HomeMy WebLinkAbout105-98 - Res. Amending Res. 56-92 Adopting County Solid Waste Management Plan BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
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 Committee 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. `0'-)
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.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WA.SHINGTON
ATTEST: � �
JOHN BOLENDER, CHAIRPERSON
ERK OF THE BOA
; ?
MARY T.O CDY, CO M SI NER
ftRQVEDI AS TO FORM: � � .� 7�'�—
' 0-1�1E (CIN`DY''®LSEN COM -SSIONER
DEPUTY PROS. ATTORNEY
TABLE OFCONTENTS
CHAPTERIA INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PURPOSEAUTHORITY OF TBE PLAN
1.2.1 Legal Requirements
1.2.2 Solid Waste Goals and Policies
1.3 SOLID WASTET Y IN MASON COUNTY
1.3.1 The 1971 Comprehensive P for Solid Waste Management
1.3.2 Status of 1971.Recommendations
1.4 CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS IN MASON COUNTY
1.4.1 Role of Local Government
1. .2 Role of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
1.4.3 Relationship to Other Plans
1.4.4 Plan Development
1.4.5 PlanApproval/Adoption
1.4.6 Plan Amendment, Review and Revision
CHAPIPER 2A BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
2.2.1 Land Use and Population
2.2.2 Climate and Air Quality
2.2.3 Hydrogeology
2.3 WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
2.3.1 Method for Waste Stream
2.3.2 Waste Stream Composition
CBAPTER 3A WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 RC.W. 70.95
3.1.2 Other Laws
3.2 WASTE REDUCTION
3.2.1 ' Existing Practices
3.2.2 Needs and Opportunities
3.2.3 Alternatives and Evaluation
3.2.4 Recommendations
3.3 AND RURAL DESIGNATION
3.4 DESIGNATION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
3.4.1 Recyclable Materials
3.4.2 Markets and Market Risk
3.4.3 Modification to Designated Recyclables List
3.4.4 Collection Methods
3®5 RESIDENTIAL RECYCLINGS
15.1 5.1 Existing Practices
3.5.2 Needs and Opportunities
3.5.3 Alternatives and Evaluation
15.4 Recommendations
3®6 NONRESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
MONITORING/COMMERCIALC CL S
3°6°1 Nonresidential aste Stream Monitoring
3.6.2 Commercial Recycling Programs
3.6.3 Recommendations
.7 YARD WASTECOLLECTION PROGRAMS
3.7.1 Existing Conditions
3°7.2 Needs and Opportunities
3.7.3 Alternatives
3.7.4 Evaluation
3.7°5 Recommendations
.8 EDUCATION
3.8.1 Target Audiences
3.8.2 Information and Education Techniques
3.8.3 Evaluation
3.8.4 Recommendations
3.9 PROCESSING OF MIXED WASTE FOR RECYCLABLES
3.10 IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 4A ENERGY RECOVERY[INCINE RATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 EXISTING.PRACTICES
4.3 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
4.3.1 Criteria for Determining Future Energy Recovery Needs
4.3.2 Impacts of Energy Recovery on Waste Reduction and Recycling
4.3.3 Impacts of Energy Recovery on Landfilling
4.3.4 Summary of Combustion Technology
4.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
4®6 IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 5A REFUSEC LETI N
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5®2 EXISTING PRACTICES
5.2.1 Municipalities and Other Jurisdictions
5.2.2 Franchise Holders
5.3 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
5.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.6 IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 6A TRANSFER AND IMPORDEXPORT
.1 INTRODUCTION
. 6.2 EXISTING PRACTICES
NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
6.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
6.4.1 Drop Box Stations And Transfer Stations
6.4.2 Import/Export
.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.6 IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 7A LANDFILLING AND STORAGE/TREATMENT
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 PRE,-EX]LSTING PRACTICES
7.3 EXISTING PRACTICES
CHAPTER A ENFORCEMENT Tl N
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 EXISTING PRACTICES
8.2.1 Organizational Structure
8.2.2 Monitoring and Enforcement
8.2.3 Financing and Funding
8.3 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
8.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
8.4.1 Administration Alternatives
8.4.2 Monitoring and Enforcement Alternatives
8.4.3 Funding Alternatives
8.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.6 IMPLEMENTATION.
CHAVFER19A SPECIAL WASTE STREAMS
9.1 IN'MODUCTION
9.2 EXISTING PRACTICES
9.2.1 Biosolids
9.2.2 Septic Tank Pumpings
9.2.3 Demolition Wastes
9.2.4 Wood Waste
9.2.5 Industrial Waste
9.2.6 Tires
9.2.7 Iffectious Wastes
9.2.8 WhiteGoods/Appliances
9.2.9 Asbestos
9.3 NEEDS
9.3.1 Biosolids
9.3.2 Septic Tank Pumpings
9.3.3 Demolition Wastes
9.3.4 Wood Waste
9.3.5 hidustrial Waste
9.3.6. Tires
9.3.7 Infectious Wastes
9.3.8 White Goods/4pliances
9.3.9 Asbestos
9.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
9.4.1 Biosolids
9.4.2 Septic Tank Pumpings
9.4.3 Demolition Waste
9.4.4 Wood Wastes
9.4.5 Industrial Wastes
9.4.6 Tires
9.4.7 Infectious Wastes
9.4.8 White Goods/Appliances
9.4.9 Asbestos
9.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.5.1 Biosolids
9.5.2 Septic Tank Pumpings
9.5.3 Demolition Waste
9.5.4 Wood Wastes
9.5.5 Industrial Wastes
9.5.6 Tires'
9.5.7 Infectious Wastes
9.5.8 White Goods/Appliances
9.5.9 Asbestos
9.6 IMPLEE ATI N
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A DET + I ATI O N OF NON-
SIGNIFICANCE
APPENDIX B \FINDINGS OF FACT
ADOPTION ES L,U I N AND
CONCURRENCE DOCUMENTATION
SWAC MINUTES
APPENDIX C WUTC LETTER
APPENDIX E LETTER TTE
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.lA Solid Waste.Advisory Committee
2.lA Mason County Land Use/Percentage of Total County Acreage
2,2A Mason County Population Projections
2.3A Mason County Waste Stream Projection(1991-2014)
3.lA Waste ReductionA. 1ternatives Evaluation
3.2A Recyclable Materials
3.3A Recycling Methods for Recyclables
3.4A 1996 Nonresidential Waste Quantities
3.5A Implementation Schedule-Waste Reduction and Recycling
3.6A implementation Cost Summary
4.1A Waste-To-EnergyAlternatives Evaluation
5.IA City of Shelton Refuse Collection Service
5. A Certificates Granted By C For Mason County
5.3A Residential&Comm Service By Mason County Garbage
5.4A Rate Structure Guidelines For Support Of Waste Reduction and Recycling
S.SImplementation Schedule- Collection
5.6A Implementation Cost Summary
6.2A Implementation Schedule- Transfer and Imp®rt/Exp®
rt
8.lA Implementation Schedule- Enforcement and Administration
8°2A Implementation Cost Summary
9.1A Special Waste Stream Alternatives Evaluation
9.2A Implementation Schedule- Special Waste Streams
9.3A Implementation Cost Summary
LIST OF FIGURE'S
FIGURE
2.IA Mason County
2.2A DiagrammaticNW-SE Geologic Section
2.3A Natural Hazard Areas in Mason County
6.lA Drop Box Station Locations
7.IA Drop Box Station Locations
EXECUTIVEY
Table I1®7
Combined GA Material Type Summary for Washington State Health
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tons Disposed
Total Di r Material
al %
P Newspaper 4 �% 45,911 _ 4,823
7,419
C=rupted Paper 1 1,801
CoutputerPaper
Office 12,833
Mixed Recyclable Paper
1 11980
kecartons
Aseptic J Juicers 0. 2
® 48
Froam Food Containers Other P 14,697
PLASTIC 1 % 154<
(01) 0 175
714
PE ContalnerS( ) 0.1% 60
PE ( ) INS
flolystyrer'A(r6) 6XI
Plastic 5
Other Coded tic P 0
3 3,711
Other Plastics
G _ S Clear Glass Containers 1 IAM
0.1% 131
Green Glass Containers Brown 0 160
Refillable Beer.Bottles
Glass 0.1%
141
FERROUS ALS 4.6% 4
Tin Cans 0.0%
2,932 .
Bi-metal Can 2% 0
s 0.
245
Mixed Metal&Other Materials 0 % III
White/Brown Goods 11
Other Ferrous Metals 15% 1616
NON.-FERROUS METALS 1.1% Y,145
Alumiru mCans 0. 7
1%% 117
Other Aluminum 0.0
0%
Other NonTerrous Metals 0 51. .
ORGANICS 12 8%
9.8% 10,445
Food 29
3 Yard Wastes .0%
Other Organics A% 30
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 1.1% 1,174
Wood Wastes 0.6% 540
0
Gypsum Drywall U� 0
Inert Solids/Fines 576
Other Construction Debris 05%
` OTHER WASTES 20.6% 22,108
662
Disposable Diapers 14.8% 15,
Textiles 3.1% 3,274
Rubber Products(except Tires) 2.8% 2,972
Large Bulky Items
0.0% 0
Other Materials 0.0%
H RDOUS WASTE 3.9% 4,133
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.1% �'
Cleaners 111'%. 1,291
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0% 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.014 31
Other Hazardous Wastes 2.6% 2,736
SPECIAL.WASTES 0.0% 0
Used Oil 0.011. 0
Tares 0.0% 0
Vehicle Batteries 0. 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0. 0
Total Percent 100.0% Total Torm 107A95
Component Suruey ApprOach
I!®1S
FINAL REPORT
Table II-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State,.Other Commercial
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Torts Disposed
Material Total Disposal per Material
PAPER 392% 32% 29,044
2.378
Newspaper Corrugated Paper 10.2% 7,570 SM
Computer Paper 00.9% 1,660
Office Paper 7,755
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9.7%
Milk/Juice Cartons 13% '952
Aseptic Juice Containers 0.1% S2
Frozen Food Containers 0.1% 75
Otter Pa 113X 8;374 •
PLASTIC 11.6x 5.607
PET Containers(#1) 03% 236
HDPE Containers(x2) 0.8% 583
LDPE Plastics(04) 0.0% 26
Polystyrene(N6) 53% no
Plastic Bags 4;312
02%Other Coded Plastic Packaging .29E 132
_ Other Plastics 33X 2,478.
GLASS SSX 4,111
Clear Glass Containers U% L"2
Green GlassContainets 0.7% 489
9.70
Brown Glass Containers 13%
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.0% 12
OtherGlass
0.9% 688
FERROUS METALS 3.6% 2,661
Tin Cans 1.4X 106B
Bi-metal Cans 0.0% 0
Mixed Metal do Otter Materials 0.7% 534
White/Brown Goods 0.0% Z7
Other Ferrous Meals IA%. 1032
NON-FERROUS METALS 01% 627
Aluminum Cans 0.6% �9
Otter Aluminum 0.1% 103
55
Otter Non-Ferrous Metals 0.1%
ORGANICS 262% 19,402
202% 14,968
Food
Yana Wastes 1.0% •750
Other Organics S.0% 3 684
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 6.8% SASI
Wood Wastes S.4x .4,016
68
Gypsum Drywall O ZX 175
Inert Solids/Fees 0.2% 692
OtherConstruction Debris' 0.9% 692
OTHER WASTES S.0% 3,7M
Disposable Diapers 2.1% 1558
Textiles 1.6% 1,196
Rubber Products(except Tires) OSx 397
Large Bulky items 0.7% 515
Other Materials 0.1 41
HAZARDOUS WASTE 1.2% 927
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.5% 394
Cleaners 0.1% 103
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0% 31
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.01Y. 24
Other Hazardous Wastes 05x 374
SPECIAL WASTES 0.0% 29
Used Oil 0,0% it
Tires 0.01Y. 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts O.OY. is
TOTALS PERCENT: 100.0% TONS: 74,166
11-19
Component Survey Approach
SUMMARY
Table II-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Food Processing
WASTECATEGORIES Total Tons Disposed
Mean Percentage. of
Total D a i r Material
Material 30
PAPER 45'd% ® 7S1 470
N Per 26.07� 17,457
gated Paper ® 201
Computer Paper 1
—10
Office Pa 6,714
Mixed Recyclable Paper 10 0
®I 0.
0 0
Aseptic juice Containers 0
Frozen Food Containers
4,566
Otherpaver
C ".9% % 913M 67
PETContainers1
(N1) .1%
671
PE (N2) 0
LDPE Plastics( ) 0 0.4 269
Polystyrene(N6) 7
Plastic Bags 1 336
Other Coded Plastic P 604
Other Plastics336
0°
G S 05
0
Clear Glass Containers0.1% 67
Green Glass ContairlemB 0.1% 67
k
0.0% 0
Beer Bottles
0.1% 67
FERROUS METALS 3.5 k 2,350 '
•2.07: 1,343
Tin Cans 0
Bi-Metal Cans' 0 5% 33
Mixed Metal& Materials ® 0
White/Brown Goods 0.0%
Other Ferrous Metals 1 OX 671
NON-FERROUS METALS O.iX 67
Aluminum Carts 0. 67
Other Aluminum 0.00%% 0
0% 0
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.
ORGANICS 30.0% 20,143
18AW
28°0% 671
Food 671
Yard Wastes 1.0%
671
Other Organics4,029
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS .6.0%
Wood Wastes 0 0.09G.0%% 2.014
0
Dry
wall ywall 1,343
Inert Solids/Fines 2.0%
1.09G 671
Other ConstructionDebris 134.
OTHER WASTES, 0.2%
Disposable Diapers O'0'Jr 67
Textiles 0.1%
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0. 67
Large Bulky Items 0'0%. 00
Other Materials 0.0 r
HAZARDOUS WASTE. 0.0%
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.0°Y 0
Cleaners 0.0% 0
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.096 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.01y. 0
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.09' 0
SPECIAL WASTES 0.09®
Used Oil 0' 0
Tires 0.0% 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.01y.
rerrous Vehicle Parts 0•
Total Percent: 100.0% Total Tons: 67142
11-20 Component Survey Approach
FINAL REPdRT
Table II-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Paper and Wood Products
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tons Disposed
Material T ta1.Du 1 per Material
PAPER 212%Newipaper
L2% 665
Corrugated Paper 8.0% 4,433
Computer Paper 1.0% 554
Office Paper 1.0% 554
Mixed Recyclable Paper 2.0% 1,108
Milk/juke Carlons 0.0% 0
Aseptic juice Containers 02% 0
Frozen Food Containers 0..0% 0
Other Paper 8.0% 4,433
PLASTIC 7.0% 3A"
PEl'Containers(ttl) 0.1% S5
HDPE Containers(412) 0.1% 55
I.DPE Plastics(#4) 0.0% 0
Polystyrene(86) 0.2% ill
Plastic Bags 45% 2,494
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 0.1% SS
Other Plastics 2.0% 1,108
GLASS 0.4% 222
Clear Glass Containers 02% 111
Great Glass Containers 03% 55
Brown Glass Containers 0.0% 0
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.0% 0
Other Glass 0.1% 55
FERROUS METALS 2.7% 1,4%
Tin Cans 0.2% 111
Bi-Metal Cars 0.0% 0
Mixed Metal 6c Other Materials OA% 222
White/Brown Goods 0.0% 0
Other Ferrous Metals 2.1% 1,164
NON-FERROUS METALS 0.3% 166
111.
Aluminum Cans 02% 155
Other Aluminurn 0.1%
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.0% 0
ORGANICS 13.4K 7,425
Food . 10.0% '. 5,541
277
Yard Wastes 0.5% 107 6
Other Organics 2.9% 07
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 49.0% 27,152
Wood Wastes 42 OK 23 27 0
Gypsum Drywall 0.0% 0
Inert Solids/Fines 6.0% 3.
325
Other Construction Debris 1.0% 554
OTHER WASTES 1.0% 554
Disposable Diapers 0•U% 0 .
Textiles 0.5% 277
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0.51A 277
Large Bulky Items 0.0% 0
Other Materials 0.0'X ZM 0
HAZARDOUS WASTE 5.0
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.0 K 0
Clearers 0.0% 0
Pesticides/Herbicides 0•(M 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 0
Other Hazardous Wastes 5.0YY. 2,M
SPECIAL WASTES 0.0% 0
Used oil o.trr. o
Tires offs. 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.0YY' 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.09G 0
Total Percent 100.0% Total Tons: S5,412
H-21
Component Survey Approach
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table II®7
Combined WGA MaterialType Summary for Washington State'Metal Products
WASTE CATEGORIES Mean Percentage of Total Tons Disposed
Total Dim l r Material
Material 10
PAPER 24. 1
Newspaper 10. 4,265
corrugated Paper 1.0% 427
Computer Paper
Office Pa 1'
1,066
Mixed Recyclable Paper
® 0
I ° 0
Aseptic juice Containers 0. 0
Frozen Food Containers
P
7 Z986
5 6
PLASTIC other PET (11)am O.1X 43
PE ( ) 0.1% l3
LDPE Plastics( ) 0.
Pot (No 0
' 1 tic Bags ® p
Other Cooed Plastic P 1,706
Other Plastics 4.
896
G S Z 1X 1 640
Clear Glass containersGreenGlassContainers ® 85
Brown ® 0
Refillable Beet Battles 02% 85
Other 10,748.
FERROUS METALS 252X 85
Tnn Cans ®0%
0.0X 0
Bi-Metal Cans 0
Mixed & Materials 0.0%
White/Brawn Goods 0AX
lobo
Other Ferrous Metals
4.351
25.0%
NON-FERROUS METALS 10.2%
Aluminum Caro 02X
O.OX 0
Other Aluminum 4,265
other Metals lO.OX
ORGANICS 3.6% 1,535
4
Food 0.1 X 43
Yard Wastes 2. %
2..7r•y. 1,066
OtherTI 243X anics 10,364
CONSTRUCON DEBRIS 9,S11
Wood Wastes 20.0%
O.OX 0
Gypsum Drywall 853
inert Solids/F'uws 2.OX
0.0% 0
O Construction Debris 2,133
ther
5.0X
OTHER W amble Diaper 0.0'Y. 427
4.OX
Textiles 4.0%
1'�
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0
Large Bulky Iterns 0.
00'y 0
.
Other Materials 43
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.1%
0.0'y
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0
Cle O.OX
0.0'y 0
Pesticides/herbicides 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0'�y
0.1'Y. 43
Other Hazardous Wastes 0
SPECIAL W O.OX
0.0'Y
Used Oil O.OX 0
TIresVehicle Batteries 0 0 y 0 Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.01Y.
Total Percent: 100.0% Total Tone; 42,652
1I®22 Component Survey Approach
EXECUTM SUMMARY
Table II-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State•.Other Industrial
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tors Disposed
Material Total Disposal per Material
47,609 '
PAPER. 39.6%papa 3.3% 3909
Corrugated Paper IZ6K 15,162
Computer Paper 1.2% 1,495
Office Paper 23% 2,726
Mixed Recyclable Paper 12.2% 14AN
Milk/juice Cartons 0.0% 0
Aseptic Juice Containers 0.0% 0
Frozen Food Containers 0.0% 49
.Other Paper &OK 91'M
PLASTIC 10.6K 12,746.
PET Containers(41) 0.1% 170
HDPE Containers(il2) 0.3K 379
LDPE Plastics VQ 0.0% 0
Polystyrene(96) 1.3% 11601
Plastic bags 4.3% 51158
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 0.6% 761
Other Plastics 3.9% . 4.678
GLASS LIK 1-VA
Clear Glass Containers 0. 188
Green Glass Containers 0.2% 188
Brown Glass Containers 0.2% 214
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.0% 0
Other Glass 0.3% 386
FERROUS METALS 7.9% 9,516
Tin Cans 0.6% 709
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0% 0
Mixed Metal&Other Materials 0.2% 239
White/Brown Goods 0.4% 494
Other Ferrous Metals 6.7% 8,074
NON-FERROUS METALS 2.0% 2,459
Aluminum Cans 0.3% 32 24
4
Other Aluminum 0.0%
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 1.9% 2,124
ORGANICS 12.2K 14,646
Food 10.1% 12,096
Yard Wastes 0.5% 622
Other Organics 1.6% 1,928
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 23.7% 28'S29
Wood Wastes 18.9K 22 672
Gypsum Drywall 0.0% 0
Inert Solids/Fines 4.47. 5,331
Other Construction Debris 0.4% 525
OTHER WASTES 1.6% 1,901
Disposable Diapers 0.0% 0
Textiles 0.4% 528
Rubber Products(except Tires) \ 1.1% I,373
Large Bulky Items 0.0% 0
Other Materials 0.0% 0
HAZARDOUS WASTE 1.2% 1,453
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.0% 0
Cleaners 0.0% 0
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0% 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.0`K 0
Other Hazardous Wastes 1.2% 1,453
SPECIAL WASTES 0.0% 0
Used Oil 0.0% 0
Tires 0.Orly. 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.0°K 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.0% 0
TOTALS PERCENT: 100AK TONS: 120,223
11-24 Component Survey Approach
FINAL REPORT
"Table II-7
Combined WGA Material Typeqununary for Washington State-Residential Self-haul
WASTECATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tong Disposed
Material 'Total Dis 1 ____Zr Material
PAPER 11.9% 65,449
3:4% 16
Newspaper
19348
Corrugated Paper 3.5%
Computer Paper 0:0% 166
Office Paper 02% 1,106
Mixed Recyclable Paper 3.6% 19,901
Milk/juice Cartons 0.0% 0
Aseptic Juice Containers 0.0% 0
Frozen Food Containers 0.0% 0
P 1.2T. 6,634
OtherC 5.5% 30,404
PET Containers(NI) 0.1.% SO
PE. (N2) 0.1% 553
TAPE Plastics( ) 0
Polystyrene(N6) 03% I.658
Sags l S,526
Other 1 S=
Coded. Packaging 16584
Other Plastics 3.0%
Gass Con 15,478
tainers 1 5.52t1
Grem Glass Containers 0 L106
Brown Glass Containers 05% 2,764
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.1% . 553
OtherGlass 1.0% 5,528
FERROUS METALS 8.9% 49,199
Tin.Cans 0.4% 2,211
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0% 0
Mixed Metal&Other Materials 32% 17,640
658
White/Brown Goods , 03% 1'
Other Ferrous Metals 52% 27,640
NON-FERROUS METALS 0.9% 4`9
Aluminum Cans 03% 1,658
Other Aluminum 02% 1,106
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.4% 2,211
ORGANICS 252% 139,305
rood 32% 17,690
Yard Wastes 20.9% 115.535
Other Organics 1.1% 601
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 37.5% 207,299
Wood Wastes 25.t>x 138 20(1
Gypsum Drywall 2.0% IIA56
Inert Solids/Fuzes. 3.5% 19-W
Other Construction Debris 7.0% 38,6%
OTHER WASTES 6.6% 36,485
Disposable Diapers 0.1% 553
Textiles 5.01Y. 1 27,640
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0.0% 0
Large Bulky Items 1.5% 8,292
Other Materials 0.01Ye 0
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.6% 3,317
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.41Y 2,211
Clea6trs 0.01Y 0
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.01Y 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.01Y 0
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.2'Y 1.106
SPECIAL.WA 0.1% 553
Used Oil 0.01/ 0
Tires 0.11Y 553
Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.01Y 0
Total Percent: 100.0% T®tal Tons. 552,
Component Surucy Approach !f ZS
ECECUTNE SUMMARY
Table.Il-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Commercial Self-haul
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tr Moni Disateria��
Material Total Dis 1 50,232
PAPER 10S% 0.7% 3,349
Newspaper 5.7% 27,269
Comrgated Paper 0.1% 478
Computer Paper 0.5% '2,392
Office Paler 2.0% 9,568
Mixed Recyclable Paper
Milk/juice Cartons 0.0%
Aseptic juice Containers
Frozen Food Containers 0.0%15% 7,176
Other Pa 49,754
PLASTIC- 10.4% 478
PHI'Containers(#1) 0.1%
HDPE Containers(M2) 0 37G 1,435
LDPE Plastics(N4) 0.0% 0
Polystyrene(16) 25% 11,960
Plastic Bags 2.0% 9,568
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 23,970
Other Plastic 5.0%
ZS% 31,960
CLASS 2392
Clear Glass Containers OS% 1,435
Green Glass Containers 0.3% 1�4
Brown Glass Containers 0.1% 4788
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.1% 478
�Gl� 1.5% 7,126
FERROUS METALS 7.1% 33,966
0.1% 476
Tin Cans 0.09C 0
Bi-Metal Cana 16,744
Mixed Metal do Other Materials 3S%
White/'Brown Goods 0.1% 478
Other Ferrous Metals 3A% 16,266
NON-FERROUS METALS 0.7% 3,349
Aluminum Cans OS% 2,392
0.1% 478
Other Aluminum 478
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.1%
42,099
ORGANICS E DX 15% 7,176
Food 31A%
Yard Wastes 65X
O.BX 3,827
Other Organics 246,377
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS S15X 143,520
Wood Wastes 30.09E
9,568
Gypsum Drywall 2.0%% 16,744
Inert Solids/Fines 76544
Other Construction Debris 16.0%
OTHER WASTES 7.tIX 37,315
01% 478
.
Disposable Diapers 33,498
Textiles 7.0% 3,349
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0.79:
Large Bulky[terra 0.0% 00
Other Materials 0.01y.
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.7% 3,349
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.0 0% 9'
Cleaners 0.0% 0
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0% 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0 0
Other Hazardous Wastes O5% 2 392
SPECIAL WASTES 0.0% 0
Used Oil 0.01/. 0
Tires 0.01y. 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 0
Ferrous Vc'ude Parts 0.0% 0
Total Percent: 100.0% Total Tons: 478,401
11-26 Component Survey Approach
FENAL.REPoRT
Table I1®7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tons Disposed
Material Total Dia osal er Material
PAPER 29.5% 1,196,190
Newspaper 4.0% 160,960
Corrugated Paper 73%
Computer Paper 0.4% 15,204
Office Paper 1.1% 44,308
Mixed Recyclable Paper 8.2% 330,332
Milk/Juice Cartons 0.6% 26,176
Aseptic Juice Containers 0.0% 1,171
Frozen Food Containers 03% 10,760
Other Pa 7.7% 312,490
PLASTIC 10.0% 404,616
PET ( l) 0.4% 14,335
HDPE Con (M2) 0.7% 29,270
[DPI.Plastics(04) OA% 1,298
Polystyrene(K6) 0.8% 33,175
Plastic Bags 4.0% 162,674
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 0.6% t 24,299
Other Plastics 3A% 139,564• GSS. Clear Glass Containers
4.6% 186,218
2.4% 97,150
Green Glass containers 0.6%
Brown Glass Containers 0.8% 34X-A
Refillable lieu Bottles 0.1% Z672
Other Glass 0-7% 29 535
FERROUS METALS 5.6% 226,337
Tin Cans 1 S% 59,131
34
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0%
Mixed Metal k Other Materials
White/Brown Goods 0.1% 5,808
Other Ferrous Metals 2.6% 105 290
NON-FERROUS METALS 1.1% 42,698
Aluminum Cuts 0.6% 24,639
Other Aluminum 0.1% 5,800
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 03% 12 259
ORGNICS 24.3% 964,402
A
Food11.8% 476,662
Yard Wastes 7.7% 311079
Other Organics 4.8% 195,861
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 17.0% 687,167
Wood Wastes 10.9% 4 29147
Gypsum Drywall 0.7% 29,14
Inert Solids/Fines 1.81Y 71,366
Other Construction Debris 3.6% 146,273
OTHER WASTES 7.0% 283,673
Disposable Diapers 2S'Y l01 235
Textiles
3.4% 139,212
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0 4'Y 17,348
Large Bulky Items 0.51Y 21,387
Other Materials 0.11Y 4,440
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.9% 3b,762
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents O.J'Y, 14061
1, 79
Cleaners 0.0'Y ,679
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0'Y 609
Non.Vehicle Batteries 0.VY.. 1589
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.5% 18,824
SPECIAL WASTES 0.1% 4,485
U d Oil 0.0% 1,134
Tires 0.v. 1,095
Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 1,545
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.0'% 711
TOTALS PERCENT, 100.0% TONS: 4,052,497
H-27
Component Survey Approach
N COUNTYS L E + I' PLAN
CHAPTER 3
WASTE RE DUCTION AND RECYCLING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of Chapter 3A is to update the waste reduction and recycling program for Mason
County according to solid waste planning 'de ° es ®E 90®11). This chapter is divided into
ten sections. The first section will act as an introduction and include an examination of current
state regulations. Following sections will discuss waste reduction, urban and rural designations,
recyclable materials, recycling programs, yard waste programs, and education.
The driving force 1989 revisions to RCW 70.95 and other laws related to solid waste
management-and the new solid waste planning guidelines, was Engrossed Substitute House Bill
1671 1671) o termed the "Waste .Not Washington" Act. This bill brought about
significant changes in the way Washington Cities and Counties handle their solid waste. The
revisions to several laws.including C 70.95 are discussed here as a preface to the waste
reduction.and recycling discussions.
3.1.1 RCE 70.9
Legislative findings included in RCW 70.9.5 declared that waste reduction and recycling must
become the fundamental strategy of solid waste management. To that end, the following goals
were developed and included in RCW 70.95 as amended, and were to be the basis for solid waste
planning in Washington State.
"It is the state's goal to achieve a fifty percent recycling rate by 1995.'°
"Steps should be taken to make.recycling at least as.affordable and convenient to
the ratepayer as mixed waste disposal."
'.Source separation of waste must become a fundamental strategy of solid waste
management.
Under the revised law, waste reduction and recycling elements of solid waste management plans
must detail how the bill's intention will be met and how contribution to the 50% goal will be
made. Ecology has recently completed guidelines which provide direction to Washington Cities
and Counties to comply with the law's purpose.
This chapter includes waste reduction and recycling recommendations which are expected to result
in a continuing increase in the recycling rate throughout Mason County..
In addition to the new requirement for a detailed waste reduction and recycling element of Solid
Waste Management Plans, other items included in RCW 70.95 include the following programs.
Mason Co. SWU Plan
1998
The Utilities and Transportation Commission will review local plans to assess cost impacts
to haulers.
• Ecology will conduct detailed monitoring of curbside and other waste.disposal segregation
methods to determine the effectiveness of these programs. Persons collecting solid waste
are to annually report to Ecology.
The law makes it illegal to dispose of vehicle batteries in an unauthorized manner. A fine
of up to one thousand dollars can be charged for each violation. In addition, a core charge
of not less'than five dollars per battery must be paid by the purchaser of a new battery if
the purchaser fails to provide an equivalent used battery as trade in.
3.1.2 Other Laws
In addition to RCW 70.95, ESHB 1671 also affected other laws pertaining to solid waste handling.
Two of these laws are RCW 81.77 - Solid Waste Collection Companies and RCW 36.58 Solid
Waste Disposal.
RCW 81.77 regulates solid waste collection companies and establishes the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission (WUTC) as the supervising and regulating agency-for collection
within unincorporated areas. ESHB 1671 amended RCW 81.77 to require the WUTC to establish
rate structures and billing systems consistent with the solid waste management priorities.
ESHB 1671 revised RCW 36.58 and changed some elements of solid waste disposal.and handling.
Under the revised law, counties may contract for collection of recyclables if they choose. The
County has full authority, to manage, regulate, and fix the rates for recycling collection.
However, counties may not contract for collection of refuse.
ESHB 1671 also added a new section to RCW 36.58 giving a county authority to impose a fee on
the solid waste collection companies operating in unincorporated areas. The revenue should fund
the administration and planning expenses that may be incurred in preparing and ensuring
compliance with the Plan.
3.2 WASTE REDUCTION
Waste reduction is the highest priority for handling and management of solid waste according to
RCW 70.95 as amended in 1989. This adoption of practices by consumers, manufacturers, and
government to generate less waste or reduce the toxicity of waste is called waste reduction.
Reducing packaging, reusing a grocery bag, buying materials in bulls, and frequenting the
common garage sale are typical examples of waste reduction. These activities prevent materials
from entering the waste stream.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-2 1998
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.
Although interest has been shown by reviewing agencies in percentage of the waste stream
reduction, it would be difficult to quantify the.percentage of the wastes reduced under
practices described here. Additional waste reduction practices would have an additional impact
on the waste stream, however, estimation of additional percentages with any assurance would be
difficult. For the purposes of the Plan, waste reduction percentages achieved I through new
programs will be assumed to be part of overall waste reduction and recycling programs and no
differentiation will,be made. More specific waste reduction targets may be included in future Plan
updates.
3.2.1 Existing Practices
In 1993, Mason County and the City of Shelton created a position of Recycling Coordinator. This
position is jointly funded by the City and County, with assistance from the Department of Ecology
coordinated Prevention Grant program. The position was created to develop, facilitate and
promote waste reduction and recycling programs.
Waste reduction information is distributed during community presentations and events. 'Informal
waste audits and shop smart tours continue to be conducted. Programs addressing the reduction
of yard and kitchen waste have been developed and are discussed in 3.7.1.
Through 1997, the Recycling Coordinator has trained 60 people as Master Recycler/Composter.
volunteers. In exchange for training the students committed to hours of public education and
outreach. This was accomplished by staffing booths at fairs and community, events, establishing
recycling programs a.twork, conducting neighborhood collection days and a myriad of other
special projects.
Waste reduction and recycling education has been extended to all public, schools in the City of
Shelton and throughout Mason County. Eight "A-way with Waste" workshops have been
conducted and curriculum has been distributed to attending educators. In the 1995-96 school year,
all schools in the County.implemented various types of waste reduction or recycling programs.
Some began collecting mixed paper and cardboard, while others have collected tetra pok or
implemented on-site worm and compost bins.
Various forms of media continue to be used to promote waste reduction including but not limited
to: radio, public access television, city newsletter, local newspapers, and billing inserts
3.2.2 Needs and
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-3 1998
This section evaluates the existing system to determine whether the goals for waste reduction are
currently met. Where goals are not met, needs become apparent which must be.filled to
successfully obtain goals. In some cases opportunities may exist for improving the solid waste
system. In other cases, barriers may exist which prevent implementation. Each is discussed as
appropriate.
Issues are listed at the end of this section which identify the general choices decision.makers must
consider to meet needs. The following section - Alternatives and Evaluation - describes and
evaluates alternate methods to resolve the issues.
The goals are reiterated below with discussion following.
GOAL: To advance waste reduction efforts through support of State and Federal
programs.
Waste reduction strategies offer multiple benefits in resource conservation and environmental
protection, however local options in waste reduction are limited. Many waste reduction activities
such as bottle bills and packaging legislation are most effective on the State and Federal level.
Good opportunities exist to advance waste reduction efforts through these types of programs.
Local support can be a driving force behind State and.Federal action. Local support of waste
reduction,policies combined with other local jurisdictions in the state or nation, could combine to
encourage further legislation and effective action on a.broader level.
A growing number of opportunities exist for State or Federal programs in waste reduction. To
meet the stated goal of support for State and Federal programs, the County will need to develop
a policy for support of these types of programs.
Issues related to State and Federal programs are presented at'the end .of this subsection. The
second waste reduction goal is reiterated below with discussion following.
GOAL: To promote waste reduction in Mason County through public information and
education programs and other available and appropriate methods.
