HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2010-038 Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan AdoptionRESOLUTION NO. R-2010-38
A RESOLUTION adopting .the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste
Management Plan Update, dated January 2010.
WHEREAS, RCW 70.95.080 and RCW 70.105 require Yakima County, in cooperation
with various cities located within the County, to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid
waste management plan and provide a local Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2003, the Yakima City Council adopted a resolution authorizing
an agreement whereby Yakima County, on behalf of the City of Yakima, was designated to
develop a solid waste management plan for integrated solid waste management; and,
WHEREAS, the Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee recommends adoption
of the. Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Update, dated
January 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology reviewed the draft Yakima
County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan and provided comments; and
funding for Plan implementation has been approved by the Washington Utilities and
Transportation; and,
WHEREAS, the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan has
been reviewed as a non -project action under SEPA and a Determination of Non -Significance
was issued on January 25, 2010; and,
WHEREAS, at the earliest opportunity, the Yakima County Solid Waste Plan Update,
dated January 2010, should be included in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan by
reference and a summary of the capital facilities added to the Capital Facilities Element; and,
WHEREAS, the adopted Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management
Plan Update, dated January 2010, will be submitted to the Washington state Department of
Ecology for final approval; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Yakima deems it to be in the best interest of
the City of Yakima to adopt the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management
Plan Update, dated January 2010, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The 2010 Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan is hereby
approved and adopted as the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management
Plan, January 2010, and the City Manager of the City of Yakima is hereby authorized and
directed to implement the attached and incorporated "Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk
Waste Management Plan Update, dated January 2010."
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 23rd day of March 2010.
Micah Cawley, May
ATTEST:
YAKIMA COUNTY
SOLID AND
MODERATE RISK WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 2010
Prepared for:
Yakima County Department of Public Services
Solid Waste Division
Yakima, Washington
Prepared by:
Project 33760975
with assistance from:
Bell & Associates
Green Solutions
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Yakima County Department of Public Services would like to thank the following
organizations and individuals for their assistance in the development of this plan:
• SWAC members
• Washington Department of Ecology staff.
Yakima County residents and businesses also contributed to this document through
comments provided during public meetings and through various other channels. The
Board of County Commissioners and the Public Services Department gratefully
acknowledge this input by the citizens.
Yakima Cotinty Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• YAKIMA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS Page
SUMMARY
Introduction E-1
Summary of Additional Costs E -I
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Purpose 1-1
1.3 Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.4 Participants in the Planning Process 1-2
1.5 Planning Area '1-2
1.6 Planning Authority 1-3
1.7 Plan Development Process 1-4
1.8 Status of Previous Plans 1-4
1.9 Relationship to Other Plans 1-7
1.10 Sustainability and Product Stewardship 1-8
1.1 1 Required Plan Elements 1-9
1.12 Regulatory Overview 1-10
1.13 Summary of Recent Changes in Solid Waste Regulation and Policy 1-11
2 WASTE STREAM
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Waste Stream and Population Projections 2-1
3 PROMOTION AND EDUCATION
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Background 3-1
3.3 Existing Program Elements 3-1
3.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 3-5
3.5 Planning Issues 3-5
3.6 Alternative Strategies 3-8
3.7 Recommended Actions 3-11
4 WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Background 4-1
4.3 Existing Program Elements 4-2
4.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 4-9
4.5 Planning Issues 4-9.
4.6 Alternative Strategies 4-12
4.7 Recommended Actions 4-17
Table of Contents
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table of Contents, Continued
5 ORGANICS
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Background 5-1
5.3 Existing Program Elements 5-3
5.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 5-10
5.5 Planning Issues 5-10
5.6 Alternative Strategies 5-12
5.7 Recommended Actions 5-15
6 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Background 6-1
6.3 Existing Program Elements 6-3
6.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 6-5
6.5 Planning Issues 6-5
6.6 Alternative Strategies 6-7
6.7 Recommended Actions 6-10
7 TRANSFER SYSTEM
7.1 Introduction 7-1
7.2 Background 7-1
7.3 Existing Program Elements 7-2
7.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 7-2
7.5 Planning Issues 7-3
7.6 Alternative Strategies 7-6
7.7 Recommended Actions 7-8
8 :DISPOSAL
8.1 Introduction 8-1
8.2 Background 8-1
8.3 Existing Program Elements 8-2
8.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 8-5
8.5 Planning Issues 8-5
8.6 Alternative Strategies 8-6
8.7 Recommended Actions 8-8
9 CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND LAND CLEARING DEBRIS
AND GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES
9.1 Introduction 9-1
9.2 Background 9-1
9.3 Existing Program Elements 9-2
9.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 9-4
9.5 Planning Issues 9-5
9.6 Alternative Strategies 9-5
9.7 Recommended Actions 9-8
Table of Contents ii
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table of Contents, Continued
10 SPECIAL WASTES
10.1 Introduction 1 0- 1
10.2 Background 10-1
10.3 Agricultural Waste 10-2
10.4 Animal Carcasses 10-2
10.5 Appliances 10-4
10.6 Asbestos 10-5
10.7 Biomedical/Infectious Wastes 10-6
10.8 Electronic Waste 10-7
10.9 Junk Vehicles 10-8
10.10 Petroleum -Contaminated Soils 10-8
10.11 Pharmaceuticals 10-9
10.12 Street Sweepings/Vactor Waste 10-10
10.13 Tires 10-11
10.14 Miscellaneous 10-11
10.15 Status of 2003 Recommendations 10-12
10.16 Alternative Strategies 10-12
10.17 Recommended Actions 10-13
11 DISASTER DEBRIS MANAGEMENT
11.1 Introduction 1 1-1
11.2 Background 1 1-1
11.3 Existing Program Elements 11-2
11.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 11-4
11.5 Planning Issues 11-4
11.6 Alternative Strategies 1 1-5
11.7 Recommended Actions 11-8
12 MODERATE RISK WASTE
12.1 Introduction 12-1
12.2 Background 12-1
12.3 Existing Program Elements 12-5
12.4 Status of 1991 Recommendations 12-12
. 12.5 Planning Issues 12-13
12.6 Alternative Strategies 12-15
12.7 Recommended Actions 12-17
13 ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION
13.1 Introduction 13-1
13.2 Background 13-1
. 13.3 Existing Program Elements 13-1
13.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations 13-8
13.5 Planning Issues 13-8
13.6 Alternative Strategies 13-10
13.7 Recommended Actions 13-14
Table of Contents
iii
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table of Contents, Continued
14 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
14.1 Introduction 14-1
14.2 Recommended Strategies 14-1
14.3 Estimated Additional Costs 14-6
14.4 Six -Year Implementation Schedule 14-7
14.5. Twenty -Year Implementation Program 14-8
14.6 Procedures for Amending the Plan 14-9
REFERENCES R-1
APPENDICES
A SWAC Bylaws and Resolution of Appointment
B , Interlocal Agreement
C Resolutions of Adoption
D Compost Facility Feasibility Study
E Transfer Station Cost of Operations Analysis
F WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire
G Potential Funding Options
H SEPA Checklist
Table of Contents iv
11
1
I
1
r
1
�r
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Page
E-1 Srmnnary of Plan Recommendations E-2
1.1 Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee 173
1.2 Status of Previous Solid Waste Management Recommendations 1-5
2.1 Current and Future Population Estimates 2-2
2.2 Current Waste Generation Rate 2-3
2.3 Projected Solid Waste Generation . 2-4
2.4 Recycled and Diverted Materials 2-6
2.5 Solid Waste Composition in Yakima County 2-7
3.1 Status of 2003 Recommendations for Promotion and Education 3-5
3.2 Summary Rating of the Alternative Promotion and Education Strategies 3-11
4.1 Markets for Recyclable Materials 4-7
4.2 List of Designated Recyclable Materials 4-8
4.3 Status of 2003 Recommendations for Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-10
4.4 Recovery Rates for Specific Recyclable Materials 4-1 1
4.5 Summary Rating of the Alternative Waste Reduction
and Recycling Strategies 4-16
5.1 Yard Debris Quantities at County Facilities 5-4
5.2 Estimated Quantity of Agricultural Waste in Yakima County 5-7
5.3 Amount of Biosolids Utilized in Yakima County 5-8
5.4 Organics Processing Facilities in Yakima County 5-9
5.5 Status of 2003 Recommendations for Organics 5-11
5.6 Summary Rating of the Alternative Organics Strategies 5-15
6.1 Solid Waste Collection Data. 6-3
6.2 Recyclables Collection 6-4
6.3 Residential Yard Debris Collection 6-5
6.4 Status of 2003 Recommendations for Solid Waste Collection 6-6
6.5 Summary Rating of the Collection System Strategies 6-9
7.1 Status of 2003 Recommendations for Transfer 7-3
7.2 Transfer Station Demand 7-4
7.3 Summary Rating of the Transfer System Strategies 7-8
8.1 Solid Waste Received at County Facilities 8-2
8.2 Status of 2003 Recommendations for Disposal 8-5
8.3 Summary Rating of the Disposal System Strategies 8-8
9.1 C&D Disposal Facilities 9-4
9.2 Status of 2003 Recommendations for C&D Wastes 9-4
9.3 Summary Rating of the Alternative C&D and Green Building Strategies 9-7
Table of Contents v
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
List of Tables, Continued
10.1 Status of 2003. Recommendations for Special Wastes 10-12
11.1 Potential Disasters and Resultant Debris 11-3
11.2 Summary Rating of the Disaster Debris Strategies 11-7
12.1 Hazardous Household Substances List 12-2
12.2 MRW Quantities Collected at the HHWF in 2007 12-7
12.3 Capture Rates for MRW 12-9
12.4 Characteristics of MRW Generators 12-10
12.5 Status of 1991 Recommendations for MRW 12-12
12.6 Summary Rating of the Alternative MRW Strategies 12-17
13.1 Yakima County Solid Waste Budget 13-4
13.2 Status of 2003 Recommendations for Administration and Regulation 13-8
13.3 Potential Funding Methods for Solid Waste Management 13-13
13.4 Summary Rating of the Administration and Enforcement Strategies 13-14
14.1 Six -Year Implementation Budget 14-6
14.2 Six -Year Implementation Schedule 14-7
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
5.1 Yard Debris Quantities at County Facilities 5-4
8.1 Yakima County Solid Waste Sites 8-3
13.1 Yakima County Solid Waste Division Organizational Structure 13-3
Table of Contents vi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan (Plan) recommends strategies to manage
solid waste and moderate risk waste generated in Yakima County; -including the cities and towns
of Naches, Tieton, Yakima, Moxee, Harrah, Wapato, Zillah, Toppenish, Granger, Sunnyside,
Grandview; Selah, Union Gap and Mabton. Solid waste handling includes management, storage,
collection, diversion, transportation, treatment, use, processing and final disposal. A new •
addition to this Plan is in the incorporation of moderate risk waste. Recommendations are
provided for municipal solid waste, other special waste and moderate -risk waste.
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL COSTS
A summary of recommended strategies is presented in Table E-1: Over the next six years,
implementation of recommended strategies is estimated to cost up to $12,445,000. This cost
estimate reflects only the new services or programs to be implemented by Yakima County. It
does not reflect costs associated with existing programs, nor does it reflect the significant costs
incurred by private firms, public agencies, or residents who also have roles in managing solid
waste in Yakima County.
'Summary E- 1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table E-1
Summary of Plan Recommendations
(Additional Costs, 2009 dollars)
Program Element
•
Recommendation
Six -Year Cost
Estimate, $
_Public Education
PE1) Public education activities_
150,000
Recycling
WRRI) Contribute to State recycling goal
_
WRR2) Adopt and maintain list of designated materials
WRR3) Waste composition study
80,000
WRR4) Curbside recycling in all urban areas
WRR5) MSW facilities provide recycling
WRR6) Encourage business recycling
_
WRR7) Assist with public event recycling .
Organics
01 ) Ban landfill disposal of yard debris
02) Issue composting services RFQ/RFP
15,000
_
03) Explore other options if needed
_Collection
C1) Bulky waste collection
Transfer
T1) Evaluate self -haul unloading area at CLF
T2) Expand transfer station at THLF
T3) Buy or option property
D1) Maintain capacity at THLF
3,600,000
8,500,000
_
Disposal
D2) Buy or option property
_
D3) Consider conversion technologies in future
C&D/Green Building
C&D1) Promote green building
C&D2) Develop and maintain Green House
C&D3) Promote proper mgmt. of C&D waste
Special Wastes
SP1) Promote product stewardship for tires
SP2) Support product stewardship programs
SP3) Cooperative effort for special wastes
Disaster Debris
DDI) Coordinate with OEM
_
DD2) Develop a disaster debris plan
30,000 - 100,000
Moderate Risk Waste
MRW I) Adopt list of target materials
MRW2) Technical assistance by Ecology
MRW3) Update MRW plan with solid waste plan
_
Admin. and Regulation
ARI) Illegal dumping task force
AR2) Consider adopting minimum service levels
AR3) Exercise flow control as needed
_
Total Estimated Six -Year Cost of Management Recommendations
$12,375,000-
12,445,000
The above table shows only the additional costs for the recommendations being made.
Summary
E-2
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan (Plan) recommends strategies to manage
solid waste and moderate risk waste generated in Yakima County. Solid waste handling includes
management, storage, collection, diversion, transportation, treatment, use, processing, and final
disposal. This Plan includes recommendations for municipal solid waste (MSW), moderate risk
waste (MRW) and special wastes.
1.2 PURPOSE
Washington State law assigns primary responsibility for managing solid waste and moderate -risk
waste to local governments. Chapter 70.95 RCW requires local government to maintain current
solid waste management plans. Chapter 70.105 RCW requires local government to develop
plans for managing moderate risk waste.
The purpose of this Plan is to develop recommended management strategies for solid waste and
moderate -risk waste for the period 2010 through 2015. The Plan also looks forward to ensure
that sufficient processing and disposal capacity will be available for at least the next twenty
years, or through 2030.
Local plans must be complete and in good standing to receive grant monies from the
Coordinated Prevention Grant program, which is an important source of funding for non -
disposal -related programs and activities.
1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The mission statement for this Plan is:
The overall goal of Yakima County and the participating jurisdictions is to ensure
that Yakima County citizens continue to have efficient, reliable and affordable
solid waste collection, handling, recycling and disposal services in order to
improve our quality of life while protecting and preserving human health,
environmental quality and natural resources.
Specific objectives include the following:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials;
• Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods;
• Encourage public-private partnerships for waste reduction and recycling programs;
• Emphasize waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy;
Chapter 1, Introduction - 1-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Encourage the recovery of marketable resources from solid waste;
• Assist the State in achieving its goal of a 50 percent recycling rate;
• Assist the State achieve its goal of an 80 percent used motor oil reuse and re -refining rate;
• Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal;
• Reduce the occurrence and environmental impacts associated with illegal dumping;
• Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate risk waste regulations;
• Encourage those who design, produce, sell, or use a product to take responsibility for
minimizing the product's environmental impact throughout all stages of the products' life
cycle, including end of life management;
• Provide customers with information and education to promote recommended waste
management practices; and
• Support the State's Beyond Waste goals, especially for the five key initiatives:
o increased diversion of organic materials,
o increased use of green building methods,
o improved management of small -volume hazardous wastes,
o improved management of industrial wastes, and
o measuring progress.
1.4 PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
This document was developed with the guidance of the Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory
Committee (SWAC) whose participation is gratefully acknowledged. Committee members and
their affiliation are shown in Table 1-1.
1.5 PLANNING AREA
The planning area includes the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Yakima County. This
incudes the cities and towns of Naches, Tieton, Yakima, Moxee, Harrah, Wapato, Zillah,
Toppenish, Granger, Sunnyside, Grandview, Selah, Union Gap, and Mabton.
County -owned and operated solid waste facilities also serve the members of the Yakama Nation.
The Yakama Nation is a federally recognized tribe, and as such, its reservation and tribal
government enjoy a sovereign status. In the absence of an agreement stating otherwise,
Washington State solid waste regulations do not generally apply on tribal lands, and the tribal
government manages the solid waste.
One United States military installation, the Yakima Training Center, is located within Yakima
County and receives solid waste management services from the County and from private
vendors, as well as taking the lead on managing their own wastes.
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 1-1
Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
Name
Affiliation/Title
Ron Anderson
Creekside Realty (Business)
Cus Arteaga
City of Grandview
Gary Clark
City of Zillah
Bruce Epps
City of Sunnyside
Mike Leita
Board of County Commissioners
Bob Groeneweg
Farm Bureau
Lance Hoyt
City of Toppenish
Bill Lover
City of Yakima
Paul Overby .
City of Selah
Scott Robertson
Yakima Waste Systems
Page Scott
Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
Vic Valdez
Central Washington Recycling
Ted Silvestri
Ex -Officio Yakima Health District
1.6 PLANNING AUTHORITY
This plan is intended to satisfy the participating jurisdictions' responsibilities for maintaining a
current solid waste management plan in accordance with Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW), and to provide a local hazardous waste management plan in accordance
with Chapter 70.105 RCW.
Cities and counties share the responsibility for developing and maintaining a local solid waste
management plan. RCW 70.95.080 provides cities with three alternatives for satisfying.their '
planning responsibilities:
• Prepare and deliver to the county auditor a city solid waste management plan for
integration into the county solid waste plan;
• Enter into an agreement with the county to prepare a joint city -county plan; or
• Authorize the county to prepare a plan for the city for inclusion in the county. plan.
The incorporated communities of Naches, Tieton, Yakima, Moxee, Harrah, Wapato, Zillah,
Toppenish, Granger, Sunnyside, Grandview, Selah, Union Gap, and Mabton executed interlocal
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
agreements with Yakima County regarding solid waste management in 2003. The agreements
authorize Yakima County to prepare a countywide solid and moderate risk waste management
plan that includes each of these cities and towns.
Participating cities and towns have both the opportunity and responsibility to participate in Plan
development, review and comment on the draft Plan, and to adopt the final Plan.
Copies of executed interlocal agreements can be found in Appendix B.. Resolutions of adoption
for this Plan can be found in Appendix C.
1.7 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The Plan was developed over a period of 19 months. The process began in June 2008 with the
selection of URS Corporation, Green Solutions, and Bell & Associates (collectively "the
Consultants") as the team that would lead development of the Plan. During the intervening
months technical research, analysis, and recommendations were prepared by the Consultants and
discussed with County staff, the Yakima Health District, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee
(SWAC), the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments, Public Works Directors, City
Managers, City Councils, the Board of County Commissioners, interested members of the public,
and interest groups. This participatory, interactive process was undertaken in order to prepare
and build support for the Plan.
The public participation process was largely focused on the SWAC. The Board of County
Commissioners appoints SWAC members. Members are selected to represent a balance of
interests including citizens, public interest groups, business, the waste management industry and
local elected public officials. The SWAC provides guidance to the Solid Waste Division in the
development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal. The
SWAC reviews and comments on rules, policies, and ordinances before they are proposed for
adoption. SWAC meetings are open to the public and meeting notices are published beforehand.
The Plan was adopted by each participating city or town and by the Board of County
Commissioners in meetings open to the public.
1.8 STATUS OF PREVIOUS PLANS
This Plan supersedes all previous solid and hazardous waste management plans including the
Yakima County Solid Waste Management Plan, July 2003 (the 2003 Plan), and the Yakima
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, March 1991. Table 1-2 lists key recommendations
from the 2003 Plan and their current implementation status.
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 1-2
Status of Previous Solid Waste Management Recommendations
Recommendations
Status
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting
.
Overa ll`Iteeycl ng'Incentivearidunding 'raneyork•
Increase tip fees to fund County recycling and waste prevention programs and to provide
an incentive for increased recycling.
Done
R ycliniWithin.:iJ;rbanAoundarfes.
Continue the current mix of voluntary curbside collection and drop-off services.
Ongoing
Explore public sector incentives and/or funding for expanded curbside and/or drop-off
recycling programs in both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Ongoing
gesiaettia-Recycling iin Ru rat; Areas:..
' Continue current program of public and private drop-off services.
Ongoing
Ya`"rileWaste`,C6itectionxahth€iiiriaiiiiiiiii
Continue current education and collection services with the goal of meeting the needs of
residents and businesses affected by the burn ban in urban areas. These services include
collecting yard waste with toters and discounting the fee for yard waste at the landfill
(compared with garbage).
Ongoing
Continue backyard composting and bin distribution programs.
Ongoing
Work to expand markets and -end-use applications for compost products.
• Ongoing
Establish partnerships with other agencies to implement joint initiatives related to
organics that address environmental resource issues in Yakima County.
Ongoing
NiiiigitiiiiiiiiitifiR'ecycli,'ug
Continue current practice of relying on the private sector to provide services.
Ongoing
Provide expanded/targeted education and assistance to businesses on recycling, waste
reduction, and reducing toxicity of commercial waste.
Ongoing
In the future, consider targeting the construction and demolition sector for expanded
recycling.
Ongoing
JC'itiucai oit and`'-.'Mutr+eaell
Continue current education and outreach programs, including school education, special
events and public education campaigns. Consider expanding these programs, including
using joint public/private promotional partnerships. Education should address recycling,
waste prevention, composting reducing toxicity, and using safer alternatives to products
containing hazardous ingredients.
Ongoing
Des'igi iiiika?iiecMcllibla
Revise the designation of Tier 1, 2, and 3 materials. The SWAC, with support from staff,
is to review the designation of recyclables.at least bi-annually. Decisions about the
appropriate tier for different materials are to be made considering the availability and
durability of markets and the feasibility of accessing those markets (including the
processing facilities needed).
Ongoing
. .. .Fx'..... �p Lt.a.�...�y.......,,.. - �::o .-,. ... .....hw y: "k^.
Rard3,to Recycle<Mater_ ;liaiinerging, Waste Streams;:
Conduct special events to provide residents and small businesses with collection services
for new recyclable items and hard to recycle materials. Materials to be targeted for
collection at special events include: computers and other -electronic wastes, appliances,
reusable building materials, tires, fluorescent light bulbs, and clean plastic bags and film.
Ongoing
Consider supporting product stewardship initiative aimed at establishing viable collection,
processing, and end markets for new and/or hard to recycle materials. Provide support for
regional efforts to establish product stewardship programs for electronics.. Such programs
may also be appropriate for paint and products containing potentially hazardous materials.
Apply principles of product stewardship to the development of local initiatives to handle
emerging or problematic wastes.
Ongoing .
Chapter 1, Introduction
1-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 1-2, Status of Previous Solid Waste Management Recommendations, continued
Recommendations
Status
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting, continued
Market*DeYelopment
Provide targeted assistance to establish and/or maintain the viability of local markets for
recyclable materials. Focus assistance on materials where local (or regional) markets can
effectively handle materials collected from Yakima County. Such materials include yard
waste, compost, green chop, mixed glass cullet, wood waste, wood chips,
concrete/aggregate, and reusable building materials. Program activities could consist of
(1) assessments of the feasibility of local market development initiatives, (2) technical
assistance to private sector processors and end users (3) government procurement of
recycled content goods, and (4) "buy recycled" campaigns, demonstration projects, and
other promotion initiatives aimed at stimulating demand for recycled materials sourced
from local markets.
Ongoing
Consider providing targeted assistance to increase recycling of C&D materials with a
focus on market development initiatives. For example, helping to establish viable
markets for reused building materials has proven to be a viable means of increasing C&D
diversion.
Not currently
being done due to
staff limitation
N[i i toil ng'an d?Eiiiluafitini
Continue to rely on Ecology and voluntary reporting to determine recycling levels.
Ongoing
Conduct a waste characterization study to determine the composition and source of
Yakima County's municipal solid waste.
Done
Waste Re luct ci-r -71;: 'eutii n'
Continue current programs.
Ongoing
Chapter 4: Collection System
Develop municipal garbage collection rate structures that encourage waste reduction and
recycling.
Ongoing
Monitor and actively support legislation that would change the WUTC rate review
process so that the process will encourage waste reduction and recycling.
WUTC supports
recommendations
of the SWMP
To ensure continuation of programs, require that all in -County generated MSW be hauled
to a County -owned facility, or administer a fee directed at haulers that do not use the
County system.
. Done
Renew interlocal agreements to ensure that all waste generated within the county is
hauled to County -owned facilities.
Done
Chapter 5: Transfer and Drop -Box System
Eliminate the current drop -box system in 2003. Encourage use of convenient curbside
garbage collection service.
Done
Construct a new transfer station at the Terrace Heights Landfill for handling residential
and small commercial (less than 5 tons per load) self -hauling customers. Conduct
transfer station facility planning and design in 2003 and construct in 2004. Transfer
station facility planning shall allow for future expansion to include commercial and
municipal packer trucks and large commercial self -haulers.
Done
Conduct a facility plan for the Lower Valley Transfer Station in 2003 and implement
operations and facility changes in late 2003 and 2004.
Done
Done
Explore conducting a system -wide transfer station study that analyzes all levels of service
to be provided in an integrated system.
Explore the possibility of siting a West Valley transfer station.
Done
Chapter 6: Waste Import and Export
Explore the possibility of siting a County -operated regional landfill to be included in Plan
2015.
Done
Chapter 1, Introduction
1-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 1-2, Status of Previous Solid Waste Management Recommendations, continued
Recommendations •
Status
Chapter 7: Municipal Solid Waste Landfill and Resource Recovery
Expand the Cheyne Road landfill as the long-term disposal site for Yakima County solid
waste.
Ongoing
Periodically update the remaining capacity estimates for the landfills and document
changes in the landfill surface topography. '
Done
Annually review:and revise, if appropriate, closure cost estimates with current costs'and
review closure implementation schedules to verify that the closure funds are adequate.
Done
Continue operations at Terrace Heights Landfill until capacity is reached. ,
Ongoing
Research new potential landfill sites.
Ongoing
Chapter 8: Construction, Demolition, and Landclearing Debris and Special Wastes
Investigate source separation of CDL debris at work sites and recycling enhancements at
County landfills. Enhance education at County and municipal permitting stations to
encourage work site recycling opporttinities for CDL debris.
Ongoing
Work with Yakima Health District staff and health professionals to determine the need
for improved education materials, or methods of distribution for education materials,"for
biomedical waste.
Done
Continue current programs related to woodwaste, tire, appliances, asbestos, vehicle hulks,
agricultural waste, and petroleum -contaminated soils.
Ongoing
Explore new markets for CDL and special wastes.
Ongoing
Chapter 9: Administration and Enforcement
Discuss creating a disposal district in Yakima County or propose other means to provide
adequate funding for County programs, as required to implement the recommendation in
the 2002 Plan and existing regulations.
Ongoing
.
Review, amend, and establish solid waste ordinances and/or policies as appropriate.
Ongoing
Establish and/or continue to monitor and evaluate programs for solid waste management
activities.
Ongoing
Continue to investigate and evaluate the extent, probable causes of, and possible solution
to illegal dumping throughout Yakima County.
Ongoing
Chapter 10: Funding and Financing
Complete rate structure analysis by 2002.
Done
Set solid waste surcharges,.excise taxes, and tipping fees at County solid waste handling
facilities at a level sufficient to generate annual revenues equal to or greater than total
annual expenses and reserves for solid waste management in the county.
Done
Review tip fees at solid waste facilities to determine if the County wants to account for
the true cost of operation at the point of customer disposal of waste.
Done
1.9 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
1.9.1 Washington's Beyond Waste Plan
The Washington Department of Ecology released a waste and toxics reduction plan in November
2004. Commonly referred to as the "Beyond Waste" plan, it adopts a vision in which society
transitions to a point where waste is viewed as inefficient and most wastes have been eliminated.
This transition is expected to take 20-30 years or more. In the short term (over the next five
years), the Beyond Waste plan focuses on five key areas: industrial waste, small volume
hazardous waste, organic materials, green building, and measuring progress.
Chapter 1, Introduction
1-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Beyond Waste is a philosophy and a design principle that goes beyond recycling to take a "whole
system" approach to the flow of resources and waste through Washington's communities. It
attempts to guide people to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where discarded materials
become resources for others to use. Beyond Waste means designing and managing products and
processes to reduce the volume and toxicity of materials used and waste produced; to conserve
and recover resources, and not to burn or landfill them. By implementing Beyond Waste
strategies, Yakima County can continue to reduce discharges to land, water or air that may
negatively impact human, animal or plant health. These strategies minimize waste, reduce
consumption, maximize recycling, and ensure that products are made to be reused, repaired or
recycled back into nature or the marketplace.
1.9.2 Plan 2015
Plan 2015 is the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan, a policy framework for development in
the County prior to 2015. Volume 1 contains three chapters. Chapter I, the Policy Plan, covers
demographics; goals and objectives for the natural setting, economic development, and land use;
housing; parks and open space; utilities; transportation; capital facilities; and intergovernmental
coordination. Chapter II, Plan Development, covers the planning process including updating and
citizen involvement. Chapter II1, Environmental Analysis, addresses SEPA requirements, the
Growth Management Act, and alternative growth scenarios.
1.10 SUSTAINABILITY AND PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
A sustainable process or system is one that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely.
Long before sustainability became a popular and "green" concept, waste management
professionals were managing solid waste by balancing concerns about human health,
environmental protection, and long-term conservation of materials, energy, and space (e.g.
landfill volume), all with limited financial and staff resources. The implementation of upgraded
landfill controls was a major step forward in protecting the environment and human health.
Yakima County's previous solid waste management plans included waste reduction, reuse and
recycling as means of conserving raw materials.
This Plan update is consistent with the philosophy of sustainability articulated in Plan 2015. In
cases where the Plan recommends the construction of new facilities or renovation of existing,
ones, the design and materials should attempt to incorporate policies from Plan 2015.
Product stewardship is a concept wherein manufacturers (as opposed to local government and its
rate payers) take responsibility for minimizing the environmental impact of their products
throughout their life cycle. Product stewardship creates the opportunity to minimize waste
during product design, manufacturing, distribution, and consumption. It also develops a private -
sector infrastructure to recover products at the end of their useful life, removing from local
governments a portion of the historical financial burden for managing waste.
Product stewardship programs can be mandatory or voluntary, and often take the form of "take -
back" programs. Product stewardship programs are funded in a variety of ways, including
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-8
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
advanced disposal fees collected at time of product purchase, end of life disposal fees at time of
' disposal, or with charges incorporated in the purchase price of the product. Product stewardship
can be coupled with positive incentives such as technical assistance, education for consumers,
recognition programs, tax reductions; market development plans; grants; and government-
"'
overnment-
' procurement policies. In Washington State, product stewardship programs are being pursued for
electronic wastes (e -wastes), carpet, paint, pharmaceuticals, and other materials.
1.11 REQUIRED PLAN ELEMENTS
I
. This Plan is intended to meet and or exceed applicable requirements set by Washington State.
RCW 70.95.090 establishes requirements for local solid waste management plans. Local plans
are required to include the following elements:
I• An inventory and description of all solid waste handling facilities including any
deficiencies in meeting current needs;
1
• The projected 20 -year needs for solid waste handling facilities;
• A program for the development of solid waste handling facilities that meets all laws and
I
regulations, takes into account the comprehensive land use plans of participating
jurisdictions, contains a six-year construction and capital acquisition program and a plan
for financing both capital costs and operational expenditures;
I
• A program for surveillance and control (to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts of
improper waste handling);
I
• An inventory and description of solid waste collection operations and needs within each
jurisdiction, including state collection certificate holders and municipal operations;
• A comprehensive waste reduction and recycling element;
1 • An assessment of the plan's impact on the costs of solid waste collection; and
• A review of potential areas that meet state criteria for land disposal facilities.
IRCW 70.105.220 establishes the required elements for local hazardous waste management plans
identified below:
I• A plan or program to manage moderate -risk wastes including an assessment of the
quantities, types, generators, and fate of moderate -risk waste in the jurisdiction;
1 • A plan or program to provide for ongoing public involvement and education including
the potential hazards to human health and the environment resulting from improper use
and disposal of the waste;
I• An inventory of all existing generators of hazardous waste and facilities managing
hazardous waste within the jurisdiction;
1 • A description of the public involvement process used in developing the plan; and
• A description of the eligible zones designation in accordance with RCW 70.105.225.
1
Chapter I, Introduction 1-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1.12 REGULATORY OVERVIEW
The statutes and regulations that govern solid waste handling are briefly summarized below.
1.12.1 Solid Waste Handling Standards
A new rule governing solid waste facilities and handling practices, Chapter 173-350 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), also known as Solid Waste Handling Standards went
into effect in 2003. This rule replaced Ch. 173-304 WAC. Ch. 173-350 WAC sets out standards
of operation and permitting requirements for solid waste handling facilities for recycling,
intermediate handling (i.e. transfer), composting, moderate risk waste, and tires (unless exempted
by definition or due to beneficial use). The rule regulates landfill disposal of a new category of
wastes called "inert" wastes.
The new rule also places importance on local solid waste management plans (such as this
document) by requiring all solid waste handling facilities (whether exempt or requiring a permit)
to conform with local solid waste plans. Ch. 173-350 also states a facility's exemption for
handling only recyclable materials is contingent on meeting the definition of a recyclable
material as designated in a local solid waste management plan.
Landfill disposal of solid waste is regulated under a separate rule, Ch, 173-351 WAC, Criteria
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. As of 2008, this rule is in the process of being revised.
1.12.2 Hazardous Waste Management Act
In 1982, Ecology adopted rules that combined the state and federal regulation of hazardous
wastes. These rules, as amended several times in the ensuing years, are contained in Chapter
173-303 WAC and are the main body of regulations for hazardous wastes in this state. In 1983,
the state legislature adopted a hierarchy of hazardous waste management methods in RCW
70.105.150. In descending order of priority for management, the hierarchy is waste reduction;
waste recycling; physical, chemical, and biological treatment; incineration; solidification/
stabilization treatment; and landfill.
Amendments to RCW 70.105 in 1985 and 1986 defined MRW and required that local
governments (counties) develop plans for the proper management of MRW. As stated in RCW
70.105.007(3), the legislature's intent was "to promote cooperation between state and local
governments by assigning responsibilities for planning for hazardous waste to the state and
planning for moderate -risk waste to local government." In 1987, the legislature appropriated
funds for grants to counties to assist in their planning efforts and clarified the schedule. The
legislature enacted the Used Oil Recycling Act, Chapter 70.951 RCW in 1991. This statute
requires local governments to manage used oil in conjunction with their MRW programs and to
submit annual reports to the Department of Ecology. Local governments were required to adopt
used oil recycling amendments to their MRW management plans by July 1, 1993.
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
New Solid Waste Handling Standards (Ch. 173-,350 WAC) were developed by Ecology and
became effective February 10, 2003. These standards address MRW facilities (including
construction, record keeping and reports).
The Dangerous Waste Regulations (Ch. 173-303 WAC) have been amended several times to
address new issues and to incorporate new provisions of state and federal regulations.
1.13 SUMMARY OF RECENT CHANGES IN SOLID WASTE
REGULATION AND POLICY
Several new rules have been adopted since the previous solid and moderate -risk waste plan was
developed. Several of the more important new rules and regulations are shown below (not in
order of priority).
1.13.1 Ban on Improper Disposal of Electronic Waste ("E -Waste")
The Environmental Protection Agency determined that disposal of electronic wastes, otherwise
known as "e -waste", into municipal solid Waste landfills posed a risk to public health and the
environment due to the presence of leachable quantities of lead and other toxics. This caused
considerable concern about how to dispose of the rapidly growing volumes of e -waste in our
society, and raised awareness about the need to encourage producer responsibility for the design,
recycling, and eventual disposal of their products.
In 2006 Washington adopted a law that requires the establishment of a system to recycle
electronic wastes, including computers, monitors and televisions. This system will be available
at no charge to consumers, and will be financed by manufacturers of the electronic equipment.
Rules to implement this law, Ch. 173-900 Electronics Product Recycling Program, were adopted
in October 2007. The new system became effective on January 1, 2009.
1.13.2 Revenue -Sharing Agreements
A recent addition to state law (RCW 81.77.185) allows waste collection companies to retain up
to 30 percent of the market revenues they receive for recyclables collected in the certificate
areas. This new provision was adopted to encourage further investments in recycling and to
provide motivation for increased recycling, whereas previously all market revenues were
required to be used to offset expenses in the calculation of permissible rates and so certificate
haulers had less incentive to maximize recycling. To implement this system, a proposal must be
developed by the collection company and county, then submitted to the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC) for approval. The county must certify that the proposal is
consistent with their solid waste management plan. The proposal must demonstrate how the
retained revenues will be used to increase recycling.
As of early 2006, only a few of these agreements have been approved and only in more
populated areas with larger waste streams and larger amounts of recyclables (King, Pierce and
Snohomish Counties).
Chapter 1, Introduction 1.1 1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1.13.3 Tire Fee Reinstated
In 2009, RCW 70.95 was amended to reinstate the tire fee and to remove the sunset (expiration)
date.for the fee. The original tire fee, which expired in 1994, was used to clean up tire dumps,
fund a special study of tires, and conduct other activities. The new fee is also intended to clean
up unauthorized tire dumps and to help prevent future accumulations of tires.
1.13.4 Secured Load Requirements
A new state regulation, RCW 46.61.655, applies to people hauling garbage and other materials.
The regulation states that "no vehicle shall be driven or moved on any public highway unless
such vehicle is... loaded as to prevent any of its load from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise
escaping." Significant fines may be levied against violators. In May 2005, Yakima County
adopted Ordinance 4-2005, which requires users of County solid waste facilities to secure their .
loads. Violators are charged a five to fifteen dollar fee at the scalehouse.
1.13.5 Ban on Sale of Mercury -Containing Products
In 2006 the Mercury Education and Reduction Act (RCW 70.95M) made it illegal to sell most
items that contain mercury, including thermometers, manometers, toys, games and jewelry. The
sale of thermostats containing mercury is now illegal unless the manufacturer provides a
thermostat recycling program. The sale of mercury -containing fluorescent light bulbs is still
allowed, but labeling to warn consumers that the bulbs contain mercury is now required.
1.13.6 Flow Control of Construction and Demolition Debris Destined for
Recycling
The Washington State Legislature amended RCW 70.95.305; and reenacted and amended RCW
70.95.020 effective July 24, 2005. The Act (SB5788 and HB1817) dealt with the flow control
issue related to C&D waste primarily by stipulating (1) that as long as independent recyclers did
not take recyclable C&D wastes directly to a landfill, but took them to permitted recycling
processing centers, then the public interest of health and safety and recycling goals were being
served; and (2) that a separate container for solid waste would be provided at all sites from where
recyclable materials are generated and transported.
1.13.7 Transport of Recyclables
In 2005, the Washington State Legislature passed Senate Bill 5788 regarding transporter and
facility requirements for recyclable materials. This bill is now reflected in RCW 70.95.400 and
WAC 173-345. The purpose of this regulation is to establish minimum standards for handling
the transportation of recyclables, ensure that recyclables are diverted from the waste stream for
recycling, and are routed to facilities where recycling occurs. The regulation applies to
businesses that transport recyclables from commercial or industrial generators that are required
to possess a permit to operate issued by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
under chapter 81.80. This rule also applies to facilities that recycle solid waste, except for those
facilities with current solid waste handling permits issued under RCW 70.95.170.
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-12
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1.13.8 Public Event Recycling
Effective July 22, 2007, a new State law (RCW 70.93.093) requires a recycling program at every
official gathering and sports facility in communities with established recycling programs. This
law requires vendors that sell beverages in single -use bottles and cans ensure that a recycling
program is available at the event.
1.13.9 Exemption from Solid Waste Handling Permit Requirements for
Anaerobic Digesters.
Effective July 1, 2009, a new State law (RCW 70.95.330) allows certain anaerobic digesters an
exemption from obtaining a solid waste handling permit provided they meet specified criteria.
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-13
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 1, Introduction 1-14
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 2 - WASTE STREAM
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides information on population and waste generation rates. This data is used in
various ways in the following chapters, such as assessing the need for or determining the impact
of a proposed new program.
2.2 WASTE STREAM AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
2.2.1 Population and Waste Generation Rates
Population
. Current population levels and future population growth are important factors to consider for solid
waste management plans. People create solid waste and in general, the more people there are
(now and in the future); the more waste is created. •
Table 2-1 provides current and future estimates of the population in Yakima County. This table
uses population figures produced by the Washington State Office of Financial Management .
(OFM) for current population, which are based on the Census 2000 results and adjustments made
through 2005. For future population projections, the OFM actually produces three different sets •
of forecasts for population growth: a low, medium and high series. The high series figures are
used in Yakima County's Comprehensive Plan (Plan 2015). The high series is used by Plan
2015 because the population growth in Yakima County has been greater than normal in recent
years. Although these are the official figures for population in Yakima County, the use of the
high series for population projections leads to a steep increase in population growth for the
period 2005 to 2010.
In addition to the population figures shown in Table 2-1, there are a large number of temporary
residents who assist with farm work including general fieldwork, harvesting, and processing
fruit. The number of these seasonal and migrant workers was estimated in a statewide study of
this issue. For Yakima County, the number of seasonal and migrant workers, including family
members who accompany them, was estimated to be 82,000 additional people per year (Larson
2000).
According to the 2000 Census, Yakima County is the second most populated county in Eastern
Washington and the seventh most populated county in the state.
Waste Generation Rates
The residents and businesses in Yakima County•generate solid waste in roughly equal amounts.
According to the 2003 Waste Composition Study (Yakima County 2003a), 47.6% of the county's
waste stream is from residential sources, including the waste collected through curbside service,
Chapter 2, Waste Stream 2-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 2-1
Current and Future Population Estimates
Area
20002
2005'
20082
20103
20153
20203
20253
Yakima County, Total
222,581
229,300
245.079
255,599
279,873
303,076
326,254
Unincorporated Areas
93,192
89;060
95,017
98,989
107.884
115,951
123,994
Incorporated Areas
129,389
140,240
150,062
156,610
171,989
187,125
202,260
Cities:
Grandview
8,377
8,705
9,254
9,620
10,533
' 11,406
12,279
Granger
2,530
2,835
3,002
3,113
3,405
3,696
3,988
Harrah
566
630
656
' 673
726
780
833
Mabton
1,891
2,065
2,129
2,172
2,378
2,575
2,772
Moxee
821
1,310
1,996
2,453
3,268
4,084
4,900
Naches
643
755
805
839
937
1,035
1,135
Selah
• 6,310
6;740
7,044
7,246
7,934
8,592
9,249
Sunnyside
13,905
.14,710
15,465
15,968
17,484
18,934
20,382
Ticton
1,154
1,185
1,269
1,325
1,451
1,571
1,692
Toppenish
8,946
9,000
9,764
10,273
11,249
12,181
13,113 '
Union Gap
5,621
5,695
6,151
6,455
7,068
7,654
8,239
Wapato
4,582
4,535
4,971
5,262 •
5,761
6,239
6,716
Yakima
71.845
79,480
84,763
88,285
96,504
104,723
112,934
Zillah
2,198
2,595
2.794
2,926
3,291
3.655
4,019
Sources:
1. Data for the years 2000 and 2005 are from the Office of Financial Management's "April 1 Population of Cities. Towns, and Counties,"
www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/aprill/finalpop2008.xls (OFM 2008).
2. Figures for 2008 are extrapolated from the 2005 and 2010 figures.
3. Total population data for the years 2010 through 2025 is from the OFM's "Projections of the Total Resident Population far the Growth
Management Act, High Series," www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/projections07.asp (OFM 2007). Population figures by area and city for the years
2010 through 2025 assume the same breakdown as 2007.
The estimated 2006 population (for use in later calculations) is 235,420, for 2007 it is 241,550, for 2008 it is 247.670, and for 2009 the projected
population is 253,790.
Chapter 2, Waste Stream 2-2
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
the waste self -hauled by residents to the disposal. facilities, and the waste that used to be
collected through the rural dropboxes. Non-residential generators, including businesses that
have their garbage collected by others and those businesses that self -haul their garbage to. a
disposal facility, contribute the, other 52.4%. Hence, where people live is a factor for collection,
transfer and disposal services. Where people work is also a factor, although in general,
employment ismorecentralized and therefore less of an issue for collection services.
Washington State defines solid waste as "all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid
wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage
sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, contaminated
soils and contaminated dredged material, and recyclable materials" (WAC 173-350-100).
This Plan focuses primarily on "municipal solid waste" (MSW), consisting of those wastes
generated by residential and commercial sources that are meant to be handled by the County's
solid waste disposal system. Wastes generated by industrial and agricultural sources are,
generally included to the extent that these are similar to what is disposed through the County's
system and they don't require special handling. Special wastes handled separately by these
sources are only addressed briefly in this Plan.
Table 2-2 shows the solid waste disposed in Yakima County at the transfer and disposal
facilities. This table also shows the amount of materials recycled or diverted through various
drop-off and collection programs in Yakima County, and the amount of construction and
demolition (C&D) and other special wastes disposed in Yakima County or taken to other
facilities. It is important to account for all of these materials in developing a waste generation
Table 2-2
Current Waste Generation Rate (2008)
Facility and Waste Stream
Annual Amount, Tons
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW);
Terrace Heights
164,292
Cheyne Landfill
32,721
Lower Valley Transfer Station (LVTS)
37,970
Total
234,983
Recycling Tonnages'
74,560
MSW Subtotal
309,543
C&D Materials to Other Landfills
157,332
Special Wastes to Other Landfills
771
Additional Diverted Materials'
48,714
•
Grand Total, All Solid Waste '
516,360
Population (2008)
245,080
Waste Generation Rate, lb/person/year
4,214
Waste Generation Rate, lb/person/day
11.5
Notes: MSW tonnages are 2008 figures from Yakima County records. The recycling, C&D and special waste
tonnages are 2007 figures from the annual survey conducted by the Department of Ecology.
1. See Section 2.2.2 for an explanation of recycled versus diverted materials.
Chapter 2, Waste Stream 2-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
rate, since tonnages may shift from one facility to another in the future due to new programs,
changes in rates, and other factors. The recycled and diverted tonnages, as well as the C&D and
special waste tonnages, are 2007 data because this is the most recent data currently available
from the Department of Ecology's annual survey.
In 2008 and 2009, Yakima County and other areas experienced a significant decrease in the
amount of waste being disposed, apparently due to the economic downturn being experienced in
the United States. It is unknown at this point if or when waste disposal rates may return to
previous levels, so the following analysis assumes a continuation of the current rate. •
In Table 2-3, waste quantities have been projected using the current (2009) per capita generation
rate multiplied by population forecasts for the County. The current generation rate was
calculated using a projected waste disposal figure for 2009 (235,000 tons). By using the current
per capita rate for future years, the projected figures for 2010 through 2025 assume no change in
waste generation or disposal practices, or in the percentage of material recycled and reduced.
This approach also assumes no change in the amount of waste migrating to out -of -county
facilities and other factors such as tourism remaining proportionate to increases in the general
population.
Table 2-3
Projected Solid Waste Generation
Total Waste Waste Gener- Amount Amount MSW Other
Year Population' Generated2 ation Rate Recycled Diverted Disposed3 Wastes3'4
Actual Amounts:
2008 241,550 516,360 11.4 74,560 48,714 234,983 158,103
(14.4%) (9.4%) (45.5%) (30.6%)
Projected Amounts:
2009 253,790 516,360 11.1 74,560 48,714 235,000 158,100
2010 255,600 520,040 11.1 75,090 49,060 236,660 159,230
2015 279,870 569,420 11.1 82,220 53,720 259,130 174,350
2020 303,080 616,640 11.1 89,040 58,180 280,620 188,810
2025 326,250 663,790 11.1 95,850 62,620 302,070 203,240
Notes:
All figures, except the year, population and generation rate, are shown as tons per year (TPY). The waste
generation rate is shown as pounds per person per day.
1. Population figures are from Table 2-1.
2. For 2008, the amount of waste generated is from Table 2-2. The amount of waste (MSW disposed) for 2009 is a
projected figure based on the first half of the year, and all figures for 2009 are assumed to remain the same due to
the economic problems (i.e., no growth from population or other factors). Projected waste generation figures for
2010 through 2025 are based on the waste generation rate for 2009 (11.1 pounds per person per day) and the
population forecasts.
3. The projected amounts of recycling, other diversion, disposed MSW and other wastes assume the sane
percentage of the total waste generated as in 2008.
4. Other wastes include construction and demolition (C&D) wastes disposed at limited purpose landfills and special
wastes.
Chapter 2, Waste Stream 2-4
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
2.2.2 Recycling Data
The most recent recycling survey conducted by Ecology shows that 23.1% of Yakima County's
waste stream was recycled or composted in 2007 (see Table 2-4). This figure is generally.called
a "recycling rate," although it includes composting and some reuse as well. The figure is based
on 74,560 tons reported as being recycled and composted in 2007, versus.a total of 323,142 tons
of waste generated (see Table 2-4).
The list of materials shown in Table 2-4 includes several materials that are not defined as
recycling and so cannot be included in the calculation of the recycling rate. These "diverted"
materials, which include materials burned for energy recovery and other specific materials such
as asphalt and concrete, are still being put to a beneficial use but simply do not count as
recycling as defined by Washington State. For instance, in 2007 a large amount of asphalt and
concrete was crushed for reuse; there was also a significant amount of "compost furnish"
(agricultural waste and manure) produced in Yakima County. Neither of these 'amounts could be
included in the calculation of the recycling rate. In order for these materials to be counted; the •
definition of solid waste would need to be broadened to not only include those materials but also
to include the wastes delivered to C&D landfills and special wastes sent to other facilities.
Including these other wastes means that there is only a slight increase in the overall diversion
rate (to 23.3%).
There is little data available on the current levels of waste diverted by most forms of waste
reduction, although a few categories of reuse (especially textiles and building materials) are at
least partially tracked. If all waste reduction activities and the missing recycling tonnages could
be accounted for, the County's current diversion rate would be significantly greater.
2.2.3 Composition of Disposed MSW
Composition data is useful for designing solid waste handling and disposal programs. A waste
composition study was conducted for Yakima County in 2003. The Yakima County Waste
Composition Study (Yakima County 2003a) divided the waste stream into five categories based
on source of waste and 81 categories of materials. This study was conducted at the County's
three primary waste handling and disposal facilities (Terrace Heights Landfill, Cheyne Landfill,
and Lower Valley Transfer Station). C&D and other special wastes are included in the results
only to the extent that those materials were disposed at these facilities in 2003. A summary of
the results of this study is shown in Table 2-5.
The data shown in Table 2-5 includes composition and quantity figures by material for the
county's entire waste stream, plus the percentage breakdown for specific sources (types of
generators): The tonnages for each material are based on the waste tonnages received in 2007
(247,361 tons) at the three primary facilities (Terrace Heights, Cheyne, and LVTS). Diverted
materials (recycled materials and yard waste) are not included in the waste tonnage figure since
the study only sampled materials brought to the three facilities for disposal purposes. Likewise,
wastes disposed at C&D landfills and other special wastes are -also not included in the waste
tonnages.
Chapter 2, Waste Stream 2-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 2-4
Recycled and Diverted Materials (2007)
Recycled Materials Annual Tons
Aluminum Cans 342
Cardboard 23,074
Electronics 10
Fluorescent Light Bulbs 14
Food Waste NA'
Glass 45
Grease, Other Rendering 11,871
HDPE Bottles 739
LDPE Bottles 2,481
Metals/White Goods 16,832
Miscellaneous 115
Mixed Waste Paper 7,691
Newspaper NA
Office Paper NA
PET Bottles 165
Textiles 918
Tin Cans 368
Tires 113
Used Motor Oil 2,535
Vehicle Batteries 316
Wood NA
Yard Waste 1,685
Tons Recycled/Composted 74,560
Total Tons Generated (MSW only)'` 323,142
Recycling Rate 23.1%
Diverted Materials
Antifreeze 164
Asphalt/Concrete NA
Composting Furnish 26,557
Food Waste NA
Household Batteries 216
Household Items, Reuse NA
Oil Filters 144
Other 982
Tires (Energy Recovery, Baled, and Reuse) 746
Tons Diverted 48,714
Tons Diverted and Recycled 123,274
Tons Disposed 248,582
Other Wastes 157,759
Total Tons Generated 529,615
Recycling Rate 23.1%
Overall Diversion Rate 23.3%
Notes: Data for recycled and diverted materials, and for the amount of "other wastes," is from the 2006 annual
survey conducted by Ecology. The figure for tons disposed is from Yakima County records.
1. NA = not available. Quantity figures for materials with only one or two respondents are not shown in
the above table in order to protect the confidentiality of the survey participants.
Chapter 2, Waste Stream
2-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 2-5
Solid Waste Composition in Yakima County
Materials
Entire Waste Stream
Specific Waste Streams, Percent by Weight'
Percent by
Weight'
Tons of
Material2
Residential Non -Res. General
Residential Self -Haul Self -Haul Non -Res..
Paper
19.5
48,260
24.25
11.87
7.19
21.11
Cardboard
4.4
10,890
2.64
4.30
2.90
5.69
Newspaper
2.3
5,590
4.75
2.15
0.10
1.06
Other Recyclable Paper
6.9
' 17,120
10.54
3.28
1.44
6.79
Compostable Paper
4.7
11,620
5.62
1.58
0.45
5.86
Non -Recyclable Paper
1.2
3,050
0.70
0.57
2.31
1.71
Plastic
14.4
35,550
12.72
8:93
5.79
18.46
PET Bottles
0.7
1,79.0
1.19
0.49
0.04
0.61
HDPE Bottles
0.7
1,740
1.21
0.66
. 0.04
0.49
Film and Bags
5.3
13,090
5.57
1.89
3.54
6.67
Other Plastics
7.7
18,930
4.75
5.90
2.16
10.69
Glass
4.4
10,830 •
4.28
3.25
0.28
5.32
Clear Containers
1.4
3,400
1.98
1.41
0.06
1.15
Brown Containers
0.8
1,980
1.41
1.07
0.08
0.39
Green Containers
0.3
800
0.79
0.03
0.01
0.19
Non -Recyclable Glass
1.9
4,640
0.11
' 0.73
0.13
3.59
Metals .
10.6
26,250
8.91
14.40
9.80
10.19
Aluminum Cans
0.6
' 1,380
0.86
_ 0.38
0.03
0.50
Tin Cans
1.1
2,690
1.82
0.93
0.03
0.81
Mixed Metals
3.0
7,530
2.20
6.10
3.35
2.27
Other Ferrous
3.4
8,330
1.11
4.00
6.05
4.19
Other Non -Ferrous
0.9
2,110
0.13
1.24
0.06
1.22
Computers, Electronics
1.0
2,410
2.41
1.49
0.24
0
Other Metals
0.7
1,800
0.37
0.25
0.03
1.21
Organics, Other
37.6
92,990
48.27
37.19
22.26
32.98
Food Waste
12.9
31,790
16.91
6.39
6.14
13.72
Yard Debris
7.0
17,200
9.18
12.80
7.48
3.26
Textiles, Shoes
3.1 '
7,580
4.04
2.02
0.57
3.16
Carpeting
1.2
2,910
0.06
2.17
2.05
1.36
Disposable Diapers
2.5
6,080
4.87
1.40
0.02
1.69
Tires, Rubber Products
0.3
750.
0.12
0.76
0.02
0.26
Haz./Special Wastes
2.1
5,080
1.05
2.02
2.53
2.54
Other Materials
8.7
21,610
12.04
9.62
3.46
7.00
Construction Debris
13.5
33,480
1.57
24.36
54.68
11.94
Wood Waste
9.8
24,230
1.06
17.24
35.46
9.25
Construction Debris
3.7
9,250
0.51
7.11
19.22
2.69
TOTAL TOMS DISPOSED
247,360
Notes:
1. From the "Yakima County Waste Composition Study," June 2003 (Yakima County 2003a).
2. Based on the 2007 disposed tonnage for Yakima County (247,361 tons).
Chapter 2, Waste Stream
2-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
The specific types of generators examined by the waste composition study include:
• Residential: this is waste brought in by garbage haulers from single-family homes and
apartments. •
• Residential Self -Haul: this is waste brought in by the homeowners and renters who
generated it, although in some cases they may be assisting a family member, neighbor or
friend who actually generated the waste. This type of waste is typically transported to the
disposal site using a car or pickup truck. •
• Non -Residential Self -Haul: this waste is from businesses and institutions (government
offices, churches, schools, etc.), and by definition is brought to the disposal facility by an
employee of that business or institution. A substantial amount of this waste stream
"consists of loads of construction and demolition wastes brought in by contractors.
• General Non -Residential: this is waste from all types of non-residential sources,
including commercial, industrial, and institutional sources. By definition, this waste is
delivered by a garbage hauling company, municipality, or by someone other than the
waste generator themselves (i.e., this category excludes self -hauled waste).
• Rural Dropboxes: the disposal containers from the dropbox facilities were sampled
when these were brought to Terrace Heights Landfill to be emptied. This data is not
shown in Table 2-5 because these sites have since been closed.
Waste composition can be expected to change in the future due to changes in consumption
patterns, packaging methods, disposal habits, tourism and other factors. These changes are very
difficult to predict in the long term. Furthermore, implementation of this Plan is expected to
affect waste composition in Yakima County by changing purchasing and disposal habits.
Chapter 2, Waste Stream
2-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 3 - PROMOTION AND EDUCATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing promotion and education programs related to solid waste
management, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops/evaluates alternative promotion
and education strategies.
3.2 BACKGROUND
Public education and promotion are important elements for solid waste management systems.
Yakima County residents and businesses need to be informed as to the proper and available
methods for garbage disposal and recycling if they are expected to "do the right thing."
Promotional activities generally extend beyond education and help to support activities such as
waste reduction and recycling, although rarely is there a strict line drawn between "promotion"
and "education." Residents often have several options as to how to handle ma.iy wastes,
however, and promotional activities help to encourage them to take the extra steps to recycle or
compost the appropriate wastes, or to avoid generating the wastes in the first place.
3.2.1' Goals and Objectives for Promotion and Education
Goals and objectives specific to promotion and education (as shown on page 1-2 of the Plan)
include:
• Provide customers with information and education to promote recommended waste
management practices.
3.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
This section briefly describes the promotion and education programs in place at this time.
3.3.1 County -Sponsored Recycling and Waste Prevention Education, Outreach,
and Promotion Programs
The Yakima County Solid Waste Division manages and delivers an extensive array of outreach
programs designed to educate residents, students, and businesses about how to recycle, compost,
and produce Less waste. These programs also provide information on how to reduce and/or
properly dispose of moderate risk wastes. These programs are described below.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Waste Reduction/Recycling
• School Recycling — Yakima County staff provide worm composting, backyard composting,
and recycling presentations to grades K-12 in Yakima County to encourage recycling and
waste reduction. Free presentations are also provided to school staff to encourage the
establishment of school recycling programs. Yakima County provides two different types of
recycle bins for use on school grounds and provides a demonstration of the recycle bin use
(what can be recycled), as well as posters and classroom support materials.
