• •
RESOLUTION NO. b~ 7
A RESOLUTION accepting and adopting the Skagit County Solid Waste Management Plan 1981 Update.
WHEREAS, R.C.W. 70.94 requires that each county within the state, in cooperation with the various cities located within such county, prepare a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan; and WHEREAS, a Citizens Solid Waste Advisory Committee was formed to assist in the preparation of such a plan; and WHEREAS, a 1981 Solid Waste Management Plan has been developed and the approval of this Plan is in the best interests of the City of Anacortes; now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANACORTES, WASHINGTON, that that certain document entitled "Skagit County Solid Waste Management Plan 1981 Update", a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, be and it is in all respects ratified and approved. DATED this 3rd day of August, 1981.
CITY OF ANACORTES,
(CORPORATE SEAL) • •
S K A G I T C 0 U N T Y
S 0 L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T P L A N
1 9 8 1 U P D A T E
SKAGIT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Howard Miller, Chairman
Bud Norris
Jerry L. Mansfield
SKAGIT COUNTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
W. Eugene Sampley, P.E.
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Alan S. Dutcher, P.E. -- ..,, .,. •' PROPOSED TABLE OF CONTENTS • SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1981 •
• I. Introduction II. Planning Area Characteristics A. General B. Social and Employment Characteristics C. Population III. Existing Solid Waste Management Conditions and Practices A. Storage B. Collection c. Transportation D. Disposal E. Recycling F. Financing G. Existing Solid Waste Management IV. Solid Waste Quantities and Types A. Household B. Commercial and Institutional e c. Industrial o. Wastewater Treatment E. Agricultural F. Hazardous Wastes G. Solid Waste Trends v. Summary of Solid Waste Problems and Needs A. Storage B. Collection c. Transportation D. Compactor Boxes E. Landfills F. Sludge Disposal G. Resource Recovery H. Administrative and Technical Needs 1. Legislative Needs J. Financial Needs K. Future Constraints L. Long-Range Needs - 20 Years .., ,.
Page 2 •
VI. Solid Waste Management Alternatives • A. Storage System Alternatives B. Collection Alternatives C. Transportation Alternatives D. Disposal Alternatives: 1. Septic Tank Sludge 2. Municipal Waste E. Financing VII. Recommended Solid Waste Management System A. Selection Criteria B. Recommended Collection and Transportation C. Recomnended Disposal D. Recommended Management E. Recommended Financing VIII. Implementation Plan A. Administrative Task B. Physical Requirements C. Construction and Capita 1 Acquisition. D. Environmental Impacts E. 20 Year Implementation Schedule
F. Stat~ Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) G. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement .. • • .e CITIZENS' SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. Burlington: Mrs. Clyde Duffield 755-9446 2. Anacortes: Mr. Al Henke, 293-3760 Retired Shell Co. staff 3. Mt. Vernon:. Mr. Jack Kruger 424-0532 4. Sedro Woolley: Mr. Harvey Nichols 856-0360 5. Skagit County: Mr. Tim Seese, 336-5977 Recycler 6. Skagit County: Mr. Jack Holt, 424-3515 Recycler 7. Skagit County: Mr. Mark Backlund, 293-4283 or 336-3193 Bid conversion 8. Skagit County: Ms. Helen Vandeman, 755-9521 Skagit Farmer's Energy Resource 9. Collection: Mr. Lyle Robbins, 422-5212 Rural Sanitation 10. Farming: Mr. Lyle Ovenell, 466-3138 Chem Track Response Team
11. Forest Products: Mr. Sanvig, 293-2101 Publisher's Products 12. Heavy Indus try: Mr. Dick Flickenger, 293-3111 Shell Oil Company 13. Washington State Parks Ralph Mast 675-2417 Park Manager 5175 N. State Highway 20 Oak Harbor, WA 98277 • 12/80
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
l. Anacortes; Mr. Mike Foster 293-5171
2. Burlington: Mr. Jack Chrysler 755-0531
3. Mt .. Vernon: Mr. Don Semrau, PrE. 336-6585
4. Sedro Woolley: Mr. Tom Oakes 855-1661
5. Skagit County: Mr. Gene Sampley, P.E. 336-9400
6. Industrial Engineer: Mr. Glen Hallman, 336-5705 Northwest Air Pollution
7. Utility Engineer: Mr. Cory Knutsen, 453-6845 Puget Power Bellevue
8. Industrial Engineer: Dick Flickenger, 293-3111 Shell Oil Company
(e . • •
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION
..... ·. -- .. • CHAPTER I • IIHRODUCTION
The Washington State Legislature, under RCW section 70.95, requires that "each county within the State, fn cooperation with the various cities located within such county, shall prepare a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan." With this direction, the Skagit County Planning Department under the direction of the former Planning Department Director Lou St. John and with the technical assistance from the previous Skagit County Engineer Lloyd Johnson, PE, developed the original Skagit Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. This plan was developed for the Skagit Regional Planning Council members: Anacortes Port of Anacortes Burlington Port of Skagit County La Conner Public Utility District #1 Mt. Vernon Skagit County Sedro Woo 11 ey In the month of July 1973, cities of Anacortes, Burlington, Mt. Vernon, Anacortes and the towns of Concrete, La Conner, Lyman, Hamilton anci the county of Skagit approved the Skagit Regional Solid Waste Management Plan as a part of the 1973 plan update and Department of Ecology grant application of works .e to be implemented. The Solid Waste Management Plan was divided into six (6) phases •. Phase I was the continued operation of "the existing and ongoing solid waste disposal process." Phase II goals were to: "(1) upgrade the disposal operation activities, and (2) to ,reduce the number of solid waste disposal sites which are operating as dumps." The following open dumps were closed and reclaimed: (See map , page Clear Lake Lake Cavanaugh Conway Rockport Marblemount Day Creek Pinelli
Each ~f these open dumps were replaced by coin operated drop boxes, except at Day Creek. Subse quently in 1979, the Rockport compactor box was discontinued due to lack of use. Phase III required Alger landfill to be converted to a transfer station. However, a compactor box station was established there. Upon completion of Phase Ill, sanitary landfills were to be established . at:. . . (a) Inman {c) Upriver (Sauk) {b) Gibralter {d) Sedro Woolley
1 Inman and Gibralter were• established as sanitary landfills and the upriver landfill was sited at Sauk . along Highway 20. The Sedro Woolley landfill was never established since the refuse was easily trucked to the Inman landfill site. Phase IV placed emphasis on the reduction of the number of disposal sites and on volume reduction through "such devices as harrmer mill, compactor, incinerator, baler and etc." Inman pit was to continue as the main disposal site while Gibralter pit was to be filled by 1978 or 1979. Phase V was "oriented around one sanitary landfill operated at a multi-county level and the reduction of landfill sites within those counties. Only Whatcom County is mentioned as a participating county. Phase VI was an ultimate goal of developing recycling capabilities. · In the 1981 update of the Solid.Waste Management Plan, the intent is to review the existing solid waste management conditions and practices and inventory the solid waste quantities and types. With this basic accounting and with a surrmary of the solid waste problems, various management alternatives can be developed for the improvement of the system. Final recorrrnendations for a solid waste management system will be based on the county's eight (8) years of growth as a solid waste manager, the social and legislative changes that have taken place, and most importantly, the technical improvements that have been made during these eight (8) years.
2 •
CHAPTER
II
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SKAGIT COUNTY
General Social. Employment. Population.
3 _,
CHAPTER II • .. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SKAGIT COUNTY
GENERAL Skagit County is located on the northeastern side of Puget Sound within the following described area: Commencing at midchannel of Rosario Strait where the dividing line between Townships_-36 and 37 intersects the same; thence East on said Township line to the summit of the Cascade Mountains; thence South along the summit of said mountain range to the eighth standard parallel; thence West along the parallel to the center of the channel or deepest channel of the nearest arm of Puget Sound and extending along said channel to the East entrance of Deception Pass; thence through said pass to the center of the channel of Rosario Strait; thence Northerly along said channel to place of beginning. ·Geologically, Skagit County lies within the topographic provinces known as the Puget Sound Trough and the Cascade Mountains. Most of the.lowland area is within the Puget Sound Trough, and consists of an extensive delta flood plain, alluvial flats, glacial outwash plain, and a few lateral or frontal. moraines. The elevation of the lowlands ranges from sea level to about 400 feet, except for a number of monadnocks rising higher. The mountains consist of ancient folded sediments, generally metamorphosed, with igneous intrusions. The summit elevation attained is six thousand to eight thousand feet, with peaks extending above these levels. E'xtreme ruggedness is characteristic of the higher ridges due to glaciation. Above elevation five thousand feet alpine glaciers abound. A detailed soil survey was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the findings published in 1960. The soils of the county may be divided into two (2) primary groups, the alluvial soils and the upland soils. Most of the alluvial soils are quite fertile and produce good crops, whereas the upland soils are considerably less productive. Alluvial soils occur in the Skagit River Valley and Delta, and are quite variable. Many of these soils are poorly drained due to lack of relief or impervious underlying strata. Artificial drainage is generally required to maintain productivity. Upland soils tend to be shallow. Some series are underlain by cemented hardpans, and others by porous gravelly materials._ None of these are well suited to agriculture, but fo'rests generally thrive on these soils. Future residential and commercial development outside the perimeters of the cities are being encouraged to locate in the upland areas. The use of the alluvial soils for agriculture is being encouraged where practical. Skagit County has the west coast marine climate typical of Western Washington. The maritime air moderates both winter and summer seasons, producing a definite rainy season during the winter and a short, dry sunrner. The Cascade and Rocky Mountains shield the Skagit basin from cold air masses, while the Olympics and the Coast Range offer protection from the intense winter storms which buffet the coast. Rainfall amounts increase as one travels from west to east in the county. The amounts range from 20 inches at Fidalgo Island to 70+ inches in the populated areas near Marblemount, and to over 150 inches at several locations near the crest of the Cascades. (See map 2-1)
4 • The average high temperative is 60 degrees F and the average annual low is 41 degrees. The mean length of the growing season is 193 days. Air quality is good in the county except for occasional days during agricultural production when local dust can cloud the air. Also, slash burning and/or forest fires will turn the sky dark. until the fire is extinguished •. Some odor is detected at times from the refineries near Anacortes and from agricultural processes, but minimum air quality standards are not normally exceeded .. Water supply is good with the Skagit River providing a large source of excellent water. The surface water resources of Skagit County are of high quality. Dissolved mineral content, suspended solids and organic pollution are generally quite small. Minimum treatment consisting of filtration and chlorination is all that is required for use as water supply, in most cases. The Chemical quality of ground waters is variable and, in some cases, may be expected to limit the suitability for water supply. These contaminants are primarily iron and some organic compounds and present serious problems only in shallow wells. Early settlement of the valley was confined to. the fertile Skagit Delta, where phenomenal crops of grain were raised. The 1879 gold rush triggered upriver settlement,. and although gold fever subsided in 1880, farmers and loggers had been introduced to the rich upriver area. The railroads reached the basin in 1889, and by 1901 had moved upriver to Rockport. Towns were located on the valley floor near the river where construction was easy and the soil is productive.
The Skagit Regional Planning area is composed of a broad spectrum of individuals and groups of individuals. The population is a nearly homogeneous blending of middle and northern European people. This population could be characterized as stable, nonmigratory, long-term residents with a rural orientation. Approximately 50% of the area's population is classified, for census purposes, as rural. However, the true rural-urban split is more nearly 35%-65%, due to the proximity of residential con struction to incorporated areas. The minority population of the planning area is composed primarily of American Indians and. Mexican-Americans. The Swinomish Indian Reservation provides the place of residence for a majority of the Indian population. The_ preliminary 1970 census figures indicate that 1.9% of Skagit County's population are classified, for census purposes, as minority peoples. The Mexican-Ainerican members of our corrmunity are primarily former migrant farm-workers who have settled out of the itinerant labor pattern. These workers now fonn one of the mainstays of the agricultural labor market throughout the planning area. The Skagit Region does not have large substandard concentrations of housing as do the larger urban areas. This allows for a greater consistency in the level of service to be provided by the solid waste management system. That is, the standard once-a-week collection frequency will satisfac torily serve at least 95% of the existing residential areas. However, as densities increase, a greater
5 --"-"-· - ---'-'-'----- _. -..•. - • • I • • • • ;-- • I I I -.,~.// ·''·, ~-1 CASCADES
) NATIONAL
\ ,_, 80 '
• I •
.-j,, / ) '------/' - r--~ ' ' \ -- . ' '. ,_ ___,,, __ •' \·~ ' ' ~, I /, ' .} I \ SKAGIT COUNTY ' - _ __._.,, E,~-1-- ~-\JI. ' ffAllOffAL WHIDBEY ~ / ' I -\ ·, '· '/ -- ~-· '. --,, 't '· ...... '>- .....0 • l ISL.ANO \, < ' - >- --· '-::: i AVERAGE ANNUAL -- .. ' ./ PRECIPITATION IN INCHES .· / • ) f( \'~ (
•••
• ·.,._ ~ ·-
--"-- - ><- • ·--·''·--- • • .. , • • • •
·.~ l«lllTH . ', . • ' I -. I ! : ~ I i ( i i RECREATION UICADEI ,f·~I' ' ' / .J ~ ·~ /• -~ ( I ' . ' .\ ,..-'1l E~' NATIONAL '.JI\ I 2. fORiS, ~·· /~ • ( I ffATIOMAl I PARK ,. I \ . / _!, \ .1 1- ______/ i ~- _./,- \. i _y' - ---•"- ' ---' --- ~------~---:-:s:.; I ·-~-.... -i_· - ..... J~- ~- ----.______I '. ', ,' \ i ,r1 J/ ' ' . y r,: _.,.. i('I ..F_ ""O' , ,_:_ __ I /, • r- ' f, I .''· I ' \; - )['<' I
! ~ I ( /~/"" ______/ -- _____ J_ i''-, ' • ~/{ I ·t- / ---~ \" \ /".J \""'
. ' ,. SKAGIT COUNTY REFUSE DISPOSAL SITES & HAUL ROUTES WHIDBEY ..... • 0 •• ...... ; ... r:;±f:. -. ·~-'~, LEGEND: .,_; ISLAND COUNTY : 'P -. 0 LANDFILL SITES CLOSED LANDFILLS e SEWAGE LAGOON 0COUNTY O COMPACTOR SITES *CITY
\ \
•
...
