Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 2002 A RESOLUTION adopting the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan for the City of Pasco. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 70 105 220), Franklin County and its cities and towns are required to prepare a Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the Plan was developed to address regional moderate nsk waste management issues and, therefore, mcludes Benton County and its municipalities, and WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has overseen the preparation of the Plan and Franklin County has taken public testimony on the Plan, and WHEREAS, Franklin County has complied with SEPA and determined, after circulation of the Determination of Non-Significance, that the proposal will have a non-sigruficant impact upon the environment, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: §1. That the City of Pasco hereby adopts the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, a copy is attached hereto PASSED by the City Council at its Regular Meeting this day , 1992 ue, JO(YCFIlEFELICE Ma ATTEST rfrei 'rdi I CATHERINE D SEAMAN GA R BST" Deputy City Clerk torney COL m o,-RivER' - L) CONNELL HANFORD WORKS „ , FRANKLIN COUNTY BENTON CITY BENTON COUNTY GO- z , T ) RsMoin ,,and-FrranklInn Couptle, vosoVERp :Mak,WasteiVenageme0 .2 Man_ December 1991 4 BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for BENTON-FRANKLIN REGIONAL COUNCIL 1622 Terminal Drive Richland, Washington 99352 Prepared by PARAMETRIX, INC. 13020 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington 98005 December 1991 Printed on Recycled Paper TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 11 Background 12 Purpose Page 1 1-1 1-1 1-2 1 3 Public Involvement 1-2 1 3 1 The Solid Waste Advisory Committees 1-3 1.3 2 Briefing Local and State Officials 1-4 1 33 Public Workshops, Hearings, and Meetings 1-4 1 3 4 Outreach Tools for Public Involvement 1-5 1 3 5 Moderate Risk Waste Surveys 1-5 1 4 Summary 1-6 2. BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA 2-1 2 1 Introduction 2-1 22 Population 2-1 22 1 Benton County 2-1 222 Franklin County 2-1 23 Economy 2-3 23 1 Benton County 2-3 232 Franklin County 2-4 24 Land Use 2-4 24 1 Benton County 2-4 242 Franklin County 2-5 25 Natural Environment 2-5 25 1 General Climatic Conditions 2-5 25 2 Geology and Hydrology 2-6 253 Biological 2-6 25 4 Historical and Archeological 2-7 3. REGULATORY REVIEW 3-1 3 1 Introduction 3-1 3 2 Federal Regulatory Environment 3-1 33 State Regulatory Environment 3-3 3 4 Local Regulatory Environment 3-6 3 5 Health and Safety Regulations 3-7 3 6 Regulations for Agricultural Chemical Wastes 3-7 3 7 Summary 3-9 MRW Plan t December 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 4. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN BENTON AND Page FRANKLIN COUNTIES 4-1 4 1 Solid Waste Management 4 -1 4 1.1 Current Conditions 4-1 4 1 2 Planned Modifications 4-5 42 Hazardous Waste Management 4 -6 42 1 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program 4-6 4 2 2 Agricultural Chemical Waste Collection Event 4-6 423 Regulated Hazardous Waste Generators 4 -7 424 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Transportation 4-7 4 25 Remedial Sites 4-7 42 6 Health and Safety Programs 4-13 4 2 7 Zoning for Hazardous Waste Facilities 4-14 4 3 Solid and Hazardous Waste Financing 4-15 43 1 Waste Management Financing 4-15 43 2 Inspection and Compliance Financing 4-16 5. HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION IN BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES 5-1 5 1 Introduction 5-1 5 2 Household Hazardous Waste Generation 5-1 5 2 1 Methods of Assessing Household Hazardous Waste Generation 5-1 5 22 Household Hazardous Waste Generation in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-2 5 23 Household Hazardous Waste Projections for Benton and Franklin Counties 5-11 5 24 Conclusions 5-12 5 3 Moderate Risk Waste Generation by Businesses 5-12 5 3 1 Moderate Risk Waste Generation by Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-13 5 3 2 Comparison of Commercial Survey Results with Regional Studies 5-34 5 3 3 Conclusions 5-44 5 4 Agricultural Chemical Waste Generation in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-45 5 4 1 Background Information 5-45 5 4 2 Agricultural Chemical Waste Survey 5-46 5 4 3 Conclusions 5-54 5 5 Summary 5-54 MRW Plan is December 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 6. IMPROVING MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT Page 6-1 6 1 Summary of Principal Improvements 6-1 62 Improving Household Hazardous Waste Management 6-2 62 1 Objectives 6-2 622 Needs and Opportunities 6-2 6 2 3 Alternatives 6-3 63 Improving Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Management 6-5 6 3 1 Objectives 6-5 63 2 Needs and Opportunities 6-5 6 3 3 Alternatives 6-5 64 Improving Agricultural Chemical Waste Management 6-7 64 1 Objectives 6-7 642 Needs and Opportunities 6-7 643 Alternatives 6-8 65 Improving Local Government Support 6-9 65 1 Health and Safety 6-9 6 5 2 Compliance and Enforcement 6-10 65 3 Program Evaluation 6-11 66 Evaluation of Alternatives 6-12 7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION 7-1 7 1 Recommended Actions 7-1 7 1 1 Education 7-1 7 1 2 Collection 7-4 7 1 3 Health and Safety 7-6 7 1 4 Compliance and Enforcement 7-7 7 15 Program Evaluation 7-7 7 1 6 Recommendations for State Action 7-8 72 Implementation Schedule, Budget, and Responsibilities 7-8 72 1 Schedule 7-8 722 Budget 7-10 723 Agency Responsibilities 7-12 724 MRW Plan Revision and Update Process 7-13 73 Expected Results 7-14 MRW Plan in December 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES A. Adoption Resolutions B State Environmental Policy Act Documents C Required Plan Elements Checklist D Responsiveness Summary E Household Hazardous Waste /F Commercial Moderate Risk Waste G Agncultural Chemical Waste Page MRW Plan tv December 1991 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Solid waste management facilities in Benton and Franklin Counties 2-2 5-1 Recognition, use, and disposal of hazardous household products in Benton and Franklin Counties . 5-4 5-2 Household hazardous waste disposal by product in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-8 5-3 Household hazardous waste disposal methods used in Benton and Franklin Counties . 5-9 5-4 Size of businesses participating in the Benton and Franklin Counties commercial waste survey 5-17 5-5 Number of years business has operated in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-18 5-6 Frequency of moderate risk waste disposal reported on the Benton and Franldin Counties commercial waste survey 5-20 5-7 Quantity of moderate risk waste reported disposed by businesses on the Benton and Franklin Counties commercial waste survey 5-23 5-8 Moderate risk waste disposal methods used by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-24 5-9 Changes in the amount of moderate risk waste generated in the last five years as reported by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-32 5-10 Reasons for change in moderate risk waste generation by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-33 5-11 Expected changes in moderate risk generation by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties over the next five years 5-35 MRW Plan v December 1991 LIST OF FIGURES continued Figure Page 5-12 Annual moderate risk waste disposal costs for businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-39 5-13 Projected use of collection service or drop-off facility by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-40 5-14 Quantity of pesticide waste reported on the Benton and Franklin Counties agricultural waste survey 5-49 5-15 Frequency with which survey participants would use a disposal service 5-53 7-1 Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan implementation schedule 7-9 MRW Plan VI December 1991 LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 4-1 1988 regulated hazardous waste generators in Benton County 4-8 4-2 1988 regulated hazardous waste generators in Franklin County 4-9 4-3 Hazardous waste management firms serving Benton and Franklin Counties 4-10 5-1 Household hazardous waste disposal from respondents to the Benton and Franklin Counties household survey 5-6 5-2 Response rates for Benton and Franklin Counties' commercial waste survey 5-15 5-3 Companson of major and minor generator waste production in Benton and Franklin Counties . 5-21 5-4 Quantities of moderate risk waste disposed by businesses surveyed in Benton and Franklin Counties, by weight 5-22 5-5 Business groups disposing moderate risk waste m Benton and Franklin Counties 5-26 5-6 Obstacles to reducing waste generation reported by business generating moderate nsk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-38 5-7 Services businesses prefer for improving moderate risk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-38 5-8 Financial support for collection services by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-41 5-9 Estimated moderate nsk waste generation by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-42 MRW Plan vu December 1991 LIST OF TABLES continued Tables Page 5-10 Waste agricultural chemical containers reported in the Benton and Franklin Counties' Agricultural Waste Survey 5-50 5-11 Farm equipment maintenance waste disposal practices reported on the Benton and Franklin Counties' Agricultural Waste Survey 5-51 5-12 Agricultural services reported to best fit the needs of farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties 5-52 7-1 Benton and Franklin Counties' MRW Plan five-year budget 7-10 7-2 Expected results of MRW Plan recommendations 7-15 MRW Plan December 1991 Executive Summary , e nn , r f ,ssr EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Local governments are required by the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act to address moderate nsk waste management in their junsdictions Moderate nsk wastes are hazardous wastes produced by households, and by businesses and institutions in small quan- tities Moderate nsk waste generators produce hazardous waste in quantities that do not exceed the following state regulatory limits • For dangerous waste, less than 220 lbs per month or per batch • For acutely hazardous waste, less than 22 lbs per month or per batch Regulated hazardous waste generators — businesses and institutions producing hazardous waste above regulatory limits — are required to meet a stringent set of standards when stor- ing, handling, and disposing of their hazardous waste In addition, these hazardous waste generators must comply with extensive waste tracking and reporting requirements Commer- cial moderate risk waste generators must meet certain requirements for waste disposal, but are exempt from some of the waste tracking and reporting procedures required of regulated hazardous waste generators Hazardous waste generated above the threshold quantities, as defined above, does not fall within the scope of the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan (MRW Plan) Agricultural chemical wastes, however, are addressed in this MRW Plan. Although they are not classified as moderate risk wastes, agricultural chemical wastes, such as banned pesticides, pose unique waste management problems Examples of matenal that may be classified as household or commercial moderate risk waste include • Adhesives, glues and sealants • Paints, solvents and thinners • Cleaners • Pesticides • Auto batteries • Used motor oil • Antifreeze This MRW Plan addresses the problems associated with three sources of hazardous waste household hazardous waste, small quantities of hazardous waste produced by businesses and institutions, and agricultural chemical wastes A five-year program to improve the manage- ment of these wastes is defined in the plan MRW Plan 1 December 1991 GOALS Moderate nsk waste management goals for the Benton and Franklin County region were developed in coordination with the Solid Waste Advisory Committees The pnmary goal of moderate risk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties is to • Protect natural resources and public health in Benton and Franklin Counties by elmunating the discharge of moderate nsk wastes into solid waste systems, waste- water treatment systems, and into the environment through indiscnminate disposal This first goal provides the basis for developing the Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan The following goals focus on specific areas of moderate risk waste management addressed within the Plan • Manage moderate risk wastes in a manner that promotes, in order of pnonty waste reduction, recycling, physical, chemical, and biological treatment, incineration, solidification and stabilization, and landfilling • Increase public awareness of the importance of proper disposal and available alter- natives to disposal of moderate risk wastes • Improve opportunities for recycling and safe disposal of moderate nsk wastes by citizens and businesses within Benton and Franklin Counties, and encourage the use of these preferred waste management facilities and services • Reduce the health nsks presented to workers coming in contact with moderate nsk wastes which may be disposed of in the solid waste stream or in wastewater treat- ment systems • Coordinate improved systems for moderate risk waste management with existing and planned systems for waste reduction, recycling, and other programs for solid waste management • Encourage cooperation and coordination among all levels of government, citizens, and the pnvate sector in managing moderate risk wastes • Emphasize local responsibility for solving problems associated with moderate nsk waste, rather than relying on the state or federal government to provide solutions • Comply with the requirements of the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 70 105 220) directing each local government to prepare a local hazardous waste management plan MRW Plan 2 December 1991 PRINCIPAL FINDINGS To understand moderate nsk waste practices in Benton and Franklin Counties, surveys were conducted of three groups of waste generators households, businesses, and agricultural enterpnses The purpose of these surveys was to determine the quantity of moderate nsk and agncultural chemical waste being generated in the two-county area, as well as disposal practices used for these wastes Data obtained from these surveys were used to formulate appropnate moderate risk waste management alternatives and recommendations A more complete discussion of methods used to conduct the surveys and survey results may be found m Chapter 5, Hazardous Waste Generation in Benton and Franklin Counties Household Hazardous Waste Management Practices Household hazardous waste surveys showed that the majority of residents in the two-county area are unaware of the potential hazards posed by many of the products used in their homes In addition, residents are not aware of the options available to them for better managing these products and wastes The surveys also found that residents are willing to support household hazardous waste collection programs financially and through participation as long as the programs are convenient, practical, and inexpensive to use Targeted household hazardous wastes include waste oil, auto batteries, and antifreeze These wastes were targeted because of the quantities generated and disposal practices used Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Management Practices Surveys completed by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties showed that most busi- nesses are generating the same amount of moderate risk waste today as they were five years ago Businesses reported that a lack of information and technical assistance was the primary obstacle preventing them from reducing the amount of moderate risk waste they produce Although some of the businesses responding wanted techmcal assistance programs estab- lished, most would prefer a permanent drop-off facility at a central location or collection services instead Commercial moderate risk wastes of concern are adhesives, oil-based paints, detergents, photochemicals, waste oil, auto batteries, antifreeze, formalin and formaldehyde, and acids and bases Waste oil and auto batteries accounted for approximately 60% by weight of the moderate nsk wastes disposed of by survey respondents Other waste types such as formahn and formaldehyde and detergents made up the next largest groups of moderate nsk wastes disposed by businesses The targeted business groups are vehicle maintenance and gas stations (Group 12), retail trade (Group 20), construction (Group 3), laboratory and medical establishments (Group 7), paper, printing and allied services (Group 15), wood products and services (Group 13), and funeral services (Group 6) MRW Plan 3 December 1991 Agricultural Chemical Waste Management Practices Surveys showed that collectively, farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties have approxi- mately 39 tons of stored agricultural chemical waste, mostly insecticides and herbicides Collecting and disposing of this waste would require federal or state financial assistance According to survey results, many farmers are using the best available methods to dispose of empty pesticide containers, and most are careful to triple-rinse their liquid containers Machine maintenance wastes, such as waste oil, antifreeze, and other auto products are not, for the most part, being managed properly Many farmers reported that they dispose of these wastes by burying them or pouring them on the ground Auto batteries, however, are often recycled Surveys conducted of farmers indicate that they would be willing to participate in collection events or use a permanent facility to dispose of agricultural chemical wastes There is also some willingness on the part of the farmers to finance a pesticide waste collection program ALTERNATIVES Nine separate categories of alternatives for improving moderate nsk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties are described in the MRW Plan Each of these categories is listed below along with a summary of alternatives considered under each category of moderate nsk waste management Household Hazardous Waste Education. This component of the moderate nsk waste program is designed to address the need for improving public awareness of household hazardous waste issues Specific alternatives include • Provide information to residents or community groups using mailings, advertisements, postings, retail stores, and other locally available resources • Conduct school programs to educate children about household hazardous waste • Provide educational services to community groups Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Education. Moderate risk waste education alternatives for businesses address the need for technical assistance and information on local moderate nsk waste management resources Education alternatives for business include • Provide general moderate risk waste management information to businesses • Target specific types of businesses as a focus for educational activities • Provide technical assistance using methods such as waste audits, a resource library, workshops, and industrial waste exchanges MRW Plan 4 December 1991 , Agricultural Chemical Waste Education. Two alternatives are described in this section of the MRW Plan for educating farmers on improved methods of managing agricultural chemi- cal waste • Develop audio visual presentation information for agricultural groups on agricultural chemical waste management, and pesticide container disposal options This could be performed with the assistance of the Washington State Department of Agriculture and WSU Cooperative Extension offices • Provide technical assistance, including distributing waste management pamphlets already available through the Departments of Ecology and Agriculture to farmers Household Hazardous Waste Collection. Alternatives for household hazardous waste collection address the need for improving moderate risk waste disposal options available to residents in the two-county area Alternatives include • Expanding publicity for the existing annual collection event, and increasing the frequency of collection events • Develop permanent collection facilities at one or more of the landfills, the transfer station, or other locations • Develop a mobile collection service • Collect household hazardous waste at households by appointment • Collect household batteries • Recycle paint • Increase waste oil recycling Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Collection. As with household hazardous waste, collection alternatives for businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties focus on the need to provide businesses with a wider range of disposal options as well as with collection facilities and services that are more readily available • Develop a permanent collection facility • Hold amnesty days or collection events for businesses • Target specific types of businesses or wastes for special collection services Agricultural Chemical Waste Collection. Collection alternatives in this section focus on the need to improve agricultural chemical waste disposal options available to farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties MRW Plan 5 December 1991 • Hold periodic collection events, to be admimstered either by local agencies or the Department of Agriculture • Establish an agricultural chenucal waste pickup service • Develop an agricultural chemical waste drop-off facility which may be provided in conjunction with collection facilities previously described for household and commercial moderate nsk waste Health and Safety. The three alternatives presented are designed to keep individuals who work regularly with moderate risk wastes informed of proper health and safety practices These alternatives are • Provide additional training to public employees, such as solid waste and wastewater treatment workers, who may be routinely exposed to moderate risk waste • Encourage and support additional training for private solid waste haulers • Support and advocate increased health and safety training among commercial moderate risk waste generators Compliance and Enforcement. Compliance and enforcement alternatives address the need to ensure that residents and businesses participate in moderate risk waste management programs, to minimize incidents of improper disposal for these wastes, and to reduce the volume of moderate risk waste generated in the two-county area The MRW Plan stresses the need to coordinate all compliance and enforcement activities with the Department of Ecology Alternatives in this section include • Augment waste surveillance activities to remove targeted moderate risk wastes from the waste stream • Conduct commercial generator facility inspections Inspections could be performed by the Benton-Franklin Health District or other local agencies • Develop new ordinances that may include disposal bans or other requirements pertaimng to the management of moderate risk wastes Program Evaluation. Alternatives for evaluating moderate risk waste programs in the two- county area are designed to assess the effectiveness of these programs as well as to serve as a means for adjusting programs to ensure that the goals of moderate risk waste manage- ment are met The following represent the four program evaluation alternatives discussed in the MRW Plan • Convene an oversight committee or use the Solid Waste Advisory Committees to review the success of individual programs and the MRW Plan as a whole MRW Plan 6 December 1991 • Streamline program evaluation through one or two local agencies to track the overall progress of programs • Track waste quantities, participation rates, expenses, income, and implementation problems for moderate nsk waste programs • Conduct follow-up surveys to measure changes in household and commercial moder- ate nsk waste management RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations summarized in this section were formulated based on an assessment of the needs facing moderate risk waste management in the two-county area and the alterna- tives available to address those needs Recommendations were made in five different categories of moderate risk waste management including recommendations for state actions Responsibilities for carrying out specific recommendations are assigned to various local agencies Each of these jurisdictions recognizes the importance of carrying out all tasks in a manner that ensures efficiency, avoids gaps in program activities, and avoids conflicts or inconsistencies These objectives will be met by holding regular coordination meetings mvolvmg lead and participating agencies, sharing information, and briefing the Solid Waste Advisory Committees Education Household Hazardous Waste Education. Two educational approaches will be used the first is a general public educational focus, and the second is to continue current efforts to educate school-age children The educational effort directed toward the general public will focus primarily on the preparation and distribution of brochures, flyers, and fact sheets These materials will be distributed through general maihngs (possibly utility bill inserts, or utility newsletters), retail stores, and government offices Educational activities will include the development of posters or display boards, and educational presentations made at special local events In addition, information will be made available at the Richland landfill and the Pasco Sanitary Landfill and Kennewick transfer station Consideration will be given to establishing a regional hotline to address household hazardous waste or moderate risk waste issues Household hazardous waste educational programs in public and private schools will be conducted through expanding the A-Way with Waste program In addition, a program using volunteers to present waste management information to students in the classroom will be evaluated Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Education. Three educational efforts for commercial moderate nsk waste are recommended (1) educational materials on commercial moderate MRW Plan 7 December 1991 nsk waste management will be developed and distributed to local businesses, (2) a privately- sponsored moderate risk waste consultation program for businesses will be investigated and established if feasible, and (3) local resource centers will be developed as a source of information on commercial as well as household moderate risk waste management Agricultural Chemical Waste Education. Agricultural educational activities will continue in the two-county area to promote the proper use of agricultural chemicals and the manage- ment of agricultural chemical wastes by farmers This program is conducted by Washington State University's Cooperative Extension Program Collection Household Hazardous Waste Collection. Three separate household hazardous waste collec- tion efforts are recommended conducting annual collection events as appropriate, studying the feasibility of developing permanent facilities, and collecting waste oil, antifreeze and auto battenes The two-county area will continue to hold annual household hazardous waste collection events, unless permanent collection facilities are established to serve the region Studies will be conducted by Benton County, the City of Richland, the City of Kennewick, and Franklin County to determine the feasibility of developing one or more permanent collection facili- ties Permanent facilities would provide more frequent opportumties for citizens to properly dispose of household hazardous waste In the event permanent facilities are established, the collection events will be discontinued or modified to emphasize different service levels Collection of waste automobile oil, antifreeze, and auto batteries will also be expanded Criteria for siting additional waste oil and antifreeze collection sites will be established, and future sites will be identified Retailers will be encouraged to collect used automobile batteries Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Collection. The MRW Plan recommends that private hazardous waste management firms expand their services in the two-county area by publi- cizing their services and identifying potential customers Educational programs described above should be used to help small quantity generators become aware of opportunities for waste reduction, recycling, treatment and proper moderate risk waste disposal Starting in January 1994, the adequacy of private sector services and programs for managing small quantity generator moderate risk waste will be evaluated At that time, the need for additional collection services or facilities to support small quantity generators will be evaluated All municipal waste collection services will be encouraged to survey their customers to anticipate special waste disposal needs and promote proper management of moderate nsk wastes Agricultural Chemical Waste Collection. No locally financed programs for agricultural chemical waste collections are recommended However, Benton and Franklin Counties will request that the Washington State Department of Agriculture hold an agricultural chenucal MRW Plan 8 December 1991 waste collection event for Benton and Franklin Counties in 1993, with periodic events held every three years in the region (assuming state funds are available) Health and Safety One jurisdiction will be assigned the responsibility of working with the State Departments of Ecology and Labor and Industries to identify specific moderate risk waste information which may be incorporated into existing health and safety training sessions for public workers potentially exposed to moderate risk waste The health and safety materials will be distributed to each jurisdiction for incorporation into their existing health and safety meetings or training sessions The resulting information will be shared with the private waste management firms serving the region Compliance Three compliance recommendations are presented in the MRW Plan (1) inspections for targeted moderate risk waste will continue to occur during curbside collection of municipal solid waste, such that items which should not be disposed in the municipal solid waste stream are avoided, (2) the Benton-Franklin Health District will respond to complaints concerning improper moderate risk waste storage or disposal, and if necessary refer the complaint to the appropriate agency, and (3) a task force will be established to develop model moderate risk waste ordinances to be used by all local jurisdictions in the two-county area Program Evaluation Participating junsdictions will track information such as waste quantities collected or diverted, participation rates, expenses and income, and any implementation problems The Solid Waste Advisory Committees will receive at least quarterly progress reports on the Plan's implementation The SWACs will be asked to review and recommend any necessary adjustments or revisions to planned activities Recommendations for State Action In addition to the recommended local actions described above, the MRW Plan makes six recommendations that are most appropriately taken at the state level These recommenda- tions are 1 The Department of Ecology or Department of Labor and Industries should develop a minimum level moderate risk waste training program for workers who routinely are exposed to moderate risk wastes 2 The state should provide and maintain funds to financially assist local governments in the implementation of actions recommended in local moderate risk waste manage- ment plans MRW Plan 9 December 1991 3 State government should continue to expand educational and techmcal assistance programs available to government agencies and private businesses to improve the management of moderate nsk waste 4 State government should work with the federal government, trade associations and other groups to ensure adequate and clear product labeling Labels should explain product hazards and the level of hazard in a way easily and readily understood by consumers Label information should include instructions on proper disposal or waste management strategies 5 The Department of Ecology should sponsor a Waste Information Network Trade Fair in the region This would provide an opportunity to promote improved moderate nsk waste management among businesses and institutions 6 The Washington State Department of Agriculture should hold an agricultural chemi- cal waste collection event for Benton and Franklin Counties in 1993 Both the local and state recommendations described above are designed to help Benton and Franklin Counties to meet their goals for moderate risk waste management The primary objective of these recommendations is to protect human health and the environment by improving moderate nsk waste management in the two-county area These improvements are fostered through education, collection, training, and compliance recommendations In addition, the Hazardous Waste Management Aces waste management priorities are promoted through a special emphasis on waste reduction and recycling for moderate risk wastes Most of the activities recommended in the MRW Plan will be implemented by local agencies relying on local resources supplemented by state funding where available MRW Plan 10 December 1991 Chapter One Introduction 21 , 4, - •-• 6 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND In 1985, the Washington State Legislature amended the Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA) in order to better protect public health and the environment This amendment requires all cities and counties in the state to develop plans for improving moderate risk waste management m their junsdictions Planning guidelines developed in 1987 by the Department of Ecology (Ecology), as required under the HWMA, are designed to assist local governments in meeting the requirements of the Act In particular, the HWMA specifies that moderate risk waste should be diverted from disposal in landfills, sewers, and septic systems, and that waste reduction and recycling programs for these wastes should be emphasized Moderate nsk wastes are hazardous wastes produced by households, and by businesses and institutions in small quantities Moderate risk waste generators produce hazardous waste in quantities that do not exceed Washington State regulatory limits • For dangerous wastes, less than 220 lbs per month or per batch • For acutely hazardous wastes, less than 22 lbs per month or per batch Commercial moderate risk waste generators are also known as "small quantity generators 1 " Businesses and institutions producing hazardous wastes above the regulatory limits are called "regulated hazardous waste generators" Regulated hazardous waste generators are required to meet a stringent set of standards when stonng, handling, and disposing of their hazardous wastes In addition, these gener- ators must comply with extensive waste tracking and reporting requirements Commercial moderate nsk waste generators must meet certain requirements for waste disposal, but are exempt from some of the state and federal waste tracking and reporting requirements Hazardous waste generated by regulated hazardous waste generators, as defined above, does not fall within the scope of the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Manage- ment Plan (MRW Plan) The MRW Plan, however, does address agricultural chemical wastes Although agncultural chemical wastes, such as banned pesticides, are not considered moderate nsk waste, they pose management problems similar to those of moderate nsk waste Hence, this MRW Plan addresses three sources of hazardous wastes (1) household 1 The term "small quantity generator" (SQG) has different defimtions under federal and state regulations For the purpose of the MRW Plan, the following Washington State defirution has been adopted SQGs are those generators producing or accumulating hazardous wastes below the Washington State regulatory thresholds for dangerous or acutely hazardous waste MRW Plan 1-1 December 1991 hazardous wastes, (2) hazardous wastes produced in small quantities by businesses and institutions, and (3) agncultural chemical wastes 1.2 PURPOSE The purpose of the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan is to improve the management of moderate nsk wastes in the two-county area The improved management of these wastes will contnbute to efforts to protect human health and the environment The MRW Plan contnbuteshe Wa-gliington-State Legislature's goal of " establish[ing] a comprehensive statewide framework for the planning, regulation and management of hazardous waste," as outlined in the State Hazardous Waste Management Act, Section 70 105 007 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) In particular, the HWMA requires that potential threats posed by household hazardous waste and commercial moderate nsk waste be investigated and addressed The Legislature assigns this responsi- bility to local governments because waste quantities, nsks, and management options vary sigmficantly at the local level Local governments are required to present their findings in the form of a planrung document that meets the requirements given in the Act and in the planning guidelines developed by Ecology. According to the HWMA (RCW 70 105 220) and Ecology's guidelines, the MRW Plan must establish programs for managing moderate nsk wastes and involve the public in those management strategies The MRW Plan must be implemented by December 31, 1991 In both Benton and Franklin Counties, local governments have worked cooperatively to produce a MRW Plan for the region Participants included Benton and Franklin Counties, and the mumcipalities of Benton City, Kennewick, Prosser, Richland, West Richland, Connell, Kahlotus, Mesa and Pasco The Benton-Franldin Regional Council served as the lead agency in developing the MRW Plan for Benton and Franklin Counties Two citizen oversight committees (one based in each county) guided the development of the MRW Plan Participating junsdictions in both counties are represented on these committees, referred to as the Solid Waste Advisory Committees (SWACs) Parametnx, Inc , an environmental consulting firm, was hired to facilitate committee meetings and produce the plan document Based on surveys and information gathered by the consultant, the advisory committees identified and evaluated existing and future moderate nsk waste needs and conditions Based on their findings, the committees developed a set of recommendations to improve regional moderate risk waste management 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement is essential to the development, adoption and implementation of the MRW Plan The broad scope of the Plan means that its success will depend on the partici- pation of individuals and businesses throughout the two-county area Accordingly, the MRW Plan 1-2 December 1991 includmg the business and agncultural commumties, were involved m the develop- ment of the MRW Plan to assure that it met their needs and preferences The objectives of the public involvement program used to develop the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan were to • Increase public understanding and awareness of problems associated with moderate nsk waste and possible solutions • Provide citizens and local governments with opportumties to comment on and provide direction to the Plan • Create a credible and acceptable plan that accurately reflects the problems, priorities, and solutions desired by the citizens of Benton and Franldm Counties • Identify points of conflict and facilitate their resolution The Benton-Franklin Regional Council used two general strategies to meet the objectives of the public mvolvement program • Obtain public input on problem definition, pnonty setting, and proposed alternative solutions to identified problems • Inform the public about moderate risk waste issues and activities The remainder of this section briefly describes the pnncipal components of the public involvement strategy used in the development of the MRW Plan 1.3.1 The Solid Waste Advisory Committees The Solid Waste Advisory Committees (SWACs) were the focal point of the public involve- ment effort used in producing the MRW Plan Membership on the committees is from a variety of interests in the region Members include representatives from citizen groups, recycling and environmental interests, business, agriculture, and local government The two primary responsibilities of the SWACs were to advise on Plan development and to assist in the Plan adoption process The SWACs provided input on many documents and procedures related to the MRW Plan including the statement of goals for the Plan, the public involvement strategy, and the preliminary draft chapters of the Plan The committees reviewed the completed draft and final Plans before the final Plan was adopted by local governments Committee consensus on the final Plan, and its recommendations, was critical to support the Plan's adoption and implementation by all participating junsdictions MRW Plan 1-3 December 1991 1.3.2 Briefing Local and State Officials The Regional Council used a vanety of methods to obtain input from local and state offi- cials on the development of the MRW Plan as well as to keep them informed of the plan's progress In addition to their participation on the SWACs, representatives from local governments were invited to participate in public workshops, and to review the draft MRW Plan Dunng -the -development -of-the -MR-W-Plan,-the-Regional-Council-consulted-with-officials from the following agencies • The Benton-Franklin Health District • The Benton County Solid Waste Department • The Franklin County Emergency Management Department • The City of Richland's Solid Waste Department • The cities of Benton City, Kennewick, Prosser, Richland, West Richland, Connell, Kahlotus, Mesa and Pasco • The Washington State University Agncultural Cooperative Extension • The Department of Agriculture • The Department of Ecology Representatives from these agencies helped develop the MRW Plan Their contributions consisted of techmcal advice on specific elements of the MRW Plan including alternatives discussed in the Plan and final recommendations 1.3.3 Public Workshops, Hearings and Meetings Public workshops, hearings, and meetings are an effective means of informing interested citizens about the nature of moderate risk waste issues and generating ideas on preferred solutions to moderate nsk waste problems Four public workshops were used to help inform participants of moderate risk waste issues These workshops enabled those involved in the development of the MRW Plan to obtain public comments and ideas on priorities, problems, and alternative solutions The workshops were held in Benton and Franklin Counties and were scheduled to coincide with two distinct points in the planning process (1) the development of recommendations, and (2) the issuance of the draft MRW Plan The first two workshops were held in Kennewick and Pasco in May 1991 These workshops were used to discuss moderate risk waste management problems in the region, and possible solutions to those problems Public MRW Plan 1-4 December 1991 comments at this stage of the planning process helped the Regional Council produce a draft plan which better reflected public concerns The third and fourth workshops were held in Kennewick and Pasco in August 1991 These workshops provided an opportunity for public comment on the Draft MRW Plan Two public hearings were also held on the MRW Plan to give citizens the opportunity to present both formal written and oral comments on the Plan and the planning process These hearings were held in conjunction with the public workshops in August 1991 in Kennewick and Pasco Following the hearings, the Draft MRW Plan was revised, and presented to the Benton and Franklin County Commissioners, and the City Councils of Benton City, Kennewick, Prosser, Richland, West Richland, Connell, Kahlotus, Mesa and Pasco for adoption The staff of the Regional Council was also called upon throughout the planning process to consult with local officials, agencies, business and agricultural interests, and community orgamzations 1.3.4 Outreach Tools for Public Involvement The Regional Council used several tools to inform the public of the development of the MRW Plan and to encourage greater public involvement in moderate risk waste issues News releases and media contacts were used to disseminate information on the development of the MRW Plan The primary emphasis of this public involvement effort was to publicize and promote attendance at public workshops on the MRW Plan This information was released to local newspapers, as well as radio and television stations Fact sheets summarizing the MRW Plan and opportunities for public involvement were also distributed at the workshops 1.3.5 Moderate Risk Waste Surveys As part of the effort to find out how much moderate risk waste is generated in Benton and Franklin Counties and identify current disposal practices, the Regional Council conducted three surveys A telephone survey of households polled residents to determine what they know about household hazardous waste, the types and quantities of hazardous waste they produce, and how they dispose of these wastes This information was used to form recommendations concerning household hazardous waste education and collection A business survey was conducted by mail to determine the amounts and types of commercial moderate risk waste generated and disposed of in the two-county area Additionally, the questionnaire was designed as an informational tool to make businesses more aware of moderate risk waste issues The results were used to shape educational and collection activities aimed at helping businesses reduce and better manage their moderate risk waste A third survey was sent to farmers and ranchers in an effort to estimate the amount of agricultural chemical wastes stored on farms and ranches in the Benton/Franklin County MRW Plan 1-5 December 1991 area Respondents were asked to describe the kinds of services that would help them to properly store and dispose of agricultural chemical wastes In addition, farmers and ranchers also answered questions on their disposal practices for empty pesticide containers and waste automotive products 1.4 SUMMARY This MRW Plan is intended to enhance moderate risk waste management in Benton and Franklin Cdurities Through -the-planning processTthe-needs-and-opportunities-for_improving moderate risk waste management were identified and recommendations were made to address them The MRW Plan is organized into seven chapters with supporting information contained in the appendices This chapter briefly introduces moderate risk waste issues and the Plan Chapters 2 through 5 describe in more detail conditions affecting moderate risk waste management from local to federal levels Chapters 6 and 7 examine alternatives and make recommendations for improving local moderate risk waste management Supporting documentation contained in the appendices include two types of information First, documents relating to the MRW Plan's review and adoption are included in Appendices A through D Second, detailed information relating to topics discussed in the main body of the MRW Plan are included in Appendices E through G MRW Plan 1-6 December 1991 t ,Chapter Two Background of the Planning Area - r , n•-• r -,-, ,n , 4 , , n , , — ,‘ -,-- , •`,. , A 3 _ , , , „.) , tr - _ , ,--' ..,' r'• — t ,.. -,.. ..., .' ' s r ..., S .... -4. - 1 , t 7.' " , ,- t. , n ''' / I, 4 ...... , ,..., .4 , - t , , 1 , v,- •/- ; , } , , r -.. , t ..... 