The basis for meeting this goal in Mason County schools is already established. Schools
throughout the county have incorporated waste reduction and recycling programs into their
curriculum. To date, every K-6 classroom in Mason County has received a presentation on waste
reduction and recycling. The Recycling Coordinator is available for presentations by request to
area educators. The SWAC supports inclusion of waste reduction and recycling+ducation in
schools.
In addition, other Washington State jurisdictions have developed programs suitable for a school
assembly which provide 'information regarding waste reduction and recycling. Mason County
could obtain these programs.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-4 1998
The proposed Rural Community Centers include Matlock, Lilliwaup, Ta-huya Grapeview,
Potlatch, Dayton,'.Skokomish Valley, and Mason-Benson Lakes.
The population is distributed throughout the County in the following manner: City of Shelton
UGA - 20.8%; Belfair .UGA - 9.2%; VIRA Urban - 18%; FCC - 25%; WRA - 12% and Rural
Areas - 15%.
In the following you will find the projected additional population for Mason County through
the year 2014 (Mason County is currently proposing revisions to the areas listed and percent-
ages which may or may not be ready by the time this plan is adopted. The figures shown are
from our current Comprehensive Plan, Land\Use Chapter):
AREA SIIARE OF GROVrM ADDITIONAL POPULATION
SBELTON UGA 20.8% 7,643
BELFAIR UGA 9.2% 3,398
WORKING RURAL AREA URBAN 18.0% 6,624
FCC 25.0% 9,201
WORE:ING RURAL AREA 12.0% 4,416
RURAL 15.0% 5,520
TOTAL COUNTY 100.0% 36,802
Note: Mason County is in the process of reviewing changes to its Comprehensive Plan
which will change the information contained in.this section if approved.
2.2.2 climate and it Oua ity
Climate
Mason County has a mid-latitude west coast marine climatic regime typical of the Puget Sound
lowlands (Molenaarand Noble, 1970). The climate is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and
Puget Sound water bodies as well as the Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges. Generally,
moderate,temperatures are experienced year round and the climate is mud 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 aver-age 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. Winter
temperatures are mild as are summer temperatures.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-5 1998
Mason County's climate can be characterized as moderate-maritime, influenced by the Pacific
Ocean, yet sheltered by the Olympic Mountains. Average temperatures range from a high of
78 degrees F. in July to 32 degrees F. in January. The average daily temperature in Mason
County is 51 degrees F. The County receives an average of 64 inches of precipitation
annually, with average monthly rainfalls ranging from a low in July of 0.8 inches,.to a high of
10.4 inches in January.
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 bum escaped confinement and produced smoke that adversely
impacted areas as far away as the Seattle metropolitan area.
2.2.3 Hydrogeology
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.
This section discusses the hydrogeology of Mason County and is geared toward a discussion of
the suitability of areas within Mason County as solid waste landfill sites.
The State of Washington's definition of aquifer recharge areas for GMA planning purposes
focuses on exiting areas of supply which.are vulnerable to contamination: Areas with a critical
recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water are areas where an aquifer that is a source
of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would,affect the potability of the water
(WAC 365-190-030).
Groundwater exists in underground layers of porous rock and soil called aquifers. Water
stored in aquifers reaches the ground surface through springs, wells, or b.y seepage into surface
water features, including wetlands. Surface water replenish, "recharge", aquifer through
seepage from streams, lakes, and.wetlands, and from precipitation that percolates through soil
or rock.
Potable water means water suitable for drinking. Groundwater provides virtually all of Mason
County's potable water. Protecting aquifers and aquifer recharge areas, therefore is critical to
maintaining Mason County's water supply. Aquifers exist throughout the County. The
groundwater supplying most of the County's water is obtained from the aquifers running
through coarser and more permeable glacial and fluvial sedimentary deposits. The older,
undifferentiated sedimentary deposits provide large quantities of water for industrial and
municipal wells. Bedrock forms the bottom of the groundwater layer although fractures and
joints in the relatively impermeable rocks may yield small quantities of waters. Most of
Mason County enjoys an abundance of good quality water, however, the Department of
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-6 1998
Ecology has identified some areas as the Kennedy and Goldsborough drainages where this array
not be the case.
Precipitation provides the primary source of recharge for Mason County's groundwater.
Precipitation within the County averages 64 inches annually. Approximately 24,970 acres
have been mapped as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas in Mason County.
Currently. Mason County is shipping solid waste to Klickitat County and plans to continue in
this manner. If at some future date Mason County would need-to give consideration to a local
landfill it would need to conduct a thorough study to determine an acceptable area, do
extensive testing, gather public input, and comply with extremely difficult regulations.
The following section is organized into a general discussion of the geology of the County, a
discussion of naturally occurring hazards (such as floods and geologic hazards) and a general
discussion of suitable and unsuitable soils for landfilling.
General Geology
Mason County occupies about 970 square miles of land area (Figure 2.1A) The northwestern
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).
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-7 1998
uauonal
Mkt"�:r`v:lr
Nam
-
' � _ •., _ rye
._._- 14,4�';'4 _ � S -�. _ `r fir.••_/ .>r�.'. 8ilh(r ':f�:
', •S:_� u•t. M a r f 0 r •l •.•�T � ':��.�(`�_ ��::k Swan'
. _
National.
pia ---
t.
statwol
;'k•��s,.'.'`-'-'-,t�••,'••�w. ' •fit .. - ,.•. SS
;t,.• •:�Ci. ''
Mon
- =, �Skoko(wsh• 1Pa 3 M r'S' ' ,.;• �::1
• �.w.crsn.a=mr. ��,-. _- . �- � v S'htloe �y�"- r• '• ,w �' ,�•?.'f�•:•.(
rt.t• .. •-YI'.. ,�-��•J'Y'•`�t: `� _- .•_« .:. ��./i t-rr• J''•`?e�!ri'L::r.::.•.,.`.,:.•_
xitf
f R. j. tit ,
r�,.. .1 ? _ '`yam-�- -'•"- :" _ _ .. .- -,t+' a 1` �,�`( ,y�`'k' c r.V; %''`'�
_Q
:; '• <;
-
All
d
im
sy
UnclAIII
•r I-,•.•.1:« y�i. •:.�1�_ .•-•fie' S/• i=! ••• i� ,f•i�yii:•::v:
ex
ZL
T
,
0 3 5
Scale in Mlles
Figure 2.1 A MASON COUNTY
1998
Mason Co. SWM Plan
-8
Rocks exposed within the County consist of both volcanic rocks, with some consolidated
sedimentary rocks, and a thick sequence of unconsolidated glacial and non-glacial deposits.
The volcanic and consolidated sedimentary rocks are exposed within the Olympic Mountains
t
and the Black Mills. Most of the County is underlain by the unconsolidated deposits.
The unconsolidated deposits were derived from at least three continental glaciations, one or
more alpine glaciations, and two non-glacial intervals. These include, from oldest to youn-
gest, 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, til-1, advance outwash, and the related Colvos Sand deposit.
A t *ical. cross-section through the County is shown in Figure 2.2A. Characteristics of the
yp
principal stratigraphis units are summarized below from youngest to oldest:
Anuyjum (Qal): Fine grained silt and sand with some clay and peat;*found in lowland val1eys,
floodplains and depressions in-drift plains. Maximum-thickness is over 100 feet. May yield
moderate quantities of water.
Vas on Recessional Dahyash (Qv* Poorly sorted, discontinuously bedded loose gravel with
some sand, silt and clay. Overlies till in depressions on drift plains. Maximum.thicluiess I is
150 feet. May yields to moderate quantities of water.
yashm-M (Qvt): *Coarse cobbles. in silt-clay ma tr.ix; 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.
Vash.on 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.
CcIlvos Sand (Qc): Principally stratified sand. Occurs in some areas particularly in the eastern
part
art of the County. Contains irregular leases 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.
Kit Formation me sand with some clay
_Q�� (Qk): Well stratified, horizontally bedded silt and f
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.
Salmou.S12rings Drift and Pre Vashon DQo3its, Undi&rentiat (Qss, Qpv): Coarse sand,
gravel and some till. Maximum thickn.ess may be over 600 feet. May yield from small to
large quantities of water.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-9 1998
SE
NW
Olympic
Mountains
Skokomish
Valley pvr Qvf Puget
.. .. :. Sound
Qai ..:b'va..: '::.........:.... --..
ovr - •• .
os: _
•. ".ram�•`��"�w ® EVE:
'z as airTi.'f��y.�.►i"'���.►"•�
To
®al Alluvium
Ovr Vashon Recessional Outwash
CM Vashon Till
ova Vashon Advance Outwash
as Skokomish Gravel
Ok i<itsap Formation
ass Salmon Springs Drift
apv Pre-Vashort Deposits
Ts Tertiary Sedimentary Rocks
Tv Tertiary Volcanic Rocks
Source: Geology and related groundwater occurrence Figure 2.2A Diagrmatic NW-SE Section
southeastern Mason County, Washington
(Molenaar and Noble, USGS Water Supply through Mason County
Bulletin No. 29
Mason Co.'SWM Plan 2A-10 1998
Marine Seal°r lenta..ry Rocks (Ts): Fine grained marine, sedimentary rock. Unimportant as a
groundwater source.
Volcanic Rock )a asap° aic ess unknown. Gene y dense d ° permeable d of
little importance as an aquifer. Groundwater movement is print y through fractures.
e 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 Vachon ). -Vachon deposits are generally confined to
exposures along cliffs or steep slopes adjacent to rivers, streams, or Puget Sound. Of the
Vachon Drift deposits, the recessional outwash and till are the two most widely exposed.
Alluvial deposits (generally confined*to active stream.channels and flood plains) also
widely exposed ughout the County.
Because of their wide distribution and exposure throughout the County,,the recessional
outwash and 0 units of the Vachon.Drift deposits..are likely the two most.important soils that
would be encountered during any landfill siting effort.
Geneml Hydrologic,Conditions-
The major source of groundwater recharge in Mason County is precipitation. Part of this
precipitation percolates downward into the soil, part drains off as surface runoff, and part
returns to the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration from plants.. Near the foothills of
the Olympic Mountains., precipitation averages about 100 inches per year and decreases to
about 50 inches annually near the eastern border of the County.
The extent to which precipitation infiltrates the surface varies from place'to place, depending
on the character of the subsurface materials. Essentially, all groundwater tapped in Mason
County is from aquifers within the more permeable materials of the various glacial drift .
deposits: Most groundwater discharge is to streams, lakes and surrounding marine waters.
The movement of groundwater toward discharge points is typically in the direction of the land
surface slope,
Groundwater within the unconsolidated glacial drift deposits migrate 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, then turns northwest
toward the Olympic Mountains ( Figure 2.1A). 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
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-11 1998
semi-perched conditions, one or more higher water tables may exist locally above the main
water table.
Naturally Occurring Hazards
Naturally occurring hazards are delineated on Figure 2.3A (Mason County Planning Commis
lion, 1982). These hazards include geologic faults, unstable slopes, and flood-prone'areas.
Chapter 7 discusses naturally occurring hazards as they pertain to the Minimum Functional
Standards (MFS), locational standards (WAC 173-304-130). Under the MPS, 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.
eolo,gic Faults. Three faults, and a fourth probable fault, have been identified within Mason'
County that show 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 (figure 2.3A), 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.
iTnstable S1cZpes. There are several areas within Mason County that have been identified as
having unstable slopes (Figure 2.3A). These areas are typically steep and/or comprised of
relatively easily erodible materials or 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.
FJQ2¢ing. 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.
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 are also illustrated in Figure
2.3A and should be eliminated from landfill siting consideration. They include:
The Olympic Mountains in the northwestern part of the County (steep slopes,.
shallow depths to bedrock, and National Forest land).
• The Black Hills along the south border of the County (steep slopes and shallow
depths to a possibly fractured bedrock).
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-12 1998
t �
,
I
fRE'RRt ��•�• �
'• I��� �'`: ... �w�,, I� � �. .`+asp�� ..,••/ ����` ;
• L(i� ' +fit ���
v
�4
►aM
i ��R'�//,� ��,,..`,'tif4$+,y'y1, �• 'a�`"� � ���ir:, �S�',:� ?l i�,•ba
Ina
Tee A
WO-Al
s0 .
�.d.. ,
ic
v
ti
ti
I _
. : . . .:.. . . . . . ... . ...:.:
The remaining areas of the County will be discussed in the following section based on
desirable soil characteristics. However the following characteristics would not exclude a site
from consideration as a potential landfill site. Rather these characteristics on a site.specific
basis may provide deciding considerations between two potentially suitable sites.
Soils as Indicators of Site Desirability
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 and conditions). .
However, additional aquifer protection.may be provided by specific soil types. For example,
sites on fine-grained'soils (silts and clays) which have low permeabilities provide additionaf.
protection to an underlying aquifer, while coarse-grained'soils and substrata (sands and
gravels)ido not provide such protection. The type of soils present on the landfill site is one of
many indicators of site.desirability.
Cation exchange capacity (CW) is a soil related consideration. CSC 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 CF.0 values,followed by silt and to a much
lesser extent sands and gravels.
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 which
e
allow them to slide through low permeability clays at a higher rate than that indicated by
permeability testing. Therefore, the existence of clay under a landfill does not necessarily
mean that all compounds will be contained.
Soil types that will be required in construction and operation of a landfill should also be.a
consideration in site selection. For example, cost reductions may be realized by avoiding the
need to import coarse cover material. In addition, fine grained materials may be used for
landfill liner construction in addition to providing additional protection to the aquifer.
Therefore, sites that have coarse and fine grained materials are cost effective.
In Mason County, the water-bearing properties of tfie Vashon recessional outwash and till
deposits are very important to the characterization of a potential landfill site. Generally, the
coarse-grained outwash deposits exhibit relatively high permeable properties and the fine-
grained till has relatively low permeable characteristics.
From a hydrogeologic perspective, the most desirable location for a landfill would be in a fine-
grained deposit to protect groundwater and limit leachate migration. From an economic
perspective, a desirable site would also have deposits of coarse-grained materials for road
constnuction and daily cover operations. Alternatively, a site with a shallow excavatable layer
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-/4 1998
of coarse-grained material, with no perched groundwater, overlying fine-grained material,
would also be desirable. In this second scenario, the coarse-grained material could be
excavated and the landfill bottom and potentially a portion of the side slopes, placed in fine-
grained material. In both scenarios the fine-grained layer could provide groundwater protec-
tion in addition to the landfill finer. 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 by geologic standpoint.they represent the most
desirable sites, from a population density standpoint they are less 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. Howev'er, these sites would be
removed'from the general population and would allow easier siting.
ill liner regulations can b met at
Regardles�s of the underlying soil characteristics, State landfi. regulati n e
both types of sites with proper design and construction. However, landfills should not be sited
at some.types of sites in the County. These sites include areas of exposed or shallow volcanic
rock, and the alluvial river valleys and flood plains.
Because oftheir 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.
2.3 WASTE STREAM ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to identify the waste stream in Mason County in terms of its
size, projected growth rate, composition and annual variation.
The to waste stream for the County consists of many types of wastes. Most are landfilled,
others are incinerated, recycled, used as a soil amendment or disposed in special sites
Mason Co. SWU Plan 2A-15 1998
established for a specific type of waste. The major component of the waste stream is mixed
municipal solid waste (MMSW). MMSW is generated in residential and commercial areas and
is usually landfilled.
MMSW accounts for the majority of the waste stream in the County. Other solid wastes such
as industrial waste, wood waste, septic tank pumpings, and sewage sludges are considered
special wastes and are discussed in Chapter 9.
2.3.1 Method for Waste Stream Analysis
The major source of information used to develop and project the waste stream.for Mason
County;is data recorded by the toll house attendant at the landfill. This information includes
the number of 30 gallon containers, 55 gallon containers, and drop boxes; and the yardage of
compacted and loose waste from commercial sources and other loose waste yardage delivered
to the landfill.
For use in this document, the waste stream data was converted to tonnage figures using Mason
County's conversion factor of 5001bs/cy for all waste types.
Waste stream data was available for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990. ,With this information as a
base, solid waste quantities were projected for two waste-generation areas,:the unincorporated
County and the City of Shelton. The population forecasts discussed in section 2.2.1 were used
to project the waste streams. It was assumed that the current waste generation rate per capita
would continue through the planning period. This waste stream projection is presented in
Table 2.3A.
Table 2.3A MASON COUNTY WASTE STREAM VROJECTION (1991 to 2014)
Year City of Shelton* Mason County* Total Disposed*
1995 5,029 20,253 25,282
2000 5,280 22,014 27;294
2005 5,544 23,928 29,472
2010 5,821 26,009 31,830
2015 6,112 28,271 34,383
*all numbers are given in tonnages
This information reflects population projections provided by the
Office of Financial Management
Mason County : 2.3% per year or 11.5% every five years
City of Shelton: 1% per year or 5% every five years
Mum Co. SWM Plan 2A-16 1998
In actuality, waste stream projections are more complicated than projecting population rates.
Waste generation is a function of economic conditions, personal values, as well as population.
If any of these factors change during the projected period, the waste stream projection will be
inaccurate.
The wastes projection included in Table 2.3A represents the baseline waste stream upon
which the effects of waste reduction, recycling and population growth ran be applied. For this
reason, per capita waste generationI and recycling rates were assumed to stay at current levels.
2'.3.2 Wasto-,Stream OMPOSILMU
Waste-stream composition is also needed to assist in designing solid waste handling and
disposal programs. No'detailed waste composition study has been performed in Mason County
to date. However, the State of Washington has recently completed a comprehensive recycling
study, e.ntitled Best Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste (BMP) that included a
wastes composition study. The waste composition study determined that waste com-
position tended to be relatively uniform throughout the State of Washington.
Appendix A shows the waste stream.composition for residential and commercial waste for the
west waste generation area which includes Mason County. It may be assumed for purposesof
this Plan that these'wastes tream compositions are a close.approximation to the waste stream
composition of residences and businesses in Mason County,
1998
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-1 7
FINAL REPORT
Table II-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Single-family Residential
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tons Deposed
Material Total Dis osal r Material
SLO% 399,331
PAPER 5.1% 63,819
Newspaper � 68,893
Corrugated Paper 55%
Computer Paper 0.0% 241
6,104
Office Paper as*. 119,083
Mixed Recyclable Paper 9 57G
Mllk/juic Cartons 0.8% IOA24
Aseptic juice Containers 0.0% 300
Frozen Food Containers 0.6% 7,398
Other Paper 9.8% 122.869
129,283
PLASTIC 10 3%
PErContaincrs(NI) 0.6% 7,139
HDPE Containers 02) 1.17E 14,797
LDPE Plastics(N4) 0.1% 614
Polystyrene(N6) 0.8%
45%
Pl SUM
5,623
mastic Bags 3,943
OtherCoded Plastic Packaging 037G
Other Plastics 3.0% 38= .
+ GLASS 5S% 69,168
Clear Glass Containers 3.47E 43,029 .
Green Glass Containers 0 7% 8,633
Brown Glass Containers 0.9%. 10,876 .
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.1% 1,467
Other Glass 0.47E 5,163
FERROUS METALS 4.7%. S91in
L5% 31,663
Tin Cans 0
Bi-metal Cans 0.0%
Mixed Metal&Other Materials 0.8% 9,429
White/Brown Goods 0.0% 618
Other Ferrous Metals IA% 17,419
NON-FERROUS METALS 1.1% 13"
Aluminum Cans 0.8% 9,758
Other Aluminum 02% =4
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.17E 1,387
ORGANICS 32.7% 408•r�
Food13.5'K _168,201
Yard Wastes 11.3% 141,006
Other 2manics . 8.09. 99,7S3
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 42% 52,510
Wood Wastes 1. 21,433
Gypsum Drywall 0 3%'K 3 303.
Inert Solids/Fines 0.9% 11,203
Other Construction Debris 1.3% 165M
OTHER WASTES 8.4% 105,488
796
Disposable Diapers 4.6% 8,
Textiles 3,1% 3 , 29 829
Rubber Products(except ires) 0,3% 3 586
T
Large.Bulky Items 0.1% 1,658
Other Materials 0.3% 3,629
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.8% 10,07S
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.4% 5,001
Cleaners 0.0% 172
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0% 172
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.1% 908
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.3% 3,523
SPECIAL WASTES 02% 2,521
Used Oil 0.1% 976
Tiles 0.0% 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.1% 1,545
Ferrous Vehicle Puts 0.0% 0
Total Percent: 100.0% Total Tons: 1,249,834
[1-9
Component Survey Approach
SUMMARYExEcunvE
Table 11-7
Combined WCA Material Type Summary fOr Washington State Multi-f y Resid tial
WASTECATEGORIES
M.ean Percentage of Total Toga Disposed
Total Dig I r Material
Material 11S,631
PAPER 8.6%Newspaper 28 690
Corrugated Piper 6 96
err Pa 0. 1A71
Office Paper 95%
RecyclableMixed Paper 9 32,239
/1 \ 0. 149
AsepticlulocCOntainen0.6% .4142
Frozen Food Containers 8 26907
Other P 3
PLASTIC 9'
(41)
HDPE ( 1.1% 3,763
LDPE ( ) 0 140
Polystyrene( 2A19
%% 1
Plastic Bags ® 974
PlasticOther Coded Pa 10,729
3 r ties.
6.3% 27'513
G 5.1% 13
C 5
Brown Glass Containers ClearGlassContalners
OA% 0
Refillable es 750
OBerGta� . 0.2%
FERROUS METALS 4.5% f5,090
" 227. 7,478
T'in Cans34
Bi-Metal 0.0%
943
Mixed Metal 6c Other Materials 12% 3,0
White/Brown Goods 0.3% 1A27
27
Other Ferrous Metals 0.8% 2 608
30,
NO OUS METALS % 4.0
Aluminum Cans. 1.0% 3,468
Other Aluminum 0.1%
Other Non Feccous Metals O lx• 3
ORGANICS 22.2% 73,767
102% 33.667
Food 11,669
Yard Wastes 3S%
Other 85% 28 231
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 4.6% 15,214
lb% 5,464
Wood Wastes
2,872
Gypsum Drywall 12% 3,843
Inert Solids/Fues 3,035
Other Construction Debris 0'9%
OTHER WASTES 13.9% 46,143
6.2'%, 20,622
Disposable Diapers 6.2'% 20,766
Textiles 288
Rubber Products(except Tires) 13%
i3% 4,232
LAW Bulky Items 235
Other Materials 0.1%
H RDOUS WASTE 0.71/6 2,215
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.1% 376
Cleaners 0.0>G 65
Pesticides/Herbicides 0•0°7" 5
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.1% 347
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.4% 1,422
SPECIAL.WASTES 0.3% 1,001
U Oil 0. 0
Ti0.2% 542
Vehicle Batteries ®'0% 0
Vt Pa 0.1% 459
FerrousTotal P h 100.0% 'Total Tons:
Component Survey Approach
fI-10
FINAL KEFORT
Table 11-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Warehousing
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tons Disposed
Material Total Disposal r Material
PAPER 42.9% 78,164
Newspaper 1.6% 2.965
Corrugated 19,302
rgated Paper 1.1% ��
Computer Paper
Office Paper 4.1% 7,386
Mixed Recyclable Paper .11.1% 20,217
Milk/juice Cartons 0.3% 487
Aseptic Juioe Containers 0.1% .98
Frozen Food Containers 0.1% 126
OtherPaper 14.0% 25,565
PLASTIC 9,4% 17,095
PET Containers(01) 02% 296
HDPE Containers(12) 02% 282
LDPE Plastics(A4)- 0.0% 2
Polystyrene(A6) 0.8%. 1,542
Plastic Bags S.1% 9,3S8
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 0.1% 185
Other Plastics 3.0% 5,430
GLASS 2 8X SAM
Clear Glass Containers 1A4% ZS72
GmnGius Containers 03% 627
Brown Glass Containers 03% 615
RetiIlable Beer Bottles 0.0% 37
Othe rGlass 0.6%, 1,175
FERROUS METALS. .6.7% 12=6
Tin Cans 0
0.6% 1,14
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0% 0
Mixed Metal&Other Materials 23% 4,244
White/Brown Goods 0.1% 199
Other Ferrous Metals 3.6% 6AX
NON-FERROUS METALS 0.9% 1,560
Aluminum Cans 05% 978
Other Aluminum 0.1% 132
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 02% 450
ORGANICS 12-0
21,839
Food 9.01Y. 16,468
Yard Wastes 1-5% 2,"1
Other IA% 2 590
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 21.3% 38A39
Wood Wastes 195% 35,520
Gypsum Drywall OS% 1185
Inert Solids/Fines 1.0% 1.794
Other Construction Debris 0.4% 640
OTHER WASTES 2.3% 4,13E
Disposable Diapers 0.3% 475
Textiles 1.6% 2'�
'
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0.4%
Large Bulky Items 0.0% 0
Other Materials 0.01Y. 20
HAZARDOUS WASTE 1.7% 3,115
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 13% 2,382
Clearers 0.0% 0
Pesticides/Herbicides Wry. 12
Nor-Vehicle Batteries OA'%. 57
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.4% 664
SPECIAL WASTES 0.1% 146
Used Oil 0.1% 146
Tires 0.01Y. 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.01Y. 0
Ferrous Vehicle Puts 0.0% 0
Total Percent: 100.0% Total Tons: 187,142
Component Survey Approach /1-11
ExECU71WE SUMMARY
Table 1I-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Dry Goods Retail
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mann Percentage®E Total 1'®r+s Disposed
Material Tots1 Di I Material
PAPER Newspaper 43.7% 42,3 99
3 3,612
Corrugated Paper 12.0% 11,676
Computer Paper 1
Office Paper 1.8% 1,762
Mixed'Recydable Paper 14 13,541
Milk/juiceCartons
® 685
Aseptic Juice Containers 0.1% 89.
OA% 92
Pa 10.1% 9,797
PLASTICother 16.4% 15,901
PETcontainetspl) 0 768
H]DPE (62) 0.6% 577
0 4
Polystyrene(A6) 6
Plastic Sap 7 .
,834
Other Coded Plasbc P 0 242
Otherplastics 5 5,138
GLASS 7.1% 6AN
• 1 1
Green Glass Containm 0 174
Brown Glass containers 0.3% .282
ea 0.1% 125
Refillable Beer Bottl
4 4jM
FERROUS METALS 62% 5,984
n Cans 0.4% 3.
Ti 0
Bi-Metal Cans 0.09• 6
Mixed,Metal& Materials 1.8% 1.786 White/Brown Goods OA% 42
Other Ferrous Metals 3.9% 788 3,759
NON-FERROUS METALS •0.8%
Aluminum Cans 0 642
Other Aluminum 0.1% 129
Other Metals 0.0% 16
ORGANICS 102% 91885
Food 6.69% 6,594
Yard Wastes 13% 1,232
Other cs 2.1% 2060
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 8.5% 8,267
Wood Wastes 62% 6 7S4 ..
80
GYPS is
Drywall 0.8% 7
Inert Solids/Fines 0.0% 18
Other Construction Debris 15% 1,435
OTHER WASTES 5.3% 5,178
Disposable Diapers 0.4% 411
Textiles 2.8% 2,759
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0.8% 777
Large Bulky Items IA% 933
Other Materials 03% 297
HAZARDOUS WASTE 1.8% 1,709
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 1.0% 987
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0% 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 17
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.71'. 670
SPECIAL WASTES 0.1% 52
U Oil' 0.0% 0
Tires 0.0% 0
Vehicle Batteries 0. 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.1% 52
Total Percent: 100.0% Total To a 3
!I®12 t Survey Approach
FINAL REPORT
Table II-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Groceries
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tons Disposed
Material Total Dis I perMatedat
PAPER 34.3% =94
Newspaper2.6% 3,911
25A52
Corrugated Papa 16.4%02X 30 3
Computer Paler' 0.2% 330
Office Papa 8,216
Mixed Recyclable Paper 5.4%
Milk/juke Cartons a s% 1,288
Aseptic juice Cotttahxns 0.0% 7
Frozen Food Containers 0.1% 216
Other Paper 8A% 13,053
PLAS•71C 12.7% 19,424
565
PET Containers(01) 0.4%
HDPE Containers 02) 1.0% IA83
[APE Plastics(14) 0.0% 20
Polystyrene(116) 12% 1,799
Plastic Bags 7.3% 11,154
OtherCoded Plastic Packaging 0.2% 315
Other Plastics . 2.7% 4,058
GLASS 3.1% 4,985
Clear Glass Containers 2.1% 3,207
Green Glass Containers 02% 363
Brown Glass Contai ers 0.7% 1,134
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.0%
OtherClass 0.1%
FERROUS METALS 1.5% 2,280
Tin Cans 11X 1,680
Bi-Metal Cans O.Q% 0
Mixed Metal 6c Other Materials 0.1% 165
White/Brown Goods 0.0% 0
Other Ferrous Metals 0.3% 434
NON-FERROUS METALS 0.7% 1,106
Aluminum Cans 0.4X "I 25
Other Aluminum 0.3% 25
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.0%
ORGANICS 41.0% 62,511
Food 34.2% 5ZI90
Yard Wastes '0.7% 1,019
Other •cs 6.1% 9,303
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 4.8% 7,351
Wood Wastes 4S%- 6,812
Gypsum Drywall 0.0% 0
Inert Solids/Pines 0.0% 0
Other Construction Debris 0 4X 539
OTHER WASTES 1.4% 2,1T3
Disposable Diapers 027. 304
Textiles 1.11Y. 1,751
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0.1% 110
tArge Bulky Items 0.0% 0
Other Materials . Wry. 8
HAZARDOUS WASTE 02 .
236
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.1% 81
Cleaners 0.0% 0
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.0%. 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries Wry. 0
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.1% 155
SPECIAL WASTES 0.1% 162
Used Oil 0.01Y. 0
Tim 0.01Y. 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.1% 182
Total Percent; IOOAX Total Ton.: 152MI
11-13
Component Surtsey Approach
EXECUME Y
Table II®7
Combined WA Material Type Summary
far Wadtington State:Restaurants
WCATEGORIES Me to ®f To Tons Disposed
terial T Dig I 924Material
%
P % 6"4 6
1e 2 4% 23,347
Corrugated Pa 9.4% 58
Compubw Paper 0.1% 337
Office Paper 4 11,251
Mixed Recyclable Paper 3
Juice 0.1% 183
Aseptic f ` 0
R=m Food Containers 7 19,757
Othee Pa 26s457
PLASTIC iL4% 638
( l) ® % 3
HDPE Containers(12) 0.1 192
PE Plastics( ) 1" '
Pot ( 5 14,%7
Plastic Bass ® 95
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 3 y
other plastics 25,219
GLASS 301% 9,481
ClearGlasscontainers 1 3,M
Green GUS$containers
15
Brown 0 3. % 9A
Refillable0.
Beer Botdds 1.0% 2,470
Oth"Glass QL10
OUS METALS ?5% 5 771
Tin Cans 0% 0
Bi-Metal Carts 0.0% 0
Mixed &Other Materials % 0
0.0
White/Brown Goods 0. %. 339
Other Ferrous Metals 70?
NON.ERROUS METALS % 515
Aluminum Cans 01% ns
Other Aluminum . 30
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.
42.2% 105,035
ORGANICS 31.7`>r 78,781
Food 05°% 1,229
Yard Wastes 10.1% 25,02.S
Other 6,s72
TI
CONSTRUCON DEBRIS �% 1,931
Wood Wastes 0'� 0
®
Gypsum Drywall 0. %
414
inert Solids/Fines 2 4,227
Other Construction Debris 1.7%
41Y. 10,220
.
OTHER WASTES 0.9% 1,915
Disposable Diaper Z991
Textiles 1-
0.1% 169
Rubber Products(except Tires) 5,146
Large Bulky Items 2.1%
0.0'Y 0
Other Materials 1,557
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.6% 968
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.4%
0.0%
0
Cleaners
0.2'Y« 389
Pesticides/Herbicides 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.
0.1% 199
Other Hazardous Wastes 0
SPECIAL WAS O.OY® 0
0.0%
Used Oil 0.01Y 0
Tires 0.0% 0
Vehicle Batteries 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.
T®tal Percent: 1 .0% Tout T® 8 2
Component Survey Approach
11-14
FINAL REPORT
Table 11-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Offices
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tote Disposed.
Material Total Disposal Material
PAPER 663% 44,Z26
Newspaper 6. 3,151
3%
63
Corrugated Paper % 4,203
Computer Paper 2.6% 736
M
Office Paper 112% A
Mixed Recyclable Paper 233% 15557
Milk/juice Cartons 0.9% 584
Aseptic Juice Contaisurs 6.1% 50
Frozen Food Containers 0.4% 287
Other Paper 16.8%. 11,206
PLASTIC 11.2% 7,09
168
PET Containers(81) 03% 204
HDPE Containers(82) 03%
LDPE Plastics(94) 0.0% 32
Polystyrene(# 1.6% 110%
45% 3,015
Plastic Bags 175
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 03%
Other Plastics 4.2% 2 809
GLASS 4.0% 2,658
Clear Glass Containers 2.9!G 1914
Green Glass Containers 0.8% 504
Brown Glass Containers 0.2% 136
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.0% 0
OtherGlass
0 296 104
FERROUS METALS 1.3% 0
949
Tin Caro 03% 20
Bi-Metal Cans 0.096 0
Mixed Metal&Other Materials 0.6% 41 0
White/Brown Goods 0.0% 225
Other Ferrous Metals 03%
NON-FERROUS METALS LI% 721
Aluminum Cans 0.8% 557
12
Other Aluminum 02% 1 51
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.1% 51
ORGANICS 12 6% H,431
Food 10.8% 7,211
Yard Wastes 0.9% 6V
'0.9% 613
Other Organics
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 1 H% 1,224
Wood Wastes 0.5% 319
Gypsum Drywall 0.0% 21
Inert Solids/Fines 0.1% 45
Other Construction Debris 1.3% 839
814
OTHER WASTES 12X
Disposable Diapers 031Y, 198
0.6% 419
Textiles \ 197
Rubber Products(except Tires)
Large Bulky Items 0.01Y 0
Other Materials 0.0% 0
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.4% 298
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 0.11Y. 92
Cleaners O.M. o
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.01Y. 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.1% 91
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.2% 115
SPECIAL WASTES 0.0% 0
Used Oil 0.0% o
Tires 0.0% 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.0% 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts o•0'K 0
Total Percent: 100.0% Total Tons: 66,679
11-15
Component Suruey Approach
SUMMARYEXECUTWE
Table 11-7
Combined WGA at Type S for gtore State Hotels/Motels
®t
W GORIES Mean permtage of Total Tons Disposed
Total D 1 rMaterial
Material 9% 12.7% 13,967
P . 4543
9 3
Corrupted Pap- OA% 132
Co-puterpaper ® 290
Office Paper S
Mboed Recyclable Pa 0 316
6
Aseptic juiCOfttainen ce
0 62
Fromm Food Containers "% 3A38
Other E!25
3,511
PLASTIC 9 8 o 193
PErcontailums(fl) 1 367
HDPE Containers PE ( '( 0.1% 3
10
Pol ( 1
pintic5ags109
Other Coded
Plastic Packaging 968
Other Plastics 4,49
7.1%
clear Glass Contaltums '1 680
Brown 3.4% 1'210
0
Refillable Beer Bottles 0 58
OtherGlass
1,034
FEILROUS METALS 2 9% 769
Tm Cans ®2.2 0
Bi-Metal Cans 0.1% 41
Mixed Metal do Other Materials •0
White/Brown Goods ®b% 225
Other Fearous Metals .810
"WO—N-FEELROUS METALS % .1%0 750
me to
Alumirt Ca 13
Other Aluminum . %
0.1% 46
Other Non-Fenbus Metals 8,619
ORGANICS 24.0% 14.6% 5,233
Food 2S% 914
Yard Wastes 2.5% 2,472
Other 1,216
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 3A% 360
-Wood Wastes I
Gypsum�I 1A.4% 4 0
a sertSolids/Eases 0.09G
1.0`K 362
Other Construction Debris 1,641
OTHER WASTES 5.1% 2 4% 674
Disposable Drapers 819
Textiles 79
Rubber Products(except Tires) 0.2%
0.0% 0
Large Bulky Items 69
Other Materials 0.2%
HAZARDOUS WASTE 1.1% 393
OS 192
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents 8
Clearers 0.