I • ....., -..
• . ... • ''' . • • • ·, • • ___. -· ( )
1101111 • ~ / ' ( . ' ·," ! Ii RECREATIOll CASCADE I """·~ I\ .· I - I~.,-z.. .J . \ .. I ; "<.. I \. NATIONAL ' y fORl~~, PARK ( l; ·, ' y ' ..._ __ - "'w' . \ _; ------...,,.,"--ilp~.• - --~ ' .. . .L__ . I --- ~- \_, ~. ') I / I ' ' . ~ '"'. I ~~~ / ~ .•. "--
• •
SKAGIT COUNTY
SOLID WASTE INVENTORY f- WHIDBEY i'.-
.... ~ • ·~ 0 •'
ISLAND COUNTY LEGEND' JCOMMERCIACj CUBIC YARDS LRESIDifNTIAl.J TRIPS PER WEEK
40Cubic'lbrdl ofComll'llrCialWalle 2 Trips perWeek
---·~ - ./ ;
•
...
• • TABLE II-1 • COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE HISTORICAL DATA AND FUTURE PROJECTION
Populati-0n *1000
93,410 Legend ·Actual Population ·)--.... )
Office of Financial ' 90 I .. _ - -- Management Forecast ------Mathematical Projection Hig~ 1.97% I I ----curve Fit )-- 1,980 80 I , I/ / / Med I / >l.31% I J ,,/ I /(.,~·73,000 . I / ./ 70 ... f// Low XJ.72% I 63,184 / 1L...... _/ ) 60 . ,/ Total average annual / population increase 51 ,350 / . 52,381 l .31 % ,;'~ z
50 ·~
43.273 40 /' v f__...;J ' 37,532
30
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
SOURCES: Actual Population 7 • pick-up frequency is more desirable. These increased frequencies would apply to mobile home parks, townhouses and garden apartment developments and to dormitory facilities. The social patterns of the residents of this area do not present any exceptional problems to a .solid waste management system; except that outdoor recreational activity does tend to present a potential
littering problem, especially with regard to fishing spots along the waterways of the county~ If and when littering becomes a significant local problem, it would be advisable to consider a program to provide suitable disposal facilities near each recreational area which could then be serviced by park or highway personnel. A peculiar habit of the residents of this and numerous other areas, state and nationwide, is the storage of broken and/or immobile automobiles and appliances behind the barn or garage. EMPLOYMENT
The predominance of agriculture and food processing in the western portion of the County has led t~ a very stable pattern of demand for labor in this area. First, a permanent work force is required for year-round farm activities. This is provided by farin occupants, primarily owners and secondarily tenants •. supplemented by permanent employees. Second, a temporary but relatively large work force is needed for
crop harvesting. This is provided by migrant farm wor~ers. Third, a seasonal but relatively skilled work force is required for operation of the food processing plants in the county. This is provided, primarily, by permanent residents, predominately female. Peas and field crops represent 80% of the county's crops, with dairy operation being 65% of the livestock operations. Traditional crops include fresh vegetables for local trade, and flowering bulbs which are generally sold throughout the United States and Europe. Grain crops are generally raised for beef cattle and dairy livestock. The only operating canneries in Skagit County are for seafood products. The canneries are located in Anacortes, Mount Vernon and LaConner. Conmercial activity, and therefore employment in trade and service industries, follows the same
seasona 1 pattern as primary agri cultura 1 employment. A permanent work force for year-round activity is provided by permanent residents. Peak employment requirements generated by migrant farm workers and tourists are met by seasonal employees who are primarily permanent residents of the county. The majority of non-seasonal industrial employees are in oil refining or related industries with lesser numbers being employed in foundry casting. More seasonal or demand type of work would be construc tion of fish1ng vessels and prefabricated on-field type of construction. Other long-standing seasonal work would be logging with log exporting and small mill and shingle works. A very distinct characteristic of American agriculture has been sharply rising productivity per worker with the result that agricultural employment has tended to be static or diminish. This is also true for Skagit County. Therefore, employment opportunities for the young have been more attractive outside the county, causing some outmigration of this age group; and Skagit County's population characteristically has a higher average age than does the State population. A second general characteristic
6 UNITED STATES POSTAL SER OFFICIAL BUSINESS SENDER INSTRUCTIONS
RETURN TO
_~.,. ·~.,7"1' ~ · ·· (Napxi of Sender) ~~·'·' . "' ''./r;•("' '\ 'q;"""'·------=------,.------(Street <;>r P.O. Box)
(City, State, and ZIP Code) ENDER: Cornrlete i1ems J, 2, and 3. .... you1 () i\d'1 adtneu in the "RET\JRN TO" space on 3 nverae. c:."" I. The following service ~requested (check one.) ;( !1 ::-" la Show to whom and date dclivered. ••••••••••• _ ¢ .,... _¢ . ? 0 Show to whom, date and aci"dress cf deliveJy••• 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY - -""..... f •· ~ "' Show to whom a.'ld date delivered ...... ~···-)$ , ~ ·~ 0 RESTRICTED DELNERY. • · . Show to whom, date, and address of delivet')' .$._' >· (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES), . 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: :II m.... Luella Henry, County Audi or c Skagit County Courthouse :Dz :D Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 ~ ~a~~A~R~T~IC~L~E=-=o~Esc==R~l~PT---1<>1'~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~- "' . REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. ~ 112230 1 IA!\vays obtain si!lnature of addr-e or agent') 7 '' ' '' I have received the article described above.
\
m 6. UNABLE.TO DELIVER BECAUSE: c ~ F1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--"~"'"-~~--' -~ : , R 5 E " R6E
z ,,,co I-
10 II 12
., hi and z IO,,, ~~' I-
t I I Z6 I .. I I ..I I I 35 36 I I I ... I t I I I I I I i I I 0 I I I I I t I 17 I z IB 16 I 0 I v I ,,, i I- I I I I I I +·
29 28 27 26
THE OFFICIAL ZCNING MAP WAS ADOPTED ON MARCH II, 1980. " 34
REVISED DEC 17, 1980
AGRICULTURAL (A) c=i AGRICULTURAL RESERVE (AR) c:::J FORESTRY ( F) c,,;:_,$,J RURAL (RU) 5.0 [EI] RURAL INTERMEDIATE (RI) 2.5 loon! ,,,z RESIDENTIAL RESERVE (RR) l'2Z2I ,,, RESIDENTIAL ( R) WiID?J I- MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MFR) c::::::::J
COMMERCIAL /LIMITED INDUSTRIAL ( C/L I) 111111111111111 INDUSTRIAL ( M) ~ PUBLIC USE ( P) 1::::1 COPY THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP IS LOCATED IN THE SKAGIT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE, SKAGIT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BLDG., MT. VERNON, WASHINGTON.
RIE R2E R3E R5E R 6 E of American agriculture, also true• for Skagit County, is that prices for raw fann products have not kept pace with rising price levels. As a result, family income in the county is characteristically lower . ~ than for the state as a whole. POPULATION Population figures for the decades 1940, 1950 and 1960 were obtained from a report done in 1970 by Stevens, Thompson and Runyan. 27 The population figures for 1970 and 1980 were obtained from the Bellingham District Census Office. The figure for 1980 is to be considered preliminary. Future population projection figures are derived through several sources. The first is by a mathematical extension of the existing population, with the average annual increase over the last four decades. The population derived by this method is around 81,980 persons by the year 2000. The second projection is by the Washington State Office of Financial Management from their pamphlet on county population forecasts. Their methodology in forecasts is influenced by migration trends occurring in the late 1970's. The last projection is a curve fit by eye reflecting trends in local and county government.
8 • • •
CHAPTER
III
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES e A. Storage . B. Collection. c. Transportation. D. Disposal. . . . E. Recycling Activities. F. Financing . G. Management.
9 • •
CHAPTER. 111 EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES
A. STORAGE Residential and Municipal Wastes: The 8 incorporated cities and the towns of Skagit County have ordinances relating to collection and storage of household and municipal wastes. Most regulations call for these wastes to be stored in tightly covered containers that are nuisance free of flies and vennin and shall be collected at least· once weekly. The Skagit County Health Department, upon complaints from municipalities and private individuals, enforces proper storage. Other materials are required to be stored in a manner such as to not create a nuisance or a fire hazard. Methods of storage and collection and removal-of wastes in the unincorporated portions of Skagit County are specified in ordinances of the County Health Department. For specialized establishments such as camping vehicle parks, mobile home parks, camps, migrant labor camps and establishments engaged in food handling, they are required to store their wastes in containers that are vermin proof and shall be removed with sufficient frequency and in such a manner as ·to prevent a nuisance. Specf al Wastes: Vegetable wastes that are generated aboard corrmercial ships that enter Skagit County by crossing international boundaries are required by U.S.D.A. regulations to be stored in tightly covered containers free of flies and vermin. This waste is to be irrmediately removed and incinerated under the direction
of an agent of the U.S.D.A. upon landing at a U.S. por~. It is currently incinerated at Ferndale. Compactor Collection Boxes: Green box or compactor boxes are located at seven (7) sites around the county (see map III-1, solid waste sites map). They are storage units for individuals who are beyond _collection services or are otheniise too far from landfills. Each box holds 28 cubic yards of trash, the trash is deposited through a hydraulic compacting hopper which is activated upon receiving $1.00 .in quarters through a receiving mechanism. Two or more boxes are usually at each site and each box is identified by an alphabetical letter to aid in identification for hauling and disposal. Final disposal of wastes· from compactor boxes is at the Inman or Sauk landfills. Hazardous Wastes: Hazardous wastes are required to be stored and labeled by the generator/transporter as required by the Federa 1 En vi ronmen ta 1 Protection Agency under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and by the State of Washington under Chapter 70.105 R.C.W. Each item on the hazardous waste list will have specific handling requirements according to its type and quantity. Currently, none of the landfills "in
10 • • Skagit County handle hazardous wastes. The petroleum industries are classified under RCRA as hazardous waste handlers and storage of wastes on their lands, therefore, must conform .to their requirements. e Pathological wastes are considered hazardous wastes under the Washington Administrative Code 173-301-123. These wastes are stored and handled by hospitals, laboratories, clinics and nursing homes and by agreement are incinerated at the hospital sites. Only general refuse, such as paper work-and food wastes, are disposed of at the Inman landfill from any of these hazardous waste generators. Sludge Wastes: Municipal sewage treatment plants have sludge and grit by-products which are stored in bins or tanks on the treatment facility's premises. The sludge may be from aerobic or anerobic treatment plants and . I
varie~ from 1% to 7% solids. The sludge is accumulated at a rapid rate for large plants and must be hauled away several times daily, whereas small sewage treatment plants store sludge up to several weeks or a month before·hauling it away. See Table III-4 for disposal methods. Septic Tank Wastes: Butler Lagoon serves a two purpose function. One is storage, the other is treatment. Septic tank pump1ngs, chemical toilet wastes and holding tank wastes are stored in the two acre Butler Lagoon while biological stabilization or treatment is taking place. The Lagoon and surrounding lands are not open to the general public. Entry is through a locked gate.by special request or through licensed haulers who have been issued coded keys. Woodwastes: lumber mills and forest products plants, exclusive of cedar shingle operations, produce large quantities of mi 11 ends, sawdust and bark. The mi 11 ends are usually chipped and sold for reprocessing into other wood products; the sawdust has found a saleable market to dairy farmers as a bedding
material and the bark and other wastes have been sol~ to the larger forest products plants as hogging fuels. The cedar shake industry has not been as fortunate, some of their scrap is given away as fire wood kindling and the rest is continually stockpiled nea.r the mills. This stockp.ile appears to continue to grow particularly at the smaller mills since they cannot afford environmental controls to operate their waste incinerators for disposal of their waste. B. EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION OPERATIONS The unincorporated area of Skagit County is served by three (3) solid waste collection firms . which are licensed by the Utilities and Transportation Corrmission. The largest firm, Rural Sanitation, serves all of the unincorporated county, the towns of Lyman, Hamilton and LaConner, but not the town of Concrete or Guemes Island (see Table III-1 for collection schedule of firms). The North Cascade Disposal Company is based in the town of Concrete. This firm collects refuse only in the town of
Concrete. The Guemes Island Sa~itation Company serves the Guemes Island area, hauling refuse to the mainland landfills for disposal. The cities of Anacortes, Burlington, Mount Vernon and Sedro Woolley have their own collection trucks and personnel for collection of refuse within their cities.