7 4 t ^ 2:4 -• , 4. * ., , n , r t , , , i 2. BACKGROUND OF THE PLANNING AREA 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the physical and cultural characteristics of the planrung area The information is offered as a general overview for moderate risk waste management planning Benton and Franklin Counties he in the south central section of Washington State The three largest cities in the two counties are located around the confluence of the Yakima and Snake nvers with the Columbia River This area is known as the Tn-Cities The two counties are separated by the Columbia River which continues to flow south and forms the southern boundary of Benton County Franklin County is bounded on the east by the Snake River The Yakima River, flowing through Benton County, is the only other major stream The area is and or semi-and providing a variety of desert environments A regional map is presented in Figure 2-1 Benton County is 1,712 square miles in area, while Franklin County comprises 1,244 square miles The two-county area is approximately 80 miles east to west and 65 miles north to south The major land use in both counties is agriculture, although Benton County is becoming increasingly urbanized The federal government has used a large area, 450 square miles in Benton County, for defense and environmentally related research This area is referred to as the Hanford Project Hanford also occupies 20 square miles in Franklin County, 60 square miles in Adams County, and 30 square miles in Grant County 2.2 POPULATION 2.2.1 Benton County In the 1990 census, Benton County population was 112,560. This represents a 28% increase from 1980 and a 40% increase from 1970 In 1990, 66% of the county's population lived in Kennewick and Richland, two of the three adjacent mumcipalities which comprise the Tn-Cities Kennewick is the largest city in Benton County with a population of 42,155 Kennewick's population has increased 18% from 1980 and 64% from 1970 Richland's population is 32,315, down 3 8% from 1980 The smaller incorporated cities include Benton City with a population of 1,806 (down 9% from 1980), Prosser, the county seat, 4,476 (up 13% from 1980), and West Richland, 3,962 (up 26% from 1980) Benton County population for the year 2000 is estimated at 123,358, an increase of 8 8% from 1990 (Washington State Office of Financial Management) 2.2.2 Franklin County In 1990, Franklin County population was estimated at 37,473 (U S Census) This represents a 6 5% increase from 1980 and a 311% increase from 1970 In 1990, 54 3% of the county's MRW Plan 2-1 December 1991 CONNELL 260 KAHLOTUS FRANKLIN COUNTY 41-1 WEST RICHLAND • RICHLAND BENTON CITY PROSSER • PASCO KENNE WICK BENTON COUNTY HANFORD RESERVATION SCALE IN MILES on I 5 10 O Landfill • Transfer Station Figure 2-1. Solid Waste Management Facilities in Benton and Franklin Counties population live m Pasco, the county seat and one of three cities which compnse the Tn- Cities area Pasco's 1990 population is 20,337 which is an 18% increase from 1980 and a 32% increase since 1970 The smaller incorporated cities include Connell with a population of 2,005 (up 1% from 1980), Kahlotus, 167 (down 18% from 1980), and Mesa, 252 (down 9% from 1980) Franklin County population for the year 2000, is estimated at 43,317, an increase of 15 6% from 1990 (Washington State Office of Financial Management) 2.3 ECONOMY 2.3.1 Benton County Major sources of employment in Benton County include (Washington State Employment Secunty, 1988) • Manufacturing/Research - (23% of the labor force in 1987) Principle products are nuclear and scientific goods, research and processed food products In 1987, an estimated 10,562 people were employed in manufacturing Major employers include Westinghouse Hanford, Battelle, Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), Kaiser Engineers, Advanced Nuclear Fuels, Lamb Weston and Twin City Foods • Retail trade - (16%) Highest concentration in restaurants and food stores In 1987, an estimated 7,191 people were employed in retail trade • Services - (28%) Highest concentrations in business and health services with an estimated 12,748 people employed in 1987 • Government - (15%) Eighty-four percent of this total are employed by local governments In 1987, an estimated 7,080 people were employed in government • Agnculture - (8%) In 1987, agnculture employed an approximately 3,460 people Crop production dominates this profile In 1987, $28,267,294 in wages were paid to Benton County agricultural workers Seasonal fluctuations in employment are most notable in agnculture The remairung 10% of the work force was employed primarily in construction, transportation and public utilities, wholesale trade and financial services such as banking, insurance and real estate Dunng 1988, according to the Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Devel- opment, approximately $42 million was invested in major new businesses and business expansion in Benton County During 1987, the number of new businesses increased by 16%, slightly below the 17% average state increase However, during that same year, the number of new retail businesses increased by 32% and new service businesses by 40% These rates were slightly higher than the state average (Washington State Office of Financial MRW Plan 2-3 December 1991 Management) Significant, but unquantified, increases in waste management industries and food processing are projected over the next ten years 2.3.2 Franklin County Major sources of employment in the county include (Washington State Employment Secunty 1988) • Manufacturing---(-12%-of-the-labor-force-m-1-987)-Food-processing-is-the-principle activity Umversal Frozen Foods and Lamb Weston are large employers In 1987, an estimated 1,719 people were employed in manufacturing • Retail - (17%) Highest concentrations in restaurants, auto dealers and food stores In 1987, an estimated 2,334 people were employed in retail trade • Services - (15%) Highest concentrations in health, lodging and business services In 1987, the service industry employed an estimated 1,994 people • Government - (22%) Local governments are chief employers followed by state and federal agencies In 1987 an estimated 2,983 people were employed by public agencies • Agnculture - (13%) Agriculture employed an approximately 1,719 people Crop production dominates this profile In 1987, $16,755,252 in wages were paid to Franklin County agncultural workers Seasonal fluctuations in employment are most notable in agriculture The remaining 21% of the work force was employed in construction, transportation and public utilities, wholesale trade and financial services such as banking, insurance and real estate Dunng 1987, the number of new businesses in Franklin County increased by 14%, less than the state average increase of 17% for the year However, the number of new retail businesses increased by 38%, exceeding the state average of 30% (Washington State Office of Financial Management) Some growth in the waste management and food processing industnes is projected for the corrung decade 2.4 LAND USE 2.4.1 Benton County Benton County has an area of 1,712 square miles or 1,097,420 acres In 1987, 59% of the county was in some form of agricultural land use, (647,478 acres) a decrease of 3% over the previous five years (676,837 acres in 1982) The total acres of cropland likewise decreased from 448,294 acres in 1982 to 433,186 acres in 1987 Dry land wheat is the county's most important crop and in 1987 was grown on approximately 120,349 acres Other important 2-4 December 1991 MRW Plan crops include orchard produce, barley, corn, hay and other small grams In 1987, approxi- mately 112,366 acres, or 26%, of the county's cropland was irrigated While the size of annual harvests vary as long term crops mature, the total harvested cropland reached 238,490 acres m 1987, down from 284,441 acres in 1982 Imgation systems did not increase over last decade, and will probably not increase significantly in the near term due to high cost and diminishing returns (WSU Extension Service) The Hanford Reservation accounts for over 25% of the county's area, or about 450 square miles In 1980, other urban and other non-agricultural uses accounted for approximately 16% of land use in Benton County These uses included incorporated and unincorporated cities, residential, public, commercial, industrial, mirung and undeveloped areas Benton County officials report that there has been little change in land use over the past decade, due principally to static economic conditions 2.4.2 Franklin County Franklin County has an area of 1,244 square miles or 795,347 acres In 1987, 83% (660,813 acres) of the county was in some form of agricultural land use, an increase of 4% over the previous five years (632,519 acres in 1982) There were a total of 468,590 acres of cropland in Franklin County in 1987 Dry land wheat is the county's most important crop and in 1987 was grown on approximately 112,290 acres Other crops include potatoes, corn, hay, orchard produce, barley and other vegetables and small grains In 1987, approximately 193,960 acres, or 41% of the county's cropland, was irngated The total harvested cropland reached 284,324 acres in 1987, down from 286,616 acres in 1982 (U S Census of Agnculture, 1987) The amount of irrigated land has not increased over the past decade in Franklin County, because of high costs and diminishing returns (WSU Extension Service). In 1983, urban uses and other uses accounted for approximately 15% of the county area. These uses included incorporated and umncorporated cities, residential areas, public, undeveloped areas, industnal, commercial, mining areas and marshlands (Franldin County Conservation Distnct) County officials report that there has been little change in land use over the past decade, due pnncipally to static economic conditions 2.5 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 2.5.1 General Climatic Conditions The two county area's climate is generally characterized as semi-and and and with an aver- age yearly precipitation of 7 inches The area averages 103 days annually of snowfall and 75 days of rainfall The median temperature ranges from a low of 306 degrees Fahrenheit in January to a July high of 75 7 degrees Fahrenheit High wind velocities, with peak gusts as high as 70 mph can be expected at any time of the year MRW Plan 2-5 December 1991 2.5.2 Geology and Hydrology Benton and Franklin Counties are part of what geologists refer to as the Columbia Basin Province The distinctive mountain features are Rattlesnake Mountain and Horse Heaven Hills The area contains many canyon and cliff features (Wallula Gap, Glade Creek, Palouse Canyon, and Devils Canyon), and umque rock formations such as the earthflow topography in Benton County One of the most interesting land forms are the Sand Dunes in Franklin County and the Cold Creek Dunes (also known as the And Lands Ecology Sand Dunes -Study -Are a)-in-B enton- County -- - Franklin County and parts of Benton County are at the south end of what is referred to as Washington's Channeled Scabland The area is underlaid with basaltic rock which is covered by loam, sediment and gravel except where channels have formed by flowing water erosion These channels diverge in the northeastern part of the Columbia Basin and converge as they reach the southern end of the basin in Benton and Franklin Counties The channels or coulees were formed by precipitation and glacial melting over a long penod of time and enormous flows of water over short periods of time The geological history of the area is most noted by a time when glacial melt was dammed in Montana to form Lake Missoula Successive breakup of the dam created enormous floods These floods swept through the Spokane area and then diverged over the Basin The flood waters converged to the southeastern part of the basin before flowing through the only outlet, the Wallula Gap These enormous flows created the Channeled Scablands. While the area is recognized as and and semi-and there are a number of hydrological fea- tures meeting the definitions for protection under the Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1972 In Benton County, there is Mound Pond and Yellepit Pond. Franklin County contains Clark Pond, Bailie Pond, Kahlotus Lake, Scooteney Reservoir, Mesa Lake, Sulphur Lake, Scooteney Lake, and 17 unnamed lakes The depth to water table vanes significantly in the two-county area Within the Tn-Cities area, the depth to the water table is within 10 feet in some locations In the outlying areas, the depth to the water table ranges from approximately 200 to 250 feet (Lyerla 1991) 2.53 Biological Benton County land form and soils are comprised primarily of level to steeply sloping valleys, terraces, plateaus, and till plains It is characterized as a steppe zone with sage- brush Franklin County can be characterized as a level to steep loessial upland steppe zone without sagebrush Both counties are part of the upper Sonoran life zone (200 ft — 1900 ft in elevation) with the high elevations moving into the and transition grassland zone Despite low rainfall much of the moisture escapes evaporation during winter months and sinks deep into the soil This provides water to sustain vigorous growing activity in the spnng The upland barns are dominated by bluebunch wheat grass, Idaho fescue and sand- berg's blue grass The sandy soils support Indian ncegrass and sand dropseed MRW Plan 2-6 December 1991 The "shrub-steppe" areas are recogruzed by big sagebrush or threetip sagebrush broken on occasion by rabbitbmsh, horsebrush, and spring hopsage Over most of the steppe region the non native cheatgrass assumes dominance The thin stony soils which are extensive owing to the turbulent floods dunng glacial times, support perennial bluegrass along with stiff sagebrush and several species of buckwheat The vaned terrain and major river environments cutting through the steppe region of the two counties create many unique habitats for wildlife Some of the most noted cntical wildlife habitats in Benton County are Wallula Lake and surrounding cliffs, Blalock Island, Dead Canyon, Rattlesnake Hills, Upper Gold Creek, and the Columbia River from Richland to Pnest Rapids Dam In Franklin County some important habitat areas are the Snake River and Snake River Island, Lower Palouse, Eagle Lake, and Scooteney Lake Existing wildlife refuges m the two county area include Columbia and Umatilla National Wildlife Refuges, Rattlesnake Slope, McNary, and Wahluke Slope State Wildlife Recreation Areas, and Kennewick State Game Farm The Washington Environmental Atlas lists over 35 important species of birds and 5 species of mammals which range into the two county area This includes the white pelican, short horned lizard, Canada geese, golden eagle, partridge, sage hen, coyote, cougar, and Ord's kangaroo rat. The stnped shipsnake and the spotted night snake have a restncted range m Benton County Clearly the Columbia River is an important ecosystem for the two counties The nver between McNary Pool and Pnest Rapids Dam is the only remaining free flowing segment in Washington, and the last spawning grounds of the fall chmook salmon Also, about 80% of the Great Basin Canada goose population nest and live most of the year m the Columbia River region which also provide wintering grounds for the rare Giant Canada goose. 2.5.4 Historical and Archeological There are four zones of archeological significance in the two county region These are the Richland site, the Twin Sisters area recognized as a ceremonial site of the Wanapum Indians, the Gable Mountain ceremonial locality, and the Mames Rock Shelter, which pro- vides a cultural record back to 10,000 B C There are a number of histoncal sites and trails in the two counties A few of these Include the Ainsworth railroad ghost town, Wallula Gap, Hanford Townsite, and the Bntish poplar tree site The cultural history of trail crossings is very nch, including the Mullan Road, Cariboo Trail, Naches Trail, Umatilla Trail, and the trail of the Lewis and Clark expedition. MRW Plan 2-7 December 1991 Chapter Three Regulatory Review e e j.. - 3. REGULATORY REVIEW 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summanzes the federal, Washington State, and local regulations that relate to moderate nsk wastes and agncultural chemical wastes Sections 3 2 through 3 5 review the laws applicable to moderate nsk waste Section 3 6 briefly reviews Washington State and federal laws governing agncultural chemical wastes Section 3 7 summarizes the regulations reviewed in this chapter 3.2 FEDERAL REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Currently, very little federal legislation directly affects moderate nsk waste Two legislative acts provide the main federal influences • The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its amendment, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments • The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and its amendment, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) RCRA gives the federal government the means to manage solid and hazardous waste and to eliminate or minimize any future contamination problems caused by these wastes Within RCRA, Subtitle C and Subtitle D provide the authority for the regulations that govern moderate nsk waste Subtitle C establishes a framework, called a "manifest system," for tracking hazardous waste This manifest system follows wastes from the generator to transporter and ultimately to treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities that handle hazardous wastes This process is commonly called "cradle-to-grave" tracking Subtitle C defines the characteristics of a hazardous waste Wastes may be hazardous if they are igmtable, corrosive, reactive, have toxicity characteristics or are listed wastes Subtitle C also establishes a threshold quantity for generators of hazardous waste If a business produces or accumulates greater than 220 lbs per month or batch of hazardous waste, or greater than 22 lbs per month or batch of acutely hazardous waste, the business is considered a regulated generator and must participate in the manifest system, and send the waste to a licensed treatment, storage, or disposal facility Moderate nsk waste is produced by two sources Under RCRA, those businesses or institu- tions that produce hazardous waste, but do so below the threshold quantities, are generators of what is considered to be "moderate risk waste" under Washington State law Although these businesses are not required to participate in the manifest system, they must still meet the minimum waste management requirements of Subtitle C This helps to prevent environ- mental contamination from improper management of moderate risk waste MRW Plan 3-1 December 1991 A business may be considered a moderate risk waste generator at one point in time, and a regulated hazardous waste generator at another A business which ordinarily produces small quantities of hazardous waste will be considered a regulated generator once the business produces or accumulates hazardous wastes in excess of the threshold quantities over a thirty- day calendar period Such a business must obtain an EPA identification number from the Department of Ecology and manage that waste as required of fully regulated generators However, depending upon the type and quantity of hazardous waste produced or accumu- lated m the future, such a generator may request revocation of the EPA identification number and be considered a moderate risk waste generator again Households are the second source of moderate risk waste Subtitle C categorically exempts household hazardous waste from any regulation These two sources of moderate nsk waste are the primary focus of this moderate risk waste management plan Although produced in smaller quantities than regulated hazardous waste, moderate nsk waste may present the same nsks to health and the environment This is the case since it is only the source and quantity produced that distinguishes moderate risk waste, not the type of waste or degree of hazard RCRA Subtitle D has two key elements (1) encouraging state-governed solid waste man- agement plans, and (2) providing the minimum techmcal criteria for the construction and operation of solid waste disposal facilities The criteria are currently being revised and supplemented with a permit program This permit program helps to ensure that any solid waste facilities receiving moderate risk waste meet the minimum technical requirements to prevent these wastes from contaminating the environment Municipal landfills remain the main focus of the permit program because landfills receive most of the moderate nsk waste generated by households and small quantity generators The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements and enforces RCRA. Subtitle C enforcement in each state may be delegated to the state However, Subtitle C will be administered by EPA if a state program does not exist or fails to match or exceed Subtitle C requirements Any state's participation in solid waste planning under Subtitle D is strictly voluntary, EPA has no pre-emptive authority over a state not developing a solid waste plan Although Subtitle D requires solid waste facility compliance with its minimum technical criteria, EPA currently has minimal enforcement authority The new permit program for solid waste facilities will increase that authority CERCLA provides for the cleanup of sites contaminated by hazardous waste, many of which are inactive or abandoned CERCLA gives the federal government, through EPA, the finan- cial resources and the authority to clean up contaminated sites EPA developed a system for ranking hazardous waste sites throughout the United States, and produces a list of these sites, known as the National Priorities List (NPL) EPA retains ultimate responsibility and control for any sites placed on the NPL, although it shares a substantial part of its cleanup duties with the states Four NPL sites have been identified in Benton County and one in Franklin County These sites are described in Section 4 25 , MRW Plan 3-2 December 1991 SARA, the amendment to CERCLA, contains Title III, known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 Title III established three major requirements relating to hazardous substances and wastes used or generated above established threshold quantities These requirements are (1) emergency planning notification, (2) emergency release notification, and (3) reporting of chemicals and releases for Community Right-To- Know programs In the State of Washington, Ecology, the Department of Commumty Development, and the State Patrol coordinate the various emergency plaruung aspects of Title III Businesses generating moderate nsk waste do not have to meet most of the Title III report- mg requirements If chemical use and emission thresholds (which determine who reports) are lowered, businesses generating moderate nsk waste may have to submit Title III reports A number of other federal environmental programs can directly or indirectly affect moder- ate nsk waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal The most sigmficant include the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act 3.3 STATE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Pnmanly, two state statutes regulate solid and hazardous waste in Washington First is the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) It regulates the handling and disposal of solid wastes The SWMA provides for (1) the development of a comprehensive, statewide solid waste management plan as well as local solid waste management plans, (2) the establish- ment of minimum functional standards for solid waste handling and disposal, and (3) the development of cntena for siting solid waste disposal facilities The SWMA emphasizes waste reduction and recycling activities, and establishes a waste management hierarchy of treatment and disposal preferences The SWMA also addresses special problems such as vehicle tires and battenes, which present unique disposal problems Finally, it provides for "product awards" to recogmze those products produced, labeled, or packaged in a way that helps ensure environmental protection To ensure that solid waste management planrung responds to the needs of all the affected parties, the formation of local solid waste advisory committees (SWACs) are also mandated under the SWMA. Ecology has established minimum functional standards (MFS) for solid waste handling (Chapter 173-304 WAC) as required by the SWMA. The MFS stipulate performance and operational cntena for storing and disposing of solid waste Among these cntena are requirements for preventing environmental contamination related to solid waste storage and disposal In particular, the MFS require steps be taken to prevent leachate from contami- nating soils, surface water and groundwater The MFS also require that systems, such as groundwater monitoring wells, be installed near certain solid waste management facilities for early detection of environmental contamination Concerns about moderate risk waste MRW Plan 3-3 December 1991 leaching from landfills and contaminating the environment helped promote the development of these environmental protection and detection performance criteria Ecology is currently in the process of revising the MFS The changes pnmanly focus on previously unaddressed waste streams such as contaminated soils, woodwaste and sludge, technological advances such as leachate detection systems, and composting facilities, and other new regulations regarding such items as liner standards, importing and exporting waste The MFS will also specifically address fixed facilities for collection and storage of moderate risk waste A Draft Environmental Impact Statement considenng these changes to the MFS will be published in June 1992 The new regulations are expected to go into effect in 1993 The second Washington State statute regulating the transport, treatment, storage, and dis- posal of hazardous waste is the Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA) The HWMA mandates the development of this MRW Plan, which gives a comprehensive examination of the local management of moderate nsk waste The HWMA also requires Ecology to pre- pare a statewide hazardous waste management plan The HWMA adopts a preferred waste management hierarchy, similar to that of the SWMA In descending order of preference, the hierarchy is • Waste reduction • Recycling • Physical, chemical, and biological treatment • Incineration • Solidification/stabilization treatment • Landfilling The HWMA establishes a comprehensive program for managing hazardous wastes, and in Washington State, is the basis for regulation of generators and facilities by the Department of Ecology The HWMA regulations define the characteristics of hazardous waste in a manner similar to RCRA, but include the additional characteristics of persistence, carcino- genicity, and toxicity Unlike RCRA, the HWMA also directly defines and addresses the issue of moderate nsk waste Responsibilities for administration of these two statutes are divided between Ecology and local governments Ecology's role includes oversight, review and approval of local solid and hazardous waste management plans, techmcal and financial assistance, establishing and administering waste handling and disposal regulations, developing siting criteria for solid and hazardous waste facilities, and ensuring compliance with federal and state regulations Under these Washington State statutes, local governments are responsible for regional planning, implementation, and some enforcement activities They are required to develop solid waste management plans and hazardous waste management plans that identify regional waste management needs and preferences Solid waste management plans provide a 20-year program to meet those needs, and are updated every five years The first generation of MRW Plan 3-4 December 1991 local hazardous waste management plans encompass a five-year time frame, subsequent plans must cover a 20-year time frame Other state environmental statutes influence moderate risk waste activities in Washington The Model Tams Control Act (MTCA) governs the identification and cleanup of hazardous waste sites m Washington The MTCA assigns liability to certain parties for damages to the environment and human health, provides enforcement authority for Ecology, and establishes penalties for failure to comply with Ecology's orders The MTCA also created the state and local toxics control accounts The state account funds Washington State solid waste and hazardous waste planning, enforcement and technical assistance, remedial actions, public education, and emergency response training The local account provides grants to local governments for remedial actions and local solid waste and hazardous waste plans and programs The Washington State remedial site list includes two sites in Benton County and one m Franklin County These sites are discussed further in Section 4 25 Another important state regulation is Chapter 118-40 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) That regulation is the state equivalent to federal regulations for hazardous chemical emergency response planning and Community Right-To-Know reporting This regulation formed two oversight bodies, the Emergency Response Commission and a Hazardous Matenals Advisory Committee, to ensure compliance and proper implementa- tion The same three state agencies that implement this regulation are involved with the federal Title III enforcement They are the Department of Community Development, Ecology, and the Washington State Patrol Commercial moderate nsk waste generators may ultimately be affected by Title III and state regulations because of the hazardous material planning and inventory reporting require- ments Additionally, the Title 111/ Washington State program helps businesses and house- holds obtain information about hazardous substance use and disposal Ecology's Office of Waste Reduction and Recycling also influences moderate risk waste management The Office was established in 1988 by House Bill 1340 to provide information and technical assistance on waste reduction and recycling to citizens, businesses and local governments The Office is involved in various activities, such as conducting workshops for businesses and government officials on waste reduction and recycling issues. In 1990, Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2390 was passed by the legislature This bill established a state policy to encourage reduction in the use of hazardous substances and the generation of hazardous wastes, with the goal of 50 percent reduction by 1995 The law requires regulated hazardous waste generators and hazardous substances users to prepare plans to reduce the use of hazardous substances and generation of hazardous waste Completed plans will be subject to review by Ecology To support technical assistance and compliance programs, fees will be assessed on hazardous substance users and waste generators, as well as potential generators The law authorized the use of some funds for moderate nsk waste generator technical assistance and compliance grants MRW Plan 3-5 December 1991 A Used Oil Recycling Act (part of Second Substitute Senate Bill 5591) was passed by the Washington State legislature in Apnl 1991 The Act requires that each local government, or combination of contiguous local governments amend its local hazardous waste plan to include a used oil recycling element A draft of the used oil recycling element must be presented to Ecology by July 1, 1993 The element must include • A plan for establishing sites for collection of used oil, based upon local goals • A plan for enforcing sign and container ordinances The Act requires retailers of lubncating oil and vehicle oil filters to post and maintain signs informing the public of the importance of used oil recycling and how and where used oil may be recycled • A plan for public education on used oil recycling, and • An estimate of funding needed to implement the used oil recycling element The Act also requires local governments submit annual reports to Ecology describing the number of collection facilities in operation and amounts of used oil collected from house- holds In addition to requirements for retailers to post and maintain signs, the Act establishes requirements for the transportation, treatment, recycling, and disposal of used oil The Department of Ecology is required to assist in implementing the Act by developing guide- hnes for planning, conducting education and techmcal assistance, and establishing regula- tions 3.4 LOCAL REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Currently, no local regulations in Benton or Franklin Counties directly address moderate nsk waste management The Benton-Franklin Health District has adopted the Washington State MFS to govern the handling and disposal of solid waste in the counties (Benton County Code Ordinance Number 304) As discussed above in Section 33, the MFS help protect human health and the environment from exposure to moderate nsk waste The MFS establish performance criteria for solid waste management facilities that help prevent and detect early any environmental contamination at or near solid waste management facil- ities The Franklin County Code Ordinance Number 4-58 regulates sewage disposal by sewage/ septic system pumpers Septage pumpings may be disposed of at approved mumcipal or commumty sewage treatment plants or lagoons with prior approval of the system operator and the Benton-Franklin Health District Disposal of septage pumpings onginating from on-site sewage treatment systems inside Benton or Franklin Counties may be disposed of outside the counties with prior approval from the health district Solid and hazardous waste planrung for Benton and Franklin Counties is coordinated by the Benton-Franklin Regional Council Many local agencies and communities have been MRW Plan 3-6 December 1991 directly involved with solid and hazardous waste planning through the Bi-County Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and more recently the Benton and Franklin Counties Solid Waste Advisory Committees For the purpose of developing the MRW Plan, representatives from both committees met together to consider alternatives, recommendations and financing approaches The SWACs mclude representatives from citizen groups, recycling and environmental interests, business, agriculture and local government The SWACs have provided technical guidance and oversight for the development of the MRW Plan SWAC members reviewed and commented on draft chapters, the draft MRW Plan, the final MRW Plan, and supporting documents. As part of this process, the Committees reviewed and discussed alternatives for improving moderate risk waste management, and formulated recommendations for Benton and Franklin Counties Each committee member served as a communication link with the groups/agencies with which that member is affiliated Thus, the SWACs were able to (1) represent the interests of the community in the plamung process, and (2) educate the public about moderate nsk wastes and opportumties for public mvolvement. 3.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS No regulations at the federal, Washington State, or local levels specifically address moderate nsk waste health and safety training Many regulations, however, have provisions for provid- ing employees with hazardous substance training and information under the "Worker Right- To-Know" requirements This training is required through the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) These acts require proper labeling of hazardous substances and making information available to workers on the potential dangers associated with exposure to hazardous substances While the HWMA does not specifically address health and safety programs for moderate nsk wastes, it does provide for techmcal assistance and education regarding hazardous wastes Specific information relating to hazardous and moderate nsk waste health and safety programs in the two-county area may be found in section 426 under the discussion of hazardous waste management practices 3.6 REGULATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL WASTES In addition to regulations governing moderate nsk wastes generated by households and businesses, the MRW Plan reviews regulations concenung storage and disposal of agn- cultural chemical wastes Whether an agncultural chemical is a waste often depends on its condition and intended use Chemicals that have been spilled are considered wastes Farmers may declare pesti- cides to be wastes if the products are rendered unusable due to freezing or moisture, or banned by the federal or state government Agricultural chemicals that a farmer will not use because of unsatisfactory performance may also be declared to be wastes, even though the chemicals may be useful products to other individuals MRW Plan 3-7 December 1991 Several federal and Washington State acts control agncultural chemical waste management The main federal acts regulating waste agncultural chemicals are • RCRA - Many of the pesticides used by farmers are classified as acutely hazardous and have a reporting threshold of 22 pounds Farmers who spill or otherwise declare pesticides as wastes may be considered regulated generators, depending upon the reporting threshold If a farmer turns in more than 22 pounds of pesticide wastes to a hazardous waste facility or collection event and no special arrangements are made for a state or local agency to accept the status of generator for the wastes, the farmer becomes a regulated generator and must use the manifest system RCRA does contain an exemption under Subtitle C which may be used by farmers Three conditions must be met for a farmer to qualify for the exemption The conditions are • The residual chemicals generated are not mixed with wastes • Any residual agncultural chemical products that are used on the farm are disposed on the farm according to the pesticide label instructions • All residual quantities m containers that held pesticides are removed before the container is disposed of according to regulations (e g tnple nnsing) If the agncultural chemical products are handled according to these three conditions, it is not necessary to use the mamfest system to track wastes This exemption is becoming mcreasmgly difficult for farmers to use The most common types of agncultural wastes stored on farms are those chemicals banned or restricted, or any substances rendered useless by freezing or moisture The exemption does not apply to these products The only disposal options remaimng for most agricultural chemical wastes are transport to an authonzed hazardous waste facility or collection event • CERCLA - CERCLA assigns liability for cleanup costs to any person who allows an uncontrolled release of hazardous substances to the environment This would include a release of any agncultural chemicals stored on a farm or ranch The liability also includes hazardous substances, such as agricultural chemical wastes, spilled dunng transport to a regulated facility If any uncontrolled releases contain agricultural chemicals owned by a farmer, the farmer can be held responsible for payment of some or all cleanup costs Should it be necessary, CERCLA also gives EPA the authority to compel any person, including farmers, to eliminate the potential danger from on-site chemicals that may cause an uncontrolled release to the environment CERCLA allows cnrmnal prosecution of individuals improperly disposing of hazard- ous substances, such as agncultural chemical wastes Even if the waste is recycled, MRW Plan 3-8 December 1991 treated, or incinerated, the end product of the treatment process must be shown to be non-hazardous, or the individual retains liability State statutes and regulations governing pesticide management are very similar to federal regulations The state regulations are • Chapter 173 -303 Washington Administrative Code - These administrative rules, com- monly known as the Dangerous Waste Regulations, govern hazardous wastes gener- ated, transported, treated, stored or disposed in the State of Washington These regulations also encompass the storage, handling, and disposal of agricultural chemical wastes Farmers, as well as other generators of hazardous waste, are required to properly follow all regulations pertaining to chemical waste storage, handling, or disposal • MTCA - Like CERCLA, the MTCA assigns liability to individuals responsible for releases of hazardous substances to the environment Farmers may be held liable for all costs associated with any cleanup connected to wastes they improperly store or dispose The MTCA also contains two,specific items which affect agncultural chemical clean- up and liability It recognizes that sites have been contaminated by agncultural chemicals even though the chemicals were properly used or applied by a farmer The MTCA allows the use of state funds to assist in the cleanup of these sites The second element of the MTCA addressing agncultural chemicals assigns liability If a manufacturer produces or sells a chemical and is also responsible for the written instructions governing use or application of that chemical, the manufacturer is liable for any damage that may result from following instructions. This shifts liability away from the farmer for using currently approved substances according to the label instructions Other relevant statutes and regulations controlling pesticide application are concerned with environmental protection from chemical contamination in a broader sense These include federal acts such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act and Washington State acts such as the Pesticide Control Act, and the Water Pollution Control Act 3.7 SUMMARY The most direct regulation affecting moderate nsk waste management is established at the state level through the HWMA The HWMA requires the development of this MRW Plan and local programs to improve moderate risk waste management Ecology's guidelines for plan development establish a goal of no targeted moderate nsk waste disposed through solid waste landfilling or sewage systems MRW Plan 3-9 December 1991 Many other federal, Washmgton State and local regulations affect moderate nsk waste management less directly The most important of these are the federal RCRA and CERCLA programs, and the Washington State SWMA and MTCA programs. These laws regulate solid and hazardous waste management and remedial site management Agncultural chemical waste is regulated through many of the same laws that regulate moderate nsk waste The most important of these are the federal RCRA and CERCLA programs, and the Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations and MTCA. / MRW Plan 3-10 December 1991 , - Chapter Four „s-Solid, and Hazardous Waste Management , - - 4. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES Chapter 4 reviews solid and hazardous waste management practices in Benton and Franklin Counties. Section 4 1, Solid Waste Management, discusses current and planned activities for landfill, transfer facility, refuse collection, sewage treatment, and recycling services Section 42, Hazardous Waste Management, describes the current status of hazardous waste generation m the two-county area by quantity and source Opportunities for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation of these wastes are also discussed. The status of hazardous waste remedial sites, health and safety programs, and zoning for hazardous waste facilities is addressed as well Section 43, Solid and Hazardous Waste Financing, reviews financmg sources and financial commitments for solid and hazardous waste management in both counties 4.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A sigmficant percentage of Benton and Franklin Counties' moderate nsk waste goes into landfills, or wastewater treatment systems, or is buried in the ground However, using and properly managing solid waste facilities mimmizes the hazards posed by these moderate nsk wastes The facilities in Benton and Franklin Counties are discussed below 4.1.1 Current Conditions 4.1.1.1 Landfills Currently, Benton County has one public operating landfill The Richland City landfill, located on a 117-acre site off Highway 240, is owned and operated by the City of Richland The location of this landfill and other solid waste facilities in the two-county area is shown in Figure 2-1. The facility is currently in compliance with the state's Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling (Chapter 173-304 WAC) The landfill accepts approximately 35,000 tons of mixed municipal solid waste per year Approximately 90% of the waste is brought in by the City of Richland refuse haulers The other 10% is brought in by private individuals Any City of Richland resident can bnng in waste free of charge if he or she presents a valid drivers license showing a Richland address Individuals from outside of Richland are charged for the service There are no plans to take out-of-county waste Municipal dewatered sewage sludge is placed in a special area near the landfill After it has sufficiently dned, the sludge is transported to the landfill and used as daily cover or road- building matenal Petroleum-contaminated soil collected from the City of Richland and Benton City is disposed of at another area near the landfill (Dawson 1991 personal communication) MRW Plan 4-1 December 1991 Franklin County also has one operating landfill The Pasco Salutary Landfill (PSL), located on a 200-acre site on Dietrich Road, is owned and operated by Larry Dietrich A portion of the site is occupied by the old landfill The old landfill has received final cover but has not been closed according to the MFS solid waste regulations Approximately 18 acres of the site is a former hazardous waste landfill Low levels of organic solvents detected down- gradient of the current fill area led the EPA to designate the current salutary landfill, the former hazardous waste landfill, the septage pits, and any down-gradient contamination as a Superfund site in 1990 PSL operates under a solid waste disposal permit issued and renewable annually by the Benton-Franklin Health District PSL is considenng options for facility upgrading and remedial activities currently The landfill accepted approximately 104,000 tons of mixed solid waste in 1990, including approximately 44,000 tons from Whatcom County, approximately 2,000 tons from the Vancouver, Washington area, and a small amount from Adams County Nondomestic septage, such as restaurant septage (mostly greases) and septage from car wash sumps (mostly dirt and water), was accepted at the landfill and placed in a special area to dewater until recently This practice was discontinued in June 1991 Domestic septage is not accepted at the landfill Dry sludge from the City of Pasco sewage treatment facility is hauled to the landfill (Dietrich 1991 personal communication) One operating solid waste landfill, known as the Hanford Site Central Landfill is located on the Hanford Reservation This facility is not permitted by the Benton-Franklin Health District The landfill has been in operation since the 1960s and contains separate areas for disposal of mixed solid waste, asbestos, and hazardous waste The operators have prepared a list of what materials are accepted at the landfill Examples of wastes accepted at the landfill include construction debris, office trash, cafeteria waste, packaging materials, broken equipment and tools, sludges from the treatment of river water, and non-radioactive friable asbestos Waste oil and liquid paint are not accepted at the facility (Kamberg 1991 personal commumcation, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory 1990) All other solid waste landfills in Benton and Franklin Counties, including small pnvate dumps, have been closed for several years These closed sites include facilities at the cities of Prosser, Kennewick, Richland, Benton City-West Richland, Mesa, Kahlotus, and at Basin City, Eltopia, and Road 68 Within the region illegal dumping of wastes such as tires, garbage, and chemical containers has been reported The Benton-Franklin Health District and other local agencies will investigate illegal dump sites which are reported 4.1.1.2 Transfer Facilities One transfer facility is currently operating in Benton County This transfer station serves the commumties of Kennewick and Prosser Waste generated in these jurisdictions is collected by Waste Management of Kennewick which also operates the transfer station The waste is transported to a landfill in Arlington, Oregon At present, approximately 36,000 tons of solid waste from Kennewick and 4,000 tons from Prosser are hauled to the transfer MRW Plan 4-2 December 1991 station per year The station also serves as a recycling collection site (Leanna 1991 personal commumcation) 4.1.1.3 Refuse Collection Richland is the only mumcipality within Benton and Franklin Counties that provides solid waste collection The City's Solid Waste Utility collects the waste and disposes of it in the Richland landfill Outside of Richland, refuse collection services are provided by either Basin Disposal, Ed's Disposal, or Waste Management of Kennewick Basin Disposal provides residential and commercial refuse collection service to the cities of Pasco, Connell, Mesa and Kahlotus, as well as to umncorporated portions of Benton and Franklin Counties All of the Franklin County waste collected by Basin Disposal is trans- ported to the Pasco Salutary Landfill Benton County waste collected by Basin Disposal is transported to either the Richland or Pasco Samtary Landfill depending on travel time and tipping fees (Dietnch 1991 personal commumcation) Ed's Disposal is a subsidiary of Basin Disposal and provides waste collection services to Benton City and West Richland The collected waste is disposed of at either the Richland or Pasco Samtary Landfill Ed's Disposal collects approximately 8,000 tons per year Waste Management of Kennewick collects waste from residents in the Kennewick and Prosser areas In the past, these two cities have disposed of their waste at the Richland landfill However, liability concerns associated with disposal at the Richland facility led to hiring Waste Management of Kennewick to provide solid waste transfer and disposal services All waste collected by Waste Management of Kennewick is hauled to the Kennewick transfer station and then transported to a landfill in Arlington, Oregon Approximately 40,000 tons were collected in 1990. Waste Management of Kennewick also operates a medical waste collection program. Medical waste is picked up from medical institutions by refrigerated trucks and hauled to Colorado for disposal (Leanna 1991 personal communication) As part of its commercial collection, Waste Management of Kennewick has surveyed com- mercial accounts to identify special waste disposal needs in the area Waste Management of Kennewick works with these generators to ensure that the wastes are disposed of safely Similar surveys will be conducted bi-annually in the future 4.1.1.4 Sewage and Stormwater Treatment Facilities Benton County has municipally-owned sewage treatment facilities in Kennewick, Benton City, Prosser, Richland, and West Richland The more rural portions of the county are serviced by pnvate septic systems Kennewick's facility consists of two aerated lagoons An estimated 6,500 tons of dry sludge have accumulated since 1972 The City is currently applying the sludge on dry land wheat farms A lagoon system is also used in Benton City Accumulations of sludge have been minor, consequently, no dredging has occurred MRW Plan 4-3 December 1991 An activated sludge system is used at the City of Richland sewage treatment facility Approximately 600 dry tons of sludge were produced in 1990 All dewatered sludge is trans- ported to the Richland landfill, where it is mixed with sand and used as intermediate cover matenal Prosser's facility uses clarifiers, trickling filters and anaerobic digestors Dry sludge is applied on a spray field used for cattle grazing The amount of sludge produced has not been measured The City of West Richland's facility consists of two aerated lagoons Significant quantities of sludge at the West Richland facility have not accumulated, consequently no dredging has occurred There are no plans to dredge sludge in the near future In Franklin County, the only cities to have their own sewage treatment facilities are Pasco, Mesa, and Connell The remaining portions of the county are serviced by private septic systems Pasco's facility is based on a trickling filters system Approximately 12-13 cubic yards of dry sludge are produced per week Processed sludge is disposed of at the Pasco Sanitary Landfill The City of Mesa operates a lagoon system that has never been dredged The City of Connell's plant consists of two aeration basins and 12 filter lagoons No sludge has been dredged yet Most stormwater in Benton and Franklin Counties does not get treated before release into the environment In Kennewick less than 50% of the stormwater is released directly into the Columbia River The other portion of the stormwater flows into irrigation ditches, dry wells, perforated pipes or containment ponds Most of Richland's storm drains empty into a ditch that runs through the City, and is eventually pumped into the Columbia River by the Corps of Engineers In Pasco, most of the stormwater flows directly into the Columbia River 4.1.1.5 Recycling Services Neither Benton nor Franklin Counties have county-sponsored recycling programs In Benton County, Waste Management of Kennewick has operated a curbside recycling program m Kennewick and Prosser since November 1990 Residents use three bins to hold glass, plastics, and aluminum and tin Newspapers and cardboard are bundled and put to the side of the three bins Waste oil is also collected through the curbside program In the first 3 months of operation, an average of 60 tons of material, including 1,425 gallons of waste oil, was collected each month The curbside program is free of charge to all area residents In addition, Waste Management runs a buy-back center at its Kennewick transfer station The buy-back center is open to the general public (Leanna 1991 personal commumcation) The Richland landfill does not operate a public recycling program The City of Richland does, however, operate a waste oil collection service at the landfill The program began in mid-December 1990, replacing smaller collection efforts at several local gas stations The current program accepts only residential waste oil Once collected in large drums, the waste oil is hauled away from the landfill by a local oil recycler There is no charge to the program participants and the service is not limited to Richland residents (Dawson 1991 personal communication) MRW Plan 4-4 December 1991 There is a contract recycler who collects recyclable matenal from waste brought to the Richland landfill Matenals collected include computer paper, cardboard, glass, aluminum, ferrous/nonferrous metals, and plastic Approximately 380 tons of matenal were collected in 1990 This pnvate recycler is issued a permit from the city and pays a straight fee to operate at the landfill The largest pnvate recycling operation in the two-county area is provided by Basin Recycling, Inc The drop-off center is located next to the Pasco Salutary Landfill. They collect a vanety of paper goods, aluminum, tin, glass, and plastics Residents may bring recyclable matenals to the recycling center There is no charge to drop off recyclables Basin Recycling also operates a pick-up service within an 80-mile radius of the center and collects from drop-boxes across Benton and Franklin Counties (Dietnch 1991 personal commumcation) There are numerous smaller private collection points throughout both counties For example, the City of Kahlotus operates a set of collection bins near City Hall A city worker takes the recyclables to the Tn-Qty area for recycling on a regular basis Other drop-off sites are located at churches and commumty centers throughout both counties At present, there are five other recycling operations in Benton and Franklin Counties These firms accept a vanety of recyclable matenals, mcludmg glass, plastics, newspaper, aluminum, ledger and computer paper, scrap iron, battenes, and nonferrous metals 4.1.2 Planned Modifications Planned modifications to Benton and Franklin Counties' solid waste system focus on expand- ing recycling service throughout the two-county region The City of Richland is studying implementation of a curbside recycling program Basin Recycling also plans to expand its service area Benton and Franklin Counties are currently m the process of updating their Solid Waste Management Plan, which will further analyze the solid waste management system Additional modifications will likely be recommended The City of Richland has sponsored a wastewater pretreatment program for several years The program began by surveying all industries that discharged waste mto the wastewater treatment system The survey included questions about the types of matenal that were being discharged, the quantities involved, and timing of discharge A pretreatment officer reviewed the survey results, and is in the process of inspecting those industnes that discharge potentially damaging waste An additional environmental engineer will be hired in the future In conjunction with Ecology, the City plans to start issuing waste discharge permits in July 1991 (St Martin 1991 personal communication) The City of Kennewick anticipates implementing a similar program in the future (Hammond 1991 personal commumcation) MRW Plan 4-5 December 1991 4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT Most local hazardous waste management activities are overseen at the state and federal levels State and federal regulations govern hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, as well as contaminated site cleanup activities 4.2.1 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program A regional household hazardous waste collection event has been held annually since 1989 The events were organized cooperatively by 11 jurisdictions in the Benton and Franklin County area The first event was held in Richland, the second in Kennewick, and the third (1991) in Pasco "Milk runs" were used to collect waste from participants in smaller cities within the region Wastes collected during these events are sorted and then labpacked or loosepacked A private hazardous waste management firm is hired to transport and properly recycle or dispose of all hazardous waste In 1990, 210 drums of wastes were collected Waste types collected included paints, poisons, adhesives, acids, bases, and chlorinated hydrocarbons The 1990 event drew 750 households, double the 363 households that participated in the 1989 event On collection day, participants were asked to fill out a brief questionnaire Results of the questionnaire are as follows • Most participants were from areas near the collection event site / • Most of the participants heard of the event through the newspaper, radio, or television • Most of the wastes collected were over 10 years old • Most of the wastes had been stored in a garage, barn, or shed In 1991, the household hazardous waste collection event was held at Columbia Basin College in Pasco Milk runs were made from the cities of Prosser, Benton City, West Richland, Kahlotus, Connell, and Mesa Attendance at the event was approximately the same as the 1990 collection event Waste collected included 123 drums of hazardous waste, 35 drums of waste oil, nearly 7,000 lbs of auto batteries, and nearly 1,200 gallons of latex paint 4.2.2 Agricultural Chemical Waste Collection Event The Washington State Department of Agriculture sponsored a two-day agricultural chemical waste collection event in Pasco in the fall of 1990. Fifty-eight farmers participated and approximately 18 tons of chemicals were collected Participants were not charged for the service but were required to preregister The largest quantity of waste collected was DDT MRW Plan 4-6 December 1991 All counties in Washington are eligible for such collection events, sponsored by the Department of Agnculture Benton County is currently one of 21 counties that have expressed an interest in holding a collection event The Department of Agriculture has funds for only three or four events per year, and no schedule has been published for future events 4.2.3 Regulated Hazardous Waste Generators Dunng 1988, regulated hazardous waste generators produced 267,310 tons of hazardous waste in Benton County The waste was produced by 27 different generators, but 99% was generated by the United States Department of Energy at the Hanford Reservation Exclud- ing Hanford, amounts generated ranged from 0 13 tons to 21 49 tons The most frequently generated chemicals were general flammables and spent halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents Twenty generators produced 464 11 tons of hazardous waste in Franklin County m 1988 The range of amounts generated was between 0 12 tons and 412 07 tons General flam- mables and spent halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents were the most frequently generated chemicals These hazardous waste generators are listed in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 4.2.4 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Transportation With the exception of facilities serving the Hanford Reservation, there are no permitted hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities within the Counties How- ever, several hazardous waste management firms are available to serve Benton and Franldm County businesses These firms are available to provide transportation, treatment, storage, recycling or disposal of hazardous waste These management firms are listed by types of services in Table 4-3 This list is extensive, but is not necessarily complete It does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement There are over 50 treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) groups on the Hanford site which must be closed or permitted in accordance with RCRA and the State of Washington HWMA. Ecology has the primary authority for issuing final operating permits to the Department of Energy Until permits are issued the Department of Energy continues to operate its TSD units under interim status regulations (Department of Ecology, U S Environmental Protection Agency, U S Department of Energy, 1990) 4.2.5 Remedial Sites Four federally listed remedial sites currently exist in Benton County All four sites are on the Hanford Reservation and were listed in June 1988 The lead agency in the Superfund cleanup is the Department of Energy in cooperation with EPA and Ecology Remedial investigations began in 1989 MRW Plan 4-7 December 1991 a Table 4-1 1988 regulated hazardous waste generators in Benton County Company Waste Quantity (tons) Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation 065 Atomic Body Shop 035 Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab 096 Benton Franklin Transit 363 Benton County PUD No 1 013 Chevron Chemical Company 17 20 Cole Enterpnses 148 Columbia Crest Wineries 074 Dean Lee Honda 056 Department of Energy 267,236 33 Hall Chevrolet Buick Co 1 10 Lamb-Weston, Inc 084 Littrell's Dry Cleaners 0 14 Lorne Bangert Ford & Dodge 203 Mel's Intercity Collision 029 P & K Auto Service Inc 042 Perfection & Letz Pamt Co 1 20 Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaner 073 City of Richland 21 49 Sandvig Oldsmobile, Inc 155 Sandvig Special Metals Corp 387 Tn City Area Vocational Skills Center 1 10 Umted States Testing Co Inc 706 USDOE-BPA-ASHE Substation 163 USDOE-BPA-PASCO Maintenance HQ 139 WA Public Power Supply System 601 WSU Irrigated Agricultural Reservation 3 64 TOTAL 267,310 37 Source Department of Ecology, 1990 MRW Plan 4-8 December 1991 Table 4-2 1988 regulated hazardous waste generators m Franklin County Company Waste Quantity (tons) Arrow Transportation Co / 020 Bill McCurley Chevrolet 320 Burlington Northern Railroad 173 Cenex Ltd DBA Full Circle 080 Columbia Basin College 023 Desert Buick GMC, Inc 1 19 Federal Aviation Administration 0 19 Fresh Start Textile Cleaners 109 Futromx, Inc 12 16 John Shumate Pontiac Cadillac 078 Liberty Agriculture, Inc 079 McGregor Company 100 Northside Auto Service, Inc 065 Puregro Company 141 Russ Dean Ford 484 Safety-Kleen Corp 412 07 Spokane Diesel Inc 131 Tn River Chemical 084 Western States Equipment Co 0 12 Wilbur-Ellis Company 19 49 TOTAL 464 11 Source Department of Ecology, 1990 MRW Plan 4-9 December 1991 Table 4-3 Hazardous waste management firms serving Benton and Franklin Counties Hazardous Waste Management Firms* v`er. cj ‘4•C' \kC) ‘4C 4co _ce9 43\ ,OVte C\4•c2 C.,g‘ e Battelle Northwest Chemical Waste Management Chem-Safe Services, Inc Chemical Processors Inc CleanCare Envirotech Systems, Inc Hallmark Metals North American Environmental Northwest Enviroservice Northwest Laboratories Safety Kleen Special Resource Management Washington Chemical, Inc a a • • a • a • • • go • • • • ow 4, • • • • • • a • I • • • • • , • • • • 0 • a • * • • • I a a 0 • • • a • • • • • 0 • • This list of firms is not comprehensive, and does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation Source Personal communications, June 1990 The listing of the four sites was based upon preliminary assessments conducted on the Hanford Reservation Preliminary assessments revealed over 1,000 known individual waste sites where hazardous substances may have been disposed in an environmentally unsound manner These sites were grouped into four aggregate areas listed on the Federal National Priorities List (Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1991) • Hanford 100-Area Contamination at the 100-Area is primarily a result of disposal of reactor coolant water The primary contaminants are strontium-90 and chromium The site contains eight deactivated plutomum production reactors and the N Reactor The eight reactors were in operation for varying lengths of time between 1944 and 1971 The N Reactor began operation in 1963 and was placed in cold standby in February 1988 Contamination originated from cribs, trenches, and contaminated reactor cooling water that leaked through retention basins to the groundwater Monitoring wells have been installed, and the Columbia River is being monitored for contaminant levels • Hanford 200-Area The 200-Area is contaminated as a result of chemical processing and defense waste management activities that took place starting in 1944 Concentrations of tritium, uranium, cyamde, nitrate, technetium-99, plutonium, cobalt-60, cesium-137 and carbon tetrachloride were found in vadose zone sediments, and groundwater sam- ples Chemical processing wastes were disposed in ponds, cribs, trenches, reverse wells, and soil columns Morutonng wells are in place to track the movement of the ground- water plume One particular groundwater plume that is contaminated by carbon tetra- chloride has received expedited cleanup action since the spring of 1991 • Hanford 300-Area Fuel fabrication operations at the 300-Area resulted in uranium, chromium and other volatile orgarucs contamination During the late 1960s and early 1970s, uramum-contaminated wastes were disposed in ponds over a 5-square-mile area A contaminated groundwater plume is currently being momtored Accelerated cleanup actions will begin at a site where barrels filled with hexone, an orgamc solvent were buned and at a site where process trenches were located The first field activities began in the spnng of 1991 • Hanford 1100-Area Contamination at the 1100-Area is the result of vehicle main- tenance and storage operations, not radioactive or mixed wastes Contaminants are liquid battery acid containing lead and sulfuric acid, and ethylene glycol (antifreeze) The 1100-Area was a disposal area for batteries between 1954 and the 1970s, which resulted in the lead and sulfuric acid contamination of the vadose zone and possibly groundwater The ethylene glycol is a result of leaks from a 5,000-gallon underground storage tank that held antifreeze The tank leaked between 1976 and 1978 and was removed in 1986 Wells adjacent to the 1100-Area do not currently indicate any ground- water contamination The contaminated area has been covered by an asphalt pad to prevent contaminants from being exposed to rainwater or wind Further information on Hanford environmental activities may be found in the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1990, available through the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory or the U S Department of Energy Reading Room in Richland Infor- MRW Plan 4-11 December 1991 mation specifically concerning Hanford Site compliance with RCRA, CERCLA, and the State HWMA may be found in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order One site in Franklin County is listed on the National Priorities List, and is described below • Pasco Sanitary Landfill The site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1990 In the 1960s, this site was considered state of the art for disposal of many hazardous wastes such as herbicides, solvents, and paint At that time, the landfill was approved by the Department of Agriculture and met the strictest regulations that existed Groundwater sampling has shown contaminant levels, in particular volatile orgamcs, are greater than drinking water standards Contamination down-gradient of the current fill area led EPA to designate the current sanitary landfill, the former hazardous waste land- fill, the septage disposal areas, and areas down-gradient which are contaminated as a Superfund site Remediation has not started, although negotiations among the poten- tially liable parties and Ecology are underway Two other sites in Benton County and one in Franklin County are listed with Ecology due to confirmed soil or groundwater contamination Information on these sites was obtained from personal communications with Ecology personnel These sites are listed below • Case Road Dump This site is an old landfill that has potential pesticide contamination It is located near Case Road and Hanks Road in Prosser A preliminary assessment was conducted, and it was determined that no further action need be taken Ecology's Hazardous Waste Investigation & Cleanup Program categorizes the site as a Cl — Confirmed Hazardous Substance Site • J R Simplot Co This site is an operating site at Biggam Road, in Prosser In other words, there is confirmed contamination, but business operations still occur on site J R Simplot is a fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide distributor Fertilizers, waste oil and pesticides were dumped near a former tank storage area and vehicle washdown area Sampling indicated pesticide and nitrate contamination in a nearby domestic well The site is currently going through Ecology's Hazard Ranking system, to determine when remediation will begin • Port of Pasco This area has petroleum contaminated soil and groundwater Free product is floating in the groundwater The contamination was discovered in the 1970s, and could be the result of numerous spills or leaking tanks at the bulk terminal Two hydrogeologic studies have been conducted Momtormg wells are in place Potentially responsible parties are being identified No remedial action has taken place, but removing free product from the groundwater is first priority (Goldstein 1991 personal communication) MRW Plan 4-12 December 1991 4.2.6 Health and Safety Programs Health and safety programs are an important element in the management of hazardous materials, including moderate risk wastes In both Benton and Franklin Counties, the pnmary means of implementing health and safety procedures is through the development of regulations and guidelines that require solid waste workers, wastewater workers, fire- fighters, and others to follow specific procedures for protecting themselves and the public from hazardous materials Each group that handles solid or hazardous waste is responsible for developing its own health and safety standards, tailored to meet the specific needs of each operation Although neither county sponsors specific trairung programs on the handling of hazardous materials, firefighters and solid waste workers practice health and safety measures designed to mim- mize human exposure to hazardous substances, including moderate risk wastes Most of the training involves learning how to identify the different types of hazardous waste they could encounter They are encouraged to report any suspicious wastes to their supervisor Stan- dard Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L & I) procedures are followed for accident reporting Most employees are required to wear gloves, boots, and heavy long pants for protection Sewage treatment plant workers in the cities of Richland, Prosser, and Pasco regularly use respirators in daily plant operations Workers in West Richland are trained to use respira- tors, but do not currently have access to a respirator Operations at the other county sewage treatment facilities do not involve respirators or self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBA) In order to better prepare haulers and landfill workers, Waste Management of Kennewick has surveyed all of its commercial accounts to see what types of waste they are disposing Several workers at the Richland landfill have taken a training course sponsored by the Solid Waste Association of North America Training includes information about handling hazardous substances Washington State HB 1671 requires that by January 1992, at least one certified landfill operator be onsite at all times The municipal waste collectors in Richland attend monthly safety meetings, and are trained to visually inspect every load for suspicious wastes, or unidentifiable liquids The most extensively trained individuals are members of the Tn-Cities Hazardous Materials Team The team consists of 30 members who have received the OSHA 40-hour safety training They are prepared to respond to emergency spills and accidents Employees who are injured on the job are encouraged to report the accident to their imme- diate supervisor, and if the accident requires medical attention, to file a claim with the Department of Labor and Industries These procedures apply to public and private employees, and include personnel who may come into contact with hazardous substances or wastes while performing their jobs The Department of Labor and Industries gathers information from the employee, employer, and physician in assessing claims Injured MRW Plan 4-13 December 1991 employees will be entitled to medical and other benefits, depending upon the nature and extent of the injury Procedures used by Waste Management of Kennewick for accident and injury reporting are different, since Waste Management of Kennewick is self-insured Waste Management of Kennewick maintains a complete medical program for its employees, which includes medical coverage for work-related injuries Claims are not reported to Labor and Industries, since they are handled through the company's industrial insurance program (Penning 1991) 4.2.7 Zoning for Hazardous Waste Facilities The HWMA distinguishes between two groups of hazardous waste management facilities and the process for siting these facilities Ecology is required to site "preempted facilities", that is, those sites with state-regulated hazardous waste management activities These activi- ties include landfilling, incineration, land treatment, surface impoundment, and the use of waste piles Local governments are required to establish land-use zones or geographic areas for siting "designated zone facilities," such as hazardous waste recycling, storage, and treatment facilities These local zomng requirements must be consistent with the state's hazardous waste facility siting criteria, and must allow hazardous waste processing or handling where hazardous substances (such as raw materials) are processed or handled The HWMA exempts a local government from developing land-use zones for siting desig- nated zone facilities if it can show the following • No regulated amounts of hazardous wastes were generated within its jurisdiction for the previous 2 years • No geographic area within its jurisdiction meets the state's siting cntena Ecology adopted siting cntena for hazardous waste management facilities in October 1990 Local governments have 18 months from that date to do one of the following • Develop appropriate land-use zones or geographic areas, and adjust any ordinances already passed • Request an exemption from the zoning requirements Designated land-use zones or geographic areas, as well as requests for exemption from the zoning requirements, must be approved by Ecology Ecology has the authority to site desig- nated zone facilities in communities that do not have approved land-use zones or geographic areas If a community adopts the zone designation within the 18-month period, Ecology does not gain preemptive authority MRW Plan 4-14 December 1991 Currently, neither Benton nor Franklin County, or the municipalities have established zmung for hazardous waste facilities 4.3 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE FINANCING Waste management activities in Benton and Franklin Counties are funded through a vanety of mechamsms that include state grants, user fees, and general funds Funding mechanisms for municipal solid waste, wastewater, and recycling programs in the two-county area are examined m this section Funding mechanisms for waste management inspection and compliance activities are also descnbed 4.3.1 Waste Management Financing 4.3.1.1 Benton County Benton County formed a Solid Waste department in November 1990 The department will be funding waste reduction and recycling as recommended by the Solid Waste Management Plan Update In the City of Richland, the Solid Waste Department administers user fee- funded refuse collection services The City's regional landfill is also managed by the Solid Waste Department, which funds capital and operational costs at the landfill through gate fees No general funds are used to support collection and disposal services in Richland Refuse collection services are also provided in Benton County by Basin Disposal, Ed's Disposal, Samtary Disposal, Inc , and Waste Management of Kennewick These compames obtam their revenues from user fees In the uruncorporated areas, customers are billed directly by the companies In Benton City, Ed's Disposal directly bills customers In West Richland, however, the City bills its customers Waste Management provides refuse collection services to Kennewick and Prosser Kennewick residents are billed directly by Waste Management, while Prosser acts as an intermediary and bills its own residents With the exception of Benton City, admimstrative costs and fees associated with solid waste management are collected by the municipalities These fees are added to the refuse collection bills sent to customers The costs of operation and maintenance at Benton County's sewage treatment facilities are supported through user fees Capital costs are supported primarily through bonds and Department of Ecology grants 4.3.1.2 Franklin County Franklin County does not provide any solid waste funding All refuse collection in Franklin County is provided by Basin Disposal which receives its revenues from user fees Basin Disposal bills customers in Pasco, and includes the City's utility tax Mesa, Connell, and MRW Plan 4-15 December 1991 Kahlotus all bill their own customers, adding fees to customer billings to cover adrrurustrative costs The mumcipahties of Pasco, Mesa, and Connell finance sewage treatment in a vanety of ways Daily operations are supported through user fees Capital costs are supported through bonds, Farmers Home Administration grants and loans, and Department of Ecology grants 4.3.2 Inspection and Compliance Financing In Benton and Franklin Counties, waste management inspection and compliance activities are conducted by the Benton-Franklin Health District The Health Distnct's jurisdiction covers all incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county a total of rune cities and two counties Health District waste management responsibilities include permit administration for waste management services and facilities and enforcement of health and environmental standards Permit administration is funded by an assessment pool from all 11 participating junsdictions Enforcement activities are funded by a grant from Ecology MRW Plan 4-16 December 1991 Chapter Five z Hazardous Waste Generation in Benton And Franklin Counties _ 7,7 " -7 e - 5, 3. Z ..7 7 3 „t. „ _ 3. e's, -, r '7 - 7- ' _ 3. •n• .5-, 1 r la. r- 3. 7 77 • rrs. 5. HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION IN BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES 5.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 5 discusses hazardous waste generation in Benton and Franklin Counties from three sources households, businesses, and farms Households and businesses produce moderate risk waste Farms produce moderate risk waste, but also produce agricultural chemical waste Sections 5 2 through 5 4 discuss each of the waste sources, the kinds of hazardous waste they produce, and how much they produce Specifically, results from household, commercial, and agricultural surveys conducted in the Counties are discussed In addition, Sections 5 2 and 5 3 compare the results of surveys conducted in Benton and Franklin Counties with similar surveys conducted in nearby counties, particularly Walla Walla, Columbia, and Yakima Counties The chapter concludes with a summary of findings 5.2 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION According to law, moderate risk waste refers to two types of hazardous waste (1) house- hold hazardous waste, and (2) wastes produced by businesses or institutions below threshold quantities These wastes are considered moderate because they are produced in small quantities relative to the amounts of hazardous waste generated by businesses above threshold quantities This section provides an overview of household hazardous waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties The objectives of this section are to • Describe household hazardous waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties, and in other areas of Washington State • Estimate how much hazardous waste will be generated in Benton and Franklin Counties in the next five years, the time frame of this MRW Plan To meet these objectives, studies of household hazardous waste generation conducted in other counties were reviewed Benton and Franklin Counties' residents were polled in a telephone survey to find out how much household hazardous waste they produce, how they dispose of it, and what kinds of services they want to help them manage their household hazardous wastes properly The information was used to project future household hazardous waste generation in Benton and Franklin Counties 5.2.1 Methods of Assessing Household Hazardous Waste Generation Studies of household hazardous waste generation estimate the average amount of hazardous waste produced by individual households and examine common disposal practices Methods for investigating household hazardous waste generation include waste-sorting studies, I.? MRW Plan 5-1 December 1991 collection programs, and phone or mail surveys of randomly selected households The following summary descnbes these methodologies, and reviews results from each method Solid waste-sorting studies require that garbage be separated into various waste categones, such as plastics, metals, glass, paper, and hazardous wastes An inventory of the categones provides a very accurate picture of material disposed in the solid waste stream Solid waste- sorting has advantages over other methods for estimating the quantities of waste disposed It does not rely on the memory of survey respondents, nor is it biased by the environmental awareness of survey respondents or participants in collection events However, waste-sorting is very resource intensive, and does not account for wastes disposed of through other methods, such as into the sewers or onto the ground Collection events are generally one or two day programs sponsored by local governments or commumty groups to collect household hazardous wastes Collection events typically receive wastes from residents who are aware of and concerned about the effects of improper disposal of hazardous wastes The materials collected have generally been items saved and stored over a penod of time, rather than items which are discarded promptly Therefore, information gathered from these programs may not be representative of the wastes gener- ated by the average household Telephone or mail surveys are used to gather data on the kinds of waste that are generated by households, how much waste is generated, and how waste is disposed When compared to other methods for assessing household hazardous waste generation, surveys provide the greatest amount of information about household hazardous waste generation and disposal for the least cost In addition, surveys provide information about a wider variety of disposal practices and preferences than do waste-sorting studies Surveys are also likely to be less biased by the environmental awareness of participants in collection events However, surveys generally rely on residents' recollection about how much waste they disposed, reported waste quantities are estimates and are not determined through actual measurements Benton and Franklin Counties chose to conduct a telephone survey to gather information on household hazardous wastes in the region 5.2.2 Household Hazardous Waste Generation in Benton and Franklin Counties In February 1991, Parametnx, with the aid of Gilmore Research, conducted a telephone survey of 302 households in Benton and Franklin Counties The purpose of the questionnaire was to help identify (1) the types and quantities of moderate risk wastes generated by households in Benton and Franklin Counties, (2) the methods used to dispose of these wastes, and (3) the kinds of assistance residents need to manage these wastes properly The survey was random and confidential In addition, the sample from which telephone calls were made was proportional to the population for both incorporated and uruncorporated areas of Benton and Franklin Counties Households from which businesses or farms were run from the home were excluded from the telephone survey in order to eliminate biased results Information obtained from the survey was used to define programs MRW Plan 5-2 December 1991 for assisting residents in recogmzing household hazardous wastes and disposing of them safely and properly A copy of the household telephone survey conducted by the Regional Council appears m Appendix E 5.2.2.1 Household Hazardous Product Use and Disposal The first two survey questions qualified the respondent as a householder, ensunng that any farms or businesses inadvertently contacted were excluded from the survey Residents were then asked if they could name any type of hazardous household product in their home that needed special disposal Approximately 32% of the respondents could name at least one household hazardous product without being prompted When respondents were prompted, however, at least 90% of the respondents had one or more hazardous products in their homes These include the following products • Adhesives, glues, and sealants • Latex or water-based paints • Oil-based paints • Solvents and thinners • Cleaners • Pesticides • Auto Batteries • Other household batteries • Contaminated motor oil or diesel • Antifreeze • Other automotive supplies • Other chemicals • Other flammables • Explosives In all, 75% or more, of the respondents had disposed of at least one hazardous waste dunng the last year Disposal methods included the following • Put out for garbage pick-up service • Take to the landfill or transfer station • Put down the drain or toilet • Pour on the street or down the storm sewer • Bury or pour on land • Recycle • Dispose of in another way The results of the questionnaire suggest that many households have hazardous products but most residents do not recognize these products as hazardous A comparison between respondents identifying a product as hazardous, having the product in their home, and disposing of it as a hazardous waste is illustrated in Figure 5-1 MRW Plan 5-3 December 1991 80 70 90 Adhesives Latex Paint Oil-Based Paint Solvents Cleaners Pesticides Auto Batteries Other Batteries Antifreeze Used Motor Oil Other Auto Supplies Other Chemicals Other Flammables Explosives 10 20 30 40 50 Percent of Respondents Figure 5-1 Recognition, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Household Products in Benton and Franklin Counties 60 X-M N.