HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-08 - Res. Adopting Amended Mason County Solid Waste Management PlanBoard of County Commissioners
Mason County Washington
Resolution number 15./
9
L
A resolution adopting the amended Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan
Amending resolution number 150-98; amending resolution number 56-92
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan,
previously adopted in 1998, was to provide decision makers in Mason County with the
guidelines needed o 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 thereof, and
WHEREAS, the Mason County Solid Waste Advisory Committee has held numerous
public meetings, and
WHEREAS, the City of Shelton has signed an interlocal agreement to develop the Plan,
and
WHEREAS, The City of Shelton has signed a letter of concurrence that the Plan is ready
for adoption, and
WHEREAS, Mason County fulfils it's requirements for environmental review under the
State Environmental Policy Act by issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance in
September of 2006, and
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 her as Attachment "A"
Dated this day of February, 2008
ATTEST:
e-fstabitimo No. /5 wc4
4letie"
4.-64.4a>
Clerk of the Board
71PR C ING1&
n
telL
Till' Sheld
Chair
on
1 6K4
Lythda Ring Eric son
C•mmissiono r
•
oss Gallaghe
Commissioner
Mason County
Solid Waste Management Plan
2007
Prepared by:
SCS Engineers
3900 Kilroy Airport Way
Long Beach, California 90806-6816
and
Shannon McClelland
Environmental Projects Coordinator
City of Shelton
525 W. Cota Street
Shelton, Washington 98584
Mason County
Utilities and Waste Management
Building II, 410 N. Fourth
Shelton, Washington 98584
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 ROLE AND PURPOSE
1.2 PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
1.4 PREVIOUS SOLID WASTE PLANS
1.5 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1.6 PROCESS FOR REVISING AND AMENDING THE PLAN
1.7 PLAN ORGANIZATION
1.8 STANDARD NOMENCLATURE USED IN THE PLAN
1.9 PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER 2• BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA
2 1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 2.1 POPULATION GRO H AND PROJECTIONS
LAND USE CATEGORY
2 2 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LANDFILL SITES
2.3 SOLID WASTE QUANTITY AND COMPOSITION
CHAPTER 3: WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
3.2 RECYCLING
FIGURE 3.1 CITY OF SHELTON RECYCLING - PARTICIPATION
FIGURE 3.2 CITY OF SHELTON RECYCLING - PROGRAM YEARS
TABLE 3.2 MASON COUNTY BLUE BOX COLLECTION
3.3 COMPOSTING
3.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
CHAPTER 4: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL
4.1 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
4.2 SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
4.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
4.4 SOLID WASTE INCINERATION / ENERGY RECOVERY
CHAPTER 5: SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
5.1 SOLID WASTE ADMINISTRATION
5 2 SOLID WASTE ENFORCEMENT
CHAPTER 6: SPECIAL WASTE STREAMS
6.1 ANIMAL CARCASSES
6.2 ASBESTOS
6.3 BIO E oICAL ''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
APPENDIX A - BEYOND WASTE INITIATIVES AND SYSTEM ISSUES
APPENDIX B - WUTC COST QUESTIONAIRE
APPENDIX C - PUBLIC COMMENTS
APPENDIX D -SEPA CHECKLIST
APPENDIX E - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
APPENDIX F - RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION
APPENDIX G - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS
-
1
• .•• ..• •
•
•
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 ]URISDICTIONS
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 P/an, the States 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 Plan 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
1.1
STATUS
OF
FROM
THE
PLAN
TABLE
RECOMMENDATIONS
PREVIOUS
(1998)
F=
4-
x5..e..s cr
4uren6ttS
.J, ..v.
ry,5t5a, t�sfia
.,. .. ..
.. .;i. t...0 .. ...
3.1
Public
education
should
be
a
high
priority
in
both
Mason
County
and
the
City
of
Shelton.
County
and
City
should
continue
to support
and
enhance
the
existing
school
program.
Adult
program
should
continue
to
education
focus
on
waste
reduction
practices
and
to
Ongoing
supplement
each
new
waste
reduction
and
recycling
program
implemented.
On
-site
composting
programs
should
continue
to
be
expanded
and
included
as
a
topic
for
public
education.
3.2
The
County
and
City
should
continue
to
support
waste
reduction
by adopting
resolutions
of
support
for
waste
reduction
practices
and
forward
these
to State
and
Not
implemented:
Staff
are
Federal
senators
and
representatives.
providing
issue
based
support
to the
This
resolution
could
address
future
legislation,
Commission
for
consideration.
changes
to
existing
legislation,
packaging
or
labeling
requirements,
deposits,
material
development
or
other
topics.
market
3.3
In
addition
to
the
bi-weekly
waste
pick-up
service
that
was'implemented
in
conjunction
additional
with
the
City
incentives
curbside
and
recycling
alternative
program,
rate
Implemented
structures
considered
supporting
waste
reduction
could
be
3.4
Mason
County
should
continue
to seek
waste
collection
rate
structure
programs
that
support
Ongoing
waste
reduction
in.
the
County.
3.5
The
County
and
City
need
to
take
the
steps
necessary
to expand
in-house
waste
reduction
Implemented
for
City
offices,
not
programs.
Providing
assistance
to
County
and
implemented
for
County.
Ongoing
City
businesses
to
implement
such
programs
(but
not
actively)
should
also
be
considered.
3.6
Consideration
should
be
given
to other
waste
reduction
programs
and
implemented
as
Ongoing
necessary
and
feasible.
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
1.1 STATUS
OF
FROM
THE
PREVIOUS
TABLE
(1998)
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLAN
ri,,;.''+` 55.,;, **n��' h� ys'"K4,s
'.0
'h < t'�.
GH
,1lasteRe+uC1®�h
v5' ,✓ ,+ti',.z�'�`$i,"'a-€`s''z
5.w m
- s°��
f Crrent
F$ ,d
Cats ;1.,
3.10
Additional
[recycling]
drop
box stations
should
be
established
as
needed.
Other
locations
for
future
areas,
consideration
fire
and
police
should
stations,
include:
and
Skokomish
shopping
Considered
but
not
implemented
lands
The
County
should
encourage
Tribal
participation
from
the
private
sector.
program
3.11
The
City
of
Shelton
should
evaluate
its
curbside
program
to establish
effectiveness
for
future
expansion
The
City
should
Ongoing
encourage
program
participation
from
the
private
sector.
3.12
The
County
should
encourage
market
development
for
designated
and
potentially
Not
implemented
designated
recyclable
materials.
3.13.
The
County
and
City should
continue
to
an
annual
tabulation
of the
source
Not
implemented
(Not
currently
perform
quantities
of
nonresidential
waste
feasible)
and
generated
in
Mason
County.
3.14
The
County
and
City
should
continue
to
support
and
encourage
private
efforts
to .
collect
recyclables
from
nonresidential
sources.
A
list
of
nonresidential
recycling
Not
implemented
services
should
be
compiled,
updated
and
made
available
to
County
and
City
businesses
and
industry.
3.15
A yard
waste
compost
program
should
be
evaluated.
If
a
program
is
feasible,
collection
of
yard
waste
should
be
through
drop
boxes.
If
Backyard
composting
implemented.
unfeasible,
an
educational
program
promoting
Drop
box
collection
evaluation
small-scale
on-site
composting
should
be
considered
implemented.
Additional
opportunities
and
methods
for
collection
and
transfer
should
be
evaluated.
3.16
Continued
public
information
and
education
programs
spectrum
should
of
the
City
be
devised
and
County
to
target
population.
a
broad
Ongoing
Specific
attention
should
continue
to
be
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
devoted
to
school
programs.
3.17
Ongoing
Evaluation
the
of
waste
reduction,
recycling
and
be
education
a
education
routine
program.
part
programs
of
the
Evaluation
public
should
information
should
continue
include
to
and
public
feedback,
a
tally
of
the
performance
of
the
individual
drop
box
[recycling]
the
stations,
and
a
record
of
waste
stream.
3.18
Implemented
The
County
should
consider
implementation
limited
dump
the
of a
and
pick
operation
at
solid
waste
facility.
.4«r
"S
'a`v
1 a` .._ - '"-.tee �*
' �o
s'"�y 3 '�.
3 � "`3SyY*
r
raer9�Ze�+%��ne
aeon °f
4.1
Interest
facility
in
in
Mason
developing
County
an
energy
is
negligible.
recovery
No
recommendations
were
made.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE
(1998)
1.1
STATUS
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
THE
PREVIOUS
PLAN
S$
�z'
�'T4y}. I�.ti�'�,' v. 4
L��
5eiue
Col�ect��a.r..
ub .a.. .b, x+A.t
a. x
, rnSa��
5.1
Voluntary
co
lection
of
refuse
should
be
continued
in
Mason
County.
Evaluation
of
mandatory
collection
should
be included
as
Ongoing
of
the
next
SWMP
update
as
a
possible
part
method
for
controlling
illegal
dumping
5.2
The
County,
rather
than
the
WUTC,
should
manage
the
collection
of
recyclables.
The
County
should
evaluate
whether
to
provide
Not
implemented
these
services
through
contract
or
through
County
staff.
5.3
The
County
should
adopt
the
rate
structure
guidelines
included
in
5 4A
for
Table
implementation
within
the
unincorporated
County.
The
County
should
support
and
coordinate
with
private
haulers
to implement
new
rate
structure
in
conformance
with
a
these
guidelines.
The
County
and
haulers
Not
implemented:
WUTC
providing
should
agree
on
a
general
rate
program,
with
rate
regulation
of
private
haulers
in
input
from
the
WUTC,
prior
to
final
review
Mason
County
approval
by
WUTC.
Rate
structure
and
changes
implemented
by
the
haulers
should
be
reflected
in
landfill
and
transfer
station
also
rate
structures.
A
public
information
and
education
program
should
be executed
with
the
change
in
rate
structure.
4
5
1�
6.1
[Recycling]
drop
box
bins
have
.been
placed
at
drop
box stations
and
at
other
sites
in
Mason
County
to facilitate
recycling
Mason
County
should
continue
to
provide
public
information
regarding
the
[recycling]
drop
box
program.
Ongoing
If
the
need
arises
for
locating
additional
[recycling]
drop
boxes,
the
County
should
pursue
grant
funding
to
pay
for
a
portion
of
the
costs.
6.2
Mason
County
has
participated
in
numerous
meetings
regarding
solid
waste
disposal
in
the
Ongoing
past
and
should
continue
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
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 light of future solid
waste programs.
Ongoing examination
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 1.1 STATUS
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM
THE PREVIOUS
PLAN
(1998)
".3L.
,
iri1
,,k
bI
`ak'rj
8.3
The
County
should
evaluate
and
develop
Study
incorporated
in
SWMP
2005
additional
funding
sources
for
future
major
capital
expenditures.
revision
8.4
The
County
should
investigate
the
establishment
of
a
civil
penalty
ordinance
Implemented
allowing
the
ticketing
of
violators.
8.5
The
County
should
continue
employing
a
Implemented
2
FTE's
now
permanent
illegal
dump
enforcement
site
identification.
staff
member
for
employed
CH
v
9
Sp�o
-'.; Pr
e
d
x'
+Z`'•3'
gi
1
..
..;..n..
9.1
awareness
Mason
County
and
should
education
proceed
program
with
a
for
public
biosolids
County
utilization
in
land
to
application.
investigate
The
Public
Regional
awareness.
Not
Implemented
implemented
alternative
including
should
possible
methods
continue
regional
for
biosolids
solutions
handling,
solutions:
9.2
application
develop
The
County
clear
of
government
biosolids
policies
and
should
The
guidelines
County
support
should
for
land
Not
implemented
biosolid
include
EPA
land
for
requirements
application.
These
as
well
should
as
guidelines
site
selection.
,9.3
The
County
should
continue
to
utilize
the
private
methods
sector
of
septage
while
evaluating
handling.
alternative
Ongoing
9.4
feasibility
The
County
of
should
utilizing
continue
certain
to
recyclable
investigate
the
Considered
but
implemented
demolition
wastes
and
divert
those
materials
not
to
the
appropriate
facilities.
9.5
County
policy
should
limit
wood
waste
quantities
waste.
that
are
disposed
of
with
solid
Not
implemented
9.6
Mason
tire
recycling
County
methods
should
support
in
Washington
development
State
of
Not
implemented
and
monitor
new
programs
for
possible
implementation
within
the
County.
9.7
The
County
should
continue
to
require
Ongoing
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
stringent
waste
regulations
compliance
environmental
utility
workers
to
with
reduce
damage.
all
and
State
exposure
prevent
and
any
to
Federal
solid
possible
9.8
County
and
policy
for
appliances.
breakdown
should
support
and
recycling
the
current
white
Ongoing
of
program
goods
9.9
Continue
proper
fluorocarbons.
storage,
the
existing
handling,
handling
and
disposal
program
for
of
the
Ongoing
9.10
transportation
The
County
should
and
continue
disposal
practices
the
for
Ongoing
asbestos.
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 andshall 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 SWAG
Voting Members
Rik Fredrickson
Janet 0 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 accomplishmentsfrom 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 party in special cases) initiating the
change. This should generally be preceded by discussions at the
SWAC. The proposed amendment must bepresented 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 minorbut 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:
❑ 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
0 Modify rates to secure and maintain adequate funding
r
r
•
•
•
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 NATURAL 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.
Natural 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
Olympic 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 (QaI): 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 Solad 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 glacialdrift 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.
Cimate
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 PRO]ECTIONS
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 Manage„,,ent Plan, 2007
•
EXHIBIT 222 POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE, 2000
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).