0.0% 0
Pesticides/Herbicides 17
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.07E
OS% 176
Other Hazardous Wastes 0
SPECIAL W 0.0%
U Oil 0• 0
0
0.0%
rues 0
Vehicle Batteries ®'
Ferrous Vehicle Parts ®'
Total Pc ti 100.0% Total To 35,681
Component
!I®16 is A clt
FINAL REPORT
Table 11-7
Combined WGA Material Type Summary for Washington State:Education
WASTE CATEGORIES
Mean Percentage of Total Tons Disposed
Material Total Di t Ver Material
PAPER' 48.2% 35,305
25%
Newspaper 3S
Corrugated Paper S2% "83
Paper2.1% 1,535
Office Paper . 4.0% 2.955
Mixed Recyclable Paper 13.9% 10,201
Mrilk/Iuiae cartons 4.1% Z987
Aseptic Juice Containers 03% 236
Ro= Food Containers 0.1% 69
Other paper 15.9% 111666
PLASTIC 1Q7% 7'8�
PET Containers(41) 0.4% 260
HDPE Containers(#2). 0.7% 481
LDPE Plastics(N4) 0.0% 9
Polystyrene(16) 12% 859
Plastic Bags 4.7% 3'4
Other Coded Plastic Packaging 03% 231
Other Plastics 3.4% 2,510
GLASS 33% 2,4S1
Clear Glass Containers 2.6% 1,917
Green Glass Containers 02% 120.
Brown Glass Containers 0.1% 40
Refillable Beer Bottles 0.0% 0
Other Glass 05% 374
FERROUS METALS 1A% 1,181
Tin rate 1.3% 965
Bi-Metal Cans 0.0% 0
Mixed Metal&Other Materials 0.1% 41
White/Brown Goods 1
0.0% 0
Other Ferrous Metals 02% 175
NON.FERROUS METALS 1.7% 1,251
Aluminum Cans 1.4% 1A39
Other Aluminum. 02% 171
Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0.1% 41
ORGANICS 30.0% 21,970
Food23.9% 17,466
Yard Wastes Z.6% l.937
Other Otganics 35% 2,566
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS 1.3% %9
Wood Wastes 0.8% 595
Gypsum Drywall 0.0% 0
Inert Solids/'Fines 0.0% 8
Other Construction Debris 05% 366
OTHER WASTES 2.3% 1,683
Disposable Diapers 03% 199
Textiles \0.9% 690
Rubber Products(except Tim) 0.1% 43
Large Bulky Iteriu 0.9% 611
Other Materials 0.2% 140
HAZARDOUS WASTE 0.8% 595
Paint/Adhesives/Solvents OSy 34 4
Cleaners 0.0'Y. 4
Pesticides/Herbicides 0.01Y. 0
Non-Vehicle Batteries 0.1'Y 98
Other Hazardous Wastes 0.2% 148
SPECIAL WASTES 0.0% 0
Used oil 0.0% 0
Tires 0.0'Y 0
Vehicle Batteries 0.01Y. 0
Ferrous Vehicle Parts 0.0y. 0
Total Percent: 100.0% Total Tons: 73,211
If-17
Component Survey Approach
During the course of Plan amendment preparation, numerous meetings were held'with the SWAC
to obtain their input and guidance. A complete draft of the Plan was reviewed .by the SWAC, the
City of Shelton and the Mason County Department of Community Development prior to the
official review by the Public and Ecology.
Public hearings were held for the plan. The minutes from those meetings are included in Appendix
together with letters generated during the public review period.
1.4.5 Plan Approval/AdoDtion
The Plan approval and adoption process was facilitated by the active participation by the SWAC
to
and ongoing public involvement efforts. As discussed under 1.4.4, above, several rounds" of
official review were built into the planning process. The organizations which must approve the
Plan include* the City of Shelton (by adoption), Mason County (also by adoption) and the
Washington Department of Ecology. Each of these agencies was informed of Plan progress and
consulted during the planning effort.
Resolutions of adoption (included in Appendix ) were obtained from the City of Shelton. The date
of adoption was
The Mason County Board of Commissioners approved and adopted the Plan by ordinance on
1998. . The final Plan was transmitted to Ecology for their approval on
1998.
1.4.6 Plan Amendment, Review and Revision
Plan amendments should be reviewed by the SWAC and submitted to all affected jurisdictions for
formal approval. In addition, the Mason County Board of-Commissioners must review and
approve the amendment. Final approval by the Department of Ecology would also be necessary.
According to R.C.W. 70.95.110 the Plan must be reviewed and revised at least once every five
years. If moderate changes are required a plan update may be sufficient to revise the Plan,
however if significant changes to the Plan are necessary a new plan would be required. To
determine the extent of the revisions necessary, the Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan
shall be reviewed by the Department of Community Development in April, 1997 to determine the
scope of work necessary to revise it, as necessary. The completed update or revised plan, shall
be developed within six months to one year after this date.
Mason Co. SWM Plan IA-9 1998
N COUNTY SOLIDT A ,ME NT PLAN
CHAPTE R 2A BACKGROUND OF ' PLANNING A
.1 INTRODUCTION
e purpose of Chapter 2A is to provide amended information as it relates to the background of
the planning area, against which solid waste handling and management occur in Mason County.
Section 2.2 describes the natural and man-made conditions of the county including demographics
and land use. Section 2.3, the last section Of the chapter, describes the waste stream and is the
basisfor determining the solid waste handling needs for the planning period. Waste stream data
and projections are provided.
.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
description of the existing en conditions is provided as a background for evaluating
e environmental ct of proposed solid waste management activities.. The description includes
the following categories: land use and population, climate quality, and by geology.
2,2, ad Use an o ulatio
Land Use
InApril, 1996 Mason County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, replacing the Comprehensive
Plan approved on November 16, 1970. The plan states the goals for the future that have been
identified by the citizens of the County or specified by the state in the Growth Management Act
as state-wide goals. The Growth Management Act requires counties planning under the act to
adopt a comprehensive plan that includes a land use element and a rural element. The land use
element should identify the proposed distribution of land uses and address other concerns such as
the proposed distribution of land uses and address other concerns such as the protection of
groundwater quality and quantity, drainage, flooding, and storm water run-off and potential
mitigation measures. 'The rural element should address those rural lands in the county which are
not specially designated for urban growth or natural resource use.
The land use element identifies the existing land use conditions throughout Mason County,
projects the land requirements to the year 2014, and determines how that growth should be
accommodated, given the goals and policies developed in the plan.
The lands of Mason County, which are within the jurisdiction of the County have been divided
into three categories of performance districts. These are urban growth areas, resource lands, and
rural lands.
Mason Co. S M Plan 2A,1 1998
The urban growth areas which are designated in Mason County include the City of Shelton, with
a portion of its surrounding area, and the unincorporated community in Belfair. These
communities currently support a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, civic, and public uses.
Within Shelton and Belfair, residential uses provide a variety of housing choices including medium
to high density single family and multifamily. Commercial development includes retail and other
business uses. Industrial uses include light and heavy industry, production, manufacturing, and
resource-based uses. In addition, a broad range of civic and public facilities such as schools,
churches, libraries, parks, courts, and City and County government exist ,within these
communities.
Rural lands are divided into several classifications. These classifications identify performance
districts through which rural growth will be managed. These districts include: Rural Activity
Centers, Rural Community Centers, Working Rural Areas, Resource Conservation Master Plan,
Fully Contained Community and Rural Area (subject to future amendment)..
The Rural Activity Centers include Allyn, Union, Hoodsport, and Kamilche/Taylor Towne. Rural
Community Centers include Mason/Benson; Matlock, Lilliwaup, Tahuya, Grapeview, Potlatch,
Dayton, and the Skokomish Valley areas.
Table 2.1A Mason County Land Use/Percentage of Total County Acreage
Land Use Total Acreasge Percen
Residential 17,298 3.78%
RURAL/VACANT 67,902 14.85%
Commercial 2,671 .58%
Industrial 439 .10%
Agriculture/ 8,277 1.81%
Aquaculture
Forestry 344,517 75.35
Mineral 36 .01%
Extraction
Transportation 2,177 .48%
Utilities 1,177 .42%
Tax Exempt 12,024 2.62%
Total 456,518 100.00%
The planning instrument that controls land use in Mason County is the Comprehensive Plan and
Development Regulations. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Solid Waste Management
Plan and points out that it has to be reviewed and updated at least once every five years. It also
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-2 1998
points out that the Solid Waste Plan lists specific recoulmendations for implementing and
evaluating solid,waste management efforts.
The,Development Regulations provide a framework for the development of land in Mason County;
and to assure that such development occurs in such a way that it protects private property. rights
and existing-land uses while also protecting natural resources, promoting economic growth and
assuring the compatibility of proposed land uses with existing ones. For example, wrecking yards
and buy-back recycling centers are only allowed inside an Urban Growth Area (City of Shelton
and Belfair).
In 1950 Mason County's population was 15,022, only slightly more than.one third of the County's
population in 1994. By 1970, Mason Counjy's population had grown to 20,918. During the
e e
970's both e unty en
the fastest rates of population increase in recent
1 th Co and th State xpericed
history. The County's rose by an average rate of 4.1% annually, totaling an increase of 49%.
At the end of the decade the population had increased by 10,266 people bringing the total
pop.ulation to 31,184. The rate of population growth slowed somewhat during the eighties.
Between 19 80 and 1990, the.County,s population grew by an average annual rate of 2.1%
amounting to a ten ye.ar increase of 23% and a total population of 38,241.
According to the Office of Fiscal Management figures, the actual County population as of April
1, 1994, was 44,300, which represents an increase of 15.5 percent of an increase average of 3.7%
annually since 1990. During the 1990s Mason County has ranked fifth in the State in.population
growth rate. One thing that must be considered when looldng at the County Is current growth is
that the current average annual growth rate (3.7%)-is not much lower than,the record 4.1% rate
of growth experienced in the 1970's, when the County's population grew by 49%.
If the current growth rate. aintains constant through the year 2014, the County's population can
be estimated to approximate.65,277 people.
Most of the growth that has occurred in the county from 1990 to 1994 has been located in the
unincorporated areas of the County, which is not surprising since the City of Shelton is the only�
established incorporated area thus far.
rnng within the Shelton city limits has varied
The percentage of County population growth occu.
considerably over the past four years, ranging from a high of 4.4% between. 1990 and 1991 to a
low of 1.5% between 1991 and 1992. Between 1992 and 1993 the percentage of total population
growth increased substantially over the previous year to 3.9% and then decreased again slightly
between 1993 and 1994 to 3.1
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-3 1998
Table 2.2A MASON COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS-COUNTYWIDE GROWTH
BY INCORPORATED/UNINCORPORATED STATUS 1990-1994
POPULATION
.1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Incorporated 7,241 7,310 7,330 7,396 7,440
(Shelton).
Un-incorporated 31,000 32,590 33,870 35,504 36,860
County 38,241 39,900 41,2010 42,900 44,300
PERCENT OF TOTAL GROWTH
90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94
Incorporated 4.4 1.5 3.9 3.1
(Shelton)
Un-incorporated 95.6 98.5 96.1 96.9
County 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management
Mason County experiences seasonal fluctuations in population. Although seasonal residents
are not included in the County's population statistics, they must be considered since there is a
definite increase in demand for certain types of capital facilities during the summer months
when seasonal population is high and tourism is at its peak. These seasonal increases in
population will have a number of long term impacts on the County, particularly along the
County's'waterfront areas. These increases will continue to place increased demands on
County services. Those services, which are designed to accommodate the average and peak-.
demands of the resident populations, are often under severe stress during seasonal population
peaks.
According to PUD #1 and #3 billing records, roughly 30% of County utilities customers are
seasonal. Using this indication of seasonal population, the County's population increases by
30% during the summer months. This seasonal population tends to be concentrated along the
County's waterfront. Thus, in 1994, the population increased from 44,300 people in the off
season, to 57,590 during the height of the season.
The future land use plan proposes four Urban Growth areas (UGA), three Rural Activity
Centers (RAN), and several Rural Community Centers (RCC). The proposed UGA's include
the City of Shelton, the community of Belfair, the urban portion of the Working Rural Area
(WRA) and the new Fully Contained Community (FCC). The proposed Rural Activity
Centers include the communities of Allyn, Union, Kamilche/Taylor Towne and Hoodsport.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 2A-4 1998
N COUNTYS L E MANAGEMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 1A INTRODUCTION
®1 INTRODUCTION
in 1991 and 1992 Mason County took the steps necessary to comply with the.Federal and State
solid waste regulations that had changed substantially over the previous ten years. These new
regulations required, among other things, increased monitoring and testing at solid waste disposal
sites, provisions for reserve accounts for closure, and an emphasis on waste reduction and
recycling. While the requirements of some of e new regulations were adequately handled by
the n County Health Department in itsmonitoring, g enforcement role, other
mandates of the legislature required that policy issues be addressed through the solid waste
management plan.
One such policy issue included a long-term approach to solid waste disposal consistent with the
priorities established� y the State (refer to Section 1.2.1). . Other policy issues included the
identification of waste reduction/recycling goals and programs, and an evaluation of potential
Lindfih siting. document was developed to provide decision makers in Mason County with
the guidelines needed to Implement, monitor and evaluate future solid waste activities within e
context of a*defined set of goals and policies. This update is in, accordance with R.C.W.
70.95.110 which requires that a Plan be reviewed and revised every five years.
The Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan, (referred to hereafter as the Plan) adopted in
May 1992, was intended to be an update of the preceding 1971 Solid Waste Management Plan.
However, substantial changes in the solid waste system in Mason County and the solid waste
regulations require.that more investigation and planning be performed than that necessary for an
update. Therefore, that document represented a new Plan that was developed.to reflect new
regulations, priorities, and goals. The 1992 Plan uses the former plan for historical information,
as appropriate. This update is being prepared to reflect a continuation of the recommendations
and goals agreed to in 1992.
The basic format of the Plan and this update follows those recommended in the Washington
Department of Ecology's (Ecology) State Solid Waste Planning Guidelines March 1990) as
revised per R.C.W. 70.95 (1989) and the Waste Not Washington" Act. This amendment is
intended to meet the requirements of the March 1990 guidelines.
This introductory chapter provides information on the forces and participating elements behind
the Plan--legislative mandate, goals and policies, Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and the
planning process. In addition, the planning history is reviewed and procedural issues identified.
The second chapter describes the background or context in which solid waste activities occur. The
areas covered include: population and land use, geology, and waste stream analysis.
Mason Co. SWM Plan IA-1 1998
Chapters 3A through 9A, each address various solid waste handling systems.
3.0 Waste Reduction and Recycling
4.0 Energy Recovery/Incineration
5.0 Refuse Collection
6.0 Transfer and Import/Export
7.0 Landfilling and Storage/Treatment
8.0 Enforcement and Administration
9.0 Special Waste Streams
Each system is described in terms of the current level of service. provided; the needs and .
opportunities for improvement; a discussion and evaluation of altematives identified to resolve
needs and address established goals; the recommendations for implementation; and a schedule
and cost summary for implementing the recommendations.
1.2 PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY OF THE PLAN
In 1971, "A Comprehensive Plan for Solid Waste Management" was prepared as the planning
guideline for solid waste handling.,activities in the County. This document was developed:in
response to the Solid Waste Management Recovery and Recycling Act, Chapter 70.95 of the
Revised Code of Washington (R.C.W.) (1969), which states that:
"Each county within the state, in cooperation with the various cities
located within such county, shall prepare a coordinated,
comprehensive solid waste management plan" (R.C.W. 70.95.080).
The 1971 plan satisfied this requirement. The Solid Waste Management Act goes further to state
that the plan must be maintained in a current condition through periodic review and updating, if
necessary, at least once every five years (R.C.W. 70.95.110). This 1991 Plan fulfills the
requirement for updating and incorporates the most current (1989) revisions to R.C.W. 70.95.
The legal requirement as codified in Chapter 70.95 R.C.W. is the primary regulatory driving
force behind development of a solid waste management plan or plan update. Associated
regulations are included in Chapter 173-304 WAC (1988) and guidance is provided in the State
Solid Waste Planning Guidelines (Ecology, March�1990).
In addition to regulatory requirements, a secondary, and equally compelling, motivator for plan
development is the local (multi-County, County and municipal) need for a coordinated,
comprehensive solid waste program based on established goals and policies. The solid waste
management plan is intended to be the planning tool for the management of solid waste activities
in the plan area for a twenty-year planning period, with updates and amendments every five years.
It provides local decision makers with a context for evaluating proposed programs, facilities or
policies which directly or indirectly impact any element of the solid waste system. County goals
Mason Co. SWM Plan IA-2 1998
and policies provide the local framework for the development of Plan recommendations which,
in turn, provide the following:
® Guidelines for decision makers to develop programs, policy, and operating plans
® A basis for permitting decisions by the Mason County Health Department. and
other local government agencies,
® The support needed to obtain is and funds for capital projects.
e remainder of Section 1.2 discusses the legal requirements and local goals and policies which
provide the initiative and the inspiration for the development of the Mason County Solid Waste
Management Plan.
wire ents
In 1984, the Washington State Legislature amended the Solid Waste Management Act (Chapter
70.95 .C. .) to address issues relev t to the development of solid waste management plans.
Further revision was made in 1989.
Solid Waste Management Priorities
In 1984, the Washington State Legislature established priorities for.solid waste management.
These priorities were revised in 1989 under ESBB 1671 and R.C.W. 70.95, to the following in
order of descending importance:
1. Waste reduction,
2. Waste recycling with source separation as the preferred method,
3: Energy recovery, incineration or landfill of separated waste,
4. Energy recovery, incineration or landfill of mixed waste,
Although some waste will always require disposal through landfilling, the focus of the revised
priorities is on reduction of the waste stream followed by source separated recycling. Landfilhng
and incineration options are given equal status. Under the new priorities,the solid waste system
should be viewed as a whole, with an emphasis in reducing the waste stream that must be
disposed.
The State priorities are addressed in the Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan through the
goals and policies established for preparation of the Plan (discussed in Section 1.2.2) and through
the planning process or sequence itself. The higher priorities of waste reduction and recycling are
evaluated and recommendations made for implementation prior to examining the needs and
developing recommendations for the lower priorities, i.e., energy very and landf g•
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
e Solid Waste Management Reduction and Recycling Act (R.C. . 70.95.165) specifies the
formation, membership, and role of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAG). The
1998
Mason Co. 4SWM flan IA-3
participation of a SWAG in the development of the Plan and its composition is discussed in
Section 1.4.2 of the Plan.
Planning Requirements
The State Solid Waste Planning Guidelines (Ecology, March.1990) provide direction for the
development of solid waste management plans. Specific requirements to be contained in such
plans are listed in R.C.W. 70.95.090.
This document is intended to meet all current requirements as outlined in the March 1990 Solid
Waste Planning Guidelines and the 1989 version of R.C.W. 70.95.
1.2,2 Solid Waste Goals and Policies
A list of issues were included in the 1992 Plan that identified some of the basic overall needs
within the solid waste system as it existed. The overview of the system helped to determine some
basic goals and policies that needed to be reevaluated or established. The following issues have
been identified:
1. Solid waste disposal needs for the planning period must be met; programs should
be consistent with the St�te's priorities with emphasis on waste reduction and
recycling; associated costs should.be minimized while maintauung an acceptable
level of environmental protection consistent with the environmental.goals and
regulations of the County, State and'Federal government.
2. The institutional and organizational structure,under which the solid waste system
operates needs to be evaluated for.its ability to manage solid waste disposal issues
at hand, tnlnimi�P disposal costs and adverse environmental impacts of solid waste
handling/processing activities, and address the priorities established.by the State
Legislature. •
The first issue deals with the need to provide adequate, cost-effective and environmentally sound
solid waste handling services. In 1993, the previously existing landfill was closed as required by
the Department of Ecology. It was replaced with a transfer station which provides both the
general public and commercial users the opportunity to dispose of their respective solid waste.
The establishment of a replacement landfill is no longer considered a major issue. Future solid
waste disposal and handling needs are being met by transporting it to an•out-of-county site.
In addition, Mason County has established a system of waste reduction and recycling which is
being monitored by staff to determine methods of i�provement.
With regard to the second issue, the,solid waste management system in Mason County has
evaluated the existing program on a yearly basis. At the present time adequate resources are
available to manage the increasingly complex issues in the County. It is felt that over the.next few
years there would not be a need for additional staff unless steps are taken to construct a new drop
box station or transfer station. Cost and staffing would need to be evaluated at that time.
Mason Go. SWM Plan IA-4 l998
Based on these two identified issues,- six overall goals were established to provide the direction
for development of the 1992 Plan:
In recognition of the priorities set forth by the Washington State Legislature in
R.C.W. 70.95.010, it shall be the goal of the Mason County Solid Waste
Management Plan to implement, to the fullest extent possible and in descending
order of priority, solid waste management processes that reduce-the waste stream,
promote recycling, and minimize the amount of land required for future disposal.
To develop a solid waste program that promotes and maintains a high,level of
public'health and safety; and which protects the natural and human environment
of Mason County.
To promote input and ensure the representation. of the public in the planning
process.
To develop economically responsible means of solid waste management that
recognize the cost and need for environmental protection and service to the citizens
of the.County.
To promote the use of private industry expertise to carry Out the-Components Of
the Solid Waste Management Plan. This-does not mandate the use of private
industry, nor does it preclude the involvement of Mason County in implementing
the Plan.
To be consistent with all existing resource management plans.
This update proposes to continue with the.dire.ction established in the 1992 Plan.
1,3 SOLED WASTE PLANNING HISTORY IN MASON COUNTY
The legislation requiring the development of County comprehensive solid waste management plans
was enacted M* 'R.C.W. 70.95.0.80 in 1969. The'1971 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan was prepared by Mason County in response to this legislation.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1A-5 1
998
1.3.1 The 1971 Comprehensive Plan for Solid Waste Management
In 1971, "A Comprehensive Plan for Solid Waste Management was prepared for the'Board of
Mason County Commissioners and the City of Shelton as the planning gui
deline for solid waste
handling activities in Mason County. The objective of the 1971 plan was to develop a program
that was:
"...based on a thorough and realistic evaluation of all aspects of
solid waste generation, storage, collection, reduction and disposal.
The program must be capable of being implemented. The program
should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to changed conditions and
new techniques that may occur or evolve."
1.3.2 Status of 1971 ReconLmendations
The major points of the 1971 plan have been implemented in Mason County, with some minor
variations.
Closure of the six Mason County dumps occurred as recommended in the 1971 plan. In addition,
one sanitary landfill was established for solid waste disposal in the County. However the landfill
was not sited near Rex Lake but at the old Septage damp near the Airport and the Corrections
Center. No grant was obtained to study anaerobic digestion and this alternative was not pursued
further.
Three drop,box station sites were established in the county: Belfair, Hoodsport and Union. These
facilities serve public self-haulers only and are equipped with 40 cy drop boxes.
Mandatory collection-was not made law in Washington State and was not implemented in Mason
County. Refuse collection has remained as recommended by the plan. The City of Shelton
collects City waste, Mason County Garbage and LeMay Enterprises collect from the
unincorporated county.
1.4 CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS IN MASON COUNTY
Preparation of the 1992 Mason County Solid Waste Management Plan Update was initiated under
the direction and guidance of the Mason County Department of General Services and the Solid
Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). In August 1990, responsibility for solid waste management
shifted from the Department of General Services to the Mason County Department of Public
Works, and in August, 1991, to the Department of Community Development. As a result, final
administration tasks associated with this Plan were performed by the Department of Community
Development as is this amendment.
The role and membership of the SWAC is discussed in Section 1.4.2. The remaining sections of
this chapter describe the role of local government, the process of plan development, the approval
and adoption process and the protocol for future plan revision and possible amendment.
Mason Co. SWM Plan IA-6 1998
1.4.1 Role of Local (" vern_men
Under State law, municipalities located within a county may fulfill their solid waste management
planning responsibilities in one of three ways;
1. Prepare its own solid waste management plan for integration into the
comprehensive County plan; or
2. Participate with the County in preparing a joint City-County plan for solid waste
management, or A
3. Authorize e County to prepare a plan for the City's solid waste management for
inclusion ` the comprehensive County plan.
The City of Shelton is the only municipality in Mason.County• They have agreed to have the
County prepare a joint City-County plan for solid waste management.
Municipalities and the County must adopt the completed ugh a formal adoption process.
Both formal and informal communications and meetings were conduc uring'the preparation
of the son County Solid Waste Management P to obtaininput d i ce from the City
prior to completing a draft for final review and adoption.
Resolutions passed by the City of Shelton adopting the Plan will be hereto when available.
Implementation of the Plan may require interlocal agreements between Shelton and the County.
These agreements will reference the Plan.
1. .2 Role of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
A key element of the public participation program required as part of the planning process is the
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). 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 SWAC organized for Mason County's solid waste planning
effort was established through an advertised request for participants and includes individuals
representing various interests in solid waste issues.
The Mason County SWAC had representation from local government, private industry and
citizens/public interest groups. Current SWAC membership is shown on Table 1.1A.
Mason Co. ,SWM Plan IA-7 1998
Table 1.1 SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Membe Affiliation
Luther and Linda Pittman PRO Mason County
Gerry Hodge Citizen
Rick Fredrickson Mason County Garbage
Richard Read Citizen
Jim Park Skokomish Tribe
Janet O'Connor Citizen
Earl Campbell LeMay Enterprises
Don Melnick Citizen
OPEN POSITION
Staff
Tom Moore Project Manager County
Toni Clement Recycling Coordinator,City/County
Gary Yando Director of Community Development
1.4.3 Relationship to Other Plans
The Solid Waste Management Plan must be viewed in the context.of the overall planning process
within all jurisdictions in the County. As such, it must function in conjunction with various other
plans, planning policy documents, and studies which deal with related matters. Included among
these are the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Hazardous Waste Plan..
1.4.4 Plan Development
The process of plan.development has involved the following major steps:
1) Preparation of the Amended Document
2) Review by SWAC ,
3) Prepare complete draft Plan
4) "-Review by SWAC
5) Complete SEPA documentation and review
6) Review by public, municipalities,*County including Public Hearing
7) Incorporate Public Comments into draft Plan
8) Submit draft.Plan to Ecology
9) Address Ecology Comments and resubmit to Ecology
10) Obtain resolutions of adoption from municipalities and County
11) Submit final Plan to Ecology
12) Implementation
The SWAC participated in plan amendment by 1) reviewing draft chapters, 2) providing input and
comment on all issues covered by the Plan, 3) acting as a liaison to their constituency and 4)
assisting in public involvement programs.
Mason Co. SWM Plan /A-8 1998
Additional o.pportunities exist to reduce the waste stream through rate structure changes,
commercial education and assistance programs, public agency procurement policies, on-site
comp.osting programs, and waste exchanges. These potential programs are discussed in the
following section.
Issues raised regarding waste reduction programs are listed below.
ISSUE: What State or Federal waste reduction programs are available for County and City
support? What level of effort is the County and City willing to expend to support
and promote State or Federal programs?
The following section entitled Alternatives and Evaluation will discuss alternatives that the City
or County could take to resolve'the stated issues and meet goals. Resolution of these issues will
provide solid waste management with a direction for implementation.
3.2. ltpruiatiy and Byaluatian
Th6 Solid Waste Management Guidelines developed in March 1990 includes a list of waste
reduction programs -.both local'and State or Federal - for evaluation and priQritization. This list
wasp to the SWAC for their input and prioritization in preparation of the 1992 plan. The
list was also presented as part of this update. A discussion of the alternatives, their feasibility
wi on County and their assigned priority by the SWAC, the Director. of Development
thin Mas
Services for the City of Shelton and the Department of Community Development in Mason
County follows.
Program tions: A brief discussion of each of the program options included in the new
guidelines follows.:
a) Public awareness education - This option focuses on encouraging consumers to utilize
secondhand, rental and repair businesses and bulk buying. The Department of Ecology
has developed a comprehensive statewide public information program designed to
encourage 'waste reduction and recycling. This provides the foundation for local
information and education programs.
Specific waste reduction topics included in public education, both in schools and for
adults, include:
Home composting
General problem awareness
Reuse and Repair vs. Disposal
Home practices to minimize waste
Product ratings and good purchasing habits
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-5 1998
To be effective, a public education and information program would require ongoing
coordination between public agencies, schools, businesses, and the general public. These
types of programs are most effectively implemented by a staff person that can dedicate a
significant portion of time to the effort. For this reason a Recycling Coordinator has been
retained by the City of Shelton and Mason County. Additional discussion of education
programs is contained in Section 3.8.
b) School curricula - The "A-Way with Waste" program is currently in use in every school
throughout Mason County, however success of this program, requires .continued
coordination and commitment of school officials and the Recycling Coordinator.
Presentations on worm bins, composting,recycling, and other related topics are available
to all schools free of charge from the Shelton/Mason County recycling program.
c) Commercial, retail, and indusuial'education, and/or technical assistance -Waste reduction
practices in business and industry may be accomplished by changing purchasing policies
or modifying production processes to produce less waste. For some industries, technical
advice and education programs.may be available through trade associations or from the
Waste Reduction and Recycling Office of the Department of Ecology.
Waste Audits are a form of education aimed at industry. Waste audits identify purchasing
patterns, processes, and the final waste stream. They can offer an environmental and
technical evaluation of the business with recommendations about how to reduce both the
volume and toxicity of waste. The focus of such a program would present business people
with possible waste reduction and recycling methods appropriate for their situation. A
commercial waste-reduction program is being adapted.from the Business Waste Reduction
and Recycling.Handbook developed by the King County Solid Waste Division. If program
funding is available, modification and implementation of the program is expected to occur
in 1998. Currently, the Recycling Coordinator responds to business inquiries for technical
assistance and Mason County Garbage and Recycling provides free commercial waste
audits for customers. Waste Audits could also be coordinated through the Chamber of
Commerce.
d) Variable garbage can rates (Rate Structure-Chan - An additional alternative to support
waste reduction and recycling would be through rate structure changes. Garbage collection
rates could be structured to reward customers for their waste reduction and recycling
efforts.
Currently collection rates in the unincorporated County are determined by the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). Garbage collection rates in
unincorporated areas as set by the WUTC are cost based, the rate charged reflecting the
cost of the service. This means the rate for single can service is not much less than for
two or three cans because the cost to pickup an additional can is low. This type of rate
structure encourages waste generation.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-6 1998
A rate structure change would increase the rate for two or more cans and reduce the single
can rate. The to revenue of this type of arrangement must be the same for the collection
co y to m ain its I fair profit as determined by the WUTC. 'Recent amendments to
mpanainL
RCW 81.77 require all collection services to use to structures that support the state solid
waste management priorities, which place waste reduction as the first priority. Further
discussion of this alternative is contained in Chapter 5.
In the City of Shelton, a biweekly program has influenced approximately 26% of the city
customers to participate. Mason County Garbag.e and Recycling offers both biweekly and
monthly service options to all county customers in an effort to encourage recycling while
decreasing waste generatlon. -Me County and City follow the requirements of RCW 91.77
which requires to structures that support state solid waste management priorities which
focus on reduction. lbe,City and County may study the economic long to viability and
public demand of waste reduction practices and forecast how the program will evolve to
meet future needs.
s for durallbiUl 'rsal,ility recycled
ices in
Waste reduction policies and practices could be implemented in public off
the City and County. Methods of waste reduction could be developed and implemented
Which.would alter the way.employees use materials and resources at a small cost. A
memorandum could be-developed for circulation which outlines possible ideas and requests
additional staff input to develop additional programs. Awards or recognition of innovative
ideas could be given by department.
Possible waste reduction programs could consist of employee.education, increased use of
nic mail, increased double-sided copying and printing,
scrap paper, increased use of electronic
cloth towels or electric hand dryers in restrooms,-increased use of.recycled paper and
recyclable-paper, purchasing foods in glass containers) avoiding non-recyclable packaging
and repair or reuse procedures. Policies could be adopted for City and County offices.
Local government procurement policies could also be used as a basis for.general standards
which could be developed and distributed to local residences, and businesses on request.
County or City leadership in an fin-house" program could provide an example to others.
f) On-site composting - Individuals composting yard waste in their backyard is an effective
method of waste reduction. The amount of composting that occurs in the County is
unknown. However, yard waste appears to be a relatively small segment of the Mason
County, waste stream. It may be assumed that many residents already compost or dump
yard waste in remote areas of the County. Although an education program may assist
these groups to produce a more useable material, additional reduction of the waste stream
from such a program may be small.
An on-site composting program supports to .al residents and business in developing their
own "backyard" compost project. This type of program goes beyond typical forms Of
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A®7 1998
education such as pamphlets. A demonstration composting site has been established at the
Mason County Fairgrounds for conducting hands-on composting classes. The Recycling
Coordinator and the Washington State University Agricultural Extension Service are
available to answer composting questions. The County is not considering a large scale
compost facility at this time, however, this alternative may be revisited in the future.
g) Product or pmduct pact aein vro ibitions (after July 1 19 ) - Packaging materials which
cannot be recycled or reused could be prohibited on a local level. Although the impact of
such an action by a small county may not be substantial, combining such a prohibition with
other counties could impact manufacturers and retailers.
h) Container product or packaging depo i s (a r ily 1 19931 -Deposits could also be
placed on materials such as glass-and plastic.bottles at a local level. Such a program
would require support and cooperation of retailers in the area..
i) Product use and reuse standards.- In a similar fashion to option e), standards could be
developed that focus on use and reuse. Standards may include ways-to extend the'use of
materials and methods to reuse materials once the period of usefulness is past.
j) . FncouragPmen of state and/or federagr�ms -In addition to the acquisition of a
recycling staff person, the City and County can support-State and/or Federal programs
through resolution. The State guidelines-for solid waste management plans also include
a list of potential State or Federal program options which could be targeted:
Container, product, or packaging deposit legislation
Tax incentives
Product or product packaging prohibitions
• Warranties on durable goods
Product labeling for recycled content and recyclability
Standardized packaging
Product use and reuse standards
Variable can rate structures
k) Waste exchanges - The County could assist in material reuse by offering a method of
collecting and giving out data on reusable items available throughout the County. A waste
exchange system could.be computer or file card based. When a person needs some
material they would contact the County and ask if the desired item is available. - The
County could access its database and inform the inquirer that the material is available and
who to contact.
The success of a waste exchange is dependent on how well it is managed and promoted.
Advertisements in local newspapers and flyers would be required to keep the waste
exchange visible. The type of material and listing time should be restricted to prevent
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-8 1998
ove rburdening the system. .With good promotion a waste exchange may be an effective
waste reduction measure.
