Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-B~ is .r , ~ _ ....»~..:W,..~.~ 1 ~ ~ .F i ' ~ r } M ~ ~ ~ ~ v s rx - 5 p y F ~ r ~ .y., f f Y ~ ~ n F / ~ r l ~ ~ ~ gyp,: _ .f r..-~ B z . S„ ~ y ~ ~ f~ f mot.. .M ~'M.. ~~.~r. ~ ~ ~ ~i M., ~ _ x• `,fir, ~ rSr°:. ~ ~ ` .~~a., ~ 1~ a ~s,. a~' ~r.lt ♦..~'~u'4dw . `L ~ ~a. ld"~.'°.`~~ { § ~ ~ F '~y ~ °Ryr. ~tw ~ a., 4 ~ `~.~d"~I'.o,~~y "aF;•v- • . ^ :'1 ~ ~ - .,R~'~ s.~ .~..t° .>'°"Aw' s ` k.."` r r 1~Rr7w'~1 8` ~ Lry ~ /I•' r. ~ '~i - ` ra ~a 6 ~ ip w R y~ r G i 2a ~R 'xt 4 r Y..-~. . , ,y . „y ~ ~ w~ r y. ~y~y . . F - ~ ~ r ,r ~ 1' : w Y r . L. y.., - .f"'~~..: 1 ~ •n .:::T'T ?S_' t G~' ~B' ~'°^~ti:yg R ~ Y ~.Ler R r:!kw~ » ,.:"c ~ ~ :-x R"'. 2 .i . max. e t W~ii e r ~ , R 1 ~ l ~ ~ • r, ~ e. ~g , ~ i ~ ~ ' . , ~ d : ,rem ~ ~ . _ _ ~~~o be r ~~~9 din C~ur~~t ~ Y . Department a~ Natural Resources arrd Parks Sv[id Wash Division . t I I ~~R'wARD This preliminary DraftZg09 Comprehensive Solid Waste ManagementPlan the plan} presents proposed strategies for managing King County's solid waste over the next 6 years, with consideration of the next ' 20 years. The plan was prepared by the Solid waste Division the division} of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks in accordance with Washington state law Revised Code of Washington ~RCW} 70.95. The division is seeking comments an this preliminary draft. Copies of the plan have been provided to King County cities, Unincorporated Area Councils, and the King County Council and will be available for public review at all King County libraries. The plan is also available on the division's Web site at www.krngcountygov/SWDCompPlanfnr review by the public and other stakeholders. Beginning October 8, 2009, the division will be taking comments on the plan via e-mail, letter, or a comment form available ' ~ at libraries and on theweb site. The comment period extends through February4, 2010, Comments by~ e-mail can be sent to CSWMP.CommentsC~kingcounty.gov. Letters should be addressed ta: 2009 Draft Solid Waste Plan Comments i King County Solid waste Division 201 S. Jackson St,, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 State law delegates authority to the county to prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan in cooperation with the cities within its boundaries, An Interlocal Agreement ~I.A} is required for any city participating in a joint city-county plan ~RCw 70.95.0802}}. This plan was prepared in cooperation with 37 King County cities with which the county has ILAs fall cities in the county except for Seattle and Milton}: Participants in development of the plan included the division's two advisory committees--the Solid waste Advisor Committee and the Metro olitan Solid waste Management Advisor Committee. The planning y p Y process is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, Solid Waste System Planning. ' The plan builds upon the 2006 Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan that was approved by the King County Council in December 2047. The plan presents draft policies, recommendations, and goals in the following areas: solid waste system planning, waste prevention and recycling, collection and processing, the transfer system, solid waste disposal and landfill management, and system financing. A cost assessment, as required bythewashington Utilities andTransportation Commission ~WUTC}, is provided in Appendix A. A final draft plan will be released after consideration of comments, preliminary review by the Washington State Department of Ecology Ecology}, review by thewUTC, and completion of an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA} requirements. The final draft plan must be adopted by: • Cities representing three-quarters of the total population of the cities that act on the plan during the 120-day adoption period The Regional Policy Committee acting as the Solid waste Interlocal Forum • The King County Council transfer facility during the previous year. Of those ~users,1 S percent said they used a transfer facility once Burin the ear, and S ercent said they used a transfer facility mare than four times during the year. The g Y p most common reason given for selfhauling to a transfer facility was having a large quantity of waste, while the second most common reason was having a large or bulky item that could not be collected at the curb ~i+igure 5-4~. The surveyors found that residents who subscribe to curbside services use transfer stations occasionally, while those who do not subscribe to collection services use the facilities more often. ' ost common customer reasons for self-hauling F~gure5 4, M , Other a 3 More convenient o 16/0 1 °lo 3 Saves money 4a/Q ~ Large volume Yard debris + , 0 9 /o Junklremodeling ~3°/0 f Largelbulky item ~ Source: Cascadia (ZD~Bb) orate curve of self haulers on-site at the transfer facilities during 2006 provided similar responses, for A cep Y both residential and non-residential self haulers, the number one reason for using the transfer station was avin a lar a amount of waste 24 and 25 percent, respectively. The number two reason for residential h g g self haulers 12 ercent, was having an item that was too big to fit in the garbage can. The number two p eason for non-residential selfhaulers, 2~ percent, was that they were an independent hauler; in the r revious curve in 200212D03, independent haulers accounted for only 4percent ofnon-residential p Y selfhaulers. RBANTRANSFER STATIONS EVALUATION AND PLANNING FoR THE U nsfer network has served the region well for nearly five decades; however, all of the urban transfer Thetra stations are now outdated and over capacity, with the exception of the newly constructed Shoreline station. wth in o ulation, the late 198Ds brought about an emphasis on recycling to reduce Along withthegro p p . wastes. Recycling containers have been placed at transfer stations, wherever space allows, to collect some materials brought by se(f~haulers; however, space constraints continue to limit the number of containers and the range of materials that each site can accommodate. These space constraints prohibit the addition of recycling opportunities for materials that are commonly disposed at the stations, including yard waste, clean wood! and scrap metal. Changes in the industry have also created operational constraints. For example, commercial collection trucks have become larger, making it more difficult to unload the vehicles efficiently. Given these and other factors, in Za04 the division and its advisory committees embarked on a comprehensive analysis of each urban transfer station to determine how best to update the system to meet current needs. As discussed in detail in Chapter 2, Solid Waste5ystem Planning, the division, SWAC, , .E r ti' ~ f MSw~iAC, and the Interjurisdictiona) r Technics[ Staff Group developed four ~l~;4 `f t~, i analytical milestone reports to evaluate ~ .