Data Classes
it
]A - 124
S - 2e1
tea. en
tan - 2oT2
Features
/✓rai:x toad
- S:rOLKitie;en.<tiy
Stramik terrdy
Items inV VteXt
lt-
i- .Is .rar.Vlevel
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
LAND
USE
CATEGORY
ACRES
TOTAL
Residential
33,134
5.34%
Vacant
52,656
8.49%
Commercial
3,538
0.57%
Industrial
544
0.09%
Agn/Aquaculture
9,845
1.59%
Forestry
139,556
22.51%
Long
Term
Commercial
199,590
32.19%
Forests
.
Mineral
Extraction
152
0.02%
Transportation
2,368
0.38%
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 days), 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 throughlow permeability clays at a higher rate than that
indicated by permeability testing. Therefore, the existence of clay under a landfill does not
necessarily mean that all compounds will be contained.
Soiltypes 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
outwash 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, themost 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 scenano, the
coarse -grained matenal 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
near 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 less 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), Iocational 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 sitesnear 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 2003 2004
49,800 50,200 50,800
2005 2006
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 used to 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 occurring in 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
Overall
Waste
Industrial
Residential
Overal
Commercial
Stream.
Waste
Stream
%
Tons
%
Tons
%
Tons
%
Toi
imposition
%
Tons
. %
Tons
%
Tons
%
Tons
Composition
per
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
3,58.
wspaper
0.0
0.0
2.0
244.1
2.6
814.2
2.2
1058.4
0.0
0.0
1.1
134.3
1.3
407.1
1.1
54
Clear
Glass
Beverage
rdboard
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
17:
her
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
99'
per
zi-grade
paper
0.0
0.4
1.2
146.5
1.1
344.5
1.0
491.4
Clear
Glass
Container
0.0
0.0
0.5
61.0
5.3
1,659.8
3.6
1,721
tgazines
0.0
0.2
1.3
158.7
3.3
1,033.5
2.5
1,192.4
Green
Container
Glass
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
xed/Low-grade
0.3
15.0
5.7
695.8
7.0
2,192
2
6.0
2903.0
Brown
Container
Glass
0.0
0.0
0.2
24.4
0.0
.
0.0
0.1
2‘
per
mpostable
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
(
2.2
1,069.9
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.0
0.2
62.6
0.1
6:
mainder/Composite
per
2.1
99.7
4.1
500.5
1.5
469.8
Remainder/Composite
Glass
)cess
tustrial
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
6:
istic
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
C "5'
0.8
402.3
0.0
0.0
0.6
73.2
0.6
187.9
0.5
T
Bottles
0.1
3.7
0.7
85.4
1.0
313.2
Aluminum
Cans
>PE
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
62.6
0.2
7'
)PE
lored
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
8'
tstic
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
1
'stic
7
Bottles
Types
0.0
0.0
0.1
12.2
0.4
125.3
0.3
137.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.1
3
Other
Metals
Non-ferrous
panded
Polystyrene
0.1
3.7
0.7
85.4
0.8
250.5
0.7
339.6
Tm
Cans
0.1
3.7
1.5
183.1
2.1
657.7
1.8
846
her
Rigid
Plastic
0.3
14.6
1.0
122:1
2.5
782.9
1.9
919.6
White
Goods
1.2
54.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
5'
±aging
her
Plastic
Products
2.8
131.5
0.9
109.9
1.9
595.0
1.7
836.4
1.3
62.5
2.2
268.6
3.5
1,096.1
3.0
1,42'
Other
Ferrous
Metal
1.5
708.7
0.1
3.7
1.3
158.7
9.2
2,881.2
6.3
3,04:
mainder/Composite
0.1
3.9
0.9
109.9
1.9
595.0
Remainder/Composite
Metals
istic
Iganics
5.7
267.3
28.6
3,491.2
18.8
5,887.6
20.0
9,646.1
4.0
186.7
3.8
463.9
7.6
2,380.1
6.3
3,01
Consumer
Products
rd,
mings
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
3(
od
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
45(
inures
0.3
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
101
1.8
844.5
Textiles,
Organic
0.1
3.7
0.3
36.6
1.0
313.2
0.7
35:
iposable
Diapers
0.0
0.0
2.3
280.8
1.8
563.7
rcasses, Offal
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Textiles,
Mixed/Unknown
0.0
0.2
1.3
158.7
2.0
626.3
1.6
78.
Mason County Solid Waste lvlanagement Plan, 2007
TABLE 2.7 MASON COUNTY WASTE COMPOSITION - DISPOSED WASTES (continued)
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Overall
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Overall
Waste
Stream
Waste
Stream
Composition
%
%
Tons
%
%
Composition
%
%
Tons
%
Tons
%
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Crop
Residues
0.6
27.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
27.0
Shoes
0.0
0.0
0.1
12
2
1.8
563.7
1.2
575.9
Septage
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tires
Other
Rubber
and
0.0
0.0
1.3
158.7
0.5
156.6
0.7
315.3
Remainder/Composite
Organics
0.1
3.1
0.4
48.8
0.5
156.6
0.4
208.5
Furniture
Mattresses
and
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
156.6
0.3
156.6
Wastes
46.3
2154.9
2.1
256.3
1.2
375.8
5.8
2787.1
Carpet
1.8
84.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
84.0
Wood
Natural
Wood
0.1
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.1
34.3
Carpet
Padding
2.1
98.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.3
130.0
Treated
Wood
6.3
292.3
0.1
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
304.5
Rejected
Products
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Painted
Wood
4.6
211.9
0.4
48.8
0.1
31.3
0.6
292.0
Returned
Products
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dimensional
Lumber
12.1
562.6
0.3
36.6
0.1
31.3
1.3
630.6
Other
Composite
Consumer
Products
0.0
0.0
0.2
24.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
24.4
Engineered
Wood
7.0
325.2
0.3
36.6
0.1
31.3
0.8
393.1
Residuals
0.9
43.3
4.1
500.5
3.1
970.8
3.1
1,514.7
Wood
Packaging
0.0
1.1
0.9
109.9
0.7
219.2
0.7
330.2
Ash
0.0
0.0
1
2
146.5
0.0
0.0
0.3
146.5'
Other
Wood
Untreated
0.2
11.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
Dust
0.0
0.0
0.1
12
2
0.3
94.0
0.2
106
2
rod
byproducts
16.1
751.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
751.6
Fines/Sorting
Residues
0.9
40.2
2.8
341.8
2.9
908.2
2.7
1,290.2
Remainder/Composite
Wood
0.0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.1
31.3
Sludge
Other
Industrial
and
0.1
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1.
CDL
Wastes
30.6
1424.8
4.4
537.1
1.6
501.1
5.1
2463.0
and
0.0
0.0
3.4
415.0
0.9
281.9
1.4
696.9.
Haz
Special
Wastes
Insulation
1.1
51.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
62.6
0.2
113.8
Used
Oil
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.1
31.3
Asphalt
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Oil
Filters
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
94.0
0.2
94.0
Concrete
0.6
29.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
29.2
Antifreeze
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Drywall
8.4
390.9
0.1
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.8
403.1
Auto
Battenes
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Soil,
Rocks
and
sand
0.7
33.7
0.6
73.2
1.1
344.5
0.9
451.4
Household
Battenes
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.1
31.3
Roofing
Waste
20.2
938.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
2.0
970
2
Pesticides
and
Herbicides
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ceramics
0.0
0.0
2.9
354.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
354.0
Latex
Paint
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Remainder/Composite
0.2
11.0
0.8
97.7
0.2
62.6
0.4
171.3
Oil
Paint
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CDL
Medical
Waste
0.0
0.0
3.3
402.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
402.8
Fluorescent
Tubes
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Asbestos
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other
Hazardous
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
94.0
0.2
94.0
Mason County Solid Management Plan, 2007
Waste
I
Other
Hazardous
Waste
Non-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
31.3
0.1
31
4,656
12,207
31,317
48,136.5
Total
Tons
TABLE 2.8 Solid Waste Projected 2005-2025
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Tons 39,534.00 45,830.74 53,130.39 61,592.68 71,402.80
Customers 55,342.00 64,156455 74,375.02 86,221.03 99,953.81
Population 55,000.00 63,760.07 73,915.40 85,688.21 99,336.12
Projection using 3% annual growth for all variables
r
•
•
•
•
Mason County. Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
CHAPTER 3: WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
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
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% by 2007.
There is a statewide goal to eliminate yard debris from landfills by 2012
in thoseareas where alternatives exist.
Source separation of waste (at a minimum, separation into recyclable and
non -recyclable fractions) must be a fundamental strategy of solid waste
management.
Steps should be taken to make recycling at least as affordable and
convenient to the ratepayer as mixed waste disposal.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
The recycling coordinators for both the City of Shelton and Mason County
administer all programs and activities listed in this chapter.
3.1 WASTE REDUCTION
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
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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.2good2toss.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, 2007, the Shelton/Mason County portion of the site has nearly 1,000
registered members, and has facilitated 1,200 exchanges —diverting more than
100 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
operations. 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.
Needs 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
on this aspect of the waste stream. With increased awareness of and
opportunities for reused building material, some programs may emerge to
facilitate reuse, recycling or other diversion. Additionally, data could be collected
in the future tq establish some diversion measurement.
Alternatives and Evaluation
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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 Tight 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 betweenthe
two time intervals. If. necessary, numeric waste reduction goals could then be
re-examined and changed.
Waste reduction successes can also be measured qualitatively, through observed
changes in industrial processes, purchasing patterns, shifts in public perception
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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. Table 3.1 provides two -digit, NAICS codes and their
definitions, as well as the number of establishments in Mason County Given the
information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, initial efforts could target retail
establishments and food services establishments. 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.
TABLE 3.1 MASON COUNTY NAICS CODES
Establishments
in
Mason
NAICS Code
Description
County
21
Mining
Not
published
for
counties.
22
Utilities
Not
published
for
counties
23
Construction
Not
published
for
counties
31-33
Manufacturing
50
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
42
Wholesale
33
Trade
44-45
Retail
136
Trade
48-49
and
Warehousing
Not
published
for
counties
Transportation
51
Information
10
52
Finance
&
Insurance
Not
published
for
counties
53
Real
Estate,
Rental
and
Leasing
54
54
Professional,
Scientific
and
53
Services
Technical
55
Management
Enterprises
of
Companies
and
Not
published
for
counties
56
Administrative,
Management,
Service
and
Support,
Remediation
Waste
44
61
Educational
Services
3
62
Care
and
Social
Assistance
99
Health
71
Arts,
Entertainment,
and
Recreation
14
Accommodation
and
Food
Services
100
72
81
Other
Services
administration)
(except
public
82
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census
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.
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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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.
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.
• 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
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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 obolescence, low
recycling rate and their potential to contain hazardous materials.
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
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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.
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, long-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
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
require less maintenance or long-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 long -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.
• 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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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.
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
residents is $4 00 per month (as of 2005) and is a mandatory charge for all
households in the. City of Shelton, whether they .use the service or not The
participation rate for. 2004 averaged 33% of households (approximately 858
households) and increased to 35% in 2005. Beginning in 2004, residents who
live just outside of City limitsbut receive a City utility (water or sewer) were
given the option of receiving curbside recycling collection for the same rate as
residents. To accompany and support the curbside program, the City established
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
an optional biweekly garbage collection service at a reduced rate from the
weekly service. The participation rate in biweekly service for 2004 averaged
24% (629 households)
The curbside program uses three stacking bins for collection: Bin 1—mixed
paper, Bin 2—newspaper and magazines, and Bin 3—commingled containers
(glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles, aluminum and steel cans, milk jugs and
cartons, and drink boxes) Corrugated cardboard is placed next to the bins for
collection. In 20.05, the City collected 474 tons of recyclables.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the history of the curbside program in the City of
Shelton, detailing the annual participation rates and collection tonnage totals,
respectively.
.a
0
c
0
0
coAs
U
0
0
Figure 3.1 City of Shelton
Curbside Recycling Participation
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
1994
1999
2000 2001
2002
2003
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Program Years
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Tons Collected
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 3.2 ity of Shelton
urbside ' ecycling rogra
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Program Years
Mason County
The County began its self -haul recycling program in 1993. Over the years the
program .has expanded and now includes eleven drop-off sites spread throughout
the county, 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 (clear, green, and brown), plastic bottles and jugs, aluminum
and steel cans, and newspapers and magazines. As of 2005, four of the sites
also accept mixed paper.
Table 3 2 shows the locations and materials collected by site for the blue box
program. Figure 3.3 illustrates the history of the blue box program in Mason
County, detailing the annual collection tonnage totals The program has
experienced a steady increase in the quantity of materials collected. In 2004,
approximately 2,082 tons of recyclables were collected, similar tonnages are
expected for 2005.