Mason County is participating in a pilot waste exchange program n y the
Department of Ecology with Thurston and Pierce counties and the Energy Outreach
Center. It is an on-line pro gram the Reusable Building, Materials Exchange
available free of charge through the inteet. It is anticipated that the outcome of this pilot
project will aid in shaping the future of waste exchanges in Mason County.
1) Ire houses pro = - These programs could be conducted at County and City offices as an
"example" to other businesses in the region. The programs.could consist of employee
education,-increased use of scrap r, increased use of electronic mail, increased double-
sided copying and printing, cloth towels or electric - ers in restrooms and increased
use of recycled paper and.recyclable paper.
in) Awards and other fo s of public o i .io - An awards program could be developed
through the County or City for groups which are leaders in waste reduction. Awards could
take the form of plaques or newspaper coverage. addition, recent legislation added to
RCW 70.95 creates an awards program for school recycling. Awards will.be granted each
year to the schools that achieve the greatest level of waste reduction and recycling.
Awards take plation, distance to markets and other criteriainto consideration.
SWAC members considered and prioritized each of the programs in the context of Mason County.
The SWAC recognized all programs as having value. While it was agreed that effort should be
focused on top priorities, it was also felt that lower priorities could be addressed as time and
funding permit.
The-top priority was given to public awareness education and school curricula. Interest was also
shown in in-house programs for City and County agencies and businesses, encouragement of State
and/or Federal programs; on-site composting and rate structure changes. State and Federal
programs such as product labeling for recycled content and recyclability was given the widest
support while programs such as deposit legislation, product and packaging prohibitions,
standardized packaging and product use and reuse standards were also given support.
SUE: What State or Federal waste reduction programs are available for County and
City support? What level of effort is the County and City willing to expend
to support and promote State or Federal programs?
State or Federal waste reduction. programs were listed under, item j) above. .The programs
generally would be implemented through legislation aimed at manufacturers. Among the SWAC
and City and County staff, the highest priority programs were product labeling for recycled
content and recyclability followed by deposit legislation, product and packaging prohibitions,
standardized pac g° g and product use and reuse standards. A program at state and
federal programs could focus on these options.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
As stated, the County and City may take an active or passive role in supporting these programs:
support through resolution or acquisition of a staff person actively involved in contacting agencies
and lobbying legislators.
suthrough Resolution: The County and City could take indirect action to support State and
Federal programs by assuming a position on waste reduction and supporting that position with a
resolution. Such a resolution passed by the respective County or City Council would make a
statement in support of waste reduction legislation to elected officials. This resolution together
with other such resolutions could provide additional impetus to legislators to support and sponsor.
waste reduction legislation.
Cost of this alternative would be negligible and require no additional staff to implement.
Lobbying Legislators. This alternative would involve work with State and Federal agencies,
monitoring solid waste legislation, lobbying legislators and possibly drafting proposed.legislation.
Responsibility for these tasks on a.State and Federal level could be assigned to one individual on
a part-time or full-time basis. This individual could also be responsible for working with other
Washington state Counties to promote solid waste issues.
The lobbying alternative is more costly than the indirect resolution and would require additional
staff.to implement. A major commitment to waste reduction would be.required on the part of the
City or County to make this alternative effective.
Table 3.lA provides a comparison between supported waste reduction alternatives and evaluates
each on the basis of:
Applicability - Where would the alternative apply and who could implement it?
Level of Reduction - What level of waste reduction can be expected with this alternative
if implemented?
Staff Requirements - What are staffing requirements for County or .City government?
Annual Cost - What would the program cost if implemented?
Target Audience - Who would the program be aimed at?
3.2.4 Recommendations
Currently, the City has adopted a procurement policy for paper. It could be extended to other
materials in the future. The County may adopt procurement policies with reasonable economic
choices. Discussions with County and City employees indicate a limited staff and budget to
implement new programs. Also employees indicate the desire to focus on limited programs with
expansion to additional sophisticated programs as public participation increases. A great deal of
interest was shown by SWAC members in public education for schools, adults, businesses and
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-10 1998
govemment. In particular, expansion and support of the existing school program was given top
priority. Other waste reduction programs were viewed as valuable (i.e. rate structure changes,
in-house programs). While the broader spec of waste reduction programs were not given
s i c priority it was agreed that they should be implemented as funding allows.
Mason Co. SWM !Pare 3A-11 1998
� a
o
U c�
Uri UU L7P�. rriC7 v5C7
u
00
C') O
o a o Z o
z cts oo � '� o0 00 o0
00 o0 0 � °' o
U �
� �
C/1 6M9 �
W
r�N09
O
N fV
.-- d N a `�
►ii N
ti
z M
A A G�
a
Ucda a
mod' a V W Z Z o
o
M ,
6f3
rA
00 U �O AO �O � O 0 O0 ON
d �>" ��1 �Cd1 O sCd c�
� W
W
o
4d 4-4
0
aL o bn
U o
C�3 U 0
0
'D
Recommendation 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 education program should continue to focus on waste
reduction practices and to 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.
Recommendation 3.1 was given top priority, however Recommendations 3.2through 3.5 are not
listed according to any particular priority.
Recommendation 3.2. The County and the City should continue to support waste
reduction by adopting resolutions of support for waste reduction practices and.forward
these to state and national senators and representatives. This resolution could address:
future legislation, changes to existing legislation, packaging or labeling requirements,
material deposits, market development or other topics.
Recommendation 3.3. In*addition*to the bi-weekly waste pick-up service that was
implemented in conjunction with the City curbside recycling program, additional
incentives and alternative rate structures Supporting Waste reduction could be considered.
Recommendation 3.4. Mason County should continue to seek waste collection rate
I structure programs that support waste reduction in the County (Refer to Chapter 5).
Recommendation 3.5. The County and City need to take the steps necessary to expand
in-house waste reduction programs. Providing.assistance to County and City businesses
to implement such programs should also be considered.
Recommendation 3.6. Consideration should be given to other waste reduction programs
and implemented as necessary and feasible.
In.order to provide feedback for waste reduction efforts, some form of program measurement
must be implemented-. The Department of Community Development will maintain annual records
of waste quantities collected at the Mason County solid waste facility and transfer stations, and
recyclable materials collected through the County Drop Box program for evaluation. In addition,
evaluation of individual programs.ms may be accomplished as part of an overall public feedback
program. The feedback program. is discussed in Section 3.8.3 and Recommendation 3.18.
The SWAC and County staff recognized the difficulty of assigning specific target percentages to
rams are developed and feedback collected, such
waste reduction programs at this time. As programs
targets may be considered and included in the next Plan update.
1998
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-13
3.3 URBAN AND RURAL DESIGNATION
Under the new solid waste planning guidelines, local governments are. to develop criteria for
designating urban and rural areas within the County. Minimum service levels are required for
urban and rural areas and these are to be taken into account when developing recycling programs
for the Plan.
Methods of developing urban and rural designations can vary widely. Zoning or land-use plans
may provide the basis for such designations as well as population densities, solid,waste franchise
or collection areas,incorporated areas and "common sense".
Consideration was given to these possible criteria in the case of Mason County. The County is
typically;<hural with a population of 47,900 in 1997. The County includes only one incorporated
area, the.City of Shelton,.although the Belfair area has some relative population density.
Additional .developments exist around the County with small localized population densities.
Refuse collection in the unincorporated County is through two franchised haulers - Mason County
Garbage and Harold LeMay Enterprises Inc..d/b/a Rural Garbage Service. The City of Shelton
operates its own refuse collection service.
The guidelines for development of Solid Waste Management Plans '(WDOE 90-11), contain six
tests for evaluation of urban and rural area. boundaries. The following tests are applied in
determining the designation of Mason County:
i) Appears to meet the criteria selected by local government, including-any performance
levels that have been set
ii) Consistency with other urban and rural designations made �, o h r p-to-date plans or set.
service levels in the area.
iii) Ther&rcentagQ of=elation that would be designated urban is essentially the Sam-
after modification of the boundaries to form logical service areas.
iv) Service areas fit logi ccaaUy other city/county s rbaee.
v) Rural "islands" in urban areas (and vice versa) are minimized.
vi) Common.sense.
The SWAC'discussed designating the City of Shelton as urban and the unincorporated County as
rural. This designation made sense because of the higher relative population densities within the
City and the existence of the City's collection service.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-14 1998
e City of Shelton, Mason County and SWAC have dete ` ied that for the purposes of this plan
the urban and rural designations included in both the City's'comprehensive plan and County's
comprehensive plan shall be applicable.
e designation criteria as well as the urban and rural boundaries will be discussed and possibly
revised by both the City and County as part of the Growth Management Act process. Future Solid
Waste Management Plan amendments will show these revisions.
3.4 DESIGNATION OF RECYCL �I+;MATERIALS
3.4.1 clahle Materials
The potential recyclables and their percentage of the total waste included in the following
discussion, were taken from Best Management Practices, Vol: I, WDOE 1992. These'percentages
do.n9t take into account ose materials y being recycled. market discussion is as of
Fall 1997.
Paper.p ucts such. as mixed waste paper (8.2.%), newsprint ( .0%), corrugated containers
. %) and high grade paper (0.4%) contribute a significant portion. of the wastes .
Currently, the City collectsnewsprint, mixed waste paper, and corrugated cardboard through the
curbside program. The County drop box program collects newsprint and corrugated containers
at all eleven recycling sites and mixed paper at two sites. Markets for paper are low and unstable.,
Recycling paper products would.not be expected to support itself and would require subsidizing.
Glass (4.6%), metals (5.6%) and aluminum (0.6%) represent a smaller portion of the waste
stream. These materials, like papers are easily recognizable to the public as recyclables.
Inclusion in the designated recyclable list would continue the program established. Local markets
are typically stable for both ferrous and non-ferrous metals. .
Two types.of plastics are currently recycled through the County drop boxes and at the EFI buy-
back center in Mason County - PET (0.4%)'and HDPE (0.7%). These materials are less
recognizable to the public. They make up a small portion of the waste stream. However plastics
recycling is generally supported because of the life of plastic in a landfill. Markets are potentially
strong for these materials depending on.the success of collection programs. While plastic
packaging/film (3.4%) is a larger portion of the waste stream, its market is very unstable. The
cost of pilot recycling programs for this material has been high when collected in areas such as
Seattle.
According to the waste stream survey conducted by Ecology, yard waste, consisting of grass,
leaves and branches, makes up approximately (7.7%) of the waste stream. If this is true, an
effective program to remove this waste could have a substantial impact on the overall.waste
stream. Properly composted the material could provide a beneficial product to residents of Mason
County. However, Mason County employees believe the yard waste stream currently received
at the landfill is less than the volume predicted in the Ecology survey: This difference is attributed
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-15 1998
to the rural. nature of the County and the fact that residents have room to compost, pile or dump
yard waste on their property or in undeveloped areas. Stumps are not included as yard waste and
would be considered a wood waste.
Food waste (11.8%) could also be a candidate for composting. The problems associated with a
large scale food composting program such as odor, pests and the quality, usefulness and
marketability of the end product should be given consideration, however, small scale on-site food
waste composting techniques such as vermicomposting offer a viable alternative and should be
implemented.
White goods (0.1%) are currently broken down and sold for scrap at the Mason County solid
waste facility. .Collection of these materials for recycling would continue a successful program
as long as the market remains.
Demoli4on waste in Mason County is currently treated as municipal solid waste. At this time,
development of disposal alternatives are in their infancy. Some removal of reusable demolition
m
or other waste strea materials is discussed in Section 3.9. Biosolids are utilized in various land
application projects. Tires are collected'by private contractor for removal from the solid waste
facility. Used oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, antifreeze, and batteries are collected at the solid
waste facility for recycling.
To continue existing County and City programs the following materials are included on the list
of designated recyclables for Mason County:
newsprint,
• corrugated containers,
• high-grade paper,
• metals (ferrous and non-ferrous, tin cans),
• aluminum,
• glass, (brown,.green, and clear)
• PET and HDPE and
• white goods
• magazines
• used motor oil and filters
• milk cartons and juice boxes
• tires
• automotive batteries
• antifreeze
• mixed paper
There is a general support for centralized yard waste composting among County staff and the
SWAC. However, issues were identified regarding the environmental, economic and operational
feasibility of such a program. Specific issues included the following:
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-16 1998
The likelihood of creating leachate and impacting groundwater if a relatively
inexpensive, unsurfaced/uncontained operation is implemented.
The high cost of installing required impervious surfacing and leachate collection
and treatment programs that would protect groundwater.
Because of the drawbacks of large scale composting without groundwater protection and the
anticipated costs of implementing protection measures, yard waste is listed in the category of a
potential recyclable.
However, recognizing the value of compost, ason County will continue to evaluate options
available to promote a compost facility in the County. These options could include cooperative
efforts between public sector agencies-or providing technical support to a private sector operation.
Food waste composting was not viewed as a feasible program on the County level at this time.
The SWAC supported food waste composting as part of the on-site composting program discussed
in Section 3.2A.
The decision to include the potential materials in the list of designated recyclables will follow.the
procedure outlined in Section 3.4.3. . With collection Of the designated list of recyclables and
potential recyclables') the waste stream could be reduced up to 49% (Table 3.2A). However no
program can remove all recyclables and the actual reduction in the waste stream will be less than
this. Methods to-remove recyclables from the waste stream are discussed in Section 3.5.
Mason Co. SwM Plan 3A-17 1998
Table 3.2A RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
% of Waste
item West WGA
(by weight)
Newsprint 4.0
Corrugated Containers 7•3
High-grade paper 0.4
Metals 5.6
PET and HDPE 1.1
Glass 4.6
Aluminum 0.6
White Goods 0.1
Mixed Paper 7-.2
TOTAL 30.9%
Potential Recyclable
Yard Waste 7.7
Mixed Paper
TOTAL 50.4%
Based on rates from Best Management Practices, Vol_I (WDOE, 1992)
According to the most recent Department of Ecology Recycling survey, Mason County recycled
approximately 8,628.84 tons of materials in 1996. The amount of solid waste collected in 1996
was 24,878.70 tons. Based on this data, the total recycling rate for Mason County is 34.68%.
3.4.2 Markets and Market Risk
Compared to other parts of the nation, market conditions for recycled materials are favorable in
Washington State. Factors such as the existence of end-users in the region and export
opportunities to international markets have tended to support and stabilize local markets. However
continued growth of quantities collected through recycling programs and insufficient market
development are reflected in generally falling market prices. In general, long term market
stability is favorable although prices should be expected to fluctuate. Prices obtained for collected
recyclables may be increased if constant, reliable quantities of materials are collected.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-/8 1998
In their January 1990, Preliminary Report to the Legislature, the Washington Committee for
Recycling Markets discussed the current market conditions for the region. They state that markets
for newspaper, corrugated containers, glass, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and tin cans are, all
adequate to support consistent, gradual expansion in supply. Although they recognized the current
glut of newsprint, they believe that if planned regional mill capacity does come on line in the next
three years the excess supply will be mitigated.
Other findings of the committee include the following:
Mixed. waste paper has the potential to be recovered in much-greater quantities than at
present. However markets are very problematic given the low material value, the supply
glut potential and ongoing quality control concerns.
In general the current market for plastics is through,export. However domestic capacity
is beginning to expand with a focus on high-grade plastics. The committee believes the
mixed low grade plastic market to be underdeveloped,
he strength of these markets will depend
Compost markets must be developed local y. T
on the quality and public acceptance of the.compost product.
The quality of recycled material.influences the market and the price received. The better
the processing and cleanliness of the material the more dependable the buyer will be. With
tamin
increased quantities of collected materials however, levels of "con ation" are likely
to increase, reducing market value and demand.
Another issue concerns the comprehensive programs to increase collection Of recyclables
in Washington State and across the nation. Should market demand fall behind supply, it
may become necessary to dispose of materials at a high cost. As a. result, recycling would
lose support and credibility in the community.
1998
Mason Co. SWAT Plan 3A-19
Markets for recycled materials are typically found at buy-back centers, recycling brokers or area
processing centers. Currently there is one buy-back center in Mason County. Materials handled
by EFI include (prices as of September 1997):
Material Accepted . Price $/lb
News print donation
Corrugated donation
Aluminum Cans .27
Bulk Aluminum .15
Brass .15
Copper, All grades .20 to .40
Stainless steel .05
Lead .04
Radiators (automobile) .16
Since the original publication of this document, the recycling industry has grown to the point
where listing all known material brokers would be impractical. The Washington State Recycling
Association publishes a yearly directory which lists businesses by materials and activities.
No processing centers exist in Mason County. However, Pacific Disposal, Inc. owns and
operates Allstar Recycling, a 75.tpd processing center in Thurston County and U.S. Waste owns
and operates a 65 tpd processing.center called Peninsula Recycling in Kitsap County. Markets
for such materials as compost would have to be developed locally if an in-county program is
established. A regional compost program may serve a.larger regional market. Potential markets
for compost material are discussed in Section 3.7.
3.4.3 Modification to Designated Recyclables List
The list Hof designated recyclables was based on existing practices in Mason County and the
assumed feasibility of expansion of those practices. Future market conditions and technologies
may make some materials more or less desirable from a recycling standpoint. As this occurs the
list of recyclable materials will require updating.
A specific program for modifying the status of yard waste was given in Section 3.4.1. A more
general modification procedure follows for other recyclables.
Certain conditions should trigger reevaluation of the designated list of recyclables. Conditions that
would trigger inclusion of an additional item would be:
• Local markets and.brokers expand their list of accepted items based on new uses
for materials or technologies which increase demand.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-20 1998
New regional processing or demand for a given material occurs.
Conditions that would trigger deletion of an item would be:
Once collected no market can be found for a given item causing the material to
stockpile.
The designated conditions should trigger an evaluation of the feasibility of collecting a new
material, the expected stability of'the new market, and the cost of including the new material in
the designated list of yclables. On th� deletion side, the conditions should trigger an
rec
investigation of the reasons for the lack of market, possible to actions to revive the market and
an evaluation of the permanence of the depressed market condition.
Recommendations should be developed.'for presentation to local governments and advisory
committees.. With concurrence, the list would be revised. Any revision of the designated
recyclables list would be accompanied by some form of public infonnanon.
® . CDKed ion J9kth_Q&
Table 3.3A shows feasible methods for collection of each of the designated recyclables. Most of
the recyclables may be collected in any of the alternative methods while some, such as white
goods would be feasible for collection only at a central processing location.
Specific methods for collection are evaluated in Section 3.5 of this document. Section 3.5 will
include recommendations for specific methods to collect each designated recyclable material.
3.5 RES]]DENTL4,L RECYCLING PROGRAMS
The solid waste planning 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.
3.5.1 Existing Practices
Recycling prog sin anon County are con
tinuing to be developed, One buy back center
ram M
operates near Shelton, a curbside collection program in the City of Shelton has been in operation
for three years, and recycling drop boxes are located at eleven sites throughout Mason County.
Two private haulers are collecting cardboard, mixed paper, glass, tin, and aluminum cans from
businesses throughout the County. A few non-profit groups such as the Boy Scouts and Lions
Club, and a couple of small private businesses are collecting newspaper at various locations in
Mason County.
Mason I Co. SWM Plan 3A-21 1998
Buy Back Center
Exceptional Foresters Inc., (EFI) a non-profit organization, trains developmentally disabled
persons in the processing of recyclables at the only buy back center located in Mason County.
This center, started in 1979, is located in the Airport Industrial Park. Section 3.4 includes a list
of materials and prices accepted at the buy-back center. Recyclable material-is brought to the
center by County residents and organizations. It should be noted that buy back centers are not a
.permitted use in the areas of Mason County'designated 'rural'. Buy back recycling centers are,
only permitted within an.`urban growth area'.
TABLE 3 3A Recycling Methods for Recyclables
Buy-Back/ Self-Haul to
Method Curbside DMP_Box Central Lac
Recyclable Paper X . X
Newsprint X X X
Corrugated cunt X X X
Comp/Office Paper X
Mixed waste paper X
Glass X X
Aluminum Cans X X X
Tin Cans X X
Ferrous and X . X
Non Ferrous metals
Plastics X X X
PET/HDPE
Plastic Packaging
Yard Waste X X X
White Goods X
Tires X
Food X
Construction Debris X
Batteries X X
Waste Oil X
Adapted in part from: Best Management Practices Analysis for Solid Waste,
Executive Summary - Ecology 1992.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-22 1998
Curbside Recycling
The City of'Shelton has operated a residential single family curbside recycling program within the
City limits since September, 1994. The curbside program uses. diriae bins for collection;
commingled, newspaper, and mixed paper. Steel and aluminum cans an d glass bottles (clear,
brown, and green) comprise the commingled bin. The curbside program is mandatory at a cost.
of$4.00 per household per month. To accompany the curbside program, the City established'an
optional biweekly refuse collection program to help participants offset the cost of the recycling
35.5% with a monthly collection
program. The average participation rate is�I approximately
average of 24 tons.
Recycling at Solid Waste Facility and Transfer Stations
In addition to the Solid Waste Facility' Mason County operates three transfer stations. In 1993,
the County purchased collection con ersand placed them at the on County Solid Waste
Facility, in Matlock on County owned property, and the transfer.stations in'Belf air, Union, and
B M
Hoodsport. The containers in Union were relocated to the Union Pon cReavy and Dalby
Roads to provide increased access.
In 1995, the dfop box program expanded adding recycling stations at Taylor Towne, Bayshore
BP, Shelton Red Apple, and Port of Allyn. The containers were moved from Bayshore BP to
Johns Prairie Road to remedy contamination problems. During construction of a new building
at the Port of Allyn site, the containers were moved to Grapeview.
Since completion in 1997, new containers have been placed at the,Port of Allyn, allowing
containers to remain in Grapeview as well. A site was added to Bucks Prairie bringing the
number of drop box sites to eleven throughout the County.
Materials collected currently include:
Newspaper PET and HDPE plastics
Magazines Tetra pak - milk cartons and juice boxes
Corrugated cardboard Steel/Tin cans
Brown bags Aluminum cans
Glass: clear Mixed paper (Red Apple and Grapeview only)
brown
green
Used oil, oil-filters, transmission fluid, antifreeze, auto/household-batteries, scrap metal, tires,
and white goods are collected at the Mason County Solid Waste Facility and the Drop Stations in
Belfair, Union, Hoodsport.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-23 1998
Other Practices
Metal recycling occurs in the County at several auto wrecking yards. These businesses.accept most
types of metals including steel, copper, nickel, brass, titanium and specialty metals. Information
on the amount of material processed by these businesses is not available. Recycling by public
service groups is also a factor in Mason County. In the Belfair area., the Lions operate two
newspaper drop boxes.
3.5.2 Needs and Opportunities
Needs and opportunities for recycling are generated in this section in a similar manner to the waste
reduction section. The needs and opportunities are generated based on recycling goals contained
in the beginning of this section. As needs are generated, issues are raised whose solutions involve
selection of alternatives or policy decisions. Like Section 3.2.3 on waste reduction, issues are
presented-at the end of this section.
GOAL: To support private efforts in waste recycling in Mason County.
In general, recycling in Mason County depends on the efforts of private recyclers. EFI is the
major recycler in the County and is a non-profit organization. Recyclers of.this type must support
their programs with proceeds from recyclables, a fact that severely limits the programs and
convenience they can offer to the residents of Mason County.
Because of the limited value of the recyclables, expansion of.the current recycling'system.will
require infusion of capital from a source other than the sale of recyclables.* In many areas
recycling is supported at least in part by solid waste tipping fees or collection fees. The City of
Shelton Curbside Program is funded by a mandatory $4.00 monthly fee.
Currently all work related to solid waste is carried out by the Mason County.Community
Development staff and supported by solid waste tipping fees. However, as solid waste programs
and recycling programs become more complex, the existing tip fees and staff may not be sufficient
to support and coordinate programs with the recycling industry.
Issues related to support private recycling are listed at the end of this subsection. Discussion of
the second goal follows.
GOAL: To achieve an increase in waste recycling throughout Mason County.
In Mason County the opportunities for increased participation and new programs are very good.
One barrier to the implementation of increased recycling practices is the cost of new programs.
Currently, Ecology is offering grants for public agencies which would help offset program costs.
Mcu•on Co. SWM Plan 3A-24 1998
Another barrier is related to the rural nature of the County. Because the population is spread out,
it would be difficult and costly to provide a high level of recycling convenience to residents. This
may impact the potential quantity of recyclables collected.
Issues related to the recycling goals are listed below.
ISSUE: What form should County or City support of private recycling efforts e?
ISSUE: What are funding options?
ISSUE: How can progress be measured?
e following section entitled Alternatives and E Evaluation 'discusses directions that the City or
County could take to resolve issues and meet goals.
3.5.3lte aiv a R®alution
o'be successful, a recycling program should be designed to match the oppo pities and
limitations of the County and City. In.particular, e convenience of the system will
important contributor to its success as well as the extent to which the public is informed regarding
the program.
According to the new State guidelines, an ideal recycling collection program would "mirror°°
garbage collection. However such an ideal program may not be financially feasible in Mason
County. This section will discuss alternatives available to the City and County for elements of
recycling programs.
ISSUE® What form should County or City support of private recycling efforts take?
Achieving the goals listed for recycling will require coordination between the City, County and
private recyclers in the area. Methods of communication between involved parties; including the
public will be crucial to the success of any expanded recycling program.
Specific alternatives for consideration include:
® Recycling and Waste Reduction Panel
® Education and Incentives
Recycling and Waite Reduction Panel. Under this alternative a panel of private industry
representatives, City and County representatives, business people, the general public and other
interested parties, including SWAC members could be established. This panel could be
established a sub-committee to the SWAC if needed, to focus particularly on recycling issues.
Mason Co. aSWM Plans. 3A-25 1998
The panel could provide input to the SWAC on waste reduction and recycling issues and later to
the City and County during implementation of the Plan. .Industry representatives could provide
feedback on programs and additional needs. Other interested parties could also provide feedback
and ideas for additional programs. Overall the panel would help develop preferred alternatives
and would be allowed to provide input to decision makers as part of setting solid waste policy.
County or City staff involvement would be necessary.to keep meetings focused and to provide
information on proposed alternatives. The cost of this alternative would be small if existing staff
were available to participate. The City of Shelton used this method successfully in the firm of a
City Recycling Task.Force. This group assisted the Recycling Coordinator in developing and
implementing the City curbside program.
Education and Incentives. Education can greatly increase participation in recycling programs by
increasing public understanding and appreciation of the problems associated with solid waste.
Since effective waste management involves close coordination between the County, the public,
collection services, and recyclers, it is essential to include public education in a recycling plan.
The benefits of recycling, and how to. recycle are primary elements in the education program.
Education programs are further discussed in Section 3.8.
To motivate people to recycle, incentives must be provided. The most obvious type of incentive
is financial. But other incentives include peer pressure, environmental awareness, and community
pride.
ISSUE: What are funding options?
Recycling is not self supporting. Studies and.actual pilot recycling programs show that the
collection of recyclable materials is not a profitable enterprise because of the low value of the
materials collected. Refer to Section 3.4.2 for local buy-back prices. In order to establish and
maintain a recycling program large enough to have an impact on the waste stream a funding
commitment must be made. Funding can occur through several means.
The County can impose a recycling surcharge to its tipping fee at the solid waste facility. The
money generated through this surcharge can be diverted to support recycling programs throughout
the County. This system has the advantage of flexibility. If increased funding of recycling
programs is necessary, the surcharge can be increased. Or if recycling becomes more profitable
and less County funding is necessary, then the surcharge can be reduced accordingly or profits can
be donated to non-profit organizations.
Another option is for the County to contract for collection of recyclables. Counties can select
collection companies, set rates and regulate their own collection of recyclables. One way of
implementing this option would be to assign the refuse collection company the task of recyclable
materials collection. The cost of the service could then be passed through to the public via.their
garbage bills.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-26 1998
Lastly, funding for design and implementation of recycling programs is available from Ecology.
Grant funding may cover program planning, design and implementation costs.
Iss UE_ How can progress be measured?
The "classic" alternatives for recycling programs assume recyclables are source separated by the
resident. These alternatives include: drop boxes, buy-back centers, and curbside collection. . Each
is discussed below.
Progress for any program is an important element for measurement. Not only for the program
as a whole but for given regions and individual facilities. In.this way.adjustment and refinement
of the programs can be made. Measurement of quantities collected and processed would be
included for all alternatives.
Drop boxes are the most common method of recycling.in the United States today.
boxes that accept newsprint, glass, cans and
Commercial areas are typical sites for drop
.occasionally yard waste and plastics. These facilities generally provide no monetary benefit
directly to the resident. Some proceeds may result from the-sale of recyclables to-larger markets..
However, these proceeds are not expected to cover the cost of collection. Proceeds are used to
cover a portion'of the collection cost or they could be donated to non-profit groups.
Many'factors contribute to the success of drop box recycling activity. The following factors must
be considered in maintaining a drop box program:
Who will provide the service, and how will it be paid for.
Where should the boxes be located, such that the.y are convenient and secure.
What materials will be accepted and how will the material be segregated.
How will boxes be protected against vandalism and theft.
The facility must be attractive, maintained and accessible by vehicle.
Residents mustI be educated to locations of drop boxes and proper recycling
procedures.
Each factor listed above must be considered as well as the costs vs. benefits of the program.
Drop box locations must be con.venient and in areas with high traffic and visibility. This not only
encourages participation but discourages vandalism and trash, disposal in the drop boxes.
Indications are that a drop box system can be very effective in increasing recycling if an adequate
number of boxes are provided and are located at convenient locations. Drop boxes have been
installed at the Mason County solid waste facility, transfer stations and other locations based on
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-27 1998
population density, distance to the nearest drop box station and existing traffic. Such a drop box
system would be geared toward County residents since City residents have mandatory collection
and would be less likely to frequent the solid waste facility and transfer stations.
In addition to transfer stations, other good locations for drop boxes include grocery stores,
shopping centers, fire and police stations. Locations should be readily accessible, lighted and'kept
free from debris. The drop boxes should be conspicuously painted and kept in good condition.
Drop box stations can be made to accept as many different materials as desired. Instructions are
posted on the drop box explaining how to prepare materials prior to their.deposit. At regular
intervals, drop boxes are emptied, and the area around the box cleaned to maintain a neat and
orderly appearance.
Equipment used.to haul boxes or recyclables'is costly and may range from $701000 to $120,000.
The cost of hauling equipment has been mitigated by contracting with a private hauler for
recyclable material collection and transport.
Buy Back Center. Materials are separated by homeowners and businesses and delivered to the
buy back center. Based on the capacity of the existing buy-back center, if it is economically
feasible for them to do so, M can absorb a'significant increase in the supply of recyclable
materials from Mason County.
However buy-back centers are generally a relatively ineffective method for reducing the waste
stream because of the low level of convenience and resulting low participation rate. Because the
centers are attended, they are more costly to operate than drop off.stations. This added expense
generally leads to one centrally located facility.
Residents located at some distance from the facility may not be able. to cover the cost of
transportation to the center with revenues from recyclables. However, some people like to see
some compensation for their trouble and for these people buy back centers serve a useful function.
Curbside Collection. In the City of Shelton, curbside collection of recyclables is currently
performed by a separate contractor. .Recyclable materials are separated by the homeowner and
placed at the curb in bins separate from other household refuse. The material is collected at
regular advertised intervals by a collection truck specially designed for the purpose. The material
is then delivered to a processing center.
The revenue generated by a curbside collection program will not cover program costs. To support
such a program, residents are required to pay a fixed fee per household for curbside collection
service.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-28 1998
Recycling program success is measured, in part, by the
Mandaw yeaus.-Yoluntw-N&s,�- anda
participation rate, or the percentage of households that participate in the program. M tory
programs have generally higher participation rates than voluntary programs. A typical
participation to fora mandatory program may be 75%'and.for a voluntary program, 30%.
part Th
However some voluntary programs experience 50% or more icipation. e County could
possibly ban recyclable materials from the waste stream. This would require the haulers to make
rules about recyclable material'in the garbage. Alternatively the County can pass an ordinance
requiring source separation of recyclables and work with the garbage haulers-to enforce the
ordinance.
Enforcement of mandatory programs can be difficult. Typically the hauler enforces the program
by noting when cans contain recyclable materials. A warning is sent out for First violations, and
fines or extra fees can be penalties for continued violations.
aintain high participation rates. The key to a
Voluntary recycling programs require effort to in i
successful voluntary recycling program is public education and promotion. Generally people are
willing to recycle if it'is convenient. Increasing people's knowledge of recycling methods and
making sure they know how-and where to take recyclables can help keep the participation rate
high.* Promotion of recycling must be a continual process.
L.ack of enforcement or promotion can lead to failure of the program whether a recycling program
is mandatory or.voluntary. In some communities with mandatory recycling) participation rates
have fallen below 30% use of lack of enforcement. The results of the pilot curbside program
in Shelton bear.out the importance of continual program promotion. The initially high rate of
participation decreased significantly over time without promotion. Refer to section 3.5.1 for
discussion of Existing Conditions.
Work with Non-profit Organizations. Non profit organizations such as Boy Scouts, Lions,
Kiwanis, VFW, and Churches routinely conduct recycling drives to raise money. The County can
take advantage of this by recruiting members of these organizations to assist in recycling projects.
Currently, cooperative agreements exist between the County and organizations which.collect and
sell material to fund community and scholarship programs. The County can assist this effort in
many ways including education and information.
3.5.4 Recomniemdxdm
In order to meet the, goal of increased recycling in Mason County, the existing recycling
framework must bee and promoted. To be successful, expanded recycling programs will.
require attention and support from local government.
Discussion with County and City employees indicate a continued interest and commitment to
recycling programs.I Th.is interest was echoed by the members of the SAC. Public education
continues to be seen as a necessary element for successful program maintenance.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-29 1998
Existing programs such as curbside service in Shelton, drop boxes throughout the County, and
local buy-back center are viewed as important elements of the recycling system.
Recommendation 3.7. Current interlocal agreement between the City and County should
be maintained to control program.costs and continue program coordination.
Recommendation 3.8. Public Education should continue to be a primary element of
program maintenance in the City and County. Education associated with recycling
programs should be focused on improving and expanding participation as well as
generating feedback from the public.
Recommendation 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.
Recommendation 3.10. Additional drop box stations should be established as needed.
Other locations for future consideration should include: shopping areas, fire and police
stations, and Skokomish tribal lands. The County should encourage program participation
from the privato sector.
Recommendation 3a1. The City of Shelton should evaluate its curbside.program to
establish program effectiveness and direction for future expansion. The City should
encourage program participation from the private sector.
Recommendation 3.12. The County should encourage market development for designated
and potentially designated recyclable materials.
Mason County staff recognize that the anticipated 34.68% recovery rate does not meet the state's
goal of 50%. It is the County'.s intention to evaluate program cost and effectiveness and modify
existing program as feasible. The intent of any additional programs would be to increase recycling
rates toward the state's 50% goal.