~.4 the urban transfer stations. These reports 11 ~ ~ t - ~ 7 11n ~ ~ ra ~ ~ ~ pl~~ M culminated in the a roved Transfer Plan, . ~+c~ wu~ ° pp i i .~u4 i which provides recommendations for ,~~p= ~ i; L T u railing the transfer station system and ~ •rlo ~~~rv ~ ~ pg ~ ~~~E its services. I ~ ` R trrr II pC rr/~ 4 41.~~~ - [n thefirstmilestone report ~KCSwD and _ ~ " iTSG ~OO47, the division and advisory ~ i i committees developed ~ 7 criteria to evaluate r~ the urban transfer facilities. Ta determine ..........._..~_.~._.__.w...~ the appropriate standards of performance, ~'wo outbau~z~ sraZes at ~laeAlgo~aa ~`rans}er Statio~z liel~ keep traf,~c c'al ma~ir~g th~~ougl~ tl~e st~~ion, the d~vis~on consulted the local commer ~ collection companies and other subject experts, and applied national environmental and transportation standards. Details on the application of these evaluation criteria to individual facilities are contained in the second milestone report prepared by the division and advisory committees and approved by the County Council ~KCSWD 20~5a}, Criteria to address costs and rate setting considerations were applied during the development of system alternatives in the final milestone report ~[~CSwD 2o0~a}. The evaluation criteria were applied to five of the six urban stations ~ Algvna, Bow lake, Factvria, Houghton, and Renton. The farmer First Northeast station was not evaluated because it was in the process of being rebuilt; the newly constructed station opened in ~oaS as the Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station. For the station evaluations, the 1 ~ criteria were grouped into three broad categories [eve[ of service to customers, station capacity and structural integrity, and effects on surrounding communities. As expected for these five aging facilities, the majority ofthe criteria were not met, resulting in decisions to reconstruct or close the stations when sufficient replacement capacity was available. i ' s of evaluation criteria are described below, followed by a table that shows the results of f The threecategarie their application to the five urban transfer stations. vel of Service Le ~ ~ ' it -This criterion measures how conveniently located the facilities • ~`sttmated travel time to a fac~l y ~ are for customers, measured by the maximum travel time to the closest facility in their service area. andard was established as 34 minutes for at least 90 percent ofthe customers. It provides an 4 The st indication of whether the transfer stations are well dispersed throughout the county. ~ ~ ~ - ' easures the time to et in and out of the station, including unloading time. Time on site Time on site m g ed se aratel for commercial haulers with a standard of 16 minutes} and business and ~ ltwas evaluat p y ch with a standard of 3o minutes}. It provides an indicator of whether a ~ residential self~haulers lea transfer station can efficiently handle customers in a timely manner. M ' hours of o erasion for each station are set based on the division's ~ Facllltyhours- lnd~vidual days and p Comer trends. Some of the urban stations are open in the early morning ar late usage dasa and cus ' ours to serve the commercial haulers. Currently, the only days shat the entire system is evening h ~ closed areThanksgiving,Christmas, and NewYear's Day. clin Services-Thef~nal criterion in this categorywas whether recycling services provided Level of Recy g M at the stations met the waste prevention and recycling policies established in the last campre ens~ve ~ ~ ens Ian. In eneral, the policies direct that all stations should 1}provide for solidwaste managem p g ion ofthe curbside rec clables, including glass and plassic containers, tin and aluminum cans, M collect y ` ste a er news a er, and cardboard, ~}where feasible, provide areas for source-separated ~ mixed wa p p p p ' 3 maintain theca acit to add collection of new materials based on market yard waste collection, and } p Y ~ opportunities and community needs, E Station Ca acit ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ e reatest limitation of the five urban transfer stations, both now and in Station capacity ~s likely the singl g was measured usin a number of criteria that affect daily operations, future expansion, and ~ shefuture. It g emergency capacity. 1 - wo ma'or o erational considerations measured were statian capacity ~ - • Vehrcle and tonnage capacity T ~ p ' d solid waste tonna e, both now and over the 20-year planning horizon. optimal for vehicle traffic an g ' um number of vehicles and tonnage that can be efficiently processed aperat~ng capacity ~s the maxim ' each hour based on the station design and customer mix. To derive criteria that thrvughthestation M ~ ~ could be ex ected to erform,the division modeled itscriteria after would indicate how well a station p p ' tandardsusedtomeasureroadwaycapacity. The transportation standardswere ~ the transportation s acit to transfer facilities. The optima! level of service was defined ~ modified to assign measures of cap y " commodate vehicle and tonnage throughput at all times afthe day, except for occasional as able to ac 1 eak hour times:' Based on the criteria, a station that provides the optimal level of service more t an p ~ of the time is considered underutilized, meaning it offers mare capacity than required for 95 percent i E 1 1 S ~ the area it serves. A [eve[ of service in which capacity is exceeded during 5 to ~ 0 percent of operating hours is considered optimal. Space for 3 days'sfiorage -Available K ' - w: ~ llirtrr.i liinrl+++vfiilr'lJri~~ ~ . storage capacity establishes whether ~ rn.rar°~i.rJry~ty'~'+ t r+~~k~r.Y~ ~ rr~ rr~~'n~ t t. a transfer station can continue to ~ ~ ~ ~ = . - _ e Y operate, or acceptgarbage, far at _ ~ _ [east three days ~n the event of a ~ ~:t a . ..a :r. - ma~orregionald~saster. ' ~ ~ _ . Space for station expansion ~ Stations ~ . - Y Y. ~ were evaluated to determine _ r' w ~ _ 1 whether there is s ace for , x ~a ~ ~ 5 ~ - - . } p ex ansionantheexistingproperty l ' ~ r acent or 2}whether there is add ~ - - ~ , land available an which to expand ~ ' ~ ~ x. operations; These two standards _ were used primarily to determine if thestation could beexpanded in its current location or if a new location would be needed to efficiently manage current and future needs. . ' 't safet oafs-while all stations hold current permits