*N 111111111111.1111111.111111.11 EMI 611111 N1N. LIM n Disposed product this year Have product in home Identified product as hazardous EMI ‘-n '‘n` The hazardous products most frequently found around the home were cleaners, household battenes, solvents, pesticides, and paints The hazardous wastes most frequently disposed of were household battenes, oil, auto batteries, and cleaners Reported waste quantities and disposal methods used to dispose of these wastes are shown in Table 5-1 and Figures 5-2 and 5-3 (also see Appendix E) Auto batteries and waste oil accounted for 80% by weight of household hazardous wastes reported in the household surveys Latex paint, antifreeze, household battenes, and solvents accounted for an additional 15% of the wastes Recycling was the most common method of waste disposal Approximately 62% of the household waste reported was recycled, primarily due to the fact that 86% of the auto batteries and 58% of the waste oil were recycled Several other waste types were recycled in smaller quantities Another 12% of the wastes reported disposed in the survey was picked up by a garbage collection service This percentage includes all of the adhesives, 97% of the household battenes, and 99% of the other flammables not listed in the other categones In addition, 6% of the household hazardous wastes were taken to a landfill or transfer station directly by self-haulers Pouring waste down the drain, on the street, or in the storm sewer accounted for 2% of the disposed waste, respectively Based upon the survey results, the 302 respondents disposed an average of 35 pounds of household hazardous waste between February 1990 and February 1991 According to the Washington State Office of Financial Management (1990), Benton County had 45,548 house- holds and Franklin County had 14,350 households, for a total of 59,898 households Thus, it may be estimated that residents in Benton and Franklin Counties generated approximately 2,096,430 pounds or 1,048 tons of household hazardous waste 5.2.2.2 Household Hazardous Waste Generation in Yakima and Walla Walla/Columbia Counties The results of Benton and Franklin Counties' Household Hazardous Waste Survey may be compared to the results obtained through similar surveys in other communities, including surveys conducted in nearby counties As noted in Section 5 22 1, Household Hazardous Product Use and Disposal, waste oil and auto batteries represent 80% by weight of household hazardous wastes reported in the household surveys Auto batteries and waste oil accounted for 42% and 38% by weight of the household hazardous waste stream, respectively Parametnx has conducted nearly identical surveys in nine other Washington counties The results of these household hazardous waste surveys show auto battenes and waste oil account for the greatest proportions of the household hazardous waste stream In Yakima County, for instance, auto batteries and auto products (including waste oil) accounted for 87% by weight of the household hazardous waste stream MRW Plan 5-5 December 1991 Table 5-1 Household ha7ardous waste disposal from respondents to the Benton and Franklin Counties household survey Product Type Respondents Who Used Product (of 302) Total Quantity of Product Disposed as Waste (lb) Adhesives 140 (46%) 36 (<1%) Latex Paint 160 (53%) 504 (5%) Oil-Based Paint 67 (22%) 35 (<1%) Solvents 218 (72%) 294 (3%) Cleaners 271 (90%) 221 (<2%) Pesticides 185 (61%) 24 (<1%) Auto Batteries 105 (35%) 4,380 (42%) Household Batteries 264 (87%) 373 (4%) I Quantity of Waste Disposed by Method 100% = garbage pickup 28% = garbage pickup 6% = taken to landfill 33% = buried on land 17% = recycled 8% = collection event 8% = other 41% = garbage pickup 59% = other 5% = garbage pickup 9% = taken to landfill 7% = poured down drain 3% = buned on land 71% = recycled <1% = collection event 4% = other 22% = garbage pickup 3% = taken to landfill 62% = pour down drain 9% = pour on street 2% = buried on land <1% = recycled <1% = other 39% = garbage pickup <1% = buried on land 25% = recycled 35% = other <1% = garbage pickup 5% = taken to landfill 86% = recycled 8% = other 97% = garbage pickup 1% = recycled <1% = collection event <1% = other MRW Plan 5-6 December 1991 Quantity of Waste Disposed by Method 12% = 8% = <1% = 4% = 58% = 5% = 13% = 8% = 5% = 2% = 25% = 25% = 18% = 17% = 62% = 12% = 8% = 18% = 2% = <1% = 97% = 99% = 1% = 54% = 17% = 29% = garbage pickup taken to landfill poured on street buried on land recycled collection event other garbage pickup taken to landfill poured down drain poured on street buried on land recycled other garbage pickup buried on land recycled other garbage pickup taken to landfill poured down drain garbage pickup other garbage pickup taken to landfill recycled Table 5-1 Household hazardous waste disposal from respondents to the Benton and Franklin Counties household survey (continued) Product Type Respondents Who Used Product (of 302) Total Quantity of Product Disposed as Waste (lb) Used Motor Oil 117 (39%) 4,032 (38%) Antifreeze 121 (40%) 423 (4%) Other Auto Supplies 65 (22%) 100 (<1%) Other Chemicals 39 (13%) 40 (<1%) Other Flammables 158 (52%) 39 (<1%) Explosives 86 (28%) 18 (<1%) TOTAL 10,519 lbs ' Respondents were specifically asked about products disposed as waste, not products used up or stored b Assumes 1 gallon = 8 345 lb, 1 auto battery = 40 lb, 1 household battery = 2 oz MRW Plan 5-7 December 1991 Solvents 3% Latex Paint 5% Other 5% Antifreeze 4% Household Batteries 3% Auto Batteries 42% Used Motor Oil 38% Note Total quantity reported disposed on the household hazardous waste questionaire was 10 519 lbs Figure 5-2. Household Hazardous Waste Disposal by Product in Benton and Franklin Counties Sewer 2% Street or Storm Drain 2% Taken to Collection Event 2% 111MM NO= MEW \ : : r". O a/M MUM IMEN/M • NO y m mk s 411: iA0AWAV "Ale~~.04440 Garbage Pickup 12% Landfill or Transfer Station 6% Other 10% Recycled 62% Ground 4% Note Total quantity of household hazardous waste disposed by method was 10 468 lbs This total differs from total quantity reported disposed (Figure 5 2) due to respondents who either did not know the disposal method or were unable to estimate the percentage disposed by a certain method Figure 5-3. Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Methods Used in Benton and Franklin Counties Similarly, auto battenes and waste oil accounted for the greatest proportion of the household hazardous waste stream in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties (79%) Waste oil and auto battenes accounted for 43% and 36% by weight of the waste stream, respectively In addition to similar waste types and quantities generated in Benton and Franklin Counties, as well as other Washington Counties, survey results show similar disposal methods were also used in these counties to discard these wastes In Benton and Franklin Counties, approximately 62% of the household waste reported was recycled, pnmanly due to the fact that 86% of the auto batteries and 58% of the waste oil were recycled Typically, this was the case in other Washington counties also In Yakima County, for instance, recycling was also the most common disposal method reported Approximately 57% of the waste disposed was recycled Survey respondents in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties also reported recycling as the most frequent disposal method used to discard household hazardous wastes Approximately 41% of the household hazardous waste stream was recycled Other wastes in Benton and Franklin Counties, such as household batteries and latex paint, were pnmanly disposed of by a curbside garbage collection service and ultimately landfilled In all, an estimated 18% of the household hazardous wastes reported in Benton and Franldm Counties were landfilled, either through a garbage pickup service or self-hauled As in Benton and Franklin Counties, Yakima County landfilled 18% of household hazardous wastes generated Approximately 99% of the household batteries and 76% of the paints (water- and oil-based) in Yakima County were either picked up by a garbage collection service, or self-hauled to a landfill Similarly, 20% of the wastes reported disposed of in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties were ultimately landfilled (picked up by a garbage collection service or taken to a landfill or transfer station) Approximately 99% of the water- and oil-based paints, and 92% of the household battenes were picked up by a garbage collection service 5.2.2.3 Preferences and Support for Services In addition to product use and disposal services, the household survey reviewed vanous waste management services Benton and Franklin Counties may consider providing or sponsoring Respondents were asked about their preferences regarding these services First, respondents were asked if they would use special collection days, permanent collection facilities open daily or weekly, or pickup services, by appointment, for household hazardous wastes In total, 75% of the respondents reported they would participate in collection days, 79% said they would use a permanent site open weekly, 58% reported they would use a permanent collection site open daily, and 50% reported they would use an appointment pickup service Respondents were then asked which of the services they would most likely use A permanent collection site open weekly was preferred by 37% of the respondents, followed by an appointment pickup service (25%), a collection site open daily (23%), and MRW Plan 5-10 December 1991 special collection days (13%) Six respondents reported they would not participate in any of the household hazardous waste management services A total of 56 respondents (19%) said they had participated in the household hazardous waste collection events held in the Tn-Cities area At the time the survey was conducted, two annual household hazardous waste collection events had been held The survey requested further information on how far respondents would dnve to use collection services Nearly all respondents would dnve at least five miles • Drive up to 5 miles - 44% • Dnve up to 10 miles - 26% • Dnve up to 15 miles - 12% • Drive more than 15 miles - 10% Approximately 6% of the respondents reported they would not drive to a collection service and 2% did not know whether they would use a collection service or not In all, 268 respondents reported using a garbage collection service The majority of respon- dents (61%) said they would not object to a fee ($1 00 per month) to support a household hazardous waste collection program Such a fee could generate several hundred thousand dollars annually within the region 5.2.3 Household Hazardous Waste Projections for Benton and Franklin Counties Results from the household waste questionnaire can be used to estimate and project house- hold hazardous waste generation in Benton and Franldin Counties The survey shows that, per household, an annual average of 35 pounds of household hazardous waste is generated In 1990, Benton and Franklin Counties had 59,898 households with an average population density of 25 persons per household (Office of Financial Management 1988 and 1990) Based on these figures, residents of Benton and Franklin Counties generated an estimated 2,096,430 pounds or 1,048 tons of household hazardous waste in 1990 In 1996, when this Plan will be updated, Benton and Franklin Counties will have approximately 64,120 house- holds, which corresponds to an annual household hazardous waste generation rate of 1,122 tons These figures assume a constant population-to-housing density and no changes in the average household's hazardous waste generation rate If the population-to-housing density declines in future years due to a relative increase in total housing umts, the average household's hazardous waste generation rate may decline However, any decline in average household waste generation rates may be offset by the increase in total households, resulting in an increase in the aggregate annual household waste generation rate The questionnaire responses also showed that an average 62 pounds, per household, of hazardous household wastes are ultimately disposed of in landfills, either by curbside garbage collection or by residential self-haul Thus in 1990, it is estimated that the 59,898 households in Benton and Franklin Counties disposed of more than 185 tons of household MRW Plan 5-11 December 1991 hazardous waste which went to landfills By 1996, this figure will have increased to more than 198 tons annually Household hazardous waste studies from other areas in Washington State show similar find- ings to those in Benton and Franklin Counties Waste oil, paints, and auto batteries were identified in other reports as the largest component by weight of household hazardous waste In Benton and Franklin Counties, waste oil and auto batteries comprise by far the largest components, while paints represent a relatively smaller share Though produced in smaller quantities, other household hazardous waste products of concern include antifreeze, pesti- cides, solvents, and other automotive products In Benton and Franklin Counties, latex paint, antifreeze, household batteries, and solvents are the next largest components (compared to waste oil and auto batteries) of the household hazardous waste stream 5.2.4 Conclusions Residents were often unaware of the potential hazards caused by many of the products used m their homes Residents also seem unaware of their options for better management of these products and the need for a public education program informing residents about the types of hazardous products likely to be found in their homes Recognition of hazardous products and wastes is key to promoting safe use, waste reduction, recycling, substitution of alternatives, and proper waste management The MRW Plan should also recommend options for reducing, recycling, and disposing of these wastes If programs are convenient, practical, and inexpensive, residents showed they are willing to participate in and financially support household hazardous waste collection programs Target household hazardous wastes include waste oil, auto batteries, and antifreeze The criteria used in targeting these wastes were the quantities generated as well as the method of disposal Education and collection activities will need to stress the use of proper waste management techruques and provide opportunities for recycling of these materials Other household hazardous wastes which were not targeted include paints, cleaners, house- hold batteries, and various other chemical products Although these items represented a smaller portion of the waste stream, the majority of these wastes were disposed in ways that could produce threats to the environment Because of this problem, education and collection programs will address opportunities for waste reduction, recycling, and proper management of these types of household hazardous wastes, as well as the targeted wastes 5.3 MODERATE RISK WASTE GENERATION BY BUSINESSES This section discusses how businesses and institutions manage moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties Like Section 5 2, Household Hazardous Waste Generation, the objectives of this section are as follows • Describe how moderate risk waste produced by businesses is being managed in Benton and Franklin Counties MRW Plan 5-12 December 1991 • Compare the way businesses manage their moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties to other areas in the country • Identify the business groups that should be targeted for moderate risk waste education, techmcal assistance, and waste management support • Estimate how much moderate risk waste the businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties will produce in the next five years, the time frame of this MRW Plan To meet these objectives, the Regional Council reviewed national and regional studies of moderate nsk waste generation by businesses In addition, businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties were surveyed by mail to find out what kinds of moderate risk waste they produce, how much they produce, where they disposed of it, and what kinds of services would help them improve their moderate risk waste management This information was then used to project current and future levels of moderate risk waste generation by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 5.3.1 Moderate Risk Waste Generation by Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties The Benton and Franklin Counties' commercial waste survey was conducted by mail m February 1991 The purpose of the survey was to gain information on commercial moderate nsk waste produced in Benton and Franklin Counties Commercial institutions were asked what types of moderate risk waste they produce, how they dispose of it, and what kinds of help they need in improving their moderate risk waste management practices Survey selection was random and surveys were also confidential and could not be traced to the respondent Results from the survey helped shape the business programs recommended in this Plan The survey consisted of 20 questions (attached in Appendix F) Based on the listing in the Washington Department of Revenue's taxpayer register, 1,009 businesses throughout Benton and Franldin Counties were contacted by mail In all, 20 groups of businesses throughout Benton and Franklin Counties were asked to participate in the survey These groups included • Building cleaning and maintenance • Chemical manufacturers and formulators • Construction • Educational and vocational schools • Electnc, gas, and salutary services • Equipment repair • Funeral services • Laboratories and medical establishments • Laundnes and dry cleaners • Metal manufacturers • Motor and railway transportation • Paper, printing, and allied activities • Pesticide end-use and application MRW Plan 5-13 December 1991 • Petroleum distribution (excluding gas stations) • Textile, plastic, and leather products • Vehicle maintenance and gas stations • Wood products and services • Other manufacturing • Wholesale trade • Retail trade The types of businesses surveyed were selected based on industry-wide moderate risk waste generation charactenstics These businesses fall into two larger classifications, (1) major commercial moderate risk waste generators, and (2) minor commercial moderate risk waste generators Major commercial generators" generate moderate risk waste as an ongoing part of everyday business activities They are businesses that regularly use hazardous substances" Minor commercial generators produce moderate risk waste on an occasional, sporadic basis (Ecology 1987) The first 18 generator groups represent major commercial generators, and the last two represent minor commercial generators The generator groups were identified through a review of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual, EPA's Understanding the Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste Rules A Handbook for Small Businesses, the National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey, and surveys conducted for other counties in Washington State Individual businesses were assigned to the 20 groups listed above based on their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code The SIC code is a four-digit number that the Washington State Department of Revenue assigns to a business by type of business The SIC code is not unique to an individual business, but instead is used to classify businesses with similar activities and products The Department of Revenue identified approximately 4,200 businesses in the 20 business categories in Benton and Franklin Counties A representative sample of these businesses was surveyed To obtain a sample of approximately 1,000 businesses in Benton and Franldm Counties, a selection rule was formulated This rule stipulated that any group with 77 or more businesses underwent a random selection process until 77 businesses were chosen Any group with 77 or fewer businesses was included in its entirety Of the 1,009 businesses contacted, over 300 returned their surveys However, only 281 of the returned surveys were eligible for data analysis Several surveys were ineligible due to the target institution being out of business A comparison between the number of busi- nesses contacted and the number of surveys returned is presented in Table 5-2 5.3.1.1 Benton and Franklin Counties Commercial Waste Survey Results The Benton and Franklin commercial waste survey was divided into three parts The first section asked for general information about the businesses The second section asked about moderate risk waste generation and disposal The third section asked about waste manage- ment needs and the willingness of respondents to financially support moderate risk waste programs Following is a discussion of each section's results MRW Plan 5-14 December 1991 Table 5-2 Response rate for Benton and Franklin Counties' commercial waste survey Busmess Group Number of Businesses m Benton-Franklin Counties Number of Businesses Number of Surveyed - Respondents Number of Respondents (excluding RCRA- regulated generators) Building, Cleaning, and Maintenance (Group 1) 96 77 10 10 Chemical Manufacturers and Formulators (Group 2) 6 6 2 0 Construction (Group 3) 710 77 29 28 Educational and Vocational Schools (Group 4) 16 16 7 5 Equipment Repair (Group 5) 244 77 21 21 Funeral Services (Group 6) 6 6 3 3 Labs and Medical Establishments (Group 7) 235 77 22 22 Laundries and Dry Cleaners (Group 8) 63 63 16 12 Metal Manufacturers (Group 9) 49 49 22 20 Motor and Railroad (Group 10) 79 77 12 12 Pesticide End Use and Application (Group 11) 257 77 22 22 Vehicle Maintenance and Gas Stations (Group 12) 339 77 21 18 Wood Products and Services (Group 13) 100 77 16 15 Textile, Plastic and Leather Products (Group 14) 2 2 2 2 Paper, Printing and Allied Services (Group 15) 37 37 12 12 Other Manufacturing (Group16) 12 12 4 4 Electric, Gas, and Samtary Services (Group 17) 35 35 10 10 Petroleum Distribution (Group 18) 13 13 4 4 Wholesale (Group 19) 273 77 18 17 Retail (Group 20) 1,660 77 28 28 Total 4,232 1,009 281 265 5.3.1.2 General Business Information Initially, respondents were asked a few general questions about their business, their regula- tory status, and their type of sewage treatment Sixteen of the respondents reported they were RCRA-regulated generators Regulated hazardous waste generators, by definition, are not addressed by the MRW Plan Therefore, these sixteen generators were excluded from the rest of the analysis Response rates for the rest of the survey are based on the remain- ing 265 respondents To estimate business size, the survey asked how many employees worked at each commer- cial institution The majonty of businesses were small (88%), having 10 or fewer employees. Employment for the remaining respondents is summarized in Figure 5-4 Businesses were also asked how long they had been operating and approximately 47% said they had been in business one to five years (Figure 5-5) Next, businesses reported on the type of wastewater treatment system they used In total, 170 businesses said they used the public sewer system for wastewater disposal and 65 reported use of septic or on-site sewage treat- ment systems 5.3.1.3 Waste Generation and Management The survey respondents were asked several questions about the types and quantities of waste they produce, how their waste is managed, and past or anticipated changes in waste gener- ation Their responses are summanzed in three parts (1) frequency of waste generation and disposal, (2) quantity of waste generation and disposal, and (3) changes m waste generation. The following waste types were surveyed • Adhesives, glues, sealants, and roof coatings • Latex or water-based paints • Oil-based paints, thinners, and strippers • Dry cleaning solutions or wastes, solvents, and degreasers • Other cleaning agents, detergents, disinfectants, waxes, and polishes • Photoprocessing chemicals, developers, fixers, and inks • Pesticides and wood preservatives • Waste motor oil, diesel, and automotive grease • Antifreeze • Auto or heavy equipment batteries • Other automotive supplies • Other batteries • Plating waste and toxic metal waste/sludges • Acids and bases • Explosives MRW Plan 5-16 December 1991 1 to 10 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% _ - - _ =.1 - _ _ _ RESPONSE _ _ 11 to 25 I I 1 25 to 100 1 More than 100 I i NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Figure 5-4 Size of Businesses Participating in the Benton and Franklin Counties Commercial Waste Survey 50% Less than 5 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 6 to 10 20% 15% nnn••n•nn•• • 11 to 15 16 to 25 More than 25 10% WITI•ITRWIFITRIT“.•• 5% 0% YEARS IN OPERATION Figure 5-5. Number of Years Business has Operated in Benton or Franklin Counties RESPONSE Frequency of Moderate Risk Waste Generation and Disposal The frequency of moderate nsk waste generation as reported by businesses is shown in Figure 5-6 As indicated in the figure, no more than 35% of Benton and Franklin Counties' businesses said they disposed of any one product Waste motor oil was disposed most frequently, reported by 35% of the respondents Auto batteries were the second most frequently generated waste type (20%) Explosives were the least frequently disposed waste type Survey results show that curbside garbage collection was used as a method to dispose of most adhesives and approximately 44% of latex-based paints Many wastes were also regularly disposed of down the drain to the sewer or septic tank In particular, detergents and photochemicals were pnmanly disposed of down the drain Respondents indicated that the majonty of waste oil produced is picked up by a hazardous waste service or burned on- site However, relatively large quantities of waste oil were reportedly buried or poured on land, or disposed in a drywell Of the methods specified for antifreeze disposal, the most common method was down the drain to the sewer or septic tank The next largest quantity was reportedly collected by a pickup service for hazardous waste Smaller quantities were disposed through the solid waste collection system or poured on the ground The survey also showed that auto batteries were frequently picked up by a hazardous waste recycling firm In addition, these batteries were frequently returned to the distnbutor ("other") Although vanous waste disposal methods were used, very few respondents reported pounng wastes on the street or into the storm drain Approximately 17% of the respondents were minor generators of moderate nsk waste The two minor generator groups—wholesale and retail establishments—produce moderate nsk waste only sporadically while major generators produce moderate risk waste on a regular basis Therefore, one would expect the percentage of waste generated by the businesses to be less than 17% of the total This appears to be the case as the combined amount of waste generated by the two groups is approximately 10% However, as shown in Table 5-3, when the percentage of waste by major and minor generators is compared, some large quantities of pesticides, dry cleaning solutions, and solvents are reported by minor commercial gener- ators The relatively large percentage of pesticides (65 14%) is produced mostly by the wholesale trade group (Group 19) The relatively large percentage of dry cleamng solutions (3877%) reported by minor generators is produced mostly by the wholesale trade group also In all, minor generators reported producing all the types of moderate risk waste included in the survey, except adhesives, explosives, and plating wastes Wastes produced by the minor generators were most frequently picked up by hazardous waste recycling firms, incinerated on-site, and poured down the sewer or septic tank Each business group's moderate risk waste generation and disposal practices are summarized in Appendix F MRW Plan 5-19 December 1991 ADHESIVES I i LATEX PAINT OIL-BASED PAINT SOLVENTS OTHER CLEANERS 1 I PHOTOPROCESSING CHEMICALS PESTICIDES WASTE MOTOR OIL ). ANTIFREEZE AUTO BATTERIES OTHER AUTO SUPPLIES OTHER BATTERIES 1 TOXIC METAL WASTES I ACIDS AND BASES 11.....1.4.1•17 EXPLOSIVES OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% BUSINESSES DISPOSING OF PRODUCT (% OF TOTAL RESPONDENTS) Figure 5-6. Frequency of Moderate Risk Waste Disposal op Reported on the Benton and Franklin Counties Commercial Waste Survey Table 5-3 Comparison of major and mmor generator waste production m Benton and Franklin Counties Waste Category Major Generators Minor Generators Adhesives 10000% 000% Water-Based Paints 9921% 79% 011-Based Paints 9972% 28% Dry Cleaning Solutions 6123% 3877% Detergents, Dismfectants 79 27% 2073% Photoprocessmg Chemicals 9922% 77% Pesticides, Preservatives 3486% 65 14% Waste Motor Oil 91 21% 8 79% Antifreeze 9504% 496% Auto Battenes 9226% 774% Other Automotive Supplies 9838% 1 62% Other Battenes 9841% 159% Platmg Wastes 10000% 000% Acids/Bases 9975% 25% Explosives 0 00% 000% Other 9094% 106% TOTAL 9035% 965% Ouantity of Waste Generated and Disposed The 265 respondents reported 265,180 pounds of moderate risk waste generated over a one- year penod The different categories and amounts of waste are shown in Table 5-4 The table also lists what percentage each waste category is of the total amount disposed Waste motor oil accounted for over 45% (by weight) of the total waste disposed by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties Auto batteries accounted for the next highest percentage of total waste disposed of by businesses (over 14%) Products not listed in the other categones accounted for nearly 12% of total waste reported disposed by businesses A large part of this "other" category was comprised of waste which may have contained formalin and formaldehyde products disposed by funeral homes Figure 5-7 displays the percentage of each waste category, based upon the survey responses By weight, moderate risk waste was disposed by businesses using the following methods • 47% was picked up by a hazardous waste or recycling firm • 15% was poured down the drain to the sewer or septic system • 11% was picked up by a garbage collection service • 10% was disposed by other methods • 7% was incinerated on-site MRW Plan 5-21 December 1991 Table 5-4 Quantities of moderate risk waste disposed by businesses surveyed m Benton and Franklin Counties, by weight Waste Category Amount Disposed (lbs) Percent of Total Adhesives 6,285 237 Water-Based Paints 3,415 1 29 Oil-Based Paints 5,982 226 Dry Cleaning Solutions 12,485 471 Detergents, Disinfectants 21,174 798 Photoprocessmg Chemicals 6,488 245 Pesticides, Preservatives 2,562 0 96 Waste Motor Oil 120,538 45 46 Antifreeze 12,609 475 Auto Batteries 38,750 14 61 Other Automotive Supplies 2,040 0 77 Other Batteries 567 0 21 Platmg Wastes 23 001 Acids/Bases 791 030 Explosives 0 000 Other 31 471 11 87 TOTAL 265,180 100 00 • 3% was self-hauled to a recycling facility • 3% was recycled on-site • 2% was accumulated on-site • 2% was treated on-site These moderate risk waste disposal methods are shown in Figure 5-8, and displayed for each group in Appendix F Some of the disposal methods reported by respondents more effec- tively protect public health and the environment than others For instance, pickup by a hazardous waste management or recycling firm, incineration, treatment, or recycling on-site are generally preferred to disposal in the garbage can or dumpster, pouring waste into the sewer, septic tank, street or storm drain, or spreading or pouring waste on the ground or in a drywell These preferred methods have the capability to protect public health and the environment, although this depends upon the quantity and characteristics of the waste, and controls used to assure that hazardous constituents are not a threat to workers or the public and are not sigrnficantly released into the environment Municipal wastewater treatment systems may be effective in treating some types of wastes and ineffective in treating others MRW Plan 5-22 December 1991 Waste Motor Oil 46% Other Cleaners 8% .0 '4424i 1111111111! "Sf .4,1•111•E •111111•P:0, ..SS. n •••••1111ir 1., *SW 01111•IIIIIr / "%%Si .01111111r * f ,j4 , 1,44,, di Antifreeze 5% Solvents 5% Oil-based Paint 2% Adhesives 2% Pesticides 1% Other Wastes 14% Photoprocessing Chemicals 2% Auto Batteries 15% Figure 5-7. Quantity of Moderate Risk Waste Reported Disposed by Businesses on the Benton and Franklin Counties Commercial Waste Survey Incinerated 7% Sewer 15% ••••••111 1.— AA's.z.s.S.§.••••111••••lb... sibi.:.,:111••••••••••n 11•••••••••••' Vszl•••11111•••••v 41V:.111111•••••r" '‘,,<1•••••P' • • PP Self-haul to Recycling Facility 3% Garbage 11% Other 10% Accumulated On-site 2% Recycled Onsite 3% Treated 2% Hazardous Waste Pickup 47% Note Total quantity of moderate risk waste disposal by method was 264 809 lbs This total differs from total quantity disposed due to respondents not reporting all 100% of the disposal methods Figure 5-8. Moderate Risk Waste Disposal Methods Used by Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties When each disposal method is examined individually, certain types of moderate nsk waste are found in the largest quantities by weight The largest amount of waste reported disposed by waste type and method is • Adhesives for placing in the garbage can or dumpster • Detergents for pouring down the sewer or septic tank or treating on-site • Photochemicals for pouring on the street or down the storm drain • Waste motor oil for burying or spreading on the land or disposing of in a drywell, recycling on-site, incinerating on-site, accumulating on-site, self-hauling to a landfill or transfer station, and pickup service for hazardous waste • Auto batteries for self-haul to a treatment or recycling facility and other disposal methods not listed (i e, return to distributors) Waste oil, by weight, represents the largest reported quantity of waste disposed of by most disposal methods This is not unexpected because waste oil is produced in the largest quantity of all wastes generated The waste quantities and disposal methods vaned among business groups The type and percentage of waste reported by each group is shown in Table 5-5 The business group generating the largest quantities of moderate nsk waste were vehicle maintenance and gas stations (Group 12) This group generated 40% of the waste quantities reported Collec- tively, group 12 generated 107,262 pounds of moderate risk waste, the majonty of which was waste oil (65%) The second and third largest generators, by group, were funeral services (Group 6) and construction (Group 3), accounting for 11% of the total waste generated, respectively In all, these groups accounted for 62% of the total waste generated by all respondents However, these businesses represent only 18% of the total number of respon- dents (excluding RCRA-regulated generators) Representatives of the automotive service industry have expressed concern that they are labeled "generators" when in fact, they are serving as "collectors" of waste (such as used oil and antifreeze) generated by households, other businesses, and institutions Throughout the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, and under the State of Washington Dangerous Waste Regulations, such businesses are considered "generators," however The term "generator" as it is used in the Dangerous Waste Regulations refers to any person whose act produces dangerous waste or whose act first causes a dangerous waste to become subject to regulation Products such as motor oil and antifreeze are not considered a waste until they are removed from productive use, which is the point at which they are removed or released from the vehicle If the homeowner drains oil from a vehicle, for instance, the homeowner is considered to be the generator If a service station removes the oil, however, the service station is the generator, according to the law MRW Plan 5-25 December 1991 Table 5-5 Business groups disposmg moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties Business Group Waste Quantity by Method (in lbs) and Percent of Total Waste Generated Waste Type (% by weight) MAJOR GENERATORS 1 Building, Cleaning, and 1,610 (<1%) 26% = cleaners Maintenance 18% = waste oil 2% = antifreeze 1% = auto batteries <1% = other batteries 52% = other 2 Chemical Manufacturers and no waste reported Formulators 3 Construction 28,101 (11%) 19% = adhesives 3% -.- latex paints 7% = oil-based paints 8% = solvents 2% = cleaners <1% = pesticides 50% = waste oil 4% = antifreeze 6% = auto batteries <1% = other auto supphes <1% = other batteries <1% = acids/bases 4 Educational/Vocational Shops 20,364 (8%) <1% = adhesives 4% = latex paints 6% = oil-based paints 1% = solvents 19% = cleaners 2% = photochemicals <1% = pesticides 41% = waste oil 11% = antifreeze 9% = auto batteries 4% = other auto supplies <1% = other batteries <1% = acids/bases MRW Plan 5-26 December 1991 Table 5-5 Business groups disposing moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties (continued) Waste Quantity by Method Business Group (in lbs) and Percent of Waste Type (% by weight) Total Waste Generated MAJOR GENERATORS 5 Equipment Repair 4,410 (2%) <1% = adhesives 2% = latex paints 11% = oil-based paints 24% = solvents 29% = waste oil 8% = antifreeze 10% = auto batteries <1% = other auto supplies <1% = other battenes <1% = acids/bases 13% = other 6 Funeral Services 28,427 (11%) 1% = adhesives 1% = latex paints <1% = antifreeze <1% = auto batteries 97% = other 7 Labs and Medical Estabhshments 7,672 (3%) <1% = latex pamts <1% = oil-based paints 86% = cleaners 10% = photo chemicals <1% = pesticides 2% = waste oil <1% = other batteries <1% = toxic metals 1% = other 8 Laundries and Dry Cleaners 994 (<1%) <1% = adhesives <1% = oil-based paints 8% = solvents 91% = cleaners MRW Plan 5-27 December 1991 Table 5-5 Business groups disposmg moderate risk waste m Benton and Franklin Counties (continued) Waste Quantity by Method Business Group (m lbs) and Percent of Waste Type (% by weight) Total Waste Generated MAJOR GENERATORS 9 Metal Manufacturers 5,383 (2%) <1% = adhesives 5% = latex paints 5% = oil-based paints 25% = solvents 39% = cleaners 11% = waste oil 5% = auto batteries <1% = other batteries 10% = other 10 Motor and Railroad Transportation 13,567 (5%) 3% = solvents 1% = cleaners 64% = waste oil 3% = antifreeze 28% = auto batteries <1% = other auto supplies <1% = other batteries 11 Pesticide End-Use and Apphcation 5,312 (2%) 3% = latex paints 9% = solvents 10% = pesticides 50% = waste oil 6% = antifreeze 18% = auto batteries 3% = other batteries 12 Vehicle Maintenance and Gas 107,262 (40%) <1% = adhesives Stations <1% = latex paints <1% = oil-based paints 2% = solvents <1% = cleaners <1% = pesticides 65% = waste oil 6% = antifreeze 24% = auto batteries <1% = other auto supplies <1% = other batteries <1% = acids/bases MRW Plan 5-28 December 1991 Table 5-5 Business groups disposing moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties (continued) Waste Quantity by Method Busmess Group (in lbs) and Percent of Waste Type (% by weight) Total Waste Generated MAJOR GENERATORS 13 Wood Products and Services 7,561 (3%) 4% = adhesives 9% = latex paints 20% = ml-based paints 2% = solvents 11% = cleaners <1% = pesticides 19% = waste oil 8% = antifreeze 6% = auto batteries 1% = other auto supphes <1% = other batteries <1% = acids/bases 19% = other 14 Textile, Plastic, and Leather 175 (<1%) 10% = pesticides Products 43% = waste oil 47% = other 15 Paper, Printing, and Allied Services 5,355 (2%) <1% = adhesives <1% = solvents 3% = cleaners 96% = photochemicals 16 Other Manufacturing 1,704 (<1%) 29% = oil-based paints 7% = cleaners 49% = waste oil 14% = auto batteries <1% = other batteries 17 Electric, Gas, and Salutary Services _ 912 (<1%) <1% = adhesives 4% = latex paint <1% = ml-based paints <1% = solvents 2% = cleaners 32% = waste oil 12% = pesticides 5% = antifreeze 35% = auto batteries 2% = other auto supplies 5% = other batteries MRW Plan 5-29 December 1991 Table 5-5 Business groups disposing moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties (continued) Waste Quantity by Method Business Group (m lbs) and Percent of Waste Type (% by weight) Total Waste Generated MAJOR GENERATORS 18 Petroleum Distnbution MINOR GENERATORS 19 Wholesale Establishments 20 Retail Establishments 418 (<1%) 20,918 (8%) 4,669 (2%) 100% = waste oil <1% = adhesives 22% = solvents 4% = cleaners <1% = photochemicals 8% = pesticides 49% = waste oil 2% = antifreeze 14% = auto battenes <1% = other auto supplies <1% = other battenes <1% = acids/bases <1% = latex paints <1% = oil-based paints 4% = solvents 75% = cleaners 8% = waste oil <1% = antifreeze 3% = auto batteries <1% = other auto supplies <1% = other batteries 7% = other It is important to recogruze that businesses considered to be "generators" are, in many cases, accepting that status even though they did not contaminate the original product or benefit directly from the product's use Such businesses are required to follow the laws and regulations to assure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner As noted above, the vehicle maintenance and gas station group primarily produced waste oil (65% by weight) Auto batteries (24% by weight) and solvents (2% by weight) were the next largest waste types produced The largest quantity of waste produced by the funeral services group was formalin ("other") This represented 97% of the waste produced by this group In addition, the disposal methods for the two groups were different The majority of the vehicle maintenance and gas stations' moderate risk waste was picked up by a hazard- MRW Plan 5-30 December 1991 ous waste service, whereas the majority of the funeral services' waste was placed in a garbage can or poured down the drain to the sewer or septic tank The survey showed waste motor oil was also the largest quantity of moderate nsk waste generated by the construction group (Group 3) This group also reported generating large quantities of adhesives, solvents, oil-based paints, and thinners According to construction group respondents, solvents and waste oil were often picked up by a hazardous waste management service, while adhesives were placed in a garbage can or dumpster There are other groups that do not generate large quantities of moderate risk waste, but whose disposal practices could be improved, based upon analysis of their survey responses These groups are wood products and services (Group 13), labs and medical establishments (Group 7), paper, printing, and allied products (Group 15), and retail trade (Group 20) Respondents from wood products and services (Group 13) reported placing the majority of wastes from the "other" waste type category in the garbage can or dumpster These "other" waste categories were not specified by group or method of waste disposal in the survey results In addition, 19% of the waste was reported to be buried, spread on land, or disposed of in a drywell Most of the waste disposed in this fashion was waste oil and antifreeze Increased education as well as use of alternative methods for waste recycling could eliminate this problem Labs and medical establishments (Group 7) produce substantial quantities of detergents and disinfectants that are poured down the sewer Of greater concern are photochemicals, fixers, and inks which are also disposed of in this manner An examination of disposal practices should be made to determine whether additional processing or treatment of wastes should be done before disposal Respondents in retail trade (Group 20) poured 80% of the moderate nsk waste they produced down the drain to the sewer or septic tank Most wastes disposed of in this manner were detergents, although some wastes poured down the drain were reported as dry cleaning solutions and solvents Paper, pnnting, and allied services (Group 15) reported the disposal of photochemicals, fixers, and inks through a variety of methods These included disposal in the garbage can, down the drain, and on the street or down the storm drain Changes in Waste Generation The final portion of the survey asked businesses for information on changes in waste gener- ation, service needs, and preferences Figure 5-9 illustrates the changes in the quantities of moderate risk waste generated in the last five years in Benton and Franklin Counties Approximately 5% of the respondents reported an increase in the amount of moderate nsk waste produced over the last five years, while over 40% reported no change When asked what accounts for the change, most respondents cited an increase or decrease in sales (Figure 5-10) In addition, respondents were also asked how they expect moderate risk MRW Plan 5-31 December 1991 45% About the Same 40% 35% 30% 25% In Business less than 5 Years 20% 15% Less Waste 10% Unknown More Waste 5 % .=.1 0% Figure 5-9 Changes in the Amount of Moderate Risk Waste Generated in the Last 5 Years as Reported by Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties RESPONSE (3/0) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Increase or Decrease in Sales No Change Change in Change in Process or - Materials Investment Used Technology in New Equipment I r--1 Increased Recycling or Reuse Increased Waste /— Treatment i I Other Figure 5-10. Reasons for Change in Moderate Risk Waste Generation by Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties waste generation to change over the next five years Figure 5-11 shows that approximately 45% expect no changes in waste generated A relatively small number of businesses (10%) expect waste generation to increase When businesses were asked if they had taken action to reduce the quantities of moderate nsk waste produced, 32% of the respondents reported they had taken action to reduce waste quantities, 22% had not, 14% did not know, and 32% did not respond to the question or answered "does not apply" 5.3.2 Comparison of Commercial Survey Results with Regional Studies Currently, two methods are used to assess moderate risk waste generation by businesses . surveys and waste-sorting studies Both of these methods are also used to estimate house- hold hazardous waste generation These methods and their linutations are descnbed m Section 5 2 1, Methods of Assessing Household Hazardous Waste Generation In all, the Regional Council reviewed four studies of moderate nsk waste generation by businesses • National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey (Abt Associates, Inc 1985) • Clark and Skamania Counties Moderate Risk Hazardous Waste Management Plan busi- ness survey (Intergovernmental Resource Center 1989) • A Survey of Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators The Puget Sound Experience (Seattle-King County, Tacoma-Pierce County, and Thurston County Health Districts 1986) • Characterization and Impacts of Nonregulated Hazardous Wastes in Municipal Solid Waste of King County (Cal Recovery Systems 1985) The results of these studies are summarized below and addressed the following four topics • Waste generation • Waste management practices • Impediments to improving waste management practices • Program recommendations to improve moderate risk waste management The waste generation aspect of the studies examined what kinds of moderate nsk waste were being disposed, and who was disposing of them The studies expressed concerns about particular waste because of the large quantities in which they were generated, the common waste management practices associated with each kind of waste, and the potential threat the waste posed to human health and the environment Automobile-related waste, especially lead acid batteries, used motor oil, contaminated gasoline, grease and oils, and solvents caused the greatest concern Other wastes of concern included spent solvents (especially perchloroethylene used by dry cleaners), paints and thinners, photoprocessing wastes (including inks and dyes), heavy metal sludges, acids and bases, and pesticides (including empty pesticide containers) MRW Plan 5-34 December 1991 Unknown 38% Decrease 7% Increase 10% No Change 45% Figure 5-11. Expected Changes in Moderate Risk Waste Generation by Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties Over the Next 5 Years These studies also expressed concern about the groups that produce these kinds of moderate risk waste The concerns were raised because of the amounts of moderate nsk waste these groups produced, or the methods they used to dispose of the wastes The groups of concern included vehicle maintenance shops, autobody shops, and gas stations, dry cleaners and laundnes, photoprocessors, equipment repair shops, metal manufacturers, educational and vocational schools, transportation services, pesticide users, and wood preserving services Most businesses disposed of their moderate nsk waste off-site through a garbage pickup service A significant amount of moderate risk waste was disposed of down the drain to the sewer or septic system Some on-site and off-site recycling occurred Improper disposal of various substances was noted in three of the studies, although the level of improper disposal was not well documented Opportumties existed for improving moderate risk waste management by placing a greater emphasis on waste reduction Businesses that practiced extensive waste reduction did so to mitigate high disposal costs, decrease capital costs, and absolve themselves from liability for their moderate risk wastes In addition, businesses mentioned government regulation and lack of information as impediments to improving moderate risk waste management The studies had a wide range of program recommendations, including moderate nsk waste reporting systems, health and safety traimng, medical and waste surveillance, environmental momtonng, revisions to local ordinances and permitting programs, and supporting waste exchange and technical assistance activities In short, the studies reviewed by the Regional Council identified similar types of problem wastes and generators, documented similar waste disposal methods, and noted similar con- cerns related to waste management Although addressing similar issues, recommendations in the studies were specific to conditions in the study regions 5.3.2.1 Moderate Risk Waste Generation by Businesses in Yakima and Walla Walla/ Columbia Counties The commercial waste survey results from Benton and Franklin Counties may be readily compared to results obtained in similar surveys conducted in nearby counties As noted in Section 5 3 1 3, Waste Generation and Management, waste oil and auto batteries accounted for over 59% by weight of the commercial moderate risk waste stream in Benton and Franklin Counties Waste oil and auto batteries represented a majority of the commer- cial moderate risk waste stream (68%) in Yakima County also Similarly, in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties, waste oil and auto batteries accounted for 36% and 26%, by weight, of the commercial waste stream, respectively Auto batteries (weighing 40 pounds each) comprise a large share of the commercial moderate risk waste stream because the results of the commercial waste surveys are represented by weight MRW Plan 5-36 December 1991 In addition to similar waste types and quantities generated in Benton, Franklin, Yakima, Walla Walla, and Columbia Counties, disposal methods used to discard wastes were also comparable m these counties By weight, the most frequent moderate risk waste disposal methods used by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties were picking up waste by a hazardous waste or recycling firm (47%) and pouring waste down the drain to the sewer or septic system (15%) Survey respondents in Yakima County also reported the most common waste disposal methods included pickup by a hazardous waste collection service (almost 40%) and pouring waste down the sewer or septic tank (15%) As in Benton, Franklin, and Yakima Counties, Walla Walla and Columbia Counties most frequent waste disposal methods used were a pickup service by a hazardous waste or , recycling firm and pouring waste down the drain to the sewer or septic system Approx- imately 34% of the reported commercial moderate risk waste in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties was picked up by a hazardous waste or recycling firm In addition, 11% of the reported commercial moderate risk waste was poured down the drain to the sewer or septic system Based upon the survey, business groups generating the largest quantities of commercial moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties were vehicle maintenance and gas stations (Group 12) This group generated 40% of the waste reported Similarly, the vehicle maintenance and gas stations group generated almost 33% of the commercial moderate risk waste reported in Yakima County and 32% of the commercial moderate risk waste reported in Walla Walla and Columbia Counties 5.3.2.2 Service Needs and Preferences This section details the kind of support businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties would prefer or need to properly manage moderate risk waste It also discusses financing of programs as well as frequency of service use Finally, respondents' concerns and suggestions are summanzed Lack of information and technical assistance was the primary obstacle respondents reported in preventing them from reducing the amount of moderate risk waste generated Others reported technology was not available, capital costs were too high, or financing was not available (Table 5-6) Respondents were also asked about the types of services that would best fit their moderate risk waste management needs Most respondents preferred a permanent drop-off facility at a central location where businesses could drop off or send moderate risk waste for recycling, treatment, and disposal Preferences for other services are cited in Table 5-7 MRW Plan 5-37 December 1991 Table 5-6 Obstacles to reducing waste generation reported by businesses generating moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties Reasons Response' Lack of information or technical assistance 26% Technology not available 12% Adverse impact on production 4% Capital costs too high 11% Fmancmg not available 5% Other 15% a Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents could choose more than one option or none at all Table 5-7 Services businesses prefer for improving moderate risk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties Services Response' Curbside collection service 18% Drop-off facility 34% Collection event 17% Technical assistance 10% Industrial waste exchange 9% Other 5% ° Percentages do not add up to 100% because respondents could choose more than one option or none at all Respondents were also asked what they currently pay for moderate risk waste disposal Approximately 34% of the respondents said they are paying nothing for moderate nsk waste disposal About 17% are paying up to $50 annually Most of the remaining businesses are paying higher rates, ranging up to $1,000 per year (Figure 5-12) When asked how much they would be willing to pay for curbside collection service for moderate nsk waste, 22% would pay up to $50 to use such a service However, 60% would not use the service Respondents were also asked what they would be willing to pay per year for a drop-off facility While 24% said they would pay up to $50 annually, 61% said they would not use this service (Table 5-8) Respondents were also asked how often they would use collection services or a drop-off facility Figure 5-13 shows over 10% of the respondents reported they would use the service or facility once annually, while over 20% reported they would use them twice a year MRW Plan 5-38 December 1991 $0 34% $1 to $50 17% $101 to $250 6% $251 to $500 3% IIIIITINWAMIIIIIMIIIIIMMIIIIIIIMMI 111110 111111111 111111NUit ie..............1 "71111111111111•11111111111w - '11 ‘444**N7A111111111 111 1111 1111 11:11111 ..............,,„ WA,Vo.=:,4KMIIIIIIIEIIIIIIII•MllIl••IIIIIIr z Ar.;.,e*„.yn 11111•.............7 -~.................v ) ,,...„... /vi...............,,/ $51 to $100 4% Unknown 34% More than $500 2% Figure 5-12. Annual Moderate Risk Waste Disposal Costs for Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Would not use Twice Annually Once Annually Monthly INN Other Moll Weekly RESPONSE (Y0) Figure 5-13. Projected Use of Collection Service or Drop-Off Facility by Businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties Table 5-8 Financial support for collection services by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties Percentage of Respondents Willing to Pay For Collection Services Amount Willing To Pay Annually Curbside Collections Drop-off Facility Less than $50 22% 24% $51 - $100 8% 7% $101 - $250 7% 5% $251 - $500 3% 3% Greater than $500 <1% 0% Would not use service or no response 60% 61% ° The sum of the percentages is greater than 100% due to rounding Concerns and Suggestions Respondents were asked in the survey to identify any concerns or suggestions they might have with respect to moderate risk waste management Those responding expressed con- cerns about numerous topics Respondents suggested the following • Provide greater access to collection services • Provide greater opportunities for recycling wastes • Address complicated moderate risk waste regulations • Lower costs of providing services • Work with government in regulating moderate nsk waste disposal • Help businesses determine proper disposal methods 5.3.2.3 Projection of Moderate Risk Waste Generation by Businesses Results from the commercial waste survey can be used to estimate and project the quantities of moderate nsk waste generation by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties Current generation can be estimated by calculating the average quantity of moderate nsk waste produced by each of the selected 20 business groups in Benton and Franklin Counties. It is estimated that approximately 1,934 tons of moderate risk waste were produced by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties from February 1990 to February 1991 (Table 5-9) Note that the estimated quantity of moderate risk waste generated by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties annually (1,934 tons) is nearly twice the estimated quantity produced by households each year (1,048 tons) However, it should be recognized that some of the largest quantities of wastes are produced by businesses which are providing a service to households, and accepting responsibility for the waste For instance, waste motor oil, and auto battenes, and other automotive waste products reported by vehicle maintenance and MRW Plan 5-41 December 1991 Table 5-9 Estimated moderate risk waste generation by businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties Business Group Average Annual Quantity Disposed' (lbs) 1990 1996 Number of Businesses b Estimated Waste Generation (lbs) Projected Waste Generation (lbs) MAJOR GENERATORS 1 Building, Cleaning and 162 96 15,552 17,101 Maintenance 2 Chemical Manufacturers and Formulators' No Waste Reported Disposed 3 Construction 1,003 710 712,460 771,451 4 Educational and Voca- tional Schools 4,073 16 65,162 71,652 5 Equipment Repair 211 244 51,484 57,106 6 Funeral Services 9,475 6 56,850 62,512 7 Laboratories and Medical 349 235 82,015 90,184 Establishments 8 Laundries and Dry 83 63 5,224 5,744 Cleaners 9 Metal Manufacturers 269 49 13,188 12,128 10 Motor and Railway Trans- portation 1,131 79 89,349 99,106 11 Pesticide End-Use and 257 257 66,049 70,805 Application 12 Vehicle Maintenance and 5,959 339 2,020,101 2,221,303 Gas Stations 13 Wood Products and 504 100 50,413 54,709 Services 14 Textile, Plastic and 88 2 176 191 Leather Products 15 Paper, Printing and Allied 446 37 16,502 18,146 16 Other Manufacturing 426 12 5,112 5,548 17 Electric, Gas and Sanitary 92 35 3,220 3,572 Services 18 Petroleum Distribution (excluding gas stations) 105 13 1,365 1,555 MRW Plan 5-42 December 1991 Table 5-9 Estimated moderate risk waste generation by busmesses m Benton and Franklin Counties (contmued) Busuaess Group Average Annual 1990 1996 Quantity Disposed° (lbs) Number of Estimated Waste Projected Waste Businesses t' Generation (lbs) Generation (lbs) MINOR GENERATORS 19 Wholesale Trade 1,231 273 i 335,935 382,697 20 Retail Trade 167 1 660 277.220 315.809 TOTAL 4 232 3,867,377 lbs 4,255,739 lbs or 1.934 tons or 2.128 tons . From the Benton and Franklin Counties' Commercial waste survey b Number of active businesses listed with the Department of Revenue (1990) . There is a total of 6 businesses in Group 2, Chemical Manufacturers and Formulators, m Benton and Franklin Counties, according to the Department of Revenue No waste was reported disposed, smce some of the businesses did not return surveys, and the two returning surveys identified themselves as regulated generators of hazardous waste, and were consequently excluded from the survey analysis Although no moderate risk waste was disposed, the four businesses which did not respond may, m fact, produce moderate risk waste gas stations result in part from service provided to vehicles which are not used for business purposes In 1996, at the end of the HWM Plan's five year time frame, we expect that the businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties will generate 2,128 tons of moderate risk waste — an increase of approximately 1 67% annually Projections were based upon the following assumptions and methodology • Each business group (1 to 20) was assigned to an industrial employment sector based on the businesses within the group • Projections for employment changes within each industrial employment sector were obtained from the Washington State Employment Security Department • These employment forecasts were for 1988 to 1993 and are the most current forecasts available It was assumed that the average annual percentage increase would remain stable until 1996, the end of the planning period for the MRW Plan • It was assumed that there is a direct relationship between the number of employees per industrial sector and the amount of goods produced In other words, each additional employee hired increases the production Also, it was assumed that the amount of waste generated is directly related to the amount of goods produced MRW Plan 5-43 December 1991 • It was assumed that all businesses within each sector grow at approximately the same rate • The average annual percentage increase for each industrial sector was applied to the amount of waste generated by each of the business groups assigned to that sector Waste estimates for 1990 and 1996 are shown in Table 5-9 Minor commercial generators are expected to produce 10% of the moderate risk waste disposed in Benton and Franklin Counties in 1996, while major generators are expected to produce 90% of the waste disposed 5.33 Conclusions Many businesses that are aware of their moderate risk waste production appear to be dis- posing of the wastes properly A relatively large percentage of wastes are collected by a pickup service for hazardous waste, self-hauled to a treatment or recycling facility, or recycled on-site Although much of the waste appears to be managed properly, there are some exceptions which are evident from a review of the survey results • Adhesives, glues, and sealants placed in the garbage can or dumpster • Oil-based paints, thinners, and strippers placed in the garbage can or dumpster • Detergents, disinfectants, and waxes dumped down the sewer or septic tank • Photochemicals, fixers, and inks poured on the street or down the storm drain, or poured down the sewer or septic tank • Waste motor oil buried, spread on land, disposed of in a drywell, placed in the garbage can or dumpster, and self-hauled to a landfill or transfer station • Auto batteries placed in the garbage can or dumpster or self-hauled to a landfill or transfer station • Antifreeze and other automotive supplies poured down the sewer or septic tank • Formalin and formaldehyde placed in the garbage can or dumpster, or poured down the drain to the sewer or septic tank • Acids and bases poured down the sewer or septic tank Increasing education and providing alternative recycling, treatment, or disposal methods for these wastes could reduce and eventually eliminate them from the landfills and wastewater treatment systems. As pointed out in Quantity of Waste Generated and Disposed, in Section 5 3 23, the MRW Plan should also recommend technical assistance and increased business education for the following groups MRW Plan 5-44 December 1991 • Vehicle maintenance and gas stations (Group 12) • Retail trade (Group 20) • Construction (Group 3) • Laboratory and medical establishments (Group 7) • Paper, pnnting, and allied services (Group 15) • Wood products and services (Group 13) • Funeral services (Group 6) These educational and technical assistance activities should lead to improvements in waste reduction, recycling, storage and disposal practices for commercial moderate risk waste 5.4 AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL WASTE GENERATION IN BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES Most farmers depend on agricultural chemicals, such as herbicides and insecticides, to control plants and insects If not controlled, these pests can easily wipe out farmers' crops The improper use or disposal of these chemicals often poses long-term problems for human health and the environment Yet, when these agricultural chemicals become wastes, proper disposal can be very expensive or even impossible The issue of waste agricultural chemical disposal is important to Benton and Franklin County residents, since agriculture plays an essential role in the local economy The following section has three objectives • To give background information on agricultural chemical waste collection and surveys conducted in the State of Washington • To review the methodology of the agricultural chemical waste survey conducted in Benton and Franklin Counties in February and March 1991 • To describe the results of that survey with respect to (1) respondents' service preferences and needs, (2) the amount of agricultural chemical wastes and empty pesticide containers stored by the respondents, and (3) disposal methods for those containers and waste automotive products This information is being used to help define programs the Counties and the State of Washington could implement to assist farmers and ranchers in managing agricultural chemicals and moderate risk wastes 5.4.1 Background Information Through Substitute Senate Bill No 5026, passed in 1986, the Department of Ecology, assisted by the Agricultural Statistics Service, conducted a study to assess the amount of pesticide wastes and empty waste containers stored on Washington State farms The study was conducted because, as stated in the Senate bill, " farmers have no appropriate MRW Plan 5-45 December 1991 economically feasible means of legally disposing of small amounts of hazardous wastes, including pesticides with uses canceled or restncted after purchase" The study was completed and submitted to the Washington State Legislature in January 1987 and attempted to explain the persistent backlog of agncultural chemical wastes on farms Farmers and ranchers tend to purchase these chemicals in small quantities, generally as much as they need and will use Yet many agncultural operations end up storing pounds of chemical wastes The main reason for these stored wastes appears to be the suspension, cancellation, or restriction on the acceptable use of pesticides when onginally purchased by farmers Other reasons for stonng waste agricultural chemicals include • Substitution of the product with a more effective pesticide • Pesticide is rendered useless, due to freezing or other physical causes • Disposal can be complicated, expensive, and a potential liability if done improperly • Disposal can pollute soils or groundwater supplies The concern over potential liability also explains why obtaining accurate information on the types and quantities of pesticide wastes is often difficult, if not impossible. The Ecology study involved mailing a bnef survey to over 2,000 farms throughout Washington The sur- vey results estimated that 42 tons of pesticide wastes were stored in Washington in 1986 The final report of the study noted that this figure might be very low (Department of Ecology 1987) The Washington Department of Agnculture began conducting pesticide waste collection events, called "Inspection Days," m several counties in Washington in 1988 These collection events allowed farmers to turn m their stored pesticide wastes at no cost, and without liability The Inspection Day events have resulted in the collection of large quantities of agricultural chemical wastes from several individuals For instance, in Yakima County, the Department of Agnculture collected 22 tons of waste chemicals from approximately 100 participants The large quantity of wastes collected tends to confirm that the 42-ton statewide estimate proposed by the 1987 Ecology study was extremely low Studies of agncultural chemical wastes conducted by Parametnx for Yakima County showed that up to 185 tons may be stored on farms and ranches In the fall of 1990, the Department of Agnculture also sponsored a collection event in Franklin County Approximately 18 tons of waste agncultural chemicals were turned in by 58 farmers and ranchers from several counties 5.4.2 Agricultural Chemical Waste Survey In February and March 1991, the Benton County Washington State University Cooperative Extension asked approximately 850 farms in Benton and Franklin Counties to participate in a random, confidential mail survey The purpose of the survey was threefold MRW Plan 5-46 December 1991 • To estimate the amount of waste agricultural chemicals and empty agricultural chemical containers currently stored by farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties • To identify which services and program options farmers would most likely use to dispose of their waste agricultural chemicals • To identify which methods farmers use to dispose of their vehicle and machinery maintenance wastes Large farms where vehicles or machinery are maintained on- site may easily produce as much or more waste automotive products as small quantity business generators produce In all, 375 residents responded to the agricultural survey This represents a 44% response rate Of the respondents, 306 operated a farm or ranch in Benton or Franklin County dunng 1990-1991 Waste generation rates and tabulation of other survey responses are based on these 306 respondents The farms that received surveys were selected from mailing lists obtained from the Benton County Cooperative Extension and the Department of Agriculture These mailing lists categonzed the farms into the type of commodity grown or raised These mailing lists were not complete listings of all farms and ranches in Benton and Franklin Counties, but represented the most comprehensive lists available The mailing lists used to choose the sample included names and addresses from several associations and groups These were Washington State Hay Growers Association, tree fruit growers, Washington State Grape Society, 1990 Organic Producers, Washington State Vegetable Association, Washington State Horticultural Association, Washington State Vegetable Association, dry land wheat growers in Franklin County, and private applicators All names and addresses on these lists were used to send 844 surveys to farms and ranches m Benton and Franklin Counties Surveys were sent to these individuals m two separate mailings in February and March 1991 A follow-up postcard was sent one week after the surveys were sent out to increase the response rate The survey consisted of 23 questions (Appendix G) and asked for information on the following topics • Type of operation • Quantity of stored waste agricultural chemicals • Quantity of stored empty containers and common disposal practices • Disposal methods used for farm machinery maintenance wastes • Preferred disposal services for waste agricultural chemicals • Participation in the agricultural waste collection event in Pasco (Fall 1990) 5.4.2.1 Type of Farming Operation In all, 47% of those surveyed said they operated farms in Benton County, 49% operated farms in Franklin County, less than 1% operated in both counties, and 4% did not answer MRW Plan 5-47 December 1991 The predominant crop was tree fruit, grown by 26% of the respondents Grapes were grown by 8% of the respondents, wheat by 8%, and hay by 8% In all, 4% of the respondents grew row crops, 4% potatoes, 2% asparagus, and 2% vegetables Approximately 1% of the respondents raised beef cattle In addition, fewer than 1% of the respondents grew hops or mint, or raised sheep or hogs Almost 35% of the respondents reported farming activities not listed, while fewer than 1% did not respond The 35% who did not select one of the listed activities reported growing currants, walnuts, pumpkins, and herbs, among other crops Beekeeping was also a reported farming activity listed on the questionnaire Farm size ranged from 1 to 12,000 acres The average farm size was 743 acres In addition, only 1% of the respondents said they used public sewer services, 94% used septic tanks, and 4% did not respond Of the 306 respondents, 7 (2%) said they were Washington State certified orgamc growers Participants were also asked how they applied their agricultural chemicals Approximately 39% of the respondents stated that they applied their own chemicals, 6% used an outside service, and 52% self-applied and used an outside service Of the remairung respondents, fewer than 1% did not apply any chemicals, and 2% did not respond 5.4.2.2 Agricultural Chemical Waste Storage Approximately 25% of the respondents reported they had stored waste agncultural chemi- cals These chemicals may be considered regulated hazardous waste if spilled or improperly released, or when the farmer declares the chemical to be wastes Each of these respondents was asked to report the total quantity stored for each of the following waste types • Defoliants • Desiccants • Fumigants • Fungicides • Growth regulators • Herbicides • Insecticides • Others or unknowns In all, the farms reported having 11,597 pounds of stored agricultural waste chemicals Approximately 57% of this amount was insecticides and herbicides This represents an average of 38 pounds per respondent, based on 306 survey participants A breakdown of quantities by waste type is shown in Figure 5-14 Respondents also reported storing 1,786 pounds of chemical nnsate on their farms and ranches According to the 1987 Census of Agriculture, Benton County had 1,178 farms and Franklin County had 894 farms, for a combined total of 2,072 farms Based upon survey results, this means approximately 78,736 pounds or 39 tons of agricultural waste chemicals may be stored and, thus, need special disposal MRW Plan 5-48 December 1991 Fungicides 8*/ Defoliants 11% Other 20% Insecticides 35% Herbicides 22% Fumigants 4% Total Waste 11,597 Lbs Figure 5-14. Quantity of Pesticide Waste Reported on the Benton and Franklin Counties Agricultural Waste Survey 5.4.2.3 Managing Empty Containers Of the 306 respondents, 34% reported having empty, stored, waste agncultural chemical containers on-site at the time of the survey There was a total of 1,556 stored containers The 306 respondents had an average of 5 containers per survey participant With an estimated 2,072 farms in the two-county area, approximately 10,360 containers may be stored and awaiting disposal m March 1991 An average of 46 containers were disposed of by respondents annually From the survey, it was estimated that over 90,000 empty containers are disposed annually in Benton and Franklin Counties A breakdown of the disposal method and container type is shown in Table 5-10 Plastic and paper containers were frequently incinerated, while metal containers were picked up by a garbage hauler, or self-hauled to a landfill or transfer station. In all, 84% of the respondents reported that they tnple-nnsed containers holding liquid products, while 5% said they did not. Another 2% did not know if the containers were triple-rinsed Almost 2% did not use the containers, while 7% did not answer the question. When asked what disposal method they preferred for empty liquid containers, 37% of the respondents chose returning them to the distnbutor, 33% chose self-hauling the containers to a central collection site, and 20% chose a pickup service from farm to farm Approxi- mately 10% of the respondents did not answer the question. 5.4.2.4 Disposal of Farm Machinery Maintenance Waste Survey participants were asked how they disposed of their farm machinery maintenance wastes These wastes included waste oil and diesel, antifreeze, battenes, and other auto maintenance products Table 5-10 Waste agricultural chemical containers reported m the Benton and Franklin Counties' Agricultural Waste Survey Type of Contamer° Disposal Method Plastic Metal Paper Pickup by local garbage hauler 45 53 21 Bury on land 3 31 5 Return to seller 22 29 3 Burn 146 7 232 Self-haul to landfill or transfer station 23 44 5 Reuse ,- 8 9 1 Taken to hazardous waste facility 3 6 1 Other 49 40 19 Don't use 3 82 13 Unknown 4 5 6 a Numbers reported are frequency of disposal MRW Plan 5-50 December 1991 Farm equipment maintenance waste disposal practices reported on the Benton and Franklin Agricultural Waste Survey are shown in Table 5-11 Waste oil, antifreeze, and other auto maintenance products were most often buried, spread, or poured on land according to the respondents Batteries were most frequently taken to a treatment or recycling facility Other methods used to dispose of these wastes include spreading waste oil on roads and dnveways, and returning batteries to the distributor Antifreeze and other automotive products were also reused and stored in drums Table 5-11 Farm equipment maintenance waste disposal practices reported on the Benton and Franklin Counties' Agricultural Waste Survey Waste Types Disposal Method Waste Oil Antifreeze Batteries Other Auto Products Place in garbage or dumpster 2 8 6 59 Bury, pour, or spread on land 66 166 2 75 Burn 51 5 N/A 35 Pour down storm drain or sewer 0 2 N/A 0 Take to landfill/transfer station 7 15 10 20 Take to treatment/recycling facility 42 20 161 17 Other 127 58 115 75 Unknown 11 32 12 25 ' Numbers reported are frequency of disposal 5.4.2.5 Preferred Waste Management Services In all, 91% of the respondents said they would drive five or more miles to a collection site Approximately 6% of the respondents reported they would drive one to five miles to a collection site The remainder of the respondents would not drive to a collection site or did not respond to the question (3%) The survey participants were given a list of potential waste management services the coun- ties might provide The respondents were asked to indicate which services would best fit their needs (Table 5-12) The preferred services included • A permanent facility for farms to drop off agricultural chemicals (60%) • Agricultural community collection events held periodically in a central location (38%) MRW Plan 5-51 December 1991 Table 5-12 Agricultural services reported to best fit the needs of farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties Agricultural Service Frequency of Use' Collection pickup service at the farm 67 Permanent drop-off facility 184 Agricultural collection event 115 Consulting service 16 Management workshops 25 Newsletter 32 Agricultural chemical exchange 57 • Reported frequency of preferred agricultural services (of 306 respondents) Other options included • An agricultural pickup service at the farm (22%) • A hot line or consulting service (5%) - • Workshops on management, disposal options, regulations, and health and safety (8%) • Newsletters (10%) • An agncultural chemical exchange (19%) Survey participants were asked if they had participated in the agricultural hazardous waste collection event sponsored by the Department of Agriculture in Pasco in the fall of 1990 Approximately 11% of the respondents said they participated in the collection event. Survey participants were also questioned about how much they would be willing to pay annually for agricultural chemical disposal services Although 30% of the respondents said they would not pay for these services, 50% said they would pay up to $100 and 8% would pay between $100 and $200 for disposal services Another 3% would pay between $200 and $300, and fewer than 2% would pay between $300 and $500 Fewer than 8% of the survey participants did not respond When asked about the frequency with which they would use agricultural hazardous waste disposal services, 46% of the respondents said they would use collection services once a year (Figure 5-15) Approximately 32% of the respondents would use the collection services twice a year, while 11% would use such services monthly Fewer than 1% of the respon- dents would use the collection services weekly Another 11% would not use the services or did not respond Survey participants were asked when would be the best time of year to have waste collection services available Their preferences were as follows MRW Plan 5-52 December 1991 Would not use or did not respond 11% Twice a year 32% Once a year 46% Figure 5-15. Frequency With Which Survey Participants Would Use a Disposal Service • January to March (9%) • Apnl to June (8%) • July to September (10%) • October to December (29%) • No preference (22%) The other participants would not use the service or did not respond to the question 5.4.3 Conclusions Based upon the survey results, farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties may be stonng approximately 39 tons of agncultural chemical waste, mostly insecticides and herbicides It could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispose of these wastes properly Funding support and assistance for the collection and disposal of agricultural chemical waste must be provided by the state or federal government if this backlog is to be eliminated in an environmentally sound manner Many farmers indicated they willing to participate in collection events or use a permanent facility to get nd of their wastes In addition, farmers are willing to financially support pesticide waste collection programs However, this support is limited since many farmers may not be able to pay for the entire cost of disposal Based upon the survey results, it may be concluded that farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties are currently using a variety of methods to dispose of empty waste containers In addition, the survey shows a majority of farmers are careful to triple-rinse their liquid containers Much of the auto maintenance wastes, such as waste oil, antifreeze, and other auto products, however, are being improperly managed Many farmers report disposal of these wastes by burying them or pouring them on the ground An exception to this practice is demonstrated by the disposal of auto batteries, which are frequently recycled Increased education and opportunities for proper disposal of pesticides and auto maintenance wastes could help prevent environmental or health threats 5.5 SUMMARY According to survey results, households and businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties are currently producing 2,982 tons of moderate risk waste annually If each household and busi- ness continues to produce moderate risk waste at the same rate as today, approximately 3,250 tons of moderate nsk waste will be generated in Benton and Franklin Counties in 1996 Many residents are unaware of the environmental hazards caused by the products they use, store, and dispose of at their homes Business owners and operators are also frequently unaware or misinformed about regulations affecting their moderate risk waste management practices MRW Plan 5-54 December 1991 With respect to households, recognition is the key to promoting waste reduction, recycling, substitution of alternatives, and proper waste management Public education and better management practices are needed to increase awareness of household hazardous waste Residents have reported a willingness to financially support education and collection activi- ties if they are convement, practical, and inexpensive Those household wastes targeted for particular emphasis because of large quantities generated or improper disposal methods include waste oil, auto batteries, and antifreeze Many businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties dispose of wastes properly, through pick- up services for hazardous waste, self-haul to recycling facilities, or recycling on-site However, certain waste types were problematic in their improper disposal Adhesives, deter- gents, photochemicals, waste oil, antifreeze, auto batteries, and other products such as formahn were reported to be disposed of improperly Increased education and provision of alternative disposal methods could eliminate or significantly diminish certain waste types disposed of in landfills or wastewater treatment systems Access to collection services, lower costs in providing services, and better coordination between businesses and government m regulating moderate nsk wastes were concerns reported by Benton and Franklin Counties' commercial institutions Surveys showed that farmers may currently be storing approximately 39 tons of waste pesti- cides, the majonty of which are insecticides and herbicides These wastes are stored because proper disposal options are limited and disposal costs for these wastes are high Most farmers appear to be conscientious about their pesticide and moderate nsk waste disposal practices, particularly in triple-rinsing containers and recycling batteries However, the survey indicates that auto maintenance products such as waste oil and antifreeze are disposed of improperly Increased education, technical assistance, and alternative disposal methods may help in the prevention of improper agricultural waste and moderate nsk waste disposal MRW Plan 5-55 December 1991 Chapter Six , Improving Moderate Risk Waste Management in Benton and Franklin Counties 6. IMPROVING MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT Alternative actions for improving moderate risk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties are described and