The guidelines include five criteria for evaluation of the recycling program. Each is discussed
here in terms of the current and recommended program.
a) Household collect-ion; or a fixed recycling c titer for every 5,000 to 10,000 population at
convenient locations including solid waste facilities. Under recommendation 3.10, the
County has established drop box stations at the solid waste facilities and other locations
throughout the County. Given the County population of 35,000 to 40,000, there is a
recycling center for every 3,200 to 3,700 people. The recommendation further includes
consideration of additional centers to increase convenience.
b) Materials collected consistent with plan list or process to develQpAlie list, All materials
may be collected through recommended methods.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-30 1998
C) Consistent with-local 121an gQa1s. The recommended program is consistent with the stated
goals of supporting existing recyclers and increasing waste recycling in the County. The
plan is also consistent with interim growth management planning within the County.
d) waste diversion potential ¢rom_jyp gram_ij_u1ammized based on local waste stream
charadtdstics and markets, Based on markets and existing recycled materials the list of
designated recyclables has included all materials currently accepted at the local buy-back
center. Quantities of recyclables collected could potentially be increased with increased
use of curbside collection programs. This type program will continue to be evaluated in
Shelton and may be expanded into other areas.in the future.
e) Designed to achieve edbmiance dyWcb is c=12ambh-, to existing 12rogmms. The
recommended program is designed to strengthen existing program,s so that performance
can exceed existing programs.
3.6 NONRESEDENTIAL WASTE STREAM MONrrORING/COM%1ERCL4L
RECYCLING PROGRAMS
The nonresidential wastes in Mason County is comprised of waste from small businesses,
restaurants and grocery stores, and waste from larger industry. The majority of waste from small
anies; and hauled to the. on County solid
businesses is collected by commercial collection comp
waste fkcifity. Waste generated by other industry may be self-hauled to the on,County solid
waste ficility or'handled. through.company owned and operated special waste landfills (i.e. .
'Simpson Timber Company)_
.This section will focus on nonresidential waste hauled to the County solid waste facility. Special
waste streams such as industrial waste are addressed in Chapter 9A of this document.
3.6.1 Nonresidential to Stream Manitffing
Nonresidential MSW is hauled by two *collection companies.in the County: Mason County
Garbage and Rural Garbage Service (LeMay Inc.). Quantities of nonresidential MSW collected
by 'each of the collection companies in 1996 is listed in Table 3.AA. Each of the services
maintains-records for nonresidential waste, thereby allowing ongoing monitoring of quantities
collected.
Collection of nonresidential MSW in the City of Shelton is performed by the City. ' The City
collects combined commercial and residential waste making it impossible to identify quantities of
commercial waste from the total waste stream. However, a tally of the number of accounts the
City serves and the bmi size provides some indication of the yardage collected. As of September
1997, the City had 377 commercial accounts with quantities of refuse collected per week ranging
from 90 to 1200 gallons.
In addition to collection services, some businesses haul their waste directly to the solid waste
facility. Mason County has accounts with over 50 of these haulers. The largest of these accounts
is with the Simpson Timber Company which hauls mixed wood waste and refuse to the solid waste
facility.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-31 1998
Table 3 4A 1996 NON-RESIIDENTIAL WASTE QUANTITIES
Collected By Amount Collected Description
City of Shelton 26,063.31 cy* Compacted
Mason Co. Garbage 1,784.23 tons Loose
Rural Garbage Service 5,515.20 tons Compacted
Simpson 5,240 cy. Loose
* City of Shelton quantities based on number of accounts multiplied by refuse container capacity.
Monitoring of non-residential waste in the unincorporated County will be conducted annually.
To monitor this waste stream the County would contact collection companies to obtain estimated
quantities of nonresidential waste hauled. In some cases, the County may have to enter into an
interlocaI.agreement with Ecology in order to obtain this information. In addition, the County
maintains-,records of waste disposed by individual companies. These accounts would be included
in the tabulation if they exceed 2000 cy (loose). Currently Simpson is the only account which
exceeds this level and would be included in the tabulation: Other companies would be added as
their waste stream becomes significant.
The City of Shelton nonresidential waste stream would be annually monitored through the number
Of.accounts and size of refuse container used. While this method would be too rough to_indicate
effects of waste reduction or recycling, it.could indicate growing or shrinking levels of business
within the City limits.
3.6.2 Commercial Recycling Programs
Currently the County and City of Shelton have no plans to initiate a recycling program for
nonresidential waste generators beyond those education programs described in Section 3.2 and
3.8. However both collection companies in Mason County are:currently providing recycling
opportunities to commercial customers.
EFT, Mason County Garbage, Pacific Disposal currently make up the list of recyclers and haulers
who now offer, or could potentially offer, recycling services to the non-residential
sector in Mason County. Mason County could establish a list of such.services and make it
available to businesses and industry. The availability of this list could be promoted through the
commercial education process. The list would also be promoted as a service to recyclers to inform
City and County businesses regarding the availabili of recycling services. By providing such
a service, recyclers would be encouraged to inform th County of their service, thereby updating
the list.
1998
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-32
3.6.3 RePuMendadM
The following recommendations were generated from discussion in the previous section.
Recommendation 3.13. The County and City of Shelton should continue to.perform an
annual tabulation of the source and quantities of nonresidential waste generated in Mason
County.
Recommendatio.it 3.14. The County and City Of Shelton should continue to support and
encourage private efforts to collect recyclables from non-residential sources* A list of non-
residential recycling services should be compiled, updated and be made available to
County and City businesses and industry.
3.7 YARD WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAW
Yard waste is one of the potentially recyclable materials as identified in.Section.3.4. Yardwaste
consists-of grass, leaves and branches but doeg:not.include stumps. This.section of the plan win,
discuss the feasibility of.potential yard waste composting programs as well,as collection. methods
for the material.
3.7.1 itions
Currently yard waste is not collected for compost in. on County. Conversations with County
tal
employees indicate that yard waste continues to be a relatively small segment of the to waste
stream. This is attributed to the rural nature of the County. Some residents may be composting
material on-site or dumping yard waste in remote areas of the'
County. It is estimated that up to
20% of residents maybe doing some form of backyard composting.
The County also indicates that the yard waste received contains a high proportion.of branches and
other material which would require, chipping prior to composting.
3.7.2 Needs and ppoijunities
Although yard waste is an easily identifiable material with a local benefit once composted it was
included as a potential recyclable because of the unresolved issues discussed.in Section 3.4.1.
Should the County elect to proceed with a compost program the following needs would have to
be met.
It is.a new program in the County and would require organization, education and
promotion.
Composting facilities would be required.
Markets for the composted material would be required.
3.7.3 Alternatives
Waste composting can be an effective tool in reducing the solid waste stream. Programs include
both backyard composting (discussed in Section 3.2) and larger scale county-wide programs.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-33 1998
Organization, Education and Promotion. Much of the market development strategy could be
implemented through educational programs. Residents could be informed of. the 'compost
program, the types of waste accepted, the availability of the finished compost and locations where
compost could be obtained. Mailings and media opportunities could be used to distribute this
information.
Private individuals could be encouraged to'separate yard waste through rate incentives. For
example, the compost operator could accept yard waste free of charge, or charge less than a
transfer station or solid waste facility for disposal. Alternatively, individuals who separate their
yard waste from their garbage could receive a credit slip.that entitles them to free or discounted
compost. Local jurisdictions could also issue a "diversion credit" based on the estimated value
of diverting a unit of waste from the solid waste facility. These diversion credits could be
redeemed for cash or used to discount monthly refuse collection fees.
A disposal ban is an additional method of increasing-the level of recycling through yard waste
composting. A disposal ban would prohibit yard waste from being delivered to the transfer'
stations or solid waste facility. .A flow control ordinance could require that all yard waste must
be delivered to designated composting facilities.
Fa ili y Alternatives: The available techniques for yard waste composting can be classed in three
groups - minimum, low-level and high level technology. The site requirements, length of
processing time, labor and machinery demands, and costs are different for each technology level,
but the end product is essentially the same. The following is a description of the three basic'
technologies for composting yard waste:'
Minimal Technology: In this technology, yard waste is formed into long piles (windrows)
about 12 ft high and 24 ft wide. The piles are turned infrequently, perhaps once every 2-3
months. Without frequent turning the piles become anaerobic, therefore decomposition
is slow, taking up to 18 months to produce a ready-to-use material.
I ow Level Technology: This method produces compost more rapidly than the minimum
technology. The yard waste is initially formed into smaller windrows, and water is added
to achieve.a moisture content of 50% The windrows are combined into larger piles after
the first burst,of microbial activity, and periodically turned. The compost should be ready
for use in eight to twelve months. More frequent turning can be employed to accelerate
the compost process.
• High-Level Technology: This method is designed to achieve complete composting within
forced
6 months. It involves aeration of the windrows during the first stage of composting
by temperature controlled blowers. The piles\are then turned mechanically to maintain a
high rate of composting. A nitrogen source may be added to increase decomposition. The
final product may be screened to produce a uniform particle size, which can improve
marketability.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-34 1998
Site requirements for yard waste composting depend upon the amount of waste processed and the
degree of technology. In general, the longer it takes for yard,waste to decompose, the more.land
area needed to accommodate equal a-mount of material. A moderate program in Mason County
could utilize existing equipment and staff for turning windrows and require addition of a chipper
ranging from $50,000 to $150,000.
In addition, new regulations could require liner and leachate collection and treatment systems
further adding to the cost of a program. However, if implemented together with a solid waste
-landfill, treatment costs could be shared. Under current regulations. composting could be
moderateIV eXD=IVe. but if successful could significantly reduce the volume of waste requiring
lafillin ndi. �' comp,osting operation in "on County could range from $20 to $40 per ton to
construct and operate in addition to purchase of a chipper or tub grinder. The Mason County
Department of Public Works currently owns a chipper that could be used for small composting
events but is inadequate fora County compost facility.
Either the County or a private company could implement a yard waste program.. Alternatively,
a regional proc"essing operation could be developed with neighboring counties.
The alternatives for yard waste collection include establishing a drop-off system or implementing
separate curbside, collection. In a drop-off system, residents would take bagged or loose yard
waste directly to a composting facility, existing solid waste facilities or:sites set up expressly to
collect yard waste.
Currently transfer stations do not-accept yard materials such as branches because of their light,
bulky nature. Collection of these materials in (Imp boxes may be most efficient if the material
is chipped prior to=nsport. However, because of the fire hazard, caution should be used when
collecting yard wastes in drop,boxes.
The drop-off system would be similar to the recommended collection methods for other types of
recyclables in.the County. This type system would add approximately $3-5/ton to the cost of the
compost operation, assuming vehicles are already available through other r recycling programs.
Added costs would cover drop.boxes and their collection.
A separate curbside system would collect yard waste directly from the waste generator. A
curbside program would be more efficient than the drop-off system, but at.much-greater cost. -The
Best Management practices, Vol]E[I estimates the cost to collect yard waste at curbside in an urban
area at $60/ton. Costs expected in Mason county could be greater than this due to reduced
quantities of yard waste collected. Costs would also increase if additional equipment were
required.
Market DeyelQpnimL Markets do exist for composted yard waste, although they require extensive
effort to develop. Any such program must include product testing,.demonstration projects, and
intensive marketing campaigns. This is frequently beyond the capabilities of a small governmental
staff.
Development of markets for the composted product will be key in the success of the compost
project. Some potential users of the finished compost product which could be targeted in market
development include:
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-35 1998
Department of Community Development for maintenance of landfill cover
Public agencies for park maintenance, road and highway projects
Landscaping businesses and nurseries
Homeowners
Businesses involved in land reclamation projects.
The quality of the compost and the size of the local or regional market will determine the best
marketing strategy.. Businesses targeted as potential markets could receive "in-person" visits to
promote the'composted material. Some communities have found that, at least in the early stages
of yard waste composting, it was not possible to charge for the product, and so revenues were not
generated. However, yard waste composting could still be cost effective if'collection and
processing costs,are less than disposal costs.
3.7.4 F,valuation
If a drop'box system were implemented, cost for yard waste collection and transport'would range
between+$3 and $5/ton. For curbside collection, collection and transport would be in the range
of$60-$100/ton. Processing, assuming low-technology with an added grinder would amount to
.$20-$40/ton. Total expected cost for the yard waste system would be expected to range from $23-
$45/ton for drop boxes and$80-$140/ton for curbside. For comparison purposes, current landfill
tip fees are $63 per ton.
Collection of yard waste through drop boxes would be cost effective for the County relative to the
landfill tip fee. Use of drop boxes would be similar to the recommended methods for recyclable
collection. In addition a significant.quantity of waste in the rural County is self-hauled to transfer
stations and the solid waste facility. Receptacles for yard waste at these solid waste facilities
would best serve these customers.
Issues remain for the collection of yard waste through drop boxes. Attention should be given to
avoiding a fire hazard. Also drop boxes with yard waste may not be efficient to haul prior to
chipping due to the bulky nature of some materials. A mobile chipper could be used so that larger
more efficient loads could be hauled to the composting location. The County may wish to limit
tipping i9cations for yard waste.
Curbside collection of yard waste could be tested in pilot curbside recyclable collection programs.
However the cost of such an operation when projected over the expected small quantity collected
would be very high. In addition, no market exists for,composted yard waste. This market would
have to be developed and may simply consist of a giyeaway program.
3.7.5 Recornmendations
Although the SWAC and County staff supported development of a yard waste compost program,
concern was expressed over remaining issues and the small quantities of yard waste brought to the
landfill. Also a chipper was identified as necessary for the program to utilize a larger portion of
the yard waste. The County should proceed with steps outlined in Section 3.4.1 before a decision
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-36 1998
to implement yard waste composting is made. If a yard waste program is implemented, collection
of yard waste through drop boxes was preferred over curb side.collection.
Recommendation 3.15. A yard Waste compost Program should be evaluated. If a
program is feasible, collection of yard waste should be through drop boxes. Ifunfeasible,
an educational program promoting small scale on-site composting should be.implemented.
Additional opportunities and methods for collection and transfer should be evaluated.
The five criteria for evaluation of the recycling program are also used to evaluate the yard waste
program. Each is discussed here in to of the recornmended.action. However, since yard waste
composting is under consideration the folloi evaluation assume.s a potential program.
Jill
a) T_a:::fj xed =ydjill 1 i il-2!`�I I
to 10 nonulation at
conve 'ient lode ions including sold waste faci1_ities. The minimum collection of yard
waste at transfer stations and the landfill would satisfy this criteria.
b) rural , to nart'cipate. The minimum
program of drop-boxes would allow all residents to participate.
Yard waste is
c) Matedals lc=d consi;J[i 11; S:
included.as,a potential recyclable.
d) i goals. The recommended.program would be consistent with the
stated goal of increasing waste recycling in the County. The plan is also consistent with
interim growth management planning within the County.
e) Waste diversion potential from program is maxim 7Pd based onwaste-stmM
characteristics and markets. The County may initiate a program after further evaluation...
if'implemented, a yard waste program could maximize removal of yard waste from self-
haul waste streams. Additional Programs could then be evaluated to increase participation.
f) Designed to achieve performance which
Implementation of a yard waste program would exceed existing-programs.
3.8 Ej DUCATION PROGRAMS
Education programs will be critical to the success of the waste reduction and recycling Program,
in Mason County. As discussed in Section 3.2 of this chapter, education was identified as the
primary priority of the waste reduction program. Recommendations in that chapter involved
education programs in schools, adult education and programs aimed at businesses.
Currently the "A-Way with Waste" program is used in Shelton schools.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-37 1998
A significant effort will be required to devise and implement an education program in Mason
County. This section will expand on previous education discussion and discuss target audiences,
techniques, program costs and evaluation.
The following objectives were established specifically for education programs:
To educate and inform the public regarding waste reduction techniques.
To educate and inform the public regarding existing and planned methods for recycling.
To develop a sense of environmental responsibility in the public.
To inform the public regarding community progress and to gain feedback on agency
progress or needs.
3.8.1 Target Audiences
To increase the effectiveness of a particular educational technique it can be geared toward a
specific audience. For example, material for self-haulers could discuss new programs available
at the solid waste facilities. Material for collection.customers could focus on reduced rates for:
less frequent pickup, smaller cans or,fewer cans along with general recycling facility information.
The following,list contains some of the different groups which could be targeted in an education
program:
• City collection customers*
• Private collection company customers*
• Self-haulers*
• Children
• Gardeners
Apartment dwellers
Businesses/Industry*
• Christmas Tree Industry
Loggers
• Equipment Owners, Operators and Mechanics
• Construction Industry
* Primary Target Audiences
Methods to target a specific group vary. In some instances vehicles such as routine mailings
already exist, while methods to target other audiences would have to be developed.
Residents of the City of Shelton are required to subscribe to refuse and recycling collection. This
group could continue to be reached through routine utility billings.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-38 1998
Private collection company customers could be reached in a similar manner through the refuse
collection 'company. However such a pro.grain would require the agreement, support and
participation of the collection company.
Many County residents do not subscribe to refuse collection and self-haul their waste to the
transfer stations or the solid waste facility. Wlffle this group could not be reached through an
existing mailing, they could be effectively reached through materials distributed at the solid waste.
facility.
A program for children is currently in practice in Shelton schools and.could be expanded
throughout the County. Parents are also indirectly reached through their children.
coud b mla
Other groups could be also be reached. Materials for gardeners l e ade avai ble at
nurseries, hardware stores or garden clubs. Apartment dwellers could be targeted.through
industry could be targeted through the Chamber
apartment managers or owners: 1�usinesses and
of Commerce or the Economic Development Council,
As.agroup, adults could be targeted through community groups such as Kiwanis, Lions and
Church groups. Mass mailings could also be used at some expense ,
3.8.2
A multitude of options exist for public information and education. campaigns. The cost and
effectiveness of the programs vary widely. Many of the techniques have little cost for services
or materials. However all would a level
of effort from the County or City to pursue media
require
coverage, coordinate others and develop flyers, Wks, exhibits and other materials. An aggressive
education program would require a minimum of one part-time staff 'person to be successful.
Funding f6r education programs could be.included as part of the recycling program. Grants have
promotion in addition to recycling equipment,
been 'secured which will cover education and
however, continued,grant funding for these activities is,uncertain The cost of an education
program could also be included in the solid waste facility tip fee.
Responsibility for solid waste programs including. Department of Community De
waste reduction and recycling programs was
velopment in
shifted from the Department of Public Works to the
for implementing solid waste related programs
1997. The Director has specific responsibility
including education programs in the future. Refer to Chapter 8A for further discussion.
The following is a list of promotional techniques currently used for Mason County,s program.
TVand Radio - Radio and television announcements are effective in reaching a large audience.
Currently Ecology is using TV advertisements to support recycling. In addition, recycling
programs in populated areas such as King County and Seattle are generating media interest. These
programs also serve to inform Mason County residents at no cost to the County. TV coverage
Mas®n Co. 3WM Plan 3A-39 1998
specific to Mason County would be very expensive, an alternative could be to advertise over a
local cable channel.
Radio is an effective tool in Mason County. Recycling information could be presented in the form
of public service announcements, or interviews and broadcast over the local radio station at no
cost. Paid advertisements could also be used at greater cost.
Direct Mailings - Direct mailings are a flexible form of public.information. While mass mailings
may be expensive and limited in effectiveness, mailings to specific target groups may increase the
effectiveness and reduce the cost of this option. Mailings take advantage of.monthly utility
billings to reduce cost. Mailings in the City and County are coordinated with refuse collection
bills or utility bills.
Information prse ented in mailings could cover a series of topics. Recycling facilities, preparation
of materials for recycling, purchasing habits to support waste reduction, backyard composting,
public,"feedback" and recycling program progress are all topics which could-be included in the lk
direct mailings.
Presentations - Presentations are used to target volunteergroups, schools or church groups
interested in recycling programs. Presentations are made to those who request them. Also slide
shows, videos, and displays are made available to public and volunteer groups for presentations.
Exhibits - Exhibits currently used are mobile.. A permanent exhibit could beset up at public
buildings in the form of a demonstration project. A permanent exhibit could also carry a tally of
quantities collected for recycling and be displayed on a sign or billboard at drop box stations.
Materials necessary to develop an exhibit would have a minimal cost. Like.other education
methods the major cost would be in staff time to develop, set up and maintain the exhibit.
Door to door Canvassers Canvassers would be an intensive method.,
ethod of contacting the public and
informing them about recycling. This method might be best used to target the downtown Shelton
area. Volunteers could be used to reduce the cost of canvassing.
School Praram - School programs consist of classroom educational materials such as the "A-
Way with Waste" program currently used. The "A-Way with Waste" program can be obtained
free from Ecology, however this program requires effort to coordinate and maintain.
Contests/Awards/Prizes - Contests, awards and prizes could be geared toward schools, public
service groups or individuals. School award programs could be geared towards entire schools,
individual classrooms or individual students: Ecology and Weyerhaeuser both implement an
awards program for school recycling as discussed in Section 3.2.3.
Awards programs could also acknowledge community leaders or innovators in recycling. These
awards could be given by the mayor or commissioners to businesses, agencies or individuals who
make a significant contribution in recycling or waste reduction. Awards could take the form of
plaques or certificates.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-40 1998
All contests or awards could be implementedat little cost.
Signs could consist of permanent notices at recycling facilities and provide information
about methods for recycling and waste reduction. Signs could also keep a tally of material
recycled.
1yew,sp r- Local newspapers are used for advertisements, interviews, inserts and news stories
that pertain to recycling and waste reduction. Newspapers are informed regularly of developments
in the,recycling program to generate ongoing interest in the community. " Development of
recycling issues as "news topics" rather t a� advertisements would have little to no cost to the
County or City.
b i 'nvolvement o ms - Publicmeetings, advisory committees,"public workshops
are forums.to involve the public in a co unity project. These may used in ason
County, however ter success may achievedif these forums built and ameetings
of existing public or volunteer groups.
h1Wic Lnion Wy=-Public opinion swireys in the form of flyers could be used as part of the
waste reduction and recycling evaluation program. Surveys could be mailed or distributed at solid
waste facilities and request feedback on programs. opinion surveys could be routinely circulated
to obtain periodic-input from the public.
Feedback could also be obtained through telephone surveys. Telephone surveys would be useful
to obtain a random sampling of residents. The number of responses to a telephone survey could
be controlled whereas response to flyers may be limited.
Flyers and surveys would be a method of obtaining'direct feedback on the waste reduction,
recycling and education program. Indirect evaluation of the programs could be conducted by
examining the quantities of recyclables collected at each drop box location and the size of the
disposed waste stream. A tabulation of collected recyclables could be made on a monthly,
quarterly or annual basis.
3.8.3 Evaluation
To be effective a public education and information program will require ongoing coordination
between public agencies, schools, businesses, and the general public. Education programs have
been effectively implemented by a s person that can dedicate a significant portion of time to
the effort.
Difficulties involved with public education programs include the diversity of individuals targeted
to receive the information; the multiple programs that compete for public attention, and the
possibly high cost of'an effective program. The effectiveness of education programs is also
difficult to measure and hard to evaluate in terms of cost effectiveness.
1998
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-41
As listed in Section 3.8.2 there are many options for education programs. Ongoing evaluation
of the education program continues to be necessary to ensure that the most effective programs are
being used so that funds are not wasted.
Indirect evaluation is conducted through observation of quantities collected in each drop box
station, and the volume of the waste stream. This method would provide valuable information but
is difficult to use to evaluate specific education programs.
3.8.4 Recommendations
Recommendations addressing education have been included in previous sections of this chapter.
Recommendation 3.1 set education as a high priority in Mason County and the City of Shelton.
It was also Wcommended that support be given to the existing school program and that a form of
adult education be implemented. Recommendation 3.8 stated that public education should be
include",, each new recycling program.expansion:
After discussion of the methods of education available, the SWAC reiterated their support of
public education as a high priority. It was generally_felt that programs should be implemented as
practical and as funding and resources allow.
Recommendation 3.16. Continue public information and education program.should be
devised to target a broad spectrum of the City and County population. Specific attention
should continue to be devoted to school programs.
Recommendation 3.17. Evaluation of the waste reduction, recycling and education
programs should continue to be a routine part of the public information and education
program. Evaluation should include public feedback, a tally of the performance of
individual drop box stations, and a record of the waste stream.
3.9 PROCESSING OF lb1TKED WASTE FOR RECYCLASLES
Once source separation of recyclables has been.performed and waste is collected and disposed at
the solid-waste facility; further separation of recyclables and other items may occur through mixed
waste processing operations. These operations may be as formal as a mechanized mixed waste
processing system or as informal as a manual "dump and pick" operation. Items to be targeted
may also vary. Waste may be processed to separate almost all recyclables with the remainder
being formed into'a refuse derived fuel. Alternatively\a limited number of items may be targeted
for manual removal.
Interest was shown by the SWAC for a limited dump and pick operation: This operation would
target discarded materials which could be resold to the public in a type of permanent "rummage
sale". Materials such as discarded televisions, bicycles, tools and lumber scraps could be removed
from the waste stream, by solid waste facility personnel, for resale or giveaway. No salvaging
by the public would be allowed.
A4ason Co. SWM Plan 3A-42 1998
Issues involved in implementing this type program include the following:
Slaffimg: The operation would potentially require two staff Persons. One employee could be
required to staff the "resale area" and another could be required to remove materials from the
waste stream. -Depending on the hours of operation, the positions could utilize existing staff or
part-time staff.
Lomfim: A central location would be required for the operation. If.the "resale" area were made
part of the existing solid waste site, it would have to be separate from current solid waste
activities. Consideration could be given to a fenced area and a covered shelter for materials or
staff.
Materials removed from the wastes tream may be given away or sold at a low cost.
if materials are sold, consideration should be-given to the destination of the proceeds. Monies
am b
collected through this pro grain may be used to offset other recycling pro gr costs or may e
donated to non-profit groups in the County. Proceeds could also be used to promote the resale
program.
UarkrA: Removal of materials for resale would be a new program in Mason County and no
information on the likely demand or market for these mate rials'exists. However, a pilot program
could*be,initiated to test the quantities of materials that could be removed and their resale success. .
Liabili Issues of.liability and associated costs make it difficult10 establish a dump and pick
operation at the solid waste facility. A limited program is in place at this location and the transfer
stations that allow people to set aside useable items for reuse at no charge.
Recomm.endation 3.18. The County should consider implementation of a limited dump
and pick operation at the solid waste facility.
3.10 11"FLEMENTATION
An implementation schedule (Table 3.5A) and planning level budget (Table 3.6A) is developed
in this section for topics discussed in previous sections of this chapter.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-43 1998
Table 3.5A EUPLE lENTATION SCHEDULE - WASTE REDUCTION
AND RECYCLING
1998-2003
The County and City continue to explore funding opportunities in
coordination with private recyclers for both drop box and curbside
programs.
Draft and adopt waste reduction resolutions.
Coordination of teachers and resources to enhance and expand on-going
school reduction'and recycling program need to be continued by Recycling
Coordinator on behalf of both the City and County.
Coordination with City, County and private recyclers to expand current
recycling program.
Public information and education programs continue to be developed and
implemented.
A yard waste compost program may be developed and implemented. Drop
boxes could be established at the landfill and transfer stations for collection.
A yard waste compost program may be developed and implemented. Drop
boxes could be established at the solid waste facility.and drop box stations
for collection. Expand and enhance current on-site composting program.
Expansion of a City/County waste reduction program for use in public
offices.
Continue the waste reduction, recycling and education programs annually
and "fine time" programs to increase participation and effectiveness.
The yard waste compost program may be evaluated. Methods of obtaining
increased quantities of yard waste, markets or better quality compost could
be considered.
Additional.programs necessary to meet the 50% state recycling goal are
investigated. --
Mason Co. SWM Plan 3A-44 1998
Fable 3.6A L +NTATION COST Y*
® City/County Recycling Coordinator $30-40,000
® Coordination with private recyclers and $5,000 to
development of grant application. $10,000
® Development and adoption of waste reduction Little to
resolutions. No Cost
® Coordination and.expansion of on-going school $5,000 to
waste reduction and recycling program. $10,000
® Coordination with haulers to implement County $3,000 to
waste collection rate structure changes. $6,000
® Coordinate and implement new recycling $50-
and waste reduction programs. 300,000
$10-30,000
Annually
Coordinate and implement public information and $30-60,000
education programs. Annually
Implement County yard waste compost program. $100-250,000
$20-50,000
Annually
Develop in-house waste reduction program. $3,000-
$6,000
Annually
® Evaluation of waste reduction, recycling, $10-20,000
education and compost programs. Annually
* Costs indicated have been developed for planning purposes only.
Mason Cc,,, SWM Plan 3A-45 1998
MASON COUNTY SOLID WASTEAG PLAN
CHAPTER R A ENERGY RECOVERY/INCINERATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Regulations require stringent design of landfills. Costs have escalated to the point where it has
become almost impossible to construct one that meets acceptable standards. 'In 1992 the rising
costs and the increased difficulty in locating new landfill sites made volume reduction.techniques
such as energy recovery/ incineration viable options in some cases.
Energy Recovery/Incineration is also an element in solid waste management under state priorities.
The 1989 revisions to RCW 70.95 listed energy recovery and incineration of waste at the same
priority as landfilling. Higher.priority is given to energy recovery and landfilling of separated
waste than of mixed waste.
This chapter looks at the feasibility of burning garbage to produce energy (energy recovery) in
Mason County. It describes the.technology available for energy recovery systems, and makes
reoommendations on implementation of energy recovery in the short and long term. This chapter
recognizes the priority of energy recovery and incineration of separated.waste over mixed waste:
To consider energy recovery as required in the State planning guidelines.
Use energy recovery where feasible and cost effective to provide a balanced solid
waste management system.
4.2 EXISTING PRACTICES
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 energy recovery in the County.
4.3 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the solid waste system based on energy recovery goals
established in the beginning of this chapter. Through this evaluation, needs for the system will
be generated as well as any issues that require resolution or policy decisions.
GOAL: To consider energy recovery as required in the State planning guidelines.
Energy recovery is one possible component of an integrated solid waste system. As such it will
be evaluated to determine whether any economic or disposal benefits can be realized through an
energy recovery program in Mason County.
1998
A4(4vo n Co. .S WM Plan
4A-1
GOAL: Use energy recovery where feasible and cost effective to provide a balanced
solid waste management system.
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.
However, to determine the feasibility of energy recovery alternatives, background information will
be provided in this section regarding:
Criteria for determining future Waste to Energy needs
• The Impact of Energy Recovery on Waste Reduction and Recycling
•' The Impact of Energy Recovery on Landfilling
• A Summary of Combustion Technologies
Energy recovery alternatives particularly suited to Mason County are discussed in Section 4.4 of
this chapter.
4.3.1 Criteria for Determining Future Energy Recovery Needs
Energy Recovery is capital intensive and the need for it must be balanced against competing
programs and resources. The following considerations will determine,the feasibility of energy
recovery in Mason County.
• Evaluation of the costs, environmental impacts, and public acceptability of landfill
disposal versus energy recovery.
• The need to provide an environmentally safe, cost effective and reliable disposal
system.
• The desirability of recovering an energy source that is otherwise not available with
conventional municipal waste disposal methods.
• The availability of a stable end user for the energy produced, whether steam,
electricity, or hot water.
The real and perceived desirability of energy recovery over other waste
management tools by the citizens of Mason County.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
4A-2
Linder existing legislation, energy recovery is no longer given higher priority than landfilling but
is placed at the same priority. In considering energy recovery as a viable element of the solid
waste management system, Mason County must consider the risks and 'issues associated.with
energy recovery.
. .2 impacts of Energy very on aste eduction and ecvclin
The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) states in part that,
"...in determining the size of a waste-to-energy facility, adequate provision shall
be given to the present and reasonably anticipated future needs of the recycling and
resource recovery interests within the area encompassed by the planning process.
Ibis statement means that waste reduction and recycling will reduce the growth rate of the waste
stream, and this impact must be accounted for in sizing an energy recovery program.
Failure to account for waste reduction and recycling may result in oversizing a facility and having
to operate it at less than optimum capacity. Or worse yet,.require recycling levels be'reduced so
that an adequate waste stream can be provided to the energy recovery facility_ The latter problem
could occur if the County entered into an agreement with an operator of an energy recovery
facility to deliver a minimum waste flow.
Recycling and waste reduction could also change the heat content of the waste. If a
disproportionate amount of paper and cardboard recycling occurs the heat content may drop. If
more yard waste, glass, and metal recycling.occurs the heat content may increase. Studies have
shown however, that the overall impact on the ability of the waste to serve as a fuel should be
minimal. But this impact should be evaluated for each individual waste stream.
4.3.3 Impacts of Energy Recovery on Landfilling
Energy recovery can reduce reliance on landfilling by-reducing the amount of waste that must be
landfilled. Therefore, implementing energy recovery in Mason County could reduce the amount
of waste exported. However, implementing energy recovery does not mean that landfills will be
eliminated. An energy recovery facility does not operate 365 days per year. Periodic
maintenance and repairs must be made which may remove the incinerator from operation
approximately-20% of the time. More frequent shut down periods may be required during "start
up". While the facility is shutdown the waste that would have been burned must be landfilled.
Additionally, some waste is not suitable for burning. This material, called bypass waste, consists
of such items as noncombustible demolition material, appliances, and large tree stumps. This
material will still require a landfill for disposal. But, with energy recovery the landfill will have
reduced size requirements or will last longer. Therefore less area would be devoted to landfills
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
4A-3
over the long run. Bypass waste is typically 15 to 20.percent of the capacity of the waste-to-
energy facility depending on the waste stream composition.
Ash from an energy recovery facility must also be disposed. At the present time, ash-cannot be
co-disposed with MMSW. Therefore a separate ash fill (ash monofiIl) must be constructed. In the
short term this would be a burden because more than one landfill would need to be sited and built.
In the long term however, the total quantity of waste requiring disposal by landfill (including ash)
would be reduced.
One additional consideration is recovery of energy and resources through incineration. There are
many materials in the solid waste stream that have value either as recyclable or because of energy .
content. When this material is landfilled the resource is lost. Energy recovery in conjunction with
recycling extracts some of the value.
4 34 Summary of Combustion Technology
This section presents a summary of.combustion technology that is presently in use and can serve
as-a source of general information for use in discussing energy recovery options for the future.
The following technologies will .be discussed: Mass Burn Incineration, Refuse Derived Fuel
Production and Incineration, Pyrolysis, and Ethanol Production.
Mass Burn Incineration. Mass-burn incinerators consume municipal solid waste (MSW) by
burning it at very high temperatures, leaving a.by-product of ash. Historically, there has been no
preprocessing of wastes except to remove large items such as stumps and appliances. However,
technologies are available to remove materials for recycling as well as materials such as metals
that may cause ash contamination or toxic air emissions.
Waste brought to the facility is either stored in a large pit or loaded directly onto the furnace
where it is tumbled over moving grates or through a rotating drum, advancing the.MSW toward
the ash pit. To produce useful energy from the incineration process, a boiler is installed either
as an appendage to, or as an integral part of the furnace. A.boiler is a pressurized system.in
which water is vaporized to steam by applying heat. The steam can be used for heating or to
generate'electricity.
There are two basic types of furnaces used in mass-burn plants: refractory lined incinerators and
waterwall incinerators.
Refractory lined incinerators: A refractory furnace is so named because of a 6- to 8- inch-thick
heat-resistant coating (refractory) that lines the combustion chamber. The attributes of a
refractory lined furnace are its low rate of heat.loss through the furnace walls, and its ability to
maintain steady combustion temperatures when subjected to wide variations in fuel quality. This
type of furnace is used when low BTU and high moisture content waste is the predominant fuel.
Macon Co. SWM Plan 1998
4A-4
A refractory lined incinerator can use excess-air or controlled-air combustion processes.