11 Compactor Collection Boxes Skagit County is responsible for transporting the drop boxes from their sites to the Inman and Sauk landfills. The drop boxes are emptied on an as-needed basis, generally a drop box mechanic. attendant or the general public infonns the Public Works Department that a drop box is full and.an empty one is needed. When the Department of Public Works is informed that a box needs emptying, they in turn contact the Rural Sanitation Company who will transport it to a landfill. At the same time, the county will have an attendant switch hydraulic hoses and electrical power over to the next available box. Butler Lagoon At the Butler Lagoon site septic tank pumpings, holding tanks and chemical toilet wastes are placed in an open lagoon for stabilization. Access to the site is through a locked gate, fees are assessed by coded keys through an electronic counter. Keys are issued.to licensed septic tank pumpers or recreational operations only. No hazardous wastes are taken at this site. C. TRANSPORTATION The transportation network to all of the disposa.1 sites and compactor boxes is on state highways or freeways and on the county road system. There is no rail, water barge or alternate transportation. The Guemes Island Ferry does, however, transport solid waste trucks across the Guemes Channel along with other normal traffic. The entire roadway network in Skagit County is on an all weather HS20 roadway network. There are no particular restrictions in the network such as peak traffic flow restrictions, commercial traffic; detours, derated bridge detours or narrow road and bridge constrictions (see Table III-3}. Winter freeze-thaw cycles can close all roads under optimum conditions. During these conditions, when the under roadbed is· frozen and the thaw begins from the road surface., load limits are pl aced on all vehicles except in emergencies. Limiting and total shutdown periods usually last no more than 3-5 days, particularly in the low lands near the Inman Disposal Site which is temperate due to the marine influence. During these 3-5 days load limits or total shutdown periods, the storage systems are usually increased and extra effort is used to gain the maximum capacity from the existing storage system. D. EXISTING DISPOSAL SYSTEM Landfills Municipal wastes are landfilled at three area type sanitary landfills, all of which are operated . by Skagit County under Washington Administrative Code 173-301 "Minimum Functiona.l Standards." Open burning of refuse is prohibited at all of the landfills so vector control and volume reduction is accomplished by self-propelled sheepsfoot compactors or Caterpillar type of tractors. Burning of clean demolition lumber, waste woods, tree stumps and brush is done by pennit from the Northwest Air Pollution Authority at the Inman and Sauk sites only. This incineration of wastes is done for volume reduct ion. 12 • • TABLE II I-1
SKAGIT COUNTY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
COLLECTOR-HAULER COf·t"1ENTS
Anacortes City of Anacortes Municipal Operation: Hauling 6th &Q Avenue residential, corrunercial, industrial Anacortes, WA 98221 and recreational wastes. 293-5171
Burlington City of Burlington Municipal Opera'tion: Hauling City Hal 1 residential, corrunercial, industrial Burlington, WA 98233 -and recreational wastes. 755-0531
Concrete North Cascade Disposal Private firm, services only the Marke Hefte, Owner town of Concrete hauling residential 4410 S. Baker Loop and commercial wastes. Concrete, WA 98237 853-3581 UTC # G-135
Guemes Island Guemes Island Disposal Private firm, servicesonly the Paul Hoffman, Owner island of Guernes hauling residential 266 South Shore Drive wastes. Anacortes, WA 98221 UTC #G-0010
Mt. Vernon City of Mount Vernon Municipal Operation: Hauling 320 Broadway residential, commercial, industrial Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 and recreational wastes. 336-6585
Sedro Woolley City of Sedro Woolley Municipal Oper~tion: Hauling City Hal 1 residential, commercial, industrial Sedro Woolley, WA 98284 and recreational wastes. 855-1661
Skagit County Rural Sanitation Private firm, hauling residential, Lyle Robbins, Owner commercial, industrial, hazardous and 1756 W. Big Lake Blvd. recreatio~al wastes and county Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 compactor boxes. They serve the 422-5212 town of LaConner and all unincorporated towns in the county. WUTC Cert. G-73
13 • .• The Jnman landfill .is approximately 19 acres in size and is operated as an a_rea type landfill.
. ~ The pennanent improvements to the site include an attendant's shed of less than 100 square feet, a contractor's work shed of less than 200 square feet, a 50,000 gallon water tank for fire suppression, an all-weather paved access road to the site, a four strand barbed wire perimeter fence and minimal evergreen plants for visual screening .. Wastes that are admitted into the site are municipal, commercial, and industrial, processed asbestos insulation, empty prepared pesticide containers and demolition wastes. The attendant visually examines waste for acceptability and upon acceptance visually measures cars and pickups for quantity and then assesses a charge for disposal. Larger trucks are measured for volume and then the disposal charge is assessed. A private contractor is hired by the county to dispose of the waste. His job is to prepare daily trash cells, direct dumpers to the cells, to spread and compact waste in layers, and to cover this waste. Skagit County is responsible for final reclamation
·:of this site when the landfill is filled. This site is open seven (7} days a week except holidays from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
The Gibralter site is eleven (11) acres in size, and is separated from the access road by a chain
link fence. There is a 64 square foot attendant's shack and a portable toilet on the site. No compaction hauling equipment is kept at the site. A Caterpillar tractor is hauled into the site each Monday by Skagit County and this is used for compacting the waste, hauling and spreading soil cover and preparing the next refuse cell. By the terms of the "Conditional Use Operating Pennit" only household waste is disposed of at this site, no commercial waste is accepted. Volumes of waste are visually measured and a cost assessment is then made by the county attendant. This site is opened Sundays from 9:00 a.m. The Sauk Landfill is approximately ten (10) acres in size. Residential, commercial, park and recreation wastes are accepted at this site. The waste is usually estimated for volume and a fee is assessed by a county attendant. A 100 square foot shack and portable toilet are provided at the site. A Caterpillar tractor is hauled into the site one day each week for refuse compaction, soil cover and cell preparation. This site is open Sunday and Thursday, Labor Day to Easter Sunday and open Sunday, . Monday and Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. the rest of the year. Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge Sewage treatment plant sludge and grit is collected by all of the city treatment plant operations and is hauled in tank type trucks to a land disposal type of operation. The quantity of sludge and the method of disposal is inventoried in Table III-4. Septic Tank Sludge Septic tank wastes that are collected within the City of Anacortes and around the town of ·LaConner are accepted at the city sewage treatment plant for disposal; for the other cities and the rest of • the county, this material is disposed of at the county operated Butler Lagoon. At Butler Lagoon septic
14 • tank, chemical toilet and holding tank wastes are treated in a stabilization• lagoon of about four (4) . acres in surface area and about eight (8) feet deep. The waste water from this system is used to i·rrigate approximately twenty (20) acres of forest below the lagoon. Permanent inprovements to the site include a fence and gate off the county road with a 3/8 mile gravel access road to the lagoon. The site is unattended and usage is monitored by a key counter in operation at the access gate. Compactor Box Sites: Birdsview Operating one 28 c.y. compactor box with a spare box daily except Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Cavanaugh Operating one 28 c.y. compactor box twenty-four (24) hours daily. Clear Lake Operating one 28 c.y. compactor box with two spare boxes daily from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Conway Operating one 28 c.y. compactor box with one spare box twenty-four (24) hours daily. Marblemount Operating one 28 c.y. compactor box twenty-four (24) hours daily. Alger Operating one 28 c.y. compactor box with one spare box daily from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Si milk Operating one 28 c.y. compactor box with one spare box daily except Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. E. RECYCLING Traditional recycling in Skagit County has been limited to metals which has had.a ready metals reuse market, beverage containers· that offer a deposit return, and cardboard or paper according to market fluctuation. Currently, materials are being salvaged from the three county landfills to be resold. The highest priority is items that can be resold for reuse as they are. Next are items that have refundable deposits, followed by aluminum, copper, brass and ferrous metals; no glass or paper · is recycled from the landfills. All of the Skagit County beverage distributors have an agreement with the Seese's Recycling Company of Mount Vernon to collect and recycle all of their returnable bottles and cans. Many of .the wood products industries recycle their waste products into other industries. The saw mills chip wood ends for use in press board products, and sell sawdust to dairy fanners as bedding material and use the bark or hogging fuel to heat boilers. The auto industry has several recyclers which dismantle automobiles for reusable parts to be sold as they are or reconditioned for sale. The remaining scrap metal is sold to steel salvagers for reu.
15 • .. F. FINANCING
·The cities of Anacortes, Burlington, Mou~t Vernon and Sedro Woolley finance their solid waste collection operations through revenues obtained by direct billings to the citizens for a garbage service. The three privately franchised refuse collectors serving Skagit County receive their revenue from direct billings to their customers on their various routes.
The co~nty landfills receive revenues from individuals and private finns at the landfill gate based on the type of waste and the quantity, usually in cubic yards. Most individuals and finns pay for the disposal cost at the gate when they enter. However, larger business operations are billed monthly for their disposal costs. The .cities of Anacortes, Burlington, Mount Vernon and Sedro Woolley are billed quarterly for their usage of the disposal site. The actual amount is based on a per capita charge for each citizen. Records are kept on the cities' wastes, indicating compacted and loose yardage and an inventory is ma.de of quantities larger than 10 cubic yards. G. MANAGEMENT The 1973 Solid Waste Management Plan authorizes Skagit County to manage the solid waste disposal system, to provide the engineering, financing and manpower necessary to develop and manage the solid waste disposal system under the Revised Code of Washington 36.58. The Skagit County Board of Conmissioners has appointed the Director of Public Works responsible for implementing this system· within the Department of Public Works. The solid waste section is responsible for design and operation of the solid waste facilities. The Skagit County Board of County Commissioners is responsible for setting user rates by which the system is financed. The management system is required to operate in. confonnance with the Washington State Constitution, the Revised Code of Washington, the Washington Administrative Code, and within the Skagit County Conditional Use Permit requirements.
16 • •
TABLE III-2
SEPTIC TANK PUMPERS ANO HAULERS
COMMENTS.
Skagit County Elwood Septic ·Tank Service Private ownership Island County 2025 Highway 9 2,000 gallon tank Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 424-0730
Skagit County Gateway Septic Tank Services Private ownership 910 Old Highway 99 N. Burlingtqn, WA 98233 757-4755
Skagit County Johnny's Septic Service Private ownership 1105 Bayview-Edison Road Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 757-0550
Skagit County Northwest Septic Private ownership 716 S. 1st Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 336-2050
Skagit County Rainbow Construction Septic Services Private ownership 1145 Whistle Lake Road Anacortes, WA 98221 293-5579; 293-3232
Skagit County Thousand Trails Corporation Private corporation, 438 Friday Creek Road not a commercial pumper 724-3331
Skagit County Turner Septic Service Private ownership Star Route Rockport, \~A 98283 873-4533
Skagit County Silver Dollar Septic Tank Pumping Private ownership Snohomish County Dave Tucker 36811-3llth Street N.E. Arlington, WA 98223 436-1535
17 • • •
• TABLE III-3
SKAGIT COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM HEIGHT, WEIGHT, ANO LOAD RESTRICTIONS
STRUCTURE LOAD VERTICAL ROAD NAME IDENTIFICATION LOCATION RESTRICTIONS CLEARANCE
SSH 20 Swinomish Slough Bridge Swinomish Slough None Legal heights
SSH 20 Underpass I-5 None legal heights
Cascade River Rd. Skagit River Bridge Marblemount None Side constrictions
1-5 Overpasses None legal heights
Riverside Drive Skagit River Bridge MV-Burl. line None Legal heights
Memorial Highway Mt. Vernon Bridge Skagit River None legal heights
Guemes Island Rd. Guemes Ferry Anac-Guemes Is. None legal heights
18 • • TABLE III-4
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE OPERATIO~ •
Plant Ownership Quantity of Sludge Disposal Method
City of Anacortes Anacortes Plant 84,000 gal/year Sludge is placed in drying 3 - 4% solids beds for up to one year Then stockpiled for use as a Skyline Plant 30,640 gal/year compost material in the city parks.
City of Burlington 960,000 gal/year Sludge applied to agricultural t 2% solids land adjacent to the plant and is rotated.over 50 acres.
Town of Concrete No sludge.
Town of LaConner 550,000 gal/year Sludge is stored for drying; the ± 2% solids dry humus is stockpiled and given to gardeners and farmers. ~
City of Mount Vernon 30,000 gal/month of Sludge is trucked to 60 acres anerobic sludge 5% solids south of the city and applied to 42,000 gal/month of agricultural land. aerobic sludge 7% solids
City of Sedro Woolley 1,032,000 gal/year Sludge is trucked to 100 acres 1~ ,. 2% solids east of the city and.applied to agricultural land.