Mason County Garbage has 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 are participating in the program.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
TABLE 3 2 MASON COUNTY BLUE BOX COLLECTION
Materials
Collected
(pounds)*
2005
(first 3 quarters)
Blue
Location
Box
Mixed
News-
Card-
Steel
Paper
paper
board
Glass
Aluminum
Plastic
Cans
Total
Shelton
32,158
38,970
35,005
3,086
5,685
17,472
132,376
Belfair
65,080
89,840
90,380
111,940
14,500
33,600
28,800
434,140
Hoodsport
76,157
30,500
26,825
2,246
5,950
5,634
147,311
Union
76,719
42,108
36,745
3,038
7,041
6,220
171,871
Grapeview
66,299
31,390
24,098
3,780
6,480
5,580
137,627
Taylor
Town
64,275
31,535
22,480
1,986
5,262
4,282
129,820
Red
Apple
427,963
162,600
109,450
10,406
32,933
27,620
770,971
214,552
177,550
107,875
10,501
34,470
32,045
576,992
Johns
Prairie
Matlock
16,638
8,928
22,483
1,940
4,550
5,286
59,825
134,380
85,280
99,900
12,420
19,800
22,500
374,280
Allyn
18,016
8,789
19,673
1,698
3,825
2,700
54,701
Bucks
Prairie
Total
Pounds
693,722
588,355
708,030
616,473
65,599
159,596
158,138
2,989,913
Total
Tons
346.9
294.2
354.0
308.2
32.8
79.8
79.1
1,495.0
Needs and Opportunities
City of Shelton
The City's curbside recycling program has enjoyed an increase in participation
beginning in 2003. The opportunity exists to maintain this momentum and build
on the increasing popularity of recycling in the City. Currently, the three -bin sort
system is serving •residents well; however, to increase the convenience to
residents and reduce ,worker injury, many communities around the nation are
switching to a single -cart, commingled system of curbside recycling. Shelton will
be implementing a new program along these lines in the fall of 2007.
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. The 24-hour access site at the Union BP had to be moved to the Union
transfer station, which operates only 2.5 days a week.
In addition, the program operates eleven sites yet only four accept mixed paper.
This is confusing for residents and also a drawback to the program as mixed
paper makes up about 15%-20% of the overall waste stream.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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 milling 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.
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.
If the City decided to switch to a single bin, commingled collection system bins
would have to be purchased, which can be quite expensive, and would likely
raise the monthly residential recycling fee. An extensive outreach program
would have to be implemented in order to educate the residents on 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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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
encourage 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
need 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 property would provide some stability to the program.
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.
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 tb be cleared, grated and gravel laid to be effectively used as a blue -
box site.
4. Incentives for Private Property Site Owners Mason County
One method to increase the stability of blue -box sites on private property would
be to provide some type of incentive to the property owner Examples of
applicable incentives are as follows• an on -site display acknowledging the site
owner and publicly thanking them for their contribution, property tax rebate, a
minimal "rent' payment, or free trash service.
Advantages: Would potentially provide more stability to the blue -box program
by reducing turnover of privately owned sites. Could also make housing blue -
box sites on private property an attractive, positive experience for the site owner
rather then the negative stigma it now carries.
Disadvantages: Could involve some legal issues surrounding tax laws. Funding
from tipping fees would be needed to provide `rent' if that option was desired.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
5. Increased Plastics Collection —City of Shelton and Mason County
Currently, the only plastics accepted in both the City and County recycling
programs are plastic bottles and jugs (PET 1. and HDPE 2). Thurston County is
making some major changes in its curbside recycling program, one of which
includes accepting plastic dairy tubs in addition to the currently collected plastic
bottles and jugs If this proposed change is approved, it would open up the.
possibility for Mason County to also accept dairy tubs if the materials are taken
to the same material recovery facility located outside of Tacoma.
Advantages: Adding a new material to the recycling stream is a positive change.
Many product packaging manufacturers have moved away from using glass to
using plastic for many products. Therefore, plastic tubs are becoming a larger
part of the waste stream. This has been a popular residential request when
asked for input on the current recycling program.
Disadvantages: There is a greater risk of contamination due to residual products
left in plastic tubs than with plastic bottles. It will require a broad public
outreach campaign to effectively broadcast the change. and educate residents
about the importance of rinsing containers prior to recycling. Mason County
Garbage is limited by the types of plastics that will be accepted by the material
recovery processors that accept their materials. Future expansion of type of
materials is dependent on their acceptance.
6. Increased Mixed Paper Collection Mason County
The County's recycling program operates eleven drop-off sites yet only four
accept mixed paper. This is confusing for residents and also a drawback to the
program as mixed paper makes up about 15%-20% of the overall waste stream.
Advantages. Adding mixed paper to the remaining seven sites makes sense for
program consistency, residents' satisfaction, and equitable service levels for all
sites serving various regions in the County, and providing an additional recyclable
material for many residents in the County. This has been a popular residential
request when asked for public input on the current recycling program.
Disadvantages: In order to provide mixed paper collection at all blue -box sites,
additional boxes will need to be purchased. Currently, boxes cost around $6,000
a piece.
7. Additional Materials
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
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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.
8. 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.
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,
schools, and individuals "advertise' their surplus/unwanted materials, or
materials they want to get, by completing an electronic listing form. 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
educationalmaterials to businesses describing waste exchange opportunities.
Mason County Garbage presently provides commercial recycling services
throughout the county, offering cardboard, mixed paper, office paper and
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
commingled containers programs with weekly, bi-weekly and monthly pick ups.
Businesses should be encouraged to participate in these programs as applicable.
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.
9. Recycling Services in Unincorporated Areas
Mason County Garbage has a pilot curbside program in four communities: Lake
Limerick, Oak Park, Lakeland Village and Island Lake. In the remaining
u nincorporated areas of the County, residential recycling collection is not
available. Residents may choose to self -haul their recyclables to a blue -box
location. 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. There are two primary
mechanisms available to Mason County to provide recyclables collection in
u nincorporated areas.
• Counties may contract with private vendors to provide recycling services to
residences. Counties that choose this option assign service territory,
establish and enforce service standards, and set rates.
• Counties may notify the WUTC to implement the provisionsof a recycling
element of a .comprehensive solid waste management plan. If a county
chooses this option, the WUTC-regulated haulers will provide the recycling
services specified in the solid waste plan, but under the economic and
service regulation of the WUTC. To pursue this option, the County is
required to adopt a service -level ordinance establishing the types and levels
of service to be provided. Additionally, the ordinance can encourage rate
structures that promote waste reduction and recycling activity. Prior to
adoption, a service -level ordinance option needs to be included as part of a
county's solid waste management plan.
County staff could investigate further the possibility of providing collection for
recyclables, particularly in areas that are increasing in population density and for
those county residents currently receiving residential trash collection. Self -haul
o ptions could still be made available for residents not choosing collection
services.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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.
Disadvantages: Because the program is voluntary, overlap of recycling services
will still occur.
3.3 COMPOSTING
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 Shelton
The City of Shelton has an annual curbside yard waste collection event for two
weeks in April. There is no charge for this. collection event. Previously, this
debris was taken directly to the Mason County landfill. For the last two years,
however, all the material collected has been taken to a local wood recycler and
has either been composted or become hog fuel. The City also 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. For the last two
years, an annual compost bin sale has been offered to City residents via the
City's recycling newsletter. The bins were sold at half wholesale cost and 125
bins were sold. The City also helps to staff a compost education booth at a
popular spring plant sale at a local elementary school, and helps run a
vermicomposting station at an environmental education event held every -other -
year for local schools.
Mason County
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 during these
events. 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 has
Mason County Solid .Waste Management Plan, 2007
run an annual sale the last two years, selling 250 bins. The County also helps to
staff a compost education booth at a popular spring plant sale at a local
elementary school and at the annual Master Gardener's plant sale, and helps run
a vermicomposting station at an environmental education event held every -
other -year for local schools.
Needs and Opportunities
City of Shelton
Although the City has one yard waste collection event and promotes backyard
composting, the opportunity exists to collect curbside yard waste on a seasonal
basis. There is a yard waste recycling operation within five miles of City limits.
This is both an opportunity for City residents to self -haul their yard .debris and
offers proximity for City crews to transport Citywide collection of yard waste.
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 not
separated out from the MSW stream in the 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 one wood recycler 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.
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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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
enterprise. 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 would be separated in the
same way that the metals and tires are handled.
Advantages: This alternative provides residents with the convenience of making
one 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. Thisalternativewould 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
or 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 thenew, segregated
material.
3. Curbside Yard Waste Collection City of Shelton
The City of Shelton could provide a seasonal (May through October) biweekly,
curbside yard waste collection service.
Advantages. This alternative would provide City residents who do not wish to
compost with a convenient, less costly alternative to disposing of their grass
clippings, leaves, and brush trimmings than in the garbage. The City could
contract out for collection services, reducing the initial start-up costs (cans and
truck).
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Disadvantages: The cost of providing seasonal collection of curbside yard debris
could potentially exceed the rate customers would be willing to pay for this
service. The City would need to dedicate a driver and a truck for collection, and
would need to purchase the cans, which could be costly.
4. 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.
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.
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.
5. 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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
• 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.
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 Recyc/e 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, none of the recycling and solid waste information
materials are available in Spanish. The curbside -recycling brochure is mostly
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
pictorial; 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.
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 direct 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 (Le. 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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
•
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.
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 age, "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 tothe 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.
Advantages People generally are comfortable using the Internet as a place to
go for information and most often have access to a computer.
Disadvantages: Would require additional outreach so people know to look to
the web site for solid and hazardous waste information.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
•
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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
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 should be provided 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 can be high to
produce enough signs for all sites, although signs generally have a long lifespan.
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. Look to add sites on available public
properties and develop an incentive for private site owners to continue to
provide land for siting the boxes.
3. Increase mixed paper recycling opportunities by adding mixed paper to all the
blue -box -recycling sites.
4. Local governments should develop and expand electronic billing options to
reduce paper mailings.
5. Offer businesses and schools waste audits and education designed to reduce
their waste stream and disposal costs.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
6. Improve recycling options for employees at local government facilities.
7. Support the efforts of the private sector to implement and expand a voluntary
curbside recycling program in densely populated communities in Mason
County.
8. Diversion of organics at county owned solid waste facilities for composting or
other beneficial use.
Mason County Solid Waste !Management Plan, 2007
CHAPTER 4: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, TRANSFER 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 I 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 (Le., 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
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)
Type of Service
60 gal can/week
90 gal can/week
300 gal can/week
I�er
Rate per can
Rate per can
$16.83
$25.24
$78.01
$10.06
$15.08
$16.83
$25.24
Customers
Customers
586
37
-1500
-500
350 total -- AII 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 Solad Waste Management Plan, 2007
Table
4.2
WUTC
Solid
Waste
Certificates
for
Mason
County
Service
Certificate
#
Certificate
Holder
Refuse
G327
Waste
Management
collection
dump
13225
NE
126th
requiring
trucks.
use
of
Kirkland
WA 98034
Solid
waste
collection
G98
Harold
LeMay
PO
Box
44459
service.
Tacoma
WA
98444
G88
Mason.
County
Garbage,
Solid
waste
collection
PO
Box
787
leased
from
G98.
Shelton
WA 98584
32 Gallon Can
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
1
EOW
EOW
MO $
13.60
20.20
26.95
34.50
41.10
47.45
7.90
12.65
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
18.00
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; "EOW" 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 and 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 howto 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.
2.2 RCW 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 TRANSFER
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.
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.
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Table
4.4 Mason
Solid
Waste
County
Facilities
2005
Tonnages
Disposed
Customers
Facility
Recycled
Shelton
39,534
85.5
55,342
Belfair
4,607
289.1
21,864
419.3
96.9
5,139
Hoodsport
Union
419.7
110.4
5,004
Mason County has four drop box stations for the disposal of refuse and
recyclables. Each stationcontains 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 Toad. 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)
Shelton
Solid
Waste
Drop
Box Stations*
Load
Type
Facility*
Minimum
Rate
$7.25
$3.85
30-gallon
can
$3.25
$3.85
55-gallon
container
$6.50
$7.00
Loose yard
$72
40/ton
$16.50/cy
Appliances
$5.00
$12.00
Tires
(off
rim)
$3.14
$3.50
Tires
(on rim)
$7.00
$7.25
Auto
Batteries
$1
25
$1.25
Refrigerators
$10.00
$18.00
Demo
Yards
$72.40/ton
N/A
Yard
Debris
$72.40/ton
N/A
Propane
Tanks
by
weight
N/A
Animals
(small)
$5.25
N/A
Animals
(large)
$10.50
N/A
* Basic Rate - Does not include taxes.
Needs and Opportunities
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 haulingdistances 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 Taste 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 light of population growth projections for the
period 2005 through 2025 Waste and customer capacity was estimated based
on the following assumptions:
Mel
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 Toad 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 tobe 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 Paste 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. Increas ng 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 tnpled 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
ACTUAL
AND
2010
ESTIMATES
Estimated
Station
2005
2010
Capacity
w/o
Expansion
Shelton
Solid
Waste
Facility
Tons
41,716.56
67,500
60,000
Customers
55,342
90,000
70,000
Belfair
Drop
Box Station
Tons
4,601.3
9,110
10,850
Customers
21,864
28,000
42,000
Hoodsport
Drop
Box Station
Tons
419.33
449
1,200
Customers
5,139
5,506
9,600
Union
Drop
Box Station
Tons
419
67
450
1,200
Customers
5,004
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.
TABLE 4.7 COMPARISON
OF
SOLID
WASTE SCENARIOS
Additional
Station
Cost
Commercial
Drop
Boxes
(own,
SCENARIO
Customers
to
Shelton
to
Shelton
operate,
and
Total
($/yr)
($/Yr)
($/yr)
maintain)
($/Yr)
Existing
System
$533,000
$84,000
Baseline
$617,000
Replace
Drop
Transfer
Box
Belfair
Station
with
$353,000
$54,000
$.500,000
$907,000
Build
Island
Box
Station
Harstene
Drop
$501,000
$103,000
$300,000
$904,000
Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, 2007
Build SW
County Drop
Box Station
$503,000
$102,000
$300,000
$905,000
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 Wudie 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 effectivemethod 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 asa 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 TRANSPORT
OPTIONS
Transport
Truck
($/yr)
Additional
Total
($/yr)
Cost
(own,
maintain)
operate,
($/Yr)
and
Rail
Transport
($/Yr)
2005:
1,571,425
Existing
System
$361,000
$718,000
Baseline
$1,079,000
$890,000
$850,000
$1,740,000
Rail
to
Roosevelt
Haul
-
New
Station
$0
$0
$0
$1,880,000
Truck
Roosevelt
Haul
- Shelton
to
$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 tmme, 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 Tess landfill volume than the original
waste. When used with an energy recovery system, incineration can also
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 FYc.0te 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
or 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 Solzd 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
thesystem 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.
t
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 this 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 long-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 Litter 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 establishedby 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,
unapproved 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
understanding 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 theduplication of investigative and administrative
efforts.