® Excess air incineration: The low rate of heat transfer through refractory is considered
a positive attribute, but it can also become problem if temperatures within the combustion
chamber get too high. Ash produced in temperatures above 1800 degrees p, becomes slag,
an undesirable by-product. To keep the hot face of the refractory below this temperature,
air is allowed to enter the combustion chamber at a volume and rate significantly greater
than that needed for combustion (excess air). An excess air facility of between 400 and
700 tons per year can cost from $80, to $100,000 per ton of capacity.
® Controlled-air incineration: Some smaller (modular) mass-burn units use a method
called controlled air(starved air).. The principal of controlled air incineration is to use two
combustion chambers. In the first chamber less air is supplied for combustion to slow
down gas velocities. The gas is then introduced slowly into the second chamber where
excess air is supplied. This system allows for more complete combustion of particulate
matter.
Modular systems am prefabricated in a factory and the components are transported to the
site for "assembly via railroad cars or trucks. Modules can be. combined to develop
facilities that have up to a 500 ton per day capacity. Single modules range in size from less
than 20 tons/day up to more than 125 tons per day.
The cost of modular incineration is about $50,000 to $100,000 per ton of. installed
capacity. This is highly variable however, because of differences in manufacturers, site
conditions, and energy markets. The systems can be designed for expansion so that
capacity can grow as the waste stream grows.
Waterwall Incinerators: A waterwall incinerator is so named because the walls of the combustion
chamber are lined with tubes containing water. Therefore, unlike the refractory furnaces, where
the boiler is a separate unit, the boiler in the waterwall. system is an integral part of the
combustion chamber. The steam produced by these facilities can be a higher quality than that
produced by the waste heat boilers used with refractory lined incinerators. Also, waterwall tube
surfaces absorb more heat than a comparably sized refractory furnaces, thereby reducing
temperatures in the combustion chamber. However, temperatures may still need to be reduced
through the introduction of excess air.
Overall, the waterwall design provides a higher thermal efficiency than the refractory-lined
design. A disadvantage of the waterwall furnace is that the entire unit must come off-line if the
boiler breaks down. This results in less operation time or higher costs for redundant systems to
guard against unscheduled downtime.
Mason Co. SWM Plan /998
4A-5
Mass-burn systems reduce the volume of the incinerated waste by about 90% and the weight by
about 70-75% on a dry weight basis. The net volume savings to a landfill following cover and
compaction is approximately 70-75%, including disposal of ash and bypass waste.
Refuse Derived Fuel. The principle of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) is that through processing,
waste is converted to a'more uniform, better burning fuel for use with a dedicated incinerator or
for use in existing coal or wood fired incinerators.
The options available in the area of refuse derived fuel are:
• Produce solid pellets for sale to an existing incinerator/market.
Produce fluff RDF for sale to an existing incinerator/ market.
• Produce RDF for a dedicated fluidized bed combustor.
• Produce RDF for a dedicated Spreader Stoker furnace. (Spreader Stoker is a type
of furnace commonly used for burning coal and wood).
RDF is the end product of what is a very extensive waste processing effort. Raw waste is fed into
the processing facility.. The waste is shredded and subjected to magnetic and eddy current
processes to remove metals, then the waste is typically sorted into light and heavy fractions
through an air separation process, and finally the material is screened to produce a uniform size.
This process produces recyclable materials and residue to be landfilled in addition to the RDF.
RDF is typically an undensified fluff or densified into compressed pellets.
The success of an RDF system is dependent on having a reliable user of the material produced.
One method'of assuring a.user is to build an incinerator in conjunction with the RDF facility.
RDF can be used to fuel mass burn incinerators as discussed above or fluidized bed combustion,
a more suitable technology for RDF, can be used.
In a fluidized bed combustor an inert, non combustible high melting point material such as sand
is used as a substitute for.a grate to assist combustion in the furnace. Combustion air is admitted
through the bed, agitating the bed constantly. As the combustion process proceeds, the lighter
materials float to the top and are incinerated while the heavy materials burn, sink to the bottom,
and exit the combustion chamber as ash residue.
The advantages of the fluidized bed are low environmental emissions and relative insensitivity to
fuel quality. The disadvantages include the fact that fuel preparation is required, and fluidized
beds are not well demonstrated for less than 200 tons per day capacity.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
4A-6
An alternate method of burning RDF is the Spreader-Stoker boiler. In this system the RDF is fed
into a boiler, and a portion is burned in suspension while the remainder bums on a traveling grate.
PyLQlysis. Pyrolysis involves the heating of waste in a limited oxygen environment to produce
a fuel. The idea of using pyrolysis to produce a fuel that can be marketed is not new. In the early
1960's.the idea was tried and abandoned as not being feasible because it seemed to take more
energy to produce the product than the product was worth.
Pyrolysis has been considered for MSW, tires, wood products, and other wastes. It involves the,
thermal decomposition of organic matter at temperatures sufficient to volatize or gasify the matter
in the absence of oxygen or any oxidizing agent. The resultant products are combustible gases,
fixed carbon, heavy pyrolysis oil and waste water.
The following problems have been encountered in test pyrolysis projects:
Equipment is inefficient, almost as much fuel is used in processing the waste as is
recovered.
Byproducts were very inconsistent in composition, which limited their market
potential.
• No general markets existed for the byproducts as they are produced.
Without further research, pyrolysis is not considered technologically proven at this time:
Ethanol Production. This new energy recovery technology is presently in the pilot stages. The
process starts with RDF fluff and upgrades to a refuse derived pulp through the addition of water
and the imposition of a processing sequence in which non cellulosic substances are removed.
Because of the decontamination involved in its production, refuse derived pulp is a suitable source
of cellulose for enzymatic and thermo-chemical hydrolysis into sugar (glucose.substrate) for
ethanol production.
This method is in the development stages but it has the advantage of producing a clean burning
fuel and of treating wastes that are becoming increasingly difficult to dispose of.
The disadvantages of ethanol production are increased capital costs for processing facilities and
disposal of a residual digested sludge. It is also not compatible with composting since the two
processes compete for the same elements of the waste stream.
A4ason Co. .SWA4 Plan 1998
4A-7
4.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
Because of the size of the Mason County waste stream the options involved with waste-to-energy
are limited. If the County decides to consider waste-to-energy there are three options that could
feasibly,be considered:
1. Contract for construction of a modular incinerator sized to handle the Mason County waste
stream after the effects of aggressive recycling programs are accounted for. It is estimated
.that the size.of this facility would be about 40 tons per day. Serious consideration should
be given to having the vendor operate the facility and provide financial assurances to
minimize the risk to the County.
2. Work with other counties to develop a regional Mass Bum Waste to Energy Facility.
3. Develop a Refuse Derived Fuel facility and sell the material to existing power plants that
can burn it.
The remainder of this section discusses these three alternatives in more detail.
Mason County Modular Waste To Energy Plant. In this alternative Mason County would contract
for the design, and construction of a modular mass bum energy recovery facility. The facility
would generate electricity for sale to the local Public Utility District (PUD). Operation of the
facility would be either by the County or by a Contractor. It is estimated that about 10-employees
would be required to operate the facility.
The siting, design, and construction of a modular facility for Mason County would take between
2 and 5 years..The site of the facility should be close to the new landfill and ash monofill. The
ash monofill and landfill for bypass waste could be sited together to minimize operational costs.
The waste stream could be reduced to about 70% of its initial volume in the landfill by
incineration.
The estimated capital construction cost for a facility capable of burning the entire Mason County
waste stream is about 2 million dollars. Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs would
be about $250,000 to $350,000 per year.
The primary advantage of this alternative is that the amount of waste that requires landfilling will
be significantly reduced.
Disadvantages include high capital and operating costs, risk associated with shutdowns, and
potential environmental impacts due to operation of a waste to energy facility.
Regional Waste to Energy Plant. State guidelines for solid waste management emphasize the
importance of regional solutions to solid waste problems. One alternative that may have been
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
4A-8
feasible was a regional energy recovery facility. Mason County was involved with the Southwest
Inter-County Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWICSWAB). SWICSWAB would provide an avenue
for consideration of a regional energy recovery facility. It was determined that there were
numerous issues surrounding the location of such a facility and no county stepped forward to
request consideration.
This regional approach, while more difficult to implement, could have cost advantages to Mason
County because of shared operational expenses for ash fills and facility operation. In addition the
financial resources of multiple counties working on the same project would reduce the financial
burden on any one of the counties working alone.
The advantages of this alternative are that the unit cost of operating and constructing a larger
energy recovery facility would be less than a modular facility; the costs and risk would be shared
between.multiple counties; and the reliance on landfffling as the primary disposal means in the
County would be minimized.
Disadvantages of this alternative include the increased cost over a strictly landfill altemative, the'
problems of working with other counties including inter jurisdictional conflicts, and the potential
environmental impacts of an energy'recovery facility.
Mason County Refuse Derived Fuel Facility. One. major obstacle to burning garbage,is the
perceived environmental impact due to air emissions and ash production. If the County could
negotiate a contract with an existing facility that has the capability of burning Refuse Derived
Fuel, then the specter of burning garbage within the County could be eliminated. In addition, the
County would have an,opportunity to reduce the amount of waste landfilled.
An RDF facility would need to produce a .high quality fuel for sale. Equipment needed would
include a shredder, trommel screen, fine screen, magnetic separation, and air classification. This
process would have the potential of reducing the waste stream by about 50 to 60%. However a
landfill would still be needed to handle bypass waste.
Some potential markets for the RDF include industrial power plants that could be retrofitted to
bum a combination of RDF and coal, or RDF alone. Careful investigation of potential markets
should beinitiated prior to any development of this alternative.
If markets can be found for the fuel, the advantages of this alternative are that the waste stream
would be reduced, thereby reducing the County's reliance on tandfilling. In addition the refuse
would be used to produce energy.
The disadvantages of this alternative are the capital and operating costs, and the reliance on
Outside markets to purchase the RDF.
Mawon Co. SWM Plan. 1998
4A-9
Fnergy recovery requires large capital expenditures. Because of this the decision to pursue it must
be based on the most recent, objective, and reliable information.
Table 4.1A summarizes and evaluates available waste reduction alternatives on the basis of:
Level of Reduction - What level of waste volume reduction can be expected with
this alternative?
Manpower Requirements - What are staffmg requirements?
Annual Cost - What would the program cost to operate each year?
Capital Cost What is the cost to construct facilities and purchase
equipment?
Revenue - What are estimated dollars generated by the sale of the
product?
4.5 RECOADUNDATIONS
Interest in developing an energy recovery facility in Mason County is negligible. This opinion
is expressed by the SWAC and County and City solid waste management agencies for the
following reasons:
1) the existing waste export system developed in 1993 is capable of meeting the
present and future needs of the country.
2) the waste stream in Mason County is small, making the large volume reductions
available through incineration less attractive than for some highly populated
counties, and
3) the regulatory atmosphere is uncertain for disposal of ash both on a national and
state level.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
4A-10
w
M
U U
O O 'G O O
U U
O O W O N ® N ~
py � u 69� 69 W 64 -
C
O
M � �
69 6S 6s 00
W
V1
O O O O
O O O O
� O 66s � cn
� O �
rr �
a
c
F w .0
0
O �
Cd
U _
cd s
ti
Cld
® U ® ® ®
w w
Although development of an incinerator to serve Mason County would be an unlikely scenario,
there-may be future consideration given to a joint effort between counties interested in regional
alternatives.
4.6 EM PLFATENTATION
No recommendations have been included for implementation of an energy recovery facility in
Mason County.
Mason Co. SWM Plan
4A-12 May 1992
NC T SOLID WASTE MANAGE,MENT PLAN
CHAPTER 5A RE'FUSE COLLECTION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Approximately half of the cost of garbage disposal service is related to collection. This chapter
M
takes a comprehensive look at the collection system in ason County and recommends ways to
improve it while ensuring that the goals listed.below are met. Existing practices are reviewed,
then needs and opportunities are establislied,\aild finally specific recommendations and methods
of implementing those recommendations are made.
The solid waste planning goals for refuse collection in Mason County are as follows:
To ensure that all residents of Mason County have access to refuse collection
services.
To ensure that collection practices are compatible with the other elements of the
solid waste system established by this Plan.
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulates garbage haulers
outside of incorporated cities(RCW 81.77). These haulers must be franchised by the Commission
to collect garbage in a given county. Within incorporated cities such as Shelton however, the
WUTC has no jurisdiction. Cities have the option to provide C*ity collection services, contract
with a collection service or allow the WUTC to award a franchise in their area.
5.2 EXISTING PRACTICES
5.2.1 Municipalities and Other Jurisdictions
The jurisdictions within Mason County include: the City of Shelton, National Forest Service,
Sq.uaxin -Indian Tribe, Skokomish *Indian Tribe, Washington State Correctional Center,
Washington State Patrol Academy, and several State Parks.
City of Shelton
.Shelton is the only incorporated city in Mason County. It operates its own garbage collection
system which serves approximately 3100 residential and commercial customers. Table 5.1A
includes a breakdown of garbage service provided by the City of Shelton.
Mayon Co. SWM Plan 1998
5A-1
Table SJA: CITY OF SHELTON REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE
(as of February 1, 1997)
Type of Service Number Served ,Rate 12or Can
Residential Service
90 gal can per week 588 $.19.63/mo
60 gal can per week .1233 $13.09/mo
60 gal.bi-weekly 573 $9..49/mo
90 gal bi-weekly 80 $14.23/mo .
**Midweek service is available by-request"
Commercial Service
90 gal can per week 127 $19.63/mo
300 gal can per week 229 $65.43/mo
Shared 300 gal can per week 26 $32.72 ea/mo
***Extra cans are charged at per can rate***
60 gal @ $8.00 - 90 gal @ $9.50 - 300 gal @ $20.00
**Midweek service is available by request**
Refuse collection in Shelton is mandatory. All residents pay for the service, whether they use it
or. not. Residents are expected to place their cans at the curb or in the.alley on their designated
collection day, and retrieve the can after collection has occurred. Trucks will collect from houses
at ends of long driveways if special arrangements are made with the City.
The City has three 20 yard compactor trucks. One truck, the oldest one, serves as a backup in
case one of the other trucks breaks down. The two newer trucks are less than five years old and
the third truck is ten years old. The City plans to purchase a replacement truck this year.
The City has an automated collection system. The trucks are designed with hydraulic "arms" to
lift the cans into the compactor. Because of this the cans for each resident are purchased by the
City and provided at no cost. Currently the City.is shifting to 60 gallon cans from the 90 gallon
cans, now in use. The 60 gallon cans are the smallest size that the automatic arms can
accommodate. The shift will occur slowly as old cans are replaced and new residents request cans
from the City. All refuse collected in the City is delivered to the Mason County Solid Waste.
Facility for disposal.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
5A-2
National For Service
Refuse collection from National Forest Service land is performed by the U.S. Forest Service.
Mason County Garbage hauls refuse from Forest Service offices. Cascade Shower, Inc. is under
contract to the U.S. Forest Service, to haul waste from, fire camps on an "as needed" basis. All
refuse collected on National Forest Service land is delivered to the Mason County Solid Waste
Facility for disposal. The amount of refuse generated is small, with peaks during the summer
when tourism increases.
Squaxin and Skokornish Indian Tribes
The Squaxin and.Skokomish Indian Tribes do not have their own garbage collection system.
Garbage service to the Tribal-lands is provided by both Mason County Garbage and Rural Garbage
Service (LeMay Enterprises). Garbage collection is voluntary for the Tribal lands, as it is in the
remainder of the County.
Washington to Parks and Facilities
The State of Washington operates several facilities within Mason County. These include several
State Parks, a State Penitentiary, and the State Patrol Academy.
Refuse from the State penitentiary is collected by the State and disposed of at the on County
Solid Waste Facility.
Refuse generated from State Parks is collected by Mason County Garbage and delivered to the
Mason County Solid Waste Facility for disposal.
The Washington State Patrol Academy's waste is delivered to the Mason County Solid Waste
Facility by Mason County Garbage. Approximately one dumpster per week is generated by the
Academy.
5.2.2 Franchise Holders
Garbage service in the unincorporated portions of the County is voluntary.. Two disposal
companies provide garbage service; Mason County Garbage and Rural Garbage Service. These
i
companies have been granted certificates by the WUTC to provide collection service for Mason
County.
Twelve other garbage certificates have been issued for haulers to operate in Mason County. These
certificates have been issued for specialized waste hauling services that provide for disposal of
specific types of waste such as radioactive, .industrial, demolition and ash. Table 5-2A
summarizes the permits authorized for hauling wastes in Mason County.
1998
Mcaon Co. SWM Plan
5A-3
Table 5.2A CERTIFICATES GRANTED BY WUTC FOR MASON COUNTY
Company Name and Address Area Serviced
Mike Johnson, Mason County Garbage Garbage and Collection Services in Mason
G-88 County.
E. 1210 Johns Prairie Road
Shelton, WA 98584 426-8729
Harold LeMay Enterprises, Inc. Authorized to collect and drop boxes.
G-98
13502 Pacific Ave., POB 44459
Tacoma;-WA 98444 537-8687
Emeral(.f City Disposal Company G-124 Sewage and/or Dewatered Sludge and
POB 24625 Sewage Hauling for Municipality of Seattle
Seattle, WA 632-2200 to any location in the State.
John S. McFarland, Demolition Haulers Demotion debris, 'rubble, and brush from
G-148 demolition or clearing projects to any
8081 Occidental Ave. S. location in the State.
Seattle, WA 98108 938-1174
United Drain Oil Services G-175 Authorized to haul waste liquid petroleum
2203 Airport Way S. products to any location in the State.
Seattle, WA 98134 284-0903
Resource Recovery Corporation G-176 Authorized to haul liquid industrial waste
5501 Airport Way S. unsuitable for ordinary landfill disposal to
Seattle, WA 98108 767-0355 any location in the State.
Also authorized. to haul hazardous and
chemical wastes not suitable for disposal at
ordinary landfill sites in the State.
Ralph M. Baltzo, Professional Authorized to haul radioactive sources,
Services Corporation G-195 scientific process wastes, and other related
3841 NE 87th St. Lzardous technical waste in specialized
Seattle, WA 98115 525-6499 containers to Hanford, WA.
G.J. Daniels, Inc. G-177 Sewage and sewage sludge for the
POB 5116 Municipality of Seattle to any location in the
Lynnwood, WA 98046 77.5-9448 State.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
SA-4
Table 5.2A CERTIFICATES D D BY WUTC FOR MASON C (continued)
O'Neill and Sons, Inc. G7196 Sludge and/or Dewatered Sludge for the
POP 4128 Municipality of Seattle, Solganic Services
Tumwater, WA 98502 352-1388 Corp. and Pierce County Utilities Dept. to
any location in the State.
Cascade Shower Inc. G-218 Authorized to haul garbage and refuse under
POB 3915 a combination of services for the US Forest
Seattle, WA 98124 628-4833 Service to any location in the State.
Mason County Garbage provides residential and commercial garbage collection service for the
majority of Mason County. The company was founded in 1951 and was under the same
ownership for over 30 years. The company came under new ownership in 1983.
Mason County Garbage provides residential service to 7976 residential and 539 commercial
accounts. 772 of these accounts are active in the summer only. The breakdown of commercial
and residential customers by the type of service provided is presented in Table 5.3.A (1997).
Mason County Garbage has fourteen compactor garbage trucks, two drop box trucks and one hook
lift truck. The equipment utilizes mechanical means for dumping commercial containers ranging
in size from 1 '/2 to 4 yards and manual dumping for residential cans. Drop box trucks are used
for commercial accounts requiring 20 yard or compactor service.
Mason County Garbage provides residential and commercial garbage service to all areas of the
county. They collect five days a week using twelve trucks and twelve drivers each day. The
company also employs two full time mechanics and two secretaries in its Shelton Office.
Harold LeMay Enterprises also has a certificate authorizing it to collect garbage in Mason County
and operates out of Centralia in Lewis County. It has accounts with numerous commercial
activities in Mason County and provides collection service for 20 yard drop boxes. The cost of
pickup is $100 for the fast pickup and then $50 per trip thereafter. The drop boxes are collected
when the commercial customer calls the Centralia Office requesting pick up. All waste picked
up by Rural Garbage Service in Mason County is delivered to the Mason County Solid Waste
Facility for disposal.
Refuse collection is voluntary in the unincorporated County. And not all citizens elect to
subscribe to garbage service.
Mason. Co. SWAT flan 1998
5A-5
Table 5.3A RESIDENTIAL & CONM- SERVICE BY MASON COUNTY GARBAGE
Residential Service
Tyne of Service #'of Accounts % of Total Rat-Q
Weekly pickup
• Set out/Set back 5707 64.3 11.55
Walk-in 140 1.6 13.65
Drive-in 343 3.9 15.55
Other service. 12 0.1 .18.00
Every other week pickup
Set:,-out/Set back 1806 20.3 6.75
Walk-ln _ '32 0.4 7.80 .
Drive-in 205 2.3 8.75
Other service 11 0.1 10.65
Monthly pickup
• Set out/Set back 417 4.7 3.80
Walk-in 4 0.1 4.30
Drive-in 77 0.9 4.75
Other service 1 0.0 5.83
As needed per can 124 1.3 3.80
Totals 8879 100.0
Commercial Service
# of Accounts
% of
Type of Service 1.5 yd 2-yd 4--y-d Total
Weekly 105 131 5 44.7
Bi-Weekly 19 56 0 13.9
Every other Week 112 76 1 35.1
Monthly 11 10 0 3.9
On Call 6 -7 0 2.4
Totals 253 280 6 100.0
Data as of April,1997.
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
5A-6
5.3 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIE
The criteria for determining needs for the collection system are the goals established at the
beginning of this chapter° Any issues arising from the generated needs are listed at the end of this
section.
To ensure that all residents,of AUson County have access to refuse collection
services.
At this time, refuse collection appears adequate for the residents of Mason County.
Collection services in the City of Shelton are provided by the City on a mandatory basis.
Commercia.l pickup is also provided by the City. No deficiencies have n identified at this time,
service is provided to all generators at adequate levels.
Collection services to the remainder of the County are provided by franchised hauler. Collection
services are available throughout the County on a voluntary basis. Currently, no deficiencies have
n identifiedthe unincorporated County service appearsad oats®
Requirements for future co 'on services will end on population growth rates. Growth in
the City of Shelton is projected to increase. In 1994,the population in the City of Shelton was
7,440. . In the year 2014 it is anticipated that the population, within the existing city. limits, will
increase to 13,022. Based on these figures the City of Shelton will realize an increase in growth
of 5,582 residents. In 1994, the population in the unincorporated area of Mason County was
36,860. This makes the total population in 1994 for Mason County a total of 44,300. The
population of.Mason County-as a whole in the year 2014 is estimated by the Office of Fiscal
Management (OFW at 73,477 (High Series) or 63,685 (Medium Series). Mason County has
proposed to allocate 20,977 growth in population in total for the years 1994. to 2014, which adds
up to a total of 65,277 people (44,3.00 + 20,997). It appears safe to assume that this level of
growth will require additional collection routes in both the City and County. However, increased
population will also aid collection by increasing the cost effectiveness of the routes through
increased population density.
GOAL: To ensure that collection practices are compatible with the other elements of
the solid waste system established by this Plan.
Ensuring that all residents have access to refuse collection appears to be possible during the
planning period, However, new challenges are presented by the need to provide a level and type
of service that is compatible with recycling and other solid waste programs.
Local governments can work with the WUTC and the hauler to determine how to adapt rates to
the solid waste management priorities of waste reduction and recycling. In addition, Counties
now have the authority to contract for the collection of source separated recyclables (RCW
1998
Mason Co. S6. M Plan
5A-7
36.58.040). This authority allows the County to manage, regulate and fix the price of the source
separated collection service. Under RCW 36.58.045, counties may also impose a fee upon solid
waste collection services to fund compliance with solid waste plans.
ISSUE: What level of service alternatives are available to the County? Are they
feasible?
ISSUE: What actions could the County take to implement source separated recyclable
collection?
ISSUE: How can collection rates support waste reduction and recycling?
5.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
This section presents.collection system alternatives that could be implemented in the County.
Collection generally refers to the collection of solid waste. However, with new legislation and
increased emphasis on recycling, recyclable material collection is also discussed in this section.
ISSUE: What level of service alternatives are available to the County? Are they
feasible?
As discussed, the level of solid waste collection service in the. County is adequate, however,
county-wide mandatory collection would be an alternative approach'to collection. Mandatory
collection could be imposed to limit self-haul activity and/or limit illegal dumping and littering.
Implementation of mandatory collection has the potential to significantly impact the private haulers
in terms of equipment, travel time and related costs.
Mason County has the authority to require mandatory collection of solid waste in unincorporated
areas. Mandatory collection would require that all residents of the County pay for some minimum
level of garbage service, whether they use it or not. Under mandatory collection, the hauler.
would continue to bill customers for garbage service. However, if a customer refused to pay, the
County would be obligated to pursue payment of the delinquent account.
To implement mandatory collection, the County would need to form solid waste collection
districts, obtain approval of the Board of County Commissioners, and hold public hearings.
Formation of solid waste collection districts require the county to request a commission review
per 36.58A RCW to determine whether certificated haulers are willing and able to extend service
to all residences within a proposed district.
Solid waste collection districts would 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.
1998
Moron Co. SWM Plan
5A-8
Mandatory collection is one method of reducing tile amount of illegal dumping that may occur
when disposal rates'increase. If people pay for a service, the chances are better that they will use
it.' But the advantages of mandatory collection should be weighed against the cost of
implementing it and the possible comp laints that will be received from people that self-haul of
dispose of their waste by other means. In addition, the County currently relies on outlying
transfer stations for self-haulers who elect not to use the voluntary collection service. A
mandatory system would make these facilities redundant.
ISSUE: What acti® could the County take to implement source separated recyclable
Collection?
Counties now.have-the authority to contract for the collection of source separated recyclables.
This authority allows the County to manage,.regulate and fix the price of the service.
Aftem atively, the County can notify the WUTC if it does not elect to contract for the collection
of source separated recyclables from residences. The VY'UTC will then have the responsibility for
carrying out the provisions of the waste reduction and recycling element of the Solid Waste
Management Plan.
The. advantage of're taining County authority is.that the County will remain in control of the
system. The County can choose haulers, set rates,
s, and set method of collection. By retaining
control they can be more flexible, and adjust the program as it develops to best meet the goals of
the recycling program. If the WUTC is given authority County participation will be indirect and
as allowed by law.
If the County contracts for a. recycling service, then the County will bear the. cost of
administration. It may be necessary to assess a fee for solid waste'collection services to fund the
recycling program, according to regulations set in RCW 36.58.
Contracting for collection of recyclables includes drop box collection as well as curbside
collection. However, the County cannot prohibit other recyclers and non-profit groups from also
putting out drop boxes.
The City of Shelton may contract out recycling service or provide the service itself. if the City
does contract for,recycling service it will be responsible for administration. If the City provides
the service then additional resources will be required, including additional staff. in either
alternative, the cost of the recycling collection service will need to be met through garbage rate
increases.
For additional discussion of recycling and recyclable material collection see Chapter 3A, Waste
Reduction and Recycling.
Mcuon Co. SWM Plan 1998
5A-9
ISSUE: How can collection rates support waste reduction and recycling?
Three basic alternatives are available to implement a rate structure that would support waste
reduction and recycling:
1) Under RCW 36.58, the County has authority to apply fees to refuse collection that will
support waste reduction and recycling programs. This fee could be structured so that a
second or larger can is more expensive than a first or smaller can.
Haulers'would bill and collect these fees for the County as part of their regular billings.
Some administration costs could be available to the hauler for administrating the collection
of fees. In addition the hauler would notify customers of the new rate structure and its
purpose.
2) RCW 81.77 requires collection services to use rate structures which support waste
reduction and recycling as solid.waste management priorities. This requirement will
permit the UTC to restructure the method by which rates are set.
W
As an alternative, the County could-draft and adopt its own rate structure or guidelines as
part of the solid waste plan. The new rate structure would then be developed in
conformance with the solid waste plan guidelines, and implemented by the hauler.
Rate structure guidelines that would support waste reduction and recycling in Mason
County are included in Table 5.4A. In this structure no savings are realized through
pickup of more than one can or by pickup at different frequencies (i.e. monthly vs.
weekly). Rather, a flat rate would be applied to each can collected. Customers would
select a level of collection service based on the quantity of waste generated.
Using this rate stricture, the hauler would be required to determine the amount of the Base
Rate, upon which the fee structure would be based. Similar rate structure changes at the
landfill and transfer stations could also be implemented to support rate changes made by
the hauler..
Implementation of a rate stricture change will require coordination between the hauler and
the County during the initial stages of development. In one scenario, the County and
hauler could develop and agree on details of the new rate structure before the Base Rate
is established. WUTC involvement in an advisory capacity at this level would assist the
development of an approvable program. After agreement between the parties is reached,
the hauler could proceed to develop the Base Rate. The program would then be reviewed
and approved by the WUTC. Collection rates could then be implemented in coordination
with changes to landfill and transfer station rates.
Mayon Co. SWM Plan 1998
5A-10
Table 5a A RATE STRUCTURE, GUIDE L , T I+' WASTE
REDUCTION AND ,CYCLING
1"vue of Service inn ival ate
Weekly Pickup
One Can 52 x Base Rate
Two Cans 2(52 x BaseRate)
Every Other Week Pickup
One Can 26 x Base Rate
Two Cans 2(26 x BaseRate)
Monthly Pickup
One Can 12 x.Base Rate
o Cans 2(12 x BaseRate,)
As needed per can (BaseRate)
to is per each)
3) One final alternative is available to the County for a rate structure,change and would rely
on the WUTC to develop guidelines for rates. Under this scenario, the County and haulers
would take-no action to change the rate structure, but allow the WUTC to develop new
procedures which could then be implemented.
1998
Mu.%(m Co. SlNM Nun
5A-//
5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion of voluntary versus mandatory collection with the Department of Community
Development and the SWAC indicated little interest in pursuing.mandatory collection at this time.
Although it was felt that mandatory collection could reduce illegal dumping in some cases, it was
also felt that.County funds would better utilized to strengthen enforcement. Some interest was
expressed for evaluating the mandatory alternative in the next plan update, possibly using
mandatory collection in areas where other enforcement efforts were not effective.
Both county staff and SWAC agreed that control of recyclable collection should remain with
County government. No interest was shown in deferring this authority to the WUTC.
Rate structure changes which support waste reduction and recycling-were viewed as a necessary
part of the overall solid waste system. Of the three alternatives, a rate structure.,which could be
adopted as part of the solid waste plan was preferred over an applied fee or impementation of a
program after the WUTC develops new rate of guidelines and procedures. It was recognized.that
a new structure would be challenging to. develop and implement and that County and hauler
coordination would be required. The need for balanced landfill and collection rates as well as a
method of insuring collection revenues was identified. Education was also viewed as a necessary
part of the rate structure change.
Recommendation 5.1. Voluntary collection of refuse should be continued in Mason
County. Evaluation of mandatory collection should be included as part of the next Solid
Waste Management Plan Update as a possible method for controlling illegal dumping.
Recommendation 5.2. The County, rather than the WUTC, should manage the collection
of recyclables. The County should evaluate whether to provide these services through
contract or through County staff.
Recommendation 5.3. The County should adopt the rate structure guidelines included in
Table 5.4A for implementation within the unincorporated County. The County should
support and coordinate with private haulers to implement a new rate structure in
conformance with these guidelines. The county and haulers should agree on a general rate
program with input from the WUTC prior to final review and approval by WUTC. Rate
structure changes implemented by the haulers should also be reflected in landfill and
transfer station rate structures. A public information and education program should be
executed with the change in rate structure.
Mason Co. S WM Plan 1998
SA-12
5.6 L +MEENTATION
An implementation schedule and planning level budget is developed in this section for refuse
collection.
Table 5. A IMTLE MENTATION SCHEDULE - C LLECTION
1998-2003 The County continues to evaluate rate structure guidelines supporting waste
reduction and recycling as part of the S .
1998-2003 Private, haulers develop proposed rates within the adopted rate structure
guidelines for approval by the WUTC. The County assists in the
development and approval process. New rates structures are applied to
collection, landfills and transfer stations.
Public Education and Information is coordinated with implementation of the
new rates.
Recyclable collection programs are developed and implemented by the
County (See Chapter 3A).
1998-on-going Illegal dumping complaints are examined and mandatory collection is re-
evaluated as part of the Solid Waste Management Plan Update.
Table 5.6A YMPTYAWINTATION COSTS Y*
County coordination with haulers in the rate $3,000-6,000
development and review process.
Public education and information program $5,000-10,000
for the new rate structure.
Coordinate and implement recyclable See Ch. 3A
collection programs.
* Costs indicated have been developed for planning purposes only.
1998
MaN on Cu. S wm 1'Itm
5A-13
MASON COUNTY L, WASTE MANAGE ME,NT PLAN
CHAPTE R 6A 'FRANSFI +R AND IMPORT/E XPORT
®1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the existing drop box and transfer system within Mason County. It will
also evaluate the need for additional transfer facilities and discuss the exporting of solid waste to
out-of-county disposal sites in neighboring counties, Eastern Washington or Eastern Oregon.
e solid waste planning.'goals for Mason County in the area of transfer and huport/export are:
To use drop box station, transfer station facilities and import/exp011 practices
where how appropriate for cost benefits d operational efficiency. .
® rovie recycling opportunities at drop box, transfer station facilities and other
approved sites in Mason County.
® Ensure the public safety at drop box and transfer station locations.
6.2 EXISTING PRACTICES
Mason County has four drop box stations that each contain two 40 cubic yard drop boxes. 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. Mason
County has one transfer station facility where solid waste is placed on a tipping floor and then
loaded into open-top trailers for shipping to.I ickitat County. As solid waste facilities, all transfer
stations will be required to comply with WAC 1731304, Minimum Functional.Standards for Solid
Waste Handling.
Belfair, Union and Hoodsport each have a drop box station. These locations are near rural
population centers to increase the convenience for residents in these areas to deliver their wastes
to a disposal site. The fourth drop box station is located at the Mason County Solid Waste Facility
near Shelton and is used by the public only. The transfer station facility is also located at the
Mason county Solid Waste Facility and.is used by commercial haulers and at times for the public.
Each location is indicated on Figure 6.1A.
The Hoodsport Drop Box Station is located about 1 mile west of Iloodsport on the road to Lake
Cushman. It is in an isolated location surrounded by clearcuts. Access to the site is controlled
through a locked gate at the entrance. A county employee works at the toll booth and collects a
fee for refuse disposal. The drop boxes are picked up by private contractor when they are full
(about once a week). An estimated 1,300 cubic yards of refuse were colleeted at the transfer
station in 1997.
1998
Mason Co. SWM Accra.
6A-/
101
National w ri
park
® /
a
--- �,-�. r :. t3ithir
/ /. d ltanahr.
1, ' Station
e i .1•• � V l f t J w l l V,.+_� I F't;ii ��>�\ ,yJ. -I:k r—t•�• _
NationalTiandw
_ Staaon
ill 'y= .:•.,• •,-• �� f:;{
Won
✓ ':f:;
.Skokomish.
Station
mil- I �,./•i:•'•:..::� '��
7.
i- -.�.x�. i;%x :r J•IammalsJey IAbf ,• �'�! .1� 'i:,:...,
County r . "SQtiaxln bland <.