from Public Health --Seattle and King Meets fac~ll y y g Count and meet the health and safety standards, overall safety is a concern as stations become more y and o erations more constricted, The presence of these physical challenges at the stations congested p does not mean the operate in an unsafe manner; it does mean that it takes extra effort by staff and Y mono ement at the stations to ensure the facilities are operating safely. g 's criterion measures a station`s ca acity to handle the larger, commercial collection Roafcfearance Thy p . trucks. Throw h discussions with the commercial collection companies, it was determined that a g minimum clearance of 25 feet was needed to allow the new, larger trucks to unload efficiently. The trailers with automated lifts, which allow the garbage to slide out the back of the trailers, longertruckl ' e vertical clearance than the did in the past, At some of the older stations, the collection requirehEgh r y trucks can hit and otential[y damage station roofs, supporting structures, or hanging lights as they p unload. . ' ' fia cam actwaste--This criterion examines whether the station is equipped with, or has Abi~rty p the s ace to instal[, a waste compactor. waste compactors increase efficiency and reduce costs by p com ressin more garbage into fewer loads for transport to the landfill or other disposal option, when p g arba a has been compacted, transfer trailers can carry about one-third more tons per trip, resulting in g g c throe h host cit nei hborhaods, less wear on loco[ roads, less fee[ use, and a reduction in less traffi g y g greenhouse gases. • Structuralinte rit --The ur ose of this criterion is to ensure the facility meets code requirements 9 Y p p ' ow events. All facilities were constructed in compliance with the applicable for seismic, wind, and sn standards of the time and were grandfathered in in their current condition. They presently meet 1 the"life safety"standard, meaning the station would not endanger occupants in the event of an 1 emergency. The current standard for assessing new transfer buildings for seismic performance is the I Immediate Occupancy standard, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ~FEMA}. ~ This standard means that the facility could be occupied immediately following a seismic event. Because the King County Emergency Management Plan identifies transfer stations as critical facilities in } the event of an emergency, this FEMA standard applies to all new stations. [ Effects on Surrounding Communities Dne ofthe division's highest priorities 1 ~ is to minimize the effects of its facilities ~ 1 - on the hostcitiesand surrounding w 1 communities. Through its advisory ~ committees, thedivision hasworked M closely with the cities and commun~t~es - ~w ~ I to understand their issues and concerns 1 and bring their perspectives to bear on system planning. Working together, _ 1 f five criteria were developed to evaluate ~ - I effectson communities. 1 • ' Meets applicable local noise 1 _ . ordinance levels-This criterion ~ _ I is to ensure that a facilit does ?die new Shoreline Recycling and ~'ransfer Station is~urzy enclosed to mitigate Y cal cit any potential impacts~rom noise, odor, and dust. I not violate state or to ~ y} i standards for acceptable noise levels. State and city standards are } based on maximum decibel ~dBA}levels that consider zoning, land use, time of day, and other factors. ~ Evaluations were based on the existence of any reports of noise violations to the cities and additional ~ noise level measurements performed at each station by a consultant. ~ Bets Pu et Sound Clean AIrA enc standards for odors ~-The primary measure of vuhether odors are a M g 9 Y ~ problem is through complaints by the public or employees. Complaints are typically reported to the M Pu et Sound Clean Air Agency ~PSCAA} or directly to the division. Complaints to PSCAA are verified g by an inspector. Ifan odor is verified and considered to be detrimental, PSCAA issues a citation to the generator of the odor. The division also tracks and investigates any odor complaints. Deets oafs for traffic on loca!streets -This criterion measures the impacts on local streets and ~ 9 nei hborhoods from vehicle traffic and queuing near the transfer stations. The area that could be I g affected b traffic from self haulers and commercial collection trucks extends from the station entrance Y ~ to the surrounding streets. The division hired a consultant to evaluate this criterion based on two ~ standards 1 }that additional traffic meets the [oval traffic level of service standard as defined in the Amerr`can Association ofState Transportatrorr 4~crals Manua! and 2}that traffic does not extend onto f local streets during more than 5 percent of the station's operating hours. e Existence of a 104-faot buffer between the active area and nearest residence A criterion developed by the division is the maintenance of a 104~foot buffer between the active area of the station and the nearest c residence. l Compatibility with surrounding land uses--The final criterion used to evaluate the stations was the most t subjective and difficult to apply. It looks at consistency with land use plans and zoning regulations, aesthetics, and compliance with state and local regulations. This criterion was evaluated for each station during lengthy discussions between the division and its advisory committees. The ~ l criteria described above were applied to each ofthe five urban stations. Table 5~2 presents the ~ results of those evaluations. Table 5-2. Level~of-service criteria applied to urban transfer stations ~ rat ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1, Estimated time to a transfer facilit within the ~ ~ Y ~ 3~ min~yes YES YES YES YES YES ~ service a rea for 90/0 of users i'~ 2. Time on~site meets standard for 90~/~ of trips ~~i a, commercial vehicles < 16 min = es NO YES N~ NO NO Y ~ ~ b. business self haulers ~ 3o min-yes YES N4~ N~~ NO YES c, residential self-haulers < 3o min~yes YES N0~ YES YES YES Meets criterion on weekdays, iJUt not weekend days, 3, Facility hours meet user demand YES1N~ YES YES YES YES YES ~I~eCC~ y Img services ...meet policies ~n 2001 Solid waste Plan a. business self-haulers YESIND NO N~ ND NO N~ b, residential self haulers YESINO NO NO No NO NO 5,vehiclecapacity . a, meets current needs YES1N~ NO YES N~ N~ YES b, meets 20-year forecast needs YES1N4 NO NO N~ NO NO 6. average daily handling capacity ~tons~ a. meets current needs YESINO NO NO YES NO YES b. meets 20-year forecast needs YESINO NO NO NO ND YES u Space for 3 days storage I~ a. meets currentneeds YESINO NO