HomeMy WebLinkAbout084 00
P~.~ . P,,) )
Uv.. .11'-'- I...~......db
" .p.{;i)~ V -J-'
¡-t:b .
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF: A RESOLUTION TO )
ADOPT THE 2000 SOLID WASTE )
MANAGEMENT PLAN, FINAL DRAFT AS A )
JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING DOCUMENT)
AND APPROVING ITS' IMPLEMENTATION)
RESOLUTION NO.
84-00
WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.110 requires the Jefferson County Solid Waste Management
Plan to be maintained in a current condition, and significant changes in the solid waste services
provided by the County have required major revisions to the previous Plan adopted in 1991, 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 authorized this
agreement by letter, dated October 30, 1998, with attached resolution from the Mayor of Port
Townsend, and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan shows 10ng-
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 five
years, and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft 2000 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 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan was made
available for Public Comment, and widely distributed to potentially interested parties, in March
2000 and a Public Hearing to take comments on the Preliminary Draft was held in the County
Commissioners' Chambers on April 10, 2000 with proper prior notification, and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan incorporates all public
review comments received by the closing date of the Public Comment period, including the
Public Hearing held on April 1 0, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan has received a SEPA
Determination of Non. Significance and the appeal period for that SEP A Determination ended on
July 10, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan has been approved by
the W A State Department of Ecology for adoption by Jefferson County and the City of Port
Townsend, and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan must also be
separately adopted by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, and
.. ,
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on October 16, 2000 the
Port Townsend City Council carried a Motion to Adopt the Final Draft 2000 Solid Waste
Management Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressed concern that the population forecasts used in
the Final Draft 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan need to be revised to incorporate the most
recent population statistics for the City of Port Townsend, and
WHEREAS, the population forecasts in the Final Draft 2000 Solid Waste Management
Plan are based on the Population Forecast and Allocation developed through the Joint Growth
Management Steering Committee and adopted by mutual agreement between the City of Port
Townsend and Jefferson County in 1996, and
WHEREAS, future revisions to the population forecasts will be done through the Joint
Growth Management Steering Committee when new data are available and adopted by mutual
agreement between the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, and
WHEREAS, an Amendment to the 2000 Solid Waste Management Plan will be made to
incorporate any such revisions when properly adopted, and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Jefferson Board of County
Commissioners on October 23,2000 to accept comments on the adoption of the Final Draft 2000
Solid Waste Management Plan.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that, until it may be further amended or revised, the
Final Draft 2000 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 October 23,
2000.
APPROVED AND SIGNED This ¿iI.3l1 day of
.,..---.".- - . . """'...
,/",.1",,\, ". .."
_/'.:)~jf., '.J ð;\',"
SEAJ( '~C";>~ '..'~. \
'l;~.\<~?::' .~~:)
"'-'" -, ':,
odü!~
,2000.
~Ol«~
Approved as to Form
J ö J 17 )ea
t)~
uting Attorney
"I,
I
I
I
:1
,I,
I,
I
I
I',
I"
I
I
1-
:-
I
I
, 1-
'I'
1-
,JEFFERSON COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE .
,," , ",' "
'SOLID WASTE
- , '.
. ,
.. MANAGEMENT PLAN
, FINAL DRAFT
AUGUST200()
, Jefferson C ountyDepartment 'of Public Works
, ' 1322Wa$hîngton Street ,.
. Port Townsend, WA 98368 ','
FINAL DRAFT
JEFFERSON COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
August 2000
Prepared for:
Jefferson County Department of Public Works
PO Box 2070
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Prepared by:
Green Solutions
PO Box 680
South Prairie, W A 98385-0680
(360) 897-9533
PRINTED ON RECYCLED AND RECYCLABLE PAPER
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) incorporates the
program planning and the program changes put into practice since the previous solid waste plan
was published in 1990, The Jefferson County Department of Public Works recognizes the
following organizations, and those individuals who participated, for their significant contributions
to program planning since 1990 and for their assistance in the [mal development of this CSWMP:
.. 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.
"
:_1
Jefferson County residents also contributed to this document, through survey responses, comments
received during countywide public meetings on solid waste services, and through various inquiries
or comments. The Board of County Commissioners and the Public Works Department gratefully
acknowledge this input by the citizens.
.,,-j
.--,
Table of Con tents
Page ii
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Drajl
CONTENTS
CHAPTERS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction ..................................................................................................... E-l
Goals and Objectives .............................""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" B-1
Plan Organization """"""""""'..........."""""""""""....................................... B-2
Background .............................................................................."""""""""""" E-2
Process and Schedule for Adoption of the CSWMP .......................................... E-2
Recommendations ............................................................................................ E-3-
1 IN1RODUCTION
1.1 Role and Purpose """""""""""",,"',""'..'.-...""""'"................................. 1-1
1.2 Relationship to Other Plans ................... ........ -........ ......................... ........... 1-2
1.3 Previous Solid Waste Plans """"'.....""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1-2
1.4 Process for Updating the CSWMP ............................................................, 1-2
1.5 Goals and Objectives of the CSWMP ........................................................ 1-5
1.6 Organization' of the CSWMP .... ................................................................. 1 ~6
1.7 Standard Nomenclature used in the CSWMP ............................................. 1-7
2 BACKGROUND OF TIIE PLANNING AREA
2.1 Introduction... .................... ............................................................. ........... 2-1
2.2 Description of the Planning Area ............................................................... 2-1
2.3 Evaluation of Potential Sites for Solid Waste Facilities .............................. 2-4
2.4 Quantity and Composition ofSolîd Waste .................................................. 2-8
3 WASTE REDUCTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................,................ 3-1
3.2 Preface to the Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting Chapters.... -.. 3-1
3.3 Waste Reduction ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Public Education ....................,.......-........................-................................. 3-7
4 RECYCLING
4 -1 Introduction...... -"""""'.... .-.-.............................""""""""" ...................... 4-1
4.2 Source-Separation Recycling Programs........................ ..-..""""""""" --.... 4-1
4.3 Mixed Waste Processing Options .. -................................ --.............. ,"'.... -- - 4-11
Table of Can tents
Page iii
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table of Contents, Continued
5 COMPOSTING
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Yard Debris Composting Programs """"'.."""'"""", '.....""""""""""""'" 5-1
5.3 Food Waste Composting Options .............................................."""""""'" 5-6
5.4 Solid Waste Composting Options .................................................."""""" 5-7
6 COLLECTION AND IN-COUNTY TRANSFER
6.1 Introduction ........ ........ ....... ................ ......... ............ ........... ...... .................. 6-1
6.2 Solid Waste Collection .............................................................................. 6-1
6.3 In-County Transfer ................................'..............""'".............................. 6-5
7 DISPOSAL
7.1 Introduction .....................................................................""""""""""""" 7-1
7.2 Incineration ............................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 In-County Landfilling . ........... ...... .............................. .................... ............ 7-2
7.4 Waste Import and Export ........................................................................... 7-4
8 REGULA nON AND ADMINISTRATION
8.1 Introduction. .. .. .. . ..... .. .... ...... ... ......" ... ... .... . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .... . .. .... . . .. ... . .. .. .. .. . .. . 8-1
8.2 Regulation and Administration .......................... ........................................ 8-1
9 SPECIAL WASTES
9.1 Introduction """"""""""""""""""",,"...."".'"......................""""""""'" 9-1
9.2 Agricultural Wastes... .........."', -... ......................... ............"""""""""""'" 9-1
9.3 Animal Carcasses ....... ...... ....""""""""""" ................""""""""""""""'" 9-3
9.4 Biomedical Wastes .................................................."".............................. 9-3
9.5 Biosolids (Sewage Sludge and Septage) ..................................................... 9-5
9.6 Construction, Demolition Wastes and Land-Clearing Wastes ..................... 9-8
9.7 Grease ,,"........'.'..""".."""""""""""""'"................................................ 9-10
9.8 Moderate Risk Wastes ....................................,......................................... 9-11
9.9 Wood Wastes """""""""""""""""",-"'..."""""...........""""""""""""" 9-13
'1
I
!
Table of Can tents
Pageiv
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvlanagement Plan, Final Draft
Table of Contents, Continued
GLOSSARY """""""."""""""""""""",-...............""""""""""""""","""""............ G-l
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. R-I
APPENDICES
A
B
C
D
E
Participating Jurisdictions
Resolutions of Adoption
WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
SEP A Compliance
Table of Con tents
Page v
Jefftrson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table of Contents, Continued
LIST OF TABLES
Page
E.l High Priority Recommendations .................................................................. E-I0
E.2 Medium Priority Recommendations ........-................................................... E-11
E.3 Low Priority Recommendations .................................................................. E-12
1.1 Status of Recommendations from the Previous Plan ...........-.......................... 1-3
1.2 Membership of the Jefferson County SWAC ................................................. 1-4
2.1 Jefferson County Population by Area ............................................................ 2-'3
2.2 Jefferson County Population Trends........ ..... "'..o....o.... ................ .....o............ 2-3
2.3 Solid Waste Quantities in 1998 """""""""'.....o.................o.....o........o........... 2-9
2.4 Projected Solid Waste Tonnages """"""""""""""""""""""""""""....o..... 2-11
2.5 Estimated Solid Waste Composition in Jefferson County............................. 2-12
2.6 Recycled Quantities by Material ................... o....o....o......o............................. 2-14
1
4.1 Typical Market Prices for Recyclable Materials.. ................ ............ .............. 4-4
5.1 Yard Debris Drop-Off Quantities ......................................................... "'...... 5-2
5.2 Curbside Collection of Yard Debris in Port Townsend """"""""""'......o...... 5-3
5.3 Six-Year Capital Expense Schedule for Public Yard Debris Facilities "..o.o.... 5-6
8.1 Jefferson County Solid Waste Budget.......... ................................................. 8-4
8.2 Projected Revenue Requirements for Jefferson County................................. 8-5
8.3 Goals and Policies from the County's Comprehensive Plan ........................... 8-7
8.4 Goals and Policies from the City's Comprehensive Plan ............................... 8-8
9.1 Estimated Quantity of Agricultural Wastes in Jefferson County .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . o. . 9-2
9.2 Biosolids Quantities in Jefferson County ....................................................... 9-7
9.3 History of Construction Activity in Jefferson County.................................... 9-9
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2.1 Monthly Tonnages Disposed at JCTS in 1998 ............................................... 2-9
Table afContents
Page vi
Je.ffersol1 County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
TIlls Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) 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).
This CSWMP addresses solid waste management throughout the County. The one incorporated
area, the City of Port Townsend, had the option to develop its own plan but chose to participate in
the County's planning process (per resolution #92-79, see Appendix A). The various Tribes in
Jefferson County use the County's facilities and, because this CSWMP may affect their solid waste
management options, careful review of this plan is recommended for the Hoh, Quinault and J ames-
town S'Klallam Tribes. Federal agencies with facilities and activities in Jefferson County are also
encouraged to review this plan because of the potential impacts to their operations.
The minimum contents of this CSWMP are specified by State law (RCW 70.95.090) and further
described in Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan
Revisions issued by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology 1990). The Solid Waste
Management Act specifies that this CSWMP must "be maintained in a CUITent and applicable
condition" through periodic review and revisions (RCW 70.95.110).
This CSWMP was prepared through a team effort involving the Jefferson County Department of
Public Works and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). The SWAC members represent
not only the interests of their respective agencies and businesses, but as residents and members of
the community they also represent the public's interest.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives for this Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan are:
)Þ to develop a solid waste system that promotes and maintains a high level of public health and
safety, and which protects the natural and human environment of Jefferson County.
)Þ to implement, to the fullest extent possible and in descending order of priority, a solid waste
management system that;
.
reduces the waste stream,
promotes recycling, and
minimizes the amount of land required for future waste disposal.
.
.
)Þ to promote input and ensure public participation in the planning process through the year 2020.
Executive Summary
Page E-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
>- to develop an economically responsible program for solid waste management that recognizes
the needs for environmental protection and service to the citizens of the County.
>- to promote the use of private industry to carry out the components ofthe solid waste system, if
feasible.
>- to encourage cooperative and coordinated efforts among government agencies, private
companies and the public to support the goal of sustainable resources for the community.
>- to be consistent with other existing resource management and local plans.
.. to incorporate flexibility to accommodate future needs.
PLAN ORGANIZATION
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is organized as follows:
"'1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Background Information
Chapters 3 through 9: Elements of the Solid Waste Management System
Chapter 1 describes the purpose and goals of this CSWMP, its relationship to other plans, and the
process and schedule for updating the CSWMP. Chapter 2 provides important information about
demographics, waste quantities, and other information that supports the findings of this CSWMP.
Chapters 3 through 9 discuss the various elements of the COlUlty'S solid waste management system,
and provide the information and analysis on which the recommendations are based.
BACKGROUND
The current (1998) amount of solid waste generated in Jefferson County is 19,535 tons per year.
Of this, 29% is diverted through recycling or composting, while the remaining 13,660 tons are
disposed of through the County's waste export system. The amount of waste generated in the
County is expected to increase to 31,600 tons per year in 2020. At the current recycling and
composting rate, 9,180 tons per year of this future amount will be diverted while 22,430 tons per
year will be disposed.
Data is provided in this CSWMP on the composition of the waste sent to a landfill for disposal,
although this data is from a statewide study that is not specific to Jefferson County's conditions and
is also likely outdated. A local study should be conducted before the County or another party
makes a significant investment (such as for a waste processing facility) that relies on the
composition of the waste stream.
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR ADOPTION OF THE CSWMP
This copy of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is a "final draft"
that incorporates public and agency review comments and has been issued a SEP A Determination
of Non-Significance. Final draft plans are prepared specifically for review and adoption by local
Executive Summary
Page E-2
JejJèrson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
governments (Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend) and other interested parties
(Tribes, Olympic National Park and the Department of Natural Resources). Once adopted, and
after a final review and approval by Ecology, the CSWMP becomes the "final plan" and this
process is finished.
RECOMMENDA TIONS
The specific recommendations proposed by this CSWMP are shown below and are numbered for
review purposes, using a sequential number and an abbreviation for the topic (for example, WR3 is
the third recommendation for Waste Reduction). Additional details can be found in the appropriate
chapter of the plan.
The recommendations are shown below in the order that they appear in the chapters. In the tables
at the end of this Executive Summary, the recommendations have been rearranged into three
categories according to high, medium and low priority (see Tables E.l, E.2 and E.3). This was
done to assist the County with the allocation of funds, staff and other resources according to the
activities with the greatest priority, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.
In discussing the priorities of the recommendations, the SW A C concluded that three of the
reconunendations have the highest priority. These recommendations are viewed as guiding
principles for the Jefferson County solid waste management system:
~ solid waste operations should be financially self-supporting,
~ the County should continue to strive for a 35% overall waste diversion goal (waste reduction,
recycling and composting), and
>-- public education shall be given a very high priority (since it is the means of achieving many of
the other recommendations).
The specific recommendations found in this CSWMP are listed below by chapter.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Chapter 3 of the CSWMP discusses two related topics: waste reduction and public education.
Waste Reduction: There are several good programs in Jefferson County for waste reduction. This
CSWMP recommends continuing the existing programs, with refinements or expansions of a few
oftbese:
WRl) County and City staff, with the SW AC's assistance, shall re-evaluate the County's overall
goal for waste diversion and its components, including waste reduction.
WR2) The County and SW AC should continue to investigate procedures for estimating the
effectiveness of the waste reduction programs.
WR3)
County solid waste staff, with the assistance of the SWAC and other members of the com-
munity, will continue to research and promote options for reuse, including but not limited
to, the SWAC/SWAP ReUse Fair, brochures advertising local opportunities (including
thrift and secondhand stores), reuse at the County's Moderate Risk Waste Facility,
expanded presence in the local media, and expanded use of County and City web sites.
Executive Summary
Page E-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Drajì
WR4) Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend should adopt a resolution of support for
State and Federal waste reduction legislation and forward this to state or national
legislators as appropriate.
WRS) The County and City need to expand in-house waste reduction, recycling and procurement
programs. Providing education, leadership and other assistance to businesses to implement
similar programs will also be pursued.
Public Education: Discussions of public education concluded it is one of the highest priority
activities needed to support the Jefferson County solid waste management system. Much is already
being accomplished but there are significant opportunities for additional public education activities,
leading to the following recommendations:
PEl)
Public education shall be given a very high priority. Public education should include
activities such as;
.. ~
)Þ- classroom presentations and other outreach through the schools (PEl).
)Þ- public iIÚormation and education programs should be implemented and expanded
through a joint City/County agreement, and in cooperation with the haulers and
recycling companies (PE3).
)Þ- education for the County's Moderate Risk Waste Facility should be expanded,
including the household hazardous waste and conditionally-exempt small quantity
generator programs, and information about materials that will not be accepted for
disposal at the Solid Waste Transfer Station and Quilcene Drop Box (PE4).
)Þ- education and promotion for the City's Biosolicls Compost Facility, on-site composting
and worm bins should be expanded. The County and the Washington State University
Cooperative Extension Service should cooperate to promote backyard composting
(PE5).
)Þ- 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
program maintenance in the City and County. Education associated with recycling
collection should be focused on improving and expanding participation as well as
generating feedback and answering questions from the public. The responsibility for
this lies primarily with the recycling contractor, the franchise haulers and the contract
hauler (in the City of Port Townsend), who must infonn their customers of the correct
materials and preparation methods for recycling. Public education and other waste
diversion programs that are included in City or County contracts must be fully
implemented (PE6).
. ,
)Þ- the County shall 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 may
be considered by the County and City (PE7).
)Þ- the County, through a cooperative effort by the Department of Health and the
Department of Public WorIcs, should expand education and enforcement addressing
illegal dumping (PE8, see also Recommendation S 1, page E-8).
Executive Summary
Page E-4
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
>- the County, with assistance from the SW AC, should conduct a recognition program for
businesses that reduce and/or recycle a significant portion of their wastes, basing this
program on existing models fTom other communities (PE9).
>- sustainability concepts shall be included in public education materials developed by the
County (PEW).
Chapter 4: Recycling
Chapter 4 of the CSWMP discusses existing programs and provides recommendations for two
types of recycling: "traditional" recycling programs based on source-separation (which requires
some level of separation of the materials prior to collection) and mixed waste processing programs
(where recyclable materials are separated from garbage at a central processing facility).
Source-Seoaration Recycling Pro!J:rams: The recycling programs in Jefferson County are diverting
a substantial amount of materials from disposal, but a few additional opportunities were noted in
examining these programs. This led to the following recommendations:
Rl)
R2)
R3)
R4)
RS)
The County shall continue to strive to meet a 35% goal for waste reduction, recycling and
composting.
In order to meet the goal of improved recycling economics, existing recycling programs
will be examined to increase their cost-effectiveness. Expanded recycling programs may
require additional financial support from local govenunents. The SW AC should continue
with its proactive role in addressing these issues. The County and City shall continue to
explore all funding and contract options for the recycling program.
Public recycling containers should be available throughout the County. Incentives for
encouraging private businesses to host recycling containers should be examined.
The County and City should encourage market development for designated and potentially
recyclable materials. Participation by the business community and economic development
agencies will be encouraged in this effort, and a priority should be put on finding feasible
local alternatives for problem materials (such as the potential use of glass as aggregate).
The County and City should continue to support and encourage private efforts to divert
recyclable materials from commercial sources.
Mixed Waste Processing: Mixed waste processing is not used in Jefferson County (except for
removal of metals at the Transfer Station), but a variation of this approach (a dump-and-pick
operation) has gained some attention over the past few years, leading to the following
recommendation:
R6)
The County should continue to evaluate the possibility of using staff or contracted
employees to pull recyclable and/or reusable materials from the solid waste after it is
dumped on the floor of the Transfer Station.
Executive Summary
PageE-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan. Final Draft
Chapter 5: Composting
. "
Several types of composting are examined in Chapter 5, including composting of yard debris, food
waste, and mixed solid waste. No recommendations have been made for solid waste composting,
but the recommendations being made for the first two options are shown below.
Yard Debris Composting: Overall, current programs for yard debris composting are performing
well and only a few refinements are being recommended:
Cl)
C2)
The County should continue to partner with the City of Port Townsend to maintain and
expand their biosolids composting operation. If the supply of compost increases above
demand, the County and City should utilize the finished product on County and City
properties and projects, when applicable.
The County should build demonstration gardens in at least one of its parks, such as the HJ
CarTOll Park, and other locations to educate residents about the benefits ofbiosolids,-
venniculture and/or yard debris composting. The County should work with local garden
clubs or other groups to build and maintain these gardens.
.. ...,
Food Waste Comuosting: Discussions about food waste concluded that doing much with this type
of waste is not necessary or desirable, leading to just one recommendation:
C3)
Small-scale vennicomposting projects should be encouraged, such as the pilot wonn bin
programs previously conducted at the Mountain View and Grant Street Schools. Home
composting of food waste should be encouraged with public education on the proper
methods for vennicomposting or incorporation into compost bins.
Chapter 6: Waste Collection and Transfer
Chapter 6 of the CSWMP examines the current system for collecting and transferring solid waste in
Jefferson County.
Solid Waste Collection: In general, the existing solid waste collection system is functioning well,
and only one recommendation is being made concerning it:
WC1)
.. ;
Franchise haulers and municipal contracts shall continue to use variable rate structures
such as volume-based rates, and incentive rates should be implemented by the franchise
haulers to encourage recycling by their residential customers. The implementation of
incentive rates will require that the County first adopt a service ordinance addressing this
rate structure. Additional incentives and alternative rote structures that promote waste
reduction and recycling should also be considered, such as mini ~ rates in the City of
Port Townsend and in the franchise areas.
In-County Transfer: As with waste collection, the existing Drop Box is working satisfactorily and
only one recommendation is being made for in-county transfer at this time:
TI)
The County should continue to evaluate options for maintaining drop box service in the
unincorporated areas of the County.
Executive Summary
Page £-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Chapter 7: Disposal
Chapter 7 discusses existing practices and options for several disposal methods, including
incineration, in--county landfilling, waste import and waste export. No recommendations are being
made for incineration and waste import, but the recommendations for in-county Iandfilling and
waste export are shown below. Furthennore, no specific recommendations are being made for the
development of an in-county landfill, but Recommendations RA2 and 54 provide an opportunity to
evaluate regional opportunities for solid waste disposal.
In-County Landfilling: Discussion of in-county landfilling led to the following recommendation:
LI)
Old dump sites that are known to exist in the County must be documented and inspected,
with the goal of developing an assessment of their long-tenD liability.
Waste Export: Most of Jefferson County's disposal needs are currently being served by an
effective waste export system with adequate capacity to handle the projected growth in population
and waste quantities over the 20-year planning period. The first step in the waste export system is
the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility, which is the designated disposal facility for all
waste generated in Jefferson County (except waste from the west end of the County). The west end
of the County is difficult to serve cost-effectively due to the geographic barrier posed by the
Olympic Mountains, leading to the following recommendation:
WEI) The implementation of a "north-south corridor" to serve the western ends of both Jefferson
and Clallam Counties is recommended, although further discussions will be needed to
detennine implementation details.
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Regulation and Administration: The following recommendations are made for regulation and
administration:
RAI) 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 achieve
this goal.
RA2)
The County should continue to pursue and investigate all opportunities for regionalization
of solid waste management programs.
RA3)
The County should consider the cost of cleanup of illegal dumping when evaluating the
possible closure of drop box sites or other changes to solid waste services.
RA4)
Enforcement of the litter and solid waste ordinances (County codes 8.10 and 8.30, and City
codes 6.04 and 6.06) should be given top priority for controlling illegal dumping.
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
This C5WMP examines the sources and existing programs for nine special waste streams, and
concludes that five of these pose current or potential disposal problems. For these five waste
Executive Summtlry
Page E-7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
streams, options for improved handling were discussed and the following recommendations were
developed.
Biomedical Wastes: Syringes ("sharps") have been found improperly disposed in several locations,
causing concerns about exposure to infectious diseases and leading to the following
recommendation:
81)
Increased education efforts should be conducted by the Jefferson County Health
Department, with assistance from the Solid Waste Education Coordinator, targeting
residential medical waste and encouraging proper disposal for it (see also PES, page E-5).
Septage (Biosolids): Presently there is a shortage of processing capacity for septage generated in
the region, although all of the Jefferson County septage is accepted at the Biosolids Compost
Facility at this time. Some of the region's septage must be transported longer distances to disposal
facilities in other counties, leading to the following recommendation:
S2)
The City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, with assistance from the SWAC, should
continue to contribute to the discussion of septage disposal issues and problems.
Construction/DemolitionlLandclearing (CDL) Wastes: CDL wastes are generated in significant
quantities but lack adequate recycling or cost-effective disposal options, leading to the following
recommendations:
S3)
S4)
Existing opportunities for reuse (through reuse stores) and recycling of construction and
demolition wastes should be promoted to homeowners and building professionals by the
County as part of the public education efforts conducted for waste reduction and recycling.
County staff and SW AC wìll participate in future discussions to evaluate the feasibility of
a regional CDL landfill.
Grease: Grease is a waste not easily handled by the solid waste disposal system or wastewater
treatment systems, and it is typically handled through separate collection and recycling. The value
of grease recently dropped to a very low level, however, leading to service charges for the
collection of grease (collection services were previously provided at no charge). The reaction of
some restawants has been to cancel grease collection services, prompting concern over their
current handling methods and leading to the following recommendation:
S5)
Restaurant inspectors from the Department of Health should encourage proper handling
and disposal practices for grease, and encourage recycling of this material where
appropriate.
Moderate Risk Wastes (MRW): Jefferson County has an effective program for separate collection
and proper disposal of moderate risk (hazardous) wastes, and the only recommendation made is to
refine the existing system (see also PE4, page E-4):
86)
Existing collection efforts for MRW, including regional cooperation, should be continued
and possibly expanded, where feasible.
Page E-8
Executive Summary
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Summary of Recommendations in Order of Priority
Tables E.l through E.3 show the recommendations in order of priority. The priority for each
recommendation was established by the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee based
on feasibility, cost, and anticipated results. The recommendations are shown in order of the
chapter in which they appear, except for the three highest priorities, and are otherwise not listed in
any particular order within each table. Due to space limitations, recommendations are shown in an
abbreviated fashion in these tables.
As can be seen in the attached tables, many of the recommended programs are "ongoing" (i.e.,
have already been implemented or planned) and costs are shown as "existing" (i.e., funding has
already been included in the County's and other budgets). This is largely the result of the County's
and City's continual efforts to examine the solid waste management system and make appropriate
adjustments over recent years. These efforts have included the long-range planning studies and
financial analysis in 1997 - 1998, fe-bidding several components of the solid waste management
system in 1998, re-negotiating the waste export contract in 1999, the systems analysis conducted in
1996, and significant studies done for the City in 1996 on the recycling program and the compost
facility operations. 1brough their continual efforts to monitor and adjust the solid waste system,
the County and City have created a well-planned, integrated system for solid waste management,
one that requires only minor refinements at this point.
bxecutive Summary
Page E-9
I Jejjàson Caonly Solid Waste Management Plan, Mnal Draft
Recommendations.
Guiding Principles for the Jefferson County Solid Waste System:
RAl) 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 achieve this goal.
R I) The County shall continue to strive to meet a 35% goal for waste reduction, recycling and composting.
PEl) Public education shall be given a very high priority.
Recommended Activi
WR3) Continue to research and promote options for reuse.
WR5) The County and City need to expand in-house waste
reduction, recycling and procurement programs.
Public education should be implemented through activities such as;
- classroom presentations and other outreach thru schools (PE2).
- a joint City-County agreement for public education (PE3).
- expand public education for the MRW programs (PE4).
- expand education and promotion for composting (PE5).
- public ed. included in all waste diversion programs (PE6).
- conduct outreach about true costs of solid waste disposal (PE?).
- expand education and enforcement for illegal dumping (PE8).
- conduct a recognition program for businesses (PE9).
- include sustainability concepts in public ed. materials (PElO)
R3) Public recycling containers should be available.
R5) The County and City should encourage private efforts to
divert recyclable materials from commercial sources.
C 1) County to assist City with composting operations.
WC I) Franchise haulers and municipal contracts shall use
volume-based rates and incentive rates.
RA3) Consider illegal dumping costs when closing disposal sites.
Lead Agenc
Count
Schedule
Ongoin
County
City/County
County
City/County
County
County
County
County
County
Count
C ounty/C it
Count
Ongoing
Annually
By Dec. 2000
By April 2001
Ongoing
Ongoing
By Dec. 200 1
By June 2001
Ongoing
Ongoin
Cost
Existin- 1
Existin
Existing
Existing 2
$500/year
$I,OOO/yr
Varies
Existing
See RA4
Existing
Existing
Unknown
Staff time 3
Staff time
S taft'
time
Existin
$52,0004
Existin - 5
Funding Source
County/CPG
City/County/CPG
funds
County/CPG
City/County
County/CPG
City/County
County !Rates/ City
County
County/CPG
County/CPG
County
Uncertain
Count~
Countv/Cit
Countv/Ci
County
County/CPG
Countv/CPG
1. "Existing" = existing costs consist primarily of staff time and expenses already budgeted.
2. Existing costs already budgeted by County, although City/County agreement may increase costs for City through cost-sharing anangement.
3. "Staff time" = cost consists of a small but additional amount of staff time (for existing stafi).
4. Includes costs for S 1, encouraging proper residential medical wastes (sharps) disposal.
5. The cost for 86 is shown as "existing", but any future expansions of service may lead to a significant increase in the cost of this program.
Notes:
Executive Summary
Page E-1O
,~.,.'_. ..,,'
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table E.2. Medium Priority Recommendations.
Recommended Activi
WR2) Continue to investigate procedures for estimating the
effectiveness of waste reduction.
WR4) Adopt a resolution of support for State and Federal waste
reduction legislation.
R2) Recycling programs will be examined to increase cost-
effectiveness.
R4) Encourage market development for recycled materials.
C2) Build and maintain demonstration gardens to promote use of
compost.
C3) Encourage small-scale vennicomposting projects.
Tl) Continue to evaluate options for maintaining drop box service
in the unincorporated areas.
Ll) Document and inspect old dumps, to assess their long-tenn
lìability.
WE I) A "north-south corridor" to serve the western ends of both
Jefferson and Clallam Counties should be implemented but
further discussions will be needed to detennine the
feasibility of this approach.
RA2) The County should continue to investigate all opportunities
for regionalization of solid waste management programs.
S 1) Increased education about proper disposal of residential
medical waste.
S3) Promote opportunities for reuse and recycling of construction
and demolition wastes.
Notes:
Lead A2encv Schedule Cost I Funding Source
Staff and
County/SW AC I Periodically I committee I County/CPG
time
County/City 1 By Dec. 2001 I Staff time 1 County
Count /SWAC On oin Existìn 1 Count
Count B ,Dec. 2001 Uncertain County/Grants
County (Parks Two gardens by $6,000
and Rec. De t.) Dec. 2005 each Count '/Grants
Count On om Existin County/CPG
County Ongoin Existin County
County (Health I Staff time 2 I
Dept.) I By 2005 County/Grants
County I By Dec. 2002 I Staff time I County
County I Ongoing I Staff time I Coun
County (Health I Significant 3 I
Deot. and PWD) B Dec. 200 1 Countv/CPG
County -- Ongoing Existing- _I. County/CPG
1. Costs shown for "staff time" are for new activities that will require a small amount of staff time (for existing staff); costs shown as "existing" denote
existing activities that have already been budgeted and included in staff workloads.
2. For Recommendation L1, inspection of old dumps, additional costs and staff time requirements could be substantial (see Chapter 7 for more details).
3. The cost of S I, increased education about proper disposal of residential medical wastes, is included in the $52,000 shown for Recommendation RA4
(see Table E.l).
Executive Summary
Page E-11
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table E.3. Low Priority Recommendations.
n I I I I
Recommended Activit
WRl) Re-evaluate overall waste diversion goal.
R6) Continue to evaluate the possibility of recovering recyclable
and/or reusable materials from solid waste after it is dumped
on the floor of the Transfer Station.
82) Continue to contribute to discussions of septage disposal
issues and problems.
84) Participate in discussions to evaluate the feasibility of a
regional COt landfill.
85) Encourage proper handling and disposal practices for grease,
including recycling.
Lead A2.enc
Schedule
Cost
Staff time I
Fundim! Source
Countv/Cit
Ongoing 1 Existing 1
-
On oin Uncertain 2
On oin Staff time
By Dec. 2000 Staff time
County
County
Countv/Cit
Count
County (Health
DeQt.)
County/Cit
County
Noles:
A few of the recommendations shown above are viewed as low-priority items simply because the recommendation requires no immediate action or any
actions thal differ from current activities.
1. Cosls shown for "staff time" are for new activities that will require a small amount of staff time (for existing staff); costs shown as "existing" denote
existing activities that have already been budgeted and included in staff workloads.
2. A small amount of staff time (for existing staff) is anticipated. Any significant changes that may be required in the future to handle seplage disposal
could involve significant costs.
Executive Summary
Page E-12
l~
-,~ .--~._~.
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final DrafT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 ROLE AND PURPOSE
This Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) 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, who is the only incorporated municipality
in Jefferson County, has authorized the County to include the City in their planning process. This
action is in accordance with City ordinance 92-79 (see Appendix A).
TIle various Tribes in Jefferson County generally use the County's facilities. Because this
CSWMP may impact their CUITent and future solid waste management options, careful review of
this plan is recommended for the Hob, Quinault and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes. Federal
agencies with significant facilities and activities in Jefferson County are also encouraged to review
this plan because of the potential impacts to their operations.
The minimum contents of this CSWMP are specified by State law (RCW 70.95.090) and further
described in Guidelines for the DeveloDment of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan
Revisions issued by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology 1990). To summarize, solid
waste management plans must contain:
>- an inventory of existing solid waste handling facilities, including an assessment of any
deficiencies in meeting CUITent disposal needs.
>- the estimated needs for solid waste handling facilities for a period of twenty years.
>- a program for the development of solid waste handling facilities which is consistent with this
CSWMP 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.
>- a program for surveillance and contro1.
Chapter I: Introduction
Page 1-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
»- an inventory of solid waste collection needs and operations, including infonnation on
collection franchises, municipal operations, population densities of the areas covered by either
~anchised or municipal operations, and projected solid waste collection needs for a period of
SIX years.
»- 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.
»- waste reduction and recycling strategies, including residential collection progranlS 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.
»- an assessment of the impact that implementation of the CSWMP's recommendations will have
on solid waste collection costs.
, 1
»- a review of potential sites for solid waste disposal facilities.
1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
'This ComDrehensive Solid Waste Management Plan must function within a framework created by
other plans and programs, including policy documents and studies which deal with related matters.
Two of the more important documents are the Jefferson County ComDrehensive Land Use Plan
(adopted in 1998) and the City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Land Use Plan (adopted July
1996). Other important documents include the Solid Waste ODerational Analvsis (Beck 1996), the
Jefferson County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (PSR 1991), and the Port Townsend Waste
Reduction and Recycling Plan (GS 1996).
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 1990, and the waste reduction and recycling chapters were revised substantially in
1995 - 1997 (although the proposed revisions were never officially adopted). Table 1.1 shows the
recommendations from the previous plan and the CUTTent status of these recommendations.
-._,
1.4 PROCESS FOR UPDATING THE CSWMP
The County began long-range planning studies and financial analysis in 1997 to evaluate funding
options for solid waste management, and many see this as a first step in updating this CSWMP.
Options considered at that time included raising the tipping fee, using alternative funds to pay for
certain non-disposal costs, and establishing a City/County disposal district through an interlocal
agreement. Public input was solicited through mailed surveys and five countywide public meetings
with the Board of County Commissioners and staff. No agreement was reached to implement any
of the alternatives, but the information gained through this process assisted significantly with the
CUTTent planning efforts. In. addition, the tip fee has been held steady in part through the successful
re-negotiation ofthe long-haul waste disposal contract in 1999.
Chapter 1.. Introduction
Page 1-2
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
". n.
?t////:::fi///tifft
::::'::,:::::::tt:):':'::,?:::::::::t::::i:~ '://:}}f:i::f "".'
Notes: WRJR == waste reduction and recycling, SW == Solid Waste, RC == Recycle Center, MFS == Minimum Functional
Standards (Washington State regulations), JCHD '" Jefferson County Health Department) PWD == Public Works
Department, and PT == POIt Townsend.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Page 1-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
The next step in producing this updated CSWMP was to work with the County's Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SW AC), County and City staff, and other interested parties to produce the
first draft of the plan. The formation, membership makeup, and role of the SW AC 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 SW AC members during the development of the draft plan are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2. Membership of the Jefferson County SW Ac.
Current Members *
Michele Cox
V. Alice McConaughy
Tami Ruby
Elisa Floyd
Sydney Lipton
John Merchant, Vice-Chair
Mary Jenkins, Chair
Cindy Lesh
Greg McMillan
LylUl Fitch
Past Members (since 4/99) **
Diane Perry-Thompson
Gordon James
Jim Worthington
Barbara Wallace
Robert Beausoleil
Affiliation
Olympic Disposal
Port Townsend Paper Corp.
Port of Port Townsend
Skookum Environmental Services
City of Port Townsend
Alternate, City of Port Townsend
District #3 Representative
District #3 Representative
District # 1 Representative
District # 1 Representative
ì
District # 1 Representative
District #2 Representative
District #3 Representative
Skookum Environmental Services
Olympic Disposal
* Current members as of July 2000.
** The contributions of other SW AC members prior to April 1999 are also gratefully acknowledged.
',:..-'
The SW AC members represent not only 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 SW AC 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.
The process of updating and adopting this CSWMP consists of the following steps:
~ preparation and review of draft chapters for comment by the SW AC and County staff
Chapter 1.' Introduction
Page 1~4
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
... compiling revised draft chapters into a "first draft" for review and comment by the SW AC and
County staff. The use of a "first draft" is an additional step not shown in the typical Ecology
process, but allows a critical opportuníty to review the plan as an integrated package.
... development of a draft CSWMP for SW AC review and comment.
... development of a SEPA checklist for the draft CSWMP,
... detennination of cost and rate impacts using the Cost Assessment Questionnaire provided by
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC),
... combining the above three documents to create the Preliminary Draft CSWMP.
... review of the Preliminary Draft CSWMP by the public, Ecology and WUTc.
... incorporation of public, WUTC and Ecology comments to produce the Final Draft CSWMP.
... technical review by Ecology to ensure correct incorporation of all comments.
... adoption by cities, Tribes, and Jefferson County.
... submittal of the Final CSWMP with resolutions of adoption to Ecology for final approval.
... after final approval by Ecology, the implementation period for the new CSWMP begins,
Ecology's Planning Guidelines require that solid waste management plans be reviewed at least
every five years, with the fIVe-year period beginning when the current plan has received fmal
approval from Ecology. For the current plan, final approval from Ecology is projected to be in
2000, but time should be allowed for the development of the next plan and so the review process
should begin again in 2004 and, if necessary, a new CSWMP adopted in 2005. Before that time,
however, this CSWMP can be kept in a current condition through amendments addressing specific
items (such as changes in operations or in regulatory requirements), thus possibly avoiding the
need for a substantial revision in five years.
1.5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CSWMP
In addition to meeting the requirements of State law and other mandates, the goals and objectives
established by Jefferson County for this update of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan are (not in order of priority) to:
... develop a solid waste system that promotes and maintains a high level of public health and
safety, and which protects the natural and human environment of Jefferson County.
... implement, to the fullest extent possible and in descending order of priority, a solid waste
management system that;
.
reduces the waste stream,
promotes recycling, and
minimizes the amount of land required for future waste disposal.
.
.
Chapter 1.. Introducn'on
Page1-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan. Final Draft
... promote input and ensure public participation in the planning process through the year 2020.
... develop 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 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 goal of sustainable resources for the community.
... 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 a guide for the long-term (20 years) implementation of the plan's
recommendations.
:.-"
¡
i
,j
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE CSWMP
T1ris 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 and Public Education
Chapter 4: Recycling
Chapter 5: Composting
Chapter 6: Collection and In-County Transfer
Chapter 7: Disposal
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Chapter 2 provides important information about demographics, waste quantities and other factors
common to the remaining chapters. The purposes of Chapters 3 through 9 are to:
-J
... 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.
... 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.
Chapter 1.. Introduction
Page 1-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Appendix C contains the WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire, as required by State law, which
is for detennining the potential impacts to collection rates. Appendix E contains the SEP A
Checklist, again as required by State law, for detennining the potential environmental impacts of
recommended changes.
1. 7 STANDARD NOMENCLATURE USED IN THE CSWMP
This CSWMP attempts to provide a standardized approach for the use of capitalized letters when
referring to government agencies, including:
~ 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 Whep.
capitalized, this refers specifically to Jefferson County. In the latter case, the tenn 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 should clarify the exact meaning of
the tenn.
>- 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 CSWMP and to a specific national government.
In a sinùlar fashion, "Compost Facility", "Transfer Station", "Recycle Center", "Moderate Risk
Waste (or MRW) Facility", and "Drop Box" are capitalized when these are used to refer to specific
facilities in Jefferson County.
This CSWMP also uses standard nomenclature to distinguish between different types of solid waste
and recycling containers. The tenn "drop box" is used only for solid waste collection boxes,
"dumpsters" refers to the smaller 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" refers to the smaller boxes used by households for curbside
recycling. More infonnation about the definitions for words used in this CSWMP can be found in
the Glossary.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Page 1-7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Alanagement Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides background infonnation on the geography, demographics and existing
conditions in Jefferson County. This infonnation is required by Ecology and it is also needed in
several of the following chapters of this Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP).
The information in this chapter is organized into three additional sections:
2.2
2.3
2.4
Description of the Planning Area
Evaluation of Potential Sites for Solid Waste Facilities
Quantity and Composition of Solid Waste
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA
An understanding of the environmental, demographic and land use 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. To address the primary aspects of these conditions
in Jefferson County, this section is divided into two parts: the natural environment and the human
environment. The description of the natural environment includes a brief review of topography,
geology, soils, and climate. The description of the human environment includes the demographic
and land use characteristics of the planning area.
2.2.1 Natural Environment
Overview
Jefferson County is located on the Olympic Peninsula in northwestern Washington State. The
County is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, Cla1lam 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.
Geologv 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
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
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 sandstone, argillite, and
conglomerate that are layered with basaltic volcanic rocks of the Crescent Fonnation. The
peripheral rocks are folded and faulted. The core rocks are also Miocene to Eocene in age but are
much more deformed than the peripheral rocks. Metamorphic lithology and textural characteristics
are very common in the core rocks.
Climate
The climate of Jefferson County is primarily maritime in character with cool dry summers and wet
mild winters. The Olympic Mountains have the widest range of rainfall in the United States;
however, and in Jefferson County the average annual rainfall varies from 20 inches in Port
Townsend (in the northeastern comer 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 unti11ate in the summer.
Little or no snow is experienced at lower elevations during most winters.
2.2.2 Human Environment
Current PopulationlDemograohics
According to a population forecast prepared for the City of Port Townsend (WWG 1994), the 1999
population of Jefferson County is an estimated 27,860 people. The one city in Jefferson County,
Port Townsend, has about 9,023 residents, or 32 percent of the population. Table 2.1 shows the
County's population distribution for 1990 and 1999.
Future Po9u1ationlDemographics
Evaluating growth trends in an area's population is useful in determining future trends in solid
waste generation. Table 2.2 shows previous and projected population figures for Jefferson
County. As shown in Table 2.2, the population of Jefferson County is expected to increase
significantly by 2020.
- -'
Seasonal Population Changes
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, but that must be considered since they create additional demand for certain
types of programs and facilities during the summer months. According to PUD District #1 (PUD
1999), the amount of seasonal population varies from 15 to 20% in some areas, up to 60% and
higher for other areas (such as Brinnon and Beckett Point).
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-2
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 2.1. Jefferson County Population by Area.
Annual
19901 19991 Increase. %
Incorporated Area:
Port Townsend 7,001 9,023 3.2%
Unincorporated Areas:
Brinnon 1,090 1,392 3.1%
Center/Inland Valleys 1,075 1,425 3.6%
CoylefToandos Peninsula 369 432 1.9%
Discovery Bay 891 1,142 3.1%
Marrowstone Island 686 891 3.3%
Port Ludlow/Oak Bay 1,111 2,304 11.9%
Quilcene 1,123 1,372 2.5%
Quimper Peninsula 2,076 3,173 5.9%
Shine/Paradise Bay 722 954 3.6%
Tri-Area 3315 4,782 4.9%
West End 947 969 0.3%
Subtotal, Unincorporated 13.405 ll.lli 4.5%
Jefferson County, Total 20,406 27,860 4.1%
Notes:
1. From "Population Forecast for Jefferson County and Port Townsend" (WWG 1994).
Table 2.2. Jefferson County Population Trends.