Disadvantages: Cost of implementing a reporting system.
4. Improve Staff Efficiencies
Field staff often lack comprehensive training 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
5. Health Department Staffing 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
encourage 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
organizations that may be able to contribute funding and/or labor to assist in site
dean 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
organizations 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 properly 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.
is 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 Shelter. 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
Roadkill: 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 Cmad 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 safeand 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 newspublications 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 less 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 load.
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 fromthe
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 Hill.
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 Plant
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 incurnng 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 we -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
operate 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
electronics recycling program in a amendment to this plan or during a future plan
update 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
electronics 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 policyin 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.
PPE
ashington State's Beyond aste Plan
Identified Priorities and System Issues
Appendix A: Beyond Waste Plan 1
Beyond
Waste
Initiatives
and
System
Issues
Initiative:
Moving
Toward
Beyond
Waste
with
Industries
(IND)
Recommendations:
IND1.
IND2.
IND3.
Focus
Specific
Develop
on sector
sectors
a standardized
work
to
focus
on
process
for
sector
work
IND4.
Develop
tools
for
specific
sector
work
IND5.
IND6.
the
Expand
Modify
Beyond
the
information
Pollution
Waste
vision
Prevention
Planning
Program
to dovetail
with
IND7.
Form
a
work
group
on
on
low
Ecology's
-interest
website
loans
IND8.
Negotiate
the
state
agreement
with
EPA
IND9.
Collaborate
with
affected
parties
to
explore
changes
to
hazardous
waste
fees
and
taxes
INDI0.
IND11.
Explore
Encourage
ways
new
to
implement
businesses
Beyond
to adopt
Waste
sustainability
incentives
practices
IND12.
Encourage
waste
handlers
to
become
materials
brokers
IND13.
Support
EPA's'Beyond
Waste
-type"
efforts
IND14.
Promote
sustainability
in
product
development
Initiative:
Reducing
Small
-Volume
Hazardous
Materials
& Wastes
(MRW)
Recommendations:
MRW1.
Prioritize
substances
to
pursue
MRW2.
Reduce
threats
from
mercury
MRW3.
Reduce
threats
from
PBDE's
MRW4.
Develop
an
electronics
product
stewardship
infrastructure
MRW5
Ensure
proper
use
of
pesticides,
including
effective
alternatives
MRW6.
Reduce
and
manage
all
architectural
paint
wastes
MRW7.
Lead
by
example
in
state
government
MRWB
Ensure
MRW
and
hazardous
substances
are
managed
according
to
hazards,
toxicity,
and
risk
MRW9.
Fully
implement
local
hazardous
waste
plans
MRW10.
Ensure
environmental
facilities
laws
handling
and
mRW
regulations
are
in
compliance
with
Initiative:
Increasing
Recycling'
for
Organic
Materials
(ORG)
Recommendations:
ORG1.
Lead
by
example
in state
government
ORG2.
Increase
residential
and
commercial
organics
recovery
programs
ORG3.
Improve
quality
of
recycled
organic
products
ORG4.
Develop
organics
a strategy
recovery
to increase industrial
and
agricultural
ORG5.
Propose
solutions
to statutory
and
regulatory
barriers
ORG6.
Develop
new
products
and
technologies
for organic
residuals
Appendix A: Beyond Waste Plan 2
Beyond
Waste
Initiatives
Issues
and
yste
continued
Initiative:
Making
Green
Building
Practices
Mainstream
(GB)
Recommendations°
GB1:
Coordinate
and
facilitate
to
implement
the
partnerships
green
building
action
plan
GB2:
Lead
by
example
in
state
government
GB3:
Provide
incentives
that
design,
encourage
green
construction,
and
deconstruction,
and
begin
removing
disincentives
GB4°
Expand
capacity
and
markets
for
reusing
and
recycling
construction
and
demolition
materials
GB5°
Provide
and
promote
statewide
residential
green
building
programs
GB6:
Increase
knowledge
to
building
awareness,
and
access
green
GB7°
resources
Encourage
innovative
product
design
Initiative:
Measuring
Progress
Toward
Beyond
Waste
(DATA)
Recommendations:
DATA1.
Conduct
a
feasibility
study
to determine
which
major indicators
to
use
DAT
DATA3.
2
.
Continue
Beyond
Discuss
indicators
the
Waste
work
progress
of
for
Ecology's
each
report
initiative
data
team
to
produce
a joint
Section:
Current
Hazardous
Waste
System
Issues
(HW)
Recommendations:
HW1.
Encourage
P2
to,address
hazardous
substance
use
planners
including
toxicity
and
risk
in
their
P2
plans
HW2.
Develop
an
EMS
hybrid
model
and
guidance
HW3.
Improve
P2
plan
quality
and
relationships
with
P2
planners
HW4.
Strive
for
better
the
HWS.
Work
to
relationships
with
regulated
the
community
ensure
greater
compliance
with
regulations
Modify
the
Dangerous
Waste
Regulations
to
HW6.
encourage
more
waste
and
toxics
minimization,
including
upcycling
HW7.
Ensure
hazardous
waste
management
facilities
are operated
in
HW8.
a
Develop
safe
manner
for
HW9
Reduce
the
accurate
cost
estimates
burden
for
closure/corrective
action
facilities
administrative
corrective
action
HW10.
Explore
private
/public
partnerships
Section:
Current
Solid
Waste
System
Issues
(SW)
Recommendations:
SW1.
Encourage
inclusion
of
Beyond
Waste
into
local
principles
plans
SW2.
SW3.
Revise
Expand
local
assistance
planning
to
local
guidelines
planning
jurisdictions
SW4.
Collaborate
local
with
government
SW5.
Ensure
responsibilities
are clear
SW6.
Characterize
Washington's
solid
waste
streams
SW7.
Plan
for a stronger
technical
recycling
system
Appendix A: Beyond Waste Plan
Waste
Initiatives
and
System
Issues
continued
Beyond
Section:
Current
Solid
Waste System
Issues
(SW)
Recommendations:
SW8
SW9
SW10.
SW11.
SW12.
SW13.
SW14.
Identify
Evaluate
Develop
priority
Identify
Ensure
interested
closed
sites
funding
that
and
feasible
existing
reduce
priontize
and
to
parties
Waste,
and
abandoned
disposal
for
disposal
responsible
the
problems
solid
consultation
priority
impacts
sites
waste
at
processes
sites
closed
statewide
on
comply
system,
with
sites
the
for
with
including
health
SWAC
addressing
requirements
and
facilities
address
human
the
Continually
environment
Evaluate
toward
and
Beyond
financing
moving
in
•
Appendix A: Beyond Waste Plan 4
APPENDIX B
ashington Utilities and Transportation Commission
C•STASSESS E T
Please provide the information requested below:
AIRE
PLAN PREPARED FOR THE COUNTY OF: MASON
PLAN PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF: N/A
PREPARED BY: SCS ENGINEERS
CONTACT TELEPHONE: 562-426-9544 DATE: JUNE 23, 2006
DEFINITIONS
Please provide these definitions as used in the Solid Waste Management Plan
and the Cost Assessment Questionnaire.
Throughout this document:
YR.1 shall refer to
YR.3 shall refer to
YR.6 shall refer to
2005 .
2007
2010
Year refers to (circle one). Calendar (Jan 01 - De
Fiscal (Jul 01 - Jun 30)
1. DEMOGRAPHICS: To assess the generation, recycling, and disposal rates of an
area, it is necessary to have population data. This information is available from many
sources (e.g. the State Data Book, County Business Patterns, or the State Office of
Finance and Management).
1. Population
1. What is the total population of your County/City?
YR.1 51,900 YR.3 54,582 YR.6 58,604
2. For counties, what is the population of the area under your jurisdiction?
(Exclude cities choosing to develop their own solid waste management
system)
YR.1 51,900 YR.3 54,582 YR.6 58,604
2. References and Assumptions
2. WASTE STREAM GENERATION: The following questions ask for total tons
recycled and total tons disposed. Total tons disposedare those tons disposed. of at a
landfill, incinerator, transfer station, or any other form of disposal you may be using IF
other, please identify.
1. Tonnage Recycled
1. Please provide the total tonnage recycled in the base year, and projections
for years three and six.
YR.1 22,858 YR.3 24,025 YR.6 25,775
2. Tonnage Disposed
1. Please provide the total tonnage disposed in the base year, and projections
for years three and six.
YR.1 48,180 YR.3 50,684 YR.6 54,439
3. References and Assumptions
3. SYSTEM COMPONENT COSTS:. This section asks questions specifically related
to the types of programs currently in use and those recommended to be started. For each
component (i.e. waste reduction, landfill, composting, etc.) please describe the
anticipated costs of the program(s), the assumptions used in estimating the costs, and the
funding mechanisms
to be used to pay for it. The heart of deriving a rated impact is to
know what programs will be passed through to the collection rates, as opposed to being
paid for through grants, bonds, taxes, and the like.
1. Waste Reduction Programs
$160,000
$200,000
1. Please list the solid waste programs which have been implemented and
those programs which are proposed. If these programs are defined in the
SWM plan, please provide the page number. Attach additional sheets as
necessary.
IMPLEMENTED PROPOSED
See Attached Table 1 See Attached Table 1
2. What are the costs, capital costs, and operating costs for waste reduction
programs implemented and proposed? See attached Table 2.
IMPLEMENTED
YR.1 $130,000 YR.3 $150,000 YR.6
PROPOSED
YR.1 $130,000 YR.3 $160,000 YR.6
Please describe the funding mechanism(s) that will pay the cost of the
programs in 3 1 2
IMPLEMENTED
YR. 1 Grants / Collection YR.3 Grants / Collection YR.6 Grants / Collection Fees
Fees / Tip Fees / Other
PROPOSED
Fees / Tip Fees / Other / Tip Fees / Other
YR. 1 Grants / Collection YR.3 Grants / Collection YR.6 Grants / Collection Fees
Fees / Tip Fees / Other Fees / Tip Fees / Other / Tip Fees / Other
2. Recycling Programs
1. Please list the proposed or implemented recycling program(s) and their
costs and proposed funding mechanism or provide the page number in the
draft plan on which it is discussed. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
IMPLEMENTED
PROGRAM
COST FUNDING
See attached Tables 1 and 2 for program listing and cost estimates
3. Solid Waste Collection Programs
Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs
Fill in the table below for each WUTC regulated solid waste collection entity in your
junsdiction. Make additional copies of this section as necessary to record all such
entities in your jurisdiction
WUTC Regulated Hauler Name Mason County Garbage Company
G-permit # 88
RESIDENTIAL
# Customers
Tonnage Collected
COMMERCIAL
# Customers
Tonnage Collected
YR.3
10,306
9,785
957
10,401
YR.6
11,066
10,506
1,028
11,168
WUTC Regulated Hauler Name Harold LeMay- this hauler leases its accounts to G-88
G-permit # 98
RESIDENTIAL
# Customers
Tonnage Collected
COMMERCIAL
# Customers
Tonnage Collected
YR.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
YR.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WUTC Regulated Hauler Name Waste Management - this hauler provides minimal
service in the County
G-permit # 327
RESIDENTIAL
# Customers
Tonnage Collected
COMMERCIAL
YR.3
N/A
N/A
YR.6
N/A
N/A
# Customers N/A N/A
Tonnage Collected N/A N/A
1. Other (Non -Regulated) Solid Waste Collection Programs
Fill in the table below for other solid waste collection entities in your jurisdiction Make
additional copies of this section as necessary to record all such entities in your
jurisdiction
Hauler Name City of Shelton
# Customers
Tonnage Collected
YR.1 YR.3 YR.6
3,096 3,256 3,496
5,942 6,249 6,710
Hauler Name Mason County Garbage (National Forest Service)
YR.1 YR.3 YR.6
# Customers 2 2 2
Tonnage Collected 53 (est.) 56 (est.) 60 (est.)
Hauler Name Mason County Garbage (Tribal lands)
YR.1 YR.3 YR.6
# Customers 194 204 219
Tonnage Collected 180 (est.) 189 (est.) 203 (est.)
Hauler Name State of Washington (State Parks and Facihties)
YR.1 YR.3 YR.6
# Customers 4 4 4
Tonnage Collected 217 (est.) 228 (est.) 245 (est.)
4. Energy Recovery and Incineration (ER&I) Programs
1. Completethe following for each facility
Name: N/A
Location:
Owner•
Operator:
2. What is the pen pitted capacity (tons/day) for the facility?
3. If the facility is not operating at capacity, what is the average daily
throughput?
YR.l
YR.3 YR.6
4. What quantity is estimated to be landfilled which is either ash or cannot be
processed?
YR.1
YR.3 YR.6
5. What are the expected capital costs and operating costs for ER&I
programs (not including ash disposal expense)?