NU NO ND NQ b, meets 20-year forecast needs YESINO N4 ND N~ NO Nfl 8. Space existsforstatian expansion a, inside the property line YES1~0 N4 YES YES YES YES b, on available adjacent lands through expansion YESl1~0 YES YES YES NO NO i ,  4 ti ~ i! a a i i ~ i a 4 i YES l~~ YES YES iV0 l~0 YES 9. Minimum roof clearance of ~S ft ~ I . , YES~f~o ~ f~a~ ~o~ ~o~ o~ Ivor 10. Meets facility safety goals The presence of these physical challenges does not mean thatthe stations operate in an unsafe manner, It does mean that it takes extra effort by staff and management to ensure the facilities are operating safely, which reduces system efficiency, YES NO 11. Ability to rompact waste ~ . YESINU YES YES YES YES YES 1Z, a. Meets goals forstructural integrity b. Meets l:ederal Emergency Management Act immediate YESI~p YES l~0 N~ ~l0 YES occupancy standards s YES1N0 YES YES YES YES YES 13. Meets applicable local na~se ordinance level YES YESINO YES YES YES ~0~ 1d. Meets Puget Sound Clean Air Agency standards for odors one complaint about Naughton was verified two years preceding the evaluation.ldo citation was issued, 1S. Meets goalsfortraffican local streets YESfNO YES NO YES YES YES a, meets level afservice standard o ~ YES~N~ i~0* N~# YES YES b, traffic does not extend onto fatal streets 95/0 of time ~ Meets criterion weekdays, bat notweekend days, Yes or na rating based an evaluating all days within study period, YES N~ YES YES YES l~0 YES 16,10-foot buffer between active area & nearest residence l Meets 100 ft from residence criterion, but there are businesses within 1l)a ft, . YESINO YES YES 1~0~ id0*~ YES 11. Transfer stat~an is compatible with surrounding land use f=actoria station is a 30+year old facility in need of maintenance that has been deferred aver the years, It is visible on the approach to adjacent businesses, The neighborhood is primarily cammerciallindustriaL Nou hton station is a 30+year old facility in need of maintenance that has been deferred aver the years, 9 It is in a residentiallrecreational area and dearly visible from the road, Transfer station parking is located within 100ftof nearestresidence. hat the current network of stations is efficiently distributed The results shown ~n Table 5-~ ~nd~cate t t Kin Count with adequate service hours that meet the needs of our customers, However, throughou g y ' wire ma'or im rovements to address current capacity, service, and operational needs. In most stations req ~ p ' ' tructural Chan es are necessary to improve emergency response and operational efficiency, as addition, s g well as meetdesired safetygoals. Transfer~tat~ons . Future P~ansforthe Urban • ~ criteria the division and its advisory committees developed a plan Based on the appl~catron of evaluation , ' sfer s stem including the addition ofwaste compactors and other changes needed to modern~zethetran y , to rovide efficient and cost-effective services to the region's customers, p The activities approved by the County Council in the Transfer Plan include the following: Bow~ake--deconstruct the existing transfer station and construct a new recycling and transfer station on the existing site and adjacent property purchased from the U~lashington State Department of Transportation Factoria-deconstruct the existing transfer station and construct a new recycling and transfer station on the existing site and adjacent properties to the northwest of the site, which the division purchased in 2007 Algona-~ close the station and replace it with a new recycling and transfer station in the South County area Houghton --close the station and replace it with a new recycling and transfer station in the Northeast Lakewashingtonarea Renton ~-close the station and do not replace it Although approved for closure, the division recommends reserving options to retain the Renton station, in some capacity, should its closure leave Renton and surrounding rural areas underserved. After the new transfer stations have been sited, the impact of closure can be fully evaluated. Figure 5~5 shows the planned changes for the urban transfer stations and the two areas identified for construction of new stations. As described on page 5-20, the northernmost station, the new Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station, exemplifies the public process and station design that will be used for all . stations slated for,construction, The Bow bake station is being constructed on the existing site and on adjacent property purchased from the washingtan State Department of Transportation. During construction of the new station, the existing station will remain open tv commercial haulers, while self-haulers may have limited access, if necessary to ensure safety. The new transfer station will ~ . open to customers in two - - phases, In 2011, the new ~ii - transfer building will open. At that time, work on the - ~ ~ , - ex~st~ng site will begin, - ' s ruction of the _ ~ _ _ ~ ~ with decors t _ - _ } Y ~ ~ orig~na[ transfer building . - ~ 1 and construction of the t _ xp cyc ng ea r - ` ~ _ ~ e andedre li ar . 3~ ,r ~r ` and a newscalehouse. In _ _ . _....w.. 2012, all site construction is The cosace~tual design of the new Bow eke t~a~rsfer building loos met with a,~~rovar in expected to be complete. meetings with the City of Tukwit~ and in ~ubdic hearings. _ C ~ I i I _ I I 7 - _ _ ~ r; A ~ _ - ' ~ - ~5 dr_ _ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - _ I I 'b ~ 1' - - - I - - - - - - - 9 ~ ' 'a a a ~ J, ~ i ~ r, _ v I I ti~ i f I tl ~C n - ~ - - e._ ~ i~ I a ~ ~ a ~ ~ _ r II r- - ~I - ~ i i - , _ _ ~ ■ w, ~ ~ i Shoreline ~e~ clin and Transfer Station Y ~ Sets the Barfor New Stations The Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station was built to meet the highest standards of environmental sustainability,and isthe first transfer station built in the U.S. to be registered with the U.S. Green Building Council. Their nationally recognized rating system Leadership in energy and Environmenta[Design {LIED} --evaluates buildings in the areas of protection of human and environmental health, sustainable site ' development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, indoor environmental quality, and innovation in design,,.. ~ ~ ~ ,tr, r , Ott#: ; The Shoreline station earned a platinum certification, the highest rating _ , possible, under the LEED rating system. A few of the many features that s - _ earned the station this rating include: . Natural daylighting -windows and skylights that allow natural ~ light to filter into the building. Sensors also detect the levels of ~ ~ ~ ~ daylight and adjust the lighting accordingly. This feature has