Landfill
_ Indian
• ✓ � - : � —_. _ �� -_-_'ice'=! -'-- -- 3 - _ ! �47
_• ''tip• f r
1 L_J L�l
0 3 5
Scale in Was
Figure 6.1A: Drop Box Station Location
1998
Aia.,on Co- SWM Plan
6A-2
The Felfair Drop Fox Station is located approximately 1 mile North of Felfair, It is the most
heavily used drop box station in the system. Approximately 7,700 cubic yards of refuse were
collected in 1997.
e Union Drop Fox Station is located just East of the town of Union., Estimated yardage
collected in 1997 will be 1,400 cubic yards.
Waste collected at all drop box stations is transported to the Mason County Solid Waste Facility.
e Belfair and Hoodsport Drop Fox Stations�have recycling receptacles for public use. Numerous
items are collected as part of the Mason county Recycling Program (see Chapter 3A).
The transfer station at the landfill is used to collect waste.and that which is self-hauled by the
public. It is estimated that approximately 25,500 tons of solid waste will be disposed.at the Solid
Waste Facility. This figure includes the amounts collected at each of the drop box stations.
Currently a small on of the commercial waste collected by Mason County Garbage is hauled
into County for disposal: other waste generated in Mason County is disposed of in the
MasonCounty Solid Waste Facility.
Mason County does not accept any waste generated in other.counties.
6.3 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIE
The transfer and import/export system is evaluated in this section based on goals developed at the
beginning of this chapter. Evaluation of the system based on listed goals generates needs and
opportunities. Issues raised during this process are presented at the end of this section.
AL: To use drop box station, transfer station facilities and import/export practices
where and how appropriate for cost benefits and operational efficiency.
The decision to use a drop box station facility rather than hauling waste via collection vehicle is
typically based on economics. This is due to the fact that it is cheaper to haul waste in large
increments over a distance than it is to haul waste in small increments over the same distance.
In Mason County, only the solid waste facility is capable of accepting refuse from commercial or
municipal collection vehicles. There is currently no transfer component of the solid waste system
for waste hauled in collection vehicles except Mason County has a transfer station located at the
solid waste facility where solid waste is accepted for transport out of county. Waste transfer in
the County is geared towards the public self-hauler and four small drop box stations and one
transfer station are provided for these customers. The drop box stations and transfer station are
currently manned by County employees. However, waste is collected from each station by a
private hauler as necessary.
Mcuon Co. SWM flan 1998
6A-3
A general rule for evaluating the need for collection vehicle transfer is based on the haul distance.
When considering a one-way haul distance of between 15 and 30 miles,. 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 haul distances exceed 30 miles, transfer will become more
economical for moderate and small waste streams.
The City of Shelton has no transfer program at.this time. All waste is carried by collection
vehicle directly to the solid waste facility. Shelton has.the most concentrated waste stream in the
County and might be a potential location for a transfer station based on waste stream. However,
the distance from Shelton to the existing solid waste facility is approximately five miles, too short
to economically incorporate transfer.
Currently there is no economic need for transfer of commercial or municipally collected waste in
Mason County. Opportunities for increasing the economics of the system through transfer may .
occur at 'some time in the future if a less centrally located solid waste facility is sited. If a'
regional solution to solid waste disposal is implemented with the service area being multiple
counties, transfer could also provide cost efficiency.
GOAL: Provide recycling opportunities at drop box stations.
The. existing Mason County drop box stations provide additional recycling opportunities.
Recycling bins placed at the drop box stations are monitored by toll booth attendants. Access to
the bins is restricted by gates which guards against the dumping of refuse into the bins. Currently
we have the bins located at Belfair;Hoodsport and the Mason County Solid Waste Facility. In
addition to those.located at drop box station sites Mason County has located bins at"eight
additional sites throughout the county (see Chapter 3A).
GOAL: Ensure the public safety at transfer stations.
Signs at existing facilities direct the public to the'tipping area in an orderly manner.. Stations are
kept clean of debris. There have been no accidents involving injury to the public at the existing
drop box and transfer station facilities.
Issues raised.in the preceding discussion of needs are as follows:
ISSUE: When should additional drop box stations and transfer facilities be installed
or existing stations be upgraded? What is the criteria? Should the County
consider collection of waste from the stations or continue contracting?
ISSUE: What level of recycling effort should drop box station facilities include? How
should the material be collected and sold? What arrangements are available
for servicing recyclables at the drop box stations?
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
6A-4
ISSUE:: at import/export options would be available and feasible for County waste?
The following section will evaluate alternatives which provide solutions to.these issues.
6.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATIONS
6. .1 Drop Box SWions And Transfer Stations
Drop box stations and transfer stations can serve any or all of the following functions:
• Provide disposal convenience for the public and reduce illegal dumping when solid
waste facilities are located at great distances.
® Provide economic benefits to a refuse collection company.
• Provide a cost-effective means of transferring waste from collection vehicles to
long haul transfer vehicles for disposal outside the County.
This section will discuss drop. x station and.transfer station alternatives available if and when
additional transfer. facilities are requiredin the County° so discussed will be alternative
solutions to identified needs.
ISSUE: When should additional transfer facilities be installed or existing drop box
stations be upgraded? Mat is the criteria? Should the County consider
collection of waste from the stations or continue contracting?
As solid waste rates increase, illegal dumping may increase. If it becomes a serious problem the
County may want to increase the number of locations throughout the County where solid waste
can be disposed. The following criteria provides a guideline for consideration of the need for
additional drop box station facilities.
• Waste is hauled more than 30 miles to a disposal site, possibly a regional site.
® The waste stream for an area is large enough to support a drop box station facility.
• Illegal dumping and large amounts of litter have created problems in areas without
a local disposal site. Construction of a drop box facility may increase convenience
and minimize the illegal dumping and litter.
Two areas that are not served by drop box facilities now are Hartstene Island and the southwestern
portion of the County. The County may wish to consider construction of drop box station
facilities of similar design to the existing facilities at Pelfair, Union, and Hoodsport in these areas.
Mason on Co. SLAM Plait 1998
6A-5
The County could also consider purchasing its own transfer truck and roll-off drop boxes rather
than continuing to rely on contracted haul of this waste. An economic evaluation of the cost of
continued private sector service versus the.cost of the County providing the service should be the
basis for making a change: As the number of drop boxes requiring disposal at the solid waste
facility increases the potential for a cost savings is realized by hiring a driver and purchasing
equipment to deliver drop boxes to the solid waste facility. b
Another alternative that may be cost effective would be for the County to privatize the drop box
station and transfer station operation. Under privatization, the booth would be operated by a
private contractor selected through competitive bid. Any revenue generated through tipping fees
could go to the County,for administration of the system.and payment of the contractor.
Full Service Transfer Stations. At some point,.the waste stream in outlying areas of the County
may grow to the point where a full-service transfer station, capable of. accepting waste. from
collection vehicles becomes feasible. One method of providing commercial transfer service is to
expand existing public'convenience drop box stations to accommodate packer trucks.
If a new full service transfer station were needed, a director dump or compactor type station could
be constructed. For the direct dump facility, compactors would tip into open top containers. The
containers would be located below grade.
Another option or consider for a small capacity transfer station is a compactor station. In this type
of station the packer trucks dump into the hopper of.a stationary compactor. The stationary
compactor packs a roll-off container of up to 100 cubic yards capacity. This has the advantage
of requiring a longer time between hauls to the solid waste facility because of the compaction of
the waste.
Transfer Station for Out-of-County DisposaMplim.. 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. Through this process Regional Disposal Company (RDC) was
selected to own, provide, and operate for the term of the contract, facilities to accept acceptable
waste in loaded trailers at the Mason County Solid Waste Transfer Station Facility and to transport
to and dispose of that acceptable waste at the disposal site for the county. This disposal site is
currently located in Klickitat County, Washington.
In the existing program Mason County loads the transport trailers to the acceptable weight which
averages approximately 29 tons per load. The transport trailers are taken from Mason County to
Lewis County by LeMay Inc., a subcontractor for RDC, where the trailers are then transferred
to rail and taken to Klickitat County for disposal.
ISSUE: What level of recycling effort should transfer facilities include? How should
the material be collected and sold? What arrangements are available for
servicing recyclables at the transfer stations?
Mason Co. SWM Plan 1998
6A-6
By placing easily accessible bins for aluminum, glass, me s, newsprint, and other materials at
the drop box stations and other off-site locations, a "one-stop" disposal and recycling operation
has been created for self-haulers.
.2 Import/Export
ISSUE: What irnport/export options would be available and feasible for County waste?
pQ11 of Waste into Mason County. .Currently Mason County is not accepting solid waste from
outside its county boundaries.
Export to Demote Dis oral i e. Mason County has determined that it is in the county's best
interest to transport solid waste out of county because of the regulations and costs associated with
construction of a new and acceptable landf.. Solid waste is transported by traffer to Lewis
County where it is transferred to rail and taken to Klikitat County, Washington. This landfill is
owned and operated by the Rabanco Company of Seattle.
®u November 18, 1997 the Board of County Commissioners agreed to extend the existing
Contract between Regional Disposal Company and Mason County through the year 2013.
.5 -RECOMMENDATION
Discussions with County staff and SWAC indicate no immediate need for an upgrade of existing
drop box station facilities or a need for construction of new facilities. It was recognized that
future growth in some outlying areas may eventually occur, generating a need for an expansion
of the existing solid waste system. Population growth was identified as a key indicator for future
evaluation of new or upgraded drop box stations or transfer station facilities.
Establishment of recycling drop boxes at the drop box stations was considered a high priority of
the recycling and drop box station program. Mason County has eleven sites located in strategic
locations throughout the area. It was felt that some form of public information needs to remain
an important part of the recycling program and that effort should be made to try and not charge
for recycling.
At this time Mason County is not pursuing landfilling within the County. It is felt that it would
be difficult to locate and pay for a landfill that would meet existing regulations. Because of this
difficulty both staff and SWAC members realize that the best option available for the disposal of
solid waste is that which pertains to out-of-county options.
Recounnendation 6.1. 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 drop box program. If the need arises for locating
Mason C'o. .SWAI Plan 1998
6A-7
additional drop boxes the County should pursue grant funding to pay for a portion of the
costs.
Recommendation 6.2. Mason County has participated in numerous meetings regarding
solid waste disposal in the past and should continue to do so.
Recommendation 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.
6.6 IlVIPLFAUNTATION
An implementation schedule and planning level budget is developed in this section for the transfer .
system.
Table 6.2A DAPLENIMITATION SCHEDULE- TRANSFER AND M'ORT/EXPORT
1998-2003 Drop box stations are established at the drop box sites and transfer
facilities through coordination with private recyclers and the County; public
information is coordinated with drop box establishment (See Chapter 3).
Staff will continue to monitor existing program to determine feasibility of
establishing additional recycling site.
The County continues to participate in regional meetings for solid waste
disposal.
2003 Expansion or upgrade of the drop box station and or the transfer system is
re-evaluated in the Solid Waste Management Plan Update:
1998
Mason Co. SWM Phin
6A-8
MASON COUNTY SOLIDWASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
CHAPTER 7A LANDF`ILLING AND STORAGE'/ T
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an update as to where Mason County is and how they have elected to
proceed with regard to landfilling, including storage and treatment, if applicable. Because
standards and regulations for landfill construction and operation, along with closure/post closure
maintenance, have become almost iinpossible.lo meet and the costs associated with each phase are
ore than most counties can afford, a number of counties, including Mason County, have elected
'to transport its solid waste to a site outside its respective boundaries.
in 1993 Mason County closed its landfill site located on Eels Hill Road. At the present time there
has n.no additional consideration given to the construction of a landfill, to accept solid waste,
in Mason County.
7® - EXISTING CT C
Solid waste, in Mason County, is no longer disposed of in the County landfill located on Eels Hill
Road. .Mason County does continue to accept solid waste at its transfer station facility on Eels
Hill Road and also accepts salvageable metals, including white goods, that are temporarily stored
on site: These items are removed and recycled by an independent company-under contract with
the county. Mason County no longer accepts and stores septage at the landfill site. These
materials are now received at a permitted site in Mason County where it is treated and applied on
land with adherence to State and Federal regulations. Each of these.special waste streams and
their handling methods, needs, and alternations are discussed in Chapter 9A of this document.
The Mason County Landfill was a 77 acre site located about.two miles west of the airport as
shown on Figure 7.1A. Refuse occupied approximately 8 acres of the southeast portion of the
site: It had a minimum 300 foot buffer zone. A locked gate controlled access to the site during
non-working hours and continues to do so today as part of the SolidWaste Transfer Station
Facility operation. The landfill was not lined nor did it have any provision for leachate collection
or treatment. This being the case the applicable rules and regulations pertaining to landfill
operation and construction could not be met. Thus, the need for closure. Because of ,the
requirements and costs associated with an expansion of an existing landfill or construction of a
new one it was determined that it would be in the counties best interest to transport its solid waste
to an approved site outside of Mason County.
Waste from outside the boundaries of Mason County is no longer accepted at the Solid Waste
Facility nor at the Drop Box Stations located at Belfair, Hoodsport, nor Union.
The landfill site is underlain by gravelly sand with about 40 feet to ground water. The
groundwater flow is from the landfill site toward the southeast.
Mason Co. ,SWM Plan 7A-1 1998
Mason County has installed nine groundwater monitoring wells in compliance with Washington
State regulations. These wells are sampled quarterly under the requirements of Chapter 173-304,
Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, and the Solid Waste Handling Permit
for the site issued by the Mason County Department of Environmental Health. Current
monitoring events include the following parameters: Field Parameters ( temperature, pH, specific
conductivity), Conventional (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, chloride, chemical oxygen demand, total
organic carbon, sulfate), Metals (arsenic, zinc, iron, manganese), Organics (volatile organic
compounds, vinyl chloride).
Mason County, as part of the landfill closure process, elected to install an active gas system. Gas
migration is monitored with condensation collected and treated. The closed landfill area and
existing transfer station facility is owned and operated by the County. The County subcontracts,
to Regional Disposal Company, the transporting of solid waste out of county. Following the
closure of the landfill, the site has been maintained and.monitored in compliance with the .
applicable Hiles and regulations. This "post closure" period may last twenty or more years.
Mason County is a public entity involved in handling the solid waste of Mason County. Mason
County has no plans to privatize this solid waste responsibility.
7.3 EXISTING PRACTICES.
DjMQsal olitside Mason County. One alternative described in the 1992 Solid Waste Plan related
to the use of regional. landfills that would take refuse from the counties around the state and
Pacific Northwest. As discussed in Chapter 6A, this alternative was implemented in 1993 when
Mason County completed construction of its main transfer station on Eels Hill Road. At that time
the county entered into a five year contract with Regional Disposal Company (RDC)'whereby they
were responsible for the transporting of solid waste from Mason County to Klickitat County. In
November 1997, Mason County elected to extend the contract for solid waste export and disposal .
services through the year 2013. Through December 31, 1998, Mason County will pay RDC
$40.88 per ton. The base unit price shall be adjusted annually on January 1st of'each year
commencing on January 1, 1999, based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index
in accordance with the formula described in the approved 1997 Addendum.
1998
Muwm Co. SWM Plan 7A-2
t•1:::1 rj{•
C' .:...:>:.
- Sg�
National
park
Bi
Baffalr
ftnsftr
tl a r 1 0 a S.l .� F' j• 4' ! S It7n
Y '� �<k _
Nationw
•r.
FoMat
a }o:•::;::>' f' F4:: :::::
is::<ransW
::: ;n::-►, j •""'^ :i,
l
- tie .;.�+.�>+•' :;�,,,r ..
° � �:-•:�. ..ter-«+::.�• j �J �P...''
Sk®koinlsh+ ITreraw
`` :.ter .::�. R.. r T q� •:••�4,-:.�.
Airpod
ate' Ya
Qua' �: •�
Nam Inlet ! .-} F;<:<:i::;•!
....,+f• •' a , 11 ` •' i'-4+ `!_' ��$Q{iaJl+i�{flafld fi .
! i r--- � 1 - .J•, Indian
4.
1 �
® 3 5
Scale in Miles
Figure '7.IA: 'TRANSFER LOCATION
Macon Co. SWM Plan 7A-3 1998
MASON COUNTY SOLID ATE A E PLAN
CHAPTE R 8A ENFORCEME,NT AND ADMINISTRATION
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes and evaluates enforcement and administration of the solid waste system for
Shelton and Mason County. It also provides alternatives for the solid waste administrative system
to better perform solid waste management.
e solid waste planning goals for Mason County are:
To ensure that the Office of Environmental Health's permitting, monitoring and
compliance programs for solid waste are adequately funded, staffed, managed, and
enforced.
To ensure the Department of Community Development is adequately staffed,
trained, and managed for coordination of solid waste.activities.
8.2 ENISTING.PRACTICES
.2.1 Organizational Stmeture
Mason County
In August 1991, the solid waste management organization in Mason County underwent structural
changes. Prier to August 1990, solid waste, including.the Office of Environmental Health, was
managed through the Department of General Services. The General Services Director and his
assistant managed operation of all solid waste facilities along_ with other responsibilities. A
landfill operations manager was employed by the Department to work exclusively-at the landfill.
Also each. transfer station was staffed with a toll booth attendant and the landfill with two
attendants.
During August 1990 responsibility for management of solid waste facilities, in addition to water
and sewer, was transferred to the Public Works Department. A Utilities Administrator" position
was created and staffed. Under the Public Works organization, the landfill operations manager
as well as toll booth and landfill attendants reported to the Utilities Administrator,,who in turn
reported directly to the Director of Public Works.
Currently, solid waste is managed under the Department of Community Development. Planning
and Utilities are also managed under this Department. A "Project Manager's" position
(previously called "Utilities Administrator") was created. This position along with the Landfill
Attendants report to the Director of Community Development.
Mason Co. SKIM Plan 8A-/ 1998
Mason County Environmental Health has been placed under the management of the Department
of Health. Environmental Health is actively involved in solid waste matters within the County.
They permit new solid waste facilities, monitor and inspect existing facilities, and respond to
health related complaints from the public.
Illegal dumping is investigated by Environmental Health and evaluated on the basis of existing
solid waste disposal regulations.
City of Shelton
The City of Shelton's solid waste utility is included with other functions of the City's.Department
of Development Services. The Director of Development Services is responsible for sewer, water,
roads, and garbage service. Garbage, water, and sewer billings are performed by the City.Clerk's
office.
8.2.2 Monitoring and Enforcement
Enforcement of solid waste and health related laws in the County and City of Shelton is the
responsibility. of the Office of Environmental Health and the City of Shelton Code Enforcement
Office. Under the litter control ordinance, illegal dumping is the responsibility of the Sheriffs
Department, although the Office of Environmental Health may become involved when health
related issues arise. The Sheriff's Department and the Office of Environmental Health-may
request assistance from the Prosecuting Attorney if necessary. Illegal dumping and litter control
within the City of Shelton is also enforced through the City of Shelton Municipal Code in addition
to the Uniform Housing Code as it applies to nuisance abatement..
The Office of Environmental Health monitors and inspects the landfill, solid waste facility and
drop box stations, and other facilities that may impact human health. Whenever the situation is
not covered by the County's ordinances, the Office of Environmental Health enforces state
regulations.
Overall review and enforcement of state solid waste regulations is provided by the Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology). Mason County is under the jurisdiction of the southwest
regional office.
8.2.3 Financing and Funding
Mason County solid waste services are funded through fees collected at the solid waste facility,
drop box stations and a solid waste combined grant managed by the Department.of Community
Development. Mason County raised landfill rates in early 1995 to fund increased solid waste
activities in the County.
City of Shelton refuse programs are funded through refuse collection fees.
1999
Mason Co. sWM Plan
8A-2
8.3 NEE DS AND OPPORTUNIT11E
The needs and opportunities for enforcement and administration are generated in this section based
on goals listed in the beginning of this chapter. As needs are generated, issues are raised and
presented at the end of this section.
To ensure that the Office of EnvironmentalHealth's permitting, monitoring
and compliance programs for solid waste are adequately funded, staffed,
managed, and enforced.
With one solid waste �pecialist, the- Office of Environmental Health is minimally staffed for
current permitting and monitoring needs. However, as solid waste p I rograms expand and become
more complex, further staff and funding may be required.
Illegalping, unapproved storage of hulk and inoperable vehicles,-and solid wastes on private
property are primary ets of compliance enforcement. The rural nature of the County provides
a multitude of locations for illegal dumping and makes it difficult for these sites to be identified
other than by complaints. Complaints are typically received bothby the Sheriff's Department and
the office of Environmental Health. Once a complaint is received, the landowner is approached
for site cleanup.
Enforcement capabilities in the Office of Environmental Health are _limited due to staff size,
ordinance structure, absence of zoning, and limited legal support. .Funding supports the county
solid waste specialist in identifying illegal dump sites. Identified sites are then required to become
compliant through the Office of Environmental Health by permitting, proper closure, or
abatement.
To enforce illegal dumping ordinances the Office of Environmental Health responds to complaints,
investigates, and enforces compliance through a legal process starting with Notice and Orders.
This is not always timely since compliance is dependent upon mutual cooperation.
There are several non-permitted landfills operating in Mason County. These non-permitted
landfills are typically wood waste and demolition fills. Office of Environmental Health staff have
identified and are enforcing permitting requirements for these facilities.
In addition to enforcement of illegal dumping, there is an increasing emphasis on utilization of
sewage solids as a resource in land application. This has already impacted Office of Environmental
Health activities and has the potential for additional staff involvement.
To ensure the Department of Community Development is adequately staffed,
trained, and managed in its solid waste activities.
Mason Co. Swm Plan $q-3 199B
Staffing is currently adequate to handle the existing solid waste facility and drop box station
system. However, additional staff may be required as programs for solid waste grow and become
more complex.
In addition to the potential need for more staff, the County may also require funding.to support
new programs. A rate increase was passed in 1995 to fund post closure costs associated with the
landfill and the Solid Waste Management Plan. However, further funds for new programs may
be required.
ISSUE: If the solid waste management workload begins to exceed existing staff.
capabilities how should the Department of Community Development.respond?
New staff? Privatization?
ISSUE:`' How can the County better enforce laws and ordinances? As a preliminary
step, should the County evaluate .the programs being enforced? Would a
permanent enforcement person under the Office of Environmental Health be
feasible? Warranted? Are other ordinances appropriate?
ISSUE: Where should funding to support new programs and staff be obtained? What
are alternatives?
8.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
Complex environmental issues, increased emphasis on recycling and waste reduction programs,
more complicated operational requirements at sanitary landfills, and the need to coordinate all
aspects of the solid waste system including infectious and household hazardous waste has drawn
attention to administration and enforcement.
Laws have been passed and new technologies have been developed that affect how a County deals
with its solid waste. The burden of tracking these changes and implementing the-requirements they
entail are demanding. Considering the changing environment, the County and the City of Shelton
may want to consider enhancing their ability to administer the solid waste system and enforce solid
waste regulations.
This section discusses alternatives available to the County and. City for administration and
enforcement within the solid waste system. Administration options include increased staffing/
organization, temporary measures, and privatization. Within enforcement, the options include
program evaluation, more and better ordinances, more authority for Office of Environmental
Health and other County officials to enforce solid waste laws, increasing manpower, redefining
enforcement roles, and increasing coordination between agencies.
Mason Co. sWM Plan 8A-4 1998
Each alternative is discussed separately, but more than one of the alternatives can be implemented
together. For example the County may increase its staff, and privatize some elements of the
system.
8.4.1 Administration Alternatives
ISS the solid waste management workload beg` to exceed existing staff
capabilities how should the Department of Community Development respond?
New staff?. Privatization?
�Raintain Bxis in of Under this alternative the existing management organization and
manpower would perform all solid waste management responsibilities. At present, staff is
handling the solid waste system. However, future demands,,including increased recycling efforts,
educational programs, and possible new regulations will continue to put increasing demands on
staff.
If alternative is to be effective, the County may need to rely more on consultants, private and
non-profit organizations, and the general public to implement programs. A well coordinated effort .
° g responsibilities and establishing co unity action ups could allow this alternative
for de
to succeed. Therefore, the demands on County employees may be extreme.
Enhancers Staffing. If the County wishes to continue its role as solid waste managers, then
increased staff may be required. There currently exists a staff person who coordinates recycling
efforts between the County and the City of Shelton. Responsibilities include coordinating public
education programs, recycling contracts, performing waste audits for businesses, tracking
recycling rates, monitoring legislation and lobbying. An additional.staff member could also assist
in developing and implementing hazardous waste alternatives.
Increased Privatization. To reduce the strain on County government, particularly if a decision is
made not to increase staff, privatization of some elements of the solid waste system may-be
desirable. Three areas have potential for privatization:
Landfill ownership, operation, and management
Recycling program development and operation
Solid Waste Facility and Drop Box Station operations
By pursuing privatization the County may be able to keep staff levels at or below their existing
levels and decrease their requirements for administration. Conversely, greater attention would be
given to development of contracts. Enforcement of solid waste operations would probably need
to be boosted to ensure that contractors, or private operators are performing their responsibilities
in accordance with laws and County contracts.
Mason co. swm Plan 8A-5 1998
Several communities have landfills operated by private enterprise. The County can continue to
derive funding for its solid waste programs through a surcharge on landfill tipping fees, but all
other responsibility for landfill construction, operation, and maintenance could be provided by a
private company.
The County can privatize the recycling system through several means. One is to issue a Request
for Proposals (RFP) for collection of recyclable materials and negotiate a contract for collection
and sale of materials to.include curbside collection or drop boxes. The County could work with
the contractor to define service areas and minimum levels of service. . The City of Shelton
presently has a curbside recycling program where a private company collects the recyclables.
Another means of privatizing the recycling industry is to require the hauling company to provide
recycling-service to County residents. One method of doing this is to require the collection
company to meet a certain recovery rate for recyclable materials and leave it up to the hauler to. .
decide how to go about achieving that level. This method has the advantage of utilizing-the
haulers knowledge of his collection area to implement programs in the most effective way. The
hauler would need to petition the WUTC for a rate increase to cover the cost of collecting
recyclables as required by the County. Haulers in other counties have expressed'their approval.
of this approach to privatize recycling.
Instead of County.employees operating the solid Waste facility and drop box stations, the stations
would be-leased to a private contractor who would provide all services for the facility including
collecting recyclables, contracting for drop box removal, and performing day to day operations..
With recycling, and station operations privatized, the County would be in the position of providing
enforcement and overall contract administration services for these three areas. Responsibilities
in the area of special waste streams and public education would be maintained and some staff
whose positions are eliminated by privatization could assist in these areas.
City of S elton Increased Staffine. The City of Shelton should be able to continue operating its
solid waste division through its Department of Development Services. Present staffing is adequate
to manage existing waste disposal programs. The present recycling program did require an
additional.staff member. As discussed previously, the recycling staff member is shared with the
County.
8.4.2 Monitoring and Enforcement Alternatives\
ISSUE: How can the County better enforce laws and ordinances? As a preliminary
step, should the County evaluate the programs being enforced? Is the
permanent enforcement person under the Office of Environmental Health
feasible? Warranted? Are other ordinances appropriate?
Mason co. swm Plan 8A-6 1998
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 program
evaluation. Specifically of concern is enforcement of special waste regulations, littering and
illegal dumping, and new solid waste facility permits. With any potential new landfill and the
environmental monitoring and operations requirements associated with it, more activity will be
needed from the office of Environmental Health.
dram Evaluation. In addition to classic methods of increasing authority, staff and funding for
enforcement, 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
Evaluation of the solid waste system structure and development of methods to make,the system
more acceptable could be one method of avoiding the need for extensive enforcement.
A lack of:public information and education could also contribute topoor understanding of County
actions and an i I ncrease in enforcement requirements. However, some, level of illegal.dumping
should be expected regardless.of the level of public support and enforcement methods.
e Office of v ironmental. Health can work with the Department of .
Th En
Community Development to propose a civil penalties ordinance to include ticket-writing authority:
y*.
The solid wasternanagement,plan can be used in conjunction with WAC 173-304, MYS and other
environmental regulations to develop a coordinated approach to ordinances regarding solid waste.
Examples of ordinances from othe*r counties can be used as a guideline for developing Mason
County's ordinances.
Improve interagency coordination. The large number of different law enforcement agencies
having jurisdiction in the County maims interagency cooperation in the enforcement.of solid waste
regulations essential. The County Sheriff, City of Shelton Police, City of Shelton Code
Enforcement Office, Mason County Office of Environmental Health, Washington State Patrol,
State and National Park Rangers, and Tribal Police, and Natural Resources Department all have
areas of jurisdiction. Each agency could be made aware of the correct routine for reporting what
appears to be illegal dumping, even if enforcement of illegal dumping laws is not a priority.
increase Office of Environmental Health StafffiIg_and_TnjUiUg. The Office of Environmental
Health is the agency responsible for monitoring and enforcing solid waste.laws mid regulations
as well as permitting solid waste facilities. As laws change this task becomes more and more
demanding and may require the Office of Environmental Health to increase its staffing level and
provide additional specialized training to some-staff.
The office of Environmental Health maintains a staff person whose primary job is solid waste,
enforcement. This person is responsible for keeping up to date on ail applicable regulations and
is responsive to all enforcement requests related to solid waste. The Office of Environmental
Mason Co. swm Plan 8A-7 1999
Health is currently partially funding this position by a grant for an employee of this nature (2 year
get)
M ato Collection in Unincorporated Areas. Solid Waste tipping fees and garbage collection
rates will inevitably continue to increase. With rising rates will come the possibility of increased
illegal dumping and the enforcement concerns associated with this. One option available to the
County for handling this problem is to pass a mandatory collection law. Under a mandatory
collection ordinance all County residents would be charged for a minimum level of refuse service.
whether they use it or not. ,This could reduce the likelihood of illegal dumping.
Mandatory collection could take several forms. A fee could be applied to all County residents and
free tipping could be implemented at the landfill and transfer stations. Those residents subscribing
to collection services could continue while self-haul customers could be charged through utility
or other billings.
However, mandatory collection could be strongly opposed by residents who self-haul refuse, burn,
refuse, or simply dislike mandatory programs. The benefits of mandatory collection must be
weighed against the opposition of these individuals.
8.4.3 Funding Alternatives
ISSUE: Where should funding to support new programs and staff be obtained? What
are alternatives?
Funding for solid waste programs, administration, enforcement and monitoring can be provided
by several means. Capital improvements can be financed through internal financing, general
obligation bonds, revenue bonds, industrial development bonds, grant funding, and private
financing, with payback during operation. Operations can be funded through an enterprise fund
or general funds.
In the past, revenue has been generated through tipping fees at the solid waste facility for the
County and through collection rates for the City of Shelton. Other alternatives exist for generating
revenue'for solid waste administration and enforcement. These include charging through the
collection system, funding through general funds, and private funding for private operations. Fees
collected from tickets and penalties could also be included in solid waste funding. The use of
private collection agencies could be explored to collect\outstanding civil penalties due the County.
Internal Financing. Internal financing involves collecting funds from whatever revenue source
is preferred and paying for programs directly from this revenue or from a capital improvements
fund established expressly for the purpose. In this alternative, the County would place a surcharge
on the tipping fee at the landfill or a surcharge on the collection bill and any funds generated that
are surplus to the current needs of the system are placed in a capital improvements fund. As the
fund grows, the opportunity for additional capital improvements to the system grows. This
Mason Co. SWM Plan 8A-8 1998
method is not well suited for financing large capital expenditures because of the long period of
time required for the fund to reach the required size. However, the capital improvements fund can
be used to finance small scale projects, studies, and pilot programs.
General Qb1gadQn-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 bond holders 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.
Ravenue nds. Revenue bonds are simil . 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 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 Bons. For joint ventures between private enterprise and the County,
Industrial Development Bonds (IDB's) may be,used for funding capital improvements. IDB's are
pa I iticularly common in financing waste to energy projects; however, other joint ventures may be
amenable.to.this form of joint cooperation.I 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 have received grant monies for projects. More
i Coordinated Prevention
grant monies are available from the Department of Ecology under the
Grant program. The current cycle of this program provides funds for 1998 and 1999:
Private FinangWa. Private solid waste projects can be financed through private sources. This
method of funding capital improvements and programs is more expensive than the previously
mentioned programs. - But for private projects, 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 w.anted 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.
Ente rise Fund. This is the current method of funding daily solid waste activities by the County.
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.
Mason Co. swm Plan 8A-9 1998
Portions of the enterprise fund may also be dedicated to funding specific enforcement programs
in the Office of Environmental Health and the Sheriff's Department.
n ral und. 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 the landfill or from enforcement actions
would be directed to the County's general fund.
However 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 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 Office of Environmental Health. 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: However, as discussed,
general fund financing is limited and programs may not have sufficient priority in.relation to other
programs to receive adequate funding.
Sources of Solid Waste Revenu . Revenue to fund either an enterprise fund or the general fund
for solid waste programs can come from several sources including general taxes, transfer station
tipping fees, collection rates, or a combination thereof.
The existing County funding structure relies on transfer station tipping fees to fund solid waste
activities. This is a common method of funding solid waste programs.
To accommodate the long term financial obligations related to managing the County's solid waste
system rate reviews and adjustments may be required. Rate reviews should reflect the cost of new
programs, development of new facilities, closure costs and ongoing maintenance and monitoring
during the post closure period. In general, all costs associated with construction, operation,
closure of old landfills, post closure costs, and management of the solid waste system in the
County could be paid for with funds collected at the transfer stations. However, it is likely to
require continual rate increases.
Mason Co. sWM Plan 8A-/0 1998
With rate inc. reases, the risk of increased illegal dumping is possible. Mandatory collection could
he minimize this risk. The Uansfer station tipping fee should be.equitable and reflect the actual
cost of the solid waste handling system.
A surcharge could a I Iso be plac ed on any waste that is disposed from outside of Mason County.
having an
This surcharge could reflect the non-quantifiable costs associated with iav g to site d have a
landfill within the County. However, it likely that import of solid waste will be prohibited
under an ordinance-in the future.
Another option for funding solid waste programs is to collect funds through the collection
companies. y
An' 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 a private landfill was permitted, a simila method could be used to place a surcharge on the
landfill tipping fee,that would fund'County programs. This is the method that has been used in
several counties including Pierce, Kitsap, and Whatcom.
Aside ftoin charging for all County administration fees through collection, there is the option of
charging for specific, services through a surcharge,on the tipping fee, charging for other services
through the collection company and still other through the general fund. This arrangement has
the advantage of being flexible to the demands being pla on solid waste managers, but still
ced r.am requirements.
utilizing incentives and providing for several means of meeting grog
8.5 REC,OMMEENDATIONS
Solid waste.management responsibilities in Mason County are shared between the Department of
Environmental Health and Department of Community Development. Each department is familiar
with their individual staffing, training and management needs.
Revenues collected.at the solid waste facility and.drop box stations are the major funding source
for solid waste activities. In order to properly comply with regulations there has historically been
a need to increase fees as well as a need for additional funding sources for major construction.
Continuation of a staff member within the Office of Environmental Health to monitor and enforce
against illegal dumping is strongly supported by the SWAG. The office of Environmental Health
has acquired funding and employs an enforcement staff member to identify illegal dump sites
(presently a 2 year grant).
No needs or changes to the existing Solid Waste system were identified for the City of Shelton.
Recommendation 8.1. The, County should maintain its existing Community Development
structure.
Mason Co.0 swm Plan 8A-11 1998
Recommendation 8.2. The County should continue to examine and adjust tipping.fees
in light of future solid waste programs.