evaluated in this chapter Alternatives were selected based on a three step process First, objectives for each element of moderate risk waste management were identified based upon the plan's goals stated in the Executive Summary Second, these objectives were evaluated in terms of "needs" — anything that might prevent an objective from being reached — and "opportunities" — anything that might support an objective Finally, the analysis of needs and opportunities was used to develop a set of alternatives These alternatives were evaluated by the Solid Waste Advisory Committees (SWACs) based on their ability to satisfy the objectives of moderate nsk waste management 6.1 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL IMPROVEMENTS This chapter proposes improvements to four categories of moderate risk waste management household hazardous waste management, commercial moderate nsk waste management, agncultural chemical waste management, and local government support for moderate nsk waste management The overall objective of each of these categories is to protect human health and natural resources by developing proper handling procedures for moderate nsk wastes and by eliminating the discharge of these wastes into solid waste systems, wastewater treatment systems, and into the environment through indiscriminate disposal The MRW Plan presents two general strategies for meeting the objectives of moderate nsk waste management (1) waste reduction and recycling for moderate risk wastes, and (2) proper disposal of moderate risk wastes Surveys conducted on moderate risk waste management practices in the two-county area indicate that a higher level of moderate risk waste reduction and recycling is needed among residents, businesses, and farmers in Benton and Franklin Counties Waste reduction strate- gies, like substituting nonhazardous products for their hazardous counterparts, reduce the generation of hazardous products Increasing recycling levels for hazardous waste also helps to keep wastes, such as automobile batteries and waste oil, from contaminating the environ- ment when they are discarded Moderate nsk wastes that are not reduced in volume or recycled need to be disposed of properly Many disposal practices for these wastes pose a threat to human health and natural resources in Benton and Franklin Counties For example, groundwater may be con- taminated when wastes such as pesticides, solvents, or waste oil are disposed of at the Pasco and Richland landfills, in sewer or septic systems, or onto the pavement or ground Each of the objectives, "needs and opportunities," and alternatives described in this chapter are part of these two general strategies of moderate risk waste management MRW Plan 6-1 December 1991 6.2 IMPROVING HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 6.2.1 Objectives The pnmary objectives of household hazardous waste management are to , • Develop and promote waste reduction and recycling programs for household hazardous waste • Increase public awareness of available alternatives and the importance of proper disposal of household hazardous waste • Improve opportunities for the safe disposal of household hazardous waste The next section describes factors that either prevent or support the attainment of these objectives 6.2.2 Needs and Opportunities The results of the household hazardous waste survey indicate that public knowledge is limited regarding the identification of household hazardous products and the health and environmental threats posed by hazardous materials in the home The majority of the respondents could not name any type of household hazardous product without being prompted When prompted, however, most of the respondents had one or more hazardous products in their homes The survey found that residents of Benton and Franklin Counties need information regarding the following • The identification of household hazardous products • Appropriate substitutes for household hazardous products • Proper handling and storage of household hazardous products • Locally available waste reduction, recycling, and disposal options for household hazardous waste In addition to the need for public information, the survey found that inadequate proper dis- posal practices are being used by households in the two-county area Residents indicated that they would participate in collection events and support the development of moderate risk waste collection stations MRW Plan 6-2 December 1991 6.2.3 Alternatives 6.2.3.1 Household Hazardous Waste Education Alternatives presented in this section are designed to address the need for improving public awareness of household hazardous waste issues Education programs will focus on pnonty wastes identified in the MRW Plan used motor oil, antifreeze, and automobile battenes The following represents the range of education alternatives considered 1 Provide information to residents or community groups These activities could include • Providing information on request using existing and/or locally developed matenals • Sending information to residents through mailings, or television and radio adver- tisements • Providing a local hotline for assistance to the public • Posting and distributing information in retail stores • Encouraging environmental orgaruzations to conduct educational activities, and then advertising and distributing their educational materials locally 2 Conduct school programs to educate children about household hazardous waste. Options under this alternative could include incorporating household hazardous waste education into school curriculums, or conducting classroom presentations or assemblies 3 Provide educational services to community groups These activities could include devel- oping a display to take to community events, establishing information centers at commu- mty gathering places such as libraries, and providing speakers to community groups 6.23.2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Alternatives described in this section are designed to address the need to improve house- hold hazardous waste disposal options available to residents in Benton and Franklin Counties These alternatives include general approaches to collecting household hazardous waste as well as options for collecting specific types of waste 1 Expand publicity for the existing annual collection event, to promote even greater participation 2 Increase the frequency of collection events, to accommodate increased participation, and/ or vary the location of collection events, to provide more convement access to residents county-wide MRW Plan 6-3 December 1991 3 Develop permanent collection facilities at one of the landfills, the transfer station, or other locations Permanent facilities would be open to the public on a regular basis Perma- nent facilities may accept a wide range of household hazardous wastes, or only specific waste types 4 Develop permanent facilities, and collection events or mobile collection. Options include siting one or more permanent collection facilities and (1) holding periodic collection events, or (2) using a mobile collection unit to provide ongoing service to all areas of both counties The mobile service would be conducted using a truck specially designed for handling hazardous matenals 5 Collect household hazardous waste at households by appointment This may be appro- priate for some residents, such as the elderly or handicapped, who would otherwise be unable to participate in collection activities 6 Collect household batteries Options include the following • Providing penodic curbside collection in conjunction with garbage collection, or curb- side collection of recyclables • Encouraging collection by retailers or other businesses, such as recycling outlets 7 Recycle paint Possible methods for recycling paint include conducting a pilot program to recycle and market latex pamt, and providing paint free to those who may be able to use it 8 Encourage increased waste oil recycling Options include • Promoting current waste oil collection at the Richland landfill, Kennewick transfer station, the Pasco Samtary Landfill, and at local auto service stations • Encouraging increased pnvate oil recycling • Developing government-sponsored centralized waste oil collection facilities, in addition to other household hazardous waste collection activities Collection events for waste oil may also be held • Promoting current curbside collection of waste oil in Kennewick and Prosser Encouraging penodic curbside collection of waste oil in other areas of Benton and Franklin Counties, possibly in conjunction with other curbside waste collection programs MRW Plan 6-4 December 1991 6.3 IMPROVING COMMERCIAL MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT 6.3.1 Objectives The objectives of commercial moderate risk waste management programs are similar to those expressed under household hazardous waste management Commercial management of these wastes emphasizes waste reduction, recycling, and proper disposal of moderate risk wastes, improved public information and awareness of commercial moderate risk waste issues, and improved moderate risk waste disposal options for businesses Disseminating information on regulatory requirements facing businesses is of particular concern in the management of commercial moderate risk wastes 6.3.2 Needs and Opportunities The Commercial Waste Survey revealed that most businesses need more information on the identification of hazardous products as well as on regulatory requirements, and proper handling, storage, and disposal procedures for hazardous materials Moderate risk waste informational programs, oriented towards business, would help address these needs Busi- nesses would also benefit from technical assistance programs that provided information on specific waste management techniques and equipment Many of the businesses participating m the Commercial Waste Survey were probably unaware of the full range of options avail- able for managing their moderate risk waste Respondents also indicated that a wider range of disposal options as well as more easily accessible collection facilities would result in improved disposal practices for commercial moderate risk waste 6.3.3 Alternatives 6.3.3.1 Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Education Alternatives described in this section focus on the need to develop moderate risk waste education programs for businesses and to provide technical assistance in helping businesses to use local moderate risk waste management resources 1 Provide general moderate risk waste management information to businesses This alterna- tive would entail distributing information using the media, mailings to businesses, trade associations, and other organizations such as the Chambers of Commerce 2 Target specific types of businesses as a focus for educational activities, based on their waste generation characteristics and waste management techniques Targeted wastes and busi- ness groups were identified in Chapter 5 of the MRW Plan Work groups of local agency officials, business group representatives, environmental and community groups, and other interested parties could be used to identify moderate risk waste needs and tailor appropriate educational programs MRW Plan 6-5 December 1991 3 Provide technical assistance Options for technical assistance include the following • Performing business waste audits or consultations • Developing a resource library • Conducting industry or waste specific workshops, including a WIN Trade Fair • Providing health and safety information or supporting training activities • Promoting the use of existing hazardous waste management services and facilities and the use of existing industrial waste exchanges • Using local business license departments as a means to distribute information 6.3.3.2 Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Collection Moderate risk waste collection alternatives for businesses in Benton and Franklin Counties focus on the need to provide businesses with a wider range of disposal options as well as with collection facilities and services that are accessible 1 Develop a peimanent collection facility Hazardous waste could be collected at a permanent collection facility until sufficient quantities accumulate to nummize disposal costs These facilities may accept either (1) only moderate nsk waste, or (2) both regulated hazardous waste and moderate risk waste Such a facility could be operated by government, a private company, or through a public-private partnership Regulatory, health and safety, and liability issues would be some of the important factors to consider in developing such a facility Any facility which would store regulated hazardous waste would require a RCRA Part B permit 2 Hold amnesty days or collection events Collection events could be held annually or a few times a year to reduce the amount of moderate risk waste being stored by businesses, to encourage better waste management practices, and to provide a less costly disposal option for businesses 3 Target specific types of businesses or wastes for special collection services Local government could work with private hazardous waste management compames to identify opporturuties for expanding the existing system of private collection Information from the techmcal assistance program could be used for identifying businesses and target wastes Agencies could then assist management firms in contacting and encouraging moderate risk waste generators to participate in such programs Initially, such a program could be focused on the targeted businesses based upon the Commercial Waste Survey MRW Plan 6-6 December 1991 6.4 IMPROVING AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT 6.4.1 Objectives The pnmary objective of agricultural chemical waste management is to protect human health and the environment from pesticides, waste chemical products, and empty pesticide containers stored on farms The primary means of ensuring the effective management of these wastes is by informing farmers in the two-county area of safe handling, storage, and disposal practices and by providing safe and accessible disposal options for agricultural chemical waste 6.4.2 Needs and Opportunities The pnmary need facing agricultural chemical waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties is to eliminate the backlog of these wastes that are accumulating on farms The agncultural waste survey conducted for the two-county area revealed that, on average, each farm stores 38 lbs of agncultural chemical waste These wastes accumulate on farms for pnmanly two reasons (1) cold temperatures, moisture, product bans or other factors cause them to become unusable, and regulatory bans or restrictions prohibit their use, and, (2) disposal costs and options limit farmers' ability to dispose of these wastes Federal and state regulations have placed strict limits on the disposal of pesticides, which represents the majority of agricultural chemicals used on farms These regulations prohibit the disposal of these materials in solid waste landfills, leaving only two costly disposal options available to the farmer delivering the waste to either a hazardous waste landfill or a hazardous waste incinerator Because disposal options for these materials are so limited, agricultural chemical wastes are often either stored on farms in large quantities or are disposed of improperly The Washington State Department of Agriculture has established a program for collecting and disposing of agncultural chemical waste at no expense to farmers One such collection event was held in Franklin County in Fall 1990 This program serves to significantly reduce the backlog of agricultural wastes that are accumulating on farms The dissemination of information on proper management techmques for pesticides and other agncultural wastes would also help to reduce these storage and disposal problems Information on proper storage techniques for newly purchased chemicals, rinsing procedures for empty chemical containers, and other forms of techmcal assistance are examples of management methods that would help to reduce the volume of agricultural chemical waste generated in the area MRW Plan 6-7 December 1991 6.4.3 Alternatives 6.4.3.1 Agricultural Chemical Waste Education This section describes two alternatives for educating farmers on improved methods of managing agncultural chemical waste 1 Develop information for agricultural groups Fact sheets being produced by the State Department of Agnculture, on topics including agricultural waste reduction, could be used to educate farmers on proper management techniques These fact sheets could be mailed to agricultural groups, WSU Cooperative Extension offices, and licensed chemical applicators The Department of Agriculture could also sponsor workshops and presen- tations on agricultural waste management practices in the two-county area The Counties could also develop guides or audio/visual information on proper waste management techniques that could be distributed through Cooperative Extension offices and agricultural organizations Such information could address agricultural chemical storage methods, shelf lives of chemicals, locally available disposal options, and regu- lations governing agricultural chemical waste management 2 Provide technical assistance Examples of technical assistance that could be provided to farmers are two pamphlets produced by the Department of Ecology "Hazardous Waste Pesticides Determining If Your Pesticide Is a 'Hazardous Waste' and Pesticide Waste Reduction Guidance," and "Empty Pesticide Container Disposal" Demonstrations of proper storage and handling techniques for these wastes could also be staged throughout the two-county area under this alternative 6.4.3.2 Agricultural Chemical Waste Collection The three alternatives presented in this section address the need to improve disposal options for agricultural chemical wastes generated in Benton and Franklin Counties 1 Hold an agricultural chemical waste collection event Agricultural waste collection events could be administered by either local agencies or the Department of Agriculture Benton and Franklin Counties are eligible to participate in collection and disposal programs for agricultural wastes currently conducted by the Department of Agriculture The high costs associated with such collection events would make it difficult for local agencies to finance these activities without state assistance 2 Conduct an agricultural chemical waste pickup service Under this alternative, a pickup service for farms in the two-county area could be developed to collect agricultural chem- ical waste The high cost of providing such a service would prohibit local agencies from administering this service without outside assistance 3 Develop an agricultural chemical waste drop-off facility Permanent facilities previously described for the collection of household hazardous waste could be expanded to allow MRW Plan 6-8 December 1991 farmers to dispose of agncultural chemical waste Because disposal regulations for most agncultural chemical wastes are more stringent than for moderate risk wastes, combining collection operations for both types of waste would sigruficantly increase development and operational costs associated with such a facility 6.5 IMPROVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT So far this chapter has descnbed many direct services that local governmental agencies can provide to improve the management of moderate risk wastes in the area, such as household hazardous waste, commercial moderate risk waste, and agricultural chemical waste manage- ment services This section analyzes three areas of local government support for moderate nsk waste management that are needed to ensure that these direct services are successfully implemented These three areas of local government support are health and safety pro- grams, compliance and enforcement, and evaluation of moderate risk waste activities Objectives, needs and opportunities, and alternatives are described for all three categones of local government support 6.5.1 Health and Safety Three groups of workers may be potentially affected by exposure to moderate risk wastes • Public agency staff that work on wastewater treatment, as well as solid and hazardous waste collection, transfer and disposal, including health and safety inspectors for these activities • Private solid and hazardous waste haulers • Commercial moderate risk waste generators The primary objective of moderate risk waste health and safety programs in the two-county area is to improve the awareness of hazards associated with moderate risk wastes for any public or private sector worker that handles moderate risk waste Health and safety programs also include the development of moderate risk waste handling and reporting procedures / The most sigmficant need facing local health and safety programs is to ensure that workers routinely exposed to moderate risk waste, such as refuse collectors and landfill operators, take adequate precautions to minimize their exposure Local governments can also help private sanitation companies and other businesses to inform their workers about similar preventive measures and measures to take when exposed to hazardous products or waste The following alternatives address the need to keep workers informed of proper moderate nsk waste health and safety measures 1 Provide additional training to public employees, such as solid waste and wastewater treatment workers, who may be routinely exposed to moderate risk waste These MRW Plan 6-9 December 1991 workers usually receive health and safety training which includes information on hazardous substances They could be given additional trairung to provide more in-depth information on recognizing and responding to chemical hazards 2 Encourage and support additional training for private solid and hazardous waste haulers Training materials developed for public employees could be shared with private waste collectors 3 Support and advocate increased health and safety training among commercial moderate risk waste generators Education and techmcal assistance programs could be used to help employers provide the necessary training 6.5.2 Compliance and Enforcement The objectives of moderate risk waste compliance and enforcement activities in Benton and Franklin Counties are the following • Determine the level of compliance with moderate risk waste management rules and regulations • Encourage future compliance • Foster improved waste management practices and cooperation between agencies and groups responsible for moderate risk waste management • Develop waste surveillance programs to remove targeted wastes from the waste stream The overall need facing compliance and enforcement activities in the two-county area is to ensure that residents and businesses participate in programs established to manage moderate nsk waste as well as to reduce the volume of these wastes generated Local agencies and private waste management firms may address this need by conducting three activities First, spot checking waste curbside, at the Richland and Pasco landfills, and Kennewick transfer station would help to ensure the proper disposal of moderate nsk wastes In conjunction with this, surveys of commercial generators by municipal waste haulers would also lead to compliance and improved moderate risk waste management practices Second, the development and enforcement of ordinances specific to moderate nsk waste management, such as special disposal bans and requirements, will be needed to meet the goals of the MRW Plan And finally, business consultations or inspections may be needed to ensure that commercial generators are following proper moderate risk waste handling and disposal procedures The MRW Plan proposes three alternatives for meeting the compliance and enforcement needs described above The implementation of any of these alternatives should be carefully coordinated with the Department of Ecology Ecology is the lead agency responsible for hazardous waste compliance and enforcement activities and also has extensive experience MRW Plan 6-10 December 1991 in hazardous waste management Coordinating local activities with Ecology would also help to nummize a duplication of efforts and ensure that state and local compliance and enforce- ment activities are consistent 1 Augment waste surveillance activities to remove targeted moderated risk wastes from the waste stream 2 Commercial generator facility inspections Moderate risk waste inspections could be incor- porated into existing inspection activities, such as building, health, and fire department inspections Existing permit and licensing programs could be expanded to include elements directed at improving moderate risk waste management 3 Ordinances Ordinances could be established to include disposal bans or other require- ments pertaining to the management of moderate risk wastes 6.5.3 Program Evaluation The objective of program evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of moderate nsk waste programs and the MRW Plan The emphasis of program evaluation is to oversee, momtor, and revise moderate risk waste programs as needed Program evaluation measures taken in Benton and Franklin Counties are needed to ensure that the goals and objectives of improved moderate risk waste management are being met, and to momtor changes that take place in moderate risk waste generation and disposal Once the MRW Plan has been adopted by both counties, mechanisms will need to be developed to ensure that the Plan is effectively implemented The following alternatives have been developed to address the need for local governments to evaluate moderate risk waste programs 1 Convene an oversight committee or use the Solid Waste Advisory Committees to review the success of individual program components and the MRW Plan as a whole Reviews could occur periodically to make necessary adjustments once the MRW Plan is implemented 2 Streamhne program evaluation through one or two local agencies to track the overall progress of the program 3 Track waste quantities, participation rates, expenses, income, and implementation problems 4 Conduct follow-up surveys to measure changes in household and commercial moderate nsk waste management MRW Plan 6-11 December 1991 6.6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternatives were evaluated by the Solid Waste Advisory Committees Subcommittees from each Solid Waste Advisory Committee were formed, and met to select draft recommenda- tions for review and discussion by the full committees Based upon their evaluation, a comprehensive set of recommendations was developed to meet the objectives of the MRW Plan Chapter 7 describes these recommendations in detail and provides a schedule, budget, and implementation strategy MRW Plan 6-12 December 1991 '0 J -ChapterSeVen - hecti'minendàtions and implementation, t 0 = t 1 Z' I " 5's , 7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Alternatives for improving the management of moderate risk waste in Benton and Franklin Counties were evaluated by the Solid Waste Advisory Committees In this chapter, the preferred alternatives or recommendations are described in detail Section 7 1 describes the recommended actions of the MRW Plan, section 7 2 discusses the implementation of the Plan, including the schedule, budget, and assignment of responsibilities to government agencies, and section 7 3 describes the expected results of implementing the MRW Plan after five years 7.1 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Recommended actions in the MRW Plan fall into five categories These include education for households, businesses and agricultural enterprises, collection of moderate risk waste for households and businesses, and collection of waste agricultural chemicals for agricultural enterprises, health and safety, regulatory compliance, and program evaluation In addition, as a result of the investigation and evaluation of moderate risk waste issues in Benton and Franklin Counties, recommendations for state actions are presented which would strengthen moderate risk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties as well as in other coun- ties in the state 7.1.1 Education 7.1.1.1 Household Hazardous Waste Education Household hazardous waste education is an important method used to promote waste reduc- tion and recycling, a major waste management priority in the MRW Plan As the household telephone survey showed, there is a need to improve public awareness of household hazardous waste, and appropriate methods to reduce, recycle and dispose of these wastes Waste reduction involves reducing, avoiding or eliminating the generation of wastes or tox- icity of wastes It is important to stress waste reduction, since it can reduce the costs associated with managing wastes, and the threats to public health and environment posed by hazardous wastes One of the aims of household hazardous waste educational programs described in the MRW Plan is to stress the proper management of the targeted wastes automobile waste oil, antifreeze, and auto batteries In particular, opportunities for recycling these waste will be emphasized Two educational approaches will be used the first is a general public educational focus, and the second is to continue efforts to educate school-age children in the public schools Together, these approaches draw from the alternatives considered for household hazardous waste education to develop a far-reaching program that will improve public awareness of MRW Plan 7-1 December 1991 moderate risk waste management and the risks of improper management, and change tradi- tional patterns of disposal for these wastes Local jurisdictions implementing the program will examine ways to motivate people to improve the way they manage household hazardous waste The educational effort directed at the general public will concentrate primarily on providing speakers and prepanng brochures, flyers, point-of-sale information and display boards Educational materials will stress identification of hazardous products, their possible hazards, available product substitutes which are non-hazardous or less hazardous, proper waste stor- age, handling and management, and locally available recycling or disposal options Informa- tion sheets, videos, and other information already printed by Ecology and local businesses or organizations will also be made available for distribution to the public These matenals will be provided to the public upon request, and distributed through mail- ings using existing distribution networks (possibly utility bill inserts, utility newsletters, press releases or news articles) Point-of-sale information and display boards will be used at busi- nesses, public buildings, and public functions such as county fairs Information regarding moderate risk waste disposal will be provided at the City of Richland landfill, the Kennewick transfer station, and the Pasco Sanitary Landfill Knowledgeable speakers within the region will also be recruited to assist in providing information to commumty organizations and citizens groups To help the public become aware of locally available management options, consideration will be given to establishing a regional hotline to address household hazardous waste or moderate risk waste issues Such a hotline could ultimately address a variety of waste management issues including waste reduction, recycling, composting, and mumcipal solid waste disposal The City of Kennewick currently operates a recycling hotline Consideration will be given to expanding the Kennewick hotline to address household hazardous waste, or referring callers to a regional hotline if it is established To respond to requirements of the Used Oil Recycling Act (SSSB 5591), emphasis will be given in the educational activities to promoting recycling of used oil Citizens will be informed of the problems associated with improper disposal, and will be told where they may recycle used oil As noted in Section 7 12 1, Benton and Franklin Counties will expand opportunities for recycling used oil, as well as auto batteries and antifreeze The second part of the general public education is to expand the implementation of the A- Way with Waste program in local schools This program takes place in classrooms over an extended period of time To date, this program has been well received in communities and has been evaluated to be an effective method of educating school children as well as their parents on a variety of waste management issues Each school district within the counties which has not incorporated the A-Way with Waste program will be requested to do so All districts will be requested to include a comprehensive household hazardous waste compo- nent in their program A volunteer program to deliver information to schools concerning hazardous waste and other environmental issues will be evaluated during 1992 Classroom presentations by knowledgeable volunteers would minmuze burdens on teachers and would MRW Plan 7-2 December 1991 be an effective way to inform students on the issues Such a program would need to be coordinated closely with other informational programs offered by the schools and local agencies to avoid duplication of effort, and inconsistencies One half-time position in Benton County will support all educational activities within Benton County during the period of plan implementation The City of Kennewick will support the costs of the position to provide assistance with educational activities specifically for the City of Kennewick Similarly, one half-time position will be shared by Franklin County and the City of Pasco to support educational programs The City of Richland will also establish a half-time position to promote education of households and businesses within its jurisdiction Benton County's staff will assist the cities of Benton City, Prosser and West Richland with educational activities Franklin County will assist Connell, Mesa, and Kahlotus 7.1.1.2 Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Education There are three major components to the proposed moderate risk waste education program for local businesses 1) Educational materials on commercial moderate risk waste management will be devel- oped and distributed to local businesses, 2) A privately-sponsored small quantity generator audit program will be examined, and will be promoted, if feasible and, 3) Local resource centers will be developed as a source of information on commercial moderate risk waste management Like household educational materials, the information materials for businesses will stress identification of hazardous products, waste reduction opportumties, proper storage, handling and management, and available services for waste treatment, recycling, and proper disposal The first recommendation of this section calls for moderate risk waste educational materials to be developed for distribution to area businesses This information will be supplemented with information available from Ecology Some materials will focus on particular waste generating groups and other material should target specific wastes Local trade groups, industrial associations, downtown merchants associations and chambers of commerce will be encouraged to help disseminate information and prepared materials, through meetings, workshops and regular mailings To help improve the awareness of businesses on moderate risk waste issues, the Department of Ecology will be encouraged to sponsor a regional Waste Information Network Trade Fair in Benton County or Franklin County In addition, coordinators of existing or planned trade shows or similar events will be encouraged to include booths and displays focusing on moderate risk waste management Existing commercial material/waste exchange listmgs will be made available to interested groups in the region Those groups will also be encouraged to subscribe to the waste exchange listings independently The agencies conducting educa- tional programs will also contact local business licensing departments to develop procedures to target businesses applying for licenses Such businesses would be provided information MRW Plan 7-3 December 1991 at the time of licensing concerning procedures and requirements for proper moderate risk waste management A second recommended commercial education effort is to determine the feasibility of a pri- vately-sponsored small quantity generator audit program Possible sponsors include chambers of commerce or industry associations The program would provide assistance to small quantity generators to identify the types of hazardous products or wastes their businesses have, examine opportunities for waste reduction and recycling, and encourage proper handling, storage and disposal of hazardous products and wastes This program would be developed in close coordination with the Department of Ecology to ensure that accurate technical and regulatory information is provided to businesses This study would be conducted between July and December 1992 Informational resource centers will be developed during 1992 as a third educational tool containing information on a variety of commercial moderate risk waste management as well as household hazardous waste issues These facilities may be located in local libraries, private organizations and public agencies Specific locations will be determined by the lead agencies Targeted business groups include vehicle maintenance and gas stations (group 12), retail trade (group 20), construction (group 3), labs and medical establishments (group 7), paper, printing and allied services (group 15), wood products and services (group 13), and funeral services (group 6) These groups will receive particular attention to promote improved moderate risk waste management practices The lead agencies conducting commercial moderate risk waste education were described in Section 7 11 2, Household Hazardous Waste Education The resources described in Section 7 11 2 will be used to support commercial moderate risk waste educational activities 7.1.1.3 Agricultural Chemical Waste Education Benton and Franklin Counties Cooperative Extensions will continue to provide farmers and citizens with information about moderate risk waste and agricultural chemical waste, includ- ing pesticide containers Activities include providing written materials within cooperative extension offices, assisting in providing information where pesticides and other agricultural products are sold, mailing information to farmers, and providing speakers to address interested groups on the topic of moderate risk waste and agricultural chemical waste management 7.1.2 Collection 7.1.2.1 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Effective household hazardous waste collection programs are needed to discourage the improper disposal of these wastes MRW Plan 7-4 December 1991 Three separate household hazardous waste collection efforts are recommended. These include continuing collection events as necessary, studying the feasibility of developing permanent facilities, and expanding the collection of waste oil, antifreeze and auto battenes The two-county area will continue to hold annual household hazardous waste collection events, including tailgate collection throughout Benton and Franklin Counties until one or more permanent collection and storage facilities are available in each county Ecology requires that each county must either hold an annual collection event or construct a perma- nent collection and storage facility To the extent that future events are held, they are expected to receive increased participation as educational and promotional activities are undertaken If the annual collection event is planned for 1992, the possibility of establishing a used latex paint exchange in conjunction with the annual collection event will be examined The second recommended household hazardous waste collection effort is to examine the feasibility of establishing permanent collection facilities Permanent facilities would provide more frequent opportunities for citizens to properly dispose of their household hazardous wastes Feasibility studies will be conducted in each county to evaluate siting options, funding sources, service areas, capital and operational costs and regulatory requirements Consideration will be given to siting at least one facility in each county The feasibility of establishing one or more permanent facilities within Benton County is currently being studied by the City of Richland, City of Kennewick, and Benton County If it is feasible to construct such household hazardous waste collection facilities, they will be established in 1992 to serve residents within the region The feasibility study for Franklin County will be conducted in 1992 In the event permanent facilities are feasible and are established, the annual collection events will be discontinued, or modified to emphasize different service areas or levels The third recommended collection effort is for expanded collection of automobile waste oil, antifreeze, and auto batteries, all of which were targeted based upon the household hazard- ous waste survey Collection efforts for waste oil will continue at the Richland landfill, Kennewick transfer station, curbside in Kennewick and Prosser, and at local service stations Additional waste oil and antifreeze drop-off locations will be established at public or pnvate sites The siting process will involve identifying specific locations where facilities are needed, capital and operational costs, waste oil/antifreeze markets, publicity requirements and revenue sources Emphasis will be given to working with local retailers to find suitable and converuent locations for drop-off sites Consideration will also be given to siting a waste oil/antifreeze drop off site at the Pasco Salutary Landfill As waste oil collection programs are established, specific requirements of the Used Oil Recycling Act will be addressed As part of this MRW Plan, local goals for the recycling of household used oil have been established The location and number of used oil collec- tion sites will be planned and developed to meet the local recycling goals Under state law, auto battery retailers are required to accept used batteries in exchange for new batteries sold Battery retailers will be encouraged to accept used car batteries which MRW Plan 7-5 December 1991 have been stored but are not being exchanged for new batteries Efforts will be made to publicize all known collection sites The Richland landfill will also continue to accept used car batteries from self-haulers 7.1.2.2 Commercial Moderate Risk Waste Collection Recommended actions for the collection of commercial moderate risk waste do not include the development of any publicly operated collection services, although this issue will be examined in 1994 Instead, private hazardous waste management firms will be encouraged to expand their services in the two-county area by publicizing their services Educational programs described in Section 7 11 2 should be used to help small quantity generators become aware of opportunities for waste reduction, recycling, treatment and proper moder- ate nsk waste disposal Starting in January 1994, Benton and Franklin Counties, and the participating cities will evaluate whether private sector services and programs are an effective method of managing small quantity generator moderate risk waste At that time, they will consider the need for additional collection services or facilities to support small quantity generators Services may include conducting collection events or providing permanent facilities Waste Management, Inc should continue surveying commercial businesses in Kennewick and Prosser to learn more about special waste disposal needs in the area Other pnvate and public solid waste haulers will be encouraged to survey their own customers to anticipate special waste disposal needs and promote proper management of moderate risk wastes 7.1.2.3 Agricultural Chemical Waste Collection No locally financed programs for agricultural chemical waste collection are recommended However, Benton and Franklin Counties will request that the State Department of Agriculture sponsor a regional agricultural chemical waste collection event In addition, the Commissioners of Benton and Franklin Counties will request that the Department of Agriculture sponsor a collection event every 3 years after 1993, to serve the Benton and Franklin Counties region, assuming state funds are available The County Commissioners will also encourage the Department of Agriculture to request additional appropriations from the State through the Model Toxics Control Act, to adequately support agricultural chemical waste collections 7.13 Health and Safety One junsdiction will be assigned the responsibility of working with the State Departments of Ecology and Labor and Industries to identify specific moderate risk waste information which may be incorporated into existing health and safety training sessions for public workers potentially exposed to moderate risk waste The health and safety materials will be distributed to each jurisdiction for incorporation into their existing health and safety meetings or training sessions The resulting information will be shared with the private MRW Plan 7-6 December 1991 waste management firms serving the region This activity will be conducted in 1992, with follow-up on an annual basis 7.1.4 Compliance and Enforcement The first compliance recommendation is that inspections for moderate risk waste continue dunng municipal solid waste collections in Kennewick, Prosser, and Richland Efforts will be made, through inspections, to divert any significant quantities of targeted moderate nsk waste from being combined with the mixed municipal solid waste stream Basin Disposal and Ed's Disposal collect residential and commercial waste throughout Benton and Franklin Counties Their service area includes Pasco, Connell, Mesa, Kahlotus, Benton City, West Richland, and muncorporated areas of Benton and Franklin Counties Since most of the waste is collected through automated systems, there is little opportumty to screen wastes However, the collection companies will avoid collecting certain moderate nsk or problem wastes if they are set out separately, such as used motor oil, paints, pesticides, auto batteries, and asbestos The Benton-Franklin Health District will continue to respond to complaints regarding improper handling and disposal of moderate risk waste If necessary, complaints will be referred to an appropriate agency for further response A task force will be established in 1993 to develop model moderate risk waste ordinances for all junsdictions in the two county area The ordinances will then be considered for adoption and implementation by the counties and mumcipalities Issues to be addressed by the task force include wastes to target, availability of preferred recycling or disposal options, penalties, and means of enforcement Local ordinances will be established to address requirements that retailers post signs promoting used oil recycling, and sell containers for recycling used oil These ordinances are required by the Used Oil Recycling Act (SSSB 5591) 7.1.5 Program Evaluation To assure proper implementation of the plan, it will be necessary to periodically evaluate moderate risk waste management programs Participating jurisdictions will track informa- tion such as waste quantities collected or diverted, participation rates, expenses and income, and any implementation problems As educational and collection programs are imple- mented, participating agencies will also solicit comments and suggestions from citizens and participating businesses, regarding the programs' adequacy and effectiveness The Solid Waste Advisory Committees and the Central and Eastern Regional Offices of the Department of Ecology will receive at least quarterly progress reports on the plan's implementation The SWACs will be asked to review and recommend any necessary adjustments or revisions to planned activities MRW Plan 7-7 December 1991 7.1.6 Recommendations for State Action In addition to the recommended local actions described above, the MRW Plan includes recommendations that are most appropriately taken at the state level • The State Department of Ecology or Department of Labor and Industnes should develop a minimum level moderate risk waste training program for workers who routinely perform their job around moderate nsk wastes This traimng program should be provided to local agencies for incorporation into existing training programs for employees who may be directly exposed to hazardous or moderate risk wastes • The state should provide and maintain funds to financially assist local governments in the implementation of actions recommended in local moderate risk waste manage- ment plans • The State Department of Ecology should continue to expand educational and tech- mcal assistance programs available to government agencies and private businesses to improve the management of moderate risk waste The state should also work closely with counties and cities to determine the types of support most needed by local governments • State government should work with the federal government, trade associations and other groups to ensure adequate and clear product labeling Labels should explain product hazards and the level of hazard in a way easily and readily understood by consumers Label information should include proper disposal or waste management strategies • The Department of Ecology should sponsor a WIN Trade Fair within the Benton and Franklin Counties region • The Washington State Department of Agriculture should hold an agncultural chem- ical waste collection event for Benton and Franklin Counties in 1993, with penodic follow-up events 7.