YR.1
YR.3 YR.6
6. What are the expected costs•of ash disposal?
YR.1
YR.3 YR.6
7. Is ash disposal to be: on -site?
in -County?
long -haul?
8. Please explain the funding mechanism(s) that will fund the costs of this
component.
Land Disposal Program
9. Provide the following information for each land disposal facility in your
jurisdiction which received garbage or refuse generated in the county.
There are no active landfills located in Mason County. There are four drop -box locations
that feed into the one transfer station that exports waste to Klickitat County for final
disposal. This system is described in further detail in Chapter 4 of the SWM Plan.
10 Estimate the approximate tonnage disposed at the landfill by WUTC
regulated haulers. If you do not have a scale and are unable to estimate
tonnages, estimate using cubic yards, and indicate whether they are
compacted or loose.'
19,194 tons
11. Using the same conversion factors applied in 3.5.2, please estimate the
approximate tonnage disposed at the landfill by other contributors.
28,986 tons
N/A
N/A
12. Provide the costs of operating (including capital acquisitions) each landfill
in your jurisdiction For any facility that is privately owned and operated,
skip these questions.
13. Please describe the funding mechanism(s) that will defray the cost of this
component
5. Administration Program
1. What is the budgeted cost for administering the solid waste and recycling
programs and what are the major funding sources?
The projected 2005 Administration budget is $ 3.3 million. The funding sources include
collection fees and grants.
2. Which cost components are included in these estimates?
Expenses included in the estimate are as follows: salaries and wages, personnel benefits,
supplies, other services and charges, intergovernmental payments, and capital
1
Compacted cubic yards will be converted at a standard 600 pounds per yard. Loose cubic yards will be
converted at a standard 300 pounds per cubic yard. Please specify an alternative conversion ratio if one
is presently in use in your Jurisdiction
expenditures. See Chapter 5 in the SWM Plan for a description of administrative
functions
Please describe the funding mechanism(s) that will recover the costs of each component.
Funding mechanisms include collection fees and grants; these funding mechanisms are
not targeted for specific components.
6. Other Programs
For each program in effect or planned which does not readily fall into one of the
previously described categories, please answer the following questions. Make additional
copies. of this section as necessary.
1. Describe the program, or provide a page number reference to the plan.
Program
Reference
Not Applicable
2. Owner/Operator:
Management Depaitiuent
3. Is WUTC Regulation involved?
involvement in Section 3 8
Not Applicable
4. Please estimate the anticipated costs for this program, including the cost of
this component.
Page Number
•
Mason County Utilities/Waste
If so, please explain the extent of
See. attached Table 2 for all program cost estimates.
5. Please describe the funding mechanism(s) that will recover the costs of
this component
Tip fees, collection fees, and grants are the funding mechanisms for all programs.
7. References and Assumptions (attach additional sheets as necessary)
4. FUNDING MECHANISMS: This section relates specifically to the funding
mechanisms currently in use and the ones which will be implemented to
incorporate the recommended program in the draft plan. Because the way a
program is funded directly relates to the costs a resident or commercial customer
will have to pay, this section is crucial to the cost assessment process. Please fill
in each of the following tables as completely as possible.
4.1.1
Inventory
Table
Facility
Facility
Name
Type
Facility
of
Tip
per
Ton
Fee
Transfer
Cost
Transfer
Station
Location
Final
Location
Disposal
Total
(tons)
Generated
Revenue
Total
Fee
x
(Tip
Tons)
Shelton
Waste
Facility
Solid
Transfer
$63.00
$40.51
WA
Roosevelt
Regional
Landfill,
Klickitat
Co.
57216.10
$
Recycling
$0.00
85.50
$0.00
Shelton,
Belfair
Box
Station
Drop
Drop
Box
$13.80/
$8.87
Shelton,
WA
Roosevelt
Regional
Landfill,
Klickitat
.
Co.
7138.80
$
Recycling
$0.00
289.12
$0.00
Hoodsport
Drop
Station
Box
Drop
Box
$13.80/
$8.87
Shelton,
WA
Roosevelt
Regional
Landfill
Klickitat
Co.
419.33
$
Recycling
$0.00
96.88
$0.00
Union
Box
Station
Drop
Drop
Box
$13.80/
$8.87
Shelton,
WA
Roosevelt
Regional
Landfill
Klickitat
Co.
419.67
$
Recycling
$0.00
110.43
$0.00
4.1.2
Components
Table
Tip Fee
Fee
by
Facility
Surcharge
City
Tax
County
Tax
Transportation
Operational
Cost
Administrative
Cost
Closure
Costs
Tip
Cost
Shelton
Waste
Solid
Facility
$0.00
$0.00
$2.04
$40.51
$18.70
$1.76
$0.00
Station
Belfair
Drop
Box
$0.00
$0.00
$0.45
$8.87
$4.10
$0.39
$0.00
Box
Hoodsport
Station
Drop
$0.00
$0.00
$0.45
$8.87
$4.10
$0.39
$0.00
Station
Union
Drop
Box
$0.00
$0.00
$0.45
$8.87
$4.10
$0.39
$0.00
4.1.3
Mechanism
Table
Funding
Name
Funding
Mechanism
Will
of
Program
that
Costs
Bond
Name
Grant
Name
Grant
Amount*
Tip
Fee
Leases
Interest
Surcharge
Defray
HHW
Facility
N/A
Coordinated
Grant
Dept.
of
/
HHW
Ecology
Prevention
$52,500
Recycling
N/A
Grant
Prevention
of
/
Coordinated
Ecology
Grant
Litter
$55,500
$104,000
Dept.
&
Refuse
Transfer
Collection
N/A
$2,282,000
$5,000
etc
Tires,
leachate,
N/A
$14,000
* In the event that grant funding is reduced or eliminated, programs that are funded by these grants will need to be re-evaluated and
either eliminated, curtailed, or if continued, funded using alternative methods, such as an increase in tipping fees or other revenue
sources
4.1.4
Table
Tip
Fee Forecast
Tip
Facility
Fee
by
Year One
Year
Two
Year Three
Year
Four
Year
Five
Year Six
Solid
Shelton
Facility
Waste
$2,233,963.06
$2,301,651.92
$2,336,176.70
$2,371,219.35
$2,406,787.64
$2,442,889
Belfair
Box
Station
Drop
$217,048.57
$223,625.12
$226,979.50
$230,384.19
$233,839.95
$237,347,55
Hoodsport
Drop
Station
Box
$36,799.55
$37,914.57
$38,483.29
$39,060.54
$39,646.45
$40,241.15
Union
Box
Station
Drop
$35,725.90
$36,808.39
$37,360.52
$37,920.92
$38,489.74
$39,067.08
4.2 Funding Mechanisms, Summary by Percentage
In the following tables, please summarize the way programs will be funded in the key
years. For each component, provide the. expected percentage of the total cost met by each
funding mechanism. (e.g. Waste Reduction may rely on tip fees, grants, and collection
rates for funding). You would provide the estimated responsibility in the table as
follows:
Tip fees = 10%; Grants = 50%; Collection Rates = 40%. The mechanisms must total
100% If components can be classified as ` other," please note the programs and their
appropriate mechanisms. Provide attachments as necessary.
4.2.1
Year
Meehanism
One
by
Percentage
Table
Funding
Component
Tip
Fee
%
Grant
%
Bond
%
Collection
Tax
Rates
%
Other
%
Total
Waste
Reduction
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Recycling
60.0%
40.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Collection
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
ER&I
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Transfer
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Land
Disposal
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Administration
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2.2
Year
Mechanism
Three
by Percentage
Table
Funding
Component
Tip
Fee %
Grant
%
Bond
%
Collection
Tax
Rates
%
Other
%
Total
Waste
Reduction
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Recycling
60.0%
40.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Collection
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
ER&I
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Transfer
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Land
Disposal
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Administration
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2.3
Year
Mechanism
Six
by Percentage
Table
Funding
Component
Tip
Fee %
Grant
%
Bond
%
Collection
Tax
Rates
%
Other
%
Total
Waste
Reduction
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Recycling
60.0%
40.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Collection
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
ER&I
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Transfer
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Land
Disposal
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Administration
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Other
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4 3 References and Assumptions
Please provide any support for the information you have provided. An annual budget or
similar document would be helpful.
TABLE 1. LIST OF SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
Selected
Option
Existing
New
SWMP
Page #
Program
Program
Chapter
3
Outreach
Improvements
X
3-23
Evaluate
Blue
Box
Program
X
3-15
Increase
Paper
Recycling,
3-16
X
Electronic
Billing
Options
X
3-8
Business
School
and
Waste
Audits
X
3-17
Improve
Government
Recycling
X
3-8
Support
Expansion
of Voluntary
Curbside
Program
X
3-14
Divert
Organics for Composting
X
3-20
Chapter
4
Develop
Separate
Compost
and
CDI
Tipping
Area
X
4-11
Evaluate
Procedures
to
Reduce
Wait
Times
X
4-8
Explore
New
Partnerships
for Special
Waste
Management
X
Chapter
5
Explore
Additional
Funding
Alternatives
X
5-12
Assist
with
Implementation
and
Enforcement
of
Laws and
X
Regulations
5-9
Chapter
6
Review
Plans
for
Handling
Livestock
Contagious
Disease X 6-2
Outbreaks
X
6-7
Investigate
Feasibility
of C&D
Program at
MCTS
X
6-6
Develop
Partnerships
for Composting
Operation
X
6-10
Educate
Residents
about
New
E-Waste
Programs
4 4 Surplus Funds
Please provide information about any surplus or saved funds that may support your
operations.
TABLE 2. PROJECTED SOLID WASTE BUDGET FOR MASON COUNTY,
2005-2010
2005
Total,
(Year
$
1)
2007
Total,
(Year
3)
$
2010
Total,
(Year
$
6)
Component
Disposal
Landfill
Administration
72,000
74,095
77,480
Landfill
Operations
723,860
754,117
788,563
Scrap
Metal
Disposal
28,000
29,435
30,780
Transportation
1,659,425
1,763,563
1,844,119
Tires,
Leachate
Disposal
14,000
15,225
15,920
2,497,285
2,636,434
2,756,862
Diversion
Recycling Operations
0
58,406
61,074
Scrap Metal Recycling
0
0
0
Drop Box Program
104,000
253,316
264,887
Litter Agreement
22,500
23,249
24,311
CPG Grant
45,500
66,578
69,619
172,000
401,548
419,890
HHW Facility
CPG HHW
52,500
54,247
56,725
HHW Operations
0
39,940
41,765
HHW Improvements /
Belfair
0
78,155
81,725
52,500
172,342
180,214
Rollover Funding
Fund Balance
491,739
4,601
4,811
Fund Transfer to 406-000-
000
171,502
237,165
247,998
663,241
241,766
252,809
Total
3,385,026 . 3,452,090 3,609,776
STATE OF WASHINGTON o A N
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 e Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 (360) 407-6300
June 29, 2007
Mr. David Baker Solid Waste Manager
Mason County Utilities & Waste Management
410 N 4th Street, Bldg II
PO Box 578
Shelton, WA .98584
RE* Ecology's Preliminary Review of Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan,
Preliminary Draft March 2007
Dear Mr. Baker:
Ecology's review comments are provided to assist Mason County in the development of a comprehensive,
approvable, and useful solid waste management plan. The goals of the planning process include reducing
the total amount of solid waste produced through waste reduction and recycling, and achieving
compliance with state and local environmental regulations.
The task of comprehensive plan development is not an easy assignment. Ecology recognizes the effort by
the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and planning participants in developing and updating your Solid
Waste Management Plan (Plan). The Plan presented to Ecology has been through a thorough review by
SWAC, the City of Shelton, haulers, the public, and other interested parties in the county. The thought
and effort to get to this point should be recognized and acknowledged by all parties participating in its
development Once final this Plan should provide Mason County with the guidance tools necessary to
run an efficient and effective solid waste handling system over the next decade.
I did not find any new initiatives outlined in your plan that are relative to the initiatives discussed in the
State's ' Beyond Waste" solid waste management plan. I continue to encourage you to review the Beyond
Waste plan for guidance as you implement your own Plan, and look to Ecology for assistance in
developing new programs. For example, the following "model' Green Building language would be ideal
in a Plan where one of the goals is to incorporate green building practices:
Model Green Building Language for County Solid Waste Management Plans
Alternative: Promote high-performance (or green) building and partner with local and regional green
building organizations
Advantages: Existing green building certification systems, such as Built GreenTM and LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), require builders to write and post a waste
management plan on jobsites, and communicate waste management and recycling goals to all contractors
and subcontractors on the project.
113
Mr. David Baker
June 29, 2007
Page 2 of 6
LEED also requires space to be provided in the building for collection and storage of paper, glass, plastic,
cardboard and other commonly recycled materials.
Further, green building certification systems provide voluntary incentives for builders to preserve and
renovate existing buildings reuse and recycle C&D materials, use salvaged and recycled -content
materials, purchase low -toxic materials and finishes, and extend building life.
Green building is a comprehensive approach that promotes local and regional market -driven solutions for
closing the loop in terms of management of C&D materials.
Green building also helps local governments promote better public health through improving indoor air
quality stormwater management, and energy and water conservation.
Disadvantages: It is difficult to point to a disadvantage from a waste management standpoint. The
primary challenges lie with the fact that green building is still largely voluntary, unless mandated for
publicly -funded projects. It will take time to get local government to participate and the community to
accept this concept.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN APPROVAL
Interlocal Agreement: RCW 70.95.080 requires each participating jurisdiction to enter into an interlocal
agreement with the county. Copies of all interlocals must be provided to Ecology. Ecology recommends
that copies of each agreement be included in the Plan as an appendix.
