HomeMy WebLinkAbout31-11 - Res. Amending Res. 15-08 Adopting Amended Mason County Solid Waste Management PlanBoard of County Commissioners
Mason County Washington
Resolution number - % —t\
A resolution adopting the amended Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan
Amending resolution number 15-08
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, as
adopted in 2008, was to provide decision makers in Mason County with the guidelines
needed to implement, monitor, and evaluate solid waste activities, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 70.95, Mason
County and the City of Shelton are required to prepare a solid waste management plan,
and
WHEREAS, in RCW Chapter 70.95, section 110 requires that existing plans be reviewed
and amended or revised every five years, and
WHEREAS, the Mason County Solid Waste Advisory Committee has overseen the
development of the 2007 Solid Waste Management Plan, and the preceding 1998 Plan,
and recommends the local adoption of the proposed changes to Chapter 3 and
incorporation of Chapter 7, and
WHEREAS, the Mason County Solid Waste Advisory Committee has held numerous
public meetings, and
WHEREAS, the provisions of RCW 70.95 allow for the incorporation of Hazardous
Waste Management within the Solid Waste Management Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Hazardous Waste Plan of 1991 has been updated for inclusion as
Chapter 7 to the Solid Waste Management Plan and,
WHEREAS, The City of Shelton has participated in the amendment process, consistent
with the letter of concurrence signed in 2007, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been available for public review as well as
review by the Department of Ecology, and
WHEREAS, the proposed Chapter 3 amendments accurately reflect the programmatic
changes which have occurred since the adoption of the 2007 Solid Waste Management
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements for
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act by issuance of a
Determination of Non -Significance in September of 2006, and
Resolution No. 3)
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Mason County Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts the Mason County
Solid Waste Management Plan as amended, referenced here as Attachment "A"
Dated this 3rd day of May, 2011
ATTEST:
Pen
nnon Goudy, Clerkoard
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tim WhiiereWnuef Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney u, 4)-1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
A raS
Tim S i - don, Commissioner
K. Lin e ; Commissio
Mason
Solid AV
ro
ns.agement Platt
Attachment A
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 ROLE AND PURPOSE
The Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) provides direction for
solid waste activities in Mason County. This document was prepared in response
to the Solid Waste Management, Reduction, and Recycling Act, Chapter 70 95 of
the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that 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" (RCW 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). This plan is an update (officially an 'amendment")
of the 1998 SWMP.
1 2 PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
As indicated above, RCW 70.95 delegates the authority and responsibility for the
development of solid waste management plans to counties. Other governing
bodies (cities, tribes, and Federal agencies) may participate in the County's
planning process or conduct their own plans. State law allows cities to 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 Shelton is the only incorporated municipality in Mason County. As in
years past, they have agreed to participate in the plan that the County prepares.
In addition, because this SWMP may impact their current and future solid waste
management options, careful review of this plan is recommended for the
Skokomish Indian Tribe and the Squaxin Island Tribe.
1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
This Solid Waste Management Plan must function within a framework created by
other plans and programs, including policy documents and studies that deal with
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
related matters. The most important of these local documents is the Mason
County Comprehensive Plan (adopted in April 1996 and updated in 2005) and
the Mason County Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan (adopted in April 1991
and updated in October 2003).
An important State document that provides guidance and direction in the
development of the SWMP is the Beyond Waste Plan, the State's solid and
hazardous waste management plan (adopted in November 2004). The Beyond
Waste Plan (BWP) shifts the direction of solid waste planning away from a focus
o n management and towards a vision of waste prevention Counties are not
mandated to follow the initiatives outlined in the BWP, but are strongly
e ncouraged to pursue initiatives and recommendations that are feasible in their
jurisdictions. The BWP identifies five initiatives, or areas of focus:
1. Moving Toward Beyond Waste with Industries
2. Reducing Small -Volume Hazardous Materials and Waste
3. Increasing Recycling for Organic Materials
4. Making Green Building Practices Mainstream
5. Measuring Progress Towards Beyond Waste
In addition to the above initiatives, the BWP identifies a number of issues that
affect the current system of solid and hazardous waste management.
Implementing the Beyond Waste P/an will take several years. Thus, the BWP
o utlines the following issues affecting current waste handling to focus on in the
meantime to move its vision forward:
Current Hazardous Waste System Issues
1. Pollution Prevention
2. Compliance with Dangerous Waste Regulations
3. Permitting/Corrective Action
Current Solid Waste System Issues
1. Solid Waste Authorities and Local Planning Issues
2. Recycling and the Technical Nutrient Cycle
3. Disposal —Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
A complete list of the BWP recommendations for both the initiatives and the
system issues is contained in Appendix A. Recognizing that the initiatives and
system issues contained in the BWP are not designed to be achieved either in
their entirety or in the time span of this plan, a concerted effort was made to
include recommendations that are viable in Mason County in the creation of this
SWMP.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
1.4 PREVIOUS SOLID WASTE PLANS
Washington State enacted RCW 70.95.080 (requiring counties to develop solid
waste plans) in 1969, and Mason County adopted their first plan in 1971. A
revision to the original plan was adopted in 1992, with an additional update in
1998. Table 1.1 shows the recommendations from the most recent plan (1998)
and the status of these recommendations.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE Li STATUS
OF RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
THE REVI
LAN
(1998)
Current
Status
CH. 3 Waste Reduction
3.1
Public
education
should
be
a
high
priority
in
Ongoing
both
Mason
County
and
the
City
of Shelton.
County
and
City
should
continue
to support
and
Adult
enhance
the
existing
should
school
program.
continue
to
focus
supplement
education
on
waste
each
reduction
program
new
waste
practices
reduction
and
to
and
On
-site
recycling
composting
expanded
education.
program
and
programs
included
implemented.
should
as
a
topic
continue
for
public
to
be
3.2
The
County
and
City
should
by
continue
to
support
waste
reduction
for
adopting
resolutions
practices
Federal
senators
and
of
forward
support
and
representatives.
these
waste
to
State
reduction
and
This
Not
implemented:
Staff
issue
based
are
to
the
providing
Commission
for
consideration.
support
resolution
to
could
address
legislation,
future
legislation,
or
changes
existing
packaging
labeling
deposits,
requirements,
material
market
development
or
other
topics.
3.3
In
addition
to
the
bi-weekly
waste
pick-up
Implemented
implemented
service
with
additional
structures
considered.
the
that
City
incentives
supporting
was
curbside
and
recycling
waste
alternative
reduction
in
program,
conjunction
rate
could
be
3.4
Mason
County
should
continue
to
seek
that
waste
support
Ongoing
collection
waste
reduction
rate
structure
in
the
County.
programs
3.5
The
County
and
City
need
to
take
the
steps
Implemented
for
City
offices,
not
necessary
programs.
City
businesses
to
Providing
expand
be
to
implement
in-house
assistance
such
waste
to
County
programs
reduction
and
implemented
(but
for
not
County.
actively)
Ongoing
should
also
considered.
3.6
Consideration
should
be
given
implemented
to
other
as
waste
Ongoing
reduction
necessary
programs
and
feasible.
and
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
3.7 Current interlocal agreement between the City
and County should be maintained to control
program costs and continue program
coordination.
O ngoing
3.8
Public education should continue to be a
primary element of program maintenance in
the City and the County Education associated
with recycling programs should be focused on
improving and expanding participation as well
as generating feedback from the public.
O ngoing
3.9
Grant funding for recycling programs should
be sought to supplement County funding and
support new staff and programs. Additional
funding options should be explored.
O ngoing
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 1.1 STATUS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
THE
VI
U
(1998)
CH. 3 Waste Reduction
Current
S
Status
3.10
Additional
drop
box stations
should
be
future
established
consideration
[recycling]
as
needed.
should
Other
include:
locations
shopping
for
Considered
but
implemented
areas,
fire
and
police
stations,
and
Skokomish
not
Tribal
lands
The
County
should
encourage
from
the
program
participation
private
sector.
3.11
The
City
of
Shelton
should
evaluate
its
to
curbside
for
future
program
expansion
establish
The
City
effectiveness
should
Ongoing
from
the
encourage
program
participation
private
sector.
3.12
development
The
County
should
for
designated
encourage
and
market
potentially
Not
implemented
designated
recyclable
materials.
3.13
The
County
and
City
should
continue
to
perform
and
quantities
an
annual
of
nonresidential
tabulation
of
the
waste
source
Not
implemented.
feasible)
(Not
currently
in
Mason
County.
generated
3.14
The
County
and
City
should
continue
to
support
and
encourage
.private
efforts
to
from
collect
recyclables
nonresidential
A
list
recycling
Not
implemented
sources.
of
be
nonresidential
services
should
compiled,
updated
and
and
made
industry.
available
to
County
and
City
businesses
3.15
A
yard
waste
compost
program
should
be
evaluated.
is
feasible,
If
a
program
collection
of
yard
If
Backyard
implemented.
waste
should
be
through
drop
boxes.
composting
Drop
box
unfeasible,
an
educational
program
promoting
collection
evaluation
be
implemented.
small-scale
on
-site
Additional
composting
opportunities
should
and
considered
for
transfer
should
be
methods
collection
and
evaluated.
3.16
Continued
information
education
public
and
be
devised
to
target
broad
programs
should
a
Ongoing
spectrum
Specific
attention
of
the
City
should
and
continue
County
population.
to
be
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
devoted to school programs.
3.17
Evaluation of the waste reduction, recycling
and education programs should continue to
be a routine part of the public information and
education program Evaluation should include
public feedback, a tally of the performance of
the individual [recycling] drop box stations,
and a record of the waste stream.
Ongoing
3.18
The County should consider implementation
of a limited dump and pick operation at the
solid waste facility.
Implemented
C Energy Recovery/Incineration
4.1
Interest in developing an energy recovery
facility in Mason County is negligible.
Current Status
No recommendations were made.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 1.1 STATUS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
THE
VI US
PLAN
(1998)
CH.
5 Refuse Collection
Current
Status
5.1
Voluntary
collection
in
Mason
of
County.
refuse
should
Evaluation
be
of
continued
be
included
as
Ongoing
part
mandatory
of
the
collection
next
SWMP
should
update
as
a
possible
method
for
controlling
illegal
dumping
5.2
The
County,
rather
than
the
WUTC,
should
The
manage
the
collection
of
recyclables.
County
these
County
services
should
staff.
evaluate
through
contract
whether
or
to
through
provide
Not
implemented
5.3
The
guidelines
County
included
should
adopt
in
Table
the
5.4A
rate
for
structure
implementation
County.
coordinate
The
with
County
within
private
should
the
haulers
unincorporated
support
to
implement
and
a
new
rate
structure
in
conformance
with
these
guidelines.
The
County
and
haulers
Not
implemented:
WUTC
haulers
providing
in
should
input
and
approval
from
agree
the
on
by
WUTC,
a
WUTC.
general
prior
Rate
rate
to
structure
final
program,
review
with
rate
regulation
Mason
of
private
County
changes
implemented
by
the
haulers
should
be
in
landfill
transfer
station
also
reflected
and
rate
structures.
A
public
information
and
be
education
the
change
program
in
rate
structure.
should
executed
with
CH. 6 Transfer
and
Import/Export
6.1
[Recycling]
drop
box
stations
facilitate
drop
box
and
bins
at
other
have
sites
Mason
been
in
placed
County
Mason
at
County
should
continue
to
to
recycling
provide
public
information
the
drop
box
Ongoing
regarding
If
the
need
arises
[recycling]
for
locating
additional
program.
drop
boxes,
the
County
should
[recycling]
pursue
the
costs.
grant
funding
to
pay
for
a
portion
of
6.2
Mason
County
has
participated
in
disposal
numerous
in
the
Ongoing
past
meetings
and
should
regarding
continue
solid
waste
to
do
so.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
6.3 Mason County recognizes the fact that
significant population increases play an
important role in the amount of solid waste
generated. Staff should evaluate this to
determine if there is a need for additional
drop box sites or transfer stations. This
would be completed before the next revision
of this document.
Study incorporated in SWMP 2005
revision
Enforcement and Administration
8.1
The County should maintain its existing
Community Development structure
Community Development is now
Utilities and Waste Management
8.2
The County should continue to examine and
adjust tipping fees in Tight of future solid
waste programs.
Ongoing examination
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 1.1 STATUS
OF RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
T E PREVIOUS
PLAN
(1998)
Current
Status
CH 8 Enforcement
and
Administration
Study
incorporated
in
SWMP
2005
8.3
additional
The
County
funding
should
evaluate
sources
and
for
future
develop
major
revision
capital
expenditures.
Implemented
8.4
The
County
should
investigate
the
a
civil
ordinance
establishment
of
penalty
allowing
the
ticketing
of
violators.
8.5
The
County
should
continue
employing
a
Implemented
2
FTE's
now
illegal
permanent
dump
enforcement
site
identification.
staff
member
for
employed
CH. 9
Special
Waste
Streams
9.1
Mason
County
should
proceed
with
a
for
public
Public
awareness.
Not
implemented
awareness
and
education
program
alternative
biosolids
County
should
utilization
methods
continue
in
for
land
to
biosolids
application.
investigate
handling,
The
Regional
Implemented
solutions:
including
possible
regional
solutions.
9.2
Not
implemented
The
County
government
should
support
land
application
of
biosolids
The
County
should
develop
clear
policies
and
guidelines
for
biosolid
land
application.
These
should
EPA
include
guidelines
for
requirements
site
selection.
as
well
as
9.3
The
County
should
continue
to
utilize
the
Ongoing
private
sector
while
evaluating
alternative
handling.
methods
of
septage
9.4
Considered
but
implemented
The
County
to
investigate
the
should
continue
feasibility
demolition
of
wastes
utilizing
and
certain
divert
recyclable
those
materials
not
to
the
appropriate
facilities.
9.5
County
policy
that
should
disposed
limit
wood
waste
Not
implemented
quantities
waste.
are
of
with
solid
9.6
Not
implemented
tire
Mason
County
should
support
in
Washington
development
State
of
recycling
methods
and
monitor
new
programs
for
possible
implementation
within
the
County.
9.7
Ongoing
to
The
County
should
continue
require
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
stringent compliance with all State and
Federal regulations to reduce exposure to
solid waste utility workers and prevent any
possible environmental damage.
9.8
County policy should support the current
program for breakdown and recycling of white
goods and appliances.
O ngoing
9.9
Continue the existing handling program for
proper storage, handling, and disposal of the
fluorocarbons.
O ngoing
9.10
The County should continue the
transportation and disposal practices for
asbestos.
O ngoing
1.5 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
This revised SWMP was prepared with the assistance of the County's Solid Waste
Advisory Committee (SWAC), County and City staff, and other interested parties.
The formation, membership makeup, and role of the SWAC are specified by
State law (RCW 70.95.165 (3)):
"Each county shall establish a local solid waste advisory
committee to assist in the development of programs and
policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal and to
review and comment upon proposed rules, policies, or
ordinances prior to their adoption. Such committees shall
consist of a minimum of nine members and shall represent a
balance of interests including, but not limited to, citizens,
public interest groups, business, the waste management
industry, and local elected public officials. The members
shall be appointed by the county legislative authority."
As required by State law, this committee functions in a review and advisory
capacity throughout the planning process, facilitating subsequent adoption by
the municipalities and acceptance by the public. The Mason County SWAC has
representation from a tribe, private industry, and citizens who represent the
public's interest. The current membership (as of January 2007) and affiliations
of the SWAC members are shown below in Table 1.2.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 1.2 MEMBERSHIP OF THE MASON COUNTY SWAC
Voting Members
Rik Fredrickson
Janet O Conner
Mary Jean Hrbacek
Jan Ward
Donald Stacy
Elrey Simon
Jeff Roberge
Wendy Ervin
Staff
Emmett Dobey
Tom Moore
David Baker
Rose Swier
Christine Clark
Tracy Farrell
Representing
Haulers/Recyclers
District 2
District 3
District 2
District 3
District 3
District 1
District 1
Director of Utilities/Waste, County
Deputy Director, County
Solid Waste Manager, County
Department of Health, County
Department of Health, County
Public Works - City of Shelton
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
1.6 PROCESS FOR REVISING AND AMENDING THE PLAN
The process for revising the 1998 SWMP to align it with current standards and
goals involves the following major steps:
1. Review current plan to determine accomplishments from the previous
plan, and to determine current and future needs to include in the new
plan.
2. Develop a scope of work.
3. Involve the local SWAC in policy decisions relative to proposed
changes in the new SWMP.
4. Develop a draft plan.
5. Review by SWAC.
6. Complete SEPA documentation and review.
7. Review by City and County government.
8. Public hearing and review.
9. Incorporate public comments into draft plan.
10. Submit draft plan to Department of Ecology (Ecology).
11. Address Ecology comments and resubmit
12. Obtain resolutions of adoption from City and County.
13. Submit final plan to Ecology.
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 final approval from Ecology. If moderate changes are
required after the five- year period, an update or amendment may be sufficient
to revise the plan. If significant changes have occurred in the planning area, a
new plan or revision will be required. Before the five-year period has expired, it
may be necessary to amend this SWMP to reflect changes in regulatory
standards or operational requirements. This document qualifies as an
amendment under RCW 70.95.110 (1).
If the SWMP needs to be amended after it has been granted final approval by
the City, County, and Ecology, the following steps should be taken:
1. A proposed amendment to the SWMP should be prepared by the local
government agency (or other parry in special cases) initiating the
change. This should generally be preceded by discussions at the
SWAC. The proposed amendment must be presented to the SWAC for
review and comment Submittal to the SWAC should be accompanied
by a report providing an analysis of the impacts of the proposed
change.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
2. The SWAC should provide recommendations to the proposed
amendment.
3. The proposed amendment can then be revised as necessary and
presented for consideration by the appropriate elected officials of
Shelton and Mason County, and adoption by Mason County.
4. Prior to adoption, the proposed amendment will also be subject to
Ecology and public review and comment At a minimum, one public
hearing will be held to allow citizens and other interested parties the
opportunity to present their views. If deemed acceptable, the
amendment must be adopted by all signatories to the SWMP in order
for it to be considered effective.
5. Once the amendment has been adopted, it will be submitted to
Ecology for
final approval.
Amendments could be required as the result of changes in disposal facilities or
methods, new information about existing programs or facilities, and regulatory or
other changes. Changes that the County determines to be minor and consistent
with the approved SWMP will not require a plan amendment. If a change is
considered minor but not consistent with the approved SWMP, the staff
implementing the SWMP will consult with the Commissioners of Mason County,
the SWAC, Ecology, and other affected parties as appropriate to determine the
appropriate level of review and consideration. The same process would be used
if any questions arise concerning the significance of a change to the SWMP, and
if a determination is made that the amendment is insignificant, and then the
amendment will be drafted by the SWAC and offered to the commissioners as a
recommendation. After the recommendation is adopted the amendment will be
submitted to Ecology for final approval, to be incorporated into the plan as an
addendum.
1.7 PLAN ORGANIZATION
This SWMP is organized in accordance with Ecology's Guidelines for the
Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions
(December 1999). Chapters 1 and 2 describe the history and function of the
SWMP, and the planning area that the solid waste management system operates
under in Mason County Chapters 3 through 6 address specific areas of solid
waste management. Each area of focus is described using the following
parameters:
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Existing Practices: The current service level provided.
Needs and Opportunities. Addresses known deficiencies and external
variables (growth, regulations, energy costs, market influences, etc.) that
affect the existing conditions. Also highlights challenges or discusses how
variables translate into challenges, which can act to change the direction
in the solid waste handling system.
Alternatives and Evaluation: Based on the needs and opportunities
that affect the existing conditions, alternatives and their evaluations
are presented to resolve deficiencies and address goals.
Recommendations: The suggested course of action given the
evaluation of alternatives.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
1.8 STANDARD NOMENCLATURE USED IN THE PLAN
This SWMP attempts to provide a standardized approach for the use of capital
letters when referring to government agencies, including:
• City: When capitalized, refers to the City of Shelton.
• County: When capitalized, refers specifically to Mason County. The term
may apply to the County government, to the unincorporated area outside
of the City, or to the entire County (including Shelton).
• Ecology: When capitalized, refers to the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
• State, Federal, and Tribes: These words are almost always capitalized
because they typically refer to the state government, national
government, or specific tribe.
This SWMP also uses a standardized vocabulary to distinguish between different
types of solid waste and recycling containers The term drop box is used for
solid waste, blue boxes (compartmentalized drop box used to facilitate source
separated collection) is used for the containers at self -haul recycling locations,
and recycling bin refers to the smaller boxes used by households for curbside
recycling.
1.9 PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
A statement of goals was prepared by and for the SWAC as a first step in
identifying the solid waste management issues to be addressed in the Plan. In
addition, the SWAC identified specific goals and objectives for the Plan for
managing solid wastes in Mason County. This overview helped to focus the Plan
on the specific needs of Mason County, and led the development and the final
conclusions reached by this Plan.
The issues identified by the SWAC to be addressed in the planning process are
as follows:
• Roadside litter and illegal dumping
• Solid waste legislation
• Public education and outreach
• Partnerships with private sector
• Evaluate existing recycling goals and methods
• Diversion of yard waste
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
The specific goals and objectives for solid waste management in Mason County
that were developed in collaborative fashion by the SWAC are as follows:
Goal: Meet State priorities for solid waste management.
O bjectives:
LI Continue public outreach and education efforts
❑ Provide for efficient handling and diversion of organics
❑ Measure progress in achieving goals and objectives
Goal: Promote and maintain public health and safety; protect natural and
human environment.
O bjectives:
❑ Maintain consistency with existing resource management plans
Goal: Continue to enforce existing solid waste regulations.
O bjective:
❑ Support solid waste policies and legislation
Goal: Promote use of private industry expertise.
O bjectives'
❑ Promote input and ensure representation of public in planning process
❑ Identify opportunities for public/private partnerships
Goal: Develop economically responsible solid waste management system.
O bjectives:
❑ Identify current and projected costs including capital facility needs and
system upgrades and improvements
❑ Modify rates to secure and maintain adequate funding
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA
The purpose of this chapter is to provide information on the environment in which solid
waste management, handling, and planning occur in Mason County. The chapter is
divided into the following sections:
2.1 Natural Environment, Land Use and Demographics
2.2 Evaluation of Potential Sites for Landfills
2.3 Solid Waste Quantity and Composition
2.1 NATU "'..L ENVIRONMENT, LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
An understanding of the environmental, land use, and demographic conditions of Mason
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 these
conditions in Mason County, this section is divided into two parts: the natural
e nvironment and the human environment The description of the natural environment
includes a review of geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, climate, and air quality. The
description of the human environment includes demographic and land use
characteristics of the County.
N atural Environment
The main sources of information for this section are the Soil Survey for Mason County
(U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1960), the U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Bulletin #18
(Garling and Noble, 1965) and the Water Supply Bulletin #29 (Molenaar and Noble,
1970).
Geology
Mason County occupies about 970 square miles of land area (See Exhibit 2.1). The
n orthwestern part of the County lies in the Olympic Mountains and the remainder lies in
the Puget Sound Lowland. Elevations within the County range from sea level to 6,612
feet (Mt. Stone).
Rocks exposed within the County consist of both volcanic rocks, with some consolidated
sedimentary rocks, and a thick sequence of unconsolidated glacial and nonglacial
deposits. The volcanic and consolidated sedimentary rocks are exposed within the
O lympic Mountains and the Black Hills. Most of the County is underlain by the
u nconsolidated deposits.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
EXHIBIT 2.1 MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
The unconsolidated deposits were derived from at least three continental glaciations, one
or more alpine glaciations, and two nonglacial intervals. These include, from oldest to
youngest, .the Salmon Springs Drift and older undifferentiated sediments, the Kitsap
Formation, the Skokomish Gravel, and the Vashon Drift. The Vashon Drift is further
divided into recessional outwash, till, advance outwash, and the related Colvos Sand
deposit. Characteristics of the principal stratigraphic units are summarized below from
youngest to oldest:
Alluvium (Qal): Fine grained silt and sand with some clay and peat; found in lowland
valleys, floodplains and depressions in drift plains. Maximum thickness is over 100 feet.
May yield moderate quantities of water.
Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qvr): Poorly sorted, discontinuously bedded loose gravel
with some sand, silt and clay. Overlies till in depressions on drift plains. Maximum
thickness is 150 feet. May yield small to moderate quantities of water.
Vashon Till (Qvt) Coarse cobbles in silt -clay matrix, extensively mantles most of upland
areas. Maximum thickness is 80 feet. Essentially impervious but may yield small
quantities of perched groundwater; also serves as aquiclude to confined groundwater at
some localities near sea level.
Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva): Discontinuous strata of unconsolidated gravel, sand and
silt. Underlies till in most areas Maximum thickness is over 200 feet. May yield small to
large quantities of water.