Recommendation 8.3. The County should evaluate and develop additional funding
sources for future major capital expenditures.
Recommendation 8.4. The County should investigate the establishment.of a civil penalty
ordinance allowing the ticketing of violators.
Recommendation 8.5. The County should continue employing a permanent enforcement
staff member for illegal dump site identification.
8.6 EUPLEMENTATION
An implementation schedule and planning level budget is developed in this section for enforcement
and administration.
Table 8.1A EViPLEMENTATION.S . DULE- ENFORCEMENT AND
ADAIEWSTRATION
1998-2002 The County evaluates additional funding mechanisms for major capital
expenditures.
The County investigates potential ticket writing compliance enforcement
within the Office of Environmental Health. Funding needs are considered..'
The County continues to staff programs as required.
The County periodically examines tipping fees for adjustment.
Meson Co. SWM Plan 8A 12 1998
Table 8.2A MPLE MEEiNTATION COST SU ZY*
Evaluation of additional funding mechanisms Little to
for major capital expenditures. No added
Cost
Funding of enforcement personnel in the $20-30,000
the Office of Environmental health. Annually
The County continues to staff programs as $30,000
required and periodically examines tipping fees per added
for adjustment. Employee
*Costs indicated have been developed for planning purposes only. As activities are
begun, costs should be re-evaluated for more accurate estimates.
mason co. SwM Plan 8A-13 1998
N COUNTy SOLID
CHAPTER 9A SPE CIAL WASTE STREAMS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates existing and proposed methods of handling various non-liaiardous solid
waste streams other than mixed municipal waste. These waste streams include biosolids, septic
tank pumpings, demolition wastes, wood wastes, industrial wastes, tires, infectious waste, white
goods, d asbestos. Management of these special wastes is an important aspect of the solid waste
system:and this section recommends alternative methods of dealing with them.
e solid waste planning goals for Mason County in the area of special waste streams area
® To provide guidelines and strategies for disposal of 0 special wastes.
® TO ensure that special wastes are disposed, in a manner that complies with all state
and federal regulations.
9.2 ENISTING PRACTICES
9. .1Blosoli
Mason County operates two sewage treatment plants. Bio-solids from these plants are collected
by private hauler and transported to Bio-Recycling, a Centralia based company.
Biosolids from the City of Shelton sewage treatment plant is land applied to an 80 acre parcel of
treed land owned by the Simpson Timber Company. This land is permitted through the 1990s for
biosolids application. Approximately 184 tons of sludge is generated each year by the City
treatment plant and land applied inMason County. 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 non-merchantable timber within
corrections center property. The Corrections Center is currently investigating the construction of
a composting facility.
Sludge from outside the County is imported and applied to 700 acres of Christmas tree land. This
operation is run by Bio-Recycling. A chemical analysis of all imported sludge is provided before
it is land applied in Mason County.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-1 1998
All biosolid application within Mason County is subject to review by the Health Department and
the requirements established by Ecology and EPA. Currently a moratorium has been placed on
all new biosolid land application permits in Mason County.
9.2.2 Septic Tank PumFings
,
Approximately 1,300,000 tons of septic tank pumpings are generated in Mason County each year.
The past practice of disposing of the septage waste in trenches was ceased as of January 1990.
Currently septage wastes generated in Mason County are disposed of at the Bio-Recycling facility
in Mason County. Some septage generated outside of Mason County is also accepted.
Old septage trenches on the landfill site have been excavated and the material stockpiled with
temporary cover for future use as topsoil over the existing landfill.
9.2.3 Demolition Wastes
Demolition waste consists of inert waste resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings,
roads, and other man-made structures. Demolition wastes includes concrete, brick, bituminous
concrete, wood, masonry, roofing paper, steel, and minor amounts of metals such as copper.
Material other than wood demolition waste that is likely to produce leachate, such as plaster, is
not considered demolition waste. Stumps, yard waste and the by-products from wood.products
manufacturing are also not considered demolition wastes.
The production of demolition waste peaks in the spring and summer. Demolition wastes are
currently exported along with other MSW generated within the County.
There are a number of non-permitted or illegal dumps in Mason County. As these sites become
known.to MCDHS they are brought into compliance. These sites contain demolition wastes, wood
wastes and other materials which may or may not include MSW.
9.2.4 Wood Waste
Wood waste is defined as solid waste that is a by product of wood products manufacturing. It
includes saw dust, shavings, stumps, wood chunks, hog fuel, pulp, and log sort yard waste. It
is unknown how much of this type of waste is generated in Mason County each year from various
sources. However the Simpson Timber Company is the largest producer of wood.waste.
To eliminate a large portion of their wood waste, the Simpson Timber Company operates a hog
fuel fired boiler at their Shelton headquarters. The plant can produce 140,000 lbs of steam while
burning 12 to 15 tons of wood waste per hour. It came on line in March 1986 at a cost of six
million dollars and is capable of producing steam 24 hours a day during the winter.
In the past, some wood waste was delivered to the Mason County Landfill for disposal. It was
occasionally used as daily cover at the landfill and the remainder was disposed in a separate
location away from the active face of the landfill.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-2 1998
Simpson Timber Company has its own 40 acre wood waste disposal site located West of Shelton
near Dayton. Simpson disposes of ash from its boiler, wood waste and slaker ash from its
Tacoma mill on this site. Groundwater is monitored at the site. Simpson has contracted with a
private company to recover .prepare,. and utilize clean woodwaste for use as soil amendment,
bulking agent, and other appropriate and beneficial uses.
9.2.5 Industrial Wast
Industrial solid waste, means waste byproducts from manufacturing operations such.as scraps,
trimmings, packing, and other discarded materials that are not considered dangerous wastes.
Other thari Simpson, there are few.manufacturing firms in the County; therefore, little industrial
waste is.generated. If any industrial waste is brought to the Solid Waste Facility the Health
Department is notified to verify that the waste is not hazardous and is acceptable for disposal.
9.2.6 Thes
Approximately 1425 fires are accepted at the Mason County Solid
d Waste Facility per year. Tires
present ent a special problem for landfill operations in that they tend to "float". Because of their
shape and tendency to hold air, tires.will work their way to I the surface of a landfill over time.
T=also cause problems for compaction equipment and can disrupt the final.landfill cover. For
these reasons tires are usually not accepted at landfills.
Currently the Solid Waste Facility operators stack the tires in piles. These are removed by a
private contractor and recycled.
9.2.7 Infectious-Wastes
Infectious wastes are those wastes generated by hospitals, medical clinics, dental offices and
veterinary clinics. These wastes are contaminated with human or animal blood or other body
fluids. Other infectious wastes that present a physical hazard to solid waste personnel include
sharps such as needles and scalpels.
All infectious wastes generated in Mason County, including those from the I Corrections Center and
Mason General Hospital are removed and disposed of by private contractors.
9.2.8 White Goods/Appliartm
Currently white goods and appliances are temporarily stored at the Solid Waste Facility. A
private contractor strips the switches and removes the salvageable metal from the.site. Non-
salvageable materials are exported.
The County requires the salvageable metal contractor to provide approved CFC disposal services.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-3 1998
9.2.9 AAest
Currently asbestos is disposed of at the solid waste facility under the following conditions:
The asbestos contractor obtains and completes the appropriate Department of Community
Development form which.describes the source and quantity of asbestos to be disposed.
Asbestos is double bagged and wetted.
The landfill operator is notified prior to bringing asbestos on-site.
A special trailer will need to be obtained to transport asbestos in accordance with DOT and
United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part
61.141, or any other applicable law.
Handlers of asbestos wastes are required to wear protective,clothing and filter masks.
9:3 NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Special waste stream disposal practices are evaluated in this section on the basis of the previously
developed goals. Needs and opportunities are developed from the evaluation. Policy issues are
raised as each waste stream is discussed and are presented at the end.of each subsection.
The goals which each special waste stream are evaluated by are reiterated below:
GOAL: To provide guidelines and strategies for disposal of all special wastes.
GOAL: To ensure that special wastes are disposed in a manner that complies with all
state and federal regulations.
9.3.1 Biosolids
Currently the Mason County Health Department provides guidance and review of all biosolid land
application in Mason County based on requirements established by Ecology and the Environmental
Protection Agency. According to these requirements, land disposal of sludge meets all state and
federal regulations for biosolids disposal. Utilization of biosolids is supported under RCW
70.95.255 which allows Ecology to prohibit disposal of biosolids. Ecology has established a
policy that biosolids shall be utilized as a resource rather than disposed in landfill.
Currently there is a moratorium on new biosolids land application permits and expansion of
existing facilities in Mason County. Three generators of biosolids exist in Mason County, the
County, Shelton and the Corrections Center. Mason County biosolids is handled by a private
contractor. Shelton has a permitted land application site that is authorized through the 1990s.
However, if not resolved, the moratorium may affect Shelton once the permit expires on the
existing land application site. The Corrections Center applies its biosolids on its own property.
1998
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-4
Bio-Recycl' g also has a land application site for local and imported biosolids in Mason County.
While this site can continue operating under the existing permit, future permits or expansion of
the program would be affectedby the moratorium.
e remainder of the County is served by septic systems. Should more sewer systems be installed
in populated areas of the County, biosolids quantities could increase and aggravate this problem.
ISSUE: How wW biosolidsbe handled in on County? Will the County continue
to accept biosolids from out of County? What are alternatives to land
application?
. .2 Septic Tank PUMDinES
o immediate p i needs exist for septic tank pumpings since the County has established a
strategy for handling the waste stream. However, the County is investigating.alternative methods
of. sal of the waste stream.' Some opportunities may exist for alternate uses of the material.
ISSUE: Is lime stabilization and land application e most viable disposal option for
septic tank p gs? Are there other alternatives?
9.3.3 Demolition Wastes
Disposal of demolition wastes are specifically addressed in WAC 173-304-461, MPS. Under that
regulation, the requirements for demolition sites are significantly reduced from those required for
solid waste landfills. For example, no liners, leachate collection or treatment systems are required
for demolition fills. The less stringent requirements would result in cost savings in all aspects of
construction; operation and maintenance of the demolition fill. Under the old solid waste disposal
standards, solid waste landfills also had no liner, leachate collection or treatment requirements and
no significant cost savings were realized by separating demolition and.MSW.
Demolition and solid waste streams .can be co-disposed. Currently Mason County exports
demolition wastes received at the Solid Waste Facility for disposal at the regional MSW landfill.
There is a continued need for identification of illegal and non-pennitted dumps in the County.
These dumps contain demolition, wood and other materials. Chapters 7 and 8 discuss this need
and make recommendations.
ISSUE: What strategy should be adopted for disposal of demolition materials? Should
the County develop a demolition disposal and recovery site? here?
. .4 Wood Waste
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-5 1998
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 disposed. These methods comply with all regulations concerning disposal of this waste
stream.
The need for permitting and/or closure of illegal dumps which may contain wood waste is
discussed in Chapter 8A.
Composting of wood wastes could become a future option by either a public or private entities in
Mason County.
There are several private wood waste recycling operations in Mason County.
9.3.5 Industrial Wastg
Little industrial waste is generated in Mason County other than wood wastes and wood production
byproducts. The current process of inspection of questionable wastes by the Health Department
meets requirements for solid waste disposal and is an adequate program at this time.
As manufacturing increases in the County and other industrial waste streams are added, other
programs may be required to assist industry in identifying hazardous wastes and.developing
methods of treatment and disposal.
Industry and businesses in the County also provide a focus for waste reduction and recycling
programs. Chapter 3A addresses the issue of commercial education programs and waste audits.
9.3.6 Tires
Tire disposal presents a problem not only in Mason County but across the state and nation. The
storage of tires poses significant fire hazards, environmental contamination hazards from runoff,
and public_ health problems associated with the breeding of mosquitoes and rodents. In addition
tires also pose a significant disposal problem. To date solutions to the problem are generally
experimental and costly. Tire chipping operations have closed in Thurston County and Centralia
leaving the nearest such facility in Portland, Oregon. Cost to transport tires this distance plus the
cost of the chipping operation is high. In addition capacity at the plant is limited.
one-tire company in the County was providing a solution to the immediate tire problem by
retreading or burying tires. Currently tires brought to the Solid Waste Facility are collected by
a private contractor. This solution is currently meeting tire disposal requirements.
ISSUE: What existing disposal programs are available for tires? What potential .
future programs would assist in disposal?
1998
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-6
9.3.7 Infectious Wantes
Major generators are disposing of these wastes through private infectious and medical waste
nf
contractors. At this time there have been no problems with i ectious or hospital wastes nor
identification of iff-ectious wastes disposed improperly in the waste stream. Although no problem
has been identified, the potential could exist for improper disposal of these wastes. Should.
problems develop or be identified County guidance or strategy may be required for this waste
stream. Also, federal regulations concerning this waste are currently being developed and may
require action in the future.
ISSUE: What form should the overall strategy take? Ordinance?
Mason County does not accept infectious wastes at the Solid Waste Facility. Several private
disposal companies serve infectious waste generators in Mason County.
9.3.8 MJit6GDods/APPlJanm
Currently white goods and appliances am stockpiled on the Solid Waste Facility site and a private
contractor breaks them down for salvage. This program is operating satisfactorily and no
additional needs have been identified at this time. The County requires.the salvage metal
contractor to be certified in the removal of CFC's or utilize certified personnel for the removal
of CFC's in accordance with all state and federal regulations.
9.3.9 Asb
No immediate planning needs exist for asbestos since the County has a method and strategy for.
handling the waste stream. In addition, no need exists for future solid waste handling methods
such as export of solid waste since all existing regional disposal facilities.will accept asbestos.
9.4 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
This section presents alternatives for managing special waste streams generated. within Mason
County. Alternatives are discussed and evaluated for each special waste.-
9.4.1 Biosolids
ISSUE: How will biosolids be handled in Mason County? Will the County continue
to accept biosolids from out of County? What are alternatives to land
application?
The first two questions involve policy decisions. - Biosolid management alternatives include land
application, composting, and landfill disposal. Land application and composting require the
biosolids to be stabilized prior to utilization.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-7 1999
land Application. Land application of biosolids has become the standard method of biosolids
management in the United States.. This includes application on agricultural lands,.forest lands,
and as a land reclamation tool to upgrade poor soil conditions.
Successful land application of biosolids requires a carefully managed program that allows biosolids.
to be applied at rates that meet state guidelines. For agricultural applications the.nitrogen and
phosphorous needs of the particular plant species determines the rate of application. Even stricter
requirements apply for metal concentrations if the biosolids will be applied to areas that grow food
for human consumption. .Forest lands have higher rates of application for biosolids because
forests are more tolerant to the metals that can be found in biosolids and the concerns associated
with a food crop are not_present.
Land application of biosolids for land reclamation allows the greatest application rates. Biosolid
quality is less of a constraint for land reclamation applications, however future plant tolerance to
metal concentrations must be considered.
Continued land application of biosolids within limits established by the State and Federal
Government offers significant benefits to agricultural and forest product industries in.the County.
The great abundance of forest lands and tree farms'provides readily available locations for
biosolids application.
Since the amount of biosolids generated within Mason County is relatively small, limited areas
of application are.needed to dispose of in-county biosolids. Out-of-county biosolids, however,
_ can be used to benefit Mason County lands, while helping to solve the problem of biosolid
disposal in larger Puget Sound communities such as Pierce and King Counties. Importation of
biosolids'is a politically sensitive issue, but can provide benefits to the County.
.O- omnosting of biosolids. Biosolids have been converted to a good quality compost material
through mixing with municipal solid waste, yard debris, or wood waste. Biosolids are mixed with
other wastes, turned frequently to prevent anaerobic conditions; and allowed to age into compost.
The compost produced can be of very high quality and can be utilized for landscaping or as a soil
amendment at nurseries.
A composting project must be well planned and monitored to be successful. Concentrations of
metals, nitrogen, phosphorous and other constituents should be tested for and provided to potential
end-users. Market development efforts should be aimed at nurseries, landscapers, and home
gardeners.
While market development efforts must initially be very intensive and may include pilot projects
and advertising, eventually the material may become popular. In some composting projects the
material has become very popular with demand exceeding supply during the spring and summer
months.
Landfill_ Disposal. The Department of Ecology has listed landfill disposal of biosolids as the
lowest priority utilization method and has reserved the right to prohibit landfill disposal if
1999
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-8
n CW 70.95.255). The Department will generally allow biosolid utilization at landfill
sites for cover applications only. The landfill operated by RDC win not accept bio-solids that can
be utilized.
Typically raw biosolids are too wet to work with for.landfill cover. In this case, mixing the
biosolids with soil, wood waste or processed yard debris can improve the consistency and make
it a useful source of daily or final cover. Stabilized biosolids and septage may also be combined
and mixed with wood waste or processed yard debris to solve the problem of septage disposal.
.9.4.2 Septic Tank Pumpinas
ISSUE: Is lime stabilization and land application of treated septic tank pumpings the
most viable alternative? Are there other alternatives?
Alternative methods for managing septic tank pumpmgs within on County include stabilization
d composting or land application, co-treatment with wastewater and chlorine oxidation. Landfill
disposal of septage is not considered use the Department of Ecology through RCW 70.95.255
.has established that landfill disposal of septage is the lowest priority method of utilization.
Landfill disposal is conside as a "last resort" alternative and only through utilization as
a cover mate ' e dfill cover alternative was discussed under.section 9.4.1.
Septic tank pumpings are becoming an increasing problem within the state and across the country.
As treatment plants approach capacity they are increasingly refusing to take septage wastes. No
definitive guidelines have been established by the State regarding management of septage, so
solutions are "patchwork" at best.
Stabilization and CompQsting or Land U12 i ation . Stabilization of septic tank pumpings involves
mixing the septage with some chemical or treating it by other means to render it non-pathogenic
(disease causing) and to reduce its odor. One typical method of stabilization is the addition of
lime. This method is approved by the Department of Ecology and renders the:septage relatively
safe and odorless.
Stabilized septage can be composted like biosolids. The septage can be mixed with wood waste,
processed yard debris, or processed mixed waste. The mix is stockpiled in windrows and turned
occasionally to maintain aerobic conditions. If frequently turned and aerated the compost is ready
after about 2-1 days. Typically the material is left in windrows for an additional 2 to 10 weeks to
ensure that all portions of the pile are composted. The composted septage can be land applied to
agricultural or forest lands as a fertilizer or may be used for land reclamation purposes in areas
with poor soils.
Co-Treatment with Wastewater. A common method of managing septage waste in many counties,
is to deliver it to a wastewater treatment plant. The septage is pumped into the treatment plant
and subjected to the same processes as the wastewater.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-9 1999
This alternative assumes that adequate capacity is available at the Sewage treatment plant to handle
the septage. Currently there are no wastewater facilities in Mason County willing to take septic
pumpings.
Mason County could consider establishing an agreement with neighboring counties to haul septage
wastes to their treatment facilities. This alternative may be feasible as a short term solution.
Chlorine Oxidation. This treatment method involves adding chlorine in sufficient quantities to kill
pathogenic bacteria in the septage. The septage would still need to be land applied as a final
utilization method.
Because of the high bacterial populations in septage and the large percentage of solids, large
quantities of chlorine would need to be added to the septage to render it free of bacteria. This
method is not preferred, but could be used as a preliminary step to land application to,satisfy
health concerns..
9.4.3 pemolition Waste
ISSUE: What strategy should be adopted for disposal of demolition materials?
Continued disposal in solid waste landfills? Develop a separate demolition
.disposal/recovery site? Where?
Co-Disposal with MSW. In this alternative, demolition waste and construction debris continues
to be disposed of in the Regional MSW landfill: This waste would be treated just as other solid
wastes are treated in terms of disposal. This is the existing method of disposing of demolition
wastes in Mason County.
In general, continued disposal of demolition waste in new MFS compliant landfills would be
unnecessarily expensive and an inefficient use of landfill capacity. .Although demolition waste
could be co-disposed with solid waste, the capacity of the landfill is better reserved for other solid
wastes that cannot be disposed of elsewhere.
Demolition Landfill. A demolition landfill is beneficial because it has less strict construction and
operational requirements. The landfill does not require a liner, and cover is only required at
Closure or during summer months for wastes that pose a fire hazard: Because there is no leachate
treatment, daily cover, environmental monitoring, or final cover requirements the cost of disposal
is significantly less than an MSW landfill.
Smaller, private, demolition fills located throughout the County in locations that are convenient
for local construction activity have certain advantages. If a contractor has to travel a long distance
to get to a demolition landfill there is a temptation to illegally dump construction debris. Local
demolition landfills provided by private individuals could help alleviate this problem.
1998
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-10
Even if the County promotes development of community based demolition sites, they may still
want to establish a County demolition site or continue to accept demolition wastes for export to
make sure a disposal option is always available.
.4.4 Woo t
W wastes in Mason County provide a potential resource for composting other waste streams
such as sludge or septic tank pumpings. Composting of both of these waste streams is discussed
in Sections 9. .1 and 9.4.2.
. .5 Industrial Wastes
No needs or issues were identified for this waste stream in the previous section. Refer to. Chapter
3A for commercial waste recommendationsi
. .6
S . What e i disposal programs are available for tires? at potential
future rogr would assist in disposal?
At present tire disposal in Mason County is not a problem. however, if the existing program
ends, the County would need to have some alternative method of handling waste tires.
Alternatives considered in this section include shredding/landfilling, recycling, and exporting tires
out-of-county.
reng and Energy Recov=. Landfill disposal of used tires is not an option. Tires can be
shredded, and the chips used'to augment hog fuel, this practice has been found to benefit the
operation and efficiency of these.facilities.
Some types of tires can be a problem for a shredding machine, such as some steel belted tires.
Segregation of problem tires would be required based on the shredder manufacturer's
recommendations. These non-shreddable tires could be recycled or disposed of separately.
Recycling Tims. There are a number of recycling options for used tires. Whole tires can be used
for artificial reefs, erosion control, floating breakwaters, highway guards, dock bumpers, concrete
base forms for poles or fences, and in playgrounds. One method currently being used involves
cutting tires into strips and weaving these strips into mats.. These mats can be used for erosion
control, landscaped areas, and trail stabilization. All of these options are being pursued before
tires are landfilled.
Out-of-County Ex rting of Tires. The tire'disposal problem is common to many counties in the
State. Problems of this magnitude have generated some creative alternatives.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-1 1 1998
9.4.7 Infectious_Wastes
ISSUE: What form should the overall strategy take? Ordinance?
Alternatives for managing the infectious wastes generated in Mason County include incineration,
controlled landfill disposal, and sterilization with uncontrolled landfill disposal. Although no
problems are currently identified, the County may consider an ordinance at some future date.
A County ordinance on infectious waste could include a definition of infectious wastes, handling
methods, disposal requirements, acceptable sterilization and incineration methods, and
requirements for each generator to have an infectious waste management permit and plan. One
model of an infectious waste regulation is the Tacoma-Fierce County Health Department's
regulations.
Incineration. Incineration of infectious wastes is currently used in hospitals throughout the United
States. Currently there are no known infectious waste incinerators located in Mason County. An
initial accounting of infectious waste generators, including a waste stream survey would enable
the County to determine if this is a feasible alternative.
f'nnrrnllPd Landfill Disposal. This alternative involves landfilling of infectious wastes. All
generators would be.required by ordinance to segregate infectious waste from the rest of their
waste stream for delivery to the Solid Waste Facility. The material could be stored in colored
bags similar to the method used by the correctional center., At the Solid Waste Facility, the
material would be loaded in special containers and immediately shipped.
Sterilization and Uncontrolled landfill Disposal. All infectious wastes could be required to be
sterilized using appropriate measures as spelled out in a County ordinance. Methods that would
be appropriate include steam, chemical, thermal, and irradiation sterilization. Once the wastes
were sterilized they would be allowed to be disposed in the landfill through the normal solid waste
collection service.
9.4.8 White Gods/Ap lip ances
No needs or issues were identified for this special waste stream in the previous section.
9.4.9 Asbestos
No needs or issues were identified for this special waste stream in the previous section.
Table 9.1 A summarizes existing County policies and evaluates available alternatives based on
advantages and disadvantages.
9.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.5.1 Biosolids
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-12 1998
The SAC recognized the unpopularity of biosolid land application with the Mason County
public, while also recognizing the potential benefits of land application in the County. Concern
was voiced over the misunderstandings and lack of public education associated with this issue.
The SWAC supported land application of biosolids and expressed a desire to see a policy
developed which would allow land application of biosolids within Mason County.
Recommendation 9.1. Mason County should proceed with a public awareness and
education program for biosolids utilization in land application. The County should
continue to investigate alternative methods for biosolids handling, including possible
regional solutions.
Recommendation ® The County government should support land application of
biosolids. The County should develop clear policies and guidelines for biosolid land
application. These should include EPA requirements as well as guidelines for site
selection.
® ® Septic lank Pumin
-
Septic pumpings generated in Mason County are currently disposed of at the Bio-Recycling lime
stabilization/land application facility located in the Webb Hill area.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-13 1998
i 4-4
O o O a
41
4 o
Cd
an � V � v'U �.`� C� U H Q�►�1 � � � `.' �i�"D F•••i as E-�
• • . • •
b
Cd
b o
� a o
c•a O O. a� O v1 �
cad N b p 'b O Q ' 'D = b p cd
N
• ccS
O
o
P. � � � c�c .�D
U 3 A
> z
15.
o
H
O U
� R
•� w
Q Cl)
u
0 C
® Y a
o
o � °
® N ® C a b O
ed rn
a� U U Z ca �
U
VI
4-4
0 .
O eN U pq w �
� E-+ O U R+ O rn
N
� Q
b �
b
C42
o
U
a O
.b o o ? o
tl�
b U N w xnai N O O O
� UU Ji O D U
i,
i
� c
fl )
0
rA ct U
O C
V2Cld N
71
a
5
'C� a .5 a�
o cd rj 8 �
O
o 4-1 cn
on o �
oay � w m 'D (�jc� Ty
[ Z CII) .0 a a � ►-1 ryi Q
0
U
v
Z o 0 r
r��-•� O U3 O U Y
� � 00
o
W Z 940. W ►�
z�
F4
� a
o
rn O
rn UA � t z
En a -d O O
b❑❑n vo ^?7b O p,^�
r1 q U v� N 4 U O
�. eri
� a
� vun
U
u
cdca
G
U O
_, 3 c7
Recommendation 9.3. The County should continue utilize the private sector while
evaluating alternative methods of septage handling.
9.5.3 Devolition Raste
The SWAC and County staff both support source separation of recyclable demolition wastes where
feasible. However, the current solid waste export program is not conducive to separating wastes
to be landfilled.
Recommendation .4. The County should continue to investigate the feasibility of
utilizing certainrecyclable demolition wastes and divert those materials to the appropriate
facilities.
. .4 Wood Wastes
Support was given to conservation of landfill capacity and reduction of solid waste quantities.
through acceptance of limited amounts of industrially generated wood waste. Support was given
to use of a chipper to reduce stumps and branches for use in a possible compost operation.
Recommendation .5. County policy should limit wood waste quantities that are disposed
with solid waste.
9.5.5 Industrial Wastes
The method for screening the industrial.waste stream through notification of the Health
Department in cases of "suspicious wastes" was deemed adequate. However, the SWAC was also
interested in business and commercial waste from a.recycling standpoint. Both the SWAC and
County were interested in a program of waste audits in which the City/County Recycling
Coordinator would educate businesses regarding waste reduction and recycling programs
appropriate'for their situation. A recommendation to this effect is contained in Chapter 3A.
9.5.6 Tires
Concern was voiced over the lack of programs available for disposal of waste tires. Development
of additional programs and facilities was viewed as necessary to management of this waste stream.
Both the SWAC and County staff supported continuation of the existing disposal method in which
a private contractor collects waste tires.
Recommendation 9.6. Mason County should support development of tire recycling
methods in Washington State and monitor new programs for possible implementation
within the County.
Mason county SWMl flan 9A-17 1998
9.5.7 Infectious Wastes
Incineration of hospital wastes was judged to be an acceptable method for treatment of infectious
wastes prior to disposal. However, concern was.shown for the impacts of the hospital incinerator
on the environment and.the need for ongoing monitoring by the Health Department was identified.
Recommendation 9.8. The County should continue to require stringent compliance with
all state and federal regulations to reduce exposure to solid waste utility workers and
prevent any possible environmental damage.
9.5.8 White Goods/Appliances
The current method for handling bulky appliances and white goods received SWAC support.
Recommendation 9.8. County policy should support the current program for breakdown
and recycling of white goods and appliances.
Recommendation 9.9. Continue the existing handling program for the proper storage,
handling and disposal of the�fluorocarbons (CFCs).
9.5.9 A. be to
The current method of landfilling asbestos received support.
Recommendation 9.10. The County should continue the transportation and disposal
practices for asbestos.
9.6 EUPLEMENTATION
An implementation schedule and planning level budget is developed in this section for special
waste handling and disposal in Mason County.
Table 9.2A IlMIPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE - SPECIAL WASTE STREAMS
Biosolids
1998-2003 Mason County together with the City of Shelton continues to develop public
awareness and education programs for land application of biosolids.
1998-2003 Mason County proposes and adopts a biosolid land application policy Which
includes application and site selection guidelines.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-18 1998
S=tic° Tank Pum in s
1998-2003 The County investigates alternative methods for septage waste handling.
pemolition Waste
1998-2003 The County continues to accept certain demolition wastes for export while
investigating recycling and recovery options.
Wood Wastes \
1998-2003 The County continues to accept limited amounts of wood waste for
handling.
Industrial Waste - Refer to Chapter 3A
Tires
1998_2003' The County continues to dispose of waste tires through private contractor.
The County investigates new programs for tire recycling or disposal and
evaluates them for possible implementation.
Infectious Wastes .
1998-2003 The County enforces new requirements.
White Goods/Appliances
1998-2003 The County continues to support separation and breakdown of white
goods/appliances at the landfill.
Asbest
1998-2003 The County continues regional landfill disposal of asbestos.
Mason County SWM flan 9A-19 1998
Table 9.3A MPLEMENTATION COST SUMMARY*
Biosolids
• Public awareness and education program for $2-10,000
land application of biosolids.
• Adoption of a biosolids land application policy Little to no added cost
Septic Tank Pumpings
Investigation of alternate septage handling $5-10,000
programs.
Demolition Waste
Continue to investigate recovery and recycling options
while exporting these wastes along with MSW to the regional facility. No additional cost
Wood Wastes - No added costs
Industrial Waste - Refer to Chapfer 3A
Tires - Little to no added costs
Infectious Wastes - Little to no added costs
White Goods/Appliances - Little to no added costs
Asbestos - Little to no added costs
*Costs indicated have been developed,for planning purposes only. As activities are begun,
costs should be re-evaluated for more accurate estimates.
Mason County SWM Plan 9A-20 1998
1
DETERMINATION 4
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning-Landfill-Utilities
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFIC CE
(WAC 197-11-340)
Description of Proposal :
MASONCOUNTY SOLID WASTE A LPL - UPDATE
Proponent: MASON COUNTY
Location of Proposal : MASON COUNTY
PARCEL#:MASON COUNTY
All of Mason County _
INCORPORATED I CO PO T OF MASON COUNTY
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 at ext . Z Z9 with any
questions . 7
This DNS is issued under 197-11-340 (2) , the Lead Agency will not act on
this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be
.submitted by 04/08/98 .
DATE: 03 4/98
Signatur f Wes o sible official Date
Responsible Official : Gary Yando
Director of Community Development
426 W. Cedar,
PO BOX 578
Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427 -9670
NON SIG, rev: 08/23/96
8
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 1
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of,proposed project, if applicable: Mason County Solid Waste
Management Plan Amendment
2. Name of applicant: Mason County, \Washington
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Gary J. Yando - Director of Community Development
P.O. Box 578
Shelton, WA 9584
4. Date checklist prepared:
5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason.County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing if applicable):
This amendment is basically providing information regarding where we are in our
solid waste process. It also provides current figures regarding waste reduction
recycling. We also provide information which relates to recommendations
covering the next frve.years.
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes explain.
Mason County has elected-to contract out for the next 95 years the transporting
of solid waste to an out-of-county site as they have for the past 5 years. There
may be an expansion of-the Belfair Drop Box Station in the future. We may also
look at construction of a new Drop Box Station in SE Mason County.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
None known.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental
approvals of other proposals directly affecting-the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain. None known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known. We have worked closely with the City of Shelton in
this process. They will be required to approve the plan amendment as will
the Maso County Board of Commissioners.
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 2
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the
proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several
questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of
your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
(Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific
information on project description.) The Plan is intended to be the
planning tool for future decisions regarding solid waste.
12. What is the location of the proposal. Give sufficient information:for a
person to understand the precise location of your proposed project,
including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if
known. If a proposal:would occur over a range of area, provide the range
Or' boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should
submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to
duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist..
The solid waste plan is applicable to all areas within the boundaries of Mason
County.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. EARTH:
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep
slopes, mountainous, other
NIA
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
N/A
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland. N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 3
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, escribe.N/A
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.N/A
f. Could erosion occur-as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.N/A
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)?N/A
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any:N/A
2. AIR:
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.
dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and
when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities, if known.N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST
Page 4
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal?. If so, generally describe.N/A
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,
if any:N/A
3. T R N/A
a. Surface:
1). Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the
site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state
what stream or river it flows into.N/A
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available
plans.N/A
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be place in
or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.N/A
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 5
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If.so, note location
on the site plan.N/A
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge.N/A
b.. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground
water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known:N/A
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from
.septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example, Domestic sewage:
industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural, etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals
or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.N/A
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.N/A
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 6
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff
water impacts, if any:N/A
4. PLANTS:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:N/A
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_ shrubs
— grass-
pasture
_ crop or grain
—wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
_water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?N/A
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.NIA
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.
.Page 7
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:N/A
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other . . . . . . . . . . .
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b.- List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explaih.N/A
d. Proposed measures to preserved or enhance wildlife, if any:N/A
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES:
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it
will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.N/A
b. Would .your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.N/A
C. What kinds of energy conservation features_are included in the plans of
this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page S
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.N/A
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
N/A
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,
if any:
N/A
b. Noise.
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?N/A
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with
the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come
from the site
N/A
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:N/A
B. LAND AND SHORELINE USE:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A
MASON. CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 9
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
N/A
c. Describe any structures on the site
N/A
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
N/A
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
/A
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
N/A
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify. N/A
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
N/A
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? .
N/A
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
NIA
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 10
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing
and projected land uses and plans, if any:
N/A
9. HOUSING:
a... Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A
�b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A
10. AESTHETICS:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
N/A
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
N/A
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 11
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
N/A
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
N/A
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal:
N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
N/A
12. RECREATION:
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
N/A
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If
so; describe.
N/A
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
N/A
MASON CO. E.NVIRON ENTAL CHECKLIST
. Page 12
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state,
or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe. NIA
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
NIA
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control,impacts, if any:
NIA
14. TRANSPORTATION:
A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
N/A
b. Is site currently served by public transit? . If not, what is the approximate
distance to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
N/A
C. How many parking.spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project eliminate?
N/A
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally
describe (indicate whether public or private).
N/A
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 13
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
/A
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if'any:
N/A
15. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)?
If so, generally describe:
N/A
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any:
N/A
16. UTILITIES:
P .
MASON CO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Page 14
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, .
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other:
NIA
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing
the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity which might be heeded:
NIA
C. Signature:
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them.to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: