EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Douglas County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan (DCCSWMP) presents a comprehensive long-term approach to solid waste management for the Regional Planning Area (RPA). The DCCSWMP has been developed in accordance with the Solid Waste Management-Reduction and Recycling Act (Chapter 70.95 RCW), which requires each city and county to prepare a solid waste management plan. This document updates the Department of Ecology (DOE) approved Douglas County Solid Waste Management Plan, adopted in May 1994, by the participating jurisdictions. It also includes the elements of the Chelan-Douglas Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, adopted in November 1991, and the Douglas County Used Oil Amendment, adopted in March 1994, into one comprehensive plan. The DCCSWMP is intended to provide citizens, generators, contractors, regulatory authorities and elected officials with a guide to how solid wastes are to be managed within the RPA for the twenty year planning period. Although the DCCSWMP encompasses a twenty-year planning period, it will be necessary to review the DCCSWMP every five years. Plans are required to contain a six-year operational expenditure and construction and capital acquisition element. Therefore, in order for the DCCSWMP to be kept current, a review should begin in the fifth year following DOE approval with an operational expenditure and construction and capital acquisition update completed in the six year. Eligibility for federal and state funding is dependent upon having a current DCCSWMP. The DCCSWMP format follows that recommended in the DOE Guidelines for the Development of Local Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions (Ecology 1999).
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the DCCSWMP outlining the purpose and scope of the DCCSWMP. Chapter 2 outlines the role of the lead agency, local governments and the Douglas County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) in planning for solid waste management within the RPA. Also discussed is the planning requirements and process used to create the DCCSWMP. Chapter 3 outlines the federal, state and local laws and regulations that affect the use, handling, storage, transporting and disposal of solid waste within the RPA. Chapter 4 outlines the relationship of the DCCSWMP with other comprehensive land use plans, emergency management plans and other regulatory codes within the RPA. Chapter 5 outlines the history of solid and moderate risk waste planning within the RPA. Chapter 6 provides the general geographic and environmental characteristics of the RPA. Specifically, this chapter looks at the climate, hydrology, geography, soils and general land use of the RPA. Chapter 7 describes the waste stream within the RPA and forecasts future disposal levels. RPA waste disposal trends and corresponding historical population data are used to produce a twenty-year forecast. The analysis contained within this chapter will provide the basis for determining solid waste management needs for the twenty-year planning period. Chapter 8 defines the terms used to describe waste stream diversion within the RPA. Also, this chapter discusses how materials are designated for diversion and what specific waste diversion goals have been established for the RPA.
Each of the following chapters have specific objectives established. These objectives define what the participating jurisdictions hope to achieve with the implementation of the DCCSWMP. Once the objectives have been established, alternatives for achieving these objectives must be identified. All alternatives should be identified and reviewed for the full twenty year planning period. Recommendations can only be made from the list of alternatives. No recommendation can be made without having first been identified, discussed and reviewed as an alternative. All recommendations are to be implemented within the five-year planning period and are to assist in achieving the established objectives. Only those alternatives that are realistically and practically possible during the five-year planning period were considered as recommendations. Those recommendations were then utilized to create the six-year operational expenditure and construction and capital acquisition budget and implementation schedule. Alternatives not recommended will be reviewed during the next planning period to determine if they have become implementable during the next planning period.
CHAPTER 9 WASTE COLLECTION
Means transporting solid waste for either collection and/or disposal for all potential customers in a specified geographic area.
Objectives
1. Ensure that Collection Rates are Incentive Based.
2. Ensure Minimum Levels of Service Throughout the RPA
3. Establish Mandatory Solid Waste Collection Wherever Practical and Cost Effective.
4. Coordinate Municipal Waste Hauler Agreements to Maximize Cost Benefit.
Alternatives
1. Give WUTC Authority Over the Collection of Source-Separated Recyclables within the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County.
2. Have Douglas County Contract for the Source-Separated Recyclables within the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County.