• Business Recycling — Yakima County staff work with businesses and organizations to
encourage recycling in the workplace. The County also provides staff education and
recycling bins to establish new programs and reinforce existing programs.
• Organics — Yakima County encourages residents to divert their organics from the waste
stream through backyard composting or curbside collection. Classes are hosted by Yakima
County Solid Waste and Master Gardeners to encourage composting and natural gardening
practices in Yakima County. Ongoing education classes are also provided by Yakima
County Solid Waste in partnership with the Yakima Area Arboretum on topics such as grass -
cycling, worm composting, natural gardening, and xeric (low water usage) gardening. In
addition, presentations are provided at Master Gardener training sessions. In the fall of 2008,
Yakima County, the Department of Ecology, and the City of Yakima partnered on a pilot
project to distribute and educate citizens on the use of biodegradable bags for the fall City of
Yakima organics collection program.
• Residential Recycling — Several of the public outreach activities, including the distribution
of the "Yes You Can Recycle in Yakima County" brochure, address residential recycling
opportunities..
• Public Event Recycling Education — Yakima County provides recycling education and
outreach at several events throughout the year, including the Central Washington State Fair,
Central Washington Home Show, Festival of Flowers, Arboretum Arbor Festival, Eagle
Earth Day, EPIC Resource Fair, Yakima Training Center Safety Day, Poison Prevention
Week, Engineer Week, Davis Recycle-a-Thon, and America Recycles Day.
• Waste Reduction — Three thousand re -usable grocery bags were given away at local grocery
stores and senior centers to help keep plastic and paper grocery bags out of the waste stream.
• Youth Environmental Summit — The Solid Waste Division developed this free event for
middle, junior and senior high students and staff. The goal of the summit is to empower
students and staff to be environmental advocates and make a difference in their schools and
communities. The one -day event includes guest speakers, educational displays and
opportunities to network with other students and educators about developing green practices
in their schools. Other organization featured at the summit include the Department of
Ecology, Central Washington Recycling, Yakima Area Arboretum, Yakima Basin Water
Resources Agency, Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority, Yakima Waste Systems, and
WSU Master Gardeners.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Household/Small Quantity Generator Waste
Several of the public outreach activities, including the distribution of the "Yes You Can Recycle
in Yakima County" brochure, address household hazardous waste disposal options. In addition,
three thousand spray bottles, along with recipes for natural pesticide and cleaner alternatives,
were distributed in the Yakima Valley area to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals. Yakima
County has also sponsored free mercury collection events and free oil collection events. Yakima
County and the Department of Ecology, through a grant from the EPA, partnered in 2008 to
facilitate teacher workshop training on "Hazards on the Homefront."
Product Stewardship
Yakima County is a member of the Northwest Product Stewardship Council and applies product
stewardship practices within the county.
• Electronics — Yakima County has developed a network of computer recyclers to divert
electronics from the waste stream,.and this network is promoted on the County website at
www.yakimarecycles.com and through the "Yes You Can Recycle in Yakima County"
brochure. At events throughout the year, Yakima County also distributes information about
the new Washington State Electronic Product Recycling Program that took effect in 2009.
Litter and Illegal Dumping
• Secure Your Load — Several of the public outreach activities, including the distribution of
the "Yes You Can Recycle in Yakima County" brochure, address the need to secure loads,
higher landfill fees for unsecured loads, and potential fines for not properly securing loads.
Public Outreach
• Website — Yakima County continues to improve its website and has set up a more user-
friendly domain name for it, www.yakimarecycles.com. This website features information
about recycling resources, natural gardening, waste reduction, household hazardous waste
and garbage rates.
• Landfill Tours/Education — Yakima County staff provide landfill tours that are interactive
and that engage students with presentations and interesting handouts.
• Public Events Recycling — Yakima County has established a program to provide beverage
container recycling bins for free to any group with an event that is open to the public and that
serves or sells beverages in aluminum or plastic containers. Clearstream beverage recycle
bins have been placed at the Central Washington State Fair, Central Washington Home
Show, Case of the Blues and All That Jazz, Hot Shots Basketball Tournament, Festival of
Flowers, Softball and Soccer Tournaments, Yakima Folklife Festival and numerous other
public events.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Newspaper — A "Yes You Can Recycle in Yakima County" insert has been placed
periodically in the Yakima Herald Republic and the Spanish paper El Sol summarizing
recycling opportunities available in Yakima County. The insert reaches 62,000 readers in
Yakima County.
• Electronic Billboard —.Yakima County promotes environmental messages throughout the
year'on an electronic billboard on South First Street. This billboard has addressed recycling,
household hazardous waste collection, curbside recycling, unsecured loads, electronic
recycling, earth day, and other topics.
3.3.2 Private and Other Recycling and Waste Prevention Education, Outreach,
and Promotion Programs
Outreach and promotion efforts by the private sector are often conducted in support of their
programs, although many also participate in spreading a broader message when possible.
Examples of specific activities are described below.
Central Washington Recycling
Central Washington Recycling conducts outreach and education for their commercial accounts,
and also provides technical assistance as needed to set up new programs. They conduct tours of
their operations for school groups, and are currently conducting about 50 of these tours per year.
For the drop-off sites that they service at charitable organizations (there are about 20 of these
sites throughout Yakima at churches and other locations), the organizations that they work with
generally do a good job of promoting participation in the recycling drop-off sites to their own
members.
Basin Disposal and Yakima Waste Systems
The two main garbage collection companies in the county, Basin Disposal and Yakima Waste
Systems, collect recyclables from both commercial and residential accounts. These companies
provide information to their customers on proper disposal and recycling practices, as well as
other recycling opportunities. This information is provided in the form of brochures, bill inserts
and labels on containers. In addition, Yakima Waste Systems has done joint mailings with the
City of Yakima and in 2006 co -funded (along with the City of Yakima and Yakima County) a
section in the phone book (the "brown pages") that provided information on waste reduction and
recycling opportunities. In 2008, Yakima County and Yakima Waste Systems collaborated on
the new single stream curbside recycling program with Yakima County purchasing the
educational labels denoting what recyclable materials are acceptable in the new bins and
advertising the www.yakimarecycles.com website.
Other
The cities and towns, non-profit organizations, and private companies also publicize their
services as appropriate.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-4
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
3.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
tThe following table describes the accomplishments or status of the recommendations outlined in
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
the 2003 Plan.
Table 3-1
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Promotion and Education Programs
• Recommendations •
Status
Continue current education and outreach programs, including school
education, special events and public education campaigns.. Consider
expanding these programs, including using joint public/private promotional
partnerships. Education should address recycling, waste prevention,
composting reducing toxicity, and using safef alternative to products
containing hazardous ingredients.
Ongoing
3.5 PLANNING ISSUES
Based upon a review of the existing conditions, the following planning issues have been
identified as potential focus areas for the six-year and 20 -year planning horizons for county -
sponsored programs.
3.5.1 County -Sponsored Recycling and Waste Prevention Education, Outreach,
and Promotion Programs
General
Currently, Yakima County Solid Waste provides the majority of the promotion, education and
outreach programs conducted countywide. Designation of this continued responsibility will need
to be determined.
Waste Reduction/Recycling
• School Recycling — Existing efforts for school recycling programs are working well and
should be continued. There is also a statewide program that became available on August 17,
2009, the "Washington Green Schools" program, which provides on-line resources for
environmental improvements (see www.wagreenschools.org/). This could be used to help
schools expand waste reduction, recycling, and other conservation education and practices.
• Business Recycling — A significant amount of material is already being collected for
recycling from the businesses in Yakima County, but more could be done to encourage waste
reduction and other environmental programs (see also "business recognition programs" under
Public Outreach, below).
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Organics — It is anticipated that management practices for organics will undergo significant
changes in the near future. All new programs of any type should be aggressively publicized
and promoted in the first year or two of operation.
• Green Building — Current efforts to promote green building practices are largely dependent
on private and non-profit activities. Sources of additional support for these activities are
being research and developed.
• Residential Recycling — Current efforts to promote existing recycling programs are
adequate.
• Public Event Recycling — Current efforts to inform event organizers and support public
event recycling appear to be working well and should be continued.
• Waste Reduction — Again, current efforts to promote existing waste reduction opportunities
are adequate.
Household/Small Quantity General Waste
• Existing efforts do a good job of informing generators about proper handling and disposal
practices for Moderate Risk Wastes (MRW), but little technical assistance is currently being
provided to businesses, schools, or agricultural generators.
Product Stewardship
• Electronics — The new system for collecting electronics ("e -waste") is expected to vastly
improve the opportunities to handle this waste stream, and the associated education campaign
should provide adequate information to generators on how to properly handle e -waste. The
County has already laid the groundwork for this new system through their involvement in the
"Take it Back Network" and should continue to help publicize the new system.
• Pharmaceuticals — Programs to address waste pharmaceuticals are currently under
development and it is unknown what role the County or other local service -providers may
play in any new programs to address this waste material.
• Paint — Waste paint is currently handled at the County's MRW facility, but a different
approach may be necessary or desirable in the future if a new product stewardship program
for paint is implemented by manufacturers. In this case, extensive public education may be
needed to inform waste generators of the new program.
• Tires — Product stewardship programs to address waste tires are currently in the very early
planning stages and it is unknown what role the County or other local service -providers (auto
repair shops and tire dealers) may have in any new programs to address this waste material.
This and other programs are being evaluated by the Northwest Product Stewardship Council
(see www.productstewardship.net/).
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-6
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Fluorescent Tubes — A collection system to handle fluorescent tubes is already in place, but
any future changes should be widely publicized: In the meantime, any publicity promoting
the use of fluorescent tubes or compact fluorescent light bulbs should also inform customers
about disposal options.
Litter and Illegal Dumping
• Schools Litter Awareness Program — Litter and illegal dumping are chronic problems in
Yakima County, and additional efforts in the schools would help educate children that these
are undesirable activities.
• Adopt a Road Litter Program — The Adopt -a -Road program is helping to address roadside
litter and should be continued.
• Secure Your Load — The fines and education efforts being conducted for properly securing
loads arebeingeffective and should be continued.
Public Outreach
• Website — The website for solid waste and recycling information, www.yakimarecycles.com,
is an excellent tool and should continue to be maintained and expanded as appropriate.
• Landfill Tours/Education — Landfill tours and related educational activities provide first-
hand exposure to disposal issues and should be continued.
• Public Education/Outreach Events — Education and outreach at public events is an
important tool for spreading the word and should be continued. The events where these
activities should be conducted include, but are not limited to, the Central Washington State
Fair, National Night Out, Central Washington Horne Show, Festival of Flowers, and
Arborfest.
• TV/Radio/Newspaper/Billboard Advertising — Some amount of mass media advertising is
essential for reaching those people that might otherwise miss the messages that are
distributed through other means such as flyers in utility bills, and these activities should be
continued.
• Business Recognition Program — Public recognition provides good publicity for businesses
that practice significant waste reduction and recycling. More could be done in this area to
encourage businesses to engage in these activities, and also to inform them as to proper
disposal practices for MRW and other special wastes.
• Yakima County Recycling Heroes — This program was established to recognize local
citizens for their efforts in recycling. •Yakima County Recycling Heroes help the
environment by saving resources and conserving landfill space. Nominees are evaluated and
the three winners are announced at a Yakima County Commissioners meeting in the spring.
Heroes and their stories are featured in the Yakima County Recycling Guide, which is
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
published and inserted in the Yakima Herald Republic around Earth Day. Recycling Heroes
are also recognized on the county's website, www.yakimarecycles.com.
3.5.2 Private and Other Recycling and Waste Prevention Education, Outreach,
and Promotion Programs
No specific needs or service gaps have been identified for private programs.
3.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
3.6.1 Alternatives
Alternatives for public education include a few general options that discuss administrative and
large-scale approaches, and a number of specific activities, as described below. Other public
education activities (that are not shown below) are working well and should be continued.
Alternative A — Public and Private Roles
The Yakima County Solid Waste Division has historically taken the lead in public education and
promotion of waste management programs. This alternative proposes a larger role for the cities,
through an active partnership with the County. County staff could continue to take the lead in
most areas and could provide technical assistance on an as -needed basis. Coordination could
occur through the Yakima County Council of Governments (COG). Other organizations,
including service groups, the haulers and other private companies (as appropriate to the program
or material being promoted), could also conduct education for their own specific programs.
Alternative B — Additional Education for New Programs
Efforts to inform residents and businesses about existing recycling and waste reduction options
need to be conducted on an ongoing basis, and more education is generally better in terms of
results for existing programs. As new programs are developed or existing programs expanded,
increased education will also be needed on at least a temporary basis to ensure that people are
aware of the opportunity and participation guidelines. An example of a new program that will
need to be publicized is the e -waste program (see below, under Product Stewardship).
Alternative C — Promotion for Green Building Activities
Efforts to promote green building practices could be increased with cooperation from private and
non-profit activities. Because green building involves many disciplines, an effective approach to
conveying the message is to partner with associations whose members have a particular interest
in learning about green building methods. Additional support for these activities is further
discussed in Chapter 9.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-8
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Alternative D — Public Information for Yard Debris Disposal Ban
State legislation (RCW 70.95.010 (10) establishes a goal of eliminating yard debris from
landfills by 2012 in those areas that have disposal alternatives available. A ban or other
approach would require extensive public education about the alternatives for properly handling
yard debris. The education about this could be broadcast through county media points to include
signs at the transfer stations and landfills, mailers, radio spots, County website, signs at the
County and at libraries. Options for yard debris should be publicized and should include
mulching lawnmowers, backyard composting and composting facilities. To be most effective,
citizens could receive up to year's warning and;be allowed to handle their yard debris' in a •
convenient manner. County and city residents and businesses should also be given information
as to why this change is necessary.
Alternative E — Technical Assistance for SQGs
Existing efforts are doing a good job of informing generators about proper handling and disposal
practices for moderate risk waste (MRW), but little technical assistance is currently being
provided to any sector (businesses, schools, residents, or agricultural generators). Public
education alternatives for these generators could include county staff, private consultants, or
citizen action groups offering assistance to business, organizations, and other waste generators,
using fact sheets, a telephone hot line, directories, workshops, demonstration programs,
newsletters, and on-site consultations. The need for technical assistance is discussed further in
Chapter 12.
Alternative F — Public Education for Proper E -Waste Handling
The collection of e -waste financed by the manufacturers is one of the first product stewardship
programs to be created in the State of Washington. E -Cycle Washington is a new program that
began providing responsiblerecycling of computers in January 2009. Washington State Law
requires that collection of electronics be provided free of charge to households, small businesses
and school districts. The website, www. 1800recycle.wa.gov, lists ten drop-off and buy back
sites for Yakima County. Public outreach materials can be downloaded from this website, such
as a brochure, signs, logos, mail inserts, press releases and more, and these materials can be used
to help direct people to the ten collection sites.
Alternative G — Illegal Dumping Education
Illegal dumping is another problem that could be addressed through public education. Litter and
illegal dumping are chronic problems in Yakima County, and these are a priority for future work.
In this case, public education could be used to discourage this behavior, by publicizing the bad
aspects of this activity and also informing potential violators of the applicable fines and civil
penalties. Additional efforts in the schools would help educate children that these are
undesirable activities. A task force to address illegal dumping could also help by bringing
together key people from the several organizations that are impacted by this problem and this.
idea is discussed further in Chapter 14.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Alternative H — Business Recognition Program
More could be done to encourage businesses to participate in waste reduction and other
environmental programs. For the businesses, a two-pronged approach could be used, by
informing them of the options for reducing and recycling wastes, and also motivating them to
begin these activities. Approaches that have worked well in other areas for motivating the
businesses are special awards or other recognition programs.
Awards and public recognition can be used to motivate businesses to reduce waste at the source.
Public recognition provides an opportunity for local jurisdictions to publicize innovative waste
reduction programs, as well as encourage the business sector to participate in waste reduction
activities. Leadership, innovation, volunteer activity, or setting a positive example for others to
follow can be recognized by the counties and the municipalities. Local media could be encouraged
to report on businesses that practice waste reduction.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Alternative C is further evaluated in Chapter 9 and Alternative E is evaluated in Chapter 12. The
other alternatives are evaluated below.
Consistency With Planning Objectives
All of the alternative strategies support the objective of providing customers with information
and education to promote recommended waste management practices.
Waste Reduction / Diversion Potential
Alternative H, the business recognition program, would provide the most immediate waste
reduction result because this category produces the greatest amount of waste. All other
alternatives promote waste reduction by encouraging changes in behavior or facilitating the
recovery of used products.
Customer Preferences
Waste reduction education and promotion programs typically enjoy strong customer support.
Implementation Costs
Alternative F is the lowest cost and so would be a desirable option under a cost criterion. The
other alternatives fall into a low to medium range of costs.
3.6.3 Rating of Alternatives
The alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria in the table below. Based
upon the comparison, all of the. alternatives are being recommended for further development and
implementation.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 3-2.
Summary Rating of the Alternative Promotion and Education Strategies
• H - High M - Medium
L — Low
3.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for promotion and public education programs:
PE 1) Utilize a collaborative effort for public education that includes the following activities;
• Continue existing public education and promotion activities.
• Provide additional public education for new or expanded waste diversion programs.
• Provide additional public education to support the yard debris disposal ban and to
inform people about alternative handling options.
• Promote the new collection system for e -waste.
• Address illegal dumping through public education in addition to the citizens task
force in Chapter 13.
• Develop and implement a business recognition program to help promote recycling
and waste reduction by the commercial sector.
Yakima County will provide the overall public education program and will be the lead agency
for most of these activities. Cities, service groups, haulers and other private companies will
promote local programs.
The budget for these activities will consist primarily of continuing the existing budget plus small
additional amounts for new activities. The county's budget for public education in 2009 is
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-11
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Waste
Reduction /.
Diversion
Potential
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
.
Overall
Rating
A
Public and Private Roles
H
H
H
L
H
B'
Education for New Programs
H
M
H
M
H
D
Public Information for Yard
Debris Disposal Ban
H
H
L
M
M
F
Public Education for Proper E-
Waste Handing
H
M
H
L
H
G
Illegal Dumping Education
H
M
M
M
M
H
Business Recognition Program
H
H
M
M
H
• H - High M - Medium
L — Low
3.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for promotion and public education programs:
PE 1) Utilize a collaborative effort for public education that includes the following activities;
• Continue existing public education and promotion activities.
• Provide additional public education for new or expanded waste diversion programs.
• Provide additional public education to support the yard debris disposal ban and to
inform people about alternative handling options.
• Promote the new collection system for e -waste.
• Address illegal dumping through public education in addition to the citizens task
force in Chapter 13.
• Develop and implement a business recognition program to help promote recycling
and waste reduction by the commercial sector.
Yakima County will provide the overall public education program and will be the lead agency
for most of these activities. Cities, service groups, haulers and other private companies will
promote local programs.
The budget for these activities will consist primarily of continuing the existing budget plus small
additional amounts for new activities. The county's budget for public education in 2009 is
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3-11
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
$31,000 and the primary anticipated activities include the "Yes You Can Recycle in Yakima
County" insert to every household, a billboard for six months, an electronic billboard on Nob
Hill, and radio ads. The proposed recommendations above would be in addition to these
activities, and would require additional budget and staff time. More details on the budget can be
found in Section 14.3 and Table 14-1.
Chapter 3, Promotion and Education 3.12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 4 - WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing waste reduction and recycling programs, identifies relevant
planning issues, and develops/evaluates alternative strategies.
4.2 BACKGROUND
4.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Waste Reduction and Recycling
Goals and objectives specific to waste reduction and recycling include:
• Encourage public-private partnerships for waste reduction and recycling programs.
• Emphasize waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy.
• Encourage the recovery of marketable resources from solid waste.
• Assist the State in achieving its goal of a 50 percent recycling rate.
• Encourage those who design, produce, sell, or use a product to take responsibility for
minimizing the product's environmental impact throughout all stages of the products' life
cycle, including end of life management.
• Support the State's Beyond Waste goals.
4.2.2 State Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines
Chapters 4 and 5 provide an update of the County's methods to divert waste away from landfill
disposal, and to comply with State requirements regarding waste reduction and recycling
opportunities and programs. The State's requirements are based in the "Waste Not Washington
Act" (ESHB 1671), which declared that waste reduction and recycling must become a
fundamental strategy of solid waste management. This law is reflected in various sections of the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The
following goals (among others) were developed and included in RCW 70.95 as the basis for solid
waste planning in Washington State:
• Washington State is to achieve a statewide recycling rate of 50%.
• Source separation of waste (at a minimum, separation into recyclable and non -recyclable
fractions) must be a fundamental strategy of solid waste management.
• Steps should be taken to make recycling at least as affordable and convenient to the ratepayer
as disposal of mixed solid waste.
RCW 70.95 requires that solid waste management plans demonstrate how the above goals will
be met.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
State law (RCW 70.95.092) requires that counties develop clear criteria for designating areas as
urban or rural for the purpose of providing solid waste and recycling services. The urban -rural
designations are important because they are the basis for determining the level of service that
must be provided for recycling and other solid waste programs. For example, State law (RCW
70.95.090(7)(b)(i)) requires that recyclables be collected from homes and apartments in urban
areas (although exceptions to this requirement can be granted if based on viable alternatives and
other criteria), whereas drop-off centers and other methods can be used in rural areas. The State
planning guidelines suggest that the criteria used to designate urban and rural areas can include
population growth, densities of commercial properties, geographic boundaries, transportation
corridors, existing urban growth boundaries determined through comprehensive land use plans,
other utilities and services associated with urban areas, and/or other factors.
RCW 70.95.090 also requires a monitoring program for collection of source -separated waste
from non-residential sources when there is sufficient density to economically sustain a
commercial collection program. Yakima County achieves this by working cooperatively with
Ecology and utilizing the data they collect through the annual Washington State Recycling
Survey.
In summary, the County's existing urban and rural collection programs and the non-residential
monitoring program meet or exceed the recycling service requirements in Chapter 70.95 RCW.
4.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
4.3.1 Waste Reduction
Activities and practices that reduce the amount of wastes created are classified as "waste
reduction." Waste reduction differs from the other two waste diversion techniques (recycling
and composting) because the other methods deal with wastes after the wastes have been
generated. By definition, waste reduction also includes activities and practices that reduce the
toxicity of wastes that are created, and these methods are discussed in Chapter 12.
Waste reduction is the highest priority for solid waste management according to Chapter 70.95
RCW, and is preferred over recycling and composting because the social, environmental and
economic costs are typically lower for waste reduction. All three methods avoid the cost of
disposing of the diverted materials as garbage, but recycling and composting frequently require
significant additional expenses for collecting and processing the materials. Those additional
expenses are avoided in the case of waste reduction, where the waste is not produced.
Several good examples of reuse exist in Yakima County. Reuse occurs when someone else uses
an item that would otherwise be discarded in the trash. Reuse occurs through second-hand
stores, thrift shops, charitable organizations that collect clothing and household goods, garage
sales, used bookstores, and through similar activities.
A successful and effective tool for encouraging waste reduction (and recycling) is the use of
"variable rates" or "volume -based rates," where households are charged significantly more for
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
disposing of more garbage. Businesses are generally already charged according to.the amount of
garbage disposed and this approach is essentially impossible to implement for individual
apartments, so this strategy typically refers only to single-family homes. Avid recyclers or
households that minimize waste can also choose a "mini -can" rate (20 -gallon can emptied once
per week) in the areas served by Basin Disposal and Yakima Waste Systems.
An effective method of waste reduction is the composting of yard debris on the property where it
was generated (typically called "backyard" or "on-site" composting). The County provides
educational materials for on-site composting, has distributed composting bins, and works with
several groups (the Arboretum, Master Gardeners, Master Composters, and the Natural Garden
Party Program) to encourage these types of practices.
Other opportunities for reuse and waste reduction that are available in the County include a non-
profit reuse store for building materials (operated by Habitat for Humanity), and reuse of
polystyrene packing "peanuts" and boxes. Computer reuse is being facilitated by at least five
businesses.
4.3.2 Recycling
"Recycling" refers to the act of collecting and processing materials to return them to a similar
use. Recycling does not include materials burned for energy recovery or destroyed through
pyrolysis and other high-temperature processes. The State's definition of recycling is "recycling
means transforming or remanufacturing waste materials into usable or marketable materials for
use other than landfill disposal or incineration. Recycling does not include collection,
compacting, repackaging, and sorting for the purpose of transport" (Ch. 173-350 WAC).
A network of private -sector recyclers and public -sector recycling collection programs currently
serves residents and businesses in Yakima County. The predominant collection method in the
county is drop-off sites, with curbside and commercial services offered in some areas. Residents
can take a wide range of materials to different recycling facilities. Businesses can contract with
a local recycling service provider for pickup of cardboard, mixed waste paper, plastic bottle
types 1-7, tin cans, and aluminum cans, or they can self -haul their materials to privately -operated
drop-off sites. These services are described below.
Yakima County's waste diversion rate for 2007, the latest year for which figures are available, is
estimated to be 23.3 percent. A total of 123,274 tons was reported as recycled, composted, or
otherwise diverted in 2007, equal.to about 1,020 pounds per person per year. .
Urban Area Residential Recycling
Curbside recycling collection services are available in Moxee; Selah, Union Gap, and Yakima,
and these programs collect primarily the Tier 1 materials (see Table 4-1). Curbside recycling
services are also available in the urban growth area (UGA) on a subscription basis. These
services are provided by Yakima Waste Systems and Basin Disposal through a variety of
contractual arrangements and state -issued certificates. Yakima Waste Systems recently began a
single -stream program that collects all recyclable materials in a 64 -gallon cart every -other -week
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
from residential customers. Materials collected include newspaper, cardboard, phone books,
shredded paper, mixed waste paper, plastic bottles (containers with a neck) types 1-7, aluminum
and tin cans. Glass is not collected in these carts, nor are plastic bags and tubs, aluminum foil,
scrap metal, batteries, and non -recyclable materials.
The City of Yakima provides garbage and yard debris collection services within its boundaries.
Residential curbside recycling and commercial garbage and recycling services are provided by
Yakima Waste Systems (YWS). Residents desiring curbside recycling service must therefore
contract with two separate companies, one for garbage and yard debris, and another for "regular"
recycling. According to YWS, approximately 10% of the eligible City households (about 2,000
to 3,000 customers altogether) have contracted for curbside recycling service. Those who sign
up have a set -out rate that approaches 100%, which is higher than commonly observed in other
areas, and is likely explained by the fact that users have chosen to purchase the additional
recycling service and are therefore highly motivated to use it.
For urban residents who do not have access to or who do not subscribe to curbside service, there
are drop-off sites and private buy-back centers located in most towns and cities. Materials
collected at the drop-off sites vary but in general include aluminum and tin cans, newspaper,
mixed paper, cardboard, plastic pop bottles and plastic milk jugs. A few sites also collect clear
glass.
Rural Area Residential Recycling
Curbside recycling service is not available in the rural areas. Instead, rural residents rely on
drop-off sites and buy-back centers: The County operates rural recycling drop-off sites in three
towns: Harrah, Granger, and Zillah. In addition, the Cheyne Road Landfill, Lower Valley
Transfer Station, and Terrace Heights Landfill provide drop-off recycling services to rural
customers. There are several privately -operated drop-off sites in rural areas as well.
Non -Residential Recycling
Commercial -sector recycling is handled exclusively by the private sector, although the County
does offer technical assistance services to businesses on request and businesses are able to use
private drop-off sites. Yakima Waste Systems, Basin Disposal and Central Washington
Recycling provide recycling collection service to commercial customers. Yakima Waste
Systems provides commercial recycling services using a single -stream approach (all recyclable
materials except glass are collected in the same container). Service is provided weekly, using
96 -gallon toters and other containers up to 6 yards in capacity.
Public Event Recycling
To assist in compliance with the new law for public event recycling' (RCW 70.93.093), Yakima
County offers recycling bins at no charge for use at such events. The recyclables collected at
these events can go to Yakima Waste Systems for sorting or the County will take them back.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-4
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Other Recycling Services
Household batteries are accepted at the County landfills and transfer stations and at 19 other
locations. Appliances and tires are also accepted for a fee at the County landfills and d at a few
private locations.
Yakima County also provides recycling bins for use at schools. Through a grant from the
Department of Ecology, the County is making 200 recycling bins available to the schools on a
first come -first served basis.
Incentives for Recycling
The County provides an incentive for recycling material at the landfills and transfer station by
accepting source -separated recyclables for free. Other sites also accept recyclable materials for
free, allowing people to reduce their garbage bill, or they may even pay for some recyclable
materials. Residents and businesses that subscribe to recycling collection services can usually
reduce their garbage service and lower their overall costs.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Yakima County relies on Ecology for information on recycled, quantities and an estimate of the
county's recycling rate. Annual figures for recycled tonnages are reported on a voluntary basis
by both public- and private -sector entities.
4.3.3 Processing Facilities
"Processing" is defined by Ch. 173-350 WAC to be "an operation to convert a material into a
useful product or to prepare it for reuse, recycling, or disposal." In this chapter, "processing"
refers to operations that do more than remove incidental amounts of contaminants or that do
more than simply accumulate source -separated recyclables. Processing includes manual and/or
machine sorting and consolidating for shipment (this can include baling of materials such
aluminum, paper, and plastic).
The private sector handles the processing of all of the materialscollected for recycling:
• Central Washington Recycling accepts and bales source -separated recyclables, and also
shreds newspaper and mixed waste paper for their own production process.
• Yakima Waste Systems, Inc. operates a materials recovery facility that handles paper,
cardboard, cans and plastics.
• Basin Disposal has the ability to hand -sort mixed recyclables from commercial sources.
• There are a few private 'facilities that process specific waste streams, such as NW Ag Plastics
(which recycles agricultural plastics, see Chapter 10 for more details).
• Other private facilities, such as Mayflower Metals and Pacific Steel & Recycling, conduct
some sorting and processing of the materials they accept.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Overall, processing facilities are considered adequate for the supply of materials, and the access
to markets is above average for an eastern Washington county.
4.3.4 Markets
State regulations (RCW 70.95.090.7.c) require "a description of markets for recyclables." A
description of the markets for recyclable materials collected in Yakima County is provided
below. This is intended to be only a brief report of current conditions, and it should be noted that
market conditions for recyclables can change drastically in a short amount of time.
Market Overview
A significant factor for recent market conditions was the substantial demand by Chinese buyers
for many recyclable materials, especially paper, plastics, and steel. China was a significant force
in the marketplace because they were currently improving their infrastructure and were also
experiencing higher demand due to increased production of consumer goods for internal
consumption and for export to the United States and other countries. Because of their higher
demand, they were willing to accept lower grades of paper and plastics. With the global
economic downturn that occurred in the latter half of 2008, however, demand by China and other
countries decreased, and prices for many materials dropped from the highest levels ever
experienced to much lower levels. These conditions are expected to last for at least six months
and possibly a few years, depending on how long it takes for the U.S. economy to recover from
the current problems. This huge swing in market prices underscores the need for caution when
implementing new or expended programs, as well as the need for flexibility.
Another important factor for marketing of recyclable materials collected in Yakima County is the
cost of transporting them to end -markets, many of which are outside of Washington State.
Recyclers in eastern Washington are farther from most markets and so have less access to these
markets because the transportation cost is a barrier. The low market value of many recyclable
materials limits the number of materials that can be cost-effectively moved to markets.
Additional factors affecting specific materials are shown in Table 4-1.
4.3.5 Designation of Recyclable Materials •
The designation of recyclable materials has taken on more importance with the recent adoption
of Ch. 173-350 WAC, which defines recyclable materials as being those materials "that are
identified as recyclable materials pursuant to a local comprehensive solid waste plan." As noted
above, however, market conditions for recyclables can change drastically in a short amount of
time and this is a problem for a long-range document such as this plan. Hence, the list of
designated materials is accompanied by a description of the process for revising that list.
Table 4-2 shows the list of designated recyclable materials. This list is not intended to create a
requirement that every recycling program in Yakima County collect every designated material.
Instead, the intent is that through a combination of programs offered throughout the county,
residents and businesses should have an opportunity to recycle all of the designated materials
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 4-1
Markets for Recyclable Materials
Material
Primary Market(s)
Comments
Paper:
Cardboard
Regional paper
. markets, paper mills
and export. .
The markets for cardboard (used in
packaging) are currently weaker
than for the past few years due to
decreased demand for consumer
goods.
Mixed Waste Paper
Michelsen Packaging,
and export markets.
Michelson Packaging currently
needs more of these two materials
than can be provided locally.
Newspaper
Michelsen. Packaging.
Plastics:
Bottles 1-7
Regional markets in
• western Washington
and Oregon (export).
The markets for PET and HDPE
bottles are currently weak, and
even weaker for bottles 3-7.
Other Plastics
Primarily export.
Markets are spotty and sometimes
unreliable.
•
Metals, including aluminum
and tin cans, white goods
(app lances), and ferrous
and non-ferrous scrap
Regional markets in
western Washington
and Oregon.
Markets are currently weaker for
all metals than in recent years, but
are expected to return to high
prices within six months to two
years.
Glass:
Clear Glass
Regional markets in
western Washington
and Oregon.
Prices are poor for clear glass but
are better than for brown and green
glass.
Brown and Green Glass
Regional markets in
.western Washington
and Oregon.
Prices for brown and green glass
are low or negative (i.e., the glass
is recycled for a charge).
Organics:
Wood
Hog fuel, mulch (clean
sources only)
More information is provided in
the next chapter on the markets for
organic materials.
Yard Debris
Daily cover, compost
Note: Information current as of the beginning of 2009.
through at least one program. In other words, if plastics are on the designated materials list, then
at least one program in the county must collect plastics: In this case, the list has been prioritized,
meaning that residents and businesses should have better access to the high priority materials.
Table 4-2 is the list of "designated recyclable materials" required by Chapter 173-350 WAC, and
should be used for guidance as to the materials to be recycled in the future. This list is based on
existing conditions (collection programs and markets), and future markets and technologies may
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling
4-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 4-2
List of Designated Recyclable Materials
Priority Level
Material
High Priority
Materials: Materials
that should be collected
by all standard curbside
and drop-off programs
throughout the county.
Aluminum
Cardboard
High Grade Paper
Mixed Paper
Newspaper
Plastic Bottles, #1 and #2
Tin Cans
Medium Priority .
Materials: Materials
that should be collected
at select locations
throughout the county.
Clear Glass
Ferrous Metals
Motor Oil
Non -Ferrous Metals
Plastic Bags and Film
Textiles
Tires
Vehicle Batteries
Yard Debris
Wood Waste
Low Priority
Materials: Hard to
recycle materials that
can be recycled if
markets are available.
Brown Glass
Electronics
Fluorescent Light Bulbs
Latex Paint
Plastics, #3 through #7
Plastic Containers (Non -Bottle)
Poly -Coated Paper
warrant changes in this List. The following conditions are grounds for additions or deletions to
the list of designated materials:
• The market price for an existing material becomes so low that it is no longer feasible to
collect, process and/or ship it to markets.
1
1
1
1
1
1
• Local markets and/or brokers expand their list of acceptable items based on new uses for
materials or technologies that increase demand. 111
• New local or regional processing or demand for a particular material develops.
• No market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the material to be
stockpiled with no apparent solution in the near future.
• The potential for increased or decreased amounts of diversion.
• Legislative mandate.
• Other conditions not anticipated at this time.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-8
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Any proposed changes in the list of designated materials should be submitted to the Solid Waste
Advisory.Committee (SWAC) for their discussion. With the concurrence of the SWAC,
followed by approval by the Public Works Director, minor changes in the list could be adopted
without formally amending the Plan. Thus, minor.changes can be addressed in about 60 to 75
days, depending on the schedule of SWAC meetings at the time of the proposed change. Should
the SWAC conclude that the proposed change is a "major change" (what constitutes a "major
change" is expected to be self-evident at the time, although criteria such as the length of the
discussion by the SWAC and/or inability to achieve consensus could be used as indicators of
what is a "major change"), then an amendment to the Plan would be necessary(a process that
could take 120 days or longer to complete). In either case, Ecology should be notified of any
changes made to the list of designated materials or when an amendment process is initiated.
4.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
The status of the recommendations made by the previous solid waste management plan (Yakima
.County 2003b) is shown in Table 4-3.
4.5 PLANNING ISSUES
Climate Action Response
The Beyond Waste Implementation Working Group (BWIWG) of the 2008 Climate Action
Team developed specific recommendations that may be enacted into legislation in the 2009
session. The BWIWG recommended that all fibers and organics be kept out of landfills and also
recommended more product stewardship programs. It is unknown at this time if these
recommendations will lead to mandatory requirements or what schedule may be proposed (in
other words, it is unknown at this point how these recommendations may affect Yakima County).
Glass Recycling
There is some demand for the opportunity to recycle glass in Yakima County, especially from
large generators such as the wineries, but the economics of transporting glass to markets in
Seattle or Portland are very poor. More glass could potentially be recycled if a local market
could be developed to use the glass, or if a product stewardship or other approach could be
developed.
Recycling Rates by Material
It is a long -held belief that local drop-off sites and other programs are fairly effective in
collecting materials for recycling. For instance, the previous Plan stated that an estimated 70
percent of the newspaper was being recovered at that time. More recent data, however, indicates
that this figure is lower, although it is unknown whether this is due to a decrease in the recovery
rate for newspaper or if the previous figure was an overestimate.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 4-3
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Waste Reduction and Recycling
Recommendations
Status
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting
9Y" 23: 4 "`4E�� H' '!�' N �? - 4P�S''u' ��I"R[Y 'X °+':€`..n9#\fil61381',fa.)✓'n^('ri..•�.�
Opiiill Recycling Intent vOir Purim erin iOgig
increase tip fees to fund County recycling and waste prevention programs and to provide an
incentive for increased recycling.
Done
R'esid`ential RecMai it'lila r Iiii10 undine V:
Continue the current mix of voluntary curbside collection and drop-off services.
Ongoing
Explore public sector incentives and/or funding for expanded curbside and/or drop-off recycling
programs in both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
Ongoing
Re iiiii %a1,,Recychn if li'ra1 Ar,,.eas..
Continue current program of public and private drop-off services.
Ongoing
N.aM4iclent ari Wyc1#ng
Continue current practice of relying on the private sector to provide services.
Ongoing
Provide expanded/targeted education and assistance to businesses on recycling, waste
reduction, and reducing toxicity of commercial waste.
Ongoing
In the future, consider targeting the construction and demolition sector for expanded recycling.
Ongoing
WTu'C.YRYi$X?".»tar?;"'"S43MA;«t4�, 'a.P: 'd"'l:'Ja'.��
DestgnatedlRecycla bless
Revise the designation of Tier 1, 2, and 3 materials. The SWAC, with support from staff, is to,
review the designation of recyclables at least bi-annually. Decisions about the appropriate tier
for different materials are to be made considering the availability and durability of markets and
the feasibility of accessing those markets (including the processing facilities needed).
Ongoing
tiiiiia ®'':ii'Clw - ii ii �,`"• -ms��i� " .a �rz +,wsa l4t.'
�, _ycle=lViate`dials;rllrnea�giieg:,Wlste'?Sfrearns
Conduct specialevents to provide residents and small businesses with collection services for
new recyclable items and hard to recycle materials. Materials to be targeted for collection at'
special events include: computers and other electronic wastes, appliances, reusable building
materials, tires, fluorescent Tight bulbs, and clean plastic bags and film.
Ongoing
Consider supporting product stewardship for new and/or hard to recycle materials. Provide
support for regional efforts to establish product stewardship programs for electronics. Such
programs may also be appropriate for paint and products containing potentially hazardous
materials. Apply principles of product stewardship to the development of local initiatives to
handle emerging or problematic wastes.
Ongoing
Ma rlket'J<?evelopm ent.
Provide targeted assistance to establish and/or maintain the viability of local market for
recyclable materials. Focus assistance on materials where local (or regional) markets can
effectively handle materials collected from Yakima County. Such materials include yard waste,
compost, green chop, mixed glass cullet, wood waste, wood chips, concrete/aggregate, and
reusable building materials. Program activities could consist of (1) assessments of the
feasibility of local market development initiatives, (2) technical assistance to private. sector
processors and end users (3) government procurement of recycled content goods, and (4) "buy
recycled" campaigns, demonstration projects, and other promotion initiatives aimed at
stimulating demand for recycled materials sourced from local markets.
.
Ongoing
Consider providing targeted assistance to increase recycling of C&D materials with a focus on
market development initiatives. For example, helping to establish viable markets for reused
building materials has proven to be a viable means of increasing C&D diversion.
Not currently
being done due to
staff limitation
Saeid 'r i g nil::tiiiii at ori
Continue to rely on Ecology and voluntary reporting to determine recycling levels.
Ongoing
Conduct a waste characterization study to determine the composition and source of Yakima
County's municipal solid waste.
Done
iWaet'e teductio'n/ Pr'.eventiori
Continue current Lagr
Ongoing
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling
4-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan .
Table 4-4 uses data from the most.recent Ecology survey (see Table 2-4) and the 2003 waste
composition study (as applied to 2007 disposal tonnages, see Table 2-5) to calculate the recovery
rates for specific. materials. As can be seen in Table 4-4, recovery rates vary depending on the
material. The recovery rate for cardboard is the highest of the materials shown, which is
consistent with the fact that there are several programs offering on-site collection of cardboard
from large commercial generators of this material. Newspaper is the second most recycled
material .(based on recovery rate), reflecting the many drop-off sites for this material.
Table 4-4
Recovery Rates for Specific Recyclable Materials
High Priority Materials
Recycled Tonnages'
Disposed Tonnages2
Recovery Rate3
Newspaper
3,051
5,590
35.3%
Cardboard
28,172
10,890
72.1%
Other Recyclable Paper
5,577
17,120
24.6%
#1, #2 Plastic Bottles
370
3,530
9.5%
Aluminum Cans
412
1,380
23.0%
Tin Cans
151
2,690
5.3%
Notes: 1. See Table 2-4 for recycling data. These are figures for 2006.
2. See Table 2-5 for disposed tonnages. These figures were calculated using the County's 2007 total
tonnage (247,360 tons) and the percentage breakdown from the 2003 waste composition study.
3. Recovery rates are calculated by dividing the recycled tonnages by the sum of the recycled and disposed
• tonnages.
4. "Other recyclable paper" includes mixed waste paper and office paper.
Rural Dropboxes for Recycling
A few areas of the county lack convenient access to recycling, which could be provided by
dropboxes. These areas include West Valley, Lower Valley, and the Naches area. Unattended
recycling dropboxes often suffer from problems. due to illegal dumping of garbage.
Recycling Program Costs, and Affordability
An overriding goal of Yakima's solid waste program is to keep costs and rates affordable for
both residents and businesses. An increase in the tipping fee will likely be necessary to pay for
new landfill capacity and other services. Recycling and other services discussed in this Plan may
add to program costs and increase the rates. The key issues related to costs, rates, and
affordability that should be considered as part of developing this Plan are:
• How to provide recycling services on a cost-effective basis.
• How expanded recycling services may result in disposal cost savings from extending the life
of the existing landfills.
• The potential for higher tip fees to provide a stronger incentive to recycle.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-I 1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Needs and Opportunities Identified by the Previous SWAC
In the development of the previous Plan, the SWAC noted several opportunities to expand and
improve recycling services and identified a few key issues that needed to be addressed. Several
of these are still pertinent:
• Provide more curbside service in urban areas.
• Improve the drop-off service.
• Collect more from the commercial sector.
• Collect new materials that now have markets (such as plastic film and oriented strand board).
• Address the impacts of new regulations, such as the burn ban in urban areas, on solid waste
and recycling services.
Urban/Rural Service Equity and Cost
As the County establishes recycling goals and service levels for the next five to seven years,
questions of equity and cost arise when considering what type of service to provide in urban
versus rural communities. Issues considered included:
• How to provide equity between urban and rural residents in terms of opportunities for and
convenience of recycling. .
• Ensuring that rural residents have adequate service at a reasonable cost.
• Whether these service levels will need to be adjusted in the future.
• Whether minimum service levels should be established.
4.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
4.6.1 Alternatives
Alternatives for waste reduction and recycling address the planning issues identified above and
also include a few general housekeeping items (re-establishing the recycling goal and addressing
the list of designated materials), as described below.
Alternative A — Waste Diversion Goal
A new goal could be set for the County's waste reduction, recycling and composting programs.
Setting a goal provides a benchmark for measuring future performance. Setting an appropriate
goal at this time may be difficult, however, since recycling markets are severely depressed and
waste generation rates are lower due to economic reasons. This Plan could instead express
support for helping to meet the statewide goal of 50% waste reduction and recycling.
Alternative B — List of Designated Materials
The list of designated recyclable materials (see Table 4-2) could simply be considered as having
been adopted as part of the adoption this Plan, but adopting a recommendation specifically for
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-12
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
this list makes a clearer case in the future. A recommendation could be adopted that states the
list shown in Table 4-2 is the accepted list of designated materials, that the interpretation of the
three priority levels is as described in this Plan, and that the list should be reviewed and revised
(if necessary) by the SWAC at least every two years. Revisions to this list could be based on the
availability and durability of markets and the feasibility of accessing those markets.
Alternative C — Waste Composition Study
As recommended by the previous plan, Yakima County conducted a waste composition study in
2003. This study could be repeated in a few years, around 2011 to 2013, to provide an updated
assessment of the performance of recycling and MRW programs. A study such as this could also
provide useful information on waste generation rates by source (residential and non-residential),
which would also be helpful for monitoring the performance of various programs. Such a study
should be conducted over the course of a year so as to address seasonal variations. The cost of
this study would be significant, in the range of $80,000 to $100,000, and so may be contingent
on the availability of grant funds.
Alternative D — Increase Curbside Recycling Programs
Having more curbside programs and increased participation in existing programs would increase
the tonnages collected for recycling. One option for any recycling program is to make it
mandatory for residents and/or businesses to participate in it. The term mandatory is also
sometimes used to refer to payment of the costs for a recycling program, in that everyone pays
for recycling whether they participate or not. For residential customers, this is accomplished by
including the cost of recycling in the garbage rates. Providing a financial incentive for curbside
recycling would help promote participation in the program.
Voluntary recycling programs require significant effort to develop and maintain high
participation rates. The keys to a successful voluntary recycling program are convenience and
public education. Increasing people's knowledge of recycling methods and making sure they
know how and where to take recyclables can help keep the participation rate high. Promotion of
recycling must be consistent and ongoing.
If the County desires to .increase the availability of rural recycling services, there would be
several options for achieving this. Yakima County could:
• contract with a private company to provide residential recycling services.
• mandate specific services by an ordinance (see also Chapter 13).
• provide additional drop-off containers through contracts and/or other financial support (see
also next. alternative).
Counties have the authority to contract for residential recycling services under current State law
(RCW 36.58.040). This authority does not extend to commercial recycling services or to
garbage collection services for either residential or commercial customers (in the absence of a
collection district, see Chapter 13 for more discussion on collection districts). Other companies
cannot be prevented from also offering recycling services. The advantage of exercising County
1
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-13
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan -
authority is that the County would be in control of the system. The County could choose
contractors and adjust the program as it develops to best meet the County's goals. If the County
contracts for recycling services, however, the County will bear some administrative costs. It
may be necessary to assess additional surcharges on the tipping fee or on solid waste collection
services to fund parts of the recycling program.
For Yakima County, the preferred approach for increasing curbside recycling might be to require
that services be available in each city (whether provided by the city or by a private hauler) and to
require the cities to promote these services. A goal could be established to gauge the success of
these programs, such as achieving a minimum of 50% participation. Steps that could be taken if
this goal is not met could include increasing the financial incentive for participants, increasing
the public education and promotion efforts, increasing the garbage rates, and/or other steps as
appropriate to the community.
Alternative E — Recycling Dropboxes at Transfer and Disposal Facilities
One of the issues identified through the planning process is the need for additional recycling
options in some areas of the county. One important method of providing a recycling opportunity
is to ensure that recycling is available at all transfer and disposal facilities. Co -locating recycling
opportunities at transfer and disposal facilities provides an "opportunity of last resort" as well as
providing a similar network and similar level of convenience for self -haul customers (similar to
the level of convenience for garbage disposal).
Alternative F — Increase Business Recycling
Many businesses recycle currently through services provided by the haulers, Central Washington
Recycling and others, but many more businesses could be participating in recycling opportunities
and could also be taking steps to reduce their wastes. Several methods could be used to
accomplish this, including:
• county staff working with the businesses to encourage recycling and waste reduction.
• disposal bans of select materials, such as cardboard and newspaper.
• commercial recycling could be promoted through service clubs and other organizations.
• a more extensive "dump and pick" program for commercial loads.
The last of these, dump and pick activities, is being conducted now to a limited extent. Disposal
bans can be effective but are politically difficult to enact and require an enforcement system.
The first of the above options is also an ongoing activity and more effort is already being
planned by the County in this area. This option is feasible and practical, and fits well with the
business recognition program discussed in the previous chapter of this Plan. Working more
closely with service clubs and similar organizations is also a good fit for the current plans and
system in Yakima County.
Alternative G — Increased Waste Reduction
Waste reduction is a high-priority activity because it avoids the need to collect and recycle
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-14
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
materials in addition to avoiding the need to manufacture and distribute a product or material in
the first place. Waste reduction could be increased through several approaches, which are
generally not mutually exclusive:
• regulation: waste reduction could be increased through a number of mandatory measures,
such as banning yard debris from disposal, requiring businesses to conduct waste reduction
audits, banning certain types of packaging and/or non -recyclable materials, and other
measures.
• adult education program: this option would provide for more educational outreach for.
adults in order to train them to be citizen volunteers to promote waste reduction and other
recommended waste management strategies in residential and commercial situations. • Formal
arrangements for residents and businesses to request assistance from the volunteers would be
established and promoted.
• youth education program: this option could consist of an expanded school program to
present more information about waste reduction strategies. Information about waste
reduction strategies could be presented together with other local waste management
information at both public and private schools. Tours would be combined with in -classroom
visits after the tour to reinforce the messages and provide additional information.
• financial support: this option would provide direct financial aid to support waste reduction
activities. Non-profit organizations collecting used household products could be assisted
with discounted disposal fees for donated items that are not reusable. In addition, a local
resource guide and web page consisting of a listing of organizations that promote waste
reduction activities would be maintained. The guide would include thrift shops, repair
businesses, tool rental businesses and other organizations and would be periodically
published in local newspapers.
• grants: this option would provide grants to organizations, institutions or municipalities for
various waste reduction programs. This alternative would allow partnerships with .others that
have similar interests, thus creating more cost-effective approaches, and would allow
capitalizing on the energy or resources of other organizations. The cost of this option could
vary widely depending on the amounts of the grants and activities targeted.
Alternative 11— Continued Support for Recycling at Public Events
The requirement to provide recycling at public events (RCW 70.93.093) is still fairly new and
can be a difficult activity for event organizers to set up. The general public is still learning about
the law as well. The program operated by the Yakima County Solid Waste Division, which
provides bins and other support for these events, is a low-cost public service with high visibility.
Continuing this service provides a positive benefit for all involved.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-15
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
4.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Consistency With Planning Objectives
All the alternative strategies support the planning objectives of ensuring reliable services for
managing solid waste materials and encouraging waste reduction and recycling programs.
Waste Reduction / Diversion Potential
All the other alternatives create or support increased diversion potential.
Customer Preferences
Customers tend to recycle if it is convenient, easy, and available at a low cost. Several of the
alternatives are consistent with customer preferences by increasing the convenience of recycling,
especially Alternatives D, E, F, and H. None of the alternatives contradict customer preferences.
Implementation Costs
Alternative B has the lowest cost, and the cost of Alternative H has already been budgeted.
Alternative D (more curbside recycling) is the most expensive option. Alternatives C and E
could also be at a significant cost, depending on the extent of the effort. Alternative F (increased
business recycling) would hopefully "pay for itself" through lower garbage collection fees.
4.6.3 Rating of Alternatives
The alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
Summary Rating of the Alternative Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategies
H - High M - Medium
L - Low
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling
4-16
1
1
%,
Alternative
Consistency
with Objectives
Diversion
Potential
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Waste Diversion Goal
H
M
M
L
M
B
List of Designated Materials
H
M
M
L
M
C
Waste Composition Study
H
H
M
H
M
D
Increase Curbside Recycling
H
H
M
M
H
E
Recycling at Disposal Sites
H
H
H
M
H
F
Increased Business Recycling
H
M
M
L
M
G
Increased Waste Reduction
H
M
M
M
L
H
Support for Recycling at Public
Events
H
M
H
L
H
H - High M - Medium
L - Low
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling
4-16
1
1
%,
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
4.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for waste reduction and recycling programs:
WRRI) Assist Washington State in achieving the 50% recycling rate.
WRR2) Adopt the list of designated materials (Table 4-2) as part of this Plan and maintain it
through periodic review and updates as appropriate.
WRR3) Conduct a waste composition study to assess recycling program performance and
potential.
WRR4) Make curbside recycling services available in every urban incorporated area and
promote these services.
WRR5) Provide recycling opportunities at all solid waste transfer and disposal facilities in
Yakima County.
WRR6) Encourage business recycling through a cooperative effort between the County, cities,
private collectors, service groups, and the businesses. •
WRR7) Continue to provide support for recycling at public events.
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-17
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 4, Waste Reduction and Recycling 4-18
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 5 - ORGANICS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing programs, identifies relevant planning issues, and
develops/evaluates alternative strategies for organic materials, including yard debris, wood
waste, food waste, agricultural wastes and biosolids (sewage sludge).
5.2 BACKGROUND
5.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Organics
Goals and objectives specific to organics (as shown on page 1-2 of this Plan) include:
• Encourage public-private partnerships for waste reduction and recycling programs.
• Emphasize waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy.
• Encourage the recovery of marketable resources from solid waste.
• Assist the State in achieving its goal of a 50 percent recycling rate.
• Support the State's Beyond Waste goal to increase the diversion of organic materials.
5.2.2 State Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines for Organics
This chapter and the previous chapter (on waste reduction and recycling) provide an update of
the County's waste diversion methods that comply with State requirements regarding waste
diversion programs. The State requirements are based in the "Waste Not Washington" Act
(ESHB 1671), which are in turn reflected in various sections of the. Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) and the Washington Administrative Codes (WACs). The Waste Not Washington Act
declared that waste reduction and recycling must become a fundamental strategy of solid waste
management. To that end, RCW 70.95 includes a statement encouraging yard debris to be
eliminated from landfills by 2012 in those areas where alternatives exist.
Chapter 70.95.090 RCW also requires that collection programs for yard debris be addressed in
areas where there are adequate markets or capacity for composted yard debris within or near the
service area.
Reducing the amount of organics in the waste stream is one of the five key initiatives identified
in the State's Beyond Waste Plan. The Beyond Waste Plan adopted a goal of "expanding and
strengthening the closed-loop reuse and recycling system" for converting organic wastes into
compost and other products. Included in that plan's definition of organics is yard debris, food
waste, animal manures, biosolids, crop residues, wood, and low-grade or soiled paper. .The
Chapter 5, Organics 5-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Beyond Waste Plan makes six recommendations specifically for organics:
1. State government will lead by example by:
o maximizing procurement of compost and other products,
o avoiding the purchase of products that may contaminate organic materials,
o implementing on-site collection of organics at government agencies,
o advertising the success of demonstration. projects, and
o evaluating and proposing appropriate incentives that will encourage organics recovery in
the commercial and institutional sectors.
2. Residential and commercial organics recovery programs will be increased by:
o researching and developing a package of incentives,
o incorporating Organic Materials Initiative goals into solid waste management plans,
o supporting organics recycling through local -level waste management contracts,
o expanding food waste collection and processing, including developing best management
practices,
o expanding or implementing home composting programs in every county,
o developing an education program about the needs and benefits of healthy soils, and
o advertising the success of model projects.
3. The quality of recycled organic products will be improved by:
o identifying barriers to quality, including sources of contamination, and proposing
strategies to address these,
o bringing producers and users together to develop product quality criteria,
o promoting the use of labeling or information sheets, and
o evaluating the need for changes in the standards for composted materials.
4. A strategy to increase residential and agricultural recovery will be developed by:
o assessing barriers and various approaches to increase organics reuse and recycling in the
agricultural and industrial sectors,
o developing a set of specific actions and a timeline for increasing organics recovery and
recycling throughout these sectors,
o advertising the success of model projects, and
o researching and developing incentives that will encourage organics recovery in the
agricultural and industrial sectors.
5. Proposing solutions to statutory and regulatory barriers by:
o researching and identifying statutory and regulatory requirements that inhibit
development of a successful organics program,
o developing a proposal for addressing these barriers,
o developing a process to resolve existing and future jurisdictional conflicts among state,
local and federal authorities,
o developing and instituting a process for Ecology rule development and implementation,
and
o proposing a highest and best use hierarchy if appropriate.
Chapter 5, Organics. 5-2
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
6. Develop new products and technologies for organic residuals by:
o identifying priority research needs for innovative new technologies and products that will
help closed-loop recycling of organics,
o encouraging and seeking funding for specific projects, and
o developing and promoting best practices for organics collection and processing.
5.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
The sections below describe existing collection and processing activities for organic materials,
followed by a discussion of the existing and potential market capacity for organics.
5.3.1 Yard Debris
The Yakima County solid waste disposal facilities accept yard debris including grass clippings,
leaves, garden and landscaping wastes, brush and other natural woods up to ten inches in
diameter, and Christmas trees. These materials are typically generated separately from other
residential and commercial waste streams, and so are more easily diverted to composting and
other programs. Hay, straw plastic, sod, manure, treated wood, stumps, rocks and food waste are
not accepted in the County's yard debris program.
According to the 2003 Yakima County Waste Composition Study (Yakima County 2003a), 7% of
the waste stream is comprised of yard debris, or about 17,200 tons per year (based on 2007
disposal tonnages, see Table 2-5). According to the waste composition study, 40% of the yard
debris tonnage was disposed with residential garbage. (waste brought in by garbage haulers from
residential customers) and another 36% of this amount was brought in by residential customers
self -hauling their garbage. As shown in Table 2-4, 16,674 tons of yard debris were recycled in
2006 in Yakima County, so the current recycling rate for yard debris is about 49%. It should be
noted that the portion of yard debris used for daily landfill, cover does not actually meet
Washington State's definition of recycling. However, it is anticipated that beginning in about
2012, yard debris will no longer be used as landfill daily cover.