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE, BUDGET, AND RESPONSIBILITIES The implementation of actions recommended in the MRW Plan is described in this section A schedule, budget, and a description of agency responsibilities in implementing the recommended moderate risk waste program are presented A brief discussion of the MRW Plan revision and update process is also included 7.2.1 Schedule The schedule for implementing the recommendations presented in Section 7 1 is shown in Figure 7-1 The schedule spans the five-year time frame of the MRW Plan Implementa- tion of recommendations begins in 1992 and continues through 1996 An updated MRW MRW Plan 7-8 December 1991 EDUCATION COLLECTION Continue Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events Conduct Feasibility Study for Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Facility Determine Additional Needs for Small Quantity Generators Establish One or More Permanent Facilities within Benton County* Expand Waste Oil, Antifreeze and Auto Battery Collection Request a State Department of Agriculture Sponsored Collection Event for Agricultural Chemical Waste HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT Continue Curbside Inspections Respond to Complaints/Inquiries Develop Regional Ordinances PROGRAM EVALUATION JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN Figure 7-1. Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Implementation Schedule * If feasible, depending on a 1991 examination • Events (may be discontinued or modified if one or more permanent facilities are established) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ARY APRIL APRIL APRIL APRIL APRIL 41 410 1110 41 114 JARY JANLARY I ARY AUGUST AUGUST JARY JARY ] UARY JARY ARY ARY JANUARY I JUNE UARY Plan will be developed by the end of 1996 The process for updating the MRW Plan is descnbed in Section 724 7.2.2 Budget The budget for implementing the recommendations descnbed in Section 7 1 is shown in Table 7-1 The costs for 1993 through 1996 have been increased by 5% each year to account for inflation It is expected that moderate risk waste management programs will cost approximately $212,000 in 1992, up to $355,000 in 1996 Actual expenditures by each participating jurisdiction will be subject to yearly budget approval Education Benton County and the City of Kennewick will share one-half of a full-time employee (FM), Franklin County and the City of Pasco will share one-half I-TE, and the City of Richland will require a one-half FTE for implementing its programs. Each county will provide educational support to the smaller cities within its jurisdiction. Funds for materials, supplies and equipment are included in the budget. Table 7-1 Benton and Franklin Counties' MRW Plan Five-Year Budget Program Component 1992 1993' 1994' 1995' 1996° EDUCATION $ 96,700 $106,260 $103,950 $117,392 $123,464 COLLECTION Household Hazardous 96,000 107,100 118,800 132,240 146,400 Waste Collection Event Permanent Facility 4,500 Feasibility Study Commercial Generators 7,370 Additional Needs Study Waste Oil, Antifreeze, and Auto Battery 1,000 1,313 1,650 2,030 2,440 Collection HEALTH AND SAFETY 2,500 2,625 2,750 2,900 3,050 COMPLIANCE 5,000 7,875 5,500 5,800 6,100 PROGRAM EVALUATION 6,700 7,035 7,370 7,772 8,174 2 Plan Update 30,933 65,066 TOTAL $212,400 $232,208 $247,390 $299,067 $354,694 Labor and expenses are compounded each year by 5% to account for inflation MRW Plan 7-10 December 1991 Collection Funding of household hazardous waste collection programs will be supported by each junsdiction, based on population distribution or by participation It is expected that participation will increase to approximately 1,000 participants per year by 1996, if region-wide events are continued Health and Safety An estimated 005 FIB will be required to acquire and distribute appropnate training and informational materials Compliance The Benton-Franklin Health District will allocate approximately 0 10 FIE to provide technical assistance, respond to complaints, and make referrals Approxi- mately 005 FIE will be assigned to develop regional model ordinances Program Evaluation Benton County and Kennewick will share 005 FIB, Franklin County and Pasco will share 005 FIE, and the City of Richland will assign 005 FIE to track, evaluate, and report on all moderate nsk waste programs The participating junsdictions will share the cost of updating the Plan starting in 1995, based upon population distribution The mumcipahties in Benton and Franldm Counties will use a variety of sources to fund their share of the costs of implementing the Plan General funds, and fees applied to the collection of municipal solid waste, and wastewater treatment will be used to finance pro- grams Ultimately, emphasis for local funding will be on assessments applied to household and commercial solid waste accounts For the most part, the , smaller cities (excluding Kennewick, Richland, and Pasco) will be responsible only for their share of the costs of waste collection activities (such as the annual household collection event) and for the update to the MRW Plan in 1995 and 1996 Educational programs will be financed by the larger cities and the Counties, with assistance provided by the Counties to the smaller cities The City of Richland, as operator of a municipal landfill, will obtain most of its revenues to support planned educational and collection activities directly through tipping fees Since Benton and Franklin Counties neither operate waste collection or disposal services, it is difficult for these jurisdictions to finance necessary solid waste and moderate risk waste management programs which are required under the law Both Counties will consider imposing a fee upon solid waste collection services operating in the unincorporated county areas to support the plamung and administration of solid waste and moderate risk waste management programs Franklin County will also consider collecting fees at the Pasco Sanitary Landfill to support its solid and moderate risk waste programs Such fees would provide revenues for required programs under state law, and would avoid problems associated with diverting limited funds from other revenue sources Other alternative funding mechanisms used in other counties to support moderate risk waste management programs may be considered to support programs in Benton and Franklin Counties For instance, programs in King County are supported in part through fees levied on solid waste collection services (applied to household and commercial accounts) through the local health department However, some alternative funding approaches may be less MRW Plan 7-11 December 1991 applicable to Benton and Franklin Counties due to existing organizational structures and public/pnvate sector roles in waste management To the extent possible, local funds will be supplemented by grants which may be available from the State Department of Ecology. It is expected that the first year of the MRW Plan's implementation will be supported by grants providing up to 75% of the Plan's implementa- tion costs Subsequent grants from the Department of Ecology are expected to support 60 to 75% of the Plan's implementation costs 7.2.3 Agency Responsibilities Responsibilities for implementing the MRW Plan are assigned to various local agencies, as descnbed below Since responsibilities for specific tasks are assigned to more than one agency, each of the jurisdictions recogmzes the importance of carrying out all tasks m a manner that ensures efficient use of resources (by avoiding duplication of effort), avoids gaps in program activities, and avoids conflicts or inconsistencies These objectives will be met by holding regular coordination meetings involving lead and participating agencies, shanng informational materials, and briefing the Solid Waste Advisory Committees Benton County will serve as the lead agency for educational activities within Benton County and the cities of Kennewick, Prosser, West Richland, and Benton City The County will receive some financial support in carrying out its educational activities from the City of Kennewick, which in turn will receive a proportionate share of assistance for household and commercial educational purposes Benton County will also provide assistance and support in educational activities to Prosser, West Richland, and Benton City These commumties will assist in chstnbuting educational matenals to their residents and businesses, and support the Plan's educational recommendations as their resources permit The City of Richland will be responsible for educational activities within its jurisdiction, and will assign staff specifically for that purpose Franklin County will serve as the lead agency for educational activities within the muncor- porated areas of the county, and for the municipalities of Pasco, Connell, Mesa, and Kahlotus The County will receive some financial support in carrying out its educational activities from the City of Pasco, which will receive a proportionate share of assistance for household and commercial educational purposes The smaller cities within Franklin County will assist in distnbuting educational matenals to their residents and businesses, and will support the Plan's educational recommendations as their resources permit Agncultural educational activities in the region will continue to be the responsibility of the Benton and Franklin Counties Cooperative Extensions The commissioners of Benton and Franklin Counties will request that the State Department of Agriculture return to the region to collect agncultural chemicals on a periodic basis Each year, the lead or coordinating jurisdiction for the household hazardous waste collection event is selected, and this practice will continue through the implementation of this MRW Plan, as long as the collection events are continued The lead agency may be one of the MRW Plan 7-12 December 1991 Counties or municipalities, or a regional agency such as the Benton-Franklin Regional Council or the Health Distnct The decision on lead agency will be made such that there is sufficient time to plan and conduct the event The decision will be made by Benton and Franklin Counties, and each municipality through the Solid Waste Advisory Committees Franklin County will take the lead in investigating opportumties for a permanent household hazardous waste facility in Franklin County, and in considenng the expansion of waste oil, antifreeze, and auto battery collection within the County During 1991, the City of Richland, City of Kennewick, and Benton County will investigate the feasibility of establishing one or more permanent facilities within Benton County As part of the study, recommendations will be made concerrung lead agency assignments for constructing and operating permanent facilities, should they be feasible The City of Richland and Benton County will take the lead in identifying opportunities for additional waste oil, antifreeze, and auto battery collection within Benton County The Benton-Franklin Health Distnct will be responsible for responding to complaints regarding moderate risk waste management, and for referring inquiries or complaints to the appropnate agency for response, when necessary The Health District will work closely with the regional offices of the Department of Ecology in performing this task The Health District will also be responsible for coordinating the development of an ordinance govermng moderate risk waste management, which will then be considered by each county and the mumcipalities for adoption Solid waste inspection activities (curbside) will, continue to be performed by the mumcipal solid waste haulers, both public and pnvate Information regarding moderate risk waste disposal will be provided at the City of Richland landfill, the Kennewick transfer station, and the Pasco Sanitary Landfill One jurisdiction will be assigned the responsibility to obtain health and safety traimng materials and information which may be used by local solid waste, hazardous waste, and mumcipal wastewater staff This assignment will be made through the Solid Waste Advisory Committees Program tracking will be performed by each local government conducting activities under the MRW Plan This pnmanly will be Benton and Franklin Counties, and the cities of Richland, Pasco and Kennewick, and the Health District The assignment of responsibility for amending, and eventually updating the MRW Plan will be made by the participating junsdictions through the Solid Wa§te Advisory Committees 7.24 MRW Plan Revision and Update Process Dunng the MRW Plan's implementation changes may occur in planned activities, assigned roles and responsibilities and budget requirements Changes may occur as new information is gathered, as state legislation or regulations are revised or adopted, and as other events occur that influence planned activities Changes that the Solid Waste Advisory Committees (SWACs) determine to be minor and consistent with the Plan will not require a plan MRW Plan 7-13 December 1991 amendment Such changes will be documented, however, and provided by staff to each of the cities and towns and both counties If any questions arise concerning the significance of a change to the MRW Plan, the staff implementing the Plan will consult with the Commissioners of Benton and Franklin Counties, and other appropriate, affected parties Before any significant changes to the Plan are undertaken, an amendment to the MRW Plan will be prepared by the local government agency initiating the change The proposed amendment will be presented to the SWACs for review and comment In addition, the SWACs will consider which local governments are affected by the proposed amendment, and which of the junsdictions should be asked to adopt it. Only entities significantly affected by the proposed change will be asked to adopt the amendment The SWACs will act upon the amendment proposed by the initiating local government and form their recommendations in a timely manner The proposed amendment will then be revised as necessary, and presented for adoption by the appropriate elected officials of the affected counties or mumcipahties Prior to adoption, the proposed amendment will also be subject to public review and comment At a minimum, one public hearing will be held to allow citizens and other interested parties the opportunity to present their views. Once the amendment has been adopted it will be submitted to the Department of Ecology for final approval Approval will be coordinated through Ecology's Central and Eastern Regional Offices The MRW Plan update process will begin in July 1995 As part of the plan update, house- hold and commercial surveys will be performed to determine changes in moderate risk waste generation and disposal practices Beginrung the update in mid-1995 will allow sufficient time to have an adopted plan in place by December 1996, when the current MRW Plan expires 7.3 EXPECTED RESULTS By 1996, it is estimated that approximately 78% of the moderate nsk waste stream in Benton and Franklin Counties will be reduced in volume, recycled, treated, or disposed of at a hazardous waste management facility In 1990-1991, approximately 62% of the moder- ate nsk waste stream was managed in this manner, based upon surveys conducted in Benton and Franklin Counties This represents an expected 16% improvement in moderate risk waste management during the five-year time frame of the MRW Plan Improvements in moderate risk waste management over this five-year period will be due pnmanly to the distnbution of information and the promotion of waste reduction and recycling programs Education programs for both households and businesses will lead to reductions in the amount of moderate nsk waste generated and in improvements in handling and disposal practices for these wastes Additional improvements will be made through the following actions MRW Plan 7-14 December 1991 • Expandmg moderate nsk waste collection opportumties for households • Increasing waste oil, antifreeze and auto battenes recycling • Conducting techmcal assistance activities for businesses • Improving compliance Wastes that are reduced, recycled, treated, or disposed of at hazardous waste management facilities will be diverted from improper disposal, such as being landfilled in the City of Richland landfill or Pasco Samtary Landfill, going down the drain or storm sewer, or being buned or dumped on land This improvement in moderate nsk waste management practices is shown in Table 7-2 Table 7-2 shows that based upon the survey results, nearly 1,859 tons of moderate nsk waste was diverted from improper disposal in 1990-1991, while an estimated 2,540 tons will be diverted m 1996 This represents a significant improvement in both the percent and total quantity of moderate risk waste reduced or diverted from improper disposal between 1991 and 1996 The figures in Table 7-2 were based upon specific information from the surveys concerning household and commercial waste diversion. In 1991, 63% of the waste oil reported by households and 93% of the waste oil reported by businesses was recycled or diverted This resulted in 1,060 tons of oil diverted from improper disposal, or 35% of the total moderate risk waste stream in 1991 In 1996, it is projected that 75% of the waste oil generated by households and 95% of the waste oil generated by businesses will be diverted from improper disposal This would result in 1,230 tons diverted, which represents 38% of the total waste stream in 1996 Table 7-2 Expected results of MRW Plan recommendations Waste Diverted' (tons) 1990-1991 1996 Tons Percent of moderate nsk waste generated Tons Percent of moderate nsk waste generated Waste Oil 1,060 35% 1,230 38% Auto Batteries 585 20% 751 23% Other MRW 214 7% 559 17% Total MRW Diverted 1,859 62% 2,540 78% MRW Produced' 2,982 3,250 a Diversion or proper waste management methods mcluded treated on-site, recycled on-site, taken to a recycler or hazardous waste management facility, or picked up by a recycler or hazardous waste management firm Proper diversion for waste oil also included burmng on-site b Estimated or projected quantity of moderate risk waste from households and busmesses MRW Plan 7-15 December 1991 In 1991, 86% of the used auto batteries produced by households and 71% of the auto battenes produced by businesses were reported recycled, for a total of 585 tons In 1996, it is expected that recycling of auto batteries will reach 95% by households and businesses This is equivalent to diverting 751 tons, or 23% of the total 1996 waste stream For all other moderate risk wastes, 21% was diverted by households and 22% was diverted by businesses in 1991 By 1996, it projected that there will be a 15% improvement, to 36% for households and 37% for businesses In addition, we project that 5% of the total waste stream will be reduced through waste reduction measures Diversion from improper disposal for these other moderate risk wastes improves from 214 tons in 1991 to 559 tons in 1996 , MRW Plan 7-16 December 1991 - References _ 7 REFERENCES Abt Associates, Inc 1985 National small quantity hazardous waste generator survey Cambndge, Massachusetts Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory 1990 Hanford Site Environmental Report for calendar year 1989 Richland, Washington Cal Recovery Systems, Inc 1985 Charactenzation and impacts of nonregulated hazardous wastes in municipal solid waste of King County Dawson, D 1991 Personal communication of January 16, 1991 Richland Solid Waste Utility, Richland, Washington Dietrich, Leonard 1991 Personal communication of January 15, 1991 Basin Disposal, Pasco, Washington Dietnch, Larry 1991 Personal communication of January 29, 1991 Pasco Sanitary Landfill, Pasco, Washington Dixon, A. 1991 Personal communication of January 15, 1991 Benton-Franldin Regional Council, Richland, Washington Faulconer, L 1991 Personal communication of January 23, 1991. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington Goldstein, F 1991 Personal communication of January 28, 1991 Washington Department of Ecology Eastern Regional Office, Spokane, Washington Hammond, B. 1991 Personal communication of January 22 and May 20, 1991 City of Kennewick Public Works Department, Kennewick, Washington Henager, B 1991 Personal communication of January 22, 1991 Benton County Solid Waste Department, Prosser, Washington Intergovernmental Resource Center 1989 Clark and Skamania Counties moderate risk hazardous waste management plan, Vancouver, Washington Leanna, M 1991 Personal communication of January 31, 1991 Waste Management, Inc , Kennewick, Washington MRW Plan R-1 December 1991 Lyerla, J 1991 Personal commurucation of October 18, 1991 Department of Ecology, Eastern Regional Office, Spokane, Washington Penning, G. 1991 Personal communication of October 10, 1991 Waste Management, Inc Kennewick, Washington St Martin, M 1991 Personal commumcation of February 7, 1991 City of Richland Waste and Water Utilities, Richland, Washington Seattle-King County Department of Health, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, and Thurston County Health Department 1986 A survey of small quantity hazardous waste generators The Puget Sound Experience U S Army Corps of Engineers and Institute for Environmental Studies, Umversity of Washington 1975 Washington Environmental Atlas, Seattle, Washington U S Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Public Law 94-171 1990 official counts Seattle, Washington U S Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census June 1989 1987 Census of Agriculture - Washington State and County Data, Volume 1, Part 47 Seattle, Washington Vendetti, S 1991 Personal commumcation of January 16, 1991 Benton-Franklin Health District, Kennewick, Washington Washington State Department of Community Development 1989 Washington State and county housing data base, Joshi, Thomas, Lane, Phillips, Consultants. Olympia, Washington Washington State Department of Ecology 1987 Agricultural hazardous waste study, 1987, Olympia, Washmgton Washington State Department of Ecology 1987 Planning Guidelines for local hazardous waste plans, Olympia, Washington Washington State Department of Ecology, U S Environmental Protection Agency, U S Department of Energy, 1990 Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Volume 1 of 2 First Amendment Washington State Department of Revenue 1990 Revenue research report - quarterly business review, October-November-December 1989, Olympia, Washington Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development 1989 County and community profiles, Olympia, Washington MRW Plan R-2 December 1991 Washington State Employment Security 1988 Employment and payrolls in Washington State by county and industry, 1987 Annual Averages, Number 167, Olympia, Washington Washington State Employment Security 1990 Washington State labor area summanes, Richland/Kennewick/Pasco MSA, Olympia, Washington Washington State Office of Financial Management 1988 1988 Population trends for Washington State, Olympia, Washington Washington State Office of Financial Management 1989 1989 Population trends for Washington State, Olympia, Washington Washington State Office of Financial Management 1990 1988 Economic and demographic almanac of Washington counties, Olympia, Washington Washington State Office of Financial Management 1990 1990 population trends for Washington State, Olympia, Washington Washington State Office of the Governor and Office of the Secretary of State 1990 The Washington State Yearbook A guide to government in the Evergreen State, Richard and Chanty Yates, The Information Press Olympia, Washington Wiggens, M 1991 Personal communication of February 5, 1991 Franklin County Emergency Management, Pasco, Washington ., MRW Plan R-3 December 1991 ; , Glossary • GLOSSARY acutely hazardous waste hazardous waste regulated by the federal government in quantities of 22 pounds or more alluvial sediment deposited by flowing water amnesty day a type of waste collection event organized to collect agricultural chemical waste or hazardous waste produced by businesses aquifer a body of rock sufficiently permeable to conduct groundwater and yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs basalt dark colored rocks, volcanic in origin CAA. Clean Air Act carcinogen a contaminant which has been proven or suspected to be either a promoter or initiator of cancer in humans or animals carcinogenicity the degree to which a contaminant is likely to promote or inmate cancer in humans or animals CERCLA. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act chlorinated solvent an organic solvent containing chlorine atoms, for example, methylene chlonde and 1,1,1- tnchloromethane, which are used in aerosol spray containers and traffic paint collection event a one- or two-day program sponsored by a local government or community group to collect hazardous wastes collection facility a facility set up to receive hazardous waste on a regular basis composting process by which organic matter is decomposed into its component parts, and subsequently used for mulching or as a soil supplement contaminant any gaseous, chemical or organic waste that contaminates air, soil, or water corrosivity a tendency to dissolve metals or other materials, or to burn the skin cradle-to-grave tracking the process by which hazardous waste generated above threshold quantities is tracked from its point of generation to its final disposal site, generally refers to the manifest system established under RCRA CVVA. Clean Water Act dangerous waste waste designated by the State of Washington as posing a substantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed Dangerous waste is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, carcmogemc, persistent, or toxic Glossary 1 December 1991 demolition waste solid waste, largely mert, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads, and other man-made structures designated zone facility- a hazardous waste facility located in a particular zone or geographic area, permitted by local government, and subject to the State siting criteria drop box unit comprised of a large container with one or two 30- to 4-yard compactor units, designed to accept municipal solid waste Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPA. the federal Environmental Protection Agency emission pollution discharged into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and surface areas of commercial or industrial facilities, from residential chimneys, and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft exhausts extremely hazardous waste dangerous waste regulated by Washington State m quantities of 22 pounds or more FIFRA. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act feasibility study analysis of the practicability of a proposal, for example, a description and analysis of the potential cleanup alternatives for a site or alternatives for a site on the National Priorities List The feasibility study usually recommends selection of a cost-effective alternative The term can apply to a variety of proposed corrective or regulatory actions generator entity or individual claiming ownership of or responsibility for the production of a hazardous waste groundwater all subsurface water occurrmg in the zone of saturation hazard ranking system a screening tool used to evaluate risks to public health and the environment associated with abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites A hazard ranking system calculates a score based on the potential of hazardous substances spreading from the site through the air, surface water, or groundwater and on other factors such as nearby population hazardous waste any waste or combmation of wastes which may cause irreversible illness, an increase in mortality, or pose a substantial threat to human health or the environment These include wastes which exhibit the characteristics of a waste, have been listed as a waste, are a mixture of a listed waste and some other solid waste, or are not excluded from regulation hazardous waste management facility a facility which manages, stores, collects, treats, utilizes, processes, or disposes of hazardous wastes heavy metal contamination pollution m air, water or sods which contains any of a class of metals of high atomic weight and density, such as mercury, lead, arsenic and cadmium, that are known to be toxic to living organisms HMTA. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Glossary 2 December 1991 household hazardous waste hazardous wastes generated by pnvate individuals in their homes rather than by businesses HSVVA. Hazardous and solid waste amendments to RCRA HWMA. Hazardous Waste Management Act ignitability tendency to burn or to cause a fire land application discharge of wastewater onto the ground for treatment or reuse leachate any hquid, including any suspended components in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from hazardous or solid waste major commercial generator a business that generates moderate risk waste as an ongoing part of everyday business activities manifest system method established by RCRA to track hazardous waste from generator to transporter to hazardous waste facility manifest a shipping document used to identify the quantity, composition, origin, routing, and destination of a dangerous waste while it is being transported to a point of transfer, disposal, treatment, or storage manne air air from the ocean matenal safety data sheet a compilation of mformation required under the OSHA Communication Standard on the identity of hazardous chemicals, their health and physical hazards, the legal exposure limits, and precautions to be taken with them MFS minimum functional standards minimum functional standards the least stringent requirements for solid waste handling that can be adopted by a local jurisdiction, as mandated by State law minor commercial generator a business that produces moderate risk waste on an occasional, sporadic basis moderate risk waste hazardous waste produced either by households or by businesses and institutions in quantities less than 220 pounds per month or batch of dangerous wastes or less than 22 pounds per month or batch of extremely hazardous wastes These wastes are not fully regulated due to the quantities produced, not because the wastes are less hazardous momtonng penodic or continuous surveillance or testing to determine the level of compliance with statutory requirements and/or pollutant levels in various media or in humans, animals, and other living things MRW moderate risk waste MRW Plan Moderate risk waste management plan MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet Glossary 3 December 1991 MTCA. Model Tana Control Act National Prionties List EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under Superfund A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial action The list is based primarily on the score a site receives from the EPA's Hazard Ranking System nonhalogenated organic compounds which do not contain fluorine, chlorine, iodine, bromine, or astatine NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL National Pnonties List OSHA. Occupational Safety and Health Act PCB one of a group of toxic persistent chemicals (polychlormated biphenyls) used in electrical equipment for insulating purposes and in gas pipeline systems as a lubricant Further sale or new use was banned by law in 1979 perchloroethylene a solvent used extensively in the dry cleaning industry permitted use a land use which is categorically allowed in a zonmg area persistence a material that retains more than half of its activity after one year in dark anaerobic or dark aerobic environment PET polyethylene terephthalate, a type of plastic commonly used in beverage containers photochemicals (oxidant) any of the chemicals which enter into oxidation reactions in the presence of light or other radiant energy plating waste waste generated by a chemical process m which metal is coated with a thin film of gold, silver, mckel, etc preempted facility- a facility whose hazardous waste management activities are regulated directly by the State These activities include landfilling, mcmeration, land treatment, surface impoundment, and the use of waste piles pretreatment the processes used to reduce the amount of pollution m waste water before it enters the sewer system or a treatment plant pretreatment standards the regulations governing discharges of waste water into sewage systems RCRA. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act reactivity a tendency to be unstable or undergo a rapid or violent chemical reaction with water, other substances, or under certain conditions regulatory threshold a quantity of waste or degree of contamination above which governmental regulations , become more strict Glossary 4 December 1991 release discharge of a hazardous substance into the air or water, or onto or into the earth remedial action the actual construction or implementation phase of the cleanup of a site contaminated by hazardous substances remedial site a site at which an action to reduce or eliminate contamination has taken place, is taking place, or is planned Right-to-Know refers to Title Ill of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthonzation Act Title III requires local governments to establish programs to inform residents about the chemicals released by businesses into their communities nnsate the solution resulting from rinsing a container used to store a hazardous substance SARA. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SDWA. Safe Drinking Water Act separated waste waste which has been sorted or separated according to its suitability for recycling, incineration, landfillmg,, or other types of treatment or disposal septage treated sewage in a septic tank septic system a system using underground storage tanks for wastes from homes or businesses having no sewer lines to a treatment plant The waste goes directly from the home or business to the tank, where the organic waste is decomposed by bacteria and the sludge settles to the bottom The effluent flows out of the tank into the ground through drains, the sludge or septage is pumped out periodically SIC Standard Industrial Classification sludge (1) the accumulated solids removed from a sedimentation basm, settling tank, or clarifier in a water or wastewater treatment plant (2) The precipitate resulting from the chemical coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation of water or wastewater small quantity generator a waste generator producing hazardous wastes below the Washington State regulatory thresholds for extremely hazardous wastes or dangerous wastes solid waste as defined by RCRA, a broad term which includes garbage, refuse (e g, metal scrap, wall board, etc), sludges from treatment plants, and other materials including solids, semisolids, liquids, or gaseous material from mdustnal, commercial, mining, agricultural, and community activities Exceptions include domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, irrigation return flows, nuclear materials, and mining material not removed during the extraction process solidification removal of wastewater from a waste solvent substance (usually hquid) capable of dissolving or dispersmg one or more other substances SQG Small Quantity Generators Subtitle C the hazardous waste management program of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Glossary 5 December 1991 Subtitle D the solid waste program of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Superfund the program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA and SARA that funds and carries out the EPA solid waste emergency and long-term removal remedial activities These activities include establishing the National Priorities List, investigating sites for inclusion on the list, determining their pnonty level on the list, and conducting and/or supervising the ultimately determined cleanup and other remedial actions surface impoundment the treatment, storage, or disposal of liquid hazardous waste m man-made basins or ponds SVVAC Solid Waste Advisory Committee SWMA. Solid Waste Management Act SWMP Solid Waste Management Plan tipping fee a waste disposal fee assessed at the disposal site Title III the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, a part of SARA toxic harmful to living organisms toxicity- the degree of danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life treatment, storage, and disposal facilities an establishment, permitted through State and federal regulations, that accepts hazardous waste and reduces the waste's toxicity through treatment, stores the waste pnor to treatment or disposal, or accepts the waste for final disposal through landfillmg or incineration TSCA. Toxic Substances Control Act TSD treatment, storage, and disposal waste reduction to reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation of wastes or the toxicity of wastes pnor to generation, without creating substantial new risks to human health or the environment waste generator an entity, such as a busmess or household, that produces waste waste disposal the discharging, discarding, or abandoning of solid wastes, hazardous wastes or moderate risk wastes on the treatment, decontamination or recycling of such wastes once they have been discarded or abandoned This includes the discharge of any such wastes into or on land, air, or water waste stream the entire spectrum of wastes produced by all waste generators wastewater treatment process for removing sewage or other suspended solids from liquids collected from homes or businesses Glossary 6 December 1991 wetland an area that is regularly saturated by surface water or groundwater and is characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life m saturated soil conditions Examples include swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and other similar natural features VVISHA. Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Glossary 7 December 1991 ^ ' Appendices e -4 4.4 1 -f APPENDIX A ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS The resolutions of adoption are available from the Benton-Franklin Regional Council -"A r 4-4 A AAA r AN 1 1' / 1/4 j e 5 .4„1/ VI -'5" 1 , ' r a I A ' r- ' tr e e r 4 4 14 4- 4 e 1 t A f A 44 r e .1 `eAlr r A .1 AA e 449 ,e 4 A -e ; 5 (TA' e „44 A , 7 4 4-44 '4 J 4 rt. A .4 ' C. 41 .4 ' ; ' . 4' '1 ,„A. _ — -' 4 '- , ▪ , L , L 4. h1 4 - 1 „, ,, . ea 1 r A 4 J '',„,„, 2 r t '44, • a ,' „ ” e , 0 -"4. r 1, ' , s ' -. , s ; -4 ,,:i ?e '' 1 C 4 1 4 41'4 4 "44 '. 4— 11 -. / I ' N r, ...A -c 4 14 V: I N ' — ,' ' ) / „ ' ..r l 1 1 r _, - / 7 4 I e` - ,,, I r , /1 r•4-4. 0 g __4. 4 4 -A -?A _ ' — r 445 4 4 4" 4 1 - 4< a e : , '1- , ,At , .r. A' Aa ,. oi A 4 ' 4 3 4 4IA -4' 4 7S 44- A ', ,, ' . .. A .n , 1 4 i 2 1. ,A / , 't ' n ' ;i 1 4 4.44.4 4 4.144 A ' ',.. I” 4/4 .,„11 A 13, A he A 1 A v A 4.441. 4.44. 4 _ AT' I APPENDIX B STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT DOCUMENTS RECE1`.. JAN 08 1992 SEPA Rules Part Eleven-107-11-970 at oommim Lt. ( RCW 197ksi2P4'70.',,DIatertitl1nstion of nonsigniftennee (DNS) DETERM,',ATION 01- NONCIONIPICANCC Dete,..pt,on of proonsal e Ic_ -›( 5 'Th( 12 ( C PIP e0L1C F.cir vyiic y CS)C. LocL 51- v1,-24'414 ric- wie jx1fr - 7-3°' t.t L4L(<- 6g)(3,42t.i.c ..) vvt Ian "..1111- C_;• Y L 1r) VI rt t.