3. Establish a Solid Waste Collection District.
4. Encourage Voluntary Solid Waste Collection Throughout the Unincorporated Areas of the RPA.
5. Modify the Douglas County Minimum Levels of Service to Encourage Voluntary Solid Waste Collection Within the Unincorporated Areas of the UGB.
6. Give WUTC Authority for Implementing the Adopted Douglas County Minimum Levels of Service.
7. Require Mandatory Curbside Recycling Within the Designated Urbanized Areas of the RPA.
8. Require a Variable Rate Structure With all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreements.
9. Require all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreements to Conform to the Adopted Minimum Levels of Service.
10. Coordinate all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreement Request for Proposals to Maximize Cost Benefits within the RPA.
11. Coordinate all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreements to Expire on the Same Date and Run for a Specific Term.
12. Offer Curbside Municipal Waste Collection by Coupon Throughout the RPA.
13. Monitor and Track Solid Waste Collection.
Recommendations
1. Give WUTC Authority Over the Collection of Source-Separated Recyclables within the Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County.
Douglas County elects not to contract for the collection of source-separated recyclables from within the unincorporated rural areas of the county, but rather chooses to give this authority to the WUTC. The WUTC will then have the responsibility for implementing the Minimum Service Levels (MLS) established by Douglas County. Under WUTC authority, Douglas County will only be able to provide input to the WUTC through the adopted MSL. Douglas County must make this decision no later than ninety days following approval of the DCCSWMP.
2. Encourage Voluntary Solid Waste Collection Throughout the Unincorporated Areas of the RPA.
Voluntary solid waste collection would provide unincorporated residents of the RPA to pay for solid waste collection services based upon the established MSL. Under voluntary collection, the WUTC certified solid waste hauler would provide the required level of collection service to the customer and bill the customer for the collection service provided. Encouraging voluntary solid waste collection to all county residents, the cost of the solid waste collection within the unincorporated areas of the RPA would be spread over a large number of customers, thus supporting lower customer rates. Also, by having a MLS throughout the RPA, all customers could be assured the same level of collection service for the same customer rate. Additionally, voluntary solid waste collection, once accepted by the customer, may reduce illegal dumping, since the individual would no longer have to self-haul and dispose of their own solid waste.
3. Modify the Douglas County Minimum Levels of Service to Encourage Voluntary Solid Waste Collection Within the Unincorporated Areas of the UGB.
By modifying the existing MLS to include a separate level of service for county residents within identified Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB), those county residents within the UGB would have an opportunity to sign up for a higher level of service than those county residents who reside within the rural portion of Douglas County. Voluntary solid waste collection would allow all Douglas County residents who reside within the unincorporated areas of an identified UGB to sign up for solid waste collection services based upon the established level of collection service offered by the adjoining municipal waste hauler. The WUTC certified solid waste hauler would be required, under the modified MLS, to provide the same level of collection service currently offered by the adjoining municipal waste hauler. By establishing voluntary solid waste collection within the unincorporated areas of the UGB, Douglas County would ensure its citizens living within the UGB the same level of collection service currently provided by the municipal waste haulers. Residents within the unincorporated portions of the UGB would be afforded the same level of collection service than those living within the incorporated portions of the UGB to maximize cost effectiveness and productivity.
4. Give WUTC Authority for Implementing the Adopted Douglas County Minimum Levels of Service.
Since the solid waste collection franchise system is operated under the authority of the WUTC, Douglas County may only affect the collection of solid waste within the county through the adoption of a MLS Ordinance. This MLS Ordinance would outline the specific levels of service to be provided to the residents of Douglas County. The WUTC would then review these levels of service with the certified solid waste collection haulers within Douglas County to determine what effect the adopted MLS would have on customer rates and the ability of the certified solid waste collection hauler to provide service. The WUTC encourages counties to work with the Commission to ensure that state and local solid waste priorities are being implemented. This recommendation would require Douglas County to notify the WUTC within ninety days following adoption of the DCCSWMP of any changes to its MLS.