Existing options in Yakima County for yard debris include a variety of drop-off and curbside
programs, as described below.
Yard Debris Drop -Off Programs
A reduced tip fee at the three County solid waste facilities provides an incentive for residents and
businesses to recycle yard debris and clean wood. The 2008 fee for yard debris and clean wood
at the solid waste facilities is $11.60 per ton compared with $24.05 per ton for solid waste. Yard
debris collected at the landfill is periodically ground up and sold to the public as compost feed
stock and used as landfill daily cover. Yard debris and wood waste have been collected
separately at the County disposal facilities since at least 1992.
The amount of yard debris collected at the County facilities is shown in Table 5-1 and in Figure
5-1.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 5-1
Yard Debris Quantities at County Facilities (tons per year)
Year
Terrace
Heights LF
Cheyne
Landfill
Lower
Valley TS
Total (tons)
2001
12,804
789
895
14,488
2002
13,956
831
909
15,695
2003
14,087
745
794
15,625
2004
14,524
636
1,051
16,211
2005
13,158
808
732
14,698
2006
13,258
699
856
14,813
2007
13,466
1,056
1,028
15,551
Five -Year
Averages
13,699
789
892
15,356
Figure 5-1
Yard Debris Quantities at County Facilities
Tons per Year
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
ry; Y�✓`�M9'?
sg' •+3 t v" 'Y j �'!� 1't.S km?a•
f yM10 i&MFv�rH3
" 1ddVr*z�,
�, ���
Szri N � d
Sy
as3au`at3l
t�+a
ys a�r. ...,,';A �na...�. .��Mu�iGSa3
,''50.
- �-z!,'n y,^_ fryer s•?i a�7':'ti, v'�Cs,�
RF=u.y ',e
–
6 f£ �kV -• 'E. rn aF3n�"�r��aP a y. 4a,1
-- '-•' ' Y,,,�+i}�±M7Ar P te 15i: mko
�--�-8-r
Fau
„tuW£x},.,,,,,..,,,........„,,,,,A.,,,,,,,,,,,,,00,iu
„,,�iz
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
—4— Cheyne Landfill
—�— LVTS
—f --Terrace Heights
Total
Chapter 5, Organics 5-4
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
The City of Grandview allows the public to drop off yard debris (primarily brush) at their Public
Works building and periodically pays a private company (Natural Selection Farms) to grind it.
They have not been able to find a market for the resulting wood chips.
Yakima County Solid Waste and the City of Tieton are working cooperatively to establish a •
demonstration compost facility at the City of Tieton, in response to the enforcement of the burn
ban regulations. This demonstration facility is funded in part by a grant from the Department of
Ecology.
Christmas Tree Recycling Program
Yakima County continues to partner with Camp Prime Time to provide an opportunity for
residents to recycle their trees at community tree grinding events. The resulting chips are used
for horse bedding and similar application's.
Yard Debris Curbside Collection Programs
Currently, curbside yard debris collection is available in Toppenish, Yakima and Zillah. Yakima
Waste Systems also provides yard debris collections every -other -week in their collection areas
outside of the city. limits, but only in the urban growth areas..
The City of Yakima's yard debris collection program is offered to single-family and multi -family
residences at an additional cost of $11.75 per month for nine months of the year. A 96 -gallon
wheeled cart is used for weekly collections from March 1st through November 30th. About
4,400 customers subscribe to this service. About 130 of the residential customers in Toppenish
(out of 2,300 residential accounts) subscribe to yard debris collection. In 2008, Toppenish
collected over 1,000 bags of yard debris.
Yakima County recently received an "Alternatives to Burning" grant from Ecology to purchase
50,000 "biobags" (biodegradable.bags). These bags will be used for the City of Yakima's leaf
collection program in the fall of 2008 and 2009. The use of these bags will facilitate the
composting of the leaves collected. Grant funds will also be used to purchase and give away 100
household compost bins.
5.3.2 Wood Wastes
According to the 2003 Yakima County Waste Composition Study (Yakima County 2003a), 9.8%
of the waste stream is comprised of wood waste, or about 24,230 tons per year (see Table 2-5).
As shown in Table 2-4, 3,163 tons of wood were recycled in 2006 from Yakima County, so the
current recycling rate for wood is about 11.5%.
As mentioned above, a reduced tip fee provides an incentive for residents and businesses to drop
off clean wood at.County disposal facilities. The 2008 fee for yard debris and clean wood at the
solid waste facilities is $11.60 per ton compared with $24.05 per ton for solid waste. The wood
collected at County facilities is ground and sold to businesses as hog fuel.
Chapter 5, Organics . 5-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
5.3.3 Food Wastes
According to the 2003 Yakima County Waste Composition Study (Yakima County 2003a), 12.9%
of the waste stream is comprised of food waste, or about 31,790 tons per year (based on 2007
disposal tonnages, see Table 2-5). As shown in Table 2-4, 757 tons of "food waste" were
recycled in 2006, but most of this was grease collected by rendering companies. Hence, the
current recycling rate for food waste is quite low (about 2.3%), although backyard composting
and other reduction and diversion methods are adding an unknown amount to this rate.
5.3.4 Agricultural Wastes
hi the context of this chapter, which focuses on organic materials, "agricultural wastes" are
meant to include only the organic residues generated by agricultural activities (in other words,
primarily crop residues and animal manures). As used in this chapter, "agricultural wastes" does
not include household wastes, hazardous wastes, empty pesticide containers, contaminated soils,
deceased animals, or other items that are not crop residues or animal manures. Food processing
wastes are also excluded, as these are classified as an industrial waste (although some sludges
from food processing plants are handled like biosolids, see discussion below, and other wastes
could be handled as "food waste"). Finally, it should also be noted that there is some debate as
to whether animal manures should be classified as a solid waste or not, but that issue is less
important to this Plan than the opportunities to co -manage manures with other organic materials.
There is little agricultural waste that is disposed as a solid waste. Most types of agricultural
wastes, whether crop residues or animal manures, can be returned to the land where these were
generated. A few types, such as branches and stumps from orchards, cannot be easily returned to
the land. Other types of agricultural wastes may need to be removed for disease prevention
purposes or because a specific farm may not have the capacity to absorb all of the material (such
is the case at tunes with animal manures exceeding the nitrogen -holding capacity of a farm).
Composting of animal manures is becoming an increasingly popular option. An example of this
approach is provided by a farm in Sunnyside, Skyridge Farms, where a private company
(Organix) processes manure to generate 25,000 cubic yards of compost annually. An example of
another approach is provided by DeRuyter dairy, where animal manure is processed in an
anaerobic digester to create methane and compost.
Since so much of the agricultural waste is returned to the land or handled in other ways that
make it difficult to measure, there are no actual figures available on how much of these wastes
are generated in Yakima County. Table 5-2 provides an estimate of the amount of agricultural
wastes that are generated in Yakima County.
5.3.5 Biosolids
Sewage sludge that has been treated to meet standards for beneficial use is called "biosolids."
Biosolids are defined by Chapter 173-308-080 WAC as municipal sewage sludge that is a
primarily organic, semisolid product resulting from the wastewater treatment process that can be
beneficially recycled and meets all, applicable requirements. Biosolids are further categorized by
Chapter 5,. Organics 5-6
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Federal regulations into Class A and Class B based on pathogen reduction measures and metal
contamination levels. The Federal regulations (40 CFR Part 503) are self -implementing,
meaning that the requirements must be met regardless of the permit status of a facility.
Table, 5-2
Estimated Quantity of Agricultural Waste in Yakima County
Crop or Livestock
Annual Waste
Generation Factor'
Number
of Units2
Annual
Tonnages3
Hay and Pasture
1.0
ton/acre
54,413
acres
54,413
Grain
1.5
tons/acre
42,298
acres
63,447
Potatoes
2.0
tons/acre
1,737
acres
3,474
Other Vegetables
3.0
tons/acre
15,077
acres
45,231
Orchards
2.25
tons/acre
99,834
acres
224,627
Hops
3.0
tons/acre
16,813
acres
50,439
Nursery and
Greenhouse Crops
3.0
tons/acre
1,372
acres
2,744
Beef Cows
11.3
'tons/head
22,866
head
258,386
Dairy Cows (mature)
14.6
tons/head
67,343
head
983,208
Other Cattle 4
5.5
tons/head
224,822
head
1,236,521
Sheep
0.7
tons/head
2,097
head
4,613
Chickens 5
42.0
tons/1,000 birds
300,000
birds
12,600
Total Annual Waste Amount
2,947,000 tons/year
Notes: 1. Waste generation factors for crops are from "Solid Waste Generation Factors in California" (CIWMB
1974), and the generation,factors for livestock are from "Agricultural Waste Issue Paper" (KC 1998).
2. Number of units is from the 2002 Census of Agriculture (USDA 2008).
3. Annual tonnages are either vegetative residues (for crops) or manures (for livestock and poultry).
4. The generation rate for "other cattle" varies from 6.4 tons per year for immature cattle to 15.5 tons per
year for fully -grown cattle. The number of animals shown here is for cattle sold during year, so the
generation rate is assumed to be mid-range (11.0 tons per head) for six months only.
5. Number of chickens is not available because data was withheld to protect confidential information for
one or two large farms. The figure shown here (300,000 chickens) is an estimate based on previous
years.
Most of the biosolids generated in Yakima County are handled by a private company, Natural
Selection Farms. This company has established a network of local farms that can apply the
biosolids to their crops. Natural Selection Farms accepts biosolids from out -of -county sources to
meet their demand. It also composts other materials under a separate permit to create custom
blends of compost for specialized applications such as mushroom growing. For farms that
participate in their land application program, the Yakima Health District monitors aspects such
as stockpiles and nitrogen levels.
Not all biosolids in Yakima County go to Natural Selection Farms, however, as the cost is
prohibitive for some cities. At about $19 per wet ton, the cost to the City of Grandview would
not be economically feasible. Instead, Grandview typically seeks interested farmers for land
Chapter 5, Organics 5-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
application or brings part of their biosolids to the Cheyne Landfill for use as daily cover. The
City of Selah is also handling its sludge separately, by drying it to create a Class A material and
working with the Yakima Training Center to create a soil conditioner.
A few of the larger food manufacturing companies in Yakima County, such as Del Monte and
Sno-Kist, produce a process sludge similar to biosolids that is separately handled (in these two
cases, applied to trust lands on the Yakama Reservation).
The amounts of biosolids generated by municipal wastewater treatment plants in Yakima County
in 2007 are shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3
Amount of Biosolids Utilized in Yakima County, 2007
Source
Amount Disposed in
2007, Dry Tons
City of Grandview
104
City of Mabton
48
City of Moxee
111
Town of Naches
99
City of Selah
188
City of Toppenish
150
City of Wapato
101
City of Yakima
1,638
City of Zillah
57
Subtotal, In -County Sources
2,496
Imported from Out -of -County Sources
11,702
Total Utilized in Yakima County
14,198
Source: Yakima Health District, September 2008.
5.3.6 Processing Facilities
There are several private companies in Yakima County currently involved in composting yard
debris or other materials, or that blend soils using compost and other materials. Information on a
few of these companies is summarized in Table 5-4. There are additional companies and farms
involved in composting animal manures, but on-site composting of agricultural wastes is exempt
from solid waste permitting requirements. More details on the existing activities and markets for
compost can be found in the Compost Facility Feasibility Study (Yakima County 2009a).
The Compost Facility Feasibility Study (see Appendix C) was conducted in 2009 and was funded
by offset cycle CPG (Coordinated Prevention Grant) funds provided by the Department of
Ecology. This study assessed the need for additional composting facilities, but concluded that
there was sufficient private capacity and interest that the County would likely not need to
construct a new facility for the yard debris from their solid waste facilities. Instead, this study
recommended that the County issue an RFQ/RFP for composting services for the yard debris.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
In 2008, the County also received an "Alternatives to Burning" Grant for organics collection,
composting and education. This grant was separate from the CPG funds received from Ecology
for other activities.
Table 5-4
Organics Processing Facilities in Yakima County
Facility
Materials
Composted
Sources
Products
Annual
Amount
Market
comments
Natural
Farms
Hops, food
processing
organics, tree
trimmings,
other
Commercial
sources only
(no residential
materials)
Compost,
including
special
blends
50,000 cubic
yards of
compost
produced
Plenty of
demand for
for
compost
Roy Farms
Hops
In house only
Compost
18,000 tons.
of materials
composted
Can't produce
enough for
their own use
Soil
Conditioners
Yard debris
Terrace
Heights
Landfill
.Compost
500 — 1,000
tons
composted
Demand is
stable; driven
by price and
competition
Notes: 1. Natural Selection Farms also handles most of the biosolids in the county; but composts other
materials under a separate permit.
5.3.7 Markets
Yard Debris
Local markets for land application of yard debris, orr compost derived from yard debris, are
hindered by a problem that occurred several years ago when a. hops farm lost many plants after
using composted yard debris. This problem was apparently caused by the presence of
Clopyralid, a herbicide used to control weeds, in grass clippings used as compost feedstock. Due
to the problems caused by Clopyralid, it was banned on March 1, 2002 by the Washington State
Department of Agriculture (WSDA) from being used on lawns, although it still allowed to be
used on golf courses and some crops. Since Clopyralid is still used in some products for the
control of weeds in hay and grains, animal manures may still contain traceamounts of this
chemical.
Wood Waste
Markets for wood waste are currently good and are expected to remain strong in the future, at
least for hog fuel markets. Demand for hog fuel is expected to remain strong due to decreased
logging and high energy prices. Decreased logging (due to less demand for lumber caused by
reduced home building and other construction activity) has an impact on hog fuel prices because
logging generates byproducts that are also used for hog fuel.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Markets for some types of wood waste, such as the chips generated by Grandview's brush
chipping program, are sometimes a problem.
Food Waste
There are currently strong markets for cooking grease, which is the primary type of "food waste"
collected currently for recycling in Yakima County. The market for grease is expected to stay
strong for the foreseeable future, due largely to the ability to convert it into biodiesel.
Agricultural Wastes
Some agricultural wastes are recycled on the farm, hence are not collected and never enter the
waste stream. There is a strong demand for agricultural wastes as feedstock, causing them to be
collected, taken off of the farm, and then either composted or used in another process. Demand
is expected to increase in the future as biomass projects, anaerobic digesters, and other types of
applications are developed.
Biosolids �
There appears to be more than sufficient demand for the biosolids produced in Yakima County,
and in fact significant amounts are imported to help meet the local demand for crop application
of this material.
5.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
The status of the recommendations made by the previous solid waste management plan (Yakima
County 2003b) is shown in Table 5-5.
5.5 PLANNING ISSUES
Yard Debris Composting
The current use for most of the yard debris collected at County facilities (i.e., daily cover) does
not meet the definition for recycling in Washington State. Plans are already underway, however,
for Yakima County to examine methods for composting this material.
Market Demand
Although demand for biosolids is strong locally, there are some instances where these markets
are not serving local needs due to financial or other constraints. This is also true for small
quantities of yard debris or wood waste markets (such as the chips generated from brush
collected by the City of Grandview).
Chapter 5, Organics 5-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 5-5
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Organics
. Recommendations
Status
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting
Yard;: Wastes,Collection'.:aiid Comiiosting
Continue current education and collection services with the goal of meeting the
needs of residents and businesses affected by the burn ban in urban areas. These
services include collecting yard waste with toters and discounting the fee for yard
waste at the landfill (compared with garbage). .
Ongoing
Continue backyard composting and bin distribution programs.
Ongoing
Work to expand markets and end-use applications for compost products.
Ongoing
Establish partnerships with other agencies to implement joint initiatives related to
organics that address environmental resource issues in Yakima County.
Ongoing
... . �. $,yam .......f.,;n;,ir}rv,a4"d::.x :...
lueation' and Outreach:
Continue current education and outreach programs, including school education,
special events and public education campaigns. Consider expanding these
programs, including using joint public/private promotional partnerships. Education
should address recycling, waste prevention, composting, reducing toxicity, and
using safer alternatives to products containing hazardous ingredients.
Ongoing
1V ticket l_levaiipinenti
Provide targeted assistance to establish and/or maintain the viability of local markets
for recyclable materials. Focus assistance on materials where local (or regional)
markets can effectively handle materials collected from Yakima County. Such
materials include yard waste, compost, green chop, mixed glass cullet, wood
waste, wood chips, concrete/aggregate, and reusable_ building materials. Program
activities could consist of (1) assessments of the feasibility of local market
development initiatives, (2) technical assistance to private sector processors and end
users (3) government procurement of recycled content goods, and (4) "buy recycled"
campaigns, demonstration projects, and other promotion initiatives aimed at
stimulating demand for recycled materials sourced from local markets.
Ongoing
Climate Action Response
The Beyond Waste Implementation Working Group (BWIWG) of the 2008 Climate Action
Team developed specific recommendations that may be enacted into legislation. Included in
their conclusions is a recommendation that all organics be kept out of landfills. It is unknown at
this time if these recommendations will lead to mandatory requirements or what schedule may be
proposed; in other words, it is unknown at this point how these recommendations may affect
Yakima County.
Odors from Yard Debris
Yakima County occasionally receives complaints about odors from its yard debris stockpile at
Terrace Heights. The every -other -week collection of yard debris in some parts of the county
may contribute to the odor problem.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-1 1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan •
Organics to Energy
Current research and technology development efforts in the solid waste industry may create
opportunities in the future to convert biomass (plant material) to energy. In addition, the
technology is currently available to process animal manures in anaerobic digesters to create
methane, which is then used to generate electricity. Anaerobic digestion is a fairly well -proven
technology that is already being used in Yakima County by DeRuyter Dairy.
Landfill Ban
As mentioned previously in this Chapter (see page 5-1), state law recommends eliminating yard
debris from landfills beginning in 2012 in areas where alternative handling methods exist.
Yakima County may implement a ban for yard debris, but the details of how yard debris will be
kept out of the disposed waste stream is unclear at this time. The Compost Facility Feasibility
Study addresses alternative handling options for the yard debris.
5.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
5.6.1 Alternatives
Alternative A — Yard Debris Composting
Alternative management strategies are needed for yard debris generated in Yakima County, and
those alternatives will need to address the following activities:
• collection — collection programs will be needed in all of the urban areas, and possibly in rural
areas too. The rural areas could also be served by drop-off programs instead of by curbside
programs (because only a small percentage of the rural residents subscribe to garbage
collection, and even fewer are likely to subscribe to curbside yard debris collections). The
collection programs will need to address the frequency of collection and whether that will
differ from summer to winter, collection containers, and other factors. Permanent containers
(toters) could be provided or biodegradable bags could be used (such as the bags being tested
in the City of Yakima). Permanent containers are expensive but bags raise issues about
distribution methods and public education for their proper use. Neither method addresses
brush, which would need to be bundled separately or brought to a drop-off site.
• processing and marketing — the processing method(s) used will be dictated by the available
markets. Yard debris is typically composted, which assumes an end -market for the compost.
Other options include anaerobic digestion, direct land application, and co -composting with
other materials (food waste, animal manures and/or biosolids).
• administration and regulation — various options exist for public or private facilities, or a
public-private partnership, that would process and market the yard debris. The extent of the
regulation needed to address the disposal ban requirements and to prevent illegal dumping of
Chapter 5, Organics 5-12
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
yard debris also needs to be addressed. Specific issues, such as how to handle mixed loads of
yard debris and garbage or how to handle diseased vegetation, also need to be addressed.
These options for yard debris are more fully addressed by the Compost Facility Feasibility Study
(Yakima County 2009a). The results of that study were used to develop the recommendations
shown in this Plan.
Alternative B — Wood Waste for Biomass -to -Energy
The clean wood waste collected separately at the Yakima County facilities is being ground and
sold as hog fuel. This program could be expanded by collecting wood at additional locations,
collecting a broader range of wood, or by tapping into other sources of wood such as forestry
waste. This concept, and especially the idea of collecting forestry waste, was examined in 2003
by a study, Review of Biomass Fuels and Technologies (Yakima County 2003c). The study
concluded that a large-scale biomass -to -energy project was not economically feasible in Yakima
County. -
Alternative C. — Food Waste Diversion
Food waste constitutes a substantial portion of the waste stream in Yakima County (12.9% or
31,790 tons per year) that could be diverted to a composting or other processing system. The
separate collection of food waste poses several problems, however, including issues with odors,
container weight, liquids, vermin, and other health and sanitation problems. Collecting food
waste with yard debris is being done in several western Washington communities for residential
customers, but only with limited success. Participation in these programs is typically very low,
and confusion over the use of biodegradable bags is leading to significant amounts of
contamination by plastic bags.
Other alternatives for food waste include:
• food donations (for surplus edible food)
• animal feed
• direct land application
• rendering
• worm bins and large-scale vermicomposting
• anaerobic digestion
In general, the options for food waste diversion are vastly better for large commercial generators,
several of which are already conducting their own diversion programs. Increasing the amount of
food waste diversion beyond those efforts will, however, hinge at least in part on the system
developed for yard debris. Since that system will be developed in the next few years, any
significant advancements in food waste diversion will need to wait until the next planning cycle.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-13
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Alternative D — Process Agricultural Wastes at Central Compost Facility
Although much of the agricultural waste generated in Yakima County does not leave the farm or
orchard where it is generated, increasing amounts of some agricultural wastes (hay, spoiled fruit
and hops pellets) are being brought to disposal facilities. Handling these materials as part of a
yard debris compost program raises concerns about pesticide residues and other contamination.
A large compost facility must have the ability to convert a variety of raw materials into a variety
of products. Agricultural wastes could be handled separately at these facilities and marketed to
applications that are not sensitive to the very small amounts of pesticide and herbicide residues
that may be present in some of the composting feedstocks. These materials should be addressed
by the.composting feasibility study and/or addressed in the design of any future large-scale
compost facility.
Alternative E — Improve Biosolids Markets
Options for biosolids could include cooperative arrangements, market development, and other
activities that would increase market options for biosolids. On the other hand, the private sector
is currently handling biosolids in an effective manner, and it would be difficult to compete with
the economies of scale they experience due to the large volumes of material being processed.
5.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Consistency With Planning Objectives
All of the alternatives are consistent with the objective of recovering materials from solid waste,
although Alternatives A, C and D are more in line with the Beyond Waste goals.
Waste Reduction / Diversion Potential
Alternatives C (food waste diversion) and D (processing agricultural waste) have the greatest
diversion potential.
Customer Preferences
Whether the alternatives are consistent with customer preferences depends in large part on the
design of any new programs, although it is likely that agricultural waste generators would prefer
to have a better alternative to landfilling of their wastes.
Implementation Costs
Implementation costs could be significant for all of these alternatives, although Alternative D
(processing agriculturalwaste) should be cost-effective if it is to be implemented.
5.6.3 Rating of Alternatives
The alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria in the table below.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-14
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk -Waste Management Plan
Table 5-6
Summary Rating of the Alternative Organics Strategies
H - High M - Medium
5.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
L - Low
The following recommendations are being made for organics:
01) Implement a disposal ban on yard debris effective January 1, 2012, for all public and
private disposal facilities in Yakima County and for yard debris from all sources.
02) Develop and issue an RFQ/RFP for composting services for the yard debris collected at
County disposal facilities.
03) Explore other options, including a County owned and operated facility, if
Recommendation 02 cannot be implemented due to pricing, terms or other reasons.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-15
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Waste
Reduction /
Diversion
Potential
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Yard Debris Composting
H
H
H
M -H
H
B
Wood Waste to Energy
M
M
-M
H
M
C
Food Waste Diversion
H
H
. M
H
M
D
Handling Agricultural Waste
at Composting Facility
H
H
H
M
H
E
Improve Biosolids Markets
M
L
M
M
L
H - High M - Medium
5.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
L - Low
The following recommendations are being made for organics:
01) Implement a disposal ban on yard debris effective January 1, 2012, for all public and
private disposal facilities in Yakima County and for yard debris from all sources.
02) Develop and issue an RFQ/RFP for composting services for the yard debris collected at
County disposal facilities.
03) Explore other options, including a County owned and operated facility, if
Recommendation 02 cannot be implemented due to pricing, terms or other reasons.
Chapter 5, Organics 5-15
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 5, Organics 5-16
11
lI
11
11
11
a
11
11
11
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 6 - SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing municipal solid waste collection services in Yakima County and
in the 14 participating cities and towns, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops and
evaluates alternative collection strategies.
6.2 BACKGROUND
6.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Solid Waste Collection
Goals and objectives related specifically to solid waste collection include:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials;
• Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods;
• Encourage public-private partnerships for waste reduction and recycling programs;
• Emphasize waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy;
• Encourage the recovery of marketable resources from solid waste;
Assist the State in achieving its goal of a 50 percent recycling rate;
• Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal; and
• Reduce the occurrence and environmental impacts associated with illegal dumping.
6.2.2 Legal Authority
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (WUTC), Yakima County, cities and towns, and the Yakama Nation
share the legal authority for solid waste collection within Yakima County.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 70.95.020 assigns primary responsibility for solid waste
handling (management) to local govermnent. Private industry's role in waste management is
reflected in the legislative language: "It is the intent of the legislature that local governments are
encouraged to use the expertise of private industry and to contract with the same to the fullest
extent possible to carry out solid waste recovery and recycling programs" (RCW 70.95.020).
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection 6-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
6.2.3 Incorporated Areas
Cities and towns have three alternatives for collecting solid waste within their boundaries:
1. Municipal collection: collect waste using municipal employees.
2. Contract collection: the municipality conducts a competitive procurement process and
selects a private company to provide collection services.
3. Certificated collection: if a city does not wish to be involved in managing garbage collection
within its boundaries, the hauler with a WUTC certificate for the area can provide those
services. The city may pass an ordinance requiring that certain services be provided. A city
may also require a certificated hauler to secure a license from the city.
6.2.4 Unincorporated Areas
Through its G -certificate program, the WUTC grants exclusive rights to specific haulers in
unincorporated areas. RCW 81.77.030 allows the WUTC to supervise and regulate waste
collection companies:
1. By fixing and altering its rates, charges, classifications, niles and regulations;
2. By regulating the accounts, service, and safety of operations;
3. By requiring the filing of annual and other reports and data; •
4. By supervising and regulating such persons or companies in all other matters affecting the
relationship between them and the public which they serve;
5. By requiring compliance with local solid waste management plans and related
implementation ordinances; and
6. By requiring certificate holders under chapter 81.77 RCW to use rate structures and billing
systems consistent with the solid waste management priorities set forth under RCW
70.95.010 and the minimum levels of solid waste collection and recycling services pursuant
to local comprehensive solid waste management plans.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 480-70 implements RCW 81.77 by establishing
standards for public safety, fair practices, just and reasonable charges, nondiscriminatory
application of rates, adequate and dependable service, consumer protection, and compliance with
statutes, rules and commission orders.
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection 6-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
6.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Residential curbside waste collection is mandatory in all incorporated areas (cities and towns) of
Yakima County. Residents in unincorporated areas may choose whether to subscribe to waste
collection services. These services are provided primarily by Yakima Waste Systems, which is •
authorized by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) to collect waste
within the boundaries of Yakima County. Basin Disposal is also authorized to collect waste in
part of the unincorporated lower valley (east of Granger, surrounding Sunnyside and Grandview,
and north of the Yakima River)., More detailed information about the haulers' service areas can
be found at the WUTC's website: http://www.wutc.wa.gov/solidwaste.
Residential curbside recycling is offered in/near the .Yakima urban area in the cities of Yakima,
Union Gap, Selah, and Moxee.
6.3.1 Waste CollectionPrograms
Table 6-1 lists the waste haulers operating in Yakima County and the number of accounts served.
Table 6-1
Solid Waste Collection Data
City or Town
Population'
(2008)
Residential
Accounts2
Commercial
Accounts3
Collection
Entity
Mandatory
Service
Grandview
9,254
2,717
400
City
yes
Granger
3,002
600
120
City
yes
Toppenish
9,764
2,400
400
City
yes
Yakima
84,763
22,7505
2,6204
City, YWS4
yes
Harrah
656
210
30
YWS
yes
Mabton
2,172
392
116
YWS
yes
Naches
805
298
48
YWS
yes
Tieton
1,269
328
56
YWS
yes
Sunnyside
15,465
3,076
612
YWS
yes
Zillah
2,794.
852
116
YWS
yes
Moxee .
1,996.
397
49
BDI
yes
Selah
7,044
1,890
175
BDI
yes
Union Gap
6,151
1,101
361
. BDI
yes
Wapato ..
_ 4,971
917
185
BDI
yes
Unincorporated area
95,017
1,807
838
BDI
no
Unincorporated area
included above
18,040
4,335
YWS
no
Total
245,079
59,057
10,345
Notes: Data current as of January 2009. YWS = Yakima Waste Systems, BDI = Basin Disposal Inc.
1. From Table 2-1.
2. Residential collection is defined as either a can or roll cart set out for collection.
3. Commercial collection is defined as a dumpster or front -load container set out for collection.
4. Yakima Waste Systems, the only WUTC-licensed hauler for commercial waste in the City of Yakima
urban area, has a total of 2,165 customers within .the City. In addition, the City services 455 accounts
that use a front -load container (multi -family units and City facilities).
5. City of Yakima residential solid waste customers..
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection
6-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
As can be seen in Table 6-1, there are four municipal collection programs in Yakima County and
two private haulers. The four municipal collection programs are operated by Grandview (which
has a population density 1,393 people per square mile), Ganger (population density of 1,873
people per square mile), Toppenish (population density of 4,285 people per square mile), and
Yakima (population density of 3,211 people per square mile). Those programs operate within
city boundaries, as adjusted periodically by annexations. The two private haulers operate in the
unincorporated areas and in the other municipalities. The population density for the rest of the
county (excluding the four municipal collection programs) is 34.5 people per square mile.
The two private haulers operating in Yakima County are:
• Basin Disposal (or BDI), which operates under the certificate #G-45. BDI of Yakima is
located at 1405 W Ahtanum Road, Yakima, WA, 98903-1880, and can be contacted (509)
248-7533.
• Yakima Waste Systems (or YWS), which is now owned by Waste Connections, operates
under certificate #G-89. YWS is located at 2812 1/2 Terrace Heights Drive, Yakima, WA,
98901-1408, and can be contacted (509) 248-4213.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Current information on the service areas for these companies can be found on the web page for
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, at:
http://www.watt.wa.gov/webdocs.ns170/de2329c4aca2cfUc88256a08007c8088!OpenDocument&TatileRow=3.18,2.1 #3.
Recyclable materials are collected curbside from residential and commercial sources within the
City of Yakima urban area. Table 6-2 shows the number of customer accounts served.
Table 6-2
Recyclables Collection
City/Town
Residential
Accounts
Commercial
Accounts
Collection
Entity
Residential
Set Out %
Tons per
Year, 2008
Yakima urban area
2,617
419
YWS
65%
526
Moxee
397
5
BDI
2%
1
Selah
1,890
32
BDI
69%
293
Union Gap
1,101
41
BDI
3%
3
Unincorporated area
n/p
n/p
n/p
n/p
n/p
Total
6,922
504
607
Notes: n/p No formal program
Data current as of January 2009.
Yard debris is collected on a voluntary (subscription) basis in five of the County's incorporated
areas. The City of Yakima has the highest number of participants (4,925 subscribers) and the
highest level of participation (21.6%) for yard debris collection in the County. The jurisdictions
that offer voluntary curbside collection of residential yard debris are shown in Table 6-3.
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection
6-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 6-3
Residential Yard Debris Collection
City/Town
Program
• Rate
Collection
Entity
Notes
Toppenish
Weekly 96 gallon
cart
$6.53 /month
City
Collected April 1
to November 30
Yakima City .
Weekly 96 gallon
cart
$11.75 month (no charge
for Dec to Feb)
City
Collected March 1
to November 30
Yakima urban
area
Every Other Week '
96 gallon cart
$4.88 per month
YWS
Naches
Weekly 96 gallon
$6.47 / month
YWS
Zillah
Weekly 96 gallon
cart
$g 00 per cart
YWS
$20 cart delivery
fee
Selah
Up to 3 bags
collected EOW,
landfilled
$1.62 for 3 plastic bags of
material, not to exceed 40
pounds per bag
BDI
Collected April 18
to October 19
Union Gap
Fall collection of
leaves by city crews
Cost paid by public'BD!
works department
Only for fall leaves
Unincorporated
area
nip
n/p
n/p
n/p
Notes: n/p No formal program
Data current as of January 2009.
6.3.2 Disposition of Collected Waste
All waste collected within Yakima County is required to be delivered to one of the Yakima
County facilities. This requirement is part of the interlocal agreement between Yakima. County
and the cities and towns. For the unincorporated areas, it is a matter of county policy that waste
is delivered to one of the County transfer stations or landfills. See Chapter 13 for more
information about the interlocal agreements and flow control.
6.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 6-4 describes the accomplishments or status of the recommendations from the 2003 Plan.
6.5 PLANNING ISSUES
With respect to collection, the primary consideration for Yakima County is the relatively small
population living outside the City of Yakima urban area. The urban area covers approximately
90 square miles from Moxee to the West Valley and from Selah in the north to Union Gap in the
south. Most municipalities are located on the I-82 corridor that runs parallel to the Yakima
River. Because of the distances involved, providing collection services to residents and
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection 6-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 6-4
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Solid Waste Collection
Recommendations
Status
Develop municipal garbage collection rate structures that encourage
waste reduction and recycling.
Ongoing
Monitor and actively support legislation that would change the
WUTC rate review process so that the process will encourage waste
reduction and recycling.
WUTC Supports recommendations in the
Solid Waste Management Plan
To ensure continuation of programs, require that all in -County
generated MSW be hauled to a County -owned facility, or administer
a fee directed at haulers that do not use the County system.
Done
Renew interlocal agreements to ensure that all waste generated within
the county is hauled to County -owned facilities.
Done.
businesses in the remaining 4,200 square miles of the County is more expensive. Collection
costs for solid waste range from $7.74 for a.30 -gallon can each week in Sunnyside to $14.05 for
a 96 -gallon cart each week in Granger, compared with $9.17 for a 32 -gallon cart or $15.58 for a
96 -gallon cart each week in Yakima. All incorporated jurisdictions have mandatory collection of
garbage, but not for recycling or yard debris.
Curbside collection of recyclables is limited to the areas near the City of Yakima because of the
high concentration of residents who desire the program. The variable collection rates charged
within the urban area allow residents to reduce their bills by separating out recyclables and then
using a smaller can or cart for garbage. Recycling services are included in the monthly garbage
fee for residents in Selah, Moxee, and Union Gap. Residents of the City of Yakima pay an
additional fee for recycling service.
The cost of providing curbside recycling to residents in the less populated incorporated areas and
the rural areas is approximately the same as for providing garbage collection. This may seem
counter -intuitive, because recycled materials generally have some market value (as opposed to
garbage, for which a disposal fee must be paid at the landfill). However, there are a number of
factors that increase the cost of curbside recycling in less -populated areas:
1. Less material spread over larger distances: Because curbside recycling is a service provided
for an additional fee, there are fewer recycling customers than garbage customers. This
means that the truck must travel farther between customers. Furthermore, because the
average customer sets out fewer pounds of recyclables than garbage each week, the cost of
transporting recyclables must be spread out over fewer pounds of material.
2. Similar equipment costs: Yakima Waste Systems and Basin Disposal currently utilize fully -
automated trucks to collect both garbage and recyclable materials. Customers are provided
with either a 64 or a 96 -gallon cart for garbage, and one for recycling (if this service is
elected). Garbage is compacted (compressed) in the trucks, while recyclables are not. A
truck carrying garbage carries about 9 tons, while the same truck carries about 5 tons of
recyclables. Thus, while the capital equipment costs are similar, there are fewer tons of
recyclables over which to spread these costs.
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection 6-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima.County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
3. Processing and transportation costs: Once garbage is in the truck, it requires no further
processing and is transported directly to the landfill for disposal. In contrast, recyclables
must be taken to a materials recovery facility for sorting and baling. Some of these materials
are then shipped to a distant market, usually in the Seattle, Tacoma, or Portland metropolitan
areas. These additional processing and shipping costs offset at least a portion of the revenue
received for sale of the recyclable materials. In the last five years, commodity prices paid for
recyclables such as cardboard, steel, aluminum, and paper have reached historic highs, driven
by strong international demand. However, in 2008, the global economic slowdown has
caused commodities prices to decline precipitously: Experience has shown that revenue from
the sale of recyclable materials cannot always be relied upon to offset the higher costs per ton
of collection, processing, and shipping materials to market.
Yakima County is fortunate to have, a viable local market for fibers (recycled paper, cardboard,
and newspaper), which are used to make packing materials for fruit. Yakima Waste Systems
currently sorts paper from residential and business sources to remove glass, metal, and other
detrimental materials. The sorted paper is then sold to Michelsen Packaging to produce the fruit -
packing products. The value of recycled fiber in Yakima County is thus affected by the
economic condition of the Yakima fruit industry.
As mentioned in Chapter 5, the State has a goal of eliminating yard debris from landfills in 2012.
6.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
Alternative collection strategies are discussed below. Strategies are presented for incorporated
and unincorporated portions of the planning area.
6.6.1 Alternatives
Solid Waste Collection
Curbside solid waste collectionprograms appear to be operating satisfactorily in urban and
suburban areas. No waste collection alternatives seem advisable at this time.
Curbside Recycling
Both the participation rate (percentage of households setting out recyclable materials) and the
quantity of materials recycled per household could be increased. Increased promotion and
publicity by the haulers may help increase curbside recycling rates. The relationship of
collection and recycling is addressed in greater detail in Alternative E in Chapter 4 - Waste
Reduction and Recycling.
Alternative A = Local Yard Debris Drop -Off Sites
In less densely populated areas, curbside yard debris collection is probably not economical
because of the distance between subscribing households. However, if residents voluntarily drop
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection 6-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
off yard debris at a local site and the material is subsequently processed, this may be both a
convenient, and relatively low cost way to divert yard debris from the landfill.
Yard debris, organic waste, and clean wood waste are feedstocks that can be processed into
compost or ground up and used for livestock bedding or other uses. Small amounts of these
feedstock materials can be processed on an acre or two of ground with a limited amount of
equipment, most of which is already in use in the agricultural areas of the County. Wood waste
can be ground or chipped twice a year and stockpiled as a bulking agent for composting the
organic wastes. The finished compost product can then be sold and used locally.
This concept was tested in Tieton in 2009. The County approved a pilot program in conjunction
with the Tieton Public Works Department to implement this local composting program. If this
program is successful, the County could consider expanding this to other communities as an
alternative to curbside collection.. This alternative could also be further explored and evaluated
as part of the County's composting feasibility study that will be conducted in mid -2009. Any
decision to include this approach in this Plan should be contingent on the findings of that study.
Alternative B — Haul Yard Debris to a Central Composting Facility
In the summer of 2009, the County conducted a feasibility study of composting various organic
feedstocks including yard debris and agricultural waste at a large, centralized compost facility.
Such a facility would utilize yard debris that is brought to transfer stations, as well as yard debris
self -hauled by residents or businesses directly to the facility. It is likely to be a larger, more
complex facility involving a shredder or grinder, equipment to aerate or turn the compost piles,
and more sophisticated environmental controls for stormwater and odor. Several similar
facilities are already operating in Yakima County.
Alternative C — Bulky Waste Collection
Bulky items (e.g. armchairs, sofas, mattresses) and white goods (washers, dryers, ovens) are too
large for curbside collection using conventional garbage trucks. This makes them less
convenient and more difficult to dispose of or to recycle. A periodic (e.g. quarterly or semi-
annually) collection event at a local high school parking lot or shopping mall could help
residents dispose of these items and reduce illegal dumping.
In some urban areas in western Washington, municipalities sponsor a "call to haul" program: the
city contracts with a private company to pick up bulky items using a flat bed truck with a
hydraulic lift. This requires residents to make appointments in advance to have their bulky items
picked up, but it makes the pickup route more efficient. The City of Yakima and both of the
private haulers in Yakima County already offer this service, leaving only a few areas in Yakima
County that are not covered by bulky waste collections.
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection 6-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
6.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Consistency with Planning Objectives
All three alternatives are consistent with the objectives of this solid waste plan.
Waste Reduction/Diversion Potential
Alternatives A and B ensure that yard debris will be diverted from landfill disposal and
processed into a useful product. White goods dropped off under Alternative C could be recycled
as scrap metal. While some pieces of furniture might be given to charity for re -use, most bulky
furniture would be landfilled.
Customer Preferences
Alternative A gives residents a relatively convenient and potentially less expensive method of
getting rid of yard debris intermittently, without having to pay for the service each week.
Alternative C is potentially more convenient than hauling bulky wastes to one of the permanent
County -operated waste facilities.
Implementation Costs
Alternative A could cost between $5,000 and $75,000 to implement a small local yard debris
processing facility, depending on its complexity, type of equipment, and other factors. Yard
debris self -haulers would probably be assessed a flat fee based on vehicle size (e.g. one rate for
cars, higher rates for pickup trucks and trailers). The costs of Alternative B will be developed
during the compost feasibility study. Under Alternative C, bulky waste self -haulers could be
assessed a fee based on the type/size of item (different rates for armchairs, sofas, mattresses,
refrigerators, stoves, etc.). After experience is gained with running these bulky waste collection
events, the rates can be set with reasonable accuracy so that the revenue is about the same as the
cost of running the events.
Table 6-5
Summary Rating of the Collection System Strategies
H - High M - Medium
L - Low
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection
6-9
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Waste
Reduction /
Diversion
Potential
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Local processing of yard
debris
H
M
M -H
L -M
M
B
Haul yard debris to a central
composting facility
H
H
M -H
H
H
C
Bulky waste collection
H
L -M
M -H
L
H
H - High M - Medium
L - Low
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection
6-9
Yakima.County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
6.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Recommendations based on the Compost Facility Feasibility Study (see Chapter 5, Organics)
incorporate some aspects of Alternatives A and B. The only recommendation specific to waste
collection is:
C1) Provide all areas of Yakima County with bulky waste collection services.
Chapter 6, Solid Waste Collection 6-10
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 7 - TRANSFER SYSTEM
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing transfer facilities and programs, identifies relevant planning ,
issues, and develops/evaluates alternative strategies for transfer of solid waste to disposal sites.
7.2 BACKGROUND
The transfer system in Yakima County includes two public facilities and one private facility.
The public facilities are the Lower Valley Transfer Station (LVTS) and the Terrace Heights
Transfer Station (THTS). The THTS currently serves self -haulers for wastes deposited at the
Terrace Heights Landfill. The private facility, owned and operated by Yakima Waste Systems
(now a subsidiary of Waste Connections), is located near Granger and serves self -haulers
primarily from the Yakama Nation and vicinity. The County formerly owned seven drop box
facilities, but closed them in 2003 as recommended by the 2003 Solid Waste Management Plan
(Yakima County 2003b).
7.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Transfer
The objectives of this Plan related to waste transfer include:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials;
• Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods;
• Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal;
• Reduce the occurrence and environmental impacts associated with illegal dumping;
• Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate risk waste regulations;
• Support the State's Beyond Waste goals, including the key initiative of increased diversion of
organic materials.
An efficient transfer system supports the overall Plan. For example, transfer stations help reduce
illegal dumping by providing a convenient and economical waste disposal alternative for those
who generate relatively little waste, generate larger quantities on an intermittent basis, or choose
not to subscribe to curbside collection services. Transfer stations also present an opportunity to
recycle materials that are not picked up at curbside. 'They can serve as an information source
about various waste management programs and options that are available to citizens.
7.2.2 State Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines for Waste Transfer
The siting, design, and operation of transfer facilities are addressed in WAC 173-350-310, which
regulates intermediate solid waste handling facilities.
Chapter 7, Transfer System 7-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan ,
7.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
7.3.1 Lower Valley Transfer Station
LVTS opened in 1997 and serves both commercial and city garbage trucks and self -haulers
(residents and businesses using cars, pickup trucks and other trucks). LVTS.includes a single
vehicle scale, scalehouse, transfer building, employee building, and areas to receive source -
separated self -haul recyclables, self -haul and commercial yard debris, white goods (major
appliances), tires, and limited types of moderate risk waste.
Waste tipping and transfer takes places in a 5,000 sq ft metal building with two bays for top -
loading transfer trailers using a rubber tire bucket loader. A single road tractor pulls loaded
trailers to the working face at Cheyne Landfill (CLF) for disposal.
In late 2003, an analysis of operating alternatives for LVTS was performed (Yakima County
2003d).
7.3.2 Terrace Heights Transfer Station
THTS was built in 2006 on the Terrace Heights Landfill site and serves self -haulers in cars and
pickup trucks. Commercial and city garbage trucks bypass THTS and unload directly at the
working face of the landfill. THTS shares some of the facilities that are also used by the landfill
operations, including three vehicle scales, two scalehouses, and an employee building. There is a
permanent household hazardous waste facility (HHWF) and shared areas for receiving source -
separated self -haul recyclables, self -haul and commercial yard debris, white goods, and tires.
The transfer building is a 20,000 sq ft metal building with two bays for top -loading transfer
trailers using a rubber tire bucket loader. When full, the trailers are hauled to the THLF working
face and unloaded.
7.3.3 Granger Transfer Station
Yakima Waste Systems owns and operates a small transfer station in Granger. It is open to the
public and primarily serves self -haulers in and around the Yakama Nation. The annual tonnage
handled by this station is relatively small. Besides recyclables and white goods, it accepts some
limited types of MRW, mostly latex and oil-based paints, which are then hauled to the County
HHWF.
7.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
The status of the recommendations made by the previous solid waste management plan (Yakima
County 2003b) is shown in Table 7-1.
Chapter 7, Transfer System 7-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 7-1
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Transfer
Recommendations
Status
Eliminate the current drop -box system in 2003. Encourage use of
convenient curbside garbage collection service.
Done .
Construct a new transfer station at the Terrace Heights Landfill for
handling residential and small commercial (less than 5.tons per load) self -
hauling customers. Conduct transfer station facility planning and design
in 2003 and construct in 2004. Transfer station facility planning shall
allow for future expansion to include commercial and municipal packer
trucks and large commercial self -haulers.
Done
Conduct a facility plan for the Lower Valley.Transfer Station in 2003 and
implement operations and facility changes in late 2003 and 2004.
Done
Explore conducting a system -wide transfer station study that analyzes all
levels of service to be provided in an integrated system.
Done
Explore the possibility of siting a West Valley transfer station.
Done
7.5 PLANNING ISSUES
7.5.1 Transfer Capacity
Commercial vehicles (garbage trucks, whether publicly or privately owned) generally use
transfer stations during the week. Some self -haulers such as businesses and small construction
or landscaping contractors are also weekday users. However, the majority of self -haulers are
residential self -haulers that typically use the stations on weekends, in lieu of subscribing to
regular curbside. garbage collection, or when they have accumulated larger quantities of waste
(e.g. spring cleaning).
7.5.2 Future Station Demand
In April 2008, URS developed the Solid Waste Level of Service Study & Infrastructure Needs
Assessment (Yakima County 2008a). That study evaluated solid waste infrastructure needs over
the next 20 years and suggested various alternatives to alleviate crowding at the transfer stations
and to maintain or even increase service levels for waste transfer.
The study estimated future demand for transfer capacity based on tonnage and population
projections through 2030. Table 7-2 shows the actual 2007 MSW tonnage and projected tonnage
for 2030, the final year of the planning period. The annual number -of vehicles was calculated
based on assumed average payloads for commercial and self -haul vehicles carrying MSW and
yard debris (YD). Peak hourly arrival rates in vehicles/hour (VPH) were estimated at 20% of the
daily volume for commercial vehicles and 15% for self -haul vehicles.
7.5.3 Lower Valley Transfer Station
The existing 100 -ft wide transfer building has space for between six and eight vehicles to unload
simultaneously. It is common design practice to allow a 12 -ft wide stall for a self -haul vehicle
Chapter 7, Transfer System 7-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 7-2
Transfer Station Demand
Station
Year
MSW
(tons/year)
Vehicles/year
(MSW and YD)
.Peak VPH
(commercial MSW)
Peak VPH (self-
haul MSW)
Lower
Valley
2007
37,049
25,492
8
21
2030
56,288
38,003
12
31
Terrace
Heights
2007
173,445
145,385
(tip at landfill)
108
2030
260,135
217,027
43**
167
* Source: Yakima County 2008
** 222,428 TPY, 4 TPV, 260 days/year, peak hour = 20% of daily traffic.
and a 15 -ft wide stall for a commercial vehicle. In actual practice, however, the painted lines
marking the stalls become eroded or covered with trash; hence, the actual number of stalls is
approximate. Commercial garbage trucks are mechanically unloaded; it is common to assume
that a single stall can handle six commercial vehicles per hour (VPH). Because self -haul
vehicles take more time to unload manually; the rule of thumb is only four self -haul VPH.
In 2030 the peak commercial traffic (weekdays) is estimated to be 12 VPH, which would require
only two of the six commercial -width stalls. The situation is more complex for self -haul
vehicles: since non-professional drivers are generally less experienced at maneuvering in tight
spaces, the number of potential unloading stalls could fluctuate between six and eight. Assuming
that it takes 15 minutes to park and unload a self -haul vehicle, the capacity of the station on a
weekend could range from 24 to 32 VPH based on six to eight stalls. Peak hourly self -haul
traffic is estimated to be 25 VPH in 2015 and 31 VPH in 2030. Therefore, beginning in about
2015, self -haul customers may experience some delays and extended waiting times on peak
weekends.
On weekends at LVTS (and at most transfer stations in general), the limiting factor for station
capacity is the ability to handle the volume of self -haul vehicles. The challenge is to help self -
haulers back up and unload quickly, thus minimizing the time that other customers must wait in a
queue.
On weekdays at LVTS, when most of the waste tonnage is handled, the limiting factor is the
need to stockpile waste on the floor. The County currently uses one road tractor to pull transfer
trailers to CLF for disposal. Based on a round trip of about one hour between LVTS and CLF
and a payload of 20 tons, the trailer can make seven round trips and haul about 140 TPD to CLF
each day. While the trailer is on the road, waste must be stored on the floor at LVTS. This
restricts the ability to efficiently maneuver and unload vehicles and to swap -out trailers after they
are loaded.
7.5.4 Terrace Heights Transfer Station
The 165 -ft wide north wall of the transfer building is completely open and has room for 10 or
more self -haul vehicles to unload simultaneously. The west wall is also open and can
Chapter 7, Transfer System 7-4
11
it
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
accommodate up to 8 more vehicles. This allows 72 self -haul vehicles to unload per hour,
assuming a turnover of 4 VPH per stall. In 2007, the peak arrival of self -haul vehicles was
estimated to be about 108 VPH. This means that on some peak traffic days, the station's ability
to quickly process self -haul vehicles is exceeded, and some drivers must wait in a queue for a
stall to be available. This situation is expected to worsen as.the population and waste stream
grow.
The THTS transfer building has a modular design that allows it to be expanded by adding one or
more building modules on the east side of the building. This expansion would increase the
number of tipping stalls available.
THTS currently does not handle any garbage trucks, as these go directly to the working face of
the landfill. When Phase 1 of THLF closes, however, the decision of either to accept them at
THTS or redirect them to CLF will have an important effect on the capacity of THTS.
A complication with long-term use of THTS is.that the current operating permit does not allow
waste received at THTS to be hauled off-site. For THTS to serve as a transfer station after
THLF closes, the permit must be modified to allow all non -recyclable waste received at THTS,
whether brought in by commercial or.self-haulers, to be loaded and hauled in transfer trailers to
CLF.•
7.5.5 Potential New Transfer Station
To provide equitable levels of service to County residents, it is desirable for transfer facilities to
be conveniently located to serve urban, suburban, and rural populations. Issues related to the
location of solid waste transfer facilities are:
• Increased travel distances for self -haulers as residential development expands to areas that
are more remote from waste management facilities;
• The anticipated shift in the center of population and waste generation away from Terrace
Heights and toward the West Valley;
• Traffic congestion for self -haulers traveling east to THTS;
• The anticipated banning of yard debris from landfill disposal in 2012; and
• The anticipated closure of THLF when Phase 1 reaches capacity.
The Level of Service Study examined options for servicing the Upper Valley after THLF closes,
including various combinations 'of expanding THTS or building a new transfer station. All of the
options examined would require THTS' permit to be modified to allow waste to be hauled to
CLF. To optimize the overall transfer system, the study also recommended that the County:
• Work with haulers to review operations at LVTS and CLF.
• Reduce the number of self -haulers at County transfer facilities by using adjusting prices to
encourage customers to either bring in heavier loads (make fewer trips) or subscribe to
curbside collection.
Chapter. 7, Transfer System 7-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
7.5.6 Possible Closure of LVTS
An analysis of LVTS by R.W. Beck (Yakima County 2003d) recommended closing LVTS based
on cost considerations. However, the URS study cautioned that this would increase mileage, fuel
costs, and air emissions from commercial and self -haul vehicles. Furthermore, if self -haulers
were sent directly to CLF and a separate self -haul unloading facility was not constructed, there .
would be increased safety hazards and traffic congestion. And finally, commercial and self -haul
customers night object to the loss of convenient service at LVTS. Therefore, the URS study
recommended that LVTS remain open to all customers.
7.5.7 Self -Haul Area at CLF
Both self -haul and commercial vehicles currently unload at the CLF working face, creating
congestion, increasing the risk of accidents, and increasing the cost of landfill operations. This
situation may be exacerbated when Phase 1 of THLF closes and traffic at CLF increases.
Building a self -haul unloading facility at CLF would help address these problems.
7.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
7.6.1 Alternatives
Alternative A — Property Search for New Transfer Station
To preserve the County's option to build a new transfer station at some time in the future, it is
prudent to monitor the availability of suitable property. Characteristics of good potential sites
include suitable land use/zoning, access to major roads and highways, reasonable topography,
and environmental acceptability.
Alternative B — Transfer Options after THLF Closes
When THLF closes, one of following options must be implemented so that upper valley waste
that is currently delivered to THLF in commercial vehicles will be delivered instead to CLF.
Each option assumes that THTS will continue to accept self -haul waste and that its permit will be
modified to allow waste to be hauled to CLF.
• Option 1: Expand THTS to serve commercial vehicles and support the hauling of waste to
CLF;
• Option 2: Construct a new transfer station (at a different location) to serve commercial
vehicles and support the hauling of waste to CLF;
• Option 3: Commercial vehicles haul directly to CLF.
The three options were examined in detail by the Transfer Station Cost of Operations Analysis
(Yakima County 2009b). The study determined that there is adequate space at THTS to
construct the Option 1 expansion. Option 2 involves the risks and costs of finding and
purchasing suitable property, successfully completing the permitting process, design and
Chapter 7, Transfer System 7.6
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
construction of an entirely new station. Option 3 involves increased transportation costs and the
greatest increase in traffic in the vicinity of CLF. The full report is shown in Appendix D.
Alternative C — Modify Stations to Handle Yard Debris
It is anticipated that in 2012, yard debris will be banned from disposal in landfills. While both
THTS and LVTS currently handle yard debris, their operations may need to be modified for
more efficient handling and larger volumes of this material. In addition, some physical
modification of the stations may be necessary.
Alternative D — Review Station Operation with Haulers
The County could work with the haulers to review its operations at LVTS and CLF. A number
of non -capital improvements such as shifting start and close times, diverting roll -off loads away
from LVTS and directly to CLF, or changing the transfer trailer schedule or configuration may
reduce congestion and increase the efficiency of serving customers. The County and haulers
could jointly evaluate the options and implement those that meet system objectives and cost
considerations.
Alternative E — Self -Haul Facility at CLF
Self -haul and commercial vehicles currently unload in the same location at the CLF working
face, creating congestion and increasing the risk of accidents. This situation may become worse
when THLF closes and traffic at CLF increases. Building a self -haul unloading facility at CLF
would help address these traffic congestion and safety issues.
7.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Consistency with Planning Objectives
All of the alternatives are consistent with the objectives of convenient and reliable services;
innovative and economical waste handling methods; reduction of environmental impacts
associated with waste generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal; compliance
with state and local solid waste regulations; and increased diversion of organic materials.
Waste Reduction/Diversion Potential
Implementation of Alternative C will help increase diversion of yard debris from County
landfills. The other alternatives are neutral in that they will have little effect on waste reduction
or diversion.
Customer Preferences
Alternative C could have a medium favorable impact on customer convenience if the stations are
modified to more efficiently handle yard debris. Alternative E will make it safer for self -haul
customers to use CLF.
Chapter 7, Transfer System 7-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Implementation Costs
Alternative A is a low-cost method of preserving the County's transfer options. Actual purchase
of a suitable parcel will prevent the cost of the property from escalating in the future.
The cost of operation study determined implementation costs for the three options within
Alternative B. Option 1, expansion of THTS, was selected because it provides the greatest
benefit at the most reasonable cost.
Alternative C provides a relatively inexpensive way of providing the additional yard debris
handling capability required by changing regulations in 2012. Alternative D may provide
improvements that offset the implementation costs. The cost of Alternative E could be either
low or medium, depending on whether the self -haul area at CLF is simply a separate, well-
marked unloading area at the working face, or if it is an actual structure.
Table 7-3
Summary Rating of the Transfer System Strategies
H — High
7.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
M — Medium
L — Low
The following recommendations are being made for the transfer system:
T1) Evaluate the feasibility of a self -haul unloading facility at Cheyne Landfill.
T2) Expand the Terrace Heights Transfer Station to accommodate commercial traffic when
THLF closes.
T3) Consider purchasing (or taking an option on) property suitable for a future transfer station
as land becomes available and as funds allow.
Chapter 7, Transfer System
7-8
it
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Waste
Reduction /
Diversion
Potential
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Property Search for New TS
H
L
H
L
H
B
Expand THTS to serve
commercial vehicles
when THLF closes
H
M
M -H
H
H
C
Modify Stations to Handle
Yard Debris
H
H
M
L
M
D
Review Station Operations
with Haulers
H
L
L
L
M
E
Self -Haul Facility at CLF
H
L
M
M
H
H — High
7.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
M — Medium
L — Low
The following recommendations are being made for the transfer system:
T1) Evaluate the feasibility of a self -haul unloading facility at Cheyne Landfill.
T2) Expand the Terrace Heights Transfer Station to accommodate commercial traffic when
THLF closes.
T3) Consider purchasing (or taking an option on) property suitable for a future transfer station
as land becomes available and as funds allow.