Year Total PoDulation 1 Percent Change2
1950 11,618
1960 9,639 -17.0%
1970 10,661 10.8
1980 15,965 49.8
1990 20,406 27.8
2000 28,506 39.7
2010 35,295 23.8
2020 42,060 19.2
Notes:
1. Population figures for the years 1950 through 1980 are from Census Bureau data (USDC
1991), and for the years 1990 through 2020 the figures are from "Population Forecast for
Jefferson COMly and Port Townsend" (WWG 1994, average of high and low projections
for the year 2020).
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.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
2.3 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SITES FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
TIris CSWMP 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.
2.3.1 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. TIris 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 Hob, 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.
Given the complicated nature ofthe 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.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-4
Jefferson Coun~y Solid Waste Nfanagement Plan, Final Draft
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 generally cannot be built at sites that are in an area designated as "IOO-year
floodplain", which are those areas 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 are generally also a problem
based on other standards, such as maintaining separation distances from sutface 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.
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 tenace 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. As previously discussed under the
"soils and geology" subsection of this chapter, many of these soils are present throughout the
County. In the absence of naturally-occurring materials, however, synthetic materials can be used.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
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 ail facilities must be designed and operated to avoid
contamination of surface waters by runoff. The eastern side oftbe 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).
,
,I
:',
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.
The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in
the fall of 1998 (IC 1998). The Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and subsequent
development regulations are the tools for designation of land use. The development regulations
will 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.
When the County adopted its Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1998, it acknowledged that two
remaining issues had to be studied in greater depth. The first was to determine if sufficient land
was provided for future commercial and industrial development, and the second was how to
respond to a desire by citizens to have an additional "urban growth area" (UGA) in the County. A
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (JC 1999a) was prepared to compare and
analyze the possible impacts of several alternatives, including expanding the Port Townsend UGA
or the creation of a separate UGA in the Chimacum/IrondaleIPort Hadlock Tri-Area.
The City of Port Townsend has also adopted a land use plan (PT 1996). 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/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 pages 4-2 and 4-3). As indicated in Chapter 4, the designation of urban areas for
solid waste services is contingent upon the UGAs defined by the County's comprehensive land use
planning efforts. Hence, the adoption of anyone of the proposed alternatives discussed above
(other than a "no-action" alternative) or other modifications in the designation ofUGAs may
require changes in solid waste services.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Jvlanagement Plan, Final Drafl
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 Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) for impacts on 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 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.
2.3.2 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 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling
(Ch. 173-304 WAC) and the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Ch. 173-351 WAC).
Local standards include the Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (JC 1998) and zO1úng
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.
SteD 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 should 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, olÙY one or two sites need to survive this evaluation.
SteD 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, electricity), traffic impacts
and road access, and other factors affecting the ability to develop and use the site. For a public
effort, no more than four sites should remain after this step is completed.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draß
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 (SEP A). 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.
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. About 85% of the
County's wastes are handled through the Jefferson County Transfer Station and transported to a
regional landfill in Klickitat County, Washington. The other 15% "migrates" out of the County for
various reasons. 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 or less-expensive disposal facilities may be available in other
areas). Individuals may bring their waste to facilities in other counties, especially for residents in
the western part of Jefferson County where a local disposal facility is no longer available.
This CSWMP focuses primarily on "Municipal Solid Waste" (MSW), which are those wastes
generated by residential and commercial sources and 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 disposed through the County's system, but special wastes handled
separately by these sources may only be addressed briefly in this CSWMP.
2.4.1 Current and Future Solid Waste Quantities
Information on the current (1998) municipal solid waste quantities was provided by County staff
from the records of the Jefferson County Transfer Station and Ecology staff (recycled quantities).
This information is summarized in Table 2.3. These figures 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 rate at which solid waste is generated varies throughout the year due to seasonal activities.
Data :!Tom Transfer Station records shows that the amount of solid waste disposed in anyone
month in 1998 varied from a minimum of928 tons in February to a maximum of 1,413 tons in
July (see Figure 2.1). This pattern is evidence of the impact of tourism on the County's solid
waste system, as most other communities experience their maximum montWy tonnage in the
spring or fall, with July being lower or about average.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-8
Jefferson County Solid Waste .Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 2.3. Solid Waste Quantities in 1998.
Source / Site
Jeff. Co. Transfer Station (JCTS):
City of Port Townsend
Olympic Disposal
Self-Haul to JCTS
Total JCTS AmOWlt
Drop Boxes:
Hadlock Drop Box
Clearwater Drop Box
Quilcene Drop Box
Total Drop Box Amount
Total Waste Disposed3
Recycled Amount
Total Waste Generated
Population4
Per Capita Generation Rate
Annual Tons! Percent of Totae
4,296 tons 31.0%
4,153 tons 30.0%
5.209 tons 37.6%
13,658 tons 98.5%
2 tons 0,01%
19 tons 0.1%
183 tons 1.3%
204 tons 1.5%
13,862 tons
5.673 tons
19,535 tons
27,148 people
0.72 tons per person per year
100%
Notes:
1. Annual tons for JCTS and the drop boxes are from data provided by County staff, data for
recycling is from Table 2.6, and other figures are derived from this data.
2. Percent oftota! shown is for disposed amounts only.
3. "T ota! waste disposed" does not include special or other wastes that are disposed at facilities
outside of County system.
4. The population figure shown is for 1998, and was extrapolated from data shown in "Population
Forecast for Jefferson County and Port Townsend" (WWG 1994).
Figure 2.l. Monthly Tonnages Disposed at JCTS in 1998.
.J::. 1600
-
c
0
:2 1200
"-
CD
0-
11)
C
0
I-
1061
800
400
....\ ....\ '^ .~ _\ 0 _\ ~ & & & &
r8-'I ~'I ~vy &,'1.. ~~ ~ ~...... ~tp ":$)0 ~0 ":$)0 ~0
~Yj ~ ~'fi ~ ~' '3::> 'S ~vCb ~0-r ÆO ~ø~ ~-r
')'fi «.ø:' C;)ø~ u- ~o <:)0
Chapcer 2: Background
Page 2-9
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Pinal Draft
In Table 2.4, waste quantities have been projected using the current per capita generation rate
multiplied by population forecasts for the County. 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 2.4 provide a conservative baseline estimate for plarming purposes. TIlis approach also
assumes no change in the amount of waste migrating to out-of-county facilities and other factors
such as tourism remaining proportionate to increases in the general population.
2.4.2 Solid Waste Composition
Composition data for Jefferson County's waste stream is needed to assist in designing solid
waste handling and disposal programs. No waste composition study has been performed in
Jefferson County to date, so waste composition data for this plan was derived ITom the most
recent study conducted by Ecology (Ecology 1993). This study, the 1992 Washington State -
Waste Characterization Study, divided the State into three regions and examined the
composition of waste ITom specific residential and commercial sources. The three regions are
the Western Washington region, the Central Puget Sound region, and the Eastern Washington
region. Jefferson County is included in the Western Washington region, along with Clallam,
Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Island, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, San Juan, Skagit,
Skamania, Thurston, Wahkiakum, and Whatcom counties.
Waste composition data is shown in Table 2.5 for the County overall and for several specific types
of waste generators. The specific sources examined by Ecology's waste characterization study
include single-family residential, multi-family residential (apartments), residential self-haul,
commercial self-haul, and several types of businesses. The breakdown by business type provides
valuable data for other purposes, but it cannot be used to determine the average composition of the
commercial waste stream for a particular county. Hence, Table 2.5 does not include data
specifically for the commercial and industrial waste stream in Jefferson County, although this data
can be assumed to be included in the overall figures.
The solid waste composition figures shown in Table 2.5 are typical of the waste streams in many
areas, but it should be noted that the figures are only an approximation of Jefferson County's waste
stream. Since this data is derived ITom a study of broad regional areas, these figures may not
accurately reflect the composition of the waste in Jefferson County. For instance, this data does
not reflect local differences caused by specific recycling programs or by regulations such as Port
Townsend's polystyrene ban (see Section 3.3.3). TIlis data is also considered by many to be
outdated. 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 CSWMP is expected to affect waste
composition in Jefferson County by changing purchasing and disposal habits.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-]0
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draß
Table 2.4. Projected Solid Waste Tonnages.
Total Waste Waste Gener- Amount Waste Disposed. TPy5
Year Population I Generated2 ation Rate3 Recyc1ed4 JCTS DB Total
Actual Amounts:
1997 26,440 18,905 0,715 5,062 13,278 565 13,843
1998 27,150 19,362 0.720 5,673 13,658 204 13,862
1999 27,860 20,920 0.751 6,074 14,648 195 14,843
Projected Amounts:
2000 28,510 21,405 0,751 6,220 14,990 200 15,190
2001 29,150 21,890 0.751 6,360 15,330 204 15,530
2002 29,800 22,380 0.751 6,500 15,670 209 15,880
2003 30,440 22,850 0.751 6,640 16,000 213 16,220
2004 31,090 23,340 0.751 6,780 16,350 218 16,560
2005 31,780 23,860 0.751 6,930 16,700 222 16,930
2006 32,470 24,380 0.751 7,080 17,070 227 17,300
2010 35,300 26,500 0.751 7,700 18,560 247 18,810
2015 38,700 29,060 0.751 8,440 20,350 271 20,620
2020 42,100 31,600 0.751 9,180 22,130 295 22,430
Notes:
All figures, except the year and population, are tons per year (fPY).
1. Population figures are from "Population Forecast for Jefferson County and Port Townsend" (WWG 1994).
2. For 1997 and 1998, the amount of waste generated was detennined by adding the recycled and disposed
toIUlages. The amount of waste generated in the year 1999 is based on actual waste tonnages disposed and
assumes the same recycling rate (29.0%) as in 1998. Projected waste generation figures for 2000 through
2020 are based on the waste generation rate for 1999 (0.751 tons per person per year).
3. The waste generation rates for 1997 through 1999 are calculated based on population and annual disposal
and recycling toIUlages (recycling tonnage is an estimated figure for 1999). Waste generation rates for the
years 2000 through 2020 are based assumed to remain the same as the year 1999. Figures shown for the
waste generation rate are in tenus of tons per person per year.
4. For 1997 and 1998, recycled tonnages are from Ecology's annual recycling rate survey and local data
sources (see Table 2.6 for 1998 data). Projected recycling tonnages for the years 1999 through 2020
assume the same percentage of recycling of the total waste stream as in 1998 (29.0%).
5. For 1997 through 1999, disposed tonnages are from County records for the Jefferson County Transfer
Station (JCTS) and the drop boxes (DB). Projected disposal toIUlages for the years 2000 through 2020
assume the same percentage of the total waste stream disposed (Le., after recycling) as in 1998 (71.0%),
and the same percentage of the disposed waste stream brought to the Quilcene Drop Box as in 1999
(1.31%).
Chapter 2: Background
Page 24}}
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 2.5. Estimated Solid Waste Composition in Jefferson County.
Entire Waste Stream Typical Composition of Select Waste Streams, % by Wt.!
Percent by Tons of Single-Family Multi-Family Residential Commercial
Material Weight! Materiat2 Residential Residential Self-Haul Self-Haul
Paper 29.5% 4,379 T 31.1% 36.2% 11.9% 10.5%
Newspaper 4.0 594 4.9 9.1 3.4 0.7
Cardboard 7.3 1,084 5.6 8.4 3.5 5.7
Office, Computer Paper 1.5 222 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.6
Mixed Recyclable Paper 8.2 1,217 10.3 9.5 3.6 2.0
Other Paper 8.6 1,277 10.0 8.6 1.2 1.5
Plastic 10.0 1,484 11.0 8.6 5.5 10.4
PET Containers 0.4 59 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.1
HDPE Containers 0.7 104 1.1 0.9 0.1 . 0.3
Plastic Bags 4.0 594 4.3 2.7 1.0 2.5
Other Plastics 4.8 713 4.9 4.2 4.3 7.5
Glass 4.6 683 7.2 8.3 2.8 2.5
Clear Containers 2.4 356 4.5 5.2 1.0 0.5
Green Containers 0.6 89 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.3
Brown and Refillable Beer 0.9 134 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.2
Other Glass 0.7 104 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5
Metals 6.7 994 7.5 8.2 9.8 7.8
Alunùnum Cans 0.6 89 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.5
Tin Cans 1.5 223 3.4 3.0 0.4 0.1
Mixed Metals 1.4 208 0.9 1.3 3.2 3.5
White/Brown Goods 0.1 15 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.1
Other Fenous 2.6 386 2.0 1.1 5.0 3.4
Other Non-Fenous 0.4 60 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2
Organics, Other 32.3 4,778 40.2 36.9 32.4 17.3
Food Waste 11.8 1,751 14.7 10.0 3.2 1.5
Yard Debris 7.7 1,143 6.1 4.2 20.9 6.5
Disposable Diapers 2.5 371 4.6 6.0 0.1 0.1
Textiles 3.4 505 4.1 4.4 5.0 7.0
Tires and Rubber Products 0.4 59 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7
Hazardous/Special Wastes 1.0 148 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.7
Other Materials 5.4 801 9.2 10.9 2.6 0.8
Construction Debris 17.0 2,523 3.1 1.8 37.5 51.5
Wood Waste 10.9 1,618 1.8 1.2 25.0 30.0
Gypsum Drywall 0.7 104 0.3 0.1 2.0 2.0
Other Construction Debris 5.4 801 1.0 0.6 10.5 19.5
TOTAL TONS = 14,843
Notes:
L From "1992 Washington State Waste Characterization Study" (Ecology 1993), Volume 2, Table III- 7, for the
entire waste stream and Appendix F, pages F.33, F-34, F-47 and F-48 for the data for select waste streams.
2. Based on the 1999 tonnage for Jefferson County (14,843 tons) and percentages shown in the column to the left.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-12
1
"
. J
Jefferson County Solid Waste Jvlanagement Plan, Þìnal Draft
2.4.3 Current Recycling Levels
It is estimated that 29.0% of Jefferson County's waste stream, or 5,673 tons per year (1998 figures),
is currently recycled and composted. This figure is a "waste diversion rate" in that it includes
composting as well as recycling. A significant amount of the tonnage included in this waste
diversion figure is handled through Jefferson County's Recycle Center and Port Townsend's
Biosolids Compost Facility.
Current (1998) recycled tonnages by material are shown in Table 2.6, with data on the amounts of
each material handled at the County's Recycle Center compared to other operations. 'This
comparison helps to highlight the fact that there are other recycling operations in the County that
are, in many cases, capturing other materials not nonnally handled by public facilities.
No estimate is available on the current levels of waste reduction.
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-13
Jefferson County Solid Waste .Afanagement Plan, Final Drajì
Table 2.6. Recycled Quantities by Material.
Tons Collected by:
Material Tons Recvcled. 19981 Recvcling Center Others
Aluminum Cans 60 59 1
Cardboard 730 666 64
Food Waste 52 0 52
Glass 487 472 15
Grease, Other Rendering 0 0 0
HOPE Bottles 16 16 0
Metals 194 5 1893
Mixed Waste Paper 823 733 90
Newspaper 562 562 0
Office Paper 89 89 Û
PET Bottles 21 20 1 1
Tin Cans 96 94 2
Tires 202 0 202
Used Oil 139 0 139
Vehicle Batteries 472 0 472
Yard Waste 2.384 ~ 2.384
Tons Recycled 5,673 2,716 2,957
Tons Disposed 13.862
Total Tons Generated 19,535
Recycling/Composting Rate 29.0%
Notes:
1. Data from County and recycling collector records, supplemented with data from the "1998 Washington
State Recycling Survey" by the Washington Depanment of Ecology (Ecology 2000). Data from one of
the recycling collectors is from 1999.
2. Assumes same amount as in 1997.
3. Metals figure includes 169 large appliances (white goods).
Chapter 2: Background
Page 2-14
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 3: WASTE REDUCTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management activities discussed in this chapter are organized into three sections:
3.2
3.3
3.4
Preface to the Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting Chapters
Waste Reduction
Public Education
The preface to this and the next two chapters is provided here because there is background
information that is common to all three of the waste diversion techniques (waste reduction,
recycling and composting). Public education is also common to the three techniques, and so .
general public education methods are discussed at the end of this chapter.
3.2 PREFACE TO THE WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND
COMPO STING CHAPTERS
3.2.1 Introduction
This chapter, together with 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 disDosed. Collectively, these approaches (waste reduction, recycling and
composting) are known as "waste diversion".
3.2.2 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 based in the "Waste Not Washington" Act (ESHB 1671), which are in tum
reflected in various sections of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington
Administrative Codes (WACs). The Waste Not Washington Act declared that waste reduction and
recycling must become a fimdamental strategy of solid waste management. To that end, the
following goals (among others) were developed and included in RCW 70.95 as the basis for solid
waste planning in Washington State:
.. Washington State was to achieve a statewide recycling and composting rate of50% by 1995.
>- source separation of waste (at a minimum, separation into recyclable and non-recyclable
fractions) must be a fundamental strategy of solid waste management.
>- steps should be taken to make recycling at least as affordable and convenient to the ratepayer
as mixed waste disposal.
RCW 70.95 requires that solid waste management plans demonstrate how the above goals will be
met.
!'},apter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvJanagement Plan, Final Draft
3.2.3 Waste Diversion Goals
The State's goal was to reach 50% recycling and composting by 1995. This goal was not met, and
in fact recent data shows that the State's recycling rate actually declined significantly in 1997. In
the absence of new policy direction by the State, it is presumed that the statewide goal remains at
50%. RCW 70.95 does not mandate that each county or city adopt a 50% goal, however, since it is
recognized that less-populated areas have greater barriers to cost-effective collection and marketing
of recyclable materials. Each community is required 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.
The State's goal was for recycling and composting only, but this CSWMP addresses an overall
goal for waste diversion that also includes waste reduction. The County had previously established
an overall goal of35% for waste diversion, while the City of Port Townsend had separately
established an overall goal of 50% waste diversion. After discussion by the Jefferson County Solid
Waste Advisory Committee (SW AC) of the current progress and future needs, the County's.overall
goal has been reaffinned to be 35% for the next 5 year period. This is a countywide figure that
includes the waste diversion efforts in the City as well as the unincorporated areas. The County's
overall goal of 35% was reaffinned based on current perfonnance and anticipated increases in
recycling and composting. The current (1998) level of recycling and composting is 29%, and
recent developments have made it difficult to maintain the same level of service. It was felt that
increasing the goal too much over the current levels of recycling and composting would provide a
disincentive by setting an unrealistic target. It is anticipated that future waste diversion levels will
continue to be met by roughly equal amounts of recycling and composting, with an additional
margin provided by waste reduction.
.. ì
.. 'I
3.2.4 Sustainability
A last issue common to waste reduction, recycling and composting is "sustainability". 11ris can be
defined as "the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs" (SN 2000). It is an emerging issue that poses new challenges
and opportunities for integrating several different issues having to do with the wise use of resources
and environmental concerns. As such, the issue of sustainability is much larger than solid waste
management itself, but still should be considered for future policy and program development.
3.3 WASTE REDUCTION
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
Activities and practices that reduce the amount of wastes that are created are classified as "waste
reduction". Waste reduction differs from the other two waste diversion techniques (recycling and
composting) because the other methods deal with wastes after the wastes have been generated. 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 9.8) and in
the Jefferson Countv Hazardous Waste Management Plan (PSR 1991).
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
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3~2
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
materials as garbage, but recycling and composting frequently require significant additional
expenses for collecting and processing the materials.
Several good examples of waste reduction activities exist in Jefferson County. One of these is the
SWAC/SWAP ReUse Fair. This event has been held annually since 1992 and is an excellent
opportunity for people to exchange reusable goods and materials. This event is very popular with
County residents, and helps to divert a large amount of material that might otherwise end up in the
waste stream.
Waste reduction through reuse activity also occurs at secondwhand and thrift shops, garage sales,
used bookstores, and through similar activities.
Another example of a municipally-sponsored waste reduction effort is in public education, through
the "Solid Waste Education Coordinator" position (previously called the "Public Outreach
Coordinator" or "Recycling Coordinator"), jointly funded by Jefferson County and the City of Port
Townsend. Activities assisted through this position have included several good waste reduction
techniques, including:
:.- Waste exchange has been promoted in the past by a Waste Exchange Bulletin Board at the
Jefferson County Recycle Center, promotion (to businesses) of the IMEX Exchange,
advertisements in local newspapers, and email and newspaper want ads.
:.- Waste reduction activities were implemented in many County offices. Awards were given and
infonnation was provided to help individual offices adopt increased levels of waste reduction.
Recol1uoended activities included reusing blank sides of paper for drafts, use of email, double-
sided copying and the replacement of old copiers that did not allow for this, use of recycled
paper and post-consumer recycled paper, and avoiding non-recyclable packaging.
:.- In 1998, a list of "green" local businesses was published to promote recycling week and the
businesses were awarded with a plaque. Part of the criteria for this award was waste reduction.
:.- Shelf tags in local stores identifYing recyclable products.
Schools throughout the County have incorporated waste reduction and recycling programs into
their curriculum to varying degrees. Most of the elementary level classes have recently received at
least one presentation on waste reduction and recycling. The Chimacum School District and Grant
Street School have had several presentations to the entire student body. The State's "Away with
Waste" program has been used in the past. The Jefferson County SW AC has previously supported
waste reduction and recycling education in schools, and its recommendations have always stressed
the importance of education in successfully implementing programs. CUITently, classroom
presentations are in the scope of work for the Solid Waste Education Coordinator.
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. The City of Port
Townsend uses this approach (see Chapter 6 for more details on collection rates). A "mini-can"
rate is currently not available in Port Townsend, but households that recycle can choose the option
Chapter 3: Waste Reductioll alld Public Education
Page 3-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
of every-other-week collection of one can of waste at the lowest rate available. This approach
helps to encourage both waste reduction and recycling.
Volume-based rates are also currently provided in other parts of the County. The franchise haulers
for these areas charge a higher fee as the number of garbage cans set out each week increases. In
this case, the increase for each additional can is less than the cost of the first can, so the incentive to
reduce the amount of waste disposed is not as great as it is in Port Townsend. These rates, which
are approved by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTe), are based on
cost of service, where part of the expense of providing service to each household is fixed and so is
independent of the amount of waste set out.
An effective method of waste reduction is the composting of yard debris on the property where it
was generated (typically called "backyard" or "on-site" composting). The County's Solid Waste
Education Coordinator has provided educational materials for on-site composting in the past
through grants obtained from Ecology, and is cun-endy available to answer composting questions.
The County has placed a compost bin behind the Jefferson County Courthouse, which is used for
on-site handling of yard debris ITom around the County buildings. Port Townsend also collects
yard debris for processing at the Biosolids Compost Facility (see Chapter 5).
',I
!
Other opportunities for reuse and waste reduction that are available in the County include a private
reuse store for building materials, reuse of polystyrene packing "peanuts" and boxes, and a reuse
shelf for latex paints and other households products at the Moderate Risk Waste Facility (see also
Section 9.8).
3.3.2 Needs and Opportunities
Additional opportunities exist to reduce the waste stream through rate structure changes,
commercial education and assistance programs, public agency procurement policies, on-site
composting programs, manufacturer responsibility requirements, and waste exchanges. These are
discussed more fully in the next section on alternative methods for waste reduction.
A significant need is to be able to measure the results of waste reduction activities. This would be
desirable to demonstrate progress towards meeting a waste reduction goal and to evaluate various
efforts made in reaching that goal. Quantitative measurement of waste reduction is very difficult,
however, and for most or all activities it is necessary to use other measures of success.
3.3.3 Alternative Methods
The County's overall diversion goal (35%) will be achieved by reducing, recycling and composting
waste. Data is available on recycling and composting results, but it will also be important for the
County to estimate the amount of material being handled through waste reduction in order to monitor
progress in meeting this goal. Two possible options for measuring waste reduction results are "tracking
changes in per capita waste generation rates and perfonnance-based standards.
Measuring changes in per capita waste generation rates is very difficult to do in a meaningful marmer.
There are many factors that can affect the apparent waste generation rate, including economic cycles,
changes in the number or type of businesses, tourism, large storms or other natural disasters. These
other fuctors can mask or exaggerate the changes that might otherwise be achieved by waste reduction
programs. A recent study (MOEA 1998) concluded that waste quantities can "naturally" vary by ten
Chapter 3; Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3-4
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
to fifteen percent, with only a loose correlation to economic factors, thus masking waste reduction
goals that are typically about five percent.
A more effective approach to measurement may be to gauge success in waste reduction by a
"performance-based standard", where waste reduction is presumed to be successful based on
achieving a specific level of effort or on another criteria. An example of this approach is to conduct
surveys of businesses and residents about waste reduction practices, and then project results based on
the number of businesses or residents who state that they are actively practicing a specific waste
reduction activity. Another example is to use the number of backyard composting bins that might be
distributed as a measure of the amount of yard debris that is kept out of the waste stream. Other
criteria can be used and these need to be tailored to each specific waste reduction activity.
Collection rates in the unincorporated areas of the County are regulated by the WUTC. These rates
are required to be cost-based, and so must reflect the actual costs of providing garbage collection
services. This means the rate for two or three cans of garbage per week is not proportionately.
greater than the rate for single-can service, because the cost to pick up additional cans is not as
much as the cost of picking up the first can. Other approaches to charging for garbage collection
services in the unincorporated areas could provide better incentives for waste reduction and
recycling (see Section 6.2.3).
Some progress has already been made in implementing waste reduction activities in County and
City offices, but participation is currently sporadic and more could be done in this area. One
method of improving the results of these programs would be to increase participation through
written policies. For instance, written procurement policies could be adopted for each office, or
through the County or City as a whole. Policies could also be adopted addressing sharing and
repairing equipment, and other waste reduction and reuse activities. COlU1ty and City leadership in
these "in-house" programs is needed to provide models for businesses and organizations.
Other potential waste reduction strategies would need to be implemented on a statewide or federal
level to be effective. These activities include "bottle bills" (which would require deposits on
bottles and cans, presumably leading to some reuse or at least recycling of these containers),
"manufacturer responsibility" bills (similar in impact to bottle bills but covering other materials),
and "packaging legislation" (requiring minimization of packaging). The City of Port Townsend
successfully implemented a ban on carryout polystyrene packaging (Styrofoam) because this
packaging does not easily decompose. Deposits could also be placed on materials such as glass
and plastic bottles at a local level, but this approach would not be popular and would not work as
well as a statewide deposit system.
Local support for these kinds of policies can help encourage State and Federal action to initiate the
necessary legislation. The City and County could support State and/or Federal programs through
resolutions or ordinances. The State guidelines document for solid waste management plans
(Ecology 1990) includes a list of potential State or Federal program options that could be targeted:
>-- container, product, or packaging deposit legislation.
.. tax incentives.
>-- product or product packaging prohibitions.
.. warranties on durable goods,
.. product labeling for recycled content and recyclability.
.. standardized packaging.
>-- product use and reuse standards.
.. mandatory volume-based rate structures for garbage collection.
Chapter 3: Waste ReduCliall and Public Educan'on
Page 3-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvlanagement Plan, Final Draft
Waste reduction of yard debris can be accomplished through backyard or on-site composting,
mulching (leaving grass clippings on the lawn) and related techniques. One or more demonstration
gardens could be a valuable tool for educating residents about these techniques.
Other types of composting can also be encouraged, such as handling food waste through the use of
worm bins. This was previously attempted by the Grant Street School, which participated in a
worm bin pilot project with the County in 1992, and a citizen-initiated pilot project was operated at
the Mountain View School in 1998.
Jefferson County staff presented generic goals at the SW AC meeting of January 1999. The
discussion concluded that the following items were priorities:
~ Great interest was shown by the SW AC in continuing to support and, in fact, create more and
better methods of reuse and to publicize existing opportunities throughout the County and City.
Some of the activities that could be accomplished include more opportunities for purchasing
durable goods, repairing instead of replacing goods, a comprehensive reuse network available
to County residents, a reuse center in the current recycling building, and pulling reusable goods
from the solid waste.
"ì
~ In-house waste reduction programs for City and County agencies as well as businesses and
industry, and support for State and or Federal programs.
~ Education for on-site composting.
~ Support for rate structure changes that encourage waste reduction and recycling.
~ Product labeling for recycled content and recyclability was given the widest support, and
programs such as deposit legislation, product and packaging prohibitions, standardized
packaging and product use, and reuse standards were also supported. The existing Port
Townsend legislation banning the use of carryout polystyrene containers was supported.
3.3.4 Recommendations
The recommendations for waste reduction are:
WRl) County and City staff, with the SW AC' s assistance, shall re-evaluate the County's overall
goal for waste diversion and its components, including waste reduction.
WR2) The County and SW AC should continue to investigate procedures for estimating the
effectiveness of the waste reduction programs.
WR3)
County solid waste staff, with the assistance ofthe SWAC and other members of the com-
munity, will continue to research and promote options for reuse, including but not limited
to, the SW AC/SW AP ReUse Fair, brochures advertising local opportunities (including
thrift and secondhand stores), reuse at the County's Moderate Risk Waste Facility,
expanded presence in the local media, and expanded use of County and City web sites.
WR4) Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend should adopt a resolution of support for
State and Federal waste reduction legislation and forward this to state or national
legislators as appropriate.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
WRS) The County and City need to expand in-house waste reduction, recycling and procurement
programs. Providing education, leadership and other assistance to businesses to implement
similar programs will also be pursued.
See also the recommendations for the overall waste diversion goal (Recommendation RI), for
promoting on-site or backyard composting (PE5), for volume-based rates to encourage waste
diversion (WCI), and for promoting reuse of construction waste (S3).
3.3.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The County's overall goal for waste diversion should be re-evaluated by County and City staff,
with the assistance of the SW AC, during the next five years. Investigating procedures for
evaluating the effectiveness of waste reduction programs should be conducted periodically by
County staff and the SWAC. Both of these recommendations will require a small amount of staff
time (for existing staff) and incidental other expenses. -
The third recommendation shown above is for ongoing efforts to promote or consider various
activities. The cost for implementing this recommendation includes a significant amount of staff
time and other expenses for promoting various activities, but funds for these costs are already
included in the County's budget (funding these activities also relies on CPG funds from Ecology).
The City and County should adopt a resolution of support for State and Federal waste reduction
practices by December 2001. The expansion of in-house waste reduction, recycling and procure-
ment programs for City and County offices should be accomplished by December 200 I. The costs
for both of these recommendations will be primarily a small amount of staff time (for existing
staff) .
Recommendations WR3 and WR5 have been given a high priority for implementation, WR2 and
WR4 are medium priority, and WRl is considered a low priority (see also Tables E.l through E.3).
3.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have jointly funded recycling education since
1989. This joint effort, which was initially begun to develop, implement and promote waste
reduction and recycling programs, has undergone several changes in recent years. In March 1999
the public education activities were brought back in-house by the County and are presently being
conducted by County staff. The Solid Waste Education Coordinator position and the education
program is currently funded by Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend, and the Departrilent
of Ecology (through the Coordinated Prevention Grant program and litter control agreements).
The County's cost for the education program is funded through a portion of the tipping fee
recovered at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility and the Quilcene Drop Box. The
City's source of funding for their share of the costs for the education program was established in
1991 by resolution as a one percent margin to be included in the City's garbage revenues.
lbrough 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
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3~7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
issues in the city. The franchise haulers also provide information on rates and recycling programs
in the unincorporated County collection areas.
3.4.2 Needs and Opportunities
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. More comprehensive
education about waste diversion options for residents and businesses, including the availability and
requirements for curbside recycling, is needed.
The County's primary funding source for education programs is a portion of the tipping fee. This
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 competitive level.
Another public education need is to inform residents and businesses as to the proper handling of
specific materials, especially for the hazardous or 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
semces.
Several opportunities exist for public education activities, including:
>- use of public access television.
>- targeting special groups, such as businesses or legislators.
>- educational materials on costs/benefits of various waste reduction activities or methods.
>- infonnation 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
3.4.3 Alternative Methods
Options for 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 aggressive program.
.,.
Residents and businesses in the City of Port Townsend are required to subscribe to garbage
collection and can continue to be reached through utility bill messages. Bill inserts have been
found to be an effective method of reaching a variety of customers, although this approach would
not be effective for apartment renters, for businesses who are sharing a waste container with other
businesses, or for renters in single-family homes if they do not receive the garbage bill.
Residents and businesses in other areas of Jefferson County could also be kept informed through
bill inserts. Many County residents do not subscribe to garbage collection, however, and instead
choose to self-haul their waste to the Transfer Station or the QuiIcene Drop Box. This group could
be reached through materials posted and distributed at the waste disposal sites.
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3-8
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
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. Perfonnance-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.
One of the special needs that can be addressed through public education is waste diversion
programs in businesses. For the businesses, a two-pronged approach could be used, by informing
them of the options for reducing and recycling wastes, and also motivating them to begin these
activities. Approaches that have worked well in other areas for motivating the businesses are .
special awards or other recognition programs.
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 infonning potential violators of the applicable fines and civil penalties.
In a discussion at the SW AC meeting in January 1999, top priority was given to public awareness
education, school curricula and program implementation.
3.4.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for public education (see also Recommendations WR3,
C2 and C3):
PEl)
Public education shall be given a very high priority. Public education should include
activities such as;
.. classroom presentations and other outreach through the schools (PE2).
.. public infonnation and education programs should be implemented and expanded
through a joint City/County agreement, and in cooperation with the haulers and
recycling companies (PE3).
.. education for the County's Moderate Risk Waste Facility should be expanded,
including the household hazardous waste and conditionally-exempt small quantity
generator programs, and information about materials that will not be accepted for
disposal at the Solid Waste Transfer Station and Quilcene Drop Box (PE4).
.. education and promotion for the City's Biosolids Compost Facility, on-site composting
and wonn bins should be expanded. The County and the Washington State University
Cooperative Extension Service should cooperate to promote backyard composting
(PES).
:.- a public education component must be included in all waste reduction, recycling or
compo sting programs, and public education must continue to be a primary element of
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3-9
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
program maintenance in the City and County. Education associated with recycling
collection should be focused on improving and expanding participation as well as
generating feedback and answering questions from the public. The responsibility for
this lies primarily with the recycling contractor, the franchise haulers and the contract
hauler (in the City of Port Townsend), who must infonn their customers of the correct
materials and preparation methods for recycling. Public education and other waste
diversion programs that are included in City or County contracts must be fully
implemented (PE6).
>-- the County shall 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 may
be considered by the County and City (PE7).
>-- the County, through a cooperative effort by the Department of Health and the
Department of Public Works, should expand education and enforcement addressing
illegal dumping (PE8, see also Recommendations RA4 and S 1).
.. J
>-- the County, with assistance from the SW AC, should conduct a recognition program for
businesses that reduce and/or recycle a significant portion of their wastes, basing this
program on existing models from other communities (PE9).
, .,
>-- sustainability concepts shall be included in public education materials developed by the
County (PElO).
3.4.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The recommendations for public education are generally for existing activities that should be
continued on an ongoing basis. Most of the activities will be conducted by the County's Solid
Waste Education Coordinator, and are included in the budget for that position ($40,000 per year).
The recommendation for the City/County agreement should be accomplished annually. The cost of
this recommendation will include staff time and a sharing of costs between the City and County
(i.e., a shifting of costs but no additional expense).
The education and enforcement activities for illegal dumping should be implemented by December
2001, and the cost for this is included in Recommendation RA4 (see Section 8.2.4). The funding
and responsibilities for the illegal dumping (and improper disposal of residential medical waste)
education program will be covered through CPG funds and a cooperative agreement between the
County Health and Public Works Departments. The business recognition program should be
implemented by June 2001, at a cost consisting of existing staff's time and some materials.
Recommendation PEl has been given a very high priority for implementation, and so the specific
activities recommended for public education are also considered to have a high priority (see also
Table E.l).
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction and Public Education
Page 3-10
Jefferson County Solid Waste Nfanagement Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 4: RECYCLING
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management activities discussed in this chapter are organized into two sections
based on the method of collecting and processing the recyclable materials:
4.2
4.3
Source-Separation Recycling Progranls
Mixed Waste Processing Options
Section 4.2 discusses recycling programs that are based on the separate collection of recyclable
materials (i.e., separate from garbage), which is the method currently used in Jefferson County.
Section 4.3 discusses alternative recycling programs that are based on processing garbage to
remove the recyclable materials after collection.
4.2 SOURCE-SEP ARA TION RECYCLING PROGRAMS
4.2.1 Existing Conditions
Recycling Methods
Overview: Currently, there is only one buy-back center in Jefferson County and only one recycling
processing center, both located at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility (JCWMF) near
the City of Port Townsend. Recyclable materials are accepted at the JCWMF and at the Quilcene
Drop Box Site, both of which are staffed during open hours. There is a network ofunstaffed
recycling drop-off containers around the County. Used oil and antifreeze are accepted at several
locations in the City and County, including the JCWMF and Quilcene site. Curbside recycling is
available in the City of Port Townsend and in most of the unincorporated areas of the County.
Commercial recycling services are available for most of the businesses in east Jefferson County.
Droo-Offand Buv-Back Programs: Unstaffed recycling containers are located in most of the larger
communities throughout the County, and are on State, County, City or private property depending
on the community. The exact locations of these containers may be changed on short notice, which
has happened on several occasions recently for containers on private property, usually due to litter
problems. In addition, some of the locations have only one container for a specific type of material
(such as cardboard) while others are designed to be more of a "full-service" drop-off site.
Recycling containers available to the public are maintained primarily by the County's recycling
contractor. Most of the containers maintained by the recycling contractor are owned by the
County. Other containers provided by the City's solid waste contractor or one of the franchise
haulers to businesses and other agencies are generally not available to the public.
Curbside Programs: The City of Port Townsend has had curbside recycling since 1993. In the
unincorporated part of the County, residents and businesses have the option of subscribing to
recycling services provided by one of the franchise haulers, whether they are garbage collection
customers or not.
Curbside recycling service in the City of Port Townsend is provided through the contract for
garbage collection services. The curbside program uses three bins for collection and materials are
(~//Qpter 4: Recycling
Page 4-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
collected every other week. The curbside program is "mandatory" in that all customers pay for it
through their garbage collection rates, whether or not they use the service. The lowest garbage
collection fee is available only to residents who also sign up for the recycling program. In the City
of Port Townsend, the average montWy setout rate in 1998 was 57.6 tons for the curbside recycling
program. Additional information about Port Townsend's program can be found in the Port
Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (see Appendix D).
Multi-Family Recycling: Recycling services to 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 are provided by the recycling
contractor, the City's solid waste contractor, the franchise haulers and other recycling service
companies, often for a fee. The recycling contractor has operated limited collection routes for
office paper and cardboard, and also provides a document shredding/recycling service.
Other materials recycled in Jefferson County by private companies, either as a special service or
through drop-off centers in and near the County, include metals and grease.
School Programs: Most of the schools in the County have recycling programs. Most of the
schools use bags or other containers for collecting materials in the classrooms and offices, with
maintenance staff emptying these into central containers. This system is used by the Brinnon,
Quilcene and Grant Street Schools. Other schools use recycling monitors, recycling club members,
or have students take turns. One school (Mountain View) has "super recyclers" that score the
classes each week for their recycling performance and the winning class is rewarded with a party.
Other Programs: Last but not least, litter cleanup crews and other special cleanup events also
endeavor to recycle a portion of the materials they pick up.
Processing: Materials collected through the recycling containers and curbside/commercial
collections are primarily brought to the Jefferson County Recycle Center for processing and
marketing. The Recycle Center is located at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility near
the City of Port Townsend, and this also serves as a recycling drop-off site for a wide variety of
materials. Materials currently handled by the Recycle Center (as of mid-2000) include aluminum
cans and foil, coITUgated cardboard, glass bottles (brown and clear bottles and containers only, no
green bottles are accepted), newspaper, mixed paper, office paper, plastic bottles (PET bottles and
translucent HDPE milk and water bottles), and tin cans. The Recycle Center also acts as a buy-
back center for aluminum cans and accepts other aluminum products without payment. Additional
materials handled by County persOIUlel at the landfill include waste oil, antifreeze, white goods and
other ferrous metals. Olympic Disposal transports the recyclable materials they collect either to
their facility in Port Angeles or to the Recycle Center for processing. The City's contractor is
required to transport all recyclable materials collected in the City to the Recycle Center.
Urban-Rural Designation
State planning guidelines are designed to recognize differences in the services that can be offered
to urban versus rural areas for solid waste services. These differences are based primarily on the
ability to conduct cost-effective collections and other services for garbage and recyclable materials.
For instance, it is more feasible to conduct cost-effective collections for garbage and for curbside
recycling in urban areas than in rural areas because of reduced travel times between stops. A
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-2
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
similar situation exists for commercial services, although in some cases business types and
densities do not correlate well to urban population centers, and so a simple comparison of urban
versus rural areas can be misleading for evaluating the need for commercial services.
The City of Port Townsend, as the only urban growth area identified at this time by the County's
land use planning (JC 1998), is currently designated to be the only urban service area for this
CSWMP. Ecology's planning guidelines recommend that those areas designated as urban should
receive curbside recycling services (which Port Townsend has already implemented), while other
areas of the County can be adequately served with drop-off centers at convenient locations. Other
urban service areas may be created at a later date, should the County approve additional urban
growth areas (see Land Use under Section 2.3.1), and for consistency any new UGAs should also
be designated as urban areas for solid waste services.
Market Analvsis
The current and future markets for recyclable materials is a key consideration in evaluating the
need for additional recycling activities and their cost-effectiveness, but these are difficult to address
in a long-range planning document such as this CSWMP. Markets for most recyclable materials
constantly fluctuate, thus quickly rendering any market analysis obsolete. These changes are
caused by many different factors, including the economy in general, prices of virgin materials and
other competing feedstocks, and supply and demand locally and abroad. With these considerations
in mind, the data in Table 4.1 provides a baseline status report for the value of the primary
recyclable materials collected in Jefferson County.
The market values shown in Table 4.1 are averages of the values reported by fourteen companies
and agencies in the State. The values are intended to be market prices only, and do not include the
collection, processing or transportation costs that altogether could exceed the market value. In the
case of Jefferson County, these costs are relatively high compared to other areas. On a per-ton or
per-household basis, collection costs are higher in rural areas than in urban areas due to the greater
distances traveled to collect a load. of recyclable materials. Processing costs benefit from
economies of scale, so the relatively small amounts of recyclable materials collected in Jefferson
County leads to relatively high processing costs. Transportation costs for Jefferson County are also
higher than average due to the distance to markets and the transportation barriers created by the
County's location on the Olympic Peninsula.
A brief discussion of markets is provided below. This analysis is provided by commodity type,
although "markets" should not be confused with the "commodities". A variety of existing and
potential markets are possible for each commodity and in some cases recyclable materials còmpete
with each other for a specific market.
Paper: Market forces for the different grades of paper are quite different in some ways but similar in others.
All grades of paper are affected by the presence or absence of capacity at paper mills for using recycled
paper. This capacity is often dedicated to either recycled paper or virgin wood chips because of the different
processing systems required for each of these. Since the capacity of a mill is the result of millions of dollars
worth of investments, the capacity to use recycled paper is created or expanded based on cautious projections
of demand for the finished product(s). For grades such as office paper, these projections are the result of
anticipated consumer demand. In this way, the lack of public and private procurement policies could be
partially to blame for the lack of higher prices for the finer grades of paper collected for recycling. For other
paper grades, such as cardboard, consumer demand is less of an issue than broader economic
factors that affect demand for new boxes or that affect prices of competing feedstocks. Locally,
cardboard is usually shipped directly to Port Townsend Paper Company and processed into pulp.
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 4.1. Typical Market Values for Recyclable Materials.
Recycled Material
Newspaper
Cardboard
High-Grade Paper
Mixed Waste Paper
Glass
Aluminum Cans
Tin Cans
Ferrous / White Goods
Non-Ferrous Metals
PET Bottles
HDPE Bottles
Average Value. $/ton
$52
73
72
20
18
918
29
38
517
161
202
.. ~
Note: Data shown is from a survey by Green Solutions in September 1998. Figures are intended to
represent statewide averages for typical prices received in the first half of 1998. Figures shown are
prices paid at end markets, and do not include collection, processing and transportation costs.
Plastic Bottles: The demand for recycled plastic from plastic bottles is largely influenced by
competition with virgin materials. The willingness of plastic manufacturers to use recycled
materials in production is also hindered by technical concerns about the quality of the plastics, but
the price that they are willing to pay for recycled materials is always very much tied to the
fluctuating prices of virgin plastic resins. The lack of a plastics or petrochemicals infrastructure in
the Pacific Northwest is also a handicap, relative to some other areas of the country where the
presence of such companies creates additional opportunities for processing recycled plastics.