5. Require a Variable Rate Structure Within all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreements.
Variable rate structures allow waste generators to pay for what they throw away, while at the same time encouraging recycling practices. If a generator produces a smaller volume of solid waste, they can pay for a smaller can or have the can collected on a bi-weekly basis. This promotes recycling because the more waste the generator can divert from the waste stream the more money he or she saves. Under this recommendation, all municipal waste hauler agreements would require a variable rate structure so that generators have the option of paying less for disposing of less.
6. Require all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreements to Conform to the Adopted Minimum Levels of Service.
In order to assure all municipal customers within the RPA the same levels of service, a uniform MLS agreement should be adopted. All the participating jurisdictions would need to work together in order to coordinate their desired levels of service in order to establish a uniform municipal waste haulers agreement. This uniform waste haulers agreement would be based upon the mutually agreed to MLS and would require all municipal waste haulers within the RPA to provide the same level of service. This would not only allow waste generators, regardless of where they live, the opportunity to dispose of their waste properly, but it would also assure a uniform level of service for all municipal residents regardless of where they reside within the RPA
7. Coordinate all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreement RFP to Maximize Cost Benefits within the RPA.
By coordinating all of the municipal waste hauler agreements terms and conditions within an established uniform Request for Proposal (RFP), each of the participating jurisdictions would gain the benefit of maximizing the volume and service level established, thus inducing competition. By adopting uniform MLS, the creation of a municipal waste hauler RFP should be a simple matter. Under this recommendation, each of the participating jurisdictions could assure their residents of a level of service that is similar, if not identical, to what is offered to any of the other participating jurisdictions within the RPA at the same or approximate collection rate.
8. Coordinate all Municipal Waste Hauler Agreements to Expire on the same Date and Run for a Specific Term.
Because of the low volume of waste that can be collected in each municipality, it is difficult for a municipal waste hauler to gain a foothold in the RPA unless they can attain a larger portion of the waste stream. If all municipal waste hauler agreements were to expire on the same date and run for a specific term, competition among haulers would be heightened and new haulers could bid for larger pieces of territory. The entire RPA would be biddable at one time thus allowing haulers the opportunity to gain new contracts quickly. Likewise, haulers would need to offer competitive rates in order to maintain control of their current contracts. Thus, rates could be driven down due to new haulers wishing to obtain new territory and many of these new haulers could attain substantial portions of the waste stream at one time, rather than acquiring it over an extended period of time.
9. Monitor and Track Solid Waste Collection.
The DCSWPO needs to monitor and track all solid waste collection to determine what is being collected by whom and at what rate. Without knowing these basic facts, it is impossible to properly manage the solid waste stream within the RPA. Therefore, the DCSWPO should establish a data tracking program which monitors and tracks all solid waste collection within the RPA.
CHAPTER 10 TRANSFER STATIONS
A permanent, fixed, supplemental collection and transportation facility, used by persons and route collection vehicles to deposit collected solid waste from off-site into large transfer vehicles for transport to a solid waste handling facility. Transfer stations do not include recycling facilities that are defined as materials recovery facilities.
Objectives
1. Ensure that Long Term Solid Waste Disposal is Available to the RPA.
2. Ensure that all Solid Waste Transfer Stations Meet all Federal, State and Local Regulations.
Alternatives
1. Direct Haul all Municipal Solid Waste Out of the RPA.
2. Conduct a Regional Transfer Station Feasibility Study.
3. Site a Joint Chelan-Douglas Transfer Station within Chelan County.
4. Site a Regional Multi-Functional Transfer Station within the Greater East Wenatchee Area.
Recommendations
1. Conduct a Regional Transfer Station Feasibility Study.
A regional transfer station feasibility study should be conducted to judge the economic and technical feasibility of siting such a regional facility. The DCSWPO should contract with a consultant to perform this feasibility study to give a professional opinion about the overall costs, expectations, and other vital information necessary to determine if a regional transfer station should be sited within the RPA.
2. Site a Regional Multi-Functional Transfer Station within the Greater East Wenatchee Area.
A multi-functional transfer station is not only a facility that collects and processes municipal solid waste, but also separates and processes recyclables and other designated materials. Collection vehicles would unload their designated materials in specific areas of the facility before making their way to their final destination for municipal solid waste collection and processing. The multi-functional transfer station would thus divert a portion of the municipal waste stream prior to it being processed for transportation to an out-of-RPA landfill.