the otential to reduce annual ener use by as much as 50 percent, ~ ~1~ p gy r Solar energy -photovoltaic panels installed on the south-facing ~ r roof that generate electricity even on cloudy days, providing about } 5 percent of the building's energy needs. ~ ~ ~ • Rainwater collection and reuse -rainwater collected on the rooftop and stored in tanks that provide water for washing station Sotar,~ane~s floors and equipment and for flushing toilets. This feature is ' expected to reduce water needs by 57 percent. Running through the Shoreline property is Thornton Creek, which hosts a diversity of wildlife. Protection of the creek was an extremely high priority for the local community. Therefore, the station design incorporates innovative systems to protect and restore the creek corridor through several means: • Invasive plants were replaced with abuffer ofdrought-tolerant native vegetation to conserve water, protect creek banks from erosion, and provide habitat for birds and other wildlife • Paved areas were removed, and the buffer around the creek was increased • Runoff from roadways was channeled to a stormwater filtration system and detention pond; this system releases stormwater to the creek at a rate that prevents erosion or flooding TheThornton Creek Alliance recognized the division far working with local residents and alliance members to ensure that improvements at the site would help restore and enhanceThornton Creek. An educational kiosk, which features a mosaic representation of the creek made of-recyded glass, was placed overlooking the creek to display the key message that we all share the watershed and to describe the green building features of the station. At the new station, commercial and self haul customers use separate entrances and separate sections of the transfer building, Commercial and other large, automated-dump vehicles enter directly onto a flat receiving floor where they can unload garbage, organics, clean wood, and scrap metal, Selfhaul vehicles enter onto a raised tipping float. To dispose of garbage they back their vehicles to a safety wall and unload over the wall onto the lower receiving floor, Garbage is pushed into a compactor chute at the south end of the receiving ! ~ for one waste coin actor located in the lower tunnel level of the station. floor, which provides a gravity feed p floor has rovisions for the future installation of a second compactor if needed, Containers for The lower p tables such as scra metal and appliances are located at one end of the building, chutes for recycling recyc p organics and clean wood are located nearby. - In the transfer building, the large, flat-floor design gives the facility the . ~ abilit to accept surges of waste. ~lvaste can continue to be received ~r~,.~.. - y . ~ ~ ~ ' even if all trailers on site are full. In an emergency, if the compactor is ~ ~ - not functioning, solid waste may be loaded into trailers through top_ 4 ry - ~ ~ load chutes. The maximum facility capacity is approximately - ~ 1 8,000 cubic yards on the receiving floor and 25 full trailers. ti ~ a ' . T _ ~ ' k - The Shoreline station was designed to maximize capacity to accept recyclables.Thedlvision collaborated with the host city and three other nearb cities to determine the list of materials to collect initially Y at the new station. A few materials added to the recyclables collected ^ = include organics yard waste and food scraps},clean wood, aid scrap - - metal. The station also has the built in flexibility to accept additional .r~, r, or different recyclables as markets continue to develop and customer 5 ~ - q needs change. _ .Rainwater codlectionrsystem To minimize possible traffic impacts of the transfer station on the host community, the division collaborated with King County's Metro Transit on an agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation to allow solid waste transfer trailers to share Metro's dedicated access ramps to and from the - ~ P _ , - ' cent Interstate 5,This arrangement will kee < ~ . ~ ~ , , ~ s4 ! treets. M f Y`X~~ rT~ ,~i r~ r evr waste trucks offthe neighborhood s ` ~~~t{ , a'.j a, ~ ~ x r~H r~ ~ in Count ado ted legislation creating the ~ ~ ' In 197, K g Y p ~ 1 °1o for Art program, whereby capital construction projects set aside 1 percent of the budget, less - x property costs for above-grade portions of the project _ _ y to fund public artwork.The artist selected far this raject worked with the 5horelinell.ake f=orest Park - P - p Arts Council, the 4 Culture Artist Selection Committee, eline and the division to develop Public aytwayk at station entrance } the City of Shor , k artistic design elements for the new station.The artist's t design concepts call for us to question haw our choices affect the environment and consider other uses for items before we throw them away. i ' chit reflects a char e in 1 } haw we approach the planning of new facilities In summary, the new Shoreline fa y g involvement; 2} how we build them --using the greenest elements passible, ~ncarporat~ng early community 3` d ~ how we o erate them -increasing recycling now, with the flexibility to expand as new markets an } p emerge in the future. y r i 1 The division is planning to build the new Factoria station on the existing site and two adjacent properties. The division is exploring options to maintain some level of service during construction of the new Station. Final plans will be made when the station permitting and design are complete. Anew Northeast lake Washington station will be sited and constructed to replace the existing Houghton station, while a new South County station will replace the current facility in Algona. The division is committed to closing the Houghton and Algona stations after the siting and construction process for the new stations is complete, All new stations will be built to the same standards of service and sustainability as the~new Shoreline Rec clip and Transfer Station. While there will be some differences to accommodate community needs Y 9 fie.., Factoria will maintain a stationary household hazardous waste facility, all stations will have improved g ca acit ,waste compactors, and additional space for recycling more materials. For each nevu station, the p y division will seek a Gold ar higher LEED certification. The new Shoreline transfer station also provides additional space and capacity to handle more organics . than what comes in from self"haulers alone. one commercial collection company that collects curbside or anics in Shoreline has begun bringing the organics directly to the Shoreline station, instead of 9 trans ortin them to the Cedar Grove