Finally, market demand for recycled plastic would be substantially greater if the manufacturers of
plastic bottles and the companies who use the plastic bottles would commit to using recycled
materials. A prime example of this is Coca Cola, who promised years ago to use recycled materials
in their bottles but has failed to do this despite the fact that they are using recycled-content bottles
in other countries.
Metals: Market prices for metals vary widely, but demand usually matches supply better than for
other recyclable materials. This is possible because metals are more easily stockpiled throughout
the system (i.e., at the point of generation, at scrapyards and other processing centers, at mills, and
even at brokers' facilities), whereas other materials are more difficult and expensive to store. The
supply of other materials is also more difficult to control, because with materials that are being
collected through curbside or commercial recycling programs it is much more difficult to "turn off
the spigot". For metals, lower prices generally mean significant reductions in the amount being
brought to markets. Lower prices are typically symptomatic of economic changes, such as reduced
construction activity leading to reduced demand for steel. ill recent years, the U.S. steel industry
has also been faced with increasing competition fi'om overseas supplìers, a situation that has
generated accusations that the foreign sources are "dumping" steel on the u.S. market at an
artificially low price.
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-4
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Metals are so stable and long lasting (compared to paper that can rot, for instance), that metals are
more affected by long-term trends in consumption than other recyclable materials. Lead provides
an interesting example of how this factor can influence market value. In the past, lead
consumption was much greater because it was used in a wider variety of applications, but this
usage had become significantly reduced as the awareness oflead's health impacts has increased.
Substantial amounts oflead are now being retired from the infrastructure (and other "stockpiles"),
while collection of vehicle batteries has also improved, with the net result being that more lead is
available than is needed and, subsequently, market prices for this material are depressed.
Glass: Like metals, the market demand for green glass is influenced by imports from other
countries. In the case of glass, however, it is not the import of a raw material (as it is for steel) but
the import of a fuùshed product (the green glass container that contains imported beverages such as
bottled water and beer) that leads to depressed market prices in this country. The other half of this
problem is the lack oflocal demand for new green glass bottles. There is very little demand in this
region for green glass bottles because few products that are bottled in this area use green glass..
The markets for brown and clear glass bottles are stable, although somewhat lackluster. Market
demand could be significantly higher in the Puget Sound Region if the glass bottle manufacturer in
Seattle would use more recycled glass in their mix. Instead, much of the glass collected in
Washington is shipped to a glass company in Portland, Oregon.
Other applications could be used for recycled glass, such as filter material, construction aggregate,
landscaping applications and other glass products for house and garden. Many of these could
potentially work well on a local basis and would be immune to color differences. Developing these
other applications, however, would require a significant investment in equipment and market
development, and possibly depend on a coordinated effort between various County departments or
regional entities to reduce the impact of the initial investment.
Tires: Tires are a continuing problem for recycling. Many of the previous collection and
processing methods, which were funded in part by a State tax that expired several years ago, have
faded out. Tire distributors and service stations are apparently doing a better job of collecting tires
for shipment to markets (most of these tires are going to companies in Oregon), but more tires are
also ending up in the County's waste disposal system. Illegal disposal is also a continuing
problem, and tire piles continue to plague some areas (the State's largest such pile is near Yakima).
A large part of the problem is the technical difficulties in recycling tires. Efforts to re-process tires
into a rubber product that could be used to manufacture new tires and other products have generally
met with high costs and/or failure. Even low-value uses for tires such as incineration (tires contain
significant fuel value) are hindered by several factors (steel content, air pollution, supply and
processing requirements, and other factors).
Summary of Materials Currently Collected: Currently, the City collects newsprint, mixed waste
paper, brown and clear glass, PET (#1) soda and water bottles, HDPE (#2) translucent milk and
water jugs, aluminum and tin cans, and cardboard through their curbside program. The Recycle
Center accepts the same materials, as does the recycle container program, which collects these
materials throughout the County. The County stopped collection of green glass in 1996 because of
a continuing lack of markets for this material.
Other plastics, such as colored HDPE that must be sorted for marketing and that may contain motor
oil bottles that are considered a contaminant, are not accepted. Lower grades of plastic bottles and
film are also not accepted because of the logistics of separating and stockpiling small quantities of
a diverse number of materials.
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
White goods (large appliances) are currently accepted and sold for scrap. County staff is trained to
recover the CFCs from refrigerators and other appliances prior to shipping these to recycling
markets.
Construction, demolition and land-clearing waste (often referred to as "CDL waste") is typically
treated as solid waste. Some materials are potentially recyclable, such as drywall and clean wood
products, but there are only limited opportunities for recycling these materials in the County (see
Section 9.6 for more infonnation on CDL wastes).
Used motor oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze and batteries are collected through the moderate risk
waste program (see Section 9.8), and are either recycled or disposed of properly.
In summary, the following materials are commonly recycled in Jefferson County:
Newspaper
Corrugated cardboard
Office paper, according to current market specifications
Mixed waste paper, according to current market specifications
Metals (ferrous and non-ferrous, tin cans)
Aluminum cans and foil
Glass, as markets are available
PET soda and HDPE milk plastic bottles
Motor oil
Antifreeze
Yard debris, in cooperation with the City's Biosolids Compost Facility (see Chapter 5).
--,,~
The above list shows the "designated recyclable materials", and this list should be used for
guidance as to the materials to be recycled in the future when possible. This list is based on
existing conditions, and future markets and technologies may warrant changes in the materials
recycled. For example, two materials have been removed from this list since the last update of the
solid waste management plan (green glass and milk cartons) due to poor markets.
Recommendations should be developed through the SW AC for any proposed changes in the list of
designated recyclable materials, and any revisions in the list must be followed by a public
infonnation campaign.
The following conditions are grounds for reevaluation of 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 given material occurs.
.. no market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the material to be
stockpiled with no apparent solution in the near future.
.. other conditions not anticipated at this time.
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
According to the most recent Ecology recycling survey, Jefferson County recycled 3,289 tOllS of
material in 1998. The amount of solid waste collected in that year was 13,862 tons. Based on
these numbers, the total recycling rate for Jefferson County was 16.8%. Composting yard debris
contributed another 12.2% for a total waste diversion rate of29% (see Table 2.6 for more details).
4.2.2 Needs and Opportunities
State planning guidelines (70.95.0907c) require that recycling services be provided through
curbside services ill urban areas and drop-off sites in rural areas. The primary criteria
recommended for drop-off sites is that there be one such center at a convenient location for every
5,000 to 10,000 residents. Existing programs in Jefferson County currently satisfy these
recommendations (see also Section 2.3.1 for more infonnation about urban and rural service
levels).
Other requirements shown in the State's planning guidelines or other documents include:
>- the list of materials collected for recycling must be consistent with the recommendations of this
plan.
>- this plan must be consistent with other local plans and goals, such as the County's and City's
comprehensive land use plans.
>- waste diversion potential (waste reduction, recycling and composting) should be maximized
based on local conditions and markets.
In general, recycling in Jefferson County depends on the efforts of private companies or non~profit
organizations under contract to the County. Market revenues ITom the sale of collected materials
have not, historically, covered the costs of operation (collection and processing), and market
revenues are not expected to increase in the near future to the point where the operating costs will
be covered. 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 ITom other sources, such as revenues acquired through the solid
waste disposal fees.
Currently much of the work related to processing and marketing of recycled materials, and a
significant portion of the collection effort in the County and City, is carried out by a recycling
contractor. The recycling contractor is presently a local company whose mission is to provide
education, training and employment for developmentally disabled and "at-risk" community
members. The County supports this program solely from a portion of tipping fees, in lieu of any
excise tax monies. The Recycle Center building was partially funded by the State Department of
Social and Health Services for the training of developmentally disabled individuals, and has
conditions attached to ensure its continued use in this capacity.
One distinct barrier to increased recycling activities is the rura1 nature of most of the County. The
County's population is not only widely distributed, but the west end of the County is separated
from the majority of the population by the Olympic Mountains.
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan. Final Draft
Long-tenn market stability may be a problem for some materials- Prices for most materials should
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 would provide a better and potentially more stable outlet for
collected materials, while improving the local economy as well.
Currently, neither the County nor the City has established official procurement policies for office
paper and other materials. Competitively-priced recycled paper can be found on the market today,
but the lack of a standard procurement policy leaves the burden up to the individual office manager
to research price options.
4.2.3 Alternative Methods
The west area of the County could be served through a regional approach with C1allam County to
the north or Grays Harbor County to the south. The two transfer stations near Forks (in C1allam
County) currently provide alternative recycling options for west Jefferson County residents (in
addition to the recycling containers at the Clearwater Annex).
~j
Additional financing for recycling could come from an increase in the tipping fee paid at the
Transfer Station. This approach may not be practical, however, since the current tipping fee is
already among the highest in the region at $110 per ton. The supplemental cost for recycling is
currently built into that fee, but not as a dedicated fee, hence these funds are not guaranteed. A
separate charge for recycling (based on weight or volume) might be more secure and could be
adjusted as needed, depending upon the markets. This may, however, act as a deterrent to
recycling and source separation unless the charge for recycling is substantially less than the solid
waste fee.
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 program costs (landfill closure and monitoring, recycling, MRW Facility, etc.) could
also be collected as dedicated funds through district taxes (see Chapter 8 for more details about
districts).
The County, through its agreements with haulers and with the education program, could make
education of the commercial sector a higher priority. The Solid Waste Education Coordinator is
available to businesses outside the City for audits and consultation, although only as time permits.
The problems with green glass could potentially be resolved in several ways, the most promising
being the possibility of a partnership with a gravel, concrete or asphalt company to have glass
bottles crushed and mixed with one or more of their products. This may require a capital outlay to
provide a glass crusher specifically for this operation. Savings would be realized from not having
to separate by color and ship to markets in the Seattle/Tacoma area, and this approach would allow
green glass to be collected again. Other options include maintaining the status quo, or removing all
glass from the list of designated materials and handling it as solid waste.
One option for any recycling program is to make it mandatory for residents and/or businesses to
participate in it. The term mandatory is also sometimes used to refer to payment of the costs for a
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-8
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
recycling program. Some people view the Port Townsend curbside program as mandatory because
all the residents and businesses pay for recycling collection services through the garbage collection
rates, but participation in the recycling program is voluntary. Mandatory payment for curbside
recycling collection services works well in the City of Port Townsend but is not an attractive
alternative to County residents (as evidenced in the surveys and workshops conducted in 1997)
where it would currently appear as an explicit additional cost to garbage collection customers. It
should be noted here that the use of incentive rates (see Section 6.2.3) would allow the cost of
recycling services to be embedded in the garbage rates for the rest of the county (i.e., in a fushion
similar to Port Townsend's system). Other mandatory approaches include banning specific
materials from the disposal system or ordinances requiring source separation of specific materials
by homes and/or businesses.
Enforcement of mandatory participation programs can be difficult. Garbage haulers and disposal
facility operators are typically forced into the position of enforcing the program by noting when
trash cans or waste loads contain recyclable materials. Often only a warning is issued for the first
violation, and then fines or extra fees may be levied for continued violations.
Voluntary recycling programs require effort to maintain high participation rates. The keys to a
successful voluntary recycling program are convenience and public education. Increasing people's
knowledge of recycling methods and making sure they know how and where to take recyclables
can help keep the participation rate high. Promotion of recycling must be consistent and ongoing.
These responsibilities are currently shared by the recycling contractor, the County's Solid Waste
Education Coordinator, and the franchise hauler.
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.
>- provide additional drop-off containers through contracts and/or other financial support.
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
col1ection services for either residential or commercial customers (in the absence of a col1ection
district, see discussion in Chapter 8). 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.
A service ordinance could achieve some of the same ends as a County contract but without the
ongoing administrative costs.
Additional recycling containers for materials such as newspapers, glass bottles, cans and plastic
bottles would provide a higher level of service and increased recycling tonnages, but recently the
trend has been to remove these containers because of the large amounts of litter and non-recyclable
trash attracted by them. Several recycling containers have had to be removed due to these
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-9
RI)
R2)
RJ)
R4)
R5)
Je.fJèrson County Solid Waste Management Plan. Final Draft
problems, either at the request of property owners or because the recycling organization was
incurring excessive cleanup costs for trash dumped in or next to the recycling container. Finding
new locations for the containers is a challenge due to these problems, but ideally, additional
locations could be found and these should be convenient and in areas with high traffic and
visibility. This would encourage participation while discouraging vandalism and trash disposa1.
Other alternatives include staffing the containers during open hours, tax relief or other incentives
for the host facilities, hiring people or using the litter crews to keep the area around the containers
clean, and placing containers at aU public facilities.
4.2.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for the recycling programs in Jefferson Cowty (see also
Recommendations WRS, PE6 and WC1):
The County shall continue to strive to meet a 35% goal for waste reduction, recycling and
composting.
- ..\
In order to meet the goal of improved recycling economics, existing recycling programs
will be examined to increase their cost-effectiveness. Expanded recycling programs may
require additional financial support from local governments. The SW AC should continue
with its proactive role in addressing these issues. The Cowty and City shall continue to
explore all funding and contract options for the recycling program.
Public recycling containers should be available throughout the County. Incentives for
encouraging private businesses to host recycling containers should be examined.
The County and City should encourage market development for designated and potentially
recyclable materials. Participation by the business community and economic development
agencies will be encouraged in this effort, and a priority should be put on finding feasible
local alternatives for problem materials (such as the potential use of glass as aggregate).
The County and City should continue to support and encourage private efforts to divert
recyclable materials from commercial sources.
4.2.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The recommendations made above are primarily for ongoing activities and additional exploration
of potential activities. As such, funding for these activities has already been included in the
County's budget (with the support of CPG funds from Ecology). Many of the activities will be
conducted by existing staff, and in addition the County already owns, and has budgeted funds for
the maintenance of, several recycling containers. Any additional expenses for market development
efforts are uncertain at this time (until various details are further developed), but could include
expenditures for equipment, pilot projects and additional staffing. TIlls recommendation should be
implemented by December 2001.
Recommendation RI has a very high priority for implementation, so high that it is considered to be
a "guiding principle" for Jefferson County's solid waste system. Recommendations RJ and R5
have been given a high priority tòr implementation, R2 and R4 are medium priority, and R6 is
considered a low priority (see also Tables E. I through E.3).
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-10
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draß
4.3 MIXED WASTE PROCESSING OPTIONS
4.3.1 Existing Conditions
Mixed waste processing systems range in complexity from simple "dump-and-pick" operations to
highly mechanized facilities.
With dump-and-pick operations, recovery is typically limited to larger items that are easily
removed (such as cardboard boxes and scrap metal). In this case, the primary requirement is
simply that the disposal facility must have a tipping floor to allow loads of waste to be dumped out
of collection vehicles onto a flat surface, ideally with space to spread out each load to allow access
to all sides of it. A forklift or other equipment is also necessary for moving and emptying the
containers used for temporary storage. Other requirements include additional labor to pull out
materials plus containers for both temporary and long-tenn storage ofthe recovered materials.
Dump-and-pick operations may create a situation where workers have extensive contact with raw
garbage, with the subsequent risks to their health.
The County, SW AC and recycling contractor have all expressed interest in implementing a dump-
and-pick operation at the Transfer Station. This operation would target recyclable materials that
could be diverted from the waste stream prior to the loading of the trailers. Previous discussions
have also included the possibility of recovering reusable items, such as furniture, appliances,
bicycles and toys, tools, and lumber scraps. Transfer Station personnel or others could recover
these items for giveaway or resale. No salvaging by the public would be allowed. Currently, the
only materials that are recovered in this manner are ferrous metals.
4.3.2 Needs and Opportunities
A mixed processing system could recover additional amounts of recyclable and reusable materials.
Data :trom waste composition studies in other areas indicates that between one-third and one~half of
the waste stream is made up of recyclable materials. Data from a recent waste composition study
conducted for Snohomish County (GS 1998) shows that the waste stream for that county contains
3.7% (by weight) of reusable materials (materials that could be directly used for their original
purpose). The major components of the reusable materials found in Snohomish County included
wood building materials (20.6% of the total), large pieces of carpet (16.2%), new asphalt shingles
(11.7%), and various metal objects (11.0%), with the remainder made up offumiture, special
wastes, plastic products, soil, clothing, and miscellaneous other materials.
A mixed waste system that processes solid waste would require significant capital investment, but a
dump-and-pick operation would not require as large of an investment in equipment.
4.3.3 Alternative Methods
DumD-and~Pick Ooeration
Pursing the idea of a dump-and':'pick operation would require a careful examination of the
operational issues for the various options, as well as examining the overall feasibility (particularly
on a cost-benefit basis).
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-11
Jeffirson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Droll
Operational issues for a dump-and-pick operation include:
~ Staffing: More workers would be required on-site at the Transfer Station, but these could be
County staff or private employees.
~ Location: A central location for picking operations would be required. If a "resale area" were
to be considered a part of the operation, it would need to be well separated from the tipping
floor of the Transfer Station for safety reasons.
~ Proceeds: Materials removed from the waste stream could be given away or sold. Monies
collected through this program could be used to offset recycling program costs and to promote
the resale program. Another option would be to contract the reuse operation to a private entity,
and allow that entity to keep any net profits.
~ Markets: The success of the area's many thrift stores and the ongoing interest in the County
sponsored SW AC/SW AP event demonstrate the interest in reuse by the citizens of Jefferson
County. A similar program, in fact, existed in the late 1980s, but was closed for economic
reasons when the recycling picking line conveyor was installed inside the Recycle Center.
~ Liability: Issues of liability and associated costs may make it difficult to establish a dump-and-
pick operation at the Transfer Station. The County and City's legal counsels should consider
this issue.
Mixed Waste Processing
Mixed waste processing requires a facility or system that is designed to accept garbage and process
it to remove the recyclable materials. Processing typically includes a combination of mechanical
systems, which are effective at removing only certain materials, and manual sorting. Mixed waste
processing could be used in place of source separation, although often it is used in addition to
traditional recycling programs to remove materials remaining in the waste stream. Mixed waste
processing is also used with a co-collection program, where recyclables are placed in special bags
that are then recovered at a central facility (see Section 6.2.3 for more information on co-collection
methods).
In the case of highly mechanized facilities, a great deal of capital equipment (trammel screens,
conveyors, air classifiers) and manuallabor is used to remove a wider range and greater amount of
recyclable materials. A typical facility might include a tipping floor for removing bulky and other
non-processible materials, trommel screens (a rotating drum with one or more sizes of holes in the
side) and! or air classifiers for the initial separation of waste components, a picking line for
manually removing materials, and conveyors to link: these elements together. The materials
recovered from this type of facility may be lower in quality (dirtier) than source-separated
recyc1ables, and the economics of this approach may hinge on the availability of a waste-to-energy
plant to purchase the light residuals (non-recycled paper and plastic) as a fueL
A study conducted for Port Angeles (Parametrix 1993) concluded that mixed waste processing was
close to being economically competitive (at $93 to $95 per ton) with other solid waste handling
options and could divert approximately 30% of the waste stream. llis analysis assumed the
remaining waste would be exported and that other recycling programs in Clallam County would be
cancelled (existing recycling would be replaced by a central recovery facility, and the cost savings
from the cancelled collections was included as an avoided cost). Since that study was developed,
Chapter 4: Recycling
Page 4-12
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
however, this type of facility has been proven to be a riskier venture than once thought (several
similar facilities have failed) and waste export costs have proven to be significantly lower than
projected. Furthermore, there would be lower economies of scale in Jefferson County than in
C1allam County due to lower quantities of waste and recyclables, and so the cost per ton for
capital-intensive approaches such as mixed waste processing would be higher. A regional
approach (combining the waste streams of both Jefferson and Clallam Counties) would lead to
lower processing costs, but transportation costs to ship both counties' wastes to a central location
may equal or exceed any processing cost savings.
In any case, waste processing can be a relatively expensive and risky approach for recovering
recyclable materials, and so it is usually not pursued unless there is a strong mandate for increased
recycling or very high disposal fees (i.e., a high potential for avoided costs). If part of the facility
or equipment is already available, however, then mixed waste processing may be more feasible.
4.3.4 Recommendations
The following recommendation is made for mixed waste processing activities in Jefferson County:
R6)
The County should continue to evaluate the possibility of using staff or contracted
employees to pull recyclable and/or reusable materials from the solid waste after it is
dumped on the floor of the Transfer Station.
4.3.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
This is a low-priority recommendation that would need to be refined at a later date if implemented.
Ifimplemented, costs could include staff time for contracting and monitoring, additional staff,
capital improvements (modifications to the transfer station, construction of a storage facility,
conveyor systems, and/or other alterations), equipment (sma1110ader, forklift, and/or trucks for
transporting materials), insurance, and other costs.
C/: 'IHer 4: Recycling
Page 4.13
Jefferson County Solid Waste .Management Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 5: COMPOSTING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management activities discussed in this chapter are organized into three sections
based on the type of material to be composted:
5.2
5.3
5.4
Yard Debris Composting Programs
Food Waste Composting Options
Solid Waste Composting Options
Section 5.2 discusses current activities and potential options for composting yard debris. Sections
5.3 and 5.4 discuss the potential for new programs to divert food waste and compost mixed
garbage, respectively.
5.2 YARD DEBRIS COMPO STING PROGRAMS
5.2.1 Existing Conditions
Background
Composting can be defined as the controlled biological decomposition of organic materials to
produce a beneficial product (compost). Compost has many applications, but as a soil amendment
it provides organic matter and nutrients, loosens tightly-packed soils, and helps retain moisture.
In this CSWMP, yard debris is defined to include lawn clippings, leaves, weeds, and tree prunings.
Because prunings are included in the definition of yard debris, "composting", as used here,
includes the chipping of brush.
Collection Methods
The franchise haulers report that rural residents are currently disposing of only small amounts of
yard debris. Many rural residents of the County use on-site composting ("backyard composting")
or use the drop-off site at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility for yard debris. Back-
yard composting is considered to be a waste reduction technique and is discussed in Chapter 3.
Separate collection services for yard debris include the City's curbside collection program and
drop-off at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility. In both cases, the yard debris is used
as a "bulking agent" at the City of Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility. Drop-off of yard
debris at the Waste Management Facility is available to commercial and residential customers at no
charge. This material must be less than eight feet long and ten inches in diameter. The drop-off
program began in the latter half of 1992, with incoming material being stockpiled until the first
phase of the compost facility became operational in December 1993. The tonnages collected in
recent years through the drop-off program are shown in Table 5.1.
The City's yard debris collection program began January 1, 1998. The City's contract with Waste
Connections requires that curbside collections of yard debris be conducted from April 1st through
Chapter 5: Composting
Page 5-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 5.1. Yard Debris Drop-Off Quantities (Tons).
Month: 1996 1997 1998 1999
January 113.9 129.1 95.1 112.4
February 98.5 115.9 121.8 184.2
March 174.9 154.0 173.3 282.4
April 171.7 390.1 183.4 286.6
May 161.8 293.1 217.7 252.3
June 211.9 318.9 305.1 351.8
July 200.9 297.8 262.1 284.5
August 184.5 210.0 267.2 244.9
September 129.9 326.0 189.0 254.5
October 123.0 185.7 173.2 155.4
November 105.7 119.4 189.4 156.6
December 53.8 112.8 110.2 116.3 -1
Annual Tonnage 1,730.4 2,642.6 2,287.5 2,681.9
Note: The above figures are drop--off amounts from City and County residential and commercial sources,
and do not include tonnages from the City's curbside collection program.
October 3151 of each year, with every other week collections that alternate with the recycling
collections. Although not required by their contract, in the late 1999 Waste Connections began
voluntarily collecting yard debris year-round (12 months a year). Materials collected include
leaves, grass clippings, and branches. Branches must be less than four inches in diameter, and in
bundles that are less than four feet long, less than two feet in diameter and that weigh less than 40
pounds. Christmas trees are also collected in the first full week of January. The amount of
material that has been collected through the curbside program is shown in Table 5.2.
Processing Svstem
As mentioned above, the yard debris collected in the County is brought to the City of Port
Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility. This facility is located on County property at the Jefferson
County Waste Management Facility, and is operated and maintained by the City. While the
primary purpose of this facility could be viewed as a method to process the City's sewage sludge
(biosolids) and also the region's septage, it serves as an excellent method to handle the yard debris.
Yard debris is ground (in the case of woody materials) and mixed with the biosolids to serve as a
"bulking agent". By itself, the biosolids would not compost well. The yard debris 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 adding porosity that improves aeration (the microorganisms that
cause composting to occur require oxygen to operate most efficiently). More information on the
design and operation of the Biosolids Compost Facility can be found in Section 9.5.
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. Several batches of compost (typically six batches) are produced
Chapter 5; Composting
Page 5-2
Jefferson County Solid Waste .Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 5.2. Curbside Collection of Yard Debris in Port Townsend (Tons).
Month: 1998. Tons 1999. Tons Percent Increase
January 1.97 7.95 304%
February NA NA NA
March NA NA NA
April 8.74 10.37 19%
May 13.80 14.75 7%
June 17.46 23.41 34%
July 19.84 20.92 5%
August 12.74 22.06 73%
September 9.70 13.58 40%
October 12.37 11.94 -3%
November NA 4.75 NA
December NA 3.80 NA
Annual Amount 96.62 133.53 38%
Note: NA = Not Applicable, yard debris not collected in those months.
annually and the compost is sold fairly quickly during most of the year. There have been a few
occasions when the amount of compost produced exceeded the seasonal demand for it, and
alternative markets had to be found for it (such as a soil improvement project for a park or
discounted sales to commercial customers).
The location and operation of the Compost Facility is the subject of a lease between the County and
City. The County has leased the City a parcel ofland at the Jefferson County Waste Management
Facility for the Compost Facility. The land is part of the site for the closed County landfill,
although the Compost Facility is not on an area where solid waste was actually buried. This
location is nearly ideal, as it allows co-locating all of the major waste management components
(Transfer Station., Recycle Center and the Compost Facility). Co-locating these facilities
maximizes ease of administration, leads to efficient transfer of materials between facilities, and
allows the common use of the buffer area for the old landfill. This arrangement provides the City
with a facility for the cost-effective disposal of their biosolids, and the City receives offsetting
revenues from compost sales and ITom payments for handling biosolids ITom Kitsap County and
septage from private contractors. In return for the use of the land, the City has agreed to be wholly
responsible for the operation of the facility and mitigation of any direct impacts it may cause.
Altogether, the City composted 2,384 tons of yard debris in 1998. The amount of solid waste
collected in that year was 13,862 tons. Based on these numbers, the total composting rate for
Jefferson County was 12.2% (see also Table 2.6). As can be seen in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, the amount
of yard debris composted in 1999 increased to 2,815 tons.
Chapter 5: Composting
Page 5-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
5.2.2 Needs and Opportunities
There are several needs and opportunities associated with composting in Jefferson County, but in
general the current system, with the use of City's Compost Facility, is working very well.
The amount of yard debris remaining in the County's waste stream is not precisely known, but it
can be assumed that there is more material that could be composted- The available waste
composition data (see Table 2.5) indicates that there is about 1,143 tons of yard debris in the waste
stream. This is an area where the waste composition data is especially suspect, however, because it
does not address local conditions (i.e., the highly rural nature of much of the County) or existing
efforts (the Compost Facility is already diverting a substantial amount of yard debris). The amount
of yard debris collected through the curbside program in the City has increased steadily since the
program was implemented. The quantities dropped off at the Compost Facility have also increased
over the past few years (although the amount in 1997 was larger than in 1998, probably because the
1997 amount included debris ftom a major stonn and trom a large development project). These
increases indicate that the full potential of composting has possibly not been achieved yet.
..1
One potential opportunity is the increased amount of yard debris that may become available when a
bum ban becomes effective January 1,2001 for the City of Port Townsend. This may actually help
address another need, which is that the Compost Facility is chronically short of woody material to
serve as a bulking agent. The City could use more of this material to maximize the capacity and
productivity of their operation, especially to maximize the facility's capacity for septage.
Additional areas of the County may come under the bum ban if an area achieves a population
density of 1,000 people per square mile by January 1,2001, or if an area achieves this density by
the deadline for the next phase of bum bans on January 1,2007.
Public education can be considered to be an ongoing need, to maintain the current successes as well
as increase the amounts of material diverted to composting. Especially as the bum ban is phased
in, it will be important to educate people on the preferred handling methods for yard debris. The
Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) anticipates assisting the County, City and
appropriate fire departments with this education effort.
The City recently retained a consulting firm to examine the operation of the Compost Facility.
This study, the Comç)Qst Facility Management and Financial Plan (CH2MH 1996) provides a
number of recommendations for improvements and refmements to the facility's operation.
There is currently a proposal by Kitsap County to examine the feasibility of expanding the City's
Compost Facility to handle additional amounts ofbiosolids £Tom Kitsap County. This proposal is
still in the developmental stages (as of 1999), but if it is implemented it would involve an
expansion of the Compost Facility (at Kitsap County's expense) and greater demand for yard
debris or other materials as bulking agents.
In early 1999, the results of routine monitoring detected an elevated level of nitrates in a
groundwater monitoring well adjacent to the Compost Facility's infiltration basins for septage
liquid discharge. Changes in the operation of the Compost Facility appear to have resolved this
problem as oflate 1999, but water quality monitoring will continue.
Chapter 5: Composting
Page 5-4
Jefjerson County Solid Waste .Management Plan, Final Draft
5.2.3 Alternative Methods
Private individuals are encouraged to separate yard debris, which can be disposed of at no charge
through the City's facility. Individuals who do this could be additionally rewarded with a slip for
free or discounted compost, or for credit at the Transfer Station. The County could also set up a
drop-off container at the Quilcene Drop Box.
Several issues would fITst need to be addressed before collecting yard debris at the Quilcene Drop
Box. Fire hazards could be a concern and could require special designs or operating requirements.
Drop boxes filled with yard debris may not be efficiently hauled due to the bulky nature of some
materials (such as brush), and there would also be costs and other factors to consider.
An additional but more drastic method of increasing the level of yard debris diverted from the solid
waste stream would be a disposal ban. The disposal ban could take a variety of fonns, but one
approach would be to require that no yard debris be delivered to the Transfer Station or Quilce.ne
Drop Box. Some means of enforcement would be needed. Bans on placing materials into the
municipal solid waste stream appear to be an unpopular option, as demonstrated in several public
meetings regarding funding options held in 1997 by the BOCC throughout Jefferson County.
Local markets have been proven to be sufficient for the City's compost product and currently
demand for the compost exceeds supply (CH2MH 1996) to the point where consideration must be
given to allocating the compost among potential users. There are certain seasons, however, when
the demand for compost is lower and alternative end-markets need to be sought out. If the amount
of compost increases significantly, then additional market development may be necessary to avoid
a surplus of finished product.
The County and City could create demonstration gardens and parks, as per the City park on Water
and Adams Streets. A demonstration garden, showing different means of composting, could be
designed and implemented at the ill CatToll Park or other locations.
5.2.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for yard debris composting (see also Recommendations
PE5 and Rl):
Cl)
The County should continue to partner with the City of Port Townsend to maintain and
expand their biosolids composting operations. If the supply of compost increases above
demand, the County and City should utilize the finished product on County and City
properties and projects, when applicable.
C2)
The County should build demonstration gardens in at least one of its'parks, such as the HJ
CatToll Park, and other locations to educate residents about the benefits ofbiosolids,
venniculture and/or yard debris composting. The County should work with local garden
clubs or other groups to build and maintain these gardens.
5.2.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The first recommendation above, the COlUlty and City continuing to work together to expand the
composting operation and ensure adequate markets for the finished product, should be conducted
Chapter 5: Compostiflg
Page 5-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
on an ongoing basis. The cost of this approach could include allocation of additional County land
for the biosolids facility, a public relations and infonnation effort, disposal costs for water from the
septage and biosolids, and significant construction costs and other capital investments.
Constructing demonstration gardens should be accomplished over the next five years, with two
such gardens developed by December 2005. The cost for these gardens is projected to be about
$6,000 each for signs, raised beds or other landscaping, compost bins and other improvements (see
also Table 5.3). Annual expenses for maintenance and publicity would be minimal due to
assistance provided by local garden clubs, WSU or other groups, but could still reach as high as
$1,000 per year.
Recommendation C 1 has been given a high priority for implementation, and C2 is medium priority
(see also Tables E.l through E.2).
.,. ,
Table 5.3. Six - Year Capital Expense Schedule for Public Yard Debris Facilities.
Funding
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source
Compost Demonstration Gardens:
Landscaping, County/
Structures 0 0 0 0 $5,500 $5,500 CPG Funds
Signs 0 0 0 0 $500 $500 County
County /
Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 $1,000* Volunteers
* this is an annual expense that continues beyond the period shown in this table.
5.3 FOOD WASTE COMPOSTJNG OPTIONS
5.3.1 Existing Conditions
Food waste could also be a candidate for composting. As other materials are diverted from the
waste stream, food waste increasingly becomes one of the most prevalent materials left in the waste
stream. As indicated in Table 2.5, approximately 12 percent of the waste stream, or 1,751 tons per
year, is food waste. Composting a portion of this would help the County meet its waste diversion
goal.
5.3.2 Needs and Opportunities
It is possible that food waste could be included in the mix that is processed at the City's Compost
Facility, although the high moisture of this material would lead to even greater demand for (and
potential shortage of) bulking agents such as yard debris. Other potential problems associated with
Chapter 5: Composting
Page 5-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
large-scale food waste could include odors, vectors (insects and other vemlin), and end-product
marketability issues.
5.3.3 Alternative Methods
There is increasing interest in food waste composting throughout the United States. A national
survey (BioCycle 1998a) found that the number offood waste composting projects in operation or
under development increased from 214 in 1997 to 250 in 1998. This survey also found that most
mlwicipalities were not pursuing residential sources of food waste (where instead backyard
composting and/or worm bins were the main strategy), but were tapping into heavy concentrations
of food waste found at institutional and industrial (food processing) sources.
5.3.4 Recommendations
The following recommendation is made for food waste composting (see also Recommendation
PE5):
C3)
Small-scale vermicomposting projects should be encouraged, such as the pilot worm bin
programs previously conducted at the Mountain View and Grant Street Schools. Home
composting of food waste should be encouraged with public education on the proper
methods for vermicomposting or incorporation into compost bins.
5.3.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
Encouraging school and home food waste composting activities should be conducted on an
ongoing basis. The costs for this will be largely staff time (the Solid Waste Education Coordinator)
and educational materials. This recommendation has been given a medium priority for
implementation (see also Table £.2).
5.4 SOLID WASTE COMPO STING OPTIONS
5.4.1 Existing Conditions
A third possibility for composting is to process mixed solid waste to remove non--degradable items
and compost the remainder. According to a recent report (BioCycle 1998b), there are fifteen solid
waste composting facilities currently in operation in the u.S. This technology is more widely used
in Europe, where there are rruiny more facilities that have operated successfully for several years.
Solid waste composting typically involves a number of shredding, composting and screening steps
to produce a material that is somewhat similar to yard debris compost. Waste processing is
required on the front end of solid waste composting facilities, where it serves the purpose of
removing materials that would interfere with the composting process or the marketability of the
end product, as well as recyclable materials. Screening and other processing after composting is
also required, and the various processing steps create a residue that requires landfill disposal.
Chapter 5: CVmpQstillg
Page 5~7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Jvlanagement Plan. Final Draft
5.4.2 Needs and Opportunities
Solid waste composting requires careful attention to the markets for recovered products and the
costs of construction and operation of the required facilities. The marketability of the recovered
materials may be hard to determine at the design stage ofthe facility, since the quality of the
materials cannot be certain until the facility is in operation-
There are no needs or opportunities that have been specifically identified in support of solid waste
composting, although the increased diversion created would help meet the County's goal for
recycling. In the case of this technology, however, this increase in diversion would be relatively
expensive, as the capital-intensive facility required for this approach causes a relatively high cost
per ton for the materials recovered.
5.4.3 Alternative Methods
There are various options for solid waste composting. In the simplest case, this method can be
used for organic-rich waste streams ftom specific types of commercial waste generators. In the
most capital-intensive option, a solid waste composting facility could include the County's entire
waste stream and would include more shredding or grinding of the incoming waste and more
emphasis on removal of physical and chemical contaminants such as plastics and batteries. In any
case, the actual composting step may take place in an enclosed system (typically called "in-vessel"
composting), a trough that is open on top, or a variety of pile configurations.
'1
The success of solid waste composting depends on the markets available for the end product and
the cost of alternative disposal methods. Even in the best case, solid waste compost typically has
much more limited applications than yard debris compost. Solid waste compost usually contains
small bits of plastic and pieces of glass, since these do not break down in the composting process
and even intensive shredding will only reduce them to a degree. These materials detract ftom the
visual appearance of the compost and may cause potential customers to reject it. Concentrations of
metals and other contaminants may also be a limiting factor in determining where and how the
compost can be used. Hence, applications for solid waste compost are less likely to be found in
urban locations, and this approach typically relies on agricultural or forestry applications. A
complete cost analysis has not been conducted for this option, but the cost for solid waste
composting would be very substantial.
5.4.4 Recommendations
No solid waste composting facilities or programs are recommended at this time. Future proposals
or opportunities should be evaluated on a case-by--case basis.
5.4.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
An implementation schedule and cost analysis is not applicable for this section, since no facilities
or programs are being proposed.
Chapter 5: Composting
Page 5-8
Jefferson County kS'olid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 6: COLLECTION AND IN-COUNTY TRANSFER
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management activities discussed in this chapter are organized into two sections:
6.2
6.3
Solid Waste Collection
In-County Transfer
6.2 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
6.2.1 Existing Conditions
Existing Collection Services
Solid waste is collected in the City of Port Townsend through a contract, and in other parts of the
County through 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.
One item of interest that affects all of the areas is the recent transactions involving ownership of the
garbage collection companies in Jefferson County. The franchise in most of the County is owned
by Olympic Disposal, which was purchased by Murrey's Disposal (headquartered in Puyallup,
Washington) in 1997. In October 1998, Murrey's Disposal was purchased by Waste Connections
(headquartered in Folsom, California). The City's hauler, Superior Refuse and Recycling, was
purchased by Waste Connections in June 1999. Other garbage haulers still operate in the west end
of the County, but one company now provides collection services for the bulk of the County's
residents and businesses. For the purpose of distinguishing between the contract and franchise
operations in the County, this CSWMP uses "Waste Connections" when referring to the City's
collection system, and "Olympic Disposal" for the franchise system.
City of Port Townsend: The City of Port Townsend has an agreement with Waste Connections to
provide collection services to homes and businesses within the city. The City conducts billing, and
rates are based on the volume of garbage produced. For single-family homes, the rates are $14.00
per can for the first three cans (i.e., $14.00 per month for one can each week, $28.00 for two cans
and $42.00 for three cans), and then the rate increases to $15.84 for the fourth can and $19.84 for
additional cans (PTMC 1999). A "mini...çan" rate is currently not available, but households that
recycle can choose the option of every-other-week collection of one can of waste for only $8.00 per
month.
The population density of Port Townsend is 1.8 people per acre (1996 data, IC 1998).
East County area: In the eastern part of Jefferson County, collection services are provided under a
franchise granted by the State, through the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTe). Any changes in rates or services in franchise areas must be approved by the WUTc.
The WUTC franchise (Certificate G-9) grants 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
Chapter 6: Collection and In-County Transfer
Page 6-1
Jefferson Coun~y Solid Waste Jvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
frame (roll-off) trucks for hauling drop boxes with capacities of 10, 20, 25, 30, 40 and 53 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 garbage and/or recycling on a weekly, every-other~week or once-
monthly basis. Rates for every-ather-week collection of garbage are significantly less than rates
for weekly collection, based on the savings inherent in fewer collections and lower disposal
volumes. The rates currently charged in eastern Jefferson County (as of 1999) are $14.99 per
month for weekly collection of a "mini-can", $18.76 for one can each week, $27.73 for two cans,
$36.70 for three cans, and $46.14 for four cans. The rate for recycling collection service only is
$4.70 per month and collections are every-other-week. When combined with garbage service, the
additional rate for recycling is $3.90 per month. For commercial customers, garbage rates range
from $62.35 per month for once-weekly pickup of a one-yard container to $346.40 per month for
once-weekly collection of a 40-yard container. Additional fees are assessed for temporary
accounts, special (unscheduled) pickups, overfull containers and other services.
The population density of this area is 0.10 people per acre (1996 data., JC 1998).
-j
West Countv area: In the western part of Jefferson County, collection services are also provided
under franchises granted by the WUTC. In this case, however, two companies have franchises to
collect garbage in this area: Olympic Disposal and West Waste & Recycling (West Waste). West
Waste is headquartered in Forks and also collects garbage in western Clallam County.
Collection rates charged by Olympic Disposal on the west end are slightly lower than the rates
shown above for the eastern part of the County, based on the lower fee charged by the disposal site
(the Port Angeles Landfill) used for waste from this area. Rates charged by Olympic Disposal for
recycling (alone or combined with garbage collection) are the same as in the eastern area. Rates
charged by West Waste are similar to the rates charged by Olympic Disposa1.
The population density of this area is 0.004 people per acre (1996 data., JC 1998).
Exîstinl! Rules and Regulations
State Regulations: The WUTC supervises and regulates garbage collection companies. Their
authority (Ch. 81.77 RCWand 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 the City). For private haulers
under their jurisdiction, WUTC may require reports, fix rates, and regulate service areas and 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 are:
~ a city may operate its own municipal collection system.
>- a city may contract with a garbage hauler for collection services in all or part of the city, as is
done in Port Townsend.
~ a city may require a franchised collector to secure a license from the city.
Chapter 6: Colleen'on and In-County Transfer
Page 6-2
J~fJerson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
>- if a city does not wish to be involved in managing garbage collection within its boundaries,
collection services can be provided by franchised collectors certified by the WUTc.
Finally, motor vehicle noise performance standards apply to trucks transporting solid waste (Ch.
173-62 WAC), as well as several other regulations regarding motor vehicles.
Local Regulations: Garbage collection service fees are mandatory in Port Townsend, but not in
other parts of the County. Additional provisions for garbage collection are contained in Chapter 6
of the City's municipal code.
6.2.2 Needs and Opportunities
The current collection system serves the County's and City's residents and businesses adequately.
Future waste quantities have been estimated (see Table 2.4), and the existing collection system is
anticipated to be able to handle the projected increase. In the event of changes to the UGAs, the
collection companies may need to adjust their services.
Collection companies may soon need to change their operations in response to new rules developed
by OSHA and WISHA (IP Jones 1999). Companies collecting garbage and/or recyclables were
found to be in the top twenty industries that cause musculoskeletal injuries (back problems, carpal
tunnel, tennis elbow, rotator cuff, and other problems). It is unknown at this time what new rules
might result from this finding, but potential impacts might include requirements such as more
automation and lower can weight limits.
6.2.3 Alternative Methods
Alternatives to the current collection system include changes in the City's contract and a service
ordinance for other areas of the County, which could be used to institute new programs or services
in the City or County, respectively. Other options could include changes in the collection rate
structure, mandatory garbage collection and co-collection.
Collection Rates
There are several options possible for structuring collection rates, but generally the best approach
for equitable services and encouraging waste diversion is the use of volume-based fees and
"embedding" the cost of recycling and yard waste collections in the base fee for garbage (SERA
1996 and SRM 1999). The collection programs in Jefferson County already use volume-based
rates for both residential and commercial customers and, in Port Townsend, the cost for recycling
and yard waste collections are already embedded into the basic fees for garbage collection.
In the franchise areas of the County, fees for recycling are in addition to the garbage collection fee.
Although it can be argued that residential (and commercial) customers can reduce garbage
collection fees by diverting part of their materials to the less-expensive recycling service, this is
still not the best approach for encouraging recycling. A better option is the use of incentive rates to
encourage recycling, such as Waste Connections offers in Pierce County, where the combined rate
for garbage and recycling services is lower than the rate for the same level (i.e., same number of
cans) of garbage service alone. Implementing incentive rates in the iTanchise areas would require
that the County adopt a service ordinance that provides the foundation for this approach.
Chapter 6: Collection and In-County Transfer
Page 6-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Mandatory Garbage Collection
Another alternative to meet collection needs for Jefferson County is mandatory garbage collection
services. Currently about 32% of the County's population are in areas where payment for
collection service is mandatory, and the remainder is in largely rural areas where subscription to
collection services is voluntary.
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 ofrecyc1ing and garbage 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.
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. The conéept of
a solid waste district is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8.
... ~
Co-Collection of Waste and Recyclable Materials
The City and County could potentially benefit from co-collection. Co--collection is the collection
of waste and recyclable materials (or yard debris) at the same time. Co--collection is accomplished
using methods that fall into two general approaches:
.. Bin-Based Methods: Using one truck with two or more compartments to hold the different
materials (garbage in one compartment and recyclable materials in one or more other
compartments). The compartments are then emptied separately at two different facilities.
.. Bag-Based Methods: Using special bags to hold recyclab1es (or yard waste), which are then
collected in the same compartment as bags of garbage and recovered later after the load is
deposited on the floor of a transfer or processing facility.
The advantage of co--collection is that collection costs and truck traffic can be reduced. Potential
disadvantages include the inefficiencies that result from incorrectly-sized compartments (for bin-
based methods) or the loss ofrecyc1able materials due to bag breakage (for bag-based methods).
Several co-collection programs have been tried in other areas and failed due to such problems.
6.2.4 Recommendations
There is only one recommendation being made at this time for solid waste collection:
WC!)
Franchise haulers and municipal contracts shall continue to use variable rate structures
such as volume-based rates, and incentive rates should be implemented by the franchise
haulers to encourage recycling by their residential customers. The implementation of
incentive rates will require that the County first adopt a service ordinance addressing this
rate structure. Additional incentives and alternative rate structures that promote waste
reduction and recycling should also be considered, such as mini--can rates in the City of
Port Townsend and in the franchise areas.
Chapter 6: Colleen'on and In-County Transfer
Page 6-4
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
6.2.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The County should adopt a service ordinance providing the foundation for incentive rates in the
franchise areas by June 2001. The franchise haulers should institute incentive rates with the next
change in rates after adoption of the service ordinance, to avoid the expense of a separate filing
with the WUTC, but no later than December 2004. The City should consider instituting mini-can
and possibly other rates with the next revision of their waste collection contract.
This recommendation has been given a high priority for implementation (see also Table E.l).
6.3 IN-COUNTY TRANSFER
6.3.1 Existing Conditions
The Quilcene Drop Box is the one drop box 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, due to excessive operating costs. Two of these facilities were on
land leased from the DNR and will not continue to be used. These sites have been closed by
removing buildings, but fencing and power have been left in place. The Port Hadlock site is owned
by the County and has been converted to a recycling drop-off facility. The Brinnon site is also
owned by the County and will be used for a Public Works storage yard.
The one remaining drop box station, in Quilcene, is located off of Highway 101 about 23 miles
south of the Jefferson County Transfer Station. The Quilcene Drop Box handIed 185.23 tons of
waste from 2,908 vehicles in 1998, and took in $29,934.38 in revenues from tipping fees for this
waste. Jefferson County owns and operates the Quilcene Drop Box, but has a contract with
Olympic Disposal to haul full containers of waste to the Jefferson County Transfer Station. 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. Fees charged at this facility range from $2.87 for a mini-
can or $4.78 for a 32-gallon can, up to $26.29 per cubic yard for larger loads. A few items have
separate or additional charges, such as car tires ($4.78), truck tires ($5.98) and refrigerators
($19.12). All of these fees are excluding taxes.
6.3.2 Needs and Opportunities
With the recent closure of most of the drop box stations, there may be service gaps in some parts of
the County. This may be true for recycling as well as solid waste, since recycling containers at the
drop boxes are an important opportunity for recycling. Collection services for garbage and
recyclable materials are available, however, throughout the County from private companies.
Periodic evaluations of possible service gaps throughout the County will be necessary due to
population growth and other factors.
As with the primary transfer station (see Section 3.4.2), more education is probably needed to
inform customers of the Quilcene Drop Box as to the materials that cannot be brought there, and
the alternatives that exist for the proper disposal or handling of those materials.
According to State law (36.58.030 RCW), drop boxes need to be financially self.supporting, and
disposal fees charged at the Quilcene Drop Box may need to be increased in the future to meet this
requirement.
( '!"opter 6: Collection and In-County Tran.ifer
Page 6-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
6.3.3 Alternative Methods
Operation or ownership of drop box sites can be by either the public or private sector.
An option for serving the residents of the County's west end would be to implement a regional
effort with Clallam and possibly also Grays Harbor Counties. The west end of Clallam County is
in a similar position as to both distance from the primary disposal facility and low volumes of
wastes disposed, and is currently being served partly by a separate waste export system. The waste
export containers for Clallam County's west end are being transported south through Jefferson
County, and so there may be an opportunity to include Jefferson County's west end in this system.
This concept is being called the "north-south corridor", and actual implementation of this option
would require that several details be resolved, such as maintaining the interests and involvement of
several private companies and municipal agencies.
In areas once served by drop boxes, residents and businesses can instead use garbage and recycling
services provided by franchise haulers or self-haul to facilities that are still open.
"
6.3.4 Recommendations
The following recommendation is made for the transfer system in Jefferson County (see also
Recommendations WE! and PE4):
Tl)
The County should continue to evaluate options for maintaining drop box service in the
unincorporated areas of the County.
6.3.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The only immediate cost for the continued evaluation of drop box service options is a limited
amount of staff time (for existing staff). Ifa new site were developed, however, there would be
significant capital expenses (for land, building, equipment, etc.) and other costs (such as grading
and other site preparation, access control measures, and utilities).
This recommendation has been given a medium priority for implementation (see also Table E.2).
Chapter 6: Collection and In-County Transfer
Page 6-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Alanagement Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 7: DISPOSAL
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management activities discussed in this chapter are organized into three additional
sections based on the type of disposal method:
72
7.3
7.4
Incineration
In-County Landfilling
Waste Import/Export
7.2 INCINERATION
7.2.1 Existing Conditions
Background
Incineration can be used to reduce the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal. When used with
an energy recovery system, it can also be a method of producing electricity and/or heat.
Pyrolysis involves heating waste or other materials to high temperatures in the absence of oxygen.
The lack of oxygen is the factor that separates pyrolysis (and other types ofthenna1 oxidation
methods) from traditional incineration technologies. Some would argue that pyrolysis is not
equivalent to other types of incineration, but the basic principles (the application of heat to reduce
solid waste volumes and the production of residues such as ash) are sufficiently similar that
pyrolysis is included in this section.
Incineration Activities in Jefferson County
According to the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA 1999), there are currently no
incinerators in Jefferson County permitted for general solid waste. There are two facilities
permitted to burn wood waste as hog fuel, Allen Logging and Port Townsend Paper Company, and
Jefferson County Animal Services has a pennit to operate a veterinary incinerator. The flare
station for landfill gas at the closed Jefferson County Landfill also has an air quality permit. There
are no hospitals or clinics that currently have pennits to incinerate biomedical waste.
Existing Incinerators in Other Areas
A number of incinerators have operated in other parts of the state. Spokane County and the City of
Spokane jointly operate an incinerator using "mass burn" technology. This facility is functioning
well although it has experienced occasional problems with air quality, and the cost of operation has
not dropped to the lower levels of earlier projections. As a result, the Spokane area has one of the
highest disposal costs in the state. The City of Tacoma was incinerating part of its garbage until
early 1998, using a Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) process to prepare it for incineration and energy
recovery at a local power plant. TIris process was problematic and was discontinued for a time, but
was recently revived through a new management structure. Incinerators in Skagit and Whatcom
Counties have also experienced problems, and the Skagit incinerator is now closed.
-,
( !apter 7: Disposal
Page 7-1
Jeffirson County Solid Waste Afanagement Plan, Final Draft
7.2.2 Needs and Opportunities
There is a need for disposal of solid wastes now and in the future, although these needs are
currently being met satisfactorily by the waste export system.
A recent report concluded that health risks from incinerators need to be more fully researched
(C&EN 1999).
7.2.3 Alternative Methods
There are several options and variations possible with incineration. These options include different
technologies, waste streams, and system and equipment designs. Incineration of solid waste is an
effective method of volume reduction, although the greater expense of incineration compared to
other solid waste disposal methods is a limiting factor. mcineration is generally considered where
there are environmental concerns with other disposal options, a market exists for energy recovered
from waste combustion, and/or where population densities are high and land is scarce. At the
present time, there appear to be no factors that would favor incineration in Jefferson County over
other disposal methods.
, ,
7.2.4 Recommendations
No recommendations are being made for incineration. Any incineration projects that may be
proposed in the future will need to be evaluated based on an objective review of the potential
impacts to human health and environmental quality, as well as a comparison to alternative disposal
methods.
7.2.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The potential value of incineration should be reassessed in all future revisions of this CSWMP.
7.3 IN-COUNTY LANDFILLING
7.3.1 Existing Conditions
Jefferson County Landfill
Jefferson County operated a municipallandfill from 1973 until April 1993, when it was closed and
replaced with a transfer station. The Jefferson County Transfer Station serves the waste export
system (see Section 7.4). Upon closure, the landfill was capped with a geomembrane layer and
soil, and a monitoring period began. The monitoring period is expected to continue for 20 years, or
longer if the landfill has not stabilized by the end of this period (stability will be indicated by the
lack of gas production, leachate contamination and settlement). A landfill gas system has been
installed and the gas is drawn to a flare station to be burned off. Although closed, there is a smaIl
amount of space at the landfill that could be used for inert wastes or other materials.
Over the past few years, monitoring wells located around the landfill have detected very low
concentrations of chemicals leaching from the landfill and from a septage lagoon that was operated
Chapter 7: Disposal
Page 7-2
JejJèrson County Solid Waste Management Plan. Final Draft
next to the landfill. These wells are located upgradient, to test the "clean" groundwater before it
travels under the landfill, and downgradient, to test the groundwater after it may have been
impacted by the landfill. New monitoring wells were installed in 1999 and should assist
monitoring efforts.
Other ill-County Landfills
Port Townsend Paper Company operates a limited purpose landfill for disposal of ash from a hog
fuel boiler and grit from a limekiln. There were 5,090 cubic yards of waste deposited in this
landfill in 1998, which is an average amount. At this rate, the landfill is expected to have 40 to 50
years of capacity remaining, and so should be able to operate until about 2050. There are
monitoring wells located around this landfill to test for groundwater contamination, and 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. This landfill is for the purpose of
disposing of a few tons per year of concrete and asphalt from that base's demolition and
construction activities, and no waste is permitted to be brought to it from outside sources. At the
current rates of disposal, the life expectancy of this landfill exceeds 20 years.
There are no other known landfills currently operating or undergoing monitoring in Jefferson
County at this time.
7.3.2 Needs and Opportunities
Jefferson County's closed landfill will need to be monitored for at least fourteen more years. Most
of the contaminants found have been decreasing in concentration, except for increasing levels of
nitrates in one monitoring well (Monitoring Well #5, near the old septage lagoon). None of the
contaminants are at levels that require remedial actions at this time.
One possible need is related to the issue of old dumps throughout the County. Several of these
small dumps were created over the years, prior to the implementation of modem landfilling
methods. Only a few of these dumps have been examined, and for most of these sites the records
are lacking or insufficient as to the size, location and contents.
Current standards for disposal sites are primarily contained in the State's Minimwn Functional
Standards, Chapter 173-351 WAc. Chapter 173-351 contains standards for planning, siting,
operating and closing landfills. The County Solid Waste Regulations also contain disposal site
standards.
There has recently been some interest expressed in the possibility of a regional landfill located on
the Olympic Peninsula. This type of landfill could serve the disposal needs of Jefferson County
and neighboring areas. Operating a landfill to handle Jefferson County's waste stream alone would
likely be prohibitively expensive due to the limited economies of scale and high fixed expenses
associated with a small landfill, but a regional landfill may allow for acceptable disposal costs.
Chapter 7: Disposal
Page 7.3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
7.3.3 Alternative Methods
Options that include the use of an in-county landfill for municipal solid waste have not been fully
explored. The disposal needs of the County are being satisfied by the waste export system, and
siting and operating a landfill in a relatively wet and mountainous region such as the Olympic
Peninsula would not be easy. Nonetheless, there is some interest in closer examination of the
feasibility of a regìonallandfill to serve the needs of Jefferson, Clallam and possibly other counties.
Substantially more effort will be required to explore the technical, financial and social aspects of
this concept before its feasibility can be determined.
Additional special purpose or inert waste landfills may be desirable in the future, but current needs
for special and inert wastes are being met with the existing Navy and Port Townsend Paper
Company landfills. These types of landfills typically provide a cost-effective disposal option for
local industries without excessive environmental impacts.
7.3.4 Recommendations
""
There is only one recommendation being proposed at this time for in-county landfilling:
Ll)
Old dump sites that are known to exist in the County must be documented and inspected,
with the goal of developing an assessment of their long-term liability.
7.3.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
Documentation and inspection of old dumps should occur over the next five years, with the goal of
developing an appropriate plan for dealing with these. The cost for this activity could be only a
small amount of staff time and other costs, but could also be as high as $25,000 to 50,000 per year
depending on the level of effort. This is a responsibility of the Jefferson County Environmental
Health Division. If a site were discovered that was in immediate need of cleanup, costs would be
substantial and funds for this could be requested from Ecology's Remedial Action grant program.
Ths recommendation has been given a medium priority for implementation (see also Table £.2).
7.4 WASTE IMPORT AND EXPORT
7.4.1 Existing Conditions
Existing Waste Import Activities
There are currently no shipments of solid waste into Jefferson County, although the City's
Compost Facility periodically receives biosolids from Kitsap County and septage from Clallam
County.
Existing Waste Exoort 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
Chapter 7: Disposal
Page 7-4
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
of handling wastes from several areas. For many counties, these landfills provide a less expensive
and more convenient means of disposal than an in.county landfill.
Jefferson County began exporting solid waste in 1993 when the County entered into a five-year
contract with Regional Disposal Company (RDC). This contract was to transport waste from the
Jefferson County Waste Management Facility and dispose of it at RDC' s landfill in Klickitat
Cmllity, Washington. The initial tenn of this contract was five years, with up to three five-year
renewals allowed.
In 1998, the waste export contract was re-bid. Starting in August 1998, Jefferson County's waste
was shipped to the Port Angeles Landfill under a six-month contract to allow time for new bids to
be received and evaluated. Jefferson County received two bids in September 1998 in response to
the Request for Proposals (RFP) for waste export services. The cost figures shown for both of the
bids are for "acceptable waste", and higher costs are charged for asbestos-containing waste. Both
of the bids are 1999 costs and would be adjusted annually for inflation. These bids are further
sununarized below:
.. RDC/MUITev's Disposal: The bid from this group was $25.33 per ton for transportation and
$18.96 per ton for disposal, or $44.29 per ton total. Like most proposals of tlùs nature, the
private companies proposed to provide the trailers, chassis, rigs, landfill capacity and labor for
transporting and landfilling the waste, while Jefferson County would still be responsible for
operating the Transfer Station. Waste would be transported by truck to a rail.loading facility in
Tacoma and then shipped to RDC's landfill in Klickitat County, Washington.
.. Waste Management: The bid from Waste Management was $26.72 per ton for transportation
and $18.53 per ton for disposal, or $45.25 per ton total. Waste Management also proposed to
provide the equipment and labor for transporting and landfilling the waste, while Jefferson
County would again be responsible for operating the Transfer Station. Waste would be
transported by truck to a proposed rail-loading facility in Bremerton and then brought to Waste
Management's Columbia Ridge Landfill in Gilliam County, Oregon.
The County accepted the bid from RDC 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.
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, placed in shipping containers, and then transported back through the
ComIty to Grays Harbor County and eventually disposed in the same regional landfill that the bulk
of the County's waste is disposed at (RDC's landfill in Klickitat County). Waste collected by the
other franchise hauler, Olympic Disposal, is brought to the Port Angeles Landfill.
The only other waste export systems in use in the County are for small quantities of special wastes
(such as biomedical waste, see Chapter 9) that are sent to special facilities outside of the County.
The Jefferson County Waste Management Facility is the designated disposal facility for all
municipal solid waste generated in Jefferson County, except for waste from the west end of the
County.
Chapfer 7: Disposal
Page 7-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Afanagement Plan" Final Draft
7.4.2 Needs and Opportunities
Waste Import Needs and Opportunities
Importing the amount of waste into Jefferson County that would provide additional economies of
scale would also require a significant investment in capital improvements for the Transfer Station
and other costs. A substantial amount of solid waste import is not considered feasible at this time,
although this may occur if a neighboring county suffered an emergency situation.
A feasibility study may be proposed by Kitsap County and the City of Port Townsend to examine
the possibility of delivering additional amounts ofbiosolids to the City's Compost Facility.
Waste Export Needs and Opportunities
Neighboring counties (Clallam and Kitsap) are currently examining their waste disposal syštems
and there may be an opportunity to implement a regional disposal system involving one or both of
these counties. One of the more feasible opportunities may be the use of a north-south route to
handle the waste generated in the western portions of both Clal1am and Jefferson Counties. The
west ends of these counties are currently not easily served by the main disposal systems of each
county because of the transportation barrier presented by the Olympic Mountains, although these
areas are currently being served through the private efforts of the two haulers with franchises in
those areas. The west end of Clallam County is currently being partially served by a waste export
system.
7.4.3 Alternative Methods
Waste Import Alternatives
Options for importing solid waste into Jefferson County include importing waste to the Jefferson
County Waste Management Facility and variations on service arrangements for the west end of the
County.
Importing waste to the County's primary waste management facility near Port Townsend, the
Jefferson County Waste Management Facility, is not considered to be feasible or cost-effective.
Clallam County is the only source that could feasibly do this, and the distance from the center of
their waste generation area (i.e., the Port Angeles-Sequim area) would make it uneconomical to
transport the garbage in collection vehicles. Instead, solid waste from Clallam County would need
to be put in larger containers to be transported, and at that point it would be easier and more cost-
effective to send the garbage south for disposal instead of bringing it up to the Port Townsend area.
Other areas would need to transport waste to Port Townsend using ferries or, in the case of Kitsap
County, transport their waste north only to have it shipped south again over the same route-
Neither of these options would appear to be cost-effective.
Another alternative for waste import might be to use a site in the Clearwater area to handle waste
from Clallam County's west end. The Clearwater Drop Box Station has been closed, however, so
any future operations in that area would require a new facility.
Chapter 7: Disposal
Page 7~6
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
Waste Export Alternatives
As previously mentioned, there are several provisions in the current waste export contract that
allow flexibility in future arrangements. One of these would allow Clallam County to become
party to this contract. This would not require waste to be physically brought to Jefferson Comity or
combined at another site, but could be accomplished through other arrangements.
Another alternative is to export waste from western Jefferson County through a different system
(see above discussion of the "north-south corridor").
7.4.4 Recommendations
Waste Import
No reconunendations are being made for waste import.
Waste Export
The following recommendation is being made for waste export:
WEl) The implementation of a "north-south corridor" to serve the western ends of both Jefferson
and Clallam Counties is recommended, although further discussions will be needed to
determine implementation details.
7.4.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
Waste Import
Not applicable.
Waste Export
Further discussions of the feasibility of a north-south corridor to serve the western portions of
Jefferson and Clallam Counties should occur over the next two years, involving representatives of
the two counties, both private haulers active in those area, the Solid Waste Advisory Committees of
both counties and possibly others. futerlocal agreements would likely be necessary to implement
this approach.
This recommendation has been given a medium priority for implementation (see also Table B.2).
Chapter 7: Disposal
Page 7-7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 8: REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to review the regulatory and administrative activities in Jefferson
County for solid waste.
8.2 REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION
8.2.1 Existing Conditions
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 Ecologý
(Ecology), respectively. Jefferson County is in the jurisdiction of the southwest regional office of
Ecology, located in Lacey, Washington. 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 ofRCRA 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 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 the previous chapter, this facility operates
an inert landfill for the disposal of concrete from on-site demolition activities. This facility also
currently has a permit for bioremediation of petroleum -contaminated soil, although this is not
actively being conducted at this time. 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.
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 setting up a coordinated county 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 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
The Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling (Ch. 173-304 WAC) were
promulgated by Ecology under the authority granted by Ch. 70.95 RCW. The Minimum
FWlctional Standards reflect the State's solid waste management priorities and desire to protect the
environment from adverse impacts that may be created by solid waste disposal facilities. A
separate section, Ch. 173-351, Criteria for MUIÚcipal Solid Waste Landfills, contains the current
standards for landfills.
Chapter 36.58 RCW, Solid Waste Disposal, establishes the counties' rights and responsibilities
regarding solid waste management, including the authority to establish solid waste disposal
districts. The authority to establish solid waste collection districts is provided in Chapter 36.58A.
An important State rule that will impact solid waste management in Jefferson County is the ban on
outdoor burning (see Section 5.2.2 for further details). Other Federal, State and local air quality
regulations may also apply to specific activities in Jefferson County, especially OAPCA (Olympic
Air Pollution Control Authority) 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 OAPCA may be necessary for modifications in existing
sources and construction of new sources, including landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities
and incinerators.
-~
Other relevant State legislation includes Washington's Model Litter Control and Recycling Act.
The Model Litter Control and Recycling Act (Ch. 70.93 RCW) and 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 grants to counties for illegal dump clean-up activities.
Local Level
In Jefferson COWlty, the local governmental organizations involved in solid waste management
include the Jefferson County Department of Public Works, the Jefferson County Environmental
Health Division, and the City of Port Townsend. The Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory
Committee (SW AC) also plays an important role in administering the solid waste management
system in Jefferson County. Each of these entities has a particular area of operations, providing
specific services to the residents within that area and enforcing specific rules and regulations.
Local rules that affect solid waste management include ordinances, land use plans and zoning
codes.
Jefferson County Department of Public Works: At the COWlty level, the Department of Public
Works is the agency primarily responsible for solid waste management activities for Jefferson
County. The Jefferson County Department of Public Works operates the Waste Management
Facility and the rural drop box system, and manages the Recycle Center lease and the waste export
contract. Staffing includes dedicated persOlU1el, such as a solid waste foreman, scale attendant,
part-time transfer station attendants and drop box site attendants, and assistance as needed from the
director, financial manager, operations manager and solid waste coordinator. Altogether, 9.3 full-
time equivalents (FTE's) were being funded from the 1999 solid waste budget.
Jefferson County utilizes an enterprise fund for the solid waste management system. The premise
of this approach is that expenditures must be matched by revenues from service fees and other
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-2
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Hna/ Draft
appropriate mechanisms. Total expenditures by Jefferson County for solid waste activities in 1999
were projected to amount to $1,804,674. The revenues to pay for these expenses came primarily
from tipping fees funds plus some grant and bond funds. The bond funds are unexpended funds
from a previously-issued bond. Table 8.1 shows more detail on budget and expenditures for 1998,
1999 and 2000, while Table 8.2 shows projected revenue requirements through the year 2008.
Jefferson County Environmental Health Division: The Environmental Health Division of the
Jefferson County Department of Health and Human Services is the local enforcement agency for
County and State regulations regarding solid waste activities. Whenever the situation is not
covered by County ordinances, Environmental Health enforces State regulations. The Environ-
mental Health Division is the responsible local authority (per RCW 70.95.160) for issuing pennits
for solid waste facilities, and inspects and monitors the closed landfill and all other facilities that
may impact human health.
The permit process for disposal facilities requires an application and approval for new sites, aq.d an
annual review and renewal for existing pennits (although permits can be renewed for up to five
years in some cases). The initial application form, developed by the Washington Department of
Ecology, requires infornlation about the types of waste to be disposed, environmental conditions of
the area and operating plans. Pennit fees are based on 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. County action against these offenses is often slow or nonexistent
due to funding, personnel and priority constraints, although additional funding for enforcement is
available from Ecology through the CPG program. illegal dumping enforcement may be addressed
through enforcement of State laws regarding solid waste disposal (Ch. 173-304 WAC) or Jefferson
County ordinances concerning solid waste disposal and or littering. Generally, enforcement of
solid waste laws and regulations is the responsibility of the Jefferson County Environmental
Health. The Sheriff's Department is the enforcement authority for littering.
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 Port Townsend Biosolids
Compost Facility and managing the contract for garbage collection (with assistance ftom other city
staff as needed). The Utility Department handles billing for garbage and recycling as well as
handling related service questions. The City of Port Townsend's solid waste programs are funded
through residential and commercial garbage collection fees.
Illegal dumping and litter control within the City is enforced through the Municipal Code (Chapters
6.04 and 6.06), 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, the "unlawful use ofhannful packaging materials" was adopted in 1989 as Chapter 6.20
of the City code, and is effective only within City limits.
Tribal Councils: As mentioned in Chapter 1, there are three Tribes who are located or active in
Jefferson County (the Hoh, Quinault and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes). The Tribes are governed
by a Tribal Councilor Committee made up of elected members. The Councils hold regular
meetings and handle the business affairs of the Tribes. These Tribes are not cUITently 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 need to
abide by federal regulations and policies outlined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
Chapter 8: Regulation and Adminislmtion
Page 8-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 8.l. Jefferson County Solid Waste Budget.
19981 19992 2000
Operating Revenues
Tipping Fees $1,540,364 $1,639,360 $1,599,000
Grants 44,389 57,374 61,301
Refuse Taxes 21,496 23,269 22,000
City Funds for Education 4,359 2,643 11,000
Other 11.233 17.683 9.450
Subtotal 1,621,841 1,740,329 1,702,751
Operating Expenses
Administration (General) 144,586 135,959 147,400
Solid Waste Taxes 38,600 40,545 41,000
Administration (Planning) 54,117 30,641 40,000
Transfer Operations 185,193 191,614 216,500 -j
:"
Disposal 682,850 667,593 654,500
Closure of Old Landfill 12,523 12,305 16,500
Recycling 132,639 131,175 138,000
Education Program 11,491 34,455 40,000
Moderate Risk Waste Operations 103,699 87,321 86,100
Drop Box Operations 31,358 33,757 21,000
Transfer to Equipment Reserve 73,498 84,000 84,000
Debt Service on Bond 177.693 200.998 203.051
Subtotal 1,648,247 1,673,716 1,702,751
Other Revenues
Grants 14,352 19,388 11,400
Bond Funds 34,090 0
Equipment Reserve (transfer in) 0 0 117,600
Other ---.!! 66.613 0
Subtotal 48,442 86,001 129,000
, Other Expenditures
Capital Outlay (Ecology grant-funded) 5,905 19,388 11,400
Capital Outlay (other) 30.492 66.613 117.600
Subtotal 36,397 86,001 129,000
Notes:
All figures are in dollars.
1. 1998 and 1999 budget figures are actual amounts.
2. The budget figures for 2000 are from a financial report dated JWle 16,2000.
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-4
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 8.2. Projected Revenue Requirements for Jefferson County (in $1,OOO's).
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Revenues
Tipping Fee, JCWMF 1,646 1,687 1,727 1,793 1,842 1,926 2,001 2,084 2,165
Tipping Fee, Drop Boxes 26 26 27 28 28 29 30 30 11
Subtotal, Tipping Fees 1,672 1,713 1,754 1,821 1,870 1,955 2,031 2,114 2,196
City Funds for Education 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
MRW Fees (SQG's) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Tax Receipts 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
State Grants 61 57 53 51 49 48 -
59 55 47
Other ~ -1d -1d ----H ----H -----1.1 14 -H -1d
Total Revenues 1,777 1,824 1,864 1,930 1,978 2,062 2,137 2,220 2,302
Expenses
Landfill Closure 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Transfer Station 217 225 235 246 256 277 285 294 303
Long Haul 685 721 759 799 841 885 932 981 1,033
Drop Box Operations 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
MRW Operations 87 90 93 96 99 102 105 113 116
Recycling and Education 189 210 216 222 229 236 243 250 258
Administration and Planning 228 235 242 249 256 264 272 280 288
Total Expenses 1,441 1,508 1,574 1,643 1,714 1,798 1,873 1,956 2,038
Net Income before Debt 300 291 290 287 264 264 264 264 264
Debt Service, Existing Bonds 203 207 206 203 180 180 180 180 180
Debt Service, New Bonds ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Total Debt Service 203 207 206 203 180 180 180 180 180
Deposit to Equipment Rental
and Replacement Fund ...21 84 ....14 84 .....M --.M 84 _M 84
Balance Available: 36 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tipping Fee, $/ton 110.00 110.00 109.86 111.27 111.52 113.77 115.31 117.17 118.75
Tipping Fee, Increase over 0.0% -0.1% 1.3% 0.2% 2.0% 1.4% 1.6% 1.4%
Previous Year
Notes:
All figures are in thousands of dollars, except the bottom two lines (tipping fee and percent
increase).
Figures are from a financial report dated June 16, 2000.
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SW AC); The SW AC assists with solid waste
administration and regulation by providing a means for public input and by serving in an important
advisory capacity. Further details of the SWAC's role and membership can be found in Section 1.4
and Table 1.2.
Land Use Plans: The Jefferson County ComDrehensive Land Use PIM, adopted August 28, 1998,
provides guidance pertaining to land use issues and so can affect decisions such as siting of solid
waste facilities. Port Townsend has also adopted a ComDrehensive Land Use Plan that addresses
similar issues within City boundaries. Subsequent to the adoption of the County's land use plan,
several ordinances will be developed to provide a regulatory basis for the plan. These ordinances
will include the zoning code, subdivision ordinance, shoreline master plan, and others, but only an
interim zoning code has been adopted to date.
Solid waste is specifically addressed in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan in the
chapters dealing with utilities and capital facilities. Relevant goals and policies from the County's
land use plan are shown in Table 8.3. The City also addressed solid waste management in its land
use plan, and the City's goal and policies are shown in Table 8.4.
.: ~
8.2.2 Needs and Opportunities
Enforcement capabilities in both the Environmental Health Department and the Sheriff's Office are
limited due to staffing and internal priorities, but the Environmental Health Department has drafted
new enforcement procedures. Once adopted, these procedures should help address illegal dump
sites and other problems at sites not regulated under solid waste permitting rules. These procedures
are expected to be incorporated into the County's solid waste regulations. The Environmental.
Health Department is in the process of revising the solid waste regulations, which should help with
facilities and sites that fall under the jurisdiction of solid waste management rules. The
enforcement procedures and revised solid waste regulations are expected to be finalized in 2000.
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.
As previously noted (see Section 6.3.2), State law requires that drop boxes and transfer stations be
financially self-supporting. There is some concern, however, that strict adherence to this standard
ignores the indirect costs of closing drop boxes, such as illegal dumping, as well as the economic
and social benefits provided by local disposal and recycling opportunities.
There are opportunities for regional efforts involving the neighboring counties of Clallam, Mason
and Kitsap. These opportunities are in disposal systems and other activities, and Jefferson County
has already been working with Clallam County and the City of Port Angeles to conduct regional
moderate-risk waste collections.
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 a separate UGA in the ChimacumlIrondale/Port Hadlock Tri-
Area. The creation of additional UGAs will have financial and service-related impacts, including
possible changes in solid waste services (see Section 2.3.1).
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvlanagement Plan, Final Draft
Table 8.3. Goals and Policies from the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Goal
UTG 7.0
Policies
UTP 7.1
UTP7.2
UTP 7.3
UTP 7.4
UTP 7.5
UTP 7.6
UTP 7.7
UTP 7.8
Provide solid waste facilities and programs that are efficient, and which utilize
recycling to the maximum extent practicable.
Implement, to the fullest extent possible, and in descending order of priority, solid
waste management processes that reduce the waste stream, reuse waste materials,
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,
including recycling opportunities, methods to reduce solid and chemical waste, ãnd
related environmental issues.
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 providers, regulatory agency representatives, the County, and other
affected interests to identify methods for efficient and practical solid waste
management, including small and moderate-risk waste handling strategies.
Provide appropriate levels of collection and recycling opportunities which will
maximize public participation, and which offer the fullest practical and economical
potential for waste materials.
If incentive programs fàil to reach the waste reduction goals identified in the
Capital Facilities Element, consider mandatory programs to the extent allowable
by State law.
Identify and preserve for future use solid waste facility sites, including potential
landfill sites, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Solid Waste
Management Plan.
Ensure reclamation of areas currently serving as solid waste disposal facilities to
promote the recovery of such areas for future functional land uses
Action Items
1. Educate the public on solid waste management, including recycling opportunities, ways to
reduce solid and chemical waste, and related environmental issues.
2. Utilize applicable grant funding for financial assistance for soliçl. 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, 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.
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 8.4. Goals and Policies from the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Goal
Goal # 32
Policies
32.1
32.2
32.3
32.4
32.5
32.6
32.7
To manage solid waste in a responsible, environmentally sensitive and cost-
effective manner.
Follow the solid waste management hierarchy established in federal and
state 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 collection rates, providing opportunities for convenient
recycling, and by developing educational materials on recycling, composting
and other waste reduction methods.
Seek to create a market for recycled products by maximizing the use of such
products in the City's daily operations.
Contract with private haulers to maintain a cost-effective and responsive
solid waste collection system.
Examine the feasibility of establishing a solid waste transfer station within
Port Townsend in order to reduce costs to City residents.
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.
32.7.1 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.
,-,
j
8.2.3 Alternative Methods
The following options address the needs identified in the areas of enforcement, administration and
funding. Solid waste districts are discussed separately below, as districts would affect both staffing
and funding mechanisms at the same time.
Enforcement actions
Illegal dumping could be addressed through increased enforcement activities, systems that lead to
universal garbage collection services, and education. Increased enforcement would require
additional funding for enforcement personnel and activities, but the proposed new enforcement
procedures should help streamline the process and make more efficient use of existing personneL
If needed, additional funding for enforcement activities is available from Ecology grants or could
be derived from grants, general funds, surcharges on tipping fees, special assessments, increased
permit fees, and/or increased fines for solid waste violators.
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-8
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Implementation of universal garbage collection services could 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 would be the formation ofa
collection district (see discussion of solid waste districts later in this section). Mandatory garbage
collection was discussed during the series of public meetings held in 1997 and 1998, and proved to
be very unpopular at that time.
Education is an important aspect of addressing illegal dumping and related problems. The
Environmental Health Division is interested in providing education to residents about their
responsibilities for proper solid waste management and the options that exist for properly handling
garbage. One aspect of this might be to clarifY the costs of garbage collection, to dispel the idea
that it is significantly more expensive than self-hauling waste to disposal sites. To the extent that
people are encouraged to sign up for garbage collection services, this approach could help prevent
the accumulation of large amounts of waste in the unincorporated areas of the County.
Administrative OÇ>tions
Administrative options include maintaining the status quo, adding more staff, reducing the staff's
workload, or changing the structure of the County's solid waste department.
Funding Options
One of the primary goals of this planning effort, sufficiently important to be considered a guiding
principle, is that solid waste operations in Jefferson County shall be financially self-supporting. To
achieve this goal, almost all revenue is currently generated through tipping fees, but other options
exist. For example, expenses for capital improvements could be funded through internal financing,
general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, industrial development bonds, grant funding, and/or
private financing. Administration and enforcement expenses could be funded by assessments to
collection systems, general funds, and private funding for private operations. Fees and penalties
collected through enforcement actions could be retained for solid waste funding. The more feasible
funding options are discussed below:
~ Internal Financing: This option involves collecting funds from whatever revenue source is
established and paying for programs directly from this revenue or from a capital improvements
fund established expressly for this purpose. Any funds generated in surplus of the current
needs of the system could be placed in a capital improvements fund. As the fund grows, the
opportunity for additional capital improvements to the system increases as well. This method
is not well suited for financing large capital expenditures because of the long period of time
required for the fund to reach the required size. However, the capital improvement fund can be
used to fmance small-scale projects, planning studies, and pilot programs.
~ Revenue Bonds: Revenue bonds are similar to general obligation bonds except that repayment
is guaranteed through funds collected from a revenue-producing activity such as a tipping fee
or excise tax. Revenue bonds may require additional obligations such as flow ordinances and
higher tipping fees than a general obligation bond because repayment of the bonds is not tied to
the County as a whole, but rather to the revenue stream generated by solid waste activities.
~ Industrial Development Bonds: For joint ventures between private enterprises and the County,
industrial development bonds (IDBs) may be used for funding capital improvements. IDBs are
Chapter 8; Regulation and Administration
Page 8-9
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
particularly common in fmancing waste-to-energy projects, but other joint ventures may be
amenable to this form of joint cooperation. 111ere is a statewide cap for such bonds, so any
project would have to compete with other projects throughout the state. This type of funding is
often implemented through an Industrial Development Authority.
... Grants: Both the County and the City have received grant monies for various projects. More
or less grant monies may be available from Ecology or other sources in the future, so
alternative funding sources should always be considered for projects.
... Private Funding: Private solid waste projects can be financed through private sources. This
method of funding capital improvements and programs is more expensive than the previously
mentioned programs. The cost of privately financed projects is recovered through charges to
customers using the facility.
Solid Waste Districts
"1
Chapters 36.58 and 36.58A of the RCWs 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 bè difficult to develop a consensus on the formation and jurisdiction of either type of
district. However, either type of district may be able to alleviate illegal dumping and other
problems through the institution of mandatory garbage collection (for a collection district only)
and/or different financing structures.
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.
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.
RCW 36.58.130 allows the creation of a disposal district to provide for all aspects of solid waste
disposal. TIris includes processing and converting waste into useful products, but specifically does
not allow the 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. TIris 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.
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administrotion
Page 8-10
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
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.
>- 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.
Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
have previously conducted a comprehensive public process to discuss the feasibility of a solid
waste district and the Board of County Commissioners decided against taking tills approach at that
time. There is still substantial interest in the advantages of this approach.
8.2.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations are being made for regulation and administration (see also
Recommendations WR4 and PE3):
RAI) 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 achieve
this goal.
RA2)
The County should continue to pursue and investigate all opportunities for regionalization
of solid waste management programs.
RA3)
The County should consider the cost of cleanup of illegal dumping when evaluating the
possible closure of drop box sites or other changes to solid waste services.
RA4)
Enforcement of the litter and solid waste ordinances (County codes 8.10 and 8.30, and City
codes 6.04 and 6.06) should be given top priority for controlling illegal dumping.
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administration
Page 8-11
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
8.2.5 Implementation Schedules and Costs
The first three reconunendations shown above should be conducted on an ongoing basis, at no
additional expense (i.e., using existing staff and funds that are already budgeted). The fourth
reconunendation will require significant additional expenses for staff time and public education
materials ($52,000). Funding for this will come from County funds and additional grant monies
ITom Ecology (in a combined effort with encouraging proper disposal for biomedical wastes, see
Recommendation Sl).
Recommendation RAI has a very high priority for implementation, and is considered to be a
"guiding principle" for Jefferson County's solid waste system. Recommendations RA3 and RA4
have been given a high priority for implementation, and RA2 is a medium priority (see also Tables
E.l and E.2).
,.,
!
Chapter 8: Regulation and Administrotion
Page 8-12
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
CHAPTER 9: SPECIAL WASTES
9.1 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 for regulatory requirements or for one or more other reasons, such as toxicity, quantity or
other special handling problems. Most of these wastes are currently managed and disposed of
separately from the solid waste disposal system, and many are not actually defined as solid waste.
The following special wastes are discussed in this chapter:
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
Agricultural Wastes
Animal Carcasses
. Biomedical Wastes
Biosolids and Septage
Construction and Demolition Wastes
Grease
Moderate Risk Wastes
Wood Wastes
The nature and source(s) for each special waste 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. Currently five wastes have been detennined to
present potential problems that warrant recommendations at this time: biomedical wastes
(residential medical wastes), septage (biosolids), construction/demolition wastes, grease and
moderate risk wastes.
9.2 AGRICULTURAL WASTES
9.2.1 Existing Conditions for Agricultural Wastes
Agricultural wastes result from farming and ranching activities, and consist of crop residues and
manure. Other wastes generated on farms, such as regular household trash or moderate risk wastes
(pesticides and other chemicals), are included in the other sections of this Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan (CSWMP). Most of the farms in Jefferson County are located on the east
side, primarily in the Chimacum and Beaver Valley areas, where favorable climate and land
characteristics exist.
The amount of agricultural waste generated in Jefferson County was estimated from the data on the
County's crop acreage and number oflivestock using typical waste generation rates. As shown in
Table 9-1, the amount of agricultural wastes is significant. Cwrent practices, however, do not
result in substantial quantities of agricultural waste that require disposal off the farms. Most wastes
are incorporated into the soil to enhance fertility or handled on-site in other ways. A small amount
of spoiled hay is brought to the Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility, as well as minor
amounts of orchard prunings and incidental amounts of other organic materials.
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-1
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 9.1. Estimated Quantity of Agricultural Wastes in Jefferson County.
Annual Waste Number Annual
Crop or Livestock Generation Factor! of Units 2 Tonnages
Hay and Pasture
Orchards
Vegetables
Berries
Beef Cows
Dairy Cows (mature)
Other Cattle
Hogs and Pigs
Sheep
Horses
Chickens
1.5 tons/acre
2.25 tons/acre
3.0 tons/acre
1.5 tons/acre
11.3 tonslhead
14.6 tonslhead
11.0 tons/head3
2.2 tonslhead
0.7 tons/head
9.1 tons/head
42.0 tons/1,OOO birds
2,741 acres
5 acres
10 acres
3 acres
1,625 head
730 head
1,970 head
10 1 head
80 head
236 head
NA 4 birds
4,110
11
30
5
18,360
10,660
21,670
220
56
2,150
NA
1
Total Annual Waste Amount
57,270 tons/year
Notes: 1. Waste generation factors for crops are from "Solid Waste Generation Factors in California"
(CSWMB 1974), and the generation factors for livestock is from "Agricultural Waste Issue
Paper" (KC 1998).
2. Number of units is from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA 1999).
3. Generation rate for "other cattle" varies from 6.4 tons per year for immature cattle to 15.5 tons
per year for replacement heifers. Figure shown here is a mid-range value.
4. NA "" Not Available. Data not reported by most recent agricultural census.
An unknown amOlUlt of nursery and greenhouse waste is also generated in Jefferson County, but
data is not available on acreage devoted to this activity or on a typical waste generation rate for this
type of crop.
9.2.2 Needs and Opportunities for Agricultural Wastes
A major concern for manure handling and application is the potential contammation of nearby
surface waters. There is a growing concern throughout Washington State over the impacts posed
by agricultural waste to water quality and salmon habitat. The awareness of this issue has been
raised by the listing of several salmon runs as endangered species in March 1999, thus triggering a
broad range of remedial activities for farms and urban areas.
To address concerns about water quality impacts, many farms and ranches in Jefferson County
have implemented "best management practices" to prevent pollutants from entering surface waters.
These practices often involve the use of low-technology approaches such as installing fences to
keep livestock away from waterways, rotating use of pastures, and terracing. There are still minor
problems at some of the small operations ("hobby farms"), but the Jefferson County Conservation
District and others are continuing to educate livestock owners about best management practices.
This is a voluntary program, but it is generally felt that it is continuing to make advances.
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-2
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
Dairy fauns are required to take additional steps to ensure proper management of manure. These
fauns are required to develop a "nutrient management plan" by 2002, but the fauns in Jefferson
County have essentially completed this task already. There are only five dairy fauns in Jefferson
County, with about 730 cows total, and all of these fauns have sufficient land to adequately handle
the manure they generate through land-application programs. The timing for the land applications
is sometimes a problem, however, due to wet weather and seasonal fluctuations in nutrient demand
by the plants receiving the manure applications.
Since there are no significant problems with agricultural wastes in Jefferson County, no analysis of
alternatives or recommendations is presented at this time.
9.3 ANIMAL CARCASSES
9.3.1 Existing Conditions for Animal Carcasses
The primary generators of animal carcasses in Jefferson County include:
>- Animal Shelter: The animal shelter, located on the property of the Jefferson County Waste
Management Facility, is using a crematorium that was installed in 1999 to handle the animal
carcasses that are generated there or brought to them.
»- Roadkill: Dead animals collected from the roadside on the east end of the County by police
officers are brought to the animal shelter for disposal.
>- Veterinarv Offices: Local veterinarians generally use a rendering service or cremation for dead
animals. They now have the additional option of using the animal shelter's cremation services.
>- Fanns: Dairy cows and other animals are usually "retired" when they become non-productive
or at a certain age, and are slaughtered for their meat at that time. The animals that die from
accidents or disease are handled by rendering companies, taken to or hauled away by the
Olympic Game Fann, or buried on the faun.
9.3.2 Needs and Opportunities for Animal Carcasses
Current methods used for disposal of animal carcasses in Jefferson County are adequate and no
additional options need to be addressed at this time.
9.4 BIOMEDICAL WASTES
9.4.1 Existing Conditions for Biomedical Wastes
Biomedical waste is defined by WAC 173-304 as "the infectious and injurious waste originating
from a medical, veterinary, or intermediate care facility". These wastes require special handling
and disposal practices to protect the health and safety of both medical and solid waste disposal
personnel. Medical facilities have the responsibility to deteunine which medical wastes are
considered biomedical, and then arrange for the proper handling and disposal of these wastes. All
syringes and other "sharps", plus wastes that have had contact with blood and certain other bodily
fluids, are generally classified as biomedical wastes. These wastes are placed in special bags or
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
rigid plastic containers, and then removed by licensed biomedical waste collectors. Body parts are
also classified as biomedical wastes.
The Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTe) regulates transporters of
infectious wastes. Their regulations also allow regular solid waste haulers to refuse to haul wastes
that they observe to contain infectious wastes as defined by WUTe.
The largest generators of biomedical waste in Jefferson County are Jefferson General Hospital, the
South County Medical Clinic and the Jefferson County Health Department. These facilities use the'
services of a licensed biomedical waste hauler to transport and dispose of this waste. Body parts
are handled by the same hauler, although are packaged separately, labeled as "pathological", kept
frozen until shipment, and are incinerated without any additional handling at the hauler's facility.
Other biomedical waste generators in the County include doctor's offices, dental clinics, and
veterinary offices, which are generally also using a licensed biomedical waste hauler or, in the case
of one veterinarian, using a crematorium for animal carcasses and certain types ofbiomedic.al
wastes.
-1
Another source of biomedical wastes is home health care. In the more serious health cases,
biomedical wastes from this source are often 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
at the Transfer Station, and mixed with recyclable materials. Sharps are considered acceptable at
the Transfer Station as long as these are contained within a PET soda bottle or other approved
container, but are not acceptable when placed in another container or no container at all.
j
9.4.2 Needs and Opportunities for Biomedical Wastes
The disposal of residential sharps is an area where improvements are needed.
9.4.3 Alternatives for Biomedical Wastes
Improved disposal practices for residential sharps could be accomplished through:
.. education programs could be conducted to promote safe handling and disposal of sharps.
.. a collection program could be instituted.
- .
.. increased enforcement activÏties and larger penalties could be implemented (although in most
cases, the source for the sharps cannot easily be determined).
9.4.4 Recommendations for Biomedical Wastes
The following recommendation is made for biomedical wastes:
S1)
Increased education efforts should be conducted by the Jefferson County Health
Department, with assistance from the Solid Waste Education Coordinator, targeting
residential medical waste and encouraging proper disposal for it (see also PE8).
This recommendation should be implemented by December 2001 and has been given a medium
priority for implementation (see also Table E.2).
Chapter 9: Special Wa$te$
Page 9-4
Jefftrson County Solid Waste Afanagement Plan, Final Draft
9.5 BIOSOLIDS (SEWAGE SLUDGE AND SEPTAGE)
9.5.1 Existing Conditions for Biosolids
Sewage sludge that has been treated to meet standards for beneficial use (such as land application)
is called "biosolids". TIus type of material is specifically excluded from the definition of solid
waste, although other wastes from the wastewater treatment process (such as grit, screenings,
sludge and ash) are still classified as a solid waste. Biosolids are defined by WAC 173-308-080 as
municipal sewage sludge that is a primarily organic, semisolid product resulting from the
wastewater treatment process, that can be beneficially recycled and meets all applicable
requirements under this chapter. Biosolids includes septic tank sludge, also known as septage, that
can be beneficially recycled and meets all applicable requirements. Biosolids are further
categorized by federal regulations into Class A and Class B based on pathogen reduction measures
and metals contamination levels. The federal regulations (40 CFR Part 503) are self-implementing,
which means that the requirements must be met regardless of the permit status of a facility.
The largest source ofbiosolids in Jefferson County is the Port Townsend Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP). Biosolids from this facility are being composted with yard debris at the Port
Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility, located at the Jefferson County Waste Management
Facility. The Compost Facility has been operating since January 1994.
Septage is also accepted at the Compost Facility. The septage handling system includes a receiving
area and a dewatering W1it. The septage receiving area consists of a manhole, screening vault, and
two holding tanks, each with a holding capacity of about 10,000 gallons. Septage is delivered by
septage haulers who dump it into the receiving manhole. The volume of septage delivered by each
hauler is detennined by floating level indicators in the holding tanks. Two positive displacement
blowers supply air to the septage holding tanks for mixing and to keep the septage aerobic. A
centrifugal fan pulls odorous air from the holding tanks to a biofilter for treatment.
TIle Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility utilizes an aerated static pile process to compost
dewatered biosolids from the City's wastewater treatment plant, septage (which is dewatered first)
and yard debris. Liquids from the process, including septage filtrate, contaminated stonn water
runoff, and condensate from the compost aeration system, are treated in a batch reactor and
constructed wetlands, and then discharged to infiltration basins for additional treatment and
ultimate disposal. Stonn water from other paved areas of the facility is treated in the constructed
wetlands and discharged to the infiltration basins for additional treatment and ultimate disposal.
The composting operation consists of several steps, including grinding of woody yard debris,
mixing, active composting, curing and screening. The active compo sting area consists of an
asphalt pad that is covered by a pole building with fourteen aeration fans. The compost mixer is
also located in the active composting area and is first loaded with dewatered biosolids and septage
and then yard debris. The ingredients are measured by a scale on the compost mixer or by the
number of front-end loader buckets. Once all the ingredients have been added the compost mixer
is started, run for five minutes, and then the load is discharged and ready for active composting.
The mixture is placed in long narrow piles on top of an air plenum made of perforated pipe and
oversized material from screening previous batches of finished compost. Each compost pile is
aerated by a centrifugal fan that draws air through the compost pile (vacuum mode) and discharges
the air to a biofilter for odor removal. The compost pile is aerated in the vacuum mode until the
Class A pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction temperature requirements have been
met. When the compost is ready to be screened, after either active composting or compost curing,
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-5
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
the compost screen is started and compost is loaded into the hopper of the compost screen with a
front-end loader. On a volume basis, the final compost mixture consists of one part dewatered
biosolids or septage, two parts ground yard waste, and one part recycled oversized compost.
The capacity of the plant depends somewhat on the mixture of raw materials and operating
procedures, but has been estimated to be 130,000 pounds per month ofbiosolids (on a dry weight
basis), 87,000 gallons per month ofseptage, 1,200 cubic yards per month of yard debris, and 600
cubic yards per month of recycled (oversized) material from screening (CH2MH 1996).
Prior to distributing the finished compost, it is sampled and tested to confirm that it meets the Class
A pathogen reduction standards for fecal coliform densities. After curing for three to six months,
fecal coliform densities are less than 5 fecal co1iforms per gram of compost, well below the Class
A requirement of 1,000 fecal coliforms per gram. In addition to monitoring the composting
process for pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements, the finished compost is also
tested for nutrients, metals, organochlorine pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and PCBs.
The finished compost is sold to the general public and a few large users. There is adequate demand
for the finished product during most of the year, although seasonal surpluses do occur. These
surpluses have been absorbed by large-volume applications.
, '1
;,
j
There are several other sources or programs for biosolids in Jefferson County, including:
~ Port Ludlow wastewater treatment plant, which is currently employing land application (tree
farms, or silviculture) to dispose ofbiosolids.
~ Olympic Corrections Center, which is currently going through the design and permit stages for
a co-composting system that will handle their biosolids, food waste, and wood waste.
~ Olympic National Park in Kalaloch operates a small wastewater treatment system where
sewage lagoons are used for settling and storage. No biosolids have been generated from this
source recently.
~ Port Townsend Paper Company has a separate treatment system. The biosolids from this
system are taken to the Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility, processed using the septage
dewatering system, and the resulting sludge is composted.
~ land application sites (silviculture) are permitted in Jefferson County for wastewater plants
located in Sequim and Bainbridge Island.
Table 9.2 shows data on the amounts ofbiosolids generated or deposited in Jefferson County.
9.5.2 Needs and Opportunities for Biosolids
In general, biosolids in Jefferson County are handled through beneficial use programs and do not
significantly impact solid waste systems. The Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility has
adequate capacity to handle septage generated in Jefferson County. The facility also accepts
septage from Clallam County, which has caused minor problems with capacity at times. Septage
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-6
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 9.2. Biosolids Quantities in Jefferson County.
Facility or Source
Port Townsend WWTP
Sequim Land Applications
Bainbridge Island Land Applications
Port Ludlow Land Applications
Kitsap County Biosolids
Dry Tons, ?er year
270
83
69
30
24
Total Annual Amount 476 tons
Notes:
Data is from Jefferson COilllty Health Department and the City. Port Townsend and
Kitsap County figures are 1999 totals for the amoilllt of material handled at the City's
Biosolids Compost Facility. The data for Sequim is from 1997, and for Bainbridge
Island and Port Ludlow the data is from 1998.
has occasionally been refused because of excessive volumes, and is also rejected if it contains
substantial amounts of grease (see also the discussion of grease in Section 9.7).
9.5.3 Alternatives for Biosolids
Current methods of handling septage are probably the best option for handling increased quantities
in the future, although biosolids and septage are under the authority of wastewater treatment
programs and only need to be addressed here to the extent that these being are co-managed with
solid wastes (i.e., yard debris). Options include using other facilities for septage disposal, rejecting
out-of-county septage, increasing the capacity of the Compost Facility, 1and~applying septage, and
sending the liquid portion of septage to the City's wastewater treatment plant. Using other
facilities for septage disposal would be difficult since the only other facilities are located a
significant distance out of the County (other facilities are located in Kitsap or Mason Counties).
Septage disposal alternatives for other counties (particularly Clallarn County) are also not very
accessible. The acceptance of out-of-county septage by the Port Townsend Biosolids Compost
Facility is a good example of a regional solution to a waste disposal problem, and is an activity that
financially benefits the Compost Facility since the septage is accepted for a fee. Land-applying
septage is permitted under current State and Federal regulations, although not without meeting
requirements for screening, covering (injecting or burying), and lime treatment. The large amount
of forest lands in the County could facilitate increased beneficial use of treated septage.
9.5.4 Recommendations for Biosolids
The following recommendation is made for septage wastes (see also Recommendation CI):
52)
The City ofPor! Townsend and Jefferson County, with assistance from the 5WAC, should
continue to contribute to the discussion of septage disposal issues and problems.
This recommendation has been given a low priority for implementation (see also Table E.3).
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-7
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan. Final Draft
9.6 CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND LAND-CLEARING (CDL) WASTES
9.6.1 Existing Conditions for CDL Wastes
Construction, demolition and land-clearing (CDL) wastes consist primarily of new and used
building materials (wood, sheetrock, pipe and other metals, shingles, etc.), concrete, asphalt, soil,
and natural woods such as stumps and brush. The last few materials (soil and natural woods)
essentially make up land-clearing wastes. To the extent these materials are removed from the work
site (which rarely happens), these could be taken to the Compost Facility or other sites.
A category closely related to CDL is "inert wastes". Inert wastes are defined to include concrete,
asphalt and soil, as well as certain other materials (such as glass). The regulatory status of inert
wastes is currently undergoing review and revision as part of the State's revision ofW AC 173-304,
with the expectation that these wastes can be disposed in the future with less permitting required.
The total amount of CDL waste generated in Jefferson County is unknown, but most communities
generate CDL in quantities equal to half or more of the regular solid waste stream. CDL wastes are
generated at a rate proportional to construction activity in the County, and so annual amounts will
vary depending on population growth, the economic climate and other factors. Large commercial
and other one-time projects have a significant impact on annual amounts. The level of construction
activity in the County has been fairly stable over the past few years, with year-to-date figures
through August 1999 for construction permits totaling $30 million for 544 permits issued versus
$31.5 million for 501 permits in the same eight-month period of 1998. Figures for the amount of
construction in the past ten years are shown in Table 9.3.
Construction and demolition waste is handled in a variety of ways. Some of this waste is reused or
recycled, some of it is handled on-site at the construction site, and a portion of it is brought to the
Transfer Station for disposal through waste export. Reuse activities include a retail store in Port
Townsend, SWAC-SWAP events, diversion of material from the tipping floor of the Transfer
Station by County staff (the general public is not allowed to salvage materials from the tipping
floor), and private efforts by construction companies and others. Material handled on-site is
sometimes burned or buried, although these are not approved practices. In some cases, however,
wood scraps are legitimately being diverted for use as firewood.
The inert landfill on Indian Island is the only disposal facility specifically permitted in the County
to handle CDL, and this is only for wastes generated on-site by Naval activities. Other disposal
facilities in the region that accept CDL wastes include the Jefferson County Transfer Station, the
Port Angeles Landfill, and the Olympic View Landftll (south of Bremerton).
9.6.2 Needs and Opportunities for CDL Wastes
There are three needs and opportunities associated with CDL waste:
.. recycling opportunities are lacking for several oftbe large-volume materials in the CDL waste
stream, specifically clean (untreated) wood waste and possibly sheetrock (at least a portion of
the sheetrock might be currently recycled through take-back programs of sheetrock suppliers).
)Þ- more CDL waste could be handled by existing reuse and recycling opportunities.
.. education of the industry to work towards more sustainable practices. TIlls effort is being
spearheaded by the Green Building Council and others.
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-8
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Table 93. History of Construction Activity in Jefferson County.
Building Permits, New Residential Construction Onlv!
Year Total Annual Value Annual Value No. of Homes
1999 (projected) NA2 NA 204
1998 $43,602,000 $26,528,000 212
1997 NA NA 202
1996 NA NA 210
1995 38,005,000 29,160,000 204
1994 34,397,000 20,341,000 233
1993 NA NA 258
1992 32,050,000 20,122,000 275
1991 29,216,000 21,129,000 284
1990 32,629,000 21,160,000 2923
Notes:
Figures are from Jefferson COlmty Building Deparnnent (JC 1999b).
I. Data is only for construction of new homes, does not include remodeling projects, additions, or
commercial construction.
2. NA = Not Available, projected figures for 1999 and annual totals for 1993, 1996 and 1997 are
not available from the Building Department.
3. Prior to 1990, new home construction had been at significantly lower levels, with only 172 new
homes built in 1989, 83 homes in 1988, 92 homes in 1987, 80 homes in 1986, 87 homes in 1985,
77 homes in 1984, 87 homes in 1983, and 84 homes in 1982.
9.6.3 Alternatives for CDL Wastes
The existing alternatives for this waste stream have been identified above, including deliveries to
disposal facilities, disposal on-site at the point of generation, and recycling. Composting clean
wood waste is also an option, but this has been examined by the City and it was concluded that
separation and monitoring requirements would be excessive. Other options include education and
promotion of recycling and reuse, and a regiona11andfill for CDL wastes.
Recycling construction and demolition wastes often requires a significant investment in special
facilities and equipment that are dedicated to a specific type of material (such is typically the case
with wood waste, concrete and sheetrock) and the waste quantities in Jefferson County probably do
not warrant such an investment. However, there are specific materials that could be diverted to
existing recovery operations in greater quantities, such as cardboard and metals.
Another option is a wood collection site that would convert the wood to hog fuel through grinding.
Any construction debris diverted to this application would need to meet certain criteria, including
the requirement to be £Tee of potentially toxic contaminants (asbestos, lead, preservatives, etc.).
This approach would not be considered recycling, but might provide a less expensive and more
productive alternative than waste export. The market for hog fuel is currently good (as of late
1999) due to high oil prices, but the value of hog fuel can be expected to fluctuate in the future.
Chapter 9: Special Wa.Hes
Page 9-9
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
TIle amount of CDL wastes that are recycled and reused could be increased by more education and
promotion of existing opportunities for recycling and reuse. This education should target builders
and architects, as well as private parties responsible for large commercial remodeling or
construction projects. A primary strategy would be to get these people to plan ahead for recycling
and reuse. Information or other assistance is available from the Green Building Council and others
to help with these efforts.
A regiona11andfill for CDL waste might reduce the expense of proper disposal for this waste
stream.
9.6.4 Recommendations for CDL Wastes
The following recommendations are made for CDL wastes:
S3)
Existing opportunities for reuse (through reuse stores) and recycling of construction and
demolition wastes should be promoted to homeowners and building professionals by the
County as part of the public education efforts conducted for waste reduction and recycling.
S4)
County staff and SW AC will participate in future discussions to evaluate the feasibility of
a regional CDL landfill.
Both of these recommendations are meant to be conducted on an ongoing basis by existing staff.
Recommendation S3 has been given a medium priority for implementation, and S4 is a low priority
(see also Tables E.2 and E.3).
9.7 GREASE
9.7.1 Existing Conditions for Grease
Grease is generated primarily by restaurants, cafeterias and other food services. It is not easily
handled by the solid waste system because it is semi-liquid and very messy. It also should not be
put into sewer or septage systems because it causes serious problems there. Fortunately, a separate
collection system is available for handling grease, through the collection efforts of rendering
companies. At least three rendering companies are currently collecting grease in Jefferson County,
with other companies removing grease from interceptors.
To be recycled, grease must be collected separately. This is typically accomplished by 55-gallon
drums, which are removed and replaced when full, or larger containers, which are pumped out as
needed. The grease is processed to remove contaminants and used to make an animal feed
supplement. Grease that is mixed with septage cannot be recycled, and septage with a visible
amount of grease in it cannot be accepted by the Port Townsend Biosolids Compost Facility.
Grease removed from interceptors, if it has come into contact with wastewater containing human
wastes, cannot be recycled. Non-recyclable grease and grease-contaminated septage must be
disposed of at wastewater treatment plants in other counties (Kitsap, Mason or Pierce).
9.7.2 Needs and Opportunities for Grease
The value of grease is currently very low, although recent months have seen a slight improvement
and the situation is not expected to get any worse. The low market value of grease has caused most
collection companies to institute a charge for their service (about $20 to $25 per month), whereas
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-10
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
previously they were able to collect the grease for free. llùs has caused some restaurants and other
grease generators to cancel the collection service, and it is unknown how they are currently
handling their grease.
9.7.3 Alternatives for Grease
Few alternatives exist for handling grease outside of the existing services discussed above. There
are a variety of options for assisting with providing these services, such as establishing a franchise
to make the services more cost -effective or providing a financial subsidy through contracts and
other means, but this level of involvement with the existing private efforts would be difficult to
justify.
Through public education activities and possibly enforcement, restaurants and other food services
could be encouraged to handle grease in an appropriate manner. This will be important in the short
term, as adjustments are made to the current implementation of fees for grease collection services.
9.7.4 Recommendations for Grease
The following recommendation is made for grease:
S5)
Restaurant inspectors from the Department of Health should encourage proper handling
and disposal practices for grease, and encourage recycling of this material where
appropriate.
This recommendation should be implemented by December 2000 and has been given a low priority
for implementation (see also Table E.3).
9.8 MODERATE RISK WASTES
9.8.1 Existing Conditions for Moderate Risk Wastes
Industries, farming operations, businesses, and homes throughout Jefferson County produce small
amounts of hazardous wastes. For most of these, the amount of any waste produced falls below
regulated quantities and so is classified as a "moderate risk waste" (MRW). Moderate risk waste
includes household hazardous wastes (wastes produced by residential activities that would be
hazardous waste except by definition they are exempt from regulation) and wastes ITom small-
quantity generators (businesses that produce less than 220 pounds of dangerous waste or 2.2
pounds of extremely dangerous waste per month, and that do not accumulate these wastes in excess
of 2,200 or 2.2 polU1ds, respectively). The latter is also called a "conditionally-exempt small
quantity generator" (CESQG) on the premise that improper handling or disposal of such wastes
would cause the CESQG to falllU1der the full body of hazardous waste regulations.
Moderate risk wastes that are disposed in Jefferson COlU1ty can be handled by the Moderate Risk
Waste (MRW) Facility in Port Townsend. Hazardous wastes are not accepted at the Jefferson
County Waste Management Facility, although separate drop-{)ff containers are there for car
batteries, motor oil and antifreeze. Separate collections have also been conducted in other parts of
the County, including regional events conducted with Clallam County. There is an agreement
between Jefferson and Clallam Counties that allows Clallam County residents to use Jefferson
COlU1ty'S MRW Facility and C1allam County then pays a usage fee. TIris usage fee amounted to
$3,611 in 1999.
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9~11
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
TIle MRW Facility has operated since 1995. The County and the Port of Port Townsend jointly
developed this facility with partial funding from Ecology. In September 1997, the County assumed
sole ownership of the facility by reimbursing the Port for its portion of the initial construction
costs. The MRW Facility is open two days per week for a six-hour period each day and is staffed
by Jefferson County Public Works employees. Waste from residential sources is accepted free,
while business waste (small quantity generator waste, or SQG) is accepted for a fee. A variety of
materials are handled by this facility, including automotive products, paint and paint-related
materials, lawn and garden chemicals, cleaners and many miscellaneous materials. In a recent
quarter (July 1 through September 30, 1999), a total of 51 drwns of wastes were packed for
shipment to hazardous waste processing centers and landfills. Materials that are received in a
reusable condition by this facility are made available for other patrons to take through the use of a
"reuse shelf'.
Ongoing funding for the MRW Facility is provided through fees charged to some users, a portion
of the tipping fee (from the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility), and Ecology grant
(CPG) funds. SQG fees were updated on October 11, 1999 (for the first time since 1995) to more
accurately reflect the costs of handling these wastes. An overall average increase of 45% was
implemented for the SQG fees at that time.
One-day collection events are regularly held at various locations throughout the County to provide
convenient opportunities for residents to properly dispose of MRW wastes. One such collection
event was held in October 1999 in QuiIcene. Participating households came from QuiIcene (46%),
Brinnon (50%), and other areas of the County (4%). Materials collected included 69.5 gallons of
latex paint, 101 gallons of oil-based paint, 70 pounds and 18 gallons of pesticides/poisons, 101
aerosol cans, 30 florescent tubes, 34 car batteries and various other materials. A regional collection
event involving Clallam County is held annually in Kalaloch and Forks.
Public education and information about the MRW Facility and hazardous wastes in general is done
through the County's recycling education program. Others in the County, including the garbage
hauler, recycling companies, other county solid waste staff and public health officials also provide
information on proper handling and disposal of moderate risk wastes.
9.8.2 Needs and Opportunities for Moderate Risk Wastes
In the past year or so, propane tanks have been taken to the MRW Facility in increasing quantities.
Many of the older propane tanks are being discarded due to new regulations requiring a proper
pressure release valve. The cost for recycling these tanks can be quite high (about $100.00 per
tank), but this situation was been addressed by a contract with a local propane distributor to
properly dispose of the tanks. TIlls company processes small tanks for a fixed fee and larger tanks
for a fee based on the size of the tame The propane tanks are drained of gas, punctured and then
recycled as sc;ap metal.
There is a continuing need for education about proper handling and disposal of moderate risk
wastes, as evidenced by the occasional customer that brings inappropriate materials to the Jefferson
County Waste Management Facility. These customers are currently asked to bring the waste to the
MRW Facility instead, but this situation will be improved in 2000. In 2000, Jefferson County will
purchase a collection trailer that will be used for collection events. At other times, the trailer will
be kept at the Transfer Station and can be used to temporarily store the moderate risk wastes
mistakenly brought there.
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9.12
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
9.8.3 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~ffective, increased numbers
of collection events might also help extend opportunities for proper disposal to a larger number of
County residents.
For education, current efforts appear to be fairly comprehensive, although these efforts need to be
continued on an ongoing basis in order to reach new residents and others.
9.8.4 Recommendations for Moderate Risk Wastes
The following recommendation is made for MRW (see also Reconunendations WR3 and PE4):
S6)
Existing collection efforts for MRW, including regional cooperation, should be continued
and possibly expanded, where feasible.
This recommendation has been given a high priority for implementation (see also Table E.l).
9.9 WOOD WASTES
9.9.1 Existing Conditions for Wood Wastes
This section examines wood waste from logging and manufacturing activities, which is discussed
separately here from wood waste that may be contained in the construction and demolition waste
stream (see Section 9.6). In. other words, this section discusses wood waste as it is defined by
WAC 173-304; "consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by-product or waste from the
manufacturing of wood products, handling and storage of raw materials and trees and stwnps."
The definition goes on to stipulate that "this includes but is not limited to sawdust, chips, shavings,
bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces or particles
containing chemical preservatives such as creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome-arsenic."
There are a few companies in Jefferson County that generate this type of wood waste, and the
largest of these is Allen Logging Company on the west end of the County. The wood waste
generated by Allen Logging consists of sawdust, planer shavings and hog fuel. The sawdust and
planer shavings are primarily used as a fuel in Allen Logging's boilers, and mixing these two
wastes creates a fuel with the proper moisture content. An occasional surplus of these wastes is
sold with the third waste stream, the hog fuel, to other companies for fueL Altogether, Allen
Logging generates an average of about 100 tons per day of wood wastes.
Three other large generators of wood waste are located in Port Townsend: Edensaw Woods,
TimberCraft Homes, and the Port of Port Townsend. Edensaw Woods is a specialty wood supplier
and custom wood product manufacturer. Edensaw generates about 1,000 cubic yards per year of
sawdust and shavings, and a diary farmer is currently taking this for use as animal bedding. The
same fanner is also taking the sawdust from TimberCraft Homes. TimberCraft Homes also
generates about 1,000 cubic yards of sawdust per year, plus additional amounts of "off-cuts" and
other pieces that are used in a wood-fired heating system.
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-13
Jefferson County Solid Waste Alanagement Plan, Final Draft
The Port of Port Townsend generates an unknown but significant quantity of wood waste, but
much of this is painted or preserved and partially deteriorated. Only a portion of the wood
generated at the Port is clean wood waste that could potentially be diverted to other uses.
9.9.2 Needs and Opportunities for Wood Wastes
The demand for hog fuel varies with oil prices, and occasionally Allen Logging incurs a short-term
surplus of wood waste as a result oflow oil prices. More could be done to address the wood waste
generated at the Port of Port Townsend, but only the clean wood waste could probably be diverted
to a non-disposal alternative and the requisite separation program to handle tills portion would be
difficult to implement and monitor. In general, however, there are no significant problems with
wood waste disposal in Jefferson County that need to be addressed at tills time.
. -
Chapter 9: Special Wastes
Page 9-14
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
GLOSSARY
AND REFERENCES
Je./ferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
GLOSSARY
The following definitions are provided for various terms used in the Jefferson County
Comorehensive Solid Waste Management Plan:
Biomedical waste: infectious and injurious waste originating from a medical, veterinary, or
intemlediate care facility.
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 recycling center: 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; and government.
Commingled: recyclable materials that have been collected separately from garbage by the
generator, but the recyclable materials have been nrixed together in the same container.
Comoosting: the controlled biological decomposition of yard waste 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 yard wastes that they
generate. Centralized composting refers to either drop-off or processing locations operated by a
municipality or a business.
Corrugated cardboard (OCC): recyclable kraft liner cartons with corrugated inner liners, as
typically used to ship materials. TIus generally does not include waxed cardboard or paperboard
(cereal boxes, microwave and similar food boxes, etc.), but kraft grocery bags are included.
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.
EP A: the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the federal agency responsible for
promulgation and enforcement of federal environmental regulations.
Ferrous materials: materials that are predominantly (over 75% by weight) made of iron. Includes
cans and various iron and steel alloys that contain enough iron such that magnets adhere to them,
but for recycling this generally does not include paint cans or other containers that may contain
hazardous residues.
Groundwater: water present in subsurface geological deposits (aquifers).
c:. dssary
Page G-l
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
HDPE: high-density polyethylene, a type of plastic, commonly used in milk, detergent, and
bleach bottles and other containers. Also used for lining and capping landfills.
Household hazardous waste: wastes that would be classified as hazardous due to their nature or
characteristics, except that the amount is too small to be regulated. Includes aerosol cans,
solvents, some paints, cleaners, pesticides, herbicides, compressed gases, oil, other petroleum
products, car batteries 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: all other types of paper not included in newspaper, cardboard or high-grade papers.
Includes materials such as 'junk mail", magazines, books, paperboard (non-corrugated
cardboard), and colored printing and writing papers.
.1
Moderate risk wastes (MRW): households 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.
Non-ferrous: non-ferrous materials (other than aluminum cans), including products that are
predominantly made of copper, lead, brass, tin, alwninwn, and other metals except for iron.
OAPCA: the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority; an agency with regulatory and
enforcement authority for air pollution issues in Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Mason,
Pacific, and Thurston Counties.
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 infonnation materials.
Public infonnation: the development of educational materials for the public, including brochures,
videos, and public service announcements.
RCW: Revised Code of Washington.
Recvcling; 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.
Glossary
Page G-2
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Recycling bins: the small household containers used to set out materials for curbside collection.
Recycling containers: the large rectangular metal boxes designed to be placed at central locations
to act as drop-off points for recyclable materials from many different households and businesses.
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. TIlls 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.
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 (SWAC): a group assisting Jefferson County with the
development of this comprehensive solid waste management plan, composed of representatives
from the general public, private industry, the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County.
Soecial wastes: wastes that have particular characteristics such that they present special handling
and/or disposal problems.
Source-seoarated: recyclable materials that have been removed from garbage or other fonns of
solid waste by the waste generator. TIlls mayor may not include keeping different types of
recyclable materials separate from each other (see source-segregated and commingling).
SWAC: see Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
Transfer station: an intennediate solid waste disposal facility at which solid waste collected from
any source is temporarily deposited to await transportation to a final disposal site.
WAC: Washington Administrative Code.
Waste reduction or waste orevention: 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.
WUTC: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
Yard debris: includes leaves, grass clippings, brush, and branches up to six inches in diameteL
Glossary
Page G-3
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
REFERENCES
Beck 1996. R.W. Beck & Associates. Solid Waste Operational Analysis, November 1996.
BioCycle 1998a. BioCycle magazine. Nationwide Overview of Food Residuals Composting,
August 1998.
BioCycle 1998b. BioCycle magazine. The State of Garbage in America, April 1998.
C&EN 1999. Chemical and Engineering News. Burning Health Issues, an article on a report by
the National Research Council (Waste Incinerators and Public Health), October 18, 1999.
Ch. 173-304 WAc. Washington Administrative Code. Chapter 173-304, Minimum Functional
Standards for Solid Waste Handling.
Ch. 173-351 WAc. Washington Administrative Code. Chapter 173-351, Criteria for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills.
CH2MH 1996. CH2M Hill. Compost Facility Management and Financial Plan, April 1996.
CSWMB 1974. California Solid Waste Management Board. Technical Bulletin No.2, Solid
Waste Generation Factors in California, July 1974.
Ecology 1990. Washington State Department of Ecology. Guidelines for the Development of
Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions, March 15, 1990.
Ecology 1993. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992 Washington State Waste
Characterization Study, July 1993.
Ecology 2000. Washington State Department of Ecology. Personal communication from Kip
Eagles to Rick Hlavka, July 13, 2000.
GS 1996. Green Solutions. Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan, Apri11996.
GS 1998. Green Solutions. Snohomish County Waste Composition Study, November 1998.
JC 1998. Jefferson County. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, August 1998.
JC 1999a. Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 1999 Amendments,
August 1999.
JC 1999b. Jefferson County. Information provided by Mike Ajax, Building Official, to Rick
I-llavka on December 2, 1999.
JP Jones 1999. E-mail from JP Jones, past Executive Director of the Washington Refuse and
Recycling Association, July 1999.
KC 1998. King County. Agricultural Waste Issue Paper, November 1998.
References
Page R-l
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
MOEA 1998. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Assessment of the Effect ofMSW
Management on Resource Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, September 3, 1998.
OAPCA 1999. Olympic Air Pollution Control Agency. Information provided by Jim Wilson to
Rick HIavka on October 19, 1999.
Parametrix 1993. Parametrix, Inc. Solid Waste Disposal Feasibility Study, October 1993.
PSR 1991. Paul S. Running & Associates. Jefferson County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan, April 1991.
PT 1996. City of Port Townsend. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, July 1996.
PTMC 1999. Port Townsend Municipal Code, revised March 1999.
PUD 1999. Public Utility District #1. Information provided by R. J. McConnell to Rick Hlavka
on November 22, 1999.
" 1
, .,
SERA 1996. Skumatz Economic Research Associates. Quantitative Effects of Program Choices
on Recycling and Green Waste Diversion: Beyond Case Studies, July 1996.
SN 2000. Website (http://www.secondnature.orgivision) for Second Nature - Education for
Sustainability, quoting the Brundtland Commission (1987), downloaded June 2000.
SRM 1999. Sound Resource Management. The Monthly UnEconomist, September 1999.
USDA 1999. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
1997 Census of Agriculture: Geographic Area Series, as reported at http://govinfo.kerr.orst.edu,
November 1999.
USDC 1991. United States Department ofConunerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990 u.S. Census
of Population and Housing, COlU1ty and Place Profiles, July 1991.
WUTC 1997. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Cost Assessment
Guidelines for Local Solid Waste Management Planning, January 1997.
WWG 1994. Watterson West Group, Inc. Population Forecast for Jefferson County and Port
Townsend, December 1994.
Re.fèrences
Page R-2
',""
'c.<i
RESOLUTION NO. ~-n
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT
TO'vVNSEND AUTHORlZING JEFFERSON COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND IN AN AMEND1'fENT OF THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS; under the provisions of RCW Chapter '70.95, Jeffers,?n 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
'1
VlHEREAS, 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 6, 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 RESaL VED BY TIΠCITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT TO\VNSEND,
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
funher 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
sp~cifically adopted by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend before it shall b~ome
effective, and any fmancial'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 Tow
sixth day of July, 1992.
d approved by the Mayor this
AttesM ~
David A. Grove, City Clerk
~pproved as to form:
~~
Dennis McLerran, CIty Attorney
-'c"'-;"'-.
Office of the Mayor
CITY HALL
, c.
Julie McCulloch
MAYOR
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
(360) 385-3000
October 30, 1998
Klara Fabry, P.E.
Public Works Director/County Engineer
Jefferson County Department of Public Works
P. O. Box 2070
Port Townsend,.WA 98368
j/,/
Dear ~ií; ~
Attached is a resolution previously adopted by the City Council authorizing Jefferson County to
include the City of Port Townsend in its Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. This
resolution continues in effect, authorizing the County to include the City in the update of the Solid
Waste Management Plan.
Sincerely,
/' '1
/J. --1", (;/, //<
y~ --<-, / /l {/JA-U1 ~
,/,:
J~Iie McCulloch, Mayor -
City of Port Townsend
c:\cree\mayor\fabry.Jtr ]
I RECEIVED
¡
i
I JEFFERSON COUNTY
. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ,
-'.""""""""'- ~
Nay 03 1998
ii~f~~~~~1~~~~1~~:~'!ltlri~~~;¡1'!' "
,}i"", :":(,:;:':''';\:.
""
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
APPENDIX B
RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION
NOTICE:
After the Final Draft of tIllS CSWMP has been adopted by the affected parties (Port Townsend, the
Tribes, and Jefferson County), this appendix will document the adoption process by showing resolutions
from the municipalities and tribal councils.
Appendix B: Resolutions o/Adoption
Page B-1
,.~>."::,:;.,¡,;::::.>:.
I:;' i"',
.,.
!i'~~:\" '. ",
. .'.'¡":
.::;::,1:':,;,:,:':', . "-' ",:,;\("
'-:, .
-,.,"',:.-(:.
. c',> ":"',,',:.:::
Jejjèrson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
APPEND IX C
WUTC COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
INTRODUCTION
By State law (RCW 70.95.090), solid waste management plans are required to include:
"an assessment of the plan's impact on the costs of solid waste collection. The
assessment shall be prepared in confonnance with guidelines established by the
Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC or Commission). The Conunission
shall cooperate with the Washington state association of counties and the association
of Washington cities in establishing such guidelines."
The following cost assessment has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines prepared by the
WUTC (WUTC 1997). The purpose of this cost assessment is not only to allow an assessment of the
impact of proposed activities on current garbage collection and disposal rates, but to allow projections of
future rate impacts as well. The WUTC needs this infonnation to review the plan's impacts to the
franchised waste haulers that it regulates, of which there are two in Jefferson County (Murrey's Disposal
dba Olympic Disposal and West Waste & Recycling). For these haulers, WUTC is responsible for setting
collection rates and approving proposed rate changes. Hence, WUTC has reviewed the following cost
assessment to detennine if it provides adequate infonnation for rate-setting purposes, and has advised
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
The current and proposed solid waste programs in Jefferson County will have only minor impacts on
collection and disposal rates. Perhaps the most significant change being proposed is the use of incentive
rates (subsequent to the adoption of a service ordinance), which is essentially a fe-structuring of current
rates rather than an actual increase in costs.
Appendix C: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire
Page C-l
APPENDIX C
COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
PHONE:
DATE:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Rick Hlavka, Green Solutions, PO Box 680, South Prairie, W A 98385-0680
(360) 897-9533 FAX: (360) 897-8923 E-MAIL: rickhlavka@aol.com
February 2,2000, updated August 2,2000
DEFINITIONS:
Year I = 2000
Year 3 = 2002
Year 6 = 2005
All years are on a calendar basis (January 1 to December 31).
1.0 Demographics
BASE YEAR
2000
YEAR 3
2002
YEAR 6
2005
1.1 Population
1.1.1 Total Population of Jefferson County
1. 1.2 Population under Jurisdiction
28,506
28,506
29,860
29,860
31,900
31,900
1.2 References and Assumptions
Population figures are extrapolated JÌom Table 2.2 of the Jefferson Counly Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
2.1 Tonnage Recycled and Composted
BASE YEAR YEAR 3 YEAR 6
2000 2002 2005
6,220 6,500 6,930
14,990 15,670 16,700
2.0 Waste Stream Generation
2.2 Tonnage Disposed
2.3 References and Assumptions
Figures are from Table 2.4 of the Jefferson Count" Comprehensive SoIìd Waste Management Plan (assumes current recycling level).
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Page C-2
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
3.0 System Component Costs
3, 1 Waste Reduction and Public Education Programs
3.1.1 Summary of Implemented and Proposed Waste Reduction Programs
Proposed
Re-evaluate County's waste diversion goal
Implement a procedure for estimating waste reduction impacts
Adopt a resolution of support for State and F ederallegislation
Expand City and County in-house WRR programs
Expand education for MRW facility, disposal costs, composting, and illegal dumping
Implemented
Continue SW AC/SW AP, other waste reduction
Continue existing education program
3 , 1.2 Total Costs for Waste Reduction Programs
Implemented
Continue SW AC/SWAP Event (pages 3-2,3-3, and 3-6)
Continue current public education program (pages 3-3, 3-7, 3-9, 3-10)
Proposed
Re-evaluate County's waste diversion goal (pages 3-4 and 3-6)
Implement a procedure for estimating waste reduction (pages 3-4 thru 3-6)
Support for State and Federallegislation (pages 3-5 and 3-6)
Expand City and County in-house WRR programs (pages 3-3,3-5 and 3-6)
Expand education for MRW facility, disposal costs, composting,
and illegal dumping (pages 3-4 thru 3-6, and 3-8 thru 3-10)
3.1.3 Funding Mechanisms for Waste Reduction Programs
Implemented
Continue SW AC/SW AP Event
Continue current public education program
Proposed
Re-evaluate County's waste diversion goal
Implement a procedure for estimating waste reduction
Support for State and Federal legislation
Expand City and County in-house WRR programs
Expand education for several programs
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Page C-3
BASE YEAR YEAR 3 YEAR 6
2000 2002 2005
$1,000 $1,060 $1,160
$39,000 $42,640 $46,640
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
Included Included Included
Included Included Included
CPG and
City/County fwtds
CPG and
City/County funds
CPG and
City/County funds
CPG and
City/County funds
CPG and
City/County funds
CPG and
City/County funds
Funding for all of the proposed waste reduction and
public education programs is presumed to be through
City, County and CPG funds, as additions to existing
program and staffmg workload.
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
3.2 Recycling and Composting Programs
Implemented PrOgrams
Continue to strive for 35% WRR goal (page 4-10)
Continue to examine cost-effectiveness and funding for programs (page 4-10)
Public recycling containers should be available throughout County (pages 4- 7 and 4-10)
COooty and City continue partnership for biosolids composting (pages 5-3 thru 5-5)
ProDQsed PrOgrams
Encourage market development (pages 4- 8 thru 4-10)
Coooty should build demonstration gardens (pages 5-5 and 5-6)
Encourage small-scale vermicomposting projects (page 5- 7)
3.3 Solid Waste Collection Programs
3.3.1 Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs
WUTC Regulated Hauler Name: Waste Connections dba Olympic Disposal
G-Permit #9
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected
Total Tonnage Collected
Cost
NA
NA
Unknown
NA
Funding
NA
County funds (staff time)
County and CPG funds, and private sector profits
NA
Cost
Unknown
$6,000
Included
Funding
County and CPG funds
County and CPG funds
County and CPG funds
BASE YEAR
2000
YEAR 3
2002
YEAR 6
2005
Data Not Available (DNA)
DNA
WUTC Regulated Hauler Name:
G-Pennit #251
Residential
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected
Commercial
# of Customers
Tonnage Collected
Total Tonnage Collected
West Waste & Recycling
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Page C-4
DNA
DNA
DNA
DNA
DNA
DNA
4,360
DNA
DNA
4,560
DNA
DNA
4,860
DNA DNA DNA
DNA DNA DNA
DNA DNA DNA
DNA DNA DNA
0 0 0
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
3.3.2 Other (non-regulated) Solid Waste Collection Programs
BASE YEAR
2000
Hauler Name: Waste Connections dba Superior Services (port Townsend contract)
# of Customers 3,420
Tonnage Collected 4,480
3.4 Energy Recovery and Incineration (ER&I) Programs
3.4.1 Facility
3.4.2 Permitted Capacity (tons/day)
3.4.3 If Facility not at Operating Capacity, what is the average Daily Throughput?
3.4.4 Estimated Quantity to be Landfilled which is Ash or Cannot be Processed
3.4.5 Expected Costs, Capital and Operating, for ER&I programs (excluding ash disposal)
3.4.6 Expected Costs of Ash Disposal
3.4.7 Location of Ash Disposal
3.4.8 Funding Mechanism(s) that will Defray the Costs of this Component
3.5 Land Disposal Program
3.5.1 Land Disposal Facility
Landfill Name:
Owner:
Operator:
3.5.2 Estimated Tonnage Disposed at the Landfill by WUTC Regulated Haulers
3.5.3 Estimated Tonnage Disposed at the Landfill by Others
3.5.4 Cost of Operating Non- Privately Owned Landfill
3.5.5 Funding Mechanism(s) that \\<ill Defray the Costs of this Component
3.6 Administration Program
3.6.1 Estimated Costs for Solid Waste Administration
Budgeted:
Funding source:
BASE YEAR
2000
$187,400
COlmty Funds
3.6.2 Costs Included in these Estimates:
Staff wages and overhead expenses, consulting fees, and related expenses.
Je.Uerson County Solid Waste A1anagemenJ Plan, Final Draft
Page C-5
YEAR 3
2002
3,550
4,690
Not Applicable, No ER&I
Facilities Proposed
Not Applicable, No
Landfills Proposed
YEAR 3
2002
$197,800
County Funds
YEAR 6
2005
3,720
5,000
YEAR 6
2005
$216,400
County Funds
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
3.6.3 Funding Mechanism(s) that will Recover the Costs of each Component:
The primary revenue source for Jefferson County are the tipping fees paid at the Jefferson County Waste
Management Facilìty. Additional revenues are received from tipping fees at the Quilcene Drop Box, grants,
MRW fees, City contributiom, and other sources (See also Tables 8.1 and 8.2).
3.7 Other Programs
3.7.1 Program Description
3.7.2 Owner/Operator
3.7.3 WUTC Regulation Involved?
3.7.4 Estimated Costs, Capital and Operating, for this Program
3.7.5 Funding Mecbanism(s) that will Defray the Costs of this Component
Waste Export (see Chapter 7)
Jefferson County
No
$845,000 (1999 figure)
Tipping fees
3.8 References and Assumptions
Data taken from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan unless othenvise noted.
In Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2, the costs for several programs are shown as "NA" (Not Applicable) because these \vill require only a small amount of staff time.
In Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2, "included" means that the cost of the activity is included in the County's overall public education program.
In Section 3 .2, the cost (of continuing) to provide recycling containers throughout the County is shown as "unknown" because the mix of public and private
involvement is unknown. This is an exisling expense, but changes in the future may require shifts in the number and placement of publicly-sponsored
versus private containers. Operation of these containers by the public sector assumes public subsidy, while operation by private companies assumes
a profit-making venture.
In Section 3.2, the cost to encourage market development is shown as "unknown" because it is uncertain at this time what activities will
actually be conducted for this recommendation.
In Section 3.3, future solid waste tonnages are assumed to increase in proportion to the County's overall increase in disposal tonnages (see Table 2.4).
In Section 3.3.1, tonnage for West Waste is shown as zero because waste from western Jefferson County is brought to facilities in other counties.
In Section 3.3.2, the number of customers for Port Townsend is assumed to increase at the same rate as population gruwth.
In Section 3.6.1, administrative costs shown include general adminislTation and planning, amount showll is budgeted figure for 2000,
and subsequent years are assumed to increase 3% annually.
Jefferson COUIlIy Solid Waste Managemelll Plan, Filial Draft
Page C-6
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
". .~,--,
I 4.0 Funding Mechanisms
4.1 Cost of CUITent Programs
'Table 4.1.1 Transfer Final Total Total
Tip Fee Transfer Station Disposal Tons Revenue
Facility Name and Type per Ton Cost Location Location Disposed Generated
Jefferson County Waste Mgmt. Facility (T) $110 $650,000 Pt. Townsend Allied LF 14,250 $1,568,000
Quilcene Drop Box (T) $26.29/yd $12,300 Qui1cene JCWMF 160 $26,000
Table 4,1.2, Tip
Fee Components Tip Trans. Operational Admn. City County Closure
Facility Fee Cost Cost Fee Tax Tax Surcharge Fees Other
JC Waste Mgmt Facility $11O/1on $650,000 $262,500 $180,000 $17,500 $211,500 $235,000
Quilcene Drop Box $26.29/yd $12,300 $14,100 $500
Table 4.1.3, Funding Mechanisms Total Bond
Bond Bond Due Grant Grant Tip Sur-
Name of Program Name Debt Date Name Amount Fee Taxes Other charges
Continue SW AC/SW AP event CPO $300 $700
Contìnue existing public education . CPO $11,265 $27,735
Encourage market development CPG TED TED
Build demonstration gardens CPG TED TED
Jefferson C OUtlty Solid Waste Mwmgemetlt Plan, Final Drqft
Page C-7
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
4.2 Funding Mechanism SummaIy
Table 4.2.1 Year One (2000) Percent ofFlllldißl! from:
Tip Collection Other
Solid Waste System Component Fees Grants Bonds Taxes Rates (City ofPT) Total
Waste Reduction ~ 15 -6001ø 15-60% 1% 26% 100%
Recycling and Composting 50-75% 25-35% 10-20% 100%
Collection 100% 100%
ER&1 NA
Transfer 100% 100%
Land Disposal 100% 100%
Administration 97% 3% 100%
Table 4.2,2 Year Three (2002) Percent of Fundilll! from:
Tip Coilection Other
Solìd Waste System Component Fees Grants Bonds Taxes Rates (City of PI) Total
Waste Reduction 15-60% 15-60% 1% 26% 100%
Recycling and Composting 50-75% 25-35% 10-20% 100%
Collection 100% 100%
ER&1 NA
Transfer 100% 100%
Land Disposal 100% 100%
Administration 97% 3% 100%
Table 4.2.3 Year Six (2005) Percent of Fun dim!. from:
Tip Collection Other
Solid Waste System Component Fees Grants Bonds Taxes Rates (City ofPT) Total
Waste Reduction 15-60% 15-60% 1% 26% 100%
Recycling and Composting 50-75% 25-35% 10-20% 100%
Collection 100% 100%
ER&I NA
Transfer 100% 100%
Land Disposal 100% 100%
Administration 97% 3% 100%
Jefferson County Solid Wœte Management Plan, Final Draft
Page C-8
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
. "_~~fl
4.3 References and Assumptions
In Section 4.1, TBD = To Be Determined (not budgeted yet).
Jefferson Colini}' Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
Page C-9
Appendix C: Cost Assessment Questionnaire
PORT TOWNSEND
WASTE REDUCTION
AND RECYCLING
PLAN
by Green Solutions
April 1996
PORT TOW.NSEND
WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING .PLAN
Prepared for the:
Public Works Department and
the Housing and Community Services Comrrrittee
of the City of Port Townsend,
Port Townsend, Washington
Prepared by:
Rick Hlavka
Green Solutions
PO Box 585
Renton, W A 98057-0585
(206) 255-5047
April 1996
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grcen Solutions would like to acknowledge the assistance the following people in prepaIing this
report:
~ The Washington Department of Ecology, who provided most of the funding for this project
(through the Coordinated Prevention Grant program), and its staff, in particular Scott
Carlson and Pat Dice
~ Port Townscnd City Council members, especially the current and prior members of the
Housing and Community Services Department:
- -,
Diane Perry-Thompson
Dan Harpole
Ted Shoulberg
Sheila Westennan
~ City staff, especially:
John Merchant
Randy Brackett
and other City staff, in particular Michael Hildt and the staff of the Financing, Clerk-
Treasurer, and Utility Departments
~ Jefferson County staff, in particular Molly Pearson and Frank Hall
~ Skookum Environmental Services, in particular Daniel Deane, Carol Lough and Michael
Atkins
~ Bill Perka and others on the Jefferson County Solid Waste Advisory Committee
~ Other organizations and businesses within the Port Townsend cOlmnunity
Pt Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
J\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Executive Summary -........ .-...... ................,.. ...,,--. ....................... ...".-. ,-. --. E-l
Introduction """"""'-"""""""""""""-'-""""'""""""""--"--"""',',.,......,..... B-1
Summary ofConclllsions and Recommendations ..-.............................,--........ E-l
I, Introduction ,....,......,--"...,...."-,-,,.,..,..,.........,-,,-'----".................."...,,-.
Background ...,---.,.,.....,..,---....,......."-,--,,.,.,......."""""",--.-,..,.,.................,.,-
Overview.., - - .--....... ...., '. .................. -, ,-.....,................. ..-.-..... ,.............., -- -,....
2. Waste Characterization Data ....-....-,...................-....-........................--.
Introduction """"""""""-"""""""""""""""'""""""""""""""""""',--',....
Recycled and Disposed Quantities ..---,-...................._,-.............................-....
Waste Composition Data """"""..".............,.,......".................,....,.'...,...,.....
Seasonal Variations """""""""-""""""""'"-"--""",,,,,"""""""",',.,.,.........
Conclusions (Future Data Needs) ...."".........................................................
3, Evaluation of Services ""'-""""""""'-""""""""""""""-"""""""""" 3-1
Introduction ........,.-....,........._-,--".,....,...."",--,.-."""""""""""""""'.,...,......, 3-1
Waste Collection and Recycling Services --"""""""""""'-"""""""""""""'. 3-1
Market Analysis """""'--""""""""",.".....,........,.,.,""'-""""""""""""-'"... 3-17
4. Solid Waste Ordinances, Policies and Contracts -"""""""""""...........
Introduction """""""""""""""""""'-"""""""""-""'-"""""""""""""',.....
City Policies and Ordinances """"""""'-"""""""""""""""""""',"""""""
City Contracts """""--""""""""-"""""""""""---"""""""""""""....,."...,..
5, Public Education Recommendations .........................................,-......... 5-1
Introduction ....... ,""""", ....",......... ...... ..,.., ..-.......................... ,..... ,......-,....... 5-1
Public Education Recommendations .-,..............................,..........................-. 5-1
References """""""""-"""""""""'--"--"""",,"""""""""""-",--,......,
APPENDICES
A
B
Estimated Waste Composition
Survey Results
PRINTED ON RECYCLED AND RECn..]~'ll3LE P,.JPER. OF COURSE
Pt T(JH'l1send Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
PAGE
1-1
1-1
1~1
2-1
2-1
2~1
2-7
2-7
2~8
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-4
R-]
III
Table of Contents, Continued
LIST OF TABLES
1) Breakdown of Recycled and Waste Quantities """""""""""""""""'" 2-2
2) Occurrence of Recyclable Materials in Curbside Setouts ..................... 3-5
3) Commercial Food Waste Quantities """""""""""""""""""""""""" 3-20
LIST OF FIGURES
1) Waste and Recycled Quantities """""""""""""""""""""""""'",..... 2-9
2) Self-Haul Customers at the Jefferson
County Waste Management Facility """""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 3-3
3) Stacking Bins used for Port Townsend's
Curbside Recycling Program """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 3-4
4) Recycling Containers used by an Apartment Complex """""""""""'" 3-8
5) Compartmentalized Recycling Container at an
Apartment Complex ......................................................""""""""'..... 3-8
6) Recycling Containers behind James & Hastings Building ..........-.......... 3-11
7) Recycling Container at City Hall ......................................................... 3-11
8) Cardboard Collection Container in Downtown Port Townsend """"'.. 3-12
9) Recycling Containers in the 210 Polk Building .................................... 3-13
10) The City of Port Townsend's Biosolids Facility """"""""""""...""", 3-15
Pt Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In July, 1995, the City of Port Townsend retained Green Solutions, an enviromnental consulting
firm, to prepare this Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRR Plan)- The WRR Plan was
designed to assess the Current status of recycling and waste collection services in the City, and to
provide reconU11endations to refine existing waste reduction and recycling programs or to develop
new programs- This effort was also designed to mesh with Jefferson County's solid waste
management planning and implementation efforts.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a summary of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report:
Waste Characterization Needs
... Existing data is incomplete and prevented precise conclusions in some cases, and the
following should be undertaken to improve data for future efforts:
the Port Townsend Utility Department should collect employment data as part of the
business licensing process.
Superior Refuse should be asked to assist in data gathering efforts to more precisely
detennine the amount of waste from residential versus commercial sources, by collecting
and weighing waste from these sources separately for a week each quarter.
additional data which would be helpful to the waste reduction calculation is a survey of
self-haul customers at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility, to detennine
the tonnage of waste from City sources. Other surveys could also be undertaken, but
are necessary only if the data is to be used in any critical planning efforts in the future
(such as implementation of a food waste composting project).
Garbage Collection Services
... The City's utility brochure should be revised before the next printing to clarifY and provide
more promotion for the existing volume-based garbage collection rates.
Curbside Recycling Program
... Additional public education/promotion efforts are needed to increase both the overall
participation rate in curbside recycling and the recycling rate of some materials.
... The Utility Department's brochure explaining the recycling program should be revised to
update the list of recyclables and to clarifY the schedule and other details.
Executive Summary
Port Townsend WasTe Reduction and Recycling PIon
E-l
.. Collection policies should be reviewed with Superior to ensure that they are not discouraging
participation in any way.
.. Superior's practice of requiring letters from landlords and possibly charging $75 for a lost
set of recycling bins should be immediately discontinued, and renters should be provided
with the Same access to bins as homeowners (i.e., free of charge for single-family homes).
Multi-Family Recycling Program
.. Duplexes should be treated just like single family homes (i.e., one set of bins provided per
unit at their request and at no charge).
... Medimn-sized buildings, 3 to 8 units in size, should be provided with only a few bins to
serve as central storage and collection containers.
... Larger buildings and the Sea Breeze mobile home park will need compartmentalized
dumpsters or other special arrangements.
.. Case studies should be developed for promoting recycling programs to the owners and
managers of the larger complexes.
.. ,
Commercial Recycling Program
.. TIle drop-off site behind the James & Hastings Building should have a curb or rail to
prevent the containers from rolling or being accidentally pushed off onto parked cars.
.. Additional regional sites should be placed in strategic locations in the City to serve more of
the businesses and the public, including the south end of the downtown area (near or at the
feny dock) and in the commercial district up on the hill.
Drop-Off Recycling Program
.. For drop boxes where one compartment (such as the cardboard compartment) is routinely
filling up before the others, an additional container (such as a dumpster) for that material
should be spotted next to the drop box if space allows.
.. Future changes in drop box locations or operations should be publicized more thoroughly, if
possible starting well before the change takes place.
.. More public education is needed to publicize drop box locations and requirements.
.. Informational brochures should be distributed at every drop box location.
Processing and Marketing Capacity
.. A new or additional baler for Skookwn could be necessary to all ow significantly increased
quantities ofrecyclables to be processed and marketed.
... Additional staffing for Skookum may be necessary to handle significantly increased
tonnages.
>- Skookum's current handling practices for aerosol cans should be revised to deliver partial1y-
full cans to the Household Hazardous Waste Facility for proper disposal of the contents.
Emptied cans should be returned to Skookum for recycling.
Executive Summary
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycfing Plan
E-2
Yard Debris Program
.. User charges and other changes to the current yard debris disposal system should be avoided
for residential loads, but larger commercial loads could be charged a fee to help Cover the
tàcility's operating costs. Any fee should be set lower than the tipping fee for waste
disposal.
Waste Reduction
.. The City should adopt policies and practices to further encourage reuse and waste reduction.
~ SW AC/SW AP is an excellent waste reduction and recycling activity and should continue to
receive support from the County, City and others.
City Policies
.. As indicated above, the City should change its policy concerning multi-family w1Íts to
classify duplexes the same as single family homes, while medium-sized multi-family units
(up to 3 - 8 units) should be included in the curbside recycling program using a modified
approach.
~ The City should adopt additional policies for the purchase of recycled and/or recyclable
products by City departments. If a price preference is adopted for recycled/recyclable
products, it should not be greater than 5 to 10% additional cost over other products.
City Ordinances
.. A mandatory recycling ordinance or disposal ban is not reconunended at this time. Instead,
morc extensive efforts should be made to promote existing recycling opportwuties.
.. Section 6.04.100 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code should be revised to clarifY to that
it pertains to household garbage containers, and that larger and heavier containers that are
mechanically emptied (i.e., dumpsters and roll-offs) are allowed.
City Contracts
~ Future ,,'vaste collection contracts should be put out for bid to ensure the best price and
service for the City.
.. The future recycling service contract (presumably still as part of the waste collection
contract) should contain an incentive for the hauler to collect more tonnage for recycling.
~ The City's desire to have recycling bins provided to all customers upon request, without an
additional charge or deposit required, should be clarified by written notice to Superior and
should also be clarified in the contract if necessary.
~ The Housing and Community Services Committee should discuss and pre-approve any
future changes in the recycling collection system. This should be done in consultation with
all other affected parties, including Skookum, Superior, the County Solid Waste Advisory
Conunittee, and possibly others as appropriate.
Ewclitive Summary
Port Townsend ¡Yuste Reduction and Recycling Plan
E-3
Recommendations for Public Education and Program Promotion
Some of the follo\\<ing may be redundant with recommendations shown above,. but arc shown here to
provide a central location for all recommendations related to public education.
Public Education for the Curbside Recycling Program:
.. Better promotion of the curbside program is needed, including more infoffi1ation on the types
of materials and preparation requirements (i.e., that cardboard should be bundled, mixed
waste paper bagged separately, etc.).
.. Superior should distribute better infonnation on curbside recycling requirements, including a
more detailed flyer or brochure sent out at a customer's request, and a tag or checklist left at
stops where unacceptable materials were not collected (see also the broader reconullendation
under General WRR Recommendations, below) .
.. The brochure for explaining utilities in the City could be improved by;
providing a clearer explanation oftbe rates and the rate incentive.
better promotion of the reduced garbage rate available to recyclers who choose the
every-other-week option.
better promotion ofthe recycling progran1 for all types of customers.
Public Education for Multi-Family Recycling Services:
.. Apartments and duplexes should be notified that they are eligible for the recycling program,
and be provided with instmctions on how to sign up for the program.
.. Public education materials should be produced specifically for apartment complexes.
Although duplexes can get by with educational materials developed for single family homes,
apartment complexes need instructions on material preparation that more closely pertain to
their situation.
.. For best results, apartment managers should also be provided with brochures for their
tenants that promote the recycling program.
.. Case studies should be prepared to illustrate how some apartments have set up recycling and
waste reduction programs. These case studies could be printed in the newspaper as well as
distributed in other ways. Possible case studies include a duplex, the Castle Court
Apartments, and Discovery View Apartments.
Public Education for Commercial Recycling Services:
.. Businesses should be notified that they are eligible for recycling services, and provided with
instructions on how to participate.
.. Local case studies of select businesses should be prepared and distributed to help promote
and explain how they may be reducing their costs. Possible case studies include the 210
Polk Building, Waterfront Pizza, Silvenvater Cafe, and Coyote Found Candles.
.. The best approach for promoting increased recycling by businesses is a personal visit by
someone. The Boy Scouts, a high school club, or another volunteer organization could be a
good choice for this activity if they are provided some initial training and the proper tools
(detailed infoTIllation. case studies, etc.).
Executive i)'ummary
Port Townsend T-flàste Reduction and Recycling Plan
E-4
Public Educationfor Drop-Off Programs:
>- Participants could be encouraged to crush plastic bottles (like Snohomish County's "step on
it" program) to save space in their home or business storage containers and in the drop site
containers.
>- Changes such as moving drop site boxes, even if only a short distance, should be publicized
for a few months beforehand if possible.
>- A brochure should be developed for the drop-off sites, showing materials accepted, hours of
operation and other relevant infonnation. This brochure should be distributed at each oftbe
drop-off sites and at other locations.
Public Educationfor Yard Debris Diversion:
>- Backyard composting and other yard waste reduction techniques should be promoted iIi any
public education efforts that include single family homes.
General Public Education Recommendations:
>- A brochure or flyer listing the details of all local recycling programs, including how and
where to recycle or properly dispose of special materials, should be developed. l11Ís
brochure should be provided to key people such as employees of the Utility Department, the
scalehouse attendant at the Jefferson ComIty Waste Management Facility, and others, and it
should contain;
a description ofthe collection services available to residential and commercial
customers, especially the types of materials collected and preparation rules.
directions to the drop-off sites throughout the City and nearby, including hours of
operation, materials accepted, and other details.
options for disposing of oil and other special wastes or recyclables, such as the recently-
opened Household Hazardous Waste Facility.
options for rense, such as charitable organizations, Waste Not Want Not (tor building
materials), the Household Hazardous Waste Facility, and other options.
directions on how to properly dispose of garbage and other wastes.
numbers to call for further infonnation on a wide variety of related topics.
>- The newsletter distributed by Skookum to promote recycling in Port Townsend is being re-
designed to make it more attractive and easier to read, and these changes should be
supported by the City and County.
>- More care needs to be taken to properly publicize program changes. Although a significant
amount of effort went into infomung people that green glass was no longer collected, the
addition of certain materials (such as cardboard and mixed waste paper) have apparently not
been as well-publicized.
.. Better information needs to be provided by Superior for cases where non~recyclable
materials were left behind at curbside or commercial stops. Generally what is done in these
cases in other areas is to indicate the problem on a checklist that is left with the uncollected
materials. Superior needs to print something like this so that they can quickly check off the
problem, such "green glass no longer collected" or "this is not the recycling week", and
Executive Summary
Pon Townsend f,Vaste Reduction and Recycfing Plall
E-5
leave this with the customer so that they both understand what the problem is for the current
load and to improve their performance in the future.
~ Greater public education and promotion ofrecycling and waste reduction could be achieved
simply by taking advantage of promotional opportunities such as messages printed on utility
bills (this would be great place for program updates and reminders), timely newspaper
articles, awards or presentations at public speaking opportunities, and exhibits (or
distributing information in other ways )at local gatherings such as fairs.
.. Better conmmnication is needed between the various parties with an interest in recycling. As
previously discussed, changes to the recycling program should be pre-approved through the
City's Housing and Community Services Committee in consultation with others. When
discussing any changes to the recycling programs, it should be kept in mind that changes are
best minimized in order to avoid frustrating participants by "constantly changing the rules".
If possible, necessary changes should be held back until many changes can be done at once
and can be properly publicized. Changing the recycling progran1 rules should be limited to
once or twice per year.
ExeClltive Summary
POI" Townsend Waste Reduction and Recvcling Plan
E-6
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In July 1995, the City of Port Townsend retained Green Solutions to prepare this Waste Reduction
and Recycling Plan (WRR Plan) for the City. The WRR Plan was designed to assess the current
status of recycling and waste collection services, and to provide recommendations as needed to refine
existing waste reduction and recycling programs or to develop new programs. This effort was also
designed to mesh with Jefferson County's solid waste management planning and implementation
efforts.
Green Solutions is an environmental consulting firm based in Renton, Washington. Green Solutions
specializes in solid waste and recycling analysis, including solid waste management plans, waste
composition studies, recycling market assessments, collection system analysis, and cost analysis.
This project was funded in part by Cooperative Prevention Grant funds provided to Jefferson County
by the Washington Department of Ecology.
OVERVIEW
In the following sections, this WRR Plan presents information on:
Section 2 - provides background data on waste and recycled quantities, as well as intònnation
on current activities, seasonal fluctuations in waste/recycling quantities, and future data needs.
Section 3 - provides extensive information on current solid waste collection and recycling
programs, and recOlIDllendations for improvements to those programs.
Section 4 - focuses on solid waste/recycling ordinances, policies and contracts used by the City.
Section 5 - provides reconunendations for public education and promotion activities.
Introduction
Port Tmvnsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
1-1
SECTION 2
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION DATA
INTRODUCTION
This section of the report provides data on the City's waste stream and recycled tonnages. This was
done to calculate the City's current recycling rate, to provide a baseline analysis for future waste
reduction calculations, and to provide basic information for subsequent sections of the WRR Plan.
RECYCLED AND DISPOSED QUANTITIES
Overview of City's Programs and Services
City residents and businesses are currently provided with waste collection services through a
contract between the City and a private hauler, Superior Refuse Removal, Inc. (Superior). In
addition to collecting waste, Superior also provides recycling collection services for single-family
homes, commercial customers, and some of the recycling drop boxes in the City. Waste and
recyclables are hauled a short distance out of the City to the Jefferson County Waste Management
Facility.
Located at the COlmty's Waste Management Facility are the City's biosolids plant, and the County's
transfer station and recycling center. The biosolids plant provides a place for yard debris to be
dropped off and processed into a soil amendment. The recycling center is operated by Skookum
Enviromnental Services (Skookum) under contract to the County. Skookwn processes and markets
recyclables deliven;d by Superior or dropped off by the general public. In addition, Skookum
conducts some of its ov.'Il collections, primarily from commercial accounts and drop boxes at the
Safeway store and the Port of Port Townsend.
Recycled Quantities
There are a number of opportunities for Port Townsend residents and businesses to recycle. A
description of the results of these programs is provided below (see Section 3 of this report for more
information about the existing programs). The total amount of recyclables and the estimated amount
coUected from each type of waste generator is shown in Table 1. Additional data on the composition
of the disposed waste stream and quantities of specific materials disposed is shown in Appendix A.
Curbside Recycling Program: This program collects recyclable materials from single-family
homes and some multi-falIÙly w1Íts twice per month. The materials collected include newspaper,
cardboard, milk cartons, mixed waste paper, clear and brown glass, plastic bottles (#l's and #2's),
alun1Ínum cans, and till cans.
The tonnages collected through the curbside program are not tracked separately from tOlmages
collected tram conunercial customers, but can be estimated based on the types and amounts of
JFaste Characterization Data
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recyciing Plan
2-1
Table 1
Breakdown of Recycled and Waste Quantities
for the City of Port Townsend
Estimated Breakdown by Type of Waste Generator
Single Multi- Commercial
Family Familv & Industrial
Total Tons
~r Year
Recycled
Yard Debris Diverted (1)
Subtotal
1,515
890
2,405
623 22 870
726 0 164
-
1,349 22 1,034
1,870 504 2,961
3,219 526 3,995
41. 9% 4.2% 25.9%
Waste Disposed (2)
5,335
Total Generated (waste + recy.)
7,740
\Vaste Diversion Rate
(Recycling plus Composting)
31.1%
Number of PeoplelEmployees (3)
Waste Disposal Rate, Ib/yr
Waste Disposal Rate, lb/day
Overall Generation Rate, lb/yr (4)
Overall Generation Rate, Ib/day
7,265 people 900 people 4,500 employees
515 lb/per/yr 1,120 Ib/per/yr 1,316 Ib/emp/yr
1.4 Ib/per/day 3. 1 lb/per/day 3.6 lb/emp/day
886 lb/per/yr 1,169 Ib/per/yr 1,776 lb/emp/yr
2.4 Ib/per/day 3.2 lb/per/day 4.9 Ib/emp/day
Notes:
All data is based on tonnages collected or disposed mìd-1994 through mìd-1995, unless otherv,-ise noted.
lb = pounds; lb/per/yr = pOlmds per perwn per year, lb/emp/)'T = pounds per employee per year.
l. TIle total yard waste quantity shm\'TI is a projected result tòr 1995. TIle 1996 amount is expected to be substantially greater.
2. The total amount of waste disposed is based on Superior's deliveries to the County transfer station plus an estimate for self-haul waste quantities.
3. Population estimate is tram "1995 Population Trends tòr Washington State", by the Oftìce of Financial Management. The estimate for number
of employees was independently derived, and was estimated to be between 4,100 to 4,900.
4. Overall waste generation rates are the sum of waste disposed, recycled materials, and diverted yard debris, and is provided
for future assessments of waste reduction.
'.
materials collected. Of the average 38.25 tons per month collected, 20.75 tons per month is
estimated to be from single-family sources. 0.5 tons per month is from multi-family units, and the
remaining 17.0 tons is trom conmlercial sources.
Jefferson County Recycling Center: The drop-off center at the County recycling center (at the
Jefferson County Waste Management Facility) receives about 67 tons ofrecyclab1e materials per
month. The drop boxes at Safeway collect another 18 tons per month. A survey conducted at the
County drop-off center on July 21 and 22 (see Appendix B, Table B-2 for more details) concluded
that 36% of the users of that site were from the City. Since the two sites are close and many ofthe
people surveyed also mentioned using the Safeway site, it was assumed that the same percentage
also applies to the quantities collected at the Satèway location.
Of the City users, the survey showed that 85.3% were from single-family homes, 10.3% from
apartments and the remaining 4.4% were from businesses. Thus, 26.1, 3.2, and 1.3 tons per month,
respectively, were allocated to each of the waste generators.
Drop Boxes: Data from Skookum shows the combined amount of material brought in by Superior
for the drop boxes at City Hall and Fort Worden. An average of 5.3 tons per month is brought in
from these two locations, which for the purposes oftlús plan is assmned to be split 50-50 from
residential and commercial sources.
Other drop-off locations in Port Townsend include drop boxes at the Port and behind the James &
Hastings Building. Since it is considered to be used primarily by downtown businesses, the quantity
collected through the drop-off site at the James & Hastings Building is discussed below with other
conunercial collections. The amount collected at the Port, an estimated 2.25 tonS per month, was
assumed to be from residential sources. Although the Port contains many industrial facilities and
can itself be considered a commercial entity, most of the recycled materials are apparently from
people who are living on tlleir boats or using them on weekends.
Commercial Collections: Commercial collections within the City include businesses using drop
boxes, especially the containers in the downtown area behind the James & Hastings Building, and
those who have cardboard and other recyclables picked up separately. As mentioned above, these
tonnages are not collected or recorded separately from curbside amounts (except for the Post Office),
but are estimated to be 17 tons per month. In addition, the Post Office generates 2.25 tons per
month of various grades of paper.
Finally, businesses in Port Townsend also recycle materials such as scrap metals and restaurant
grease through other collection companies. A survey conducted in 1992 showed that about 680 tons
of scrap metals and grease were being collected from businesses in the County. An estimated 500
tons is from City sources and has been included in the figures shown in Table 1. Also included in
commercial recycling is an estimated 72 tons per year of food waste that is diverted to a food bailie
Multi-Family Collections: Multi-family households (duplexes and larger) are eligible for curbside
collection service but must purchase their OW11 containers or lease containers to participate. Only a
few of the multi-fanlily units are currently recycling through the curbside program, although many of
them are also using the various drop-off centers to recycle. A survey of multi-family units in the
City discovered a few to be using their own recycling containers, set nex'! to their dumpsters, to
recycle. Others are leasing containers for this purpose.
rPaste Characterization Data
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
2-3
Recycling tonnages for multi-family households were estimated based on the results of the drop-off
center survey and allocation of some of the tonnages from the curbside/commercial tonnages, as
previously described.
Yard Debris Quantities
The biosolids facility began accepting yard debris in 1993, and the amount of material diverted by
this disposal alternative has steadily increased as more and more people have discovered it. Through
the first half of 1995, about 275 tons (less than 2 tons per day) were delivered to the site by
conunercial and residential self-haul customers. By the fall of 1995, yard waste quantities had
increased to about 6 tons per day.
Assuming that deliveries to the site remained fairly constant at 6 tons per day throughout the
remainder of 1995, an estimated 1,355 tons would be diverted by the biosolids facility in 1995: The
actual 1995 amount could easily exceed this, as the fall rains could have increased the anlOunt of
grass clippings generated while leaf raking and garden clean-ups also added to the amount.
However, the colder temperatures in December would have reduced yard debris generation, so 6 tons
per day may be a good average for the remainder of 1995.
A survey of yard debris customers was conducted July 22,27, and 28, 1995 (see Appendix B, Table
B-3 for more details). This survey detennined that 65.7% of the yard debris brought to the biosolids
facility was from Port Townsend sources. TIus is the equivalent of a projected 1995 amount of 890
tons (see Table 1) of yard debris diverted by City homes and businesses. A weighted average of the
City customers indicates that 81.8% of the City amount is from single-family homes. A weighted
average was necessary due to the different quantities of yard debris brought in on the weekends
versus weekdays. No yard debris was brought in from multi-family sources, so the remainder (162
tons) was allocated to businesses.
Waste Disposal Quantities
Records of waste deliveries to the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility show that the
annual amount of waste brought in by Superior was 4,135 tons (July 1994 through June 1995). No
data is available as to how this breaks down by source (residential versus commercial). There is
also no local data available on the amount of self-haul waste received at the Waste Management
Facility from City sources. Data from other areas, however, indicates that self-haul waste is
typically a significant amount, even where garbage collection service is mandatory. TIle 1992
Washington State Waste Characterization Study (RW Beck 1993) shows the amount of self-haul
waste in western Washington (excluding the central Puget Sound area) to be 22.5% of the total
waste stream. In the case of Port Townsend, this would be another 1,200 tons per year, or 5,335
tons altogether.
No data is available locally on the amount of waste produced by different types of generators, so the
amount of residential waste generated in Port Townsend was estimated using generation rates shown
in the Washington State Waste Characterization Study. This study shows that residential single-
family households in western Washington produce 4_2 pounds of waste per day- For the estimated
2,440 single-family homes in Port Townsend, this equals 1,870 tons per year. Multi-family residents
TFasie Characterization Data
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
2-4
are estimated to produce 4.6 pounds per household per day, or about 500 tons per year. The multi-
family rate is suspected to be higher than the single-family rate due to a combination offactors,
including higher consumption of disposable products, fewer recycling opportunities, and fewer
people per household (which causes the daily newspaper and other "fixed" waste quantities to be
spread over fewer people). Residential self-haul is estimated to contribute 13.5% of the total, or 720
tons per year, which is assumed to originate primarily from single-fam.ily homes-
Once the anlOlmt of residential waste (single fam.ily plus multi-family waste) was calculated, the
anlOunt of conunercial waste (including govenunent offices, other institutions, industry, and non-
residential self-haul) was assumed to be the remainder.
Waste quantities in Port Townsend for the past year show an increase of 5% over the previous year.
111is is possibly the result of increased population, increased business activities, a shifting of self-
haul waste to curbside collections, increased construction activities, or a combination of all of these
tàctors. -
Waste Diversion Estimates
Once the amount of waste, recycled materials and yard debris had been determined, a waste
diversion rate (the rate of recycling and composting) could be calculated. For Port Townsend, this
rate was determined to be 30%. As shown in Table 1, the single fanrily homes are recycling at a
higher rate than other generators. -
Waste Reduction
Waste reduction can be very difficult to measure. An accurate assessment of waste reduction
requires detailed knowledge about the amount of waste produced at two different points in time, and
the factors that directly affect this amount. For a city such as Port Townsend, part of the difficulty
lies in the need to know accurately how much waste is produced by different types of waste
generators, at a minimum including single family, multi-family and business waste generators. This
is necessary because the amount of waste produced by each group will be influenced by different
factors, such as changes in population or in the amount of business activity. Significant waste
reduction could be achieved by one group but then masked by an increase in total waste quantities
due to an increase in population or business activity. Without a method to correlate the amount of
waste generated to an indicator such as population, there is no precise way to evaluate subsequent
increases or decreases in waste quantities and so no way to measure waste reduction.
As an alternative to precisely quantifYing waste reduction, qualitative methods can be used instead
for assessing waste reduction. These methods consist of surveys or other approaches to determine
the number of people or businesses who are employing a specific waste reduction technique.
Numerical values for the amount of waste reduction achieved by a specific activity can sometimes be
applied to provide an estimate of the amount of waste reduction, but these values must be separately
derived. For example, the number of households who practice backyard compo sting or the number
of businesses who do double-sided copying can be assessed through surveys. The actual amount of
waste reduction achieved by these methods can be estimated based on the typical amount of yard
waste generated per household or on the weight of paper, but the homes or businesses are generally
Waste Characterization Data
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
2-5
not the best source of this information. It would be better to use values derived through other means,
such as measurement studies that have been conducted on the typical amount of yard waste
generated by homes.
111e amount of surveys and other data-gathering activities necessary to precisely determine waste
reduction in Port Townsend were beyond the scope of the WRR Plan. Instead, this project is
designed to provide a baseline for future analysis of waste reduction.
Baseline Calculation: The baseline calculation for measuring waste reduction is the last row of
data, showing per capita generation rates, in Table]. The use of perveapita rates avoids the
measurement problems potentially caused by increases or decreases in population or employment.
The lack of local data on the breakdown of waste quantities by type of generator required the use of
waste generation rates from the Washington State Waste Characterization Study (RW Beck 1993).
Since the residential generation rates (for single-family and multi-family) are assumed figures, .future
measurements of these figures cannot be directly compared to the figures in Table 1 to test for waste
reduction by the residential sector alone. Instead, future waste reduction can be detennined by
assuming the residential rate has remained the same and testing for changes in the commercial waste
generation rate. In this marmer, it carmot actually be detennined in which sector (residential or
commercial) any waste reduction has actually occurred, but a measurement for the entire City will
be possible. This problem can be resolved by collecting data on waste quantities disposed by the
residential and commercial sectors, as described below.
To measure waste reduction in the future using the proposed approach, it will be necessary to update
part of Table 1 and then compare the results. The key figures and calculations in Table 1 which will
have to be updated based on filture data are the sum ofthe total tons per year of recyclables, yard
debris and waste, and the population and employment data. The overall generation rate for
residential (single and multi-family generators) should be assumed to stay the same, and this amount
should be multiplied by the total population and the result subtracted from the total amount of waste,
recycled and composted quantities. The remainder can be divided by the total number of employees
in the City to derive an overall generation rate that can then be compared to the figure shown in
Table 1 for the number of pounds per employee per year. A reduction in the commercial generation
rate will mean that waste reduction has occurred in either the residential or commercial sector.
The current end result of this calculation, as shown in Table I, is 1,744 pounds per employee per
year, or 4.8 pounds per employee per day (on a 365-day per year basis). This is based on the
estimate of 4,500 current employees working in the City, but this estimate is fairly uncertain. A
range of employees, of 4, 100 to 4,900, could also be shown to reflect the uncertainty with the
current estimate. This range in the number of employees corresponds to a range in waste generation
rates of 1,600 to 1,910 pounds per employee per year.
Better data on employment in the City should be collected for the above calculation. Reliable data
on employment could not be found for the City, so a rough estimate was detem1ined for this report.
Error in this estimate or variations in the method used to estimate employment in the future could
easily mask a reduction or increase in waste generation. It appears that the easiest way to collect
reliable data on employment would be ask companies to report number of employees as part of the
alU1Ual business licensing process. This data would then be present in the City's files for future
research in waste reduction and other endeavors. .
¡Yaste Characterization Data
Port Townsend H'aste Reduction and Recycling Plan
2-6
Future assessments would be aided substantially by improved data on current waste quantities. This
includes the breakdmvn of collected waste by residential and commercial sources, and a more
accurate measure of the self-haul waste quantities being brought to the Waste Management Facility
from City sources- This data would allow a more precise calculation of the residential and
conunercia1 waste generation rates (actually waste plus recycled and composted quantities), so that
the amount of waste reduction could be tracked separately for these different waste generators. The
first piece of data could be gotten by asking Superior to keep residential waste separate from
commercial waste for one week each quarter, and reporting the amounts of each. Data on self-haul
is best gathered through a survey at the scalehouse, again conducted on a quarterly basis. This
survey should ask about the source of the waste (City or County) and type (residential or
conunercial) .
Future Monitoring Methods: The Washington Department of Ecology has recently begun an effort
to determine the best approach for measuring waste reduction. They are expected to develop a
recol1Ullended approach for future use.
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
The composition of the City's waste stream was estimated based on data from a statewide study
(RW Beck 1993). This data is shown in Appendix A.
The data shown in Table A-I was adjusted for local differences in yard waste disposal and
polystyrene packagÍl1g usage. Based on the success of the biosolids facility in diverting yard debris
and on visual observations that velY little yard debris remains in the waste stream, the amount of
yard debris from the State study was reduced to nominal levels. The amount of polystyrene
packaging from commercial sources was also reduced, although not as drastically since the
packaging ban affects only a portion of the waste polystyrene generated by commercial sources.
The composition data in Table A-I was combined with waste generation data presented in the
section of the report to derive the toIDlages of specific materials being disposed. This data is shown
in Table A-2. AltllOUgh this data should only be taken as approximate at best, Table A-2 does
provide an indication of the relative amounts of additional recyclables that might be reclaimed
through more aggressive recycling efforts.
SEASONAL V ARJATIONS
Waste Quantities
As in most areas, the amount of waste produced in Port Townsend varies depending on the season
and month. This is caused by a variety of factors, depending upon the source of the waste. For
instance, residential activities vary with the season due to seasonal changes in the population and
recreational activities.
In most areas, commercial waste quantities decrease slightly in the summer months due to sununer
vacations and other tàctors which reduce the level of business activity- In Port Townsend, however,
SLUl1mer vacations mean increased tourism, which increases the amount of business activity and so
Waste Characlerization Data
Port Tuwl1send Waste Reduction and Recvcling Plan
2-7
causes an increase in the amount of waste produced. Tourism may also cause a slight increase in the
amount of residential waste as well. These factors should explain the peak in waste quantities which
occurs in August (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 shows the monthly waste tonnages brought to the Jefferson County Waste Management
Facility by Superior. No adjustments were attempted for self-haul waste quantities, but the data was
adjusted for the different number of days per month. The data shown in Figure 1 has been adjusted
to 30-day months by calculating the daily average and multiplying it by 30 days.
Recycled/Composted Quantities
The amount of recycling also varies with the season. This is due to the combined impact of
variations in participation levels and generation rates for different materials. Interest levels and so
participation rates are generally highest in the spring, but Port Townsend again appears to be .
impacted by higher populations and business activity in the summer months. Data for total recycling
tonnages (from both City and County sources) provided by Skookum Environmental Services is also
shown in Figure I, and again has been aqjusted to 30-day months. TIns data indicates a continuing
increase in recycled quantities.
Now that mixed paper is being collected through the curbside routes, recycling tonnages will
increase in January. This effect has been documented in other areas, and is due to the large amount
of this type of paper that is generated from Christmas activities such as gift-giving.
For yard debris, strong seasonal variations in quantities can be expected. No local data is available
yet on this, so yard debris data is not included in Figure 1.
Waste Composition
Seasonal variations also exist in waste composition. This is due to the growing season, which causes
higher amounts of yard and garden debris, and is also due to changes in people's activities, which in
the summer translates to increased amounts of food waste, aluminum cans and certain other
materials.
CONCLUSIONS (FUTURE DATA NEEDS)
This section of the WRR Plan reports the results of a number of surveys that were conducted for tins
project. These surveys were conducted as precisely as possible, but it should be kept in mind tIIat
they were done over a limited period of time and so may not reflect seasonal variations or long-term
trends. Additional surveys should be conducted in the future, particularly surveys of the users of the
yard waste drop-off site and the recycling center (and possibly the Safeway drop-off site), if this data
is to be used in any critical planning efforts.
The calculation of tile baseline waste generation figures for future determinations of waste reduction
are based on estimated values taken from other areas. As previously described, the hauler should be
asked to assist in data gathering efforts to more precisely determine the amQlmt of waste from
TYaste Characterization Data
Port Townsend rVaste Reduction and Recycling Plan
2-8
450
Figure 1
Disposed and Recycled Quantities
400
-'-',-
350 + .,'0
300 '
.c
....
C
Q
~
250 ~,
J}---q
"
\ a
0-- --{}""-o//~' ,// "., //)1., " /JJ--.
. -"',,/ ,,'0"__'0-/ 0
',,--
',,--
~
",
'-,
"
'-.
~ A
/' '. / '
// . '. Â------------ // "'-- ~ ~
'\, // ~ //~ -~ .--/ /-/"- ~
"/ - ~/ t!. lJ:
\\ //
tJ:
150
.,/
/------A------I!i
lul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Noy
Dee lan-95 Feb
Mar
Apr
May lun-
95
lul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov Dec-
95
~
Q.
'"
C
Q
~
200
---0-- Waste -----å- Recycled
100 -~-
50
0 ¡
JOI1-
94
I
i
I
I
J
residential versus commercial sources. A survey of self-haul customers at the Jefferson County
Waste Management Facility should also be conducted to determine how much waste is brought there
from City sources.
/iVaste Characterization Data
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
2-10
SECTION 3
EV ALVA TION OF SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the report provides an evaluation of the City's garbage and recycling services.
WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES
Overview of City's Programs and Services
There are four main companies and agencies involved in the waste and recycling collection system
tor Port Townsend. 111ese are:
... The City of Port Townsend manages the City's waste hauling contract, operates the
biosolids facility, bills City residents and companies for waste disposal and recycling
services, and establishes various policies and procedures.
>- Superior Refuse Removal, Inc. (Superior) collects waste and recyclables from homes and
businesses in the City.
>- Skookwn Environmental Services (Skookum) processes recyclables collected by Superior
and conducts additional collection activities, and performs recycling education.
>- Jefferson County operates the disposal system for waste delivered 'by Superior, City
residents and businesses (self-haulers), and others. The County also manages the contract
for processing of recyclable materials.
Altogether, these organizations provide an excellent garbage and recycling collection system in the
City. Most of the important services have been established, although some of the recycling
progran1s could be used more fully.
Garbage Collection Services
City residents and businesses are currently provided with waste collection services by Superior, a
private hauler under contract to the City. 1111995, this contract was extended until December 31,
1997. Waste is collected Monday through Friday for residential customers and Monday through
Saturday for commercial customers. After collection, the waste is hauled a short distance to the
Jefferson County Waste Management Facility.
Garbage collection rates for single-family homes are based on volume of service, thus providing a
financial incentive tor recycling and waste reduction. Current rates for residential service is $9.60
Evaluatior¡ o/Services
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3~1
per month for weekly pickup of the first can of garbage, $11. 70 per month for a second can, $13.74
for the third can, and $15.84 for the fourth can. The increasing cost per can provides an incentive to
residents to reduce the total amount of garbage they produce each week The current maximum
subscription level is three cans, which only five households subscribe to (this infonnation is current
as of April 1995). Other households who occasionally have extra amounts of garbage can purchase
tags for their extra cans, at $2.50 per tag, or can be billed later at a higher rate ($4.14). In the past
year, an average of 33 tags have been used each month. Except for handicapped customers and
senior citizens, an additional charge is also assessed in cases where the hauler must carry garbage
cans out to the curb ("packouts").
An option available to those who recycle is to sign up for garbage collection on an every-other-week
schedule. For these households, the rate is $7.43 per month for one can. This is a tàirly popular
approach with Port Townsend residents, with one-quarter (25.6%) ofthe population, or about half of
the recyclers, using this option. This is an excellent way to promote participation in the recycling
program, since it provides a rate incentive that is based on an actual reduction in garbage and in
collection costs.
The brochure distributed by the City Utility Department, which explains the utility bill, implies that
this option is mandatory for those who recycle. The brochure currently states that "this pick-up
schedule provides recycling pick-up on the first full week and the third week, with garbage collection
on the other weeks." This statement was also misleading because the curbside recycling collection
schedule is not the first and third week. The brochure also implies that additional garbage service
(more than one can per week) is charged at $4.14 per can.
Commercial garbage rates are set by ordinance (Chapter 6.04 of the Port Townsend Municipal
Code), as are the residential rates. Commercial rates vary depending on the size of the waste
container and frequency of collection, varying from $ 11.97 per month for one container per week to
$160.90 for a 2-yard dumpster emptied once per week. Extra fees are assessed for more frequent
collections, packouts, excess garbage and dumpster rental.
Waste collection fees charged in Port Townsend are comparable to other areas for most service
levels. Data coIIected by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC 1992 and 1994) and the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Committee (WUTC 1993), shows that Port Townsend's
waste collection rates for residential customers and for the smallest category of commercial customer
are rougWy average for Washington cities. The City's commercial rates for larger volumes of
commercial service are higher than in many cities, but this is because the City has chosen, with
concurrence by the business community, to build the cost of recycling into the rates and to provide
volume-based rate incentives for businesses to reduce their trash quantities.
Mixed reports were received about the quality of service provided by Superior, but the City's Utility
Department is fairly satisfied that they are performing well and are fulfilling the conditions of their
contract with the City. Some of the customer complaints may be partially resolved by ensuring that
there are clear policies and procedures for specific situations that are both understood and followed
by all parties.
Field observations concluded that the garbage collection crews are not working at fidl capacity. The
collection crews were observed setting a fairly leisurely pace compared to crews in most areas, and
these observations were made in one of the busiest months (July and August are peak months based
Evaluation afServices
Port Townsend TVasle Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-2
on historical tonnage data). This observation was confirmed by Superior, who stated that some of
the routes are not a full eight-hour day. TIùs findillg is not an issue for the City to be concerned with
per se, except that it is important to understand that it should be possible to expand programs or add
new activities without Superior needing to add more personnel or purchase new equipment.
Superior's collection creWs appear to be effective in removing garbage throughout the City. Other
avenues for waste disposal for City residents and businesses include hauling it directly to the County
Waste Management Facility ("self-haul") and illegal dumping. For Port Townsend, there is no
evidence to suggest that the amount of self-haul waste is any greater or different than in other areas,
where up to 20% is directly hauled by the waste generator (see Figure 2). This waste is generally the
result of cleaning out garages, remodeling projects, or other special projects. For illegal dumping,
the only problems appear to be outside waste brought to the Port of Port Townsend and, less
frequently, to Fort Worden; occasional dumping of bags of waste into other conunercial dumpsters;
and the occasional complaint about an abandoned car or messy property. The amount brought in
and illegally placed in dumpsters at the Port is estimated to be as much as 10 percent of the total
amount collected.
Recycling Services
Overview: In addition to collecting waste, Superior also provides curbside recycling co~lection
services to single-fanúIy homes, transports some of the recycling drop boxes in the City, and collects
.~~~~~~=~~
", ,
".,
"~,' "c:,.
.:"C "c'i" """""" ~,'
'"
.n",""".." ~',-7,.-,,":;:~~'~,:s
,,',
"
, ,~,
'"," "",""'.
" ."
,",,-"'- ,",
-,
'~:':i<
Figure 2: Self-haul customers at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility
Evaluation o.fServices
Port T'Iwnsend ¡V,1SÜJ Reduction and RecycJing Plan
3-3
cardboard and other recyclables from commercial containers. Recyclables are hauled a short
distance out of the City to the Jefferson County Recycling Center. Skookum, which operates this
recycling center under contract to the County, processes and markets the recyclables delivered by
Superior. In addition, Skookum conducts some of its own collections, including maintaining drop
boxes at the Safeway store and at the Port of Port Townsend, collecting various materials from the
public schools and the u.S. Post Office, picking up recyclables from all County offices within City
linúts, and collecting paper from other commercial aCCOtUlts.
Curbside Recycling Services: The curbside recycling program collects recyclable materials from
single-family homes using a set of three stacking bins (see Figure 3). The materials collected include
newspaper, cardboard, milk cartons, mixed waste paper, clear and brown glass, plastic bottles (#I's
and #2' s), aluminum cans, and tin cans. Participants sign up for the recycling program and
subsequently receive a set of bins, and a lower price for garbage collection if they choose the every-
other-week garbage collection option. According to Utility Department records, about 55% of the
single-family homes in the City are currently participating in the recycling program. This is lower
than the subscription rates in many other Washington cities.
A survey of the curbside program was conducted for two consecutive recycling days (July 21 and
August 11, 1995) in the "Friday" collection area. These surveys fo1U1d a setout rate of about 33%
for both days. The setout rate is the number of households that had set out recycling bins on that
Figure 3: Stacking bins used for Port Townsend's curbside recycling program
EvaluaJian afServices
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-4
day, and is not the same as the participation rate because many people do not set out recyclables
every recycling day.
The survey fow1d that households were placing an average of2.7 bins out on the curb. On the
average, each household was recycling 3.7 types of materials. Bins were typically full or nearly so,
thus helping to increase the efficiency of collections. Collection of containers that are only partially
full leads to inefficient collections because the recycling truck is spending time stopping for setouts
that are less productive in terms of weight collected. The types of materials recycled, in order of
prevalence, are shown in Table 2.
The results in Table 2 show a natural break between the top four materials and the other materials.
This is likely due to the fact that the first four materials are well-recognized as recyclable and are
also commonly produced by many households. Other materials should also be generated by most
households, however, and may only require greater promotion and public education to increase their
contribution to the City's recycling rate. Materials which should be set out more frequently include
rnixed waste paper, plastic bottles (PET and HDPE), and cardboard.
Table 2
Occurrence of Recyclable Materials in Curbside Setouts
Material
Newspaper
Tin Cans
Aluminum Cans
Clear Glass
PET Bottles (#1)
HDPE Bottles (#2)
Cardboard
Brown Glass
Mixed Waste Paper
Tetra-Pak
Contaminants
Aluminum Foil
Magazines
Green Glass *
Percentage of
Setouts with Each Material
62%
61
59
48
29
23
17
15
15
14
6.7
5.3
2.9
2.5
* Green glass is not an acceptable material for the curbside program, and so could be
included with the other "contaminants".
Conunents received during the survey of drop-off center customers contin11 that additional public
education would increase the recycling rate of some of the materials. For instance, one drop-off
customer was signed up for the curbside recycling program, but was bringing plastic bottles to the
drop-off site because she thought these weren't collected at the curb. Other Port Townsend residents
also thought cardboard and mixed waste paper were not collected through the curbside program. All
Evaluation of Services
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-5
three of these materials were recently added to the curbside recycling program, and these people (and
likely others) had apparently not heard oftbe change. Additional public education may also help to
cut back on green glass and other contaminants.
The collection frequency of the curbside recycling program in 1995 was not every-other-week as
stipulated in Superior's contract, but instead was twice-per-month. Although perhaps initially
appearing to be a minor difference, the twice-per-month schedule results in fewer collections during
the year and, more importantly, a schedule that is difficult and confusing to follow. In the few areas
where twice-per-month schedules have proven successfuL they are supported by extensive public
education efforts and strict adherence to conventions such as the "2nd and 4th Thursday" of each
month. The education efforts used typically include an extensive system of lawn signs (put out prior
to each collection day by a network of volunteers), extensive mailings of calendars, and other
methods. Without this level of public education, this schedule is difficult to follow and participation
rates will suffer as a result.
The previous schedule was likely a major factor in hindering participation rates. One axiom of
recycling is that "confused people don't act". In other words, people will not participate in a
program they cannot understand. Worse, existing participants are lost due to problems and
frustration caused by the confusing collection schedule. With the previous schedule, there were three
instances during the year when the recycling schedule deviated from the every-other-week schedule
tllat people may have expecting. This occurred in May, August, and October. For these months,
there were two weeks instead of one between recycling collections. Evidence that this was a problem
was collected during by a set-out survey (see next paragraph) and by comments received during the
drop-off center survey, where a number of people mentioned regularly missing their collection day.
Evidence that the previous schedule was creating a problem in Port Townsend was gathered on
October 2 and 6. According to the recycling calendar, these were not recycling days even though
they fell in the first full week of the month. To aggravate matters, these would have been recycling
days if an every-other-week schedule was being followed, since the previous recycling days were
September 18 - 22. A survey of 60 to 100 homes conducted on October 2 (Monday) and 6 (Friday),
found that 7 and 11%, respectively, of the homes had set out recyclables.
Another well-known fact about recycling is that a substantial portion of the participants will separate
recyclables until their bins are full, and then additional recyclables will go into the garbage until they
have empty bins to fill again. The irregular schedule caused by the twice-per-month approach was
likely exacerbating this problem and causing a further loss of tonnage-
The quality of collection services provided by Superior appears to be acceptable although there is a
need for clearer rules in some cases. One person surveyed at the drop-off center said that he lived in
a duplex and had been given bins at one point, only to have these taken away later. Another person,
a renter in a single family home, was prevented from using the curbside program because Superior
stated they would charge $75 for the recycling bins if they were lost and wanted to get a letter from
her landlord- Discussions with Superior have confirmed that they require letters from landlords
before providing bins to renters, on the premise that renters are a high-risk group and this process
makes the landlord responsible for the replacement cost of the bins should the renters take the bins
with them when moving. This approach is not allowed by the City's contract with Superior, and it is
acting as a serious barrier for some people to participate in the recycling program. This practice
should cease immediately.
Evaluation o(Sen'ices
Port Townsend rVaste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-G
Taking of curbside materials by unauthorized collectors ("scavenging") is a serious problem in other
areas of the country but apparently not a significant problem in Port Townsend. There are a variety
of mechanisms that can be used to stop scavenging if necessary, but Section 6.04.040 of the Port
Townsend Municipal Code already provides an adequate capability to address scavenging should it
become a problem. This section of the code may actually require some clarification to be effectively
enforced, but it is not recommended that the City Council expend any effort on tlús Ulùess
scavenging becomes a problem. TIle clarification that may be needed has to do with the retèrence to
allowing persons to "occasionally" remove recyclables for "noncommercial" purposes, which could
potentially allow some scavenging to occur if a situation could be argued to be "noncommercial".
In general, the participation and diversion rates for Port TO\vnsend's curbside program could be
higher. No one factor could be found to explain why the curbside subscription level wasn't as high
as 80 or 90 percent of the single fannly homes, especially given the rate incentive provided by the
City and the overall convenience of the curbside program. Instead, it appears that many small
factors have worked to suppress or erode participation, with the current collection schedule and a
lack of sufficient public education being two of the more important factors. .
Recommendations to improve the recycling program include conducting a strong public education
effort and reviewing policies with Superior to ensure that they are not discouraging participation in
any way. The public education effort should include a brochure sent to every household (via direct
mail or utility bill insert), notices printed on the utility bills, and other promotional efforts. The
brochure would be an excellent opportunity to reach recyclers and non-recyclers alike, and to update
evezyone on the materials collected and other important information. These efforts are discussed
more fully in Section 5 of this report, which provides recommendations on public education.
Multi-Family Recycling Services: Multi-family buildings, defined in Port Townsend as duplexes
and larger, are eligible for recycling collection services although they must buy or lease containers.
TIlese containers can be bins or marked trash cans located next to the regular trash cans or
dumpsters (see Figure 4), or 2-yard compartmentalized dwnpsters (see Figure 5).
A survey of multi-family housing in Port Townsend was conducted on August II, 1995. This
survey was conducted by visiting most of the multi-family buildings in Port Townsend to detennine
their location within the city, check for current recycling programs, and check for potential outdoor
space for recycling containers. Some of the larger apartment buildings that were found to be
recycling at the time of the survey (as of August 1995) include:
Castle Court Apartments
Grant Street Apartments
Hancock Street Apartments
Claridge Court Apartments
Discovery View Apartments
Lawrence Street Apartments
After exannning the multi-tànúly buildings in Port Townsend, it was concluded that recycling
programs for these buildings should be handled in one of three ways depending on their size:
:- duplexes should be treated just like single family homes (i.e., one set of bins provided per tmit).
:- medium-sized buildings, from 3 to 8-tmits in size, should be provided with only a few bins to
serve as central storage and collection containers.
;;'valuation olServices
'or! To',P17send Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-7
r
"
..~ ::
!! !!.
~r
~..
fZ~,
1:~7:'
."~"~ "";~', ",,"...,'
, ,.."",-~--"""",,,
'.í~
I
~ .
Figure 4: Recycling containers (on either side of the dumpster) used by an apartment building in
Port Townsend
,.-.
, "'"
/
Figure 5: Compartmentalized recycling container at an apartment complex
Evaluation of Services
POJ"t T<>wnsond rVasto Roduç(;on and Recycling Plan
3-8
~ larger buildings will need compartmentalized dlU11psters or other special arrangements. 111ese
buildings should be notified that collection services are available and that they may be able to
save money on disposal fees through recycling.
The smaller multi-family buildings in Port Townsend consist largely of duplexes. Half of the multi-
family buildings (51 %) are duplexes, representing about 14% of the multi-fàmily population. All
but one of the duplexes visited are located in areas along with single family homes and could easily
be included in the current curbside recycling program. The duplexes should be provided with
recycling bins at their request, and should be allowed one set for each of the units. Alternatively,
they should be notified that they are eligible for the recycling program and infonned how they can
participate (i.e., by purchasing and marking their own containers, notifYing the City and hauler,
reducing their level of garbage service if possible to save money, etc.)
The medium~sized 1l111lti~family buildings consist largely of 4-plexes, plus a few larger units. Most
of these buildings appear to have originally been large houses that have been converted, and like the
duplexes are located primarily in single family neighborhoods. The medium-sized buildings
represent 29% of the buildings and 18% of the Port Townsend's multi-fan1ily population. These
buildings, the 3-plexes through 8-plexes, could participate in the recycling program using shared
recycling bins. For these buildings, a few sets of recycling bins could be centrally located by their
trash cans for storage and collection of the recyclables, and they could use a smaller container inside
their units for separation. This approach is consistent with the probability that their space inside is
too limited for the use of the usual set of recycling bins, and they will have to fmd smaller containers
to effectively participate. Although these writs can participate in the recycling progran1 now by
purchasing their own containers, providing them with the same bins as used by single-tàmily homes
will provide an easily-identified recycling oppoftw1ity. Alternatively, they can be inforn1ed how to
participate using their own containers, as described above for duplexes.
The larger buildings, including the Sea Breeze Mobile Home Park, will require special recycling
containers and collection service. The efforts of the apartment complexes that are currently
recycling should be publicized to make the other landlords aware of possible approaches and benefits
of recycling. The recommended fonn of this promotion should be case studies which describe how
the existing programs were set up by apartment buildings and how much money the
owners/managers are saving through recycling. Additional materials that could be provided to the
larger apartment buildings to help them implement recycling programs include sample brochures (or
sufficient copies of a standard brochure to provide to all units), signage, and possibly small
containers that can be used in the units for separation of the recyclables. Although the containers
will add expense to the program, other studies (Resource Recycling 1994) have found that providing
small containers for use by tl1e residents in their apartments increases the amount recycled by about
20%. Alternatively, infornmtion could be provided to the apartment owners as to the type of
containers that are recommended fòr use and where these can be purchased.
The public education program for multi-family recycling is especially important since renters may
not perceive a direct benefit to recycling. In order to achieve higher participation levels, the program
will have to be convenient, easily understood, and a variety of promotional activities will be needed.
Promotional activities could include appealing to the renters' desire to help the environment, special
recognition or awards from the landlords or managers, and an explanation of how reduced disposal
costs may lead to future decreases (or at least avoiding future increases) in rent.
Evaluation of,')'erl'ices
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-9
Commercial Recycling Services: Commercial recycling within the City includes businesses using
public drop boxes, especially the containers in the downtown area (see Figures 6 and 7), and those
who have cardboard and other materials collected separately (see Figure 8). One of the larger waste
generators, the Port of Port Townsend, has mixed material drop boxes that are open to the public.
Skookum collects illgh-grade paper from some businesses in the City. This program collects "office
pack", a mixed paper grade designed to collect the types of paper generated by a typical office. In
addition, a number of businesses in Port Townsend are receiving collection services from others or
may be directly marketing their recyclables. A survey conducted in 1992 for the County shows that
about 680 tons of scrap metal and grease were being collected by various recyclers (other than
Skookum and Superior) from businesses in the County. About 500 tons of this is estimated to be
from City sources, based on known clients and the types of materials collected by the other recyclers.
The commercial sector could be recycling much more. Despite the fact that recycling services are
available, only about 60 businesses out of 1,540 are receiving collection services. Many more are
using drop-off sites, but the effectiveness of this method is somewhat limited for businesses. Drop-
off sites for businesses are an important recycling opportunity, especially for contractors and other
companies without a fixed base, but for most companies tills approach will be limited by the time
and cost of sending employees to the site. Plus, businesses often generate materials in such volumes
that drop-off sites are awkward to use.
Of the 60 businesses currently receiving recycling collection services, only about 20 are recycling
materials other than cardboard. About 45 companies are using leased containers, primarily for
cardboard, while the others provide their own containers.
Lack of knowledge about recycling opportunities appears to be the main problem hindering
participation by businesses. Even some of the companies willch are already recycling are unaware
of collection services or more convenient drop-off sites. During the survey at Skookum' s drop-off
center, a number of companies were found to be unaware ofthe drop boxes in the downtown area.
Others remarked that those boxes were often fun. Other service factors may also be a problem, as
one business reported that they had repeatedly requested an additional recycling container from
Superior without success.
If commercial recycling is to be increased, current service problems must be resolved. Drop-off
containers must be emptied in a more timely fashion, even if only one compartment is full. For drop
boxes where one compartment is frequently filling up well before other compartments, an additional
container (such as a dumpster) for that material should be placed nearby if space is available.
To increase commercial recycling, the businesses could be mailed a promotional brochure and
general infonnation. However, a personal visit would be more effective, and ideally someone should
go door-to-door to drop off a brochure and address specific questions or problems that a business
may have. Whether mailed or delivered personally, the commercial recycling brochure should cover
the existing collection and drop-off opportunities in the City, and should also mention collection
services for materials such as scrap metal, grease, packing materials and textiles. Time allowing,
talking to businesses when the brochure is dropped off will provide a valuable opportunity to collect
infonnation on current practices, get feedback on the business' needs, and provide some inunediate
education to the employees or owners.
Evaluation o{Services
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-10
i-
t
I
Figure 6: Recycling containers behind James & Hastings Building
-
'.
" ,,<.
~~.,;;?.~~:,_.:_~:":':- -.,'::.: ,:>~:-:.¿i'~.-, ':':=.~: """"-'-...,--
i¡.~_i,~~5I~! ~> -.
- --.:, ~
.".-
.--,,'
'-,,-- '
-,,-.""
-,
---...
.~ - '.,
...
.."~
':.,-"
-"
,--'
Figure 7: Recycling container at City Hall
.,.
Evaluation of Services
Port Townsend ¡,Vastq ReduçJjol1 and Recyoiing Plan
3-11
:,"",.~._.-.-""...,........"._...,-.. - . - -..~_._-" "'.-' . --"-"""".- "'..--
. '.. ,. ,
.,,- ..
".
~:
:I-':.:.Jff'-¡~ :~:':"'.-"" ¡ '-~j,
Figure 8: Cardboard collection container in downtown Port Townsend
Part of the promotional information provided to businesses should include case studies of other
businesses and how they are reducing their disposal costs. One such case study should be the 210
Polk Building, which nms their own comprehensive recycling program. This building contains a
number of offices for different businesses, some of which attract visitors, and the recycling
containers are located in a central lobby area and so are convenient for use by tenants as well as
visitors. Materials are collected in bins that are clearly labeled (see Figure 9). One of the good
features of their collection program is that the trash can in the central lobby area is set back, less
conveniently placed than the recycling containers. The materials collected include office paper,
computer paper, newspaper, glass, cans, and polystyrene packing peanuts. Most of the collected
materials are self-hauled to a drop-off center, but the bin for polystyrene peanuts acts as a "bank",.
by allowing tenants to add or remove peanuts as needed for shipping.
Another reconunendation is for small improvements to the drop-off site behind the James & Hastings
Building. An inspection of the drop-off site behind the James & Hastings Building concluded that
the platform where the recycling containers are located should have a curb or rail to prevent the
containers from rolling or being accidentally pushed off onto parked cars. A recent visit to this site
also found that its appearance could be improved. The site had broken glass scattered around it and
the recycling containers were missing their covers. One of the covers was laying on the ground
beneath a recycling container. While a cover is not so ímportant for the glass recycling container,
the cardboard container should be covered during the rainy season to prevent this material from
becoming soaked and hence harder to handle and market.
Evaluation of Services
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-12
I'm a Hec"cl,..r
"' "..,-
""-""'?:-- ""'"..._".
.~ .
\
\
1
1
-; :3
, . tlill :' II I c' r
I' -'f-'L' ¡-
[@J
.", ..,., -
-i;iifk~f~~
"."
. "c....,";,..
Figure 9: Recycling containers in the 210 Polk Building
Additional drop boxes should be placed in strategic locations in the City to serve more of the
businesses, including the south end of the downtown area and in the uptown conunercial district.
Drop-Off Recycling Programs: A nwnber of drop-off opportunities are currently available in the
City of Port Townsend, including:
~ The drop box at City Hall, which is transported by Superior to the County recycling center
for processing and marketing.
>- Public drop boxes at the Port of Port Townsend and Safeway, which are serviced by
Skookwn.
>- Coyote Found Candles and Mailbox, Etc., which accept packing materials.
>- Various charities which accept clothing and household goods.
~ The recently-opened site for household hazardous wastes.
>- The drop-off center at the COlUlty recycling center.
>- SW AC/SW AP (see description below).
>- Commercial drop boxes in the downtown district (such as the boxes behind the James &
Hastings Building, discussed previously).
>- The Jefferson County Waste Management Facility, which separately collects tires and
metals for recycling.
>- The City's biosolids facility, which acts as a drop-off point for yard debris (see later
description)
Evaluation (~fSe;vices
Pori Townsend ~Vast(] Rùduclion and Recycling Plan
3~13
The drop-off center at the County recycling center is close to the City and is also convenient for
many City residents and businesses who may also be dropping off garbage or yard waste at the
Waste Management Facility. A survey conducted at this drop.offsite on July 21 and 22 concluded
that 36% of the users of that site were from the City. Of the City users, the survey showed that
85.3% were from single-family homes, 10.3% from apartments and the remaining 4.4% were from
businesses.
The SW AC/SW AP events are excellent opportunity to collect recyclables as well as promote reuse
and waste reduction. These events, which have been held in October 1994 and Junc 1995, allow
people to bring in and/or take away a wide variety of reusable materials and goods. People are
allowed to bring in or take away items for free. In the last event, only 160 pounds of garbage were
generated in the process of recycling or exchanging a very substantial amount of material (the exact
quantity is unknown). lllÎs is an important program that should be continued and supported by the
City, County, and their contractors.
The drop boxes at the Safeway store on the south side of the City is one of the most productive drop-
off sites in the County. This site is no doubt being used by City and County residents and businesses
alike, as well as by non-County residents and businesses who are traveling through or just visiting.
These drop boxes were recently moved to a different part of Safeway' s parking lot, which was
necessary due to construction near the old location. While the drop boxes are still in plain sight and
are just as conveniently located (if not more so), people should have been informed of this move. In
the survey of Skookum's drop-off center, at least one person was using that site because they were
unable to find the drop boxes at Safeway. Doubtless many others also suffered at least temporary
stress and -frustration thinking that the boxes had been removed altogether, before spying them in the
opposite comer ofthe parking lot. Signs should have been posted prior to the move, on or near the
drop boxes, and a sign should have also been posted at the old location after the move. Any future
changes in drop box locations or operations should be conducted with more care.
, "
"
In general, the drop-off system is well-developed (but see also the previous comments about the need
for improvements for commercial waste generators). As with other recycling opportunities,
however, there appears to be a need to "get the word out" more about the drop-off site locations and
materials accepted. In addition to conducting a general promotional program for this, informational
brochures or flyers should be distributed at the drop box locations. These brochures should be brief
and concise, but should provide all of the basic information on hours, locations, and preparation
requirements for the materials accepted. Even for people already using the drop-off locations, this
would be valuable infonnation tllat they could take with them for future reference.
Processing and Marketing Capacity: The processing and marketing of most of the materials
collected in Port Townsend is handled by Skookum. Skookum operates out of a County-owned
recycling center at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility. Comments provided by
Skookum indicate that they are currently nmning at about full capacity. The baler, which is used for
a variety of materials (aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and paper), is acting as the primary bottleneck
for the current capacity. To substantially increase the amount of materials they are handling, a
larger or additional baler will probably be necessary. Additional staffing may also be necessary if
tonnages increase substantially.
Skookum appears to be doing a good job of marketing the recyclable materials. Any difficulties they
are suffering are the same problems faced by others, such as the poor markets for green glass. They
Evaluation ofS'ervices
Port Townsend fVaste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-14
and the COlUlty have responded to problems like this with appropriate measures (by dropping green
glass from the recycling programs) and creativity (such as by continuing to collect wine bottles).
A change that should be made in the processing system is to revise the current practice of combining
aerosol cans with tin cans. These are baled together and marketed, which is an acceptable practice
for empty cans but may be causing employee exposure and environmental hazards in cases where
partially-full cans release their contents during compaction. Instead., partially-full cans should be
picked out of the mix and brought to the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Facility. The HHW
Facility has the capability to empty the cans and properly dispose of the contents, after which the
empty cans could be returned to Skookum for recycling.
The cUITent arrangement for processing of City recyclables could be re...exanrined when the City's
current garbage and recycling contract with Superior is put out to bid. In the meantime, the City
may wish to reexamine its involvement in the processing arrangement sooner than that should the
County or. Skookum propose a substantial change in their operations.
Yard Debris Diversion
There is no collection service provided for yard debris inthe City, but the City's biosolids facility
provides an excellent disposal alternative (see Figure 10). Coupled with the City's volume-based
garbage rates, the availability of a drop-off site for yard debris appears to be diverting most or
Figure 10: The City of Port Townsend's biosolids facility
Evaluation of Services
POI't Townsend ~Vaste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-15
almost all of the yard debris in the City. The biosolids facility is located on County property at the
Waste Management Facility and is operated by the City. Residential and commercial customers
drop off yard debris at no cost, and it is stockpiled for a short time and then either used by the City
or taken away by a private contractor. The yard debris used by the City is shredded, mixed with
biosolids sludge, and then composted to produce a soil amendment that is much in demand locally.
The biosolids facility began accepting yard debris in 1993, and the amount of material diverted by
this disposal alternative has steadily increased as more people have discovered it. The amount of
yard debris had increased to about 6 tons per day by the fall of 1995.
A survey of yard debris customers conducted on July 22,27, and 28 detenuined that 65.7% of the
yard debris brought to the biosolids facility was from Port Townsend sources. This is the equivalent
of a projected 1995 amount of890 tons. The survey also showed that 81.8% of the City amOtmt is
brought in from single-family homes, while the remainder is from businesses.
The biosolids facility is operating very well from a programmatic standpoint. It appears to be doing
an excellent job of diverting yard debris from the City, and demand for the finished product has been
overwhelming. Changes to the current operations should be avoided or approached with caution. In
particular, the idea of charging to drop off yard waste should be avoided, at least for residential
customers, since this may cause yard debris to go back into the waste stream or be illegally dumped.
Any tipping tèe charged to commercial customers should be lower than the solid waste tipping fee,
so as to continue to provide incentive for them to bring in clean yard debris.
Another recollUnendation that can be made at this time conceming yard debris is that backyard
compo sting and related practices should be promoted in any brochures that go out to single family
homes. Especially since the biosolids facility is currently receiving more yard debris than can be
used, this and related waste reduction techniques (such as mulching) should be encouraged.
MARKET ANALYSIS
As part of the evaluation of recycling services in Port Townsend, a brief market analysis was
conducted for the materials currently and potentially collected for recycling. In general, Skookum
has done a good job of identifying markets for tl1e materials collected from City and County sources,
hence the low priority placed on this part of the WRR Plan.
Transportation costs can act as a barrier for recyclables from areas such as the Olympic Peninsula,
but adequate volumes of recyclables are generally collected by Skookum to reduce these costs
through economies of scale. Should the City decide to market their materials through other means,
however, or increased competition for recyclables in the Port Townsend area reduce Skookum's
volumes in other ways, then Skookum' s ability to market effectively and the value of the marketed
materials could be significantly impaired.
Prices paid for recyclable materials have always fluctuated, sometimes changing radically within a
few days but typically changing over a longer period (weeks or months). These changes can be
predicted in some cases, but in other cases can occur unexpectedly. An example of the latter was the
unexpected decision by the Chinese to purchase u.S. PET (#1) bottles to provide an alternative
source of fiber following the failure of their cotton crop. 111is example also selVes to w1dcrscore the
Evaluation q(Services
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-]6
idea that the markets for recyclable materials are often global, especially for an area with easy
access to export systems such as the State of Washington. Because of the unknowns associated with
current and future markets for recyclables, the following analysis does not attempt to quote prices.
Materials Currently Recycled
Shown below are those materials currently recycled through publicly-supported programs. Otller
materials, such as packing materials accepted by Coyote Found Candles and restaurant grease
picked up by rendering services, are not addressed here.
Paper: Markets for paper have seen their share of fluctuations over the past year, with prices for
many grades increasing beyond most people's expectations before leveling off or decreasing again.
Prices for most grades have stabilized at lower levels, but even these are better prices than what has
been seen in many previous years.
An inlportant point for paper markets is that the long-tenn outlook is very good. A number of paper
recycling plants in the Northwest, including the Port Townsend Paper Corporation, are adding new
capacity which will increase demand for recycled paper feedstock. This increased demand should
translate to higher prices for a variety of paper grades, but at a minimum will lead to stable markets
and steady demand. The Port Townsend Paper Corporation is expected to provide a local market for
all the City's and County's cardboard when it is operational.
One grade of paper that bears closer examination is the "tetra-pak" material (milk cartons and drink
boxes) that is currently collected for recycling. A cost-benefit analysis for this material would very
likely show that the value of this material falls far short of covering its collection, processing, and
storage costs. Skookum has been collecting this material for many months, and tying up a trailer for
its storage, without collecting an adequate volume to ship to market. In fact, the collected material
was in storage for so long that it rotted, requiring Skookum to start over in their attempt to collect
enough volume. Even without this setback, the value of collecting this material is very questionable.
Although the market price (i.e., the price per ton) for it is fairly high, the material is so light that it
requires an excessive effort and cost to collect sufficient tonnage to ship to market economically.
The only good thing that can be said about the tetra-pak material is that it is popular with the public,
and it may be helping to increase participation and recycling volumes for other materials. In
addition, it would be very difficult to drop this or any material from the recycling programs once the
public has come to view it as recyclable. Instead, a possible solution would be for Skookum to call
upon the aseptic packaging industry or to work cooperatively with other recyclers to set up a
collection route so that smaller volumes can be marketed in a more timely fashion.
Glass: Glass markets have been stable for many years, including unfortunately the lack of market
for green glass. The problem with green glass is that many of the imported beverages, including
wine, beer, and bottled water, are packaged in green glass. In recycling glass, it is very difficult to
change the color, so that old green glass bottles almost have to be recycled into new green glass
bottles- Local demand for new green glass bottles is very low because relatively tèw beverages
produced in the U_S- are bottled in green glass.
Evaluation ofSerl'ices
PorI Townsend Wasle Reduclion and Recycling Plan
3-17
There is no near-term solution that is expected for the glut of green glass, and so Jefferson County" s
decision to drop tIus material from their recycling programs appears to have been the only sensible
move. Unfortunately, green glass has now become a case in point for the difficulty of changing
recycling program rules, as a portion of the public is still trying to recycle this material. Another
option would have been to develop an alternative market(s) for green glass, which Skookum has
done in part through the wine bottle program. This program appears to be increasing the public's
confusion about recycling green glass, but is a good adaptation to a bad situation and is also an
excellent example of reuse (waste reduction).
Other markets could be explored for green glass, and the Clean Washington Center (a division of the
Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development) has been a leader in
addressing potential non-container applications for old glass bottles. A report prepared by the Clean
Washington Center, the Glass Markets Infonnation System (CWC 1992), lists 70 existing and
potential non-bottle applications for glass. A few of these applications include:
~ aggregate or asphalt base course for construction of light-duty or low-traffic roads
~ art glass (blown art objects and other applications)
~ backfill or clean fill
.. bike paths
~ choker grit (underlayment for golf courses, etc., also sand traps)
.. marbles (for decorative, game or industrial purposes)
~ drain pipe bedding and backfill
.. foamglass or rockwool (insulation)
~ glass block
.. glasscrete (concrete/glass mixtures for various applications)
.. sandblasting
~ sintered mosaic tile
~ sintered glass for solar heat storage
~ terrazzo or other flooring products
Plastics: As mentioned above, a Chinese buying spree drove prices for PET (#1) bottles to record
lughs in 1994. Prices have since stabilized at lower levels, but markets for PET and HDPE (#2)
bottles have shown steady improvement over the past few years and this trend is expected to
continue. Markets for other forms of PET and HDPE and for other types of plastics have been less
interesting but may prove viable in the future.
Cans and Foil: Market demand for tin cans and aluminum foil has been stable in the past few years,
and this stability is expected to continue. The price paid for aluminum cans has fluctuated in the
past few years, as it always has, and these fluctuations can be expected to continue to occur. Future
drops in the market prices for aluminum cans may impact the viability of recycling programs
because the value of these cans helps to pay for the collection and processing ofthe other materials.
If cash flow and storage space allows it, aluminum cans may sometimes be stockpiled during periods
of low prices and later sold when prices improve- Although not completely reliable, the price
fluctuations for aluminum cans is somewhat predictable because it is partly caused by seasonal
patterns in beverage consumption.
Evaluation of S'erl'ices
Port Townsend -Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-18
Additional Materials Potentially Recycled
Shown below are the additional materials deemed to have the most potential for recycling.
CDL: Increasing attention is also being paid to recycling construction, demolition and land clearing
debris (CDL). This type of waste contains wood, concrete, asphalt, sheetrock, various metals and,
in the case of land clearing waste, dirt and vegetative wastes. Data from Table A-2 indicates that
approximately 707 tons of wood waste, 53 tons of drywall waste, and 359 tons of other construction
waste are disposed from Port Townsend sources.
One CDL recycling progranl was found in the City, a business called Waste Not, Want Not, which
sells used building materials and furnishings. Other CDL recycling activities which have likely been
practiced in the City include using concrete and asphalt as clean fill, and recycling of traditional
recyclables such as cardboard from construction jobsites.
Other existing CDL recycling opportunities are fairly distant from Port Townsend, and generally
don't pay for the material but instead charge a tipping fee that is lower than disposal fees to
encourage contractors to bring them the material. Thus, these recycling opportunities do not
represent viable markets for Port Townsend materials. Examples of these markets include
Woodworth and Company in Tacoma, which accepts asphalt shingles for a fee and produces asphalt
paving material; Recovery One in Tacoma, which accepts wood waste for a fee for conversion into
hog fuel and pulp chips (with Port Townsend Paper Corporation being their major client); and New
West Gypsum in Fife, which accepts sheetrock for a fee and processes it to remove contaminants
and produce gypsum which can be used by a nearby sheetrock manufacturer.
CDL recycling opportunities which may be productive for the Port Townsend area include:
)Þ. clean wood could be collected and processed at the biosolids plant in the future. A small
amount of land clearing wood is collected there now, but this material has not been actively
solicited because more than enough yard waste is currently delivered to this site to meet its
needs for bulking agent. If the biosolids plant develops a greater demand for bulking agent
(such as by taking in additional bioso1ids from locations such as Kitsap County), additional
amounts of land clearing wood and clean construction/demolition wood could be solicited
from contractors for conversion to bulking agent or hog fuel.
~ conversion of sheetrock to animal bedding or soil amendment. Either of these approaches
can provide a viable local market for a material that is not economical to transport far due to
its weight. Having an adequate supply may be a problem, but the continued construction
activity expected for the Port Townsend area DÙght provide a steady supply at levels
adequate for a small-scale project. A model for this type of project is provided by Thomas
Brothers Farm in SnohoDÙsh County, which collects and uses sheetrock for animal bedding
and then spreads the resulting mixture on their land. As a soil amendment, gypsum provides
sulfur (required by legumes and certain other crops), and moderates both alkaline and acidic
pH's.
~ crushing of concrete and asphalt for road base material or for construction of temporary
roads.
Evaluation o.fServices
Port Townsend Wasle Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-19
Food Waste: Food waste is one of the largest components of the municipal waste stream, especially
after yard waste and other materials have been diverted. Many conununities are looking at diverting
this material as a way to achieve recycling goals. In Port Townsend, an estimated 614 tons offood
waste is disposed (see Table A-2). As shown in Table 2, close to half of this material is projected to
come from conunercial sources that could be included in a food waste diversion project.
Table 3
Conunercial Food Waste Quantities
T e of Business
Groce Stores
Restaurants
Food Processin
Totals
Number of
Businesses
25
63
20
108
Estimated
Total Waste
tons)
396
408
63
Percent
of Food
in Waste Stream
31.9%
38.8%
28.0%
Est. Amt. of
Food Wastes
tons)
126 .
158
18
302
. :
Methods for diverting food waste range from venniculture ("worm fanns") to composting to
anaerobic digestion. In addition, some food waste is currently being recovered through delivery to a
local food banlc The Community Action CoID1cii reports that the Jefferson County Food Bank
Association collects about 20,000 pounds of food per month from various sources, with about 60%
of this amount coming from the Safeway and a few other stores in Port Townsend. This means that
about 72 tons of food waste per year is being diverted from Port Townsend's waste stream.
Venniculture has been used for a number of years on a small scale for food wastes through the use
of household worm bins. 111e worm bin approach has been found to be technically feasible but labor
intensive. Thus, this approach is effective only for a small percentage of the population, generally
only those people who see the value in using worm castings or who have substantial quantities of
food wastes to dispose of (such as people who use juicers or who make their own beer).
Vermiculture on a large scale is a new endeavor, but a project in the Portland area is demonstrating
that it can be accomplished successfully. This project is being run by Oregon Soil Products, which
is collecting pre-consumer produce waste daily from 16 Portland-area Fred Meyer stores. This food
waste, about 10,000 to 12,000 pounds per day, is taken to a facility where it is placed in large
troughs in an enclosed building, and the finished product (wonn castings) is ready 30 to 45 days
later. The use of an enclosed building is as much for climate and moisture control for the worms'
sake as it is for odor control for the sake of nearby homes and businesses.
The use of large-scale vermiculture in Port Townsend would preferably start with a dedicated
facility and simple feedstock. Materials such as "plate scrapings" from restaurants would preferably
be added after the facility had successfully operated for a short time. Even then, some separation by
tbe restaurants would be necessary, as it would be best to avoid meat scraps. On the other hand,
venniculture (and composting, too) could handle some amounts of waxed cardboard and other types
of non-recyclable paper.
Evaluation of Services
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3-20
Composting of food waste has been done tòr years by the City of Tacoma in a joint project with
Northwest Cascade, and more recently has been examined by studies conducted for Seattle and King
County- Composting of food and other wastes is a well-proven technology, but the recent studies
have examined mixing ratios for the food and bulking agents as well as other operational parameters.
Anaerobic digestion for food wastes is not an option that is being examined in this area. For other
materials, anaerobic digestion has been found to be relatively expensive because it is capita1-
intensive. In addition, it can be difficult to operate because it requires a stable feedstock, w1úch is
unlikely to be available in the case of food waste.
Finally, it should be noted that the above methods are not mutually exclusive. For instance, worms
have been demonstrated to have a beneficial impact on a composted sludge, by elinúnating pathogens
and reducing other problems.
The most viable öptions for tòod waste diversion in Port Townsend's case would appear to make use
of the existing biosolids facility. These options include:
... grinding food waste and mixing it into the biosolids.
... the use of a portion of the biosolids facility to conduct wonn composting through the static
windrow (or standing pile) approach (note that the facility is currently not designed properly
for this use).
... compo sting followed by finishing using Worms. The City may want to use this as a fallback
option should a batch of compost fail test standards for pathogens or other parameters.
Anyone of these options would require significant additional study before their feasibility, costs and
other tàctors could be properly evaluated for Port Townsend.
Evaluation oj'Services
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
3.21
SECTION 4
SOLID WASTE ORDINANCES, POLICIES AND CONTRACTS
INTRODUCTION
This section provides a review of the City's policies, ordinances and contracts having to do with
solid waste management.
CITY POLlCIES AND ORDINANCES
City Policies
Multi-Familv Units: One City policy concenúng waste collection and recycling classifies all housing
over one unit in size as multi-family. This differs from many other municipalities, where buildings
up to 2 - 4 units in size are treated the same as single family homes. As noted previously, a
significant number of multi-family writs in Port Townsend are duplexes which are both located in
single family neighborhoods and which have the character and appearance of single family homes.
As previously recommended, City policy should be changed to treat duplexes the same as single
family homes, while other multi-family housing should be included in the recycling program using a
modified approach.
Commercial Garbage Service: Current City policy for commercial garbage service does not require
a disposal container for every business, but instead allows one container per building. Occasionally
this policy is questioned, but it is recommended that it be continued.
Procurement of Recvcled Products: Current City policy calls for purchasing recycled products when
feasible- The City should, however, consider adopting a stronger policy and possibly a price
preference for recycled products. Purchasing recycled products provides a market for recyclable
materials and shows leadership which may encourage businesses and others in the community to act
in a similar manner. -
Nationally, 43 % of the cities have established policies requiring the procurement of recycled
products, while 57% meet the President's Executive Order Challenge requiring the procurement of
recycled paper, retread tires and re-refined oil (MWMAlUSCM 1995). The same survey shows that
the cities rated barriers to purchasing recycled products as follows (in order from largest to smallest
barrier): price; availability; lack of information; lack of a written policy; reluctance on the part of
purchasing departments; and lack of standard definitions for recycled content.
Although the lack of a tòrmal policy was ranked low as an impediment to procurement of recycled
products, it is still viewed by many as an important first step. The City should consider adopting the
procurement guidelines as shown in Section 4.3.1 of the Jefferson County Solid Waste Management
Plan. In recognition of tight mwucipal budgets and the need for fiscal responsibility, however, any
price pretèrence that may be adopted should be only a small amount (5 or 10% additional over the
cost ofllon~recycled products).
Solid Waste Ordinances. Policies and Contracts
PorT Townsend Waste Reduction and Recvcling Plan
4-1
TIle City could also establish a price preference for recyclable products as well. In other words, if
two products had similar characteristics except that one was recyclable (after it had been used) and
the other was not, the City should, as a matter of policy, be willing to pay slightly more (5 to 10%
more) for the product made from a material that is recyclable. This could be justified in terms of the
disposal costs that the City could avoid paying by recycling a used product instead of throwing it
away. The City should be careful to apply the criteria of being "recyclable through existing local
programs", to avoid advertising claims that are not applicable to the Port Townsend area.
Reuse and Waste Reduction: City policies and practices encourage the reuse of manila folders and
other durable office supplies. The City also supports SWAC/SWAP, an important opportunity for
reuse and waste reduction. In addition, there are other policies and practices that could be
implemented that would both reduce waste and potentially reduce expenses. These activities include
double-sided copying, substituting disposable goods with other products, using re-tread tires,
circulating publications (to reduce subscriptions), eliminating junk mail through requests to be
removed from mailing lists, reusing packing materials, and other waste reduction techniques as.
appropriate to each department.
Residential Rate Structure: The current residential collection rate structure provides an excellent
incentive for recycling and should not only be continued but should be promoted more extensively.
The use of higher incremental rates for larger waste producers (the "inverse can rate"), plus the
lower rate for recyclers who choose to have other-other-week garbage collection, should provide a
more effective incentive for recycling. The current participation rate in the recycling program
indicates that not all residents understand the current system and that more public education would
be helpful. Additional public education could be conducted through mechanisms such as notices on
the utility bills, newspaper articles, and other means at little or no extra cost
City Ordinances
Mandatory Recycling: There is. no mandatory recycling requirement currently in effect for
residential or commercial customers in Port Townsend, but some people interviewed during the
development of the WRR Plan felt that such an ordinance would be helpful in increasing recycling
levels. While this may be true, this approach could also backfire if not approached properly. A
mandatory ordinance is not being recommended at this time, but the options for this type of approach
are reviewed below for possible future consideration.
Possible options for a mandatory recycling ordinance include:
~ mandatory participation in recycling programs for;
single family residents - an ordinance directed at single family residents would have to
be drafted carefully so as not to discourage participation in drop-off programs (which
some people prefer), and to not discourage waste reduction. In the latter case, there is
typically a small number of people in every city who are reducing their wastes so
effectively that they are simply not generating substantial quantities of recyclable
materials. Ordinances which might take the fonn of a requirement to participate in the
curbside recycling program could be perceived as "forcing" these people to generate
recyclables, contrary to the more ideal efforts they currently practice.
S'olid Waste Ordinances, Policies and Contracts
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
4-2
~llIlti-fam~ly mùts - a requirement for apartment residents to recycle would be
ll1appropnate due to the difficulty in monitoring participation, but an ordinance could be
directed at ~wllers/managers and could require that they provide a recycling OpportUlùty
for theIr resIdents. However, it would be more politicaUy and tec1micaUy feasible to
tìrs~ increase I:nulti-family recycling through voluntary participation. Services currently
avaIlable and Il1 use by a few of the larger units should be promoted to other apartment
buildings as a potential method of cutting disposal costs. Once more apartment
complexes are participating in recycling and the success of the voluntary approach can
be assessed, then the need for a mandatory approach could be evaluated more fully.
businesses and institutional customers - about 20% of US. cities (including Portland,
Oregon) requiœ businesses to recycle, and this number is increasing steadily. No city in
Washington State, however, is using a mandatory approach for commercial recycling
progran1S. A mandatory approach would be a good method to bring the businesses'
attention to recycling and force the remaining businesses into the program, but volUntary
participation should be maximized first for several reasons. These reasons include
ensuring that the infrastructure (collection, processing and marketing systems) can
handle the additional volumes, and avoiding the potential for a large wave of negative
reaction. Hence, Port Townsend should provide additional education and promote
existing recycling opportunities before considering a mandatory approach.
»- disposal bans for specific materials - another form that a recycling ordinance could take is a
disposal ban(s), such as baruùng yard debris, cardboard, wood waste or other recyclables
from being disposed in trash cans or in the landfill. Preventing people from disposing of
these materials with self-haul waste would be difficult, however, given the proximity to the
City of the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility. A disposal ban may also lead to
illegal dumping, especially for yard debris. To be effective, a disposal ban would have to be
publicized and enforced, unless the City chose to accept less than complete compliance and
instead used the ban as an education tooL As with other forms of mandatory recycling
requirements, this approach could backfire and so is not recommended at this time.
Ifany of these options were implemented, an extensive public education campaign would be
necessary to explain the requirements of and reasons for a mandatory program. In conclusion, it is
probably more constructive at this time for the City to expend a similar level of effort on promoting
existing recycling opportunities and incentives.
Container Sizes Allowed bv Ordinance: Section 6.04.100 of the PTMC should be clarified. In its
current form, it appears to deny the option of using dumpsters for waste collection. This section
states "each and every customer shall provide a garbage and/or rubbish container; but in no event
shall said container exceed 30 gallons in capacity or 65 pounds in weight....". While tlùs clause is
not known to be causing any confusion and it's obviously intended to safeguard the physical health
of the collection crews while emptying residential and other containers that are manually emptied, the
ordinance should be claritìed to recognize the option of using dumpsters that are mechanically
emptied.
Polystyrene Foam Packaging: An ordinance adopted by the City in 1989 banned the use of
polystyrene foam packaging for food products. T1lÎs ordinance appears to be effectively preventing
S'olid Waste Ordinances, Policies and Contracts
Port Townsend Waste Reductioll and Rec.vcling Plan
4-3
the use of this type of packaging in retail food sales and so is probably also reducing the amount of
non.biodegradable litter sometimes associated with food service packaging. No changes are
recommended for this ordinance.
CITY CONTRACTS
Garbage Service Contract
Negotiation and Apoeals of Waste Collection Services: The process of negotiation, appeals and
notification of rights is discussed in detail in the ordinance and appears to be adequately covered,
Some concern currently exists about the ability to handle complaints from sources who are not also
property owners, but the City's ordinance allows for anyone who is a customer to use the appeals
process in the case of a dispute between them and the hauler over level of service. This point
appears to be welkovered and not in need of any changes at this time.
Collecting Bids on the Future Waste Collection Contract: When it is time for the waste collection
contract to be renewed, it should be put out to bid rather than extending the contract with the current
hauler because the City would potentially benefit from competition for their contract. Concerns
about creation of a monopoly in waste colJection services would appear to be unfounded. Loss of
competition is not likely to occur in the State in Washington in the near future, not with three large
national/regional finns active in western Washington (Waste Management, Rabanco and Lemay
Enterprises), plus a host of medium-sized and smaller companies, plus a fourth large finn (BPI)
recently entering the Washington waste collection market Collecting bids on the waste colJection
system wilJ alJow the City to get the lowest cost for their system, but the next contract should be sure
to maintain or add service quality criteria.
Recycling Services
The City currently has a number of excellent policies and programs for recycling services. AlJowing
households who recycle to sign up for the option of every-other-week garbage collection at a reduced
rate is an excellent incentive for recycling. Plus, the collection and use of the "1 % funds" is another
excellent program implemented by the City and County.
Recycling Tonnage Incentive: One possible problem noted with the current contract is that there is
no incentive for the hauler to collect more tonnage of recyc1ables. Although the monthly per-
household payment provides an incentive to increase recycling by adding more households, there is
no incentive to maxÎnÚze the amount of recyc1ables collected from each household. If Superior had a
direct incentive to colJect more tonnage for recycling, they would also have greater incentive to
provide high-quality service, to avoid changing collection policies, to provide containers to as many
people as possible, and to avoid other problems that might be discouraging fulJ participation in the
recycling program. This type of incentive would nonnally be provided by market revenues for the
collected materials. As long as the contract is structured so that ownership of the collected
recyclables belongs to the City or a third party (such as Skookum), future contracts should contain a
provision to reward the hauler in another way for each ton of collected recyclables.
Solid Waste Ordinances, Policies and Contracts
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
4-4
Implementation of a tonnage incentive should be delayed until the impact of other recommendations
can be taken into account. Otherwise, Superior may be "rewarded" for additional tonnage resulting
from the effons conducted by others (such as the City and Skookum) to increase tonnage. Once
these effons have preswnably resulted in increased tollilages, then the tonnage incentive can be set at
an appropriate level to provide adequate incentive without creating an excessive windfall for
Superior. It is also recommended that the tollilage incentive and future contracts be stmctured so
that the incentive payments directly replace pan of the current service payments to Superior, with an
upper and lower limit so the flllancial impact to either party is controlled. In other words, the flat fee
currently paid to Superior should be panially replaced by a tonnage payment.
Coordination of Recvcling Program Details: A system should be set up to provide greater stability
and coordination of curbside recycling collection rules. Skookum reports some changes have been
occasionally nlade without consulting them, causing problems in the processing and marketing of
materials. The Housing and CoI11Il1unity Services Committee should address changes in program
details as necessary. This committee should invite representatives from Superior, Skookum, SW AC,
and the County, and others as appropriate for the proposed change, to discuss and pre-approve any
changes in the recycling program.
Solid Waste Ordinances, Policies and Contracts
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
4-5
SECTION 5
PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMEN.DA TIONS
INTRODUCTION
This section of the WRR Plan provides recommendations on public education methods and roles,
which were developed through activities such as the evaluation of recycling services and general
observations. Because this section is designed to provide a central location tòr all recouullendations
related to public education and program promotion, there is some redundancy in this section with
other sections of the WRR Plan.
The public education recommendations were originally intended to be a minor part of this project,
but in the course of the project it has become apparent that additional public education and program
promotion is one of the most pressing needs for Port Townsend programs. Overall, the City has
excellent waste reduction and recycling programs for homes and businesses, but in some cases there
is a lack of knowledge of their availability or requirements.
PUBLIC EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Curbside Recycling
The following recommendations are based on observations of recycling set-outs, service evaluations,
and other observations;
.. better promotion of the curbside program is needed, included more information on the types
of materials and preparation requirements (i.e., that cardboard should be bundled, mixed
waste paper should be bagged separately, etc.).
.. the brochure for explaining utilities in the City could be improved by;
providing a clearer explanation of the rates and the rate incentive.
better promotion of the reduced garbage rate available to recyclers who choose the
every-other-week option.
better promotion of the recycling program (for all types of customers).
.. the recycling information currently distributed by Superior is a small (4" by 5") slip of
paper that is stapled to the recycling calendar. While helpful, this falls short of fully
explaining preparation requirements, and it contains some errors. On this slip, it appears to
say that tetra-pak materials are a fonn of cardboard, and the message for cardboard is
confusing (it appears to tell people both to put it into the gray bin and to b~U1dle it separately
and put it next to the bins). A better flyer or brochure should be distributed by Superior.
'uhlic Education Recommendations
'Or[ Townsend Waste Reduction and ReGycling Plan
5-1
Multi-Family Recycling Service
The following recommendations are based on discussions with apartment managers in Port
Townsend and other observations'
,
)Þ- apartments and duplexes should be notified that they are eligible for the recycling program,
including instmctions on how to purchase their own containers. .
)Þ- specific public education materials should be produced for larger apartment units. Although
duplexes can get by with educational materials developed for single family homes, larger
apartment buildings and complexes need instructions on material preparation that pertain to
their situation more closely.
)Þ- for best results, apartment managers should also be provided with promotional brochures
that they can distribute to their tenants.
Commercial Recycling Service
The following recommendations are based on discussions with businesses owners/managers in Port
Townsend and other observations;
>- businesses should be notified that they are eligible for recycling services, and provided with
instmctions on how to participate.
>- time and budget allowing, the best approach for the businesses would be a personal visit.
With some initial training and armed with the proper tools (information, case studies, etc.), a
high school club, the Boy Scouts or another volunteer organization could be a good choice
for this activity.
Drop-Off Programs
The following recommendations are based primarily on field observations;
>- participants could be encouraged to crush plastic bottles (like Snohomish County's "step on
it" program) to save space in their storage containers and in the drop site containers. This
would be consistent with the comment by one participant during the survey at the drop-off
site, who felt that they could be provided more detailed information and instructions that
would improve the recycling program success.
>- changes such as moving drop site boxes, even if only for a short distance, should be
publicized ahead oftime.
)Þ- a brochure should be developed for the drop-off sites, showing materials accepted, hours of
operation and other relevant information. 111is brochure should be distributed at each of the
drop-off sites and at other locations.
Public Education Recommendations
Port Tawnsend TYaste Reduction and Recycling Plan
5-2
General WRR Recommendations
The following recolTunendations apply to all types of recycling programs and/or to waste reduction;
.. case studies should be prepared to illustrate how some businesses and apartments have set
up recycling and waste reduction programs. These case studies could be printed in the
newspaper as well as distributed in other ways. Possible case studies include the Castle
Court Apartments, a duplex, the 210 Polk Building, the Courthouse, and other businesses.
.. a brochure or flyer listing the details of all local recycling programs, including how and
where to recycle or properly dispose of special materials, should be developed. This
brochure should be provided to key people such as the Utility Department, the scalehouse
attendant at the Jefferson County Waste Management Facility, and others. Information that
this brochure should contain includes;
a description of the collection services available to residential and commercial
customers, especially the types of materials collected and preparation rules.
directions to the drop-off sites throughout the City and nearby, including hours of
operation, materials accepted, and other details.
options for disposing of oil and other special wastes or recyclables, such as the recently-
opened Household Hazardous Waste Facility.
options for reuse, such as charitable organizations, Waste Not Want Not (for building
materials), the Household Hazardous Waste Facility, and other options.
directions on how to properly dispose of garbage and other wastes.
numbers to call for further information on a wide variety of related topics.
.. changes should be made to the newsletter currently used for promoting recycling in Port
Townsend. Although the Waste Watchers newsletter is well-done and widely-distributed, it
is apparently not getting the attention needed to properly publicize program changes and
other important information. Currently, this newsletter is distributed by Skookum to 3,700
homes and post office boxes, using the City's 1 % fund. Funds and effort should also go into
more basic materials that target specific audiences, such as brochures for apartments and
businesses.
.. more care needs to be taken to properly publicize program changes. Although a significant
amount of effort went into informing people that green glass was no longer collected, the
addition of certain materials (such as cardboard and nùxed waste paper) has apparently not
been weB-publicized.
.. better infonnation needs to be provided by Superior in cases where non-recyclable materials
are left behind at curbside or cOlmnercial stops. General1y what is done in other areas is to
indicate the problem on a checklist that is left with the uncol1ected materials. Superior needs
to print something like this so that they can quickly check off the problem, such "green glass
no longer collected" or "this is not the recycling week", and leave this with the customer so
that they understand the problem and are able to improve their performance in the future.
There is currently the perception by many that Superior is "too picky", and this perception
has caused some to drop out of the recycling progranl. A notice left with the materials,
Public Education Recommendations
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
5-3
which is standard practice in most areas, would both help prevent this perception and
provide education which will reduce future problems.
~ greater public education and promotion of recycling and waste reduction could be achieved
simply by taking advantage of promotional opportunities such as messages printed on utility
bills (this would be great place for program updates and reminders), articles in newspapers,
spokespeople at public speaking opportunities, and recycling information distributed at local
gatherings such as fairs. For fairs and other events, the best opportunities will be those that
draw significant amounts oflocal residents (versus some of the festivals in Port Townsend
which draw people heavily from outside the area), and events that already include an
educational component. Events that are purely for entertainment are generally not good
opportunities for distributing information because people arc not as receptive in these cases-
Two good existing opportunities are the County Fair and the Festival of Trees, where the
Port Townsend Public Works Department normally has a booth.
~ better communication is needed between the various parties with an interest in recycling. As
previously discussed, changes to the recycling program should be pre-approved through the
City's Housing and Conununity Services Committee in consultation with Jefferson COUl1ty~
Skookum, Superior, SW AC, and others. When discussing any changes to the recycling
programs, it should be kept in mind that changes are best minimized in order to avoid
frustrating participants by "constantly changing the rules". Ifpossible, necessary changes
should be held back until many changes can be done at once and can be properly publicized.
Changing the recycling program rules should be limited to once or twice per year.
, :;
Puhlic Education Recommendations
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
5~4
REFERENCES
AWC 1992 and 1994. Association of Washington Cities, the 1992 Solid Waste Survey, and the
AWC Ta.x and User Fee Survey for 1994. .
CWC 1992. Clean Washington Center, "Glass Markets Infonnation System, Application Summary
Reports", December 1992.
MWMAfUSCM 1995. National data shown in this report is from "Third Annual Report to the
Nation: Recycling in America's Cities", March 1995, by The Municipal Waste Management
Association and The United States Conference of Mayors.
Resource Recycling 1994. Article in Resource Recycling magazine, "In the Multi-Family Way:
Testing Collection Strategies and Examining Costs", February 1994.
RW Beck 1993. "1992 Washington State Waste Characterization Study, for the Washington State
Department of Ecology, by RW Beck and Associates, et aI., July 1993.
Waste Age, Sept. 5, 1995. Article in Waste Age magazine, "Aerosol Can Recycling Poses
Substantial Risk, BFI Says", September 5, 1995.
WUTC 1993. Washington Utilities and Transportation Conmússion, Report on program
characteristics, data current as of June 1993.
References
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
R-l
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATED WASTE COMPOSITION
APP:END IX A
ESTIMATED WASTE COMPOSITION
INTRODUCTION
One of the goals of the Port Townsend WRR Plan was to provide data on the composition of the
City's waste stream(s). Since an actual waste composition study, involving sorting and weighing
more than 100 samples of waste from various sources, was beyond the scope and schedule
limitations of the WRR Plan, published data was used instead to provide some indication of the type
and amount of materials present in the City's waste stream.
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Data from a State study, the 1992 Washington State Waste Characterization Study, was used to
estimate the composition of the City's waste stream. This study provides waste composition and
generation rate data for different sources (single-family residential, multi-family residential, etc.),
and for different areas of the State. The waste composition data shown in this study for the western
Washington area is reproduced in Table A-I. An average city-wide total is also shown in Table A-I
The composition data tor each source, as shown in Table A-I, has been slightly moditied to account
for yard debris program differences between Port Townsend and other cities in the western
Washington area. Research for the Port Townsend WRR Plan concluded tllat by late 1995, little or
no yard debris was being disposed with garbage. Thus, the waste composition data from the State
study was adjusted to minimize the amount of yard debris shown as being disposed, with the
percentages of other materials increased proportionately to make up for the reduced yard debris
amount.
The data in Table A-I was also adjusted to reduce the amûLmt of polystyrene packaging waste in the
commercial waste stream, on the premise that Port Townsend's polystyrene ban is eliminating a
portion of this waste. The remaining portion of the polystyrene packaging was assumed to be
unaffected by the ban because it consists of shipping materials and other sources that are not related
to food packaging.
Other adjustments could also be made on the premise that recycling programs in Port Townsend are
stronger than in many communities in western Washington, but this was deemed too risky witl1ûut a
clearer sense of the magnitude of differences between Port Townsend and the areas included in the
State study.
The waste composition data shown in Table A-I was translated to quantities of disposed materials
based on the waste quantity data shown in Table I of the WRR Plan. These figures are shown in
Table,A-2, and provide only as a rough indication of the potential for additional recycling. It must
be kept in mind that the figures are not specific to Port Townsend, and so may not retlect
demographic differences, differences in the mix of businesses, the impact of local recycling
programs, or other factors. Factors which could be particularly important in influencing local waste
Appendix A
Port Townsend Waste RedllcLion and Recycling Plan
A~l
composition include the fact that Port Townsend is a seaport with significant boating and boat-
building activity, has a high percentage of businesses catering to tourists (and a number offairs and
other events), and has a relatively higher percentage of self-employed workers (including home
offices) than is found in many areas.
Appendix A
Port Townsend Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan
A-2
Table A-I
Estimated Waste Composition for Port T owl1send
Estimated Composition by Type of Waste Generator
Single- Multi- Commercial Residential Non-Res. Total
Material~ family Familv & Industrial Selí~Haul Selt~Ha\l1 Waste Stream
Papet. 32.9% 37.7% 39.5% 15.0% 11.2% 28.7%
Newspaper 5.2% 9.4% 3.1% 4.3% 0.7% 3.8%
Col1"Ugated Paper 5.9% 8.7% 12.9% 4.4% 6.1% 8.5%
Computer Paper 0.0% 01% 1.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5%
Ot1ïce Paper 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% 03% 0.5% 0.8%
Mixed Wast., Paper 10.9% 9.8% 10.5% 4.5% 2.1% 7.9%
Milk Cartons, Other 1.0% 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
Non-Rccyclabk Pap.,r 9.6% 8.1% 88% 1.5% 1.6% 6.4%
Plastic 11.7% 8.8% 13.3% 6.9% 11.1% 11.2%
PET Bortles 0.8% 0.7% 0.4% 01% 0.1% 0.4%
HOPE Bottles 1.2% 0.9% 1.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.9%
LOPE Plastics 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Polystyrene 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7%
Plastic Bags 4.5% 2.8% 6.2% 1.3% 2.7% 4.1%
Other Plastic Packaging 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 1.3% 2.1% 0.8%
Other Plastics 4.1% 3.3% 4.1% 3.8% 5.3% 4.2%
Glass 7.6% 8.6% 4.3% 3.5% 2.7% 4.9%
Clear Glass 4.8% 5.4% 2.6% 1.3% 0.5% 2.7%
Green Glass 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6%
Brown Glass 1.5% 1.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.2% 0.9%
Non-Recyclable Glass 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 1.3% 1.6% 0.7%
Ferrous Metals 6.8% 7.2% 3.8% 11.2% 7.6% 6.6%
Tin Cans 3.6% 3.1% 1.4% 0.5% 0.1% 1.6%
Mixed Metals, Materials 1.0% 1.3% 0.9% 4.0% 3.7% 2.0%
White Goods 0.1% 1.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3%
Other Ferrous Metals 2.1% 1.1% 1.5% 6.3% 3.6% 2.7%
NOll-Ferl'OUIii Metals 1.1% 1.3% 0.9% 1.1% 0.7% 1.0%
Aluminum Cans 0.8% 1.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7%
Other Aluminum 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%
Other Non-felTous 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1%
Organics 25.4% 19.0% 24.5% 5.7% 2.7% 17.0%
food Wastes 15.5% 10.4% 18.3% 4.0% 1.6% 11.5%
Yard, Garden Debris 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%
Other Organics 9.3% 8.2% 5.7% 1.4% 0.9% 5.0%
COllStt'uctioll Debl'is 3.3% 2.0% 5.7% 47.3% 55.0% 21.0%
Wood Waste 1.9% 1.2% 4.5% 31.5% 32.0% 13.3%
Gypsum Drywall 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 2.5% 2.1% 1.0%
Inert Solids/Fines 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 4.4% 3.7% 1.6%
Other Construction Debris 1.0% 0.3% 0.6% 8.8% 17.1% 5.2%
Other Wastes 10.0% 14.1% 7.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.7%
Disposable Diapers 4.9% 6.2% 4.6% 0.1% 0.1% 3.2%
Textiles 4.3% 4.6% 1.6% 6.3% 7.5% 4.3%
Rubber Products (exc. Tires) 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5%
Large Bulky Items 04% 2.9% 0.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.7%
Other Materials 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Special Wastes 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0,9% 0.7% 1.0%
Hazardous Wastes 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0%
Used Oil 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tires 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Estimat..Ò Waste Quantities: L070 504 1,889 800 LOn 5,335
Pet'Celltnge of Total: 20.1% 9.4% 35.4% 15.0% 20.1% 1O0.0~iú
Table A-2
Estimated Waste Quantities for Port Townsend
Estimated Amount of Matenals by Type ofWastc Generator
Sil1g1e- Multi- Commercial Residential Non-Res. Total
Materials Familv Fan1.ilv & Industrial Self-Haul Self-Haul Waste Stream
Pape.' 353 190 746 120 120 1529
Newspaper 55 48 59 34 8 204
Corrugated Paper 63 44 244 35 65 451
Computer Paper 0 1 23 0 1 25
Office Paper 5 4 26 2 6 42
Mixed Waste Paper 116 50 198 36 23 423
Milk Cartons. Other 10 4 31 0 0 45
Non-Recye1able Paper 103 41 167 12 17 339
Plastic 125 44 252 56 119 596
PET Bottles 9 4 8 1 1 23
HDPE Bottles 12 5 26 1 3 47
LDPE Plastics 0 0 1 0 0 1
Polystyrene 8 4 15 3 6 35
Plastic Bags 49 14 118 10 29 219
Other Plastic Packaging 3 2 7 10 23 45
Other Plastics 44 17 77 30 57 225
Glass 81 43 81 28 29 262
Clear Glass 51 27 50 10 6 144
Green Glass 9 5 11 2 3 31
Brown Glass 16 8 17 6 2 49
Non-Recyclable Glass 6 3 3 10 17 39
FelTOUs Metals 72 36 72 90 81 351
Tin Cans 38 16 26 4 1 85
Mixed Metals, Materials 10 7 17 32 40 107
White Goods 1 8 1 3 1 14
Other Ferrous Metals 23 6 27 50 39 145
Non-Ferrous Metals 11 7 17 9 8 53
Aluminum Cans 9 6 14 3 6 37
Other Aluminum 2 1 3 2 1 9
Other Non-Ferrous 0 1 1 4 1 7
OrgalÙcs 272 96 463 46 28 905
Food Wastes 166 52 346 32 17 614
Yard, Garden Debris 6 3 9 2 2 23
Other Organics 99 41 107 11 9 268
Construction Debris 35 10 107 378 589 1120
Wood Waste 20 6 85 252 343 707
Gypsum Drywall 3 1 6 20 23 53
Inert Solids/Fines 1 2 5 35 40 83
Other Construction Debris 10 2 11 71 183 276
Other Wastes 107 71 131 67 89 466
Disposable Diapers 52 31 87 1 1 173
Textiles 46 23 30 50 80 230
Rubber Products (exc. Tires) 5 1 11 0 8 25
Large Bulky Items 5 15 1 15 0 35
Other Materials 0 1 1 0 0 2
Special Wastes 12 6 20 7 8 53
Hazardous Wastes 12 6 20 6 8 52
Used Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tires 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 1070 504 1889 801 1072 5335
Note: Shows disposed material only, is not intended to include currently-recycled maICrlals.
APPENDIX B
SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX B
SURVEY RESULTS
[NTRODUCTION
A number of surveys were conducted to gather relevant information for the Port Townsend WRR
PIan-
RESULTS
The results of the surveys conducted for the Port Townsend WRR Plan are shown in the follovÝÎl1g
tables. The following surveys are attached:
Table B-1, Curbside Recycling Survey
Table B-2, Recycling Drop-Off Site Survey (2 pages)
Table B-3, Yard Debris Drop-Off Survey (2 pages)
lppendjx B
Port Townsend Wasie Redllciion and Reeve/jng Plan
B-l
Number of Setouts Observed (1)
Non-Setouts in Same Area
Setout Rate
For Households with Setouts
Average Number of Recycling Bins
Average Number of Materi als per Setout:
Households with Material Setout:
Newspaper
Tin Cans
Aluminum Cans
Clear Glass
PET
HOPE
Cardboard
Brovvn Glass
Mixed Waste Paper
Tetra-Pak
Contaminants (2)
Ahuninum Foil
Magazines
Green Glass
Notes
TABLE B-1
CURBSIDE RECYCLING SURVEY
7/2l/95
30 setouts
62 households
32,6%
81ll/95
41 setouts
83 households
33.1%
A verage
36 setouts
73 households
32.9%
2.6 bins
3.7 materials
2.7 bins
3.6 materials
2.7 bins
3.7 materials
73.3%
63.3%
66,7%
50,0%
26.7%
20.0%
20.0%
13.3%
20.0%
13.3%
13.3%
3.3%
3.3%
0.0%
of the setouts
51.2%
58.5%
51.2%
46.3%
31. 7%
26.8%
14.6%
17.1%
9.8%
14.6%
0.0%
7.3%
2.4%
4.9%
of the setouts
62.3%
60.9%
59,0%
48.2%
29.2%
23.4%
17.3%
15.2%
14.9%
14,0%
6.7%
5.3%
2.9%
2.5%
of the setouts
1. Setouts = household with recyclables set out tor pickup.
2. Contaminants included an aluminum pizza pan, plastic foam and cups, non-recyclable paper and tood waste, Green glass is
also an unacceptable material, but is shown separately.
TABLE B-2
RECYCLING DROP SITE SURVEY
Results
All
Participants City Only
Total Nmnber Surveyed: 71 24
Percent from:
City: 33.8% 100.0%
ComIty: 60.6% 0_0%
Both: 4.2% 0.0%
Outside County: 1,4% 0.0%
Breakdown by Gender:
Male: 62.5% 52.6%
Female: 23.2% 36.8%
Couple: 14.3% 10.5%
Estimated Age:
Below 30: 12.5% 15.8%
30 - 50: 57.1% 57.9%
Over 50: 30.4% 26.3%
Materials Generated at:
Home: 85.9% 83.3%
Apartment: 2.8% 4.2%
Business: 4.2% 8.3%
Both Home & Business: 7.0% 4.2%
Also Brought:
Garbage: 32_1% 26.3%
Yard Waste: 3.6% 5.3%
Monthly Frequency of Use:
1.4
1.5 times per month
See also attached comments.
Materials Recycled,
City Customers Only
Cardboard
Glass
Plastic Bottles
Cans
Mixed Waste Paper
Oil
Newspaper
65%
47%
24%
18%
18%
6%
6%
Above data is based on velY small
number (17) of surveyed customers.
Table B-2. continued
RECYCLING DROPSITE SURVEY
Summary of Comments
Comments Re£ci\'ed from City Residents and Businesses:
Four participants said it was simply their personal preference or it was easier to use the drop-off center.
Two residents thought that the curbside collection days were every-other-week, and were using the drop-off center because they
had missed their collection day,
Two residents were moving, and so had to get rid of boxes or other materials right away.
One resident was signed up for curbside recycling but was dropping offpJastic bottles because she believed these weren't picked up.
One resident was signed up for curbside but preferred to bring green glass and cardboard to the drop-off center because "these weren't picked up"
(note: did not observe whether the green glass was wine bottJes or not),
One participant (bringing both residential and business materiaJs) telt that more information should be available, that Port Townsend
residents would participate more if more intonnation was provided.
A business customer would have used the City Hall drop-off, but the cardboard compartment was full. They were not aware ofthe drop-otT
containers behind the James-Hasting Bldg. or option to get their own cardboard dumpster.
One business telt it was easier to bring cardboard to the drop-otT center than to bundle it (but he still flattened it to get it into his vehicle).
One couple said they have curbside senice but heard that cardboard was sometimes not picked up, plus they couldn't find the Safewa)' bins
and drop-off box downtown was full lias always",
Two people said they needed more information about curbside, but also didn't mind using the drop-off center.
One participant said it was easier for him to use the drop-off because he has a lot of just 1 or 2 items.
One resident was signed up for curbside but was dropping off mixed waste paper beca use she didn't think this \vas picked up.
One woman said she was discouraged ITorn using the curbside program previously when, as a renter, was told she needed a letter ITorn her landlord
and would be charged $75 for the recycling bins if they were lost.
One participant said that she doesn't use the curbside program because her driveway is 1/2 block long.
One participant said that she uses the curbside program but comes to the transfer station tor other reasons (yard waste), so brings excess materials.
One participant said he doesn't use curbside because he comes to the transfer station anyway (usually for yard waste) and likes the drop-oir center.
One participant said that she is signed up for the curbside program but forgets to set it out until there is such a large pile that she prefers to
bring it to the drop-oil' center.
One participant said that he is signed up for the curbside program but misses collection days usually because he is gone a lot.
One participant Jived in a duplex, said that he was signed up tòr the curbside program for a while but then theTecycling bins were taken away.
Other Comments:
One Cape George resident said he appreciated the recent improvements in the drop-off center.
TABLE B-3
YARD DEBRIS DROP-OFF SURVEY
Weekday Results Weekend Results Projected Weekly Results (l)
All All All
Participants City Only Participants City Only Participants City Only
Total Number SLUveyed 100 57 22 14
Percent of Users From:
City 57.()% 100.0% 63.6% 100.0% 58.9% 100.0%
COtmty 43.0% 0.0% 36.4% 0.0% 41.1% 0.0%
Both 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Outside of County 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Percent of Material (by Weight) From:
City 67.3% 100.0% 56.4% 1O().0% 64.1% 100.0%
County 32.7% 0.0% 43.6% 0.0% 35.9% 0.0%
Both 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Outside of County 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Material Brought In:
Brush 51.0% 50.9% 75.0% 75.0% 58.0% 57_9%
Grass Clippings 25.0% 24.6% 15.0% 16.7% 22.1% 22.3%
Garden Waste, etc. 14.0% 14.0% 5.0% 8.3% 11.4% 12.3%
Mixture 10.0% 10.5% 5.0% 0.0% 8.6% 7.5%
Materials Generated At:
Home 83.0% 78.9% 95.5% 100.0% 86.6% 85.0%
Apartment 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Business 17.0% 21.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 15_0%
Both Home & Business 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%
Who Brought In:
Homeowner 73.0% 64.9% 86.4% 92.9% 76.9% 13.0%
Landscaper 10.0% 8.8% 13.6% 7.1% 11.0% 8.3%
Other 17.0% 26.3% 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 18.7%
Vehicle Type:
PickìlP Truck 74.0% 70.2% 63.6% 64.3% 71.0% 68.5%
Car 14J)% 15.8% 22.7% 28.6% 16.5% 19.5%
Flat-Bed Truck 6.0% 7.0% 9.1% 0.0% 6.9% 5.0%
Van 6.()% 7.0% 4.5% 7.1% 5.6% 7.0%
Monthly Frequency of Use 2.4 1.7 6.3 6.1 3.5 3.0
Average Weight of Load, polmds 226 267 184 IG3 214 237
Average Size of Load, (;.y. (2) NA (3) NA (3) 1.3 1.4 NA (3) NA (3)
NOl~s: I) Pr~j~ct~d valu"s for "ntir" week are an uwrago: ofwo:o:kday and w""ko:nd results, b..ed on number ofhou", that survey was conducted
(i.e., Saturday survey was 6.5 ho",. oUl of 16 hour. total tor weekend. and Thw-sdayiFriday was 2 days out of 5 total).
2) c.y. ~ cubic yards.
3) NA ~ Not Available.
TaMe B-3, continued
YARD DEBRIS DROP-OFF SURVEY
Allocation of Tonnages based on Survey Results
ALLOCATION OF WEEKDAY TONNAGE
Total amount (from Thursday and Friday) '"
Extrapolating to 5-day week =
22,580 pounds
x 5/2 (1)
56,450
Percent of weekday tOlmage from City = 673% or 37,990 pounds
Percent of weekday toIDlage from County 32.7% or 18,460 polillds
ALLOCATION OF WEEKEND TONNAGE
Total amount (&om Saturday) =
Extrapolating to full 8-hour day =
Extrapolating to full weekend =
4,040
x 8/6.5
4,972
x2
9,944
pounds
(2)
Percent of weekend tonnage from City = 56.4% or 5,608 pounds
Percent of weekend tonnage from Cmillty 43.6% or 4,336 pounds
ALLOCATION OF WEEKL Y TONNAGE
Breakdown by Source:
Amount &om City
Amount from County
Weekday Weekend Total Amount. Percent
37,990 5,608 43,598 65.7%
18,460 4,336 22,796 34.3%
Total 66,394
Breakdown by Day:
Tonnage on Weekdays
Tonnage on Weekends
Total
85.0%
15.0%
City only
87.1 %
12.9%
Notes: 1. Weekday survey conducted for 2 days out of5.
2. Weekend survey conducted tor 6.5 hOUTS out of8 total hours that tàcility was open, and only on
one day out of two that !àcility is open on weekends.
..
Je.ffèrson County Solid Waste Afanagement Plan, Final Draft
APPENDIX E
SEPA COMPLIANCE
INTRODUCTION
TIns appendix contains the enviromnental checklist as required by the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). The purpose of the checklist is to provide infonnation on the environmental impacts of the
activities proposed by this Comprehensive Solid Waste ManaJ!ement Plan (CSWMP).
The rest of this appendix is the Detennination of Non-Significance (DNS) and the SEPA checklist for this
CSWMP. Much of this checklist addresses only the general concerns related to the County's solid waste
system, but specific actions proposed by this CSWMP are addressed as appropriate. One or more of the
activities discussed in the CSWMP may require separate SEP A processes when implementation plans are
more fully developed.
Appendix E: SEPA Compliance
Page E-1
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
AI Sca/~ Director
FINAL
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS
DATE:
June 30, 2000
PROPONENT: Jefferson County Public Works
PROPOSAL: A Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP), which is a twenty-
year plan for the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Jefferson County. This CSWMP
discusses all aspects of solid waste management within the County and incorporated areas,
including waste reduction, recycling, composting, energy recovery, collection, transfer,
impart/export, waste disposal, and regulation and administration.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed Solid Waste Management Plan would apply to all
incorporated and unincorporated areas of Jefferson County
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Jefferson County, Washington State
NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is the lead agency for the
above-described proposal.
NOTICE OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE: Jefferson County has determined that the above-described
proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact an the environment, and an
environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This determination
was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and ather information on file with
the Jefferson County Department of Community Development, inspection of the site, and
consideration of comments submitted in response to the determination of non-significance issued
by the Jefferson County Responsible Official on June 1, 2000.
COMMENT PERIOD: This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2) (t). Jefferson
County has considered comments and testimony on its proposed determination of non-
significance issued June 1, 2000. There is no additional comment period.
Final Determination of Non-Significance
Jefferson County CSWMP Environmental Review Permit Application ENVOQ-<JOOOS
Page 1 of 2
Building Permits/ Inspections
Development Review Division
Lana Range Plannina
(360) 379-4450
FAX: (360) 379-4451
APPEAL Any appeal of this final determination on the basis of non-compliance with the
provisions of Chapter 43.21 C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) must be submitted in writing
before 4:30 P.M. July 10, 2000 to the Responsible Official, Jefferson County Department of
Community Development, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 for consideration by
the Jefferson Hearing Examiner. If the last day of the appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday,
then the appeal period shall be extended to the first working day after the weekend or holiday.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the County Department of
Community Development to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals.
J!\ ! 17 ,{Æßl J~~f
Warren\f. art, AICP, SE A Responsible Official
&/zr/cO
Date
Distribution
-'
Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
Jefferson County Assessor's Office
Jefferson County Department of Public Works, Attn. Richard Talbot
Jefferson County Department of Health and Human Resources
City of Port Townsend
Hoh Tribal Council
Quinault (Queets) Tribal Office
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Council
Port Gamble S'Klallarn Tribal Office
Olympic Environmental Council
Olympic National Park
Port of Port Townsend
Richard Hlavka , Green Solutions
Murrey's !Waste Connections
Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader
Peninsula Daily News
This Final Det~J.ination of Non-Significance was mailed to the above agencies and parties on the
~~ () day of ( // AI If --' 2000.
I
By .
¿~1~til
Title V~
Final Determination of Non-Significance
Jefferson County CSWMP Environmental Review Permit Application ENVOO-OOOO5
Page 2 of 2
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Applicant
JEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
AI Scalf, Director
MEMORANDUM
WaITeD Hart, AICP, SEPA Responsible Official
Gary A. Rowe P.E., Public Works Director/County Engineer
Richard Talbot, Solid Waste Coordinator
June 28, 2000
CommentS and Staff Response; Detennination ofNoIrSignificance, Case No. ENVOO-Q0005
Jefferson County Public Works
Proposal: The approval and subsequent adoption of a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP), which
is a rwenty.year plan for the unincorporated <I1d incorporated areas of Jefferson County. This CSWMP 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 dsposal, and regulation and administration.
]...ee:al Description: Jefferson County, Washington State
Location: The proposed Solid Waste Management Plan would apply to all incorporated and unincorporated areas of
Jefferson County.
The department has provided the referenced threshold detennination to the Department of Ecology, Agencies with
jurisdiction, affected tribes, and local agencies/political subdivisions and has notified the pui:)lic as required by the State
Environmental Policy Act Rules per WAC 197.11-340 and 197-11-510. The comment period ended June 14, 2000.
The division has not received any written or verbal comments.
Staff Recommendation: Based on infonnation in the record, infonnation provided through comments to the
Detennination ofNoIrSignificance, staff recommends retaining the Detenninarion of Non Significance issued 6/01/00.
Final Determination of the Responsible Official:
I have reviewed and considered the comments received regarding the referenced threshold detennination. It is my
determination to:
~ Retain the referenced threshold determination.
- Modity the referenced threshold determination.
- Withdraw the referenced threshold determination and make a Detennination of Significance.
. I /:1 t
L{ )L1h>t:.Þ(.1 lW
WaITen Hart, AICP, SEPA Responsible Official
c,/Z'i/óð
Date
FinaJ Determination of Non-Significance
Jetferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, ENVOO-OOOO5
(360) 379-4450
Building Permits/ Inspections
Development Review Division
Long Range Planning
FAX: (360) 3t9-4451
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A.
BACKGROUND
1.
Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
2.
Name of applicant:
Jefferson County
3.
Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Project Manager:
Richard Talbot
Solid Waste Coordinator
Jefferson County Dept. of Public Works
(360) 385-9243
'l
Consultant:
Rick Hlavka
Green Solutions
PO Box 680
South Prairie, W A 98385
(360) 897-9533
4.
Date checklist prepared:
February 10, 2000
5.
Agency requesting checklist:
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). State law regarding solid waste
management plans requires a SEP A checklist.
6.
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Jefferson County CSWMP recommends various solid waste management
programs to be developed and implemented over the next five years.
7.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal. If yes, explain.
Yes. State law requires solid waste management plans to be reviewed every five
years, and updated if necessary.
8.
List any environmental infonnation you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
NA
AppendixE: SEPA Checklist
Page E-6
12.
Jefferson Culinty Solid Waste .Management Plan, Final Draft
9.
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
10.
List any govenunent approvals or penllits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
In order to participate in the CSWMP, each local jurisdiction will need to approve
and adopt the CSWMP. These jurisdictions include Jefferson County, the City of
Port Townsend, and possibly the Hoh, Quinault, and Jamestown S' Kiallam Tribal
Councils.
Building and other permits may be necessary to implement a few of the
recommendations being made by this CSWMP (such as the possible expansion of Port
Townsend's Biosolids Compost Facility), but these permits (and an environmental
review process, if necessary) will be sought through separate processes at a later date.
II.
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 tlùs
page (Lead agencies may modifY this fonn to include additional specific information on
project description).
The Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (CSWMP) 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 CSWMP.
This CSWMP 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.
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 110t required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
The activities proposed by this CSWMP will generally take place throughout
Jefferson County, although a few of the recommendations are for specific areas or
sites.
-
.JppendixE: SEPA Checklist
Page E-7
f.
g.
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvfanagement Plan, Final Draft
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
1.
EARTH
a.
General description of the site (circle one);
Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other -.
The specific sites impacted by the CSWMP's
recommendations are generally the occupied areas in the
County, which are flat or rolling.
b.
What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Does not apply.
~',' l
i
, ,
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 fannland.
Does not apply.
c.
Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate viciníty? If so, describe.
Does not apply.
e.
Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities
of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Does not apply.
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or building)?
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEP.4 Checklist
Page E-8
3.
a.
Jefferson County ,)'olid Waste lvlanagement Plan, Final Draft
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
h.
Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,
or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Does not apply.
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
CSWMP.
b.
Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
c.
Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other
impacts to air, if any.
Does not apply.
WATER
SUlface:
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.
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.
AppendixE: SEPA Checklist
Page E-9
Jefferson County Solid JeVaste lvfanagement Plan. Final Draft
b.
2)
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
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 offill material.
Does not apply.
4)
Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals
or diversions? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
. "
.i
5)
Does the proposal lie within a lOa-year floodplain?
If so, note location on the site plan.
Does not apply.
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.
No.
Ground:
1)
Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
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.
AppendixE: SEPA Checkli,<d:
Page E-10
b.
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvlanagel1lent Plan, FInal Draft
c.
Water Runoff (inc1uding storm water):
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
I)
Describe the source of runoff (including storm water)
and method of collection and disposal, if any (include
quantities, ifknown). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Does not apply.
2)
Could waste materials enter ground or surfuce waters?
If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
d.
Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
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
crop or gram
wet soil plal1ts: 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.
What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEPA Checklist
Page E-11
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
EV ALVA TION FOR
AGENCY USE ONL Y
c.
List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply.
d.
Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any.
Does not apply.
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.
c.
Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Does not apply.
d.
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEPA Checklist
Page E-12
2)
Jefferson County Solid Waste Alanagement Plan, Final Draft
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
6.
ENERGY AND NA rURAL 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 CSWMP 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.
No.
c.
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.
7.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL rH
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 CSWMP encourages continuing and
possibly expanding a related activity (moderate risk waste
collections) that should help prevent this type of problem
in the future.
I)
Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Does not apply.
Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
Does not apply.
AppendÜ: E: SEPA Checklist
Page E-13
Jefferson Coun(y Solid Waste J,fanagement Plan, Pinal Draft
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
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.
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.
3)
Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
8.
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a.
What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Does not apply.
b.
Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Does not apply.
c.
Describe any structures on the site.
Does not apply.
d.
Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Does not apply.
e.
What is the Current zoning classification of the site?
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEP A Checklist
Page E-14
a.
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Fïnal Draft
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
f.
What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Does not apply.
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Does not apply.
h.
Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Does not apply.
1.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
Does not apply.
J.
Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
Does not apply.
k.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
1.
Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Does not apply.
9.
HOUSING
Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
;lpendixE: 5,'EPA Checklist
PageE-15
a.
b.
c.
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
b.
Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
htdicate 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.
11.
LIGHT AND GLARE
What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time
of day would it mainly occur?
Does not apply.
Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
Does not apply.
What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEPA Checkli,IT
Page E-16
a.
b.
c.
Jefferson County Solid Waste lvlanagement Plan, Final Draft
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE aNL Y
d.
Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
if any:
Does not apply.
12.
RECREATION
a.
What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in
the immediate vicinity?
Does not apply.
b.
Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses?
If so, describe.
Does not apply.
e.
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.
13.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
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.
Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next tot he site.
Does not apply.
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
Appendix E: 5"'EP A Checklist
Page E-17
f
g-
Jefferson County Solid Waste Afanagement Plan, Final Dra./ì
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
14.
TRANSPORT A nON
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.
b.
Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Does not apply.
c.
How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
Does not apply.
d.
Will the proposal requiTe 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.
e.
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity ot) water,
rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? Ifknown, indicate when peak volumes would
occur.
Implementing the CSWMP 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).
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEP A Checklist
Page £-18
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONL Y
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.
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.
c.
SIGNA TURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Á~ Q. ~..
Date Submitted:
2 - Z8- 2000
Appendix E: SEP A ChecklisI
Page E-19
Jefferson County Solid Waste Afanagement Plan. Final Draft
D.
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at
a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
1.
How would the proposal be. likely to increase discharge to water; emlSSlOns 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
CSWMP 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. (For more information about the beneficial impacts of
recycling to air and water, the report, "Recyclables in the Wrong Can", may be
downloaded from the News and Events page of the website for the Washington State
Recycling Association, www.wsra.net). No substantial increases or decreases in noise
levels are expected as a result ofthe CSWMP'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 CSWMP, 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 (the report mentioned above, "Recyclables
in the Wrong Can", also contains information about energy savings that result from
recycling).
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Does not apply.
Appendix E: SEP A Checklist
Page £-20
Jefferson County Solid Waste Management Plan, Final Draft
4.
How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or tmder 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 fannlands?
No substantial impacts, either positive or negative, to environmentally sensitive or
other protected areas are expected to result from the recommendations in the
CSWMP.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Does not apply.
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 CSWMP.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Does 110t 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:
Does not apply.
7.
Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The CSWMP was prepared in response to a State requirement for the proper
management of solid waste, and it complies with all applicable local, state and federal
laws and requirements regarding protection of the environment.
Appendix .8: SEPA. Checklist
Page E-21