
1980
15,965
5.0%
1990
20,406
2.8%
2000
26,299
2.9%
2010
29,872
1.4%
Projected:
2015
30,469
0.4%
2020
32,017
1.0%
2025
33,678
1.0%
2030
35,657
1.2%
2035
37,914
1.3%
2040
40,093
1.1%
Notes:
1. Population figures are from the Office of Financial Management.
2. Percent change calculated by dividing the increase from the previous year by the
amount in the previous year, and then expressed as a percentage. For the historical
data, the percent change represents a ten-year period, but for the projected figures it
is only for a five-year period.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-3
12.0%
10.0%
o 8.0%
° 6.0%
v
v 4.0%
a
2.0%
0.0%
Figure 2-1
Population Distribution for Jefferson County
� rn � M �t M �t M �t M �t M �t M �t M � +
o ui `� 1- N N m m��L� L� I-? T 1�1 1'� C9 n
o Ln o M o Ln o M o M o M o M o
� -i N N m m TT TT M Ln i.0 �D r� r, W
Age Groups
Seasonal Population Changes
Washington
State
Jefferson
County
Jefferson County experiences significant seasonal fluctuations in population for a
variety of reasons, but the summer tourist population has especially increased in
recent years. There are also a significant amount of seasonal (summertime)
residents that are not included in the County's population statistics that must be
considered since they create additional demand for certain types of programs and
facilities during the summer months. According to the 2010 census, 13.7% of the
housing units in Jefferson County are seasonal units. This is an increase from the
11.9% measured in the 2000 census. The seasonal visitors cause an increase in the
amount of waste generated in the county during the summer months (see
discussion of waste quantities later in this chapter), and can also pose a challenge
for activities such as education and participation in recycling programs.
Urban -Rural Designation
State planning guidelines require that counties develop clear criteria for designating
areas as urban or rural for the purpose of providing solid waste and recycling
services. The urban -rural designations are important because these are the basis for
determining the level of service that should be provided for recycling and other solid
waste programs. For example, State law (RCW 70.95.090(7)(b)(i)) requires that
recyclables be collected from homes and apartments in urban areas (although
exceptions to this requirement can be granted if based on viable alternatives and
other criteria), whereas drop-off centers can be used in rural areas.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-4
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan will be used as the official
determination of the areas designated as urban in Jefferson County. That document
addresses other factors relevant to urban service levels and is periodically updated,
and it is the official document for Jefferson County for designating urban areas. The
Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan currently designates three areas as
non -rural: the City of Port Townsend, the Irondale/Hadlock Urban Growth Area
(UGA), and the Port Ludlow Mater Planned Resort (MPR). Ecology's planning
guidelines recommend that these areas should receive curbside recycling services
(which they currently do), while other areas of the County can be adequately served
with drop-off centers. Other urban service areas may be created at a later date if the
County approves additional urban growth areas, and for consistency any new UGAs
should also be designated as urban areas for solid waste services.
2.4. QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE
An estimate of the composition and future quantities of solid waste in Jefferson
County is necessary to provide the basis for determining solid waste handling needs
for the next twenty years.
The total waste stream for Jefferson County consists of many types of wastes. Most
of the County's wastes are handled through the Jefferson County Solid Waste
Disposal Facility and transported to a regional landfill in Klickitat County,
Washington. A portion of the waste stream is handled through other means. Waste
from commercial sources may end up in other disposal systems, including waste
from the Port Townsend Paper Company (which has its own waste hauler) and
construction debris (where recycling opportunities may be available in other areas).
Individuals may bring their waste to facilities in other counties, especially residents
in western Jefferson County where a local disposal facility is not available.
This SWMP focuses primarily on "municipal solid waste' (MSW), which are those
wastes generated by residential and commercial sources and that are meant to be
handled through the County's solid waste disposal system. Wastes generated by
industrial and agricultural sources are generally included to the extent that these are
similar to what is disposed through the County's system and they dont require
special handling, but special wastes handled separately by these sources may only be
addressed briefly in this SWMP.
Current Solid Waste Quantities
Information on the current (2014) municipal solid waste quantities was provided by
County staff from the records of the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility
(JCSWDF) and Ecology staff (for the amounts recycled and diverted from disposal).
This information is summarized in Table 2-3.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-5
Table 2-3
Solid Waste Quantities (2014)
Source
AnnualTons
Percent
City of Port Townsend
4,312
24.2%
Murrey's Olympic Disposal
4,901
27.5%
Self -Haul to JCSWDF
8,450
47.4%
Quilcene Drop Box
176
1.0%
Total
17,839
100%
Notes: Annual tonnage figures for all sources are from data provided by County staff.
The tonnage figures in Table 2-3 do not include the special wastes that are handled
separately from the municipal solid waste stream or the waste amounts that are
exported to out -of -county facilities. For instance, these figures do not include the ash
generated by Port Townsend Paper Company (which goes to a separate landfill) or
agricultural wastes such as crop residues that are returned to the land.
The amount of waste generated in Jefferson County varies seasonally. As in many
other areas, the lowest amounts of waste are disposed in the month of February.
Unlike other areas, however, the highest amount of waste is disposed in July (other
areas often see a peak in waste disposal quantities in the spring and, to a lesser
extent, in the fall). In 2014, the amount of waste brought to the JCSWDF in July
was 56% higher than in February. This pattern is evidence of the impact of
tourism and seasonal residents on the County's solid waste system. Yard waste
also shows seasonal fluctuations, which in this correlates to the cycle of vegetative
growth. Table 2-4 and Figure 2-2 show the monthly amounts of solid waste and
yard waste brought to JCSWDF (including deliveries from the Quilcene Drop Box)
in 2014.
Total solid waste tonnages in Jefferson County are also influenced by a large industry
(Port Townsend Paper) and the Navy's operations on Indian Island.
Current Recycling Levels
The most recent recycling survey conducted by Ecology shows that 15,944 tons of
materials were recycled in 2013, which was less than in the previous two years.
Table 2-5 shows the tonnages of materials recycled in 2011, 2012 and 2013, and the
average of these three years. A significant amount of the tonnage included in the
recycling rate is being handled through Jefferson County's Recycle Center and Port
Townsend's Biosolids Compost Facility. There are also other recycling operations in
the County that are, in many cases, capturing other materials not normally handled
by public facilities.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-6
Table 2-4
Monthly Quantities of Solid Waste and Yard Waste (2014)
January
1,372
132
February
1,132
115
March
1,472
189
April
1,479
275
May
1,508
309
June
1,533
304
July
1,760
252
August
1,679
216
September
1,677
212
October
1,453
220
November
1,371
158
December
1,402
159
Totals
17,839
2,541
Notes: Annual tonnage figures for all sources are from data provided by County.
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Figure 2-2
Monthly Quantities of Solid Waste and Yard Waste (2014)
Na, << � Int lyp �aJ ���� ���� Q�¢O e'RR p�� �o� O��
Solid Waste
Yard Waste
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-7
Table 2-5
Recycled and Composted Quantities by Material
Material
p,
AnnualTons
Three -Year
2011
2012i
..-
Recycled Materials
Cardboard
3,057
1,202
1,245 1,835
Newspaper
409
250
160 273
Other Recyclable Paper
2,491
2,220
1,825 2,179
PET Bottles
142
113
8 88
HDPE Bottles
72
112
61
Other Plastics
126
107
14 83
Glass
349
65
1,001 472
Aluminum Cans
102
132
17 84
Tin Cans
138
112
11 87
Appliances/White Goods
111
451
132 231
Ferrous Metals
6,090
6,177
4,388 5,552
Non -Ferrous Metals
1,779
340
651 923
Food Waste
37
117
48 67
Yard Waste
8,685
5,860
6,019 6,855
Fats, Oils and Rendering
80
168
46 98
Textiles
23
8
Tires
212
55
89
Wood
301
360
75 245
Batteries, Auto Lead Acid
40
82
66 62
Electronics
44
113
169 109
Fluorescents
3
2
4 3
Used Oil
164
183
64 137
Total Recycled
24,454
18,220
15,944 19,539
MSW Disposed
16,857
16,971
17,153 16,994
Recycling Rate
59.2%
51.8%
48.2% 53.1%
Diverted Materials
Agricultural Organics
400
250
300
317
Antifreeze
24
22
17
21
Asphalt, Concrete and C&D
3,347
6,566
10,624
6,846
Batteries (all other)
0.5
16
23
13
Food Waste
72
103
3
59
Glass (for aggregate)
655
965
540
Landclearing Debris
38
6,687
1,160
2,628
Oil Filters
6
7
0.5
5
Reuse (clothing, household)
15
15
10
Tires (baled, burned, reused)
52
16
23
Used Oil (burned)
45
15
Wood (burned for energy)
24
9
28
21
Miscellaneous
7
5
1
4
Total Diverted
4,641
14,660
12,202
10,501
Notes: Data is from Ecology's annual recycling survey.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-8
The bottom section of Table 2-5 shows several materials that are not included in the
definition of "recycling" and so cannot be included in the calculation of a recycling
rate. These "diverted" materials, including materials burned for energy recovery,
and also asphalt, concrete and other building materials that were recycled, are still
being put to a beneficial use but simply don't "count" as recycling.
The data in Table 2-5 can be combined with disposal data to calculate the recycling
rate for Jefferson County (see Table 2-6). The most recent recycling survey conducted
by Ecology shows that 48.2% of Jefferson County's waste stream was recycled and
composted in 2013. This figure is generally called a "recycling rate," although it also
includes composting. The figure is based on 15,944 tons reported as being recycled
and composted in 2013, versus a total of 33,097 tons of MSW generated (i.e., MSW
disposed plus the amount recycled).
The data shown in Table 2-6 can also be used to calculate a "diversion rate," which
includes the diverted materials that are not counted as recycling. In this case, other
types of waste, which are not defined as MSW, must also be included in the
calculation. As can be seen in Table 2-6, the diversion rate can be either higher or
lower than the recycling rate depending on the amounts of these other wastes.
Table 2-6
Recycling and Diversion Rates
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-9
AnnualTons
Three -Year
2011
2012
2013
AverageMaterial
MSW:
Recycled Materials
24,454
18,220
15,944
19,539
MSW Disposed
16,857
16,971
17,153
16,994
Waste Generation (Recycled
41,310
35,191
33,097
36,533
Amount + MSW Disposed)
Recycling Rate
59.2%
51.8%
48.2%
53.1%
All Wastes:
Recycled Materials
24,454
18,220
15,944
19,539
Diverted Materials
4,641
14,660
12,202
10,501
All Recovered Materials
29,095
32,880
28,145
30,040
MSW Disposed
16,857
16,971
17,153
16,994
Other Wastes Disposed
5,682
6,514
5,803
5,999
Total Wastes Disposed
22,538
23,484
22,956
22,993
Diversion Rate
56.4%
58.3%
55.1%
56.6%
Pounds per Capita:
Population
30,050
30,175
30,275
Recycled, pounds/person/yr
1,628
1,208
1,053
1,296
Disposed, pounds/person/yr
1,122
1,125
1,133
1,127
Generated, pounds/person/yr
2,749
2,332
2,186
2,423
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-9
There is little data available on the current levels of waste diverted by most forms of
waste reduction, although a few categories of reuse are at least partially tracked. If
all waste reduction activities and the missing recycling tonnages could be accounted
for, the County's current diversion rate could be significantly greater.
Solid Waste Composition
Composition data is useful for designing solid waste handling and disposal
programs. No waste composition study has been performed in Jefferson County to
date, and waste composition studies have not been performed recently in
neighboring counties. The best available data for Jefferson County appears to be
either a waste composition study that was conducted for Clallam County in 2003 or a
more recent study (2014) for Thurston County. The results for these two studies are
shown in Table 2-7. These studies used slightly different categories for dividing up
the waste streams of the two counties, and so some adjustments had to be made to
create comparable categories. The data shown for specific sources are from the
results of the Clallam County study.
The solid waste composition figures shown in Table 2-7 are typical of the waste
streams in many areas, but the figures are only an approximation of Jefferson
County's waste stream. For instance, this data does not reflect local differences
caused by specific recycling programs or by regulations such as Port Townsend's
polystyrene and plastic bag bans. Prior to any major investments that depend on the
composition of the waste stream, such as a solid waste composting or other
processing facility, an actual waste composition study should be conducted in
Jefferson County.
Waste composition can be expected to change in the future due to changes in
consumption patterns, packaging methods, disposal habits, tourism and other
factors. These changes are very difficult to predict in the long term. Furthermore,
implementation of this SWMP is expected to affect waste composition in Jefferson
County by changing purchasing and disposal habits.
Future Solid Waste Quantities
In Table 2-8, waste quantities have been projected using the current (2013) per capita
generation rate multiplied by population forecasts for the County. The amounts of
diverted materials and non -MSW types of solid waste are not included in these
figures because these materials are typically handled outside of the County solid
waste system. By using the current per capita rate without adjustments, the
projected figures assume no change in the percentage of material recycled and
reduced. While it could be assumed that the percentage of recycling will increase
and that waste reduction will further decrease the amount of waste that is disposed,
the projections shown in Table 2-8 provide a conservative baseline estimate for
planning purposes. This approach also assumes no change in the amount of waste
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-10
Table 2-7
Estimated Waste Composition in Jefferson County
..
County,
Single-
Residen-
Commer
Material
2003County,
'
19.9%
15.6%
Homes
21.4%
20.6%
24.9%
6.7%
Paper
Cardboard
3.9
3.3
3.1
3.7
5.1
3.2
Newspaper
1.9
0.5
3.3
1.1
2.1
0
Other Recy. Paper
8.4
5.6
10.2
8.5
10.0
0.4
Compostable Paper
4.3
3.8
4.2
5.3
6.7
0.1
Non -Recyclable Paper
1.4
2.4
0.7
2.0
1.1
3.0
Plastic
12.9
11.6
11.8
11.8
14.7
4.9
PET Bottles
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.4
1.3
0.1
HDPE Bottles
1.1
0.5
1.3
1.2
0.9
0
Film and Bags
4.8
5.0
4.8
2.7
6.8
1.8
Other Plastics
5.9
5.3
4.7
7.5
5.6
3.0
Glass
3.6
4.2
4.6
5.0
3.9
0.1
Clear Bottles
1.8
1.3
2.3
2.7
2.0
0.1
Green Bottles
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.7
0
Brown Bottles
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.0
0
Other Glass
0.3
1.4
0.4
0.5
0.2
0
Metals
7.2
4.9
6.4
7.7
7.4
5.8
Aluminum Cans
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.8
0
Tin Cans
1.6
0.2
2.1
1.6
1.1
0.1
Other Metals
4.6
4.3
3.5
5.2
5.5
5.6
Organics
18.5
20.1
25.4
22.7
21.4
0.8
Food Waste
15.4
16.9
18.5
20.0
19.2
0.8
Yard Debris
3.1
3.2
6.9
2.7
2.2
0
Other
23.9
27.2
27.4
17.5
20.5
4.8
Disposable Diapers
2.2
2.8
3.9
1.4
2.2
0
Textiles, Shoes
3.2
3.7
5.2
3.7
2.1
0.1
Tires, Rubber Products
0.6
0.2
1.0
0
0.6
0
Haz./Special Wastes
1.0
3.3
0.6
1.7
1.0
0
Other Materials
17.0
17.3
16.8
10.7
14.6
4.8
Wood, Const. Debris
14.0
16.6
3.0
14.8
7.3
76.8
Wood Waste
7.5
9.3
1.4
10.3
5.8
28.1
Construction Debris
6.5
7.3
1.6
4.5
1.5
48.8
Notes: * Data for the select waste streams
is from the Clallam County Solid Waste Composition
Study, June 2003.
All figures are percent by weight.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-11
Table 2-8
Projected Solid Waste and Recycling Quantities for Jefferson County
CapitaPer
F 2015
2025
Rates (2013)
Population
30,469
33,678
37,914
Recycled Amounts, tons/year 0.53
16,046
17,736
19,966
Disposed Amounts, tons/year 0.57
17,263
19,081
21,481
Total Waste Generated, tons/year 1.10
33,309
36,817
41,447
Source: Based on the per capita figures shown in Table 2-6 and population figures shown in Table 2-2.
migrating to out -of -county facilities and other factors such as tourism remaining
proportionate to increases in the general population.
2.5. EXISTING SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
The primary solid waste and recycling facilities are co -located at 325 County Landfill
Road, which is near Port Townsend about 0.75 miles west of Highway 20. The
facilities at this location include the main transfer station, the recycling facility
operated by Skookum Contract Services, and the City of Port Townsend's Biosolids
Compost Facility. There is one other facility open to the public in Jefferson County
for solid waste disposal, which is the Quilcene Drop Box at 295312 Highway 101.
That site accepts solid waste, recyclables and a limited range of moderate -risk waste
(MRW). There is an MRW Facility at the Port of Port Townsend that accepts a wider
range of potentially -hazardous materials.
Ecology records list a number of additional solid waste facilities that are not open to
the public:
• Inert waste landfills operated by Port Townsend Paper and the Navy (on
Indian Island).
• Three other recycling facilities: Leavitt Trucking and Excavating, Peninsula
Auto Wrecking, and Miles Sand and Gravel.
• Two other composting facilities (the Short's Family Farm; Olympic
Corrections Center).
• Three other biosolids facilities (Fort Flagler State Park, Olympic Water and
Sewer, and Port Townsend Paper).
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-12
The primary solid waste facilities in Jefferson County (the Jefferson County Solid
Waste Disposal Facility, the Quilcene Drop Box and the MRW Facility) are transfer
operations that consolidate and ship wastes to other sites outside of the county. As
such, the capacities of these facilities are not limited to a fixed amount, but can be
affected by open hours and other operational factors (although maintenance and
facility upgrades are still important concerns, see Chapter 7 for more details). In
reviewing the projected solid waste tonnages anticipated to be generated in Jefferson
County over the next 20 years (see Table 2-8), these facilities appear to be adequate to
handle these amounts.
2.6. NATIONAL AND GLOBAL TRENDS
This document primarily focuses on local and regional programs and services, but
the impacts of national and global trends cannot be ignored. For instance:
• The global economy affects local programs by affecting the market value of
materials collected for recycling.
• Climate change could have a significant impact on local systems, but the
largest impacts may come from the policies and actions that may be
implemented to address (reduce) the causes for climate change.
• The availability and pricing for fossil fuels may have significant impacts on
transportation, costs and other activities in the future.
A complete analysis of these factors is beyond the scope of this document and the
exact impact of these factors would be difficult to predict in any case, but key parts of
the solid waste system should be designed to be flexible in order to accommodate
impacts from these and other factors in the future.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-13
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
Chapter 2: Background Page 2-14
CHAPTER 3
WASTE REDUCTION
3.1. PREFACE TO THE WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING
AND ORGANICS CHAPTERS
Introduction
This chapter and the following two chapters on recycling and composting describe
existing programs and future plans for activities that reduce the amount of solid
waste being generated or disposed in Jefferson County. This chapter discusses waste
reduction methods that reduce the amount of waste being generated, while the next
two chapters discuss methods that reduce the amounts being disposed. In other
words, waste reduction methods prevent materials from becoming wastes, while
recycling and composting handle materials that have been created as a waste.
Collectively, these approaches (waste reduction, recycling and composting) are
known as "waste diversion" in this plan.
Purpose
Chapters 3, 4 and 5 provide an update of the County's waste diversion methods and
comply with State requirements regarding waste reduction and recycling
opportunities and programs. The State requirements are shown in various sections
of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC). Additional guidance is also provided by Ecology's solid waste planning
guidelines and the Beyond Waste Plan.
In 2010, RCW 70.95.080 was amended to include:
(1) When updating a solid waste management plan developed under this
chapter, after June 10, 2010, local comprehensive plans must consider and
plan for the following handling methods or services:
(a) Source separation of recyclable materials and products, organic
materials, and wastes by generators;
(b) Collection of source separated materials;
(c) Handling and proper preparation of materials for reuse or recycling;
(d) Handling and proper preparation of organic materials for composting
or anaerobic digestion; and
(e) Handling and proper disposal of non -recyclable wastes.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-1
(2) When updating a solid waste management plan developed under this
chapter, after June 10, 2010, each local comprehensive plan must, at a
minimum, consider methods that will be used to address the following:
(a) Construction and demolition waste for recycling or reuse;
(b) Organic material including yard debris, food waste, and food
contaminated paper products for composting or anaerobic digestion;
(c) Recoverable paper products for recycling;
(d) Metals, glass, and plastics for recycling; and
(e) Waste reduction strategies.
The Legislature's stated intent for making this amendment was "increasing available
residential curbside service for solid waste, recyclable, and compostable materials
provides enumerable public benefits for all of Washington. Not only will increased
service provide better system -wide efficiency, but it will also result in job creation,
pollution reduction, and energy conservation, all of which serve to improve the
quality of life in Washington communities. It is therefore the intent of the legislature
that Washington strives to significantly increase current residential recycling rates by
2020."
The Beyond Waste Plan
Another relevant source of guidance on policies and goals is the State Solid and
Hazardous Waste Plan. Commonly referred to as the "Beyond Waste plan," this plan
has adopted a vision that states:
We can transition to a society where waste is viewed as inefficient, and where
most wastes and toxic substances have been eliminated. This will contribute
to economic, social and environmental vitality.
This transition is expected to take 20-30 years or more.
The Beyond Waste plan has been recently updated (the "2015 Update"). The plan
previously focused on actions that could be taken in five areas (industrial waste,
small volume hazardous waste, organic materials, green building, and measuring
progress). The updated Beyond Waste plan is divided into five sections:
Managing Hazardous Waste and Materials
Managing Solid Waste and Materials
Reducing Impacts of Materials and Products
Measuring Progress
Providing Outreach and Information
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-2
Each of these sections presents goals and actions that can be taken over the next five
years. The updated plan also incorporates the concept of sustainable materials
management, which has been adapted from recent work by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Sustainable materials management looks at the full life
cycle of materials, from the design and manufacturing phase, to the use phase, and
then to the end -of -life phase when the material is either disposed or recycled.
Materials management still focuses on recycling and disposal issues, but in looking at
production methods and the use of materials, this approach can help identify more
sustainable ways to design products that use less energy, water and toxics. This is
important because the adverse environmental impacts of extraction, production and
use can be far greater than those associated with disposal when the product becomes
a waste. According to the EPA, a materials management approach is essential to
conserving natural resources to meet both today's needs and those of future
generations.
The Beyond Waste plan is referenced in later chapters of this SWMP as appropriate
to the topics in each chapter. Copies of the Beyond Waste plan and additional
information can also be downloaded from the Ecology's web site
(Www.ecy.wa.gov/beyondwaste/index.html).
3.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction is the highest priority for solid waste management according to
RCW 70.95, and is preferred over recycling and composting because the social,
environmental and economic costs are typically lower for waste reduction. All three
methods avoid the cost of disposing of the diverted materials as garbage, but
recycling and composting frequently require significant additional expenses for
collecting and processing the materials. Those additional expenses are avoided in
the case of waste reduction, where the waste is not produced. Examples of waste
reduction methods include:
• Reuse a product.
• Reduce consumption of materials and products.
• Reduce materials used in product manufacturing.
• Increase the useful life of a product through durability and reparability.
By definition, waste reduction also includes activities and practices that reduce the
toxicity of wastes that are created, but these methods are discussed in other parts of
this plan (see Section 8.6). Other waste reduction activities in Jefferson County
include public education, volume -based garbage fees, and backyard composting.
These programs are discussed below.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-3
Volume -Based Waste Collection Rates
A successful and effective tool for encouraging waste reduction (and recycling) is the
use of "variable rates" or "volume -based rates," where households are charged
significantly more for disposing of more garbage. Businesses are generally already
charged according to the amount of garbage disposed and this approach is
essentially impossible to implement for individual apartments, so this strategy
typically refers only to single-family homes. Volume -based rates are currently
provided throughout the County for single-family homes, however, this information
is not easily accessible on the haulers' or City's websites.
Backyard Composting
An effective method of waste reduction is the composting of yard waste and
vegetative food scraps on the property where it was generated (typically called
"backyard" or "on-site" composting). The County's Waste Prevention Education
Coordinator has provided educational materials for on-site composting in the past
and conducted composting workshops through grants obtained from Ecology, and is
currently available to answer composting questions. Compost bins are used at
approximately 20 community gardens in Jefferson County. Port Townsend also
collects yard waste for processing at the Biosolids Compost Facility (see Chapter 5).
Plastic Bag Ban
The City of Port Townsend has adopted a ban on single -use plastic bags, effective
November 1, 2012. This ban applies to plastic bags offered at the checkout stands of
grocery stores. Some types of plastic bags are still allowed, such as produce bags and
bags used for newspapers and dry cleaning. The ban encourages the use of durable
(reusable) shopping bags, thus reducing the number of bags used and also reducing
litter.
Reuse
Waste reduction through reuse activity also occurs at second-hand and thrift shops,
garage sales, used bookstores, and through similar activities. Several organizations
in 2016 accept reusable clothing and other items, including Goodwill, ARC, the
Children's Hospital Thrift Store, OlyCAP Thrift Store, Working Image, Waste Not,
Want Not, US Again, and possibly others too. The Jefferson County Trading Post is a
Yahoo group that allows people to buy, sell or trade goods and services locally.
There is also a FreeCycle group for Jefferson County and a Craigslist group for the
Olympic Peninsula, both of which help facilitate reuse of various products and
materials. Other opportunities for reuse and waste reduction that are available in the
County include the Habitat for Humanity stores in Port Townsend and Quilcene,
reuse of polystyrene packing "peanuts," and a reuse shelf for paints and other
household products at the Moderate Risk Waste Facility (see also Section 8.6). Cell
phones and rechargeable batteries are collected at the MRW facility and at several
businesses. Computer repair and reuse is available in the Port Townsend area.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-4
Other Programs
Waste reduction by businesses is one of the activities encouraged through a Green
Works program being conducted currently by the Health Department. Likewise, the
Best Management Practices for the Clean Marina Washington program address
proper handling of solid and hazardous wastes, including waste reduction practices
and use of the Jefferson County MRW facility for certain materials. Four of the
marinas in Jefferson County are currently certified members of the Clean Marina
program (see www.cleanmarinawashington.org for more information).
3.3. PLANNING ISSUES FOR WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction is the highest priority waste management strategy because it
conserves resources, reduces waste management costs, and minimizes pollution.
Waste reduction programs can be the most difficult to implement, however, because
these programs may require changes in production methods and consumption
patterns, and are influenced by national/ global economies and other factors that are
typically beyond the control of local government. Specific waste reduction issues are
discussed below.
Food Waste
Food waste is one of the largest components of the waste stream (see Table 2-7) and
so deserves attention as to the waste reduction potential for it. At the same time,
there is increasing national awareness as to the amount of edible food that is going to
waste. According to a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council,' 40%
of edible food is wasted as it travels from farms to kitchen tables. According to the
USDA, a family of four could save $2,275 per year by avoiding food waste through
simple changes in the way they handle food purchases and storage. A recent study
for Thurston County (the 2014 Thurston County Waste Composition Study) showed that
7.2% of that county's waste stream was edible food.
Reuse as a Benefit to the Local Economy
Many of the reuse activities currently occurring in Jefferson County may seem minor
or even trivial in scope, but these activities are actually providing a substantial
amount of benefit for the local economy. The amounts of materials handled through
activities such as backyard composting and individual reuse efforts (garage sales,
Craigslist, eBay, etc.) are impossible to measure accurately, but some types of the
economic activity in waste reduction can be measured. In a recent study for Clark
County, Washington, it was concluded that there were 357 companies involved in
waste reduction activities (reuse, rentals and repairs) in that county. These
companies employed 1,193 workers and were creating almost $86 million in sales for
From "Wasted: How America is Losing up to 40 Percent of its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill," by
Dana Gunders, staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, August 2012.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-5
Clark County annually. So while perhaps some of the waste reduction activities may
seem minor in nature, it should be kept in mind that these activities benefit the
economy by creating local jobs and by helping residents and businesses "stretch"
their budgets (by allowing them to purchase used or repaired goods or to rent items
needed only for a short time). In addition, several of the organizations involved in
reuse activities in Jefferson County are charities that are assisting disadvantaged
people and families. Despite the large number of organizations addressing clothing
in Jefferson County and other areas, however, the results of waste composition
studies for other areas (see Table 2-7) show that 3-4% of the waste stream consists of
clothing and shoes (not all of which would be reusable, but virtually all of this could
be either reused or recycled).
Implementation Difficulty
Despite its high priority, waste reduction is a difficult topic for municipalities to
address because it often requires either additional public education efforts or
mandatory requirements (which are generally unpopular) and may require
additional funding. The County must remain sensitive to the needs of local
businesses, so product bans and other mandatory measures must be evaluated
carefully.
Promotion of Volume -Based Garbage Rates
Existing volume -based garbage rates may currently not be publicized as well as these
could be.
Measuring and Evaluating Waste Reduction Activities
Measuring waste reduction is difficult because the amount of waste generated in a
specific area fluctuates with many variables, including economic conditions, seasonal
changes and local weather. Hence, it can be difficult to demonstrate the cost-
effectiveness or productivity of specific waste reduction techniques.
3.4. ALTERNATIVE WASTE REDUCTION STRATEGIES
The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded waste reduction
activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is
considered feasible or desirable, nor that it is recommended (see Section 3.6 for waste
reduction recommendations).
Alternative A - Support New Product Stewardship Programs
Product stewardship is a concept designed to alleviate the burden of end -of -life
product management on local governments. Product stewardship programs, or
"extended producer responsibility" (EPR), typically address a specific type of
product and provide an alternative collection or disposal system. One of the
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-6
principles that this approach is based on is that the manufacturers of a product
should bear the cost of collecting and recycling (or disposing of) that product, and
that this will create an incentive for them to reduce the weight and/or toxicity of
their products. Retailers, if they are involved in a program, would have an incentive
to carry products that are easier (and so less expensive) to collect and recycle.
Developing new product stewardship programs is beyond the scope of a county, but
Jefferson County could participate in such programs developed by others. Any new
product stewardship proposals at the state or federal level could be evaluated and
supported as appropriate to the County's interests. The cost for implementing this
alternative would primarily be a small amount of staff time, unless the County
would be actively involved in a new collection program (which may require more
time and expense, although in theory any expenses for an EPR program would be
covered by manufacturers).