Composting facility. Organics are consolidated at the transfer station p g and then trans arced to Cedar Grove, This practice reduces truck travel time for the commercial collectors, p thereb increasin overall efficiency. The division will explore the possibility of accepting organics from the y g commercial collectors atthe othernewstationswherever itproves to bemore efficient. The timeline for completing the siting, design, construction, and closure of the urban transfer stations is shown in Table 5~3. Tab1e5-3. Timeineforthefacilityrenovation plan i~~ i~ i ~ e o~ ~ i t Open new Open Bow Lake Construct new station transfer completed building transfer station Factoria Design and permit station Construct new station Open South tours Site new station Design and permit station Construct new station Open Northeast Site new station Desi nand permit station Construct new station Open Lake Washin ton g g AI ono ~ Close Hou hton Close 9 Close ar Renton modify aperations° a Decision to close subject to evaluation aftersiting of the new South County transferstation. E RURAL TRANSFER FACILITIES ~AI~UATI4N AND PLANNING FAR TH e served b small communit landfills. As those landfills closed, most were H~starically, the rural areas wer y Y re laced b either a transfer station or a drop box; the Duvall and Hobart landfills near Maple Valley} were p Y closed without re lacement. Currently serving rural King County are two transfer stations in Enumclaw p and on Vachon lsiand -and two drop boxes in North Bend Cedar Falls} and Skykomish. In ~44~, the division applied the same 17 criteria used for the urban stations to the rural facilities. Because the dro boxes are essentially collection containers covered by roof structures, there is no building perse p evaluate so man ofthe criteria did not apply. Criteria specific to the rural system were not developed to y because a reliminar (oak indicated that the rural facilities, for the most part, met the standards set for the p Y urban system, vunt wide tannin olio , Fw-9 d. Rurallnfrastrirc~crre andService,states that, "Rural residents outside c y p gp y cities should antici ate lower levels of public services and infrastructure than those available in Urban p Areas maximizin self sufficiency and independence;' However, the rural transfer stations provide g essential! the same garbage and recycling services as the urban stations, although they may be open y o fewer hours and da s. To rovide an appropriate level of service to area residents and the commercial fr Y p collectors the division's two rural transfer stations are currently open five days a week to the public and seven da s a week to the commercial collection companies. The Cedar Falls drop box is open five days a y week to self haul~rs,:and the Skykomish drop box is open seven days a week to self haulers and the Cityof Skykomish. The dro boxes are scaled-down facilities! designed to provide cost-effective, convenient drop-off services p in the more remote areas of the county. The Skykomish drop box consists of two containers for garbage and a collection area for curbside recyclables. The Cedar Falls drop box has two containers for garbage, one container for and waste, and a collection area for curbside recyclables; the facility also accepts textiles for Y recycling. er Rec clip Station, which opened in ~ 993, serves the City of Enumclaw and The FnumclawTransf l y g southeastern Kin County. The City of Enumclaw provides its own garbage collection service and takes g the waste to the Enumclaw transfer y~:w..,~..~ station, which is equipped with a .,.~ry"~~~ ~ ' ~ ~ i waste compactor. Standard curbside clables tar e a !lances, reusable - ~ ~ ~ • i1 ' recy g pp household goods, textiles, clean ~r . wood, and yard waste are collected far ry~ ~ ~ ~ . , rec cling. This station met all of the p r ~ ~ t evaluation criteria, with the capacity to ~ - ~ . `~-~~:,t - x~~ provideawiderangeofservicesandthe ~ ,--J. - flexibility to respond to future needs. If _ ~ ` additional capacity were needed at the station, it could be accomplished y - . ~F ; , W_ increasing the hours ofoperation. - - ` ~`he rural ~numctaw sta~ian ~ravides a wide array a}'recycting o~,~ortunities. . ~ I'i ' din 1999 to serve residents and businesses on Vachon Island. This TheVashonTransfer Station opene liances, Because of its remote station acce is the standard curbside recyclables plus textiles and large app p ome C&D and s ecial wastes for disposal that the other stations do not. island location, the facility accepts s p waste tom actor. ' et all but one of the evaluation criteria, including the presence of a p The Vachon station m • vel of rec clip services, because yard waste is not collected at the The only criterion not met was the le y g • eds at the Vachon station have indicated there is little demand for station. Past studies of customer ne vices on the island and and waste service at the facility, primarily due to the presence of private~sector ser Y ' owever the division will reevaluate the need to add yard waste collection at t e backyard composting, h f m lished b increasing ' ' I solid waste ca acity were needed at this station, it could be acco ,p Y site. if add~t~ona p the hours afoperation. The CedarFalls DropBox,which openedin 1990, serves self-haulers in the North Ben area. ~ _y ctioncontainersareprovidedforcurbside Coke recyclables, plus yard waste and textiles. This facilit met all applicable evaluation criteria Y _ ~~s - except for vehicle capacity, which is due primari y ~ ~ ~ I ~ to beau weekend use. Currently, there is only - ,3 i d 3 j one scale shared byboth inboundand out oun traffic, which can lead to backups on weekends ~ , - ~ when the station is most busy. The division is . ti _ ~ ~ ' erin the addition of a second scale at the cons~d g ` - station to address heavyweekend use and an - - - dditional collectian container, which could be a used for arb~a eoryardwaste. Ifneeded, hours g g - of o eration could be increased to add weekday p • services to capacity at the site. ~`he Cedar.Fatts Drop fax pravzdes garbage and recycZa~~g customers five days a week. The most remote facility operated by the division isadrop boxintheTownof 5kykomish. Built in 1980, the drop box serves 5kykomish and the • ~ komish rovides its own garbage collection service and takes the communit~esof Grotto and Baring, Sky P ilit is ' o Box.The dro box is also used by self~haulers. The 5kykomish fat y wastes to the 5kykomish Dr p p urchasin a solid ent is made at an automated gate using a creditordebitcard,or by p g unstaffed, paym ~ here are cameras at the site to monitor waste dis oral card from the division