In 1994, the Business and Industry Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the SWAC investigated the alternatives for solid waste collection, handling and disposal when the current Greater Wenatchee Regional Landfill (GWRLF) reaches capacity. Among the numerous TAC findings was the recommendation that developing a multi-functional regional transfer station was the best option for handling RPA waste when the GWRLF no longer accepts material for disposal. Additionally, the TAC determined that in order to have the regional multi-functional transfer station in place and operating when the GWRLF was not available, once the GWRLF reaches five years of remaining capacity the siting of the facility should begin. The multi-functional facility would be designed to serve as a transfer, processing and/or recycling facility for the following materials:
á designated recyclables;
á scrap metal;
á whitegoods;
á waste tires;
á vehicle batteries;
á used oil;
á used anti-freeze;
á household hazardous wastes;
á conditionally exempt small quantity generator wastes;
á universal waste;
á plastic pesticide containers;
á waste pesticide;
á municipal solid waste.
The TAC also recommended that the multi-functional regional transfer station be sited on public land and operated under contract with the private sector. Long-term contracts would have to be obtained from the participating jurisdictions to assure the solid waste volume necessary to support the annual operation and maintenance costs associated with the facility. Additionally, the TAC recommended that the multi-functional transfer station be: sited within 30 miles of the central core of East Wenatchee; located on or near an interstate highway; and have immediate rail access.
CHAPTER 11 WASTE IMPORT/EXPORT
Importation means the movement of solid waste into the RPA from any non-participating jurisdiction, entity or individual, while exportation means the movement of solid waste from within the RPA to any non-participating jurisdictions, entity or individual.
Objectives
1. Ensure that Long Term Solid Waste Disposal is Available to the RPA.
2. Ensure that the RPA Solid Waste Stream Characteristics are not Changed by the Importation of Solid Waste.
3. Ensure that all Known Impacts of Importing Solid Waste into the RPA are Considered and Mitigated.
4. Ensure that all Facilities receiving RPA Solid Waste Meet all Federal, State and Local Regulations.
Alternatives
1. Conduct a Waste Characteristic Study of the RPAÕs Solid Waste Stream.
2. Establish Quality Control Standards for all Imported Solid Waste.
3. Encourage the GWRLF to Limit Solid Waste Importation
4. Enforce a Universal Agricultural Pest Protocol.
5. Enforce the Douglas County Solid Waste Importation Ordinance.
6. Impose an Importation Fee on all Solid Waste Imported into the RPA.
7. Enter into a ÒHost AgreementÓ with the GWRLF.
8. Enter into Interlocal Agreements with all Importing Jurisdictions.
9. Monitor and Track Solid Waste Importation and Exportation.
Recommendations
1. Conduct a Waste Characteristic Study of the RPAÕs Solid Waste Stream.
The DCSWPO should contract with a consultant to conduct a composition study of the RPAÕs waste stream. This study would incorporate residential waste, commercial waste, public sector waste, and the composition of waste that enters the GWRLF. This would involve pulling garbage trucks over, at random, and performing a characteristic study on each truck before it enters the GWRLF. This would allow the RPA the opportunity to see exactly what waste streams are going into the GWRLF and to evaluate the quantity of each waste stream. By knowing this information, the RPA would be better prepared for targeting waste streams for diversion. With the GWRLF receiving waste from outside the RPA, the characteristic study would also identify the composition of the importing jurisdictionÕs waste.
All importing jurisdictions would be required to provide a waste characteristic study of their waste, prior to it being imported into the RPA. This would allow the RPA an opportunity to compare what is proposed to be brought into the RPA versus what is currently being disposed of within the RPA. This would give a much better representation of the waste stream that is entering the landfill because it would incorporate all aspects of waste collection.