Alternative B - Ban Yard Waste from Garbage Disposal
Of all of the materials in the waste stream, yard waste is possibly the easiest material
to handle through other means. Yard waste can be left on the lawn (mulching of
grass clippings), applied as a mulch in landscaping and gardens, handled through
backyard composting (for leaves, grass clippings and some types of food wastes),
chipped on-site (for branches and other woody materials), or recycled through
residential and commercial yard waste collection programs.
There is not much yard waste currently being disposed as garbage, but this approach
could eliminate up to 3% of the current waste stream (see Table 2-7). If a ban or
tipping fee differential price structuring is implemented, it should be accompanied
by additional public education to promote alternatives such as mulching of grass
clippings, backyard composting, and even vermicomposting (using worm bins to
convert food wastes into a desirable soil amendment).
Alternative C - Ban Other Products or Materials
The City of Port Townsend or Jefferson County could consider banning additional
products that are difficult to recycle and/or causing problems such as litter.
Implementing this approach could potentially require a substantial amount of staff
time to research and defend, plus additional staff time and outreach costs for
informing the affected parties and possibly enforcing a ban.
Alternative D - Promote Smart Shopping
The City and County could conduct more promotion on the subject of smart
shopping, such as buying in bulk (at least for non-perishable items). The City and
County could conduct a campaign that encourages:
• Buying in bulk.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-7
• Buying concentrates.
• Purchasing reusable products.
• Buying secondhand items.
• Avoiding over -packaged items.
• Avoiding products containing hazardous ingredients.
• Borrowing or renting when possible.
• Purchasing durable and repairable products.
• Using reusable shopping bags.
• Shared ownership of large items with a neighbor or friend
These activities could provide benefits to personal finances as well providing benefits
to the local economy (to the extent that local businesses can provide repair and rental
services).
Alternative E - Fix -It Workshops
An idea that is gaining in popularity is the use of fix -it workshops, where people can
bring items in need of repairs and knowledgeable volunteers show them how to fix
the item. Organizing this type of workshop is probably better accomplished by a
non-profit group, but the County could help promote the workshops, provide space
for the events, and possibly assist in other ways.
Alternative F - Focus on Wasted Food
A substantial amount of edible food waste is unnecessarily discarded. A public
education campaign could be used to inform residents of the meaning of expiration
dates, opportunities to donate food, and other steps that could be taken to reduce
food waste.
Alternative G - Promote Volume -Based Collection Fees
Information on volume -based rates could be more easily accessible and this approach
could be promoted as a way to save money by recycling and reducing wastes. The
success of this approach could be monitored by the number of people who sign up
for the lower service levels.
Alternative H - Expand Business Waste Reduction Activities
General waste reduction information and ideas are currently being provided to the
business community in Jefferson County through the Green Works program. Taking
these efforts to the "next level" may require more detailed attention and guidance
that is custom designed for each specific type of business. County involvement in
this type of program would require additional staffing and so would be relatively
expensive. A serious effort in this approach may require a full-time staff person and
related expenses for printed materials and travel, at a cost of $50,000 to $65,000. A
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-8
more cost-effective approach might be to continue the existing activities, including
continuing to build partnerships within the business communities.
Alternative I - Government Sector Leading by Example
The City and County could set an example for local businesses and organizations,
and become a greater force in the marketplace by broadening and upgrading
procurement policies. The City and County could target products that:
• Allow for greater waste reduction, such as purchasing copy machines that
make double -sided copies more easily and setting duplex copying as default.
• Require replacement or repair less often, such as durable furniture.
• Are easily repaired, such as machinery with standardized, replaceable parts.
• Can be reused, such as washable plates and rechargeable batteries.
• Are nontoxic or less toxic, such as cleaning agents and solvents now available.
The City and County could also develop a more comprehensive in-house waste
prevention program. By monitoring and reporting on effectiveness, costs, avoided
costs, and program revenues for various waste reduction activities, the City and
County could provide a model for local businesses and schools. In-house waste
prevention programs could include:
• Double -sided copying.
• Routing slips instead of circulating multiple copies.
• Electronic mail for intra -office messages.
• Scrap pads from used paper.
• Reusing large envelopes.
• Use of very small cans for trash in individual offices, with larger containers
provided for recycling.
To ensure the program's continued success, employees need to receive regular
updates about waste reduction techniques. This information could be provided by
informational notices or newsletters that are routed electronically on a regular basis.
Alternative J - Monitoring Waste Prevention Results
It would be useful to have a mechanism for monitoring the results of waste
prevention programs in order to provide feedback to participants and to provide a
basis for future adjustments in the approaches being used. For many communities,
this is typically done by periodically calculating the waste generation rate on a per
capita basis. Unfortunately, changes in the generation rate due to waste prevention
programs are typically very small in a given time period and so are easily masked or
overwhelmed by other factors that can affect the amount of waste generated, such as
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-9
economic problems or natural disasters. In the latter case, floods and storms can
create large amounts of waste and it can be difficult to fully identify and separately
account for these amounts.
One alternative is to periodically conduct surveys of residents or businesses about
their activities to reduce waste, or to conduct waste stream surveys for specific
materials, products or packaging. Both of these activities can be expensive and may
still lead to ambiguous results, and so should be considered carefully and must be
designed properly to achieve the desired measurement goals.
Another approach is to gauge success using a "performance-based standard." This is
where waste prevention activities are presumed to be successful based on achieving
a specific level of effort or other criteria. An example of this approach is to use the
number of backyard composting bins that are distributed as a measure of the amount
of yard waste that may be kept out of the waste stream. Other criteria can be used
and these need to be tailored to each specific waste prevention activity. This method
also has its drawbacks but can still provide viable data in some cases.
Alternative K - Promote More Clothing Reuse and Recycling
Educational materials could encourage people to bring reusable or recyclable
clothing to charities and other collection programs for those. Specific educational
materials could be designed for clothing, but it would probably be more cost-
effective to include clothing in existing materials and websites. Clothing reuse and
recycling could also be a special focus of a newspaper ad, fair booth and other
educational opportunities. Additional recycling options could be explored or
promoted, although this idea should be approached carefully so as not to undermine
existing efforts that are collecting reusable clothing for charitable purposes.
3.5. EVALUATION OF WASTE REDUCTION ALTERNATIVES
Review of Rating Criteria
The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several criteria, including:
Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Does the alternative support the
goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy and
support other planning goals as well?
Feasibility: Can the alternative be adopted without controversy or legal issues.
Also, is the alternative technically feasible?
Cost Effectiveness: Can the alternative be implemented in a cost-effective
manner and can it be implemented without creating an excessive impact on the
financial stability of the solid waste system?
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-10
Diversion Potential: How much can the alternative potentially divert from the
waste stream?
Rating of Alternatives
Alternatives were rated as High for diversion potential if the alternative could
potentially reduce the waste stream by more than I%, Medium for 0 to I%, and Low
for alternatives that would have an impact of 0% or near zero. The ratings for the
other three criteria were based on scores submitted by the SWAC members. The
averages of those scores are shown in the following table.
Table 3-1
Ratings for the Waste Reduction Alternatives
Rating Scores: H - High, M - Medium, L - Low
3.6. WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for waste reduction programs Waste
reduction is the highest priority waste management method because it preserves
energy and resources, but can also be the most difficult to implement. Nonetheless,
several of the recommendations for waste reduction have the potential to provide
significant economic benefit to the residents of Jefferson County.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-11
Consistency
Cost-
Diversion
Overall
GoalsAlternative with
ness
Potential
A, Support product
H
H
H
L -M
H
stewardship programs
B, Ban yard waste
H
L
M
H
M
C, Ban specific products
M
L
L
L -M
L
D, Promote smart shopping
H
H
M
M
M
E, Fix -it workshops
M
M
L -M
M
M
F, Focus on wasted food
H
H
H
H
H
G, Promote volume -based
H
M
M
H
M
fees
H, Expand business waste
H
M
M
M
M
reduction
I, Government sector
H
M
M
M
M
leading by example
J, Monitoring waste
M
L
L
L
L
prevention
K, More clothing reuse and
H
H
M
H
H
recycling
Rating Scores: H - High, M - Medium, L - Low
3.6. WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for waste reduction programs Waste
reduction is the highest priority waste management method because it preserves
energy and resources, but can also be the most difficult to implement. Nonetheless,
several of the recommendations for waste reduction have the potential to provide
significant economic benefit to the residents of Jefferson County.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-11
High -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR1) Evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a
statewide or national level, and support those programs when appropriate
to the interests of their citizens and the business community;
WR2) Implement a program educating residents and businesses on how to
reduce the wasting of edible food;
WR3) Promotion of clothing reuse and recycling.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR4) Consider a ban on yard waste disposal as a part of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in
diverting most of this material from the MSW waste stream;
WR5) Promote smart shopping;
WR6) Promote fix -it workshops;
WR7) Publicize the availability of volume -based rates to Jefferson County
residents and businesses by County, City and waste collectors;
WR8) Expand the recognition program for the business community;
WR9) Encourage Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend to adopt
policies and practices to reduce waste.
Low -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR10) Consider appropriate bans or tipping price structures to discourage
disposal of recycling products as garbage;
WR11) Monitor and report to the SWAC waste reduction programs using
performance based measures where possible.
The lead agency responsible for implementing Recommendation #WR8 would be the
Health department, and the other recommendations would be implemented by
Jefferson County Department of Public Works and the City of Port Townsend.
Funds could come from a surcharge on tipping fees at the transfer station, other
available County and City funds, and possibly the CPG grant program administered
by Ecology. The CPG funds are critical to the Health Department's activities, and
should these funds be reduced then it may not be possible for the Health Department
to continue their activities at the same level.
The costs for six of these recommendations (WR1, WR3, WR4, WR6, WR7 and WR9)
consist primarily of staff time. Recommendations WR2 and WR5 could cost up to
$15,000 each, depending on the level of effort expended on promoting smart
shopping and food waste issues. Recommendation WR8 could cost up to $25,000 (or
more if the program is expanded), depending on how it is actually implemented.
The cost for Recommendation WR4 could lead to additional future expenses for
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-12
informing the public of a yard waste ban and possibly also costs for enforcement
activities.
Recommendations WR1 and WR10 should be implemented on an as -needed basis.
The implementation of Recommendations WR2, WR3, WR5, WR6, WR9 and WR11
should begin next year (2016). Promotion for WR4 should begin next year (2016) and
the need for a disposal ban for yard waste should be evaluated in 2018. Additional
publicity for volume -based rates (Recommendation WR7) should be addressed
immediately. Recommendation WR8 should be ongoing if continued at the same
level, and any expansion of this program may be contingent on availability of CPG
funds (meaning that any program expansions for WR8 may need to wait until 2017 if
CPG funds are reduced in the 2015-2017 biennium).
More details on the implementation of these and other recommendations are shown
in Chapter 10.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-13
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction Page 3-14
CHAPTER 4
RECYCLING
4.1. BACKGROUND FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Definition of Recycling
"Recycling" refers to the act of collecting and processing materials to return them to
a similar use. Recycling does not include materials burned for energy recovery or
destroyed through pyrolysis and other high-temperature processes. The State's
definition of recycling is "recycling means transforming or remanufacturing waste
materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal or
incineration. Recycling does not include collection, compacting, repackaging, and
sorting for the purpose of transport" (Chapter 173-350 WAC). As indicated in the
definition, the common use of the term "recycling" to refer to the act of placing
materials in a special cart or other container to be collected separately from garbage
is a misnomer, and recycling does not actually occur unless the materials are
processed and then used to create new products. On the other hand, keeping
recyclable materials separate from garbage at the point of generation is typically a
critically -important first step in ensuring that the materials are actually recycled.
Recycling Goal
The State's goal is to reach 50% recycling and composting, and this goal was
achieved in 2011 when the recycling rate rose to 50.7%. The most recent data shows
the rate slipping a bit, dropping to 48.9% in 2013. RCW 70.95 does not mandate that
each county or city adopt a 50% goal, since it is recognized that less -populated areas
have greater barriers to cost-effective collection and marketing of recyclable
materials. Each community is expected to set a goal that suits its situation, provided
that the goal is based on justified and sound reasoning. RCW 70.95.090 explicitly
recognizes that different levels of collection service are appropriate for urban and
rural areas.
In Jefferson County, the current (2013) recycling rate is 48.2% (see Table 2.6)
according to the State's definition of recycling and composting. After discussions
with the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), it was decided
that the County's goal should be to consistently achieve a recycling rate of 50% or
better. This goal is intended to include recycling as well as composting of organics,
but not waste reduction or "diverted" materials (materials diverted to beneficial uses
but that are not counted as "recycling" by Ecology). The County's progress towards
meeting this goal should be monitored primarily through the annual recycling
survey conducted by Ecology, supplemented with local data as available and
appropriate.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-1
4.2. EXISTING RECYCLING PROGRAMS
Drop -Off and Buy -Back Programs
Currently, there is only one buy-back center in Jefferson County and only one
recycling processing center, both located at the Jefferson County Solid Waste
Disposal Facility (JCSWDF) near the City of Port Townsend. Recyclable materials are
accepted at the Jefferson County Recycling Center (at JCSWDF) and at the Quilcene
Drop Box Site, both of which are staffed during open hours. There is also a network
of unstaffed recycling drop-off containers around the County that are maintained by
contract with Skookum Contract Services, and currently (as of March 2015) there are
seven such sites operating in Port Ludlow, Port Hadlock, Brinnon, Chimacum and
other areas. The materials collected at these sites are shown in Table 4-1.
Recycling containers are also maintained by DM Disposal at two locations, both of
which are in Port Townsend.
The exact locations of the recycling drop-off containers may be changed on short
notice. In addition, not all of the locations accept all of the materials shown in Table
4-1.
Table 4-1
Materials Collected for Recycling in Jefferson County
Note: Information current as of January 2016.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-2
County Recycling
CurbsideJefferson Routes in Port
Material
Center ....Unincorporated
d by Skookum..
..
Services
DM
Disposal)Contract
Paper
Cardboard
Cardboard
Newspaper
Newspaper
Mixed paper
Mixed paper
Office paper
Office paper
Plastic
Plastic containers, #1 and #2
Plastic containers, #1 and #2
Tubs
Tubs
Buckets
Buckets
Rigid plant pots
Rigid plant pots
Glass
Glass bottles and jars, clear,
Glass bottles and jars, clear,
green and brown (glass is not
green and brown
accepted at all locations)
Metal
Aluminum cans
Aluminum cans
Aluminum pans and foil, clean
Aluminum pans and foil, clean
Steel cans
Steel cans
Note: Information current as of January 2016.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-2
Examples of other drop-off activities include:
• E -waste (electronics) can be dropped off at JCSWDF and some items at
Goodwill (please call and verify acceptance).
• Fluorescent bulbs are accepted for recycling at the Jefferson County Recycling
Center, at the Quilcene site, and at the MRW Facility.
• Used oil, car batteries and antifreeze are accepted at several locations in the
City and County, including the JCSWDF, Quilcene site, and MRW Facility.
• Plastic bags are accepted by QFC and Safeway.
Curbside and Commercial Collection Programs
Curbside Recycling Programs: Curbside recycling service in the City of Port
Townsend is provided through the contract for garbage collection services. The City
of Port Townsend has had curbside recycling since 1993. The curbside program uses
three bins for collection. Recyclables are collected every other week, on an
alternating schedule with yard waste collection. The curbside program in the City is
"mandatory' in that all customers pay for it through their garbage collection rates,
whether or not they use the service. In the City of Port Townsend, there was an
average of 46.5 tons per month collected for the curbside recycling program in 2014.
Table 4-1 shows the list of materials currently collected through the curbside
programs.
In the unincorporated part of the County, residents and businesses have the option of
subscribing to recycling services provided by Murrey's Olympic Disposal. The
curbside program uses three bins for collection and recyclables are collected every
other week.
Multi -Family Recycling: Recycling services for multi -family units (apartments) are
generally provided only in Port Townsend, where the contract hauler is required to
provide such services upon request. Several apartment buildings currently
participate in the recycling program.
Commercial Recycling Programs: Commercial recycling services in Jefferson
County are provided by DM Disposal and other recycling service companies, often
for a fee. Other materials recycled in Jefferson County by private companies, either
as a special service or through drop-off centers in and near the County, for example
metals and grease. In 2014, DM Disposal collected an average of 66.0 tons per month
from commercial sources in Port Townsend.
School Programs: The schools in the County have varying levels of recycling from
non-existent programs to fairly comprehensive collection systems. Generally, there
are bins for collecting materials in the classrooms and offices. Students, teachers and
maintenance staff empty these into central containers. There is no consistency
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-3
between all of the districts in the County (Brinnon, Quilcene, Chimacum, and Port
Townsend Schools), and often there is inconsistency within a school district. The
Students for Sustainability, a club at Port Townsend High School, has worked
diligently to reinstitute the inconsistent recycling program and will continue to create
a fully functional program at the school.
Processing: Materials collected from the recycling containers and the curbside and
commercial collections are brought to the Jefferson County Recycle Center for some
processing and shipment to markets. The City's contractor (DM Disposal) is
required by contract to transport all recyclable materials collected in the City to the
Recycle Center.
4.3. MARKET CONDITIONS AND DESIGNATION OF
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
Recycling Markets
State regulations (RCW 70.95.090(7)(c)) require "a description of markets for
recyclables," hence a description of the markets for recyclable materials collected in
Jefferson County is provided below. This is intended to be only a brief report of
current conditions, and it should be noted that market conditions for recyclables can
undergo substantial changes in a short amount of time.
Market demand and prices for recyclables have fluctuated significantly over the past
several years, just as prices for all commodities fluctuate with demand and other
factors. Some recyclable materials have seasonal cycles in supply and demand, but
all materials exhibit long-term trends with the possibility of sudden price spikes or
dips. In some cases, long-term contracts with price floors can help moderate the
swings in market revenues, but this isn't possible for all materials. Figures 4-1 and 4-
2 show how the prices for aluminum cans and a few other materials collected from
residential sources in the Pacific Northwest have fluctuated over the past 20 years.
As can be seen in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, market prices dipped for most materials in
2008 and 2009 due to the slump in demand caused by the recession.
Another important factor for marketing of recyclable materials collected in Jefferson
County is the cost of transporting the materials from the Olympic Peninsula.
Recycling markets are often in Seattle or Portland, and so the cost of transporting
materials to those areas is a barrier. The low market value of many recyclable
materials limits the number of materials that can be cost-effectively moved to
markets.
Designated Recyclable Materials
Designation of recyclable materials is an important step in solid waste plans since the
adoption of Chapter 173-350 WAC, which defines recyclable materials as being those
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-4
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
ai
CL
W
V
a $1,000
$500
$0
Figure 4-1
Price Paid for Baled Aluminum Cans
M -It d' M lD I� r, W M O O r -I N M M-zr M LD lD I� W M M O T --I N N M -:T M
M M M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r -I r -I r -I r-1 r -I r -I r -I
Q) Q) Q) Q) O) Q) 01 i1 Q) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
e -I r -I r -I c -i -i r-1 11 - a --I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Source: Seattle Public Utilities website (original data source: American Metal Markets).
$700
$600
$500
$400
CL
aj
$300
a
$200
$100
$0
Figure 4-2
Prices Paid for Select Recyclable Materials
1
n
ys
�
u
opt
h
.6 •
M dt 11) w n w 01 O -I N M C1' 111 w I, w m O ri N M -q
M M M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O c 4 r -I r-1 r -I -1
M M M 010) 01 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r
1-1 i r1 -, '11-, r -I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Source: Seattle Public Utilities website (original data sources are Mill Trade Journal's Recycling
Markets, Pulp and Paper Week, Recycling Times, and Waste News).
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-5
materials "that are identified as recyclable materials pursuant to a local
comprehensive solid waste plan." Not listing a specific material as recyclable does
not mean that it cannot or should not be recycled, but listing a specific material as a
designated recyclable material typically makes it easier to implement programs or
install facilities for those materials.
Table 4-2 shows the list of designated recyclable materials. This list is not intended
to create a requirement that every recycling program in the County collect every
designated material. Instead, the intent is that through a combination of programs,
residents and businesses should have an opportunity to recycle all of the designated
Table 4-2
List of Designated Recyclable Materials
Priority Level
Material
Group 1:
Clean paper (newspaper, cardboard, office
paper, and mixed paper)
Materials that should be collected
Glass bottles and jars
by the curbside, multi -family and
commercial recycling programs.
Aluminum and steel cans, clean aluminum
foil and pans
Plastic bottles, jars and tubs
Group 2:
E -waste (covered units)
Materials that should be collected
Cell phones
at drop-off and buy-back locations
Clothing, textiles, shoes
or through other collection
Oil and oil filters
services.
Antifreeze
Scrap metals and appliances
Plastic buckets and plant pots
Plastic bags
Reusable building materials
Yard waste
Edible food (donated)
Group 3:
Food waste
Hard to recycle materials that
Batteries (all types)
should be recycled if markets are
Other electronics
available.
Wood
Carpet
Drywall
Roofing materials
Mixed construction and demolition
Tires
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-6
materials through at least one program. In other words, if plastics are on the
designated materials list, then at least one program in the County must collect
plastics. The list has been prioritized to indicate the degree of access that residents
and businesses should have for these materials (in other words, greater access should
be available for the higher -priority materials).
The list of "designated recyclable materials' shown in Table 4-2 should be used for
guidance as to the materials to be recycled in the future. This list is based on existing
conditions (collection programs and markets), and future markets and technologies
may warrant changes in this list. The following conditions are grounds for additions
or deletions to the list of designated materials:
• The market price for an existing material becomes so low that it is no longer
feasible to collect, process and/or ship it to markets.
• Local markets and/or brokers expand their list of acceptable items based on
new uses for materials or technologies that increase demand.
• New local or regional processing or demand for a particular material
develops.
• No market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the
material to be stockpiled with no apparent solution in the near future.
• The potential for increased or decreased amounts of diversion.
• Legislative or local mandate, or other new requirements.
• New or additional capital or processing costs.
• Other conditions not anticipated at this time.
Any proposed changes in the list of designated materials should be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Director, and minor changes in this list may be
adopted without formally amending this SWMP.
4.4. PLANNING ISSUES FOR RECYCLING
Jefferson County is currently well -served by a variety of recycling and composting
programs. The existing service level is, in fact, equal to or better than neighboring
counties, thanks in part to the 24-hour availability of recycling drop-off sites. Some
improvements and issues are addressed by this SWMP, however, and the most
significant of these are noted below.
Collection Frequency for Recycling
The collection frequency for the residential curbside recycling program is currently
every -other -week. Other studies have shown that more frequent collections will lead
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-7
to more diversion. Some communities have gone so far as to make garbage collection
every -other -week and recycling weekly to encourage more recycling.
Curbside Recycling Bundled with Garbage Collection
Another step taken by several other communities is to require that all garbage
subscribers in the unincorporated areas also receive curbside recycling as part of that
service. This approach is used in Spokane and Thurston Counties, for instance.
Problems with Glass
Glass is currently included in the curbside recycling program but is kept separate.
When mixed with other materials, glass both contaminates the other materials and
the glass itself is difficult to recycle.
Economics of Recycling
In general, recycling in Jefferson County depends on the efforts of private companies
or on a non-profit organization under contract to the County. Market revenues from
the sale of materials generally do not cover the costs of recycling processing. While
recycling provides other benefits, including avoided disposal costs, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions and reduced consumption of resources, the ability to
capture and apply these benefits and their costs to local recycling programs is
lacking. Thus, recycling sales revenues must be supplemented using funds from
other sources, such as revenues acquired through the solid waste disposal fees. In
the long run, relying on disposal fees for funding recycling programs could be a
problem if recycling and waste reduction continue to reduce the amount of waste
being disposed. On the other hand, this approach increases the cost of waste
disposal, which provides additional incentives for people to use less-expensive
recycling and waste reduction options.
Low Population Density in County
One distinct barrier to increased recycling activities is the rural nature of most of the
County. The County's population is widely distributed, and the west end of the
County is separated from the majority of the population by the Olympic Mountains.
Market Stability
Long-term market stability may be a problem for some materials. Prices for most
materials can be expected to fluctuate due to competition with raw materials and
other economic factors. The quantity and quality of recycled material also influences
the markets available and the price received. Local markets for recyclable materials
may provide better and potentially more stable outlets for collected materials, while
improving the local economy as well. Local markets are not, however, easily created.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-8
Aging Population
The long-term plans for recycling and other services should take into account the
idea that a substantial portion of the County's population is 65 and older. As of 2010,
slightly more than 26 percent of the County's population was 65 or older (see Section
2.3 for more details). Current and long-term plans for recycling and other services
should also address the fact that almost 14 percent of the residents are seasonal.
Lack of Local Data on Waste Composition
Current information on the composition of the waste stream (a measure of the
potential for additional recycling) is available only through data borrowed from
other areas. More accurate assessments of the performance of current recycling and
waste reduction programs would be possible if local composition data were collected
on the amount of disposed materials.
4.5. ALTERNATIVE RECYCLING STRATEGIES
The following alternatives were considered for new or expanded recycling activities.
The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is considered feasible
or desirable, nor does it mean that it is recommended (see Section 4.7 for recycling
recommendations).
Alternative A - Increase Curbside Recycling to Weekly Collection
Studies have repeatedly shown that more frequent collection of recyclables leads to
increased tonnages collected. Several cities have recently gone so far as to make
recycling collections weekly and changed garbage collection to every -other -week. In
general, weekly recycling collections are not double the cost of every -other -week
collections, but the additional cost is in the range of 30 to 50% more than every -other -
week collections. Weekly collection programs can be expected to collect about 30 to
40% additional tonnages over every -other -week collections. It should be noted that
the additional tonnages more than make up for the greenhouse gas emissions related
to the additional fuel consumed to run the route twice as much, since every ton of
recyclables carries with it a huge benefit in greenhouse gas reductions.
Alternative B - Increased Education and Promotion for Curbside Recycling in
Unincorporated Areas
Increased publicity and promotion of the existing curbside recycling service in rural
areas could be conducted to ensure that people are aware that it is available and to
promote the idea that residents can save money by reducing their garbage service
level. Promotional materials should also be distributed to non -subscribers for
garbage service, to make they are aware of the services available,
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-9
Alternative C - Minimum Service Level to Include Curbside Recycling
Jefferson County could adopt a service level ordinance to require curbside recycling
services for residential garbage customers in the unincorporated areas.
Alternative D - Other Options for Increased Access to Curbside Recycling
If the County desires to increase the availability of rural recycling services, there
would be several options for achieving this. Jefferson County could:
• contract with a private company to provide residential recycling services.
• mandate specific services by an ordinance.
• enact a disposal ban on recyclables.
Counties have the authority to contract for residential recycling services under
current State law (RCW 36.58.040). This authority does not extend to commercial
recycling services or to garbage collection services for either residential or
commercial customers (in the absence of a collection district). Other companies
cannot be prevented from also offering recycling services. The advantage of
exercising County authority is that the County would be in control of the system.
The County could choose contractors and adjust the program as it develops to best
meet the County's goals. If the County contracts for recycling services, however, the
County will bear administrative costs. It may be necessary to assess additional
surcharges on the tipping fee or on solid waste collection services to fund parts of the
recycling program.
Alternative E - Options for Glass Recycling
The financial losses from recycling glass could potentially be resolved in several
ways including partnership with a gravel, concrete or asphalt company to have glass
bottles crushed and mixed with one or more of their products. However, this may
require a significant capital outlay to provide a glass crusher specifically for this
operation. Savings over time could then be realized from not having to then ship
glass to markets in the Seattle/ Tacoma area.
Alternative F - Conduct a Recycling Potential Assessment
A Recycling Potential Assessment (RPA) could be conducted to more accurately
assess the potential for additional recycling in Jefferson County. This could be
approached several ways:
a waste composition study could be conducted. This approach generally
provides detailed information on the four to five major sources of waste
(residential, commercial/ institutional, residential self -haul, and non-
residential self -haul) and is conducted over two or four seasons. The cost for
this type of study can be in excess of $60,000.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-10
an RPA could focus on specific types of waste, such as commercial or self -
haul, and could use weighing studies or visual observations to identify key
recyclable materials and the primary sources. The cost for this approach
would depend on the scope of the effort and whether visual or weighing
methods were used, but generally the cost for this approach is half or less of
the cost for a waste composition study.
a "paper study' could be conducted, using data borrowed from other areas
but applying this data in more specific and precise ways than what was done
in Chapter 2 of this plan (see Table 2.7). This would be the least expensive
approach but it would probably not be beneficial in the case of Jefferson
County, since it is unlikely that better data than what has already been used
would be available (in other words, the data already shown in Chapter 2 is
probably already the best possible matches for borrowed data).
Alternative G - Implement Commingled (Single -Stream) Recycling
Many communities in Washington State and across the U.S. have converted their
curbside recycling programs from three -bin programs to single -stream programs
where all recyclable materials are placed in a single cart. The cart is typically larger
in volume (usually 96 gallons) than the set of three bins (which are typically 11-14
gallons each, or 33-42 gallons for all three bins). Smaller cart sizes are typically
offered for households that may not have space for a 96 -gallon cart. Regional
trending in the last decade is toward single stream recycling with the largest claim
being upwards of 10% more recovered recyclables.
The advantages of a single -stream approach are numerous, as are the disadvantages.
This approach could lead to more recycling occurring in an area due to the
convenience of a wheeled cart and the larger volume available in the cart. A
disadvantage for this approach is that it could cause changes in the way recyclable
materials are currently handled by Skookum Contract Services. The cost for the
wheeled carts (about $70 per household) are also a disadvantage of this approach.