Resolutions of Adoption: Mason County and the City of Shelton must approve the Mason County Draft
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, March.2007, prior to Ecology's approval of the final
draft The County's approval should include a statement assuring that the plan acceptance process
outlined in the interlocal agreement has been fulfilled Ecology recommends copies of each resolution of
adoption be included in the Plan as an appendix.
POLICY ITEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN APPROVAL
The WUTC conducted a formal review of the Plan and forwarded their comments to Ecology and the
county in a letter dated April 11, 2007. WUTC s comments must be addressed in the final Plan. A copy
of this letter is enclosed, for your convenience.
Chapter 70.95.090(3)(c) RCW requires that a plan address a six year construction and capital acquisition
program for facilities that may be considered. I do not fmd this in the Plan..
Chapter 70.95.090(5)(a), (b), and (c) RCW requires a plan to provide a current inventory and description
of solid waste collection needs and operations within each respective jurisdiction. Existing operations by
Jurisdiction are found in Chapter 4 of the draft plan but not the needs. Needs and opportunities should be
clearly defined by Jurisdiction Include the boundaries of the city solid waste operations and a population
density of each area serviced by a city operation or certificated hauler within the city.
Mr. David Baker
June 29, 2007
Page 3 of 6
This reviewer strongly encourages the county to take a look at the requirements of Chapter 70.95.090(6)
and (7)(a)-(b) RCW and provide a clear and orderly response in the Plan to these requirements.
Chapter 70.95.090(7)(c) RCW. The only requirement addressed in the Plan is on page 13 of Chapter 3
where the county provided a table entitled Materials Collected (pounds)* [no table number] If this is
your designated list, please add text to make that clear. You should also include the process for how the
designated materials list will be amended. The Plan touches on adding new recyclable materials on page
16 of Chapter 3 but fails to outline a process for doing so The remainder of this 70 95.090(7)(c) RCW
appears to be unaddressed in the Plan, including a description of markets and waste composition, a review
of waste generation trends, and an implementation schedule for the designation of specific materials.
POLICY ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN APPROVAL
Identifying the following* 1) existing practices, 2) local need, and 3) options (whether feasible or not),
will naturally lead you to recommendations. The goals can lean more toward "over -arching' rather than
specific but should relateto your recommendations. Recommendations are missing at the end of each
section of each chapter however a list of recommendations is provided at the end of each chapter. The
list of recommendations at the end of each chapter do not relate to the `planning goals" listed at the
beginning of each section.
Table 1.1: Consider providing an actual "status" of each activity/recommendation listed. The term "on-
going" does not provide enough information about how this activity/recommendation is being addressed.
Does "on -going' mean it was implemented or not? Also consider adding a third column to reflect/show
whether this activity/recommendation will be carried forward through the next planning period If these
are actually goals, I'd expect to see an explanation for why they were not implemented and a statement
about whether they will continue asgoals over the next planning period..
Chapter 70.95.090 RCW - County and city comprehensive solid waste management plans —contents,
contains an outline for required plan contents. This Plan could be organized in a sequence more reflective
of the order of requirements.
General Comments for Chapter 1:
1. Section 1.1, page 1: Clarifications:
• The purpose of this Plan is to provide direction for managing solid waste including collection and
handling within Mason County boundaries. The statement that it provides a guide for solid waste
`activities" is misleading and undercuts the purpose of the solid waste planning document.
This Plan serves as an amendment to the October 1998 plan (see pg. 34, guidelines).
•
2. Section 1.2, page 1: Clarifications:
• The City of Shelton chose to participate in the county's planning process through an inter -local
agreement "as defined per RCW 70 95.080(2), a joint city/county. plan".
3. Section 1.3, page 3: there is a typo in the, second sentence, ` an concerted effort..." should be "a
concerted effort...".
4. Section 1.5, page 12: Replace "Shannon McClelland" with "Tracy Farrell"..
Mr. David Baker
June 29, 2007
Page 4 of 6
5. Section 1.6, Process for Revising and Amending the Plan, page 13: Beginning at `Ecology's
Planning Guidelines require ", moderate changes require a plan amendment while significant
changes require a plan revision (see pgs. 33-34, guidelines). Mason County has submitted a plan
amendment that serves to comply with RCW 70.95.110(1) in keeping the plan in a current condition.
• This plan outlines the process for a simple amendment to the plan when the situation presents
itself prior to the required five-year review schedule. At number 4 in the outlined process,
consider changing the language from "...will also be subject. ." to "...will be subject to Ecology
review and may also be subject to public review and comment... '. This minor change in wording
may alleviate the planning authority from having to deal with a full-blown review process for an
insignificant change to the plan.
• Revise the last paragraph of this section to match definitions provided on pgs. 33-34 of the
Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions.
6. Section 1.9, Plan Goals and Objectives: List the goals and objectives the plan lays out for the
management of solid waste in the county for the next 5-20 years. This is a good place to insert a table
similar to 1.1 that identifies the new goals and objectives based on the 1998 plan review. The goals
should be broad but not broad enough that no direction is provided to solid waste staff.
General Comments for Chapter 2:
1. Table 2.4 is referenced on page 12 as showing the annual quantities of waste generated every year
since 1999 and the concurring population trends. There is no Table 2 4.
2. Table 2.7: was there a column for "residential' starting with the composition of Glass that was
omitted or cut off?
General Comments for Chapter 3:
1. I did not find solid waste management goals clearly stated anywhere m this chapter. You state
`planning" goals at the beginning of the chapter and then list "recommendations" at the end.
2. Under Alternatives and Evaluation throughout this chapter, the format of `Advantages" and
`Disadvantages" is confusing. It is not clear how the author is intending to use this information. This
information could be used to logically flow into the management goals and objectives at the end of
each Section: 3 1 Waste Reduction 3.2 Recycling; 3.3 Composting; and 3.4 Public Education and
Outreach
3. Page 2, under Existing Practices, Swap Shop: identify the location of the HFIW collection center. Is
it located at the Solid Waste Facility?
4. Page 2 under Existing Practices, 2Good2Toss.com. update the number of registered members,
facilitated exchanges and tons diverted to at least some time in 2006.
Page 3, under Existing Practices, Waste Audits: this needs more detail. For example, does the
business have to request the assistance or does the county have a proactive program?
Page 3, under Needs and Opportunities, is unclear. Is this an attempt to identify a goal, like: develop
a measurement tool that will assist the county in evaluating waste reduction efforts?
7. Page 4, under Alternatives and Evaluation, Promote Commercial Waste Focus: it is not clear why
this information is here. More justification?
Mr. David Baker
June 29, 2007
Page 5 of 6
8. Page 10, Section 3.2: goals should be management goals not planning goals If they are to remain
planning goals, then clearly identify recycling goals. For example,
• Continue to support private efforts to recycle waste in Mason County. (Make sure the narrative
in "existing practices" details what is happening to support private efforts )
• Increase recycling rates in Mason County.
• Improve recycling opportunities in Mason County. (Make sure the narrative in "existing
practices" details what is happening and identify needed improvements.)
9 Page 17, 3`d paragraph under 8. Business Recycling: change "country" to "county".
10. Page 19, Section 3.3: add information about the impacts of the burn ban and what the county is
planning to do to address increased management of woody debris and yard waste.
11. Your plan identifies that both the city and county share implementation responsibilities.
General Comments for Chapter 4:
1. Solid waste management goals are not clearly stated anywhere in this chapter. "Planning" goals are
listed at the beginning of the chapter and "recommendations" at the end.
2. Under Alternatives and Evaluation throughout this chapter, the format of "Advantages" and
"Disadvantages", again, is confusing. It is not clear how the author is intending to use this
information This information could be used to logically flow into management goals and objectives
at the end of each Section: 4.1 Solid Waste Collection; 4.2 Solid Waste Transfer; 4 3 Solid Waste
Disposal; and 4.4 Solid Waste Incineration / Energy Recovery
3. Table 4.2 - consider breaking out information by jurisdiction rather than collection company.
Include. the area covered by the certificated hauler per RCW 70 95.090(5)(a).
4. Where is the table that reflects population density? Table 2.8?
General Comments for Chapter 5:
1. Solid waste management goals are not clearly stated anywhere in this chapter. "Planning" goals are
noted at the beginning of the chapter and "recommendations" at the end.
2. Under Alternatives and Evaluation throughout this chapter,the format of "Advantages" and
`Disadvantages" is confusing.. It is not clear how the author intends to use this information This
information could logically flow into management goals and objectives at the end of each Section:
5.1 Solid Waste Administration; and 5.2 Solid Waste Enforcement
3. Section 5.1, Grant Funding, page 4, 2nd sentence, change language to: "These funds can only be used
to implement programs as outlined in an Ecology -approved Solid or Hazardous Waste Management
Plan. '
4. Section 5.1, Enterprise Fund, page 5: The "Advantages" section should start out with the word "It".
5. Section 5.2, Existing Practices, page 9: For clarity, bullet or number the process starting with,
"Once a complaint is received.. ". I think there are three steps being outlined here.
Mr. David Baker
June 29, 2007
Page 6 of 6
General Comments for. Chapter 6:
1: Section 6.1: As it relates to solid waste, a plan for managing animal carcasses should be outlined.
2. Section 6.2: List the opportunities that exist for partnering with neighboring counties for asbestos
disposal.
3. Section 6.3: Biomedical wastes become a solid waste issue when improper disposal impacts human
health and the environment. Under existing practices, there is a statement about what should be
done when disposing of incidental medical wastes. Is there currently information available or an
outreach program for disposal of medical wastes? This is unclear.
4. Section 6.4, Biosolids, page 6: Co -Treatment with Wastewater. Isn't there currently a facility being.
built? Also, consider adding, "Mason County currently has a signed delegation agreement with the
Department of Ecology to administer the State's biosolids program."
5. Consider adding an additional special waste stream: Abandoned / Hulk Vehicles, if this is an issue
and existing condition for the county s solid waste management.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 407-6612 or via email at tmor461@ecy.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Tami Ramsey
Regional Solid Waste Planner
Solid Waste & Financial Assistance Program
•
Enclosure: WUTC comments from April 11., 2007
cc: Tracy Farrell, City of Shelton
SERVICE DATE
APR 1 1 2007
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr. S.W., P.O. Box 47250 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7250
(360) 664-1160 • TTY (360) 586-8203
April 11, 2007
Mr David Baker, Solid Waste Manager
Mason County Utilities & Waste Management
Mason County Building II
410 N. 4th Street, PO. Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
RE• Mason County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan TG-070488
Dear Mr. Baker:
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (commission) has completed its
review of the preliminary draft of the Mason County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management.
Plan Update (Plan).
Commission staff s analysis of the Cost Assessment portion of the plan shows minimal financial
impact to ratepayers served by regulated solid waste collection companies in Mason County. The
Plan calls for tip fee increases from $72.40 in 2007 to $77.97 in 2010.per ton. Residential
customers would see increases up to $.34 per month and commercial customers would see an
increase, per yard up to $1.69 based on the projected tip fee increases.
Please see the attached commission staff comments for consideration. We hope that you find our
review and suggestions helpful. Please direct questions or comments about the commission's
plan review process to Penny Ingram at (360) 664-1242 or by email at pingram@wutc.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
Carole J. Washburn
Executive Secretary
Attachment
cc: Tami Ramsey, Department of Ecology, Regional Planner
Cullen Stephenson, Solid Waste and Financial Assistance Program Manager
Tom Moore, Mason Public Works
18
Attachment: Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan Update TG-070488
Commission staff comments for consideration:
• Chapter 4, section 4.1: Replace the paragraph that begins with "[t]he Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission" .....with:
a. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC) regulates solid waste collection haulers rates and services
pursuant to Chapter 81.77 RCW. Cities have the option to provide
solid waste service or by contract with a collection company The
city of Shelton provides its own solid waste collection. and is not
subject to regulation by the WUTC.
• Chapter 4, page 3: please replace the header "Franchise Holders" with "Certificated
Companies." In general, the plan describes solid waste collection companies as "franchise
haulers." The Commission issues Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity. Please
change all references from "franchise" to "certificate ' or "certificated" as it relates to
regulated haulers.
• Chapter 4, page 4 (Table 4.2): Waste Management's certificate number is G-237.
• Chapter 4, page 5 (Table 4.3): Please update the rates for Mason County Garbage, Inc.,
(see attached tariff pages).
• Chapter 4, Section 2.2, page 7: "the county could draft and adopt its own rate structure or
guidelines as part of the SWMP " The WUTC sets rates (RCW 81.77.030). The county
can draft and adopt a solid waste management plan and implementing ordinances, as well
as, establish minimum levels of service. However, the WUTC will establish the rates
necessary to implement the plan and any implementing ordinances for certificated
companies.
• Chapter 5.1, page 3, Disadvantages: the word "loose" should be "lose "
• WUTC Cost Assessment, page 4: Waste Management's G number is G-237.
RECEIVED JAN 12, 2007 WA. UT. & T NS. COMM. ORIGINAL TG-070106
Tariff No.