Chapter 7, Transfer System
7-8
it
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima'County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 8 - DISPOSAL
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing programs and facilities, identifies relevant planning issues, and
develops/evaluates alternative strategies for disposal of municipal solid waste.
8.2 BACKGROUND
8.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Disposal
Goals and objectives specific to disposal (as shown on page 1-2of this Plan) include:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials;
• Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods;
• Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with disposal;
• Reduce the occurrence and environmental impacts associated with illegal dumping. •
8.2.2 State Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines for Disposal
This chapter provides an update of the County's waste disposal system, which is regulated by
RCW 70.95 Solid Waste Management, WAC 173-350 Solid Waste Handling Standards, and
WAC 173-351 Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
8.2.3 Waste Disposal Statistics
As population growth occurs in the towns, cities, and unincorporated areas of Yakima County,
the total tonnage of solid waste also increases. Table 8-1 summarizes the quantities of solid
waste (excluding yard debris and construction/demolition debris) received at the three County -
operated disposal facilities in the last seven years. From 2001 to 2007, solid waste tonnage
increased by 16%, or an average of 2.5% per year. In 2008, Yakima County's tonnage decreased
by 5%, largely as a result of the slowing economy.
When forecasting solid waste tonnages, it is sometimes preferable to estimate either higher or
lower than the number predicted by population growth and historical waste generation patterns.
When planning for the construction and operation of solid waste facilities such a transfer stations
and landfills, it is prudent to project higher tonnages. This helps ensure that adequate waste -
handling capacity is in place when it is needed. Conversely, when estimating revenues from
tipping fees, it may be prudent to project lower tonnages, as this tends to underestimate revenues
somewhat. If tonnages and revenues do in fact turn out to be low (by historical standards), this
method helps reduce the size of rate increase that may be needed to meet revenue projections.
To be conservative, it was decided to use lower tonnage estimates in this Plan.
Chapter 8, Disposal 8-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
The impact of the economic slowdown is reflected in the actual 2008 tonnage and in the amount
projected for 2009 (Table 8-1). These are similar to the tonnages experienced in 2003 and 2004,
but once the economy recovers, tonnages will probably grow at least as quickly as they did in the
2003-2007 period. It should be noted that to be conservative, these, lower tonnages were also
used in the solid waste rate model (Yakima County 2008b) to project revenues from tipping fees.
The national economic stimulus plan that began implementation in 2009 will eventually cause
more solid waste to be generated during the economic recovery.
Table 8-1
Solid Waste Received at County Facilities (tons per year)
Year
Terrace Heights
Landfill
Cheyne
Landfill
Lower Valley
Transfer Station*
Total
2001
152,275
20,787
40,013
213,075
2002
157,189
22,902
39,778
219,868
2003
163,176
26,525
39,881
230,303
2004
166,284
27,862
40,685
234,831
2005
167,881
39,540
30,618
238,038
2006
175,892
33,539
39,062
248,493'
2007
173,445
36,867
37,049
247,361
2008
164,292
32,721
37,970
234,983
2009 ( pir ected)
162,544
34,641
37,816
235,000
*Lower Valley Transfer Station municipal solid waste is disposed of at Cheyne Landfill.
8.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Currently operating landfills in Yakima County are show in Figure 8-1 on the following page.
8.3.1 Terrace Heights Landfill
Located about six miles east of the City of Yakima, the Terrace Heights Landfill (THLF) began
operations in 1972. It does not have a bottom liner. Principal users include the cities of Selah,
Moxee, Union Gap, and Yakima; the towns of Tieton and Naches; Yakima Waste Systems;
agricultural, construction, and food processing firms, self -haul businesses, and residential
households. Commercial and municipal garbage trucks unload at the working face of the
landfill. For safety reasons, self -haulers unload inside the on-site Terrace Heights Transfer
Station building; the waste is then moved in transfer trailers to the working face.
Since 2001, THLF has disposed of approximately 70% of the total solid waste received at the
three County facilities. Recent estimates indicate that Phase 1 of THLF will reach capacity in
about 2020 (Yakima County 2009d). Phase 2 is estimated to reach capacity in 2026, but Yakima
County may choose to reserve this for emergency use (see Alternative B in subsection 8.6.1).
The actual timing of closure will be affected by waste generation, recycling, and disposal rates,
as well as landfill operations and design factors.
Chapter 8, Disposal 8-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
s NM a i_ NIB- M ■w M lin IN EMI- MI® MI 1 -- E MO
Iisodsta `g aaldegD
V 2
f o
U�� V
UPPER VALLEY
■
f Oji
Caton Landfill
$ NAACHES e
TIETON
Anderson
Landfill
SERVICE AREA FOR
WEST VALLEY STATION
(PROPOSED)
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES
...........
r''=
FOR COUNTY REGIONS
YAKIMA
CENTRAL VALLEY
SERVICE AREA FOR
CHEYNE
KlrTiw couNTY
YAKIMACOUNTY J- �
County "9 ;
Recycling
Terrace Heights.Landfill &
Transfer Station
SERVICE' AREA FOR —%oi
NOXEE TERRACE HEIGHTS
Cheyne Landfill
► . ea
WAPATO
HARRAH
Y
2 y
z 2
°o
2 52
/1>
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES
FOR COUNTY REGIONS
TOPPEHISH
GRANGER
Transfer
Station
Lower,Valley
Transfer. Station
LOWER VALLEY
SERVICE AREA FOR
LOWER VALLEY
TRANSFER STATION
PtABTON
GRANDVIEW
BYRON
L
YAKI MA COUNTY
KLICKITAT COUNTY
•
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
8.3.2 Cheyne Landfill
Located about six miles north of the City of Zillah, the Cheyne Landfill (CLF) began operations
in 1972. Principal users include the cities of Zillah, Toppenish, Wapato, Granger, Sunnyside,
'Grandview, Harrah and Mabton; Yakima Waste Systems; agricultural, construction, and food
processing firms, self -haul businesses, and residential households. In recent years, the Cheyne
Landfill (CLF) has accepted for disposal about 30% of all municipal solid waste received at
County facilities. The unlined landfill Cell 1 is expected to reach capacity in 2011. Combined
with the anticipated closure of THLF, it will be necessary to develop a new waste cell (Cell 2) at
CLF so that the County can continue to provide long-term waste disposal at a landfill controlled
and operated by the County. In May 2008, the County Solid Waste Division submitted a solid
waste permit application for development of Cell 2. The desired Cell 2 expansion.is consistent
with the 2003 Plan and is one of several expansions envisioned for the 960 -acre property.
Beginning in 2010, the development of Cell 2 would take place in three phases, each expected to
hold at least five years' worth of waste. It is currently anticipated that the third phase of Cell 2
would be full in 2033, concurrent with the opening of Cell 3. Cell 2 is expected to hold 13.2
million cubic yards (about 6.4 million tons) of waste on about a 75 -acre footprint. Associated
facilities such as a soil stockpile, access roads, upgraded scales, a residential self -haul drop-off
area, an employee breakroom, and an equipment building would occupy an additional 106 acres.
In November 2008, the Yakima Health District approved the Solid Waste Operating Permit for
Cell 2. The Hearing Examiner approved the Conditional Use Permit in December 2008. In
August 2009 the County received approval of its New Source Review (NSR) permit application
from the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency for the Cell 2 expansion of CLF, including a
septage lagoon. Per 40 CFR 60.752, CLF will eventually require a Title V air permit for the
entire site and an NSR permit for construction of a landfill gas collection and control system.
8.3.3 Other Landfills
The Anderson Landfill in Yakima and Caton Limited Purpose Landfill in Naches are privately
owned and operated, limited purpose, C&D landfills that are open to the public. The Asphalt &
Gravel Products Landfill in Granger no longer accepts waste; construction of the site closure is
continuing in 2009. In addition, the Yakima Training Center in Yakima operates a limited
purpose landfill, but it is restricted to military use only. These landfills are discussed in Chapter
9 — Construction, Demolition and Landclearing Debris and Green Building Practices.
8.3.4 Closed Landfills
There are 25 closed or abandoned disposal sites in Yakima County. The Selah Dump, some-
times called the Selah Landfill, is included on Ecology's Hazardous Sites List. The site
originally had a ranking of 5, indicative of the lowest assessed risk, but Ecology revised its
Hazardous Sites List and raised the Selah Dump's ranking to 3 in July 2004, which reflects a
higher assessed risk (Smith 2008).
Chapter 8, Disposal 8-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
8.3.4 Waste Import
In accordance with Resolution 520-1994, disposal facilities operated by the County (i.e. THLF
and CLF) are not allowed to accept out -of -county solid waste. However, the two private
landfills, Caton Limited Purpose Landfill and Anderson Landfill, do accept out -of -county
wastes.
8.3.5 Waste Export
Biomedical and pathological wastes are typically generated by hospitals, medical clinics, dental
offices, and nursing homes and regulated 'under chapter 70.95K RCW. Stericycle, Inc., a .
publicly traded firm, collects these wastes in Yakima County. Due to privacy considerations,
Stericycle does not provide more detailed information about where these wastes are generated.
Stericycle exports pathological and trace chemotherapy waste to its facility in Salt Lake City,
Utah for destruction via incineration. The other biomedical wastes are sent to itsfacility in
Morton, Washington for autoclave heat treatment (Stericycle 2008).
8.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
The status of the recommendations made by the 2003 Plan is shown in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Disposal.
Recommendations
Status
Chapter 6: Waste Import and Export
Explore the possibility of a County -operated regional landfill to be included in Plan 2015.
Done
Chapter 7: Municipal Solid Waste Landfill and Resource Recovery
Expand Cheyne landfill as the Tong -term disposal site for Yakima County solid waste.
Ongoing
Periodically update the remaining capacity estimates for the landfills and document changes
in the landfill.surface topography.
Done
Annually review and revise, if appropriate, closure cost estimates with current costs and
review closure implementation schedules to verify that the closure funds are adequate.
Done
Continue operations at Terrace Heights Landfill until capacity is reached.
Ongoing
Research new potential landfill sites.
Ongoing
8.5 PLANNING ISSUES
8.5.1 Climate Action Response
Landfill gas (LFG) generated by decomposing garbage can contain up to about 50% methane, a
powerful greenhouse gas (GHG). If the methane is not captured and destroyed, it could
eventually escape from the landfill into the atmosphere and contribute to global climate change.
Some landfills utilize a system of perforated pipes operating under vacuum to collect LFG as it is
generated. In some locations, the LFG is combusted in a reciprocating engine, gas turbine, or
Chapter 8, Disposal
8-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
steam boiler, which in turn drives an electrical generator. These combustion processes generate
carbon dioxide, a less potent GHG. At most landfills, however, LFG is merely burned in a flare
to destroy flammable, odorous, and toxic compounds, venting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Per 40 CFR 60.752, CLF will eventually require a Title V air permit for the entire site and an
NSR permit for construction of a landfill gas collection and control system.
The Terrace Heights Landfill already has an active LFG control system, installed to prevent LFG
migration at the property boundary.
The Beyond Waste Implementation Working Group (BWIWG) of the 2008 Climate Action
Team is currently developing specific recommendations that may be enacted into State
legislation in a future session. The BWIWG may make recommendations that could require the
collection and treatment of LFG. It is unknown at this time how these recommendations could
affect.the County's landfills.
8.5.2 Future Landfill Capacity
Data from Ecology indicates that in terms of tons of MSW disposed in 2006, THLF ranked #5
and Cheyne Road ranked #9 in the state. Once Phase 1 of THLF reaches capacity, Cheyne could
receive the fifth largest MSW volume in the state. This landfill capacity represents a valuable
asset owned by Yakima County and should be preserved through prudent landfill operation and
waste management policies. When the capacity is finally utilized, it should be in ways that
provide economic and environmental benefits to the citizens of Yakima County. Some potential
alternatives for accomplishing this are discussed in Section 8.6.
8.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
8.6.1' Alternatives
Alternative A — Preserve Landfill Capacity at Terrace Heights
Once Phase 1 of THLF reaches capacity, there is room for a Phase 2 landfill development that
could dispose of an additional 5 to 7 years' worth of MSW. THLF is conveniently located near
the major population center of the county. It would be prudent to maintain the option to fill
Phase 2 of THLF under certain circumstances: for example, if emergency conditions caused
temporary closure of the Cheyne Landfill or if high fuel prices made hauling waste to CLF
prohibitively expensive.
Alternative B — Provide for Future Landfilling Needs
Unused landfill capacity, also known as "airspace," is a valuable commodity that can be
"banked" for use by future generations of Yakima citizens. As such, if property suitable for
landfilling becomes available at an economically attractive price, it would be worthwhile for the
County to consider either taking an option on the property, or make purchase it outright.
Chapter 8, Disposal 8-6
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Characteristics of a suitable property include location either adjacent to an existing landfill or
near a population center; appropriate size, shape, soils, and topography; suitable land use zoning;
and absence of sensitive receptor neighbors.
Alternative C — Consider Conversion Technologies
Recently, the potential use of chemical/thermal processes to convert the organic portion of solid
waste into energy and/or useful products has received considerable attention. These waste
conversion technologies, including pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion, and ethanol
fermentation, present the interesting possibility of producing energy with less environmental
impact than traditional incineration or waste -to -energy.
There is limited experience in applying these conversion technologies to MSW in the United
States. MSW is a highly variable mix of materials that is more difficult to process than more
homogenous waste streams such as wood chips or certain industrial wastes. Technology vendors
have proposed various projects and a few pilot projects are currently operating. To be
considered seriously, waste conversion technologies will need a track record of successful full-
scale projects that demonstrate economic feasibility through the sale of energy and/or
byproducts. In addition, they must gain public acceptance, meet regulatory compliance and
environmental protection standards, and demonstrate economic viability over the long-term.
MSW conversion technologies continue to be considered for projects across the country. These
bear watching, especially if the current volatility in oil prices continues.
Microbial decomposition of solid waste produces methane in the form of landfill gas (LFG).
Because Yakima County's arid climate is less hospitable to these microbes, buried solid waste
tends to produce less LFG than it would in the wetter climate of western Washington. Actually,
one ton of waste theoretically produces the same amount of LFG regardless of location, but gas
production would be spread over a much longer time period due to arid conditions in Yakima
County. Despite this obvious drawback, it may at some point be worthwhile considering
beneficially using LFG to generate electricity rather than flaring it to control GHG emissions.
8.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Consistency with Planning Objectives
All three alternatives are consistent with the objectives of this solid waste plan.
Waste Reduction/Diversion Potential
Alternatives A and B will not divert material from landfill disposal, but could change which
County -operated landfill would receive the waste. Alternative C could potentially divert a large
amount of waste from landfill disposal.
Customer Preferences
Not applicable.
Chapter 8, Disposal 8-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Implementation Costs
The three alternatives take a wait-and-see approach so that the costs are negligible. The cost of
actually implementing any of these alternatives will be unknown until a feasibility study is
conducted incorporating the economic, regulatory, and political conditions in effect at that time.
Table 8-3
Summary Rating of the Disposal System Strategies
H - High M - Medium
8.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
L - Low
The following recommendations are being made for disposal programs:
DI) Maintain the option to preserve capacity at the Terrace Heights Landfill.
D2) Consider purchasing (or taking an option on) property suitable for landfilling purposes as
land becomes available and as funds allow.
D3) Consider conversion technologies in the future, but only if these can be proven to be
feasible and cost-effective.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Chapter 8, Disposal 8-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Waste
Reduction /
Diversion
Potential
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Preserve landfill capacity at
THLF
H
none
not applicable
L
H
B
Provide for future landfilling
needs
H
none
not applicable
L
H
C
Consider conversion
technologies
H
H
not applicable
L
H
H - High M - Medium
8.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
L - Low
The following recommendations are being made for disposal programs:
DI) Maintain the option to preserve capacity at the Terrace Heights Landfill.
D2) Consider purchasing (or taking an option on) property suitable for landfilling purposes as
land becomes available and as funds allow.
D3) Consider conversion technologies in the future, but only if these can be proven to be
feasible and cost-effective.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Chapter 8, Disposal 8-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 9 -CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND LAND:
CLEARING DEBRIS AND GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing programs,. identifies relevant planning issues, and evaluates
alternative strategies for construction, demolition and land clearing debris.(C&D), and also
addresses "green building" methods.
9.2 BACKGROUND
Construction and demolition wastes contain those materials used in the construction process or
that are present in the structure being demolished. Construction wastes include substantial
amounts of wood scraps, drywall scraps, and excess concrete, as well as cardboard boxes and
other packaging used to hold materials or products prior to installation. Demolition wastes
typically contain substantial amounts of concrete, brick, wood, drywall and other materials.
Land .clearing debris (tree stumps, brush and soil) is often included with C&D wastes, but little
of this is actually sent to disposal facilities.
Traditional construction practices focus primarily on constructing safe homes and other buildings
as quickly and inexpensively as possible. "Green building" practices take these goals one step
farther, by paying closer attention to the environmental and other impacts associated not only
with the construction process but also with the end product (the energy and other demands of the
finished house or other structure).
9.2.1 Goals and Objectives for C&D Wastes
Overall goals and objectives that apply to construction, demolition and landclearing debris and
green building methods (see page 1-2 of this Plan) include:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials.
• Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods.
• Encourage the recovery of marketable resources from solid waste when economically
feasible.
• Support the State's Beyond Waste goal to increase the use of green building methods.
9.2.2 State Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines for C&D Wastes and Green
Building Practices
Construction, demolition and landclearing waste is a solid waste resulting from the construction,
renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads and other man-made structures. Washington State
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building 9-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Administrative Code (WAC 173-350-400) allows many types of construction and demolition
wastes to be disposed in limited purpose landfills. In addition, State Law prohibits the open or
unregulated burning of "treated wood, metal and construction debris."
Increasing the amount of green building practices is one of the five key initiatives identified in
the State's Beyond Waste Plan. Green building is defined by the Beyond Waste plan as "design
and construction practices that significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings
on the environment and occupants in five broad areas: sustainable site planning; conservation of
materials and resources; energy efficiency and renewable energy; safeguarding water and water
efficiency; and indoor air quality." The Beyond Waste Plan adopted a short-term goal of
"dramatically increasing adoption of environmentally preferable building construction, operation
and deconstruction practices throughout the state and the region." A separate long-term goal was
also adopted, which is for "green building to be a mainstream and usual practice throughout the
state."
The Beyond Waste Plan makes seven recommendations specifically for green building:
1. Coordinate and facilitate partnerships to implement the green building action plan.
2. Lead by example in state government.
3. Provide incentives that encourage green design, construction and deconstruction and begin
removing disincentives.
4. Expand capacity and markets for reusing and recycling construction and demolition
materials.
5. Provide and promote statewide residential green building programs.
6. Increase awareness, knowledge and access to green building resources.
7. Encourage innovative product design.
The State legislature passed the "Sham Recycling Bill" in 2005, requiring transporters of
recyclable materials to register with the state, and requiring certain recycling facilities to notify
the state before commencing operation. A new state rule, the Recyclable Materials Transporter
and Facility Requirements (Ch. 173-345 WAC), was developed in response to this legislation.
Although originally directed at. C&D recycling issues, the new rule covers all types of recyclable
materials (all materials that are designated as recyclable in this Plan). The new rule prohibits
delivery of recyclable materials to transfer stations and landfills. The rule does not apply to
several entities, including self -haulers, cities and city contractors, and charities.
9.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
9.3.1 Green Building and Other C&D Programs
Construction and demolition wastes are generated by construction companies, homeowners and
others. Large amounts of C&D wastes generated by construction companies and contractors are
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building 9-2
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan ,
more likely.to be collected separately from normal garbage and brought to special disposal sites.
Homeowners are more likely to bring small, mixed loads containing both C&D and garbage to
County disposal facilities.
IA few opportunities exist in Yakima County for recycling or reusing C&D wastes:
• Metals can be brought to one of several metal recycling businesses and the County disposal
I facilities.
• Clean wood waste can be brought to separate collection areas at the County disposal
facilities.
1 • Hazardous wastes related to C&D (oil-based paints, solvents, etc.) can be brought to the
MRW facility at the Terrace Heights Landfill. Depending on the material and condition,
I some of the hazardous wastes may be reused or recycled.
• The Habitat for Humanity ReStore Shop and other non -profits accept reusable construction
materials.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Excess but usableconstruction materials are passed along for reuse through informal
networks.
The ReStore is a division of Yakima Valley Partners/Habitat for Humanity. The ReStore acts as
a fund-raising activity for the Habitat for Humanity by reselling new and used building materials
that are donated to them. The ReStore handles a variety of materials, including doors, windows,
hardware, cabinets, plumbing and electrical fixtures, lumber, and paint.
The Central Washington Built Green Association promotes green building to both their members
and the general public. The web page for the Central Washington Built Green Association
(www.builtgreencentral.org) provides information and online tools (such as checklists and
buyers guides for homeowners and participation forms for members).
9.3.2 Processing Facilities
There are no C&D processing facilities in Yakima County at this time, although the ReStore
does a small amount of sorting at its facility.
9.3.3 Disposal
Most of the area's C&D wastes are brought to one of two limited purpose landfills (Anderson
Landfill or Caton Limited Purpose Landfill). These landfills currently charge $5 to $8 per cubic
yard of waste. Until recently, there was also a third limited purpose landfill (Asphalt and Gravel
Products, located in the Lower Valley area), but this landfill closed in 2008. Another facility in
the Lower Valley area, Alba Excavating in Grandview, has recently accepted small amounts of
concrete and asphalt. There is also a limited purpose landfill operated by the Yakima Training
Center, but this is for military use only. The tonnages handled by these facilities in 2007 are
shown in Table 9-1.
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building 9-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 9-1
C&D Disposal Facilities, 2007 Tons
Facility
Amount Disposed,
2007 Tons
Status
Anderson Landfill, Yakima
108,615
Open to the public
Asphalt & Gravel Products,
Granger
25,096
Closed early 2008
Caton Limited Purpose
Landfill, Naches
23,185
Open to the public
Yakima Training Center,
Yakima
338
Operated by the military, not
open to the public
Total
157,234 tons
9.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
The status of the recommendations made by the previous solid waste management plan (Yakima
County 2003b) for C&D wastes is shown in Table 9-2.
Table 9-2
Status of 2003 Recommendations for C&D Wastes
Recommendations
Status
Chapter 3: Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting
Market Development:
Provide targeted assistance to establish and/or maintain the viability of local market for
recyclable materials. Focus assistance on materials where local (or regional) markets can
effectively handle materials collected from Yakima County. Such materials include yard
waste, compost, green chop, mixed glass cullet, wood waste, wood chips,
concrete/aggregate, and reusable building materials. Program activities could consist
of (1) assessments of the feasibility of local market development initiatives, (2) technical
assistance to private sector processors and end users (3) government procurement of
recycled content goods, and (4) "buy recycled" campaigns, demonstration projects, and
other promotion initiatives aimed at stimulating demand for recycled materials sourced
from local markets.
Ongoing
Consider providing targeted assistance to increase recycling of C&D materials with a
focus on market development initiatives. For example, helping to establish viable markets
for reused building materials has proven to be a viable means of increasing C&D
diversion.
Not currently
being done due to
staff limitation
Chapter 8: Construction, Demolition, and Landclearing Debris and S ecial Wastes
Investigate source separation of CDL debris at work sites and recycling enhancements at
County landfills. Enhance education at County and municipal permitting stations to
encourage work site recycling opportunities for CDL debris.
Ongoing
Explore new markets for CDL and special wastes.
Ongoing
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building
9-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
9.5 PLANNING ISSUES
Recycling and reuse alternatives cannot easily compete with the inexpensive disposal options
provided by local landfills (both C&D landfills and the County facilities). •
The recent closure of a limited purpose landfill in the Lower Valley area has left that area (and
part of adjacent Benton County) without an inexpensive disposal option for C&D wastes. •
9.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
9.6.1 Alternatives
Potential alternatives for C&D waste include increased recycling and reuse, green building
practices, new disposal options and other alternatives.
Alternative A — Promote Green Building Activities
Existing opportunities in Yakima County for green building could be promoted more •
extensively, such as the ReStore, deconstruction options, the use of recycled materials, and the
use of more energy-efficient materials. Efforts to promote green building practices could be
increased with cooperation from private and non-profit activities. One method for promoting
green building is through the use of a portable model house that can be exhibited at fairs and
other venues, and this type of exhibit is under development by Yakima County. Yakima County
currently has a greenbuilt greenhouse located at the arboretum to promote green building.
Alternative B — Recycling of Mixed C&D Wastes
There are currently few opportunities in Yakima County for C&D recycling, although specific
types of C&D materials (such as clean wood, cardboard, metals, and reusable building materials)
can be diverted to various recovery operations. In general, reuse and recycling options for C&D
wastes could include:
Salvage for on-site and off-site reuse: This option generally applies to demolition projects,
although a small amount of reusable materials and products are also generated at construction
sites. To be effective, salvaging requires pre -demolition removal of reusable materials and
hence requires some additional time and steps in a project's schedule. Off-site reuse can be
accomplished through a variety of means, including reuse stores and private efforts.
On-site crushing and grinding for reuse and recycling: This generally applies to concrete
and asphalt, which can be crushed to serve as road base or replace other basic materials,
although in some cases wood and other materials can also be handled on-site.
Source -separation for off-site processing: Source separation at construction and
demolition sites can allow recycling of wood, cardboard and other materials.
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building 9-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Mixed C&D processing off-site: This option would require a significant investment in one
or more facilities that are properly equipped and operated to process and market C&D waste.
Central site for recycling and reuse: An ideal option could be a facility, or a series of local
facilities, that combine reuse and recycling as appropriate for the material. These facilities
could sell salvaged products (such as doors, windows, and cabinets), as well as crush or grind
other materials (such as concrete and wood) for use as aggregate or hog fuel.
Collection depots at transfer and disposal facilities: Collection containers for reusable
and/or recyclable C&D materials at solid waste facilities could allow these materials to be
transferred to a central processing or salvage facility.. Transportation costs can be a
significant barrier, however, since the recovered materials typically have only a low
monetary value.
Several of the above options are already occurring and could be simply be promoted and/or
expanded.
Alternative C — Promote Proper Disposal of C&D Wastes
Promotion of proper disposal of C&D wastes, including disposal at private sites, could help
reduce illegal dumping of these materials. The private sites offer a reasonable cost per cubic
yard, making them a desirable disposal option for remodelers and businesses to use. Although
they are privately run, it could be advantageous for the County to advertise the use of these sites
through posters, mailers, inserts, phone messages or booths at fairs.
Alternative D — C&D Waste Disposal Site in the Lower Valley Area
The County could explore options for a new Lower Valley C&D site. The County could conduct
a joint public-private project or find a way to encourage a private company to develop a site.
Alternative E — Increased Education about Dangerous Elements of C&D Wastes
Contractors and homeowners could probably benefit from more information about the potentially
hazardous materials that can be uncovered during demolition activities. Information could
include proper handling and disposal, as well as the potential health impacts. Disposers of C&D
waste can most easily identify potential hazards if they separate their demolished waste. Others
can learn about the hazards they are exposing themselves to with County -provided brochures.
Contractors and homeowners could be given a brochure when they apply for a permit.
Additional information on potential hazards and proper handling could be displayed in the
permitting area of the County.
9.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Consistency With Planning Objectives
All of the alternative strategies support the objectives of convenient and reliable services for
managing solid waste materials as well as promoting the use of economical waste handling
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building 9-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
methods. In addition, the State's Beyond Waste goal of increasing the use of green building
methods is met by the Alternatives A and B.
Waste Reduction / Diversion Potential
Alternative B, recycling of mixed C&D waste, would provide immediate diversion.
Customer Preferences
Waste generators prefer the least expensive option for C&D wastes. In some cases, they may
perceive illegal dumping to be the least expensive option, but they will typically choose to
dispose of C&D at approved sites when provided with adequate information about their options.
Implementation Costs
Alternatives A, C and E are the lowest cost alternatives. Alternatives B and D are the most
expensive options, although Alternative D (a new disposal site in the Lower Valley area) would
presumably pay for itself through tipping fees.
9.6.3 Rating of Alternatives
The alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3
Summary Rating of the Alternative C&D and Green Building Strategies
• H - High M - Medium
L - Low
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building
9-7
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Waste
Reduction /
Diversion
Potential
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Promote Green Building
Activities
H
M
M
L
H
B
Recycling of Mixed C&D
Waste
H
H
M
H
M
C
Promote Proper Disposal of
C&D Wastes
H
M
M
L
M
D
C&D Waste Disposal Site in
Lower Valley
H
M
L
M
M
E
Increased Education about
Dangerous Element of
C&D Waste
H
M
H
L
M
• H - High M - Medium
L - Low
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building
9-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
9.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for C&D programs:
C&D 1) Promote green building where possible.
C&D2) Develop and maintain a "Green House" to demonstrate green building techniques and
products.
C&D3) Encourage proper reuse, recycling and/or disposal of C&D.
Chapter 9, C&D Waste and Green Building 9-8
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 10 - SPECIAL WASTES
10.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing programs, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops and
evaluates alternative strategies for the management of special wastes.
10.2 BACKGROUND
Special wastes have some similarities to "normal" municipal solid waste and can be managed in
a similar fashion, but with some additional precautions or special handling procedures.
Improperly handled special wastes can pose elevated risks to the environment or human health
and safety. For the most part, special wastes can be handled by the existing solid waste
infrastructure and programs. This chapter addresses the more significant special wastes:
• Agricultural waste
• Animal carcasses
• Appliances
• Asbestos
• Biomedical/infectious waste
• Electronic waste
• Junk vehicles
• Petroleum contaminated soils
• Pharmaceuticals
• Street sweepings/vactor waste
• Tires
• Miscellaneous
10.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Special Wastes
The objectives of this Plan related to special wastes include:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials;
• Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods;
• Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal;
• Reduce the occurrence and environmental impacts associated with illegal dumping;
• Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate risk waste regulations.
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
10.2.2 Overview
Each type of special waste is governed by slightly different regulations, based on its physical and
chemical characteristics and the degree of environmental, health, or safety risk that it poses. The
County has established a set of Solid Waste Policy & Procedures (Yakima County 2009c) to
address the acceptance of special wastes for disposal at County -owned waste facilities. These
policies also cover miscellaneous materials (e.g. barrels and pallets) besides the major types of
special wastes described below. The following sections of this chapter describe current
programs, regulations, guidelines, and planning issues for each type of special waste.
10.3 AGRICULTURAL WASTE
10.3.1 Regulations and Guidelines
WAC 173-350-100 defines agricultural wastes as "wastes on farms resulting from the raising or
growing of plants and animals including, but not limited to, crop residue, manure and animal
bedding, and carcasses of dead animals weighing each or collectively in excess of fifteen
pounds." WAC 173-350-230 addresses land application, the beneficial use of solid waste
applied to land for its agronomic value or soil -amending capability.
10.3.2 Current Practice
As defined above, agricultural wastes are already covered in other parts of this Plan. Vegetative
matter is discussed more fully in Chapter 5 —.Organics, and animal carcasses are addressed
below in section 10.4. In addition, empty pesticide and herbicide containers are discussed in
Chapter 12 — Moderate Risk Wastes.
10.3.3 Planning Issues
Current agricultural waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate. Most of
the potential wastes from agricultural operations are being composted or returned directly to the
land (Yakima County 2009a).
10.4 ANIMAL CARCASSES
10.4.1 Regulations and Guidelines
Washington State is currently formulating a new policy for animal carcasses (Soelter 2009).
There are three classes of animal carcasses, each with differing disposal requirements:
1. Animals that die of natural causes (but not an infectious disease) can be buried on site
(typically on a farm) in accordance with Health District regulations, taken to a rendering
facility such as Baker Commodities in Spokane, or taken to a landfill.
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-2
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
2. Animals killed by collision with motor vehicles ("road kill") can be landfilled. As a more
economical alternative to paying landfill tipping fees, Washington's Department of
Transportation established a carcass composting facility near Colville in Stevens County.
3. The carcasses of animals that die from an infectious disease must.be treated to destroy the
disease -causing agent to prevent it from infecting other animals or humans.
10.4.2 Current Practice
The County's Policy & Procedures for animals can be summarized as follows:
• Animal carcasses are accepted at the Terrace Heights Landfill (THLF) and at Cheyne
Landfill (CLF). The Lower Valley Transfer Station (LVTS) accepts small animals, such
as cats, dogs and,goats, but the Terrace Heights Transfer Station (THTS) currently does
not accept animals. When THLF closes, THTS will accept small animals.
• County facilities do not accept diseased animals or animals preserved in formaldehyde.
• Animal parts must be double -bagged.
• Customers disposing of more than five animals must complete a load certification.
•. Customers are charged the same rate as for garbage disposal, as well as a special handling
fee if carcasses need to be buried immediately.
• Customers wishing to dispose of infectious diseased animals are directed to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill in Roosevelt, Washington.
10.4.3 Planning Issues
Because they can potentially infect humans, two of the most important animal diseases are
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and avian flu.
BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease, BSE belongs to a family of incurable and
fatal diseases characterized by dementia and caused by .prions, which are a type of mutated
protein. It is believed that humans can contract a similar disease by eating infected beef.
BSE -infected cattle cannot be buried in an unlined landfill such as THLF or CLF: because
prions are not destroyed when the waste decomposes, they could eventually migrate to sources of
drinking water. In addition, BSE -infected cattle cannot be disposed in a landfill whose leachate
goes to a sewage treatment plant, because chlorination does not deactivate prions either. In
2004, BSE -infected cattle were disposed of in the Rabanco Regional Landfill near Roosevelt,
Washington; which was chosen because it treats its leachate in evaporation ponds. Solids
remaining after leachate evaporation are eventually returned to the landfill, thus preventing
prions from reaching groundwater or surface water bodies.
Incineration is also an accepted method of BSE -cow disposal, although there are onlytwo
potentiallysuitable incineration facilities in Washington State. The Spokane municipal solid
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
waste incinerator has historically been unwilling to accept BSE -infected cattle. The
biomedical/pathological waste incinerator at Washington State University in Pullman has limited
capacity, and could not accept large numbers of cattle.
Avian flu is caused by bird influenza viruses. Wild birds carry these viruses without getting
sick, but domesticated poultry (chickens, ducks, and turkeys) can be killed. Since 1997, avian
influenza H5N1 has infected and killed humans who had close contact with infected poultry.
There is concern that the H5N1 virus could mutate and eventually acquire the ability to spread
easily from one person to another, without birds as the carrier. Humans have little natural
immunity protection against avian flu viruses. It is believed that a highly pathogenic avian
influenza virus that jumped from birds to humans was the cause of an influenza pandemic
(worldwide outbreak of disease) in 1918. •
On-site composting has been proven to be an effective mass disposal method for dead poultry, as
the avian influenza virus is deactivated after 10 days of composting at 60° C (140 ° F). A
detailed composting methodology was developed by the University of Maryland Cooperative
Extension for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Tablante, N. et al. 2006). The technique
involves layering birds and litter (straw, hay, sawdust) in a long pile known as a windrow, using
a small bucket loader. The composting process can be completed in about a month and the
compost product is suitable for land spreading. A major advantage of composting is that it can
be accomplished onsite, avoiding the need to transport large quantities of infectious waste
material to a treatment site. Washington State University in Pullman operates a composting
facility that composts vegetative wastes as well as some normal mortality animals from
University sources. It is possible that in an emergency, this facility could potentially accept
carcasses from non -university sources.
10.5 APPLIANCES
10.5.1 Regulations and Guidelines
Major appliances, also known as white goods, are considered to be a special waste because their
size makes it difficult to handle them in the "normal" garbage collection system, and because
some types of appliances contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, or "Freon") that must be removed
prior to disposal. On the federal level, the Clean Air Act prohibits the release of CFCs, and state
law (RCW 70.94, the Washington Clean Air Act) also requires that CFCs be handled in a manner
that prevents their release into the atmosphere. Furthermore, CFCs and hydrochlorofluoro-
carbons (HCFCs) are designated as dangerous wastes under Chapter 173-303 WAC, although
they are exempt from these rules if recycled properly.
10.5.2 Current Practice
White goods are composed mainly of steel, copper, plastic, and rubber, but are typically recycled
as ferrous scrap metal. As a service to customers, some appliance dealers recycle the old
appliance when they deliver the new one. The haulers and the City of Yakima also pick up white
goods and other bulky items through "call to haul" programs. White goods are accepted for a fee
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-4
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
at THLF, CLF, THTS, LVTS, and Yakima Waste Systems' Granger transfer station. County
staff removes the "Freon" refrigerants from refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and similar
devices. Industrial -sized appliances must have Freon and oil removed prior to delivery at one of
the disposal sites. The County contracts with a private firm to crush and bale white goods, which
the County then recycles as ferrous scrap metal through a contract with a metals dealer. Some
utilities also collect white goods.
10.5.3 Planning Issues
Current appliance/white goods management and disposal practices are generally adequate.
However, scrap metal markets are volatile. In 2007 and early 2008, scrap metal prices were high
and recycling of white goods was economically viable. In late 2008 and 2009, scrap metal prices
plunged as. worldwide economic conditions deteriorated, making the white goods recycling much
less attractive.
10.6 ASBESTO.S
10.6.1 Regulations and Guidelines
. Asbestos is a naturally occurring crystalline material with excellent heat resistance, which made
it useful for many fireproofing and insulation applications. Unfortunately, asbestos also breaks
down into very small particles that float easily in air, and once inhaled these particles become
lodged in a person's lungs and cause cancer. The cancer takes many years to develop, and so it
was years before this problem was discovered and asbestos was in widespread use by that time.
Its use has now been banned, but products and materials that contain asbestos can still be found
in older buildings and other locations.
Several federal laws address asbestos removal and disposal, including the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the Clean Air Act, and
the Clean Water.Act. There are also several state laws that address asbestos through worker
training and protection requirements as well as disposal rules under the Dangerous Waste
Regulations (WAC 173-303).
10.6.2 Current Practice
Asbestos waste is currently accepted only at THLF and requires 24 hours' advance notice for
disposal. Asbestos waste is placed in a marked area at the northern edge of the landfill. When
THLF closes, the County will open a new area dedicated to asbestos at the CLF expansion.
10.6.3 Planning Issues
Current asbestos waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate.
Chapter 10, Special Wastes •10-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
10.7 BIOMEDICAL/INFECTIOUS WASTE
10.7.1 Regulations and Guidelines
The State's definition of biomedical waste (RCW 70.95K.010) preempts that of local health
jurisdictions, and includes the following waste types:
Animal waste: animal carcasses, body parts and bedding of animals that are known to be
infected with, or have been inoculated with, pathogenic microorganisms infectious to
humans.
Biosafety level 4 disease waste: contaminated with blood, excretions, exudates, or secretions
from humans or animals who are isolated to protect others from highly communicable
infectious disease that are identified as pathogenic. organisms assigned to biosafety level 4 by
the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
Cultures and stocks: wastes infectious to humans, including specimen cultures, cultures and
stocks of etiologic agents, wastes from production of biologicals and serums, discarded live
and attenuated vaccines, and laboratory waste that has come into contact with cultures and
stocks of etiologic agents or blood specimens. Such waste includes, but is not limited to,
culture dishes, blood specimen tubes, and devices used to transfer and inoculate cultures.
Human blood and blood products: discarded waste human blood and blood components,
and materials containing free flowing blood and blood products.
Pathological waste: human source biopsy materials, tissues, and anatomical parts that
emanate from surgery, obstetrical procedures and autopsy. Does not include teeth, human
corpses, remains and anatomical parts that are intended for internment or cremation.
Sharps: all hypodermic needles, syringes and IV tubing with needles attached, scalpel
blades, and lancets that have been removed from the original sterile package.
The Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) regulates transporters
of biomedical wastes. Its regulations also allow regular solid waste haulers to refuse to haul
wastes that they observe to contain infectious wastes as defined by the WUTC. The WUTC has
issued a statewide certificate to Stericycle to transport biomedical wastes.
The list of potential generators of biomedical waste includes medical and dental practices,
hospitals and clinics, veterinary clinics, farms and ranches, as well as individual residences.
Some of these may not always dispose of biomedical wastes properly. There is no definitive
estimate of the quantity of syringes and other biomedical wastes that are improperly disposed
locally, but haulers in other areas often report seeing syringes sticking out of garbage bags. This
problem is expected to increase due to an aging population and additional medications that have
recently become available for home use (for HIV, arthritis, osteoporosis and psoriasis).
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-6
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
10.7.2 Current Practice
Stericycle, Inc. collects biomedical/infectious wastes in Yakima County. Due to privacy
considerations, Stericycle does not provide detailed information about where these wastes are
generated. It sends pathological and trace chemotherapy waste to its incineration facility in Salt
Lake City, Utah. The other biomedical wastes are sent to its facility in Morton, Washington for
autoclave heat treatment (Stericycle 2008).
•Terrace Heights Landfill and Cheyne Landfill currently accept red bag medical waste and sharps.
Medical waste must be pre -approved prior to acceptance, and must be double bagged and .
marked with the universal biohazard symbol. Sharps must be placed in either a sharps container
or in a plastic pop or milk jug with a lid and properly labeled. •
10.7.3 Planning Issues
Current biomedical/infectious waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate.
10.8 ELECTRONIC WASTE
10.8.1 Regulations and Guidelines
Electronic products contain heavy metals and other chemicals at hazardous levels that make
them difficult to dispose of safely. In 2006, the legislature passed the Electronic Product
Recycling law (Chapter 70.95N RCW) that required manufacturers of computers, monitors,
• laptops and portable computers to provide recycling services throughout the state at no cost to
households, small businesses, small local governments, charities and school districts. The
legislature determined the need for a system that encouraged the design of electronic products
that are less toxic and more recyclable. Furthermore, the responsibility for this system must be
shared among all stakeholders, with manufacturers financing the collection, transportation, and
recycling system. Ecology was required to create administrative rules to implement the new law.
Ecology requires manufacturers to register, pay an annual administrative fee to cover the
agency's costs and brand their products sold in Washington. The law also prescribes the
enforcement process and associated penalties for non-compliance.
10.8.2 Current Practice
Beginning January 1, 2009, recycling of certain electronic products became available throughout
Washington at no cost to households, small businesses, charities, school districts, small
governments, and special purpose districts. Televisions, desktop computers, laptop computers,
and monitors are covered, but peripherals such as keyboards, mice, and printers are not. This E -
Cycle Washington program, established and overseen by the Washington Materials Management
& Financing Authority (WMMFA), is unique in that it is entirely manufacturer -funded. The
WMMFA will also implement a focused public education effort for E -Cycle Washington.
Over 200 collection sites were established, serving every Washington County and those cities
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
with a population of 10,000 or more. In the first month, almost two million pounds of
televisions, one million pounds of computer monitors, and 280,000 pounds of computers were
collected. Names and locations of collection sites can be obtained by calling 1 -800 -RECYCLE
or going to www.ecyclewashington.org.
County -owned solid waste disposal sites accept up to five electronic units from households for
disposal. Electronic wastes from businesses are not accepted due to State regulations prohibiting
the disposal of dangerous waste in the landfills.
10.8.3 Planning Issues
After the initial surge of electronics that consumers have stockpiled, it is anticipated that
volumes will stabilize. Industry groups and/or the state of Washington may be motivated to
expand the take -back program to include other electronic items such as cell phones and stereo
equipment, but this is unlikely to occur immediately due to the current state of the economy.
10.9 JUNK VEHICLES
10.9.1 Regulations and Guidelines
RCW 70.93.060 prohibits the abandonment of junk vehicles upon any property located in an
unincorporated area of a county. Abandoned vehicles are also regulated under RCW 46.55,
which establishes rules for removal and disposal of junk vehicles. If a junk vehicle is abandoned
in violation of RCW 70.93.060, RCW 46.55.230 governs the vehicle's removal, disposal, and
sale, and penalties that may be imposed against the registered owner of the vehicle.
10.9.2 Current Practice
Several recycling facilities in Yakima County provide collection and processing services for auto
bodies. After fluids are removed, the auto bodies are crushed and transported out of Yakima
County for recycling as ferrous scrap metal.
10.9.3 Planning Issues
Current junk vehicle waste management and disposal practices are generally adequate.
10.10 PETROLEUM CONTAMINATED SOILS
10.10.1 Regulations and Guidelines
Petroleum contaminated soils contain fuel oil, gasoline or other volatile hydrocarbons in
concentrations below dangerous waste levels, but greater than cleanup levels established by
Ecology. Small amounts of PCS may be disposed of as a solid waste in an approved landfill.
Depending on the contamination levels, large amounts may need to be treated by a process that
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
removes or destroys the contamination. Treatment processes include aeration, bioremediation,
thermal stripping and incineration.
Aeration of the soils during treatment exhausts volatile organic compounds including potential
toxic air pollutants such as benzene into the atmosphere. Emissions of volatile organic
compounds are regulated by the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency.
10.1.0.2 Current Practice
Anderson Rock and Demolition Pits, a private company, is permitted by the Health District to
receive and treat PCS.
10.10.3 Planning Issues
Current petroleum -contaminated soils waste management and disposal practices are generally
adequate.
10.11 PHARMACEUTICALS
10.11.1 Regulations and Guidelines
Two types of material are of interest: 1) controlled substances (prescription drugs and illegal
drugs) and 2) over-the-counter, non-prescription substances (e.g. aspirin, vitamins, other health
supplements, cold medicines, etc.). Controlled substances are covered by their own regulations,
which do not address disposal other than to prevent their re -use. Over-the-counter substances are
not specifically addressed by solid waste regulations.
10.11.2 Current Practice
Law enforcement officials occasionally need to dispose of quantities of controlled substances
and illegal drugs. This is typically accomplished at landfills or incinerators under conditions of
increased security and secrecy.
Disposal of unused or outdated prescription and non-prescription substances occurs in an
informal and inconsistent fashion. Historically, people have been told to flush unwanted
prescription drugs and other medicines down the toilet. However, some of these compounds are
only partially broken down (if at all) in wastewater treatment plants, and eventually show up as
contaminants in ground and surface waters. Hence, people are currently being encouraged to
dispose of these in their trash as solid waste. However, in most cases landfill leachate is sent to a
wastewater treatment plant, which may in turn allow these compounds to escape into surface
waters. Retail outlets may return outdated prescription/non-prescription substances to the
manufacturer, and some may be disposed of with the trash.
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
10.11.3 Planning Issues
Current waste management and disposal practices for controlled substances and illegal drugs are
generally adequate.
The 2008-2009 legislative session considered a new piece of legislation for pharmaceuticals (HB
1165, the Secure Medicine Return Bill). This act, which would have provided for safe collection
and disposal of unwanted drugs from residential sources through a product stewardship program,
did not pass but may be considered again in the future.
10.12 STREET SWEEPINGSNACTOR WASTE
10.12.1 Regulations and Guidelines
Street sweepings and vactor wastes may be contaminated with a variety of materials, depending
on the locale, unauthorized or accidental discharges, and frequency of cleaning. Both street
sweepings and vactor waste may contain small amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons from motor
oil that leaks from vehicles traveling on public streets. Ecology issued a draft document in July
1995 dealing with best management practices for. street sweepings (Ecology 1995), and this
document recommends in favor of testing street sweepings prior to management by reuse,
recycling, or disposal. Currently, vactor wastes can be classified as clean fill, solid waste, or
dangerous wastes, depending upon the level of contamination.
10.12.2 Current Practice
Street sweepings consist of sand, gravel, rocks, leaves, and smaller amounts of litter (paper,
plastic, metal and glass) that accumulate on streets and roads and are collected by street
sweeping vehicles. Street sweepings are currently disposed of as solid waste at THLF and CLF,
stockpiled by the municipalities, or handled at the City of Yakima's Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Vactor waste is the solid material that accumulates in catch basins (storm drains) that collect
stormwater from streets, parking lots, and other paved areas. Vactor waste is similar to street
sweepings except that it is generally wet. Vactor waste is collected by vacuum suction (vactor)
trucks. Vactor waste is handled at the City of Yakima Wastewater Treatment Plant.
10.12.3 Planning Issues
Current waste management and disposal practices for street sweepings and, vactor waste are
generally adequate.
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ti
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan •
10.13 TIRES
10.13.1 Regulations and Guidelines
WAC. 173-350-100 defines waste tires as any tires that are no longer suitable for their original
intended purpose because of wear, damage or defect. WAC 173-350-350 imposes restrictions on
outdoor piles of more than 800 tires.
10.13.2 Current Practice
Many tire shops and auto repair shops recycle the tires they replace (typically for a fee). Waste
tires are also accepted at all County -run solid waste facilities for a fee. The County currently
contracts with L&S Tires, who send the tires to Seattle for use as supplementary fuel in a cement
kiln.
10.13.3 Planning Issues
Recycling and disposal practices for tires replaced by an automotive facility are generally
adequate. The areas of primary concern are large tire stockpiles, loads of tires that are illegally
dumped on public or private property, and small quantities of tires stored by residents and
businesses for disposal at some indeterminate future date.
10.14 MISCELLANEOUS
The County's Policy & Procedures address the following miscellaneous items:
• Barrels
• Confidential material
• Creosote treated material
• Drums
• Electrical transformers
• Fluorescent tubes
• Liquid wastes, including septic tank and portable toilet waste
• Oil from restaurants
• Pallets
• Underground storage tanks
• Vehicles and major vehicle components; camp trailers, campers, boats, motorcycles,
snowmobiles, utility trailers, pickups; mobile homes
The County's Policy & Procedures require that the following wastes be handled as household
hazardous/moderate risk wastes:
• Paint (latex and oil-based)
• Pesticides and pesticide containers
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 1 0-1 1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Propane containers and compressed gas cylinders
• Residential storage tanks
• Used motor oil
10.15 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
The status of the recommendations made in Chapter 8 of the previous solid waste management
plan (Yakima County 2003b) is shown in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Special Wastes
RECOMMENDATION
STATUS
:Work with Yakima Health District staff and health professionals to
determine the need for improved education materials, or methods of
distribution for education materials, for biomedical waste.
Done
Continue current programs related to woodwaste, tire, appliances,
asbestos, vehicle hulks, agricultural waste, and petroleum -contaminated
soils.
Ongoing
Explore new markets for special wastes.
Ongoing
10.16 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
10.16.1 Potential Alternatives
Collection programs may be required or desired in the future for materials that cannot be fully
anticipated at this time. As these needs arise or are identified, options should be evaluated and
feasible cost-effective solutions implemented as necessary. Possible steps that could be taken
include:
• Increased education: additional education for generators who are the sources of the
waste stream could be conducted to promote safe handling and disposal practices.
• Cooperative response: the current practice of cooperation between Yakima County, the
Health District, and Ecology to address special waste issues as they arise could be
continued.
• Collection programs: additional or new collection programs could be developed or
existing ones expanded to include additional materials or sources.
• Conduct a waste generator survey: the Solid Waste Division or Public Health could
conduct waste generator surveys to gather more information about types and amounts of
specific wastes, barriers to proper handling and disposal practices, and other factors. A
survey may be a necessary first step to developing new programs.
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
11
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Increase enforcement: increased enforcement activities and larger penalties could be
implemented.
• Product stewardship: new product stewardship programs could be considered or
supported to address specific waste materials.
• Other steps: other steps not anticipated at this time but appropriate to the waste could
also be considered.
10.16.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
For the most part, management practices for special wastes in Yakima County are adequate; tires
are the primary exception. A wait-and-see approach to the potential alternative strategies listed
above seems reasonable at this time.
10.17 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for special wastes:
SPI) Support development and adoption by the State of Washington of a product stewardship
program for tires.
SP2) Support new product stewardship programs as appropriate.
SP3) Continue to address special wastes through a cooperative effort with the Health District
and Department of Ecology, and according to the established Solid Waste Division's
Policy & Procedures. Update these Policy & Procedures as necessary to address new
problems or special wastes.
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-13
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 10, Special Wastes 10-14
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 11 - DISASTER DEBRIS MANAGEMENT
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing programs, identifies relevant planning issues, and
develops/evaluates alternative strategies for disaster debris management. •
11.2 BACKGROUND
Natural and man-made disasters can result in a sudden surge of a large quantity of unanticipated
debris. It is critical to clear this debris immediately after a disaster to allow emergency vehicles
to respond to life-threatening situations. Once the debris is cleared from the right-of-way and
vehicle access is achieved, the removal and disposal of debris are still critical to the community's
recovery from a disaster..
Having a plan and being prepared to address the increased quantity and different types of debris
can help to protect the health and safety of the community. Furthermore, successful implementa-
tion of the plan can have a positive effect on the speed and cost of recovery, and the ability to
obtain outside financial assistance for the recovery efforts.
11.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Disaster Debris
The objectives of this Plan related to disaster debris include:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials;
• Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods;
• Reduce the environmental impacts. to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal;
• Reduce the occurrence and environmental impacts associated with illegal dumping;
•
Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate risk waste regulations;
Because disaster debris has characteristics that make it similar to both MSW and C&D debris,
the management techniques used for these wastes are also applicable to disaster debris. An
achievable goal for this Plan is to provide guidance for developing a stand-alone disaster debris
plan.
11.2.2 Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines for Disaster Debris
Numerous resources that provide guidance for the development of disaster debris management
plans are available. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in March
2008 developed Planning for Natural Disaster Debris (US EPA 2008) as a tool for local
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management 1 1 -1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
communities to create such a plan. An older, but useful tool is the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Public Assistance Debris Management Guide (FEMA 1999).
Both of these documents are available on line and provide guidance that could assist Yakima
County in developing a disaster debris management plan.
11.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
11.3.1 Disaster Debris Planning
Currently, the Yakima County Office of Emergency Management has a Comprehensive
Emergency Management Program (CEMP) that addresses overall emergency response to
disasters. The CEMP identifies the roles and responsibilities of governmental agencies including
the Public Services Department, and touches briefly on clearing debris and demolition activities.
The CEMP does not address issues beyond the initial removal of debris.
It is understandable that in an emergency, timely response, saving lives, and minimizing property
damage are the primary goals. Following the initial response, the management of disaster debris
becomes important. Some elements of a disaster debris plan are probably already in place;
however, there is work to be done in compiling a comprehensive debris management plan that
coordinates between emergency responders and County agencies that provide various services
under more normal circumstances.
Developing a disaster debris management plan prior to an emergency will allow for a speedier
response and recovery and assist in reducing the financial impact. This plan should supplement
the CEMP by elaborating on debris clearance and demolition activities. It would also provide an
opportunity to address other issues such as establishing and restoring temporary staging areas,
identifying potential labor resources, identifying and planning for recycling and waste
minimization opportunities, and identifying potentials for minimizing the cost of response and
recovery.
11.3.2 Disaster Debris (Flood, Fire, Earthquake)
From 1995 to 2007, four federally declared disasters affected Yakima County (not including fire
management assistance).
• Storms, high winds, and floods in November 1995.
• Severe storms and flooding (declared in Feb. 1996).
• Severe winter storm in 1997.
• Earthquake in March 2001.
Yakima County is historically at risk primarily for storm, fire, flood and earthquake disasters.
However, wind-borne ash from the 1980 volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens affected the County
as well. The following sections discuss the types of debris that could be generated by a disaster
and the potential value of advance planning for such occurrences.
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management 11-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 11-1 summarizes the types of disasters most likely to occur in or near Yakima County and
the types of debris that is likely to be generated. Evaluation of potential disasters and resultant
debris can help the County prepare, for disaster response and recovery.
Table 11-1
Potential Disasters and Resultant Debris
Disaster
Debris
Biodisaster /
Epidemic
Earthquakes
Tornadoes
cn
0
0
w
Wildfires
Winter Storms
Volcanoes•
C&D Material: concrete, asphalt, metals, wallboard, bricks,
glass, wood
XX
XX
X
X
X
Personal Property: white goods, e -waste, furniture, other
personal belongings '
XX
XX
X
X
Automobiles & boats
XX
X
X
X
Vegetative Debris: trees, yard debris, woody debris
X .
XX
XX
Animal carcasses, bedding, manure, contaminated items
XX
Displaced Sediments: sand, soil, rock, sediment
X
XX
X
Mixed other debris
X
X
X
X
X
X = smaller quantity XX = significant quantity
Planning for debris management would enable the County to consider alternative debris
management options in a systematic manner before for a natural disaster actually occurs. It is
important that the County be adequately prepared so that disaster debris actions can be cost-
effective and meet community concerns, which typically include:
• Public safety and hygiene
• Prioritizing response activities to target resources in an appropriate manner
• Minimal impact or disruption of normal solid waste services
• Cost-effective solutions
• Compliance with regulations governing specific waste streams such as asbestos and
hazardous waste
• Availability of facilities permitted to accept specific waste streams
• Ability to recycle portions of the waste stream
• Eligibility for cost -recovery funds through FEMA or other government programs
11.3.3 Biodisaster Waste (Diseased Animals)
The first known case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (B SE, commonly known as mad
cow disease) in the United States was diagnosed in a Yakima County cow in December 2003. At
the time, neither Yakima County nor the State had a written plan for handling, treatment, or
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management 11-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
disposal of BSE -infected carcasses. Ecology and public health officials quickly devised a
method of disposal at the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. This particular
landfill was selected because its leachate is evaporated rather than sent to a sewage treatment
plant, thus preventing the spread of the BSE infectious particles known as prions, which are not
deactivated by the normal sewage treatment process.
Yakima County has a large population of farm animals. Growing public health concerns about
BSE, avian flu, West Nile virus and other animal -transmitted diseases make it important and
timely to develop policies and plans for handling diseased animal carcasses and wastes. This
topic is addressed further in Chapter 10 Special Wastes.
11.3.4 Radioactivity Release
Yakima County's proximity to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation exposes it to a potential release
of radioactive materials. Since almost any material existing in Yakima County could
conceivably become contaminated with radioactivity, the quantity and variety of materials that
require disposal could become overwhelming. A Yakima County disaster debris plan should
begin to consider methods for identifying, handling, stockpiling, and disposing of materials
contaminated with radioactivity.
11.3.5 Funding Sources
To date, no sources of funding for developing a debris management plan have been identified.
11.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
Because the 2003 Yakima County Solid Waste Management Plan did not specifically address
disaster debris, there are no previous recommendations for this topic.
11.5 PLANNING ISSUES
A review of background information and existing program elements identified the following
issues:
1. The existing CEMP does not specifically address the disposal of disaster debris.
2. Following a disaster, it is crucial that the operation of County solid waste facilities be restored
to normal. The ability to receive, process, and dispose of solid waste is critical to ,public
health.
3. Disaster debris should be managed in a manner that minimizes interference with operation of
the municipal solid waste system.
4. The existing solid waste system may need to be modified or augmented to handle the addition
of large quantities of disaster debris.