2. Establish Quality Control Standards for all Imported Solid Waste.
The quality control standards for all imported solid waste would largely mirror the existing conditions and programs identified with the DCCSWMP. Additionally, all importing jurisdictions would have to meet the conditions imposed by the Douglas County Solid Waste Importation Ordinance (DCSWIO). Therefore, any importing jurisdictions would have to meet the same quality control standards as those imposed upon the RPA residents before importation could occur. Importing jurisdictions failing to meet the quality control standards established by the DCCSWMP would be denied the opportunity to import their solid waste into the RPA, or would have to pre-screen their solid waste to bring it into compliance with the RPA quality control standards.
3. Encourage the GWRLF to Limit Solid Waste Importation.
The GWRLF currently imports large quantities of solid waste from outside the RPA. Under this recommendation, the GWRLF would be encouraged to no longer accept solid waste from jurisdictions outside the RPA so that the landfillÕs life could be extended.
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that counties cannot ban the importation of solid waste to privately owned facilities. Under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, businesses have the right to transport commodities free of interstate restriction. Companies operating landfills are thus protected from restrictions placed upon their commodities, in this case solid waste. This allows counties without landfills a reliable option for disposing of their solid waste. If counties were allowed to restrict the flow of solid waste into only their landfills, those counties without landfills would be forced to construct their own. The Supreme Court Decisions (Carbone and others) acknowledge the needs of counties that do not have landfills, and support them by not allowing other counties to ban the importation of solid waste.
4. Enforce a Universal Agricultural Pest Protocol.
The Chelan-Douglas Health District (CDHD), with the assistance of the SWAC, should develop a Universal Agricultural Pest Protocol modeled after the Kittitas County Agricultural Pest Protocol. The Kittitas County Agricultural Pest Protocol was developed with the assistance and concurrence of Kittitas County, the GWRLF, the CDHD, Chelan-Douglas Pest Board, the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Offices of both Kittitas and Douglas Counties and the SWAC. The Universal Agricultural Pest Protocol would extend to all solid waste being imported into the RPA and would consist of the following:
á an Agricultural Pest Task Force (APTF) comprised of the following voting persons:
a. an agricultural extension agent from WSU Cooperative Extension Ð Douglas County
b. a WSU tree fruit entomolgy extension specialist
c. a representative from the WSDA Plant Services Division
d. the Chair of the Chelan-Douglas Horticultural Pest and Disease Board
e. a representative from the CDHD Solid Waste Division
á the APTF will be chaired by the representative from the CDHD Solid Waste Division who will not vote unless a tie vote prevents a decision;
á the APTF will be contacted no less than yearly by the chairman, and will meet if a majority of the members agree that it is beneficial to do so, at a time and a place agreed upon by a majority of the members. A meeting may also be proposed by any member of the APTF if more than one year has passed since the last meeting, or within two weeks after the discovery of a potentially destructive agricultural pest within the RPA, and will occur if the majority of the APTF agree it is necessary;
á at the APTF meeting, a quorum will consist of four out of five of the five members;
á representatives of Waste Management Disposal Services of Washington will be invited to attend and provide input during all APTF meetings. The public will be informed of the meeting no less than five days prior to any meeting related to reconsideration of the past issue;
á the APTF will advise the CDHD to immediately reconsider the issue of transport of solid waste from outside counties to the GWRLF if there is agreement among a majority of APTF members that:
a. an agricultural pest that does not at that time exist in the RPA has been found in other counties, and
b. this pest constitutes a significant risk of economic loss to commercial agricultural producers within the RPA, and
c. the transport, compaction and disposal of solid wastes from outside counties into the RPA presents a significant risk of the spread of this pest, and
d. the process of appropriate, reasonable procedures agreed upon by the APTF as necessary to adequately reduce the risk of introduction of that specific agricultural pest, by solid waste, into the RPA has not been carried out by Waste Management and or outside county agencies, as requested, in the allocated time.