or at locations in 5kykomish, T p • ' ere ular visits to the site to perform maintenance. In add~t~on, the Ding activities, and d~v~s~on staff mak g e site,The dro ent has a facilit next door, from which Roads staff help man~tor th p County Roads Departm Y riate level of service for the ox met all the applicable evaluation criteria and appears to provide an approp b • • roof in 2008, after the old roof collapsed under retard snowfall in January area. The facility received a new of that year. ed b than es to the urban transfer system, primarily self-haulers Some rural area customers may be affect y g cilities or Renton transfer stations, Depending on where new urban fa who currently usethe Houghton notade uatel • ashin ton and South County are eventually sited, they may or may q Y ~n Northeast lake w g oral areas. should it be necessary to provide additional facilities in these meet the service needs of these r ~ s. Construction ' ' ' 'on ma consider siting drop box facilities to serve the local area resident areas, thedivisi y ' 'these areas is not being considered as it would be inconsistent with of regional transfer stations in ~ ~ ~ 'ch directl serve the public ide tannin olicy LU-Z1, which states,'fReg~onal public facilities whi y cauntyw p g p . ~ ~ tin in Rural Areas:' The division recommends deferring decisions about shall be discouraged from Iota g the Renton transfer ' dro boxes in these potentially underserved areas and whether to close whether to site p transferstations have been sited andthe impacton servicecapac~tyhas station until after the new urban been fully evaluated. H®5TC~TY~IT~GAT~~N ' ssential and beneficial public service. The stations havethe potential, Transferstat~onsprovideane r noise roadlcurb se undesirable impacts on a community, such as increased litter, oda , , however, to cau ' etic im acts. The division works to mitigate these impacts in a number damage, and traffic, as well as aesth p 4 - ' e overni ht s collectin litter, landscaping on and around the site, limiting waste kept on sit g of ways, such a g ' makin road modifications, and siting facilities on or near mayor roadways to reduce the potential for odor, g to keep traffic off local streets. ' ' ' 'service area currently have county-owned transfer facilities within their Fight cities in the d~v~s~ons boundaries: s . Algona--the Algona Transfer Station Bellevue the FactoriaTransferStation • Enumclaw the EnumclavuTransfer and Recycling Station . Kirkland the Houghton Transfer Station • Renton -the Renton Transfer Station Shoreline the Shoreline Recycling and Transfer Station ' Bow LakeTransfer Station, and SeaTac -the Bow Lake station recycling area • Tukwila-the As new transfer stations are constructed in the near future, the division will work with cities ~a~~----~ ~ - to build stat~onsthatarecompat~blewith the ~ 'n communit .For example, during surrounds g y the design of the new Shoreline Recycling and ' - ~ s !Y `~IPI - ansfer Station, the division worked closely with ~ , _ _ rv. the communit to identify impacts and mitigation ~ - ~ 4 Y measures for the surrounding community. One ' nsfertrailers drivedirectlyfrom the ~ result ~s that tra tationonto Interstate-5 using King County Metro ' S ~ Transit's dedicated freeway ramps, rather than - . . s'n cit streets for access. In addition, sidewalks u~g y on nearb streets were improved, a new walking , - . r y .~..r...~:~~ . t nearb Ronald Bog Park, edu~afianal kiosk at the Siio~elisae station lxighiights tl~e path was constructed a y An nd the ortion ofThvrnton impoyt~nce of ~rotecti~ig ~'h~Y~t~n ~Yeek its surroundi~ag treeswere planted,a p eco~yste~z. ~ , f J Creek that flows through the site underwent significant restoration. The station building was so moved farther from residences and is now fully enclosed to mitigate impacts from noise, odor, and al ' ' ' measures vuill var de endin on the site, all new transfer station buildings will be dust. while mit~gat[on y p g fully enclosed. . ' ' ` so worked close) with the Cit of Bellevue on siting the replacementofthe Factoria Thedivision Nasal y Y 'on. A new facilit was to be constructed on property to the south of and adjacent to the Transfer State y ' that fronts Interstate-90 ~I-90}. However, as a result of discussions with Bellevue, the current statEOn, ` ' ' chased twa ro erties to the northwest of and adjacent to the current station, with the division has pur p p ' new facilit there. The division could then sell the property that fronts l-90, since it is intention of building a y viewed b theCit of Bellevue as more desirable forcommercialdeveIopment. Y Y Additionally, state law, RCw 36.5S.OS0, allows cities or fawns to charge counties"to mitigate impacts direct) attributable to the solid waste facility: PROVIDFD,That any city or town establishes that such Y char es are reasonabl necessar to mitigate such impacts and that revenue generated from Such g Y Y ' ed onl to miti ate such im acts:' No city or town has thus far charged King County for charges is expend y g p iti ation of im acts. The cost of mitigation beyond what the division is currently performing would need m g p to be included in thesolid waste rate. ' serest for cities is that the same state law that allows for mitigation of impacts directly An area of ~n ' solid waste facilit rohibits cities from charging tax tocounty-owned solid waste facilities attributable to a y p or an other essential ublic facility. To compensate for potential lost tax revenues, it was suggested by Y p r'urisdictionalTecNnical Staff Group in a 2007 governance report ~iTSG 2047} that the Business & the inte ~ 4ccu ation Tax that King County currently pays to the State ofwashington fvr transfer station operations p be redirected to the host cities as a per ton fee. State law would need to be changed to allow for redirection of these tax revenues. The division is not pursuing this change. TRANSFERFAC~L~TYS~T~NG ' rlier in this cha ter, identif in the need for new transfer facilities in the Northeast fake As described ea p Y g washin ton and South Count service areas involved a comprehensive analysisofthetransfersystem g Y network, with extensive involvement of the division's advisory committees. while this process identified real for site locations ~Fi ure 5-5}, it did not identify any specific sites or specific site selection general a 9 criteria. ' sitin of a transfer facilit is based on operationa{needs and site constraints, such as site Technically, the g Y size and sha e~ however, a successful siting effort must also be tailored to address the needs and concerns p~ of the service area communities. The siting