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management 11-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
5. The existing regulations for disposal of diseased animal carcasses do not address large
quantities of carcasses that could result from BSE or other diseases.
6. Procedures for effective communication, debris tracking, cost control, and waste diversion
during a disaster have not been developed.
7. The recovery efforts following Hurricane Katrina indicate that the proper handling of
household hazardous waste was an issue of concern.
11.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
There are three potential alternatives for disaster debris management:
11.6.1 Alternative Strategies
Alternative A — No Action
This alternative requires no action. In the event of a disaster the CEMP would be used for
guidance. Decisions would be made during a disaster concurrent with -a detennination of the
extent of damage and possible options for addressing them.
Alternative B — Coordinate with the Yakima County CEMP
This alternative requires coordination with, Yakima County Office of Emergency Management.
A revised CEMP, with greater detail regarding debris removal and disposal activities, could
provide better guidance for disaster debris management activities. Some critical decisions would
have been made prior to the event along with critical lines of communication. This would allow
for a quicker response and reduce the number of decisions that need to be made during a disaster
while the extent of damage and possible options for addressing them were being assessed. Any
revisions to the CEMP would best be done on the normal schedule for updating this document,
which is updated every four years. The next update cycle is anticipated to begin in mid -2010 for
an updated plan to be completed in 2011.
Alternative C — Develop a Disaster Debris Management Plan
This alternative would require the Yakima County Solid Waste Division to develop a separate
disaster debris management plan. In this case, both the CEMP and a solid waste disaster debris
management plan together would be used for guidance in the event of a disaster. A separate plan
could provide the detail for critical lines of communication specific to debris management
activities, identify disasters that would most likely impact the solid waste system, the type of
debris that would be generated from each one, address the need for temporary staging areas
including potential locations, contain forms and brochures that could be easily modified for use
in such an event, and have identified reuse/recycle activities that would minimize disposal at
landfills. The level of detail for this plan could range from simple plans consisting largely of
checklists and an outline of procedures to more complex plans that would be approved by
FEMA.
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management 11-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
11.6.2 Evaluation of Alternatives
The alternatives are compared with respect to the following evaluation criteria. The criteria
include consistency with planning objectives, waste reduction and diversion potential,
customer's preferences, and implementation costs.
Consistency With Planning Objectives
Alternative A is not consistent with the County's objectives, as it does not emphasize waste
reduction as a fundamental management strategy.
Alternative B is consistent with the County's objectives, as it would identify locations for
potential -temporary storage facilities and processes for establishing and closing thein, which
would reduce potential environmental impacts due to a disaster.
Alternative C can address many of the County's objectives such as:
1. Keep pace with the region 's population and economic growth. In planning for disaster debris
and identifying waste diversion and recycling opportunities and the capacity for landfills to
hold disaster debris, the County will be better prepared to anticipate and address future needs.
2. Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials. A disaster
debris management plan will assist the County in meeting customer's unique needs that
would result from a disaster.
3. Promote the use of innovative and economical waste handling methods. This alternative
provides the opportunity to consider cost-effective alternatives for handling and managing
disaster debris.
4. Emphasize waste reduction as a fundamental management strategy. This alternative would
identify waste diversion and recycling opportunities.
5. Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal. In establishing a plan the
County can better prepare to implement methods that will minimize environmental impacts
particularly by identifying locations for potential temporary storage facilities and being
prepared for establishing and closing them.
6. Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate risk waste regulations. This
alternative would address federal, state and local regulations to ensure compliance during a
disaster.
Waste Reduction/Diversion Potential
Alternative A is not consistent with the County's objectives as it does not emphasize waste
reduction as a fundamental management strategy and would force decisions to be made under
very tight time constraints.
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management 11-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Alternative B could allow for the County to explore waste reduction and diversion potentials, but
opportunities may be limited.
Alternative C would allow for the County to explore several waste reduction and diversion
potentials for debris generated during a disaster. Of the three alternatives this alternative would
allow for the most opportunity for waste reduction and diversion.
Customer Preference
There are no customer preferences for disaster debris as such.
Implementation Costs
Alternative A would have no implementation costs. Alternative B would require an investment
in staff time and additional costs for modifying the CEMP. The cost would be minimal if this
could be conducted as part of a scheduled update of the CEMP, but the expense could be in the
range of $30,000 to $50,000 if conducted as a separate effort.
Alternative C would require the expense of preparing a disaster debris plan for the Solid Waste
Department. The expense could range from $30,000 to $100,000, depending on the level of
effort desired and whether staff time was dedicated to it or a consulting firm was hired to assist.
11.6.3 Rating of Alternatives
The three alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria in the table below.
Based upon the comparison, Alternatives B and C are recommended for further development
and/or implementation.
Table 11-2
Summary Rating of the Disaster Debris Strategies
H — High
M — Medium
L — Low
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management
11-7
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Waste
Reduction /
Diversion
Potential
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
No Action
L
L
L
L
B
Coordinate with Yakima
County CEMP
H
M
M
M
C
Develop Disaster Debris ,
Management Plan
H
H
H
H
H — High
M — Medium
L — Low
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management
11-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
11.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for disaster debris programs:
DD 1) Coordinate with the Office of Emergency Management to prepare for disaster debris
response.
DD2) Develop an internal plan for handling disaster debris, in coordination with the Office of
Emergency Management.
Chapter 11, Disaster Debris Management 11.8
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 12 - MODERATE RISK WASTE
12.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses programs for moderate risk waste (MRW), identifies relevant planning
issues, and develops/evaluates alternative strategies. This chapter is intended to update and
replace the previous MRW Plan (the 1991 Hazardous Waste Management Plan).
12.2 BACKGROUND
As part of this Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, most of the background
information required for an MRW plan is already provided by the background information in
Chapters 1 and 2 of this Plan.
12.2.1 Definition of Moderate Risk Waste
Moderate risk waste (MRW) refers to waste materials that have the characteristics of and pose
the same risks as hazardous wastes — they are flammable, corrosive, toxic, and/or reactive. State
and Federal law do not regulate these wastes as hazardous wastes due to their relatively small
quantities. MRW'is classified as either a household hazardous waste (because it is generated in a
residence) or small quantity generator waste (because it is generated by businesses in quantities
below the threshold for regulation). A state law adopted in 1991 added used oil to the list of
materials to be addressed by MRW programs.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
The Hazardous Household Substances List developed by the Department of Ecology (Ecology)
is shown in Table 12-1. When generated in a residence, all of these products become household
hazardous wastes when they are discarded (if they meet they are flammable, corrosive, toxic or
reactive).
Small Quantity Generator (SQG) Waste
Many businesses and institutions produce small quantities of hazardous wastes; the list is the
same as for HHW (see Table 12-1). Small quantity generators (SQGs) produce hazardous
waste at rates less than 220 pounds per month or per batch (or 2.2 pounds per month or per batch
of extremely hazardous waste) and accumulate less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste on-
site (or 22 pounds of extremely hazardous waste). Extremely hazardous wastes include certain
pesticides and other poisons that are more toxic and pose greater risks than other hazardous
wastes. SQGs are conditionally exempt from state and federal regulation, meaning that they are
exempt only as long as they properly manage and dispose of their wastes.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste. 12-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 12-1
Hazardous Household Substances List
Substance or Class of Substance Flammable
Toxic
Corrosive
Reactive
Group 1: Repair and Remodeling
Adhesives, Glues Cements•
•
Roof Coatings, Sealants
•
Caulking and Sealants
•
Epoxy Resins•
•
,
Solvent Based Paints•
•
Solvents and Thinners•
Paint Removers and Strippers
•
•
,
Group 2: Cleaning Agents
Oven Cleaners
Degreasers and Spotaners
•
•
•
,
••
Toilet, Drain and Septic Cleaners
Cle•
•
•
Polishes, Waxes andSeptic
•
Deck, Patio, and Chimney Cleaners•
Solvent Cleaning Fluid•
Household Bleach (>8% solution)
•
,
Group 3: Pesticides
Insecticides•
Fungicides
•
Rodenticides
•
Molluscides
•
.
Wood Preservatives
•
Moss Retardants
Herbicides
•
•
,
Fertilizers
•,
Group 4: Auto, Boat, and Equipment Maintenance
Batteries
•,
Waxes andFertilize•
•
Paints, Solvents, and Cleaners•
.
•
Additives•
,
Gasoline
•,
Flushes
•,
Auto Repair Materials
•
•
Motor Oil
•
Diesel Oil
•
•
Antifreeze
•
Group 5: Hobby and Recreation
Paints, Thinners, and Solvents•
,
Chemicals (including Photo and Pool)•
•
Glues and Cements
•
Inks and Dyes
•
•
Glazes
•
Chemistry Sets•
Pressurized Bottled Gas
,
•
White Gas
,
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste
12-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 12-1: Hazardous Household Substances List, Continued
Substance or Class of Substance Flammable .
Toxic
Corrosive
Reactive
Group 5: Hobby and Recreation, continued
Charcoal Lighter Fluid
•
•
•
oup 6: Pe•
Group 6: Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs)
Mercury -Containing Products
••
•
•
Lead -Containing Products
•
E -Waste
•
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
•
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs)•
Group 7: Miscellaneous
Ammunition•
•
Asbestos
• •
Fireworks
•
Marine Aerial Flares
•
Pharmaceuticals
•
Non -Controlled Substances
•
Sharps
Personal Carerps
Per•
•
•.
Used Oil
Washington State law (Chapter 70.951 RCW) requires local governments to manage used oil in
conjunction with their MRW programs and to submit annual -reports to Ecology.
12.2.2 Goals and Objectives for MRW
Goals and objectives for the solid waste plan (see page 1-2) that are related to MRW include:
• Ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste materials.
• Assist the State in achieving its goal of an 80 percent used motor oil reuse and re -refining
rate.
• Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal.
• Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate risk waste regulations.
• Encourage those who design, produce, sell, or use a product to take responsibility for
minimizing the product's environmental impact throughout all stages of the products' life
cycle, including end of life management.
• Provide customers with information and education to promote recommended waste
management practices.
• Support the State's Beyond Waste goals.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
12.2.3 Regulations
MRW is regulated primarily by State and Federal laws that govern proper handling and disposal
of these wastes. A review of the recent regulatory changes affecting solid wastes and MRW is
provided in Section 1.13 of this Plan, but two additional State laws that affect MRW are the
Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) and the associated rules (Chapter
173-303 WAC). These are summarized below.
Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW)
1
1
1
The Hazardous Waste Management Act establishes requirements for state and local hazardous
waste management plans, rules for hazardous waste generation and handling, criteria for siting
hazardous waste management facilities, and local zoning designations that permit hazardous
waste management facilities. The Hazardous Waste Management Act also establishes waste
management priorities for hazardous wastes. In order of decreasing priority, the management
priorities are:
• waste reduction
• waste recycling
• physical, chemical, and biological treatment
• incineration
• solidification/stabilization/treatment
• landfill
The waste hierarchy is a key element in determining compliance of this Plan with state
requirements.
Rules implementing the Hazardous Waste Management Act are codified in the Dangerous Waste
Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC). This regulation defines dangerous waste materials and
establishes minimum handling requirements. State rules specifically exclude household
hazardous waste and small quantity generator wastes from the dangerous waste regulation. The
Dangerous Waste Regulations have been amended several times over the years, most recently in
2005. The 2005 amendments allow mercury -containing equipment to be managed as a universal
waste, require recyclers and used oil processors to develop closure plans and meet financial
responsibility requirements, and provide several other changes and updates.
12.2.4 Beyond Waste Plan
One of the five key initiatives of the state's Beyond Waste plan is "reducing small -volume
hazardous waste materials and wastes." The background information for this initiative explains
that perhaps as little as 1% of SQG waste is properly managed on a statewide basis. For HHW,
only about 16% is estimated to be collected through local programs. Ecology estimates' that as
much as 144 million pounds of MRW is disposed in the state's solid waste stream. The
discussion shown in the Beyond Waste plans concludes that, while local programs provide
several important benefits, it is unlikely that the current system can manage all of the MRW.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk.Waste Management Plan
The Beyond Waste plan's vision for the.future of hazardous waste is based on 30 -year goals for:
• safer products and services
• more efficient materials management
• greater economic vitality
The Beyond Waste plan provides several recommendations for MRW:
1. Develop a prioritized approach to identify and eliminate MRW substances that enter the solid
waste stream.
2. Reduce threats from mercury.
3. Reduce threats from polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
4. Develop an electronics product stewardship infrastructure.
5. Ensure proper use of pesticides, including effective alternatives.
6. Reduce and manage all architecturalpaint wastes.
7. Lead by example in state government.
8. Ensure MRW and hazardous substances are managed according to hazards, toxicity and risk.
9. Fully implement local hazardous waste plans.
10. Ensure facilities handling MRW are in compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
The Beyond Waste plan also adopted "five-year milestones" that echo these recommendations.
12.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
12.3.1 Evaluation of Current MRW and Oil Programs
The current management.practices for MRW generated in Yakima County are summarized
below.
Collection
,MRW in Yakima County is collected primarily through drop-off programs. There are a variety
of drop-off programs active in the county, including:
• The Yakima County Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHWF) at the Terrace Heights
Landfill, and satellite facilities at the other two County facilities (Cheyne Landfill and the
Lower Valley Transfer Station).
• An MRW drop-off facility at the Granger Transfer. Station that is owned and operated by
Yakima Waste Systems. This drop-off operation is required by the Health District through the
permit for this facility, and the relatively small amounts of materials collected there are brought
to the HHWF.
• The Yakima Training Center collects MRW from their personnel as well as from their own
operations.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Private and public drop-off sites for waste oil: there are about 20 locations throughout
Yakima County that accept used motor oil for recycling. In 2007, these sites collected
834,565 pounds (or 112,780 gallons) of used oil. In addition, the HHWF collected 104,115
pounds of oil filters and 82,488 pounds of antifreeze.
• Private and public drop-off sites for batteries: over 30 locations in Yakima County currently
accept household batteries (sizes AAA through D), 9 volt batteries and smaller batteries used
for hearing aids, calculators and similar applications. Most of these locations are private
companies such as hardware and grocery stores. Lead -acid vehicle batteries are taken back
by auto parts stores and similar retail locations that sell new batteries, and are also accepted
at the County's HHWF.
• The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) conducts an agricultural chemical
waste collection event in Yakima every spring, in either April or May, and in several other
locations throughout the state. Due to the high level of agricultural activity, collection events
in Yakima County bring in 20% of the total pesticides collected in the state (although some
of this comes from outside of the county). WSDA collects fifty different chemicals at the
Yakima County events. In a recent event (May 2008), WSDA collected 18,899 pounds and
the average load was 320 pounds. The amount collected has been as high as 37,000 pounds
(in 2006), due in part to a larger number of Yakima County farms going out of business that
year. Participants must sign up, in advance to bring in wastes, but there is no cost to
participate. WSDA has held these events in Yakima County since 1988 and intends to
continue through at least 2011 (Hoffman 2009).
SQGs and large -quantity generators also use the services of private companies that collect
specific types of wastes, but little information is available on the amounts collected this way.
The HHWF accepts hazardous wastes from households and SQGs. Wastes are accepted from
both at no charge, but SQGs are required to make an appointment prior to bringing in wastes.
Residents can bring in HHW any time that the facility is open (currently 7:30 a.m. through 5
p.m. Wednesday through Friday and 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. Saturday). The cost of operating the
HHWF is covered by Coordinated Prevention Grant (CPG) funds from Ecology, with a
minimum of 25% thatching funds provided by Yakima County. For the current two-year grant
period (2008 and 2009), Ecology provided $525,381 in CPG funds for the HHWF.
In 2007, the HHWF served 2,454 residential customers and 776 SQGs. Table 12-2 shows the
amounts collected from each source and the disposition of the materials. •
Materials Exchange
The HHWF includes a materials exchange. Individuals having a use for specific products may
request the product for their personal use, after signing an "Acceptance Waiver Form."
Exchange products typically include paint and paint -related products, cleaners, polishes and
waxes. In 2007, the waste exchange program handled about 22 of the 778 tons of MRW
collected in the county.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-6
1
11
1
11
1
11
s
11
s
11
ti
11
1
11
s
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 12-2
MRW Quantities Collected at the HHWF in 2007 (pounds)
Waste Type
HHW
SQG
Disposal Method
Batteries;
Household
5,820
3,347
Treated/Landfilled
Automotive
110,430
15,510
Recycled
Ni -Cd--
675
Recycled
Fluorescent Tubes and CFLs
1,628
25,415
Recycled
Paint;
Latex
75,654
39,982
Recycled
Oil Based
77,594
95,340
Energy Recovery
Pesticide/Poisons
4,871
946
Energy Recovery
Waste Exchange
44,343
1,972
Reused
Other Hazardous Wastes;
Corrosives
1,422
9,815
Treated
Flammables
768
7,624
Energy Recovery
Mercury Devices
410
5,249
Recycled
Reactives
4,048
1,929
Energy Recovery
Other
634
Varies
Totals
326,988 1b,
or 163.5 tons
207,829 ib,
or 103.9 tons
Waste Oil and Related Materials;
Used Oil
834,565 pounds, or 417.3 tons
Recycled
Used Oil Filters
104,115 pounds, or 52.1 tons
Recycled
Antifreeze
82,488 pounds, or 41.2 tons
Recycled
Grand Total
1,555,985 pounds, or 778 tons
Processing
MRW to be shipped off-site for recycling or disposal is sorted at the HHWF according to its
hazard classification (flammable, toxic, acid, corrosive or reactive) and consolidated for
shipment. The drums of waste are stored at the facility until truckload quantities are available
for transport.
Transport and Disposal
MRW is shipped to licensed hazardous waste treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities. The
current oil and antifreeze contractor is the Oil Re -Refining Company. Other MRW is treated or
disposed under a State of Washington service contract with Clean Harbors. Acids and bases are
neutralized on-site.
HHW Education
The County conducts several activities to educate residents about proper handling and disposal
of HHW. These include production and distribution of a series of brochures that address
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
household hazardous wastes in general, oil, and batteries. More information about HHW
education and related activities is found in Section 3.3.1.
SQG Education/Technical Assistance
Many of the activities conducted by Yakima County to educateresidents about HHW also serve
to educate businesses about SQG wastes. There are also specific activities that target businesses,
such as a brochure called "Business Hazardous Waste Disposal" that describes options for proper
handling and disposal of SQG wastes. More information about SQG education and related
activities is shown in Section 3.3.1
Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance issues are handled by the Yakima Health District, who responds to complaints and
other problems as these are identified. The Yakima Health District receives grant funds
specifically for this purpose.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Current Programs
One method to assess the effectiveness of current programs for MRW is to look at the results of
those programs in terms of the capture rate for various materials. The data that is available is
incomplete, but the results of the 2003 Yakima County Waste Composition Study (Yakima
County 2003a) provide an indication of the amount of MRW that is being co -disposed with solid
wastes. The figures do not include MRW that is being illegally dumped in sewers or elsewhere,
burned, or being handled through means other than disposal with solid waste, but it is hoped that
those amounts are insignificant.
The percentage of various types of MRW from the 2003 study were applied to 2007 solid waste
tonnages to calculate the figures shown in Table 12-3. For calculation purposes, the residential,
residential self -haul and rural dropbox waste streams were combined into a single residential
category. Similarly, the commercial and non-residential self -haul figures were combined into a
single non-residential disposal category. Table 12-3 also shows the quantities of specific types
of MRW recovered through the HHWF and from other sources (based on Ecology's annual
survey for 2007).
The figures in Table 12-3 tend to favor those materials where good data is available, such as
motor oil and vehicle batteries. Coincidentally, these are also the materials with high recovery
rates. Some materials not included in Table 12-3 probably have good recovery rates as well,
such as those SQG wastes handled through private collection services. It should also be noted
that a few of the materials with the lowest recovery rates, such as latex paint and most household
batteries, are not actually hazardous wastes. Finally, it should be kept in mind that MRW waste
composition data is generally not as precise as the data for other solid wastes, due to the
relatively small quantities and infrequent occurrence of MRW in the waste stream.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-8
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
111
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
• Table 12-3
Capture Rates for MRW
Material
Disposed with Solid Waste, TPY
Recycled or Treated, TPY
Capture
Rate's
Residential
Non -Residential
Total
HHWF2
Other
Motor Oil
22.0
0
22.0
417.3
2,555.1
'99.3%
Oil Filters
42.5
84.1
126.6
52.1
93.8
53.5%
Antifreeze
0.7
0
0.7
41,2
- 167.1
99.7%
Car Batteries
0
0
0
63.0
344.6
100.0%
Household Batteries5
190.2
31.6
221.8
4.9
215.8
49.9%
Pesticides, Herbicides
10.0
0
10.0
2.9
NA
22.5%
Latex Paints
• 193.4
0
.193.4
57.8
NA
23.0%
Oil -Based Paint
75.4
21.9
97.3
86.5
NA
47.1%
Fluorescent Tubes
12.6
40.2
52.8
13.5
0.6
21.1%
Other Hazardous Wastes
62.2
63.0
125.2
38.8
NA
23.7%
Totals
608.8
240.8
849.6
778.0
3,377.1
83.0%
Notes: TPY = tons per year
1. Figures are from the 2003 Waste Composition Study, with the percentages from that study applied to 2007 waste tonnages.
2. Sce Table 12-2 for more information about HHWF tonnages.
3. "Other" tonnages are, from Ecology's annual survey (not all of the same categories are tracked by Ecology's survey),
4, Capture Rate a (Tons Recycled or Treated) divided by ('Tons Disposed with Solid Waste + Tons Recycled or Treated).
5. Household batteries and latex paint are not classified as hazardous wastes.
NA = not available.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste
12-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
12.3.2 Inventory of Generators and Facilities
RCW 70.1 15.220(1)(a) requires MRW plans to contain an assessment of the quantities, types,
generators and fate of MRW in each jurisdiction. Not all of the necessary data to conduct a
complete assessment is currently available, but the data that is available on the number of
potential generators is summarized in Table 12-4.
Table 12-4
Characteristics of MRW Generators
Notes: 1. The number of households (2007) includes occupied housing units only (source: Washington State
Office of Financial Management).
2. The number of businesses is a 2008 figure provided by the Washington State Department of Revenue.
At first glance, the data in Table 12-4 may appear to indicate that only a low number of MRW
generators (3.3% of the households and 4.7% of the potential residential and non-residential
generators, respectively) bring their MRW to the HHWF. That conclusion would actually be
incorrect, however, due to several factors:
• Not every household and business is an MRW generator, or at least not in every year. For
residential sources especially, products may be stored for several years before the resident
determines that the material is no longer useful and is thus an MRW.
• As indicated above, an unknown number of households and businesses use drop-off sites for
some of the more common wastes (oil, batteries, etc.) in addition to, or in lieu of, the HHWF.
• An unknown number of SQGs and large -quantity generators use the services of private
collection companies for their hazardous wastes in addition to, or in lieu of, the HHWF.
Perhaps a better way to assess the effectiveness of current programs for MRW is to look at the
results of those programs in terms of the capture rate for various materials (see Table 12-3).
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Residential
Generators
Businesses and
Institutions
Comments
Number of Households73,990
or Businesses
16,3542
Not all residents and businesses are generators of
MRW.
Number of Customers2,454
using the HHWF
776
These figures are not adjusted for multiple trips
to the HHWF by the same business or resident.
Number of Participants
for Other Programs
Unknown
Unknown
An unknown number of people are recycling oil
or batteries through various drop-off programs,
and an unknown number of businesses are
disposing of wastes through drop-off programs
and private collection services.
Notes: 1. The number of households (2007) includes occupied housing units only (source: Washington State
Office of Financial Management).
2. The number of businesses is a 2008 figure provided by the Washington State Department of Revenue.
At first glance, the data in Table 12-4 may appear to indicate that only a low number of MRW
generators (3.3% of the households and 4.7% of the potential residential and non-residential
generators, respectively) bring their MRW to the HHWF. That conclusion would actually be
incorrect, however, due to several factors:
• Not every household and business is an MRW generator, or at least not in every year. For
residential sources especially, products may be stored for several years before the resident
determines that the material is no longer useful and is thus an MRW.
• As indicated above, an unknown number of households and businesses use drop-off sites for
some of the more common wastes (oil, batteries, etc.) in addition to, or in lieu of, the HHWF.
• An unknown number of SQGs and large -quantity generators use the services of private
collection companies for their hazardous wastes in addition to, or in lieu of, the HHWF.
Perhaps a better way to assess the effectiveness of current programs for MRW is to look at the
results of those programs in terms of the capture rate for various materials (see Table 12-3).
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
11
11
11
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
12.3.3 Hazardous Waste Inventory
Ecology's guidelines for MRW plans require that the following pieces of information be
addressed. The following information helps provide a full inventory of hazardous waste
management in a community, by addressing dangerous waste generators (i.e., large -quantity
generators), contaminated sites, transporters and processing facilities, and locations where
hazardous waste facilities can be sited ("zone designations"). For most of the following items,
however, the actual information is both lengthy and subject to change. Rather than attempt to
show all of the information here, the following provides a summary and sources for updated
information.
Dangerous Waste Generators
Ecology's records show that the following numbers of businesses and institutions in Yakima
County are registered as hazardous waste generators as of November 2008:
• 10 large -quantity generators,
• 23 medium -quantity generators,
• 50 small -quantity generators, and
• 23 businesses and institutions with EPA or state identification numbers but that did not
generate waste in the most recent year (2007).
Remedial Action Sites
Ecology's list of confirmed and suspected contaminated sites in Yakima County can be found at
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites/sitelists.htm. As of November 2008, there were 391 of
these sites identified in Yakima County.
Hazardous Waste Services (Transporters and Facilities)
A large number of private companies provide transportation and disposal services for a wide
range of materials. The current list of these companies (the Hazardous Waste Services
Directory) can be found at www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/hwtr/hwsd/default.htm.
Zone Designations
As part of the development of the original MRW plans, local jurisdictions were required by State
law (RCW 70.105.225) to designate zones within their borders where hazardous waste facilities
would be permitted to operate and to notify Ecology of those designations. In Yakima County,
that was done as part of the 1991 plan and those designations are still in place.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 1 2-1 1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
12.4 STATUS OF 1991 RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1991 Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Yakima County 1991) made recommendations
for seven program areas. These recommendations are shown in Table 12-5. Most of these
recommendations have either been accomplished or are no longer applicable. •
Table 12-5
Status of 1991 Recommendations for MRW
Recommendations
Status
Hazarilous._Waste _Ate'
Developing and publicizing informational material on:
- The identification of hazardous products.
- Proper management of moderate risk waste.
- Locally available waste management options.
- Product substitutes.
Ongoing
Consider how effective a Waste Information Network Trade Fair in Yakima County would be,
and whether one should be held.
Done
Provide speakers for community and business groups.
Ongoing
Establish an educational assembly or a classroom presentation program for local schools.
Ongoing
Implement a "voice -box" hotline for County residents. This hotline would feature information
on current hazardous waste disposal options and management programs in Yakima County. -
NA
triuc iiointongPriiiif i iti gdmei of Agr culiaiiiii he it'cli'Wasigi
Yakima County recommends the Washington State Departments of Agriculture and Ecology,
and the Washington State University Cooperative Extension of Yakima County take the lead in
educating farmers on proper waste management techniques. Yakima County will: •
- Assist in providing speakers to local agricultural organizations
- Help to distribute flyers or brochures on agricultural chemical waste management.
- Provide information on proper management of moderate risk wastes generated from farm
machinery maintenance.
Ongoing
-4 A"JWN'it�f .-n...,' ..-Stit�':..sa`,Ik"^wM:tii.�. ....,.._c:...T`.«>"' .;,s ,...iPiy. '::.-':.s}l
ousetia "HazariSitiS aste,4Catat on..
Public Works will continue to hold the "Household Hazardous Waste Turn -In Days" collection
events at each of the three landfills three times each year or at other appropriate locations and
times. These events will continue through mid 1996. If a permanent facility is constructed,
Public Works niay wish to consider modifying the frequency or location of the collection
events.
Done
A feasibility study will be done to determine potential locations for a permanent facility and the
types of waste such a facility could accept. The study will determine if a permanent facility-
acilitywill be built in Yakima County to accept household hazardous waste, as well as moderate risk
will
waste from small quantity generators, regulated generators' waste, and agricultural chemical
waste.
Done
Public Works will implement a voluntary collection.program for small "button type" batteries
with local retailers throughout the County.
Done
Waste oil, paints, and auto battery collection activities will be continued at the local landfills
and will be expanded if the need exists.
Ongoing
rAi'aniituirii ii:44i i"eat' Waifila lett 'on '
Yakima County recommended the Department of Agriculture hold additional "Inspection
Days" in the County to collect stored agricultural chemical wastes.
Ongoing
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste
12-12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
11
11
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 12-5: Status of 1991 Reconunendations for MRW, Continued
Recommendations
Status
'48" sL`44{a't�di=?.�'n"p •�.U.3',l..''i!':CiN?!4w.<i��t.i�':"i��:
1VIR'W Coliaif aiii nsBusmesses:
Yakima County will hold at least two commercial collection events for small quantity
generators. The first will be held in the spring of 1992, after sufficient time for planning and
preparation by Public Works staff. The second event will be held in the fall of 1992. The
events will be held for select business groups targeted by the HWM Plan. The event will be run
by a private contractor, with assistance from Public Works staff for pre -event publicity and
traffic control during the event. After the second event is held, Publ l c Works will evaluate the
results and determine if future events should be held. This decision will take into account
whether or not a permanent facility will be built that would accept small quantity generator
waste.
Done
kilo aii- of .f
Health and safety recommendations focus on training public personnel potentially exposed to
moderate risk waste and include:
- Developing a moderate risk waste component for health and safety training of public
employees routinely exposed to moderate risk waste.
- Offering private solid waste haulers operating in Yakima County opportunities to participate
in moderate risk waste public employee training or use training materials.
Ongoing
r _rEw:, "-:Y r;. 4p 3x W... c r " f` ry Kyta" H t tl"
Compliance; andi�Enforceinent:
Upgrade or put up new signs at County solid waste facilities specifying proper waste disposal
methods for moderate risk waste, and handing out flyers and brochures to users of the facilities.
Ongoing
Implementing a technical assistance, inspection and enforcement program by the Yakima
County Health District for targeted businesses identified in the HWM Plan.
Ongoing
Developing ordinances regulating moderate risk waste in Yakima County.
Done
.d«TW`,+Y�kb'1i${nGW^3"".� "' :Ibfi.M' 1:4U"^r*'i:�.Rq*:iW
Program•Evaluation
Have Public Works coordinate and evaluate the progress of the HWM Plan's programs.
Ongoing
Establish a technical review committee to aid in evaluating the HWM Plan's implementation.
Done
Have Public Works issue annual progress reports for each program area to the technical review
committee.
Ongoing
" N;.::� J.4kriS�"�^1`;`5eq^.!>9;a:a;s$' xw!rv� x��a:'n•'� �,: `' 4
Recommendationsra tte�Actions:;
State government should work with the federal government to encourage Manufacturers of
hazardous products to reduce the amounts of hazardous constituents in these products where
possible.
Ongoing
State government should work with the federal government, trade, associations, and other
•groups to ensure adequate and clear product labeling.
Ongoing
State government, in consultation with local governments, should continue and expand its
educational and technical assistance programs for moderate risk waste.
Ongoing
State government should assist local governments in developing and implementing moderate
risk waste health and safety training programs.
Ongoing
State government should provide and maintain adequate funding to assist local governments in
implementing local hazardous waste management activities.
Ongoing
Notes: NA = no longer applicable.
12.5 PLANNING ISSUES
There are five specific components required for local moderate risk waste management
programs; two that address educational efforts and three that help fulfill the mandate to "prepare
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste
12-13
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
a program to manage moderate -risk waste" (RCW 70.105.220(1)(a)). The five required elements
are:
• Public education program;
• Technical assistance program for businesses;
• Collection program for household hazardous wastes and used oil;
• Collection program for business wastes; and
• A plan or program to ensure compliance by small quantity generators and others.
The existing service gaps and other issues connected to these components are discussed below.
12.5.1 Public Education
Public education activities and planning issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this
Plan. As concluded there, the current and ongoing efforts to inform the public about
opportunities for proper disposal of oil and household hazardous wastes are working well.
12.5.2 Business Technical Assistance
County staff or others are not providing technical assistance to businesses at this time. Although
limited technical assistance could be provided by County staff in the future, the level of expertise
required to effectively assist many businesses would require significant amoutits of training for
specific types of businesses, and might better be handled at the state level.
12.5.3 Household Collection
Household collection is currently being provided through the HHWF and other opportunities.
One potential service gap for household collection is the idea of on-call services for elderly and
disabled residents that cannot easily access the HHWF or other drop-off programs.'
12.5.4 Business Collection
Business collection is currently being provided through the HHWF and other opportunities,
including private contractors. One idea that could be explored for handling business MRW is to
charge SQGs to use the HHWF, as is done in most other Washington counties. This approach
would free up CPG funds for other solid waste programs in Yakima County.
12.5.5 Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance and enforcement is currently being conducted on an as -needed basis and there are no
known problems with this approach.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-14
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
12.6 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
12.6.1 Alternatives
Alternative A — Public Education for Household Hazardous Waste
Household hazardous waste education programs focus on identifying household products that
contain hazardous ingredients, promoting safer alternatives, and explaining how to dispose
unwanted products that contain hazardous substances. Rather than continue an independent
education program for moderate risk waste, Alternative A attempts to incorporate the message
into other programs that also benefit from proper household hazardous waste management.
Other programs that have common objectives include programs that deal with storm water,
groundwater, municipal wastewater treatment, and on-site sewage systems. By coordinating the
message with other resource protection and waste management programs, the message will be
repeated and attention will be focused on the multiple benefits of the higher -priority management
practices. The estimated additional cost of this option is about $10,000 per year, primarily for
staff time and expenses to coordinate messages with other agencies.
Alternative B — Technical Assistance for Small Quantity Generators
Current programs do a good job of informing generators about proper handling and disposal
practices for MRW, but little technical assistance is currently provided to any particular sector
(such as businesses, schools, or agricultural generators). Technical assistance could be provided
to help SQGs find ways to reduce hazardous waste generation, switch to safer alternatives, or
simply identify hazardous wastes and then improve the handling practices for those wastes. This
level of assistance would require extensive knowledge of various manufacturing and other
business practices and specific expertise that is not easily available to County staff. Instead, the
technical assistance may need to be provided by Ecology staff who can address specific types of
businesses statewide.
Alternative C — List of Targeted Materials
The list of HHW targeted for collection could be broadened to encompass a greater variety of
materials and would hence collect a greater amount of hazardous wastes. On the other hand,
some materials are difficult and expensive to handle on a local level, and instead would be best
addressed through a statewide program and/or a product stewardship approach. Therefore, this
alternative proposes that the list of household hazardous waste to be collected in Yakima County
should be the same as the list shown in Table 12-1, but without e -waste, which is being collected
through a separate statewide program, and also without the materials shown in Group 7. Group 7
materials should be handled in other ways, such as delivering asbestos directly to the landfill,
ammunition being taken by the Sheriff's office, and the bomb squad handling fireworks.
Pharmaceuticals also pose a security risk at County facilities and need to be handled through a
different program.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-15
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Alternative D — List of Targeted Materials
As with Alternative C, the list of materials targeted for collection from small quantity generators
could be broadened to collect a greater variety and larger quantities, but some materials would be
best addressed through a statewide program and/or a product stewardship approach. This
alternative proposes that the small quantity generator waste list be the same as the list proposed
for HHW in Alternative C.
Alternative E — User Fees for SQGs
SQG waste collection is currently being provided through the HHWF at no charge. An
alternative for handling business MRW is to charge SQGs to use the HHWF, as is done in most
other Washington counties. The imposition of fees may cause some of the SQGs to dispose of
their MRW by mixing it in with their solid waste or disposing of it in other undesirable ways.
Mixing SQG waste with solid waste can lead to accidental and dangerous exposure for garbage
truck and landfill operators. Disposal of SQG waste in other ways can also create human safety
issues or environmental damage problems.
12.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
Consistency with Planning Objectives
All of the alternatives support the planning objective of ensuring compliance with state and local
solid and moderate risk waste regulations and supporting the State's Beyond Waste goals.' In
addition, Alternatives C and D ensure convenient and reliable services for managing solid waste
materials, as well as encouraging those who design, produce, sell, or use a product to take
responsibility for minimizing the product's environmental impact.
Consistency with Management Hierarchy
All of the alternatives support the management hierarchy for hazardous wastes, although
Alternatives A and B do this more directly.
Customer Preferences
Customers typically prefer choices rather than mandates and lower costs rather than higher costs.
Education and promotion programs typically enjoy strong customer support. Alternative E is
contrary to customer preferences.
Implementation Costs
Alternative B has the lowest cost to the County if Ecology staff provide technical assistance to
businesses statewide.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-16
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
12.6.3 Rating of Alternatives
The alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria in Table 12-6.
Table 12-6
Summary Rating of the Alternative MRW Strategies
H - High M - Medium
12.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
L - Low
The following recommendations are being made for MRW programs:
MRW 1) Adopt the list shown in Table 12-1 of targeted materials for household hazardous
waste and small quantity generator waste collections, but excluding e -waste and the
materials shown in Group 7.
MRW2) Utilize technical assistance for small quantity generators provided by the Department
of Ecology.
MRW3) Utilize the same schedule and process for updating the MRW Plan as for updating the
solid waste management plan.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-17
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Consistency
with
Management
Hierarchy
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Public Education for Household
Hazardous Waste
H
H
M
M
H
B
Technical Assistance for Small
Quantity Generators
H
H
M
H
M
C
List of Targeted Materials —
Household Collection
H
M
M
M
M
D
List of Targeted Materials —
Business Collection
H
M
M
M
M
E
User Fees for SQGs
M
M
L
M
L
H - High M - Medium
12.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
L - Low
The following recommendations are being made for MRW programs:
MRW 1) Adopt the list shown in Table 12-1 of targeted materials for household hazardous
waste and small quantity generator waste collections, but excluding e -waste and the
materials shown in Group 7.
MRW2) Utilize technical assistance for small quantity generators provided by the Department
of Ecology.
MRW3) Utilize the same schedule and process for updating the MRW Plan as for updating the
solid waste management plan.
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-17
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 12, Moderate Risk Waste 12-18
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 13 - ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION
13.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses the administrative and regulatory activities related to solid waste.
13.2 BACKGROUND
Yakima County, the cities, the Yakama Nation and several other organizations and agencies are
responsible for providing enforcement of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that guide
the planning, operation, and maintenance of the region's solid waste management system. This
local enforcement authority ensures that the County system meets all applicable standards for the
protection of human health and environmental quality in the region.
13.2.1 Goals and Objectives for Regulation and Administration
Goals and objectives specific to regulation and administration (as shown on page 1-2 of this
Plan) include:
• Reduce the environmental impacts to air, water, and land that are associated with waste
generation, transportation, handling, recycling, and disposal.
• Reduce the occurrence and environmental impacts associated with illegal dumping.
• Ensure compliance with state and local solid and moderate risk waste regulations.
13.3 EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Administrative responsibility for solid waste handling systems in Yakima County is currently
divided among several agencies and jurisdictions in local, county, and state government. Each
organization involved in the Yakima County solid waste management system is described below.
Yakima County Public Services Department Solid Waste Division
The Washington State Solid Waste Management Act, RCW 70.95 assigns local government the
primary responsibility for managing solid waste. Solid waste handling, as defined in RCW
70.95, includes the "management, storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization,
processing, and final disposal of solid wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials
from solid wastes, the recovery of energy 'resources from solid wastes, or the conversion of the
energy in solid wastes to more useful forms." RCW 36.58 authorizes Yakima County to
develop, own, and operate solid waste handling facilities in unincorporated areas of the county,
or to accomplish these activities by contracting with private firms. The County may regulate
tipping fees, hours of operation, facility access, and waste acceptance policies at each of its
facilities. The County also has the authority and responsibility to prepare comprehensive solid
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
waste management plans for unincorporated areas and for jurisdictions that agree to participate
with the County in the planning process. The County has entered into interlocal agreements with
all of the incorporated cities and towns within the county that address the plan participation and
other aspects of solid waste. The interlocal agreements also require that all waste collected by or
in the cities must go to a Yakima County disposal facility.
Yakima County exercises its solid waste responsibilities through the Yakima County Public
Services Department, and specifically through the Solid Waste Division. The specific
administrative functions performed by the Solid Waste Division include:
• Administering, staffing, and operating two landfills, two transfer stations, a moderate risk
waste collection facility, and various recycling and organics collection programs.
• Administering and staffing public education programs for waste reduction and recycling.
• Administering contracts.
• Maintaining the County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) as adopted relating to
public health, safety, and sanitation, and providing regulations to govern the storage,
collection, transfer, transportation, processing, use, and final disposal of solid waste by all
persons in Yakima County.
• Providing staff support for the SWAC.
The Yakima County Solid Waste Division is funded by the fees collected at the landfills and
transfer stations. Fees charged at the County's solid waste facilities are set by resolution by the
Board of County Commissioners. The County also receives grant monies from Ecology for solid
waste management planning activities and pilot projects. Figure 13-1 illustrates the Solid Waste
Division organizational structure, and Table 13-1 shows the current budget (2009) and the actual
revenues and expenses for 2007 and 2008 for the Solid Waste Division. The Solid Waste
Division is staffed by about 40 employees, most of which are involved in the operation of
transfer and disposal facilities.
Yakima Health District
The Yakima Health District (YHD) is responsible for enforcing solid waste regulations and
issuing permits for solid waste facilities. Permits are required for all solid waste facilities in
accordance with WAC 173-350 and WAC 173-351. Permitted solid waste facilities include, but
are not limited to, all landfills, transfer stations, recycling processing, composting, and
petroleum -contaminated soil (PCS) remediation sites. The YHD inspects all solid waste
facilities that are permitted by the YHD at least once per year. The YHD also reviews permit
applications to ensure that proposed facilities meet all applicable laws and regulations, conforms
to the approved plan, and complies with all zoning requirements. Beginning in 2010, the YHD
will review each new permit application with the Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory
Committee (SWAC). The SWAC will make a recommendation about whether the application is
consistent with the Plan.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-2
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Figure 13-1
Yakima County Solid Waste Division Organizational Structure
Board of Yakima
County Commissioners
Public Services
Director
Assistant Public
Services Director
Solid Waste
.Manager
Operations
Supervisor
Solid Waste Advisory
Committee
Scalehouse
Supervisor
Waste Reduction and
Recycling Coordinator
Hazardous Waste
Supervisor
Administrative
Assistant
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation
13-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 13-1
Yakima County Solid Waste Budget
Notes: All figures are in dollars.
1. The 2007 and 2008 figures are actual amounts, and the 2009 figures are the budgeted amounts.
The County pays a fixed amount to the YHD in lieu of facility permit fees. This fixed amount
provides funding for the YHD's assistance to the County in the implementation of the Solid
Waste Management Plan under RCW 70.95.160. The YHD also receives grant funds from
Ecology for enforcement and permit fees for non -County facilities.
The permit process for solid waste facilities.requires an application and approval for new sites,
and an annual review and renewal for existing permits (although permits can be renewed for up
to five years in some cases). The initial application form requires information about the types of
waste to be disposed, environmental conditions of the area and operating plans. Permit fees are
based on the estimated time needed to issue the permit and to do needed inspections and reviews.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
s
0
2007, Actual
2008, Actual
2009, Budgeted
Revenues
Solid Waste Fees
$ 6,616,488
$ 6,401,989
$ 6,299,570
Grants
290,902
381,548
361,590
Investment Interest
1,020,505
705,176
700,000
Miscellaneous
25,403
161650
Total Operating Revenue
7,953,338
7,504,878
7,361,160
Capital Contributed to ER&R
(1,069,785)
Adjustment from Prior Period
(162,201)
Total Revenues
6,883,553
7,339,677
7,361,160
Expenditures
Administration
569,828
593,538
644,476
Planning, Research
70,965
158,965
148,889
Depreciation
689,809
575,552
850,000
Marketing/Recycle
278,053
376,955
385,196
Operations — General Drop Box
827
803
0
Operations — Landfill
2,850,345
3,168,381
3,675,969
Operations — Transfer Station
897,162
964,892
921,061
Operations — Hazardous Wastes
416,574
446,178
524,165
Capital Outlay
1,249,149
14,006
3,000,000
Debt Service
250,775
241,596
355,000
Annual Closure Reserve
3,366,023
969,563
Total Expenditures
10,639,510
7,510,429
10,504,756
Landfill Closure Reserves
12,435,695
13,405,258
13,405,258
Notes: All figures are in dollars.
1. The 2007 and 2008 figures are actual amounts, and the 2009 figures are the budgeted amounts.
The County pays a fixed amount to the YHD in lieu of facility permit fees. This fixed amount
provides funding for the YHD's assistance to the County in the implementation of the Solid
Waste Management Plan under RCW 70.95.160. The YHD also receives grant funds from
Ecology for enforcement and permit fees for non -County facilities.
The permit process for solid waste facilities.requires an application and approval for new sites,
and an annual review and renewal for existing permits (although permits can be renewed for up
to five years in some cases). The initial application form requires information about the types of
waste to be disposed, environmental conditions of the area and operating plans. Permit fees are
based on the estimated time needed to issue the permit and to do needed inspections and reviews.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
s
0
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
Per RCW 70.95.165, the Yakima County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has
appointed the SWAC to help develop solid waste handling programs and policies. The Yakima
County SWAC has adopted bylaws that can be amended by the SWAC at any time, subject to .
approval by the BOCC. The term of the SWAG members is two years and members can be re-
appointed by the BOCC to serve consecutive terms. The SWAC consists of up to 13 members
each with one vote and membership is outlined in the by-laws to include the County, Cities,
Yakima Valley Conference of Governments, Business and Industry, Waste Industry, Recycling
Industry, Agricultural Industry, and an ex officio position for Public Health and Safety.
Incorporated Cities
RCW 35.21.152 empowers cities to develop; own, and operate solid waste handling systems and
to provide for solid waste collection services within their jurisdictions. There are 14
incorporated cities and towns in Yakima County. Four cities operate their own residential
garbage collection systems and ten cities contract with a hauler to collect garbage within their
city. Fees charged for the service cover the expenses of the system, although some cities also
charge a "utility tax" that helps fund other city functions. Detailed information about collection
in individual cities is included in Chapter 6, Collection.
The cities coordinate their activities for a number of issues through the Yakima Valley
Conference of Governments (YVCOG). The YVCOG was created 42 years ago to provide a
forum for addressing regional issues. The YVCOG provides assistance with growth
management planning, transportation planning, other community planning, grant writing,
surveys and research. The major issues currently being addressed by YVCOG include housing
rehabilitation, growth management comprehensive plans, and regional transportation.
Washington State Department of Ecology
The State Solid Waste Management Act, Chapter 70.95 of the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW), provides for a comprehensive, statewide solid waste management program. Ch. 70.95
RCW assigns primary responsibility for solid waste handling to local governments, giving each
county, in cooperation with its cities, the task of setting up a coordinated county solid waste
management plan that places an emphasis on waste reduction and recycling programs.
Enforcement and regulatory responsibilities are assigned to cities, counties, or jurisdictional
health departments, depending on the specific activity and local preferences, but Ecology issues
permits for land application of biosolids.
The Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling (Ch. 173-304 WAC) were
promulgated by Ecology under the authority granted by Ch. 70.95 RCW. This chapter has now
been replaced by Ch. 173-350 WAC, Solid Waste Handling Standards, which addresses the
operational and other requirements for recycling and composting facilities as well as inert and
special purpose landfills.. Ch. 173-351 WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,.
contains the current standards for municipal solid waste landfills. This rule is currently being
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
amended, a process that is expected to be completed in the fall of 2009, to address new federal
regulations and change liner requirements.
The Model Litter Control and Recycling Act (RCW 70.93.060) prohibits depositing garbage on
any property not properly designated as a disposal site. There is also a "litter fund" that has been
created through a tax levied on wholesale and retail businesses, and the monies from this fund
are being used for education, increased litter clean-up efforts, and contracts to eligible county
entities for illegal dump clean-up activities.
Under the Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D), grants are available to local governments
for solid waste management plans and programs, hazardous waste management plans and
programs, and remedial actions to clean up existing hazardous waste sites. Solid and hazardous
waste planning and programs are funded through the Coordinated Prevention Grants program
administered by Ecology's Solid Waste and Financial Assurance Program. The state rule that
governs this program is WAC 173-312 — Coordinated Prevention Grants. The 2008-2009
Coordinated Prevention Grant Guidelines (Ecology publication #07-07-021) outlines the
Coordinated Prevention Grant program and the fund thatsupports the grants. Cleanup of
existing hazardous waste sites is funded through Remedial Action Grants, described in Ecology's
Remedial Action Grant Guidelines, Publication #07-07-032.
In the 2009 legislative session, the response to the state's budget shortfall led to a sharp decrease
in CPG funds available for the next grant cycle (2010 and 2011). CPG funds for the next two-
year cycle were reduced from an anticipated level of $20-25 million to only $10 million. In
recent years, Yakima County has used these funds to cover the cost of the Household Hazardous
Waste Facility (HHWF). It is uncertain at this time how this change will affect the County's
budget or HHWF operations.
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC)
The WUTC regulates privately -owned utilities that provide public services such as electric
power, telephone, natural gas, private water, transportation, and refuse collection. The WUTC's
authority over solid waste collection is established in RCW 81.77. This authority does not
extend to companies operating under contract with any city or town, or to any city or town that
undertakes solid waste collection. The WUTC regulates solid waste collection companies by
granting "certificates.of convenience and necessity" that permit collection companies to operate
in specified service areas. It also regulates solid waste collection, under authority of RCW
81.77.030, by:
• Fixing collection rates, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations.
• Regulating accounts, service, and safety of operations.
• Requiring annual reports and other reports and data.
• Supervising collection companies in all matters affecting their relationship to their customers.
• Requiring collection companies to use rate structures consistent with state waste management
priorities.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-6
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
The WUTC requires certificate holders to provide the minimum levels of solid waste collection
and recycling services established by a local SWMP and enacted through an ordinance. Solid
waste companies operating in the unincorporated areas of the county must comply with the
SWMP (RCW 81.77.040).
At its option, the County may notify the WUTC of its intention to have the G -certificate holder
bid on the collection of source -separated recyclable materials from residences in unincorporated
areas. Commercial recycling is also regulated by the WUTC, under laws that apply in general to
motor freight carriers (RCW 81.80), although their oversight is limited to requiring a permit (at
$100 per year) and also to require companies to carry insurance, conduct drug testing of •
employees, and conduct a few other activities.
This Plan contains a cost assessment (see Appendix E) prepared according to the WUTC Cost`
Assessment Guidelines for Local Solid Waste Management Planning (WUTC 2001). RCW
70.95.096 grants the WUTC 45 days to review the plan's impact on solid waste collection rates
charged by solid waste collection companies regulated under RCW 81.77, and to advise the
County and Ecology of the probable effects of the Plan's recommendations on those rates.
Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA)
The YRCAA is delegated to enforce certain federal regulations, the Washington Clean Air Act,
state regulations and YRCAA regulations within the boundaries of Yakima County. This applies
to all areas of Yakima County except for Yakama Nation Reservation lands, which are guided by
the Federal Air Rules for Reservations (FARR) regulations, and the Yakima Training Center.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended
by the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 6901-6987), is the primary
body of legislation dealing with solid waste. Subtitle D of RCRA deals with non -hazardous solid
waste disposal and requires the development of a state comprehensive solid waste management
program that outlines the authorities of local, state and regional agencies. Subtitle D requires
that the state program must prohibit "open dumps" and must provide that all solid waste is
disposed in an environmentally -sound manner.
Yakama Nation
The Yakama Nation is a federally recognized Indian Nation and their reservation occupies 1.4
million acres located in south central Washington. This is the largest land area of the 29
federally -recognized Tribes in Washington State. The reservation encompasses the cities of
Toppenish and Wapato and the town of Harrah, as well as unincorporated areas. The Tribe is
governed by a Tribal Council made up of elected members. The Council holds regular meetings
and handles the business affairs of the Tribe. The Yakama Nation has inherent authority to
govern all activities as they pertain to solid waste management within the exterior boundaries of
the Yakama Nation Reservation.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
U.S. Army
The U.S. Army is responsible for the collection of solid waste on the Yakima Training Center.
Yakima Waste Systems, Inc. is the current hauler for the training center. Most of the waste that
is collected from the Training Center is brought to the Terrace Heights Landfill for disposal. The
Training Center owns and operates a permitted Limited purpose landfill on site.
13.4 STATUS OF 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS
The status of the recommendations made by the 2003 Plan is shown in Table 13-2.
Table 13-2
Status of 2003 Recommendations for Administration and Regulation
Recommendations
Status
Chapter 4: Collection System
To ensure continuation of programs, require that all in -County generated MSW be
hauled to a County -owned facility, or administer a fee directed at haulers that do not
use the County system.
Done
Renew interlocal agreements to ensure that all waste generated within the county is
hauled to County -owned facilities.
Done
Chapter 9: Administration and Enforcement
Discuss creating a disposal district in Yakima County or propose other means to
provide adequate funding for County programs, as required to implement the
recommendations in the 2002 Plan and existing regulations.
Ongoing
Review, amend, and establish solid waste ordinances and/or policies as appropriate.
Ongoing
Establish and/or continue to monitor and evaluate programs for solid waste
management activities.
Ongoing
Continue to investigate and evaluate the extent, probable causes of, and possible
solutions to illegal dumping throughout Yakima County.
Ongoing
Chapter 10: Funding and Financing
Complete rate structure analysis by 2002.
Done
Set solid waste surcharges, excise taxes, and tipping fees at County solid waste
handling facilities at a level sufficient to generate annual revenues equal to or greater
than total annual expenses and reserves for solid waste management in the county.
Done
Review tip fees at solid waste facilities to determine if the County wants to account
for the true cost of operations at the point of customer disposal of waste.
Done
13.5 PLANNING ISSUES
13.5.1 Unpermitted and Illegal Sites
Illegal dumping has created problems in some areas. The process for addressing this can be
slow. Illegal dumping enforcement may be addressed through enforcement of State laws
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation
13-8
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
regarding solid waste disposal (Ch. 173-350 WAC) or Yakima County ordinances concerning
solid waste disposal and or littering. Generally, enforcement of solid waste laws and regulations
is the responsibility of the Yakima Health. District.
13.5.2 Minimum Service Levels
Residents in urban areas currently receive more solid waste services than residents of rural areas,
although in many cases this is because rural residents choose not to subscribe to certain services.
Still, a minimum service level standard would help address such inequities, and could also •
increase recycling and yard debris collections.
13.5.3 Collection and Disposal Districts
A collection district would also allow the County to set standards and implement services such as
recycling, while a disposal district would allow the County to collect fees and implement
disposal and other programs.
13.5.4 Long -Term Funding Needs
In the long run, if recycling and composting rates continue to increase and the amount of waste
continues to decrease, it is possible that the County would need to find other sources of funding
besides relying primarily on the tipping fee.
13.5.5 Flow Control
Flow control for the wastes collected in the cities is achieved through the interlocal agreements.
It is a county policy that wastes collected in the unincorporated areas also must be delivered to
the County's disposal facilities. Although the current system is working well, the County's
ability to make long-range plans and invest in future disposal facilities would be improved if a
flow control ordinance were adopted, thus avoiding unforeseen changes in the future.
The authority for a county to enact flow control was confirmed by a recent U.S. Supreme court
case, the Haulers Association v. Oneida -Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (127 S.
Ct. 1786 U.S., 2007). On April 30, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case that a flow
control requirement enacted by.a local municipality did not violate the Commerce Clause of the
U.S. Constitution because the processing facilities were owned and operated by a public entity,
and that there was a benefit -to the public from ensuring secure financing for the solid waste
system. The Court also confirmed this decision in Department of Revenue of Kentucky et al. v.
Davis et ux on May 19, 2008. •
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
13.6. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
13.6.1 Alternatives
Alternative A — Illegal Dumping
Litter and illegal dumping are chronic problems in Yakima County, and these are a priority for
future work. The SWAC, or a separate task force, could address illegal dumping by bringing
together key people from the several organizations that are impacted by this problem.
Community members are aware of the impact of illegal dumping and may quite readily
contribute to a set of solutions. If the SWAC takes the lead on this effort, other interested parties
could be invited to participate in a special session or workshop on this issue.
Alternative B — Minimum Service Levels
One alternative to the current collection system in Yakima County is to adopt a service level
ordinance. This approach could be used to institute new programs or services in the •
unincorporated areas of the County and also possibly in the cities. A service level ordinance
could be used to change the rates or billing practices, for instance by "embedding" the cost of
recycling into garbage collection fees. Also called a "recycling discount," this approach helps to
encourage recycling because it appears that people are receiving a discount from their garbage
bill by agreeing to recycle. Pierce County uses this approach, as do several other areas.
Implementing either the mandatory pay/voluntary participation approach or recycling discounts
in the certificated areas would require the County to adopt a service level ordinance that provides
the foundation for this approach. The service level ordinance could also address yard debris
collection.
Alternative C — Collection and Disposal Districts
Chapter 36.58 RCW, Solid Waste Disposal, establishes the counties' rights and responsibilities
regarding solid waste management, including the authority to establish solid waste disposal
districts. The authority to establish solid waste collection districts is provided in Chapter
36.58A. Either district can include the incorporated areas of a city or town only with the city's
consent. A solid waste district (for collection or disposal) could centralize functions that are now
handled by a variety of county and city agencies, but it may be difficult to develop a consensus
on the formation and jurisdiction of either type of district. Either type of district may be able to
alleviate illegal dumping and other problems through the institution of mandatory garbage
collection (for a collection district only) and/or different financing structures.
RCW 36.58.040 prohibits counties from operating a solid waste collection system, but the
establishment of a solid waste collection district that can act in a similar capacity is allowed by
Ch. 36.58A RCW. A collection district can be created.following the adoption of a solid waste
management plan; however a collection district does not appear to possess taxing authority.
According to RCW 36.58A.040, the revenue -generating authority of a collection district is
limited.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation • 13-10
0
0
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
A solid waste disposal district is a_quasi-municipal corporation with taxing authority set up to
provide and fund solid waste disposal services. A disposal district has the usual powers of a
corporation for public purposes, but it does not have the power of eminent domain. The county
legislative authority.(i.e., the Board of County Commissioners) would be the governing body of
the solid waste disposal district.