á this protocol will terminate when solid wastes are no longer transported from outside counties to the GWRLF;
á the CDHD will not be responsible for the services, costs, and expenses of the APTF,
á in the event that any voting member of the APTF becomes unable to serve as a APTF member for any reason, and a substitute member from the same organization is likewise unable to serves as a member, the remaining members of the APTF shall choose an appropriate replacement member with the expertise comparable to the departing member. Any member chosen pursuant to this process shall serve as any other member of the APTF with the same voting authority.
5. Enforce the Douglas County Solid Waste Importation Ordinance.
It is the purpose of the DCSWIO to identify, assess and mitigate any known adverse impacts to Douglas CountyÕs infrastructure, environment, economy, public health and safety, and land use caused by any jurisdiction, agency, private corporation, individual, or other entity requesting to import solid waste into Douglas County, Washington. The ordinance also used to verify that any importing jurisdiction, agency, private corporation, individual, or other entity meet the substantial equivalence requirements placed upon Douglas CountyÕs citizens, agencies and businesses due to the implementation of the adopted DCCSWMP. It is not the intent of the DCSWIO to forbid importation of solid waste into the RPA, but rather to implement a process by which the potential impacts of that importation can be identified, assessed and mitigated, if necessary, prior to importation.
6. Impose an Importation Fee on all Solid Waste Imported into the RPA.
With the GWRLF being the only landfill within the region, and with a majority of the solid waste being disposed within it originating from outside of the RPA, the participating jurisdictions should consider imposing an importation fee upon all solid waste imported from outside the RPA. The RPA should investigate the legality of imposing a solid waste importation fee upon all solid waste being brought into the RPA. The GWRLF would assess an importation fee upon all solid waste that did not originate from within the RPA. This solid waste importation fee would be utilized by Douglas County to implement the DCCSWMP. This importation fee would be based upon a per ton rate on all solid waste being imported into the GWRLF from outside the RPA.
7. Enter into a ÒHost AgreementÓ with the GWRLF.
By allowing the GWRLF to operate within Douglas County, it is beneficial to both the county and the GWRLF to enter into a host agreement. This host agreement would identify what activities the GWRLF could perform at its facility, designate which roads could be utilized, what waste screening should be performed, what waste stream reporting needs to be undertaken, and other similar activities. The host agreement would also specify what facility improvements and conditions would be required by Douglas County in order to accommodate the activities performed at the GWRLF. Additional issues such as dust abatement, litter control, road impacts, pest trapping etc. would also be addressed.
In conjunction with the conditions regarding responsibility established within the host agreement, a host fee will be established. This host fee will be a gratuity to Douglas County from the GWRLF for the operation of the GWRLF within Douglas County. This host fee will be negotiated between the GWRLF and Douglas County and be assessed as a per ton tip fee. This host fee would be utilized by the Douglas County to implement the DCCSWMP.
8. Enter into Intergovernmental Agreements with all Importing Jurisdictions.
All importing jurisdictions would be required to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Douglas County. This intergovernmental agreement would ensure that the solid waste being imported into the RPA meet the quality control standards established by the SWAC. Additionally, this intergovernmental agreement would specify that the importing jurisdiction provide Douglas County with current and accurate information about the type of waste being imported, the volume of waste being imported, the anticipated duration of the importation and similar information as requested by Douglas County. The agreement would also serve as a contract between the GWRLF and the importing jurisdictions to designate that the GWRLF would be the disposal site for the jurisdictionÕs solid waste, unless conditions changed drastically to force either party out of the agreement for financial or other reasons. All importing jurisdictions would be required by this intergovernmental agreement to conform to the established quality control standards, Universal Agricultural Pest Protocol, the Douglas County Solid Waste Importation Ordinance and pay a solid waste importation fee.
9. Monitor and Track Solid Waste Importation and Exportation.
The DCSWPO needs to monitor and track all solid waste to determine what type and volume of solid waste is imported and exported out of the RPA. Without knowing these basic facts, it is impossible to properly manage the solid waste stream within the RPA. Therefore the DCSWPO should establish a data tracking program which monitors and tracks all solid waste being imported in to and exported out of the RPA on an annual basis.