Colvos Sand (Qc): Principally stratified sand. Occurs in some areas particularly in the
eastern part of the County. Contains irregular lenses of fine gravel, and thin strata of clay
and silt. Maximum thickness of 300 feet. May yield small to large quantities of water.
Skokomish Gravel (Qs): Coarse gravel with sand, silt, clay and some peat strata.
Maximum thickness is over 300 feet. May yield small to large quantities of water.
Kitsap Formation (Qk)• Well stratified, horizontally bedded silt and fine sand with some
clay and peat. Maximum thickness is over 200 feet. Poor permeability except for few
gravel lenses, serves as aquiclude to underlying confined groundwater. Except for gravel
lenses, yields little or no groundwater.
Salmon Springs Drift and Pre-Vashon Deposits, Undifferentiated (Qss, Qpv): Coarse sand,
gravel and some till. Maximum thickness may be over 600 feet May yield from small to
large quantities of water.
Marine Sedimentary Rocks (Ts): Fine grained marine sedimentary rock. Unimportant as a
groundwater source.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Volcanic Rock (Tv): Basalt. Thickness unknown. Generally dense and impermeable and
of little importance as an aquifer. Groundwater movement is primarily through fractures.
The most widely exposed soils in Mason County are largely those deposited from the latest
glaciation. They include the advance outwash, till, and recessional outwash sediments
(collectively referred to as Vashon Drift). Pre-Vashon deposits are generally confined to
exposures along cliffs or steep slopes adjacent to rivers, streams, or Puget Sound. Of the
Vashon Drift deposits, the recessional outwash and till are the two most widely exposed.
Alluvial deposits (generally confined to active stream channels and flood plains) are also
widely exposed throughout the County.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology
The major source of groundwater recharge in Mason County is precipitation. Part of this
precipitation percolates downward into the soil, part drains off as surface runoff, and part
returns to the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration from plants. Near the foothills
of the Olympic Mountains, precipitation averages about 100 inches per year and decreases
to about 50 inches annually near the eastern border of the County. The extent to which
precipitation infiltrates the surface varies from place to place, depending on the character
of the subsurface materials. Essentially, all groundwater tapped in Mason County is from
aquifers within the more permeable materials of the various glacial drift deposits. Most
groundwater discharge is to streams, lakes and surrounding marine waters. The
movement of groundwater toward discharge points is typically in the direction of the land
surface slope.
Groundwater within the unconsolidated glacial drift deposits migrates toward either Puget
Sound or the Pacific Ocean. A groundwater divide runs in a general south -north line from
the southern border of the County to a point a few miles west of Shelton, and then turns
northwest toward the Olympic Mountains Groundwater west of this divide moves toward
the Pacific Ocean and groundwater east of the divide moves toward Puget Sound.
In most places, the main water table (where present) is within 50 feet of the land surface.
In general, the water table rises away from marine waterways and major stream valleys,
and has a configuration similar to the rising land surface. Deeper aquifers also occur
within the coarser phases of the various glacial deposits Where groundwater occurs
under perched or semi -perched conditions, one or more higher water tables may exist
locally above the main water table.
Climate
Mason County has a mid -latitude west coast marine climatic regime typical of the Puget
Sound lowlands. The climate is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound water
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
bodies as well as the Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges. Generally, moderate
temperatures are experienced year round and the climate is mild with wet winters and dry
summers.
Precipitation is delivered by storms driven by the prevailing southwesterly winds. The
amount of precipitation varies throughout the County because of the effect of topography
on air movement. The greatest topological effect is from the Olympic Mountains whose
eastern slopes are in the northwestern portion of the County The Olympics rise to an
elevation of 6,000 feet, and that portion of the County experiences an average annual
rainfall of 200 inches. On the other hand, at its eastern most edge, along the Puget
Sound, the County receives an average annual precipitation of 50 inches. The rainfall is
typically gentle precipitation with overcast and foggy winter days. Except for higher
mountain elevations, winter snowfall is intermittent and melts quickly.
Air Quality
According to the Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority, there are no air quality non -
attainment areas in Mason County. There are occasional seasonal problems from slash
burning that occurs in the summer months. Slash burning is used to clear debris following
clear cutting of timber areas. The slash burns produce a large amount of particulates in
the form of smoke and ash. In 1988, a slash burn escaped confinement and produced
smoke that adversely impacted areas as far away as the Seattle metropolitan area.
Human Environment
Demographics
Mason County has an estimated 2005 population of 51,900 Historic population growth
from 1970 to 1990 was 83%. From 1990 to 2005, the population grew an additional 35%
Estimates prepared by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (Medium
Series) project the population to be 75,088 by the year 2025. This is an increase of
23,188 people or almost a 45% increase over the 20-year period (see Table 2.1).
TABLE 2 1 POPULATION GROWTH AND PROJECTIONS
1990 2000 2005 2010* 2015* 2020* 2025*
31,184 38,341 49,405 51,900 58,604 64,007 69,635
Source: State of Washington Office of Financial Management
*Medium Growth Management Projection.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Mason County is sparsely populated except for the areas near Shelton, Allyn, and Belfair,
the lower part of the Hood Canal, the waterfront areas of Puget Sound, and some of the
lakes in the County. The population distribution is an important factor in its influence on
solid waste generation. The majority of the population, and therefore solid waste
generation, is in the eastern half of the County, as shown in Exhibit 2.2. Future population
growth is not expected to change the relative distribution of the population significantly
and is currently expected to occur as follows:
* Belfair area in the northeast corner of north Mason County,
* Allyn area along the upper, western shoreline of the Case inlet in eastern Mason County,
* The City of Shelton.
Mason County experiences seasonal fluctuations in population. Although they are not
considered in population statistics, visitors and seasonal residents account for seasonal
variations in waste generation. The County estimates that in 2004, the population
increased by approximately 15,240 people during the height of the season (Mason County
Comprehensive Plan Update, 2005).
EXHIBIT 2 2 POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE, 2000
,s— .14
(7:1S1
r
Data Classes
Pcre*r /Sq rn
■
■
L'5 - 261
543 - 693
14193 - 2072
Features
fr/liajor has:
5:raamiflaterzrc:y
n;..r xy
n_ st ret is =_a Ir,rl
,Appraxmiles acrryss.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Economic Trends
The County's commercial and industrial base also is expanding, providing a 1.92%
increase in employment between 2001 and 2002 as shown in Table 2.2. Current trends
show increases in wholesale and retail trade and service sectors, which provide a variety of
goods and services to the growing population. Wholesale and retail trade increased
4 82% between 2001 and 2002; and professional services increased by 5.73%.
Employment in the manufacturing sector decreased by 3.1% during this period.
TABLE 2.2 EMPLOYMENT WITHIN MASON COUNTY
200
2
2001
Sector
Construction,
Natural
Resources,
and
Mining
960
930
Manufacturing
1,5
70
1,620
2,5
30
2,550
Subtotal:
Goods
Producing
Warehousing,
and
Utilities
220
240
Transportation,
Wholesale
and
Retail
1,7
40
1,660
Trade
Information
and
Activities
520
560
Financial
Professional
and
Business
Services
2,7
70
2,620
Government
4,4
50
4,380
Subtotal:
Producing
9,7
00
9,460
Services
12,
230
12,010
Total
Source: Mason County Economic Development Council
Land Use
The planning instrument that controls land use in Mason County is the Comprehensive
Plan. The County, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update adopted a new zoning
ordinance in 2005. The Comprehensive Plan affects solid waste management by
establishing policies for the management of solid waste. Among those policies is the
prevention of land, air, and water pollution, as well as the conservation of the natural and
economic resources of the County. In the context of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan, the
County has established the policy to encourage recycling and to set aside land to ensure
the future availability of land for solid waste management facilities (Mason County
Planning Commission, 1982).
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
The County's Comprehensive Plan was updated in December 2005. Table 2.3 illustrates
the total acreage estimated in the update for several land use categories. Residential land
use is concentrated in the City of Shelton, the only incorporated city in the County.
Outside of Shelton, the residential density is quite low, about two persons per acre of
residential land. The low density is reflected in the typically widely scattered permanent
and seasonal homes on large lots In addition, there are a large proportion of single-
family dwellings to multiple family dwellings, such as apartments.
The primary land uses in Mason County are. Long Term Commercial Forest lands and
Forestry products, which encompass 336,146 acres. The Olympic National Forest accounts
for an additional 154,086 acres. Combined, forests represent nearly 80% of Mason
County's land area.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 2.3 MASON COUNTY LAND USE DISTRIBUTIONS
BY ACREAGE AND PERCENTAGE
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
ACRES
LAND
USE
CATEGORY
Residential
33,134
5.34%
Vacant
52,656
8.49%
3,538
0.57%
Commercial
Industrial
544
0.09%
Agri/Aquaculture
9,845
1.59%
Forestry
139,556
22.51%
199,590
32.19%
Long
Forests
Term
Commercial
Mineral
Extraction
152
0.02%
2,368
0.38%
Transportation
Utilities
2,079
0.33%
Tax
Exempt
10,429
1
68%
Olympic
National
Forest
154,086
24
85%
City
of
Shelton
3,900
0.63%
Tribal
Lands
8,187
1.32%
Total
620,067
Source: Mason County Comprehensive Plan Update, November 2005.
2 2 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES
The SWMP is required (Chapter 70 95.165 RCW) to include specific information to provide
guidance for siting new solid waste disposal facilities. This section is organized into a
discussion of the soil conditions, groundwater, and naturally occurring hazards (such as
floods and geologic hazards) of Mason County that determine its suitability for potential
landfill sites.
Soil Conditions
Under State law, leachate generated at a landfill must be contained within the landfill and
prevented from entering underlying aquifers. To meet this requirement, state regulations
require all landfills to be lined regardless of the site characteristics (except in arid
conditions); however, specific soil types may provide additional aquifer protection For
example, sites on fine-grained soils (silts and clays), which have low permeability, provide
additional protection to an underlying aquifer, while coarse -grained soils and substrata
(sands and gravels) do not provide such protection. The types of soil present on the
landfill site are one of many indicators of site desirability.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a soil related consideration. CEC refers to the ability of
a material to chemically bind or absorb some contaminants, i.e. metals. CEC is a function
of grain size. In general, the finer the material the higher the CEC value. Finer materials
have a greater ratio of surface area available for ion exchange to the total volume.
Therefore, fine grained soils such as clays exhibit relatively high CEC values, followed by
silt and to a much lesser extent sands and gravels.
However, another consideration when working with clays is the ability of some solutions to
move through clay at a high rate. This is due to the chemical nature of some compounds
that allow them to `slide through' low permeability clays at a higher rate than that
indicated by permeability testing. Therefore, the existence of clay under a landfill does not
n ecessarily mean that all compounds will be contained.
Soil types that will be required in construction and operation of a landfill should also be a
consideration in site selection. For example, cost reductions may be realized by avoiding
the need to import coarse cover material. In addition, fine-grained materials may be used
for landfill liner construction in addition to providing additional protection to the aquifer.
Therefore, sites that have coarse and fine-grained materials are cost effective.
Because of their wide distribution and exposure throughout the County, the recessional
o utwash and till units of the Vashon Drift deposits are likely the two most important soils
that would be encountered during any landfill siting effort. In Mason County, the water -
bearing properties of the Vashon recessional outwash and till deposits are very important
to the characterization of a potential landfill site. Generally, the coarse -grained outwash
deposits exhibit relatively high permeable properties and the fine-grained till has relatively
low permeable characteristics.
From a hydrogeologic perspective, the most desirable location for a landfill would be in a
fine-grained deposit to protect groundwater and limit leachate migration. From an
economic perspective, a desirable site would also have deposits of coarse -grained
materials for road construction and daily cover operations. Alternatively, a site with a
shallow excavatable layer of coarse -grained material, with no perched groundwater,
overlying fine-grained material, would also be desirable. In this second scenario, the
coarse -grained material could be excavated and the landfill bottom, and potentially a
portion of the side slopes, placed in fine-grained material. In both scenarios the fine-
grained layer could provide groundwater protection in addition to the landfill liner. The
coarse -grained materials would be available for use on site.
From one perspective, the hydrogeologic conditions at sites with shallow fine-grained
material are preferable to other sites. However these types of sites are generally found
n ear Shelton in southeast Mason County. Although from a hydrogeologic standpoint they
represent the most desirable sites, from a population density standpoint they are less
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
desirable. Landfills may be difficult to site and permit in the more densely populated areas
of the County.
Considering the population density perspective, sites in rural Mason County would be more
desirable. However these sites would be typically Tess hydrogeologically desirable. Sites in
the rural County generally contain a shallow perched aquifer unprotected by any overlying
layers of silt or clay. A landfill constructed in such a location would rely on the bottom
liner system to contain leachate and prevent contaminant migration. However these sites
would be located more remotely from the general population and would allow for easier
siting of a landfill.
Regardless of the underlying soil characteristics, .State landfill liner regulations can be met
at both types of sites with proper design and construction. However, landfills should not
be sited in areas containing exposed or shallow volcanic rock, or in alluvial river valleys
and flood plains.
Because of their general lack of permeability, the volcanic rocks exposed in the northwest
portion of the County contain no aquifers of significance Significant water movement in
the basalts occurs only along fractures. Characterization of groundwater movement
through a complex fracture system would make a water quality monitoring program both
expensive and extremely complex. Therefore, location of a landfill on exposed basalt is
not favorable.
The alluvial river valleys and flood plains should also be avoided for consideration of a
landfill site. The main hydrogeologic reasons include: most are groundwater discharge
regions which cause shallow groundwater conditions; no underlying protective till layer
that is above the water table; potential impacts from floods; and short travel distances and
low travel time of groundwater movement to the adjacent river.
Groundwater
Groundwater is the major source of drinking water in the County Since waste disposal
facilities may potentially contaminate groundwater supplies, the process of siting such a
facility must evaluate the complex hydrogeological factors affecting the groundwater
regime.
Naturally Occurring Hazards
This section discusses naturally occurring hazards as they pertain to the Minimum
Functional Standards (MFS), locational standards (WAC 173-304-130). Under the MFS, the
existence of any of these hazards at a specific site would constitute a fatal flaw and
eliminate the site from further consideration for landfill development.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Geologic Faults
Three faults, and a fourth probable fault, have been identified within Mason County that
shows evidence of movement during recent or Holocene time (approximately 12,000 years
to present) (Wilson, Bartholomew, and Carson, 1979). These faults are located within the
Olympic Mountains, northeast of Lake Cushman, and include the Saddle Mountain East,
the Saddle Mountain West, the Dow Mountain fault, and the probable Cushman Valley
fault. Holocene faults may exist within the lowland glacial drift plains, but none have been
identified. Potential Holocene faults within any potential landfill site would have to be
investigated.
Unstable Slopes
There are several areas within Mason County that have been identified as having unstable
slopes. These areas are typically steep and/or comprised of materials that erode relatively
easily or consist of unconsolidated sediments. These unstable areas would most likely be
susceptible to landslides induced by seismic activity, sustained precipitation, or high
precipitation during a short duration. Stream channels with steep slopes are most
susceptible. This includes most channels that empty into Hood Canal from the west. In
particular, the areas adjacent to the Tahuya River and the Skokomish River both have a
high risk of slope failure. Any potential landfill site would have to be investigated for the
presence of unstable slopes.
Flooding
Most of the streams and rivers on the Kitsap Peninsula are prone to flooding, as is the
Skokomish River west of Hood Canal. Several streams south of Shelton, including
Goldsborough and Skookum Creeks, and the tributaries to the Satsop River, are also flood -
prone. Potential landfill sites near these streams and rivers should be avoided.
Other
In addition to the naturally occurring hazards within Mason County, there are other large
areas that are not suitable as a landfill site. These areas should also be eliminated from
consideration. They include the Olympic Mountains in the northwestern part of the County
(steep slopes, shallow depths to bedrock, and National Forest land) and the Black Hills
along the south border of the County (steep slopes and shallow depths to a possibly
fractured bedrock).
2.3 SOLID WASTE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION
An estimate of the composition and future quantities of solid waste in Mason County is
necessary to provide the basis for determining solid waste handling needs for the next
several years. This SWMP focuses primarily on municipal solid waste (MSW), which are
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
those wastes generated by residents and businesses and that are handled through the
solid waste disposal system.
Past and Present Solid Waste Quantities
Mason County's waste stream has varied in quantity over the past ten years. Table 2.4
shows the population of Mason County from 2002 through 2006 Table 2.5 shows the
number of customers and tonnage of waste collected at each disposal station in Mason
County during the period from 2002 and 2006. Finally, Table 2.6 shows the type of waste
generator (residential or commercial), its associated annual tonnage, and the percentage
of the total waste stream for 2005.
TABLE 2 4 (a) POPULATION IN MASON COUNTY
2002
49,800
2003 2004
2005 2006
50,200 50,800 51,900 53,100
Data provided by the State Office of Financial Management, 2007
TABLE 2 5 CUSTOMERS AND TONS DISPOSED AT MASON COUNTY FACILITIES
Number of
transactions
Shelton
Belfair
Hoodsport
Union
total
2002
44,564
19,894
4,567
4,571
73,596
2003
47,023
20,918
4,980
4,376
77,297
2004
50,827
21,387
4,964
4,381
81,559
2005
54,319
21,864
5,139
5,004
86,326
2006
57,876
22,002
5,396
5,434
90,708
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Tonnage 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Shelton 30,029.20 30,982.61 32,536.09 35,620.84 37,611.73
Belfair 2,584.70 2,916.57 2,931.11 3,074.20 3,218.09
Hoodsport 376.00 419.87 443.74 419.33 447.88
Union 372.00 425.56 377.53 419.67 519.78
total 33,361.90 34,744.61 36,288.47 39,534.04 41,797.48
TABLE
2 6 SOLID
WASTE
QUANTITIES
BY GENERATOR
IN MASON
COUNTY
(2005)
Source
of
Waste
Percentage
Residential
25,700
65%
Commercial
13,800
35%
39,500
1000/0
Total
Solid Waste Composition and Generation
Waste stream composition data is needed to assist in designing solid waste handling and
disposal programs. A detailed waste composition study has never been performed for
Mason County. In 2003, the State conducted a waste composition study for two rural
counties. The results of this study have been usedto develop an estimated waste
composition for Mason County. The results obtained for Okanogan County for consumer
waste and commercial waste were used based on the estimated ratio of 65% residential
and 35% commercial waste developed for Mason County. An industrial waste composition
estimate was developed for Mason County using the statewide waste composition and
generation estimates developed for rural -based industries presented in the report. The
estimated waste composition is presented in Table 2.7.
Waste composition can be expected to change in the future due to changes in
consumption patterns, packaging methods, disposal habits, tourism, and other factors.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
These changes are very difficult to predict in the long term. Furthermore, implementation
of this SWMP is intended to affect the waste composition in Mason County.
Solid Waste Generation Forecast
The per -person, or per -capita, waste disposal rate is equivalent to the average quantity of
solid waste generated per day by each member of the population. In 2005, Mason County
disposed of an estimated 39,534 tons of waste, which comes to 5.09 pounds of waste per
person per day. Future solid. waste disposal can be estimated by combining an estimated
per -capita disposal with the medium growth management projections developed by the
State of Washington Office of Financial Management (see table 2.4 (b)). A forecast of
solid waste disposal for Mason County is shown in Table 2.8, using a 3% annual increase
for all fields. As shown, annual disposal is forecast to increase from 48,180 tons in 2005
to 71,402 tons in 2025. The generation of solid waste will continue to follow demographic
patterns, with most generation occurringin developing areas, which is currently the
eastern portion of the County.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 2.7 MASON COUNTY WASTE COMPOSITION - DISPOSED WASTES
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Overa
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Overall
Waste
Wast
Streai
Stream
%
Tons
%
Tons
%
Tons
%
Tons
Composition
%
Tons
%
Tons
%
Tons
%
Tc
['position
er
4.8
225.8
32.9
4016.1
26.6
8330.3
26.1
12572.2
Glass
0.1
3.9
3.4
415.0
10.1
3,163.0
7.4
3,S
Clear
Glass
Beverage
0.0
0.0
1.1
134.3
1.3
407.1
1.1
5g
ispaper
0.0
0.0
2.0
244.1
2.6
814.2
2.2
1058.4
2.4
110.2
10.0
1220.7
4.1
1284.0
5.4
2614.9
Green
Glass
Beverage
0.1
3.7
0.1
12 2
0.5
156.6
0.4
1'
lboard
:,r
Dr
Groundwood
0.0
0.0
0.5
61.0
0.7
219.2
0.6
280.3
Brown
Beverage
Glass
0.0
0.0
1.5
183.1
2.6
814.2
2.1
9
344.5
1.0
491.4
Clear
Glass
Container
0.0
0.0
0.5
61.0
5.3
1,659.8
3.6
1,7.
1-grade
paper
0.0
0.4
1.2
146.5
1.1
0.0
0.2
1.3
158.7
3.3
1,033.5
2.5
1,192.4
Green
Glass
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
;azines
Container
7.0
2,192.2
6.0
2903.0
Brown
Glass
0.0
0.0
0.2
24.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
:
ed/Low-grade
Dr
0.3
15.0
5.7
695.8
Container
ipostable
Paper
0.1
3.9
8.0
976.6
6.4
2004.3
6.2
2,984.7
Plate
Glass
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
99.7
4.1
500.5
1.5
469.8
2.2
1,069.9
Remainder/Composite
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
62.6
0.1
minder/Composite
:,r
Glass
ess
Sludge/Other
0.0
0.0
0.1
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
Non
-glass
ceramics
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
62.6
0.1
[stria'
;tic
4.7
220.7
11.3
1,379.4
14.0
4,384
4
12.4
5,984.4
Metal
2.8
128.5
5.9
720.2
16.0
5,010.7
12.2
5,8:
'
Bottles
0.1
3.7
0.7
85.4
1.0
313.2
0.8
402.3
Aluminum
Cans
0.0
0.0
0.6
73.2
0.6
187.9
0.5
21
62.6
0.2
?E
Bottles,
Clear
0.0
0.0
0.3
36.6
0.4
125.3
0.3
161.9
Aluminum
Foil/Containers
0.0
0.0
0.1
12.2
0.2
?E
)red
Bottles,
0.0
0.0
0.4
48.8
1.2
375.8
0.9
424.6
Other
Aluminum
0.0
0.0
0.2
24.4
0.2
62.6
0.2
tic
Film
and
Bags
1.4
63.2
6.3
769.0
4.0
1,252.7
4.3
2,084.9
Copper
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
tic
Bottles
Types
0.0
0.0
0.1
12.2
0.4
125.3
0.3
137.5
Other
Non-ferrous
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.1
Metals
Polystyrene
0.1
3.7
0.7
85.4
0.8
250.5
0.7
339.6
Tin
Cans
0.1
3.7
1.5
183.1
2.1
657.7
1.8
8
anded
1.9
919.6
White
Goods
1.2
54.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
.r
Rigid
Plastic
0.3
14.6
1.0
122.1
2.5
782.9
caging
r
Plastic
Products
2.8
131.5
0.9
109.9
1.9
595.0
1.7
836.4
Other
Ferrous
Metal
1.3
62.5
2.2
268.6
3.5
1,096.1
3.0
1,4'
158.7
9.2
2,881.2
6.3
3,0.
minder/Composite
tic
0.1
3.9
0.9
109.9
1.9
595.0
1.5
708.7
Remainder/Composite
Metals
0.1
3.7
1.3
2,380.1
6.3
3,0;
anics
5.7
267.3
28.6
3,491.2
18.8
5,887.6
20.0
9,646.1
Consumer
Products
4.0
186.7
3.8
463.9
7.6
i,
sings
Garden
and
0.0
0.3
7.7
939.9
3.0
939.5
3.9
1879.8
Computers
0.0
0.0
0.3
36.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
d
Waste
4.8
221.9
18.1
2,209.5
13.3
4,165
2
13.7
6,596.6
Other
Electronics
0.0
0.0
0.1
12.2
1.4
438.4
0.9
4.
14.9
0.2
24.4
0.3
94.0
0.3
133.2
Textiles
Synthetic
0.0
0.0
0.1
12.2
0.3
94.0
0 2
11
Lures
0.3
)osable
Diapers
0.0
0.0
2.3
280.8
1.8
563.7
1.8
844.5
Textiles,
Organic
0.1
3.7
0.3
36.6
1.0
313.2
0.7
3.
Offal
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Textiles,
0.0
0 2
1.3
158.7
2.0
626.3
1.6
7
;asses,
Mixed/Unknown
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 2.7 MASON COUNTY WASTE COMPOSITION - DISPOSED WASTES (continued)
Industri
al
Commer
Residen
tial
Overall
Stream
Waste
Industr
ial
Commer
Residen
tial
Overall
cial
cial
Waste
Stream
Composition
%
Ton
s
%
%
s
%
Composi
tion
%
Ton
s
%
%
Ton
s
%
Tons
Tons
Tons
Ton
Ton
s
Crop
Residues
0.6
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
27.0
Shoes
0.