RCW 36.58.130 allows the creation of a disposal district to provide for all aspects of solid waste
disposal..This includes processing and converting waste into useful products, but specifically
does not allow the collection of residential or commercial garbage. A disposal district may enter
into contracts with private or public agencies for the operation of disposal facilities, and then
levy taxes or issue bonds to cover the disposal costs. Thus, a disposal district established in
Yakima County could assess each resident or business (in incorporated areas only with the city's
approval) a pro rata share of the cost of disposal. This could help to discourage illegal dumping
by covering at least part of the disposal cost through mandatory payments, so that the additional
expense for proper disposal would be lower than it is currently. In other words, the assessment
by the disposal district would be paid regardless of where the resident or business dumped the
waste or whether it was self -hauled or transported by a commercial hauler, and the latter two
options would be less expensive by the amount of disposal costs already paid.
RCW 36.58.140 states that a disposal district may "collect an excise tax on the privilege of living
in or operating a business in the solid waste disposal taxing district, provided that any property
which is producing commercial garbage shall be exempt if the owner is providing regular
collection and disposal." The district has a powerful taxing authority, since it may attach a lien
to each parcel of property in the district for delinquent taxes and penalties, and these liens are
superior to all other liens and encumbrances except property taxes.
The funds obtained by a disposal district tax may be used "for all aspects of disposing of solid
wastes...exclusively for district purposes" (RCW 36.58.130). Potential uses include:
• Cleanup of roadside litter and solid wastes illegally disposed of on unoccupied properties
within the district.
• Public information and education about waste reduction and recycling.
• Defraying a portion of the cost of disposal.
• Subsidizing waste reduction/recycling activities.
• Subsidizing the Moderate Risk Waste Facility and collection events.
• Closure and post -closure costs for the old landfill and for other solid waste facilities.
• Solid waste planning.
Three counties have implemented disposal districts (Ecology 2004):
1. In Lewis County, a disposal district is being used to provide a cohesive financial and control.
structure between the County and its principal cities to respond to the demands of a
Superfund landfill site. The District does charges a tipping fee, but not an excise tax.,
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-1 I
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
2. Whatcom County has implemented an excise tax on 'authorized waste collection services,as
allowed by state law. This effectively charges haulers $8.50 per ton, which haulers pass on
to their customers and pay to the County regardless of where they take their waste.
3. San Juan County operates its own transfer station system and faced significant tonnage and
revenue loss recently due to price competition. Hence, that county developed a disposal
district to move some of its expenses to an excise tax, thus lowering its tipping fee and
increasing revenues through increased waste tonnages.
Alternative D — Funding Options
Solid waste operations in Yakima County are financially self-supporting. Almost all revenue
needed to achieve this goal is currently generated through tipping fees, but other options do exist.
Ecology has examined funding methods as part of the Beyond Waste project (Ecology 2004),
and the options that they have identified are shown in the Table 13-3 and in Appendix F.
13.6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Strategies
The alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria below.
Consistency with Planning Objectives
All four alternatives are consistent with the objectives of this solid waste plan.
Customer Preferences
Customers generally prefer flexibility and low-cost alternatives, and hence may not like
Alternatives B and C. They may be neutral on Alternative D, depending on whether any new
funding mechanisms were perceived as an increase in costs or not. Most people would probably
prefer Alternative A if it led to a cleaner environment.
Implementation Costs
The implementation costs for Alternative D are not applicable, since these are methods for
collecting additional funds. Alternatives B and C would not cost much to implement, although
Alternative B could lead to higher costs for others. Alternative A would also not cost much to
implement but could lead to higher costs depending on the recommendations of the task force.
13.6.3 Rating of Alternatives
The alternatives are compared with respect to the evaluation criteria in Table 13-4.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-12
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
11
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 13-3
Potential Funding Methods for Solid Waste Management
Possible Funding Methods
Potential Implementation Agency
City
County
State
Private
Sector
User Fees, Rates, Surcharges
1. Cost -of -Service -Based Rates
X
X
X
2. Other Volume -Based Rates
X
3. Fixed Per -Customer Service Rates .
X
X
4. Collection Rate Surcharges
X
5. Planning Fees
X
6. Weight or Volume -Based Disposal
Fees
X
X
X
7. Fixed Per -Customer Disposal Fees
X
X
X
8. Disposal Surcharges
X
X
Taxes
9. MTCA Funds, Hazardous
Substance Tax
(x)
X
10. State Litter Tax
(x)
X
11. Disposal District Excise Tax
X
12, Mandatory Collection
X
13. Franchise Fees
X
X
Specialized Fees
14. Advance Recovery Fees
X
15. Permitting Fees
X (HD)
Other
16. Enforcement Fines/Penalties
. X
17. Sales of Recyclable Materials
X
X
X
18. Recycling Fees/Charges
X
X
X
19. Sales of Recovered Energy
X
X
20. Utility Tax
X
21. General Fund Revenues
X
X
22. Bond Financing
X
(x)
23. Public Works Assistance Account
X
X = Implementing authority, (x) = potentially benefits frons funding method but cannot implement it, HD =
Health District.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation
13-13
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 13-4
Summary Rating of the Administration and Enforcement Strategies
H — High
M — Medium
L — Low
13.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for administrative and regulatory programs:
AR 1) Address illegal dumping problems in Yakima County with a task force and the SWAC.
AR2) Consider adopting minimum service levels in the future.
AR3) Exercise flow control authority as needed to enforce the policy that all solid wastes
generated in Yakima County is delivered to a County solid waste facility. Adopt a flow
control ordinance or other steps if necessary.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-14
Alternative
Consistency
with
Planning
Objectives
Customer
Preferences
Cost to
Implement
Overall
Rating
A
Illegal Dump Task Force
H
H
L
H
B
Minimum Service Levels
H
L -M
M -H
M
Collection or DisposalC
District
H
L -M
M
M
D
Funding Options
H
M
L -M
M
H — High
M — Medium
L — Low
13.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
The following recommendations are being made for administrative and regulatory programs:
AR 1) Address illegal dumping problems in Yakima County with a task force and the SWAC.
AR2) Consider adopting minimum service levels in the future.
AR3) Exercise flow control authority as needed to enforce the policy that all solid wastes
generated in Yakima County is delivered to a County solid waste facility. Adopt a flow
control ordinance or other steps if necessary.
Chapter 13, Administration and Regulation 13-14
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
CHAPTER 14 - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
14.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Waste Management Plan (the Plan)
provides information about the cost and schedule for implementing the recommendations made
in this Plan.. Information is also provided on monitoring progress and maintaining the Plan.
14.2 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
The recommendations made in previous chapters of this Plan are repeated below for convenient
reference, as later sections of this chapter discuss costs and implementation responsibilities.
More details about specific recommendations can be found in the respective chapters.
Chapter 3: Public Education
Chapter 3 of the Plan discusses public education activities. Much is already being accomplished
in Yakima County for public education but there are significant opportunities for additional
activities, leading to the following recommendations:
PE 1) Utilize a collaborative effort for public education that includes the following activities;
• Continue existing public education and promotion activities.
• Provide additional public education for new or expanded waste diversion programs.
• Provide additional public education to support the yard debris disposal ban and to
inform people about alternative handling options.
• Promote the new collection system for e -waste.
•
Address illegal dumping through public education in addition to the citizens task
force in Chapter 13.
• Develop and implement a business recognition program to help promote recycling
and waste reduction by the commercial sector.
Yakima County will provide the overall public education program and will be the lead agency
for most of these activities. Cities, service groups, haulers and other private companies will
promote local programs. The budget for these activities will consist primarily of continuing the
existing budget plus small additional amounts for new activities. More details on the budget can
be found in Section 14.3 and Table 14-1.
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan 14-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 4: Waste Reduction and Recycling
Chapter 4 discusses existing programs and provides recommendations for two related topics:
waste reduction and recycling. The following recommendations are proposed for these:
WRRI) Assist Washington State in achieving the 50% recycling rate.
WRR2) Adopt the list of designated materials (Table 4-2) as part of this Plan and maintain it
through periodic review and updates as appropriate.
WRR3) Conduct a waste composition study toassess recycling program performance and
potential.
WRR4) Make curbside recycling services available in every urban incorporated area and
promote these services.
WRR5) Provide recycling opportunities at all solid waste transfer and disposal facilities in
Yakima County.
WRR6) Encourage business recycling through a cooperative effort between the County, cities,
private collectors, service groups, and the businesses.
WRR7) Continue to provide support for recycling at public events.
Two of the above recommendations, WRRI and WRR2, are policies that have no direct costs,
but that could lead to additional costs through new programs that may be needed in the future.
One of the recommendations (WRR7) is an ongoing activity that does not require an additional
expense. Conducting a waste composition study (WRR3) is contingent upon the availability of a
grant or other funds to pay for it. The County has the primary responsibility for all of these
recommendations except for WRR4, for which the municipalities are responsible.
Chapter 5: Organics
Chapter 5 discusses several types of organic materials. There are significant opportunities for
additional programs addressing these wastes, leading to the following recommendations:
01) Implement a disposal ban on yard debris effective January 1, 2012, for all public and
private disposal facilities in Yakima County and for yard debris from all sources.
02) Develop and issue an RFQ/RFP for composting services for the yard debris collected at
County disposal facilities.
03) Explore other options, including a County owned and operated facility, if
Recommendation 02 cannot be implemented due to pricing, terms or other reasons.
Yakima County is the lead agency for all of the Organics recommendations.
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan 14-2
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 6: Collection
Chapter 6 discusses existing municipal solid waste collection services in unincorporated Yakima
County and in the 14 participating cities and towns. These services are performing well, and
only one recommendation was made for this topic: •
C1) Provide all areas of Yakima County with bulky waste collection services.
As most areas of the County already have this service available, this is essentially an ongoing
activity.
Chapter 7: Transfer
Chapter 7 discusses existing and potential transfer facilities and programs. The following
recommendations were made for future changes in the transfer system:
T1) Evaluate. the feasibility of a self -haul unloading facility at Cheyne Landfill.
•T2) Expand the Terrace Heights Transfer Station to accommodate commercial traffic when
THLF closes.
T3) Consider purchasing (or taking an option on) property suitable for a future transfer station
as land becomes available and as funds allow.
Yakima County would take the lead in implementing these recommendations. T2 involves the
highest cost, but is critical to the continued operation of the solid waste system. The timing of
T2 is a function of when THLF is projected to reach capacity, which in turn will be affected by
the duration and severity of the current economic downturn and subsequent recovery.
Chapter.8: Disposal
The current system of County -owned and privately -owned landfills in the county is working
well, but a few changes should be considered for the future:
D1) Maintain the option to preserve capacity at the Terrace Heights Landfill.
D2) Consider purchasing (or taking an option on) property suitable for landfilling purposes as
land becomes available and as funds allow.
D3) Consider conversion technologies in the future, but only if these can be proven to be
feasible and cost-effective.
The County is the lead agency for solid waste disposal. Because it owns and operates two MSW
landfills, the County has considerable autonomy and flexibility in choosing disposal options and
their timing.
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan 14-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Chapter 9: Construction and Demolition Wastes and Green Building Practices
Chapter 9 discusses two related topics: the waste materials resulting from construction,
demolition and land clearing activities, and the concept of "green building." The following
recommendations are being proposed at this time for these two topics:
C&D1) Promote green building where possible.
C&D2) Develop and maintain a "Green House" to demonstrate green building techniques and
products.
C&D3) Encourage proper reuse, recycling and/or disposal of C&D.
Yakima County is the Lead agency for all three of these recommendations, and all three are
essentially ongoing activities. Assistance with Recommendation C&D3 should be provided by
the private sector and cities where appropriate.
Chapter 10: Special Wastes
Chapter 10 discusses the various materials that are considered "special wastes" because they
pose somewhat elevated risks or require additional precautions or special handling procedures.
For the most part, special wastes can be handled by the existing solid waste infrastructure and
programs, but with a few additional considerations:
SP1) Support development and adoption by the State of Washington of a product stewardship
program for tires.
SP2) Support new product stewardship programs as appropriate.
SP3) Continue to address special wastes through a cooperative effort with the Health District
and Department of Ecology, and according to the established Solid Waste Division's
Policy & Procedures. Update these Policy & Procedures as necessary to address new
problems or special wastes.
The County is the lead agency for these recommendations, which would be initiated by others.
Chapter 11: Disaster Debris Management
Chapter 11 discusses the management of debris generated by a natural or human -caused disaster
and makes the following recommendations:
DD 1) Coordinate with the Office of Emergency Management to prepare for disaster debris
response.
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan 14-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
v
v
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
DD2) Develop an internal plan for handling disaster debris, in coordination with the Office of
Emergency Management.
The County Solid Waste Division is the lead agency for these two recommendations. ,
Chapter 12: Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
Chapter 12 provides an update of the Yakima County Moderate Risk Waste plan, originally
adopted in 1991.. As with most counties, there had been no need to update the MRW plan prior
to this time, but recent changes have made an update desirable. The following recommendations
are being proposed for MRW programs:
MRW 1) Adopt the list shown in Table .12-1 of targeted materials for household hazardous
waste and small quantity generator waste collections, but excluding e -waste and the
materials shown in Group 7.
MRW2) Utilize technical assistance for small quantity generators provided by the Department
of Ecology.
MRW3) Utilize the same schedule and process for updating the MRW Plan as for updating the
solid waste management plan.
Yakima County has the primary authority for two of these recommendations (MRW 1 and
MRW3). The Department of Ecology has the primary authority for MRW2, the cost and
schedule for which will be highly dependent on the amount of assistance requested by
generators.
Chapter 13: Administration and Regulation
The administration and regulation of the solid waste system is an activity that is shared among
several parties,including the County, Health District, cities and towns, Yakama Nation and
private sector. The County and Health District have the primary responsibility for these
activities, except on the Yakama Reservation where the Yakama Nation has the primary
authority for solid waste activities.
AR 1) Address illegal dumping problems in Yakima County with a task force and the SWAC.
AR2) Consider adopting minimum service levels in the future.
AR3) Exercise flow control authority as needed to enforce the policy that all solid wastes
generated in Yakima County is delivered to a County solid waste facility. Adopt a flow
control ordinance or other steps if necessary.
The County is the lead agency for these recommendations, the additional costs for which are
largely limited to a portion of staff time (for existing staff).
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan 14-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
14.3 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COSTS
Table 14-1 shows the approximate budget for Plan recommendations that incur additional costs
above and beyond current programs.
Table 14-1
Six -Year Implementation Budget for Additional Costs (in $1,000's)
Recommendation
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
3. Public Education
PE 1) Public education activities
25
25
25
25
25
25
4. Recycling
WRR3) Waste composition study
80
WRR4) Curbside recycling in all
urban areas
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
WRR5) Solid waste facilities
provide recycling
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
Note 2
5. Organics
02) Issue RFQ/RFP for compost-
Mg services
15
6. Collection
No additional costs
7. Transfer
Ti) Evaluate self -haul unloading
area at CLF
250
3,350
T2) Expand THTS (Note 3)
8,500
T3) Buy or option property
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
8. Disposal
D2) Buy or option property
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
Note 4
9. C&D/Green Building
No additional costs
10. Special Wastes
No additional costs
11. Disaster Debris
DD2) Develop disaster debris plan
30 to 100
12. MRW
MRW2) Technical assistance
by Ecology
Note 5
Note 5
Note 5
Note 5
Note 5
Note 5
13. Admn. and Regulation
No significant additional costs
Total Additional Costs
40
55 to 125
105
275
3,375
8,525
Notes:
1. All figures are in thousands of dollars.
2. Costs for curbside recycling in additional urban areas and collection containers at solid waste facilities are
highly contingent on details of the chosen approach. Insufficient information is currently available to accurately
determine these costs.
3. Expansion of THTS to enable hauling of waste to CLF will begin in 2015. The budget shown includes
equipment and construction costs that will be spread over several years beginning in 2015.
4. Cost of property depends on size, location, and timing. Insufficient information is currently available to
accurately determine cost.
5. Cost information is unknown at this time.
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan
14-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
14.4 SIX-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The proposed implementation schedule and primary responsibility is shown in Table 14-2. The
Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) will review and comment on
proposed resolutions and ordinances prior to their adoption.
Table 14-2
Six -Year Implementation Schedule
Recommendation
Implementation
Responsibility
Year of Implementation
3. Public Education
2010
, 2011 •
2012
2013
2014
2015
PEI) Public education
activities
YC SWD
Ongoing
4. Recycling
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
. 2015
WRR1) Contribute to State
recycling goal
YC SWD
Ongoing
WRR2) Adopt and maintain
list of designated
materials
YC SWD
Ongoing
WRR3) Waste composition
study •
YC SWD
X
X
X
WRR4) Curbside recycling
in all urban areas
Municipalities
Ongoing
WRR5) MSW facilities
provide recycling .
YC SWD
Ongoing
WRR6) Encourage business
recycling
YC SWD
Ongoing
WRR7) Assist with public
event recycling
YC SWD
Ongoing
5. Organics
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
01) Ban LF disposal of yard
debris
YC SWD
X
02) Issue composting
services RFQ/RFP
YC SWD
X
•
•
03) Explore other options if
needed
YC SWD
X
6. Collection
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
C1) Bulky waste collection
Haulers
Ongoing
7. Transfer
2010
2011
2012
2013
• 2014
2015
TI) Evaluate self -haul
unloading area at CLF
YC SWD
X
T2) Expand transfer station
at THLF
YC SWD
X
T3) Buy or option property
YC SWD
Ongoing
8. Disposal
2010
2011
2012 2013
2014
2015
D1) Maintain capacity at •YC
THLF
SWD
Ongoing
D2) Buy or option property
YC SWD
Ongoing
D3) Consider conversion
technologies in future
YC SWD
Ongoing
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan
14-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 14-2, Six -Year Implementation Schedule, continued
Recommendation •
Implementation
Responsibility
Year of Implementation
'9.. C&D/Green Building
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
C&D I) Promote green
building
YC SWD
Ongoing
C&D2) Develop and
maintain Green House
YC SWD
X
C&D3) Promote proper
mgmt. of C&D waste
YC SWD
Ongoing
10. Special Wastes
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
SP1) Promote product
stewardship for tires
Ecology
X
SP2) Support product
stewardship programs
YC SWD
Ongoing
SP3) Cooperative effort for
special wastes
YC SWD
Ongoing
11. Disaster Debris
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
DDI) Coordinate witii OEM
YC SWD
Ongoing
DD2) Develop a disaster
debris plan
YC SWD
X
12. MRW
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
MRW I) Adopt list of target
materials
YC SWD
X
MRW2) Technical
assistance by Ecology
Ecology
X
X
X
X
X
MRW3) Update MRW plan .
with solid waste plan
YC SWD
}{
13. Administration and
Regulation
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
ARI) Illegal dumping task
force
YC SWD
X
X
AR2) Consider adopting
minimum service levels
YC SWD
X
X
X
X
X
X
AR3) Exercise flow control
as needed
YC SWD
Ongoing
14.5 TWENTY-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Solid waste management in Yakima County will continue to evolve based on changes in
population, demographics, the local, state, and national economy, regulations, and advancements
in waste handling and recycling. Because this Plan is being updated during an economic
downturn and the timing and extent of a recovery are currently unknown, it is particularly
difficult to project waste generation and the resultant need for additional facilities and programs.
Fortunately, Yakima County's current solid waste management system is functioning effectively.
County operation of two landfills forms the foundation of the system, giving it stability and local
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan
14-8
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
control. The proposed diversion of yard debris from County landfills, the upgrade to the Terrace
Heights transfer station, and the eventual closure of Phase 1 of the Terrace Heights Landfill will
all have some effect on the solid waste system, but these will .not be large changes.
The current process of solid waste rate reviews and adjustments provides adequate funding for
solid waste programs and facilities. If in the future it becomes 'advisable to seek additional
sources of funding, Chapter 13 provides a list of potential alternate funding sources.
14.6 PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE PLAN
The Solid Waste Management -Reduction and Recycling Act (RCW 70.95) requires local
governments to maintain their solid waste plans in current condition. Plans must be reviewed
and revised, if necessary, at least every five years. This 2009 Plan should be reviewed in 2015.
Before that time, the Plan can be kept in current condition through amendments. An
"amendment" is defined as a simpler process than a revision. If there is a significant change in
the solid waste system, however, a revision may be necessary before the five-year period is done.
Changes in the Plan may be initiated by Yakima County, working with the SWAC to develop
and review proposed changes, or by outside parties. For the latter, individuals or organizations
wishing to propose plan amendments before the scheduled review must petition Yakima
County's Solid Waste Manager in writing. The petition should describe the proposed
amendment, its specific objectives, and explain why immediate action is needed prior to the next
scheduled review. The Solid Waste Manager will investigate the basis for the petition and
prepare a recommendation for the Director of the Public Services Department.
If the Public Services Director decides that the petition warrants further consideration, the
petition will be referred to the SWAC for review and recommendation. The Solid Waste
Manager will draft the proposed amendment together with the SWAC. Whether the proposed
amendment has been initiated by Yakima County or an outside party, the proposed amendment
must be submitted to the legislative bodies of all participating jurisdictions and the Department
of Ecology for review and comment. Adoption of the proposed amendment will require the
concurrence of all affected jurisdictions.
The Public Services Director may develop reasonable rules for submitting and processing
proposed plan amendments, and may establish reasonable fees to investigate and process
petitions. All administrative rulings of the Director may be appealed to the Board of Yakima
County Commissioners.
Minor changes may occur in the solid waste management system, whether due to internal _
decisions or external factors. These can be adopted without going through a formal amendment
process. If there is uncertainty about whether or not a change is "minor," it should be discussed
by the SWAC and a decision made based on the consensus of that committee.
Implicit in the development and adoption of this Plan is the understanding that in the future, the
County may need to take emergency action for various reasons, and that these actions can be
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan 14-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
undertaken without the need to amend this Plan beforehand. In this case, Yakima County staff
will endeavor to inform the SWAC and other key stakeholders as soon as feasibly possible, but
not necessarily before new actions are implemented. If the emergency results in permanent and
significant changes to the Yakima County solid waste system, an amendment to this plan will be
prepared in a timely fashion. If, however, the emergency actions are only undertaken on a
temporary or short -tern basis, an amendment will not be considered necessary. Any questions
about what actions may be considered "temporary" or "significant" should be brought to the
SWAC for their advice.
Chapter 14, Implementation Plan 14-10
11
11
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
REFERENCES
Yakima County.Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
REFERENCES
CIWMB 1974. Solid Waste Generation Factors in California, California Integrated Waste
Management Board, July 1974.
Ecology 1995. Best Management Practices for Management and Disposal of Street Wastes,
Washington State Department of Ecology, July 1995. .
2004. Financing Solid Waste for.the Future, Publication #04-07-032, Washington State
Department of Ecology, November 2004.
FEMA 1999. Public Assistance Debris Management Guide, FEMA 325, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, April 1999.
Hoffman 2009. Joe Hoffman, Washington State Department of Agriculture. Telephone
conversation with Sharon Hlavka, Green Solutions, concerning agricultural waste
collection events, on January 12, 2009 and September 25, 2009.
KC 1998. Agricultural Waste Issue Paper, King County, Washington, November 1998.
Larson 2000. Migrant and Seasonal Farniworker Enumeration Profile Study, Washington,
September 2000.
OFM 2007. Projections of the Total Resident Population for the Growth Management Act, High
Series (www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/projections07.asp), Office of Financial Management,
October 2007.
2008. April 1 Population of Cities, Towns, and Counties,
(www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/finalpop2008.xls), Office of Financial Management, April
2008.
Smith, Frosti. Central Region, Dept. of Ecology. Telephone conversation with Terrill Chang,
URS Corporation, concerning July 16, 2004 change in ranking of Selah Dump on
Hazardous Sites List, Oct. 30, 2008.
Soelter, Sonia. Washington State Department of Agriculture. Telephone conversation with
Terrill Chang, URS Corporation, February 6, 2009.
Stericycle 2008. Telephone conversation with Terrill Chang, URS, concerning disposal of
biomedical waste from Yakima County, November 3, 2008.
Tablante, N. et al, 2006. Guidelines for In-house Composting of Catastrophic Poultry Mortality,
Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, Fact Sheet 801, 2006.
References Page R-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
USDA 2008. 2002 Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, September 2008.
US EPA 2008. Planning For Natural Disaster Debris, EPA530-K-08-001, United States
. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency,
Response/Office of Solid Waste, March 2008.
WUTC 2001.. Cost Assessment Guidelines for Local Solid Waste Management Planning,
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, August 2001.
Yakima County 1991. Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Prepared by Parametrix, Sumner,
Washington, March 1991.
2003a. Waste Composition Study. Prepared by Green Solutions, South Prairie,
Washington, June 2003.
2003b. Solid Waste Management Plan. Prepared by Parametrix, Sumner, Washington,
July 2003.
2003c. Review of Biomass Fuels and Technologies. Prepared by R. W: Beck, Seattle,
Washington. November 2003.
2003d. LVTS Analysis of Facility Operating Alternatives. Prepared by R.W. Beck,
Seattle, Washington, November 2003.
2008a. Solid Waste Level of Service Study & Infrastructure Needs Assessment. Prepared
by URS Corporation. April 2008.
2008b. Yakima County Solid Waste Division Rate Report. Prepared by Bell &
Associates, September 2008.
2009a. Compost Facility Feasibility Study. Prepared by URS Corporation. August 2009.
2009b. Transfer Station Cost of Operations Analysis. Prepared by URS Corporation.
August 2009.
2009c. Solid Waste Policy & Procedures, Yakima County, February 12, 2009.
2009d. Terrace Heights Landfill Site Capacity Analysis Report. Prepared by RW Beck.
September 2009.
Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency 2008. "State of the Air" Report to Yakima County, from
Director Gary Pruitt to the Communities, 2008.
References Page R-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima Coimty Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX A
SWAC BYLAWS
and RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 p
1
1
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN THE MATTER OF ESTABLISHING
THE YAKIMA COUNTY SOLID WASTE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
ADOPTING COMMITTEE BY-LAWS
Resolution No. 459-2007
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima
County, Washington to establish a Solid Waste Advisory Committee as required by RCW
70.95.165 ; and,
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee shall be established to assist the
Board of County Commissioners of Yakima County, Washington in the development of programs
and policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal, in the preparation of solid waste
management plans and by reviewing and commenting on proposed rules, policies or ordinances
relating to solid waste prior to adoption in accordance with the attached by -lays and organizational
structure; now, therefore;
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima
County, Washington that the Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee is established, and
the attached by-laws are adopted for the aforesaid Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2007
ATTEST:
Christina Steiner, Clerk of the Board
11rU1 ti ft tffttllq!
r `^ .qr
r%
Tiera L.•Girard
Michael D. Leila, Chairman
Ron d F. Gamache, County Commissioner
d Elliott, County Commissioner
stituting the Board of County Commissioners
for Yakima County, Washington
Deputy Clerk of the Board
YAKIMA. COUNTY
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BYLAWS
Adopted. by Resolution No. 459-2007
L ORGANIZATION — COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE
The Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) shall consist of
upto thirteen (13) members appointed by the Board of Yalcima County
.Commissioners and any number of ex -officio members. The SWAC shall assist
the Yakima County Board of Commissioners in the development of programs and
policies concerning solid waste handling and disposal, in the preparation of solid
waste management plans and by reviewing and commenting on proposed rules,
policies or ordinances relating to solid waste prior to their adoption.
II. OFFICERS/MEMBERSHIP
A. Members The SWAC shall be composed of thirteen (13) members,
each having one vote. Membership is as follows:
1. Yakima County Board of Commissioners (1)
2. City of Yakima (1)
3. Two Cities with Population exceeding 5,000 (2)
4. Three Cities with Population under 5,000 (3)
5. Yakima Valley Conference of Governments (1)
6. Business and Industry Representative (1)
7. Waste Industry Representative (1)
8. Recycling Industry Representative (1)
9. Agriculture Industry Representative (1)
10. Public Health and Safety Representative (1)
B. Ex -Officio Members — The Yakima County Board of Commissioners
may appoint non-voting ex -officio members to the SWAC.
C. Appointments —_Members shall be appointed by the Board of County ,
Commissioners.
D. Terms — Members shall serve a terra of two (2) years commencing from
the appointment date. Members may be reappointed to serve. consecutive
terms. Reappointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Yakima
County Board of Commissioners,
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
B. Chair — The initial Chairperson shall be appointed for a two (2) year term
by the Board of County Commissioners. Subsequent chairpersons shall
be elected by the SWAC sitting in regular, open public meetings. The
Chair will preside over committee meetings and coordinate development
of the agenda with the Yakima County Public Services — Solid Waste
Division Manager. The Chair will sign all correspondence originated by
the SWAC on behalf thereof.
F. Vice Chair — .A. majority of the SWAC shall elect one of its members as
Vice Chair. The term of the Vice Chair shall be for two (2) years. The
Vice Chair will preside over SWAC meetings in the absence of the Chair.
G.
Secretary — The Yakima County Public Services — SoIid Waste Division
Manager, or designate, shall act as Secretary to the SWAC.
H. Attendance — A SWAC member who accrues three (3) consecutive,
unexcused absences from regular meetings may be removed from the
SWAC by the Board of County. Commissioners with the concurrence of
two-thirds majority of the SWAC members.
III. MEETINGS
A. Regular Meetings — Meetings of the SWAC shall be called when
necessary by the Chair. It is anticipated that meetings will be held
monthly during active review of Solid Waste Management Plan Updates
and at a minimum not less than semi- annually during off -planning years.
At least fourteen (14) days prior notice shall be given.
B. Minutes/Agendas — Minutes of all meetings shall be kept by the
Secretary and distributed to the members within three (3) weeks after a
meeting. Agendas shall be prepared by the Solid Waste Division staff
with input and verbal approval by the Chair and distributed to the SWAC
members at least seven (7) days in advance of any regularly scheduled
meeting. Meeting minutes will be approved by the SWAC at the next
regular meeting.
C. Public Access — All regular meetings of the SWAC shall be held in a
place that is open and easily accessible to the public. Provision shall be
made for public comment at' each meeting. Approved meeting minutes
shall be available'eo the public on request. The SWAC is subject to, and
will conform with, the provisions of RCW 42.30, the State Open Meeting
Act,
D. Quorum — A quorum is required to be present before an official, regular
meeting of the SWAC can take place. A simple majority of the voting
members of the SWAC shall constitute a quorum.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The role and purpose of the SWAC shall be to advise and make recommendation
to the Yakima County Board of Commissioners on matters within their scope and
charge as provided for in SWAC By -Laws. Written reports, recommendations
and correspondence submitted to .the Yakima County Board of Commissioners
shall be forwarded on behalf of a majority of the members over the signature of
the Chair. Minority reports, if any, shall be attached to, and forwarded with such
reports, recomm.endations or correspondence without comment by the Chair.
V. WAIVER OF RULES
Any of the above rules or procedures may be 'waived by a majority vote of the
quorum provided further that the reason therefore be included in each motion for
waiver.
VI. AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS
Any of the By -Laws may be amended or repealed, and new By -Laws may be
adopted, by two-thirds majority vote of the quorum and approval by the Yakima
County Board of Commissioners. Prior notice of thirty (30) days shall be given to
the SWAC before undertaking amendatory action.
1
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN THE MATTER OF APPOINTING )
MEMBERS TO THE YAKIMA COUNTY )
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE )
Resolution No. 617-2007
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima County, Washington
adopted Resolution 459-2007 establishing the Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee and
adopting the by-laws for the aforesaid Solid Waste Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, the by-laws for the Solid Waste Advisory Committee require the Board of
County Commissioners of Yakima County, Washington to appoint members to the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee; now, therefore,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima
County, Washington that the voting members be, and hereby are, appointed to the Yakima County Solid
Waste Advisory Committee as follows:
Yakima County Board of Commissioners
City of Yakima
City of Sunnyside
City of Grandview
City of Zillah
City of Toppenish
City of Selah
Yakima Valley Conference of Governments
Business and Industry
Waste Industry
Recycling Industry
Agricultural industry
Ronald Gamache
Bill Lover
Bruce Epps
Cus Arteaga
Gary Clark
Lance Hoyt
John Tierney
J. Page Scott
Ron Anderson
Scott Robertson
Vic Valdez
Bob Groeneweg
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Yakima
County, Washington that the ex -officio non-voting member be, and hereby is, appointed to the Yakima
County Solid Waste Advisory Committee as follows:
Yakima Health District
Done this 18th day of December017rrttt
il
o&IMA co
.•''WAShiy
�a•pF •
ATTEST: •'• �' �•
4111
Christina Steiner, Clerk of the Board
Ted Silvestri
Michael D. Leita, Chairman
o
Ronal F. Gamache, County Commissioner
• Cr
]. Rand Elliott, County Commissioner •
Cehstituting the Board of County Commissioners
for Yakima County, Washington
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I1
11
ti
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX B
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
11
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX B
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
INTRODUCTION
All of the cities and towns in Yakima County have executed interlocal agreements with
Yakima County for solid waste management purposes. To avoid wasting paper and other
resources (since all of the agreements are identical except for the signatures), this appendix
shows only one of those agreements. Copies of the other agreements can be viewed at the
Yakima County Solid Waste Division's offices.
Appendix B: Interlocal Agreement Page B-1
SOLID WASTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into between Yakima County, a political subdivision of the State of
Washington andcity of crandvi,eimunicipal corporation of the State of Washington,
hereinafter referred to as "County" and "City" respectively.
PREAMBLE
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW for the purpose of cooperative
management of solid waste in Yakima County. It is the intent of the parties .to work
cooperatively in establishing a Solid Waste Management Plan pursuant to Chapter 70.95 and
with emphasis on the established priorities for solid waste management of waste reduction; waste
recycling; energy recovery, incineration, or landfilling of separated waste; and landfilling of
mixed.wastes. The parties acknowledge their intent to meet or surpass applicable environmental
standards with regard to the solid waste system.
I. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement.the following definitions shall apply:
"Landfill" means a disposal facility or part of a facility at which waste is placed in or on land and
which is not a land treatment facility, as that term is defined in and may be modified by
amendment to RCW 70.95.030.
"'Moderate Risk Waste" meanq (a) any waste that exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste but is exempt from regulation under this chapter solely because the waste is generated in
quantities below the threshold for regulation and (b) any household wastes which are generated
from the disposal of substances identified by the department as hazardous household substances,
as that term is defined in and may be modified by amendment to RCW 70.105.010.
"Solid Waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semi-solid wastes, including
but not limited to garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction
wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and discarded commodities, but shall not include
dangerous, hazardous or extremely hazardous waste, as that term is defined in and may be
modified by amendment to RCW 70.105.010.
"Solid Waste Advisory Committee" or SWAC means a group formed pursuant to RCW
70.95.040 — .070 and comprised of representatives of unincorporated Yakima County,
incorporated cities and towns, industry and businesses appointed by the Board of Yakima County
Commissioners.
"Solid Waste Management Plan" means the coordinated comprehensive plan for solid waste
management and. updates as required by RCW 70.95.080.
"System" means all facilities for solid waste handling owned, operated or contracted for by the
County, and all administrative activities related thereto.
1
"Waste Recycling" means reusing waste materials and extracting valuable materials from. a waste
stream.
"Waste Reduction" means reducing the amount or type of waste generated but shall not include
reduction through energy recovery or incineration.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the respective responsibility of the parties in a solid
waste management system which includes, but is not limited to: planning, waste reduction,
recycling, and disposal of mixed municipal solid waste, industrial waste, demolition debris and
all other waste defined as Solid Waste in RCW 70.95.030, and as Moderate Risk Waste in RCW
70.105.010.
Ill. TERM
This Agreement shall become effective on date of signing by the City and remain in effect fora
period of 20 years.
IV. APPROVAL AND FILING
Pursuant to RCW 39.34.050, this Agreement shall be submitted to the Washington State
Department of Ecology for its approval as to all matters within its jurisdiction. This Agreement
shall be filed with the City Clerk; the Clerk of the Board of Yakima County Commissioners, the
Yakima County Auditor, and the Secretary of State of the State of Washington.
V. REVIEW/ AND RENEGOTIATION
5.1 Either party may request review and/or renegotiation of any provision of this Agreement
other than those specified in Section 5.2 below during the six-month period immediately
preceding the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement. Such request
must be in writing and roust specify the provision(s) of the Agreement for which review/
renegotiation is requested. Review and/or renegotiation pursuant to such written request
shall be initiated within thirty days of said receipt.
5.2 Review and/or renegotiation shall not include the issues of. System rates and charges,
waste stream (flow) control or diversion unless agreed to in writing by both parties.
5.3 Notwithstanding any other provision iii this paragraph to the contrary, the parties may,
pursuant to mutual agreement, modify or amend any provision of this Agreement at any
time during the term of said Agreement. •
• VI. WITIIDRAWAL
In the event, following unsuccessful discussion between or among the parties, that a party that
has requested review and/or renegotiation of any provision of this Ageement pursuant to Section
V determines it is in that party's best interest to terminate its participation in and withdraw from
the Agreement, for any reason, then that party may withdraw from the remaining term of the
,,Agreement after final satisfaction and completion of the following two conditions: first, that the
( `withdrawing party must have prepared and gained approval from tLe Department of Ecology of
its own Solid Waste Management Plan pursuant to RCW 70.95 and related provisions, and
including each of the elements identified in Section 9.3 of this Agreement; and second; that the
withdrawing party must enter into a written agreement with the County that the withdrawing
parry will remain responsible to the County for, and will continue to pay to the County when
due, the withdrawing party's share of System costs, capital and operating, during the remaining
term of this Agreement.
VII, GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES
7,1 YAKIMA COUNTY
a. Management. Yakima County shall (1) provide county -vide solid waste
management services for waste generated and collected within jurisdictions which are parties to
this Agreement and (2) designate disposal facilities for all Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste
generated and/or collected within the corporate limits of the City.
b. Planning. Yakima County shall serve as the planning authority within Yakima
County for Solid Waste and Moderate Risk Waste, but shall not be responsible for planning for
hazardous or dangerous waste or any other planning responsibility that is specifically delegated
by State or Federal statute,
c. Operation. Yakima County, directly or by its designee, shall be the operating
authority for County transfer, processing and disposal facilities (including public landfills, waste
reduction or recycling facilities and energy resource recovery facilities) and shall have closure
and post -closure responsibilities for landfills which are operated by Yakima County.
d. Collection Service. Yakima County shall not provide solid waste collection
services within the corporate limits of the City, unless permitted by law and agreed to by both
parties.
e. Support and Assistance. Yakima County shall provide limited support and
technical assistance to the City if the City seeks to establish a waste reduction and recycling
program compatible with the County waste reduction and recycling plan. The County may
develop educational materials related to waste reduction and recycling, Moderate Risk Waste,
and strategies for maximizing the usefulness of the materials and will make any.such materials
available to the City for its use.
f. Facilities and Services. All personal and real property acquired by Yakima
County for solid waste management system purposes shall be the property of Yakima County.
7.2 CITY
0
a. Collection. The City shall be responsible for solid waste collection within the
City's corporate limits.
-j-
b. Disposal. The City shall (1) desicnate the System for the disposal of all Solid
Waste generated and/or collected within the City and (2) authorize the County to designate
disposal facilities for the disposal of all Solid Waste including Moderate Risk Wastes, generated
or collected within the corporate limits of the City, except for Solid Waste which is eliminated
through Waste Reduction or Waste Recycling activities consistent with the Solid Waste
Management Plan. No Solid Waste generated or collected within the City may be diverted from
the System without County approval.
c. Compliance, All waste generated or collected from within the corporate limits of
the City which is delivered to the System for disposal shall be in compliance with RCW 70.95
and all other federal, state and local environmental health laws, rules or regulations,
VIII. COUNTY SHALL SET DISPOSAL RATES AND
OPERATING RULES FOR DISPOSAL
In establishing or amendingdisposal rates for System users, the County mayadopt and amend by
resolution rates necessary to recover all costs of operating the System, including without
limitation the costs of waste planning, handling, processing, disposal, defense and payment of
claims, capital improvements, operational improvements, and the closure and post -closure of
landfills which are or were operated by Yakima County or for which the County is responsible.
The SWAC will provide comments or recommendations to the County in considering system or
rate modifications.
IX. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.1 Yakima County is designated to prepare the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) and
updates, including the incorporated areas of the County pursuant to RCW 70.95.080(3), •
9.2 The Solid Waste Management Plan will promote waste reduction and recycling goals that
meet or exceed the Washington,State Solid Waste Management priorities pursuant to Chapter
70.95 RCW.
9.3 The Solid Waste Management Plan will be prepared in accordance with Chapter 70:95
RCW and solid waste planning guidelines developed by the Department of Ecology. The plan
shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Descriptions of and policies regarding management practices and facilities
required for handling all.waste .types;
b, Schedules and responsibilities for implementing policies;
c. Policies concerning waste reduction, recycling, energy and resource recovery,
collection, transfer, long-haul transport, disposal, enforcement and administration.
.d. The designation of disposal site(s) for all Solid Waste collected within the
incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County.
e. Capital facilities and infrastructure element.
),4 The cost of preparation by Yakima County of the Solid Waste Management Plan will be
considered a cost of the System and financed out of disposal rates.
X. UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES
The parties are not liable for failure to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement when
failure to perform was due to an Uncontrollable Circumstance. "Uncontrollable Circumstance"
means any act, event or condition that has had or may reasonably be expected to have a material
adverse effect on the rights or obligations of a party to this Agreement, if that act, event or
condition is beyond the reasonable control of the party relying thereon as justification for not
performing an obligation or complying with any condition required of that party under this
Agreement.
Those acts, events or conditions are the following:
a. An act of God, hurricanes, tornadoes, epidemic, landslide, lighting, earthquake,
volcano eruption, nuclear radiation, fire or explosion, extreme flooding or other extreme and
atypical weather condition, an act of public enemy, war, blockade, insurrection, riot, general
arrest, or restraint of government and people, civil disturbance or similar occurrence, that directly
affects the System;
Onaving
b. Failure of any appropriate federal, state or local agency or public or private utility
operational jurisdiction in the County, to provide and maintain and'assure the
maintenance of any necessary utility;
c. Appeals by third parties of permits necessary for the construction and/or operation
of the System;
d. A change in law that specifically affects the processing of Solid Waste or
Moderate Risk Waste;
e. Any strike or labor dispute,
XL COMPLETE AGREEMENT
This Agreement supersedes .all prior negotiations, representation and/or agreements between the
parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and constitutes the entire contract
between the parties. Any changes or revisions to this Agreement shall be in writing and
authorized by both parties.
XII. WAIVER
No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or
��construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or of'any subsequent breach
whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
1
1
XIII. THIRD PARTY BEN + FICLARY
This 'Arrreernent is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other entity or person
except those expressly described herein, and no other such person or entity shall be entitled to be
treated as a third party beneficiary, of this Agreement.
Aa -V. SEVERABILITY AYD•VE
If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable,
the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Any action, suit or judicial
proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement shall be brought in Superior Court of the State
of Washington in Yakima County, Washington:
XV. NOTICE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by each party on the date set forth
below:
CITY:
v
MAYOR
DATE: • /./ ,1/
BOARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS:
Ronald F. Garnache, C1 a ---
1
1
1
1
Clerk
ATTEST: AAA., yv? ajam
Carla M. Ward, Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND : APPROVED AS TO FORM:
LE *LI I' Y
-A.ttorney
DATE: /Q /(;
0051101 11/13/02
.t`�1u to 112111/,/1//
0\,\''\�E80AF'9g 1/1/,
Yakima Coun#bsecunna
LUi te`:
CIS
, (P.' PJOj .:?'
1"14 NBIYV�o73:NN~ .
////��S111111iiitn&.
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ti
1
11
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX C
RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
NOTICE:
After the Final Draft of this Plan has been adopted by the participating
jurisdictions, this appendix will document the adoption process by showing their
resolutions of adoption.
Appendix C: Resolutions of Adoption Page C-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Appendix C: Resolutions of Adoption Page C-2
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX D
COMPOST FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
1
1
1
11
11
CONTENTS
Pae
Summary ~1
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Local Compost Feedstocks and Current Practices 1
Data Gathering 1
Current Practices for Yard Debris 2
Processing Options 4
Manure and Wastewaters 5
Biosolids 5
Market Analysis 6
3.0 Compost Facility Costs 6
Yard Debris Composting Costs 6
Biosolids Composting Costs 9
4.0 Potential Alternatives 10
County -Owned Composting Facility 10
Composting by Others, 11
Procurement of Composting Services 11
5.0 Recommendations 12
Appendix A — Technical Information on Composting
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Potential Feedstock Quantities 3
2. Facility Feedstock Assumptions 6
3. Facility Area Requirements 7
4. Facility Construction Costs 8
5. Operations and Maintenance Costs 8
6. Facility Costs and Revenues 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Facility Locations 13
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study ii
COMPOST FACILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUMMARY
In 2012, in response to State requirements (RCW 70.95), Yakima County will no longer dispose
of yard debris at its landfills and one or more alternatives will be needed to handle this material.
This study identifies and evaluates the alternatives for managing the yard debris and other
organic materials.
The primary recommendation of this study is for Yakima County to issue a Request for
Qualifications and/or Proposals (RFQ/RFP) for a private vendor to manage and compost the yard
debris, collected at the County's disposal facilities. There is no need for the County to construct a
new composting facility since several private companies in Yakima County are interested in •
using the yard debris in their operations. Many of these companies already have the facilities to
compost the yard debris and, perhaps even more importantly, most of them have experience
marketing the finished product.
This Compost Facility Feasibility Study (the Study) was funded in part by a Coordinated
Prevention Grant from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). The results of this
study will be incorporated into Yakima County's 2009 Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP).
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 2012, Yakima County will no longer dispose of yard debris in its landfills. This change is due
to State law, which states in part that "...programs be established to eliminate residential or
commercial yard debris in landfills by 2012 in those areas where alternatives to disposal are
readily available and effective" (RCW 70.95.010). This study identifies and evaluates the local
alternatives for managing yard debris and other organic materials. This Compost Facility
Feasibility Study (the Study) is funded in part by a Coordinated Prevention Grant from the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). The results of this study will be incorporated
into the County's 2009 Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP).
2.0 LOCAL COMPOST FEEDSTOCKS AND CURRENT PRACTICES
Data Gathering
Local research conducted for this Study included the investigation of:
• the amounts and sources of potential feedstocks for composting,
• potential markets for compost products, and
• existing composting operations in and near Yakima County.
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study
1
The results of the research into potential feedstocks are shown in Table 1. This data was
gathered by interviewing and visiting a wide variety of generators, including orchards, dairies,
hops farms, wineries, food processors, fruit warehouses, landscapers, waste haulers, and existing
composting operations. Data was also gathered from the county (including the Public Services
Solid Waste Division, Assessors Office and Yakima Health District), agricultural census,
Department of Ecology, and several other sources.
For the amount of feedstocks, this part of the Study concluded that:
1. A very large amount of organics is currently being generated in Yakima County. The
amount of organic materials that can be estimated in some way approaches or exceeds 3
million tons per year. The figure would be significantly higher if organic materials that
cannot easily be estimated (and that typically are not collected, such as crop residues left in
the fields) and other materials (such as "red water" from fruit processing) were included.
2. Almost all of this amount is being composted or recycled currently, and is in fact viewed
as a valuable material. Most of the hops farmers and wineries, for instance, would not
willingly give up their organic materials since these are seen as a valuable addition to the
soil quality. Many of the dairies go so far as to compost straw bedding and manures so
that the end product can be reused again as animal bedding.
The amount of potential feedstock not currently being composted or land -applied (about 35,000
tons, primarily the yard debris) represents only about one percent of the total amount of organics.
This amount could be easily absorbed or handled by one of several existing local composting
operations. The amount of available feedstock, and the existing companies that could handle it,
are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
Current Practices for Yard Debris
In 2007, 15,500 tons of yard debris were dropped off at the three Yakima County solid waste
facilities (Terrace Heights Landfill, Cheyne Landfill and Lower Valley Transfer Station) in an
area (or container, in the case of LVTS) separate from the garbage -handling area. This yard
debris was source -separated and brought to the facilities by self -haulers and commercial
collectors. Most of the yard debris is generated in and around the City of Yakima. The solid
waste facility closest to Yakima, Terrace Heights, receives approximately 90% of the yard debris
collected.
In addition, an estimated 16,400 tons per year (tpy) of yard debris is dropped off at County
landfills as part of mixed loads of garbage. Under the ban, this amount will also need to be
processed, resulting in a total of approximately 32,000 tpy of yard debris to be processed.
Potentially, some additional organic residues from fruit warehouses and orchards could be added
to that, so it was assumed that 35,000 tpy of compost feedstock could be available.
Several commercial operators in Yakima County who could potentially process the County's
yard debris were evaluated. The preliminary conclusion is that all of these operators have the
capacity to compost the entire 35,000 tpy of feedstock. Many of them are currently composting
on a similar (or larger) scale.
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 2
111
111
s
111
e
s
e
11
11
11
11
t
11
11
11
1
1
Table 1. Potential Feedstock Quantities
Material
Tons per Year
Seasonal?
Available for
Composting?
Comments
Yard debris:
- currently source -separated
- disposed
Total
15,500
16 400
Yes, Icss in winter
Yes, less in winter
Yes
Yes?
Amount of yard debris collected
separately is from county records.
Disposed amount is from 2003 waste
composition study (updated figures).
31,900
Animal Manures:
- dairy cows
- beef cows
- other cattle
- other animals
Total•
1,307,800
232,100
520,260
20,700
No
No
No .
No
No '
No
No
No
Estimate from 1998 King County
study (updated from SWMP using
2007 agr. census). Animal manures
already in use and considered
valuable, but lagoon wastes from
dairies could be available.
2,080,860 '
Orchards214,500
Yes for prunings,
sporadic for whole trees
Only a small
amount (5-10%?)
From SWMP (updated), but estimate
seems too high.
Wineries
Included with
orchard amount
YesNo
Organic residues are land -applied
back to vineyards.
Hops Residues
167,000Very
No
Hops residues are produced during a
six-week period, late August to Oct.
Fruit Processing:
- solids300,000+
- liquids
Total
UnknownPartly
partly
No
Maybe
Processing solids currently used as
animal feed, but some sludges/liquids
may be available for composting.
300,000+
Fruit Warehouses
Included
elsewhere
Partly
Partly
Bad fruit is used as animal feed but
'some leaf material is
. currently
landfilled.
Biosolids
- City of Yakima1.600
- City of Grandview100
- other Yakima County cities
Total2,450
dry tons
dry tons
750 dry tonsNo
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Alternative handling methods would
need to be cheaper than $18-19 per
ton to be competitive with Natural
Selection.
dry tons
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study
3
Processing Options
This section discusses the facilities currently composting on a significant scale in or near Yakima
County. Since most of the yard debris is produced in the vicinity of the City of Yakima, the
facilities are discussed in the order of increasing distance from the City of Yakima. Yakima
Resources and Roy Farms are closest to the Terrace Heights Landfill and Transfer Station, where
most of the area's yard debris ends up.
Yakima Resources potentially has a large area available for composting, but it is in an urban
area and so odor concerns probably dictate that composting will need to be conducted inside
buildings. These buildings will need to be kept under negative pressure (about 10 air changes
per hour), and the exhaust air can be treated with a biofilter. Some buildings are available on
site; but it is unclear to what extent they are available for indoor composting.
A preliminary estimate of the floor area needed to process 35,000 tpy of yard debris indoors was
made based on the following assumptions:
• The density of the yard debris, after it is ground up, is 450 lbs/CY, so the feedstock totals
155,600 CY per year.
• Three months of well-controlled composting of yard debris minimizes the risk of
subsequent odor nuisances, so after three months, the processed material can be moved
outside for further composting and curing.
• To be conservative, ignore any volume shrinkage during these first three months.
• The yard debris is composted in one aerated static pile using perforated corrugated
disposable ABS piping (or similar), and piling the waste on top of it.
• The average depth of the composting material is 8 ft.
Based on these assumptions, the indoor composting pad needs to accommodate a three-month
feedstock supply or 39,000 CY. Piled 8 ft deep, this would occupy about 131,600 square feet or
about 3 acres. Some allowance has to be made for the non -vertical sides of the pile, and a
minimum of 25 ft needs to be allowed all around the pile for equipment to maneuver. Finally, a
staging area for equipment needs to be added. Thus, a minimum of roughly 160,000 square feet
(equivalent to a square area that is 400 by 400 ft) would be required. A receiving and staging
area should be added to this total.
Roy Farms' current composting activities are seasonal because it is focused on hops. They
compost hops residues for a few months beginning in September, and then the compost must be
applied before hops start to grow in the spring. If yard debris were composted here, it would
have to be stored during the hops growing season, which would require a substantial area and
raises issues of biomass drying and self -ignition. Roy Farms also may not want to accept
evergreen needles, and clopyralidI detection could cause them to stop accepting feedstock.
These constraints could be reduced if Roy Farms processed part of the feedstock for other crops.
Clopyralid is a selective herbicide used for control of broadleaf weeds, especially thistles and clovers.
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 4
Next closest is Soil Conditioners north of Zillah, about 20 miles from Yakima. Figure 1 shows
their planned future site on Cheyne Road. The future site is close to.the Cheyne landfill, where
some yard debris is currently taken. This firm is experienced in the preparation and marketing of
compost, and they plan to compost only yard debris. There are some odor concerns for their
location, but it appears that these can be resolved. Soil Conditioners could process all the 15,500
tpy collected separately, plus the additional amounts expected to.be collected separately in the
fixture, and would have additional capacity. However, much of the yard debris would have to be
hauled from Terrace Heights to this site, a distance of approximately 20 miles.
Further away from Yakima is DeRuyter Dairy, located in Outlook, which processes dairy
manure, partially via anaerobic digestion.. This operation is interested in the yard debris as an
additional bulking agent for their digester, and again could probably handle all 35,000 tons per
year of yard debris and other materials.
Further yet from Yakima, in Sunnyside, are Natural Selection and Organix. Natural Selection
composts 40,000 tpy of various plant and food industry wastes. They also land apply almost all .
of the County's biosolids currently. They could take all the yard debris, and probably have the
existing capacity for it at their compost site.
Organix composts manure (25,000 CY of compost produced per year in Yakima County) at
Skyridge Farms and at two other locations in Washington and Oregon. Since Organix doesn't
own the land at Skyridge Farms, they probably could not compost outside materials there, but
Organix could operate a new composting facility and/or assist others with the operation of a new
facility and marketing of the end products.
Royal Organics is farther from Yakima than the other sites. They operate a large composting
facility near Royal City, approximately 75 miles by road from Yakima. They currently compost
yard debris from Spokane and other areas, and in 2008 offered to take all of Yakima County's
yard debris at a $15/ton tipping fee plus transportation costs.
Manure and Wastewaters
Most or all of the County's manure is currently being processed in some manner, but because
disposal of lagoon wastes is sometimes problematic', this type of wastewater may be available
for a composting facility. Similarly, fruit processing wastewaters may also be available. -Both
may cause odor problems, but could be used as a source of water for a composting facility.
Hauling wastewater is uneconomical over distances greater than a few miles, but potential
sources for these wastewaters are scattered throughout the county.
Biosolids
Approximately 2,500 dry tpy of wastewater biosolids (sludge) are produced in Yakima County,
1,600 tpy of which are generated in the Yakima area. Assuming the biosolids cake has a total
2 The options for the disposal of liquid wastes from dairies and other large generators is somewhat constrained by
the Clean Water Act (surface water) and Safe Drinking Water Act (groundwater), as well as by potential odor
problems near application sites and a seasonal deficit of potential application sites.
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 5
solids content of 25%, the total production amounts to 10,000 wet tpy, or 27 wet tpd, or 7 dry
tpd.
Most of the biosolids are currently spread on farmland by Natural Selection. Composting
biosolids is considerably more expensive than composting yard debris and similar materials, due
to the need to comply with regulations addressing the risk of human pathogens and heavy metals.
Biosolids can also easily cause odor problems.
Market Analysis
The research on markets concluded that the local residential and commercial landscaping and
gardening applications are largely satisfied by existing sources of compost. In fact, compost for
this type of application is currently being exported from Yakima County to markets in Seattle
and Portland. Any additional compost produced for the retail market would face stiff
competition on price and/or would need to be exported to out -of -county markets. Agricultural
applications in the Yakima Valley, however, could absorb significantly more compost. Demand
by the agricultural sector clearly exceeds the additional amount of compost that could be
produced from the 35,000 tons per year of yard debris and other materials.
The market value for any additional amounts of compost produced would be approximately $12
to $16 per cubic yard (2009 figure for large quantity sales to agricultural applications). By
blending the compost to produce higher -grade products or specialty mixes, the value can be
increased to about $22 per cubic yard.
3.0 COMPOST FACILITY COSTS
Yard Debris Composting Costs
The following cost analysis focuses only on the yard debris collected by Yakima County. Table
2 shows the feedstock assumptions utilized for this analysis. Constructing a facility large enough
to process the County's projected 31,900 tons per year of yard debris would require a minimum
of 22 acres of land and a capital investment of $4.9 million. The estimated annual operational
cost, including the annual debt payment on the $4.9 million capital cost, would be $1.8 million.
Table 2. Facility Feedstock Assumptions
Feedstock
Tons
Loose Cubic
Yards
Ground Cubic
Yards
Self Hauled Yard & Wood Waste
15,359
255,200
76,560
Yard Waste Currently in Waste Steam
16,541
85,067
63,800
TOTAL
31,900
340,267
140,360
The facility modeled uses the traditional windrows to process the feedstock into compost.
Designated areas within the facility would be used to receive and store up to 14 days of yard
debris and clean wood waste prior to grinding. The active composting process where the
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study
6
11
iit
111
11
t
1
1
11
11
11
1
1
materials are placed in windrows requires approximately 12 weeks and an area of about 11 acres.
Once the materials have completed the active composting or decomposition process, the compost
is moved to an area to cure for approximately 14 weeks. Once the product has cured, it is
screened and either stored for sale or blended with other materials for custom blends for specific
needs or for general sale to the public. See Appendix A for more information about the
composting process and potential composting methods.
Other auxiliary components of the processing process will also require land: Storage buildings,
roadways, and leachate / storm water upgrades need to be added to the site design. Table 3
details the size of area needed for each part of the composting process. •
The primary construction cost items are the earthwork required to grade the selected area, the
asphalt composting 'pad, and the equipment building. It is assumed that the County would
construct this facility on existing County -owned land; therefore, the purchase price of the land
was not considered in the total project costs. Table 4 details the estimated facility construction
costs. Assuming a County bonding rate of 5% over a twenty-year period would put the annual
debt payment for this facility at $396,000 per year.