19 • TABLE III-5
• FULLY LOADED TRASH HAULERS
ROUGH VOLUME USE VEHICLE TYPE .CU.FT. CU. VOS. VOLUME CHARGE
IMPORT PICK-U? TRUCK
Short Bed 42.9 CF 1.6 CY 1.5 $ 2.25 Long Bed 49.5 CF 1.83 CY 1.5 2.25
FULL SIZE PICK-UP TRUCK Short Bed Step Side 43.6 CF 1.61 CY 1.5 $ 2.25 Long Bed Step Side 56.96 CF 2.11 CY 1.67 2.50 Short Bed Style Side 62.73 CF 2.32 CY 2.0 3.00 Long Bed Style Side 82.03 CF .3.04 CY 2.0 3.00
TRASH CONTAINERS
1 - 30 gallon barrel 4.0 CF 0.15 CY .15 $ .25 2 - 30 gallon barrels 8.0 CF 0.30 CY .30 .so 3 - 30 gallon barrels 12.0 CF 0.45 CY .45 .75 • 4 - 30 gallon barrels 16.0 CF 0.60 CV .60 1.00
1 - 55 gallon drum 6.67 CF 0.25 CY .25 $ .so 2 - 55 gallon drums 0.50 CV .50 .75 3 - 55 gallon drums 0.75 CY .75 1.00 4 - 55 gallon drums 1.00 CV 1.00 1.50
MINIMUM LANDFILL USE CHARGE $1.50
20 •
FIGURE II 1-6 • TABLE OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL RATES 1981
1. Cities of Anacortes, Mount Vernon, Burlington and Sedro Woolley: Solid waste collected by city solid waste system. a. Compacted waste per person* per year: ·$4.00 b. Loose waste per cubic yard: $1.50
2. Skagit County Compactor Sites - per hopper load: $1.00
3. Landfills: a. Per cubic yard loose: $1.50 b. Per cubic yard compacted: $2.00 c. White goods: $2.00 each d. Tires: $0.50 each e. Demolition waste: $4.00 per cubic yard
4. Sludge Lagoon: • a. $5.00/load
21 Oversized Document removed and scanned
··. Description ______File Name ------Parent Document ----· ., • •
CHAPTER
IV
SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES AND TYPES
A. Household . . . . . e B. Commercial and Institutional c. Industrial D. Waste Water Treatment E. Agriculture . F. Hazardous Wastes G. Solid Waste Trends
22 • • CHAPTER IV •• SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES ANO TYPES A. HC~·<:,t:~!')L o
Refus~ fr~m the household is brought into the landfills in commercial compactor type hauling
trucks or boxes by ·\-io~nsed haulers and by individuals in their own vehicles. The material brought
in by individuals is usuai~~· 1oose and would weigh around 300 lbs/c.y. The material brought in by commercial compactor trucks will range in density from 600 lb/c.y. to just over 1000 lb/c.y. Inventorying the amount of waste by cubic yardage is based on the size of the truck and, therefore, can vary as much as 100% due to differing densities. If the hauling trucks are only partly full, the compacted densities are even less than the stated 600 lb/c.y. which would allow the estimation of quantity to vary even more greatly. The quantities of residential waste are inventoried in Figure IV-1 and Map IV-1 as compacted and loose cubic yards of waste. B. COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL Pathological wastes from medical clinics, laboratories, hospitals and nursing homes are not inventoried for quantity since they are restricted by Commissioner Resolution #6531, February 10, 1975 from entering the county landfills. General estimates based incinerator disposal methods indicate daily quantities to be 10 to 15 c.y. Other commercial operations add high quantities of paper and plastics to the waste stream while restaurants, fast food and take-out restaurants add
paper, plastics, vegetable and animal matter to the waste stream. The U~S. Environmental Protection Agency has published the general components of municipal wastes which are listed below. Further the E.P.A. studies show that municipal wastes do not vary much across the nation unless influenced by large industries. These varying influences do not affect the Skagit County waste stream. Municipal Waste Analysis by Weight Aluminum and Non-Ferrous Metals 1% Textiles •••. 2% Plastics .••. 4% Rubber-Leather. 3% Glass . . . . . 10% Ferrous Metals. 9% Paper ••. 35% Food. Wastes . 15% Yard Wastes . 16~ Miscellaneous 5% TOTAL. . 100%
23 • • C. INDUSTRIAL WASTES Wood wastes from lumber milling industries are recycled by chipping into particle boards, sawdust • is sold for agriculture and bark is sold as hogging fuel. The cedar mills, however, are unable to sell their cedar wastes and cannot afford to process it or incinerate it, consequently the cedar mill operations stack the waste on land near the mills. This waste appears to be accumulating _at the rate of several hundred tons annually. The local machinery casting industries produce around 400 tons annually of. inert casting sand waste. However, since the material is an inert sand, it is used for parking lot cover and as fill around the industry's site. The petroleum refining industries have several special wastes indigenous to their product development. One is oily sludges, These sludges are thinly applied to soil farms on the refinery
property and treated with a bacteria that consumes the sludge~ digests it and returns it to the soil. The process is a slow one and requires large land areas. However, it is very effective. The other major waste of the petroleum industry is cracking catalyst used in petroleum distillation. During good market periods, this inert sand-like material is returned to .the manufacturer for reactivation. However, in lessor markets it is disposed of at the landfill as a waste cover material. Annually, quantities at the landfill vary from 200 tons to 1000 tons. 0. WASTE WATER SLUDGES Municipal waste treatment plants generate around 3,000,000 gallons of sludge that have a solids content of 2% to 7%. These sludge solids have a low nitrogen content and are devoid of specific concentrations of heavy metals and are consequently useful as soil conditioners. Septic tank sludges are disposed of in Butler Lagoon. Records from the gate key recorder indicate that 800,000 gallons of sludge are disposed of annually in the lagoon. Test samples taken from the lagoon bottom indicate a zinc concentration of around 17%. This is presumed to be from holding tanks on recreational vehicles. This zinc was formally used in a disinfectant-perfume holding tank additive. Its use has not been noted in the last two years. E. AGRICULTURE Most agriculture plant by-products are returned to the soil as conditioners. However, some products are disposed of at the Inman Landfill. Around 20 to 30 tons of dry seeds are landfilled. The moisture . content is estimated to be around 30-40%; high moisture reject bulbs are disposed of comprising around 30 to 50 tons annually. Agriculture herbicides and pesticides are not accepted at the county landfills. The county operates as an informational unit enabling the disposer to find out what disposal methods are available to him. Generally most older chemicals which are persistent in the environment must be taken out-of-state to a hazardous waste disposal site while the more modern groups of chemicals have ~
24 a much shorter life span and can• be diluted, checked for compatibility and •used in a future agriculture spraying program. Five (5) gallon waste containers are accepted for disposal at the Inman Landfill if •• they are triply rinsed and slashed according to Washington Administrative Code 173-302. Dead animals are prohibited from all of the landfills by County Ordinance. Other special agriculture wastes that are not accepted by the county at the landfills are vegetable and fruit wastes brought over international boundaries. The Federal Department of Agriculture requires that these wastes, when brought into Skagit County, must be put in metal containers and sent to the "Thermal Reduction Company" in Ferndale for incineration. F. HAZARDOUS WASTES Skagit County does not accept hazardous.wastes under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or under Washington Administrative Code Hazardous Waste Regulation Chapter 173-302. However, under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutions (NESHAPS) Skagit County does handle one hazardous waste. This material is friable (crumbly) asbestos often found in pipe, duct and boiler fire box insulation. The Inman. Landfill currently disposes of 10 to 15 tons of pre sumed asbestos bearing insulation material annually. This material is presumed to have asbestos since it is cheaper to dispose of as asbestos bearing than to test it. G. SOLID WASTE TRENDS Variations in solid waste quantity flows are considerable and can have major impacts on waste • collection, processing and disposal. Business hours for recefving and processing waste are based on the hours of most waste received, manpower and equipment requirements and also determined by waste stream load quantities. There are seasonal and annual waste stream fluctuations as shown on Fig.· IV-2 for the years 1977. through 1980. The solid waste variations can yield data in only·a general sense since the material that is inventoried is in large compactor trucks which may be nearly empty or compacted to the limit of the hydraulic rams. Some specific seasonal data that can be obtained from these figures.is that waste quantity increases during the warnier months and decreases in the rainy or cool months. The wanner or sunmer months of higher solid waste quantities in the county or rural areas appears to lag the cities' quantities by about a month. Specific data regarding annual changes in solid waste indicates a definite upward trend from 1977 to 1978 with a· modest increase in 1979 and a definite drop in quantities in 198J. See Figure IV-3. General up.'iard trends would seem nonnal in light of continued population increases and continuing
economic prosperity. However, in 1979 and 1980 the statistics show a radical change. It. is presumed that as the cities update their collection trucks, the compaction effort increases and allows greater amounts of waste to be carried in similar volumes, thus, accounting for part of the apparent reduction e in solid waste. Further reductions, which are predominately in the city, are presumed to be due to
25 • • the economic recession. This recession has caused business closures and reductions. People in general · have cut back in the purchase of goods that are generally associated with solid waste. If these assumptions are true, it would then appear that solid waste quantities may in some way show the moods of the society. •
•
26 FIGURE IV-1 • 1980 • WEEKLY SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES
• C.Y./WEEK RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL C.Y. Each Week/No. Trips Each Week Compact/Trips Loose/Trips Compact/Trips Loose/Trips
Anacortes 240/9 0 40/2 Fidalgo 12/1 Marches Point 21/2 Swinomish Point 24/2 La Conner 10/1 15/2 25/1 LaConner-Whitney 20/2 50/2 Colony Hi 11 15/1 Bayview-Friday Creek 12/1 Avon 30/2 9/2 Beaver Marsh 8/1 South of Mount Vernon 20/2 Big Lake 13/2 Mount Vernon City 278 210 Swan Road 18/2 Burlington Rural 24/2 Burl irigton City 133/8 24/2 F &S Grade . 12/1 Sedro Woolley City 178/10 14/2 Sedro Woolley Rural 20/2 Lyman 10/1 Sauk-Marblemount 10/1 Concrete City 16/2 Miscellaneous Commercial 25/1 County Compactor Box 118 119 Inman Landfill Individual and Pvt. Finns 1,918 Sauk Landfill Individual and Pvt. Firms 121 Gibralter Landfill Individual and Pvt. Firms _ill. 1,555 cy/wk 2, 196 cy/wk 123 cy/wk 400 cy/wk
Butler Lagoon: 646,000 gallons a year
Total compacted cy = 1,678 @ 500 #/cy = 420 tons/1tk Total loose cy = 2,596 @ 250 #/cy = 324 tons/wk 744 tons/wk = 106 tons/day
27 , • • Cities Corrmercial · Residential Anacortes. 329 accounts 4471 Mt. Vernon {17) 1 c .y. bin/wk • {120) l~ c.y. bin/wk {160) 2 c.y. bin/wk {7) 20 c.y. bin/wk (6) 30 c.y. bin/wk
(1) 15 c.y. compactor ~in/wk (1 1/3) 30 c.y. compactor/wk Sedro Woolley 210 business accounts 1990, 2 cans/wk 20 1 c.y. bins 64 2 c.y. bins Restaurants each day
•
28 FIG IV-2 • SEASONAL VARIATION IN SOLID WASTE •
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec nacortes Cubic Burlington Yards Ht. Vernon 7000 ----··County (rural) • 0 1~80 6000 .0 1979 A 1978
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Cubic Yards 50,000 ·~ 49,000 J \ 48,000 I \ 47,000 I \ I 46,000 (.) \
45,000 ~.
1977 1978 1979 1980
FIG IV-3 ANNUAL VARIATION IN SOLID WASTE* *Anacortes, Burlinqton, Mount Vernon
29 Oversized Document removed and scanned
·. Description ______File Name ------Parent Document ----· • • •
CHAPTER
v
SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE .PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
9, A. Storage • . B. Collection. c. Transportation. . D. Compactor Boxes
E. Landfi 11 s • F. Sludge Lagoon G. Resource Recovery . H. Administrative and Technical Needs .
I. Legislative Needs J. Financial Needs K. Future Constraints.
L. Long-Range Needs--20 years.
30 • CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTE PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
• The solid waste management and planning goal for the Skagit County Solid Waste Management System is to provide a reasonably high level waste disposal system to the citizens and business community·of· the county. The system is intended to provide economical and equitable services, be environmental"ly acceptable and aesthetically pleasing to the CO[JJllunity in general. Substantial progress has been made toward these planning goals; however, deficiencies and problems still exist. A. Storage: Specific regulations pertaining to solid waste storage in the cities and unincorporated areas of
the county under WAC 173-301 appear to be sufficient since their enforcement of them results in a relatively high level of public health. B. Collection: Solid waste collection service is available for all the residents of all municipalities in the county, collection is mandatory for all residents within the towns of Anacortes, Burlington, Mt. Vernon • Sedro Woolley, LaConner and Concrete. Though the four largest municipalities confinn that their collection services are adequate and ~~·~\' working well, they have expr.essed the need to use a private firm for the collection of refuse,, This (·· ne~d is a reflection of the problems brought about by the manpo~er increase requirements on a small i'"''' municipality where it is necessary to have a small truck fleet, garage, repair facilities, personnel and an overall manager for the collection operation. Many of these people must be shared with other duties or else be only partially utilized. Invariably the manpower and workload increase is felt throughout all sectors of a small municipality. To minimize this impact, the municipalities are exploring the possibility of having the collection service done by a private collector with the municipalities doing the billing as before. It may prove· economical fot other small cities to look at the same solution. Rural collection is available throughout the county from the three franchised collectors. Rural residents have the option of subscribing to these services or hauling their refuse to disposal transfer boxes or the landfill sites in private vehicles. As the need for greater services increases the collection services will increase the collection frequency. C. Transportation: Skagit County has a network of paved roads servicing all areas of the county. No serious ·problems have arisen in transporting solid waste to the existing disposal sites. The Inman Landfill is the major disposal site and is surrounded by a rural road system; access to the landfill site is by a level east-west paved road of adequate construction and maintenance.