Another significant issue with single -stream recycling is whether glass is included in
the mix of recyclables. Including glass in the mix creates significant problems for the
recycling of the glass and for the other materials (the glass is often not actually
recycled, broken glass contaminates the paper and other materials, etc.). Not
including glass in the mix will reduce recycling performance (glass is heavy and
helps contribute to recycling goals) and will require an alternative collection system
(which is also not without issues). If single -stream collection is implemented in
Jefferson County, the best approach might be to implement a modified approach
where glass is collected separately using a separate container placed next to the
recycling cart (in other words, what is typically referred to as a "dual stream"
approach). In other communities where this has been done (Clark County and the
City of Portland, for instance), participants have been asked to use one of the existing
recycling bins as the glass container.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-11
Alternative H - Pay to Recycle Specific Materials
Allowing the option for participants to pay to recycle specific types of materials
could allow additional types of materials to be recycled, including materials that are
hard to recycle and materials with market values that do not pay for collection and
transportation costs. For example, alkaline batteries (types AAA, AA, C, D, 9 -volt
and 6 -volt lantern -style batteries) can be recycled if properly containerized. This
activity would not "pay for itself" but could be self-financing if a small fee was
charged for accepting the batteries for recycling. If a five -gallon bucket full of
batteries weighs about 40 pounds, it would contain about 1,500 AAA batteries or 135
D batteries. At a fee of $0.25 per battery, for instance, the revenue for a five -gallon
would be $34 to $375 for a "pure" bucket of only D batteries or only AAA batteries,
respectively.
4.6. EVALUATION OF RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES
Review of Rating Criteria
The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several key criteria, including:
Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Does the alternative support the
goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy and
support other planning goals as well?
Feasibility: Can the alternative be adopted without controversy or legal issues.
Also, is the alternative technically feasible?
Cost Effectiveness: Can the alternative be implemented in a cost-effective
manner and can it be implemented without creating an excessive impact on the
financial stability of the solid waste system?
Diversion Potential: How much can the alternative potentially divert from the
waste stream?
Rating of Alternatives
Alternatives were rated as High for diversion potential if the alternative could
potentially reduce the waste stream by more than 1 %, Medium for 0 to 1 %, and Low
for alternatives that would have an impact of 0% or near zero. The ratings for the
other three criteria were based on scores submitted by the SWAC members, and the
averages of those scores are shown in the following table. The overall rating is an
average of the ratings for the four criteria, and the overall rating is used as a guide
for whether an alternative should be pursued and the level of priority given to it.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-12
Table 4-3
Ratings for the Recycling Alternatives
Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low
4.7. RECYCLING RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for recycling programs:
High -Priority Recommendation for Recycling:
R1) Increase promotion and public education for curbside recycling in the
unincorporated area, including at a minimum a notice provided to all garbage
subscribers that they can save money through recycling by subscribing to a
lower level of garbage service.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Recycling:
R2) Port Townsend to consider increasing curbside recycling frequency to weekly;
R3) Jefferson County to consider adoption of a service level ordinance, specifying
that all waste collection subscribers in unincorporated areas also receive
curbside recycling service;
R4) Consider switching to a dual stream (or single -stream without glass) recycling
service county -wide;
R5) Jefferson County should consider additional steps to increase access to
curbside recycling, including contracting for recycling services in the
unincorporated areas, appropriate disposal bans and other mandatory
measures;
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-13
Cost-
Diversion
OverallConsistency
Alternativeness
4w
with ..
Potential
A, Increase curbside
M -H
M
L -M
H
M
recycling to weekly
B, Increased education and
H
H
M
M
H
promotion in uninc. area
C, Minimum service level
M
L
M
H
M
D, Other options to increase
M
M
M
L -M
M
curbside recycling
E, Options for glass
M
L -M
L
L
L
recycling
F, Conduct a recycling
H
H
L
L
M
potential assessment
G, Implement dual stream
M -H
L -M
L -M
H
M
H, Pay to recycle special
M -H
M
L
L
M
materials
Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low
4.7. RECYCLING RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for recycling programs:
High -Priority Recommendation for Recycling:
R1) Increase promotion and public education for curbside recycling in the
unincorporated area, including at a minimum a notice provided to all garbage
subscribers that they can save money through recycling by subscribing to a
lower level of garbage service.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Recycling:
R2) Port Townsend to consider increasing curbside recycling frequency to weekly;
R3) Jefferson County to consider adoption of a service level ordinance, specifying
that all waste collection subscribers in unincorporated areas also receive
curbside recycling service;
R4) Consider switching to a dual stream (or single -stream without glass) recycling
service county -wide;
R5) Jefferson County should consider additional steps to increase access to
curbside recycling, including contracting for recycling services in the
unincorporated areas, appropriate disposal bans and other mandatory
measures;
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-13
R6) Conduct a recycling potential assessment, contingent on the availability of
grant funding;
R7) Recycling programs that include fees to recycle difficult materials should be
considered.
Low -Priority Recommendation for Recycling:
R8) Local applications should continue to be sought for glass recycling and reuse.
The certificated hauler (Waste Connections) will implement Recommendation R1,
with assistance from the Jefferson County Solid Waste Department and the Health
Department. The lead agency responsible for implementing Recommendation #R2
would be the City of Port Townsend. Jefferson County will be the lead agency for
the other recommendations, with assistance from the City of Port Townsend as
appropriate for the activity or program.
The implementation of Recommendation R6 is contingent upon the availability of
grant funds to pay for most or all of the expenses for this activity. The amount and
source for funds for Recommendation R8 will depend on the alternative markets
being used for glass. The funding for all of the other recycling recommendations are
expected to come from service fees paid by participants and subscribers, although
the costs for some of these recommendations will impact staff and will have other
expenses. A cost -benefit analysis should be performed for all recommended
program changes.
Recommendation R1 is planned to be implemented annually beginning in 2016.
Recommendation R2 should be considered for implementation when the City's
contract with Waste Connections is due for renewal (2017), with a process began
before that time (in 2016) to address the need for this and other changes.
Recommendation R3 could be implemented in 2016 or 2017, with Recommendation
R4 implemented as part of that process. Recommendations R5, R6, R7 and R8 could
be implemented on an as -needed basis.
More details on the implementation of these and other recommendations are shown
in Chapter 10.
Chapter 4: Recycling Page 4-14
CHAPTER 5
ORGANICS
5.1. DEFINITIONS AND GOALS FOR ORGANICS
Definitions for Organic Materials
In this Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), the term "organics" is intended to
include compostable materials such as yard waste, food waste, and compostable
paper. Other compostable materials, such as animal manures and pet waste, may
also be included depending on the program being discussed. Some programs in
other areas of Washington State collect a mixture of yard waste, food waste, and
food -soiled paper, and this is referred to as "mixed organics" in this SWMP.
Yard waste is defined to include materials such as lawn clippings, leaves, weeds,
vegetable garden debris, branches and brush. Backyard composting means a small-
scale activity performed by homeowners or others on their own property, using yard
waste that they have generated on that property. Some types of food waste,
primarily fruit and vegetable scraps, can also be managed through backyard
composting or through the use of worm bins ("vermicomposting"). By definition,
backyard composting and vermicomposting are considered to be a form of waste
reduction and so are addressed in Chapter 3 of this SWMP.
Composting can be defined as the controlled biological decomposition of organic
materials to produce a beneficial product (compost). Compost has a number of
applications, but as a soil amendment it provides organic matter and nutrients,
loosens soils, and helps retain moisture.
Goals for Organics
Organic materials collected for composting are intended to count towards Jefferson
County's recycling goal of 50% (see Section 4.1). Composting also helps meet
sustainability goals, such as shown in the State solid waste plan (see Section 5.3).
5.2. EXISTING ORGANICS PROGRAMS
Several activities are currently being conducted in Jefferson County for collecting and
processing organics. These are discussed below according to the type of program.
Collection Programs
The certificated (franchise) haulers report that rural residents are currently disposing
of only small amounts of yard waste. Many rural residents of the County use on-site
composting ("backyard composting") or use the drop-off site at the Jefferson County
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-1
Solid Waste Disposal Facility for yard waste. Backyard composting is considered to
be a waste reduction technique and is discussed in Chapter 3.
Collection services for yard waste include the City of Port Townsend's curbside
collection program and the drop-off site at the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal
Facility (JCSWDF). In both cases, the yard waste is used as a "bulking agent" at the
City of Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility. Drop-off of yard waste at
JCSWDF is available to commercial and residential customers for a fee of $48 per ton
(and a minimum fee of $5, rates current as of January 1, 2015). This rate is about one-
third of the rate for garbage ($147.61 per ton). The drop-off program began in 1992
and yard waste was accepted free until a charge was instituted in October 2008.
Prior to 2008, the drop-off site was collecting more yard waste than was needed for
the biosolids facility, and the volumes dropped by about 50% after the fee was
begun.
Port Townsend's yard waste collection program was begun in 1998, and the cost for
this service is included in the garbage rates for City residents. The contract hauler for
the City, Waste Connections, currently provides curbside collection of yard waste
every other week year-round, on a schedule that alternates with the curbside
recycling collections. Materials collected include leaves, grass clippings, and
branches.
The tonnages collected in recent years through the drop-off and curbside programs
are shown in Table 5.1. A three-year average of the monthly amounts is shown in
Figure 5.1, showing the seasonal variation in yard waste generation. The amount of
material that has been collected through the curbside program is shown in the
bottom row of Table 5.1.
Processing and Market Capacity
Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility: The City of Port Townsend Biosolids
Compost Facility is the primary processing facility for organics in Jefferson County.
This facility is located on County property at the JCSWDF, and is operated and
maintained by the City. Yard waste is ground up and mixed with the biosolids to
serve as a "bulking agent." The biosolids would not compost well without a carbon
bulking agent. The yard waste adds structure and absorbs some of the moisture
present in the biosolids, thus allowing the mix to be formed into piles for
composting, and also adds porosity that improves aeration (the microorganisms that
cause composting to occur require oxygen to operate most efficiently).
The end result of the composting process is a soil -like product that is tested and then
sold to the general public and private contractors. Sales are conducted in bulk (i.e.,
by the truckload) at the Biosolids Compost Facility for gardening and landscaping
purposes. Smaller amounts are used for City projects or are donated for community
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-2
Table 5-1
Yard Waste Collection Amounts
Monthly Amounts
2012
2013
2014
Average
Received at Drop -Off Site:
January
100.2
114.0
131.5
115.3
February
147.1
139.0
114.6
133.6
March
170.6
207.2
189.5
189.1
April
284.2
269.3
275.3
276.3
May
306.5
288.8
308.5
301.3
June
271.1
308.1
303.8
294.3
July
310.5
277.6
251.9
280.0
August
296.5
246.9
216.4
253.3
September
216.1
232.7
212.4
220.4
October
224.6
227.8
219.7
224.0
November
200.2
200.9
158.1
186.4
December
102.5
88.2
159.0
116.6
Annual Tonnage
2,630.0
2,600.4
2,540.8
2,590.4
From City Curbside
544.7
555.2
540.0
546.6
Collection
Note: The above figures include materials dropped off by City and County residential and commercial
sources, plus tonnages from the City's curbside collection program. The annual amount from
the City's curbside program is shown in the bottom row of the table and these tons are included
in the monthly figures shown above. All figures are tons.
Figure 5-1
Yard Waste Quantities Delivered to Biosolids Compost Facility
350
300
t 250
1 100
61%
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Note: The above chart shows monthly averages for the period 2012 through 2014.
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-3
Table 5-2
Amounts of Compost Marketed by Biosolids Compost Facility
Market
2012
2013
2014
Average
Amount Sold or Donated:
Sold in Bulk
2,910
2,839
2,661
2,803
City Projects
398
114
89
200
Donated for Community
18
86
8
37
Projects
Total
3,326
3,039
2,758
3,041
Stockpiled On -Site
248
400
1,400
683
Stockpiled, Pending
1,100
1,000
400
833
Testing
Note: The above figures are in cubic yards.
projects. Several batches of compost (typically two or three) are produced annually
and the compost is sold fairly quickly during most of the year. The amount of
compost sold in the past three years is shown in Table 5-2.
The location and operation of the Compost Facility is based on a lease between the
County and City. The County has leased to the City a parcel of land at the JCSWDF
for the Compost Facility. By locating the biosolids facility at the County's central
disposal facility, an integrated resource is created that allows for greater efficiencies.
Increased efficiencies are created due to shared use of infrastructure and reduced
transportation costs.
Other processing facilities: Processing of organics is also done by others in the
County. For example, the Shorts Family Farm accepts specified yard wastes on a
pre -approval basis. In addition, the Clearwater Correction Center operates a
vocational program composting food waste and biosolids as well as food waste from
the Clallam Correctional Center.
5.3. PLANNING ISSUES FOR ORGANICS
Potential improvements and issues for organics management in Jefferson County are
noted below.
Opportunities for Increased Organics Diversion
Curbside Collection of Yard Waste: The solid waste collection companies do not
offer curbside collection of yard waste outside of Port Townsend.
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-4
Food Waste: At an estimated 15-17% of the waste stream (see Table 2-7), food waste
is the largest single material remaining in the waste stream. Some of this food waste
can be reduced through education programs targeting reduction of wasting edible
food and part of this food waste can be handled through backyard composting (see
Chapter 3 for more information on backyard composting), but all types of food waste
could be composted by larger facilities. Many communities in the Pacific Northwest
have added food waste to yard waste collection programs to facilitate the diversion
of this material. These programs typically include paper grades that are compostable
but not recyclable (such as pizza boxes and paper napkins). In Jefferson County,
however, the yard waste is being used by the Biosolids Compost Facility, which is
not designed to handle food waste as part of that mix.
Pet Waste: An estimated 2.7% of the waste stream (based on the 2014 Thurston
County Waste Composition Study) is pet waste (kitty litter and other animal
excrement). Separately collecting this material could divert up to 460 tons per year
(although only if 100% of this material could be collected separately). It should be
noted, however, that a significant portion of this material is litter, not animal waste,
and some types of the litter would not be amenable to composting or other methods
that might otherwise be useful for the pet waste.
Washington State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan
The Washington State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan (the "Beyond Waste" plan)
adopted a vision that society can transition to a point where waste is viewed as
inefficient and most wastes have been eliminated. This transition is expected to take
20 to 30 years or more. In the short term, the Beyond Waste Plan recommends
actions that can be undertaken to achieve specific goals for increased diversion of
organic materials:
• Ecology and stakeholders will create a beneficial use hierarchy for residual
organic material processing and uses (SWM Goal 16).
• Less food will enter the disposal system; more discarded food will be
managed according to EPA's food waste hierarchy (SWM Goal 17).
• The use of soil amendments derived from recycled organics will increase,
reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides (SWM
Goal 18).
• Agriculture, landscapes, and home gardens will need less water due to
increased use of compost and other soil amendments derived from recycled
organics (SWM Goal 19).
• The value of recycled organics as storm and surface water filtration media will
be better understood, resulting in increased use (SWM Goal 20).
• Soil organic carbon sequestration using recycled organics will increase based
on research recommendations (SWM Goal 21).
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-5
• More diversified organics processing infrastructure will exist in the state
(SWM Goal 22).
• Composting facilities will produce clean end products (SWM Goal 23).
• Diversified end-use markets will be in place for recycled organic products
(SWM Goal 24).
• The Biosolids Regulatory Program will have sufficient resources to ensure that
biosolids are beneficially used (SWM Goal 25).
Food Waste and Food Security
Several local initiatives are examining the topic of food security in Jefferson County.
For instance, the 2012 Jefferson County Farmer Survey examined the state of farming
in the county, including what steps could be taken to make farming more sustainable
and to increase local sales. Other efforts include a report by the Port Townsend Food
Co-op on the local food system and a recently formed group, the Jefferson County
Local Food System Council. It could be possible to work collaboratively with
community groups to set up a system for diverting food waste to local farms and
gardens. Composting food waste in this way would help enrich the soil for local
food production.
5.4. ALTERNATIVE ORGANICS STRATEGIES
The following strategic alternatives were considered for new or expanded organics
activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is
considered feasible or desirable, nor that it is recommended (see Section 5.6 for the
recommendations).
Alternative A - Add Food Waste to the Yard Waste Collection Program in Port
Townsend
Adding food waste to the existing yard waste collection programs is an approach
used by many other communities, but in Port Townsend this approach would create
serious complications for the existing programs. The yard waste currently being
collected in Port Townsend is being brought to the Biosolids Compost Facility, and
the receiving area there is not set up to properly contain and store a mixture that
includes food waste. A substantial increase in the amount of material delivered to
that facility also raises questions about exceeding the facility's capacity, in part
because having food waste in the composting mixture could increase the need for
bulking agents. If food waste were added to the yard waste collection program in
Port Townsend, that mixture would likely need to be taken elsewhere for composting
and then the Biosolids Compost Facility would need to find an alternate source of
material for their needs.
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-6
Alternative B - Implement Organics Collection in Areas Outside of Port
Townsend
Public yard waste organics curbside collection programs are generally not available
to residences or businesses outside of Port Townsend. Residents and businesses can
privately contract to collect and then dispose of yard waste at the JCSWDF. Many
residents in rural areas now dispose of yard waste along with trees and brush on
their own. In other counties similar to Jefferson County where yard waste collection
is available in rural areas, only a small percentage of the residents subscribe to this
service. Therefore, implementation of organic curbside collection programs
involving yard waste would not significantly impact recycling or diversion goals.
Alternative C - Separate Collection of Commercial Organics
Without a yard waste collection program to "piggy -back" on, collection of food
waste from residential sources would be difficult and expensive, but a separate
collection program could potentially be implemented for commercial sources.
Commercial and institutional sources, including schools, would have larger amounts
of food waste that could potentially be source -separated and brought to a
composting facility in or near Jefferson County. The cost and potential for this
service would need to be examined closely to ensure that there is a sufficient
financial benefit to the participants.
Alternative D - Explore Methods to Divert Pet Waste
Separate collection of pet waste could be explored for diverting this material to a
composting or other facility. Any such program would need to be approached
carefully to avoid unintentionally encouraging people to handle pet waste in ways
that would increase stormwater contamination or other problems. A cost -benefit
analysis may be needed to determine how this program would fit into current city -
county programs.
Alternative E - Food Waste Diversion
Separate collection of food waste from the residential or commercial sector could
take a variety of approaches. It's possible that private companies or individuals may
wish to pursue food waste collection and diversion in the future, possibly working
with local farms or other applications. The County and City could consider
supporting such proposals in the future if appropriate. All alternatives should be
proceeded with a cost -benefit analysis to determine the impact and the cost estimate
of new or expanded diversion programs.
Alternative F - Education Program to Promote On -Site Composting of Food Waste
Diversion of food waste could be also encouraged through backyard composting,
worm bins and other decentralized approaches. This approach would be best used
only for vegetative food scraps (not including meat and dairy products). Educational
materials could be distributed and other outreach efforts could be conducted to
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-7
inform residents how to properly handle food waste in their backyard composting
piles. Some types of small businesses might also be able to divert food waste in this
manner. Once an initial campaign has been conducted, this approach can be
reinforced by including reminders in other educational materials. The cost for an
initial campaign could be $25,000 to $50,000. The potential for this approach is
significant overall waste reduction, which could be as high as 5% or better if a
substantial number of residents participate by diverting their compostable food
waste.
5.5. EVALUATION OF ORGANICS ALTERNATIVES
Review of Rating Criteria
The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several criteria, including:
Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Does the alternative support the
goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy and
support other planning goals as well?
Feasibility: Can the alternative be adopted without controversy or legal issues,
and is the alternative technically feasible?
Cost Effectiveness: Can the alternative be implemented in a cost-effective
manner and can it be implemented without creating an excessive impact on the
financial stability of the solid waste system?
Diversion Potential: How much can the alternative potentially divert from the
waste stream?
Rating of Alternatives
Alternatives were rated as High for diversion potential if the alternative could
potentially reduce the waste stream by more than 1 %, Medium for 0 to 1 %, and Low
for alternatives that would have an impact of 0% or near zero. The ratings for the
other three criteria were based on scores submitted by the SWAC members, and the
averages of those scores are shown in the following table. The overall rating for each
alternative is based on the scores for the four criteria.
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-8
Table 5-3
Ratings for the Organics Alternatives
Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low
Despite receiving an overall rating of medium in the above table, the first alternative
(adding food waste to the City's collection program), is not being pursued at this
time due to the significant technical issues and lack of cost-effectiveness associated
with it.
5.6. ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for organics programs in Jefferson
County (see also Chapter 3).
High -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
01) Promotion of on-site composting of food waste though education programs.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Organics:
02) Support of appropriate programs for commercial food waste diversion by the
County and City;
03) Support of appropriate programs for residential food waste diversion by the
County and City.
Low -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
04) Support alternative methods to divert pet waste as appropriate.
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-9
Consistency
Cost-
Diversion Overall
GoalsAlternative with
ness
Potential
A, Add food waste to City's
M -H
L
L
M M
collection program
B, Implement yard waste
collection in rest of
M
L
L
L i L
count
C, Separate collection of
H
M
M
M M
commercial organics
D, Explore methods to divert
M
L
L
L
L
et waste
E, Food waste diversion
H
M
M
M -H
M
F, Education for on-site food
H
H
H
M -H
H
waste composting
Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low
Despite receiving an overall rating of medium in the above table, the first alternative
(adding food waste to the City's collection program), is not being pursued at this
time due to the significant technical issues and lack of cost-effectiveness associated
with it.
5.6. ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for organics programs in Jefferson
County (see also Chapter 3).
High -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
01) Promotion of on-site composting of food waste though education programs.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Organics:
02) Support of appropriate programs for commercial food waste diversion by the
County and City;
03) Support of appropriate programs for residential food waste diversion by the
County and City.
Low -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
04) Support alternative methods to divert pet waste as appropriate.
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-9
The lead agency for these recommendations would be Jefferson County and possibly
the City of Port Townsend, although private companies or others will likely be the
ones actually implementing Recommendations 02, 03 and 04. Recommendation 01
is being implemented by the Health Department.
Recommendation 01 could cost up to $25,000 and is contingent upon the availability
of grant funds to pay for most or all of the expenses for this activity. The cost for the
other recommendations cannot be estimated until a specific activity or program is
actually proposed. The source of the funds for Recommendations 02,03 and 04
would likely be service charges paid by participating companies and/or individuals.
Where appropriate, a cost -benefit analysis should be performed for all proposed
program changes.
Recommendation 01 will be implemented annually beginning in 2015 (contingent
upon the availability of funding). Recommendations 02, 03 and 04 should be
implemented on an as -needed basis (i.e., as proposed activities become available for
review and consideration).
More details on the implementation of these and other recommendations are shown
in Chapter 10.
Chapter 5: Organics Page 5-10
CHAPTER 6
WASTE COLLECTION
6.1. BACKGROUND FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
Introduction
This chapter addresses the solid waste collection system in Jefferson County. This
chapter is primarily focused on the non -recycled solid wastes. The solid waste
collection system in Jefferson County includes West Waste & Recycling's operations
in western Jefferson County and services provided by Waste Connections in Port
Townsend (through a contract with the City) and in the rest of the County (through a
certificate issued by the State).
State Regulations Concerning Waste Collection
The Washington State authorities that govern collection activities are Ecology and the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ("UTC'). RCW 70.95.020 also
assigns responsibilities to local government for the management of solid waste
handling while encouraging the use of private industry.
The UTC supervises and regulates solid waste collection companies. Their authority
(Ch. 81.77 RCW and Ch. 480-70 WAC) is limited to private collection companies and
does not extend to municipal collection systems (of which there are none in Jefferson
County) or to private companies operating under contract to a city (such as in Port
Townsend). For private haulers under their jurisdiction, the UTC may require
reports, set rates, regulate service areas, and establish safety practices. Solid waste
management plans may set standards for specific levels of services that the haulers
must then adhere to (although this generally also requires adoption of a service
ordinance).
Cities and towns have four options for managing solid waste collection under State
laws. None of these options prevent a resident or business from hauling their own
waste. These options include a city operating its own municipal collection system,
contracting with a waste collection company for collection services (as is done in Port
Townsend), requiring a certificated collector to obtain a license from the city, or
doing nothing (in which case collection services can be provided by certificated
collectors that are overseen by the UTC).
Local Regulations Concerning Waste Collection
Waste collection service fees are mandatory in Port Townsend, but not in other parts
of the County. Additional provisions for waste collection are contained in Chapter 6
of the City's municipal code.
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-1
6.2. EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
Solid waste is collected in the City of Port Townsend through a contract, and in other
parts of the County through state -issued certificates (franchises). The County can be
further divided into east and west areas due to the different conditions that exist in
each part. These three areas are discussed in greater detail below.
Waste Connections, Inc. (2153 4th Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368), provides most
of the solid waste collection services in Jefferson County under a contract or a state -
issued certificate. A second solid waste hauler, West Waste & Recycling, Inc. (1154
Big Burn Place, Forks, WA 98331), operates in the west end of the County and
provides service to a small number of customers. For the purpose of distinguishing
between the contract and certificated operations for Waste Connections, this SWMP
uses "DM Disposal" when referring to the City's collection system, and "Murrey's
Olympic Disposal," or just "Olympic Disposal," for the certificated area.
City of Port Townsend
The City of Port Townsend has a contract with DM Disposal to provide collection
services to homes and businesses within the city. DM Disposal conducts the billing
for these services, and rates are based on the volume of solid waste disposed (see
Table 6-1). Residential customers in the City can subscribe to either weekly or every -
other -week service for waste collection. The number of residents subscribing to
every -other -week service has increased steadily, growing from 38% in 2004 to over
51 % in 2014. Curbside recycling and curbside yard waste services are provided
every -other -week on an alternating schedule.
East County Area
In the eastern part of Jefferson County, collection services are provided under a
certificate granted by the State, through the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (UTC). Any changes in rates or services in certificated areas must be
approved by the UTC.
The UTC certificate (Certificate G-9) grants Murrey's Olympic Disposal the exclusive
right to provide waste collection services to residents and businesses in the eastern
unincorporated areas of the County. Olympic Disposal has several trucks and other
pieces of equipment, including rear packer trucks, trucks that can empty containers
(dumpsters) that are one, two and three cubic yards, and tilt frame (roll -off) trucks
for hauling drop boxes with capacities of 10, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 50 cubic yards in
size. Olympic Disposal also collects solid waste in Clallam County.
Residential collection services offered by Olympic Disposal in the eastern and
western parts of the County include options for waste collection on a weekly, every -
other -week or once -monthly basis. The rates currently charged in eastern Jefferson
County (as of 2015) are shown in Table 6-1.
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-2
Table 6-1
Collection Rates in Jefferson County (2015)
Notes: EOW = every -other -week service. Rates are current as of mid -2015.
1) Residential collection rates refer to monthly charges for weekly or every -other -week pickup of the number of cans shown.
2) Commercial collection rates vary significantly depending on the size of the container and frequency of service. A few rates are shown in the
above table to illustrate the range of rates associated with different waste volumes (all of these rates are based on one pickup per week at the
volume shown). Additional charges may apply for container rental, recycling services, access problems, overflow conditions and other factors.
Note that the 6 -yard rate shown for Port Townsend is actually for 3 2 -yard containers (which is the closest match for their available service levels).
Population densities (people per acre) shown here are based on the 2010 Census results (see Table 2-1) and land area as of the year 2014:
Port Townsend
Unincorporated County
Unincorporated, East End only
Unincorporated, West End only
Totals
2010 Population
Land Area, acres
Residential
Collection
Rates
2.4
Commercial
Collection
Rates
Area
Mini -can
1 can (32
1 •
240,000
Recycling
1 per
2 yards
6 yards
(20 ..
..
•
$9.79
$38.73
Included
$111.35
$221.77
$665.29
Port Townsend $12.18 $19.37
(DM Disposal)
Murrey's Olympic
Disposal, eastern
$17.65
$22.62
$13.32
$33.47
$9.51
$100.02
$195.60
$518.77
part of county
Murrey's Olympic
Disposal, western
$16.84
$22.01
$12.70
$33.69
$10.84
$99.41
$195.22
$486.03
part of county
West Waste &
Recycling
$13.47
$16.39
$9.07
$24.42
na
$64.30
$127.22
$385.76
Notes: EOW = every -other -week service. Rates are current as of mid -2015.
1) Residential collection rates refer to monthly charges for weekly or every -other -week pickup of the number of cans shown.
2) Commercial collection rates vary significantly depending on the size of the container and frequency of service. A few rates are shown in the
above table to illustrate the range of rates associated with different waste volumes (all of these rates are based on one pickup per week at the
volume shown). Additional charges may apply for container rental, recycling services, access problems, overflow conditions and other factors.
Note that the 6 -yard rate shown for Port Townsend is actually for 3 2 -yard containers (which is the closest match for their available service levels).
Population densities (people per acre) shown here are based on the 2010 Census results (see Table 2-1) and land area as of the year 2014:
Port Townsend
Unincorporated County
Unincorporated, East End only
Unincorporated, West End only
Totals
2010 Population
Land Area, acres
Density
9,113
3,860
2.4
20,759
1,150,510
0.02
19,878
910,510
0.02
881
240,000
0.004
29,872
1,154,370
0.03
Chapter 6: Collection and In -County Transfer Page 6-3
West County Area
Waste collection services in the western part of Jefferson County are provided under
certificates granted by the UTC. Two companies have certificates to collect solid
waste in this area: Murrey's Olympic Disposal (Certificate G-9) and West Waste &
Recycling (Certificate G-251). Waste collection rates charged by Olympic Disposal on
the west end are slightly lower than the rates for the eastern part of the County due
to the lower fee charged by the disposal site (the Port Angeles Landfill) used for the
waste from this area.
West Waste & Recycling (or West Waste) is headquartered in Forks and also collects
solid waste in western Clallam County. For residential service in Jefferson County,
West Waste provides every -other -week service (one can, two cans and three cans)
and monthly service (two and three cans). West Waste does not provide curbside
recycling services to residential customers, but does provide commercial paper and
cardboard recycling collection services (although there are no commercial customers
in western Jefferson County). West Waste operates a transfer station in Forks, and
the waste they collect is brought there.
6.3. PLANNING ISSUES FOR WASTE COLLECTION
The current collection system provides adequate capacity for the County's and City's
residents and businesses. Future waste quantities have been estimated (see Table
2.8), and the existing collection system, with appropriate improvements, is
anticipated to be able to handle the projected increase. The increasing average age of
the population in Jefferson County (see Section 2.3) may create shifts in services, such
as increasing the numbers of people in the unincorporated areas that subscribe to
waste collection services rather than self -haul their wastes.
Only about 23% of the households in the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County
currently subscribe to garbage collection services. The remaining 77% are assumed
to be self -hauling their garbage to an appropriate disposal facility.