Operational costs for items such as labor, equipment, and water are summarized in Table 5.
Table 3. Facility Area Requirements
Compost Facility Area
Sizing
Square Feet
Acres
Primary Composting Area
Raw Material Receiving
52,800
1.2
Active Composting Area — Windrows
462,000
10.6
Curing Area
90,000
2.1
Compost Storage Area
50,400
1.2
Screening Area
12,500
0.3
Wood Waste Processing Area
15,000
0.3
Finished Product Storage Area
38,400
0.9
Primary Composting Area Subtotal
1,718,800
16.6
Auxiliary Area
Buildings
15,000
0.3
Roadways
29,300
0.7
Leachate Lagoon
18,400
0.4
Storm water Management/Earth Area
101,900
2.3
Buffer Area (10%)
88,600
2.0
Auxiliary Area Subtotal
238,200
5.5
Total Area
959,300
22.0
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 7
Table 4. Facility Construction Costs
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Total Price
Land Purchase
Equipment Maintenance
$249,020
14,940 annual hours
Equipment Fuel
Land (Assume County property)
22.0
acre
$0
$0
Site Work
$84,216
1,403,600 gallons
Facility/Site Maintenance
$112,790
Siting and Permitting
1
LS
$250,000
$250,000
Mobilization and Insurance
4%
of Cost
$3,443,200
$138,000
Clearing and Grubbing
22.0
acre
$2,500
$55,100
Site Grading - General Earthwork
71,100
CY
$3
$213,300
Roadways - Gravel
600
CY
$15
$9,000
Erosion & Storm water Mgmt
1
LS
$50,000
$50,000
Leachate Lagoon
18,400
SF
$10
$184,000
Misc Site - Bollards, Signage
1
LS
$5,000
$5,000
Surveying
1
LS
$20,000
$20,000
Compost Pad
Compost Pad Paving - Asphalt
80,200
SY
$19
$1,523,800
Public Drop -Off Area
0
CY
$350
$0
Buildings
Maintenance Building
15,000
SF
$65
$975,000
Building Electrical
15,000
SF
89
$135,000
Building Mechanical
15,000
SF
$12
$180,000
Roll -Up Doors
4
EA
$8,000
$32,000
Utilities
Site Utilities (electrical, water well)
1
LS
850,000
$50,000
Site port -a -let
1
EA
$5,000
$5,000
Site Lighting
2
EA
$3,000
$6,000
Water Storage Tank
3
EA
$20,000
$60,000
Subtotal
$ 3,893,200
General Contractor Fees (10% of Site work, Bldg Elec./ Mechanical, Utilities
$ 263,600
Contingency (20%)
$ 778,600
Total Facility Cost
$ 4,935,400
Table 5. Operations and Maintenance Costs
Operations & Maintenance
Annual Cost
Operational Units
Equipment Depreciation
$179,900
8 pieces of equipment
Equipment Maintenance
$249,020
14,940 annual hours
Equipment Fuel
$203,040
50,760 gallons of fuel
Labor (9 FTEs)
$606,530
19,000 labor hours
Water
$84,216
1,403,600 gallons
Facility/Site Maintenance
$112,790
Utilities
Total
$1,435,496
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
The 340,000 cubic yards of yard debris and wood waste will yield approximately 108,000 cubic
yards of finished compost product with a wholesale value of about $12 per cubic yard (or about
$41 per ton, assuming 3.4 cubic yards per ton). "High -grading" the compost by blending it with
other materials such as sandy loam and screened topsoil can increase the saleable price to over
$20 per cubic yard.
Assuming the County would wholesale the finished product at $12 per yard or $41 per ton, the
projected revenue from the operation would be about $1.3 million. Table 6 summarizes the
facility costs and revenues on an annual as well as per ton of feedstock basis (calculated based on
31,900 tons per year of feedstock).
Table 6. Facility Costs and Revenues
Expense Items
Annual Cost
$ per ton
A. Compost Facility Capital Debt Payment
$396,000
B. Compost Facility O&M Cost
$1,435,496
C. Total Compost Facility Expenses (A + B)
$1,831,496
D. Cost of Processing Feedstock
$57.41
Revenue Items
E. Estimated Revenues
$1,301,520
F. Revenue per Ton of Feedstock (3.4 yds = 1 ton)
$40.80
G. Net Revenue (E —C)
($529,976)
Net Processing Cost per Ton of Feedstock
$16.61
Not considered in the facility cost are any additional requirements to transport feedstock
materials. if this facility were constructed at the Cheyne Landfill, self -haul yard debris materials
would need to be ground ($8 per ton) and transported from Terrace Heights to Cheyne ($7 per
ton). Assuming the County would set its disposal rate to fully recover the cost of processing
yard debris, the projected fee per ton for would be $32 per ton ($8 to grind + $7 to transport +
$17 to process). This estimated rate is dependent on the County being able to produce and
market all the compost it produced at $41 per ton (wholesale).
If the facility could be constructed near the city of Yakima, the additional costs of grinding and
transport would not be incurred; but siting a compost facility in or near an urban area is difficult
because of the odor and traffic issues. One alternative would be to construct a facility that uses
in -vessel composting to control odors. However, there would be substantial capital costs for the
land, building and equipment that would put the facility construction cost over $10 million.
Biosolids Composting Costs
In March 2009, the City of Palo Alto, California estimated the cost of composting their
dewatered biosolids at $105/wet ton processed; Palo Alto's biosolids production is 44 wet tpd.
Since Yakima County's production is much smaller, the unit cost of composting biosolids is
likely to be higher. Therefore, composting could cost the County in excess of $100/wet ton, or in
excess of $1 million per year. It is possible that composting could be done closer to the primary
source (the Yakima Wastewater Treatment Plant) than the current Natural Selection land
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 9
spreading operation. This could reduce hauling costs compared to the current practice of hauling
to Sunnyside, but these savings are unlikely to significantly mitigate the overall costs.
The EPA estimated the capital cost of aerated static pile biosolids composting at $30,000 per dry
ton per day, in 2002 dollars. For 7 dry tpd, this would result in a capital cost of $210,000.
However, most biosolids composting facilities are much larger than what is proposed here, so the
unit cost for Yakima is likely to be much higher. In 2009 dollars and taking into account the
diseconomies of scale due to the very low production rate, the capital cost for Yakima County
would-be at least $500,000. Amortized at 6% over 20 years, this amounts to a debt service of
$44,000 per year.
For O&M costs, EPA estimated $150 (in 2002 dollars) per dry ton per year for the same type of
facility, which would translate to $375,000 per year, or $38 per wet ton processed. Updating the
costs and accounting for the diseconomy of scale could easily push this cost above $60 per ton.
In conclusion, these costs indicate that the current biosolids disposal costs are significantly lower
than the costs of composting biosolids.
4.0 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES
The County has two primary alternatives for composting of yard debris: 1) construct and operate
its own facility or 2) procure processing and composting services from others. The primary
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are shown below.
County -Owned Compost Facility
Advantages
• The County has maximum control over feedstocks, processing, and marketing of compost
products.
• The County could potentially cross -utilize equipment and personnel if the composting
facility were to be sited near a County waste facility.
Disadvantages
• The County would be competing with private enterprise.
• There are costs and risks related to regulatory compliance if the County attempts to site,
design, build, permit, and operate its own compost facility.
• The County has full operational responsibility for successfully composting the organics
delivered to its facility.
• The County must market the end products and compete with existing businesses that have
more marketing experience.
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u
s
v
a
0
• The County must provide initial financing for the facility and then set rates so that it is
financially viable.
Composting by Others
Advantages
• Well-established companies in the county already have the facilities, equipment, and
expertise to operate a compost facility successfully:
• These companies are experienced in marketing compost products:
• A private company may be able to produce compost at a lower cost than the County
could.
• Composting could likely begin sooner than if the County had to design, bid, build, and
permit its own facility.
• Additional organic materials committed by the County could strengthen local composting
businesses by providing additional feedstocks to established markets.
• The County could choose,processor(s) near the places where the materials are generated.
Disadvantages
• The County would have to enter into a long-term contract with a composting vendor. If
the vendor's facility had performance problems or failed to meet regulatory requirements,
the County might have to intervene. Legal remedies might be costly and protracted.
• The County would have little control over processing and marketing of the compost.
• If the vendor fails or has operational problems, the County could become responsible for
marketing of unsold product and finding another vendor to perform the composting.
A comparison of the two alternatives indicates that it would be reasonable for the County to first
attempt to procure composting services from a private business before considering the
construction of its own facility.
Procurement of Composting Services
If the County decides to pursue the services of an established composting company, it should
probably utilize a two step process: 1) use a request for qualifications (RFQ) to obtain
information about potential bidders and to identify a short-list of preferred bidders; and 2) use a
request for proposals (RFP) to describe the specific facility/products/performance that the
County desires and to solicit costs for that work.
The following list presents some of the essential items to be considered when developing an
RFQ or RFP:
• Scope of services requested to meet the County goals and policies.
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study l 1
• Level of assistance from the County including drop-off sites, grinding of waste, and
transportation to the contractor's facility.
• Level of effort required by the County to administer the contract and monitor compliance.
• Coordination of the Solid Waste Management Plan, solid waste policies, and County
ordinances to ensure conformance with the contract (service agreement).
• List of materials to be composted (e.g. yard debris, wood waste, manure, biosolids, red
water, etc.).
• Specific services (feedstock receiving, grinding, stockpiling, processing, storing, product
marketing, etc.).
• Specific compost products desired.
• Throughput and facility performance requirements.
• Requirements for marketing the compost produced.
• Pollution and environmental compliance requirements.
• Permitting and regulatory compliance.
• Amount of bond and/or other financial assurances.
• Emergencies and contingencies.
• Draft contract form.
Contract duration: a longer term contract appeals to a service provider because it allows
costs (e.g. equipment amortization) to be spread over a longer period.
• The low cost bidder is not always the best option. The County will need to establish a
committee to review the proposals. Proposal scoring criteria should include items other
than low capital cost or low cost per ton: track record, local employment, pollution
violations, type of products, compost markets served, etc.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS '1
This study recommends the following:
• The findings of this Study should be incorporated into the 2009 SWMP.
• With the concurrence of the SWAC and Commissioners, Yakima County should
implement a disposal ban on yard debris effective January 1, 2012.
• The County should develop and issue a composting service RFQ, evaluate the responses,
and short-list firms/teams to receive an RFP.
• If a suitable vendor or composting approach cannot be found, or if pricing or terms are
unacceptable to Yakima County, it should then explore other options (including but not
limited to constructing and/or operating their own facility).
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study l2
u
0
B
a
33:01548 Ola&
O
U
Yakima Resources
Caton landfill
A
HE!
TiEA� •
Anderson
Landfill's
Figure 1. Facility Locations
KITTTAS COUNTY
YAKIMA COUNTY
County
Recycling
Roy Farms
APA10
Terrace ',eights Landfill &
Transfer Station
uwaEe
Soil Conditio ers
,-�
Cheyne landfill Z �
DeRuyter
Dairy
1
4
Royal Organics
•
TOPPEN
0 2 4 tl 8 10
® Miles
YAKIMA COUNTY
Transfer.—tX'
Station \
Lower Valley
Transfer Station
Natural
Selection
Q
CM:41IEW
U
O
weroN araoN V"
ICKITAT COUNTY
1
•
Skyridge Farm (Organix) is not shown in the above map because that site would not be available for composting additional mated IIs (Organix would operate at a
site yet to be identified).
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study
13
Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study 14
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON COMPOSTING
INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides a description of the composting process and the main composting
systems typically used for feedstocks of the type examined in this study.
THE COMPOSTING PROCESS
Composting is the biological decomposition of the easily or rapidly biodegradable fraction of an
organic material. It can occur under aerobic or anaerobic conditions. The end product, compost,
is said to be organically stabilized because it consists mainly of slowly degradable fibers. Once
stabilized, compost will not cause odors, create significant biological oxygen demand, or cause
microorganisms to compete with plants for soil nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. Compost
is mainly used as an amendment to improve the physical characteristics of the soil, but can also
provide some nutrients depending on the feedstocks used for the compost.
Aerobic and Anaerobic Composting
Composting can be carried out aerobically or anaerobically. In an aerobic composting process,
sufficient air is blown or drawn through the material to provide a continuous supply of oxygen.
In this case, organic materials are converted into CO2, water vapor, and heat, as well as some
microbial biomass. The metabolic oxidation process generates heat; if the temperature rises
above desirable levels, it can be controlled by increasing airflow (or by mixing more frequently
in the case .of windrows).
Anaerobic composting must be conducted in a closed reactor (an anaerobic digester) to exclude
oxygen, which is toxic to some of the bacteria performing this bioconversion. The digester must
also be kept in a narrow mesophilic or thermophilic temperature range (see below). In anaerobic
digestion, the easily biodegradable material is converted into methane, CO2, and a small amount
of bacterial biomass. The resulting biogas is a medium -Btu fuel that can be used with minimal
conditioning as a boiler fuel or to fuel a generator. The end product, digestate, is used as
compost after an aerobic.curing step.
Both aerobic and anaerobic processes yield similar amounts of compost of similar quality. The
anaerobic process allows the recovery of renewable energy in the form of biogas, while the
aerobic process doesn't. On the other hand, anaerobic composting is by definition an in -vessel
process, so it requires a significant upfront investment. By contrast, aerobic composting can be
done in the open with minimal upfront capital investment.
Several parameters need to be considered for efficient composting, including temperature,
particle size, moisture content, carbon to nitrogen ratio, and nutrient amendments.
Appendix A, Technical Information, Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study A-1
Temperature
When material is first placed in piles or windrows (long piles, generally trapezoidal in cross-
section), it is usually at ambient temperature. As the microorganisms begin to aerobically
decompose the material, they generate metabolic heat and the temperature of the pile or windrow
begins to rise. The pile first enters the mesophilic range (85 to 113°F or 30 to 45°C) that is
conducive to mesophilic microbes, then rises to the thermophilic range (113 to 158°F/45°C to
70°C) that supports thermophilic microbes. Eventually, as the composting material becomes
extensively degraded, it gradually cools down to the mesophilic range and below, and it is then
ready for curing and stabilization. The length of time required for this to occur depends on the
material being composted and the composting system being used. It may range from a few
weeks to a few months, depending on the feedstock and process used. •
There are two important considerations involving temperature. First, the temperature of the
composting material should reach 55°C for at least 3 days to destroy any plant, human or animal
pathogens present. Secondly, the temperature should not be allowed to exceed approximately
70°C, because at temperatures above this level most microorganisms involved in composting die
or enter a resting phase which slows decomposition, or can actually preclude subsequent curing.
Particle Size
Reducing particle size exposes more surface area to microbial attack and enhances
decomposition. However, grinding the material too fine can allow it to become compacted and
restrict the flow of air, which in turn reduces the rate of aerobic composting processes. Also, the
finer the' material is ground, the more energy is consumed in the grinding process.
Bulking Agent
For most approaches, it is essential to maintain aerobic conditions in the composting material.
Many feedstocks such as biosolids (sewage sludge), grass clippings, and other soft and moist
materials tend to compact, which restricts the airflow through the pile. This can lead to •
anaerobic conditions and the production of odoriferous reduced gases like hydrogen sulfide; it
will also greatly slow down the process. To prevent this, it is often necessary to add a bulking
agent like wood chips, which will preserve the porosity of the pile and allow aeration throughout
the pile. The bulking agent is usually recovered by screening at the end of the composting cycle
so it can be reused.
Moisture Content
Yard debris is often quite dry unless it contains large amounts of grass. The moisture content
may be about 30% for ground yard waste. For composting, the moisture content should be
between 45-60%. Moisture can be added with irrigation guns, fire hoses, or watering
attachments to the vessel or windrow turner or grinder. If sludge or manure is co -composted
with yard waste, it can provide moisture.
Appendix A, Technical Information, Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study A-?
Carbon -Nitrogen Ratio
Microbial activity is affected by the carbon (C) to nitrogen (N) mass ratio of the feedstock. A
C/N ratio of 30/1 or lower is considered optimum. At ratios much above this, nitrogen becomes
a limiting factor for microorganisms and decomposition slows down. Yard debris that contains
brushy material in addition to grass and leaves tends to have a high C/N ratio, sometimes
exceeding 100 to 1.
Nutrient Amendments
If necessary, nutrients can be added to yard debris to enhance the composting process or the end
product. A variety of materials can be used as a source of nutrients. All animal manures are
usefitl as nutrient sources, although they provide differing amounts of nutrients and moisture.
Sewage biosolids can be a useful amendment, providing nutrients and moisture, but the
composting site must be permitted for biosolids use. Food processing wastes can also be used as
an amendment. Seafood waste is a good amendment, although this waste may be seasonal; a
steady supply of the chosen amendment is preferred. Inorganic nutrient sources such as
fertilizers can also be used, but these generally must be purchased.
The use of nutrient amendments enhances the rate of composting of yard waste, but their use
requires extra care. They should be thoroughly nixed with the yard debris as soon as possible.
By co -composting a nutrient amendment with yard debris, the compost reaches a C/N ratio
suitable for plant growth sooner than yard debris composted alone. The use of nutrient
• amendments also affects the pH of the material, both during and after composting.
Yard debris, the primary feedstock considered here, tends to be nutrient -deficient and too dry for
efficient composting, so it is likely to require mixing with some moist nutrient rich material like
manure. This in turn carries the potential for odor nuisances, which will tend to drive the
composting operation away from residential areas, unless in -vessel or indoor composting is used.
Time Requirements
The length of time required for composting depends on the composting system used, the
feedstock, the initial particle size, nutrient balance, and -moisture content. Composting of yard
debris may take anywhere between one and six months; generally, the speed of the process is.
proportional to the degree of process control, which increases from windrow to static pile to in -
vessel methods.
Curing
After the material has undergone the intensive, high temperature initial composting, it is placed
in a curing pile. There, it continues to compost at ambient temperature, but is not actively
turned. Curing is a polishing step that completes the organic stabilization of the compost;
different curing durations can yield different types of compost suited for different specific
applications. Curing piles can also be used for compost storage.
Appendix A, Technical Information, Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study A-3
COMPOSTING SYSTEMS
In ascending order of complexity and process controllability, the three major categories of
composting processes are windrow, aerated static pile, and in -vessel. The following is a brief
overview of each system.
Windrows
Organic materials can be piled in long rows (windrows) of roughly trapezoidal cross-section.
Windrows are generally narrower than static piles because they rely entirely on natural
convection and wind for aeration (hence the name windrow). They are usually shaped and
mixed using a windrow turner, which straddles the pile and uses a rotating drum studded with
paddles to turn and aerate the material and break up clumps. Piles are initially turned relatively
frequently (possibly several times a week), but as the composting progresses the material may be
turned less often. •
Aerated Static Piles
This method uses perforated pipes or floor panels at the bottom of the pile to push air from a
blower up through the pile (positive pressure), or pull air down through the pile (vacuum). Both
methods help promote aerobic conditions throughout the pile, thus speeding up the composting
process. Proper mixing and building of the pile prevents the formation of channels that would
allow the flow of air to short-circuit, which would lead to uneven aeration.
The term static pile is sometimes used to describe an informal piling of feedstock without
aeration that may or may not be turned occasionally. Since this process is largely uncontrolled
and not optimized, it is characterized by very long processing times and is rarely used in
commercial composting.
In -Vessel
In -vessel composting takes place in a partially- or fully -enclosed container (vessel) that provides
maximum control over environmental conditions. A wide variety of designs exist. One system
uses open -top lanes separated by concrete walls. A mechanical compost turner travels the length
of the lanes, turning and aerating the material. At the far end, it moves over to the next lane and
travels in the reverse direction, turning and aerating as it moves. These are indoor systems,
allowing effective odor control.
Another type of in -vessel system used a converted shipping container with a perforated floor
through which air from a blower was forced. The air at the top of the pile was vented outside the
shipping container, usually through a biofilter to remove odors. This system was used to contain
odors and prevent access by insects and vermin, making it suitable for challenging materials such
as biosolids or food waste.
Appendix A, Technical Information, Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study A-4
1
1
1
1
1
Variations on the Three Basic Composting Processes
Membrane Covers (Compost Tarps, Fleeces, and Blankets)
Windrows and aerated static piles can be covered with various plastic membranes (e.g. by Texel,
Austrusa, Gore, etc.). They are usually selectively porous, shedding rain but allowing air.
circulation. One purpose of these membranes is to prevent the compost pile from being saturated
by heavy rainfall and to minimize nutrient leaching from the pile. Conversely, they can also
minimize water vapor loss, because the vapor tends to condense on the inside of the cover and
drip back down into the pile. The inside of the cover is a favored microbe habitat, and these
microbes tend to oxidize any odoriferous gases permeating through the membrane, thereby
reducing odor nuisances.
Ag Bag
The Ag Bag system uses a very long tube -shaped plastic bag that entirely envelops the pile of
material. Perforated pipes near the bottom of the pile supply forced air from blowers. The bag is
filled with compost feedstock using a specialized loader. The Ag Bag was originally developed
to ensile crops, and is widely used in that role. It is impermeable to gases and water. At the end
of a cycle, the bag is cut open and discarded, and the compost is allowed to cure. The Ag Bag
process is a variation on the in -vessel process since it is completely enclosed and features a
controlled air supply. To remove the compost when it is finished, the cover must be sacrificed.
Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Factors to consider when selecting a
system are:
• Land area available
• Quantity of material to be composted
• Types and characteristics of materials to be composted
• Labor available
• Financial resources
• Potential end products and their markets
• Process duration -- time frame in which the material must be converted to a usable
product.
Table A-1 on the following page compares the advantages and disadvantages of the major types
of composting systems.
Appendix A, Technical Information, Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study A-5
Table A-1. Comparison of Composting Systems
Composting
System
Advantages
Disadvantages
Windrow
o Relatively low facility capital costs: paved
surface for piles is optional but
recommended.
• Can be turned with front-end loader, but a
windrow turner is more efficient and
effective.
• Wet materials can dry rapidly, resulting in
easier handling of finished product.
• Minimal control over process parameters
such as temperature. .
• Frequent turning necessary at the beginning
of a batch, resulting in relatively high
operating costs.
• Greatest land requirements.
• Windrow -turner can be relatively expensive
to buy and operate.
• Work may be delayed by weather
conditions, unless the operation is under
roof or indoors.
Aerated Static
Pile
• Capital costs intermediate between
windrows and in -vessel systems; requires
paved surface, and aeration system and
controls.
• Pile is built with a standard front-end
loader, no windrow turner needed.
• Better temperature control than with
windrows, resulting in high degree of
pathogen destruction.
• Better odor control through uniform
aerobic conditions in the pile.
• No further mixing needed after the pile is
built.
• Land requirement intermediate between
windrow and static pile.
• Requires blowers, air piping,
instrumentation, and process control
equipment.
• Work may be delayed by weather
conditions, unless the operation is under
roof or indoors.
In -Vessel
• Lowest area requirement.
• Best process control.
• Protection from adverse climate conditions.
• Excellent odor control.
• Although seldom used, there is a potential
for heat recovery, depending on the system
design.
• Highest capital costs.
• Reliance on specialized mechanical systems
may cause delays and higher maintenance
costs due to breakdowns.
• Less operational flexibility than with
windrow and static pile systems.
Membrane
Covers and
Ag Bags
• Accelerates processing time for windrows
and static piles.
• Some protection from adverse climate
conditions.
• Odor control.
• Reduces moisture loss and water needs.
•Membranes increase cost over forced -
aeration static pile, but may prevent the need
for indoor composting, which is much
higher.
Appendix A, Technical Information, Yakima County Compost Facility Feasibility Study A-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX E
TRANSFER STATION COST OF OPERATIONS
ANALYSIS
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
TRANSFER NATION COST
OF OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
FINAL REPORT
August 2009
Prepared for:
Yakima County Department of Public Services
Solid Waste Division
Prepared by:
Project 33760975
with assistance from:
Bell & Associates, Inc
and
Green Solutions, .LLC
111
111111
11
111
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
1
Y
11
11
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Overview of Options 2
Option 1: Expand THTS to Serve Commercial Vehicles 2
Option 2: Construct a New Transfer Station
to Serve Commercial Vehicles 3
Option 3: Commercial Vehicles Haul Directly to CLF - 3
3.0 Capital Cost Estimates 4
Facility Construction Costs 4
Construction Timing and Costs 7
4.0 Operational Cost Estimates 8
Facility Annual Staffing Needs 8
Mobile Equipment 8
Additional Operating Costs for Options 1 and 2 9
5.0 Cost of Transportation to Cheyne Landfill 11
Transportation Costs for Options 1 and 2 11
Transportation Costs for Option 3 13
6.0 Summary of Options 15
References 18
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Construction Cost Estimate for Option 1 5
2. Construction Cost Estimate for Option 2 6
3. Construction Cost and Debt Service 7
4. THTS Staffing (Option 1) 8
5. New Station Staffing (Option 2) 8
6. Equipment Costs 9
7. Additional Operational Costs 10
8. Transportation Estimates 11.
9. Transportation Costs to Cheyne Landfill for Options 1 and 2 12
10. Overall Cost Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2 12
11. Collection Route Performance under Option 3 13
12. Rate Payer Impact for Each Option 14
13. Summary of Operational Costs 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. Option 1 — THTS Addition 16
2. Option 2 — New Transfer Station 17
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc ii
TRANSFER STATION COST OF OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Terrace Heights disposal facility currently receives waste from both self -haul customers
(cars and pickup trucks) and commercial haulers (garbage trucks.and other commercial vehicles).
Self -haulers tip their waste at the Terrace Heights Transfer Station (THTS); from there it is
transferred to the on-site landfill (THLF). Commercial haulers bypass THTS and take their
waste directly to the working face .of the landfill. When Phase 1 of THLF reaches capacity and
stops receiving waste in about 2015, THTS will continue to serve self -haul customers. For
commercial waste, one of the following options will need to be implemented:
Option 1: The THTS transfer building could be expanded to accept waste delivered by
commercial vehicles.
Option 2: A new transfer station for commercial vehicles only could be constructed at a
location other than the Terrace Heights site.
Option 3: Commercial vehicles that currently use THLF could be required to haul directly
to Cheyne Landfill.
These options assume that THTS will continue to receive self -haulers, although the hours and/or.
days when the station is open may be changed for financial or other reasons. No matter which
option is selected, THTS's operating permit will need to be modified to allow waste tipped there
to be hauled to the Cheyne Landfill (CLF) for disposal. Similarly, each of the options would
increase truck traffic in the vicinity of CLF.
The goal of this analysis is to examine the advantages and disadvantages, and estimate the
capital, transportation and operating costs of each option listed above.
Recommendations from this analysis will be incorporated into the 2009 update of the County's
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Yakima County 2009).
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 1
2.0 OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS
Option 1: Expand THTS to Serve Commercial Vehicles
Transfer Building
Expected tonnages through the year 2030 and other operational issues at THTS were examined
in the Solid Waste Level of Service Study & Infrastructure Needs Assessment (Yakima County
2008). The THTS transfer building currently serves only self -haul vehicles with its 20,000 sq ft
tipping floor and two top -load trailer bays. To accommodate future expansion and accept
commercial vehicles, the original design drawings suggested adding a 165 -foot building
expansion to the east, increasing the tipping floor by 20,000 sq ft with two top load bays
(Yakima County 2003). This option provides storage for surges and emergencies as well as
operational flexibility and efficiency by allowing up to four trailers to be loaded with waste
simultaneously.
The metal panels and rollup doors that currently form the building's east wall would be removed,
leaving the columns in place to support the roof. Some of these components might be reused to
construct the new east wall. Because the former wall columns would be in the middle of the
expanded tipping floor, they will need to be protected from vehicle impact. To some extent,
their presence will hinder the efficient movement of waste and vehicles on the floor.
Similarly, the north -south pushwall in the southeast corner of the existing building would inhibit
the ability to move waste between the new and existing floors. On the other hand, having a
pushwall in that location allows waste to be stacked and stored in a smaller footprint than on the
open floor. During the design of the expansion, the County should consider the relative
advantages and disadvantages of keeping the pushwall.
Figure 1 shows a conceptual layout for the expanded transfer station building.
Scales and Scalehouse
The present facility has three 80 -foot scales that serve both the transfer station and the landfill:
one inbound, one outbound, and one reversible (bi-directional) scale. The south (inbound) scale
was installed in 2006, along with a scalehouse; both are in good condition. The two northern
scales are older and are pit -type scales that have experienced problems with accumulation of
trash, water, snow and ice in the pits. Another disadvantage is that repair work requires that
workers are trained and certified for confined space entry. The County would like to replace the
two old pit scales with aboveground scales similar to the new (2006) south inbound scale. The
middle scale would be reversible (bi-directional) to handle peak inbound or outbound traffic.
The old scalehouse associated with the two old scales is in need of replacement as well. It could
be replaced with a small scalehouse that includes a restroom. The attendant could use the
kitchenette in the existing scalehouse.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 2
1
1
1
1
The existing inbound and outbound -vehicle bypass lanes are adequate to allow non -weighing
traffic to enter/exit the site quickly. Outbound transfer trailers will not be weighed at the
scalehouse. Preliminary weights will be obtained from the axle scales in the loading bays, and
final weights will be obtained at CLF.
Option 2: Construct a New Transfer Station to Serve Commercial Vehicles
If commercial and collection vehicles are banned from THTS when THLF reaches capacity, they
could be sent to a new commercial -only. transfer station where self -haulers are not allowed. A
20,000 sq ft building should be adequate to serve up to about 200 commercial vehicles per day.
The station would have an inbound and an outbound scale. Vehicles with credit accounts and
tare weights could bypass the 'outbound scale. Drivers of vehicles without accounts would pay
the scalehouse attendant. Figure 2 shows a generic, non -site-specific conceptual layout for the
new transfer station showing the major features: scales, scalehouse, tipping building, and
employee facility.
Potential areas for locating the new station include the 1-82 corridor near the City of Yakima
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the industrial areas near the Yakima Public Services yard or west
of Union Gap near the airport or Costco. Desirable sites would be about 10 to 15 acres and be
zoned for a transfer station, or able to be re -zoned within a reasonable period of time. Sites
should be accessible from.a major arterial roadway and be suitable for expansion. Loaded
transfer trailers would access the highway via arterial streets and then travel on I-82 to CLF. •
Self -haulers would continue to use THTS, although the hours and/or days when the station is
open may be changed for financial or other reasons.
Option 3: Commercial Vehicles Haul Directly to CLF
If neither Option 1 nor Option 2 is implemented, commercial vehicles would then need to drive
directly to CLF when THLF reaches capacity. Most vehicles would use 1-82 to reach CLF,
although the last six miles would be on local streets.
Potentially, over 200 commercial vehicles per day would be hauling directly to CLF, increasing
truck traffic in the vicinity.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 3
3.0 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
Facility Construction Costs
The Needs Assessment developed construction costs for two transfer station options that were
similar to Options 1 and 2 described above. Those construction cost estimates were based on
cost data available in late 2007 and thus reflected a very different construction market than the
spring of 2009. Table 1 and Table 2 show construction costs for Option 1 and Option 2,
respectively, updated to 2009 dollars. Estimates for Site Work, Mechanical, and Electrical were
increased by 6% to cover labor cost increases since 2007. On the other hand, since steel costs
have fallen since 2007, the unit costs of the pre-engineered metal building and scalehouse have
not been increased from 2007.
Option 1: Option 1 adds a 20,000 sq ft. tip floor and two top load bays. The cost estimate
assumes that there is adequate utility capacity (water, wastewater, and power) in close proximity
to the transfer building and scalehouse.
Option 2: Option 2 assumes a site of about 10-15 acres and a 20,000 sq ft transfer building with
two top -load bays, inbound and outbound scales, a scalehouse, and a 4,000 sq ft staff facility
with offices, lunchroom, and locker rooms/restrooms. Because Option 2 is a larger project than
Option 1, the cost of General Conditions and Design Services are a smaller percentage of the
overall construction costs. Because a siting study has not been performed and no suitable
properties have been identified, a number of assumptions about the cost of the land were made to
allow comparison with Option 1:
• Property sizes of 10 and 15 acres
• Cost per sq ft of $2 and $5
• Permitting and SEPA at $50,000
• Bringing utilities to the property line, $50,000.
The combination of acreage and square foot costs yielded an estimated average property
purchase cost of about $1.9 million (2009 dollars). With permitting and utilities, the site could
cost about $2 million (2009). These costs are discussed further on page 7 and Table 3.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 4
1
Table 1.: Construction Cost Estimate for Option 1 (2009 dollars)
Option l: Expand Terrace Heights TS to serve commercial vehicles
1
Site Work
20.000 so ft
Excavation
$ 60,000
Fill and Compaction
$ 200.000
Site Grading
$ 15,000
Erosion Control
$ 11.000
Utilities - Water Supply
$ 16.000
- Storni Water
$ 11,000
- Sanitary Sewer
$ 16.000
- Fire Main and Hydrants
$ 16,000
Power Supply and Distribution
$ 27,000
Roadways and Parking (5" over 8" base)
$ 53.000
Electrical Room (existine: 200 sa.ft.)
NA
Tie-in to Existing Utilities
$ 16.000
Site Liehtine
$ 11,000
Fencine
$ 5,000
Landscaping
$ 5.000
Subtotal
$ 462.000
2
Facilities
Excavation for Foundations and Slab
$ 20.000
Foundations and Pedestals
$ '30.000
Buildine and Top -load Excavation
$ 15,000
Gravel Fill and Compaction
$ 20,000
Grade Slab
$ 250,000
Foundations and Grade Beams
NA
Retaining Walls includine Foundation
$ 250.000
Top -load Base Slab and Ramp
$ 35.000
Pits and Trenches in Buildine
NA
Structural Slab
NA
Pre -Engineered Buildine doorways
$ 600.000
Push Walls
$ 250.000
Miscellaneous Embedded Steel
$ 10,000
Tie-in & Revisions to Existine Bide
$ 40,000
Staff Facilities (use existiriel
NA
Demolish existine scales, prep new scale area
$ 50,000
Tollbooth (100 so ft)
$ 15,000
Optional top -load bay enclosures/doors/embedded steel)
$ 115.000
Subtotal
51.700.000
3
Mechanical and Electrical
Fire Protection
$ 64.000
Buildine. Ventilation
$ 30.000
Water Distribution
$ 11.000
Liehtine
$ 170,000
Dust Control
$ 30.000
Axle Scales (includine control system)
$ 30.000
Tie-in to Existine
$ 21,000
Subtotal
•5 356.000
4
Equipment Required
Two aboveground truck scales (inbound. outbound)
$ 75,000
' Control System for Scales
$ 5.000
Subtotal
$ 80.000
Total Items (1, 2. 3 and 41
$2.598.000
Contingency (25%)
$ 650.000
Subtotal
$3,248,000
General Conditions (8%) •
$ 260.000
Permitting (2%)
$ 65,000
Insurance and Bonding (3%)•
$ 97.000
Inspection and Testing (1%)
$ 32.000
Design Services (10%)
$ 325,000
Grand Total
$4,027,000
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc
5
Table 2: Construction Cost Estimate for Option 2 (2009 dollars)
Option 2: New Transfer Station serving only commerc'al vehicles
1
Site Work (not site-specific)
Excavation
$ 265,000
Fill and Compaction
$ 65,000
Site Grading
$ 53,000
Erosion Control
$ 27,000
- Water Supply
$ 53,000
- Storm Water
$ 80,000
- Sanitary Sewer (septic tank)
$ 53,000
- Fire Main and Hydrants
$ 85,000
Power Supply and Distribution
$ 106,000
Roadways and Parking (5" over 8" base)
$ 212,000
Electrical Room (200 sq.ft.)
$ 32,000
Tie-in to Existing Utilities
$ 21,000
Site Lighting
$ 80,000
Fencing
$ 53,000
Landscaping
$ 53,000
Subtotal
$1,438,000
2
Facilities
Excavation for Foundations and Slab
NA
Foundations and Pedestals
NA
Building and Top -load Excavation
$ 42,000
Gravel Fill and Compaction
$ 85,000
Grade Slab
$ 196,000
Foundations and Grade Beams
$ 32,000
Retaining Walls including Foundation
$ 159,000
Top -load Base Slab and Ramp
$ 265,000
Pits and Trenches in Building
$ 32,000
Structural Slab
$ 106,000
Pre -Engineered Building doorways
$ 600,000
Push Walls
$ 265,000
Miscellaneous Embedded Steel
$ 106,000
Tie-in to Existing Building
NA
Staff Facilities (4,000 sq ft)
$ 600,000
Scale area prep
$ 42,000
Scalehouse (200 sq ft)
$ 32,000
Subtotal
$2,562,000
3
Mechanical and Electrical
Fire Protection
$ 64,000
Building Ventilation
$ 42,000
Water Distribution.
$ 32,000
Lighting
$ 170,000
Dust Control
$ 42,000
Subtotal
$ 350,000
4
Equipment Required
•
Truck Scales (inbound/outbound)
$ 75,000
Control System for Scales
$ 20,000
Axle Scales
$ 42,000
Drop -Boxes
$ 21,000
Subtotal
$ 158,000
Total Items (1, 2, 3 and 4)
$4,508,000
Contingency (25%)
$1,127,000
Subtotal
$5,635,000
General Conditions (6%)
$ 358,000
Permitting (I%)
$ 60,000
Insurance and Bonding (2%)
$ 119,000
Inspection and Testing (1%)
$ 60,000
Design Services (8%)
$ 477,000
Grand Total
$6,649,000
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Construction Timing and Costs
It is anticipated that actual construction of either Option 1 or 2 would not occur until 2013 or
later. For Option 1, the construction cost of about $4.0 million (2009 dollars) was projected as
about $4.5 million (2013 dollars) by using a 3% annual inflation factor.
For Option 2, the County would need to purchase the land, procure the necessary permits, and
extend utilities to the site. Using the same 3% inflation factor, the estimated land cost in 2013
(including permitting and utilities) would be about $2.25 million. Similarly, Option 2's
construction cost of about $6.6 million (2009 dollars) was projected at about $7.5 million in
2013.
Table 3 details those numbers, as well as annual debt service at 5%:
Table 3: Construction Cost and Debt Service
Construction Year
2009
2013
Option 1
Option 2
Option 1
Option 2
Land, Permitting, Utilities
$ 0
$2,006,000
$ 0
$ 2,257,000
Facility Construction
$4,027,000
$6,649,000
$4,532,000
$ 7,484,000
Total Facility Cost
$4,027,000
$8,655,000
$4,532,000
$9,741,000
Annual Debt Service
(20 yr@5%)
$ 319,000
$ 685,000
$ 359,00
$ 771,000
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc
4.0 OPERATIONAL COST ESTIMATES
Facility Annual Staffing Needs
Expanding the THTS to handle commercial vehicles (Option 1) will require an increase in
staffing over the current levels. Table 4 below shows the current staffing level and projected
increase. Operational hours are assumed to remain the same: Monday -Friday 7:00 am to 5:00
pm and Saturday -Sunday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. The station would operate 3,432 hours annually.
Table 4: THTS Staffing (Option 1)
Option 1 Staffing
Current
Additional
Scale house Attendant
4
0
Equipment Operators
1.5
4.5
Maintenance/Spotter
3
3
Transfer Drivers
2
4.5
Mechanics
0
1
Total Staffing
10.5
13
A separate commercial -only station (Option 2) would require a smaller staff than Option 1 due to
mechanized unloading, fewer vehicles, more knowledgeable customers (professional drivers),
and shorter hours of operation. Table 5 shows the suggested staffing level, based on a 7:00 am to
5:00 pm Monday through Friday schedule. The station would operate 2,530 hours annually.
Table 5: New Station Staffing (Option 2)
Option 2 Staffing
Initial
Scale house attendant
1.5
Equipment Operators
4
Maintenance/Spotter
3
Transfer Drivers
4
Supervisor/Lead
1
Mechanic
1
Total Staffing
14.5
Mobile Equipment
The equipment brand names mentioned here are for reference purposes only. Four front loaders
will be needed to load about 175,000 tons of waste annually from the THTS tipping floor into the
transfer trailers (Option 1). The existing Caterpillar (Cat) 950 will be replaced with two Cat
966s. The 966 is a larger loader capable of pushing 10 tons of compacted waste across the
tipping floor without slipping. Option 2 will also require two Cat 966s. To increase payloads
from the current average 22 tons up to 25 tons, a Cat 315DL tracked excavator with a modified
bucket and claw will be used to distribute and tamp waste in the trailers under both options. The
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
excavator's steel treads can be used to crush bulky wastes such as yard debris on the floor;
optional bolt -on rubber pads can be used to minimize damage to the floor. The excavator will
operate from the front (tipping) side of the loadout bays, avoiding the need to construct an
elevated slab behind the bays on which to run the excavator.
Transfer trailers will be moved in and out of the bays by a Kalmar Ottawa 4x2, commonly
referred to as a "yard goat." The goat has a smaller turning radius than a road tractor and can
increase the efficiency of moving trailers in tight spaces. Suggested mobile equipment is shown
below.
Table 6: Equipment Costs
Equipment Type
Option 1
Option 2
Cat 966 Loader (2 @ $380,000 each)
$760,000
$760,000
Cat 315 Tracked Excavator
$195,000
$195,000
Yard Goat
$105,000
$105,000
Total Equipment Costs
$1,060,000
$1,060,000
From left to right: Cat 966G, wheeled excavator comparable to Cat 315DL, and Ottawa 4x2.
Additional Operating Costs for Options 1 and 2
Table 7 on the next page shows the estimated additional operational costs that would result from
implementing Options 1 and 2, based on Solid Waste's budget line items. The largest line items
are for labor and equipment. These costs are in addition to the costs that the County already
incurs to operate TUTS and that are reflected in the current disposal fee. Expenses for 2009
were compounded using a 3% annual inflation factor to calculate 2015 expenses.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 9
Table 7: Additional Operational Costs
* Salaries for transfer station staff only. For transfer drivers and mechanics, see Section 5.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Option 1
THTS •
Option 2
Commercial
Option 1
THTS
Option 2
Commercial
Description
2009 $
2009 $
2015 $
2015 $
Salaries & Wages *
$ 287,897
$ 366,829
$ 333,017
$ 438,013
Salaries -Overtime
$ 7,500
$ 6,000
$ 8,955
$ 7,164
Benefits -Direct
$ 91,008
$ 167,773
$ 108,668
$ 200,330
Office & Operation
Supplies
$ 10,000
$ 15,000
$ 11,941
$ 17,911
Small Tools &
Equipment
$ 5,000
$ 5,970
Professional Services
$ 2,000
$ 2,388
Communication -
Telephone
$ 500
$ 597
Travel
$ 500
$ 597
Equipment Purchase
$ 179,783
$ 179,783
$ 245,766
$ 245,766
Operating Rental
$ 361,530
$ 370,013
$ 431,686
$ 441,814
Operating Rental (yard
goat)
$ 42,900
$ 31,625
$ 51,225
$ 37,762
Utility Services
$ 15,000
$ -
$ 17,911
Repairs & Maintenance
$ 15,000
$ -
.. $ 17,911
Miscellaneous
$ 5,000
" $ -
$ 5,970
Total Additional
Annual Operational
Costs
$ 1,009,489
$1,180,023
$ 1,236,478
$ 1,440,104
* Salaries for transfer station staff only. For transfer drivers and mechanics, see Section 5.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5.0 COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO CHEYNE LANDFILL
Transportation Costs for Options 1 and 2
Waste would be transported loose (uncompacted) in an open top walking floor trailer pulled by a
road tractor from either transfer station option to CLF. A payload of 25 tons in a 53 -foot trailer
was assumed, based on the use of a tracked excavator to tamp down the waste and increase
payloads from the current 22 tons per trailer. The fleet will use a "spares" ratio of 1 to 4 to
maintain adequate back-up for routine maintenance and unscheduled repairs. Transfer trailers
will be purchased at a 2 to 1 ratio to ensure smooth operation at the transfer station and provide
the flexibility for peak disposal periods..
Two routes were analyzed for Option 1. The first route was Roza Hill/Terrace Heights Drive to
1-82, and the second route was Bittner/Beaudry Road to Highway 24 to I-82. The cost per trip
for the first route is $194 (2009 $). The additional cost to transport waste via Highway 24 route
is $15 per trip. The additional cost is due to the increased driving time resulting from the longer
route and reduced speeds through the school zones. Total fleet size to move waste from the
THTS to Cheyne is 8 tractors and 16 trailers. The cost of building a bridge over the canal to
permit use of the Highway 24 route was not considered. There is a safety concern with the
schools on Beaudry Road, which will add travel time and expense to the waste haul.
Option 2 would require a fleet of 10 trucks and 20 trailers: 8 trucks and 16 trailers at the
commercial transfer station and 2 trucks and 4 trailers at THTS. The cost per trip from the
commercial transfer station is $196, while the cost for the waste collected from the self -haul
activities at the THTS is $248 per trip.
Table 8: Transportation Estimates
Option 2 would require less trucking time due to the 12 -minute savings on loads originating from
the commercial transfer station. However, drivers could spend considerable time waiting for a
full trailer -load to accumulate at THTS, since individual self -haul customers bring small amounts
of waste. These hours are not reflected in these totals.
On the following page, Table 9 details the specifics for each transportation alternative within
Options 1 and 2. Table 10 then summarizes the overall costs of Options 1 and 2.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 11
Annual
Trips
Trucks
Trailers
Driver
FTEs
Truck
Hours
Mechanics
Option 1 in 2009
6,417
8
16
6.6
13,642
1
Option 2 in 2009
6,494
10
20
6.2
12,814
1
Option 1 in 2015
6,923
8
16
7.1
14,719
1
Option 2 in 2015
7,006
10
20
6.5
13,594
1
Option 2 would require less trucking time due to the 12 -minute savings on loads originating from
the commercial transfer station. However, drivers could spend considerable time waiting for a
full trailer -load to accumulate at THTS, since individual self -haul customers bring small amounts
of waste. These hours are not reflected in these totals.
On the following page, Table 9 details the specifics for each transportation alternative within
Options 1 and 2. Table 10 then summarizes the overall costs of Options 1 and 2.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 11
Table 9: Transportation Costs to Cheyne Landfill for Options 1 and 2
(2009 dollars)
Route
Capital Cost
Annual
Tons
Annual
Transport Cost
Round
Trip Miles
Daily
Trips
Cost per
Roundtrip
Cost per
Ton
Cost per
Mile
Option 1
$2,464,000
162,544
$1,244,967
56
18
$194
$7.76
$3.46
Option 1 via Hw 24
$2,464,000
162,544
$1,342,272
62
18
$209
$8.37
$3.37
Option 2 (a + b)
$3,080,000
162,544
$1,306,409
n/a
25.
$201
$8.05
$3.80
a) Option 2 Commercial
$2,464,000
138,978
$1,075,594
52
22
$193
$7.73
$3.72
b) Option 2 THTSself haul
$ 616,000
. 23,566
$ 230,815
56
3
$248
$9.92
$4.43
(2015 dollars)
Option 1
$2,856,451
175,363
$1,575,575
56
19
$228
$9.10
$4.06
Option 1 via Hw 24
$2,856,451
175,363
$1,699,748
62
20
$246
$9.82
$3.96
Option 2 (a + b)
$3,570,561
175,363
$1,628,596
n/a
27
$232
$9.30
$4.38
a) Option 2 Commercial
. $2,856,451
149,939
$1,308,752
52
24
$225
$8.99
$4.32
b) Option 2 THTSself haul
$ 714,113
25,424
$ 280,235
56
3
$279
$11.17
$4.99
Table 10: Overall Cost Comparison of Option 1 and Option 2
Cost of Operations 8-31-119 doe
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2009 $
2009 $
2015 $
2015 $
Annual Operational Cost
Option 1
Option 2
Option 1
Option 2
Transfer Station (note payment)
$ 318,917
$ 685,410
$ 358,944
$ 771,474
TS Operations and Equipment
$ 1,009,489
$ 1,180,023
$ 1,236,478
$ 1,440,104
Transportation
$ 1,244,967
$ 1,306,409
$ 1,575,575
$ 1,628,596
Total Annual Cost
$ 2,573,372
$ 3,171,842
$ 3,170,997
$ 3,840,174
Total System Waste Tons
249,681
249,681
269,372
269,372
Cost per SW Ton
$10.31
$12.70
$11.77
$14.26
Cost of Operations 8-31-119 doe
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Transportation Costs for Option 3 (Direct Haul to Cheyne)
if neither Option 1 nor Option 2 were implemented, commercial vehicles (garbage trucks) would then need to drive directly to CLF
(i.e. Option 3) once TI-ILF reaches capacity. Assuming that all trucks would originate in downtown Yakima, the additional time
required to dump is one hour and 15 minutes. This is a conservative estimate, considering the growth on the west side of Yakima and
the routes serving the residents of Selah. The estimated combined cost to the collection companies and the City of Yakima to direct
haul would be $2,645,000 (2009 dollars). Table 11 below details the additional estimated time and cost to direct haul from the
collection route to CLF.
Table 11: Collection Route Performance under Option 3
(2009 dollars)
Line of Business
# of
Customers
(1)
Daily
Routes
Annual
Landfill
Trips
Landfill
Trip
Hours
Additional
Route
Hours
Cost per
. Truck
Hour
Additional
Cost
Cost per
Customer
per Month
(2)
Residential Routes
52,240
24
9,672
12,090
4,992
$105
$ 1,793,610
$ 2.86
Commercial Routes
2,795
5
1,716
2,145
1,040
$120
$. 382,200
$ 11.40
Drop Box (1, 2)
4,420
9
4,420
5,525
$ 85
$ 469,625
106.25
Totals
38
15,808
19,760
6,032
$ 2,645,435
(2015 dollars)
Residential Routes
54,653
25
10,075
12,594
5,223
$125
$ 2,233,727
$ 3.41
Commercial Routes
3,037
6
2,059
2,574
1,130
$143
$ 530,722
$ 14.56
Drop Box
5,242
11
5,242
6,553
$101
$ 665,044
126.25
Totals
42
17,376
21,720
6,352
$ 3,429,493
Notes
1. Drop Box is reported on number of annual pulls rather than number of customers.
2. Drop Box is reported on the cost per pull.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc
13
Since the garbage trucks will spend a significant amount of time driving to the landfill rather
than collecting waste, additional hours will be required to complete their routes. Many of the
collection routes in the Yakima area are laid out so that the truck is dumped twice a day, once at
the mid -point of the route and again at the end. Routes will either have to be shortened and
additional trucks and drivers added, or overtime will increase. Either way, additional costs will
be incurred, which will then be passed on to the ratepayers. This analysis uses a very
conservative assumption of 10 to 1: for every 10 collection routes, an additional route will be
required if the trucks have to drive.to Cheyne to dump.
To put the options in perspective, it is necessary to compare their effects on collection rates,
which are set at the WUTC certificate holders' cost of service. The costs of driving the
additional distance will be allocated over the respective customer base as detailed in Table 10
above. However, the cost of either Option 1 or 2 will be allocated over all waste disposed
through the County solid waste system. This allocation of disposal costs over all waste tons
reduces the impact on customers that receive collection services. Table 12 details and compares
the impact on monthly collection rates for each option. Options land 2 have a lower cost impact
on customers that receive collection services.
Table 12: Rate Payer Impact for Each Option (2009 dollars)
Level of Service
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Residential 60 gallon monthly weight
195
195
Residential 90 gallon monthly weight
292
292
Commercial 2 yard monthly weight
1,039
1,039
Commercial 4 yard monthly weight
2,078
2,078
Cost per Ton
$9.82
$12.70
Monthly Cost
Residential 60 gallon
$0.96
$1.24
$ 2.86
Residential 90 gallon
$1.43
$1.86
$ 2.86
Commercial 2 yard
$5.10
$6.60
$11.40
Commercial 4 yard
$10.20
$13.20
$11.40
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.0 SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
For Options 1, 2 and 3, Table 13 below summarizes the additional operational costs in 2009 dollars and the projected additional costs
in 2015.
Table 13: Summary of Operational Costs
*Costs have been split into two components: e.g. for Option 1, TS Operations + TS Capital Equipment = $1,009,489 as shown in Tables 7 and 10.
Cost of Operations 8-3 Ln9.doc
1
1
15
2009 Costs
2015 Costs
Annual Operational Cost
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Transfer Station Note Payment
$ 318,917
$ 685,410
$ 358,944
$ 771;474
TS Operations*
$ 829,705
$1,000,239
$ 990,712
$1,194,338
TS Capital Equipment*
$ 179,783
$ 179,783
$ 245,766
$ 245,766
Transportation
$1,244,967
$1,306,409
$2,645,435
$1,575,575.
$1,628,596
$3,429,493
Total Annual Cost
$2,573,372
$3,171,842
$2,645,435
$3,170,997
$3,840,174
$3,429,493
Total Waste Tons
249,681
. 249,681
269,372
269,372
Cost per SW Ton
$10.31
$12.70'
$11.77
$14.26
Cost per resident per month
$1.00
$1.24.
$2.86
$1.15
' $1.39
$3.4 I
Cost per commercial customer
$5.36
$6.60
$1 1.40
$6.12
$7.41
$14.56
*Costs have been split into two components: e.g. for Option 1, TS Operations + TS Capital Equipment = $1,009,489 as shown in Tables 7 and 10.
Cost of Operations 8-3 Ln9.doc
1
1
15
FIGURE 1: OPTION 1
EXPAND TERRACE HEIGHTS
TRANSFER STATION
uoipppd SIH.L - 1 uof;dp
11110 E 1111111 = MIMI I= 1>11111 NM ME E ®: ® M 111111 M. N i M
a
80. SCNES AND
SCALE NOISE
10'
` µE1►DRAN�
J \\
LOAD ARBA
PUSJ MALL PUSH WALL
1
TRANS -ER SUTTONI..
200000 5.
FUTURE EXPANSION !
STAFF FACILITIES
4,000 S.F.
L 111
PARKING
YAKIMA COUNTY
TRANSFER STATION CONCEPT (10+ ACRE snE)
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ONLY
FIGURE 2
Option 2 — New Transfer Station
REFERENCES
Yakima County 2005. Terrace Heights Transfer Station Contract No. 2 Site Facilities. Prepared
by RW Beck. April 2005.
Yakima County 2008. Solid Waste Level of Service Study & Infrastructure Needs Assessment.
Prepared by URS Corporation. April 2008.
Yakima County 2009. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Prepared by URS
Corporation. December 2009.
Cost of Operations 8-31-09.doc 18
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX F
WUTC COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX F
WUTC COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
INTRODUCTION
By state law (RCW 70.95.090), solid waste management plans are required to include:
"an assessment of. the plan's impact on the costs of solid waste collection.
The assessment shall be prepared in conformance with guidelines established
• by the Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC or Commission).
The Commission shall cooperate with the Washington state association of
counties and the association of Washington cities in establishing such
guidelines."
The following cost assessment has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines
prepared by the WUTC (WUTC 1997). The purpose of this cost assessment is not only to
allow an assessment of the impact of proposed activities on current garbage collection and
disposal rates, but to allow projections of future rate impacts as well. The WUTC needs
this information to review the plan's impacts to the waste haulers that it regulates. For
these haulers, WUTC is responsible for setting collection rates and approving proposed
rate changes. Hence, WUTC will review the following cost assessment to determine if it
provides adequate information for rate -setting purposes, and will advise Yakima County as
to the probable collection rate impacts of proposed programs. Consistent with this
purpose, the cost assessment focuses primarily on those programs (implemented or
recommended) with potential rate impacts.
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
YAKIMA COUNTY
COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
PREPARED BY Chris Bell
TELEPHONE: 360-210-4344 / 360-326-8937
DATE: October 23, 2009
Definitions: The solid waste management plan is a long-term strategy covering a twenty year
span starting with 2010 as Year 1, Year 3 is 2013, and Year 6 is 2016. Yakima County's fiscal
year is the same as the calendar year: January through December. The County worked in
conjunction with local governments to develop a county wide comprehensive plan. No other
jurisdictions have developed a plan exclusive of the County.
1. DEMOGRAPHICS: The
data source for population projections used
in the development of the plan is the
Washington State Office of Financial
Management. The base year and the
associated populations are detailed in the
table to the right as well as the assumed
percentage increases from the plan years
three, six, and ten.
Year
Plan Year
Yakima
County
Population
MSW
Disposed
2010
1
255,599
1
2013
3
270,163
5.7%
2016
6
284,728
5.4%
2020
10
303,076
6.4%
2. WASTE STREAM GENERATION: The following table details the estimated waste
generation and recycling tonnage. Waste generation is estimated at 11.1 pounds per person per
day and recycling is projected at 24% of the waste generation.
Year
Plan Year
Waste
Generation
MSW
Disposed
Recycled
and Diverted
Other
Wastes
2010
1
520,040
236,660
124,150
159,230
2013
3
549,671
250,144
131,224
168,302
2016
6
579,304
263,628
138,300
177,376
2020
10
616,640
302,070
147,220
188,810
Waste Generation Assumptions:
• All figures, except the year are shown as tons per year (TPY). Projected waste generation
figures for 2010 through 2020 are based on the waste generation rate for 2009 (11.1
pounds per person per day) and the population forecasts.
• The projected amounts of recycling and diversion, disposed MSW and other wastes
assume the same percentage of the total waste generated as in 2008.
• MSW Disposed per person per day is 5.07 pounds or 1,852 pounds per year.
• Other wastes include construction and demolition (C&D) wastes disposed at limited
purpose landfills and special wastes.
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Manageinent.Plan
31. SYSTEM PROGRAM COMPONENT COSTS
All system costs reported in this questionnaire, with the exception of grant funds from the
Washington Department of Ecology for the Moderate Risk / Household Hazardous Waste
program, are funded by user fees charged at the landfills and transfer station for disposal.
3.1 Waste Reduction Programs
Existing education and outreach waste reduction programs implemented by Yakima County and
detailed in Section 3.3.1:
• School Recycling
• Business Recycling
• Organics Diversion
• Residential Recycling
• Public Event Recycling Education
Provide additional public education for new or expanded waste diversion programs such as yard
debris disposal ban, collection system for e -waste, illegal dumping, and business recognition
program as detailed in Section 3.6. The start-up for the expanded program is 2010.
Status
Program.
Cost Yr. 1
Cost Yr.;3
Cost Yr. 6
Funding
Implemented
Education & Outreach
$32,000
$35,000
$38,000
Disposal Fee
Proposed
Expansion of PE&O
. $25,000
$25,000
$25,000.