31 • • Following periods of winter roadbed freezing, all commercial trucks are restricted from using the various roads depending upon their weight. All solid waste hauling trucks may be restricted for up ~ to three days following a roadbed· thaw. This freeze-thaw cycle may occur several times each winter season. The need to upgrade the network of roads at this time is non-existent. D. Compactor Boxes: Disposal problems involving compactor sites appear to fall in two categories, lack of reliability and the high cost of operation. The specific reliability problems relate to the· machines taking the money and not working at all, lids unable to close due to distortion when users try to force more refuse in the hopper, latches not holding the lids closed, the machine not recycling, and last of all, recycling but not emptying. With age and lack of replacement of equipment, failures have been on the increase. Even with properly functioning equipment, the compactor hopper still allows refuse from the main storage box to expand backwards and reduce the hopper's potential capacity. The problem of operating costs may be due to several reasons. Primarily, some of the boxes receive a lack of use; this may indicate improper location of the facility, lack of population or competition with another collection or disposal service. Another contribution is due to the high repair costs due to the complexity and reliability of the system. There is a definite need to evaluate the compactor box sites for their location to best serve the public. A further evaluation is needed to identify if the boxes should be redesigned or replaced to improve their reliability of service. E. landfills: The landfills have different deficiencies. Inman Landfill will be treated by itself since it functions as an area type of landfill. The Sauk and Gibraltar Landfills, though they are area type landfills, are more nearly the size of compactor box sites and shall be treated separately. All of
the landfill~ have one common problem and that is detennining the quantity of solid waste. The attendants must visually estimate loads iin open vehicles and must assume that closed-in vehicles such as compactor trucks and boxes are full and must further assume that all compactors compact the same. All of these assumptions. have varying degrees of error up to several hundred percent. This error in estimating quantity not only unfairly penalizes the user of the facility, but also creates misjudgments in the effective management of the site. These misjudgments naturally result in a wasting of the landfill capacity. Technical problems as they relate to the landfills are basically of the environmental order. Most construction, engineering and mechanical problems have found their solutions adapted from allied fields such as Earthwork Construction or Soils and Earthwork Engineering. Most problems relating to the landfills are regarding the environmental and energy impacts and public acceptance of landfill sites. The environmental concerns regarding new and existing landfills require that the operator must protect the air, water and land from degradation during their activities. Probably the most serious violations e are to the water and land with heavy metals and other substances in a leachate vehicle traveling horizontallJ and downward to seek out water tables or to be left behind in the soil matrix. Many compounds
32 are.degraded in the soil matrix and present no harm to the environment• while oth~r elements or compounds are long 1ived and pose a potential threat to the environment. The leachate vehicle will proba.bly be a vehicle for contaminates during the life of the landfill and studies show it will continue for • approximately fifteen years after the closure of the landfill. Methane gas generation is a problem in sanitary landfills; in older open dumps where open burning was permitted, most methane generators were destroyed and consequently so was most of the problem. In today's landfill this is not the case and as an explosive gas it must be properly managed. This management period, like leachate, begins shortly after the landfill is started and continues oh for approximately fifteen years after the closure of the landfill. 6 landfill liability appears to be an ever increasing problem with local governments bearing the· costs of remedying these problems. These liability costs, along with environmental pollution control costs, will continue to drive the cost of landfill operation above many other desirable waste disposal altematives. landfi 11 access by the general public in au.tomobil es and pi ck-up trucks creates many d.rawbacks with the landfill. From the very entry of the general public into the landfill, they are in competition with earthmoving and compaction machinery and commercial hauling trucks for a very small daily trash cell working area. This small working area is further complicated by the fact that it is a daily cell and within a week the road leading to the cells changes by several hundred feet. The c01T111ercial haulers are generally aware of the daily location of cells and changes in access roads whereas the general public must find their way to the daily cell and then wait for an open place to dump their refuse. The Inman Landfill has short term, moderate operating costs. In 1979, the Inman Landfill ran a deficit of $443.47 for the compacting and covering of solid waste. However, very little work was done for excavation of future disposal areas, planned terracing of waste and cell construction, road and overall accesses. The basic lack of excavation and preparation work indicates that soils which should have been excavated are being covered with waste. Ultimately, this reduces the· capacity of the landfill by approximately 100,000 c.y. which is approximately one year's capacity of the landfill. For the last several years, the landfill has been operating with about a 100' x 30' working face with 6" of soil cover each day. With an estimated 115 tons of waste per day·coming into the landfill compacted to 1,000 lb./c.y., the waste would be approximately two feet thick and the soil cover to trash volume ratio would be about 1:3. Currently, two separate landfill faces are being operated; again soil to waste ratios are rather high. These high ratios indicate that somewhere around 25% of the landfill is being filled up with soil, whereas, with more efficient cell method, a soil ratio would be in the range of 1:6 or 15% of the landfill. Topographic cross sections show that there is a remaining capacity of around 1.5 million c.y., a 10% difference in capacity or 150,000 c.y. at 230 c.y./day
33 might represent l 2/3 years· of operating life. At today's national figures on landfill disposal ·costs at $10.00/ton, the potential savings in modular cells alone represents 3/4 of a million dollars. • Conservation efforts at the landfill are, therefore, very important. Additionally, the conditional use permit only allows for the easterly one-half of Inman Pit to be landfilled with waste. The permit,
therefore, needs to be expanded to cover.the westerly one~half also. Historically the contractor has had to develop his own long-range plans regarding disposal areas of waste materials and borrow areas of soil covers. This process was probably brought about by a lack of an updated operating plan by Skagit County; the contractor was generally left to his own devices regarding the determination of waste disposal and soil borrow areas. This practice formed a two-way economic relationship during the era of cheap landfills; the county lacking personnel was able to get by with minimum management; the contractor was able to choose easy disposal and borrow areas which saved time and machinery wear. These practices, however, ·led to the loss of hundreds of. thousands of cubic yards of disposal area and requires substantial reworking of hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of borrow area required to future landfill area. The Sauk Landfill site has an average daily use of 41 persons. The cost of disposal of $1.00 worth of refuse in 1981 is $4.38, the highest of all landfills. Its annual capacity is less than that of the Clear Lake drop box site and is very nearly that of the Conway site. This landfill site, therefore, needs to be evaluated for a quality drop box· site or other possible changes. This same analysis appears to apply to the Gibralter Landfill site. e F. Sludge Lagoon: Butler Lagoon has basic maintenance problems regarding hard-surfaced dumping areas and all-weather access to and around the site. Other problems involve proper gate accounting procedures. Currently, if two or more trucks enter the.site at about the same time, only one of the trucks is recorded in by the electronic gate system. Additionally, if the gate is left open, the truck trips are not recorded. For several nearby residents, odor has also been a problem .. Butler Lagoon is a paradox posing problems on the one hand and solving the problems on the other hand. Most of the waste brought to Butler Lagoon has received some previous treatment such as anerobic digestion in septic tanks or chemical treatment in portable toilets. The degrees of treatment are unknown and all material must be handled as if pathogenic bacteria exists in the waste. Making this assumption, all waste must then go through treatment to reduce the bacteria levels in the sludge prior to final land disposal. According to Dr. Loehr in Land Application of Wastes, bacteria removal through proper detention in lagoons ranges from 98% to 99% which is comparable with the 96% to 99% removal achieved with chlorination techniques. The efficiency of bacterial removal at the Butler Lagoon is believed to be considerably less than these levels due to "short circuiting" of the flow path within the lagoon, specifically the detention time for part of the flow may not be long enough to give high bacteria removal counts. From a mass balance ~
34 standpoint, if the capacity of the lagoon is around 400,000 gallons and the• annual waste volume is around 800,000 gallons, the detention time would then be around 180 days or about four to six times . longer than required for bacterial removal. In the event of short circuiting of waste flow, the • detention time would be greatly reduced and the bacterial removal would then be taken care of in the land disposal cycle. There is a lack of distribution-irrigation network in the land disposal cycle creating excess.ive loading in some areas and under loading in other areas. There is also a need to restrict the public from the lagoon and the land disposal area. The cost of disposal of municipal waste sludges is reported by local treatment plant operations to cost around $0.005 to $0.001/gallon, while the unit costs do not seem very high. It is indeed high when multiplied by three to four million gallons annually. The greatest amount of this cost is involved with the truck hauling of waste to the disposal site, followed by the high cost of acquiring pennitted sites. The high cost of finding environmentally acceptable sites is further aggravated by citizen concern in the vicinity of the sites. There is a need, therefore, to reduce the high cost of transportation of sludge, the spreading of the sludge and the acquiring of sludge disposal sites. G. RESOURCE RECOVERY: The land disposal of useful materials that have energy value is becoming undesirable from a power shortage and an economical outlook for the decade of the l980's. Skagit County landfills receive on the average approximately 115 tons'per day of solid waste with an average fuel value of 4,300 btu per 9. ,Poun H. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHflICAL NEEDS: Enforcement of solid waste regulations is a function of 'the County Health Department. The Skagit County Health Department has a staff of sanitarians competent to provide enforcement with no immediate need for additional staff for this function. 35 Technical skills required for the existing methods of collection, transportation and sanitary landfill disposal are presently available in the various solid waste personnel working in Skagit County. Other collection, transportation and disposal methods might require equipment and expertise not presently available in the existing solid waste management system. • I. LEGISLATIVE NEEDS: Implementation of a protective set of building regulations regarding building construction on or within 1000 feet of existing or closed landfills appears necessary due to the hazards of methane gas accumulation. 6 The following regulations are given to be used as a guideline by the Skagit County Building Official in establishing these building regulations. 36 1. Flammable Gas (G) Overlay Zone District • a) Purpose (1) G - It is the purpose of this Overlay District to establish reasonable and uniform • limitations, safeguards, and controls over uses of land designated as and/or adjacent to an operating or former solid waste disposal site. Any building, excavation, construction, or other use proposed in this zone district shall requ'ire flammable gas testing and approval as indicated in this section. prior to corrrnencing operations. The requirements of this section are intended to assure the protection of life and property from such related hazards as flammable gas, gas migration, asphyxiation, settlement, and explosion. b) Restrictions on Uses (l} For any parcel of land which is or has been a sol id waste disposal site, no construction of the structures or other land uses shall be allowed until the proposed action is referred to the Skagit County Permit Center and the Skagit County Health Department. (2) Skagit County Health Department and the State Department of Ecology will be primarily responsible for obtaining flammable gas readings from the site and supply safety i.nfonna tion related to construction on a landfill. (3) The Permit Center's primary responsibility shall be to deal with the proposed land use and rev.iew of the engineering design. (4) All comments and recommendations shall be presented to the Building Official for his review and decision. c) Building Permits and Construction on a Former Landfill Site The Building Official shall issue a pennit on any such proposed development only after deter mining that the following criteria has been met based on the 20% lower explosi~e limit (LEL) standard fonnulated by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health of the Bureau of Mines of the U.S. Department of the Interior: {l) Flammable gas testing shall be conducted at the proposed site in order to determine if flarrrnable gas is present in concentrations of 5% or more by volume (5% flammable gas is the lower explosive limit). (2) All new construction shall be designed by a registered professional engineer to exclude and protect against buildup of over 1% of flammable gas in the building. (3) For construction on a known landfill area, the following steps shall be taken during.the ·construction activity: (a) A flarrrnable gas indicator shall be utilized at all times during trenching, excavating, drilling or when working within 10 feet of an open excavation. 37 • (b) When trenching, excavating, or drilling deeper than two feet 1nto the fill, or in the presence of detectable concentrations of 1% flammable gas, the soils shall be . wetted and the operating equipment shall be provided with spark-proof exhausts. (c) A dry chemical fire extinguisher, ABC rated, shall be provided on all equipment • used in the landfill. (d) Personnel within or near an open trench or drill hole shall be fully clothed, wear shoes with non-metallic soles, wear a hard hat and wear safety goggles or glasses. (e) Exhaust blowers shall be used in instances where trenches may show a build-up of flammable gas of 1% or less than 18% oxygen. (f) Smoking shall not be pennitted in any area within 100 feet of the excavation. (g) Personnel shall be kept upwind of any open trench unless the trench is continuously monitored. (h) Before personnel are pennitted to enter an open trench, the trench shall be monitored for flammable gas and at least an 18% oxygen sufficiency. When in the excavation, each work party shall be working no more than five (5) feet from a continuous flammable gas and oxygen monitor. (4) The applicant shall have a registered professional engineer submit an affidavit to the Chief Building Official stating the following: (a) That all new construction is in compliance with these regulations, that all testing • and monitoring has been done and is being done pursuant to these regulations, and the result of such testing and monitoring be submitted to the Building Official. (5) All construction or excavation sites shall be subject to inspection by the local fire department. d) Building Pennits and Construction Within 1000 Feet of Known landfill Area The Building Official shall issue a permit on any proposed development only after determining that the following safety precautions have been taken: (1) The area under construction shall be checked with a flammable gas indicator before excavation in order to determine if flammable gas is in the area. (2) Any excavation shall be monitored for the presence of flammable gas reading of a maximum 1% and oxygen deficiency reading of a minimum of 18%. This shall be carried out continuously unless there is no presence of flanmable gas in the area. (3) Should flammable gas of 1% or oxygen of less than 18% occur, those precautions applicable to excavating the landfill as outlined in Sections 11.42 and 11.422 also apply to this situation. (4) The applicant shall submit an affidavit by a registered professional engineer stating that all testing and monitoring as required by these regulations has been conducted and stating the result of the testing and monitoring. 