0.0
0.1
12.2
1.8
563.
1.
575.9
1
0
7
2
Septage
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
Tires and
0.
0.0
1.3
158.7
0.5
156.
0.
315.3
0
Other
0
6
7
Rubber
Remainder/Com
0 1
3.1
0.4
48.8
0.5
156.
0.
208.
Furniture
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
156.
0.
156.6
posite
Organics
6
4
5
and
0
6
3
Mattresse
s
Wood
Wastes
46.
2154
2.1
256.
1.2
375.
5.
2787
Carpet
1.
84.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
84.0
3
.9
3
8
8
1
8
2
Natural
Wood
0.1
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.
34.3
Carpet
2
98.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.
130.0
1
Padding
1
3
Treated
6.3
292.
0.1
12
2
0 0
0.0
0.
304.
Rejected
0.
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.1
Wood
3
6
5
Products
0
0
Painted
Wood
4.6
211.
0.4
48.8
0.1
31.3
0.
292.
Returned
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
9
6
0
Products
0
0
Dimensional
12.
562.
0.3
36.6
0.1
31.3
1.
630.
Other
0.
0.0
0
2
24.4
0.0
0.0
0.
24.4
Lumber
1
6
3
6
Composit
e
0
1
Consume
r
Products
Engineered
7.0
325.
0.3
36.6
0.1
31.3
0.
393.
Residual
0.
43.3
4.1
500.5
3.1
970.
3.
1,514.
Wood
2
8
1
s
9
8
1
7
Wood
0.0
1.1
0.9
109.
0.7
219.
0.
330.
Ash
0.
0.0
1.2
146.5
0.0
0.0
0.
146.5
Packaging
9
2
7
2
0
3
Other
Untreated
0.2
11.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
11.0
Dust
0.
0.0
0.1
12.2
0.3
94.0
0.
106.2
Wood
0
0
2
Wood
16.
751.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
751.
Fines/Sor
0.
40.2
2.8
341.8
2.9
908.
2.
1,290.
byproducts
1
6
6
6
ting
9
2
7
2
Residues
Remainder/Com
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.
31.3
Sludge
0.
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
3.1
posite
Wood
1
and
Other
1
0
Industrial
CDL
30.
1424
4.4
537.
1.6
501.
5.
2463
and
0.
0.0
3.4
415.0
0.9
281.
1
696.9
Haz
Wastes
6
.8
1
1
1
.0
Special
0
9
4
Wastes
Insulation
1.1
51.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
62.6
0.
113.
Used
Oil
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.
31.3
2
8
0
1
Asphalt
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
Oil
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
94.0
0.
94.0
0
Filters
0
2
Concrete
0.6
29.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
29.2
Antifreez
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
1
e
0
0
Drywall
8.4
390.
0.1
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.
403.
Auto
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
9
8
1
Batteries
0
0
Soil
Rocks
and
0.7
33.7
0.6
73.2
1.1
344.
0.
451.
Househol
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.
31.3
sand
5
9
4
d
0
1
Batteries
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Roofmg
Waste
20.
2
938.
9
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
2.
0
970.
2
Pesticides
and
0.
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0
0.0
Herbicide
s
Ceramics
0.0
0.0
2.9
354.
0.0
0.0
0.
354.
Latex
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
0
7
0
Pamt
0
0
0 2
11.0
0.8
97.7
0 2
62.6
0.
171.
Oil
Paint
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
Remainder/Com
posite
CDL
4
3
0
0
Medical
0.
0.0
3.3
402.8
0.0
0.0
0
402.8
Waste
0
8
Fluoresce
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
nt
Tubes
0
0
Asbestos
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.0
0
0
Other
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
94.0
0.
94.0
Hazardou
s
Waste
0
2
Other
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.
31.3
Non-
0
1
Hazardou
s
Waste
4,65
12,20
31,3
48,13
Total
6
7
17
6.5
Tons
TABLE 2.8 Solid Waste Projected 2005-2025
Tons
Customers
Population
2005
39,534.00
55,342.00
55,000.00
2010
45,830.74
64,156.55
63,760.07
2015
53,130.39
74,375.02
73,915.40
Projection using 3% annual growth for all variables
2020
61,592.68
86,221.03
85,688.21
2025
71,402.80
99,953.81
99,336.12
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
CHAPTER 3: ° 'ASTE REDUCTIO AND RECYCLI G
This chapter describes existing programs and future plans for activities that
reduce the amount of solid waste being generated or disposed of in Mason
County. Each section will discuss existing conditions, needs and opportunities for
improvement, and includes recommendations based on an evaluation of
alternatives. The chapter is divided into the following sections:
3.1 Waste Reduction
3.2 Recycling
3.3 Composting
3.4 Public Education & Outreach
Recommendations are on the final page of this chapter.
The section on waste reduction focuses on reducing the amount of waste being
generated, while the sections recycling and composting discuss methods that
reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed. Collectively, these approaches
(waste reduction, recycling, and composting) are known as "waste diversion" and
play a vital role in solid waste management
This chapter provides an update of the County's waste diversion methods as well
as fulfills State requirements regarding waste reduction and recycling programs
The State requirements are based in the 'Waste Not Washington" Act (ESHB
1671), which are reflected in various sections of the Revised Codes of
Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Codes (WAC). RCW 70.95
requires that county and city governments assume the primary responsibility for
solid waste management and implement effective waste reduction and recycling
strategies. In addition, RCW 70 95 requires that local solid waste management
plans demonstrate how the following goals will be met:
Washington State's goal is to achieve a statewide recycling and
composting rate of 50%.
® There is a statewide goal to eliminate yard debris from landfills by 2012
in those areas where alternatives exist.
® Source separation of waste (at a minimum, separation intorecyclable 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.
I
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
The recycling coordinators for both the City of Shelton and Mason County
administer all programs and activities listed in this chapter.
3e1 r"=WASTE REND UCTI
The solid waste planning goals developed for Mason County in the area of waste
reduction are:
• To advance waste reduction efforts through support of State and Federal
programs.
• To promote waste reduction in Mason County through public information
and education programs and other available, appropriate methods.
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.
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 the diverted materials as garbage, but
recycling and composting frequently require significant additional expenses for
collecting and processing the materials.
Existing Practices
Several waste reduction activities and programs are currently conducted in
Mason County.
ReUse Shop: There is a limited "dump and pick" operation at the Solid Waste
Facility that opened during the winter of 2003 After passing through the scales,
the customer voluntarily sets items that are deemed in usable condition in a
designated area. Other residents can pick up the item at no charge after signing
a hold harmless waiver. In 2005, approximately 13,000 pounds of reusable
items, ranging from bicycles to wheelbarrows, were diverted through this site.
Swap Shop• Reusable materials, including paints, garden chemicals, auto
products, and other materials brought to the Household Hazardous Waste
Collection Center (at the Transfer Station in Shelton) are also set aside for
2
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
residents to take. In 2005, approximately 1,350 gallons of paint and other
products were reused through this program.
2Good2Toss com: Mason County and the City of Shelton are participants in the
statewide, online materials exchange www.2qood2toss.com. This website began
in October 2003 and provides a free, online bulletin board for residents to sell or
give away used but useable items, instead of sending them to the landfill. As of
January 1, 2010, the Shelton/Mason County portion of the site has nearly 1,500
registered members, and has facilitated 1,200 exchanges —diverting more than
150 tons from the landfill.
Packaging Materials: Most of the shipping services in Mason County accept
Styrofoam `peanuts", bubble wrap, air cushions, and other packaging materials
for reuse.
Waste Audits: Free technical assistance is available to schools and businesses
that are looking to reduce the amount of waste they generate through their daily
o perations The potential exists to find a waste stream component that can be
easily identified and handled in an alternative manner, reducing waste, making a
reusable material available to an end user, or connecting the business with a
recycling outlet for the given material. This assistance is available to any
requesting entity.
Beds and Opportunities
A significant need in this area is the ability to measure the results of waste
reduction activities. Residential and commercial efforts in waste reduction cover
a broad range and are not well documented. Waste reduction could be shown to
be handling significantly more waste if the residential and commercial efforts
could be measured more completely. Therefore, a method to quantify waste
reduction is needed.
Reuse of building materials could be practiced more widely. Since building
materials typically are a large portion of disposal, and the Beyond Waste Plan
identifies the topic as needing attention, Mason County would benefit by focusing
o n this aspect of the waste stream. With increased awareness of and
o pportunities for reused building material, some programs may emerge to
facilitate reuse, recycling or other diversion. Additionally, data could be collected
in the future to establish some diversion measurement.
3
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. Measuring Waste Reduction Results
Waste reduction is the top solid waste management priority, but it is inherently
difficult to measure something that has not been produced. In 1996, the
Department of Ecology undertook a literature review to determine the various
types of waste reduction measurement methodologies that were being used
around the state and country. At the same time, other entities, such as the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), UCLA, and Cornell, were working on a
similar project. In 1997, EPA finalized a document titled "Source Reduction
Program Potential Manual" that Ecology staff believed summarized the work of
all parties together in a comprehensive format. In light of multiple financial and
project priorities in Ecology at that time, staff recommended that it would be
more efficient to .use the information the EPA had developed and discontinued
the project at the state level.
The work developed by EPA is based on "program potential" and whether a
specific waste reduction program has the potential to reduce a significant portion
of the waste stream in a cost-effective manner The manual provides guidance
for calculating program potential for the following programs• grasscycling, home
composting, clothing and footwear reuse, office paper reduction, converting to
multi -use pallets, and paper towel reduction. Using 'grasscycling" as an
example, the manual calculates program potential by:
® Identifying a general waste category (e.g., yard trimmings) and relying on
national or local data for baseline composition of the waste stream,
Multiplying by an "applicability factor" (e.g., amount of grass in yard
trimmings waste category),
® Multiplying by a "feasibility factor" (e.g., portion of grass that could be
reduced through grasscycling programs), and
Multiplying by a "technology factor" (e.g., technical or physical limitations to
grasscycling).
The solid waste manager is then left to design and document a program for
addressing that portion of the waste stream. Numeric measurement would likely
rely on a waste audit or waste composition study after implementing the
program to determine if the amount of targeted waste decreased between the
two time intervals. If necessary, numeric waste reduction goals could then be
re-examined and changed.
4
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Waste reduction successes can also be measured qualitatively, through observed
changes in industrial processes, purchasing patterns, shifts in public perception
as identified through surveys, business policies, and city initiatives and
ordinances.
Advantages: Provides a more accurate picture of the diversion efforts and
results of Mason County. Given measurable results, programs are more likely to
receive attention and continued funding.
Disadvantages: Can be time consuming and difficult to get a starting baseline.
2. Promote Commercial Waste Focus
This strategy makes commercial waste reduction a priority. A systematic
approach would involve developing a clear picture of the types of businesses and
their related wastes that are currently produced in the County, and following up
with waste audits on a case by case basis. A less intensive option would be to
develop a handout type of document that would be distributed via mailing or
billing. Another possible method would be to utilize the North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes are used throughout North
America to group establishments into broad and specific industries Industries
within the same NAICS code are likely to exhibit similarities in the composition of
their disposed waste streams. If one industry is particularly prevalent in a
region, for example, it might be cost-effective to target businesses in that
particular industry. Outreach to the businesses would offer free technical
assistance and waste audits.
Advantages: Commercial sources produce a significant portion of solid waste in
Washington. Focusing waste reduction efforts towards the business sector can
have a large impact on the waste stream as a whole. Measurable data would be
much easier to obtain from businesses rather than residents. This alternative
complements the State's Beyond Waste Plan (Initiative 1).
Disadvantages: Interest in waste reduction practices would be voluntary and,
therefore, would vary from business to business. Time intensive for staff.
3. Recognition for Waste Reduction Successes
The County could provide recognition to groups or businesses that successfully
prevent waste. Many communities publicly recognize and reward local
businesses and organizations for their environmental achievements. For
example, the County could host special events, publish case studies, and help
businesses and organizations attract positive press.
5
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Advantages: As mentioned above, commercial sources produce a significant
portion of solid waste. Waste reduction efforts in the business sector can have a
large impact on the waste stream as a whole.
Disadvantages: Again, waste reduction practices are voluntary and it may take
time for businesses to come forward with documented waste reduction.
Rate Structure Changes
Although volume -based rates are already used in the City of Shelton and
throughout the unincorporated County, the use of a linear rate structure, with
the cost of each additional can of garbage set at the same amount as the first
can, has been shown to provide more incentive for waste reduction and
recycling.
Advantages: Greater application of variable solid waste rates can encourage
businesses and residents to reduce waste. A linear rate structure shows a direct
relationship to the amount of solid waste generated and its corresponding cost of
collection and disposal.
Disadvantages: The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC) control the rates in the unincorporated areas of Mason County. State
law and the WUTC rules require that rates be based on cost of service
calculations that prevent the use of a linear rate structure. However, this is still
a viable alternative for the City of Shelton and at County self -haul drop box sites.
4, Product Stewardship
Economic prosperity has increased per capita spending over the past several
years and increased the need for local governments to provide expanded
recycling and disposal programs. Product stewardship is a concept designed to
alleviate the burden on local governments of end -of -life product management.
Product stewardship is a product -centered approach that emphasizes a shared
responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of products. This approach
calls on:
® Manufacturers: To reduce use of toxic substances, to design for durability,
reuse, and recyclability, and to take increasing responsibility for the end -of -
life management of products they produce.
® Retailers: To use product providers who offer greater environmental
performance, to educate consumers on environmentally preferable products,
and to enable consumers to return products for recycling.
6
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
® Consumers: To make responsible buying choices that consider
environmental impacts, to purchase and use products efficiently, and to
recycle the products they no longer need.
® Government: To launch cooperative efforts with industry, to use market
leverage through purchasing programs for development of products with
stronger environmental attributes, and to develop product stewardship
legislation for selected products.
The principles of product stewardship recommend that a role of government is to
provide leadership in promoting the practices of product stewardship through
procurement and market development. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
(EPP) is a practice that can be used to fulfill this role. EPP involves purchasing
products or services that have reduced negative effects on human health and the
e nvironment when compared with competing products or services that serve the
same purpose. They include products that have recycled content, reduce waste,
u se Tess energy, are less toxic, and are more durable. For example, federal
agencies are now encouraged to consider a broad range of environmental factors
in purchasing decisions.
Mason County could develop purchasing policies that encourage environmentally
sound products and restrict contracts to these products. This strategy
represents a way Mason County can share responsibility for the environmental
impacts of products and promote:
® Reduced product toxicity.
® Increased resource conservation.
® Reduced cost to the county for waste management programs.
This alternative also supports the State's Beyond Waste Plan, Initiative 2:
Reducing Small Volume Hazardous Materials and Wastes.
Given the number of products that local governments typically purchase, it can
be challenging to determine which products to substitute for safer ones.
Computer products can be a good candidate for Mason County to consider for
EPP because of the potential environmental impacts associated with the
manufacture, use, and end -of -life management of computers. Local
governments often identify electronic waste as the most significant waste
problem with respect to management costs and potential environmental impacts.
Furthermore, electronic waste has become a primary concern as a result of the
increase of new electronic products combined with their rapid obsolescence, low
recycling rate and their potential to contain hazardous materials.
7
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Mason County could develop environmentally preferable purchasing criteria for
computers and electronics (such as CPUs, monitors, keyboards, printers, fax
machines, and copiers) that could include:
Compliance with federal Energy Star Guidelines
Reduced toxic constituents
Reduced toxic materials used in manufacturing process
Recycled content plastic housing
Pre -installed software and on line manuals
Designed for recycling/reuse
Upgradeable/long life
Reduced packaging
Manufacturer provides product take -back service
Manufacturer demonstrates corporate environmental responsibility
Advantages. Adoption of EPP practices allows government agencies to reduce
the harmful environmental impacts of their activities as well as promote the
development of products that have improved environmental performance.
Specifically, implementing an EPP program for computers can result in the
purchase of computers with lower operating costs, extended useful lives and
reduced disposal costs.
Disadvantages: Requires staff to review products they are currently purchasing.
Staff may be comfortable with the products they are using and familiar with
application procedures and performance expectations.
5. Procurement of Recycled Products
Local, state, and federal government agencies can and do use their tremendous
purchasing power to influence the products that manufacturers bring to the
marketplace In the last decade or so, most efforts have focused on
encouraging procurement of products made from recycled content. The goal of
these procurement programs is to create viable, long-term markets for recovered
materials The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a list
of designated products and associated recycled content recommendations for
federal agencies to use when making purchases. These are known as
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. To date, EPA has developed more than
60 guidelines that fall into the general categories of construction products,
landscaping products, nonpaper office products, paper and paper products, park
and recreation products, transportation products, vehicular products, and
miscellaneous products. For example, federal agencies are instructed to buy
printing or writing paper that contains at least 30% post -consumer recycled
content.
8
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Mason County could draw upon the extensive work completed by EPA and
include its guidelines in purchasing policies.
Advantages: Without consumer support, markets for recyclables, and products
made from them, will not reach their full potential. Procurement programs
create viable, Tong -term markets for recovered materials and provide more
efficient use of valuable resources. Research is necessary to determine the types
of recycled content products that are available, their specifications, performance,
and cost. Much of this research is available, however, through the King County,
Washington, website (www.metrokc.gov/procure/green/index.htm).
Disadvantages: Government purchasing agents often have concerns about the
quality and price of recycled content products. Careful testing and selection of
recycled content products can minimize concerns about product quality. Certain
recycled content products may have a higher initial purchase cost, but may
require Tess maintenance or Tong -term costs over the life of the product. Cost
concerns can be addressed by considering short-term and Tong -term costs (life
cycle costs) in comparing product alternatives.
6. Internal County Waste Reduction Policies
In addition to educating consumers and businesses, it is important for local
governments to "practice what they preach." Through the numerous small
choices employees make each day, large amounts of waste can be prevented.
Employees should be encouraged to learn more about waste reduction practices
and work toward implementing and promoting such practices.
Such practices by city and county employees should be implemented whenever
practicable and cost-effective. Examples include:
® Electronic communication instead of printed, double -sided photocopying and
printing.
® Using copiers and printers capable of duplexing.
® Allowing residents to submit electronic rather than paper forms and
applications.
® Washable and reusable dishes and utensils.
® Rechargeable batteries
® Streamlining and computerizing forms
® `On -demand" printing of documents and reports, as they are needed.
® Leasing Tong -life products when service agreements support maintenance
and repair rather than new purchases, such as carpets.
® Sharing equipment and occasional use items.
® Choosing durable products rather than disposable.
9
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
® Reducing product weight or thickness when effectiveness is not jeopardized
in products, such as, but not limited to, paper and plastic liner bags.
® Buying in bulk, when storage and operations exist to support it.
Reusing products such as, but not limited to, file folders, storage boxes,
office supplies, and furnishings.
® Mulching pruned material from parks and using on site.
The County's employees are most knowledgeable about ways that waste can be
reduced or even eliminated and their ideas are essential. Adopted policies
should be reinforced through employee incentives for outstanding performance.
Advantages: Certain workplace practices can help prevent waste before it is
created. Many practices can reduce local government costs through avoided
disposal fees and can also save natural resources. By implementing waste
reduction programs in their offices and facilities, local governments• not only
reduce their own waste but also show their commitment to such programs.
They can use their waste reduction experiences to illustrate the benefits of
source reduction when .developing similar programs in the commercial and
residential sectors of their communities.
Disadvantages: Other factors to consider in changing workplace practices are
energy, water, disposal and labor costs as well as toxicity, safety and training
changes. For example:
Energy requirements of different products can result in measurable cost
changes for the organization. Energy for lighting, heating water and
running appliances can vary between products.
Water usage may also change with different procedures or products.
Labor costs may also change with product or procedure changes.
Safety and training are two other factors that come into play with product or
procedure changes. The alternative product must be at least as safe as the
old one. Sometimes, additional staff training is required to implement the
reduction action.
3.2 RECYCLING
The goals developed for Mason County in the area of recycling are:
® To support private efforts in waste recycling in Mason County.
® To achieve an increase in waste recycling throughout Mason County.
® To provide recycling opportunities at drop box, transfer station facilities,
and other approved sites in Mason County.
10
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Existing Practices
City of Shelton
The City of Shelton has operated a residential single-family curbside recycling
program within the City limits since September 1994. The cost of recycling for is
a mandatory charge for all households in the City of Shelton and is incorporated
into their overall solid waste fee, whether they use the service or not. The
participation rate has fluctuated from an original participation rate of 36% in
1994,dropping to a program low of 28% in the years 2000 through 2003, and
increasing to a current high of 70% participation in 2009. This is presumably
due, in a large part, to the City introducing a two bin (dual stream) program in
2006 and instituting mandatory every other week trash collection in 2008.
Beginning in 2004, residents who live just outside of City limits but receive a City
utility (water or sewer) were given the option of receiving curbside recycling
collection for the same rate as residents.
The residential curbside program uses two covered rolling bins for collection; a
brown bin for mixed paper, newspaper, magazines, and cardboard and a blue
bin for glass bottles, jars, plastic bottles, aluminum and steel cans, milk jugs, etc.
In 2009 the City collected a. total 582 tons of recyclables from residential
customers.
The City of Shelton instituted a dual stream multi -family recycling program in
February 2009 for all multi -family (apartment) residential complexes. The
program is mandatory for multi -family residential projects and the fee is
incorporated into the solid waste fee for the site whether the service is utilized or
not. Since February 2009 the program has resulted in a total of 19.6 tons of
recyclables being collected from multifamily customers.
The City of Shelton also instituted a curbside yard waste program in February of
2009 for $5.50 per month for single-family residential customers. This program
has resulted in a total of 287 yards of grass clippings, leave, prunings, etc. being
composted into mulch.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the history of the residential curbside program in
the City of Shelton, detailing the annual participation rates and collection
tonnage totals, respectively.
11
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
0
It
c
ov i0
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40% gg
3 5 % 1994199 1JJ7
30%
25%
20%
204)0
i
®2008
1998`
2002 2003
1999 7' 0 2001
20005
2004
®-200.62UU
i
1994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009
rogram Years
Tons Collected
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
t , f y It
c:cli
581 582
542
474
325 336
412
384 - 379 39
354 361
429 430
512
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ram Years
12
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Mason County
The County began its self -haul recycling program in 1993. Over the years the
program has expanded and in early 2009 was up to 12 sites Countywide,
including all solid waste drop box stations Each site has at least three "blue
boxes" (compartmentalized drop boxes used to facilitate source separated
collection) that collect corrugated cardboard, brown paper bags, glass bottles
and jars , plastic bottles and jugs, aluminum and steel cans, and newspapers and
magazines. As of 2008 all of the sites also accept mixed paper.
Table 3.2 shows the locations and materials collected for the blue box program.
The program has experienced a steady increase in the quantity of materials
collected In 2004, approximately 2,000 tons of recyclables were collected; 2008
it was nearly 2100 tons.
In 2006-2009, Mason County Garbage had a pilot curbside program in four
communities: Lake Limerick, Oak Park, Lakeland Village and Island Lake. The
rate for the bi-monthly service was established by the WUTC. As of January of
2007, more than 200 customers were participating in the program.
0
0
700
600
500
400
TABLE 3.2 MASON COUNTY BLUE BOX COLLECTION 2008
600
300
200
100
0
237
58
27
470
129
513
aluminum
steel
newspaper mixed paper plastic bottles glass cardboard
13
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Needs and Opportunities
City of Shelton
The City's curbside recycling program has enjoyed an increase in participation
primarily beginning with the implementation of a dual stream recycling system in
2007 and changing to every other week trash pickup in 2009. With an increased
local interest in recycling and composting the City of Shelton could see additional
reductions in landfill tonnages through effective implementation of a commercial
recycling system as well as a commercial food diversion program.
Mason County
The County's self -haul recycling program is facing several challenges. Retention
of blue -box sites on private property has been very difficult over the last few
years, and was discontinued in 2009. County sites still offer this service on their
regular days of operation.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. Commingled Curbside Collection —City of Shelton
Communities around the state are moving from a multiple -sort, multiple bin
system of curbside recycling to a one bin, single -stream method of collecting
recycling at the curb. Although this may seem like a move in the right direction,
it remains a complicated and highly debated issue.
Advantages: Several of the densely populated cities and counties in the state
have switched to single -stream recycling citing higher collection efficiencies,
reduction in worker injuries, and greater participation by residents. Residents
typically love a single bin system because it does not require sorting, the bin has
a large capacity and so overflowing of recyclables is not an issue, and the bin
has a lid and wheels, keeping the materials dry and conveniently mobile.
Disadvantages: The disadvantages to a commingled collection of recycling
primarily have to do with the marketability of the recycled materials. Paper mills
that accept recycled paper from commingled streams report severe damage to
their screens and other components due to the glass mixed in with the paper.
The glass also becomes a safety hazard in the materials recovery facility, as
workers hand -sort materials. Some communities have addressed this issue by
not accepting glass in the commingled bin and either having a separate curbside
bin for glass or providing drop off boxes for self -haul glass recycling. This latter
option has greatly reduced the amount of glass collected for recycling it is
easier for people to throw it away than to haul it to a separate location.
14
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Contamination also becomes a larger problem when using a single bin method of
recycling collection. The bin usually looks like a garbage can and people tend to
treat it that way, since the materials they put in are not visible at the time of
collection.
The City decided to switch to a dual stream system for collection, with one
container for paper goods and one for beverage and other containers. The
expense for these bins was supported by grants funds awarded to the City. An
extensive outreach program was implemented in order to educate the residents
o n the changes.
2. Commodity Credit City of Shelton
In some communities, residents are given a monthly credit for the value of the
recyclable commodities collected. It is often a minimal credit of less than $2.00
and this number is based on the contract between the jurisdiction and the hauler
and the current market value of the various commodities.
Advantages: This alternative provides a direct incentive for residents who don't
see the less explicit cost -savings involved in recycling. Although there is a
mandatory monthly recycling fee for all households within city limits, this would
e ncourage more participation in the program, as residents would feel rewarded
for their efforts.
Disadvantages: The City has historically been limited to one hauler for recycling
collection services, so the competitive nature of securing the collection contract
is not present. This can make it difficult to institute new incentives for residents
if the hauler does not feel it is in their best financial interest. A system would
n eed to be developed to track participating households in order to provide
commodity credits to those households who recycle. This accounting technology
can be expensive.
3, County -owned Property for Blue Box Sites Mason County
Given the aforementioned difficulties in retaining blue -box sites, locating the
boxes on County -owned properly would provide some stability to the program.
With curbside recycling available Countywide in late 2009, the need for additional
drop off sites has reduced dramatically. Future needs will dictate the necessity
of increasing drop off locations.
Advantages: The boxes would have sites that were stable and not at risk of
sudden changes due to private land ownership. Stable sites make the recycling
program more convenient and consistent for the residents traveling to the sites.
15
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Disadvantages: Locating County -owned properties that are large enough and
are conveniently located to population centers or on main arterials is difficult. Of
the few properties that meet the above requirements, in some cases the land
would need to be cleared, graded and gravel laid to be effectively used as a
blue -box site.
Mason County should periodically evaluate the range of recyclables managed by
existing recycling programs and determine whether new materials should be
added Additional materials should be considered on a case -by -case basis, but
could potentially include all plastic food containers, paint, electronics, household
food waste, and pre -consumer business food waste. Evaluation criteria could
include• the potential for waste diversion; collection efficiencies; processing
requirements, market conditions, market volatility; local market availability; and
continuity with existing programs.
Advantages: Adding a new material to the recycling stream is a positive change.
Disadvantages: The purchase of additional boxes may be required as new
materials are included in the program. Currently, the cost of a blue box is
approximately $6,000.
4. Business Recycling
For businesses, incentives to recycle wastes include: reduced disposal costs,
increased material handling efficiencies, monitoring and awareness of
manufacturing processes or operations waste, and opportunity for recognition
within the community. Mason County could provide businesses with free
technical assistance focusing on: (1) information on recycling technologies not
currently being used by local businesses, (2) information on waste exchanges,
and (3) information on services available from Mason County Garbage or others
offering recycling services.
For recycling outreach, businesses could be targeted by the type of waste they
generate As discussed earlier in this chapter, industries within the same NAICS
code exhibit similarities in the composition of their disposed waste streams.
Mason County could use this system to assess local industries and use the
information to provide insight as to the types of materials most likely to be
recovered and the prevalence of particular industries in the region By targeting
business outreach efforts to just one or two NAICS codes, Mason County will be
able to focus research on materials to just one or two waste streams and focus
its education efforts.
Several private waste exchanges operate around the country, and in Canada.
Waste exchanges operate much like "classified ads." Businesses, offices,
16
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
schools, and individuals "advertise" their surplus/unwanted materials, or
materials they want to get, by completing an electronic listing form. 2good2toss
is an example of this model. Once the form has been completed and submitted,
the listing is posted in the waste exchange. Users can look for and find materials
in a waste exchange by browsing or searching the materials categories. Users
interested in trading posted materials then contact each other directly. Mason
County could provide educational materials to businesses describing waste
exchange opportunities.
Mason County Garbage presently provides commercial recycling services
throughout the county, offering cardboard, mixed paper, office paper and
commingled containers programs with weekly, bi-weekly and monthly pick ups.
Other recycling is available locally for material drop off of non -curbside materials.
Some businesses may even generate enough recyclable material to make
collection from their site attractive. Recycling collection and acceptance is not
regulated in the same manner as garbage, and competition for vendors is open.
Businesses should be encouraged to participate in these programs and explore
options.
Advantages: Commercial sources produce a significant portion of solid waste in
Washington. This alternative supports the State's Beyond Waste Plan (Initiative
1) by promoting sustainable materials management.
Disadvantages. Interest in waste reduction practices would be voluntary and,
therefore, would vary from business to business.
5. Recycling Services in Unincorporated Areas
In 2007, Mason County Garbage had a pilot curbside program in four
communities: Lake Limerick, Oak Park, Lakeland Village and Island Lake. In the
remaining unincorporated areas of the County, residential recycling collection
was made available with the passage of County Ordinance 147-08 in December
of 2008 This Minimum Service Level Ordinance was revised in 2009 to facilitate
immediate implementation, which occurred in late 2009. Under this ordinance, all
subscribers pay for garbage and recycling collection, whether both services are
utilized or not. Recycling only service is available, but garbage only service is no
longer an option. A reduction in can size or frequency of pick up (such as in the
City of Shelton program) is an option which many have explored in the initial
phase of the program.
Residents may still choose to self -haul their recyclables to a blue -box location, of
which the four County sites remain.
17
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
The collection and transportation of recyclable materials from single-family and
multifamily residences is regulated under RCW 81.77 and RCW 36.58. Under
these statutes, counties have the authority to directly regulate the collection of
source -separated recyclable materials.
County staff could investigate further the possibility of providing collection for
recyclables, however this option is not being considered at the present time.
Advantages: Implementing curbside collection could decrease the need for self -
haul locations. As population densities increase, more efficient route collections
and cost-effectiveness will be experienced by haulers. With both options still
available, total tons of recyclables collected will increase.
Disadvantages: Because the program is not voluntary cancelled collection
subscribers still a need a recycling outlet for the County to provide.
3.3 CO POSTING
Previous to this plan, there have been no solid waste planning goals for Mason
County in the area of composting and yard waste diversion One of the
initiatives of the State's Beyond Waste Plan is to increase recycling of organic
materials. Burning of organic materials is also common practice, and with bans
on burning and statewide changes, composting becomes increasingly attractive
for organics.
Existing Practices
City of She/ton
The City of Shelton collects Christmas tress at curbside during the first week of
January at no charge. The trees are mulched at the City shop and used in the
facility's compost pile. In recent years, compost bin sales have been offered to
City residents via the City's recycling newsletter. The bins are sold at well below
wholesale cost and hundreds of bins have been sold since the programs'
inception. The City also actively attends various local events to promote
composting and vermicomposting as a viable recycling alternative.
Mason County
Until 2009, Mason County has two annual yard waste collection events —one in
April and one in October In addition to accepting yard waste from residents at
no charge at the Shelton and Belfair solid waste facilities at these events, three
of the local yard waste recycling companies also accept materials at no charge
18
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
during these events. Yard waste is still accepted at the Shelton facility, at the
same rate as disposal The County also accepts Christmas trees from residents
at no charge during the first couple of weeks in January. Over the years, the
County has offered reduced rate compost bins for sale on an irregular basis. The
County also helps to staff a compost education booth at local events and has
run a vermicomposting station at an environmental education event held every -
other -year for local schools.
Needs and Opportunities
City of She/ton
Although the City has implemented a residential yard waste collection service,
the additional charge ($5.50) to City residents seems to be an impediment for
some to add the service. Further, the City could benefit from finding an
economical and effective food diversion (composting) solution for many of the
local large food waste producers (schools, hospital, long term care facilities,
nursing homes, etc.).
Mason County
Mason County has the opportunity to reach much higher diversion rates of yard
wastes than previously attained. While it is recognized that the rural nature of
the county lends itself to household onsite disposal, yard debris does arrive at
the transfer station for disposal —both from landscape businesses and individual
residents. Currently, if yard wastes reach the Solid Waste Facility they are
separated out from the MSW stream in the same way that scrap metal and tires
are diverted Since long haul transportation is the means for disposing of MSW,
there is no reason that yard debris —which can be recycled at the local level
should be making this trip. There are two wood recyclers within 10 miles of the
solid waste facility in Shelton, and two wood recyclers within 10 miles of the
Belfair drop box.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. County Operated Onsite Compost Facility
This alternative would result in the County Solid Waste Facility becoming
permitted as a commercial composting facility. As yard debris was brought to
the transfer station, it would be diverted to an area that was devoted to
producing compost.
19
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Advantages: The yard debris would be diverted from the landfill and become a
resource that could be sold or given away to residents. Because yard waste
would not be long -hauled, a reduced rate could be charged providing an
incentive for residents to separate it from their garbage.
Disadvantages: Operating a compost facility would require significant capital and
staffing costs. Given that there are two wood waste recyclers within 10 miles of
the County facility, the County may be viewed as competing with private
e nterprise. It is doubtful that the County could operate its own compost facility
for less than it would cost to contract with a local wood recycler to haul or
receive the same yard debris, and would accomplish the same diversion goal.
2, County Facility Diversion
All yard wastes that arrive at the Solid Waste Facility are now separated in the
same way that the metals and tires are handled. This began full time in 2008.
Advantages: This alternative provides residents with the convenience of making
o ne trip to dispose of all their waste. The yard waste would be diverted from the
landfill to a recycling operation, or could be chipped/ground on site and made
available to residents at no charge or for a small fee The County could also
invest in the purchase of a mobile chipper/grinder, which could be periodically
transported to select drop-off sites for chipping and grinding of materials brought
to these sites. This alternative would result in the capacity of the landfill
preserved for wastes that cannot be disposed of elsewhere. This alternative is in
keeping with the State's Beyond Waste Plan, which encourages viewing wastes
as a resource. If the cost of diverting this resource was less than the cost of
transporting it to the regional landfill, the public would, potentially, pay less than
the MSW per ton fee to dispose of yard waste.
Disadvantages: Special handling of this waste would require space for pile
storage or a facility for customer drop box depositing and storage. An exemption
o r variance to the facility operating permits would be required A firm would
also need to be hired to haul and/or accept the yard wastes collected. It would,
potentially, also require a rate change to account for the new, segregated
material.
3. Public Education —City of Shelton and Mason County
Continue to inform residents and businesses of the local, private yard waste
recycling operations in Mason County.
20
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Advantages: This is already happening on a seasonal basis for the residents of
the City of Shelton in the form of a utility bill newsletter and via the Website
year-round.
Disadvantages: This method relies on residents and businesses to be both
aware of yard waste recyclers in the area and willing to transport their wastes to
those sites It does not provide customers the convenience of making a trip to
o ne location to dispose of their wastes. There is currently little outreach to the
residents of unincorporated Mason County about the yard waste recycling
o pportunities.
4. Disposal Ban
Because of the number of private yard waste collection facilities in operation in
Mason County, a total ban of yard wastes could be put in place at the transfer
station and outlying drop box stations.
Advantages: This would provide a clearer policy in regard to this waste than is
currently in place.
Disadvantages: Any type of ban can elicit a negative reaction from the public.
Depending on the political climate, a ban may not be feasible or sustainable. A
yard waste disposal ban at the County facility may lead to increased illegal
dumping of these materials.
3.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The solid waste planning goals in the area of public education and outreach are
as follows:
® To educate and inform the public regarding waste reduction techniques.
To educate and inform the public regarding existing and planned methods
for recycling.
® To develop a sense of environmental responsibility in the public.
® To inform the public regarding community progress and to gain feedback
on agency progress or needs.
21
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Existing Practices
City of Shelton
The central outreach method for the recycling program is utilizing stuffers in the
City's utility billing envelopes. These reach every household and business within
the City limits and postage costs are already covered. Beginning in 2004, a
recycling newsletter entitled Recycle This! has been distributed quarterly in
conjunction with the seasons. A special holiday edition is also distributed with
the November billing. In addition to the quarterly newsletter, which has
information on recycling, waste reduction and hazardous waste disposal, City
residents receive a yearly curbside recycling pick up schedule and magnetic
information card on what they can recycle through the curbside program.
Mason County
Mason County's outreach efforts primarily rely on the local newspaper and radio
stations, both in paid advertising and press releases and public service
announcements. The recycling coordinator has historically been present at
county events such as the fair, Oysterfest, and Summerfest. The recycling
program has a brochure that is available at various sites throughout the County
and at all events. Transit ads ran on Mason County Transit from 2003-2004,
specifically addressing the county's participation in www.2good2toss.com, the
cost benefits to recycling, and the fluorescent bulb recycling program. There is
also limited information about the recycling program on the County's website.
Each spring, Mason County Garbage sends recycling information in their
residential statements. In addition, all new customer starts are mailed the same
information when they sign up for service.
Needs and Opportunities
City of Shelton
The City of Shelton needs to address the communication needs of the increasing
bilingual population. To date, very little of the recycling and solid waste
information materials are available in Spanish. The curbside recycling brochure
is mostly pictorial though difficult to understand; however, a Spanish translation
is needed to effectively reach the Spanish-speaking segment of the community.
A larger presence in schools is also needed with regard to recycling technical
assistance and education.
22
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Mason County
The success of the City of Shelton's recycling program over the last few years is
directly attributable to the increased effort at public outreach. The results of a
solid waste survey conducted at the 2005 Mason County Fair show that the
majority of Mason County residents are unaware of the various services available
to them through the recycling and solid waste programs. Although the recycling
coordinator has been present at a few annual events, there is a need to reach a
broader audience in communities outside of the greater Shelton area —Allyn,
Belfair, and Hoodsport in particular —by participating in the various local
community events (i.e. Allyn Days, Grapeview Day, Tahuya Day, and Celebrate
Hoodsport). A larger presence in schools is also needed with regard to recycling
technical assistance and education. The County also needs to address the
communication needs of the increasing bilingual population, and produce
outreach materials in English and Spanish.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1, PUD Billing Stuffers Mason County
This alternative recognizes the barriers present in using the standard method of
utilizing garbage utility bills for outreach dissemination. The use of in-house
utility billing stuffers is unavailable because the department uses postcards to
inform residents of payments due. Research into stuffing notices into the
garbage hauler's bills proved to be cost prohibitive due to the restriction involved
in the California -based billing firm that the garbage hauler utilizes.
Advantages• Information would reach every household in the County. It would
be a cost effective alternative because the PUD already pays for the postage.
Disadvantages: Size of stuffer is limited. This alternative requires the
permission of the PUD, which may not want to be seen as favoring any one
County department.
2, Direct Mailing Newsletter Mason County
This alternative would include the mailing of an annual or twice yearly newsletter
mailed directly to each household in the county. Content of the newsletter
would include information on recycling, waste reduction, solid and hazardous
waste disposal, and littering and solid waste enforcement issues.
Advantages: Guaranteed information dissemination to every household in the
county at least once a year. Changes in the program could be easily
communicated. Would provide a mechanism for public feedback in the form of
surveys.
23
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Disadvantages: Postage is costly; however, a partnership with the County
environmental health department, the recipient of the county litter funding, and
the garbage hauler could help divide the costs while proving space for each
contributor s message.
3. Phone Book Section Insert Ole., "Dex Guide')
This alternative utilizes an existing medium —the phone book to reach every
household. A four to eight page section near the front of the local phone book
describing rates, facilities, programs and laws related to solid waste and
recycling.
Advantages: With the exception of North Mason, every household in Mason
County receives a Shelton phone book. People generally rely on the phone book
as a place to go for information and therefore keep it in their home year round.
Disadvantages: Can be expensive. This alternative would require additional
outreach so people know to look to the phone book for solid and hazardous
waste information. North Mason communities use Kitsap's phone book, so they
would not receive the Shelton phone book with Mason's program information.
The phone book representatives have said that the solid waste section would
have to be in black and white due to the printing constraints of the Shelton
phone book.
4. Web Site
Little information currently is offered on Mason County's website concerning solid
waste or recycling program activities. Mason County should update its website
to be a successful component of a waste reduction and recycling education
campaign. As with any promotional medium, the website must be user-friendly,
accurate, and interesting. The website should be professionally designed, if
possible In 2010, the SWAC recommended an update to the website, which was
overhauled and replaced by a public/private partnership. The new website,
masoncountyrecycles.com is the product of County staff, Ecology support and
additional funding from the local hauler and the local e-cycle drop off partner.
The site incorporates a wide range of waste -related information, and is not
biased in favor of any service provider.
Advantages: People increasingly rely on the Internet as a place to go for
information.
Disadvantages: Would require additional outreach so people know to look to
the web site for solid and hazardous waste and recycling information.
24
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
5. College Interns City of Shelton and Mason County
Given the proximity to four colleges —Olympic College, The Evergreen State
College, South Puget Sound Community College, and Saint Martin's College —this
alternative would employ one to two student interns to work on special projects
throughout the year. Examples of current available intern positions: education
specialist, focusing on school outreach and presentations, and preparation of
articles for publication in newspapers, business assistance recycling specialist,
focusing on commercial outreach and waste audits, school composting program
specialist, focusing on on -site composting at schools, and school recycling
specialist, focusing on school outreach and waste audits. A web site design
position could also be created.
Advantages: Unpaid interns may be available or those under a work-study
program, creating little or no expense for the County. Interns could focus on
special projects that staff currently has not had the time to work on.
Disadvantages: Unpaid interns are difficult to attract, especially those based in
Olympia. Staff has been unsuccessful over the last two years at attracting any
applicants. Time spent to manage interns, if recruited, is also a consideration.
6, Technical Assistance to Schools and Businesses —City of Shelton and
Mason County
This alternative recognizes the need to reach schools and businesses regarding
their handling of waste —making commercial waste a priority. Outreach to
schools and businesses would offer free technical assistance and waste audits, as
well as distribution of newsletter at schools.
Advantages: Commercial sources produce a significant portion of solid waste in
Washington. Focusing waste reduction efforts towards the business sector can
have a large impact on the waste stream as a whole. Measurable data would be
much easier to obtain from businesses rather than residents. This alternative is
inline with the State's Beyond Waste Plan (Initiative 1). It is also important to
provide waste audit assistance to schools. A functional waste reduction and
recycling program in a school yields daily reminders to the students of their
direct impacts on the environment.
Disadvantages: Staff intensive. Interest in waste reduction practices would be
voluntary and, therefore, would vary from business to business, and school to
school. Barriers to a school program include overworked custodial staff, and lack
of support from either the principal and/or the district.
25
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
7. On site Blue Box Signage Mason County
This alternative involves improving and expanding from the current level and
quality of signs and instructions present at each blue box recycling site.
Improving the signs that appear on the front of the box which describe the
overall rules of use of the recycling boxes, in -ground commodity instructional
signs and residential "thank you" signs, and roadside signs indicating the
presence of the recycling site are all examples included in this alternative. The
signs are also in Spanish as well.
Advantages: Clearer and more attractive signs may result in cleaner
commodities and less contamination of non recyclable goods Effort in this
regard would show the County's commitment and dedication to the program,
and would validate the sites as recycling locations rather than garbage dumps.
Signs that thank the residents who use the sites reinforce their positive behavior
and contribute to positive feelings about the program as a whole. Directional
roadside signage may educate non -users that there is a recycling site nearby,
potentially changing their behavior.
Disadvantages: Not everyone reads signs. The initial expense was completed in
2007 with the assistance of a grant from the Department of Ecology.
26
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2011 amendment
Recommendations
The following actions related to waste reduction, recycling, public outreach and
composting are recommended for this Plan:
1. Outreach improvements —Improve and regularly update the information
available on Mason County s web site. Bilingual information to include
signage at blue -box sites and web page information. Prepare for direct
mailing to all County residents an annual summary of the County's solid
waste and recycling programs.
2. Continue to evaluate the Blue -Box Recycling Program to improve
opportunities and improve site access. Consider adding sites on available
public properties and develop an incentive for private site owners to continue
to provide land for siting the boxes.
3. Local governments should develop and expand electronic billing options to
reduce paper mailings.
4. Offer businesses and schools waste audits and education designed to reduce
their waste stream and disposal costs.
5. Improve recycling options for employees at local government facilities.
6. Support the efforts of the private sector to implement and expand curbside -
recycling program in Mason County.
7. Diversion of organics at county owned solid waste facilities for composting or
other beneficial use.
8. Support local efforts to expand recycling options for common products, such
as electronics, Styrofoam, additional plastics and other materials.
27
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
CHAPTER 4: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, T" NSFER AND DISPOSAL
This. chapter takes a comprehensive look at the solid waste collection, transfer,
and disposal system in Mason County. Each section will discuss existing
conditions, needs and opportunities, and will make recommendations based on
an evaluation of alternatives. The chapter is divided into the following sections:
4.1 Solid Waste Collection
4.2 Solid Waste Transfer
4.3 Solid Waste Disposal
4.4 Solid Waste Incineration / Energy Recovery
4.1 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
The solid waste planning goals for waste collection in Mason County are as
follows:
Ensure that all residents of Mason County have access to waste collection
services.
Ensure that collection practices are compatible with other elements of the
solid waste system established by the SWMP.
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulates
garbage haulers outside of incorporated areas (RCW 81 77). These haulers must
be franchised by the Commission to collect garbage in a given county. Within
incorporated cities such as Shelton however, the WUTC has no jurisdiction.
Cities have the option to provide City collection services, contract with a
collection service or allow the WUTC to award a franchise in their area.
Existing Practices
Three types of waste collection systems operate in Mason County: municipal
collection operated by and for the City of Shelton; waste collection services
provided by private haulers for the rest of the County outside of City limits; and
residents, businesses and other jurisdictions (i.e., Tribes and State facilities) who
self -haul their waste to a drop box or transfer station operated by the County.
City of Shelton
Shelton is the only incorporated city in Mason County. It operates its own
garbage collection system that serves approximately 3,300 residential and
business customers within City limits. Waste collection in Shelton is mandatory
Residents are expected to place their cans at the curb or alley on their
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
designated collection day, and retrieve the can after collection has occurred.
Weekly and biweekly service is available, with extra pickups incurring a fee.
Table 4.1 details the garbage services and rates for the City of Shelton.
Table 4.1 City of Shelton Solid Waste Collection Service
(as of January 2005)
Type of Service
Residential Service
Rate per can*
60 gal can biweekly (120 gal/month)
90 gal can biweekly (180 gal/month)
60 gal can/week (240 gal/month)
90 gal can/week (360 gal/month)
$10.06
$15.08
$16.83
$25.24
Commercial Service
Type of Service Rate per can*
60 gal can/week
90 gal can/week
300 gal can/week
$16.83
$25.24
$78.01
Customers
586
37
-1500
~500
Customers
350 total -- All service
levels
*All rates are monthly charges
The City collects five days a week and employs three drivers. The City has four
20-yard compactor trucks. The oldest truck (1995) serves as a backup in case of
breakdown. The three newer trucks (1998, 2000, and 2004) are run
simultaneously to service the collection routes. The City plans to purchase a
2005 model truck, but will maintain a fleet of four trucks for solid waste
collection. The City has an automated collection system. Each truck is fitted
with a hydraulic arm to lift the cans into the compactor. This system is efficient
and significantly reduces work -related injury associated with waste collection. As
shown in Table 4.1, the City has 60 90, and 300-gallon cans available. The 60-
gallon cans are the smallest cans that the automatic arms can accommodate.
The cans are owned by the City and provided to residents at no charge. All
refuse collected in the City is hauled to the Mason County Solid Waste Facility for
disposal.
National Forest Service
The U.S. Forest Service provides solid waste collection from National Forest
Service land. Mason County Garbage, Inc. (private hauler) collects refuse from
Forest Service offices. All refuse collected on National Forest Service land is
transported to the Mason County Solid Waste Facility for disposal. The amount
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
of waste generated is minimal, with a peak during the summer when tourism
increases.
Squaxin Island and Skokomish Indian Tribes
The Squaxin Island and Skokomish Indian Tribes do not have their own garbage
collection system Mason County Garbage, Inc. provides garbage service to the
Tribal lands. Garbage collection is voluntary for the Tribal lands, as it is in all
areas in the County outside of Shelton city limits.
Washington State Parks and Facilities
The State of Washington operates several facilities within Mason County. These
include several State parks, a State penitentiary, and a State patrol academy.
Refuse from the State penitentiary is collected by the State and disposed of at
the Mason County Solid Waste Facility. Waste generated at State parks and at
the Washington State Patrol Academy is collected by Mason County Garbage,
Inc. and transported to the Mason County Solid Waste Facility for disposal.
Franchise Holders
Garbage service in the unincorporated parts of Mason County is voluntary.
Three disposal companies provide garbage service for Mason County, but only
two are able to collect using dump trucks. Table 4.2 shows the certificates
granted for solid waste collection for Mason County.
Mason County Garbage, Inc. provides residential and commercial garbage
collection service for the majority of Mason County (outside of Shelton) They
collect five days a week using fourteen trucks and drivers each day. The
company also employs two full time mechanics and two customer service
representatives in its Shelton office. The company uses manual collection for
residential cans and uses specialized trucks for commercial containers. Table 4.3
details the garbage service and rates for Mason County Garbage.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
WUTC
Solid
Waste
Certificates
for
Mason
County
Table
4 2
Certificate
#
Service
Certificate
Holder
G327
Refuse
Waste
Management
collection
dump
13225
NE
126th
requiring
use
of
Kirkland
WA 98034
trucks.
G98
Solid
Harold
LeMay
waste
collection
PO
Box
44459
service.
Tacoma
WA
98444
G88
Solid
Mason
County
Garbage,
waste
collection
leased
from
G98.
PO
Box 787
Shelton
WA 98584
Residential Service
# of Cans Freq Monthly Chg
+Walk
+Drive
32 Gallon Can
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
EOW
EOW
13.60
20.20
26.95
34.50
41.10
47.45
7.90
12.65
MO $ 4.42
45 Gallon Totes
16.00
22.60
29.35
36.90
43.50
49.85
$ 9.10
$ 13.85
$ 4.97
18.15
24.75
31.50
39.05
45.65
52.00
10.18
14.93
$ 5.47
1
2
W $ 18.00
W $ 26.95
20 Gallon Can
$ 20.40
$ 29.35
$ 22.55
$ 31.50
1
W $ 11.72
$ 14.12
$ 16.27
Notes: under frequency, "w" indicates one service per week; `MEOW" means
every other week; "mo" means once per month
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Needs and Opportunities
At this time, solid waste collection appears adequate for the residents of Mason
County. Requirements for future collection services will depend on population
growth rates In 2004, the population of the City of Shelton was 8,695 and
unincorporated Mason County was 42,105. According to the Washington State
Office of Fiscal Management, the population of Shelton in 2015 will be 13,022
and unincorporated Mason County will reach 64,007. This level of growth will
most likely require additional collection routes in the City and County. However,
increased population will also aid collection by increasing the cost effectiveness
of the routes through increased population density.
Ensuring that all residents have access to refuse collection appears adequate;
however, new challenges arise in the need to provide a level and type of service
compatible with recycling and other solid waste programs. Local governments
can work with the WUTC and the hauler to determine how to adapt rates to the
solid waste management priorities of waste reduction, diversion, and recycling.
In addition, Counties have the authority under RCW 36.58.040 to contract for the
collection of source -separated recyclables. This authority allows the County to
manage, regulate and fix the price of source separated collection services.
Counties may also impose a fee upon solid waste collection services to fund
compliance with solid waste plans.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. Mandatory Collection
As discussed, the level of solid waste collection service in the County is
adequate; however, mandatory collection in unincorporated Mason County would
be an alternative to the current system. Mandatory collection could be imposed
to limit self -haul activity and/or illegal dumping and littering Solid waste
collection districts would need to be established based on population density,
illegal dumping problem areas, and proximity to disposal facilities. Some areas
with very low population densities may not be required to have garbage
collection service.
Mandatory collection is one method of reducing the amount of illegal dumping
that may occur when disposal rates increase. The advantages of mandatory
collection should be weighed against the cost of implementing it and the possible
negative reaction received by those who self -haul.
To implement mandatory collection, the County would need to form solid waste
collection districts, obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners,
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
and hold public hearings. Prior to formation of districts, RCW 36.58A requires
the County to request a commission review to determine whether certificated
haulers are willing and able to extend service to all residents within each
proposed district.
Advantages: Could result in a decrease in illegal dumping and littering, as well
as self -hauling.
Disadvantages: Requires all residents to pay for waste collection service,
although some areas with low population densities may not be required to
participate.
2. Collection Rates
Three alternatives are available to implement a solid waste collection rate
structure that would support recycling, waste reduction, and diversion:
2.1 Under RCW 36.58, the County has the authority to apply fees to refuse
collection that will support waste reduction and recycling programs.
Haulers would bill and collect these fees from residents on behalf of the
County as part of their regular billings.
2.2RCW 81.77 requires collection services, under the authority of the WUTC,
to use rate structures that support waste reduction and recycling as solid
waste management priorities As an alternative, the County could draft
and adopt its own rate structure or guidelines as part of the SWMP, which
would then be implemented by the hauler. WUTC involvement in an
advisory capacity at this level would assist in the development of an
approvable program. A rate structure that supports these programs is
one in which there are no financial benefits associated through pickup of
multiple cans or at different frequencies (i e., monthly vs. weekly), but
one in which a flat rate is applied to each can collected. This system
shows a direct relationship between amount of waste generated and cost.
2.3The County and haulers would take no action to change the rate
structure, but would allow the WUTC to develop new guidelines for rate
structures that support waste reduction, which could then be implemented
in the County.
Advantages: Fees would be available to fund solid waste reduction, recycling
and other diversion programs.
Disadvantages: Implementation of new rate structures to support waste
reduction, recycling and other diversion programs may increase average
customer rates.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
4.2 SOLID WASTE T'" c=NSFER
The solid waste planning goals for Mason County in the area of transfer and
export are:
To use drop box station, transfer station facilities and export
practices where and how appropriate for cost benefits and
operational efficiency.
Ensure the public safety at drop box and transfer station locations.
Develop economically responsible solid waste management system.
Existing Practices
Drop box and transfer stations can serve any or all of the following functions:
Provide disposal convenience for the public and reduce illegal
dumping when landfills or larger transfer stations are located a
great distance away.
Provide economic benefits to a waste collection company.
Provide a cost-effective means of transferring waste from collection
vehicles to long haul transfer vehicles for disposal outside of the
County.
EM
Mason County has one transfer station located at the Mason County Solid
Waste Facility (the site of the old landfill), just north of Shelton —where solid
waste is placed on a tipping floor and then loaded into open top trailers for
shipping to Klickitat County (detailed in the next section, 4.3 Solid Waste
Disposal). The transfer station is used by commercial haulers and for the general
public. A small portion of commercial waste collected by Mason County Garbage,
Inc. is hauled into Kitsap County for disposal. All other waste generated in
Mason County is delivered to the Solid Waste Facility for out -of -county transfer
and disposal. In 2005, 32,331 (Sept) tons of solid waste was deposited at the
main facility.
Table 4.4 shows a snapshot of the Mason County Solid Waste Facility and all
drop box stations for 2005. All facilities are owned and staffed by Mason County.
The Solid Waste Facility and all drop box stations have recycling centers, detailed
further in Chapter 3.
Facility
Shelton
Belfair
Hoodsport
Union
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Table 4.4 Mason County Solid `gg aste Facilities
2005 Tonnages
Recycl -d Customers
Disposed
39,534
85.5
4,607
289.1
419.3
96.9
419.7
110.4
55,342
21,864
5,139
5,004
Mason County has four drop box stations for the disposal of refuse and
recyclables. Each station contains two 40 cubic -yard drop boxes. Belfair, Union,
and Hoodsport each have drop box stations, and the fourth is located within the
Solid Waste Facility near Shelton. The three outlying drop box locations are near
rural population centers to increase the convenience of disposal for residents in
these areas. The drop box stations provide for public disposal only. Commercial
compactor trucks are prohibited from using the facilities because of the drop box
sizes and the lack of a tipping floor. None of the outlying drop box stations use
scales to determine the weight and cost of a load. All costs are based on volume
or on a per can basis. Table 4.5 shows the rates for the Solid Waste Facility and
outlying drop box stations.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Table 4.5 Rates for Shelton Facility and Drop Box Stations (2007)
Load Type
Minimum Rate
30-gallon can
55-gallon container
Loose yard
Appliances
Tires (off rim)
Tires (on rim)
Auto Batteries
Refrigerators
Demo Yards
Yard Debris
Propane Tanks
Animals (small)
Animals (large)
* Basic Rate - Does not include taxes.
Needs and Opportunities
Shelton Solid Waste
Facility*
$7.25
$3.25
$6.50
$72.40/ton
$5.00
$3.14
$7.00
$1.25
$10.00
$72.40/ton
$72.40/ton
by weight
$5.25
$10.50
Drop Box Stations*
$3.85
$3.85
$7.00
$16.50/cy
$12.00
$3.50
$7.25
$1.25
$18.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Each of the current facilities will need some upgrades in the six year planning
timeframe For more details, please see the Capital Facilities Plan for Mason
County (current year is Appendix E). This section summarizes a system analysis
conducted in 2006, including observations and probable needs. A general rule
for evaluating the need for waste transfer is based on hauling distance. When
considering a one-way haul distance of 15 to 30 miles, waste transfer should be
evaluated. However, it is unlikely that transfer will be cost effective in this range
except in areas with large waste streams. When hauling distances exceed 30
miles, transfer will become more economical for moderate and small waste
streams. Currently, there is no economic need for transfer of commercial or
municipally collected waste within Mason County. Projected population and
waste growth are addressed in this planning process.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Transfer Station/Drop Boxes
An analysis was conducted of the potential for the need for new transfer station
or drop boxes to serve existing customers and future population growth. The
Shelton Solid Waste Facility and Drop Box Stations at Belfair, Hoodsport and
Union were visited on January 6, 2006, for the purpose of estimating waste and
customer capacity, and ability to be expanded/upgraded. Following the visit, the
transfer system was evaluated in Tight of population growth projections for the
period 2005 through 2025. Waste and customer capacity was estimated based
on the following assumptions:
INEEM
MMIIIMPIME
Average of 14 minutes for customers to dump their waste and exit
the building
Approximate customer arrival rates for a peak weekend day from
data gathered for a similar predominately rural county
Existing customer queue lengths at each of the stations
Average space of 25 feet occupied by a customer vehicle in the
queue
Average ratio of non-commercial to commercial customers of 11:1
Average non-commercial customer load of 0.2 tons
Average commercial customer load of 5 tons
The capacity of the Mason County Solid Waste Facility is estimated to be 200
tons per day for 350 operating days per year, or about 70,000 tons per year with
minimal changes to the facility. For a maximum 20 minute wait time in the
queue, (a service goal,) the estimated maximum number of customers per day is
300, or 105,000 customers per year for 350 operating days per year. Both the
waste tonnage and customers are limited by the length of available space for
customers to queue on -site, the capacity of the scale facility to process the
customers, and the number of customer tipping stalls in the two transfer
buildings. Additional limitations include the number of containers in which waste
is exported (the trucking and train components of the system) and the level of
staffing needed to provide services.
During peak operations under the current system, 300 cars per day often results
in waiting times greater than 20 minutes. Due to inherent inefficiencies in the
system, this can occasionally result in delays upwards of one hour. To avoid
excessive queuing, site and operational modifications should be pursued. The
study cites capacity increases far greater than these numbers, but with wait
times considered unacceptable by staff and the SWAC. For example, based on
the queuing space available and number of hours per day, 435 cars are possible:
the resulting average wait time is 1.8 hours.
If a second inbound and outbound scale (2 scales) , additional customer tipping
stalls, and an additional tipping floor and processing equipment were available,
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
the facility could potentially handle approximately 300 to 400 tons per day for
350 operating days per year, or 105,000 to 140,000 tons per year. Modifications
such as these are identified in the Capital Facilities Plan.
The Drop Box stations are all serviced via contract with the local hauler to
transport 40 yard containers to the Shelton facility. None of the drop box sites
have the ability to compact loads. These factors, combined with driving
distances and site access limitations, result in a modest potential for increasing
throughput without substantial investment.
The Belfair Drop Box Station is .estimated to be able to handle 36 tons per day
for 350 operating days per year, or 10,850 tons per year. With no change to the
facility or operating hours, the station is estimated to be able to handle a
maximum of 120 customers per day. This equates to 6 tons per box (a very high
average) and 6 boxes per day hauled to Shelton (three hauls per day with two
boxes per haul). The average number of boxes hauled from Belfair in 2005 was
six per week. While this may be possible, in practical terms, it is unlikely that
alternatives would not be pursued prior to this pattern of use.
The station capacity is limited by the length of customer queuing on -site. If the
customer traffic pattern were to be routed south past the existing gatehouse
location to a traffic loop bringing them back to the drop box building from the
south, the available customer queuing length would increase and potentially the
station capacity. The next limitation to the station capacity is the number of
customer tipping stalls. Expanding south to add two customer tipping stalls is
estimated to increase the capacity of the station to 36 tons per day
The Hoodsport and Union Drop Box Stations are similar in configuration The
primary difference is that the Hoodsport station has approximately 100 feet
longer on -site customer queuing length. The capacity of the Hoodsport station is
estimated to be 10 tons per day for 120 operating days per year, or 1,200 tons
per year. With no change to the facility or operating hours, the station is
estimated to be able to handle a maximum of 80 customers per day For a
maximum 20-minute wait time in the queue, the estimated maximum number of
customers per day is 80, or 9,600 customers per year for 120 operating days per
year.
The Union Drop Box Station is estimated to be able to handle 10 tons per day,
for 120 operating days per year, or 1,200 tons per year. With no change to the
facility or operating hours the station is estimated to be able to handle a
maximum of 80 customers per day For a maximum 20-minute wait time in the
queue, the estimated maximum number of customers per day is 80, or 9,600
customers per year for 120 operating days per year.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
For both the Hoodsport and Union stations, the limitations to capacity are the
length of available on -site customer queuing, number of customer tipping stalls,
and the ability to swap out garbage boxes. Increasing the length of available on -
site queuing space and number of customer tipping stalls is estimated to
increase the capacity of the stations.
The recently adopted County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter IV Land Use),
estimates the population of Mason County to grow from 53,789 in 2005 to
85,088 in 2025, an increase of 58 2% or an average of 2.9% per year. Waste
disposal is known to grow with population, but recent years have shown a steep
increase in tons disposed per capita. In some jurisdictions in Western
Washington, garbage increases have doubled or tripled in relation to concurrent
population increases. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate disposal increases
beyond the population growth projections.
By applying a projected population growth rate to the waste disposal tonnage
and transfer station/drop box station customer count, and anticipating the recent
trends to continue for the next few years, we can predict the required capacity of
the stations in the future. Table 4.6 presents the predicted waste tonnage and
customer capacity required in 2010 for each station, and compares it to the
estimated capacity of each station. Long range projections are included in the
Appendix.
TABLE 4.6 STATION TONNAGE AND CUSTOMER CAPACITY
2005 ACT
Station
Shelton Solid Waste Facility
Tons
Customers
Belfair Drop Box Station
Tons
Customers
Hoodsport Drop Box Station
Tons
Customers
Union Drop Box Station
Tons
Customers
JAL
AND
2010
ESTIMATES
2010
2005
41,716.56
67,500
55,342
90,000
4,601.3
9,110
21,864
28,000
419.33
449
5,139
5,506
419
67
450
5,004
Estimated
Capacity w/o
Expansion
60,000
70,000
10,850
42,000
1,200
9,600
1,200
5,361 9,600
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Alternatives and Evaluations
Develop New Transfer/Drop Box Stations
From the data presented above, it is clear the existing transfer/drop box stations
are insufficient to handle the predicted growth in Mason County for the period
from 2005 to 2010 without expansion. For planning purposes, it is interesting to
note that the population served by the Belfair Drop Box Station would have to
increase annually at 5% from the 2005 served population before the capacity of
the station would be met. For 2004, 2005 and 2006, this area of the County has
grown an average of 10% annually. Growth outside of Mason County is also a
consideration, as the influence of Kitsap County residents and services will
impact the greater Belfair area.
In an effort to evaluate the need for adding transfer/drop box stations to the
existing solid waste system, a computer model of Mason County was used The
model calculated the cost of waste movement between the 14 census tracts in
Mason County and the Shelton Solid Waste Facility It also calculated the cost of
transferring waste from the drop box stations to the Shelton Solid Waste Facility
By running the model for different solid waste system scenarios, a comparison of
costs between the scenarios was made. The results of the computer modeling
(Table 4 7) compares the existing solid waste system with scenarios where the
Belfair Drop Box Station is replaced by a transfer station, a drop box station is
built on Harstene Island, and a drop box station is built in the southwest portion
of the County.
SCENARIO
Existing
System
Replace Belfair
Drop Box with
Transfer Station
Build Harstene
Island Drop
Box Station
TABLE 4.7 COMPARISON OF SOLID WASTE SCENARIOS
Additional
Station Cost
(own,
operate, and
maintain)
$/Yr
Baseline
Commercial
Customers
to Shelton
($/Yr)
$533,000
Drop Boxes
to Shelton
($/Yr)
$84,000
$353,000
$54,000
$500,000
$501,000
$103,000
$300,000
Total ($/yr)
$617,000
$907,000
$904,000
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Build SW $503,000 $102,000 $300,000 $905,000
County Drop
Box Station
The information presented above suggests that it is not cost effective to replace
the Belfair Drop Box Station with a transfer station. Given this conclusion, the
justification to replace other drop box stations with transfer stations would also
not be adequate. In addition, from the above information, there is no economic
justification to add drop box stations on Harstene Island or in the southwest
portion of the County. This conclusion can likely be extrapolated to say that it is
not economically feasible to add drop box stations in other portions of the
County.
Advantages: Development of new transfer/drop box stations would provide
more convenient locations for residents to dispose of their solid waste and to
recycle. In addition, new stations may eliminate illegal dumping in areas where
there are presently no stations.
Disadvantages: The costs to develop, operate and maintain new transfer/drop
box stations are estimated between $300,000 and $500,000 per year. The
current funding for these types of systemic improvements is inadequate, and
would require a significant rate increase or bond.
Separate Handling of Yard Waste/CDL
At each of the transfer/drop box stations, there is an opportunity to provide for
separate handling of yard waste and construction, demolition and land clearing
debris (CDL). At the Shelton Solid Waste Facility, construction of an uncovered
tipping area where yard waste and CDL could each be loaded into transfer
trailers or drop boxes would provide this opportunity Another consideration
would be to process materials on site for composting and sell finished product.
The tipping area could be located adjacent to the existing recycling area or
between the drop box and transfer buildings. At the Belfair Drop Box Station,
expanding south to add customer tipping stalls could provide for yard waste and
CDL tipping. An alternate location for yard waste and CDL tipping at Belfair
would be adjacent to the recycling bins west of the drop box building. At the
Union Drop Box Station, an area for tipping yard waste and CDL could be located
by clearing some trees east of the drop box building and recycling area. A yard
waste and CDL tipping area could be added to the Hoodsport Drop Box Station in
the area north of the drop box building adjacent to the recycling area.
Advantages: Separate handling of yard waste and CDL would reduce the
amount of wastes that are disposed, and therefore would result in a greater
overall diversion rate for the County and City Although some costs would be
incurred from the development of separate areas at the transfer station for
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
collection and handling of this material, savings would be realized from reduced
transfer and disposal costs. Reduced tipping fees could be charged to customers
for clean yard waste and CDL brought to the station(s).. Outreach materials,
including radio, Internet, and newspaper advertising, could be developed that
would help effect behavior change towards the State's Beyond Waste vision. On
site processing would further promote the State plan goals.
Disadvantages: This alternative would incur costs for the development of
separate areas for yard waste and CDL tipping at the facilities, and for handling
of the materials.
Import/Export
Currently, Mason County is not accepting solid waste from outside of its county
borders. It is in the County's best interest to transport solid waste out of the
County because of the regulations and costs associated with the construction of
a new landfill.
Advantages: Maintains the existing solid waste system, and reduces liability
associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a landfill.
Disadvantages: Under this system, the County relies on private sector operators
to transport and dispose of waste. Contracts with these entities help to eliminate
any uncertainty associated with costs and capacity, however the County does not
have as much control as they would operating their own landfill.
4.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
In 1993, Mason County closed its landfill located on Eells Hill Road, north of
Shelton. Construction of the Solid Waste Facility, a transfer station, was
completed in 1993 on the same site.
Existing Practices
In 1993, a competitive bidding process was conducted by Lewis County and
Grays Harbor County on behalf of those counties and additional counties,
including Mason County. Regional Disposal Company was selected to own,
provide, and operate facilities to transport and dispose of waste for the County.
In 1994 the contract was modified to include the use of rail transportation for
disposal of the waste. A further addendum to the contract in 1997 extended the
life of the contract through the year 2013. Under the contract, solid waste is
transported from the Solid Waste Facility by trailer by LeMay Inc., a
subcontractor for Regional Disposal Company (RDC), to Lewis County. It is then
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
•
transferred to rail car and taken to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill (owned and
operated by the Rabanco Company of Seattle) in Klickitat County, Washington.
Needs and Opportunities
The existing system of contracting with a private hauler to transport waste from
the solid waste facility by trailer, and then transferring the trailer to a railcar for
transport to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County is a costly
operation for the County. A more cost effective method may be to develop an
intermodal transfer station in Mason County, thereby eliminating the trailer
transport phase of the system. There is a need to compare the costs of the
current transport method with different transport scenarios, to determine if there
is a more cost effective method for the County. Several variables could influence
the need to pursue such a strategy, such ass factors effecting costs, availability
of a viable site; limited expansion at current facilities; systemic or procedural
changes inside or outside of Mason County; significant or unanticipated growth,
and also continued or escalated growth in per capita disposal.
Alternatives
Develop Intermodal Transfer Station
In an effort to compare the current transport method for waste enroute to the
Roosevelt Regional Landfill, a computer model was used. The model calculated
the cost of waste movement between Mason County and the landfill. By running
the model for different transport scenarios, a comparison of costs between the
scenarios was made. The results of computer modeling are presented in Table
4.8, comparing the existing transport system with scenarios where waste is rail
hauled from a new intermodal transfer station in Mason County to Roosevelt,
and where waste is trucked all the way to Roosevelt.
TABLE 4.8 COMPARISON OF WASTE T=" rt=NSPORT OPTIONS
Additional
Cost (own,
operate,
and
maintain)
($/Yr)
Existing System
Rail Haul - New Station
to Roosevelt
Truck Haul - Shelton to
Roosevelt
Truck Rail
Transport Transport
($/Yr) ($/Yr)
$361,000
$0
$718,000
$890,000
Baseline
$850,000
$1,880,000
$0
$0
Total ($/yr)
2005:
1,571,425
$1,079,000
$1,740,000
$1,880,000
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Advantages: Would reduce existing costs associated with truck transport. In
addition, under the existing operating scenario, if the rail system fails to deliver
rail cars or a waste container, RDC is obligated to truck haul the waste to
Roosevelt at no additional cost to Mason County. Furthermore, under the
current operating scenario, RDC is responsible for coordinating and managing
the railroad portion of the system.
Disadvantages Based on the information developed in the computer model at
this time, it is not cost effective to build a new intermodal transfer station to rail
haul, or to truck haul waste to Roosevelt Regional Landfill.
4:4 SOLID WASTE INCINERATION / ENERGY RECOVERY
Incineration involves burning solid waste to reduce both its weight and volume.
The resulting ash requires significantly less landfill volume than the original
waste. When used with an energy recovery system, incineration canalso
produce steam and/or electricity for sale Increasingly stringent environmental
regulations and adverse public sentiment, however, has made the siting and
operation of incinerators more difficult and expensive.
Existing Conditions
To date, no consideration has been given to energy recovery as a tool in solid
waste management in Mason County. There are no existing plans, programs or
facilities for utilizing municipal solid waste for energy recovery in the County.
Needs and Opportunities
There will continue to be a need for disposal of solid waste in the future,
although the existing waste export system currently meets this need in a
satisfactory manner. Incineration is a technically viable method of reducing
waste volumes, and reducing the production of methane (a greenhouse gas)
from landfills It can also use an underutilized renewable resource (solid waste)
to produce electricity, for which there is an ever-increasing demand However,
Mason County currently has a low disposal rate in relation to neighboring
counties. While cost of disposal will rise in the future, it is unlikely that cost
increases associated with the transporting of solid waste will make energy
recovery cost efficient on a large scale. In addition, there is considerable
technical controversy about the extent and severity of health risks associated
with incineration.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Alternatives and Evaluation
Incineration/Energy Recovery
There are several options and variations possible with incineration. These
o ptions include a choice of different burning technologies, waste streams, and
e nergy recovery systems. Incineration is generally considered where there are
e nvironmental concerns with other disposal options, where a market exists for
e nergy recovered from waste combustion, where it is a financially feasible and
more desirable option, and/or other factors.
Advantages: At the present time, there appear to be no factors that would favor
incineration in Mason County over other disposal methods.
Disadvantages: The quantities of waste generated in Mason County would not
support the costs to design, construct, operate and maintain a waste -to -energy
o r other type of incineration facility.
Recommendations
The following actions related to solid waste collection, transfer, disposal, and
incineration/energy recovery are recommended for this Plan:
1. Develop separate organic waste and construction and demolition waste
tipping areas at the Shelton Transfer Station Facility where materials collected
could either be processed onsite or transferred to an existing private
composting operation in Mason County.
2. Continue to review and evaluate operational procedures at all of the solid
waste collection facilities to reduce waiting times during peak -use periods.
3. Explore new opportunities for public/private partnerships dealing with
improving solid and special waste collection, processing, transport, and
disposal.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
CHAPTER 5: SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
This chapter provides a comprehensive look at the enforcement and
administration of the solid waste system for the City of Shelton and Mason
County. Each section will discuss existing conditions, needs and opportunities,
and will make recommendations based on an evaluation of alternatives. The
chapter is divided into the following sections:
5.1 Solid Waste Administration
5.2 Solid Waste Enforcement
5.1 SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION
The solid waste planning goal for administration is to ensure that Mason County's
Utilities and Waste Management and the City of Shelton's Public Works
departments are adequately staffed, trained, and managed for coordination of
solid waste activities.
Existing Practices
Mason County
The County's solid waste utility is housed under the Department of Utilities and
Waste Management. The director of Utilities and Waste Management is
responsible for managing the solid waste and sewer systems for the County. The
solid waste services for the County are funded through fees collected at the solid
waste facility, drop box stations, and a solid waste grant funded by Ecology. The
Department of Utilities and Waste Management consists of a director, Deputy
Director, Solid Waste manager/recycling coordinator, six transfer station
attendants, four employees who work on the transfer station tipping floor, a
secretary, and two accountants.
City of Shelton
The City's solid waste utility is included with other functions of the City's Public
Works Department. The director of Public Works is responsible for garbage
service, roads, water, sewer, and storm utilities for the City. The solid waste
programs for the City of Shelton are funded through garbage collection fees and
a grant funded by Ecology. The Department of Public Works consists of a
director, engineer, part-time projects engineer, CAD technician, engineering
technician, superintendent of crews, recycling coordinator, secretary, and 25
employees who work on the division crews (water, sewer, garbage, and roads).
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Needs and Opportunities
Staffing is currently inadequate to handle the existing solid waste administration
and operations in the County. Recent changes in the City should increase their
capacity to manage waste.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. Additional Staff
If the County intends to continue its role as solid waste managers, then
increased staffing may be required as the system matures and grows, becoming
more demanding on existing staff.
As more homes are built within City limits, Shelton may need to increase staffing
for its collection routes.
Advantages: Additional staff would provide for adequate administration of
County and City solid waste programs, for both existing and future activities.
Disadvantages: Additional staff will require funding for those positions.
2. Privatization
To reduce the strain on local government particularly if a decision is made not to
increase staffing, privatization of some elements of the solid waste system may
be desirable. The two system functions that may have the potential for
privatization include:
• County transfer station operations
• City collection services
Several communities have collection systems and transfer stations operated by
private enterprise, either leased or contracted. The County could continue to
derive funding for its solid waste programs through a surcharge on tipping fees,
but all other responsibility for transfer station construction, operation, and
maintenance could be provided by a private company.
The City of Shelton considered privatizing its garbage collection service during
2003. Ultimately, the decision was made to keep the garbage service in-house
The two determining factors were quality of service and financial feasibility.
Advantages: By pursuing privatization, the County may be able to keep staff
levels at or below their existing levels and decrease their requirements for
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
administration. The advantages to the City of Shelton would be reduced costs
associated with the administration and operation of the collection system.
Disadvantages: The County would loose the revenue source associated with
tipping fees at the transfer station. The quality of service presently enjoyed by
City residents may decrease from privatization, and the City would lose the
revenues associated with the collection fees paid by residents.
3. Additional Funding
As stated above revenue required to fund solid waste programs has been
generated through tipping fees for the County and collection fees for the City.
Other alternatives exist for generating revenue for solid waste programs.
Internal Financing. Internal financing involves collecting funds from a
preferred revenue source and paying for programs directly from this revenue or
from a capital improvements fund established expressly for this purpose. In this
alternative, the County would place a surcharge on the tipping fee at the transfer
station or a surcharge on the collection bill and any funds generated that are
surplus to the current needs of the system are placed in a capital improvements
fund. As the fund grows, the opportunity for additional capital improvements to
the system grows.
Advantages: The capital improvements fund can be used to finance small-scale
projects, studies, and pilot programs.
Disadvantages: 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.
General Obligation Bonds. General obligation bonds are the typical method
of financing large scale capital improvements to a solid waste system. Under this
method, the County is obligated to the bondholders for repayment. Repayment
of the bonds would be made through whatever means of generating operating
revenue for the solid waste system is used. The amount of General Obligation
Debt a County may have is regulated by the State.
Advantages: Provides funding for large-scale capital improvements for the
system.
Disadvantages: The County is obligated to the bondholders for repayment, and
there is some risk if the operating revenue for the solid waste system is not
adequate to repay the bonds.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Revenue Bonds. Revenue bonds are similar to general obligation bonds except
that repayment is guaranteed through funds collected as part of a revenue
producing activity (for example a landfill tipping fee). Revenue bonds may incur
additional obligations such as flow control 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.
Advantages: Provides a source of funding for large-scale capital improvements
for the solid waste system.
Disadvantages: Revenue bonds may incur additional obligations such as flow
control 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
enterprise and the County, Industrial Development Bonds (IDB's) may be used
for funding capital improvements. IDB's are particularly common in financing
waste -to -energy projects; however, other joint ventures may be amenable to this
form of joint cooperation.
Advantages: Provides a source of funding for large scale capital improvements
for the solid waste system.
Disadvantages There is a statewide cap for such bonds, so any project would
have to compete with other projects throughout the State.
Grant Funding. The County and City of Shelton receive grant monies from
Ecology under the Coordinated Prevention Grant These funds are only to be
used to implement programs as outlined in an Ecology -approved Solid or
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. (Historically, grants have been for programs
relating to waste reduction and recycling, and the management and prevention
of hazardous waste.) Additional grant funding could be sought as these
programs expand, or as State priorities change over time.
Advantages: Funding is available from the State on a bi-annual basis, and can
provide necessary funding for solid waste programs for the County and City.
Disadvantages: Funding is not guaranteed, and can be drastically reduced by
the Legislature during any given year, as seen in the 2005 Legislative session.
Private Financing. Private solid waste projects can be financed through
private sources. This method of funding capital improvements and programs is
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
more expensive than the previously mentioned programs. For private projects,
however, private financing is preferred. The cost of privately financed projects is
recovered through charges to customers using the facility. For example, if the
County pursued privatization of its transfer station operations and the private
contractor wanted to upgrade the facilities to handle collection vehicles, these
improvements could be financed through private sources and the funds
recovered through charging the collection company for the service rendered.
Advantages: Would provide financing for facility upgrades, and the funds would
be recovered through charges to customers using the facility, or charging the
private company for services rendered.
Disadvantages: This method of funding capital improvements and programs is
generally more expensive the other alternatives.
Enterprise Fund. The enterprise fund is established under provisions of the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board's 1987 Codification of Governmental
Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards, Section 1300.104. In this
method, a special fund is established and revenues collected are deposited in the
fund. As funds accumulate, they may be used to provide for internal financing of
less capital intensive projects The enterprise fund monies can also be obligated
to repaying revenue bonds for large capital projects.
Advantages: Is the current method used to fund daily solid waste activities by
the County. Could be used by the City to fund daily operations. Can provide for
internal financing of less capital intensive projects, and can be used to repay
revenue bonds for large capital projects.
Disadvantages: If revenues do not meet expected levels, the enterprise fund will
not be adequate for funding daily solid waste activities of the County or City.
General Fund General fund financing of solid waste activities is an additional
option although it has significant drawbacks. In this alternative a solid waste
budget would be developed and approved through normal County methods. The
solid waste activities would compete with other projects for available funds. All
revenues collected from tipping fees or from enforcement actions would be
directed to the County's general fund.
Advantages: General fund financing of some activities related to solid waste
could be considered. These activities would be in areas where responsibilities
are shared with other departments, such as enforcement by the Sheriff's
Department or Health Department General Fund financing may be the best
alternative for these programs because it is consistent with the existing funding
mechanism for those agencies. In addition, it would be difficult to define exactly
how much of the cost of such a program is directly related to solid waste.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Disadvantages: To provide the required funds to establish solid waste programs
under th's alternative may require a general tax increase. In general a tax
increase is difficult to implement even for the most needy programs, and no
guarantee can be made as to its ability to be implemented. Without a tax
increase, other County programs would suffer to pay for solid waste activities.
This alternative allocates the cost of the solid waste system to all citizens of the
County whether they have garbage service or not. General fund financing of
solid waste programs would make it difficult to establish a rate incentive for
recycling and would make it more difficult to add future programs because of the
process that must be followed to establish a budget and fund it. General fund
financing is limited, and programs may not have sufficient priority in relation to
other programs to receive adequate funding.
To accommodate the Tong -term financial obligations related to managing the
County's solid waste system, a rate review and adjustment might be required.
The rate review should reflect the cost of new programs, development of new
facilities, and ongoing maintenance and monitoring during the post closure
period. In general, all costs associated with construction, operation, post closure
costs, and management of the solid waste system in the County could be paid
for with funds collected at the transfer station. However, it is likely to require a
rate increase With a rate increase, the risk of increased illegal dumping is
possible. Mandatory collection could help minimize this risk. The new tipping
fee should be equitable and reflect the actual cost of the solid waste handling
system.
Collection Company/Private Operator Fees. Another option for funding
solid waste programs is to collect funds through the collection companies Any
collection company operating within the County could be required to charge a
County administration fee This revenue would be turned over directly to the
County. If privatization of the transfer station were pursued, a similar method
could be used to place a surcharge on the tipping fee that would fund County
programs.
Advantages Provides funding for daily operations and some capital
improvement projects.
Disadvantages: Fees are typically based on tonnage collected or gross revenues.
If anticipated tonnages or revenues are lower than anticipated, funds would not
be available for planned programs or facilities improvements.
5.2 SOLID WASTE ENFORCEMENT
The planning goal for solid waste enforcement is to ensure that the Mason
County Department of Health Services' permitting, monitoring and compliance
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
programs for solid waste are adequately funded, staffed, managed, and
enforced.
At the Federal and State levels, the primary regulatory authorities for solid waste
management are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Washington State Department of Ecology, respectively. Mason County is in the
jurisdiction of the southwest regional office of Ecology, located in Olympia,
Washington. The following is a description of the laws that relate to solid waste
enforcement:
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) Federal
Amended by Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980. Primary body
of legislation dealing with solid waste. Subtitle D of RCRA deals with non-
hazardous solid waste disposal and requires that the state solid waste
management program provide measures that all solid waste is disposed of
in an environmentally sound manner.
• Washington State Solid Waste Management Act (70.95 RCW) State:
Assigns primary responsibility for solid waste handling to local
governments, with waste reduction and recycling as a priority.
Enforcement and regulatory responsibilities are assigned to cities,
counties, or jurisdictional health departments, depending on activity and
local preferences.
• Minimal Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling (Chapter 173-304
WAC)—State:
Developed by Ecology under the authority granted under Chapter 70.95
RCW This chapter was superceded by Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills (173-351 WAC), which contains current standards for landfills,
and Solid Waste Handling Standards (173-350 WAC) that addresses
recycling and composting facilities, in addition to inert and special purpose
landfills.
Washington's Model Utter Control and Recycling Act (70.93 RCW) State:
Prohibits the deposit of garbage on any property not properly designated
as a disposal site. Recent revisions (70.93.060 RCW) provide stiffer
penalties for littering and illegal dumping in rural areas.
• The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) State:
The WUTC is the ratemaking authority that determines the rates that
hauling companies can charge. The WUTC also determines many of the
rules under which the company must operate.
• City of Shelton Municipal Code —Local: Title 8 Health and Sanitation
Provides authority for the solid waste utility, and directs enforcement and
administration to the supervision of the city administrator with delegation
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
authority to the public works director. Defines requirements of
compulsory refuse and recyclables collection.
• Title 18 Building and Housing Maintenance Local
Establishes general rules and regulations for building, construction and
manufactured home placement, and flood damage within the City and to
promote public health, safety and general welfare of the residents and
property owners in accordance with the standards established by the City,
State and Federal laws, codes and regulations.
• Title 11 Vehicle Abatement Code —Local
Establishes authority and guidelines for abatement and removal of
unauthorized and derelict motor vehicles and parts.
• Mason County Local Code —Title 6 Sanitary Code, Solid Waste Handling
Title 6, Sanitary Code
Chapter 6.72 defines standards for solid waste and biosolids handling and
facilities including storage, transportation, illegal dumping, financial
assurance, permitting and handling special wastes.
Title 15, Development Code
The purpose of this title is to define parameters for application, review,
enforcement, and approval processes for land development in Mason
County. Chapter 15.13 provides inspection procedures to ensure property
owners' rights aren't violated.
Existing Practices
Mason County
Mason County Environmental Health has been placed under the management of
the Department of Health. Environmental Health is responsible for solid waste
e nforcement, permitting new solid waste facilities, monitoring and inspecting
existing facilities, and responding to environmental health related complaints
from the public Environmental Health is currently staffed by two full-time
e mployees The focuses for compliance enforcement are illegal dumping,
u napproved storage of hulk and inoperable vehicles, and solid waste violations
o n private property. The rural nature of the County provides many opportunities
for illegal dumping, and makes it difficult for these sites to be identified other
than by citizen complaints. Both the Sheriff's Department and the Department of
Environmental Health typically receive the complaints.
Once a complaint is received
* The landowner is contacted for the cleanup of the site.
* Identified sites are then required to become compliant by
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
permitting,
proper closure, or
abatement and/or blocking access where appropriate.
In the event of non -cooperation, which is frequently the case for solid waste
violations, compliance is enforced through the Mason County Title 6 Sanitary
Code and Title 15 Development Code, and other proper legal processes.
City of Shelton
The code enforcement officer, in the Department of Community Development,
handles solid waste enforcement for the City. Illegal dumping, litter control,
solid waste nuisance abatement, and hulk vehicle removal are areas of solid
waste enforcement in the City limits.
Needs and Opportunities
Illegal dumping, litter and abandoned vehicles and other bulky items are an
ongoing problem in the County. Enforcement is ongoing, and staff at the
Department of Environmental Health strives to maintain compliance. Additional
education and outreach is necessary to inform citizens of the need to clean up
abandoned vehicles and other problems on their property. More effort is needed
to encourage citizens to report illegal dumping sites Additional litter abatement
measures are needed to reduce the ongoing litter problems on County roads.
There is an increasing emphasis on utilization of sewage solids as a resource in
land application This has already impacted Environmental Health and has the
potential for additional staff involvement.
There are several businesses, households and other facilities that generate
exempt amounts of hazardous waste. These are not currently being addressed
in the City or in Mason County. An additional employee may be necessary to
implement an appropriate program including education, tracking, and monitoring
with emphasis on education and follow-up.
There are several non -permitted landfills operating in Mason County. These non -
permitted landfills are typically wood waste and demolition fills. Environmental
Health is working to identify these locations and enforce permit requirements.
Alternatives and Evaluation
Several alternatives for increasing the monitoring and enforcement activity of the
County in the area of solid waste will be discussed in this section, in addition to
the benefits of a solid waste system evaluation. Of concern specifically is
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
e nforcement of special waste regulations, littering and illegal dumping, and new
solid waste facility permits.
1. System Evaluation
In addition to classic methods of increasing authority (staff and funding for
e nforcement), consideration could also be given to the solid waste system itself.
Large increases in illegal dumping could be viewed as public dissatisfaction with
the system. Conversely, if the public supports recycling programs and
e nvironmental protection measures at the closed landfill, they could be more
likely to support the programs by using the solid waste system.
A lack of public information and education could also contribute to poor
u nderstanding of County actions and an increase in enforcement requirements.
However, some level of illegal dumping should be expected regardless of the
level of public support, and enforcement methods would be required on some
level
Several Washington communities have addressed illegal dumping concerns by
convening a task force to evaluate the roles of the county, city, and other
relevant public agencies responsible for illegal dumping cleanup, education and
prevention programs. The evaluation should also include gathering data on
quantities, composition and location of wastes being illegally disposed.
Advantages: Evaluation of the solid waste system structure and development of
methods to make the system more acceptable could be one method of removing
the need for extensive enforcement. A review of existing enforcement authority
may result in restructuring the roles of existing staff and their enforcement
approach. A better understanding of the system and subsequent actions to
improve efficiencies will result in a more effective use of staff resources.
Disadvantages: Additional staff time is required, and related administrative
budget.
2. New Ordinances
The Health Department can work with the Mason County Community
Development Department to propose new ordinances that provide for methods
of enforcement and also provide the Health Department authority for enforcing
solid waste regulations. Areas of concern that may have a need for additional
ordinances are infectious wastes, tire piles, illegal dumping, enforcement
authority, mandatory collection in unincorporated areas, and waste category
definitions and disposal methods. The SWMP can be used in conjunction with
WAC 174-350-360, Mason County Title 6 Sanitary Code, and other environmental
regulations to develop a coordinated approach to ordinances regarding solid
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
waste. Examples of ordinances from other counties can be used as a guideline
for developing Mason County's ordinances.
Advantages: Increased authority to respond to illegal dumping complaints.
Promotes health safety and environmental quality to reduce the cost of cleanup.
Disadvantages: Staff time required to research needs, draft and implement new
ordinances.
3. Interagency Coordination
The large number of different law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction in
the County makes interagency cooperation in the enforcement of solid waste
regulations essential. The County Sheriff, City of Shelton Police, Mason County
Health Department, Washington State Patrol, State and National Park Rangers,
and Tribal Police all have areas of jurisdiction. Each agency could be made
aware of the procedure for reporting illegal dumping, even if enforcement of
illegal dumping laws is not a priority for that agency. Consideration should be
given to the development of an improved inter -agency reporting system that
would allow field inspectors to work together in an efficient manner. An intranet
database could be developed which would allow all affected agencies to record
actions taken and future needs.
Advantages: Minimizes the duplication of investigative and administrative
efforts.
Disadvantages: Cost of implementing a reporting system.
4. Improve Staff Efficiencies
Field staff often lack comprehensivetraining on how to prepare and document
cases to ensure that successful enforcement actions can be taken. Numerous
opportunities exist from non-profit professional and government agencies that
provide training. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offers several
training programs, which can greatly enhance an inspector's ability to respond to
incidents and gain compliance. Topics include basic procedures and issues
surrounding all aspects of an enforcement program including information
research, interviewing techniques, report writing, case development, field work,
teamwork and case resolutions.
Advantages: More efficient and effective field inspections. Increased resolution
of cases.
Disadvantages: Staff time requirements and cost of training programs.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
S. Health Department Stang and Training
The Health Department is the agency responsible for monitoring and enforcing
solid waste regulations as well as permitting solid waste facilities. The Health
Department is also responsible for overseeing proper decontamination of
clandestine drug labs to insure public safety and health standards are met. As
laws change, this task becomes more and more demanding and may require the
Health Department to increase its staffing level and provide additional specialized
training to some staff. In addition, future state regulations may require
certification of at least one Health Department specialist involved in permitting
and monitoring solid waste disposal sites.
Advantages: Increased public and environmental health and safety.
Disadvantages: Additional funding will be necessary to address program costs
related to additional staff, training and program administration.
6. Enforcement Authority
The Health Department has the authority to enforce solid waste regulations, and
to investigate, enforce, and ensure the cleanup of illegal dumping. The Sheriff's
department or the State Patrol enforces littering laws. This authority includes
ticketing, and the Hearings Examiner process where fines can be assessed as
liens against real property. Prosecution of solid waste regulations are carried out
by the prosecutor s office.
Increased enforcement authority could be granted through new ordinances
described previously in this section. Partial revenues generated through
enforcement of solid waste regulations could be provided to the Health
Department to supplement their enforcement budget. This would require a
change in the litter control ordinance recently established. Consideration should
be given to strengthening enforcement authority by adding criminal penalties.
Advantages: Increased authority to respond to illegal dumping complaints.
Promotes health safety and environmental quality to reduce the cost of cleanup.
Revenues could offset costs for program implementation.
Disadvantages: Staff time required to research needs, and draft and implement
new ordinances.
7. Public Education and Outreach
Increase the community's awareness of the impact of illegal dumping on
property values and the environment. This can be accomplished by providing
easy to use information on actions to take by those whose property has been
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
illegally dumped on An illegal dumping "hotline" number can be advertised to
e ncourage reporting of illegal dump sites. The agency accepting the calls should
be familiar with existing regulations and able to refer each case to the
appropriate agency for response. A tracking system should be developed to
collect data on each case.
Inquiries should be made of large landowners to identify any problems they may
have with illegal dumping and methods they have used to discourage incidents.
Educating landowners on how to secure their land in a manner that will
discourage illegal dumping may provide assistance.
Consideration should be given to the development of coordinated efforts with
agencies such as the Department of Corrections, local businesses and non-profit
o rganizations that may be able to contribute funding and/or labor to assist in site
clean up activities.
Advantages: Increased awareness and understanding should lead to a reduction
in incidents of illegal dumping and facilitate site identification and clean up.
Disadvantages: Expense of printing and disseminating literature. Staff resources
required to provide education.
8. Incentive Programs
A system may be developed to encourage voluntary clean up. Nonprofit
o rganizations may be available to assist with litter clean up. An inventory of
agencies in the county should be made, along with an assessment of potential
resources. This should also include contact with local high schools, as many
require community service hours. Incentives can include public
acknowledgments and awards.
Advantages: Certain landowners who experience illegal dumping on their
property may be more motivated to initiate clean up if they were offered
incentives such as free or reduced tipping fees.
Disadvantages: Increased staff time requirement to gather information and
implement program,
9. Mandatory Collection in Unincorporated Areas
Tipping fees and garbage collection rates will increase in the future. With rising
rates will come the possibility of increased illegal dumping and the associated
enforcement concerns. One alternative for handling this problem is to pass a
mandatory collection law. Under a mandatory collection ordinance, all County
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
residents would be charged for a minimum level of refuse service whether they
use it or not.
Mandatory collection could take several forms. The two most common methods
of billing include a flat user fee or the imposition of a property tax. Care must be
taken in accurate cost accounting, including an evaluation of the effects a
decrease in self -haul will have on system equipment needs, effects on staffing
levels, hours of operation and administration.
Advantages: Provides a direct economic incentive for proper waste disposal.
Increased participation rates results in increased system revenue. Decreases the
likelihood of illegal dumping, thus the need for increased enforcement efforts.
Disadvantages Mandatory collection could be strongly opposed by residents
that self -haul refuse, burn refuse, or simply dislike mandatory programs. The
benefits of mandatory collection must be weighed against the opposition of these
individuals. In addition, some may feel the incentive to recycle is reduced.
10. Additional Funding
Similar funding options are available for enforcement practices as were described
in Section 5.1. In particular, portions of the enterprise fund may be dedicated to
funding specific enforcement programs in the Health Department and the
Sheriff's Department. Investigate the potential of securing funds from the
Department of Ecology for implementation of litter clean up and illegal dumping
policies (CLCP grant).
Advantages: Increased funding for additional staff.
Disadvantages: None identified.
Recommendations
The following actions related to enforcement and administration are
recommended for this Plan:
1. Explore additional abatement and public property cleanup funding
alternatives.
2. Assist local regulatory and law enforcement agencies with the implementation
and enforcement of new and existing laws and solid waste regulations.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
CHAPTER 6: SPECIAL WASTE STREAMS
This chapter discusses those solid wastes that fall outside of the category of
mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) because they require separate handling
and/or disposal. This chapter is divided into the special wastes that are of
particular interest to Mason County. Each section will discuss existing conditions,
needs and opportunities, and recommendations based on an evaluation of
alternatives. This chapter is divided into the following sections:
6.1 Animal Carcasses
6.2 Asbestos
6.3 Biomedical Waste
6.4 Biosolids
6.5 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Wastes
6.6 Disaster Debris
6.7 Electronic Waste
6.8 Tires
6.9 Wood Waste
6.1 ANIMAL CARCASSES
The rural nature of Mason County and the presence of salmon -bearing
waterways create the need for planning for disposal of animal carcasses
Various methods that currently exist include cremation at local veterinary clinics,
use of a rendering service, or landfill disposal in accordance with general
sanitation practices as stated in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 248-
50-120.
Existing Practices
The primary generators of animal carcasses in Mason County include:
Animal She/ter The City of Shelton animal shelter delivers animal mortalities to
a local veterinary hospital where they are cremated.
Household Pets As with farm animals (see below), pets are allowed to be
buried on private property as long as there is room and if safe distances are
maintained from surface waters. Deceased pets are also accepted at the
transfer stations as long as they are triple bagged.
Farm Animals. The few animals that die on farms are allowed to be buried on -
site as long as safe distances are maintained from surface waters or wells.
Deceased farm animals are also accepted at the transfer stations as long as they
are triple bagged.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Roadki/t Dead animals collected from the roadside are buried, picked up by a
rendering service, or cremated through local veterinary offices, depending on
where the animal is found (which determines whether the State, County, Tribe or
City have jurisdiction) and the type of animal (rendering companies are
prohibited from accepting wild game). They also may be accepted at the
transfer station as long as they are triple bagged.
Salmon: Fishing practices by the Skokomish Tribe previously included the
disposal of salmon carcasses directly into the marine waters of the Hood Canal.
This practice has ceased and alternative methods of disposal are being used and
evaluated. Some portion of this waste stream is sent to permitted facilities for
composting.
Needs and Opportunities
In the event of a contagious disease, such as BSE emad cow disease'), which
results in the death of a large number of farm animals, Mason County does not
have a course of action in place. It is important to recognize the need for a plan
of disposal should the situation arise.
In 2004, studies showed that the practice of disposal of salmon carcasses into
the Hood Canal was contributing to a ' dead zone" —dissolved oxygen
concentrations were reaching unacceptable levels. The Mason County
Conservation District, in cooperation with Skokomish Valley Ag Producers, the
Skokomish Indian Tribe and the Department of Corrections have launched a joint
effort to develop alternatives for handling this waste stream. This has resulted in
the solicitation of proposals for construction of an anaerobic digester, which
could handle salmon, food, and cattle waste. By products of this operation
would result in marketable products including liquid fertilizer, biogas (with the
potential for use as alterative energy) and fiber by-products.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. Explore alternatives to the disposal of large animals infected with
contagious diseases and provide education to farmers.
Risk mitigation measures implemented in 2005 have significantly reduced the
probability of incidents of mad cow disease in the United States. However, if any
incidents occur, it will be important for the protection of public health for a plan
to be in place for safe and proper disposal of any infected animals.
Advantages: If an animal with mad cow disease is discovered in Mason County,
a system will be in place to immediately and effectively manage the situation.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
The County currently has organizations such as the Mason Conservation District,
Farm Service Agency, and the .Department of Natural Resources, in addition to
the City and County news publications which may be utilized to alert farmers to
the availability of information.
Disadvantages: Staff time will be required to conduct research and formulate a
plan Sensitivity will be required regarding communication to prevent any
implication of an impending outbreak.
2. Participate in discussions and provide assistance where necessary to assist
with evaluations of proposed methods for handling salmon carcasses
Advantages: A forum has already been developed with staff that is actively
evaluating the digester project.
A similar project exists in Whatcom County, which will provide baseline data for
use in evaluating a similar project's success.
Disadvantages As with any newly implemented technology, there may be
unforeseen impacts that will require mitigation.
6 2 ASBESTOS
Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that was considered to be useful for many different
applications, especially in fireproofing, until it was discovered that it causes lung
cancer. The fibers are `friable", or crumble easily into very small particles, that
become airborne and lodge into the lungs after being inhaled. Because pure
asbestos was rarely used, the waste material of concern is any material that
contains friable asbestos in quantities greater than one percent. There are some
materials where the asbestos is not friable and so poses Tess of a health risk.
Existing Practices
Asbestos is currently not accepted at Mason County solid waste facilities, unless
it is in amounts sufficient to fill an - entire container so that it can remain
segregated and shipped separately as a single Toad.
Needs and Opportunities
No planning needs exist for the current method of handling and disposing of
asbestos in Mason County. In the event that significant amounts are identified
and seeking disposal, the County could partner with a neighboring jurisdiction to
arrange options depending on the location, such as with the interlocal agreement
for business generated hazardous waste.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Alternatives and Evaluation
No alternatives were identified at this time.
6.3 BIOMEDICAL WASTE
Biomedical wastes are the potentially infectious and injurious wastes from
medical, veterinary, or intermediate care facilities, as well as "sharps" (syringes)
from residential sources.
Existing Practices
Medical facilities have the responsibility to determine which medical wastes are
considered biomedical, and then arrange for the proper handling and disposal of
these wastes These wastes should be placed in special bags or rigid plastic
containers and then removed by licensed biomedical wastes collectors All
biomedical wastes generated by medical facilities are disposed of by private
contractors.
Incidental medical wastes generated by households, businesses, and government
agencies may be disposed of in the solid waste stream. These wastes should be
properly prepared to prevent unintentional human contact by solid waste
employees through the use of sharps containers and red bio medical bags when
appropriate.
"Residential sharps" should be disposed of in capped plastic beverage (PET)
bottles and disposed of with MSW; however, sharps have been found improperly
disposed of in several locations, including roadsides, recycling containers, and
loose in garbage.
Needs and Opportunities
The disposal of residential sharps is an area where improvements are needed.
Alternatives and Evaluation
Public Education Campaign
Advantages: A public awareness campaign would educate the public on proper
disposal of sharps, reducing exposure to solid waste workers. Printed
information could be dispensed via hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies. Public
service announcements could air on the local radio station.
Disadvantages: Requires funding to run an effective media campaign.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
6.4 BIOSOLIDS
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 a material derived from sewage sludge,
and septic tank sludge, also known as septage, that can be beneficially recycled
and meets all applicable requirements." This type of material is specifically
excluded from the definition of solid waste, although other wastes from the
wastewater treatment process (such as grit, contaminated biosolids, screenings,
sludge and ash) are still classified as solid waste.
Existing Practices
Treatment Plant
Mason County operates three sewage treatment plants. Biosolids from these
plants are collected by a private hauler and transported to Bio Recycling, located
in Mason County on Webb HE
Biosolids from the City of Shelton sewage treatment plant (approximately 203
tons in 2005) is land applied to an 80-acre parcel of forested land owned by the
Simpson Timber Company. The site is monitored by the City of Shelton and the
Mason County Department of Health Services.
The Washington State Corrections Center also has its own small wastewater
treatment plant on -site. Biosolids from this plant is land applied on grassland
and timberlands within corrections center property.
All biosolid application within Mason County is subject to review by the Health
Department and the requirements established by Ecology and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Currently, a moratorium has been placed on all new biosolid
land application permits in Mason County.
Septic Tank Sludge
Approximately 1,300,000 tons of septic sludge is generated in Mason County
every year. Currently, septage wastes are disposed of at the Bio Recycling
facility.
Needs and Opportunities
Treatment P/ant
The City is the lead agency for the multi -jurisdictional Shelton Area Regional
Water and Wastewater Project. When implemented, the project will result in
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
many significant environmental benefits including upgrading the City's biosolid
treatment from Class B to Class A, which will be compostable.
Bio-Recycling is currently the only facility handling sewage sludge generated at
the treatment plants. Should anything impair this operation, Mason County
needs to have alternatives identified. Mason County has an existing biosolids de -
watering capability, but has not received sufficient volumes to justify staffing
requirements.
Septic Tank Sludge
The County needs to continue to support the Mason County Department of
Health in their efforts to provide education and help homeowners to fix failing
septic systems. In addition, the county should support efforts to field test new
septic system technologies.
Alternatives and Evaluation
Septic sludge management alternatives include composting, land application, and
co -treatment with wastewater. Landfill disposal of septage is not considered
because Ecology has established through RCW 70.95.225 that landfill disposal of
septage is the lowest priority method of utilization. Landfill disposal is to be
considered only as a "last resort" alternative and only through utilization as a
cover material.
1. Composting and Land Application
Advantages. The composted septage can be land applied to agricultural or
forested lands to be used as a fertilizer, or may be used for land reclamation
purposes in areas with poor soils. This alternative produces a marketable, useful
product without incurring disposal expenses.
Disadvantages: Septage must be stabilized prior to utilization in the composting
process. Stabilization involves mixing the septage with a chemical or treating it
by other means to remove the pathogens and reduce or eliminate its odor. The
addition of lime is a typical method of stabilization and is approved by Ecology.
Once septage has been stabilized it then can be mixed with wood waste or
processed yard debris. The mix is then stockpiled in windrows, turned
occasionally and allowed to sit until the material is fully composted. This process
requires labor and space.
2. Co -Treatment with Wastewater
Advantages: The infrastructure already exists to provide treatment of these
wastes.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Disadvantages: This alternative assumes that adequate capacity is available at
the wastewater treatment plants to handle the additional septage wastes.
Currently, there are no wastewater facilities in Mason County able to take
septage sludge.
3. Land Application
Advantages: Current method of disposal and the standard method of sewage
sludge management. This is a method that must still be managed properly but
still has a number of beneficial impacts on the land. The current moratorium on
new biosolid land application permits will prevent the use of any additional
locations until the moratorium is lifted.
Disadvantages: Plant tolerance of metal concentrations present in sewage
sludge that is land applied must be considered when choosing the type of
preferred land application (agricultural lands, forest lands, and land reclamation
sites).
4. Composting
Biosolids can be converted to a good quality compost material through mixing
with yard debris or wood waste. The compost produced can be of a very high
quality and can be utilized for landscaping or as a soil amendment at nurseries.
Advantages: Produces a marketable, useful product. No disposal expenses are
incurred.
Disadvantages: Requires the production of Class A biosolids. Upgrades would
be needed at existing treatment facilities to produce this class of biosolids.
Requires strict monitoring to test for concentrations of metals, nitrogen, and
phosphorous and the results provided to potential end -users.
6.5 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) WASTES
Construction and demolition wastes are defined simply as the wastes that are
generated from construction and demolition activities. These wastes consist of
wood, concrete, gypsum, roofing, glass, carpet and pad, metals, asphalt, bricks,
and porcelain. Land clearing wastes, including soil, stumps and brush, are also
sometimes included in this category, but these materials are rarely treated as
waste.
A category closely related to C&D is "inert wastes." Inert wastes (wastes that
will not burn, or create harmful leachate or gases, etc.) are defined to include
some types of C&D wastes, such as concrete and asphalt, but specifically
excludes sheetrock, wood, roofing and demolition wastes. The State rules
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
adopted in February 2003 (Ch. 173-350 WAC) provide a more lenient regulatory
status for inert wastes than C&D wastes, with disposal requirements that are less
strict.
Existing Practices
The production of C&D wastes peak during the spring and summer when most
construction and remodeling activities occur. C&D wastes that are brought to
the Solid Waste Facility are currently exported along with other MSW generated
within the County. In 2005, 7,127.51 tons of C&D wastes were brought to this
facility for disposal (an increase of 743 tons from the previous year).
There are a number of private facilities in the County that accept some types of
C&D wastes for end -uses as compost or hog fuel: Mason County Wood
Recyclers, North Mason Fiber, Spencer Lake Wood Recyclers, Peninsula Topsoil,
Bill McTurnal Enterprises, and B-Line.
There are a number of non permitted or illegal C&D dumps in Mason County As
the County Health Department becomes aware of these sites, they are brought
into compliance. These sites contain C&D wastes, wood wastes, and other
materials that may or may not include MSW.
Needs and Opportunities
With a high rate of growth occurring and predicted into the future in the City of
Shelton and unincorporated Mason County, C&D wastes will continue to be a
prominent special wastes issue. Mason County has the opportunity to reach
much higher diversion rates of C&D wastes than previously attained. Currently,
if C&D wastes reach the Solid Waste Facility they are not separated out of the
from the MSW stream in the way that scrap metal and tires are diverted.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. Facility Diversion
All C&D wastes that arrive at the Solid Waste Facility would be separated in the
same way that the metals and tires are handled. The materials would then be
transported to a facility for processing.
Advantages: The capacity of landfills should be reserved for wastes that cannot
be disposed of elsewhere. This alternative would provide residents the
convenience of making one trip to dispose of all the waste. The C&D waste
would be diverted from the landfill to a recycling operation This alternative is in
keeping with the State's Beyond Waste Plan, which encourages viewing wastes
as a resource. If the cost of diverting this resource is less than the cost of
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
transporting it to the regional landfill, the public could, potentially, pay less than
the MSW per ton fee to dispose of C&D waste.
Disadvantages: Special handling of this waste would require space for pile
storage or a facility for customer drop box depositing and storage. A firm would
also need to be hired to haul and/or accept the C&D wastes collected. It would,
potentially, also require a rate change to account for the new, segregated
material.
2. Public Education
Continue to inform residents and businesses of the local, private C&D recycling
o perations in Mason County.
Advantages: This is already happening on a seasonal basis for the residents of
the City of Shelton. It does not require any added commitments from the
County.
Disadvantages: This method relies on residents and businesses to be both
aware of wood recyclers in the area and willing to transport their wastes to those
sites. Does not provide customers the convenience of making a trip to one
location to dispose of their wastes. There is currently little outreach to the
residents of unincorporated Mason County about the C&D recycling
o pportunities.
3. Disposal Ban
Because of the number of C&D wastes collection facilities in operation in Mason
County, a ban of C&D wastes could be put in place at the transfer station and
o utlying drop box stations.
Advantages: The County would not have to shoulder the burden of this growing
waste stream.
Disadvantages: Any type of ban can elicit a negative reaction from the public.
Depending on the political climate, a ban may not be feasible or sustainable A
ban of C&D disposal at the County facility may lead to increased illegal dumping
of these materials.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
6.6 DISASTER DEBRIS
Existing Practices
The contracted hauler, Rabanco, is contractually obligated to haul, without
charge, three days of disaster debris.
Needs and Opportunities
No planning needs exist for the current method of handling and disposing of
disaster debris in Mason County.
Alternatives and Evaluation
No alternatives were identified at this time.
6.7 ELECTRONIC WASTE
For the purposes of this Plan, electronic waste or "e-waste" as it is known in
the solid waste industry refers to discarded computers, monitors, and
televisions.
The past decade has seen swift growth in the manufacture and sale of consumer
e lectronic products. Advances in technology have led to better, smaller, and
cheaper products. Industry analysts give every indication that the trend toward
rapid introduction of new electronic products will continue.
As the production and use of electronic products continues to grow, the
challenge of recovery and disposal is becoming significant The average life span
of a personal computer is currently about 2-3 years. Ecology estimates that
between 2003 and 2010, over 4.5 million computer processing units, 3.5 million
cathode ray tube monitors, and 1.5 million flat panel monitors will become
o bsolete in Washington. Electronics that break are often are not repaired due to
the relatively low price of replacement equipment. When the equipment breaks
o r becomes obsolete, it is commonly discarded.
Computer monitors and older TV picture tubes contain an average of four
pounds of lead and require special handling at the end of their lives. In addition
to lead, electronics can contain chromium, cadmium, mercury, beryllium, nickel,
zinc, and brominated flame retardants. Many state and local government
agencies are concerned about how to ensure proper management of older
e lectronic equipment.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
In response to this growing concern, Ecology was required by ESHB 2488 in the
2004 Legislative Session to conduct research and develop recommendations for
implementing and financing an electronic product collection, recycling, and reuse
program within the State. In December 2005, Ecology published its report
recommending a system. The report recommends that the Legislature adopt a
recycling program that is financed by the manufacturers of those products.
Under Ecology s recommendations, manufacturers would be required to provide
recycling services throughout the State, or they would not be able to sell their
products in Washington. Manufacturers could choose to either pay a product
stewardship fee based on their sales to fund a State -run program or they may
o perate their own independent program. If a manufacturer chooses to operate
its own independent program, it would be required to establish collection points
(at least one site in every county) and provide recycling to consumers at no cost.
The recycling program would apply to televisions, personal computers, laptop
computers, and computer monitors.
Washington State's legislature passed a law (SB 6428) in 2006 requiring
computer and television manufacturers to provide free recycling of their products
throughout the state. This service will be available to households, small.
governments, small businesses and charities by January 1, 2009, and Ecology
will oversee this program. Electronic products that are covered include cathode
ray tube (CRT) or flat panel computer monitors having a viewable area greater
than four inches when measured diagonally, desktop computers, laptops or
portable computers, or CRT or flat panel televisions having a viewable area
greater than four inches when measured diagonally. See SB 6428 (Section 2(6))
for those electronic products that are not covered under this new regulation
Also, an Ecology publication (Number 06-07-005) is a background document on
"Implementing and Financing An Electronic Product Collection, Recycling and
Reuse Program for Washington State."
Existing Practices
Currently, e-waste products enter the solid waste stream in Mason County with
other types of accepted wastes, all of which are destined for the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill.
Needs and Opportunities
Given that the direction taken by the State will have a significant impact on the
role local governments will have in the recovery of electronics in the future, it
may be prudent to reevaluate the need for a local computer and television
e lectronics recycling program in a amendment to this plan or during a future plan
u pdate. Ultimately, there may be a need for Mason County to provide recycling
programs for other electronics, such as cell phones, and equipment such as CD
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
players, VCR's, and audio equipment that may not be covered by pending
legislation.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1, State Plan Support
Mason County and the City of Shelton could support the State system by
providing outreach to its residents regarding the new system.
Advantages: By educating residents on where to take their e-waste in the new
collection program, these materials will be kept out of the local waste stream and
eventually out of the regional landfill.
Disadvantages: May require additional staff time and resources.
2. County -operated Collection Site
In the absence of a statewide collection system, Mason County may choose to
o perate a collection site for e-waste at the Solid Waste Facility and/or drop
boxes.
Advantages: By offering an alternative to County residents to be able to divert
their e-waste from the solid waste stream, these hazardous materials will be
handled in an environmentally preferred manner. Additionally, these sites are
currently utilized for disposal by the general public.
Disadvantages: Given the momentum towards a producer responsibility program
for the statewide collection of e-waste, Mason County may not want to become
responsible for yet another waste stream. To do so on a semi -permanent or
permanent basis would require a covered storage area for the collected
e lectronics, additional staff time, a new e-waste rate to cover the cost of the
recycling, and public outreach to notify residents of the change. A landfill ban
may also be required to ensure that the electronic products do not enter the
general waste stream.
3, Collection Events
Annual or seasonal e-waste collection events could be held by Mason County or
the City of Shelton. These events are usually co -sponsored by a retailer or
e lectronics recycling firm and typically accept e-waste from residents at a
n ominal fee for a one -day -only period.
Advantages: By offering a convenient alternative to residents to be able to
divert their e-waste from the solid waste stream, these hazardous materials will
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
be handled in an environmentally preferred manner. This alternative is also
easily replaced if a statewide system is instituted.
Disadvantages: Staff time and resources would be required to set up and
advertise a collection event. Some members of the public resent having to pay a
fee to recycle their e-waste and would not participate, lessening to positive
impact of the event on the areas waste stream.
4. Landfill Ban
To keep the hazardous materials associated with e-waste out of the waste
stream, the County could ban their acceptance at all solid waste collection
facilities.
Advantages This alternative would only be effective if an e-waste collection
system existed for County residents. If a collection system were in place, this
alternative would ensure that all units are kept out of the general waste stream.
Disadvantages: If there is no collection system in place when the ban takes
effect, e-waste would likely become an illegal dumping problem.
6.8 TIRES
In 2005, 1,887 tires were collected at the Mason County Solid Waste Facility and
the Belfair site. Tires present a special problem for landfill operations in that
they tend to "float" to the surface once buried. Because of their shape and
tendency to hold air, tires will work their way to the surface of a landfill over
time. Tires also cause problems for compaction equipment and can disrupt the
final landfill cover. For these reasons tires are usually not accepted at landfills
and, therefore, require special handling.
Existing Practices
Currently, all tires accepted at the Solid Waste Facility are separated, stored in
temporary piles, and collected by a private contractor and recycled. Tires that
are contaminated (i.e., filled with dirt or Styrofoam) must be cut in half before
being landfilled.
Needs and Opportunities
No planning needs exist for the current method of handling and disposing of tires
in Mason County.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Alternatives and Evaluation
No alternatives were identified at this time.
6.9 WOOD WASTE
This section examines primarily wood waste from logging operations, which is
discussed separately from wood waste that may be contained in the construction
and demolition waste stream (see Section 6 5). Yard waste (organic waste
debris that comes from residential yard maintenance) is not discussed here (see
Chapter 3). Each of these wastes (wood waste, C&D wastes, and yard debris)
originates from varying sources and it is useful to look at them individually even
though the State regulations handle their disposal under the same law.
Existing Practices
The majority of wood wastes are burned and/or disposed of in private landfills.
Currently, wood wastes are not accepted at the transfer stations in large
quantities, however small quantities may still be accepted for disposal.
There are a number of private facilities in the County that accept wood wastes
for end -uses as compost or hog fuel: Bill McTurnal Enterprises, Mason County
Wood Recyclers, North Mason Fiber, B-Line, Peninsula Top Soil and Spencer Lake
Wood Recyclers.
Needs and Opportunities
The County should continue to investigate the feasibility of recycling wood
wastes and diverting these materials to appropriate facilities.
Alternatives and Evaluation
1. Facility Diversion
All wood wastes that arrive at the Solid Waste Facility would be separated in the
same way that the metals and tires are handled.
Advantages. The capacity of landfills should be reserved for wastes that cannot
be disposed of elsewhere. This alternative would provide residents the
convenience of making one trip to dispose of all the waste. The wood waste
would be diverted from the landfill to a recycling operation. This alternative is in
keeping with the State's Beyond Waste Plan, which encourages viewing wastes
as a resource. If the cost of diverting this resource were less than the cost of
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
transporting it to the regional landfill, the public would, potentially, pay less than
the MSW per ton fee to dispose of wood waste.
Disadvantages: Special handling of this waste would require space for pile
storage or a facility for customer drop box depositing and storage. A firm would
also need to be hired to haul and/or accept the wood wastes collected. It would,
potentially, also require a rate change to account for the new, segregated
material.
2. Public Education
Continue to inform residents and businesses of the local, private wood waste
recycling operations in Mason County.
Advantages: This is already happening on a seasonal basis for the residents of
the City of Shelton. It does not require any added commitments from the
County.
Disadvantages: This method relies on residents and businesses to be both
aware of wood recyclers in the area and willing to transport their wastes to those
sites. Does not provide customers the convenience of making a trip to one
location to dispose of their wastes. There is currently little outreach to the
residents of unincorporated Mason County about the wood waste recycling
opportunities.
3. Disposal Ban
Because of the number of wood waste collection facilities in operation in Mason
County, a total ban of wood wastes could be put in place at the transfer station
and outlying drop box stations.
Advantages: This would provide a clearer policy in regard to this waste than is
currently in place.
Disadvantages: Any type of ban can elicit a negative reaction from the public.
Depending on the political climate, a ban may not be feasible or sustainable. A
ban of wood waste disposal at the County facility may lead to increase illegal
dumping of these materials.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
CHAPTER 7: HOUSEHOLD HAZA ''` it OUS WASTES
Overview
Moderate risk waste (MRW) is hazardous waste produced by households and by
businesses in small quantities. It is also referred to as Household Hazardous Waste, or
HHW. Because this waste is generally exempt from hazardous waste regulation, a
variety of methods are used to manage this waste.
Washington State requires all cities and counties in the State to develop plans for
improving moderate risk waste management in their jurisdictions In particular, moderate
risk wastes should be diverted from disposal in transfer stations, sewer and septic
systems, and indiscriminate disposal. Waste prevention, reduction, and recychng must be
emphasized.
Mason County Utilities and Waste Management is the coordinating body for the
development of this MRW chapter to address hazardous waste management for Mason
County and the City of Shelton. The City and County have worked together and with the
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) to create this chapter of the Solid Waste
Management Plan. The interlocal agreement related to the development of this Plan is in
Appendix G.
The most recent guidelines for planning suggest this document have two primary parts; a
primary section, and an implementation schedule. There are six elements which are
required to be addressed in the primary section.
Required Elements are discussed under the heading of Goals and Objectives:
1 Public Education can be found on page 2 of this chapter
2 Collection can be found on page 3 of this chapter
3. Small business collection assistance can be found on page 3 of this chapter
4. Small business technical assistance can be found on page 3 of this chapter
5 Enforcement can be found on page 3 of this chapter
6 Used oil education and collection can be found on page 4 of this chapter
The implementation schedule can be found on the last page of this chapter.
Recommendations begin on page 11.
Introduction
Currently, Mason County households generate approximately 210 tons of hazardous
waste every year (based on State estimates. See Appendix H, State Data Summary). Of
the materials properly managed, almost 50 % of the household hazardous waste is
recycled, 25% is landfilled at an authorized hazardous waste disposal facility, while
approximately 25% is buried Landfilling and dumping hazardous wastes on the ground
can result in serious contamination of the environment
1
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
Businesses in the County currently generate an unknown amount of moderate risk waste
every year, but based on State data, are probably about 78 tons per year (see Appendix H).
Like households, many business owners and operators are unaware of the hazards posed
by the products they use. Additionally, people are often unaware of the regulations that
affect the way these hazardous products are to be handled, stored, and disposed.
Washington State has identified as hazardous wastes:
• waste solvents
• oil -based paints
• cleaners
• auto batteries
• waste oil
▪ antifreeze
Along with other items, these wastes are noted because of the quantities in which they are
available, generated and disposed. These quantities typically fall below thresholds
requiring additional reporting. A more comprehensive list of materials can be found in
Appendix I.
MRW Plan Revision and Update Process
During the MRW Plan's implementation, changes may occur in planned activities,
assigned roles and responsibilities, and budget requirements. Changes may occur as new
information is gathered, as state legislation or regulations are revised or adopted, and as
other events occur that influence planned activities. Changes that are determined to be
minor and consistent with the Plan will not require a plan amendment Such changes will
be documented, however, and provided to the City of Shelton, Mason County the
SWAC, and the Department of Ecology Should an amendment be required, all parties
will collaborate on the language and implementation of the changes.
Goals and Objectives
There are six required elements required in a Hazardous Waste Management Plan Each
is listed below, along with a brief statement for that element and a summary of the
strategies considered.
1. Household hazardous waste and commercial hazardous waste education.
Educational objectives for households and businesses include providing information on
product hazards, preferred moderate risk waste management methods, alternative
products available, local recycling and disposal services, waste exchange programs, and
specifically for businesses, how to determine their generator status.
The following strategies were considered to meet the objectives:
2
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
✓
•
o
9
Informing residents, community groups, and business groups through fact sheets,
public service announcements, website links, and news articles via the internet
and other technologies.
Establishing or expanding school programs to educate children about household
hazardous waste.
Providing general moderate risk waste management information to businesses
through fact sheets, website links such as
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/business/index.html and other informational materials.
Targeting educational activities to focus on specific groups of businesses
Providing technical assistance through on -site visits and workshops.
2. Household hazardous waste collection.
The principal objective for household hazardous waste collection is to provide ongoing
services via year-round facilities and other options to collect household hazardous waste.
The following strategies were considered for collecting household hazardous waste:
® Conducting collection events
• Establishing additional permanent collection facilities with convenient hours
• Collecting household batteries
▪ Providing for waste oil collection and recycling
3, 4 Moderate risk waste collection and technical assistance for businesses.
The objectives of providing moderate risk waste collection services for businesses
include reducing the amounts of stored or mismanaged moderate risk waste and
providing environmentally sound disposal options for moderate risk waste that cannot be
prevented, recycled or reduced. This component has two parts: technical assistance and
collection assistance These two parts were identified on page 1, Required elements 3+4.
The following were considered for achieving these two objectives:
• Holding commercial collection events.
• Expanding collection service at the current permanent facility for CESQG's.
• Providing mobile collection for commercial moderate risk waste.
® Printed or Internet based educational flyers or fact sheets with regular updates.
® Provide businesses with information on private hazardous waste service providers
available to perform collection services for businesses. For example,
http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/hwsd/default htm
® Site visits focusing on best management practices and non -regulatory
recommendations via the Local Source Control program.
• Recognition for those who earn it.
5. Compliance and enforcement activities include several objectives. They are:
Determining the current level of compliance
Encouraging future compliance
Fostering improved moderate risk waste management
3
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
e
Developing waste surveillance programs to remove targeted moderate risk wastes
from the municipal solid waste stream
Compliance at City and County facilities
The following are strategies for achieving compliance with moderate risk waste
management programs:
® Improving signs at the transfer stations that address proper moderate risk waste
disposal
■ Inspecting businesses generating moderate risk waste
• Developing local ordinances governing moderate risk waste management.
• Dedication of funds to bring County facilities into compliance, including the
pursuit of grants from Ecology or other agencies.
6. Continue providing a convenient Used Oil Recycling Program to Mason County
residents.
® Offer service at County sites
® Support local business partners offering collection to the public
In addition, health and safety are a priority. Objectives for the County include
improving workers' awareness and understanding of the hazards associated with
moderate risk waste.
The following were considered for improving health and safety practices:
® Providing additional health and safety training to public employees
® Supporting additional training of private solid waste haulers
® Supporting health and safety training among businesses generating moderate risk
waste.
Evaluating Success
The objective of program evaluation is to measure the success of this Plan in solving the
identified problems. The following alternatives were considered for evaluating the
success:
1. Convene a technical advisory committee. This committee would review the
success of individual program components in improving hazardous waste
management in the County. Reviews could occur periodically, with
recommendations for necessary adjustments to the plan made during its
implementation
2. Centralize program coordination and evaluation. This centralization could be done
through one local agency to provide a focal point for tracking the overall progress
of the program.
3.. Track waste quantities, participation rates, expenses and income and
implementation problems.
4. Conduct follow-up surveys These surveys would measure changes in commercial
and household hazardous waste management.
4
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
This Plan addresses Mason County's goals and meets the requirements of the
Hazardous Waste Management Act and Ecology's planning guidelines This plan also
supports the State's Solid Waste Management Plan, now called Beyond Waste. The State
vision provides a foundation for the development of a long-term strategy for improving
moderate risk waste management in Mason County. It also addresses the County's
immediate needs for improved moderate risk waste prevention, management, and
increased public awareness.
The previous MRW Plan was approved by Ecology in 1991. Participants included
Mason County and the City of Shelton; the same is this case in this version. An interlocal
agreement (along with a resolution of adoption) between the county and its only
incorporated city is attached in Appendices G and F respectively.
The Mason County Department of Utilities and Waste Management is the lead agency
responsible for overseeing all aspects of the plan's development. This department will
also be responsible for implementing specific recommendations and coordinating
implementation by other local agencies. Other local agencies that may be designated lead
for implementing a certain aspect of this plan are identified in the implementation
schedule on the last page of this chapter. In addition, the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee (SWAC) has participated in the plans review and development. Along with
other interested and affected parties, the SWAC will monitor and provide guidance for
implementation of Mason County's MRW plan.
Public participation
Several strategies were used to involve interested and affected parties in the development
of the plan. The Mason County planning staff divided the emphasis for public
participation between*
® Obtaining public input on problem definition, priority setting, and proposed
alternative solutions to identified problems
Infotuuing the public about moderate risk waste issues and activities.
In addition to taking the lead in implementing many of the MRW Plan's
recommendations, the County will be responsible for tracking waste quantities collected
and participation rates. This will include monitoring costs incurred during the MRW
Plan's implementation The Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) will review and
evaluate program activities Implementation plans for the various program components
will be reviewed by staff. That review will encourage the use of similar methods for
measuring program participation waste quantities, income and expenditures, and other
evaluation factors. This oversight will help the SWAC measure the success of the plan
and allow the County to make any necessary adjustments to improve the MRW Plan and
program effectiveness.
5
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
Coordination with the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
The SWAC is a standing citizen advisory group that represents a variety of interests
within the County including private industry, citizens and public interest groups, and
local officials. The committee meets monthly, and the meetings are advertised and open
to the public. The membership of the SWAC is shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Membership of the Mason County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, 2010.
Name
Affiliation
Wendy
Frvin
Citizen
Janet
O'Connor
(Chair)
Citizen
Mason
County
Garbage
and
Recycling
Rik
Fredrickson
Vicki
Rice
Citizen
Scott
Wilson
Wilson
Recycling
Sunny
Richwald
.
IIabitat
for
Humanity
County and city solid waste staff shown in Table 2-10
Table 2-1 County and City solid waste staff
Name
Affiliation
Mason
County
Utilities
and
Waste
Management
_6\weitHiater
Jason
Dose
City
of
Shelton
County
Environmental
Health
Rose
Swier
Mason
Generally, the SWAC assists with the development of programs and policies concerning
solid waste handling and disposal. In addition, the SWAC typically reviews proposed
rules, policies, and ordinances before being sent to the County for adoption.
The SWAC provided advice and comments throughout the planning process for the
development of the plan, as well as the preliminary draft solid waste plan prior to its
revision and submittal to Ecology.
Public Hearings, Meetings, and Workshops
Multiple meetings and workshops were used to solicit public and SWAC comment.
Prior to adoption, several formal public hearings will be held by the City and County.
Involving the public through use of the media
A number of outreach tools are being used to inform the public and interested groups of
the MRW plan's development and to encourage greater involvement with moderate risk
waste issues. News releases and advertising encouraged attendance at the workshops and
participation in the surveys conducted by Mason County. Throughout the implementation
phase of the plan, press releases, intereet, newspapers, public events and radio will also
be used to increase awareness of Mason County's moderate waste risk problems and
solutions.
6
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
Moderate Risk Waste Surveys
A survey of residents was mailed out in 2008. The focus was not exclusively about
MRW, however, information about hazardous waste was recognized by respondents as an
issue separate from disposal, and knowledge about where to go for assistance was well
known (more than 90%).
MRW in Mason County
Moderate risk waste refers to two types of hazardous waste:
1. Household hazardous waste (residential).
2. Wastes produced by businesses below the (regulatory) threshold quantities.
These wastes, though just as hazardous as fully regulated wastes, are considered
' moderate" because they are produced in small quantities relative to the amounts of
hazardous waste generated by businesses fully regulated by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Residential
Residents are often unaware of the potential hazards posed by many of the products used
in their homes. Recognition of hazardous products and wastes is key to encouraging the
safe and proper disposal of moderate risk waste. In addition, residents are often unaware
of their options for reducing, recycling, and disposing of their household hazardous
wastes. To maximize its effectiveness, this Plan's recommendations address the need for
a public education program informing residents about the types of hazardous products
likely to be found in their homes, the possible affects, and safer alternatives where such
alternatives exist.
Household Hazardous Waste Generation
This section provides an overview of household hazardous waste management. The
objective is to:
® Describe how household hazardous waste is being managed
® Estimate how much household hazardous waste will be produced in the next five
years, the timeframe of this MRW Plan.
Assessing Household Hazardous Waste Generation
Methods for investigating household hazardous waste generation include solid waste
sorting studies, collection programs, and phone or mail surveys of randomly selected
households The State data suggests that about 1 % of the disposal tonnage is hazardous
Over the last few years, this works out to about 300 tons per year of household
generation.
7
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
Household Hazardous Waste Management
Residentially generated waste is exclusively managed by residents. That is, residents are
responsible for identifying and transporting their HHW to the fixed facility in Shelton.
Once on site, trained staff can properly sort, categorize and containerize wastes to DOT
specification for transport to a hazardous waste processing facility Historically, this
service was availably daily at the transfer station in Shelton As of January of 2010,
HHW drop off is limited to Fridays only from 8-12; the only time staff is available to
check in loads from the public Another significant change is that along with the
reduction in hours, latex paint is no longer accepted as HHW.
In addition to this service in Shelton, North Mason residents are encouraged to use the
Kitsap County facility. Mason and Kitsap have developed an interlocal agreement
allowing North Mason residents to utilize the Kitsap site for disposal of household
hazardous wastes.
Household Hazardous Waste Projections
Results from recent data can typically be used to project household hazardous waste
generation in Mason County for the near future. However, with the dramatic change in
available service, it is challenging to project future quantities.
Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Generation
In 2008, Mason County partnered with Kitsap County to implement a Local Source Control
grant. This grant funded two staff for 18 months to contact and inventory businesses in
both counties. Funding for this project was renewed in 2009. In summary, this program
was designed to send a non -regulatory staff to businesses and assess current practices In
addition, recommendations regarding options, BMPs (Best Management Practices) and
alternatives are offered. In the first year, more than 60 technical visits were provided. The
initial report will be included in the final version of this Plan as Appendix J
Many businesses are aware they produce moderate risk waste. Most of the wastes are
self -hauled to a treatment or recycling facility, or picked up by a hazardous waste service
provider. Auto -related businesses, such as vehicle maintenance and gas stations,
wholesale, and retail trades generated the largest quantities of moderate risk waste As a
result these have been the primary focus of the Source Control Specialist.
In addition, County and City facilities should be encouraged and supported in pursuing
less toxic products. For example, there are many alternatives to vehicle maintenance
products as well as custodial cleaners and sanitizers.
Regulated Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
No treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities have been permitted in Mason County.
8
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
Transporters will travel to the County and pick up hazardous wastes which must be
transported to their TSD. Multiple vendors for these services are available, and several
may be used for different materials at any one time.
Health and Safety Training
Employees who could potentially come into contact with moderate risk wastes receive
the levels of training required by WISHA and OSHA, and have a 40 hour HAZWOPER
certification.
Mason County Health Department
The Health Department receives funding through the County's general fund and the tip
fees collected by the solid waste program. The Health Department provides technical
assistance, regulatory oversight, site inspections, as well as managing the operating
penults for the County's MRW facility. Staff is also available as a resource to other
departments in and outside the County.
State of Washington Grants Program
As mentioned earlier, State funding for several projects, including the update of this
MRW Plan, is obtained through grants administered through Ecology. These grants
typically operate on a matching funds basis Ecology can also help in financing
implementation of MRW programs listed in adopted local hazardous waste plans.
Overall Improvements to Hazardous Waste Management
The MRW Plan needs to promote less hazardous product use and waste disposal practices
that minimize human exposure and environmental risks Many people frequently exposed
to these hazardous products are unaware of their potential hazard to health and safety,
safer alternatives, or the threats to the environment posed by their improper use and
disposal.
The MRW Plan needs to promote increased hazardous waste reduction and recycling
among residents and businesses. Waste reduction strategies -such as substituting safer
alternative products for their hazardous counterparts -involve preventing the production of
hazardous waste. Increased recycling of hazardous waste, such as recycling automobile
batteries or automotive oil, preserves resources and keeps these wastes from
contaminating the environment through improper disposal. Nonetheless, some moderate
risk waste will be generated and require disposal.
Improving Household Hazardous Waste Management
The MRW Plan needs to inform residents about the following:
® What household hazardous wastes are, by better defining and regularly updating
information available through fliers, workshops, and websites.
• How hazardous household products should be handled and stored,
• What safer alternatives, waste reduction, recycling, and preferred disposal options
are available locally for household hazardous wastes.
9
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
In addition to emphasizing public information, the MRW Plan needs to ensure that proper
disposal options are available to residents who have hazardous wastes that cannot be
reduced or recycled.
Local Government Support for Improving Hazardous Waste Management
The role of local governments in improving moderate risk waste management should
include five functions First, local governments need to provide residents and businesses
with information about moderate risk waste management. This includes information on:
® Hazardous product and waste identification ,and safer alternatives
® Proper handling and storage practices
® Opportunities for waste reduction and recycling
® Regulatory compliance
® Proper disposal methods and locally available options.
Second, local governments need to assist residents and businesses with moderate risk
waste disposal.
Third, local governments will encourage residents and businesses comply with programs
established to:
o
Reduce the amounts of moderate risk waste generated, and
Improve the management of moderate risk waste businesses and residents cannot
avoid generating.
Fourth, local governments need to ensure that their workers routinely exposed to
moderate risk wastes, such as refuse collectors, HHW facility operators, and transfer
station operators, take adequate precautions to minimize their exposure to moderate risk
waste.
Fifth and finally, local governments need to track the MRW Plan's programs to ensure
these programs are meeting their objectives, and to measure changes in moderate risk
waste generation and disposal.
Permanent collection facility
An additional, permanent, permitted facility could accept both household hazardous
waste and small quantity generator wastes. Mason County should explore this option,
and pursue additional, outside funding to realize this goal.
Health and Safety
Health and safety objectives for Mason County include improving workers' awareness
and understanding of the hazards associated with moderate risk waste The following are
considerations for improving workers' awareness and understanding of hazards:
1. Provide additional training to public employees These employees would be solid
waste and wastewater facility workers who may be routinely exposed to moderate
10
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
risk waste Those workers usually receive health and safety training that includes
information on hazardous substances. They could also be given additional training
to provide more in-depth information on recognizing and responding to chemical
hazards.
2. Encourage and support additional training of private solid waste haulers. Training
materials developed for public employees could be shared with private' waste
collectors The private waste collectors could be encouraged to participate in
public employee training sessions or vise versa.
3. Support and advocate increased health and safety training among commercial
waste generators. Many commercial waste generators may not be receiving the
health and safety training they should Education and technical assistance
programs could be used to help employers provide any necessary training.
State Actions
Mason County recommends that Ecology continue and expand grant programs and
technical assistance to improve moderate risk waste management In addition, the State
should review the feasibility of legislation which would establish a voluntary program or
require retail establishments to accept from the public specific moderate risk wastes
which are created from products sold by those establishments. This strategy is already
effective for auto batteries, motor oil, and in some cases, electronic wastes, fluorescent
lamps, and potentially paint products. This Beyond Waste goals is also known as Product
Stewardship or manufacturer responsibility. Mason County should actively support these
goals and efforts to further these goals.
Schedule
The schedule, budget and capital facility plan for the next five years can be found in the
County's Comprehensive Plan.
For Mason County, funding for the program will be derived locally, and may be
supplemented by available grants from the State of Washington. Special projects may be
eligible for grants from other entities.
Plan Recommendations
The Mason County MRW Plan recommendations fall into the program areas defined in
the requirements and goals section Each area is listed below with a summary of the
recommendations made in that area. Full implementation of the recommendations will
depend upon the availability of adequate funding through local and state sources.
1. Hazardous waste education
The primary objective of hazardous waste education is to infoiini people of:
• The dangers of hazardous products.
• The availability of alternative products.
11
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
® Best Management Practices for residents and businesses.
® Local recycling and disposal services.
The following ideas should be considered for education of households:
Provide information to residents or community groups As an example, activities
could include:
• Post information on-line and provide links to other information
• Sending information to residents through mailings, or radio ads.
▪ Posting and distributing information in retail stores.
• Encouraging environmental organizations to conduct educational activities.
• Locally advertising and distributing educational materials.
Conduct school programs to educate children about household hazardous waste. The
options could include:
• Incorporating household hazardous waste education into school curriculums
• Conducting classroom presentations or assemblies
Provide educational services to community groups. The activities could include:
® Developing a display to take to community events.
® Establishing information centers at community gathering places, such as libraries.
® Providing speakers' to community groups.
Moderate risk waste educational activities will be developed and implemented primarily
by County staff. Other agencies, such as Ecology, will be requested to assist in providing
information on moderate risk waste management The County will develop and publicize
infonnirational material on moderate risk wastes. This material will include such items as
fact sheets and brochures, specifically for Mason County's residents and businesses The
material will stress identification of hazardous products, use of safer alternatives, proper
management of moderate risk wastes, and locally available management options. Waste
reduction and recycling opportunities will be emphasized.
Informational material can be publicized through the media, in mailings to residents and
businesses, in retail stores, and through government offices and websites Educational
material already available through Ecology or other public and private individuals will be
reviewed and also made available. This type of information will allow consumers to
make more informed choices in purchasing, and should encourage use of safer alternative
products which are less hazardous.
The County will coordinate providing speakers to address interested local public groups
on moderate risk waste reduction, storage, and disposal. Access to informational
materials, videos, presentations, and speakers will be available to the public through
libraries, fairs, and other events and public buildings.
The County will work with the various school districts to incorporate educational
programs in a manner which is applicable to the Mason County area.
The County will assist small quantity generators through the ongoing support of the
Source Control Specialist.
12
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
2. Collection of household hazardous waste
A permanent facility for the collection and storage of household hazardous waste has
been established at the Transfer Station. This site collects waste motor oil, antifreeze,
pesticides and other poisons, paints, auto batteries, and other typical home -generated
wastes.
Opportunities for additional collection of household hazardous wastes include:
® A feasibility study to assess the need for one or more permanent facilities at other
areas to serve residents further than 12 miles from the Transfer Station The study
will consider costs, and the types and sources of waste such a facility could
accept. Opportunities to collect household and commercial moderate risk waste
will be considered, along with hours of operation and other aspects of convenient
service.
• Provide collection events to outlying communities who are a distance from the
fixed facility
• Continue to provide waste oil collection facilities at the Transfer Station, the
Belfair, Hoodsport and Union drop boxes, and at other locations convenient to
residents
• The feasibility of a voluntary point -of -sale or other collection program for dry cell
batteries.
• Continuing an agreement with Kitsap County to serve Mason's north county
residents.
The County will examine the feasibility of establishing a permanent moderate risk waste
collection facility accept wastes from small quantity generators (SQG) The current
facility is limited in capacity, staff, and safety equipment to effectively provide this
service to the business community at this time. When circumstances permit, this should
be implemented.
3,4 Business technical assistance and collection
Ongoing support for the Local Sources Control Specialist has been and likely will be the
best strategy to address this area.
® Collection and technical assistance for businesses (required elements 3 & 4).
® Continuing an agreement with Kitsap County to serve all Mason County SQGs.
5. Enforcement and Compliance
Enforcement and compliance activities have three components•
• increasing the infoiluation on moderate risk waste available at the transfer
stations
▪ coordinating an inspection program for small quantity generators, and
developing regional ordinances
▪ Ensuring the collection facility at the transfer station is in. compliance with
applicable laws and regulations
The recommendations listed above are designed to help Mason County and the City of
Shelton meet the stated goals for the plan. These recommendations are designed to
protect natural resources and human health by improving moderate risk waste
13
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
management in Mason County. Such improvements are fostered by education, training,
collection services, and compliance activities. The Hazardous Waste Management Act's
waste management priorities are also promoted, with emphasis on waste prevention,
reduction, and recycling Recommendations from the state's Solid and Hazardous Waste
Plan, Beyond Waste, will be implemented where possible.
The following ideas are recommended for achieving compliance with and enforcement of
moderate risk waste programs and ordinances:
Posting of signs_ Existing signs can be revised and new signs posted that
specifically address proper disposal of moderate risk wastes.
Waste surveillance, Waste can be surveyed to remove potential sources of heavy
metals and other toxic substances from the waste stream.
Commercial generator facility inspections and permitting. Moderate risk waste,
inspections could be incorporated into existing inspection activities, such as
building, health district, or fire inspections. Existing permit or licensing programs
could be expanded to include moderate risk waste.
Ordinances, County and municipal ordinances could be enacted to specifically
prohibit the disposal of moderate nsk wastes into wastewater treatment and
municipal solid waste facilities, storm sewers, other collection systems, onto the
land, or into ground or surface waters.
6. Used Oil Recycling. Program
Continue providing a convenient service at County sites
Support local business partners offering collection to the public
7. Health and safety
Operating staff at the facility shall have the required training and certification to handle
hazardous materials. Training opportunities, both required and elective, shall be attended
as needed or possible. Appropriate signage and other methods of raising awareness about
the potential hazards should be explored and implemented.
County staff should work to develop a training program for employees. This health and
safety information will be made available to all public workers potentially exposed to
moderate risk waste. This should be provided to all personnel at the Mason County
transfer stations, as well as other County staff who may have hazardous materials in their
workplace. Assistance will be requested from the Washington Departments of Ecology,
and Labor and Industries in performing this task.
The recommendations are coordinated with existing and planned solid waste management
activities. Thus the MRW Plan relies on coordination among state and local
governments, citizens, and businesses. Most activities recommended in this Plan will be
implemented by local agencies relying on interlocal agreements Funding will be from
local resources, such as tip fees, and additional support from grants.
14
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan amendment 2011
Plan Implementation
The Mason County Department of Utilities and Waste Management will take the lead in
coordinating implementation of the MRW Plan. It is also responsible for implementing
most of the specific programs. These programs include the following:
• Providing household hazardous waste education and moderate risk waste
education for businesses and residents Ongoing.
• Providing moderate risk waste education for businesses, including technical
assistance. Source Control position, ongoing
• Conducting household hazardous waste collection events and evaluating the
need to expand these events to other areas of the county. Will consider
• Providing for collection of household hazardous wastes at the Mason County
transfer station and at other locations within the County. Ongoing
• Evaluating the feasibility of establishing additional permanent collection
facilities for moderate risk wastes produced by households and businesses.
Will consider
• Developing a moderate risk waste health and safety training program for
workers. Future implementation
• Developing model local ordinances controlling moderate risk waste
management Will consider
• Working with the Mason County Health Department in expanding compliance
and enforcement activities to encourage businesses to improve their moderate
risk waste management practices. Source Control position, ongoing
• Supporting program evaluation. Mason County and the City of Shelton will
assist with moderate risk waste education for households and businesses, and
promote participation in moderate risk waste collection activities. They will
review and, as appropriate, adopt ordinances for regulating moderate risk
waste management. Ongoing
Ecology will be involved in implementation of the MRW Plan's programs particularly
concerning moderate risk waste education, technical assistance, and compliance. Other
local agencies will also be involved in the implementation process.
15