Disposal Fee
1
Total E&O Programs
$57,000
$60,000
$63,000
Disposal Fee
3.2 Recycling Programs
Curbside recycling collection services are available in Moxee, Selah, Union Gap, and Yakima,
and these programs collect primarily the Tier 1 materials. Curbside recycling services are also
available in the urban growth area on a subscription basis. Collection of yard debris is provided
within the boundaries of the City of Yakima. Commercial collection of recyclables is offered by
Yakima Waste Systems, Basin Disposal and Central Washington Recycling in and around the
incorporated areas of the County. The cost of these recycling collection programs are already
reflected in the current collection fees charged by the regulated haulers.
The County operates recycling drop-off sites at the Cheyne Road Landfill, Lower Valley
Transfer Station, and Terrace Heights Landfill. In addition, these facilities accept yard debris
including grass clippings, leaves, garden and landscaping wastes, brush and other natural woods
up to ten inches in diameter, and Christmas trees. These materials are typically generated
separately from otherresidential and commercial waste streams, and so are more easily diverted
tll composting and other programs. Hay, straw plastic, sod, manure, treated wood, stumps, rocks
and food waste are not accepted in the County's yard debris program.
yard debris collected curbside by the City of Yakima and Yakima Waste Systems in 2008
accounted for approximately 4,700 tons of the 14,400 total tons of yard debris processed by the
County.
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
New Program — Yard Debris Collection
Alternative management strategies are needed for yard debris generated in Yakima County.
Organic waste is currently being used for alternative daily cover. In the Washington State Solid
Waste Management Plan, one of the recommendations is to divert organic materials such as yard
debris and other organic waste into compostable materials. Yakima County has taken action on
the recommendation and will ban yard waste from the landfill in 2012. An. RFP will need to be
developed to procure composting services from the private sector. Yard debris in the Yakima
County waste stream is estimated at approximately 16,000 tons. Because the RFP has not been
completed, a cost range of $5 to $20 per ton will be utilized to estimate the overall cost of this
future program.
The table below summarizes County operated programs exclusive of current collection programs
and costs that fall under the regulation of either the WUTC or an incorporated jurisdiction.
Status
Program
Cost Yr.
1
Cost Yr.
3
Cost Yr.
6
Funding
Implemented
Recycling Drop-off Sites
$15,000
$16,000
$17,000
Disposal
Fee
Proposed
Yard Debris Composting
(Low Est. 16,000 ton x $5)
$80,000
$88,000
$95,000
Disposal
Fee
Proposed
Yard Debris Composting
(High Est. 16,000 ton x $20)
$320,000
$353,000
$380,000
Disposal
Fee
The costs of operating the recycling drop-off sites are included in the transfer station costs.
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
3.3 Solid Waste Collection Programs
The following table details information about the customer base of the two WUTC-regulated
collection companies in Yakima County as well as the four, non-regulated, municipal collection
systems. Reported amounts for both WUTC regulated haulers are for operations within the •
regulated areas of Yakima County; therefore, information from the incorporated areas serviced
by both haulers has been excluded from the following table.
Basin Disposal, Permit #G-45
2010
2013
2016
Single Family Customers
6,112
6,295
6,484
Residential MSW Tons
7,946
8,184
8,429
Commercial Customers
1,608 •
1,656
1,706
Commercial MSW Tons
20,638
21,829
23,084
Yakima Waste Systems, Permit
#G-89
2010
2013
2016
Single Family Customers
24,660
25,400
26,162
Residential MSW Tons
32,058
33,020
34,010
Commercial Customers
7,448
7,671
7,902
Commercial MSW Tons
89,058
94,152
99,520
Municipal Collections within
Yakima County
2010
2013
2016
City of Yakima
Single Family Customers
22,750
23,433
21,135
Commercial Customers
2,620
2,699
2,780
Total MSW Tons
28,057
29,460
30,933
City of Toppenish
Single Family Customers.
2,400
2,472
2,546
Commercial Customers
400
412
424
Total MSW Tons
5,990
6,290
6,604
City of Grandview
Single Family Customers
2,717
2,799
2,882
Commercial Customers
410
422
435
Total MSW Tons
6,911
7,257
7,619
City of Granger
Single Family Customers
600
618
637
Commercial Customers
120
124
127
Total MSW Tons
1,753
1,841
1,933
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
3.4 Energy Recovery & Incineration (ER&I) Programs
Not applicable to Yakima County.
3.5 Land Disposal Program
Yakima County owns and operates two landfills: Terrace Heights Landfill located 4 miles east of
the City of Yakima and Cheyne Landfill located 3 miles north of Zillah. The following tables
detail the source of waste tons for each landfill
Terrace Heights Landfill
Waste Source
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
WUTC Haulers
103,292
108,457
113,880
Municipal Haulers
28,057
29,460
30,933
Other / Self Haul
34,313
34,682
34,454
, Total MSW Tons •
165,662
172,599
179,267 -
Cheyne Landfill
Waste Source
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
WUTC Haulers
46,407
48,727
51,163
Municipal Haulers
14,654
15,387
16,156
Other / Self Haul
9,937
13,431
17,041
Total MSW Tons
70,998
77,545
83,361
3.5.4 Landfill Cost
The County doesn't segregate costs for each landfill and set a disposal fee independently; rather
it pools the cost for both landfills. The table below summarizes the cost of operations and capital
equipment for both landfills on an annual basis as well as a per ton basis.
Landfill Cost
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Total Cost
$4,090,600
$4,460,500
$4,799,800
MSW Tons
236,660
250,114
253,628
Cost Per Waste Ton
$17.28
$17.83
$18.92
3.6 Administration Program
*Recycling costs include tire processing costs of $150,000 in Year 1, $166,300 in Year 3, and $184,400 in Year 6.
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
Administrative
$695,500
$775,500
$866,100
Planning .
$150,600
$205,700
$111,900
Recycling *
$418,100
$466,400
$517,000
Total Administrative
$1,264,200
$1,447,600
$1,495,000
*Recycling costs include tire processing costs of $150,000 in Year 1, $166,300 in Year 3, and $184,400 in Year 6.
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
3.7 Other Programs
The County operates a Moderate Risk Waste / Household Hazardous Waste facility at Terrace
Heights Landfill. The, table below details the projected operational costs as well as the two
funding sources:
'
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
MRW Operational Cost
$566,200
$656,500
$687,300
Less WA. DOE Grant
($287,800)
($319,100)
($320,000)
County Program Cost
$278,400
$337,400.
$367,300
In addition to the two landfills, Yakima County operates the Lower Valley Transfer Station
(LVTS) just south of the town of Granger. The transfer station serves private and municipal
Haulers as well as self haul customers. Waste collected at the LVTS is transported and disposed
at the Cheyne Landfill. Terrace Heights Landfill has a transfer station exclusively for self haul
customers. The table below summarizes the operational and capital cost for both facilities.
The County operates a septage lagoon at Cheyne Landfill for the disposal of sewage sludge from
local municipalities and private contractors servicing rural septic systems. The cost of the
Program is funded through the disposal fee 'charged for waste delivered to the facility.
Historically, the fee charged for disposal has been approximately 40% of the solid waste disposal
fee. For 2010, the new fee for sewage sludge is $12.00 per ton, which is 38% of the 2010 solid
waste disposal fee.
4. FUNDING MECHANISMS
I'
All system costs reported in this questionnaire are funded by'user fees charged at the landfills
and transfer station with the exception of
interest earned on fund balances and
approximately $350,000 in annual grant
funds from the Washington Department of
Ecology used primarily to offset the
operational costs of the Moderate Risk /
Household Hazardous Waste Program.
System Funding
Year 1
Year 3
Year 6
TS Operational Costs
$1,058,300
$1,147,600
$1,272,400
The County operates a septage lagoon at Cheyne Landfill for the disposal of sewage sludge from
local municipalities and private contractors servicing rural septic systems. The cost of the
Program is funded through the disposal fee 'charged for waste delivered to the facility.
Historically, the fee charged for disposal has been approximately 40% of the solid waste disposal
fee. For 2010, the new fee for sewage sludge is $12.00 per ton, which is 38% of the 2010 solid
waste disposal fee.
4. FUNDING MECHANISMS
I'
All system costs reported in this questionnaire are funded by'user fees charged at the landfills
and transfer station with the exception of
interest earned on fund balances and
approximately $350,000 in annual grant
funds from the Washington Department of
Ecology used primarily to offset the
operational costs of the Moderate Risk /
Household Hazardous Waste Program.
System Funding
2010
Funding
Source
Amount
Percentage
Disposal Fees
$7,144,800
88%
Investment Interest
$ 675,000
8%
WA DOE Grants
$ 333,000
4%
The fee for waste disposal will be $32.00 in 2010. Yard
debris disposal cost is half of the waste disposal fee or
$16.00 per ton. The summarized disposal fee
components are detailed in the table on the right:
Rate Component
2010 Rate
Operations
$26.00
Closure / Post Closure
$ 3.00
Capital
$ 3.00
Total Disposal Fee
$32.00
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire
Page F-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Table 4.1.1 Facility Inventory
The following facilities are owned and operated by Yakima CountySolid Waste Division:
Facility Name
Facility
Type
Location
Final Disposal
Tip Fee per
Ton*
MSW Tons *
Annual
Revenues**
Lower Valley
Transfer Station
Transfer
Station
Granger,
Washington
Cheyne Landfill
$28.00
37,016
$1,036,448
Terrace Heights
Landfill
Landfill
Yakima,
Washington
N/A
$28.00.
159,106
$4,454,968
Cheyne Landfill,
Landfill
Zillah,
Washington
N/A
$28.00
33,908
5949,424
'" Projected 2009 Resta ts. Refuse and B&O taxes paid by the County to the State have historically been 50.30 per ton which is included in the tip fee.
•" Annual revenues for MSW disposal only
Table 4.1.2
The following table details the projected tip fee
components for the upcoming plan years. The County's
policy is to utilize a sinking fund for future capital
purchases. All equipment and infrastructure over the
planning period will be funded through the $3.00 fee per
ton.
Table 4.1.3
The following table is the summarized budget for
Yakima County for the years 2010 to 2016. The
following assumptions were used to project expenses:
Inflation: 3%
Labor: 3.5%
Yakima County S1
Rate Component
Tip Fee Components:
Year 1
2010 to
Year 3
2016
Year 6
Administration
$ 2.47
$ 2.69
$ 3.03
Planning
$ 0.53
$ 0.71
$ 0.39
Recycling
$ 1.48
$ 1.62
$ 1.81
Landfills
$ 14,50
$ 15.49
$ 16.80
Transfer Station
$ 3.75
$ 3.99
$ 4.45
MRW
$ 2.01
$ 2.28
$ 2.41
Bond P&.I
$ 1.26
$ 1.22
$ 1.10
Refuse Tax
$ 2.47
$ 2.69
$ 3.03
Total Operations
(sum ofcomponents)
$26.00
$28.00
$30.00
Closure / Post Closure
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
Capital
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
$ 3.00
Total Tip Fee
$32.00
$34.00
536.00
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-8
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Revenues
Yakima
2010
Conn SW
2011
System Projected
2012
Bud • et 2010
2013
to 2016
21)14
2015
2016
Service Revenue
$7,053,549
$7,229,594
$7,316,666
87,882,197
$7.977,149
$8,129,948
$8,789,591
Refuse! B&O Tax
$91,251
892,740
$93,905
$95,072
$96,262
$98,187
8100.151
WA DEC Grant
$333,000
$344,700
$356,700
8369,200
$382,200
$36S.000
8375.000
Fund Interest
$675,000
$700,000
$700,000
$700,000
$700,000
$700,000
$700,000
Total Revenue
$8,152,800
$7,667,035
$7,767,271
$8,346,469
$8,455,611
$8,596,135
$9.264,742
Expenses
Administration
$695,506
$720,670
$747.530
$775,470
$804,480
' $834,670
$866,050
Planning
$150.625
$102,030
$103.860
$205.690
$107,730
8109,771
$111,912
Recycling
$418,137
$435,430
$450,560
$466,390
$482,750
$499,630
$517,050
Landfills
84,090,563
$4,147,040
84,302.530
$4,460,483
$4,621,402
$4,709.192
$4,799,811
Transfer Stations
81.058 250
$1,071,510
$1,108,800
$1.147,627
$1,187,808
81,229,269
$1,272,360
MRW
' $566,163
$613.314
$634,386
$656.521
$678,722
$664,050
$687,250
LTD Payments
$355,Q00
$350,000
$345,000
8350,000
$345,000
$325,001
$315,002
Total Expenses
57,334.244
$7,439,995
$7,692,666
$8.062,180
$8,227,891
$8,371,584
$8,569,435
Ne1; Income
8818,556
8227,040
$74,605
8284,288
$227,719
$224,551
$695,306
Rate per Ton
S26.00
826.00
$26.00
$28.00
S28.00
S28.00
$30.00
Closure and post closure costs for Terrace Heights Landfill and Cheyne Landfill are summarized in the following table to the left
while the accrual for capital projects is summarized in the table to the right:
Xakima County Closure / Post -Closure Cost per Ton
Annual Closure Costs to Accrue
$736.074
Annual Post Closure Costs to Accrue
$15.7,500
Less Interest Earned on Fund Balances
$(320,000)
Total Closure / Post Closure Cost to Accrue
$573,574
Annual SW Tons
210,000
Cost per Ton
52.73
Yakima County SW System Capital Accrua Cost per Ton
Projected Future Capital Costs
$ 5,006,970
Projected SW Tons
1.673,389
Cos Ton
S2.99
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Appendix F: WUTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page F-10
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX .G
POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX G
POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This appendix shows more details about potential funding methods that could be used to support
solid waste activities. The following list is derived from Financing Solid Waste for the Future
(Ecology 2004, Publication #04-07-032).
POTENTIAL FUNDING METHODS
User Fees, Rates, Surcharges
1. Cost -of -Service -Based Rates: Cost -of -service -based rates, which allow for rates to cover
the actual costs of providing the services, is a rate -setting methodology used by the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) and some cities. Under
Chapter 81.77 RCW, the WUTC has established cost -of -service -based rates for regulated
solid waste collection from residents and commercial businesses in areas where certificates
exist for solid waste collection companies. Under RCW 35.21.130 and 35.21.135, cities
and towns may set rates through a solid waste or recyclable materials collection ordinance.
Both cities and counties can provide for reduced rates as incentives. Cities and towns may
provide reduced solid waste collection rates as incentives to residents participating in
recycling programs. In WUTC-regulated areas, counties can, by ordinance, provide for
reduced solid waste collection rates as incentives to residents participating in recycling
programs, subject to WUTC approval.
Other Volume Based Rates: This represents an alternative range of pricing options for
solid waste collection and disposal services, such' as using the rates to provide incentives
for reducing wastes and incentives for separating recyclables. An example would be
setting a rate where subscribers to two -can service would pay double the rate of one -can
subscribers. Specific authority for counties to set such rates does not exist. These types of
rates may be problematic under cost -of -service models, as they are currently used to set
rates that cover costs.
3. "Fixed" or "flat" Per -Customer Rates: Fixed or flat per -customer rates charge each
customer the same amount regardless of the volume of service. Very simply, the total
costs divided by the number of households equals the rate per household. Some cities use
a flat rate for all or some services (garbage, recycling, and yard waste). The WUTC uses
flat rates for mandatory -pay recycling and yard waste services, but not garbage.
4. Solid Waste/Recycling Collection Rate Surcharges: As noted, Chapter 35.21 RCW
provides authority to cities to set collection and disposal rates, which may include
surcharges/fees to cover additional costs of managing the solid waste system beyond actual
collection and disposal costs. Similarly, RCW 81.77.160 directs the WUTC to establish
collection rates that include "all known and treasurable costs related to implementation of
the approved county or city comprehensive solid waste management plan."
Appendix G: Potential Funding Options Page G-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
5. Planning Fees: RCW 36.58.045 authorizes counties to impose a fee on collection services
in the unincorporated areas to pay for "the administration and planning expenses that may
be incurred by the county in complying with the requirements in RCW 70.95.090."
6. Weight or Volume Based Disposal Fees: Both cities (RCW 35.21.120 and 35.2.1.152)
and counties (RCW 36.58.040) are authorized to develop solid waste disposal sites and set
user fees. Weight/volume based fees involve per -ton or per -cubic yard fees charged for
disposal of solid waste at a transfer facility, landfill, or incinerator; these fees may also
apply to moderate -risk waste drop-off, vactor waste separation and treatment, and other
similar services. The basic premise is that the user pays for the service according to the
amount of material disposed.
7. "Fixed" or "flat" Per -Customer Disposal Fees: Both cities (RCW 35.21.120 and
35.21.152) and counties (RCW 36.58.040) are authorized to develop solid waste disposal
sites and set user fees. These fees may be set on a per -customer or per -trip basis instead of
the more common weight or disposal basis.
8. Disposal Surcharges: Chapter 35.21 RCW provides authority to cities to set collection
and disposal rates, and those rates may include surcharges to cover additional costs of
managing the solid waste system over and above the costs calculated to cover actual
collection and disposal. RCW 36.58.040 allows counties to set rates and charges for solid
waste disposal, which includes the ability to impose disposal fee surcharges.
Taxes
9. Model Toxics Control Act Funds - Hazardous Substance Tax: Also referred to as a
"pollution tax," this tax is established by Chapter 82.21 RCW and is imposed on persons
who first possess, in Washington State, hazardous substances. The substances subject to
this tax include those defined under federal law (CERCLA), registered pesticides,
petroleum products, and any other substance that Ecology determines by rule to present a
threat to human health or the environment if released into the environment. Revenues
collected from this tax go into the Toxic Control Accounts (RCW 70.105D.070). Both a
state toxics control account and a local toxics control account were established, and monies
deposited into those accounts are to be used for a broad array of hazardous waste and solid
waste activities and programs at the state and local government levels.
All counties are eligible to receive biennial Coordinated Prevention Grants (CPG), which
come from the local toxics control account. The CPG funding is based in large part on
population. Some portions of CPG monies go to local health authorities for inspection and
enforcement activities. The other main use of the toxics control account monies is for
Remedial Action Grants (RAG), given to local jurisdictions for cleanup activities, such as
landfill closures. CPG grants require local matching dollars, which are typically paid for
with disposal revenues.
10. State Litter Tax: The Waste Reduction, Recycling and Model Litter Control Account
(WRRMLCA), imposed through Chapter 82.19 RCW, is funded by a tax collected from
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of items or packaging deemed to contribute to
roadside litter. Chapter 70.93 RCW directs that the WRRMLCA be used for litter cleanup
and prevention, and also for waste reduction and recycling efforts at both the state
government and local community levels.
Appendix G: Potential Funding Options Page G-2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
11. Disposal District Excise Tax: RCW 36.58.100-150 authorizes counties with populations
of less than one million to create one or more disposal districts in unincorporated areas,
which become junior taxing districts. Excise taxes may be levied upon citizens and
businesses within a district (again, unincorporated areas only, unless city approval allows
districts to expand into incorporated areas). A disposal district is potentially in competition,
for taxing authority with other junior taxing districts, including ports, fire districts and
utility districts.
12. Mandatory Collection: Collection districts in unincorporated areas may be formed by
counties under the authority of RCW 36.58A. Collection districts do not directly raise
revenues, however. They can impose mandatory collection service at minimum levels for
all unincorporated areas, which provides the structure for a service -area wide fee to be
included in collection rates.
13. Franchise Fees/Gross Receipt Taxes: Some cities charge franchise fees or taxes on gross
receipts upon solid waste collection companies for the privilege of entering into a contract
with or doing business within a city. These fees sometimes fund solid waste -related
activities. The WUTC assesses a regulatory fee on gross solid waste collection revenues of
regulated solid waste collection companies.
Specialized Fees
14. Advance Recovery Fees (Voluntary or Mandatory): Advance recovery fees (ARFs) are
a front-end financing method whereby some or all costs for end -of -life management of
products are paid/collected when the product is sold. ARFs may be voluntary or mandated,
visible or invisible. Invisible fees occur when manufacturers include the end -of -life
collection, recycling, and disposal costs in the price of the product. This is called cost
internalization, and examples include programs operated by the Rechargeable Battery
Recycling Corporation (RBRC), Thermostat Recycling Corporation, Office Depot and
Hewlett Packard.
ARFs can be used to pay for manufacturer -funded programs or can be used to pay for the
costs incurred by other parties such as governments, haulers, or recyclers. Some fortes of
ARFs provide incentives to manufacturers to increase recyclability and reduce toxicity of
their products, thereby reducing program costs for other entities.
15. Permitting Fees: Permits are required for legal solid waste management facilities. Fees
for permitting activities are imposed and collected by jurisdictional health departments.
These monies are used for the health department's operating expenses (RCW 70.95.180;
WAC 173-350-700 and 710).
Other Methods
16. Enforcement Infractions/Fines/Penalties: Fees collected through enforcement actions
taken against solid waste facilities are nearly always paid into a jurisdiction's general fund.
However, they are not necessarily directed to help pay for the jurisdiction's enforcement or
other solid waste management activities.
17. Sales of Recyclable Materials: Revenues from selling collected recyclable materials can
be used to help pay for solid waste programs. Prices for recyclables fluctuate widely.
Appendix G: Potential Funding Options Page G-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
18. Fees/Charges for Recycling: Public and private recycling entities may charge fees to
cover the costs of recovering or recycling a variety of discarded products.
19. Sales of Recovered Energy: Some solid waste facilities, such as waste -to -energy facilities
and landfills, are able to recover energy from the waste materials. Some landfills create
energy by burning landfill gas. Sales of this energy can be used to help pay for solid waste
programs.
20. Government -Collected Funds from Private Sector Activities ("Utility Taxes"): In
some instances, pursuant to RCW 81.77.020, cities contract with private parties to provide
various solid waste collection services but retain the billing function. Revenues received
above the amount remitted to the contractor can be directed to other solid -waste -related
programs and activities by the applicable municipality.
21. General Fund Revenue Sources: Governments may use general fund revenues to pay for
solid waste activities, and some do rely to some extent on such funding.
22. Bond Financing: RCW 36.67.010 authorizes counties to sell bonds to pay for major solid
waste projects. Bonding is used for capital projects (landfills, transfer stations, etc.) or
large landfill remediation efforts. It is not used for regular operating expenses. Bonds can
be general obligation (GO) or revenue bonds. Typically, the debt service for a bond is paid
with disposal fees.
23. Public Works Assistance Account: A statewide solid waste collection tax has been in
place since 1989. Chapter 82.18 RCW imposes a 3.6% "solid waste collection tax" on all
persons using such service. Revenues collected via this tax go into the Public Works
Assistance Account, which is used to provide loans and financial guarantees to local
governments for public works projects, including solid waste and recycling infrastructure.
This tax replaced an earlier "refuse collection tax," and that name continues to be applied
to the new tax. These funds are to be used to make loans or give financial guarantees to
local governments for public works projects.
Appendix G: Potential Funding Options Page G-4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX H
SEPA CHECKLIST
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
APPENDIX H
SEPA CHECKLIST
INTRODUCTION
Ecology guidelines (Ecology 1999) require that the potential impacts of this Solid Waste
Management Plan (Plan) be evaluated according to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
process. This checklist has been prepared to fulfill that requirement.
The SEPA checklist prepared for this Plan is a "non -project proposal" that is intended to address
the new programs recommended by the Plan. As a non -project SEPA checklist, itis unable to
fully address the potential impacts of facilities mentioned in this Plan (such as the MRW facility
and the central compost facility). Any new facilities may need to undergo their own SEPA
review process.
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
2. Name of applicant:
Yakima County Department of Public Services
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Wendy Mifflin
Yakima County Public Services - Solid Waste Division
7151 Roza Hill Drive, Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: (509) 574-2455, Fax: (509) 574-2458
4. Date checklist prepared:
September 30, 2009
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Yakima County
Washington State Department of Ecology
6. Proposed project timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
This checklist is for a non -project proposal intended to update Yakima County's long-
range plans for solid and moderate risk wastes. The proposed Solid and Moderate Risk
Waste Management Plan is required to undergo public review and comment, which is
anticipated to begin in October 2009. A final copy of the Solid Waste Management Plan
is expected to be adopted by April 2010.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Ecology's guidelines require solid waste management plans to be reviewed every 5 years
and, if necessary, updated.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Does not apply
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-2
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
9. Do you know of pending applications for governmental approvals of other proposals directly
affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
NA
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposals, if known:
State Law (RCW 70.95.094) and guidelines issued by the Department of Ecology
(Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan
Revisions, December 1999) require cities to adopt this plan (or they must develop their
own plans), require a public review period (for a minimum of 30 days), require that the
plan and a Cost Assessment Questionnaire be reviewed and approved by the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and require Ecology to examine
and approve of the preliminary draft and final plan. The Board of County
Commissioners must also adopt the final draft of the plan, at about the same time that
the cities adopt it.
1
1
1 Give a 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 which ask you to describe
certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
Yakima County is required by state law to maintain a "coordinated, comprehensive
solid waste management plan" in a "current and applicable condition." The existing
plan, adopted in 2002, needs to be updated. The proposed new plan addresses changes
that have occurred in the past seven years.
In addition to updating the discussion of current facilities and programs, the proposed
solid waste management plan contains a number of recommendations. Most of these
recommendations represent refinements to existing policies and programs, based on the
goal of decreasing reliance on landfills (by increasing waste reduction, recycling and
composting) and reducing environmental impacts caused by existing activities. The
recommendations proposed in the solid waste management plan can be viewed in the
plan (see the Executive Summary or Chapter 14 for a concise listing).
2. Location of the proposal. Please give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any. If a proposal
should occur over a range of area, please provide the range or boundaries of the site(s).
Please provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map if possible.
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.
(Indicate if maps or plans have been submitted as part of a permit application.)
The Solid Waste Management Plan addresses activities and programs that occur
throughout Yakima County. A few facilities or activities outside of the county are also
involved (such as recycling markets in other areas).
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-3
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep, slopes, mountainous,
other (describe): Not applicable — non -project proposal.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate % slope)? NA.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (i.e. clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck) ? If you
know the classification of agricultural soils, please specify and note any prime farmland. NA.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe: NA.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill: Not applicable — non -project proposal.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
NA.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NA.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NA.
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. NA.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor which may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe. NA.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts, if any: NA.
3: Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-
round and seasonal stream, saltwater, lakes, ponds, associated wetlands)? If yes,
describe type, provide names, and, if known, state what stream or river it flows into. NA.
2) Will the project require any work over or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NA.
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-4
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
b
c
d
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the are of the site that would be affected. Indicate
the source of fill material. NA.
4) Will surface water withdrawals or diversions be required by the proposal? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NA.
5) Does the proposal lie with a 100 -year flood plain? Note location on the site plan, if any.
NA.
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. NA.
Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn or recharged? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known. NA.
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. NA.
Water runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff and storm water and method of collection and disposal, if
any (including quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow
into other waters? If so, please describe. NA.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NA.
Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
NA.
4. Plants
a Check " X" or circle "O" types of vegetation found on the site: • NA.
b
c
d
5
a
What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NA.
List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NA.
List proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any: NA.
Animals
Circle "0" any birds and animals which have been observed on or known to be on or near the
site: NA.
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist
Page H-5
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: NA.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NA.
d. Proposed measures to preserve 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 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? N/A.
d. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any? N/A.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, exposure to toxic chemicals, including risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. N/A.
b. Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any?
N/A.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A.
b. Has the site been used for agricultural purposes? 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? N/A.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program environment designation of the
site? N/A.
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-6
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?: If so, specify.
N/A.
J.•
What are proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected
land uses and plans, if any: N/A.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A.
k. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A.
1.
What are proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement or other impacts, 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
1
a
b
c
1
a.
b
c.
What are proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any? N/A.
0. Noise
What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)? N/A.
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)? N/A.
What are the proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any? N/A.
1. Aesthetics
What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A.
What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A.
What are the proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? N/A.
12. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur? N/A.
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-7
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
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. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A.
13. 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. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? N/A.
14. 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. N/A.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on the site. N/A.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any? N/A.
15. 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
nearest transit stop? 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 any existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private): N/A.
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. N/A.
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-8
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, Preliminary Draft
g
What are proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any? N/A.
16. Public Services
a. Would the project result inanincreased need for public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. N/A.
b. What are proposed ineasures..to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any?
N/A.
'17. Utilities
a. Circle "0" utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas; water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other (describe). N/A.
b. Describe the utilities which are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities of the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed. N/A.
SIGNATURE
The above answers are true to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Date Submitted:
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-9
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the
list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities
likely to result from the proposal, would effect the item at a greater intensity or at a rate then if
the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production or noise?
Implementation of the proposed recommendations should help reduce the amount of
water and air discharges, while increasing the proper handling of any solid or toxic
wastes that are generated in the county. There should not be a significant increase or
reduction in noise as a result of the recommendations.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life?
Any impacts to plants, animals, fish and marine life will only be incidental and should be
beneficial. Activities such as reducing illegal dumping should help reduce impacts to
plant and animal life. Encouraging composting of yard wastes should also be beneficial
to plant life (assuming proper application of the compost).
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life?
Not applicable.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposed recommendations should help reduce energy demands and help to conserve
natural resources, by increasing waste reduction and other activities. Increased recycling not
only leads to conservation of natural resources but also reduces energy demands. In general,
using recycled materials in place of virgin materials requires significantly less energy in the
manufacturing process.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Not applicable.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist
Page H-10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan
5
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, floodplains, or prime farm lands?
These areas should be unaffected by the recommendations in the solid waste
management plan.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Not applicable.
. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would
allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
No direct impacts to land use or shoreline use are anticipated to result from the
proposed recommendations.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Not applicable.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services
and utilities?
7
The proposed recommendations should not have significant effects on transportation
requirements, but public services will potentially be increased through new recycling
and composting programs.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Not applicable.
Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with locate, state or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the enviromnent.
No such conflicts are likely. The intent of updating the solid waste management plan is
to comply with various laws and requirements (especially on the state level) regarding
environmental protection and other factors.
Appendix H: SEPA Checklist Page H-11
FINAL
TOTi RTV NATION OFNONSIGNIFICANCE
(Notice of Action)
(Description of Proposal: The Yakima County Planning Division has received an
;,environmental checklist for a non -project proposal to update Yakima County's Solid and Moderate
Risk Waste Management Plan. In addition to updating the Plan's discussion of current facilities and
programs, the proposed solid waste management plan contains a number of recommendations. Most
of these recommendations represent refinements to existing policies and programs, based on the goal
of decreasing reliance on landfills (by increasing waste reduction, recycling and composting) and
reducing environmental impacts caused by existing activities.
?File Number: .SEP09-041
Applicant: :Wendy Mifflin
Yakima County Public Services — Solid Waste Division
7151 Roza Hill Drive
Yakima, WA 98901
• Location of Proposal: Yakima County
Lead Agency: Yakima County Planning Division
Determination: The lead agency for this proposal has determined .that it will not have a probable
significant adverse impact on theenvironment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after a careful review of the
. completed environmental checklist, and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information (including allenvironmental documentation) is available to thepublic on request and can
jbe examined in. our offices during regular business hours. Environmental documents include the
'SEPA checklist, this •threshold determination, and submittal materials
•
i Commentand Appeal Information: This Final DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). There
• :is no further comment on it. State law prohibits SEPA appeals for permits that do not have an appeal
• :Option, consequently no appeal is allowed (WAC 197-11-680(3)(v)), For information on the SEPA
processes, or on other issues relating to this proposal, contact Carol Faith, Senior Proj ect Coordinator,
at((509):574-2300. •
41.
t R
SEPA Responsible Official:
%�r a
:° EN M. CKSON
`Position/Title:' Planning Offi ial / SEPA Responsible Official
.10. • Address: 128 N. tad St., 4th Floor Courthouse, Yakima, WA 98901
11. • Date: • January201 0
b \Development Services\Projects\SEPA1a Files-Ntcs-Docs\20091SEP09-041 Solid Waste Final.doc.doc
•
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.0ci'
For Meeting of March 23, 2010
ITEM TITLE: Resolution Adopting the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste
Management Plan, January 2010
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Nancy Fortier, Refuse and Recycling Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Nancy Fortier, 576-6421
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Yakima County Public Services, Solid Waste Division has requested that the Yakima City Council adopt
the attached Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Update, dated January
2010.
During the environmental review process, four comments were received regarding the plan. A copy of
0. the comments and the proposed revisions prepared by the County consultant, URS are attached.
The attached Resolution authorizes the City Manager to implement the Yakima County Solid and
Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan. At the earliest opportunity, the Yakima County Solid Waste
Plan should be included in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan by reference and a summary
of the capital facilities added to the Capital Facilities Element.
Resolution X Ordinance Contract Other (Specify) Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk
Waste Management Plan
Funding Source
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
city Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests City Council approve the Resolution to adopt
the Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, dated January 2010.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
WEEKLY ISSUES
March 4, 2010
TO: City Manager, Dick Zais
Members of the Yakima City Council
FROM: Nancy Fortier, Refuse and Recycling Manager
SUBJECT: Information Relating to Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement with
Yakima County
On April 15, 2003, the Yakima City Council approved a Resolution Authorizing Execution of a
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement with Yakima County. The Interlocal Agreement designates
Yakima County to prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan on behalf of the City of Yakima.
Chapter 70.95 RCW, requires counties within the state, in cooperation with various cities located
within the County to prepare a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan. It has
historically been Council policy to authorize Yakima County to prepare the plan for the city's
solid waste management for inclusion in the comprehensive county plan. The current Interlocal
Agreement will remain in effect for 20 years, until April 15, 2023.
Council Member Bill Lover has been participating as a voting member of the Yakima County
Solid Waste Management Committee (SWAC) in developing the Solid Waste Management Plan.
The final 2010 Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan will be
coming before the Yakima City Council for adoption in the near future.
DATE: January 8, 2010
TO: Yakima County SWAC Members
FROM: Terrill Chang and Rick Hlavka
RE: Comments and Proposed Revisions for the Solid Waste Plan
The purpose of this memo is to identify the comments received on the Preliminary Draft of the Yakima
County Solid and Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan (Plan), and to propose revisions that can be
made in response to those comments. If the SWAC members concur with the proposed revisions, the
revisions will be incorporated into the Plan. These revisions will convert the Preliminary Draft into the
Final Draft. After the Final Draft is adopted, the resolutions of adoption must be inserted into Appendix
C and then the plan can be submitted to Ecology for final approval. Only after final approval from
Ecology has been granted (or if they fail to act within 45 days) does the plan become effective and the
planning process comes to an end.
Comments were received from four sources: the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(WUTC), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Yakama Nation, and the Dept. of Ecology. These comments
are addressed below in the order that they were received.
COMMENTS RECEIVEDFROM THE WUTC'
The WUTC's comments state that their analysis concludes that there will be a slight increase in garbage
service costs due to the recommendations of the solid waste plan. For residential customers, their
analysis concludes that costs could increase by less than $3.00 per year. The, WUTC general `comrnents
relate to.terminology, as discussed below.
A. General Comments: WUTC staff noted that solid waste collection companies are erroneously
referred to as "franchise haulers" throughout the Plan, and that those references should be changed to •
"certificated" instead. "
Discussion: The tern "franchise" shows .up in several spots throughout the Plan, but some of those
refer to a city's authority to establish a franchise (which is the correct use of the tern as defined by
the WUTC). In another place it is part of a direct quotation of state law, which we cannot change..
There are only a few places where the term is used incorrectly.
Recommendation: Change "franchise" to "certificated" in approximately four or five locations in the
Plan.
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE YAKAMA NATION and BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS
The comments from the Yakarna Nation and Bureau of Indian Affairs are similar and are being addressed
at the same time. For reference, the discussion will use the letter from the Yakarna Nation (dated
December 21, 2009, see attached).
1 of 5
URS
•
•
•
•
B. Continent #1 from the Yakama Nation: This comment notes that expenditures outlined in the Plan
will exceed $12,000,000 over a six-year period for new projects and questions the lack Of information
about the impacts of those developments.
Discussion: First, the SEPA process fora solid waste plan is considered to be a "non -project action."
Identifying a proposed development project in a solid waste plan does not eliminate the need to
undergo permitting and the SEPA process for that project in the future when it is actually being
planned and designed. In this case, part of the $12,000,000 is for various operational activities and
studies that do not need to be addressed by a SEPA process, but most of this amount is for two capital
improvement projects that will each require a project -specific SEPA process: a self -haul site at
Cheyne Landfill and the expansion of the transfer station at Terrace Heights. Those SEPA processes
will be conducted separately for these projects at a. later date as part of the permitting process.
Insufficient detailsare available at this time to adequately address the potential impacts of these two
projects. The referenced estimated amount was used to indicate the magnitude of future capital
expense.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist or the Plan in response to this
comment.
C. Comment #2 from-the-Y-akama-Nation=T-he Yakaina Nation's=next-comment-disagrees with the
characterization of the recommendations of the Plan as "refinements to current solid waste practices"
and states that they feel that the plan proposes several substantial changes. They cite the designation
of Cheyne Landfill as a "regional landfill" as an example of a substantial change.
Discussion: The statement that there will not be a significant change m waste management practices
is correct within the context of environmental impacts.. Although there will be a shift in the future
from Terrace Heights Landfill to Cheyne Landfill as the primary disposal site, the waste disposal
system will continue to use local landfills as the primary disposal method. Current haulers using
Terrace Heights Landfill will: continue to use Terrace Heights and current haulers utilizing Cheyne
Landfill will continue to use Cheyne Landfill Only; if the Plan proposed changing from landfill
disposal to a radically different disposal method (such as waste incineration or composting), would
the Plan itself be considered to be making a significant change in terms of potential environmental
impacts.
It should also be noted that Cheyne Landfill is not considered to be a "regional" landfill. Although
there is no precise regulatory definition of what makes a landfill' "regional," the Cheyne Landfill is
currently only used for local wastes.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist or the Plan in response to this
comment.
D. Comments 113 through #8 from the Yakama Nation: The next six comments from. the Yakarna Nation
appear to only address possible impacts from the expansion of the Cheyne Landfill.
Discussion: All of these issues have already been addressed by the SEPA process conducted in 2008
for the permitted expansion of the Cheyne Landfill and are not within the scope of the SEPA process
for the solid waste plan.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist or the Plan in response to these
comments.
2 of 5
URS
E. Comment #9 from the Yakama Nation: The Yakama Nation's final comment notes that they are a
party of interest in the County's waste management system, but that they have been excluded from
active participation in the solid waste advisory committee.
Discussion: Representatives of the Yakama Nation have participated in the planning process as a
member of the public and their comments during the process have been welcomed and addressed as
appropriate. As has been previously discussed by Yakama Nation and Yakima County, formal
membership on the SWAC would require some form of written agreement between the two parties.
Unfortunately, that has been difficult to accomplish.
Recommendation: No changes are proposed to the SEPA checklist or the Plan in response to this
comment.
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ECOLOGY
Ecology's comments on the Preliminary Draft plan fall into three categories (see also the attached copy
of their letter):
1. Procedural items that must be addressed prior to plan approval.
2. Other items that must be addressed prior to plan approval.
3. Other comments (non -mandatory recommendations).
These comments can be summarized and addressed as follows.
Procedural Items from Ecology's Comments:
F. Resolutions of Adoption: Ecology's first continent is "Yakima County and the cities with interlocal
agreements need to approve the updated comprehensive solid waste management plan prior to
Ecology's approval of the final draft. Please include a statement assuring that the plan acceptance
process outlined in the interlocal agreement has been fulfilled."
Discussion: This will be addressed in the final copy of the Plan.
Recommendation: The final Plan will contain a statement that the adoption process has been satisfied.
Copies of adoptions by each respective party will be included as an attachment to the Plan.
G. Approval of Local Hazardous Waste Plan: Ecology's next comment notes that the approval request
for the final plan should specifically mention both the solid waste and moderate risk waste
management plans.
Discussion: This is per standard plan approval procedures.
Recommendation: This will be done when the final Plan is submitted to Ecology for final approval.
3 of 5
URS
t
Other Required Items from Ecology's Comments:
H. SEPA Process: Ecology's next comment notes that the plan must comply with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and that evidence of that compliance should be included in the
final plan.
Discussion: This is per standard procedures.
Recommendation: The SEPA checklist is already included in the Plan (see Appendix H), and the final
Plan should include the signature page for the SEPA checklist and the results of the SEPA process
(such as a DNS or mitigated DNS).
I. Include Copies of Local Ordinances: Ecology next comment states that copies of local ordinances
should be included in the plan.
Discussion: There are several problems with this request, not the least of which is the waste of
resources (paper) that this represents. A. larger problem is that the Plan cannot be viewed as the best
source of current information about ordinances. Any future changes in ordinances would require
updating the Plan, creating confusion and requiring additional expenditure of time and money.
•
•
Recommendation: No changes are .proposed to the Plan in response to this comment.
Other (Non -Mandatory) Items from Ecology's Comments:
J. G -Certificates and City Contracts: Ecology's next cominent states that copies of G -certificates and
city contracts should be included in the plan.
Discussion: Again, this would lead to a waste of resources and potentially cause problems in the
future when changes are made to the certificates and contracts
Recommendation: No revisions are necessary in response to this:comment.
K. WUTC Comments: Ecology notes that the WUTC's comment should be incorporated.
Discussion: As previously noted in this memo (see item A), a few of the references to "franchise"
haulers should be changed to "certificated.",,,
Recommendation: Change "franchise" to "certificated" in approximately four to five locations in the
Plan.
L. Anaerobic Digester Regulations: Ecology's next comments requests that a reference be added to the
plan noting that a recent changein state law exempts anaerobic digesters from solid waste permit
requirements. .
Discussion: We agree that this is a significant change and that it could be added to the summary of
relevant state laws.
Recommendation: A brief description of the new law should be added to Section 1.13 of the plan.
4 of 5
URS
M.Yard Debris Disposal Ban: Ecology's final comment notes that the language in RCW 70.95.010(10)
doesn't require that yard debris be banned from landfill disposal, only that elimination of yard debris
from landfills is a goal of the state.
Discussion: We thought that all such references had already been cleaned up but will clarify this
point as appropriate.
Recommendation: Slight revisions should be made in a few places in the Plan to avoid the
implication that there is intended to be a statewide disposal ban for yard debris.
This concludes all of the comments received on the Preliminary Draft of the Yakima County Solid and
Moderate -Risk Waste Management Plan.
5 of 5
URS
December 22, 2009
STATE OF VV SHINGTON `
DEPAR 7 ]ENT OF ECOLOGY
15 VWW Yakima Ave, Ste 200 O Yakima, WA 98902-3452 m (509) 575-2490
Yakima County Public Works
Ms. Wendy Mifflin, Manager
Solid Waste Division
7151 Roza Hill Drive
Yakima, WA 9890]
RE: Review of the Preliminary Draft Yakima County Solid and Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan,
October 2009
Dear Ms. Mifflin:
On November 3, 2009, Ecology receivedformal submittal of the Preliminary Draft Yakima County Solid and
Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, October 2009 and a request for preliminary review. Per the statutory
requirements of Chapter 70.95 RCW, and under the WDOE 90-11 Guidelines for the Development of Local
olid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions (WDOE 90-11 Guidelines),1 have conducted a preliminary
review of the Plan.
I would like to commend the efforts of the County, the SWAC and all other involved parties in getting the Plan
to this point. During this planning effort allinvolved parties have stayed focused: on producing a workable,
usable document. We are confident this documentwill guide the County in making the tough decisions it will
face in the future in the solid waste arena: .
The attached comments are categorized in two ways. The comments under the first two headings must be
addressed prior to Plan. approval The comments under the thirdheading, "General Comments" are not required
to be addressed prior to Plan approval. However, Ecology feels that addressing these issues will help clarify the
plan. Ecology has focused its comments onsubstantive issues and"has not addressed editing details in this
review.
I look forward to working with your staff towards final approval of this plan. If you have any questions please
call me at 509-454-7863.
Sincerely,
/"/"Z"2/41110
Christopher M. Piercy4111111
Solid Waste Planner
•ncl osu e
r
2009 Yakima County Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Preliminary Review Comments
Reviewer:
Christopher M. Piercy
Solid Waste Planner, CRO
December 22, 2009
Ecology's review comments are provided to assist Yakima County in the development of
a comprehensive, approvable, and useful solid waste management plan. The goals of the
planning process include reducing the total amount of solid waste produced through
waste reduction and recycling, and achieving compliance with state and local
environmental regulations.
The task of comprehensive plan development is not an easy, assignment considering the
multitude of responsibilities confronting the.Yakima County Public Services Depa fluent.
Ecology recognizes the tremendous effort in developing and updating the comprehensive
solid waste management plan: The Plan presented to Ecology has gone through a
-thorough -review -by -S -WAC; Yakiina-County-Cities,-haulers,-the-public-and-other
interested parties in the County. The Plan has endured a long road to this release, and the
thought and effort to get the plan to this point should be appreciated by all parties who
have participated in its development. This Plan. should provide Yakima County with the
tools necessary to run an efficient and effective solid waste handlingsystem over the
coming years.
In November, 2004 Ecology issued the State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan, known as
the "Beyond Waste Plan". Some of the new initiatives outlined in your plan are
initiatives discussed in the Beyond Waste Plan I would encourage you to review the
Beyond Waste Plan for guidance as'you implement your plan, and look to Ecology for
assistance in the development of your new programs
PROCEDURAL ITEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN
APPROVAL
Resolutions of Adoption: Yakima County and the cities with interlocal agreements need
to approve the updated comprehensive solid waste management plan prior to Ecology's
approval of the final draft. Please include a statement assuring that the plan acceptance
process outlined in the interlocal agreement and/or the plan has been fulfilled.
Approval of the Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan:. When requesting final
approval of the Yakima County Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, be sure to
request approval of both plans under their respective statutes:
•
•
•
Ms. Wendy Mifflin
December 22, 2009
Page 2 of 3
ITEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO PLAN APPROVAL
The final plan must comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA):
Complete and final SEPA documentation must be incorporated into the locally -adopted
plan prior to Ecology granting final plan approval.
Relevant local ordinances should be included in the plan: Any local ordinances
(county or city) that pertain to the collection, handling, or disposal of solid waste should
be included in the plan. The most efficient method for doing this would be to include the
ordinances as an appendix to the plan. This element is essential to provide context for the
surveillance and control element and provide a reference for the occasions where local
policy is referenced in the plan. Any future ordinances (such as a flow control ordinance)
should also be included in' the plan as they are developed.
Note: Yakima County opted for an informal Ecology review prior to this formal
submittal. All required elements were addressed in that review and the current draft
meets all of the required elements as described in Chapter 70.95 RCW, except as listed
above.
OTHER COMMENTS
G -certificates and city hauling contracts: Ecology recommends including copies of the
WUTC-issued G -certificates for Yakima County and city hauling contracts for
participating jurisdictions as an appendix to the plan:
Regulatory consistency and terminology: In order to remain consistent with the
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission's (WUTC) preferred temuinology,
the plan's references to "franchise haulers" and "franchise" should be changed to
"certificated" or "certificate" as appropriate. See WUTC Secretary David W. Danner's
letter to Yakima County Public Works, dated December 10, 2009 for more details.
Anaerobic digester regulations: In 2009, the Washington State Legislature passed
Substitute Senate Bill 5797 (RCW .70.95.330) Exemption. from Solid Waste Handling
Permit Requirements for Anaerobic Digesters: The bill provides criteria for exempting
certain anaerobic digesters from obtaining a solid waste handling permit. Since there are
operating digesters) in .Yakima County, this addition to 70.95 RCW is significant, and
should be mentioned in section .1.13Sumn ary of Recent Changes. n Solid Waste
Regulation and Policy.
Possible local ban on yard debris: There are a few references in the plan regarding
language in RCW 70.95.010(10): The statute states that, "It' is the state's goal that
programs be established to eliminate residential and commercial yard debris in landfills
by 2012 in those areas where alternatives to disposal are readily available and
effective." Some of the language in the plan implies that this is a statewide ban on yard
Ms. Wendy Mifflin
December 22, 2009
Page 3 of 3
debris disposal in landfills. This statement is a goal similar to the state recycling rate
goal of 50% by 2007. Ecology applauds Yakima County's ambition for considering such
a ban, but it should be made very clear that this Is not a legislatively -imposed mandate on
the County. If necessary, refer to the statutory language when referencing a ban on the
disposal of yard debris.
•
STATE OF WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1300 S. Evergreen Park Dr. S.W., P.O. Box 47250 0 Olympia, Washington 98504-7250
(360) 664-1160 0 TTY (360) 586-8203
CD"(''= nn -re
DEC 1 0 2009
December 10, 2009
Yakima County Public Works
Ms. Wendy Mifflin, Manager
Solid Waste Division
7151 Roza Hill Drive
Yakima, WA 98901
RECEIVED
DEC i 5 2009
Yakima Co. Solid Waste
RE: Comments on the Preliminary Draft of Yakima County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan (TG -091750)
Dear Ms Mifflin.
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (commission) has completed its
review of the preliminary draft of the Yalcima County's Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan Update (Plan).
Commission staff's analysis of the Cost Assessment portion of the Plan shows financial impact
to ratepayers served by regulated solid waste collectioncompanies in Yakima County. The Plan
calls for tip fee increases during the five years the Plan is in effect. Residential customers could
see increases of up to $.24 per month between the years 2013-2020. Commercial customers
could see an increase of up to $.60, per yard, based on the projected tip fee increases.
Please see staff's comments on the Plan, which are attached. Questions or comments should be
directed to Penny Ingram at (360) 664-1242 or pinararnwutc.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
David W. Danner
Executive Director and Secretary
cc: James Wavada, Department of Ecology, Eastern Regional Office
Attachment
DOCKET TG -091750 PAGE 2.
ATTACHMENT: COMMISSION STAFF'S COMMENTS ON YAKIMA COUNTY'S
COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
General comments:
Throughout the Plan, solid waste collection companies are referred to as "franchise haulers."
The commission issues Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity to regulated solid
waste collection companies. The word "franchise has a different meaning within the
regulatory environment and can cause confusion when it is used to refer to.a solid waste
collection company regulated by the commission.
In the context of solid waste regulation in the State, the term "franchise".refers to when a
city, town or municipality contracts for solid waste collection service within its .jurisdiction
and therefore is exempt from commission regulation (see RCW 81.77.020) or when a city
issues a "franchise" for large trucks to'drive on the roads. Please change all references from
"franchise to "certificate" or "ceT77f catecI", as applicable, respective to solid waste •
collection companies regulated by the UTC.
DLL -,507200 145 YHK1MH UUUNIY HULIbEKV •
(Th
,s7CT
• itio
Nrc', . , 4,•
•
1 DJ 7 DY4
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Yakarna Agency Ui
P.O. )3ox 632
Toppenish, WA 98948
Public Svvit.:c.‘r: (kv, )
December 21, 2009
Yakima County Public Services
Planning Division
Mr. Steven M. Erickson
128 N 2nd Street, 4th Floor Courthouse
Yakima, WA 98901
RE: PRJ 2009-01296 & SEP 2009-00041- Update Yakima County Long Range Plans for
Solid & Moderate Risk Wastes
DEC S 2009
ttimmd4k
TAKE PRIDE
3 NAM Fa CA
r.ue/ut,
•
Dear Mr. Erickson:
Per your Notice of Environmental Review — Determmation-nf-Non—Significance for the
'Update of Yaldma County Long Range Plan for Solid & Moderate Waste has been received
with concerns and comments as stated below for your consideration. Please let me remind
you that I am bound to view this matter in th context of the sovereign nation status of the
Yakama Nation.
In review of your notice, the Yakama Nation has relayed valid concerns regarding the
proposed updated plan for the solid and moderate riskwastes (see below).
• The Yakama Nation has the concerns with considerations given to the direct and
indirect impacts to the environment with regards to project developments.
• Refinements to the solid waste practices, The Yakama Nation has concerns the
changes are substantial to the solid waste practices and the cumulative impacts were
dismissed on the notice as non applicable.
• Cheyne Landfill as being a regional landfill for the Yakima County. The Yakama
Nation has concerns. on the safeguards to accommodate the tonnage fr011t 35,000 ton
per year to 300,000 tons a year. Another concern is the increased traffic and
infrastructure durability to sustain the larger volumes of waste being hauled over the
• current bridges.
• The Yakama Nation has the concern of Cheyne Landfill being unlined with regards to
environmental precautions.
• Historic and Cultural Preservation. The Yakama Nation has the concern of the
cultural resource assessment forthe Cheyne expansion. As you are aware the Cheyne
Landfill is off the reservation but within the ceded area of the Yakama Nation.
• Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory C'ornmittee. The Yakama .Nation has the concern
of being excluded as an active participant.
DEC -30-2009 12:50
YAKIMA COUNTY PUBSERV
1 509 574 2231
P.03/06
In conclusion, I would support further participation by the Yakima County for more open
Nation. Our Agency is thankful for the opportunity to
communication with the Yakama
comment on the SEPA document. If you have any further questions please call to the
attention of Rocco Clark, Environmental Coordinator, at 509-865-5121, extension 4195.
Sincerely,
Superintend
nt
DEC -30-2009 12:50 YHK! I1H CUUN I Y F'U45ENy
.2
(.IIUI 1 m 1.(p, 0:9,
Aral! ,tAll,.'.
Confederated, Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation
December 21, 2009
Yakima County Planning Division
128 N 2nd Street
4th Floor .Courthouse
Yakima, WA 98901
Atten: Stevens Erickson, Planning Official/SEPA Responsible Official
Re: PRI 2009-01296 & SEP 2009 -00041 -'Update Yakima County Long Range Plans for Solid
& Moderate Risk Wastes
-1 r.04/0b
Established by the
Treaty ° of June 9, 1855
ew\P (re G+
Public Servicee (
DEC. 28Z009
YNre...wG�ry1W.. wDcTtl�.1{$tGV�_ _ _..
D�v1.�>wl�rl���gRRHp�,�
•
Dear Mr. Erickson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Environmental Review —
Determination of Non Significancefar the Update ofYakiina County's Long Range Plans for
Solid & Moderate Risk Wastes.
The ranges of impacts to be analyzed in an initial SEPA environmental checklist are to be direct,
indirect and cumulative effects caused by the proposal/project; The majority of the responses
given by the Yakima County Solid Waste Program to the questions asked in the SEPA document
were listed as non applicable. The vagueness or non -responsiveness in addressing the questions
raises several questions for the Yakama Nation. The following are our comments and concerns
to the proposed plans for solid and moderate risk wastes.
1. The proposed Solid Waste Management Plan is a 20 year planning document, In
question seven it is asked if there are plans for future additions, expansion or further
activity related to or connected to this proposal. There is not an adequate answer to this
question. The Plan states that within the next six years, expenditures are expected to
exceed $12,000,000in project developments. Where in the SEPA document are those
developments diseussed and what considerations were given to the direct and indirect
impacts to the environment of these planned activities?
2. The answer to question 11 states that most of the recommendations from the solid waste
management plan represent refinements to existing policies and programs. In review of
the Yakima County's Long Range Plans for Solid and Moderate Risk Waste there are
several substantial changes riot mere refinements to current solid waste practices, the
designation of Cheyne Landfill -as a regional landfill is an example. Yet cumulative
impacts were dismissed as non applicable.
Post. Office'Bax 151, Port Road, 'Foppcnish, v✓A 98948 (509) 865-5121
i , D0
.YHK1IiH LUUNIT t'UtiStkV
Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation
1 Jay D (4 ��Jl
t-'.16 /1.0b
Established by the
Treaty of June 9,1855
3. Cheyne Landfill is planned to become the regional landfill for Yakima County. This is a
substantial change in how waste is currently managed in Yakima County.. What
environmental safeguards will be in place to accommodate the jump in tonnage from
35,000 ton per year to 300,000 tons a year? The SEPA document has not appropriately
addressed the cumulative effects of the increase in traffic or the daily transporting of large
volumes .ofwaste, What infrastru.ctcre is currently available or will need to be
constructed, .such as bridges, roads to and from the Terrace Heights landfill and all the
surrounding communities who will use Cheyne as their final disposal option? What are
the direct and indirect impacts of this change?
4. What controls are in place to address spills, especially those that can affect the Yakima
River? How are the cumulative effects to be measured?
5. Cheyne Landfill is unlined, If Cheyne is to become a regional landfill what
environmental precautions -Will -be -taken -when the volume=of-waste_accepted at the site is
significantly increased? What environmental assurances is the County proposing to the
community to proceed with an unlined landfill? What are the cumulative effects of an
unlined landfill?
6. With Cheyne being proposed as the regional landfill for the county, how will increases
green house gases be offset? Reductions in GHG are not addressed in the application.
7. Where is the future water supply coming from to accommodate the growth and
expansion?
8. Question 14 on the SEPA Environmental Review addresses questions regarding historic
and cultural preservation. Cheyne Landfill while not on the Yakama Reservation resides
in the ceded areas, In 2007, KW. Beck, the environmental consultant for the Cheyne
Landfill expansion, retained Historical Research Associates, Inc. to conduct a cultural
resource assessment for the Cheyne expansion; HRA recommended that Yakima
County consult with Yakama Nation about the site's potential eligibility for inclusion in
the NRHPTW1-1R tinder Criterion D owing to thesite's research potential and ability to
yield information important in prehistory. The response given to question 14 a — c was
N/A. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impact to this site?
9. The Yalcama Nation is a party of interest in.the County's management of solid waste and
the expansion of the Cheyne Landfill. Though Cheyne Landfill resides off reservation it is
located in the tribal ceded area and the transporting of waste will require utilizing roads
that border the Yakama Reservation and cross the Yakima River: The entire County's
proposed solid waste activity is planned to occur in the Yalcaina Nation's sphere of
influence. However, the Yakama Nation has been excluded as an active participant in the
Yakima County Solid Waste Advisory Committee:
Post Office Box 151, Fort Road, Toppcnlsh, WA 98948 (509) 865-5121
DEC -30-2009 12:51
* f:Ctldi 1141 011111
Il l ll l: :, ,,tl it
it. f l tfl,
YRKIMR COUNTY PUBSERV
Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the Yakama Nation
1 5U 5'(4 22.51
N.Ub/Ub
Established by the
Treaty of June. 9, 1855
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on SEPA Environmental Review. We are
formally requesting that we receive a staff report and future notices regarding the status of the
county's solid waste management plan.
Sincerely,
Derald Ortloff
"Yakama Nation
-- -"Facility Management
509- 865-5121 x 5453
Post Office Box 151, Fort Road, Toppcnish, WA 98948 (509) 865-5121
TOTAL P.06