38 (5) Any construction or excavation site shall be subject to inspection by the' local fire department. • e) In cases where a building pennit has been granted, the uses, restrictions, and standards of the underlying zone district shall apply. 2. Flal!1llab1e Gas Hazard Areas a) Those areas identified within 1000 feet of any closed or currently operating landfill. J. Financial Needs: The most pressing need is a system of fair user charges to insure that the cost of waste dispbsal is assessed to each user. There is also a great need to set up a fund to replace the landfills when they are filled and to reclaim the landfill site when it is filled. The same sort of sinking fund also applies to the sludge disposal operation and the compactor box operation. The. users of the system also have a need to know the solid waste rates one quarter of a year in advance of their assessment. so that they may set up their budgets for the subsequent year. K. Future Constraints: The 1980 census for Skagit County shows a stable to decreasing population in the smaller towns, while the large towns and rural areas continue to increase in population. The population of the county is expected to increase at a rate of 1.3% annually. Solid waste quantities per capita are not projected to change. However, the total solid waste quantities are expected to increase with the total increases in population. • Siting of new sanitary landfill facilities is expected to become more difficult and expensive as increasing numbers of people compete for a now decreasing availability of land. Siting constraints for sanitary landfills due to ecosystem damage, citizen objection and property devaluation have to be solved if landfills are to continue to be a viable waste disposal alternative. L, Long-Range Needs--20 Years: The long-term solid waste needs dictate that a more efficient solid waste system would have.a minimum of efforts duplicated. Specifically, there is a need to have interlocal agreements and planning such that collection and transportation equipment, personnel and maintenance are not duplicated and are more effectively used. This same rationale should be applied to compactor box system. Very often the compactor box system is in direct competition with licensed refuse collectors and haulers creating a high operating cost for all systems in the specific area. 39 CHAPTER VI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES A. Storage System Alternatives B. Collection Alternatives •. C. Transportation Alternatives D. Disposal Alternatives: 1. Septic Tank Sludge. 2. Municipal Waste E. Financing ••••• • 40 CHAPTER VI SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES • A. Storage System Alternatives The storage of putresible solid waste in leak-proof containers appears to be favorable from a practical and health standpoint. The common plastic or metal cans and metal bins are reasonably nuisance free. Any improvements in storage units is easily assimilated into the existing solid waste storage on an individual basis. With increasing costs of land, labor and transportation, ·greater importance is being placed on the solid waste storage system. The two trends in storage within Skagit County are larger storage units and compacted storage units. Businesses tend to go to the greater volume units of 15 to 30 cubic yards to decrease the hauling. costs associated with the one to two cubic yard units. The next major step appears to be the compacting of the wastes to further reduce the transportation costs. This trend is expected to continue as businesses analyze their operations for greater cost saving measures. A future· alternative in the residential storage. system may be large neighborhood compactors. These compactors would eliminate the two cans each week that individuals place in front of their homes. It is believed that the average citizen would be reluctant to accept this service since it would be an incon venience after having_ house-to-house service. If compactor boxes for solid waste storage should be included in the solid waste system, units of improved design with lower maintenance and operation costs should be used and should be automated and not require attendants. 8. Collection Alternatives Solid waste collection service is available for the residents of all municipalities in the county. All of the municipalities report that their collection services are adequate and working well, .however; the cities providing city-owned collection service may wish to investigate other collection service alternatives such as a joint venture with another city or contract service with the objective of avoiding duplication of equipment. Rural collection service is available throughout the county from the various franchised collectors. Rural residents have the option of subscribing to this service or hauling their refuse to disposal in a private vehicle. In rural areas of the county, mandatory collection can be required. However, it is doubted that a mandatory service would increase the quality of health or life. Preliminary indications from citizens are that they neither want this service or the costs associated with them. Since littering problems are limited to a few percent of the total population, mandatory collection, designed • to reduce littering, would not be recommended at this time. 41 • Transfer stations should be considered at the Gibralter and Sauk Landfills due to the high costs of sanitary landfilling and potential cost saving from environmental liabilities. For the first nine • months in 1980, the cost of disposal of $1.00 worth of trash at the Sauk Landfill was $4.38 and at the Gibralter Landfill was $2.68. At the same time, the Clear Lake compactor site which had about the same volume as Gibralter required $1.96 to dispose of $1.00 worth of trash. The Conway compactor site which has a comparable volume to the Sauk site is $1.96. · Prorated out to a twelve month year, the potential annual savings by changing Sauk to collection campactor site would then be $15,340 and for Gibralter $5,962. C. Transportation Alternatives There are two main transportation alternatives for solid waste. The short haul distance is best accomplished by the use of the compactor type of truck and trucks that haul containers. These trucks vary in size from two to thirty and forty cubic yards, and have an average pay 1oad density of around 500 - 600 lbs/c.y. with extreme densities reaching around 1,100 lbs./c.y. The longer haul is usually from a transfer station which would involve roll-off trucks hauling roll-off drop boxes or the large transfer type of trailers, the latter having capacities of around 50 to 80 cubic yards and up to 20 tons in weight. The decision to use a compactor truck or a transfer truck is an economic decision. For small refuse amounts such as are found within the cities of Skagit County, the purchase of specialized transfer equipment would not prove economical or provide an overriding convenience.• However, were ~ all of the cities and the county rural system to be combined. under one private or government collection system, the multiple use of this specialized equipment would probably prove economically feasible. On longer hauls of more than 25 miles and considerably increasing tonnages and trips, the usage of this equipment becomes practical. O. Disposal Alternatives: 1. Municipal Waste Municipal waste disposal alternatives will be evaluated from two different perspectives; the first from EPA evaluations of existing processing facilities and the second, by using the analytic technique developed by Systems Technology Inc. {See figure VII-1) In these evaluations all parameters are evaluated on a per ton basis so that their application can be more readily applied to Skagit County municipal waste. The Composting Alternative The compost product is a humus-like material which is used to enhance soils generally to increase production. Less than one-half of the material is composted while the remaining material is usually separated for metal and glass recovery with the residual being disposed of in more traditional methods such as incineration and landfilling. 42 Currently there are• no cost effective composting operations in the Unit~d States.1 Current 1 capital, overhead and maintenance costs for proprietary plants are running around $26.70/ton, with conversion efficiency between ten and forty percent. 26 The selling market for the compost product • is almost non-existent, requiring intensive labor and energy inputs and large land areas for processing. The Pyrolysis Alternative Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of wastes to produce combustible gases or liquids. This gas or liquid product is of high quality and is valued as a fuel when large quantities are available for compatible industries. Conversion efficiencies for this process are around fifty to eighty percent and require strict quality control. The capital costs, operation and maintenance are around $29.00 to $32.00 per ton. 1 The Refuse Derived Fuel Alternative: Refuse derived fuel is a processed waste that has had metal and non-combustibles removed and is shredded for size control. This material is used as a heating fuel for steam boilers and is commonly used as an actual substitute in existing boiler operations. The costs incurred in pro- . cessing this waste increase the heat value of the fuel while at the same time, increasing the final cost of the fuel. This final cost can only be justified in large operations approaching 1,000 tons per day or when existing boiler facilities are available. The Incineration Alternative: Solid waste incineration involves.the burning of municipal waste with minimal size processing and mixing for heating quality. Solid waste incinerator plants of less than 200 tons per day are usually made up of modular incinerators which have modules similar to 24, 48 and 72 tons based on twenty-four hours per day. This modular sizing allows similar units to be used throughout the facility allowing for expansion and system protection through system redundancy. The waste conversion process by incineration is the most consistent of all the processes while requiring a middle to upper level technical work force. The energy conversion process is between 65i~ and 80%1 with capital and operating expenses for existing refuse incineration plants in the 100 ton/ day range of $11.68/ton. 1 Refuse incineration generates the highest level of revenues per cost of operation ratio of any solid waste disposal method. The single most important feature for resource recovery is expected to occur in 1981. Washington State Department of Ecology with residual funds from Washington State Referendum 26 and Referendum 39, has the capacity to provide up to 50% funding for implementing solid waste projects'. There may be an additional 25% implementation funding available for energy recovery projects associated with solid waste disposal. The following analysis for refuse incineration with resource recovery in Skagit County is based on the 50% funding level. 43 These analyses will compare the cost of landfilling against• the net cost of refuse incineration with steam recovery and then with electrical power generation. The solid waste quantity is assumed to be 115 tons of incineratable waste per day, 5 days per week and will increase annually at the ~ projected rate of 1. 31 percent. Figure VI-1 shows the cost of a refuse incineration plant with land acquisition to be $3,910,000. A twenty year debt period is assumed with an interest rate of 16% annually. Assuming the State Department of Ecology Referendum 39 funding is 50%, then the sharing of capital expenses would be: Skagit County Solid Waste System 50% $1,955,000 Washington State Department of Ecology 50% t ,955 ,000 The cost of this debt service would then be S27,199 per month. Dividing this debt service by the number of tons processed each month, the debt service would be $11.00 per ton. Plant operation, depreciation and administrative overhead is $9.50 per ton with final ash disposal costs of Sl .50 per. :ton. The total cost of incineration disposal in 1981 is, therefore, c$22.00 per ton. This amount would be offset by steam production and/or electrical generation. Today's cost for industrial users of natural gas for steam production is $4.65 per million btu. Costs per 1000 lbs. of steam are·based on an average boiler efficiency of 80%. If it takes 971 btu/hr. to produce a pound of steam/hr. by natural gas, then $4.65 of natural gas would then produce 1030 lbs. of steam and conversely 1000 lbs. of steam would be worth $4.52. However, in refuse incineration, around 60% heat recovery is available meaning that municipal waste with a heat value of 4300 btu/lb. would produce 8,600,000 btu of which 5,160,000 btu would be recoverable to produce 5314 lbs. steam. A ton of municipal waste would then be worth $24.02. This same 5,314 lbs. steam, if converted to electrical power, would produce 354 kwh. of power, the conversion factor would be l kwh. for each 15 lbs. of steam. In 1981 Puget Power would pay S2.37 for each kwh. making a ton of municipal waste worth $8. 39. The net cost of refuse incineration must be compared against other acceptable or feasible waste disposal methods. That is, the cost of refuse incineration less power revenues must be cCJ11pared against the landfilling option. Figure VI-3 shows the cost of landfilling in Jg81 at $12.00 per ton with costs increasing for two years at 15% to accommodate environmental controls and then maintaining a steady growth rate of 7% thereafter. This disposal comparison is shown in Figure VI-6 as a composite of the cost of plant debt service, plant operating and maintenance costs, combined debt service with 0 &M, 100% and 50% steam recovery operations, 100% electrical generation, and conventional landfilling. Regardless of which comparison is made to landfilling, within very few months, refuse incineration with resource recovery is the cost-effective option. In all cases this option provides the lowest cost-tipping fee. 44 The Landfill Alternative:• •• Sanitary landfilling is a time-tested method of waste disposal having many initial benefits • The system requires a low level of operating technology, it is very flexible in handling variable • quantities of waste. With recent energy cost increases, environmental controls and public opposition to landfill siting, the cost of landfilling wastes is expected to increase dramatically in the decade of the 80's. Currently, Skagit County is operating the landfill facilities at $12.00/ ton. Future environmental controls and landfill reclamation costs are not included. 2. Septic Tank Sludges Two different septic tank sludge disposal alternatives are currently available, the approaches are diverse in their solution since the choices determine whether Skagit County is responsible for sludge disposal or the city sewage treatment plants are responsible for final disposal. The City Sewage Treatment Plant Alternative: The City of Burlington has made an offer to Skagit County that they finance an engineering study to determine if the city sewage treatment pl ant could be modified to accept the added waste load. If the plant could not accommodate the additional load, then, of course, this would not be an alternative. If, however, the plant could be modified and Skagit County was willing to make the plant modifications,. then the City of Burlington would accept the septic tank sludge and Skagit County would discontinue accepting septic tank sludge. The Butler Lagoon Alternative In this alternative, Skagit County would provide the necessary engineering, financing and construction to upgrade and use the existing facilities. The modifications ~ould require improvement of the existing road and establishing a hard-surfaced dumping area, establishment of two and possibly three stabilization lagoons with an adequate land. disposal effluent system. Municipal Sludge Disposal The transportation of sludge can be accomplished by tank trucks as is currently done; cost studies will show to what degree and by what methods sludge may be thickened to reduce the quantity of sludge to be transported. The alternative method of transportation would be by pipelines to a series of permanent sites .. Distribution of sludge within these sites can be accomplished by irrigation pipelines or by direct application with tank trucks. The acquisition of sites should include municipally owned and privately owned sites that are of a permanent nature; sifes should be included to handle known increases in quantities of municipal sludge. All the municipalities should be evaluated individually or collectively as to their specific needs and to find out how transportation, application and disposal of municipal sludge can best be accomplished. E. FINANCING User Fee - Property Tax Subsidy Alternative: Under this option, the Board of County Commissioners sets the user fees at rates lower than the 45 • FIGURE VI-1 REFUSE INCINERATION AND POWER GENERATION COSTS/TON • Capital costs $3,400,000* n = 240 months Land Acquisition 15%. 