process involves anumber ofsteps--from development o site ' ` to final selection of a site ~-and ublic involvement plays an important role each step of selection criteria p the way. ' f the division's advisor committees, public meetings and workshops, and Through the ongoing meetings v y . ' ' ' or Committees CACs},the ublic is given the opportunity to learn about and participate in Citizens Advis y ~ p the sitin rocess. An effort is made to engage historically marginalized communities to enable them to gp S 1 ~ , ~ ho can both lead and support efforts influence decisions, and to work closely with community partners w , a Il Kin Count residents. that ensure farness for a g y teens recruited through letters of invitation to city staff and elected officals of the ~ CAC members are value urroundin cities, Unincorporated Area Councils, the commercial collection companies, potential host ands g local environmental groups, and other ~ communit leaders, and through public . ~ enta~ Protect~an in sand announcements. The CAC The U.S. EnV~ron m ~ meet g ss site selection criteria, identifies ' f j~~ ~~~~n ~pnS~C~Cra~lo[1S helps arse A~enC~` ~~ent~ ~ community concerns and impacts, creates pub ' p 1 Siting a transfer facility is amulti-dimensional, multi-step ~ tic awareness of the ro'ect, provides ~ eneral review and input throughout the process, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identifies g ' in rocess, and has the opportunity to the following issues that must be considered when siting solid ~ sit g p express opinions and preferences to county waste facilities: decisionwmakers. ~ Environmental and health risks--air quality and ~ Identifying potential sites is an active search transportation ' those ro erties that best match the Economic issues effects on property values and ~ far p p ~ d o eratin costs desired site character~st~cs. A small number construction an p g effects on community ~ ~ or environmental 5oc~ai issues equity ~n site choices, of saes are selected f image, and aesthetics . ` review. The environmental review, political issues --local elections and thevested interests conducted in accordance with the State of community groups Environmental Protection Acts identifies ~ otential adverse environmental impacts p Source: Sites for 4urSalid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Pub1r'c and reasonable mitigation measures. invaivement, ~ 990. US. Environmental Protection Agency; office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; Office of Solidwaste.) } Based on the environmental review, cost, - ! communit interests, and other established Y ~ criteria, a preferred sitecan be selected. i FTERAN EMERGENCY TRANSF~RSERU~CESA ~ Corms floods, electrical outages, and snow and ice storms, affect the residents Emergencies, including winds bleto ' s of the count and the transfer system nearly every year. The county is also vulnera and businesse Y 1 ~ ~ hat could enerate a high volume of debris, including major flooding, earthquakes, significant events t g ~ ~ Lions. The debris generated by an emergency can threaten public health and landslides, and volcan[c erup ~ hinder or complicate response and recovery work. } ' ' isru Lions and rovide for efficient management of emergency debris, the division is To mmimixe d p p i 's .Nana ement Plan for unincorporated King County. The division is also collaborating preparing a Debri g ' ' ' 'thin the count to develop similar plans that will ensure a coordinated regional response to ~ with cites w~ Y ' ebris tannin rocess is being conducted under the direction ofthe Seattle Urban ~ emergencies. Thed p g p ' ' ' ' e UASI uided b the federal Homeland Security Department and the state of Area Secur[ty Init~aty ( g Y ` vllashington's emergency Management Division. . The division's Debris Management Plan stipulates that during emergency response and recovery, the roles within the King Caunty solid waste system will remain the same. This means that the division will continue to accept municipal solid waste at the transfer stations to the extent possible and will maximize recycling in accordance with RCW 7U.95.01 o ~8} and KCC Title 14. The transfer facilities will not be used for disposal of emergency debris that could be recycled. The debris created by a larger event, such as an earthquake, would likely consist primarily of recyclable materials, such as concrete, metal,and wood. The division's Debris Management Plan iscoordinated with emergency plans prepared by other jurisdictions to maximize the recycling of these materials. The division is working with the Regional Emergency Communications Center to coordinate public information and help cities and residents identify recycling options in preparation for and in response to emergency events. Recycling the majority of emergency debris will maximize the division's capacity to continue to handle municipal solid waste. . ~ ,._.,a ~ A In the event of an emer enc ,transfer services ma be " ° r g Y Y e sus ended in the short term. The division's riorities are ta: ~ ~ - 1; . p p ~ ~ } . _ ~~r_ ~ ~ ~ r, 1. Ensure the safet of staff and customers ~ ~ ~ .Y 13 Y ~ f ~ _ - f r.~"" ~ ~ ~ ~`j 2. Confirm the structural integrity offac~lities and ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,w ,W ~ ~ ' ~ _ environmental control systems ~ ~ ~-=~F.~ - . - Coordinate with the Re Tonal Emer enc ~ t - ~ g g Y . ~ ~ - ~ Communications Center to determine any immediate Y~~. needs for Solid Waste Division stafr: or equipment ~ 'Mj; . F: - ~ d yr; 4. Resume service ~ ~y ~ F f .s R~ The division will attempt to max~m~ze the use of existing _ ~ ~ ~y~ ' transfer facilities after an emer enc throw h o erational i~A ~ ` _ ~ g Y g p ~ ~ measures such as increased staffing or hours. If some ~ ~ ~ , . sky ~A - y r. transfer facilities are closed or damaged as a result of the ~~d~ I ~ event, customers will be rerouted to remaining stations, and ~ f,.-` r. ' rt~ ~ ~ commercialhaulers may be routed directly to the Cedar Hills ~ 3 k~ Regional ~.andfill. Additionally, the division and the cities ~ u ~ .x. ~ ~y may establish temporary Debris Management Sites where w~, debris can be stored until it can be sorted for recycling or ' s f~ proper disposal. It is recommended that potential sites . in unincor orated Kin Count and in cities be identified ~'he new Slaorerine station lags an overadr~acility p g Y . capacity of 9,OOD cubic yards on the receiving floor and by each jurisdiction ~n advance of an emergency. The acce tance Z5 fudl t~aide~s. p poi~c~es at these sites would be determEned ~n responseto the nature of the event and the debris that is generated.