13 2nd Revised Page No. 21
Company Name/Permit Number: Mason County Garbage Co., Inc G-88
Registered Trade Name(s) Mason County Garbage, Inc
Item 100 -- Residential Service -- Monthly Rates (continued on next page)
Rates in this item apply:
(1) To solid waste collection, curbside recycling (where noted) and yardwaste services (where noted) for
residential property. This includes single family dwellings, duplexes, apartments, mobile homes,
condominiums, etc., where service is billed directly to the occupant of each residential unit, and/or
(2) When required by a local government service level ordinance, solid waste collection, curbside
recycling, and yardwaste service must be provided for single-family dwellings, duplexes, mobile homes,
condominiums, and apartment buildings of less than N/A residential units where service is billed
to the property owner or manager
Rates below apply in the following service area: Mason County(C)
Number of
U nits or Type
of Containers
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-45 Gallon
1
2
1
Mini can
Recycling
Frequency
of
Service
WG
WG
WG
WG
WG
WG
WG
EOWG
EOWG
MG
WG
EOWR
Garbage
Service
Rate
$ 13.60
$ 20.20
$ 26.95
$ 34.50
$ 41.10
$ 47.45
$ 18.00
$ 7.90
$ 12.65
$ 4.42
$ 11.72
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(N)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
Recycle
Service
Rate
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
4.90
6.40
Number of
Units or Type
of Containers
Frequency
of
Service
Garbage
Service
Rate
Recycle
Service
Rate
Yardwaste
Service
Rate
Frequency of Service Codes: WG=Weekly Garbage; EOWG-Every Other Week Garbage; MG=Monthly Garbage; WR=Weekly Recycling
EOWR=Every Other Week Recycling; MR=Monthly Recycling; List others used by company:
Note 1: Description/rules related to recycling program are shown on page N/A.
N ote 2• Description/rules related to yardwaste program are shown on page N/A.
N ote 3: Notes for this item are continued on next page.
Recycling service rates on this page expire on:
Issued By: Irmgard R Wilcox
Issue Date: January 12, 2007
Effective Date: March 1, 2007
Docket No. TG-
(For Official Use Only)
Date:
By:
FOR OFFICIAL, USE ONLY
Docket: TG-070106
Agenda Date: Feb. 28, 2007
Effective Date: March 1, 2007
RECEIVED JAN 12, 2007 WA. UT. & TRANS. COMM. ORIGINAL TG-070106
Tariff No. 13 0 Revised Page No.
Company Name/Permit Number: Mason County Garbage Co., Inc G-88
Registered Trade Name(s) Mason County Garbage, Inc
Rates in this item apply:
Item 100 -- Residential Service -- Monthly Rates (continued on next page)
(1) To solid waste collection, curbside recycling (where noted) and yardwaste services (where noted) for
residential property. This includes single family dwellings, duplexes, apartments, mobile homes,
condominiums, etc., where service is billed directly to the occupant of each residential unit, and/or
(2) When required by a local government service level ordinance, solid waste collection, curbside
recycling, and yardwaste service must be provided for single-family dwellings, duplexes, mobile homes,
condominiums, and apartment buildings of less than N/A residential units, where service is billed
to the property owner or manager.
Rates below apply in the following service area: Kitsap County(C)
Number of
Units or Type
of Containers
Frequency
of
Service
Garbage
Service
Rate
Recycle
Service
Rate
1
WG
$ 13.10
$ 4.90
2
WG
$ 19.40
$ 4.90
3
WG
$ 25.65
$ 4.90
4
WG
$ 32.70
$ 4.90
5
WG
$ 38.80
$ 4.90
6
WG
$ 44.65
$ 4.90
1-45 Gallon
WG
EOWG
$ 17.20
$ 7.65
(N)
$ 4.90
$ 4.90
2
EOWG
$ 12.25
$ 4.90
1
MG
$ 4.30
$ 4.90
Mini can
WG
$ 11.35
$ 4.90
Recycling
EOWR
$ 6.40
21A
Number of
Units or Type
of Containers
Frequency.
of
Service
Garbage
Service
Rate
Recycle
Service
Rate
Yardwaste
Service
Rate
Frequency of Service Codes: WG=Weekly Garbage; EOWG-Every Other Week Garbage; MG=Monthly Garbage; WR=Weekly Recyc ing
EOWR=Every Other Week Recycling; MR=Monthly Recycling; List others used by company:
Note 1: Description/rules related to recycling program are shown on page N/A.
Note 2: Description/rules related to yardwaste program are shown on page N/A.
Note 3. Notes for this item are continued on next page.
Recycling service rates on this page expire on:
Issued By: Irmgard R Wilcox
Issue Date: January 12, 2007
Docket No. TO -
(For Official Use Only)
Date:
Effective Date:
March 1, 2007
By:
.FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Docket: TG-070106
Agenda Date: Feb. 28; 2007
Effective Date: March 1, 2007
RECEIVED JAN 12, 2007 WA. UT. & T NS. COMM. ORIGINAL TG-070106
Tanff No. 13 1st Revised Page No. 22
Company Name/Permit Number: Mason County Garbage Co., Inc G-88
Registered Trade Name(s) Mason County Garbage, Inc
N ote 4:
N ote 5:
Item 100 -- Residential Service -- Monthly Rates (continued from previous page)
Customers will be charged for service requested even if fewer units are picked up on a particular
trip. No credit will be given for partially filled cans. No credit will be given if customer fails to set
receptacles out for collection.
For customers on automated service routes: The company will assess roll -out charges where,
due to circumstances outside the control of the driver, the driver is required to move an automated
cart or toter more than N/A feet in order to reach the truck. The charge for this roll -out
service is: $N/A per cart or toter, per pickup.
N ote 6: The charge for an occasional extra residential bag, can, unit, toter, mini -can, or micro -mini -can
on.a regular pickup is:
Rates below apply in the following service area: Mason Countv(C)
Type
of
receptacle
Rate
per
per
receptacle
pickup
32-gallon
can or unit
$ 3.92
(A)
Mini
-can
$ 3.92
(A)
Micro-minican
$
60-gallon
toter
$
90-gallon
toter
$
Bag
$
Other
$
Other
$
N ote 7: Customers may request no more than one pickup per month, on an on call" basis, at
$4.42(A) per can/unit. Service will be rendered on the normal scheduled pickup day for the
area in which the customer resides Note: If customer requires service to be provided on other
than normal scheduled pickup day, rates for special pickups will apply.
Issued By: Irmgard R Wilcox
Issue Date: January 12., 2007 Effective Date: March 1, 2007
(For Official Use Only)
Docket No. TG- Date: By:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Docket: TG-070106
Agenda Date: Feb. 28, 2007
Effective Date: March 1, 2007
RECEIVED JAN 12, 2007 WA. UT. & TRANS. COMM. ORIGINAL TG-070106
Tariff No. 13 0 Revised Page No. 22A
Company Name/Permit Number: Mason County Garbage Co. Inc G-88
Registered Trade Name(s) Mason County Garbage, Inc
Item 100-- Residential Service -- Monthly Rates (continued from previous page)
N ote 4: Customers will be charged for service requested even if fewer units are picked up on a particular
trip. No credit will be given for partially filled cans. No credit will be given if customer fails to set
receptacles out for collection.
Note 5:
For customers on automated service routes: The company will assess roll -out charges where,
due to circumstances outside the control of the driver, the driver is required to move an automated
cart or toter more than N/A feet in order to reach the truck. The charge for this roll -out
service is: $N/A per cart or toter per pickup.
N ote 6: The charge for an occasional extra residential bag, can, unit, toter, mini -can, or micro -mini -can
on a regular pickup is:
N ote 7:
Rates below apply in the following service area: Kitsap County(C)
Type
of
receptacle
Rate
per
per
receptacle
pickup
32-gallon
can or unit
$ 3.80
Mini
-can
$ 3.80
Micro-minican
$
60-gallon
toter
$
90-gallon
toter
$
Bag
$
Other
$
Other
$
Customers may request no more than one pickup per month, on an "on call' basis, at
$4.30 per can/unit. Service will be rendered on the normal scheduled pickup day for the
area in which the customer resides. Note: If customer requires service to be provided on other
than normal scheduled pickup day, rates for special pickups will apply.
Issued By: Irmgard R Wilcox
Issue Date: January 12, 2007 Effective Date: March 1, 2007
Docket No. TG-
(For Official Use Only)
Date: By:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
• Docket: TG-070106
Agenda Date: Feb. 28, 2007
Effective Date: March 1, 2007
ECEIVE
AY 20, 2005 A. UT. & TRANS. CO
SUB 5/25/05
ORIGINAL TG-050762
Tariff No. Tariff No. 13
Company Name/Permit Number. Mason County Garbage Co., Inc. G-88
Registered Trade Name(s) Mason County Garbage, Inc.
Item-100 -- Residential Service -- Monthly Rates (continued)
Curbside recycling provisions shown on this page apply only in the following service are
Lake Limerick community, North of Mason Lake Rd.
Oak Park community, East of Brockdale Rd. and South of Mc Ewan Prarie Rd.
Island Lake, North of Island Lake Rd.
Lakeland Village community, West and South of State Rt. 3 in Allyn.
1 Revised Page No.
Following is a description of the recycling program (type of containers, frequency, etc.). Program provided
in accordance with Ordinance No. of (name of County or City).
Residential curbside recycling will be picked up bi-weekly on a year round basis. Service rendered on the same
day as solid waste collection.
Customers will receive three stackable bins for source separated recycling collection.
Newspaper:
Mixed Paper:
Aluminum:
Metal Containers
Plastics:
Glass:
Includes only newspaper and catalogs made out of newsprint.
All other paper products, including magazines, corrugated containers
(Must be free of all food contaminates)
Aluminum cans and containers only. Cans must be flattened and placed in bin.
Food quality tin cans only.
Plastic bottles and jugs must be recycling grade PET or HDPE
Food grade glass only. No broken, ceramic or tempered glass will be
accepted.
If the recyclable material is found to contain contaminates by inclusion of material not allowed
the contaminated or unacceptable items will not be collected. (N)
23
Issued By: Irmgard R Wilcox
Issue Date:
May 20, 2005
Effective Date: June 1, 2005
Docket No. TG-
Date:
(For Official Use Only)
By:
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Docket: TG-050762
Agenda Date: 06-15-05
Effective Date: 06-01-05
Tariff No. Tariff No. 13 0 Revised Page No. 24
Company Name/Permit Number: Mason County Garbage Co., Inc. G-88
Registered Trade Name(s) Mason County Garbage, Inc.
Item 100 -- Residential Service -- Monthly Rates (continued)
Yardwaste provisions shown on this page apply only in the following service area:
Following is a description of the Yardwaste program (type of containers, frequency, etc ). Program provided
in accordance with Ordinance No. of (name of County or City).
Special rules related tor yardwaste program:
•
Issued By: John Olnick
Issue Date September 25, 2002
Effective Date: October 31, 2002
f�
(For Official Use Only)
Docket No. TG- 02. 12.3 3 Date: 10 - 3 "O Z By: Of)
December 9, 2006
David Baker
Mason County
PO Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
Re: Solid Waste Management Plan updates
Dear Mr. Baker:
Please accept this letter as a formal comment to the Mason County Solid Waste Management
Plan update. My comments will be exclusively limited to just one small element recycling
services in county jurisdiction.
There is simply no legitimate excuse for not offering curbside recycling. The idea of curbside
recycling is hardly a revolutionary one. Curbside programs would be an expected service in most
urban settings, and is far from uncommon in even the most rural settings in this state and country
Mason County may technically be a rural county, but its population is sophisticated enough to
expect something as simple as recycling pickup from the curb Any area serviced by garbage
collection should also be serviced by curbside recycling. Again, this is not a radical idea.
I use the blue boxes, since they are better than nothing. But I have friends and neighbors who
simply do not care enough about recycling to allow their garbage to pile up in their kitchen until
there is enough to justify a haul across the county. It is sad to say, but for recycling to truly work
in our society, it must first most be convenient. Provide curbside, and more recycling will occur
How can it not.
Even if recycling rates do not increase, or if the increase in recycling does not outpace the
mcrease m cost, it is still unconscionable for a modern American society to not provide this basic
service. Mason County residents must at least be given the choice to recycle at their curbs.
Shame on those who do not take advantage of the opportunity. They should at least subside those
of us who will embrace the program.
The failure to provide curbside recycling is an embarrassment to the county. Mason County must
be vigilant in fighting off the perception that it is a redneck jurisdiction. That perception damages
home values, business opportunities, job growth, and worse of all, citizen morale. Failure to
provide curbside recycling is just one more example sited by those that look down their noses on
our county. For Mason County to succeed, we need to be forward looking. By offering a simple
curbside pickup of recycled materials the county will at least not be living in the past.
Thank You,
Michelle Callahan
51 SE High Road
Shelton, WA 98584
Original Message
From dennis and audrey [mailto lakeview@hctc.com]
Sent Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:05 PM
To: Cust2149 Web Email for Mason County Garbage
Subject. Hoodsport Facility
Dear Mason County Garbage and Recycling,
I've lived in the Lake Cushman area for 10 years now and use the weekly pick up service
provided by your company. Once each week I also try to use the recycling bins located down
n ear Hoodsport. Unfortunately for the over 800 of us who live in the Lake Cushman
development year round, and the Hoodsport residents, we only have access to the recycle
bins on 2 1/2 days, at most, each week.
No where else in Mason County, that I know of, are the recycle bins kept behind locked gates
with such severely restricted access for the local residents. Also, the bins are too often
overflowing with collected items.
Those of us who frequently deliver items for recycling make absolutely no money by taking
o ur time to see if the gates to the facility are open and then depositing our recycle items into
your bins. We presume that your company makes all the money from recycling the items
that we provide. Having the Hoodsport facility bins behind locked gates for most of the week
does not provide an adequate service to our community. It certainly is not providing you
with as much recycle materials as you could be receiving. Often times recycle items can be
presumed to be deposited in the garbage because the recycle bins are too difficult to access,
o r overflowing, and the effort to store them for another date is not worth the effort.