CHAPTER 12 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
A subset of solid waste which includes unsegregated garbage, solid waste and similar solid waste materials discarded from residential, commercial, institutional and industrial sources and community activities, including residue after recyclables have been separated.
Objectives
1. Ensure that Sufficient Disposal Capacity is Available to the RPA.
2. Ensure that all Landfills Accepting RPA Solid Waste Meet all Federal, State and Local Regulations.
Alternatives
1. Restrict Disposal to Only Permitted and Approved Facilities.
2. Expand the Existing Privately Owned and Operated Regional Landfill.
3. Site a County Owned and Operated Landfill within the RPA.
4. Export all Municipal Solid Waste Out of the RPA.
5. Monitor and Track Municipal Solid Waste.
Recommendations
1. Restrict Disposal to Only Permitted and Approved Facilities
By restricting Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to only permitted and approved facilities, proper disposal of MSW will be assured. This will ensure that the GWRLF is operated in a manner that protects the public health and safety and the environment. As required by Chapter 173.351 WAC, the GWRLF is to be permitted by the CDHD and inspected at least annually.
2. Expand the Existing Privately Owned and Operated Regional Landfill.
The GWRLF should be allowed to expand its current facility to assure the RPA a local MSW disposal option. With the GWRLF projecting that the current landfill will reach capacity within 14 years, the facility will not meet the 20-year planning requirement. Additionally, the DCSWPO projects that, with the current trend of waste disposal at the landfill, the capacity of the GWRLF is shortened to 7 years. Regardless of whose figures are accepted, the projected landfill capacity of the GWRLF does not meet the 20-year planning period required by the DOE for solid waste management plans. Therefore, unless the GWRLF is allowed to expand the RPA would have to look to other disposal options outside the RPA for its long-term disposal solution.
3. Monitor and Track Municipal Solid Waste
The DCSWPO needs to monitor and track all MSW to determine what type and volume of solid waste is being disposed of, where it originated from, where it is being disposed of, how it is being disposed of and what, if any, public health and safety and environmental concerns there may be associated with it. Without knowing these basic facts, it is impossible to properly manage the solid waste stream within the RPA. Therefore, the DCSWPO should establish a data tracking program which monitors and tracks all MSW disposal within the RPA annually.
CHAPTER 13 WASTE-TO-ENERGY
Any place, equipment, device or plant designed and/or operated to process solid or liquid waste into usable secondary materials, including fuel and energy.
Objectives
1. Ensure that Waste-to-Energy Technologies are Reliable and Cost Effective.
2. Ensure that an Adequate Solid Waste Stream Exists to Justify the Cost of Implementing and Sustaining a Waste-to-Energy Facility.
3. Ensure that a Waste-to-Energy Facility Conforms to all Federal, State and Local Regulations.
4. Ensure that Proper Pollution Controls for Emissions and Ash Management are Addressed.
Alternatives
1. Conduct a Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study.
2. Site a Waste-to-Energy Facility within the RPA.
Recommendations
1. Conduct a Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study.
Under this recommendation, the DCSWPO should contract with a consultant to conduct a waste-to-energy feasibility study. This study would include both the economic as well as the technical feasibility to site, construct and operate a waste-to-energy facility within the RPA.
Economic Feasibility
Based upon a 1990 consultant evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of operating a WTE facility within the RPA, it appears that without substantial outside funding, the operation and maintenance cost of a WTE facility was no more economically attractive than landfilling at the GWRLF. Economic factors that will affect the future feasibility of a WTE facility include the:
á siting and permitting costs for such a facility,
á capital expenditure needed to build such a facility,
á annual operation and maintenance costs of such a facility,
á tipping fee revenues that may be realized by the importation of wastes,
á revenues that may be realized by the sale of recovered materials,
á revenues that may be realized from the sale of energy produced.
As is common with the implementing of any sophisticated technology, cost overruns are likely and represent a potential financial risk to the RPA. Changing energy or product markets could affect facility revenues by decreasing the value of the end-product or by causing a surplus of wastes which must be landfilled or direct hauled at additional costs. Special transport and disposal requirements for incinerator ash could also potentially add to facility costs.