6.4. ALTERNATIVE WASTE COLLECTION STRATEGIES
The following alternatives were considered for new or revised waste collection
activities. The current waste collection system in Jefferson County is working well,
and these alternatives would be expansions or enhancements that would be in
addition to the current activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not
mean that it is considered feasible or desirable, nor that it is recommended (see
Section 6.6 for the recommendations).
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-4
Alternative A - Mandatory Waste Collection in Unincorporated Areas
One alternative to meet collection needs for Jefferson County is mandatory solid
waste collection services. Currently almost one-third (30.5%) of the County's
population is in areas where payment for collection service is mandatory (Port
Townsend), and the other 70.5% of the population is in largely rural areas where
subscription to collection services is voluntary. Mandatory collection in
unincorporated areas could be provided through a solid waste collection district.
State law (Ch. 36.58A RCW) enables a county to establish such a district.
Mandatory collection programs throughout the rest of Jefferson County would
provide some benefits, but not without possible drawbacks. Benefits include a
reduction in illegal dumping; a reduced need for enforcement of illegal dumping,
littering and other laws; and greater ability to provide curbside recycling programs
(assuming a combination of recycling and waste collection services). Mandatory
collection, however, can act as a disincentive for those who are actively trying to
reduce wastes if the rate structure is too rigid and can be potentially very difficult to
implement.
Alternative B - Institute Program of Discounts for Low -Income Senior Citizen
Families
Implementing this approach in the certificated area is allowed by State law (RCW
81.77.195) and would require that Jefferson County adopt a service level ordinance
for this. Procedures would need to be worked out for determining the households
that would qualify for this discount, but a program already conducted by the Health
Department could be used for this. Murrey's Olympic Disposal would need to file a
new tariff to adopt rates that reflect this discount, and they would not be allowed to
raise rates for others to cover the lower fees (in other words, Murrey's Olympic
Disposal would be required to absorb the reduction in revenues).
Alternative C - Disposal District to Reduce Collection Costs
Jefferson County could form a disposal district that would have the authority to levy
taxes or issue bonds. The revenues collected by a disposal district could be used to
pay for the cost of disposing of waste, thus reducing the cost of garbage collection
services by 25 to 35% of the current expense for residential customers. The amount
of reduction for commercial customers would vary depending on their service level
and other factors. Although the cost of garbage collection services could be reduced
by the revenues raised through a disposal district, the costs for all residents and
businesses would increase by a similar amount. The disposal district would not
include the City of Port Townsend unless the City chose to participate. The funds
collected by a disposal district could also be used for litter cleanup, public education,
the MRW Facility, solid waste planning and other activities. Disposal districts (and
collection districts) are described in more detail in Chapter 9.
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-5
6.5. EVALUATION OF WASTE COLLECTION
ALTERNATIVES
Review of Rating Criteria
The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several criteria, including:
Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Does the alternative support the
goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy and
support other planning goals as well?
Feasibility: Can the alternative be adopted without controversy or legal issues,
and is the alternative technically feasible?
Cost Effectiveness: Can the alternative be implemented in a cost-effective
manner and can it be implemented without creating an excessive impact on the
financial stability of the solid waste system?
Rating of Alternatives
The ratings for the three criteria were based on scores submitted by the SWAC
members, and the averages of those scores are shown in the following table. The
overall rating for each alternative is based on the scores for the other three criteria.
Table 6-2
Ratings for the Waste Collection Alternatives
Consistency Cost -Overall
with Goals Feasibility Effective-
Alternative ness
Rating
Mandatory- collection
B, Discounts for low-income
- .
Disposal
Rating Scores: H - High, M - Medium, L - Low
6.6. WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for waste collection programs (see Chapter 9
for more information on this option). The current waste collection system in
Jefferson County is working well, and only one recommendation is being made at
this time.
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-6
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-7
Medium -Priority Recommendation for Solid Waste Collection:
WC1) Examine benefits of a collection district for implementing universal waste
collection in Jefferson County.
The lead agency for this program change would be Jefferson County as it could be
limited to involve only the County jurisdiction (or could also include Port Townsend
at the City's option). The County's cost for implementing this recommendation
would be minimal, consisting largely of staff time to explore the advantages and
disadvantages of various approaches. If a universal collection system is actually
implemented, the tonnages of collected waste and recyclables would increase and
disposal costs would increase in aggregate but should decrease on a per -ton basis.
Residents who are currently subscribing to waste collection could incur a slight
decrease in costs whereas other residents could incur an increase in costs. The
funding mechanism for a waste collection district is uncertain at this point. To
implement this recommendation during this planning cycle, this recommendation
should be considered before 2017 for sufficient public outreach and implementation
before 2020.
More details on the implementation of these and other recommendations are shown
in Chapter 10.
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-8
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
Chapter 6: Waste Collection Page 6-9
CHAPTER 7
WASTE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL
7.1. BACKGROUND
Introduction
The solid waste management activities discussed in this chapter are organized into
three sections:
7.2 In -County Transfer
7.3 Waste Import and Export
7.4 In -County Landfilling
The following sections review each of these activities and propose potential
alternatives. All of the alternatives are described and evaluated at the end of this
chapter (see Sections 7.5 and 7.6).
Regulations Concerning Waste Transfer and Disposal
State laws and regulations concerning waste transfer and disposal can be found in
the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC). The RCW contains the laws adopted by the State Legislature, while the
WAC consists of the regulations adopted by State agencies to implement the laws
contained in the RCW.
• Chapter 173-350-100 WAC defines transfer stations, drop box facilities, and
intermediate solid waste handling facilities. These must meet specific design and
operating standards, although closure and financial assurance standards are
minimal for these types of facilities.
• Chapter 36.58.050 RCW states that transfer stations included in a solid waste plan
are exempt from regulation by the UTC and requirements to use certificated
haulers. Furthermore, it states that the county "may enter into contracts for the
hauling of trailers of solid wastes from these transfer stations to disposal sites and
return either by (1) the normal bidding process, or (2) negotiation with the
qualified collection company servicing the area" under UTC's authority.
• Chapter 36.58 RCW, Solid Waste Disposal, authorizes counties to execute
contracts for disposal services, designate disposal sites, and to form disposal
districts.
• Chapter 173-350 WAC, Solid Waste Handling Standards, provides rules for
implementing RCW 70.95 and sets minimum functional performance standards
for the proper handling of solid wastes. Ch. 173-350 contains rules for a range of
facilities (recycling, composting, land application, anaerobic digesters,
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-1
intermediate solid waste handling, piles, MRW, inert and limited purpose
landfills), as well as providing rules for beneficial use permits, groundwater
monitoring, financial assurance and other important activities.
• Chapter 173-351 WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, provides
minimum state-wide standards for solid waste landfills (not including inert or
limited purpose landfills). Local jurisdictional health departments can enact
ordinances equally as or more stringent than this regulation.
• The primary local regulations addressing transfer stations and other solid waste
facilities are included in the Jefferson County Code, Chapter 8.10, Solid Waste
Regulations.
• A landfill typically operates under the rules of the county in which it is located, as
enforced by the local health district, as well as State and Federal rules. The
Roosevelt Regional Landfill, where Jefferson County's waste is currently
disposed, is governed by the rules of Klickitat County and its health district.
Activities at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill are also guided by an agreement
between Klickitat County and Republic Services and by a conditional use permit
for the landfill.
Goals for the Transfer and Disposal Systems
While all of the goals recommended by the SWAC (see Section 1.6) apply to the
transfer and disposal system, the following are most relevant:
• maintain a solid waste system that provides a high level of public health and
safety, and that protects the natural and human environment of Jefferson
County.
• maintain an economically responsible program for solid waste management
that recognizes the needs for environmental protection and service to the
citizens of the County.
• promote the use of private industry to carry out components of the solid waste
system.
• be consistent with other existing resource management and local plans.
• incorporate flexibility to accommodate future needs.
7.2. IN -COUNTY TRANSFER
Background for In -County Transfer
This section of the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) discusses the two transfer
facilities in Jefferson County; the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility
(JCSWDF) and the Quilcene Drop Box.
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-2
Existing Programs for In -County Transfer
The Quilcene Drop Box site is the one remote waste collection station remaining in
operation in Jefferson County. Four other drop box stations were closed in 1998 and
1999, including the Port Hadlock, Brinnon, Clearwater and Coyle facilities.
The Quilcene Drop Box facility is located on Highway 101 (295312 U.S Highway 101,
Quilcene) about 23 miles south of the JCSWDF and is strategically located to serve
the southeastern county population. The Quilcene facility handled 176 tons of waste
from 3,916 vehicles in 2014, and took in $44,538 in revenues from tipping fees for this
waste. The tonnages collected at this site have increased steadily for the past few
years, going from 159 tons in 2012 to 172 tons in 2013. Jefferson County owns and
operates the Quilcene Drop Box site, and has a contract with Olympic Disposal to
haul full containers of compacted waste to the JCSWDF. This site is staffed and the
current hours of operation are from 1 to 5 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, except holidays. Fees charged in 2015 at this facility
range from $6.15 for one 32 -gallon garbage can up to $32.80 per cubic yard for larger
loads. A few items have separate or additional charges, such as car tires ($6.15),
truck tires ($7.17) and refrigerators ($30.75). All of these fees include the 3.6% solid
waste tax.
The facilities at the Quilcene Drop Box include a small payment office, a portable
toilet, two 25 cubic yard stationary waste compactors, full service recycling
containers that collected about 97 tons of recyclables in 2014, a collection unit for
used oil and antifreeze, and roll -off containers for metals and large household items.
The site is fenced to prevent use when it is closed. According to the site attendant,
there are about four times as many recycling customers as garbage customers,
although most garbage customers also use the recycling drop-off containers in the
same visit.
The transfer station at the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility (JCSWDF)
is the primary disposal facility in the County and it serves the County waste export
system. The JCSWDF is built on the site of a closed County landfill south of Port
Townsend, at 325 County Landfill Road. Other facilities at that site include the
recycling center, which collects and prepares collected recyclables for shipment, a
residential recycling drop box collection site and the City of Port Townsend's
biosolids composting facility. The JCSWDF handled 17,662 tons of waste from 76,895
vehicles in 2014, and took in $2,558,253 in revenues from tipping fees for this waste
(these figures do not include the waste tonnages and revenues for the Quilcene Drop
Box). This site is staffed and the current hours of operation are from 9 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Monday through Saturday (except holidays). Fees charged at this facility in
2015 range from a minimum charge of $10.00 (for up to 140 pounds of waste) up to
$147.61 per ton for larger loads. These fees include the solid waste tax (3.6%).
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-3
Planning Issues for In -County Transfer
Education is needed on an ongoing basis to inform customers of the transfer station
services, drop box collection centers and recycling facilities as to the materials that
can and cannot be brought there, and the alternatives that exist for the proper
disposal or handling of certain materials.
Planned long and short term functional improvements at the Quilcene Drop Box and
JCSWDF include:
Conduct improvements to the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility based
on facility assessment options and the Solid Waste Master Plan update;
1. Quilcene Drop Box office replacement project;
2. JCSWDF Master Plan Update - Assessment of existing JCSWDF facility
scheduled in 2016 to include improvement and funding options including:
a. Transfer station employee facilities;
b. Scale facility upgrade/ replacement;
c. Transfer station improvements; and
d. Recycling center improvements.
Alternative Strategies for In -County Transfer
Transfer alternatives are shown in Section 7.5.
7.3. WASTE IMPORT AND EXPORT
Background for Waste Import and Export
Waste export and import refer to the practice of moving solid waste across county
lines. Waste import means moving waste into Jefferson County, and waste export
refers to transporting waste out of the county.
Existing Programs for Waste Import and Export
Existing Waste Import Activities: There are currently no shipments of solid waste
into Jefferson County (excluding recyclable materials destined for industrial
processing and small amounts of SQG moderate risk waste from adjacent counties,
although the City's Biosolids Compost Facility is permitted to receive septage from
sources outside of the County.
Existing Waste Export Activities: Many counties have adopted the waste export
option because of its lower cost and greater reliability. Private companies have
responded to this interest by developing large landfills capable of handling wastes
from several areas. For many counties, these regional landfills provide a less
expensive and more convenient means of waste disposal than an in -county landfill.
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-4
Jefferson County began exporting solid waste in 1993 when the County entered into
a five-year contract with Regional Disposal Company (RDC) to dispose of waste at
RDC's landfill in Klickitat County, Washington. The initial term of this contract was
five years, with up to three five-year renewals allowed. In 1998, the waste export
contract was re -bid and Jefferson County received two bids for waste export services.
The County accepted the bid from RDC (now Republic Services) and a contract was
approved in April 1999. The contract is for a 20 -year period with buy-out options
every five years, and it provides for an annual escalation of 90% of the CPI. Another
provision allows flexibility if a regional approach with a neighboring county is
proposed. At this time, this contract is due to expire on April 11, 2019.
Waste export is also occurring from the west end of the County through separate,
private efforts of the two haulers active in that area. Waste collected from that area
by West Waste is brought to their transfer station in Forks and handled through their
waste export system. Waste collected in the west end by the other certificated hauler,
Murrey's Olympic Disposal, is brought to the Regional Transfer Station in Port
Angeles and is handled through their waste export system.
The only other waste export systems in use in the County are for small quantities of
special wastes (such as biomedical waste or moderate risk wastes, see Chapter 8) that
are sent to special facilities outside of the County. There are likely small amounts of
waste that are brought by self -haul customers to facilities in other counties, especially
for those residents and businesses located close to Kitsap and Clallam Counties.
Planning Issues for Waste Import and Export
Waste Import Planning Issues: Importing waste into Jefferson County would
provide additional economies of scale but would also require a significant
investment in capital improvements for the transfer station facilities and other costs.
A substantial amount of solid waste importation is not considered feasible at this
time, although this may change if a neighboring county suffered an emergency
situation.
Waste Export Planning Issues: The current contract for waste disposal expires on
April 11, 2019 and the process to re -bid or re -negotiate that contract will need to
begin in early 2017.
The Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility (JCSWDF) is the designated
disposal facility for all municipal solid waste generated in Jefferson County, except
for waste from the west end.
Alternative Strategies for Waste Import and Export
Waste import and export alternatives are shown in Section 7.5.
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-5
7.4. IN -COUNTY LANDFILLING
Background for In -County Landfilling
Some counties in Washington continue to operate local landfills for some types of
solid waste, but instead many counties have arranged for solid waste to be
transported to one of the large regional landfills that serve Washington and Oregon.
There are, however, inert and limited purpose landfills that continue to operate in
Jefferson County and in other counties.
Existing Programs for In -County Landfilling
Closed County Landfill: Jefferson County operated a municipal landfill from before
1973 until April 1993, when it was closed and replaced with a transfer station
completed in 1994 (the JCSWDF). Upon closure, the landfill was capped with an
impermeable geomembrane layer, then covered with soil and a post -closure
monitoring period began. A landfill gas system has been installed and the gas is
drawn to a flare station to be burned off. Although closed, there is an area at the
landfill that could be used for inert wastes in the future or possibly for emergency
purposes (such as temporary staging for disaster debris). Ongoing monitoring costs
are paid by a portion of the tipping fee (see Table 9.1 for recent expenses).
As decomposition of the waste has occurred in the closed landfill, gas volumes have
declined and, over time groundwater monitoring wells located around the landfill
have detected very low concentrations of chemicals leaching from the closed landfill
and an adjacent septage lagoon. Monitoring wells are located upgradient, to test the
groundwater before it travels under the landfill, and downgradient, to test for
impacts to the groundwater in the direction of flow. Based on the diminished low
concentrations of contaminants in recent years, the frequency of groundwater testing
was reduced in 2014 and it is anticipated that monitoring activities could continue to
be reduced in the next five years.
Other In -County Landfills: Port Townsend Paper Company operates an inert waste
landfill for disposal of industrial wastes, including ash from a hog fuel boiler and grit
from a limekiln. There were 5,205 tons of ash and 571 tons of industrial waste
deposited in this landfill in 2013. At this rate, the landfill is expected to be able to
operate for more than an additional 20 years. There are monitoring wells located
around this landfill to test for groundwater contamination, and the waste material
being landfilled is tested daily. Daily testing is conducted for pH, and annual testing
is conducted to ensure metal concentrations remain low.
The Navy operates an inert waste landfill on Indian Island, which is used for a few
tons per year of concrete and asphalt from demolition and construction activities,
and no waste is permitted to be brought to it from outside sources. At the current
rates of disposal, the remaining capacity of this landfill appears to exceed 20 years.
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-6
There are no other known landfills currently operating or undergoing monitoring in
Jefferson County at this time.
Planning Issues for In -County Landfilling
Jefferson County's closed landfill will need to be monitored at possibly a reduced
rate for the immediate future, and long term planning is to continue reduction in
monitoring as testing and State compliance allow. Most of the landfill groundwater
contaminants present have been annually decreasing in concentration at the landfill
boundary, and none of the contaminants are at levels that require remedial actions at
this time.
There may be a need in the future for a local inert waste landfill that is open to the
public. Current needs for special industrial and inert wastes are being met with the
existing Navy and Port Townsend Paper Company landfills and both landfills are
currently within compliance of State landfill regulations
Alternative Strategies for In -County Landfilling
There are no alternatives for in -county landfilling being considered at this time.
7.5. ALTERNATIVE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL
STRATEGIES
The following alternatives were considered for new or revised waste transfer and
disposal activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean that it is
considered feasible or desirable, nor that it is recommended (see Section 7.6 for an
evaluation of these alternatives and Section 7.7 for the recommendations).
Alternative A - Improvements to the Quilcene Drop Box: This SWMP poses an
opportunity to review the current and future status of the Quilcene Drop Box facility.
This site has seen a steady increase in annual tons of residential waste and collected
recyclables since 2012 and it is well located to service the rural residents in
southeastern Jefferson County. Two new replacement 25 cubic yard stationary
residential waste compactors were purchased and installed in 2015. Potential
additional improvements at this site include:
• For the office, replacement of the existing approximately 40 year old converted
shipping container to a small trailer unit including hook up to nearby County
septic sewer system.
• Installation of a scale to allow charges to be based on weight rather than
volume, for waste amounts over 70 pounds. A new scale at this site would not
be economically feasible at this time but installation of the old scale now in use
at the JCSWDF could be suitable, if the scale is serviceable, when scale
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-7
replacement is implemented at the JCSWDF.
• Improvement of existing Environmental Center special waste collection
facility to include florescent light bulbs.
These and other improvements could be considered in the future, contingent on
completion of an updated existing facility assessment, cost-effectiveness of phased
improvement options and the availability of funds for preferred options.
Alternative B - Improvements at JCSWDF: Annual waste tonnages dropped by
17% from 2006 to 2011, then stabilized between 2011 and 2012 and have been
increasing by an average of nearly 3 % annually from 2012 to the present.
Improvements at the JCSWDF could include:
1. Replace existing non-compliant and outdated scale (purchased in 1992);
2. Construction of improved employee facilities;
3. Construction of improvements to the Transfer Station (built in 1994); and
4. Construction of improvements to the Recycle Center (built in 1983).
Improvements would follow assessment of existing conditions and improvement
options which would be incorporated into an update to the JCSWDF facility Master
Plan. Significant upgrades should be included in the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Alternative C - Examine Waste Export Alternatives: There are several potential
alternatives for exporting solid waste for disposal purposes from Jefferson County,
including:
• Request for proposals in 2018 for waste export by truck and railroad, then
disposal at regional facilities before current contract expires April 11t", 2019;
• Option of shipping waste by barge;
• Options of sending containers of waste to intermodal facilities in Tacoma (as is
done currently), Centralia, Bremerton or other intermodal or disposal
locations; and
• Cooperative arrangements with neighboring counties.
Prior to re -bidding or renegotiating the existing waste export contract, these
alternatives could be explored and the findings could be used to guide the future
waste export system.
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-8
7.6. EVALUATION OF TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVES
Review of Rating Criteria
The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several criteria, including:
Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Does the alternative support
solid waste goals including:
1. Provide and maintain solid waste facilities that meet regulatory
requirements and protect health and safety for County residents;
2. Identify where there are services that are cost effective;
3. Emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy and
support other planning goals as well?
Feasibility: Can the alternative be adopted without controversy or legal issues,
and is the alternative technically feasible?
Cost Effectiveness: Can the alternative be implemented in a cost-effective
manner and can it be implemented without creating an excessive impact on the
financial stability of the solid waste system?
Rating of Alternatives
The ratings for the three criteria are based on scores submitted by the SWAC
members, and the averages of those scores are shown in the following table. The
overall rating for each alternative is based on the scores for the three criteria.
Table 7-1
Ratings for the Transfer and Disposal Alternatives
Rating Scores: H — High, M — Medium, L — Low
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-9
7.7. TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for the transfer and disposal system
in Jefferson County.
High -Priority Recommendation for Transfer and Disposal:
T&D1) Conduct improvements to the Quilcene Drop Box facility as funding is
available.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Transfer and Disposal:
T&D2) Conduct improvements to the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal
Facility based on facility assessment options and the Solid Waste Master
Plan update;
T&D3) Prepare an analysis of waste export alternatives.
Jefferson County will be the lead agency for all three of these recommendations. The
County's cost for conducting the first two recommendations has not been completed
but should consist of a combination of staff time and professional services. The cost
for the third recommendation, analyzing waste export alternatives, will likely consist
primarily of staff time.
The first recommendation should be conducted throughout the planning cycle (in
other words, over the next 5-6 years). The facilities assessment (Recommendation
T&D2) must be completed by 2017 so that this information can be integrated into the
update of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The analysis of waste
export alternatives (Recommendation T&D3) should be completed in 2017.
More details on the implementation of these and other recommendations are shown
in Chapter 10.
Chapter 7: Waste Transfer and Disposal Page 7-10
CHAPTER 8
SPECIAL WASTES
8.1. BACKGROUND
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the generation, handling and disposal
methods for several special wastes in Jefferson County. These wastes generally
require special handling and disposal either due to regulatory requirements or for
one or more other reasons, such as toxicity, quantity or other special handling
problems.
The following special wastes are discussed in this chapter:
8.2
Biomedical Wastes
8.3
Contaminated Soils
8.4
Disaster Debris
8.5
Electronics
8.6
Moderate Risk Wastes
8.7
Pharmaceuticals
8.8
Other Special Wastes
The nature and source(s) for each of these wastes is described in this chapter, as well
as the existing programs and facilities in Jefferson County for handling these wastes.
All of the wastes are also examined for needs and opportunities, but only those that
pose disposal problems are further examined for alternatives and recommendations.
Four of the wastes have been determined to present potential problems that warrant
an examination of alternatives at this time, including biomedical wastes, disaster
debris, moderate risk wastes, and pharmaceuticals.
Goals for Special Wastes
All of the goals recommended by the SWAC (see Section 1.6) apply to one or more of
the special wastes.
8.2. BIOMEDICAL WASTES
Existing Management Practices for Biomedical Wastes
The UTC regulates transporters of biomedical wastes and has issued statewide
franchises to Waste Management and Stericycle. Their regulations also allow regular
solid waste haulers to refuse to haul wastes that they observe to contain infectious
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-1
wastes as defined by the UTC. Non-residential generators of biomedical wastes
(hospitals, clinics, etc.) can contract with the certified haulers to safely collect and
dispose of these materials.
State law (Chapter 70.95K RCW) defines biomedical wastes to include:
Animal waste: animal carcasses, body parts and bedding of animals that are
known to be infected with, or have been inoculated with, pathogenic
microorganisms infectious to humans.
Biosafety level 4 disease waste: biosafety level 4 disease waste is waste
contaminated with blood, excretions, exudates, or secretions from humans or
animals who are isolated to protect others from highly communicable infectious
diseases that are identified as pathogenic organisms assigned to biosafety level 4
by the centers for disease control, National Institute of Health, biosafety in
microbiological and biomedical laboratories, current edition.
Cultures and stocks: wastes infectious to humans and includes specimen
cultures, cultures and stocks of etiologic agents, wastes from production of
biologicals and serums, discarded live and attenuated vaccines, and laboratory
waste that has come into contact with cultures and stocks of etiologic agents or
blood specimens. Such waste includes but is not limited to culture dishes, blood
specimen tubes, and devices used to transfer, inoculate, and mix cultures.
Human blood and blood products: discarded waste human blood and blood
components, and materials containing free flowing blood and blood products.
Pathological waste: human source biopsy materials, tissues, and anatomical parts
that emanate from surgery, obstetrical procedures and autopsy. Does not include
teeth, human corpses, remains and anatomical parts that are intended for
interment or cremation.
Sharps: all hypodermic needles, syringes and IV tubing with needles attached,
scalpel blades, and lancets that have been removed from the original sterile
package.
Biomedical waste is generated in Jefferson County by Jefferson Health Care, Jefferson
County Public Health and several clinics. These facilities use the services of a
licensed biomedical waste hauler to transport and dispose of this waste or use mail -
in services. Other biomedical waste generators in the County include doctor's
offices, dental clinics, veterinary offices and fire departments, which are generally
also using a licensed biomedical waste hauler or, in the case of veterinarians, a
collection service offered by Petland Cemetery. Petland Cemetery collects animal
carcasses from veterinarians in the area and brings those to Aberdeen for cremation.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-2
Other sources of biomedical wastes are home health care and senior care facilities. In
the more serious cases for home health care, biomedical wastes from these sources
are typically generated under a nurse's supervision and are brought back to the
primary hospital or other facility that employs the nurse. In other cases, however,
the medical wastes from home use may not be disposed of properly. Sharps, likely
from residential sources, have been found illegally dumped in the woods,
improperly disposed of with solid waste, and mixed with recyclable materials.
Disposal of sharps from clinics, hospitals and agencies is regulated, but not sharps
from individual residents. Residents may collect used hypodermic needles in either
labeled sharps containers made for that purpose or in empty clear plastic bottles
(such as soda or cooking oil bottles) that are properly labeled. Full containers can be
disposed of in a household's regular trash or taken to the Jefferson County Solid
Waste Disposal Facility. A brochure jointly distributed by Jefferson County Public
Works and Jefferson County Public Health as well as the solid waste website
describes how containers should be properly labeled and disposed.
Planning Issues for Biomedical Wastes
Most biomedical wastes generated in Jefferson County are currently being handled
properly, including sharps from residential locations that are generated from home
health care for diabetes and other health problems. The primary issues and concerns
are associated with the improper disposal of sharps in public places such as parks
and alleys. In addition, containers for used sharps may also occasionally be
improperly placed in the recycling system where there is a potential safety risk to the
staff at the facilities that sort and process recyclables.
Biomedical Waste Management Alternatives
Improved disposal practices for residential sharps could be accomplished through:
Special Waste Alternative A - More education could be conducted to promote
safe handling and disposal of sharps.
Special Waste Alternative B - Increased enforcement activities and larger
penalties could be implemented (although in most cases, the source for the
sharps cannot easily be determined).
These alternatives are evaluated later in this chapter (see Section 8.9), and the
resulting recommendations are shown at the end of this chapter (see Section 8.10).
8.3. CONTAMINATED SOILS
Existing Management Practices for Contaminated Soils
Contaminated soils are generated from a variety of sites and for a variety of reasons.
These wastes are sometimes difficult and expensive to handle through the normal
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-3
solid waste system, and so generators may contract directly with a disposal service to
transport and dispose of the contaminated soils at a landfill (if on-site treatment or
other local options are not possible). These amounts are reported to Ecology
annually, as either petroleum -contaminated soil or "other contaminated soils." Table
8-1 shows the amounts reported to Ecology for the past eight years for contaminated
soils disposed from Jefferson County.
Table 8-1
Quantities of Contaminated Soils Handled Outside of County System (tons)
* Prior to 2012, the Cowlitz County Landfill was the Weyerhaeuser Regional Landfill.
Small amounts of contaminated soils are handled through Jefferson County's solid
waste system, with pre -approval from the disposal facility if necessary. Some
generators in Jefferson County are using the services of a thermal destruction
company in Everett and others could be using on-site remediation methods. The
amounts handled through these methods are not included in the figures in Table 8-1.
Planning Issues for Contaminated Soils
Diversion of contaminated soils represents a loss of revenue for the Jefferson County
solid waste system, although the contaminated soils may be difficult to handle
through the county's waste export system.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-4
Petroleum -Other
-.
ContaminatedW
Contaminated
Tons
Soil
Soils
2006;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
27
27
2007;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
289
289
2008;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
553
553
2009;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
528
Roosevelt Regional Landfill
319
847
2010;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
6
6
2011;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
119
Cowlitz County Landfill *
2,500
2,619
2012;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
889
2,175
Cowlitz County Landfill *
10,579
13,643
2013;
Columbia Ridge Landfill
52
52
* Prior to 2012, the Cowlitz County Landfill was the Weyerhaeuser Regional Landfill.
Small amounts of contaminated soils are handled through Jefferson County's solid
waste system, with pre -approval from the disposal facility if necessary. Some
generators in Jefferson County are using the services of a thermal destruction
company in Everett and others could be using on-site remediation methods. The
amounts handled through these methods are not included in the figures in Table 8-1.
Planning Issues for Contaminated Soils
Diversion of contaminated soils represents a loss of revenue for the Jefferson County
solid waste system, although the contaminated soils may be difficult to handle
through the county's waste export system.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-4
Management Alternatives for Contaminated Soils
No alternatives are being considered because the system is limited by the transfer
station and the current disposal system appears to be working well. Public Works
and Environmental Health staff should continue to refer people to appropriate
management methods if contacted about contaminated soils.
8.4. DISASTER DEBRIS
Existing Management Practices for Disaster Debris
Potential disasters in Jefferson County could include floods, earthquakes, tsunamis,
droughts, forest fires, wind storms and other types of severe weather, landslides,
hazardous material incidents, military ordnance incidents, oil spills, pandemics and
terrorism incidents. Impacts of these disasters could include serious disruptions to
the solid waste system and the creation of very large quantities of wastes.
The County's 2013 Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) identifies
specific types of disasters and potential responses to those, while also providing a
framework to address disasters that cannot easily be anticipated. The CEMP
mentions debris removal and solid waste disposal as essential actions to be taken and
identifies the Public Works Department as the lead agency for these, but otherwise
provides no details as to what actions will be taken. The CEMP is, however, only
designed to serve as a "basic plan" or broad framework, with more specific
department plans serving as supplements to the basic plan.