Is there something that I can do to encourage you to provide around the clock access to the
Hoodsport area recycle bins that you own? As a weekly regular at the recycle bins I
constantly overhear complaints about the restricted accessibility of the bins to those of us
who live in the Lake Cushman and Hoodsport areas. Surely all of us would appreciate better
access to the recycle bins.
Whether you expand access to the garbage collection service can be another consideration.
But, for now, providing unrestricted access to the recycle bins at the Hoodsport transfer
station would be very much appreciated.
Dennis Rohn
N 141 Wynoochee Drive
Hoodsport Washington 98548
lakeview@hctc.com
360-877-5838
ASON CO !TY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P 0 Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-340)
SEP2006-00165
Description of Proposal Solid Waste Management Plan (Non -Project Review)
Proponent:
Location of Proposal:
Parcel Number:
Legal Description:
Directions to Site:
UTILITIES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43 21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request.
Please contact Kell McAboy at ext. 363 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC
197-11-340(2) The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown
below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community
Development, P 0 Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 11/9/2006. Appeal of this determination
must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County
Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals
Authorized Local Governmenfficial Date
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
VI.4 SOLID WASTE UTILITY
Introduction
Mason County's solid waste utility provides transfer and disposal operations for solid waste at
four transfer station locations, and eight ` blue box" drop off sites for household recyclable
materials. The largest transfer facility is located outside Shelton on Eels Hill Road. Materials
collected from the other smaller stations at Hoodsport, Union and Belfair are transported to the
Shelton facility for shipping to Centralia, WA. From there, the material is Tong -hauled via
railroad to Roosevelt Landfill in Klickitat County, located in Eastern Washington.
Household hazardous wastes (HHW) are collected and disposed of by Mason County staff at
the Shelton transfer facility Residents in North Mason County can take their HHW to the Kitsap
County transfer station. This arrangement is established through interlocal agreement and
Mason County pays approximately $60 per customer for collection and disposal or materials
from residents who take their materials to the Kitsap County facility.
The Shelton transfer facility is located at the former Mason County Landfill. The current utility
provides post -closure monitoring and capital construction in support of the closed landfill. The
Shelton facility receives wastes collected by private and municipal haulers operating inside
Mason County.
The Belfair and Shelton transfer facilities are nearing capacity in terms of the tonnage they can
effectively handle on a daily basis Growth in the Belfair area and elsewhere in the County
continues to impact operations at these facilities and capacity improvements will need to be
addressed in the near future.
The following pages provide details on specific projects proposed for the current capital facilities
planning period. Project estimates range in accuracy from + or — 40% to + or — 15%. Each
project cost sheet identifies the accuracy of the estimated costs shown based on the following
scale:
"Planning Level" — The least accurate of costs estimates, in the range of + or — 40%. Cost
estimates at this level are usually based on a project concept and some assessment of
relative scale, or annual program amounts commensurate with a level of activity sufficient to
accomplish the intent of the program over time.
"Design Report" — Moderate accuracy, in the range of + or — 30%. Based on design report
evaluation of options and an assessment of project elements and associated costs.
"Engineer's Estimate" — Most accurate estimate, in the range of + or —15%. These
estimates are based on a project design or significant completion of the design work.
01.15.08
VI. 37
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013
SOLID WASTE UTILITY
Summary of Capital Expenditures by Fund
(in thousands)
SOLID WASTE 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 TOTAL
Solid Waste-402 Fund 249 122 37 69 99 79 655
Total: 249 122 37 69 99 79 655
Funding
Grants: 0 45 0 0 0 0 45
Loans: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other: Timber 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
Tipping Fees/Rates 149 77 37 69 99 79 510
Total: 249 122 37 69 99 79 655
•
01.15.08
14.38
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 - Solid Waste
Project Name: Minor Facility Improvements
Estimates: Design Report
Description: Annual program to ensure continued operational effectiveness of transfer station
facilities and preserve existing assets. Improvements will include: road resurfacing, facility roof
replacements, minor building modifications, storage or handling facility construction, or
modifications to comply with regulatory requirements or preserve capacity.
Justification: Normal operation of transfer station facilities requires ongoing facility
improvements to existing fixed assets to maintain overall operational capabilities. Providing an
annual program and funding to complete these improvements is more efficient from an
administrative perspective and prudent in terms of ensuring the longevity of existing assets.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
Construction
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
COST:
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
TOTAL
Funding
Sources:
-
Grants
Loans
Tipping
Fees
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
FUNDING-
21
22
22
24
24
28
141
TOTAL
01.15.08
VI.39
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 - Solid Waste
Project Name Belfair Household Hazardous Waste Facility Improvements
Estimates: Design Report
Description: Design and construct a facility to provide household hazardous waste collection
services to north county residents.
Justification: Currently north county residents must take their household hazardous waste to
the Kitsap County facility. This service is provided through an interlocal agreement that costs
$65 00 per visit. The costs are the same no matter what type of material is dropped off at their
facility Our own facility would save us considerable cost for disposal of Tess harmful materials
such as motor oil or latex paints. Operation of a county -owned facility would allow us to tailor
the hours of operation and types of material accepted to decrease these costs.
Estimated Proiect Costs (in thousands
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
4
4
Construction
56
56
0
60
0
0
0
0
60
TOTAL
COST:
Funding
Sources:
Grants
45
45
Loans
Tipping
Fees
15
15
0
60
0
0
0
0
60
TOTAL
FUNDING:
01.15.08
VI.40
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 - Solid Waste
Project Name: Shelton Household Hazardous Waste Facility Improvements
Estimates: Design Report
Description: Expand storage capacity and improve handling area to improve efficiency and
provide impervious surface area and necessary containment.
Justification: Use of the facility has increased annually over the past several years requiring
expansion and improvement of the existing facilities.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL.
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
2
2
15
15
Construction
TOTAL
COST:
17
0
0
0
0
0
17
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Loans
Tipping
Fees
17
17
TOTAL
FUNDING:
17
0
0
0
0
0
17
01.15.08
V1.41
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Shelton Transfer Station
Project Name: Transfer Station System Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves as a hub for all the garbage in Mason County. When originally
constructed in the early 1990 s, throughput was a fraction of current levels. In order to safely
and efficiently serve the needs of the public and our commercial accounts, a second access
road with a scale is needed. Other minor improvements and enhancements will be required to
maintain the system over the next few years, such as road work, tip walls, and typical wear and
tear.
Justification: Over the past 15 years, the number of customers has grown dramatically, along
with tons exported. Steps to improve customer safety, reduce wait times, and increase
efficiency for commercial customers will allow the facility to postpone major construction for this
planning period.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
1
1
1
3
Design
Engineering
1
15
5
21
Capital
(scale)
Equipment
100
100
Construction
10
10
10
10
50
10
190
TOTAL
COST:
202
10
11
25
55
11
314
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Other.
timber
100
100
Loans
Rates
102
10
11
25
55
11
214
TOTAL
FUNDING:
202
10
11
25
55
11
314
01.15.08
VL42
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, &.Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Belfair Drop Box
Project Name. Belfair Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves the north end of the County by providing residential drop off of
wastes and recyclables seven days a week. Growth in the portion of the County is significant,
and will likely increase at the current high rate for the near future. Minor improvements and
enhancements will be required to maintain the system over the next few years, such as road
work, tip walls, and typical wear and tear. A wholly new facility, with a scale and compaction
equipment, may be necessary by the end of this planning period.
Justification: Currently, our system is able to support the Belfair area. However, the current
and projected growth may exceed the capacity of this facility in the relatively near future. Due to
the location, it does not make sense to increase the tonnage without exporting directly to rail, or
at least to rail containers. To do so, a new facility would be necessary.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
1
5
6
Prelim
Engineering
Design
Engineering
2
2
Capital
Equipment
(scale)
Construction
5
10
1
5
2
23
TOTAL
COST:
5
10
2
10
4
0
31
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Other.
timber
Loans
Rates
5
10
2
10
4
31
5
10
2
10
4
0
31
TOTAL
FUNDING•
01.15.08
V1.43
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Hoodsport Drop Box
Project Name. Hoodsport Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves the north and west end of the County by providing residential
drop off of wastes and recyclables several days a week. Growth in this portion of the County is
occurring, and will likely increase in the near future. Minor improvements and enhancements
will be required to maintain the system over the next few years, such as road work, tip walls,
and typical wear and tear.
Justification: Currently, our system is able to support the Hoodsport area. However, the
current and projected growth may exceed the capacity of this facility in the relatively near future,
which can be addressed by simply increasing the days and hours of operation.
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
3
3
Design
Engineering
Capital
(scale)
Equipment
Construction
2
10
1
5
5
20
43
TOTAL
COST:
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Other.
timber
Loans
Rates
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
TOTAL
FUNDING:
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
01.15.08
111.44
Mason County Comprehensive Plan
August, 1998 - (updated in 2006, July 31, 2007; January 15, 2008) Capital Facilities
2008-2013 Capital Facilities Plan Worksheet
Utilities, & Waste Management
Fund: 402 — Union Drop Box
Project Name. Union Improvements
Estimates: Planning Level
Description: This facility serves the south end of the canal area by providing residential drop
off of wastes and recyclables several days a week. Growth in this portion of the County is
occurring, and will likely increase in the near future. Minor improvements and enhancements
will be required to maintain the system over the next few years, such as road work, tip walls,
and typical wear and tear.
Justification: Currently, our system is able to support the Union area. However, the current
and projected growth may exceed the capacity of this facility in the relatively near future, which
can be addressed by simply increasing the days and hours of operation
Estimated Project Costs (in thousands
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
Prelim
Engineering
3
3
Design
Engineering
Capital
(scale)
Equipment
Construction
2
10
1
5
5
20
43
COST:
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
TOTAL
Funding
Sources:
Grants
Other:
timber
Loans
Rates
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
FUNDING:
2
10
1
5
8
20
46
TOTAL
01.15.08
VI.45
"Building A Stronger Community
TOGETHER"
February 2, 2007
Mason County
Utilities and Waste Management
PO Box 1850
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Mason County:
SUBJECT: Letter of Concurrence
This letter is to advise you of our concurrence with the Solid Waste Management Plan as
written (2006) and prepared by SCS Engineers (Long Beach, CA), Mason County Utility
and Waste Management, and Shannon McClelland (City of Shelton) This meets the
provisions and standards of the enclosed copy of RESOLUTION NO. 892-0506, the
agreement signed by the Mayor of Shelton and the City Commissioner on June19, 2006.
If you have any questions, please contact the Environmental Projects Coordinator, Tracy
Farrell at (360) 432-5126.
Sincerely,
Jay Ebbeson
Director of Public Works
JJE•TF:cr
Enclosure
F:\Environmental\Solid Waste\Solid Waste Management Plan\Letter of Concurrence SWMP.doc
cc: File
525 W. Cota St. • Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 426-4491 •FAX (360) 426-1338 • E-Mail: cityhall@ci.shelton.wa.us
web Site. www.ci.shelton.wa.us
RESOLUTION NO. 892-0506
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHELTON, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING MASON
COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE CITY OF SHELTON IN THE MASON COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANANGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW Chapter 70.95, Mason County is responsible for preparation,
adoption, and implementation of a comprehensive solid waste management plan, and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 70.95 the comprehensive solid waste management plan must
be maintained in current and applicable condition through periodic review and revision, and
WHEREAS, the existing Mason County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is dated October
1998 and requires a complete revision, and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 70.95.080 the City of Shelton chooses to authorize the
County to include the City s plans for solid waste management in the Mason County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management P1an•
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Commission of the City of Shelton,
Washington, as follows:
Pursuant to RCW 70.95.080, Mason County is hereby authorized to include the City of Shelton in its
preparation of a comprehensive solid waste management plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Shelton on i day of
June, 2006.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Look
APPROVED AS TO FORM
City Attorney Harksen
ayor Tarrant
ommissioner a for
/Commissioner Pannell
06/14/06
1 4:42 PM
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 10-CReg
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE AMENDED MASON COUNTY
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 56-92
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted in May
1992, was to provide decision makers in Mason County with the guidelines needed to implement,
monitor and evaluate future solid waste activities, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Washington State Solid Waste Management Reduction and
Recycling Act (RCW 70.95), Mason County and the City of Shelton are required to prepare a
Solid Waste Management Plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant RCW 70.95.110 requires that existing plans be reviewed and revised every
five years, and
WHEREAS, the Mason County Solid Waste Advisory Conunittee has overseen the preparation
of both the May 1992 Plan and the amended plan which will be dated October 1998 and have
recommended in both instances that it be adopted by the local jurisdictions, and
•
WHEREAS, the Mason County Solid Waste Advisory Committee held numerous meetings and a
public hearing on February 26 1998, and
WHEREAS, the Mason County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on September 29,.
1998; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shelton held a public hearing in September 1998 and approved the
amendments to the Solid. Waste Plan, and
WHEREAS, Mason County is meeting it's requirements for environmental review under the
State Environmental Policy Act by issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance on March
20, 1998, and
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. W; -43
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Mason County Board of' Commissioners hereby adopts the Mason County Solid Waste
Management Plan as amended referenced here as Attachment "A".
DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1998.
ATTEST:
V
ERK OF THE BO
Ep AS TO FORM:
/� I•�IGi ¶)CFI
DEPUTY PROS. ATTORNEY
R V
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, W HINGTON
JOHN BOLENDER, CHAIRPERSON
r7724 atsit
DY, CO / SI'NER
DY'QLSEN, COM 1 SSIONER
•
•