510 ,000 i = 16% annual interest PV = $1,955,000 Total $3,910,000 PMT = $27,199 Skagit County portion 50% = $1 ,955,000 Washington State Department of Ecology 50%= $1,955,000 Capital costs/ton = $ 27,199/mo. • (4,3 wks./mo. x 5 days/wk. x 115 ton/day) = $ 11.00/ton Operating cost/ton = $ 9.50 increasing at 7% annually Disposal cost of ash/ton = $ 1.50 Waste quantity increases at 1.31% annually LANDFILL·COSTS PER TON 1980 - 1981 Annual cost/ton = $12.00 1981 - 1982 Projected increase 15% = $13.80 1982 - 1983 Projected increase 15% = $15.87 1983 - 1990 Projected increase 7% = $25.48 POWER VALUE FOR NATURAL GAS* AND ELECTRICITY* 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 19.55, 21.31, 23.23 Nat. Gas/MM Btu $4.65 $5.44 $7.94 $10. 56 $18.49 25.32, 27.60 .. 30.09 Winter ¢/kwh $2.75 3.96 4.34 6.14 6.55 October - March SUITTTier ¢/kwh $1.99 2.07 4.08 4.77 4.69 April - September 4.21 6. 13, 6.68, 7.28 Avg ¢/kwh $2.37 3.02 5.46 5.62 7.93, 8.65, 9.43 *Proposal for modular incinerator installation with energy recovery for Skagit County by Giery . Company, Inc. **Avoided energy costs for BPEE load facilities/kwh filed with WFTC for 1980 to 1985. 46 FIG. VI-2 ESTIMATED COST OF REFUSE INCINERATION WITH POWER RECOVERY PER TON TONS CAPITAL COST OPERATION TOTAL COST 100% STEAM DISPOSAL COSTS 50% STEAM DISPOSAL COSTS ELECTRICAL DISPOSAL COSTS YEAR DAY + (-) VALUE 100% STEAM RR (-) VALUE 50% STEAM RR (-) VALUE ELECT RR 1981 115 11.00 11.00 22.00 $ 24.02 + 2.02 12.01 - 9.99 8.40 -13. 60 1982 116. 5 10.86 11. 77 22.63 28.06 + 5.43 14.03 - 8.60 10.69 - 8.06 1983 118.03 10. 72 12. 59 23. 31 40.92 + 17.61 20.46 - 2.85 14.91 - 8.4 1984 119.58 10.58 13.48 24.06 54.42 + 30.36 27. 21 + 3. 15 19.34 - 4. 72 1985 121.15 10.41 14.42 24.83 95.33 + 70. 50 47 .67 +22.84 19.91 - 4.92 1986 122.73 10. 31 15.43 25.74 $103. 89 +78.15. 51.94 +26.20 21. 72 - 4.02 " 1987 124.34 10. 17 16.51 26.68 113. 24 + 86. 56 56.62 +29. 94 23.67 - 3.01 1988 125. 97 10.04 17.66 27. 70 123.44 + 95.74 61. 72 +34.02 25.79 1.91 - " 1989 127.62 9.91 18.90 28.81 134. 55 +105.74 67.28 +38.47 28.09 + 0.72 . 1990 129.29 9.78 20.22 30.00 146.67 +116.67 73.33 +43.33 30.64 + 0.64 ,. 1991 130.98 9.65 21.63 31.29 $159.90 +128.61 79 .95 +48.66 33.41 + 2. 12 ' . . 120 110 100 :z: 90 fT1 ~ < ::i:;, BO I c::: fT1 0 70 11 3: c: :z 60 n S~P RISE IN STEAM VAUJE COINCIDES WITH "'tJ )::> 50 r HEAT VALUE ADJUSTED TO fl 2 FUEL OIL, ~ o.-, ~R'< co ~ )::> gJJ. Sit.N" w:.C (,/) 40 -l . :no~ 'lt\i\-\ rn RE.fUSE \"en~~ t::1 30 t\r:t \J t>.UJ~ Of (,/) "'tJ 0 V> )::> 20 r t:::l 0 I 10 ;o£: CTRICAL RECOVERY V> 0 -l 0' :z -10 LANDFILL DISPOSAL Cosr OF .MJ -20 IPAL WASTE 81 82 83 84 85 S6 S7 SS 89 90 91 FIGURE -VI'-3 PROJECTE~UNICIPAL WASTE DISPOSAL VALUE • 1981. TO 1991 solid waste disposal system• operating costs and property tax funds are• used to finance the remaining costs . User Fee Alternative: Under this option, the Board of County Commissioners sets the user fees to generate revenues • sufficient to cover the solid waste disposal system operating costs. Under either system, Department of Ecology funding shall be sought for capital improvements under State of Washington Referendum 26 and Referendum 39. No guarantee to amount of funding is made. 49 • CHAPTER VII RECOMMENDED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A. Selection Criteria ...... ••••• B. Recommended Collection and Transportation. C. Recommended Disposal . D. Recommended Management E. Recommended Financing. so • CHAPTER VII • RECOMMENDED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM • A. Selection Criteria General selection constraints for any solid waste management system require that the system meet the following parameters: 1. Legally acceptable 2. Economically feasible 3. Politically acceptable to all jurisdictions and the majority of users 4. Provide the required service 5. Achieves a coordinated system 6. Technically feasible 7. Equipment and processes presently available 8. Simplicity and ease of operation These general parameters are followed by specific parameters that take into account details such as geography, hydrology, geology, climatology, economy, population, transportation, and political sub division that is particular to the planning area. These parameters are considered in greater detail where they apply as each phase of the recommended solid waste management system is described. B. Recommended Collection and Transportation Compactor Box Operation For maximum convenience and service, it is desirable to have the drop box stations open twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. These hours and the relatively small amount of solid waste volume involved, around 60 to 70 cubic yards per day, requires that the sites be unmanned since salary is such a significant portion of the unit cost of operations. The unmanned drop box site must be redesigned within certain parameters to operate satisfactorily. The drop box station should be accessible to the public at all times, in all weather and be neat, sanitary, well lighted, conveniently located, and not have features that cause it to be unusually vulnerable to theft, vandalism or misuse. The arrangement of the drop box station must be such as to provide for convenience to the public and ready access to the drop boxes for removal and emptying into the transport vehicle. Drop box siting sbal l be such that it does not compete unnecessarily with the private collection services. Special siting consideration should be given to areas of tourism where other disposal systems are not available and indiscriminate dumping might be encouraged. Locations of compactor box sites that receive revenues of less than 40% of their operating costs shall be discontinued or relocated. Presently, the Lake Cavanaugh site is 24% self-sustaining and the Marblemount site is 26% self~sustaining; both· of these sites shall be evaluated for closure or relocation. 51 No changes are recommended in the collection and transportation systems as they exist for the municipalities and the licensed rural haulers. These entities will continue to adopt improve ments in their systems as the needs arise and as the techno 1ogi es fi 11 these needs. C. Recommended Disposal System • Landfills: Current landfill disposal methods are reco11111ended for the irrmediate needs while long-term needs shall be to replace l andfi 11 i ng with refuse incineration with resource recovery. Inman landfill will continue as the main county landfill with the Sauk and Gibralter Landfills acting as minor disposal sites. Greater importance must be placed on ldng-term planning and usage of the Inman land fill to conserve and more fully utilize the remaining capacity. Consideration will be given to Skagit County operating the landfill on a daily basis such as cell construction covering and compaction. The remaining portion of the Inman Pit must be included in the conditional permit as a part of the Inman· landfill. Due to the length of the permitting process, it is recommended that application be made in the summer of 1981. A medium to high level of priority shall be placed on this task since without this expansion the existing landfill will be filled in as few as three and a half to four years. The Sauk Landfill shall be examined to ascertain whether it will be changed from a landfill to a transfer type of collection station. This analysis will be done in late 1981 and 1982. A medium to low level of priority is placed on this project since it is a refinement of the existing system. The Gibralterlandfill will continue to operate as it is, with greater emphasis placed on developing a · e reclamation fund since its remaining life is about three to four years. This is a medium to low priority task. Refuse Incineration: It is recommended that the main disposal method of wastes in Skagit County be by refuse incineration. The preferred method will be by modular incinerators that accept wastes with minimal processing. The incinerators shall be automatically charged moving grates, with a minimum of two incinerators in the system. A great deal of importance should be placed on system simplicity and reliability; equal importance will be placed on waste reduction and energy expenditure. The total system will have heat energy recovery with either steam and/or electricity as a by-product. Considerable at tent ion sha 11 be given to finding local steam users. Si~e location for a refuse incineration facility will be such that it is near the mass center of waste_generators and that it is near major transoortation corridors east and west.with minimal disruption of existinq or future transportation routes. Site locating shall take in the future possibility of being an energy supplier to industrial or commercial parks. Location will also consider that the final waste ash disposal will be landfilled at the Inman· Landfill. Those materials such as demolition wastes, foundry sands, spent catalysts, asbestos and other unburnable materials will continue to be landfilled at the Inman landfill. The priorfty rating 52 for implementing the project• development phase ranks as the highest priority• in t~e solid waste system and will be implemented upon the acceptance of this management plan update • Septic Tank Sludge: • It is recommended that a feasibility study be implemented to detennine if septic tank sludge could be disposed of at the City of Burlington Sewage Treatment Plant, and if the study should include a cost analysis of this method. If this disposal method is found not to be acceptable,. it . is then recommended that design work be commenced on the necessary modifications to the stabilization system at Butler Lagoon. This work will be designed and constructed by the Public Works Department. The priority rating of these tasks are medium to high and should be implemented by the fall of 1981. Municipal Sludge: . It is recommended that an engineering study be implemented to determine the desired methods of municipal sludge hauling, application and disposal. This study should evaluate each generator .~ separately and in combination with other generators to detennine the desired methods of hauling, application and disposal. Engineering objectives· will be outlined prior to implementation of the reco11111ended study. D. RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT The Skagit County Public Works Director is hereby authorized and directed to implement the intent of the Skagit County Solid Waste Management Plan by providing for solid waste disposal service from premises within the boundaries of the county in a safe and expeditious manner, except that this authority does not include any sewage treatment plant sludge which is handled by the various municipalities or sewer districts. It shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Director to annually review municipal waste disposal rates and costs within the county and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, adjustments to these rates necessary to keep the total county operated system self-sustaining. E. RECOMMENDED FINANCING The recommended financing system is based on the funding principal and objective as it is detailed in the manual of Budgeting, Accounting, and Reporting System for Solid Waste Management, which is prepared by the Auditor of the State of Washington. In principal, all solid waste activities in order that they provide the optimum benefits to the sponsoring governmental units and to the users of the solid waste system should be operated on a self-sustaining basis whenever possible. The solid waste fund, by necessity, must be large enough to meet current payroll and expenses. However, it is equally necessary to develop within this fund a rese~ve for accumulating money to replace capi.tal items as they become worn or obsolete. Major activities that are to be funded· shall be approved of in the Solid Waste Managerrent Plan or shall be approved by a majority of the members of the Plan by separate agreement. Major activities shall be defined as activities greater than $50,000 in total scope. 53 It is necessary that a preliminary budget be established by the 15th of August of each ·year so that rates to generate the required revenues may be set by November 1st of each year. This procedure will allow early notice to those entities that must budget for solid waste expenses prior to rate implenentation the first of January. The rate of charge for solid waste disposal operations shall be based on unit weights and may vary according to the various classes of materials. Recommended rates of charge shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners and members of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Disposat System by the Director of Public Works. This recommended rate of charge shall be the operation and mainten ance costs of the landfills, not including the compactor box operation, divided by the tonnage of municipal waste plus an amount set. aside for capital improvements, site reclamation and acquisition. The fonnula shall be expressed as follows: '\, \ 'Landfill Maintenance and Operation +.Reserve Charge= Waste Disposal Cost ~~~,Waste in To.'!Y Ton . ~Cl?:~""\@ ,?/ The rate set for Butler Lagoorlwill be~fuch that it is self-sustaining.; . The Board will solicit public opinion on solid waste disposal rates for a period of two weeks from this submittal date. At the end of the two week period, the Board shall then set solid waste disposal rates which will be instituted the first working day of the new year. 54 FIGURE., VII-1. DISPOSAL PROCESS • EVALUATION CRITERIA WEIGHTINGS* • FOR SKAGIT COUNTY LL. -c c er: 0 . Cl ..... c Ill ..... • ..- c tU ...... Ill S- ..... ·- QJ Ill >. CJ !'ossible 0 c .... a. 0 "':l ·-"O Maxir:ium E S- ..... u c: Acce!)tancc QJ ·- 0 >. c: tU Criteria Subcatenories ~ankinri Priority Score u 0... Cl:'. - ...J Developmental Status Full-scale conmercial 5 5 25 25 25 25 Foreign technology 4 Full-scale pilot 4 20 20 Pilot scale 3 Laboratory scale 2 Conceotual untested 1 Operating Cost, S T 0 - 1.80 5 5 25 25 1.81 - 5.50 4 5.51 - 9.00 3 9.01 - 12.75 2 15 12.76 - 16.25 1 10 > 16.25 0 0 0 Fuel Application Electric: 4 4 16 16 16 16 Flexibility RDF 3 Fuel gas 3 Oil 2 Steam 2 Low Btu qas 1 0 4 Environmental . Air and -No emissions 2 2 10 1 1 1 l 1 Emissions Water -Moderate emission l -Large concentrated emission 0 Land - -No emission 1 0 1 1 1 0 I -Some emission 0 I Capacity T/week 250 3 2 10 6 10 10 10 10 • 500 5 I 750 5 I 1000 4 I 1250 3 1250 0 evel of Technology Landfi 11 5 1 5 5 Incinerator 4 4 Composting 4 4 Mechanical processing 3 3 Starved air incinerator 3 Biogasification 2 I I Pyrolysis fluidized bed 1 1 ! xpansibility Increase throughput 5 l 5 5 Increase operating time 3 3 3 Add modules l I 1 1 PUBLIC WORKS for January 1979 TOTALS 32 50 74 85 60 *Analytic technique to evaluate resource recovery systems developed by Systems Technology Corporation, Xenia, Ohio during a study for the U.S. Department of Energy. 55 • • • CHAPTER· VIII IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN A. Administrative Tasks • B. Physical Requirements c. Construction and Capital Acquisition. • D. Environmental Impacts • . . . E. 20 Year Implementation Schedule F. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) G. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. . . 56 • CHAPTER VI I I • IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN A. ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS The.following steps are required to arrange for the physical development of the facilities: 1. Complete the new joint solid waste agreement between the county and incorporated cities. 2. Plan for landfill modifications: a. Install weighing scales at Inman Landfill. b. Inventory sol id waste quantities by weight. c. Implement recycling at the Inman Landfill. d. Extend conditional use permits for west half of Inman Landfill. e. Evaluate Gibralter Landfill as a compactor box site. f. Evaluate Sauk Landfill as a .compactor box site. 3. Plan for refuse incineration: a. Feasibility study b. Implementation 4. Compactor box sites: a. Maintain according to need. b. Evaluate sites for proper location. • 5. Sludge disposal: a. Cities* to study sludge thickening of treatment plant wastes and implement plan. b. Cities* to study joint and. individual effort to use land disposal .flotation trucks. c. Continue study of Butler Lagoon septic tank ~ludge disposal and implement solution. B. PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS OF TH,£ RECOMMENDED SYSTEM A list of the equipnent requirements and manpower requirements for the system are summarized below. Equipment and manpower requirements are subject to change according to preliminary and final design changes. l. Landfill Modifications (Inman) a. 35.foot, 40 ton motor truck scale, ticket printer and digital readout. b. Weigh house and sanitary facilities. c. Retaining walls, four (4) 40 c.y. refuse bins. d. Paving, lighting and landscaping. 