The website for the Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management also
stresses the need for proper documentation of damages due to disaster incidents.
Proper documentation is one of the more important elements that could be
addressed in a FEMA -approved disaster debris management plan.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) encourages state and local
governments, Tribal authorities and private non-profit organizations to develop
disaster debris management plans. Communities with disaster debris management
plans are in a better position to receive the full amount of financial assistance from
FEMA and other agencies. Disaster debris management plans can identify those
activities and wastes that are eligible for FEMA assistance and ensure that proper
documentation occurs to allow the maximum amount of reimbursement. Preparing
a FEMA -approved plan can, however, be an onerous and expensive process by the
County if no alternative funding is available.
Planning Issues for Disaster Debris
Jefferson County is currently not fully prepared to manage disaster debris effectively
and in a manner that would maximize reimbursement by FEMA.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-5
Management Alternatives for Disaster Debris
The following alternatives were considered for disaster debris:
• Special Waste Alternative C - Designate the closed landfill area at the
Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility and also County property
adjacent to the Quilcene Drop Box as staging areas for disaster debris.
• Special Waste Alternative D - Identify additional staging areas for disaster
debris.
• Special Waste Alternative E - Develop a debris management strategy that
provides more details on responsible personnel and management activities.
• Special Waste Alternative F - Develop a FEMA -approved disaster debris plan,
the cost of which could be in the range of $50,000 to $100,000.
These alternatives are evaluated later in this chapter (see Section 8.9), and the
resulting recommendations are shown at the end of this chapter (see Section 8.10).
8.5. ELECTRONICS
Existing Management Practices for Electronics
Electronic equipment contains a variety of heavy metals. The old style of computer
monitors, for instance, contain four to eight pounds of lead in the glass. The newer
style of monitors avoid this problem but still have circuit boards that may contain
toxic metals such as cadmium, lead and mercury. Other parts of electronics may
contain chromium, barium and brominated flame retardants.
Beginning in 2009, a special collection system (the E -Cycle Washington program) was
set up for the main types of electronics: televisions, computer monitors, laptops, and
desktop computers. Later, "e -readers" and portable DVD players were also added to
this program. Using a product stewardship approach where manufacturers of these
products are required to fund the collection system, this system allows people to
drop off the covered types of units ("e -waste") at no charge at specific locations set
up throughout the state. In Jefferson County, there are two locations that currently
operate as part of this system, including the Goodwill store in Port Townsend and
the Recycle Center at JCSWDF. As required by State rules (WAC 173-900-980), the
County and City promote these two locations through information provided on their
websites and in brochures and other educational methods typically used for
recycling programs.
Skookum Contract Services previously accepted other types of electronics (which
were not part of the E -Cycle Washington program) at the Recycle Center at JCSWDF
for a fee of $0.35 per pound, but ceased this practice on November 1, 2015.
Currently, a variety of electronics are accepted by private recyclers, located in
Clallam County but near Jefferson County.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-6
The amount of e -waste collected in Jefferson County in the past four years is shown
in Table 8-2. The amounts shown for e -waste are based on reports from the E -Cycle
Washington program. Functioning electronics can also be donated to a local charity
or sold. The amounts of electronics donated or re -sold are not included in the figures
shown in Table 8-2. The amounts of non -covered units (types of electronics not
included in the E -Cycle Washington program) collected for recycling by Skookum
Contract Services and others are also not shown in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2
Quantities of E -Waste Collected in Jefferson County (tons)
Year
ILWaste
2011
77
2012
95
2013
112
2014
105
No studies have been conducted in Jefferson County on the amount of electronics
disposed with solid wastes, but a recent study in Thurston County concluded that
"other electronics" (other than the types of electronics covered by the E -Cycle
Washington program) comprised 0.12% of Thurston County's waste stream. If the
amount is similar in Jefferson County, then about 21 tons of other electronics were
disposed in Jefferson County in 2014.
Planning Issues for Electronics
Ecology has recently been examining the possibility of adding other types of
electronics to the e -waste program, including game consoles and peripherals (mice
and keyboards). At the beginning of 2015, the State of Oregon, which operates an e -
waste program very similar to Washington State's program, began collecting
keyboards, mice and printers in addition to computers, monitors, laptops,
televisions, and tablets.
Management Alternatives for Electronics
No alternatives because the current system is working well.
8.6. MODERATE RISK WASTES
Existing Management Practices for Moderate Risk Wastes
Many homes, businesses and farms throughout Jefferson County produce small
amounts of hazardous wastes. For most of these sources, the amount of any waste
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-7
produced falls below regulated quantities and so is classified as a "moderate risk
waste" (MRW). Moderate risk waste includes:
• household hazardous wastes, which are wastes produced by residential
activities that would be classified as hazardous waste except by definition
they are exempt from regulation, and
• wastes from small -quantity generators, which are wastes from businesses that
produce less than 220 pounds of dangerous waste per month or less than 2.2
pounds of extremely dangerous waste per month, and that do not accumulate
these wastes in excess of 2,200 or 2.2 pounds, respectively.
The latter is also defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a
"conditionally -exempt small quantity generator" (CESQG) on the premise that
improper handling, storage or disposal of such wastes would cause the CESQG to
fall under the full body of hazardous waste regulations (in other words, the same
regulations as large -quantity generators).
Moderate risk wastes that are generated in Jefferson County can be brought to the
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Facility in Port Townsend. Hazardous wastes
are not accepted at the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility or the Quilcene
Drop Box site, although separate drop-off containers are provided at those facilities
for car batteries, motor oil, antifreeze and mercury -containing lights (fluorescent
bulbs).
The HHW Facility has operated since 1995. The County and the Port of Port
Townsend jointly developed this facility with partial funding from the Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology). In September 1997, the County assumed sole
ownership of the facility by reimbursing the Port for its portion of the construction
costs. The HHW Facility is open one day per week for six hours and is staffed by a
trained Jefferson County Solid Waste employee. Hazardous waste from residential
sources is accepted free, while business waste (CESQGs) and non -county residential
waste is accepted for a fee. A variety of wastes are handled by this facility, including
automotive products, oil-based paint and paint -related materials, lawn and garden
chemicals, cleaners and many miscellaneous wastes. In 2014, 1,298 participants
brought in 53.0 tons of household hazardous wastes and 48 CESQG participants
brought in 2.9 tons. The cost for collecting and disposing of this waste was $81,311,
or $1,455 per ton.
Ongoing funding for the HHW Facility is provided through a portion of the tipping
fee from the Jefferson County solid waste disposal system. Fees charged to some
users (CESQGs and out -of -county customers) pay for the disposal costs for those
wastes. CESQGs disposed of 5% of the annual amount of MRW in 2014 and paid
$11,201 for the disposal costs of those wastes. Fees for CESQGs range from $1.03 per
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-8
aerosol can containing flammable liquids to $15.77 per pound for organic peroxides,
with a minimum fee of $27.68 per transaction.
Separate collections are conducted in a yearly continuing program in various parts of
the County to increase the convenience and opportunities for residents to properly
dispose of their HHW. The most recent collection events were held in Quilcene on
October 18, 2014 and in Port Ludlow on April 18, 2015. These two events collected
8,701 pounds of hazardous wastes from 166 participants. Much of the material
collected was oil-based paint (40% of the total) and used oil (22%), as well as
pesticides (9.5%), flammable liquids (7.8%), aerosol cans containing paint and other
toxic materials (5.1 %), and a variety of other toxic and dangerous materials. Most of
the 166 participants (78%) were first-time participants in the HHW collection
program.
Public education and information about the HHW Facility and hazardous wastes in
general is accomplished through brochures and other activities conducted by the
Jefferson County Solid Waste Department, including information posted on the
County's website, staffing of informational booths, and newspaper inserts. Others in
the County, including the garbage haulers, recycling companies and County Public
Health staff, also provide information on proper handling and disposal of moderate
risk wastes. This information often includes suggestions for safer substitutes and
other waste reduction methods.
Planning Issues for Moderate Risk Wastes
There is a continuing need for education about proper handling and disposal of
MRW, as evidenced by the occasional customer that brings inappropriate materials
to the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal Facility. There is also a need for
ongoing education on waste reduction methods for MRW, including non-toxic
alternatives.
Disposal costs for CESQGS were set using a neutral cost of service analysis prior to
the 2014 solid waste fee Ordinance and are scheduled for reassessment before
expiration in 2019.
The JCSWDF and Quilcene Drop Box facilities could potentially collect more types of
wastes, especially common types of special wastes, including old fuel and
rechargeable batteries.
The reuse cabinet at the HHW Facility is an excellent opportunity for waste
reduction, but must be monitored to discourage people that may be accumulating
materials without effectively using those products.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-9
Management Alternatives for Moderate Risk Wastes
Alternatives for moderate risk wastes include increased educational efforts and
alternative disposal methods. For the latter, there are few options that could be used
that would pose an improvement over current methods, although manufacturer
responsibility mechanisms might be able to address specific types of waste.
Improved collection capabilities and, if cost-effective, increased numbers of collection
events might also help extend opportunities for proper disposal to a larger number
of County residents. The following alternatives were considered for MRW:
• Special Waste Alternative G - Increase types of hazardous wastes collected at
JCSWDF and Quilcene Drop Box.
• Special Waste Alternative H - Increase publicity for the HHW Facility and for
safer alternatives to toxic products.
These alternatives are evaluated later in this chapter (see Section 8.9), and the
resulting recommendations are shown at the end of this chapter (see Section 8.10).
8.7. PHARMACEUTICALS
Existing Management Practices for Pharmaceuticals
Evidence has been accumulating for several years that some current disposal
methods for pharmaceuticals are creating problems. Leftover amounts of medicines
and drugs are often flushed into wastewater systems, and have consequently been
found in groundwater and streams. The alternative, placing these drugs into the
garbage, raises concerns about improper disposal of these drugs. Many of the drugs
of concern are regulated substances with legal ramifications for ownership and
handling, which complicates efforts to find a better disposal method. Some
pharmaceuticals are also classified as hazardous waste under state and federal
regulations, which leads to a potential financial burden for those companies that
might otherwise be willing to collect surplus and outdated drugs.
Secure disposal of pharmaceuticals is offered free of charge by the Jefferson County
Sheriff's Office in Port Hadlock. The current guidelines for dropping off unwanted
medicines calls for pills to be emptied into a plastic bag and taken to the Sheriff's
Office during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday). Liquids are not accepted in this program.
A new program for pharmaceuticals is being implemented by King County. The
King County Board of Health adopted the Secure Medicine Return Regulations on
June 20, 2013 (making it only the second such rule in the United States, with
Alameda County, California being the first). This rule requires drug producers to
provide a program to take back old medicines. Two groups of manufacturers
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-10
submitted draft plans in February 2015 and then provided revised plans in July 2015,
of which one was approved in October 2015 and the other plan was given additional
time to address comments. Both plans proposed using drop-off kiosks at law
enforcement agencies, supplemented with collection events and mailers. The
anticipated start date for the new program is January 8, 2016.
Planning Issues for Pharmaceuticals
More collection sites for pharmaceuticals would help divert more of this waste to
proper disposal options. A collection site in Port Townsend would provide a more
convenient site for many of the County's residents and thus lead to greater
participation and proper disposal. More publicity for the existing collection option
could also help.
Work being conducted by others on this issue may lead to an improved system for
pharmaceuticals in the future. Improved disposal practices for pharmaceuticals will
likely require new handling systems and other solutions that are best addressed on a
statewide or national basis. The organization Zero Waste Washington has been
addressing this issue and was instrumental in the adoption of King County's
regulations. Zero Waste Washington and others have promoted state laws to
address this issue, but none have been adopted as of yet.
Management Alternatives for Pharmaceuticals
The following alternatives were considered for pharmaceuticals:
• Special Waste Alternative I - Point-of-sale signs and brochures could be used
at all retail locations for pharmaceuticals to notify customers about disposal
options for unused medicines.
• Special Waste Alternative J - Efforts by others to create a statewide or national
product stewardship system for pharmaceuticals could be supported as
appropriate.
• Special Waste Alternative K - Investigate options to establish a take -back
program for pharmaceuticals in Port Townsend.
These alternatives are evaluated later in this chapter (see Section 8.9), and the
resulting recommendations are shown at the end of this chapter (see Section 8.10).
8.8. OTHER SPECIAL WASTES
Existing Management Practices for Other Special Wastes
A variety of other items require special handling, including abandoned or junk
vehicles and derelict marine vehicles. Procedures are in place to address these items,
as described below.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-11
Abandoned and junk vehicles: the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office and Port
Townsend Police Department typically handle responses to problems with
abandoned or junk vehicles. Abandoned vehicles with value must be handled
differently than junk vehicles, typically requiring attempts to track down the owner.
Vehicles without value may be classified as a junk vehicle. Junk vehicles potentially
include campers, boats (if on land), trailers, and any other vehicle potentially used
for human transportation (but not including mobile homes). These may be classified
as junk vehicles if there is built-up debris that prevents their use, damage to the
frame, more than one missing window, more than one flat tire, evidence that the
vehicle has not been moved for more than 60 days, and other factors. Jefferson
County Code prohibits any property from containing three or more junk vehicles.
State law (RCW 46.55.230) allows a vehicle to be certified as a junk vehicle if it meets
three out of the following four conditions:
• It is three years or older,
• It is extensively damaged,
• It is apparently inoperable, or
• Its fair market value is only equal to the scrap value.
Derelict vessels: in 2002, the Washington State Legislature passed the Derelict Vessel
Act, which provides certain local and state agencies with authority and finding for
removal and disposal of derelict and abandoned vessels from the water. The lead
agency for the removal program is the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
which maintains an inventory of these vessels and uses specific criteria to prioritize
their removal. Criteria include the need for environmental protection, threats to
human health and safety, and threats to navigation.
Beginning in 2013, a grant to San Juan County from the Puget Sound Partnership
allowed an expansion of that county's prevention program to other counties,
including Jefferson County. The prevention program addressed vessels that were at
risk of becoming a greater problem, thus allowing these to be removed at a much
lower cost. This grant expired in mid -2015, although a Marine Deputy at the
Jefferson County Sherriff's Department continues to conduct prevention efforts.
Vessels are occasionally de -constructed at the Port of Port Townsend and the
components are either recycled or disposed through the Jefferson County solid waste
system. De -construction activities must compete with boat repair activities for the
available space.
Other special wastes: various other wastes may pose special handling or disposal
issues. If necessary, these wastes may require pre -approval from Republic Services
before they can be handled through the waste export system. There is a process set
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-12
up for this situation, generally consisting of filling out a "special waste profile' form
and requesting approval for the waste to be disposed.
Planning Issues for Other Special Wastes
The Derelict Vessel Prevention Program was providing an effective approach and
funding should be restored for this program.
The idea of a de -construction facility for derelict vessels at the Port of Port Townsend
has been discussed recently. The cost for such a facility would be significant (about
$1.5 million) but this facility would provide much improved capabilities for
dismantling and either recycling or properly disposing of vessel components.
Management Alternatives for Other Special Wastes
The following alternative is being considered for special wastes:
• Special Waste Alternative L - Proposals for a derelict vessel de -construction
facility at the Port of Port Townsend could be supported as appropriate.
8.9. EVALUATION OF SPECIAL WASTE ALTERNATIVES
Review of Rating Criteria
The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several criteria, including:
Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Does the alternative support the
goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy and
support other planning goals as well?
Feasibility: Can the alternative be adopted without controversy or legal issues,
and is the alternative technically feasible?
Cost Effectiveness: Can the alternative be implemented in a cost-effective
manner and can it be implemented without creating an excessive impact on the
financial stability of the solid waste system?
Rating of Alternatives
The ratings for the three criteria are based on scores submitted by the SWAC
members, and the averages of those scores are shown in the following table. The
overall rating for each alternative is based on the scores for the three criteria.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-13
Table 8-3
Ratings for the Special Waste Alternatives
vlk�
Consistency
Cost-
Overall
Alternative
with Goals
Feasibility
Effective-
ness
Rating
A, More education for proper
H
H
M
H
sharps disposal
B, More enforcement for proper
M
L
L
L
sharps disposal
C, Designate JCSWDF and the
Quilcene Drop Box as staging
H
H
M
H
areas for disaster debris
D, Identify additional staging areas
H
M
M
M
for disaster debris
E, Develop disaster debris strategy
H
H
M
H
F, Develop a FEMA -approved
H
M
L
M
disaster debris plan
G, Increase types of hazardous
wastes collected at JCSWDF
H
M
M
M
and the Quilcene Drop Box
H, Increase publicity for HHW
H
H
H
H
Facility and safer alternatives
I, Point-of-sale signs and brochures
H
M
M
M
for pharmaceuticals
J, Support product stewardship
H
M
M
M
programs for pharmaceuticals
K, Investigate options for collection
site for pharmaceuticals in Port
H
M
M
M
Townsend
L, Support for derelict vessel de-
H
M
M
M
construction facility at Port
Rating Scores: H - High, M - Medium, L - Low
8.10. SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for special wastes.
High -Priority Recommendations for Special Wastes:
SW1) Conduct more education for proper disposal of sharps;
SW2) Disaster debris designated staging areas to include the Jefferson County
Solid Waste Disposal facility and the Quilcene Drop Box site;
SW3) Develop a disaster debris strategy;
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-14
SW4) Conduct more education for public use of the MRW Facility and safer
alternatives for disposal of toxic products.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Special Wastes:
SW5) Identify additional staging areas for disaster debris in Jefferson County as
part of the disaster debris strategy;
SW6) Consider development of a disaster debris management plan if funding
becomes available;
SW7) Expand collection of additional types of moderate wastes at the Jefferson
County Transfer Station and the Quilcene Drop Box facilities;
SW8) Encourage Jefferson County retail locations selling pharmaceuticals to use
point-of-sale signs and brochures to promote proper disposal of unused
pharmaceuticals;
SW9) Support product stewardship programs for pharmaceuticals, as appropriate;
SW10) Investigate options for an expanded pharmaceutical drop-off program in
Port Townsend;
SW11) Support derelict vessel de -construction facility at the Port of Port Townsend,
as appropriate.
Jefferson County Public Works or Public Health would be the lead agency for all of
these recommendations, although Recommendations SW1 and SW8 would require
the participation of private businesses (i.e., retail locations for sharps or
pharmaceuticals) and SW11 will be implemented primarily by the Port if a project is
successfully implemented. The County's cost for conducting the first
recommendation is anticipated to be $5,000 to $10,000. There is no direct cost
associated with Recommendation SW2, and the costs for several of the
recommendations (SW3, SW5, SW9, SW10 and SW11) will consist of staff time. The
cost for Recommendation SW4 is anticipated to be $5,000 to $10,000. The cost for
Recommendation SW6 is anticipated to be $50,000 to $100,000, and this
recommendation should be pursued only if grants or similar funds become available
for most or all of this expense. The cost for Recommendation SW7 has yet to be
determined, but should be kept at a low level for a few additional materials (in the
range of $5,000 to $7,000 for collection and storage containers). The cost for
Recommendation SW8 is anticipated to be $5,000 to $10,000, plus staff time, for the
production of signage and brochures that could be used by retail locations.
Recommendation SW2 is considered to be effective immediately upon approval of
this plan. Recommendations SW1, SW3, SW4, SW5, SW7, SW8 and SW10 should be
conducted in the next three to five years as funds and staff time permit.
Recommendations SW6, SW9 and SW11 should be implemented when necessary or
possible.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-15
More details on the implementation of these and other recommendations are shown
in Chapter 10.
Chapter 8: Special Wastes Page 8-16
CHAPTER 9
ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
9.1. BACKGROUND
Introduction
This chapter reviews the regulatory and administrative activities, including public
education, in Jefferson County for solid waste.
Goals for Administration and Public Education
All of the goals recommended by the SWAC (see Section 1.6) apply to administration
and public education programs.
9.2. EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND
PUBLIC EDUCATION
At the federal and state levels, the primary regulatory authorities for solid waste
management are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology), respectively. At the local level, the
responsibility for solid waste administration and enforcement is shared among
several departments of Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend.
Federal Level
At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as
amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 6901-
6987), is the primary body of legislation dealing with solid waste. Subtitle D of
RCRA deals with non -hazardous solid waste disposal and requires the development
of a state comprehensive solid waste management program that outlines the
authorities of local, state and regional agencies. Subtitle D requires that the state
program must prohibit "open dumps" and must provide that all solid waste is
disposed in an environmentally -sound manner.
Locally, the naval installation on Indian Island is the only federal facility in the
County directly involved in solid waste management. As mentioned in Chapter 7,
this facility operates an inert landfill for the disposal of concrete from on-site
demolition activities. Other aspects of their solid waste management system are
handled through local services and programs. A provision of RCRA requires that
federal facilities comply with substantive and procedural regulations of state and
local governments, and so military installations and federal agencies must operate in
a manner consistent with local solid waste management plans and policies.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-1
State Level
The State Solid Waste Management Act, Chapter 70.95 the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW), provides for a comprehensive, statewide solid waste
management program. Ch. 70.95 RCW assigns primary responsibility for solid waste
handling to local governments, giving each county, in cooperation with its cities, the
task of adopting a solid waste management plan that places an emphasis on waste
reduction and recycling programs. Enforcement and regulatory responsibilities are
assigned to cities, counties, or jurisdictional health departments, depending on the
specific activity and local preferences.
Chapter 173-350 WAC, Solid Waste Handling Standards, provides rules for
implementing RCW 70.95 and sets minimum functional performance standards for
the proper handling of solid wastes. Ch. 173-350 contains rules for a range of
facilities as well as providing rules for beneficial use permits, groundwater
monitoring, financial assurance and other important activities. Chapter 173-351
WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, provides minimum state-wide
standards for solid waste landfills (not including inert or limited purpose landfills).
Chapter 36.58 RCW, Solid Waste Disposal, establishes the counties' rights and
responsibilities regarding solid waste management, including the authority to
execute contracts for disposal services, designate disposal sites, and to establish solid
waste disposal districts. The authority to establish solid waste collection districts is
provided in Chapter 36.58A.
Federal, State and local air quality regulations may apply to specific activities in
Jefferson County, especially ORCAA (Olympic Region Clean Air Agency) Regulation
1 and Ch. 173-400 and 173-460 WAC. These regulations include requirements for
odor, fallout and other potential air quality impacts. As part of these requirements,
pre -approval by ORCAA may be necessary for modifications in existing sources and
construction of new sources that may affect air quality, including landfills, transfer
stations, composting facilities and incinerators.
Other relevant State legislation includes Washington s Model Litter Control and
Recycling Act. This Act (Ch. 70.93 RCW) and the associated State regulations (Ch.
173-310 WAC) generally prohibit the deposit of garbage on any property not
properly designated as a disposal site. There is also a "litter fund" that has been
created through a tax levied on wholesale and retail businesses, and the monies from
this fund are being used for education, increased litter clean-up efforts, and contracts
to eligible county entities for illegal dump clean-up activities.
Local Level
In Jefferson County, the local governmental organizations involved in solid waste
management include the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, Jefferson
County Public Health, and the City of Port Townsend. Each of these entities has a
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-2
particular area of operation, providing specific services to the residents within that
area and enforcing specific rules and regulations. The Jefferson County Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SWAC) also plays an important advisory role for the solid
waste system in Jefferson County. The formation, membership makeup, and role of
the SWAC are specified by RCW 70.95.165 (see Section 1.4 for more details on the
SWAC).
Local rules that affect solid waste management include ordinances, land use plans
and zoning codes.
Jefferson County Department of Public Works: The Department of Public Works is
the agency primarily responsible for solid waste management activities for Jefferson
County. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates solid waste
facilities as Essential Public Facilities. The Jefferson County Department of Public
Works operates the Transfer Station and the Quilcene Drop Box facilities, manages
the Recycle Center Operations Contract and the waste export contract, and operates
the MRW Facility. Staffing consists of dedicated personnel, including a solid waste
manager, solid waste MRW coordinator, solid waste operations coordinator, scale
attendants, transfer station and drop box site attendants, and assistance as needed
from the Public Works Director. Altogether, 9.6 full-time equivalents (FTE's) were
funded from the 2015 solid waste budget.
Jefferson County utilizes an enterprise fund for the solid waste management system.
The fee for service premise of this approach is that expenditures must be matched by
revenues from disposal fees, grants and other appropriate mechanisms authorized by
the County Commissioners. Total expenditures by Jefferson County for solid waste
activities in 2015 were projected to amount to $2,789,000. The revenues to pay for
these expenses are primarily from tipping fees plus some public grant funds. Table
9.1 shows more detail on budget and expenditures for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The
reserve fund balance in 2015 is projected at $279,000. The target amount of reserve
funds is an amount equal to approximately 25% of the operating expenses, and these
funds need to be reserved for potential facility improvements, closure costs for the
HHW Facility (as required by Ch. 173-350-600 WAC), and to cover unforeseen
expenses (such as the need to replace equipment).
New disposal rates became effective on February 1, 2014 and the rates are scheduled
to be adjusted (increased) 2.5% annually through 2019. This was the first increase
since rates were previously adopted in 1993, although fees were adopted after 1993 to
charge for yard waste deliveries, business waste accepted at the MRW Facility and
the state solid waste tax. A portion of the tipping fee (5%) is set aside for yard waste
education and $1.00 per ton is provided to Public Health to fund enforcement and
cleanup activities. The majority of CPG grant funds from Ecology are also passed
through to Public Health for education and the matching funds required by this
grant (25%) are provided by Solid Waste.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-3
Table 9-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Budget (in thousands)
Notes: All figures are in dollars. The 2014 figures are the actual amounts, 2015 figures are
projected, and the 2016 figures are the budgeted amounts.
Jefferson County Public Health: The Public Health Department is the local
enforcement agency for County and State regulations regarding solid waste
activities. Whenever the situation is not covered by County ordinances, Public
Health enforces State regulations. Public Health is the responsible local authority
(per RCW 70.95.160) for issuing permits for solid waste facilities, and inspects and
monitors the closed landfill and all other solid waste facilities that may impact
human health. Public Health is the lead agency for public education activities in
Jefferson County.
The permit process for disposal facilities requires an application and approval for
new sites, and an annual review and renewal for existing permits (although permits
can be renewed for up to five years in some cases). The initial application form,
developed by Ecology, requires information about the types of waste to be disposed,
environmental conditions of the area and operating plans. Permit fees are based on
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-4
014
2015
2016
Revenues
Tipping Fees
2,527
2,777
2,658
MRW Fees
13
12
11
Yard Waste Fees
104
109
109
Refuse Taxes
47
50
45
Grants
83
90
28
Other
42
30
29
Total Revenues
2,816
3,068
2,880
Expenses
Closure of Old Landfill
55
49
56
Transfer Station
408
421
481
Long Haul
1,071
1,169
1,154
Drop Box Operations
44
37
43
Moderate Risk Waste Operations
85
94
87
Recycling and Education Program
198
242
266
Administration and Planning
420
437
461
Transfers Out
79
84
83
Capital Outlay
229
256
380
Equipment Replacement Fund
0
0
300
Total Expenses
2,361
2,789
3,312
Balance
226
279
(432)
Notes: All figures are in dollars. The 2014 figures are the actual amounts, 2015 figures are
projected, and the 2016 figures are the budgeted amounts.
Jefferson County Public Health: The Public Health Department is the local
enforcement agency for County and State regulations regarding solid waste
activities. Whenever the situation is not covered by County ordinances, Public
Health enforces State regulations. Public Health is the responsible local authority
(per RCW 70.95.160) for issuing permits for solid waste facilities, and inspects and
monitors the closed landfill and all other solid waste facilities that may impact
human health. Public Health is the lead agency for public education activities in
Jefferson County.
The permit process for disposal facilities requires an application and approval for
new sites, and an annual review and renewal for existing permits (although permits
can be renewed for up to five years in some cases). The initial application form,
developed by Ecology, requires information about the types of waste to be disposed,
environmental conditions of the area and operating plans. Permit fees are based on
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-4
the relative risk of environmental and public health threats as a measure of the
degree of regulatory monitoring needed.
Unpermitted and illegal sites are a problem in the County. Private residential dumps
have created nuisance problems in some areas. The process for addressing this can
be slow. Illegal dumping enforcement may be addressed through enforcement of
State laws regarding solid waste disposal (Ch. 173-350 WAC) or Jefferson County
ordinances concerning solid waste disposal and or littering. Generally, enforcement
of solid waste laws and regulations is the responsibility of Public Health.
Public education activities are presently being conducted by Public Health staff. The
Waste Prevention Education Coordinator position and the education program are
currently funded partially by the Department of Ecology (through grants) and funds
provided by the Jefferson County Solid Waste program.
Recent activities conducted by the Waste Prevention Education Coordinator include
multiple workshops on backyard composting, developing and distributing new
flyers and collection site signs for recycling as well as preparing articles on special
topics (such as plastic disposal). Public Health staff also conduct activities such the
Recycle Relay (an activity that informs students about recyclable and non -recyclable
materials). An important program being implemented starting in 2015 is to educate
people about food waste and how to reduce this, with a goal of achieving a 5%
reduction in the amount of food disposed.
The certificated haulers also provide information on rates and recycling programs in
the unincorporated County collection areas. A law passed in 2001 (WAC 480-70-
361(7)) requires solid waste collection companies to inform customers at least once
per year about solid waste and recycling services that are available.
City of Port Townsend: The Public Works Department for the City of Port
Townsend is involved in solid waste management in several ways, including
operating the Biosolids Compost Facility and managing the contract for garbage
collection (with assistance from other city staff as needed). The City of Port
Townsend's solid waste programs are funded through residential and commercial
garbage collection fees. Fees for accepting yard waste and septage at the Biosolids
Facility also help to fund the City's solid waste and recycling program activities.
Illegal dumping and litter control within the City is enforced through the Municipal
Code (Chapters 6.04 and 6.12), plus the Uniform Housing Code as it applies to
nuisance abatement. Another City Code that merits attention here is the City's ban
on using polystyrene foam packaging for food. This ban on the "unlawful use of
harmful packaging materials' was adopted in 1989 as Chapter 6.20 of the City code,
and is effective only within City limits. Beginning November 1, 2012, the City also
banned retail single -use plastic carry -out bags.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-5
Through the solid waste contractor, the City of Port Townsend contracts for
residential education services and provides occasional messages on utility mailings
regarding garbage and recycling issues in the city. Information about recycling and
garbage collection is also provided on the City's website.
Tribal Councils: As mentioned in Chapter 1, there are three Tribes that are located
or active in Jefferson County (the Hoh, Quinault and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes).
The Tribes are governed by a Tribal Council or Committee made up of elected
members. The Tribes are not currently active in administration and enforcement
issues for solid waste management, but they have the option of exercising solid
waste management authority over tribal lands. In doing so, the Tribes must abide by
the federal regulations and policies outlined in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Land Use Plans: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, adopted
August 28, 1998 and most recently amended in 2013, provides guidance pertaining to
land use issues and so can affect decisions such as siting solid waste facilities. Port
Townsend has also adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that addresses similar
issues within City boundaries. Subsequent to the adoption of the County's land use
Plan, several ordinances were developed to provide a regulatory basis for the plan.
These ordinances include the zoning code, subdivision ordinance, shoreline master
plan, and others.
Solid waste is specifically addressed in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in the chapters dealing with essential public facilities (Chapter 9), utilities
(Chapter 11) and capital facilities (Chapter 12). Relevant goals and policies from the
County's land use plan are shown in Table 9.2. The current Capital Facilities chapter
of the Comprehensive Plan does not address expenditures beyond 2010, but this plan
is expected to be updated starting in 2017.
The City also addresses solid waste management in its land use plan, and the City's
goal and policies are shown in Table 9.3.
Public Education Program
The public education program in Jefferson County is a cooperative and coordinated
effort involving the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, Jefferson County
Public Health, the City of Port Townsend, Skookum Contract Services, and Waste
Connections. The goal of the public education program is to adequately inform the
residents and businesses of the County and City as to waste reduction and recycling
services that are available and also inform them as to the benefits of these programs.
In other words, the goal of the public education program is to raise awareness about
the waste reduction and recycling programs and to promote the environmental and
economic benefits of these programs.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-6
Table 9-2
Goals and Policies from the County's Comprehensive Plan
.. Waste
Utilities Element of .Comprehensive Pla
Goal
UTG 7.0
Provide solid waste facilities and programs that are efficient, and which utilize
recycling to the maximum extent practicable.
Policies
Implement, to the fullest extent possible, and in descending order of priority, solid
waste management processes that reduce the waste stream, reuse waste materials,
UTP 7.1
promote recycling, provide for the separation of waste prior to incineration or landfill
disposal, and provide guidelines and strategies for disposal of all special waste
types.
Initiate and support public educational outreach on solid waste management,
UTP 7.2
including recycling opportunities, methods to reduce solid and chemical waste, and
related environmental issues.
UTP 7.3
Identify and implement appropriate measures to ensure mitigation of adverse
environmental impacts associated with solid waste collection activities.
Maintain the Solid Waste Advisory Committee involving citizens, waste management
UTP 7.4
providers, regulatory agency representatives, the County, and other affected
interests to identify methods for efficient and practical solid waste management,
includingsmall and moderate -risk waste handling strategies.
Provide appropriate levels of collection and recycling opportunities which will
UTP 7.5
maximize public participation, and which offer the fullest practical and economical
potential for waste materials.
If incentive programs fail to reach the waste reduction goals identified in the Capital
UTP 7.6
Facilities Element, consider mandatory programs to the extent allowable by State
law.
Identify and preserve for future use solid waste facility sites, including potential
UTP 7.7
landfill sites, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Solid Waste
Management Plan.
UTP 7.8
Ensure reclamation of areas currently serving as solid waste disposal facilities to
promote the recovery of such areas for future functional land uses.
Action
1. Educate the public on solid waste management, including recycling opportunities,
Items
ways to reduce solid and chemical waste, and related environmental issues.
2. Utilize applicable grant funding for financial assistance for solid waste programs,
such as public education on solid waste issues.
3. Develop strategies for achieving a reduction in Jefferson County's solid waste
stream, and where feasible, ensure the strategies include:
• Improve the processing of recyclable materials, as acceptable under
appropriate regulations; in order to help alleviate the need to stockpile
materials.
• Providing opportunities for recycling to the public and commercial carriers at
transfer locations.
• Reducing the solid waste stream by encouraging manufacturers and retailers
to reduce packaging waste at the retail level.
• Encouraging procurement of recycled -content products.
4. Consider all practicable alternatives for the efficient management of the solid
waste system.
Source: From the Utilities Element Chapter of the 2013 Jefferson County Land Use Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-7
Table 9-3
Goals and Policies from the City's Comprehensive Plan
Solid Waste
Management Element of City's Comprehensive Plan
Goal 32
To manage solid waste in a responsible, environmentally sensitive and cost-
effective manner.
Policies
Follow the solid waste management hierarchy established in federal and state
32.1
law, which sets waste reduction as the highest priority management option,
followed by reuse, recycling, and responsible disposal.
Promote the reduction and recycling of solid waste materials through differential
32.2
collection rates, providing opportunities for convenient recycling, and by
developing educational materials on recycling, composting and other waste
reduction methods.
32.3
Seek to create a market for recycled products by maximizing the use of such
products in the City's daily operations.
32.4
Contract with private haulers to maintain a cost-effective and responsive solid
waste collection system.
32.5
Examine the feasibility of establishing a solid waste transfer station within Port
Townsend in order to reduce costs to City residents.
32.6
Manage solid waste collection to minimize litter and neighborhood disruption.
Protect air, water, and land resources from pollution caused by the use,
handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials and substances.
32.7
32.7.1. Reduce City use of hazardous materials and safely manage, recycle, and
dispose of toxic products used in City operations.
32.7.2. Continue to participate with Jefferson County in the implementation of
Jefferson County's Solid Waste Management Plan.
Source: From the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element Chapter of the 2015 City of Port Townsend
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
A variety of methods are employed for the current public education program, and
these methods are designed to inform the appropriate target audiences. The content
of the messages distributed through these various methods are also tailored to the
appropriate target audiences. Current outreach methods include advertising,
mailers, fliers, outreach at events, one-on-one technical assistance, assistance by
phone, and information on the websites for all five of the entities primarily involved.
Many activities are currently being conducted in Jefferson County as part of the
public education program for waste reduction and recycling, including:
• The County's Waste Prevention Education Coordinator provides educational
materials for on-site composting, conducts composting workshops, and is
currently available to answer composting questions. Several composting
workshops were conducted in May and June, 2016, and these workshops were
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-8
well -attended. An important program being implemented starting in 2015 is to
educate people about food waste and how to reduce this, with a goal of achieving
a 5% reduction in the amount of food disposed (see also Chapter 5 and
Recommendation 01, promotion of on-site composting of food waste though
education programs).
• Waste reduction by businesses is one of the activities encouraged through a
Green Works program being conducted currently by the Health Department.
• The Best Management Practices for the Clean Marina program address proper
handling of solid and hazardous wastes, including waste reduction practices and
use of the Jefferson County MRW facility for certain materials. Four of the
marinas in Jefferson County are currently certified members of the Clean Marina
program. The Clean Marina Washington program was created in 2005 by the
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Northwest Marine Trade Association and
EnviroStars Cooperative. The program is strongly supported and currently
funded by a Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) grant.
• Additional waste reduction activities are discussed in Chapter 3, and several
recommendations are being made for additional activities (see Recommendations
WR2, WR3, WRS, WR6, WR7 and WR8).
• Recent activities conducted by the Waste Prevention Education Coordinator to
promote recycling include developing and distributing new flyers and collection
site signs for recycling as well as preparing articles on special topics (such as
plastic disposal). Public Health staff also conduct activities such the Recycle
Relay (an activity that informs students about recyclable and non -recyclable
materials).
• Curbside recycling services in the City are promoted in a variety of ways.
Through its solid waste contractor, the City of Port Townsend contracts for
residential education services and provides occasional messages on utility
mailings regarding garbage and recycling issues in the city. Information about
recycling and garbage collection is also provided on the City's website.
• Curbside recycling in the areas outside of the City is promoted by Waste
Connections. New customers are provided with a packet of information about
the services available and the reasons for recycling. All customers receive a
packet of information annually.
• Public education and information about the HHW Facility and hazardous wastes
in general is accomplished through brochures and other activities conducted by
the Jefferson County Solid Waste Department, including information posted on
the County's website, staffing of informational booths, and newspaper inserts.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-9
Others in the County, including the garbage haulers, recycling companies and
County Public Health staff, also provide information on proper handling and
disposal of moderate risk wastes. This information often includes suggestions for
safer substitutes and other waste reduction methods.
• As required by State rules (WAC 173-900-980), the County and City promote
locations that collect e -waste through information provided on their websites and
in brochures and other educational methods typically used for recycling
programs.
• A brochure jointly distributed by Jefferson County Public Works and Jefferson
County Public Health as well as the solid waste website describes how sharps
containers should be properly labeled and disposed.
The funding mechanisms and responsibilities for the public education program are
addressed through several contractual arrangements:
• Public Works and Public Health: The majority of CPG grant funds from Ecology
are passed through to Public Health for education activities and the matching
funds required by this grant (25%) are provided by Solid Waste.
• Public Health and Ecology: The Waste Prevention Education Coordinator
position and the education program are currently funded partially by the
Department of Ecology (through grants) and funds provided by the Jefferson
County Solid Waste program. A significant reduction in the anticipated amount
of CPG grant funds for the two-year grant cycle of 2015-2017 has caused Public
Health's education and enforcement activities to be reduced.
• Public Works and City: An interlocal agreement between the County and Port
Townsend provides for setting aside a portion of the yard waste tipping fee (5%)
for education.
• City and Waste Connections: Through its solid waste contract, the City of Port
Townsend contracts with Waste Connections to provide residential education
services for curbside recycling and other services.
• Public Works and Skookum Contract Services: The contract between Jefferson
County and Skookum Contract Services stipulates that Skookum Contract
Services provides assistance to the people using the recycling drop-off center.
Additional information is also provided on their website.
Altogether, these contractual arrangements provide for a stable and cohesive public
education program.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-10
Education programs are critical to the success of any solid waste program.
Comprehensive education about waste diversion options for residents and
businesses is an ongoing need. Assessing the effectiveness of the public education
program activities is not a simple matter, but various steps are being taken to do this
where possible. For example, the number of backyard composting units provided
through the composting workshops is being tracked. Other measurement methods
will be used on a case-by-case basis.
9.3. PLANNING ISSUES FOR ADMINISTRATION AND
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Funding Issues
The County faces the potential for financial constraints due to the reliance on tipping
fees to fund recycling programs. Ultimately, should recycling become "too
successful," funding for these programs would diminish due to shrinking waste
quantities. Relying on the tipping fee for recycling funds is not the best long-term
strategy. Other possible funding methods are shown in the attached list, but not all
of these options are available to a county.
The County's primary funding sources for education programs are grants and a
portion of the tipping fee. The use of tipping fees is not considered to be reliable in
the long term due to increasing pressure to pay higher costs while maintaining the
tip fee at a reasonable level.
A significant reduction in the anticipated amount of CPG grant funds for the two-
year grant cycle of 2015-2017 has caused Public Health's education and enforcement
activities to be reduced.
Public Education Issues
Education programs are critical to the success of any solid waste program. To be
effective, public education methods need to be tailored to specific groups and
programs. Comprehensive education about waste diversion options for residents
and businesses, including the availability and requirements for curbside recycling, is
an ongoing need.
Another public education need is to inform residents and businesses as to the proper
handling of specific materials, especially for the toxic wastes that should be brought
to the County's Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) Facility instead of being brought to the
Transfer Station or the Quilcene Drop Box. Customers occasionally bring
inappropriate materials to these disposal facilities and then need to be re -directed to
the MRW Facility, whereas better communication about disposal requirements for
these types of wastes might result in more efficient and satisfactory services.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-11
Several opportunities exist for public education activities, including:
• promotion of waste prevention strategies.
• targeting particular groups, such as businesses or legislators.
• educational materials on costs/benefits of various waste reduction activities or
methods.
• information on the fate of recycled materials and the benefits of purchasing
recycled products.
• educational materials on how waste diversion activities fit into broader issues,
such as sustainability, global warming and preservation of salmon habitat.
• promotion of the E -Cycle Washington program and other electronics recycling
services.
Administrative Issues
There could be opportunities for regional efforts involving the neighboring counties
of Clallam, Mason, Island and Kitsap. These opportunities are in disposal systems
and other activities.
There is the possibility that additional areas of the County will be designated as an
"urban growth area," or UGA (see also Section 2.3.1). These possibilities include an
expansion of the City of Port Townsend UGA or the creation of new UGAs in other
areas. The creation of additional UGAs could have financial and service -related
impacts, including possible changes in solid waste services.
Enforcement Issues
There is an ongoing need for addressing illegal dumping and "junk properties"
through Public Health programs.
Collection and Disposal Districts
Collection and disposal districts offer potential mechanisms for addressing solid
waste funding and administrative issues, but are politically challenging to
implement. Chapters 36.58 and 36.58A of the Revised Code of Washington allow the
establishment of waste disposal districts and waste collection districts, respectively,
within a county. Either district can include the incorporated areas of a city or town
only with the city's consent. A solid waste district (for collection or disposal) could
centralize functions that are now handled by a variety of county and city agencies,
but it may be difficult to develop a collective consensus on the formation and
jurisdiction of either type of district. Either type of district may be able to reduce
illegal dumping and other problems through the institution of mandatory garbage
collection (for a collection district only) and/or different financing structures.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-12
RCW 36.58.040 prohibits counties from operating a solid waste collection system, but
the establishment of a solid waste collection district that can act in a similar capacity
is allowed by Ch. 36.58A RCW. A collection district can be created following the
adoption of a solid waste management plan, however a collection district does not
appear to possess taxing authority. According to RCW 36.58A.040, the revenue -
generating authority of a collection district is limited.
RCW 36.58.130 allows the creation of a disposal district to provide for all aspects of
solid waste disposal. A solid waste disposal district is a quasi -municipal corporation
with taxing authority set up to provide and fund solid waste disposal services. A
disposal district has the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes, but it
does not have the power of eminent domain. The county legislative authority (i.e.,
the Board of County Commissioners) would be the governing body of the solid
waste district.
Activities that can be undertaken by a disposal district includes programs to process
and convert waste into useful products, but specifically does not include collection of
residential or commercial garbage. A disposal district may enter into contracts with
private or public agencies for the operation of disposal facilities, and then levy taxes
or issue bonds to cover the disposal costs. Thus, a disposal district established in
Jefferson County could assess each resident or business (in incorporated areas only
with the city's approval) a pro rata share of the cost of disposal at the Jefferson
County Waste Management Facility. This could help to discourage illegal dumping
by covering at least part of the disposal cost through mandatory payments, so that
the additional expense for proper disposal would be lower than it is currently. In
other words, the assessment by the disposal district would be paid regardless of
where the resident or business dumped the waste or whether it was self -hauled or
transported by a commercial hauler, and the latter two options would be less
expensive by the amount of disposal costs already paid.
RCW 36.58.140 states that a disposal district "may levy and collect an excise tax on
the privilege of living in or operating a business in the solid waste disposal taxing
district, provided that any property which is producing commercial garbage shall be
exempt if the owner is providing regular collection and disposal." The district has a
powerful taxing authority, since it may attach a lien to each parcel of property in the
district for delinquent taxes and penalties, and these liens are superior to all other
liens and encumbrances except property taxes. The funds obtained by a levy may be
used "for all aspects of disposing of solid wastes... exclusively for district purposes"
(RCW 36.58.130). Potential uses include:
• solid waste planning.
• cleanup of roadside litter and solid wastes illegally disposed of on unoccupied
properties within the district.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-13
• public information and education about waste reduction and recycling.
• defraying a portion of the present cost of disposal.
• subsidizing waste reduction/ recycling activities.
• subsidizing the Moderate Risk Waste Facility and collection events.
• closure and post -closure costs for the old landfill and for other solid waste
facilities.
Four jurisdictions have implemented disposal districts:
1. Lewis County uses a disposal district to provide a cohesive financial and control
structure between the County and its principal cities to respond to the demands
of a Superfund landfill site. The District charges a tipping fee, but not an excise
tax.
2. Whatcom County has implemented an excise tax on waste collection services.
This effectively charges haulers $8.50 per ton, which haulers pass on to their
customers and pay to the County regardless of where they take their waste.
3. San Juan County operates its own transfer station system and faced significant
tonnage and revenue loss recently due to price competition. Hence, that county
developed a disposal district to move some of its expenses to an excise tax, thus
lowering its tipping fee and increasing revenues through increased waste
tonnages.
4. Lopez Island recently created their own disposal district to allow residents of this
island to manage their waste separately from the San Juan County system. A levy
on the property taxes provides about one-third of the annual revenue needed
($115,000) to conduct solid waste and recycling activities on the island. This levy
needs to be re -adopted annually.
9.4. ALTERNATIVE ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC
EDUCATION STRATEGIES
The following alternatives were considered for new or revised administration and
public education activities. The listing of an alternative in this section does not mean
that it is considered feasible or desirable, nor that it is recommended (see Section 9.6
for the recommendations).
Alternative A - Explore Funding Alternatives for Recycling
Additional financing for recycling could come from an increase in the tipping fee
paid at the Transfer Station. Another alternative for funding could be taxes levied by
a special district, such as a disposal district as provided by RCW 36.58. If a disposal
district is created in the County, charges for solid waste handling and disposal could
be collected separately through the tipping fee or as part of any district taxes. Other
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-14
program costs (landfill closure and monitoring, recycling, MRW Facility, etc.) could
also be collected as dedicated funds through district taxes. These options could be
explored as the need is created by increased recycling and decreased waste volumes.
Alternative S - Continue Education for Commercial Recycling
The County, through its agreements with haulers and with the education program,
could make education of the commercial sector a higher priority. The Waste
Prevention Education Coordinator is available to businesses outside the City for
audits and consultation, although only as time permits.
Alternative C - Increased Enforcement
Illegal dumping could be addressed through increased enforcement activities.
Increased enforcement would require additional funding for enforcement personnel
and activities. If needed, additional funding for enforcement activities could be
derived from grants, general funds, surcharges on tipping fees, special assessments,
and/or increased permit fees.
Alternative D - Conduct Periodic Rate Reviews
Almost all revenue needed to conduct solid waste operations in Jefferson County are
currently generated through tipping fees. Periodic rate reviews would help ensure
that adequate funds are being collected to effectively conduct needed activities. The
rate reviews could be conducted every three to four years, beginning before 2019 (the
current fee structure is effective through 2019).
Alternative E - Consider Implementing a Collection District
Stable funding, reduced illegal dumping, increased recycling and other services
could be addressed through systems that implement universal garbage collection
services. Implementation of universal garbage collection services can be achieved in
several ways, but usually this is accomplished through some form of mandatory
collection requirement. One of the more effective means of implementing mandatory
garbage collection is the formation of a collection district.
Alternative F - Consider Implementing a Disposal District
Stable funding could also be addressed through a disposal district. A disposal
district could be used to collect funds from all residents and those funds used to
reduce the cost of proper disposal and/or the funds could be used for other solid
waste activities.
Alternative G - Continue Public Education and Expand if Possible
Ongoing public education activities are very important for helping people manage
their solid wastes in a proper and cost-effective manner, although it can be difficult
to show to clearly show measurable results for education activities. Options for
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-15
public education are many and varied, as are the costs and effectiveness of the
options. The challenges involved with public and school education programs
include the diversity of the public targeted for the information, the multiple
programs that compete for public attention, and the potential high costs of an
extensive program.
Activities that could be continued or developed could include promoting waste
reduction, staffing informational booths at community events, developing
newspaper inserts, developing K-12 curricula, and coordinating with other agencies.
To be effective, school education programs require some ongoing coordination
between the schools and district offices, other public agencies, the general public, and
the Solid Waste Education Coordinator.
The cost effectiveness of education programs is difficult to measure and evaluate.
Indirect evaluation can be achieved through observations of waste volumes and the
amount of waste that is diverted. Performance-based evaluations can be conducted
based on the numbers of students, businesses, and service groups that receive
information. Another measure of success could be to track the numbers of requests
for information received by the Recycle Center, the Solid Waste Education
Coordinator, City Hall/Utility Department, and others.
Illegal dumping is another problem that could be addressed through public
education. In this case, public education could be used to discourage this behavior,
by publicizing the bad aspects of this activity and also informing potential violators
of the applicable fines and civil penalties.
9.5. EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC
EDUCATION ALTERNATIVES
Review of Rating Criteria
The above alternatives can be evaluated according to several criteria, including:
Consistency with Solid Waste Planning Goals: Does the alternative support the
goal of emphasizing waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy and
support other planning goals as well?
Feasibility: Can the alternative be adopted without controversy or legal issues,
and is the alternative technically feasible?
Cost Effectiveness: Can the alternative be implemented in a cost-effective
manner and can it be implemented without creating an excessive impact on the
financial stability of the solid waste system?
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-16
Rating of Alternatives
The ratings for the three criteria were based on scores submitted by the SWAC
members, and the averages of those scores are shown in the following table. The
overall rating for each alternative is based on the scores for the other three criteria.
Table 9-4
Ratings for the Administration and Public Education Alternatives
Rating Scores: H - High, M - Medium, L - Low
9.6. ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for administration programs (see Chapter 9
for more details.
High -Priority Recommendation for Administration and Public Education:
A&PE1) Public information and education programs will be continued through
joint Health/Public Works collaboration, and in cooperation with the City
of Port Townsend, haulers and recycling companies. These efforts will be
expanded if possible.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Administration and Public Education:
A&PE2) Funding alternatives for recycling and other solid waste programs will
continue to be explored with the goal of these programs being financially
self-supporting;
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-17
Consistency
Cost-
Overall
rAlternagtive W
with Goals
Feasibility Effective-
ness
Rating
A, Explore funding alternatives
H
L -M L -M
M
for recycling
B, Continue education for
H
M M
M
commercial recycling
C, Increased enforcement
M
L -M L
L
D, Conduct periodic rate
M
M M
M
reviews
E, Consider a collection district
M
L M
M
F, Consider a disposal district
M
L L -M
L
G, Continue public education
H
M -H M
H
and expand if possible
Rating Scores: H - High, M - Medium, L - Low
9.6. ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for administration programs (see Chapter 9
for more details.
High -Priority Recommendation for Administration and Public Education:
A&PE1) Public information and education programs will be continued through
joint Health/Public Works collaboration, and in cooperation with the City
of Port Townsend, haulers and recycling companies. These efforts will be
expanded if possible.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Administration and Public Education:
A&PE2) Funding alternatives for recycling and other solid waste programs will
continue to be explored with the goal of these programs being financially
self-supporting;
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-17
A&PE3) Programs to encourage waste reduction and recycling by the commercial
sector will be continued, and expanded if possible;
A&PE4) Conduct disposal rate reviews periodically to ensure adequate funds are
being collected to support solid waste programs and mandates;
A&PE5) Potential benefits of a collection district should be examined in the future.
The responsibility for implementing Recommendations A&PE1 and A&PE3 is jointly
shared by the Public Health and Public Works Departments, with assistance from
others as appropriate. The lead agency for the other recommendations is the Public
Works Department.
The cost for several of these recommendations consist only of staff time and existing
expenditures. If funds are available to expand public education efforts for the
commercial sector (Recommendation A&PE3) and in general (Recommendation
A&PE1), the additional costs could be as high as $50,000 to $75,000 if this amount of
additional funds is available (expenditures in this amount would provide an effective
impact). The estimated cost of the rate review (Recommendation A&PE4) will be
about $25,000 for each year it is conducted.
Many of these recommendations are for ongoing activities. Recommendation
A&PE4 should be conducted every three to four years beginning in 2018. The
benefits of a collection district could be reviewed in 2017 for possible implementation
of this approach in the next planning cycle.
More details on the implementation of these and other recommendations are shown
in Chapter 10.
Chapter 9: Administration and Public Education Page 9-18
CHAPTER 10
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
10.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter lists all of the recommendations from previous chapters and presents a
plan to implement the recommendations. These recommendations are intended to
guide decision-making activities for Jefferson County for the next six years, while
also providing direction for the next 20 years. Implementation of individual
program elements will be accomplished through annual budgets and contracts.
10.2. WASTE REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for waste reduction programs (see Chapter 3
of the SWMP for more details).
High -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR1) Evaluate product stewardship programs as these are proposed on a
statewide or national level, and support those programs when appropriate
to the interests of their citizens and the business community;
WR2) Implement a program educating residents and businesses on how to
reduce the wasting of edible food;
WR3) Promotion of clothing reuse and recycling.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR4) Consider a ban on yard waste disposal as a part of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) if public education and outreach efforts are not effective in
diverting most of this material from the MSW waste stream;
WR5) Promote smart shopping;
WR6) Promote fix -it workshops;
WR7) Publicize the availability of volume -based rates to Jefferson County
residents and businesses by County, City and waste collectors;
WR8) Expand the recognition program for the business community;
WR9) Encourage Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend to adopt
policies and practices to reduce waste.
Low -Priority Recommendations for Waste Reduction:
WR10) Consider appropriate bans or tipping price structures to discourage
disposal of recycling products as garbage;
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-1
WR11) Monitor and report to the SWAC waste reduction programs using
performance based measures where possible.
10.3. RECYCLING RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for recycling programs (see Chapter 4 for
more details).
High -Priority Recommendation for Recycling:
R1) Increase promotion and public education for curbside recycling in the
unincorporated area, including at a minimum a notice provided to all garbage
subscribers that they can save money through recycling by subscribing to a
lower level of garbage service.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Recycling:
R2) Port Townsend to consider increasing curbside recycling frequency to weekly;
R3) Jefferson County to consider adoption of a service level ordinance, specifying
that all waste collection subscribers in unincorporated areas also receive
curbside recycling service;
R4) Consider switching to a dual stream (or single -stream without glass) recycling
service county -wide;
R5) Jefferson County should consider additional steps to increase access to
curbside recycling, including contracting for recycling services in the
unincorporated areas, appropriate disposal bans and other mandatory
measures;
R6) Conduct a recycling potential assessment, contingent on the availability of
grant funding;
R7) Recycling programs that include fees to recycle difficult materials should be
considered.
Low -Priority Recommendation for Recycling:
R8) Local applications should continue to be sought for glass recycling and reuse.
10.4. ORGANICS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for organics collection programs (see
Chapter 5 for more details):
High -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
01) Promotion of on-site composting of food waste though education programs.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-2
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Organics:
02) Support of appropriate programs for commercial food waste diversion by the
County and City;
03) Support of appropriate programs for residential food waste diversion by the
County and City.
Low -Priority Recommendation for Organics:
04) Support alternative methods to divert pet waste as appropriate.
10.5. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for waste collection programs (see Chapter 6
and Chapter 9 for more details).
Medium -Priority Recommendation for Solid Waste Collection:
WC1) Examine benefits of a collection district for implementing universal waste
collection in Jefferson County.
10.6. WASTE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for transfer and disposal programs (see
Chapter 7 for more details):
High -Priority Recommendation for Transfer and Disposal:
T&D1) Conduct improvements to the Quilcene Drop Box facility as funding is
available.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Transfer and Disposal:
T&D2) Conduct improvements to the Jefferson County Solid Waste Disposal
Facility based on facility assessment options and the Solid Waste Master
Plan update;
T&D3) Prepare an analysis of waste export alternatives.
10.7. SPECIAL WASTE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for special waste programs (see Chapter 8
for more details). Seven types of special wastes are examined in the plan, and four of
those were determined to warrant further work.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-3
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-4
High -Priority Recommendations for Special Wastes:
SW1) Conduct more education for proper disposal of sharps;
SW2) Disaster debris designated staging areas to include the Jefferson County
Solid Waste Disposal facility and the Quilcene Drop Box site;
SW3) Develop a disaster debris strategy;
SW4) Conduct more education for public use of the MRW Facility and safer
alternatives for disposal of toxic products.
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Special Wastes:
SW5) Identify additional staging areas for disaster debris in Jefferson County as
part of the disaster debris strategy;
SW6) Consider development of a disaster debris management plan if funding
becomes available;
SW7) Expand collection of additional types of moderate wastes at the Jefferson
County Transfer Station and the Quilcene Drop Box facilities;
SW8) Encourage Jefferson County retail locations selling pharmaceuticals to use
point-of-sale signs and brochures to promote proper disposal of unused
pharmaceuticals;
SW9) Support product stewardship programs for pharmaceuticals, as appropriate;
SW10) Investigate options for an expanded pharmaceutical drop-off program in
Port Townsend;
SW11) Support derelict vessel de -construction facility at the Port of Port Townsend,
as appropriate.
10.8. ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following actions are recommended for administration programs (see Chapter 9
for more details).
High -Priority Recommendation for Administration and Public Education:
A&PEI) Public information and education programs will be continued through
joint Health/ Public Works collaboration, and in cooperation with the City
of Port Townsend, haulers and recycling companies. These efforts will be
expanded if possible
Medium -Priority Recommendations for Administration and Public Education:
A&PE2) Funding alternatives for recycling and other solid waste programs will
continue to be explored with the goal of these programs being financially
self-supporting;
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-5
A&PE3) Programs to encourage waste reduction and recycling by the commercial
sector will be continued, and expanded if possible;
A&PE4) Conduct disposal rate reviews periodically to ensure adequate funds are
being collected to support solid waste programs and mandates;
A&PE5) Potential benefits of a collection district should be examined in the future.
10.9. SIX-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The proposed implementation schedule is shown in Table 10-1. It should be noted
that the recommendations have been abbreviated to fit better into this table.
10.10. IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend are primarily responsible for most
of the recommendations made in this SWMP, but that responsibility is shared with
others as appropriate to the nature of the recommended activity. Implementation
responsibilities for the recommended activities are summarized in Table 10-2.
10.11. FUNDING STRATEGY
The recommended programs will be funded through garbage rates, tipping fees,
other user fees and State grants (CPG funds). A summary of the funding sources for
the recommended programs is shown in Table 10-3.
Garbage rates will be used to fund the solid waste collection, curbside recycling and
commercial recycling programs. Tipping fees will be used for the recommended
waste reduction, transfer, transport and disposal, household hazardous waste,
administration and regulation. Special user fees will fund small quantity generator
and other special waste programs. The State coordinated prevention grant funding
program (CPG grants) will be used for education programs, with additional funds
contributed from tipping fees.
10.12. CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL ACQUISITION PLAN
State law requires that solid waste plans contain a "six-year construction and capital
acquisition program for solid waste handling facilities" and a "plan for financing
both capital costs and operational expenditures for the proposed solid waste system"
(RCW 70.95.090). In this SWMP, the above table and additional details contained in
each chapter provide clear guidance on the source of funds for existing and proposed
activities (see also Table ES -1). More details are provided for the proposed new
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-6
Table 10-1
Implementation Schedule for Recommendations
X — Indicates a deadline or a singular event. Shading indicates ongoing activities.
Recommendations have been abbreviated to fit into table.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-7
Waste Reduction
WR1) Evaluate and support product
stewardship programs as appropriate
WR2) Educate residents and businesses
about wasted food
WR3) More promotion for clothing reuse and
recycling
WR4) Consider yard waste disposal ban X
WR5) Promote smart shopping
WR6) Promote fix -it workshops
WR7) Publicize volume -based rates
WR8) Continue recognition program for
businesses and expand if possible
WR9) County and City will consider
adopting waste reduction policies and X
practices
WR10 Consider other bans as appropriate
WR11) Monitor waste reduction programs
with performance-based measures
Recycling
R1) Increase promotion and education for
curbside recycling
R2) Consider weekly curbside recycling in X
City
R3) Consider service level ordinance to
bundle recycling with garbage collection
R4) Consider switching to a dual stream (or
single -stream without glass) recycling
service county -wide
R5) Consider additional steps to increase
access to curbside recycling
R6) Conduct a recycling potential
assessment
R7) Consider recycling programs that
include fees to recycle difficult materials
R8) Local applications should continue to be
sought for glass recycling and reuse
Organics
01) Promote on-site food waste composting
02) Support proposals for commercial food
waste diversion as appropriate
03) Support programs for food waste
diversion as appropriate
X — Indicates a deadline or a singular event. Shading indicates ongoing activities.
Recommendations have been abbreviated to fit into table.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-7
Table 1Implementation-• •Recommendations,• -•
Recommendation it 16 2017 20181 • 2020 2021
04) Support methods to divert pet waste as
appropriate
Solid Waste Collection
WC1) Examine benefits of a collection
district for implementing universal waste
collection in Jefferson Count
Transfer and Disposal
T&D1) Conduct improvements to Quilcene
Drop Box as funding is available
T&D2) Conduct improvements to JCSWDF
based on updated facility assessment
and Solid Waste Master Plan
T&D3 Start analysis of waste export options
X
Special Wastes
SW1 More education for disposal of sharps
SW2) The JCSWDF and Quilcene Drop Box
are designated staging areas for
X
disaster debris
SW3 Develop a disaster debris strategy
SW4) More education for HHW Facility and
safer alternatives
SW5) Identify additional staging areas for
disaster debris
SW6) Develop a disaster debris
management plan if funds are available
SW7) Collect additional types of MRW at the
JCSWDF and Quilcene Drop Box
SW8) Encourage retailers to promote proper
disposal of pharmaceuticals
SW9) Support product stewardship for
pharmaceuticals as appropriate
SW10) Investigate options for drop-off
program for pharmaceuticals in City
SW11) Support vessel de -construction
facility at the Port as appropriate
Administration and Public Education
A&PE1 Continue public education
A&PE2 Explore funding options
A&PE3) Continue education for commercial
recycling
A&PE4) Conduct periodic rate reviews
X
A&PE5 Explore benefits of collection district
X
X — Indicates a deadline or a singular event. Shading indicates ongoing activities.
Recommendations have been abbreviated to fit into table.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-8
Table 10-2
Implementation Responsibilities for Recommendations
Recommendation MANK
Jefferson
County
City
Health
Dep
Waste
Others
Waste Reduction
WR1) Evaluate and support product
X
stewardship programs as appropriate
WR2) Educate residents and businesses
X
O
about wasted food
WR3) More promotion for clothing reuse and
X
O
recycling
WR4) Consider yard waste disposal ban
X
O
WR5) Promote smart shopping
X
O
WR6) Promote fix -it workshops
X
O
WR7 Publicize volume -based rates
X
O
X
WR8) Continue recognition program for
X
businesses and expand if possible
WR9) County and City to consider adoption of
X
X
waste reduction policies and practices
WR10 Consider other bans as appropriate
X
WR11) Monitor waste reduction programs
X
O
with performance-based measures
Recycling
R1) Increase promotion and education for
curbside recycling in unincorporated.
X
areas
R2) Consider weekly curbside recycling in
X
O
City of Port Townsend
R3) Consider service level ordinance to
X
bundle recycling with garbage collection
R4) Consider switching to a dual stream (or
single -stream without glass) recycling
X
O
service county -wide
R5) Consider additional steps to increase
X
access to curbside recycling
R6) Conduct a recycling potential assessment
X
R7) Consider recycling programs that include
X
fees to recycle difficult materials
R8) Local applications should continue to be
X
Skookum
sought for glass recycling and reuse
Organics
01) Promote on-site food waste composting
O
X
02) Support proposals for commercial food
X
waste diversion as appropriate
03) Support programs for food waste
X
diversion as appropriate
X - Indicates primary responsibility. O - Indicates secondary responsibility.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-9
Table 1ImplementationResponsibilities f•
Recommendations,•
-•
JeffersonCity
Others
Recommendation
County
X
Dept.
Haulers
04) Support methods to divert pet waste as
appropriate
Solid Waste Collection
WC1 Examine benefits of a collection district
X
Transfer and Disposal
T&D1) Conduct improvements to Quilcene
X
Drop Box as funding is available
T&D2) Conduct improvements to JCSWDF
based on facility assessment and
X
updated Solid Waste Master Plan
T&D3) Prepare analysis of waste export
X
options
Special Wastes
SW1) More education for disposal of sharps
O
X
Drug
stores
SW2) The JCSWDF and Quilcene Drop Box
are designated staging areas for disaster
X
debris
SW3 Develop a disaster debris strategy
X
SW4) More education for HHW Facility and
X
O
safer alternatives
SW5) Identify additional staging areas for
X
disaster debris
SW6) Develop a disaster debris management
X
plan if funds are available
SW7) Collect additional types of MRW at the
X
JCSWDF and Quilcene Drop Box
SW8) Encourage retailers to promote proper
X
0
Drug
disposal of pharmaceuticals
stores
SW9) Support product stewardship for
X
pharmaceuticals as appropriate
SWI 0) Investigate options for drop-off
X
O
program for pharmaceuticals in City
SW11) Support vessel de -construction facility
X
at the Port as appropriate
Administration and Public Education
A&PE1 Continue public education
X
X
A&PE2) Explore funding options
X
A&PE3) Continue education for commercial
X
X
recycling
A&PE4) Conduct periodic rate reviews
X
A&PE5 Explore benefits of collection district
X
X — Indicates primary responsibility. O — Indicates secondary responsibility.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-10
Table 10-3
Funding Strategies for Recommendations
activities, while existing activities will continue to be financed in the same manner as
is currently done (see Tables 10-3 and 9-1). Altogether, this information satisfies the
need for a plan for financing the operational and capital costs of the solid waste
system.
At this time, there are no new solid waste facilities that are anticipated to be needed
in Jefferson County in the next six years (see Section 2.5) and so there appears to be
no need for a six-year construction and capital acquisition program. This SWMP
does, however, note that assessments and improvements to the two existing solid
waste handling facilities that may be conducted within the next six years, and these
improvements may involve construction and capital costs. These improvements will
be addressed in a separate study (see Sections 7.5 and 7.7, and in particular
Recommendation T&D2). Details about the types of improvements, including the
costs and the funding sources, will become available when the additional study has
been completed. If necessary, this SWMP could be amended at that time to include
these details.
10.13. TWENTY-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that programs and facilities in Jefferson County will generally be able
to stay on the course established by this SWMP for the next twenty years. The waste
stream for the County is not expected to increase so much (see Table 2-8) as to create
unexpected capacity issues for the collection and disposal system. Hence, the
projected twenty-year implementation strategy is much the same as the
implementation details shown in the previous tables in this chapter. Changes will
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-11
, ,as
Project
Waste Reduction X
X
X
Recycling and Organics X X X
Solid Waste Collection X
Transfer and Disposal X
Special Wastes X
X
X
Administration and Education X
X
X
activities, while existing activities will continue to be financed in the same manner as
is currently done (see Tables 10-3 and 9-1). Altogether, this information satisfies the
need for a plan for financing the operational and capital costs of the solid waste
system.
At this time, there are no new solid waste facilities that are anticipated to be needed
in Jefferson County in the next six years (see Section 2.5) and so there appears to be
no need for a six-year construction and capital acquisition program. This SWMP
does, however, note that assessments and improvements to the two existing solid
waste handling facilities that may be conducted within the next six years, and these
improvements may involve construction and capital costs. These improvements will
be addressed in a separate study (see Sections 7.5 and 7.7, and in particular
Recommendation T&D2). Details about the types of improvements, including the
costs and the funding sources, will become available when the additional study has
been completed. If necessary, this SWMP could be amended at that time to include
these details.
10.13. TWENTY-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that programs and facilities in Jefferson County will generally be able
to stay on the course established by this SWMP for the next twenty years. The waste
stream for the County is not expected to increase so much (see Table 2-8) as to create
unexpected capacity issues for the collection and disposal system. Hence, the
projected twenty-year implementation strategy is much the same as the
implementation details shown in the previous tables in this chapter. Changes will
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-11
likely continue to occur, however, in the local, statewide and national solid waste
arena, and should any of these changes require an amendment or revision to this
SWMP, then the steps described in the next section can be taken to address those.
10.14. PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE SWMP
The Solid Waste Management -Reduction and Recycling Act (RCW 70.95) requires
local governments to maintain their solid waste plans in current condition. Plans
must be reviewed every five years and revised if necessary. Assuming a timely
adoption process for this plan, with the process completed in late 2016, this plan
should be reviewed and revised if necessary starting in 2021.
Individuals or organizations wishing to propose plan amendments before the
scheduled review must petition the Jefferson County Solid Waste Manager in
writing. The petition should describe the proposed amendment, its specific
objectives and explain why immediate action is needed prior to the next scheduled
review. The Solid Waste Manager will investigate the basis for the petition and
prepare a recommendation for the Director of the Public Works Department.
If the Director of the Public Works Department decides that the petition warrants
further consideration, the petition will be referred to the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee for review and recommendation. The Solid Waste Manager will draft the
proposed amendment together with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. This
process will also be used if County staff decide to amend the plan. The proposed
amendment must be submitted to the legislative bodies of all participating
jurisdictions and the Department of Ecology for review and comment. As an
amendment, an updated UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire or SEPA Checklist will
likely not be required, but the appropriate agencies (the UTC and the Department of
Community Development) should be allowed to confirm that at the time. The
comments received will be reviewed with the SWAC to solicit their input before
submitting the plan for local adoption. Adoption of the proposed amendment will
require the concurrence of all affected jurisdictions, with a final review and approval
by Ecology after that.
The Director of the Public Works Department may develop reasonable rules for
submitting and processing proposed plan amendments, and may establish
reasonable fees to investigate and process petitions. All administrative rulings of the
Director may be appealed to the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners.
Minor changes that may occur in the solid waste management system, whether due
to internal decisions or external factors, can be adopted without the need to go
through a formal amendment process. If a question should exist as to whether or not
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-12
a change is "minor," then it should be discussed by the SWAC and a decision made
based on the consensus of that committee.
Implicit in the development and adoption of this plan is the understanding that
emergency actions may need to be taken by the County in the future for various
reasons, and that these actions can be undertaken without needing to amend this
plan beforehand. In this case, Jefferson County staff will endeavor to inform the
SWAC and other key stakeholders as soon as feasibly possible, but not necessarily
before new actions are implemented. If the emergency results in permanent and
significant changes to the Jefferson County solid waste system, an amendment to this
plan will be prepared. If, however, the emergency actions are only undertaken on a
temporary or short-term basis, an amendment will not be considered necessary. Any
questions about what actions may be considered "temporary" or "significant" should
be brought to the SWAC for their advice.
Chapter 10: Implementation Plan Page 10-13
GLOSSARY
The following definitions are provided for various terms used in the Jefferson
County Solid Waste Management Plan:
Biomedical waste: infectious and injurious waste originating from a medical,
veterinary, or intermediate care facility, or from home use.
Biosolids: includes sludge from the treatment of sewage at a wastewater treatment
plant and semisolid waste pumped from a septic system that has been treated to
meet standards for beneficial use.
Buy-back recyclingcenter: a facility that pays people for recyclable materials.
Commercial solid waste: solid waste generated by non -industrial businesses. This
includes waste from businesses that fall into the following categories; construction;
transportation, communications and utilities; wholesale trades; retail trades; finance,
insurance and real estate; other services; government; and non-profit, charitable and
religious organizations.
Commingled: recyclable materials that have been collected separately from garbage
by the generator, but the recyclable materials have been mixed together in the same
container.
Composting: the controlled biological decomposition of organic materials to
produce a humus -like final product that can be used as a soil amendment. In this
plan, backyard composting means a small-scale activity performed by homeowners
on their own property, using organic materials that they generate.
Conditionally -exempt small -quantity generator (CESQG): a non-residential
generator of small quantities of hazardous wastes that is exempt from the full
regulations for hazardous wastes as long as such wastes are handled properly.
Covered units: see e -waste.
CPG: Coordinated Prevention Grants, a grant program administered by the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Curbside recycling: the act of collecting recyclable materials directly from residential
generators, usually after the recyclable materials have been placed at the curb (or at
the side of the street if no curb exists in the area) by the residents.
Glossary Page G-1
E -waste: electronic waste. As defined under WAC 173-900, e -waste includes
computers, monitors, laptops, tablet computers, televisions, portable DVD players
and e -readers (these are sometimes collectively referred to as "covered units").
EPA: the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the federal agency
responsible for promulgation and enforcement of federal environmental regulations.
Groundwater: water present in subsurface geological deposits (aquifers).
HDPE: high-density polyethylene, a type of plastic, commonly used in milk,
detergent, bleach bottles and other containers.
Household hazardous waste: wastes that would be classified as hazardous due to
characteristics, but are exempted from state and federal regulations. Examples
include solvents, oil-based paints, pesticides, herbicides, motor oil, automotive and
many dry -cell batteries, mercury -containing lights and other materials.
Industrial waste: solid waste generated by various manufacturing companies.
Includes waste generated by businesses that manufacture the following products;
food, textile mill products, apparel, lumber, paper, printing, chemicals, stone, clay,
glass, fabricated metals, equipment, and miscellaneous other products. Does not
include hazardous wastes generated by these industries.
Inert wastes: includes wastes that are inert in nature, such as glass, concrete, rocks,
gravel, and bricks.
Mixed paper: other types of paper not included in newspaper or cardboard.
Includes materials such as "junk mail", magazines, books, office paper, paperboard
(non -corrugated cardboard), and colored printing and writing papers.
Moderate risk wastes (MRW): household hazardous waste (see definition, above),
and wastes produced by businesses that potentially meet the definition of a
hazardous wastes except the amount of waste produced falls below regulatory limits.
MSW: municipal solid waste, see solid waste.
Mulching: 1) leaving grass clippings on the lawn when mowing; 2) placing yard
wastes, compost, wood chips or other materials on the ground in gardens or around
trees and shrubs to discourage weeds and retain moisture.
ORCAA: the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, an agency with regulatory and
enforcement authority for air pollution issues in Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson,
Mason, Pacific, and Thurston Counties.
Glossary Page G-2
PET: polyethylene terephthalate, a type of plastic. Commonly used to refer to 2 -liter
beverage bottles, although other containers are also increasingly being made from
this material, including liquid and solid materials such cooking oil, liquor, peanut
butter, and many other food or household products.
Public education: a broad effort to present and distribute public information
materials.
Public information: the development of educational materials for the public,
including brochures, videos, and public service announcements.
RCW: Revised Code of Washington.
Recycling: the act of collecting and/or processing source -separated materials in
order to return them to a usage similar in nature to their previous use.
Reusable items: items that may be reused (or easily repaired), including things such
as small electronic goods, household items such as dishes, and furniture.
Self -haul waste: waste that is brought to a landfill or transfer station by the person
(residential self -haul) or company (non-residential or commercial self -haul) that
created the waste.
Septage: a semisolid waste consisting of settled sewage solids combined with
varying amounts of water and dissolved materials. This waste is pumped from a
septic tank system.
Sewage sludge: the concentrated solids derived from the treatment of sewage at a
municipal wastewater treatment plant. See also biosolids.
Single stream: refers to the practice of placing all recyclable materials together in one
container for curbside collection. This is similar to "commingled" except that glass
bottles may or may not be included in a commingled mixture whereas glass bottles
are typically mixed with the other materials in single stream collection programs.
Solid waste: all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes,
including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill,
demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, discarded
commodities, biosolids (sewage sludge and septage), wood waste, and special
wastes.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG): a group assisting Jefferson County with
the development of this comprehensive solid waste management plan, composed of
Glossary Page G-3
representatives from the general public, private industry, the City of Port Townsend
and Jefferson County.
Special wastes: wastes that have particular characteristics such that they present
special handling and/or disposal problems.
Source -separated: recyclable materials that have been removed from garbage or
other forms of solid waste by the waste generator. This may or may not include
keeping different types of recyclable materials separate from each other (see source -
segregated and commingling).
SQG: see conditionally exempt small quantity generator.
SWAC: see Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
Tipping fee: The rate charged by transfer and disposal facilities, generally on a per -
ton basis.
Transfer station: an intermediate solid waste disposal facility at which solid waste
collected from any source is temporarily deposited to await transportation to a final
disposal site.
UTC: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
WAC: Washington Administrative Code.
Waste reduction or waste prevention: reducing the amount or type of solid waste
that is generated. Also defined by state rules to include reducing the toxicity of
wastes.
WDOE: Washington State Department of Ecology.
Yard waste: includes leaves, grass clippings, brush, and branches up to six inches in
diameter.
Glossary Page G-4
PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
APPENDIX A
M,
AW
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
11
r
23 April 201.5
Mr. Monte Reinders
Public Works Director
Jefferson County
623 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Subject: Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
Dear Monte,
Public Works Department
250 Madison, Suite 2R
Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-5096 Fax 360-385-7675
On Monday, 20 April 2015 the City Council met and voted unanimously to continue the previous
authorization for the County to include the City of Port Townsend in the amendment process for
the Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
The Council further understands that final approval of the draft amended Plan by the Council is
required before the Plan becomes effective. Please let me know if you have any questions
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Kenneth H. Clow
Public Works Director
cc: Jerry Mingo, Jefferson County Public Works, Moderate Risk Waste Coordinator
John Merchant, Operations Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT
TOWNSEND AUTHORIZING JEFFERSON COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND IN AN AMENDMENT OF THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEPvIENI` PLAN.
WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW Chapter 70.95, Jefferson County is
responsible for preparation, adoption and implementation of a Comprehensive Solid Waste
management Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City of Port Townsend did, by Resolution 88-64, authorize Jefferson
County to prepare a plan for the management of solid waste within the City of Port Townsend
for inclusion as an element of the County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners on July 22, 1991 and by the City Council of the City of Port
Townsend on August b, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County is required, under the amended RCW Chapter 70.95 and
the associated Department of Ecology planning guidelines, to amend the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan With respect to stated priorities for Waste
Reduction and Recycling, Now, Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND,
that Jefferson County is hereby authorized to include the City of Port Townsend in an
amendment process for the Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and
further authorizes assistance to the County in the determination of Waste Reduction and
Recycling goals and in the implementation of strategies to achieve and document those goals.
Any amendment to the Plan regarding the City of Port Townsend shall be reviewed and
specifically adopted by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend before it shall become
effective, and any financial implications to the City of either this Resolution or of the Plan
Amendment shall be considered and approved by the City Council before implementation.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Port To nd a—Ad approved by the Mayor this
sixth day of July, 1992. f /1
7Appr n M_Clise, Mayor
Attest: oved as to form:
David A. Grove, City Clerk Dennis McLerran, City Attorney
APPENDIX B
SITING FACTORS
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
11
r
APPENDIX B
SITING FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
This SWMP is required to contain the following information to provide guidance for
siting new solid waste disposal facilities (RCW 70.95.165). Although State law
specifically refers to disposal facilities (landfills and incinerators), these criteria could
also be considered in the siting of other solid waste facilities such as transfer stations
and compost facilities.
SOLID WASTE FACILITY SITING FACTORS
Soils and Geology
Soils and underlying geology are important considerations for solid waste
management facilities. The appropriate type of soil varies somewhat depending on
the type of solid waste facility, but any building or other structure must be built
upon a stable foundation. The soils in Jefferson County are generally acceptable for
foundations.
There are three separate geographic regions in Jefferson County. The eastern
portion, known as the Puget Lowland, has been repeatedly invaded by glaciers. This
has caused a complicated pattern of sediments, primarily made up of glacial outwash
and till (up to 2,000 feet deep in some areas). The western region also has extensive
glacial outwash and till deposits, with alluvial deposits in the three major river
valleys (for the Hoh, Queets, and Clearwater Rivers). The third region is the
Olympic National Park, which contains sedimentary deposits as well as volcanic
formations (basalt) or glacial and alluvial deposits in some areas.
Glacial outwash and alluvial deposits are typically loose and highly permeable,
whereas glacial till generally has low permeability. All of these deposits could be
used for the construction and operation of a landfill, although low -permeability soils
are needed in much greater quantities. Low -permeability soils can be used for liners
and final cover because these will retard the movement of precipitation, gas and
leachate (contaminated water). Porous soils, such as the sands and gravels that
typically make up glacial outwash and alluvial deposits, are undesirable because
these permit rainfall to enter the landfill (increasing leachate and gas production) and
allow the uncontrolled migration of landfill leachate and methane gas. Thus, sand or
gravel are not suitable for landfill cover or liners, although gravel can be used for
intermediate cover because it provides better traction for landfill machinery in wet
weather. Sand and gravel can also be used for gas venting and leachate collection
systems.
Appendix B: Siting Factors Page B-1
Given the complicated nature of the soils and geology in Jefferson County, detailed
studies will be necessary to evaluate the site(s) for any proposed solid waste disposal
facility.
Groundwater
Distance to groundwater, measured in feet or in terms of the time that it takes for
water to travel from the surface to the groundwater, is an important consideration
for the siting of solid waste facilities. Shallow bodies of groundwater and/or short
travel times to the groundwater are a problem due to the risks associated with spills
and contaminated runoff from waste facilities. Other factors such as the existing and
potential beneficial uses of the groundwater are also significant considerations,
especially if the groundwater is, or could be, used for drinking water. A large
percentage of the population in Jefferson County depends on private wells for
drinking water.
Groundwater must also be considered when siting or designing solid waste facilities
because shallow groundwater can result in higher construction and maintenance
costs, interfere with excavation, and require special foundations.
Flooding
Areas known to have experienced flooding are not acceptable sites for solid waste
facilities. Solid waste facilities often entail risks not associated with other types of
development, such as the potential to create contaminated runoff. Additionally,
solid waste facilities must remain operational during and after natural disasters such
as floods in order to handle the large amount of debris that may be created.
Solid waste facilities should not be built in an area designated as a "100 -year
floodplain," which areas are known to be flooded at least once every 100 years. In
Jefferson County, these areas are generally adjacent to the major rivers and creeks, or
are along the shoreline (of the Pacific Ocean or Puget Sound). Potential sites in these
areas may also be a problem based on other standards, such as maintaining
separation distances from surface waters and the potential value of the land for
agriculture and sustainable resource production (timber, groundwater recharge, etc.).
Surface Water
Numerous rivers, creeks and small lakes are present throughout the County. These
bodies of water pose a serious constraint for locating solid waste facilities, since the
facilities frequently present a possible risk of contamination for surface water.
Regulatory standards (WAC 173-351-140) require that new disposal facilities be
located more than 200 feet from surface waters, which eliminates a substantial
amount of land for a water -rich area such as Jefferson County.
Appendix B: Siting Factors Page B-2
Slope
Much of Jefferson County is mountainous and has steep slopes that pose serious
problems for solid waste disposal facilities. Steep slopes pose problems for site
development and for future access. The lower valleys and coastal terrace areas have
gentler slopes but these areas also have high value for other purposes, such as
agriculture and housing.
Cover and Liner Materials
Cover and liner materials are important because their presence on-site at landfills
and other disposal facilities will reduce the cost of construction, operation and
maintenance. Cover materials are required to ensure that waste materials are
securely buried and to prevent gas and odors from being released in an uncontrolled
fashion, while liners are needed below the landfill to contain the leachate that is
created by decomposing wastes. Desirable materials include silt and clay for liners
and cover; sand and gravel for gas venting, leachate collection and road construction;
and a variety of other materials that could be used for intermediate cover. Many of
these materials are present throughout the County, but synthetic materials can be
used in the absence of naturally -occurring materials.
Capacity
The capacity of a waste disposal facility will obviously affect the number of potential
locations that can be used for it. It is generally easier to find an acceptable parcel of
land for smaller facilities. Conversely, there are significant economies of scale for all
waste disposal facilities, and the base cost per ton for waste brought to a small
facility will be much higher than for a larger facility.
Climatic Factors
Much of Jefferson County receives high amounts of precipitation, which poses
serious problems for landfills due to the potential for generating large quantities of
leachate. Other types of solid waste handling facilities are less affected, but all
facilities must be designed and operated to avoid contamination of surface waters by
runoff. The eastern side of the County, especially in the area of Port Townsend,
receives lower amounts of rainfall, but much of the land in this area has considerable
value for other purposes (agricultural and residential usage).
Land Use
Existing land use in Jefferson County ranges from the relatively intense residential,
commercial and industrial development in the Port Townsend area, to the
undeveloped land and forests of the Olympic Mountains. Well over half of Jefferson
County's land area is under Federal ownership.
Appendix B: Siting Factors Page B-3
The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in the fall of 1998, and that plan was most recently amended in 2013.
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and subsequent development
regulations are the tools for designation of land use. These regulations help ensure
that development occurs in a way that protects private property rights and existing
land uses while also protecting natural resources, promoting economic growth, and
assuring the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing ones.
The City of Port Townsend has also adopted a land use plan. Although this plan has
less bearing on siting solid waste disposal facilities (since it is less likely that a landfill
or other disposal facility would be located within the City's boundaries), it could
apply to transfer stations, compost facilities, or other solid waste processing and
handling facilities.
In addition to potential impacts on facility siting, urban -rural designations also affect
solid waste service levels. State planning guidelines require that service levels be
adjusted for urban and rural conditions (see Section 2.3). As indicated in Chapter 2,
the designation of urban areas for solid waste services is contingent upon the UGAs
defined by the County's comprehensive land use planning efforts.
Air Emissions and Air Quality
Siting and operating a new landfill or other solid waste facility could impact air
quality. Dust, gases, odors, particulates and vehicle emissions are all potentially
increased by landfills and other disposal operations. In certain cases, however, the
centralization of such emissions may be preferable to the impacts caused by other
disposal options. Any proposal will need to be examined by the Olympic Region
Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) for impacts to air quality.
Summary of Siting Factors
Based on the above discussion of siting factors, it can be concluded that only limited
portions of Jefferson County would be available for siting a new solid waste facility.
Much of the County is designated as national park and forest, and also has severe
slope stability problems. In the western half of the County, disposal facilities would
need to rely on extraordinary measures to manage the high amounts of rainfall
received. The eastern half is more populated and is useful for other purposes.
SOLID WASTE LANDFILL SITING PROCESS
Any new facilities developed in the future will have to meet the State and local
standards current at that time. State standards include the Solid Waste Handling
Standards (Ch. 173-350 WAC) and the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(Ch. 173-351 WAC). Local standards include the Jefferson County Comprehensive
Appendix B: Siting Factors Page B-4
Land Use Plan and zoning codes. The siting process for disposal facilities could
include the following steps:
Step 1: Site Identification
For a public disposal facility, the process of identifying sites may include soliciting
nominations from citizens and interested parties, identification of major landholders
and City/ County properties, and other activities to initially identify as many sites as
practical. For a private site, the site selection process may consist primarily of an
inventory of sites currently owned or available for purchase.
Step 2: Broad Site Screening
The second step typically involves evaluating potential sites for "fatal flaws," such as
unsuitable neighboring land use, distance from the point of waste generation, site
size, steep slopes, floodplain area, wetlands, surface water or shorelines. For a public
site, the goal might be to retain up to 12 sites after this step is completed. For a
private facility or other cases where there may be only a few sites to begin with, only
one or two sites need to survive this evaluation.
Step 3: Detailed Site Ranking
After sites with fatal flaws have been eliminated, the remaining sites should be
evaluated against more detailed criteria such as the availability of utilities (water,
sewer and electricity), traffic impacts and road access, and other factors affecting the
ability and cost to develop and use the site. For a public effort, no more than four
sites should remain after this step is completed.
Step 4: Detailed Site Evaluation
The final step in evaluating potential sites involves a detailed environmental
investigation to assess environmental impacts, in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This step should result in the recommendation of
a preferred site.
Step 5: Siting Decision
Finally, the decision to proceed with a recommended site should be based on
environmental, engineering, financial and political factors, and then more detailed
plans can be developed and the permitting process can begin.
Appendix B: Siting Factors Page B-5
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
Appendix B: Siting Factors Page B-6
FUNDING OPTIONS
APPENDIX C
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
11
r
APPENDIX C
POSSIBLE FUNDING METHODS FOR SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES
INTRODUCTION
This attachment shows more details about potential funding methods that could be
used to support solid waste activities. The following table indicates which agencies
can employ these methods and more complete descriptions of each method is shown
in the following section. This information is derived from Financing Solid Waste for
the Future (Ecology 2004, Publication #04-07-032).