2. Refuse Incineration a. Site acquisition. b. Weigh scales, ticket printer and digital printout. *Anacortes, Burlington, Mt. Vernon, LaConner, Sedro Woolley 57 "' •• t. Facilities building d. Two (2) refuse storage hoppers, conveyor belts, charging chutes, refuse incinerators, steam recovery equipment and power generation equipment. e. Obtain required air pollution control pennits. 3. Manpower and Maintenance Requirements a. Refuse incineration feasibility study and for final plans, engineering and specifications. b. Recycling labor - no change use landfill attendants. c. Refuse incineration - Two (2) men per eight hour shift plus one extra man on day shift, two clerical people and a plant superintendent. d. Administrative Time: One (1) engineer 3/4 time One (1) field mechanic 1/2 time One (1) office support full time e. Treatment Plant Sludge - Use existing city staff. C. CONSTRUCTION ANO CAPITAL ACQUISITION The capital and equipment requirements of this plan have been estimated and will be included in the rates only when adopted and ratified by separate schedule to this plan and to the cooperative agreements. Considerable market fluctuation exists due to changing environmental requirements and projected starting dates versus actual -starting dates, capital acquisition cost must therefore be updated prior to construction bidding. 1. Sanitary Landfill Scale and Weigh House: Scale $29,900 Printer and Digital Readout 11 ,500 Concrete Scale Pit 14,950 Paving at Scale 12,200 Mks underground utilities 2,600 Subtotal $71,150 Restricted Landfill Entrance: 9,000 s.f. paving and grade $20,250 210 l.f. retaining wall 13,898 210 1. f. fence 2,260 Four (4) 40 c.y. drop boxes 16 ,800 Subtotal $53,208 Landscaping: Grading and terracing $ 3,500 Plants and Prep labor 14,000 Subtotal $17,500 PROJECT TOTAL: ~141,858 58 • 2. Inventory of solid waste quantities: $ 3,500 3. Establish recycling at Inman Landfill: 2,000 4. Refuse incineration development plan: 391 ,000 5. Construct refuse incineration facility: Two (2) Model 72 includes: Refuse hoppers, conveyors, furnaces, boilers, ducts, controls, cyclone separators, bag houses, and ID fans @ $875,000 each $1,700 ,000 Field piping, wiring, ihstallation labor: 325,000 Electrical generation: 300,000 Plant building: 925,000 Site improvements and landscaping: 150,000 Site acquisition 510,000 PROJECT TOTAL $4,221,000 6. Butler Lagoon Study $ 12 ,000 Septic tank disposal facility 52,000 PROJECT TOTAL $ 64,000 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PLAN ADOPTION ANO IMPLEMENTATION l. Landfill Disposal The current practice of waste disposal will not change until refuse incineration is implemented. • However, upon receiving a conditional use permit for the westerly half of the Inman Landfill, the environmental impacts may change. There may be an increase in methane gas and leachate production due to increased amounts of solid waste being disposed of in the site. Other factors such as .traffic patterns and usage are expected to increase nonnally with population increases. 2. Recycling There is expected to be a minor impact due to increased recycling of material at the landfill. It is anticipated that the solid waste disposal quantities should drop by several percent since material will be hauled out of the landfill and this will increase traffic by two to four truck trips per week. 3. Refuse Incineration When refuse incineration is implemented there will be an estimated 90% traffic drop from the Inman Landfill site that will be diverted to the new incineration disposal site. There will be a considerable traffic increase around any intersections in the vicinity of the new disposal site. There will also be nearly total decline in seagull visitations to the landfill which will not resume at the incineration site. With a potential of inexpensive steam power from the incineration of wastes it is expected that other businesses, probably agricultural in nature, will develop around the site and will continue to develop until all the power source is used. This will also cause an increase in traffic loading in the site vicinity. 59 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE - SOL IO WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TASK 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Acceptance of Solid Waste Management Plan c Update of Solid Waste Management Plan u u u Use of Inman Landfill as Main Disposal Site x x x x x x x x Installation of Scales at Inman Landfill x c Inventory of Solid Waste Quantities c Implement Recycling at Inman Landfill x Implementation Plan of Refuse Incineration x c Construct Incineration Facility or Use Inman Landfill c x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Use Gibralter Landfill as Satellite Landfill x x x x x x Evaluate Gibralter vs. Transfer Sta-Conclusion x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Use Sauk Landfill as Satellite Landfill x x x x x x Evaluate Sauk vs. Transfer Sta-Conclusion x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Continue Use of Remaining Compactor Box Sites x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Use Butler Lagoon For Septic Tank Sludge Disposal x x x x Study Septic Sludge Disposal - Use Preferred Method x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Continue Use of Treatment Plant Sludge Disposal x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x - Indicates Activity of Task u - Indicates Update of Task c - Indicates Completion : . CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES TIMES $1000 TASK 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 I11stallaction of Scales at Inman Landfill 142 Inventory of Solid Waste Quantities 35 Implement Recycling at Inman Landfill 2 Implementation Plan of Refuse Incineration 391 Construct Incineration Facility (510)(1700) Study Septic Sludge Disposal - Use Preferred Method 12 Septic Tank Disposal Facility 52 ., 4. Septic Tank Disposal• • Septic tank sludge disposal impacts are expected to not change even though the method of disposal may change. In any case, the only environmental changes will be due to changes in truck hauling patterns. E. 20 YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The next 20 years of solid waste disposal will more clearly reveal the environmental and economic results of our present day collection and disposal activities. These results will give us guide posts by which to measure and change our solid waste system. It is anticipated that with increasing sophistication within the waste collection industry and the need to economize on fuel house-to-house, collections may decline with larger neighborhood collection points taking their place. The current compactor collection boxes would, at some time, be absorbed into this system. Landfills that are presently operating in the county will be completed and reclaimed and new ones will probably be required to take inert demolition material and incineration ash. A greater reclamation effort will probably be made on existing closed dumps. This reclamation will probably consist of more refined surface coverings to make the site more useful and probably environmental controls to protect surrounding properties. Due to the smallness of the sites and waste types contained within.them it is doubtful that they will ever be mined for resource recovery. The cost of fuels over the next two decades will soar creating an ever-increasing need to recover the resources i·n our waste products. The avenues to recycle waste will become better established and more economical, greater efficiencies will be developed in waste incineration and power development and fi nns will compete for this power and resource ava i1 ability. The same market conditions that created changes. in municipal waste collection and disposal will operate on sewage treatment plant waste. The treated water will no longer be returned to · streams and rivers to mix with the ocean waters. It will be piped back to recharge groundwater tables and will find reuse within communfties, industry and agriculture. The sludge solids that are currently being used for soi 1 conditions will become highly desired. These same materials that have been trucked at high unit cost will be piped to local users for ongoing processes at much lower costs. In general, we can expect to see less of a "no deposit, no return" world and expect to see less solid waste, greater reuse and less environmental pollution. F. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) The plan update is a governmental action of a non-project nature and therefore is recommended for non-significance. Future individual projects will have to be evaluated individually for SEPA compliance. 62 • •· • SK4GIT COUNTY PLANNING DEP..ART::n.l.I:ENT County Administration Building Mount Vernon, Wa. 98273 Phone (206) 336 - 9333 Robert C. Schofield Otto M. Walberg Paul R. Shelver Director Asst. Director Zoning Administrator April 20, 1981 Skagit County Public Works Dept. ATT: Alan Dutcher P.O. Box 396 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 RE: State Environmental Policy Act Compliance - Skagit County Solid ~~aste Management Plan - 1981 Update Dear Sir: The Skagit County Planning Department, as Lead Agency for Skagit County, has reviewed the environmental checklist submitted with a copy of a draft update of the Skagit County Solid Waste Management Plan and has determined that: 1. The plan update is a 11 Governmental Action of a Non-Project Nature 11 (WAC 197-10-040 (2)(c)(iii) and is subject to SEPA compliance. 2. Each of the future individual projects for actual construction or im plementation will furnish site specific information for envircnmental review and possible environmental impact statement documentation. 3. The actual plan update is of insignificant impact. 4. A Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance should be issued for review by other agencies with jurisdiction in accordance with WAC 197-10-340 (4). If we may be of further assistance in this matter, please call. )>incerely, . . (: \~k~~-Cc( Robert C. Schofield, Director~\ SKAGIT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTME'NT OMW:RCS/mlh • • INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM THIS AGREEMENT, made effective the ____ day of------• 198_ , by and between SKAGIT COUNTY, hereinafter called "County" and the cities and towns listed, hereinafter called "Municipalities"; WHEREAS, under Chapter 39.34 RCW, the legislature has authorized local governmental units to enter into agreements for joint or cooperative action in the delivery of area-wide services; AND WHEREAS, the County and the cities and towns within its boundaries have caused to be prepared a countywide Solid Waste Management Plan as required by the Solid Waste Management Act of 1969, and amended by the Sol id Waste Management Recycling and Recovery Act of 1976, recognize the need for revision to reflect changing conditions; AND WHEREAS, it is to the mutual advantage of the undersigned to participate in the implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan by participating in a countywide solid waste disposal system, in the interest of the economy, proper solid waste management, and the prevention of promiscuous dumping and littering: AND WHEREAS, it is the desire of the County and municipalities to maintain an administrative bod~ responsible for joint participation of solid waste management; NOW, THEREFORE, IT 'IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED by and between the County and the Municipalities as follows: Each of the parties will by ordinance maintain a garbage and refuse collection system within its jurisdiction, retaining all its existing rights over the manner in which such collection shall be done and in particular retaininef the right to decide whether such collection shall be by a franchised private collector or by the parties' own crews. It is further agreed that citizens or their agents shall have the right and be required to bring their solid waste to any transfer site or disposal site during posted hours of · operation and in a manner as directed by the personnel in charge of the site. It is agreed that the County will be in charge of the rural compactor box sites and the disposal sites. The County will furnish all personnel, including salaries/benefits and equipment required to operate the disposal system. It ~s agreed that the county shall be solely responsible for the ope~ation and financing of the rural compactor box system . .It is agreed that the Skagit County Department of Public Works Director shall have responsibility for overall management of the solid waste system outside the corporate boundaries of the municipalities. It is agreed that authority for administration of RCW 70.95 and WAC 173-301-110 regulations pertaining to solid waste handling in Skagit County and its incorporated cities is the responsibility of the Skagit County Department of Public Health. • It is agreed that the tenn of this agreement shall be two (2) years from the date of this agreement and shal 1 continue thereafter in two year periods. This. agreement may be resc1nded and al 1 obligations herein tenninated only by written consent of all parties hereto. This agreement hereby· replaces and supersedes all previous agreements between the named parties on previous solid waste agreements. It is agreed that upon tennination of this agreement, the facilities ·and any funds in the possession of the county at such time shall be distributed in kind or sold, as may be agreed upon by the parties. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties, through their duly authorized representatives, have executed this agreement adopting the Skagit County Solid Waste Management Plan 1981 update on the date specified, following each signature. City of Anacortes City of Burlington City of Concrete City of Hamilton Town to La Conner Town of Lyman City of Mount Vernon City of Sedro Woolley Approved as· to fonn: Skagit County Prosecuting Attorney --,_ . ' I .· .\ ' •·:..:·~-./ \,, Approved: Howard Miller, Chainnan Skagit County Board of County Commissioners e· 1sma11 Scale and Low Technology• Resource Recovery Study EPA-600/2-79-099, •December, J979. 2The Energy Daily, February 8, 1980, National Center for Resource Recovery. 3 . Waste Age, December 1980, p. 8. 4Land Application of Wastes, Volume I, Loehr, Jewell, Novak, Clarkson & Friedman. 6An Administrator's Guide from the Inter-Governmental Methane Task Force, U.S. EPA Region VIII. 7Processing Equipment for Resources Recovery Systems, Volume 1, EPA-600/2-80-007a, December 1979. 8Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste, Resource Recovery and Recycling from Municipal Solid Waste and Beverage Container Deposit Legislation, U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. 9Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste: Resource Recovery and Recycling from Municipal Solid Waste and Beverage Container Deposit Legislation, Volume II, U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. 10Resource Recovery Decision Maker's Guide, Institute of Resource Recovery. 11 sanitary Landfill Operators Manual, 1977, Iowa Department of Environmental Quality. · 12vakima County Rural and Urban Solid Waste Management Plan. 13whatcom County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 1980. 14A Cooperative Countywide Solid Waste Management Plan for Kittitas County. 15Alternative Systems for Solid Waste Disposal in a Three County Region, 1980, Public Policy Research Center, Idaho State University. 16Municipal Solid Waste and Energy Resource Recovery in Washington State, 1979, Washington State Senate Energy & Utilities Committee. · 17small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery, 1979, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 18Resource Recovery Activi.ties, 1980, Urban Ore Division, William Bros. Engineering Company. 1gProceedings of the International Conference on European Waste-to-Energy Technology, 1980, U.S. Department of Energy. 20Handbook 'of Solid Waste Disposal, 1975, Pavoni, Heer & Hagerty. 21solid Waste Conversion to Energy, 1980, Alter & Dunn. 222nd Edition, Environmental Engineering & Sanitation, 1972. Joseph A. Salvato, Jr .. 23Principles of Controlled Air Incineration by Environmental Control Products. 24standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, 2nd Edition, Frederick S. Merritt. 25oata Book for Civil Engineers, Volume I. Elwyn G. Seelye. • 26Resource Recovery for the Sma 1l Corrrnunity, November 1978, Solid Waste Management. 27skagit County Water, Sewerage & Drainage Facilities Plan, by Stevens, Thomson & Runyan, Inc. 28 Evaluatio~ of Small-Scale Resource Recovery Options for Seattle, Washington, by Systems Technology. Corporation, Xenia, Ohio. 29Proposal for Modular Incinerator Installation and Energy Recovery for Skagit County. by Widjac Corporatio:n. 30Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Guides For Municipal Officials, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Volume I, Planning and Overvier1; Volume II, Technologies; Volume III, Markets; Volume IV, Financing; Volume V; Procurement; Volume VI, Accounting Format; Volume VII, Risks and Contracts; Volume VIII, Further Assistance. 65