Table A-1
Potential Funding Methods for Solid Waste Management
Possible Funding Methods
Potential Implementation Agency
Private
City County State Sector
User Fees, Rates, Surcharges
1. Cost -of -Service -Based Rates
X
X
X
2. Other Volume -Based Rates
X
3. Fixed Per -Customer Service Rates
X
X
4. Collection Rate Surcharges
X
5. Planning Fees
X
6. Weight or Volume -Based Disposal Fees
X
X
X
7. Fixed Per -Customer Disposal Fees
X
X
X
8. Disposal Surcharges
X
X
Taxes
9. MTCA Funds, Hazardous Substance Tax
x
X
10. State Litter Tax
x
X
11. Disposal District Excise Tax
X
12. Mandatory Collection
X
13. Franchise Fees
X
X
Specialized Fees
14. Advance Recovery Fees
X
15. Permitting Fees
X HD
Other
16. Enforcement Fines/Penalties
X
17. Sales of Recyclable Materials
X
X
X
18. Recycling Fees/Charges
X
X
X
19. Sales of Recovered Energy
X
X
20. Utility Tax
X
21. General Fund Revenues
X
X
22. Bond Financing
X
x
23. Public Works Assistance Account
X
X = Implementing authority, (x) = potentially benefits from funding method but cannot implement it, HD =
Health Department.
Appendix C: Funding Options C-1
POTENTIAL FUNDING METHODS
User Fees, Rates, Surcharges
1. Cost -of -Service -Based Rates: Cost -of -service -based rates, which allow for
rates to cover the actual costs of providing the services, is a rate -setting
methodology used by the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (WUTC) and some cities. Under Chapter 81.77 RCW, the WUTC
has established cost -of -service -based rates for regulated solid waste collection
from residents and commercial businesses in areas where certificates exist for
solid waste collection companies. Under RCW 35.21.130 and 35.21.135, cities
and towns may set rates through a solid waste or recyclable materials
collection ordinance.
Both cities and counties can provide for reduced rates as incentives. Cities
and towns may provide reduced solid waste collection rates as incentives to
residents participating in recycling programs. In WUTC-regulated areas,
counties can, by ordinance, provide for reduced solid waste collection rates as
incentives to residents participating in recycling programs, subject to WUTC
approval.
2. Other Volume -Based Rates: This represents an alternative range of pricing
options for solid waste collection and disposal services, such as using the rates
to provide incentives for reducing wastes and incentives for separating
recyclables. An example would be setting a rate where subscribers to two -can
service would pay double the rate of one -can subscribers. Specific authority
for counties to set such rates does not exist. These types of rates may be
problematic under cost -of -service models, as they are currently used to set
rates that cover costs.
3. "Fixed" or "flat" Per -Customer Rates: Fixed or flat per -customer rates charge
each customer the same amount regardless of the volume of service. Very
simply, the total costs divided by the number of households equals the rate
per household. Some cities use a flat rate for all or some services (garbage,
recycling, and yard waste). The WUTC uses flat rates for mandatory -pay
recycling and yard waste services, but not garbage.
4. Solid Waste/Recycling Collection Rate Surcharges: As noted, Chapter 35.21
RCW provides authority to cities to set collection and disposal rates, which
may include surcharges/fees to cover additional costs of managing the solid
waste system beyond actual collection and disposal costs. Similarly, RCW
81.77.160 directs the WUTC to establish collection rates that include "all
known and measurable costs related to implementation of the approved
county or city comprehensive solid waste management plan."
Appendix C: Funding Options C-2
5. Planning Fees: RCW 36.58.045 authorizes counties to impose a fee on
collection services in the unincorporated areas to pay for "the administration
and planning expenses that may be incurred by the county in complying with
the requirements in RCW 70.95.090."
6. Weight or Volume Based Disposal Fees: Both cities (RCW 35.21.120 and
35.21.152) and counties (RCW 36.58.040) are authorized to develop solid waste
disposal sites and set user fees. Weight/volume based fees involve per -ton or
per -cubic yard fees charged for disposal of solid waste at a transfer facility,
landfill, or incinerator; these fees may also apply to moderate -risk waste drop-
off, vactor waste separation and treatment, and other similar services. The
basic premise is that the user pays for the service according to the amount of
material disposed.
7. "Fixed" or "flat" Per -Customer Disposal Fees: Both cities (RCW 35.21.120
and 35.21.152) and counties (RCW 36.58.040) are authorized to develop solid
waste disposal sites and set user fees. These fees may be set on a per -customer
or per -trip basis instead of the more common weight or disposal basis.
8. Disposal Surcharges: Chapter 35.21 RCW provides authority to cities to set
collection and disposal rates, and those rates may include surcharges to cover
additional costs of managing the solid waste system over and above the costs
calculated to cover actual collection and disposal. RCW 36.58.040 allows
counties to set rates and charges for solid waste disposal, which includes the
ability to impose disposal fee surcharges.
Taxes
9. Model Toxics Control Act Funds - Hazardous Substance Tax: Also referred
to as a "pollution tax," this tax is established by Chapter 82.21 RCW and is
imposed on persons who first possess, in Washington State, hazardous
substances. The substances subject to this tax include those defined under
federal law (CERCLA), registered pesticides, petroleum products, and any
other substance that Ecology determines by rule to present a threat to human
health or the environment if released into the environment. Revenues
collected from this tax go into the Toxic Control Accounts (RCW 70.105D.070).
Both a state toxics control account and a local toxics control account were
established, and monies deposited into those accounts are to be used for a
broad array of hazardous waste and solid waste activities and programs at the
state and local government levels.
All counties are eligible to receive biennial Coordinated Prevention Grants
(CPG), which come from the local toxics control account. The CPG funding is
based in large part on population. Some portions of CPG monies go to local
Appendix C: Funding Options C-3
health authorities for inspection and enforcement activities. The other main
use of the toxics control account monies is for Remedial Action Grants (RAG),
given to local jurisdictions for cleanup activities, such as landfill closures.
CPG grants require local matching dollars, which are typically paid for with
disposal revenues.
10. State Litter Tax: The Waste Reduction, Recycling and Model Litter Control
Account (WRRMLCA), imposed through Chapter 82.19 RCW, is funded by a
tax collected from manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of items or
packaging deemed to contribute to roadside litter. Chapter 70.93 RCW directs
that the WRRMLCA be used for litter cleanup and prevention, and also for
waste reduction and recycling efforts at both the state government and local
community levels.
11. Disposal District Excise Tax: RCW 36.58.100-150 authorizes counties with
populations of less than one million to create one or more disposal districts in
unincorporated areas, which become junior taxing districts. Excise taxes may
be levied upon citizens and businesses within a district (again, unincorporated
areas only, unless city approval allows districts to expand into incorporated
areas). A disposal district is potentially in competition for taxing authority
with other junior taxing districts, including ports, fire districts and utility
districts.
12. Mandatory Collection: Collection districts in unincorporated areas may be
formed by counties under the authority of RCW 36.58A. Collection districts
do not directly raise revenues, however. They can impose mandatory
collection service at minimum levels for all unincorporated areas, which
provides the structure for a service -area wide fee to be included in collection
rates.
13. Franchise Fees/Gross Receipt Taxes: Some cities charge franchise fees or
taxes on gross receipts upon solid waste collection companies for the privilege
of entering into a contract with or doing business within a city. These fees
sometimes fund solid waste -related activities. The WUTC assesses a
regulatory fee on gross solid waste collection revenues of regulated solid
waste collection companies.
Specialized Fees
14. Advance Recovery Fees (Voluntary or Mandatory): Advance recovery fees
(ARFs) are a front-end financing method whereby some or all costs for end -of -
life management of products are paid/ collected when the product is sold.
ARFs may be voluntary or mandated, visible or invisible. Invisible fees occur
when manufacturers include the end -of -life collection, recycling, and disposal
Appendix C: Funding Options C-4
costs in the price of the product. This is called cost internalization, and
examples include programs operated by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling
Corporation (RBRC), Thermostat Recycling Corporation, Office Depot and
Hewlett Packard.
ARFs can be used to pay for manufacturer -funded programs or can be used to
pay for the costs incurred by other parties such as governments, haulers, or
recyclers. Some forms of ARFs provide incentives to manufacturers to
increase recyclability and reduce toxicity of their products, thereby reducing
program costs for other entities.
15. Permitting Fees: Permits are required for legal solid waste management
facilities. Fees for permitting activities are imposed and collected by
jurisdictional health departments. These monies are used for the health
department's operating expenses (RCW 70.95.180; WAC 173-350-700 and 710).
Other Methods
16. Enforcement Infractions/Fines/Penalties: Fees collected through enforcement
actions taken against solid waste facilities are nearly always paid into a
jurisdiction's general fund. However, they are not necessarily directed to help
pay for the jurisdiction's enforcement or other solid waste management
activities.
17. Sales of Recyclable Materials: Revenues from selling collected recyclable
materials can be used to help pay for solid waste programs. Prices for
recyclables fluctuate widely.
18. Fees/Charges for Recycling: Public and private recycling entities may charge
fees to cover the costs of recovering or recycling a variety of discarded
products.
19. Sales of Recovered Energy: Some solid waste facilities, such as waste -to -
energy facilities and landfills, are able to recover energy from the waste
materials. Some landfills create energy by burning landfill gas. Sales of this
energy can be used to help pay for solid waste programs.
20. Government -Collected Funds from Private Sector Activities ("Utility
Taxes"): In some instances, pursuant to RCW 81.77.020, cities contract with
private parties to provide various solid waste collection services but retain the
billing function. Revenues received above the amount remitted to the
contractor can be directed to other solid -waste -related programs and activities
by the applicable municipality.
Appendix C: Funding Options C-5
21. General Fund Revenue Sources: Governments may use general fund
revenues to pay for solid waste activities, and some do rely to some extent on
such funding.
22. Bond Financing: RCW 36.67.010 authorizes counties to sell bonds to pay for
major solid waste projects. Bonding is used for capital projects (landfills,
transfer stations, etc.) or large landfill remediation efforts. It is not used for
regular operating expenses. Bonds can be general obligation (GO) or revenue
bonds. Typically, the debt service for a bond is paid with disposal fees.
23. Public Works Assistance Account: A statewide solid waste collection tax has
been in place since 1989. Chapter 82.18 RCW imposes a 3.6% "solid waste
collection tax" on all persons using such service. Revenues collected via this
tax go into the Public Works Assistance Account, which is used to provide
loans and financial guarantees to local governments for public works projects,
including solid waste and recycling infrastructure. This tax replaced an earlier
"refuse collection tax," and that name continues to be applied to the new tax.
These funds are to be used to make loans or give financial guarantees to local
governments for public works projects.
Appendix C: Funding Options C-6
APPENDIX D
UTC COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing.
APPENDIX D
UTC COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the information shown in this appendix is to allow an assessment of
the impact of proposed activities on current and future garbage collection and
disposal rates. By State law (RCW 70.95.090), solid waste management plans are
required to include:
"an assessment of the plans impact on the costs of solid waste collection.
The assessment shall be prepared in conformance with guidelines
established by the Utilities and Transportation Commission. The
Commission shall cooperate with the Washington state association of
counties and the association of Washington cities in establishing such
guidelines."
The following cost assessment questionnaire has been prepared in accordance with
the guidelines provided by the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC 2001).
The UTC needs this information to review the plan's impacts to the certificated waste
haulers that it regulates, of which there are two in Jefferson County (Waste
Connections and West Waste & Recycling). For these haulers, the UTC is responsible
for setting collection rates and approving proposed rate changes. Hence, the UTC
will review the following cost assessment, and then advise Jefferson County as to the
probable collection rate impacts of proposed programs. Consistent with this
purpose, the cost assessment focuses primarily on those programs (implemented or
recommended) with potential rate impacts.
SUMMARY
As an update to the previous solid waste plan, this plan largely recommends
continuing existing programs and hence does not create significant new or additional
impacts to the solid waste system costs currently being incurred in Jefferson County.
Some recommendations are made for expanded waste reduction and recycling
programs (at additional costs), but these are largely contingent on the availability of
funds (either additional grant funds or surplus tipping fee revenue). Annual tipping
fee increases have been implemented since the previous solid waste plan, and this
plan reflects that.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-1
UTC COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
PLAN PREPARED FOR THE COUNTY OF: lefferson
PLAN PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF: NA
PREPARED BY: Rick Hlavka, Green Solutions
CONTACT TELEPHONE: (360) 897-9533
DATE: December 7, 2015, Revised Mav 13, 2016
DEFINITIONS
Definitions used in the Solid Waste Management Plan and the Cost Assessment
Questionnaire.
Throughout this document:
YR.1 shall refer to 2016
YR. 3 shall refer to 2018
YR. 6 shall refer to 2021
Year refers to Calendar Year (Jan 01 - Dec 31)
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-2
1.0 DEMOGRAPHICS
1.1 Population
1.1.1 Total population of the County:
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
30,779
31,398
32,349
1.1.2 Population of the area included in the solid waste management plan:
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
30,779
31,398
32,349
1.2 References and Assumptions
See Table 2-2.
2.0 WASTE STREAM GENERATION
2.1 Tonnage Recycled
2.1.1 Total tonnage recycled in the base year, and projections for years three
and six.
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
19,313
16,641 d
17,145
2.2 Tonnage Disposed
2.2.1 Total tonnage disposed in the base year (2016), and projections for
years three and six.
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
17,544
17,897
18,439
Note: 2015 Actual tonnage disposed = 18,977
2.3 References and Assumptions
See Table 2-8.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-3
3.0 SYSTEM COMPONENT COSTS
3.1 Waste Reduction Programs
3.1.1 Implemented and proposed waste reduction programs
IMPLEMENTED
Existing waste reduction activities are anticipated to be continued.
PROPOSED (see pages 3-11 to 3-131
Consider product stewardship programs if proposed
Education on wasted food
More promotion for clothing reuse and recycling
Consider ban on yard waste disposal
Promote smart shopping
Promote fix -it workshops
Publicize volume -based rates more
Expand business recognition program
City and County to adopt waste reduction policies
Consider other bans
Monitor with performance-based measures
3.1.2 Costs for waste reduction programs implemented and proposed?
Implemented
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
266,000
271,350
279,600
Proposed **
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
55,000
56,100
57,800
* includes current public education and recycling costs. Current costs assumed to increase at
1 % per year.
** proposed activities and expenses are contingent on the availability of funding.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-4
3.1.3 Funding mechanism(s) that will pay the cost of the programs in 3.1.2.
Implemented
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Tipping Fees and
CPG Funds
Tipping Fees and CPG
Funds
Tipping Fees and CPG
Funds
Proposed
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Tipping Fees, CPG
Funds, and Other
Funds as Available
Tipping Fees, CPG
Funds, and Other
Funds as Available
Tipping Fees, CPG
Funds, and Other
Funds as Available
3.2 Recycling and Composting Programs
3.2.1 Proposed or implemented recycling and organics programs:
IMPLEMENTED
Existing recycling activities are anticipated to be continued.
Continue to promote on-site composting.
PROPOSED (see vanes 4-14 to 4-15 and 5-10 to 5-11
More promotion of curbside recycling in unincorporated areas.
Consider increasing curbside recycling to weekly in Port Townsend.
Consider switching to dual -stream or single -stream without glass.
Consider additional steps to encourage curbside recycling.
Conduct a recycling potential assessment.
Consider charging fees for hard -to -recycle materials.
Seek local applications for glass.
Support proposals for commercial food waste diversion as appropriate.
Support programs for residential food waste diversion as appropriate.
Support methods for diversion of pet waste as appropriate.
3.2.2 Costs for recycling programs implemented and proposed?
Implemented
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Costs for current programs are included in above table
Proposed
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
25,000
51,000
52,500
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-5
3.2.3 Funding mechanism(s) that will pay the cost of the programs in 3.2.2.
Implemented
Ol m is Dis osal
G -Permit #9
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Garbage Rates, Other
Garbage Rates, Other
Garbage Rates, Other
User Fees, and
User Fees, and
User Fees, and
Tipping Fees
ng Fees
Tipping Fees
Proposed
5,100
5,260
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Garbage Rates, Other
Garbage Rates, Other
I
Garbage Rates, Other
User Fees, and
User Fees, and
User Fees, and
Tipping Fees
Tipping Fees
Tipping Fees
3.3 Solid Waste Collection Programs
3.3.1 Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs
UTC Regulated Hauler Name
Ol m is Dis osal
G -Permit #9
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Residential and Commercial
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
# of Customers
3,452
3,522
3,628
Tonnage Collected
5,000
5,100
5,260
UTC Regulated Hauler Name
West Waste & Rec clin
G -Permit #251
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Residential and Commercial
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
# of Customers
1,014
1,034
1,066
Tonnage Collected
1,200
1,224
1,261
* Data shown for West Waste is for entire regulated area, including Clallam County
customers.
3.3.2 Other (non-regulated) Solid Waste Collection Programs.
Hauler Name
DM Disposal (contract with
Port Townsend
Residential and Commercial
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
# of Customers
3,626
3,700
3,811
Tonnage Collected
4,400
4,490
4,620
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-6
3.4 Energy Recovery & Incineration (ER&I Programs)
NA, no such facilities
3.5 Land Disposal Program
NA, no such facilities
3.6 Administration Program
3.6.1 What is the budgeted cost for administering the solid waste and
recycling programs and what are the major funding sources.
Budgeted Cost
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
461,000
470,300
484,500
Funding Source
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Tipping Fee
�_TippingFee
Tipping Fee
3.6.2 Which cost components are included in these estimates?
Management and planning services provided by County departments.
3.6.3 Funding mechanism(s) that will recover the cost of each component.
Tipping Fees
3.7 Other Programs
3.7.1 Describe the program, or provide page numbers.
Moderate -Risk Waste Facility, see pages 8-7 through 8-10.
3.7.2 Owner/Operator: Jefferson
3.7.3 Is UTC Regulation Involved?
No
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-7
3.7.4 Anticipated costs for this program.
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
87,000
88,750
91,400
3.7.5 Funding mechanism(s) that will recover the cost of this component.
Tipping Fees
Coordinated Prevention Grant
Fees charged to Small Quantity Generators
3.8 References and Assumptions
Costs shown in Section 3.1.2 include public education costs and recycling
program costs. Costs for current and proposed programs are escalated at
1.0%, based approximate current inflation rate.
For Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, the tonnages collected by Waste Connections are
based on county records for 2014 and are escalated at 1.0% per year (which is
the anticipated population increase for this period). The customer count is
based on mid -2015 figures for the regulated area and 2014 figures for the City
of Port Townsend, and both are escalated at 1% (the population increase). For
West Waste & Recycling, figures shown are based on 2014 data (escalated by
1 % per year) and includes both Jefferson County and Clallam County
customers.
For Section 3.6 and 3.7, costs for administration and MRW operations are
assumed to increase 1 % annually, beginning with 2016 budgeted figures (see
Table 9-1, page 9-4).
4.0 FUNDING MECHANISMS
4.1 Funding Mechanisms (Summary by Facility)
The following tables provide information on funding sources for programs
and activities.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-8
See page 7-3 for further details.
Table 4.1.1 Facility Inventory
Facility Name
Type of
Tip Fee
Transfer Cost Transfer
Final Disposal
Total Tons
Total Revenue Generated
Jefferson County Solid
Waste Disposal Facility
JCSW DF
Facility
NA
Station
Location
Disposed
(Tip Fee x Tons)
NA
Quilcene Drop Box
NA
Location
NA
(2014)
NA
Jefferson County Solid
Transfer
$147 61.
0
Near Port
Roosevelt Regional
1 41.9%
1 19.8%
Waste Disposal Facility
Station
per ton
NA
Townsend
Landfill
17,662
$2,558,253
JCSW DF
2015
$32.80
Roosevelt Regional
Quilcene Drop Box
Drop Box
NA
Quilcene area
Landfill (through
176
$44,538
per c.y.
JCWMF
See page 7-3 for further details.
See Table 9-1, figures here are based on projected 2015 costs.
Table 4.1.3 Funding Mechanism
Name of Program Bond Total Bond Bond Bond Due Grant Name Grant Amount Tip Fee Taxes Other Surcharge
Name Debt Rate Date
Recycling and Education CPG $28,000 $238,000
Moderate -Risk Waste $76,000 $11,000
See Table 9-1, figures here are based on budgeted 2016 costs.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-9
Table 4.1.2 Tip Fee Components
Tip Fee by Facility
Surcharge
City Tax
State and
County Tax
Trans. and Operational Cost
Disposal Cost
Admn. Cost
Closure Costs
Jefferson County Solid
Waste Disposal Facility
JCSW DF
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Quilcene Drop Box
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
All Facilities
0
0
1 1.8%
1 41.9%
1 19.8%
1 15.7%
1 1.8%
See Table 9-1, figures here are based on projected 2015 costs.
Table 4.1.3 Funding Mechanism
Name of Program Bond Total Bond Bond Bond Due Grant Name Grant Amount Tip Fee Taxes Other Surcharge
Name Debt Rate Date
Recycling and Education CPG $28,000 $238,000
Moderate -Risk Waste $76,000 $11,000
See Table 9-1, figures here are based on budgeted 2016 costs.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-9
Note: The tipping fee shown in the above table for JCSWDF is for larger loads of mixed solid waste (i.e., amounts above the minimum
charge). The tipping fee shown for the Quilcene Drop Box is based on the per -ton actual costs for 2014, but the rates there are
actually volume -based. Fees have been adopted by County ordinance (see page 9-3) for Years One through Four and are set to
increase 2.5% per year, but years Five through Six have not been determined yet and so are assumed to remain the same as Year
Four.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-10
Table 4.1.4
Tip Fee Forecast
Tip Fee per Ton
Year One Year Two
Year Three Year Four Year Five Year Six
Jefferson County Solid
Waste Disposal Facility
(JCSW DF)
$151.30
$155.08
$158.96
$162.93
$162.93
$162.93
Quilcene Drop Box
$265.87
$272.52
$279.33
$286.31
$286.31
$286.31
Note: The tipping fee shown in the above table for JCSWDF is for larger loads of mixed solid waste (i.e., amounts above the minimum
charge). The tipping fee shown for the Quilcene Drop Box is based on the per -ton actual costs for 2014, but the rates there are
actually volume -based. Fees have been adopted by County ordinance (see page 9-3) for Years One through Four and are set to
increase 2.5% per year, but years Five through Six have not been determined yet and so are assumed to remain the same as Year
Four.
Appendix D: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire D-10
4.2 Funding Mechanism Summary:
4.2.1 Year One
4.2.2 Year Three
Funding
Mechanism (inpercent)
Component
Tip Fee
Grant
Bond Collection Rates, ServiceTax Fees Other
Total
Waste Reduction
89
11
11
100
Recycling
89
11
89
100
Collection
100
100
100
R&I
100
100
100
R&I
Transfer
100
100
Land Disposal
100
100
Administration
100
100
100
Other
100
Administration
100
Moderate -Risk
Waste
87
100
13
100
4.2.2 Year Three
4.2.3 Year Six
Funding
Mechanism (inpercent)
Component
Tip Fee
Grant
Bond
Collection Rates, ServiceTax Fees Other
Total
Waste Reduction
89
11
100
Recycling
100
Recycling
89
11
Collection
100
Collection
100
R&I
100
100
100
R&I
100
100
100
Transfer
100
100
100
Land Disposal
100
100
Other
100
Administration
100
Moderate -Risk
Waste
87
100
Other
100
Moderate -Risk
Waste
87
13
100
4.2.3 Year Six
Appendix D: Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page D-11
Funding
Mechanism (inpercent)
Component
Tip Fee
Grant
Bond Collection Rates, ServiceTax Fees Other
Total
Waste Reduction
89
11
100
Recycling
89
11
100
Collection
100
100
R&I
100
Transfer
100
100
Land Disposal
100
100
Administration
100
100
Other
Moderate -Risk
Waste
87
13
100
Appendix D: Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page D-11
4.3 References and Assumptions
See Section 14.
For Table 4.1.2, operational cost includes MRW operations.
4.4 Surplus Funds
NA
Appendix D: Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page D-12
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
APPENDIX E
SEPA COMPLIANCE
INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains the environmental checklist required by the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The purpose of the checklist is to provide
information on the environmental impacts of the activities proposed by this Solid
Waste Management Plan (SWMP). Much of this checklist addresses only the general
concerns related to the County's solid waste system, but specific actions proposed by
this SWMP are addressed as appropriate. One or more of the activities discussed in
the SWMP may require separate SEPA processes when implementation plans are
more fully developed.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
/0
1.
11
5.
7.
.03
isa
BACKGROUND
Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan
Name of applicant:
Jefferson County
Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Project Manager: Consultant:
Tom Boatman
Solid Waste Manager
Jefferson County Dept. of Public Works
(360) 385-9243
Date checklist prepared:
December 15, 2015, revised April 12, 2016
Rick Hlavka
Green Solutions
PO Box 680
South Prairie, WA 98385
(360) 897-9533
Agency requesting checklist:
Washington State Department of Ecology. State law regarding solid waste
management plans require a SEPA checklist.
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Jefferson County SWMP recommends various solid waste management
programs to be continued or developed over the next five years.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Yes, see pages ES -1 through ES -5 for a complete listing of the activities
recommended by this plan, and see Table 10-1 (pages 10-6 and 10-7) for the
schedule proposed for the recommended activities. In addition, State law
requires solid waste management plans to be reviewed every five years, and
updated if necessary.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,
or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
NA
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals
of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal?
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-2
M
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known.
In order to participate in the SWMP, each local jurisdiction will need to
approve and adopt the SWMP. These jurisdictions include Jefferson
County, the City of Port Townsend, and possibly the Hoh, Quinault, and
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Councils.
Building and other permits may be necessary to implement a few of the
recommendations being made by this SWMP, but these permits (and an
environmental review process, if necessary) will be sought through separate
processes at a later date.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed
uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in
this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do
not need to repeat those answers on this page (Lead agencies may modify this
form to include additional specific information on project description).
The Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is a twenty-year plan for the
unincorporated and incorporated areas of Jefferson County. Federal rules
require that the Olympic National Park and the Olympic National Forest
abide by the policies and programs in this SWMP.
This SWMP discusses all aspects of solid waste management within the
County and incorporated areas, including waste reduction, recycling,
composting, energy recovery, collection, transfer, import/export, waste
disposal, and regulation and administration. Specific recommendations are
made for all of these elements, but in most cases these recommendations
represent program or policy refinements that have no significant
environmental impacts.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street
address if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the
site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The activities proposed by this SWMP will generally take place throughout
Jefferson County.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-3
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one):
Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
The specific sites impacted by the SWMP's
recommendations are generally the occupied
areas in the County, which are flat or rolling.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
b. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay,
sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
C. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities
of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or building)?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-4
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,
or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the
proposal i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood
smoke) during construction and when the project is completed?
If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
No significant amounts of emissions are anticipated as a
result of any of the recommendations made by the SWMP.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other
impacts to air, if any.
No significant amounts of emissions are anticipated as a
result of any of the recommendations made by the SWMP.
3. WATER
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal
streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes,
describe type and provide names. If appropriate state
what stream or river it flows into.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-5
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to
(within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please
describe and attach available plans.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that
would be placed in or removed from surface water
or wetlands and indicate the area of the site
that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals
or diversions? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain?
If so, note location on the site plan.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste
materials to surface waters? If so, describe the
type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-6
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example,
domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size
of the system, the number of such systems, the number
of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water)
and method of collection and disposal, if any (include
quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters?
If so, generally describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-7
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk
cabbage, other
water plants: water lily eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
All of these types of vegetation can be found in Jefferson County.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or
near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
All of these types of animals can be found in Jefferson County.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or
near the site.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-8
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove,
solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs?
Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Several of the activities recommended in the SWMP
will require small additional amounts of electrical
power to support normal, everyday activities.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans
of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control
energy impacts, if any.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,
that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
No, although the SWMP encourages continuing and possibly
expanding a related activity (moderate risk waste collections)
that should help prevent this type of problem in the future, see
Sections 8.6 and 8-10 (Recommendation SW7) for more details.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-9
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
The Household Hazardous Waste Facility already
has established procedures for incident response.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
The Household Hazardous Waste Facility already
has established procedures for incident response.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term
basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-10
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
C. Describe any structures on the site.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-11
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including;
antennas what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Does not apply.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-12
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time
of day would it mainly occur?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in
the immediate vicinity?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?
If so, describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project
or applicant, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-13
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national,
state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the
site? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans,
if any.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-14
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements
to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water,
rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Implementing the SWMP may cause slight increase in
vehicular traffic, and future increases in waste
tonnages will increase truck transportation
requirements (for waste export containers and garbage
collection vehicles).
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services
(for example: fire protection, police protection, health care,
schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-15
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Does not apply, there is no specific site
being addressed by this plan.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-16
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to
air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or
production of noise?
By providing for secure disposal of solid wastes and increased recycling
activities, the SWMP is expected to decrease impacts and discharges to
water and air, and to provide for more secure handling of toxic or hazardous
substances that may be part of the solid waste stream. No substantial
increases or decreases in noise levels are expected as a result of the SWMP's
recommendations.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
No significant impacts to plant, animal, fish, or marine life are expected.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life
are:
Does not apply.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
A small amount of energy and materials will be needed to implement the
recommendations in the SWMP, but this is expected to be more than offset
by the energy and resources conserved as the result of increased waste
prevention, recycling and composting recommended by the plan.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Does not apply.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental
protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or
endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or
prime farmlands?
No substantial impacts, either positive or negative, to environmentally
sensitive or other protected areas are expected to result from the
recommendations in the SWMP.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-17
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
No substantial impacts, either positive or negative, to land and shoreline
use are expected to result from the recommendations in the SWMP.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Does not apply.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities?
Minor changes are proposed for public services and to several aspects of the
waste collection system.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
None.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The SWMP was prepared in response to a State requirement for the proper
management of solid waste, and it is intended to comply with all applicable
local, state and federal laws and requirements regarding protection of the
environment.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance Page E-18
APPENDIX F
RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double -sided printing.
11
r
APPENDIX F
RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION
NOTICE:
After the Final Draft of this SWMP has been adopted by the participating
jurisdictions (Port Townsend and Jefferson County), this appendix will document the
adoption process by showing the adoption resolutions from the municipalities.
Appendix F: Resolutions of Adoption Page F-1