= I Propnnent /2 fiC) Locat ,oli 01 proposal, Including 3 trcci address if an y 11 IA II-v.0,-10o, (1 P: "CS ô.4mM ‘2411.411ACAd I he lead a g ency for this proposal has cletei mined that it does not have a probable si g nificant adverse impact on the ,iivironiociit An smvirunmcntal impact (PIS) is not required under RCW 43 21C 030 (2)(c) This de,cislon ssas aflt r rLytcsv of a compl‘ted ens ironmeniai checklist and other information on file with the lead a g enc y This infounailuri Is rtvallable to the public oi) 'here is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2), the lead agency ‘.n not c t on this proposal for 15 da y s from the date beloa Comments must bc submitted b y It csr'il ol I !eta! OPPitk .s2 i D J MCLAACt-C? Pho11(q)Ce743- 9/LCS AddrL,,s (2 (. (3D \, Q.2 /7 7?J'r /4z1d), 600 QdQi i(ahar Si gn al u i c (OPT IO N/Al ) You ma y appeal this determination to (name) at (location) no later than (date) be (method) You should be prepared to make specific factual ob j ections ontact to read or ask about the procedures for SPPA appeals n !There is no a g enc y appeal Pestimwit ilete (19S3 ws) (Cll. 197-11 RCW—p S31 BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION The Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan (MRW Plan) examines possible improvements to moderate nsk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties at a programmatic or nonproject level Recommendations in the MRW Plan are not made at a level of detail sufficient for a site specific description of environmental conditions and impacts For this reason, Section B of this checklist does not descnbe site-specific conditions and potential environmental impacts Instead, a general descnption of elements of the environment and potential impacts is included in Section D The purpose of the MRW Plan is to recommend that programs and facilities for improving moderate nsk waste management be developed Because these recommendations are made at a programmatic or nonproject level, specific features of proposed facilities are not addressed in this environmental checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan 2. Name of applicant: Benton-Franklin Regional Council 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P0 Box 217 Richland, Washington 99352 Art Tackett, (509)943-9185 4. Date checklist prepared: June 28, 1991 Environmental Checklist 1 5. Agency requesting checklist: The Department of Ecology 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): It is expected that the Benton and Franklin Counties MRW Plan will be adopted by the Benton and Franklin County Commissioners and other participating jurisdictions in the fall of 1991 Once adopted, the MRW Plan will be implemented over the course of the proceeding five years The dates that specific plan recommendations will be implemented are shown on the schedule included in Chapter 7 of the MRW Plan 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Benton and Franklin Counties MRW Plan represents a part of an integrated approach to solid and hazardous waste management in Benton and Franldin Counties The implementation of alternatives presented in the Benton and Franldm Counties Solid Waste Management Plan Update (to be prepared in 1991 and 1992) will complement activities implemented as a result of the MRW Plan 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. At this time, no environmental information relating directly to the MRW Plan has been prepared However, depending on the selection of alternatives, an environmental impact statement or other environmental documentation may be prepared m order to assess the environmental consequences of project level actions taken as a result of the MRW Plan 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Does not apply 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Depending on the MRW alternatives selected, government approvals and permits may be required Activities that would require approvals or permits include the development of special collection facilities for commercial or household hazardous waste Environmental Checklist 2 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The plan describes alternatives for the improvement of moderate nsk waste management in Benton and Franklin Counties From these alternatives, the plan makes recommendations that are summarized within the following general categones • Education A vanety of educational activities will be used to inform residents, business people, and farmers about proper moderate nsk waste management These activities will stress waste reduction and recycling Activities include providing general information, media and public presentations, school programs, and a consultation program for businesses Collection The two-county area will continue to hold annual household hazardous waste collection events, although the events may be discontinued or modified if permanent facilties are established The feasibility of establishing permanent collection facilities will be studied Collection of waste automobile oil, antifreeze, and auto batteries will be expanded Increased collection by pnvate hazardous waste management firms of moderate nsk waste produced by businesses will be encouraged An agricultural collection event sponsored by the State Department of Agriculture will be requested Health and Safety Health and safety recommendations focus on traimng personnel potentially exposed to moderate risk waste Compliance Inspections for targeted moderate risk waste will continue at curbside The Benton-Franldin Health District will respond to complaints concerning improper moderate risk waste storage or disposal Local agency representatives will develop moderate risk waste ordinances Program Evaluation Participating jurisdictions will track information such as waste quantities collected or diverted, participation rates, expenses and income, and any implementation problems The Solid Waste Advisory Committees will be asked to review progress reports and recommend any necessary adjustments to planned activities • Recommendations for State Actions The MRW Plan makes six recommendations regarding State actions governing moderate risk waste management These recommendations refer to waste reduction, labeling, education, training, program financing, and plan development activities that may be undertaken by the state Environmental Checklist 3 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Education, collection, tranung, and other proposed activities would take place throughout Benton and Franklin Counties TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other . Does not apply b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Does not apply c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Does not apply d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Does not apply e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Does not apply Environmental Checklist 4 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Does not apply g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Does not apply h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Does not apply 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Does not apply b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Does not apply 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Does not apply Environmental Checklist 5 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Does not apply 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Does not apply 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Does not apply 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Does not apply b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply Environmental Checklist 6 c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Does not apply 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Does not apply 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Does not apply deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Does not apply c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply Environmental Checklist 7 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Does not apply ), 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Does not apply birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Does not apply c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain: Does not apply d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Does not apply 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Does not apply b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Does not apply Environmental Checklist 8 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Does not apply 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Potential environmental health hazards that may result from recommendations included in the MRW Plan will be fully addressed in subsequent environmental review of specific actions The general purpose of the MRW Plan is to reduce the potential for exposure to moderate risk waste and waste pesticides that may pose a hazard to human health 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Does not apply 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Does not apply 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Does not apply 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Does not apply Environmental Checklist 9 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Does not apply b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Does not apply c. Describe any structures on the site. Does not apply d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Does not apply e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Does not apply f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Does not apply g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Does not apply i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Does not apply j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Does not apply Environmental Checklist 10 i k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Does not apply 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Does not apply b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Does not apply Environmental Checklist 11 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Does not apply b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Does not apply d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Does not apply 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Does not apply b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Does not apply Environmental Checklist 12 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Does not apply b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Does not apply c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Does not apply d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Does not apply e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Does not apply f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Does not apply Environmental Checklist 13 g Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Does not apply 15 Public Services a Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example lire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe Does not apply b Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any DoLc not apply 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuce set -Nice, telephone, sanitary sevicr, septic system, other. Does not apply b Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed Does not apply (1 SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge I understand that the lead agency is elying on them to make its decision Signatuie. Date Submitted: n i Environmental Checklist 14 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The implementation of moderate risk waste education, collection, and compliance programs as called for under the proposal would lead to an overall decrease m the discharge of moderate nsk wastes to water resources Special collection facilities for moderate risk waste from households and businesses, if developed, would be designed to protect water resources from spills and accidents involving moderate nsk waste These protective measures would include storm and surface water management features, as well as special moderate nsk waste handling and storage procedures The waste reduction and recycling, collection, and education programs included m this proposal would lead to an overall decrease in the release of toxic and hazardous substances to the environment The production of these wastes may decrease, on average, if waste reduction education is effective No increase in air emissions or noise production is expected as a result of the proposal Proposed meqsures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The proposal itself is intended to reduce discharges to water of moderate nsk waste No other such measures are proposed 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? It is likely that the proposal will have a beneficial effect on plants, animals, and —fishery resources m Benton and Franklin Counties Programs included in the proposal are intended to result in improved procedures for the collection, handling, and disposal of moderate nsk waste so that resources such as plants, ammals, and fish may be better protected from spills and accidents involving these wastes Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The proposal itself is intended to reduce the potential for plant, animal, and fish exposure to moderate risk waste Environmental Checklist 15 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal would not be likely to deplete energy or natural resources Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The proposal would protect natural resources such as ground and surface water through the implementation of improved management techmques for moderate nsk waste 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? None of the components of the proposal would be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection Collection facilities for moderate risk waste would be located in areas zoned commercial/industrial and not in the vicinity of environmentally sensitive or protected areas Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Moderate risk waste management facilities in Benton and Franklin Counties will be sited in accordance with all standards, laws, and regulations protecting environmentally sensitive and protected areas Specific sites developed as a result of the proposal will be subject to environmental review in order to avoid or reduce impacts to these areas 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal would not affect land and shoreline use in Benton and Franklin Counties Collection facilities for moderate risk waste would be sited in areas zoned for commercial and industrial uses where compatible uses are already in place While specific mitigation for unknown sites cannot be anticipated, each site will have an environmental evaluation prior to siting Under both Benton and Franklin Counties' environmental ordinances specific conditions may be placed on the site locations to mitigate adverse impacts Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Because the proposal would not affect land or shoreline use in Benton and Franklin Counties no measures are proposed to avoid or reduce these impacts Environmental Checklist 16 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The demand for public services in Benton and Franklin Counties would increase under the proposal due to the need to implement moderate risk waste education, collection, compliance, health and safety, and program evaluation elements of the proposal The implementation of these programs would be under the authority of Benton County, Franklin County, the Cities of Richland, Kennewick and Pasco, the Benton-Franklin Health District, and the local Washington State University Cooperative Extension Offices Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The increase in demand for transportation and public services to result from the proposal would be met by expanding the responsibilities of the three agencies listed above Financing for these expanded responsibilities will be available from local and state sources Up to 75% of the program's funds are expected to be provided from Department of Ecology grants The remanung 25% of the funds will be provided by local jurisdictions through a variety of local funding mecharusms 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal does not conflict with any existing local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment Specific projects to result from the recommendations contained in this proposal will need to be considered in terms of their compliance with local, state, and federal environmental laws and requirements Environmental Checklist 17 1 4. e 4 t ‘1, I t l••• A e T e , , .,. ., 4 -- z J , - „ V t,t-Tt 1 I , -. A. I; t:, 1 -'.1 ' 4 , 1. .., , 1, 4 ',01 5,,, 0 1,0 n - i, s 4 „ .. AI ' , .. e ' ' , .1 ';-4,7 , ''' r ,, , t ''' ,. n "I - le . ' , i .,,, , P, i ... ' \Ls L , - f ,y, , I 1 •i 1 i .1, .... 4 , n t , ; 4 I ; ), i 9 , r , , ',. -, , I -., }... u.'g 2 ‘ , i- APPENDIX C REQUIRED PLAN ELEMENTS CHECKLIST REQUIRED PLAN ELEMENTS CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS This checklist corresponds to the required plan elements section of the guidelines on page 6 This checklist will be used by the Department for reviewing and commenting on local plans Please check off in the nght hand column each element that has been addressed in the plan and include the page reference(s) for locating the element in the plan Include any pertinent comments in the space provided Plan Element Covered in Plan A Purpose & Introduction 1 Purpose of the Plan Comment Page reference Sections 11 and 1 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pg 1-2) 2 Role of Plan Development Participants Comment Page reference Sections 12, 1 3 1 and 132 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 1-2 through 1-4) 3 Public Participation Process in Plan Development Comment Page reference Section 1 3 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 1-2 through 1-6) B Summary Comment Executive summary descnbes the goals of the MRW Plan, and summanzes the pnncipal findings and recommendations of the MRW Plan Page reference (pp 1 through 10) (x) Yes ( ) No 1 C Background of the Planrung Area 1 General Background Comment Chapter 2 discusses the population, economy, land use, and natural environment in and These discussions encompass current trends as well as describing the existing area Page reference Chapter 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 2-1 through 2-7) 2 Zone Designations Comment Benton County, Franklin County, and their mumcipalities have not yet made any hazardous waste zomng designations However, they have until Apnl 1992 to do so Page reference Section 4 2 7 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 4-14 and 4-15) D Existing and Future Problems, Needs and Conditions 1 Household Hazardous Waste a) Waste quantity, type and disposal practices Comment Page reference Section 5 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-1 through 5-12) b) Identification of targeted wastes Comment Page reference Section 5 2 4 (x) Yes ( ) No (p 5-12) c) Waste transportation, handling, storage and disposal problems and needs 2 Comment Page reference Sections 5 2, 6 1, and 6 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-1 to 5-12, 6-1 to 6-4) d) Documentation of the waste categories and volumes currently being managed under each of the hazardous waste pnonties Comment Page reference Sections 522 and 523 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-2 through 5-12) e) Potentials and constraints for improving priority waste management Comment Page reference Sections, 5 223 5 23 and 62 (pp 5-10 to 5-12, 6-2 through 6-4) 2 Minor Commercial Generators a) Generator inventory (x) Yes ( ) No Comment Minor commercial generators were classified in the last two generator categories, wholesale trade and retail trade Page reference Section 5 3 1 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-13, 5-14) b) Waste quantities, type and disposal practices Comment Minor generators are directly addressed as part of the analysis in Section 5 3 3 Page reference Section 53 13, 5 3 23 and 5 3 3 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-16 through 5-34, 5-41 through 5-45) c) Identification, of targeted wastes and waste sources Comment The same moderate risk wastes are targeted for major and minor generator Page reference Section 53 13, and 7 11 2 (pp 5-16 through 5-35, 7-3, 7-4) (x) Yes ( ) No d) Waste handling, storage and disposal problems and needs Comment Moderate risk waste handling storage and disposal problems and needs are addressed for major and minor generators together Page reference Sections 53 13, 5 3 2 2, 533, 631, 632, 6331 and 63 3 2 (pp 5-16 through 5-34, 5-37 through 5-41, 5-44, 5-45, 6-5, 6-6) (x) Yes ( ) No e) Documentation of waste volumes, categories and sources managed under each of the waste management priorities Comment Major and minor generators are examined together in the review of waste management pnonties Page reference Sections 53 1 3, 5 3 23 and 5 3 3 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-16 through 5-34, 5-41 through 5-45) f) Potentials and constraints for improving priority waste management 4 Comment Waste projections include both major and minor generators, but they are shown separately m the summary waste projection table Page reference Sections 5 3 2 2, 5 3 2 3, 5 3 3, 63, and 73 (pp 5-37 through 5-45, 6-5, 7-14 through 7-16) 3 Major Commercial Generators a) Generator inventory (x) Yes ( ) No Comment Major commercial generators were classified into the first 18 generator categones hsted on pages 5-13 and 5-14 Page reference Section 5 3 1 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-13, 5-14) b) Waste quantities, types and disposal practices Comment Page reference Section 5 3 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 5-11 through 5-31) c) Identification of targeted wastes and waste sources Comment The same moderate nsk wastes are targeted for major and mmor generators Page reference Sections 5 3 1 3 and 7 11 2 (pp 5-16 through 5-35, 7-3, 7-4) d) Waste handling, storage and disposal problems and needs (x) Yes ( ) No Comment Moderate risk waste handling storage and disposal problems and needs are addressed together for major and minor generators 5 (x) Yes ( ) No Page reference Sections 5 3 1 3, 5 3 2 2, 533,631,632,6331, and 63 3 2 (pp 5-16 through 5-34, 5-37 through 5-41, 5-44, 5-45, 6-5, 6-6) e) Documentation of waste volumes, categories and sources managed under each of the waste management pnonties Comment Major and minor generators are examined together in the review of waste management pnonties Page reference Sections 5 3 1 3, 5 3 2 3 and 533 (pp 5-16 through 5-35, 5-41 through 5-45) (x) Yes ( ) No f) Potentials and constraints for improving priority waste management Comment Waste projections include both major and minor generators, but are shown separately in the summary waste projection table Page reference Sections 5 3 2 2, 5 3 2 3, 5 3 3, (x) Yes ( ) No 63 and 73 (pp 5-37 through 5-45, 6-5, 7-14 through 7-16) 4 Waste Facilities and Transportation System Inventory a) Facility inventory Comment Page reference Section 4 1 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 4-1 through 4-5) b) Adequacy for serving moderate risk waste needs 6 Comment Page reference Sections 4 1, 6 1, 6 2, 6 3 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 4-1 through 4-5, 6-1 through 6-6) 5 Roles and Responsibilities Comment Chapter 3 describes the regulatory authority assigned to vanous government agencies, and requirements placed on generators Chapter 4 explains the roles of agencies and private firms overseeing waste management in the two counties Chapter 7 discusses plan implementation and the assignment of responsibility to various government agencies . Page reference Chapters 3, 4, and 7 (x) Yes ( ) No 6 Financing Practices Comment Current financing practices for solid and hazardous waste management in the two counties are discussed in Section 43 of Chapter 4 Chapter 7 includes a discussion of budget for plan implementation Page reference Sections 43 and 72 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 4-15, 4-16, 7-8 e through 7-14) 7 Remedial Action Comment Page reference Section 425 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 4-7 through 4-12) 8 Regulation of Moderate Risk Waste a) Evaluation of existing regulations and regulatory program 7 Comment Federal, state and local regulations affecting moderate nsk waste management are described in Chapter 3 Page reference Chapter 3 (x) Yes ( ) No b) Needed level of regulatory program Comment The needed level of regulation, inspection and enforcement are discussed in Chapter 6 Page reference Chapter 6 (x) Yes ( ) No 9 Employee Training and Reporting a) Training needs Comment Current health and safety training activities are discussed in Chapter 4 in Section 4 2 6, and in Section 65 1 of Chapter 6 Page reference Sections 42 6 and 6 5 1 (pp 4-13, 4-14, 6-9, 6-10) b) Accident and injury reporting 0 (x) Yes ( ) No Comment Current accident and injury reporting activities are discussed with health and safety training in Chapter 4, Section 42 6 Systems in the local government agencies already exist for reporting all types of accidents and injuries, including those related to moderate nsk waste Additional reporting mechanisms were not considered necessary Page reference Section 4 2 6 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 4-13, 4-14) 10 State Regulated Dangerous Waste Program a) Problems impacting local jurisdictions Comment Section 6 5 2 of Chapter 6 discusses the issues and problems surrounding compliance and enforcement in the two counties 8 Page reference Section 6 5 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 6-10, 6-11) b) State regulated generator and facilities inventory Comment Page reference Section 423 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 4-7 through 4-9) E Plan Objectives and Alternatives 1 Objectives stated for solving all major problems and needs Comment Objectives for each key program are stated in Chapter 6 in the sections noted below Page reference Sections 62 1, 63 1, and 64 1 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 6-2, 6-5, 6-7) 2 Goal of no targeted moderate risk waste going to landfill or wastewater discharge, with ob- jectives for percentage reduction of moderate risk wastes Comment Goals for moderate risk waste management are set forth in the Summary section and in Chapter 6 Section 73 of Chapter 7 quantifies anticipated results Page reference Summary (pp 2), (x) Yes ( ) No Sections 6 2 1, 6 3 1, 6 4 1, and 7 3 (pp 6-2, 6-5, 6-7, 7-14 through 7-16) 3 Alternative actions and programs for achieving each objective, ranked by consistent set of evaluation criteria Comment Alternatives ranking is discussed in the introduction and conclusion to Chapter 6 The alternatives are described in the Chapter 9 Page reference Sections 623, 6 3 3, and 643 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 6-3 through 6-9) F Recommended Programs and Actions 1 Hazardous waste pnonties considered in all recommended programs and actions Comment The hazardous waste management pnonties were considered in evaluating all the alternatives Special emphasis was placed on waste reduction and recycling Household and business education will be used to promote waste reduction and recyclmg Collection programs, and waste surveillance will be used to divert moderate risk wastes away from landfill and wastewater discharge, as well as diverting wastes from other improper or undesirable disposal methods Ordinances will be used to reinforce these activities Page reference Section 7 1 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 7-1 through 7-8) 2 Public and business information and education program Comment Household and business education are specifically addressed in the recommendations The recommendations also address education m the form of health and safety training for private businesses, particularly private solid waste haulers Page reference Section 7 11 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 7-1 through 7-4) 3 Moderate nsk waste ordinance(s) Comment Page reference Section 7 1 4 (x) Yes ( ) No (pg 7-7) 4 Treatment, storage and disposal network Comment 10 Page reference Section 7 1 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 7-4 through 7-6) 5 Moderate nsk waste diversion programs Comment Diversion programs are addressed as part of the treatment, storage and disposal network Page reference Section 7 1 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 7-4 through 7-6) 6 Onsite audits of targeted commercial generators Comment Determine feasibility of a privately- sponsored small quantity generator audit program Page reference Section 7 11 2 (x) Yes ( ) No (pg 7-4) 7 Morutormg, surveillance and enforcement program Comment Page reference Section 7 1 4 (x) Yes ( ) No (pg 7-7) 8 Household hazardous waste collection Comment —Page reference Section 7 1 2 1 (x) Yes ( ) No (pp 7-4 through 7-6) 9 Targeting of selected waste and waste sources Comment Target wastes identified in Chapter 5 (and the Executive Summary) will be given special emphasis in education, collection, compliance and enforcement activities Specific groups of businesses will be identified as the target of techmcal assistance activities 11 Page reference Sections 5 2 4, 5 3 3, 7 1 1, (x) Yes ( ) No and 73 (pp 5-12, 5-44, 5-45, 7-1 through 7-4, 7-14 through 7-16) 10 Lead agency responsible for coordinating plan implementation Comment Responsibilities for implementing the MRW plan are assigned to vanous local agencies Page reference Section 723 (pp 7-12, 7-13) (x) Yes ( ) No 11 Implementing responsibility for all programs and activities Comment Specific agency assignments are discussed m each program area of the recommendations Assignments are summarized in Chapter 7 Page reference Section 723 (pp 7-12, 7-13) (x) Yes ( ) No 12 Plan revision and update process Comment Page reference Section 724 (pp 7-13, 7-14) (x) Yes ( ) No G Appendices 1 Resolutions of plan adoption Comment Page reference Appendix A Resolutions of (x) Yes ( ) No adoption are available from the Benton-Franldin Regional Council 12 2 SEPA compliance Comment Page reference Appendix B (x) Yes ( ) No 3 Response summary to public comment Comment Page reference Appendix D (x) Yes ( ) No H General/Overview Comments 13 — , " " r ' .5 4, 3,1 .15,. ' ''' ,5. . - , ,.... n 5 , 5.,,, ( ,,. t ., 353,>, ' .` s, %.",. ' .,:4 ) — :::: 1‘. '3'4 i ..,, 1. ," 4 i ' 1 4.4.58 3.? .1. 4 ; , 4. 0, ,..rS ,,' ? J 4 7. , , L ' t , ...,. ' • • , e 0 ,r'•,,.`.' ., .. ,.., • " 1 1 ,••'-` 5 5 3' , a ,, '3, "7„, t' 4, 4 T 5 , !, .4 .a.-4? 1 7-3 , -44 4; ''' , 4 1 •r . 4 ,. / .:s. ! „ , 1, ., , 4. , 7 1 t 31' on 71 _ 1 4 , , 43 /0, , J 11, - r. — .1' , - T's„ 4.• Jr, ; 1 1' t I 444. o 41. 1;%. e- 44 4 -4 .4 4 J 4•, 44 .4 r '43 4 5 e - .444715 s' 13 .° 2 7 ' ..'", 1 4 i e 4 .5 13, ' t n33 . I C t , s ,kl ' 1 `,3 3,3 'f ' n r ' .4 C 4 T' 4 r 4' v , r .. + ., 4e 4 ' 1 4 .i1 . 4 . -\ / . I . 44 , , I'1 ' ; , ,/ 3. 4 4 , r' „ — , 44 1c , 1 41 3 r" 4, „ p , — . , 7 " r r , ' .4 s , ' . . . , . 4 .4 , 4 - 4 , 1 44 54 I' ,4. 1 -- . ' ." r ?n „," 74 ' , '..x .. • 4 6 t IT . 4 x t 7 , ,"3 , , L „ , - rt 1 y c,, - 33,, s , '' - 3 5 I 34 ' , 33' . 4 su 4 ' ' 1 ' f - . ss . ., . , , ,. ' 3 " r 3 ' - A NA ; e -. t 1 7 .1 ) 0, '7 2 ' : ' '' ,4 ` 4 i r 4 ' , , 7 ' - ''5 , N .1 ' I ' 7 1 0, '1 7 3 4 . .4 4 0 ' 4 , 4 , .71 0 • Y ,/ 4 Z , , 1 , „ s , . _ 45 r, 3 _4' .4 ,. , ;1 442 '1-4 44 1 4.- , o' 4 "4' „) 0 ° 0 1-- , ' ., .4 4 - ( ' C . 13 h 1 4^ t'„ . / ' 4 4s 4 r e 1 ‘ , ' , — ,.4"1 yy ,„- , 5 „ ,,, e„ ' A, 4 , 1 cc 52 l' ..., t '`' 44 1 .• , 1Y — '''''' 3,4 0 , 1' , . 4' s' .. .., 1 ' .34 , 7 . 2 .3 ' , . ” ? 333 o " • , ' ,' , 1r, , ' , 4 , r. '" t :' t 33 '' r I ,4 4 7 , - ) 9 47 , 5 5 t i — - , i 4 2 • 4- 4 - r4.;•, „ r. 1 P - n pl 5-- 4I Aid 0 At Ect-e6v), A Ce,L4 APPENDIX D RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE BENTON AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Local governments are required by the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act (RCW 70 105 220) to examine and improve moderate nsk waste management in their jurisdictions Their findings are presented in the form of a plan that meets the requirements of the Act and the Department of Ecology planrung guidelines To create a credible and acceptable plan, public review and comment throughout the development of the plan is essential In addition, the plan's recommendations must include programs that involve the public in improving local moderate risk waste management II. PURPOSE The purpose of the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan is to improve the management of moderate risk waste within the counties, thereby promoting better regional protection of public health and the environment This responsiveness summary identifies formal public comments presented on the draft plan, and provides a response to those comments III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS The Benton-Franklin Regional Council was the lead agency for developing the Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan In its public involvement activities, the Regional Council emphasized reaching interested and affected residents and businesses to inform them about moderate risk waste issues and gather their views on ways to address those issues in the plan Public involvement strategies included coordination with the Benton County and Franklin County Solid Waste Advisory Committees throughout development of the plan, conducting surveys of households, businesses, and farmers within the region, distributing information to the public through the media and directly using fact sheets, plan summaries, and contacts with television, radio, and newspapers, and conducting public workshops and heanngs The public involvement activities are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1 of the Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan This responsiveness summary presents formal comments made by the public at hearings conducted in Pasco on August 6, 1991 and Kennewick on August 7, 1991 Citizens were also invited to submit comments in writing through the public comment period extending from the release of the draft Plan on July 7 through August 16, 1991 The hearmgs were preceded by workshops, which allowed participants to informally ask questions and identify issues or concerns The workshops and hearings were announced through an advertisement, news articles, letters to interested citizens and advisory committee members, and radio and television announcements Copies of the plan were placed in all public libraries for review by the public, while copies of the plan summary were available from the Regional Council on request IV. FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE Formal oral comments were received from citizens attending the hearing in Kennewick. No formal comments were made at the hearing in Pasco. Oral Comment--Kennewick, Washington, August 7, 1991 1 Buz Throndsen Comment I'm with the Automotive Service Association The majority of the automotive repair facilities don't have a problem with the oil, oil filter, and antifreeze collection programs, as long as they are realistic We are not the "generator" of these waste products, but the collector We have been disposing of these matenals for years without too much problem Our biggest problem is public knowledge of what we have to do to comply with the regulations the Department of Ecology is putting forth We don't have problems with the regulations being proposed, but there is an expense involved in complying with them There are only a few people attending this heanng This gives you an idea of the public awareness of what is going on The public needs to be made aware that they are going to have to pay for the services required by the Department of Ecology We need them to know that the automotive industry is the collector, not the generator Response The draft plan reflects the fact that some of the businesses considered to be "generators" under the regulations are actually performing a service by accepting and handling hazardous products used by citizens and other businesses (page 5-41) The term "generator" as it is used in the Dangerous Waste Regulations refers to any person whose act produces dangerous waste or whose act first causes a dangerous waste to become subject to regulation Products such as oil and antifreeze are not considered wastes until they are removed from productive use, which is the point at which they are removed or released from the vehicle If removal is done by the homeowner, the homeowner is the "generator" If removal is performed by the service station, the service station is the "generator" This definition obviously does not reflect the fact that the service station did not contaminate the product, or benefit directly from the product's use The final plan has been modified to further clarify the status of businesses, such as the auto service industry, which serve the public by accepting hazardous substances and wastes which must be properly managed Representatives of the Automotive Service Association and other interested parties are encouraged to work with the local agencies that will implement the Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan educational programs With the assistance of the business representatives, the agencies will consider informational approaches or matenals that will advise the public of the role of the auto service industry in managing wastes in an environmentally sound manner 2 Bill Henager Comment Annual collection days are scheduled to be held, at a minimum, through 1992 However, there is a real possibility that permanent facilities will be available early in 1992, so there doesn't need to be a commitment to the collection event Response The participating local agencies recognize that a collection event may be unnessary if permanent facilities are available within a time frame that is reasonably close to the April collection event Therefore, the plan has been modified to state that a collection event will be held in 1992, unless permanent facilities are available to provide service to the communities in 1992 3 Ken Nelson Comment I agree with the comment made by Bill Henager If possible, a facility will be available and it will not be necessary to conduct the collection event in 1992 Response The plan has been modified, as noted above 4 Kevin McCue Comment I would like to emphasize how important it is that the automotive industry not be considered the "generator" of that problem (waste oil, antifreeze) All the solutions look good, and everything needs to be done, but you're blaming one person for it To even call us the generator can lead to problems. For instance, if the law were to change, you could decide to fine all generators for doing something It always goes one step at a time The word "generators" should not be placed on people that don't generate waste It's wrong to consider us generators, and later on it will become a lot worse than it is now Response As noted in response to comment number 1 above, there is a basis in state and federal regulations for calling businesses such as auto service stations "generators" Their actions (such as the removal of lubncating oil or antifreeze) represent the point at which these materials become wastes Whether considered a "collector" or "generator", auto service stations will be required to follow appropnate state regulations for handling and management of the waste, since the wastes are under their control The Department of Ecology does not have authonty to fine, or take enforcement actions against anyone unless there have been violations of state laws or regulations In most cases, the Department of Ecology works with businesses to solve problems in a cooperative fashion, unless there has been blatant disregard for environmental regulations As a result, it is improbable that Ecology would take enforcement action against any individual, unless there was proper justification As noted above, the participating jurisdictions would welcome discussions with the auto service industry to explore ways to improve public awareness of the need, and costs associated with managing automotive hazardous waste properly Written comments on the Draft Benton and Franklin Counties Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan were submitted by Mr. Robert Kelly, City Manager for the City of Kennewick. The comments were presented in a letter to the Benton-Franklin Regional Council dated August 16, 1991. Responses to the issues raised in the letter were provided in a letter dated August 23, 1991 from Mr. Art Tackett of the Benton-Franklin Regional Council to Mr. Kelly. Copies of both letters are attached. CITY OF KENNEWICK WASHINGTON CIVIC CENTER (509) 586-4191 / SCAN-526-2237 / FAX (509) 582-9138 210 WEST SIXTH AVENUE / PD BOX 6108 / KENNEWICK WASHINGTON 99336-0108 August 16, 1991 Donald P. Morton Executive Director Benton/Franklin Regional Council P.O. Box 217 Richland, WA 99352-0217 RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1991 BFGC Subject: City of Kennewick Comments to Benton and Franklin Counties - Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan Dear Don: Thank you for the opportunity for comments on the Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan. As you are aware the City's representative on the Benton County Solid Waste Advisory Committee is Councilman Bob Olson. The City's technical representative concerning this plan is Bob Hammond, Maintenance & Operations Manager in the City's Public Works Department. The following comments concerning the plan result from detailed review of the plan by Bob Olson and Bob Hammond and general discussions with the remaining Council members. The Plan lists a five-year budget summarized in Table 7.1. Should the City approve the referenced Plan with this or with a revised budget, the required funding would of course still be subject to appropriation during the City's normal yearly budget cycle. With a few exceptions we concur with the manner in which the budget summarized in Table 7.1 is developed. ThePlandoesnotprovideadetailed breakdown of projected costs for each agency This makes it difficult to provide specific comments. If detailed cost projections for each agency have been developed with solid supporting data/rationale, then these projections should be included in the plan. The extent to which the City can fund and thus implement its program elements will depend on the ability and method of generating revenues. The plan has not fully developed revenue options The planning consultant (Parametrix) did not work closely with any City representative to establish funding options. However, the Plan uses statements such as line four on page 7-10 which reads "ultimately, emphasis for local funding will be on assessments applied to household and commercial solid waste accounts." Since the various revenue options have not been fully developed and submitted for consideration to the City policy makers, it would be premature to use or include statements in the Plan such as the one above. In fact, a statementshouldbe included in the budget section that indicates that expenditures for the plan elements are subject to the agencies' yearly budget approval. DPW-RRH-91 -1u1 There are several places within the plan that state that the annual Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days will continue. The City is not in agreement with any statement in this Plan that appears to require continuance of the annual collection event. In several locations the Plan states that annual collection events will continue through 1992 at a minimum. In the Implementation Schedule, Budget and Responsibilities, it states under collection that the "collection programs will be supported by each jurisdiction based on population, distribution or by participation. It is expected that participation will increase to approximately 1,000 participants per year by 1996, if region-wide events are continued". Figure 7.1 lists the waste collection events as continuing throughout each year of the Plan with a footnote that events may be discontinued or modified if permanent facility is established. Under Section 6.2.3.2 Household Hazardous Waste Collection, the items 1 and 2 include expanding publicity for the annual collection event and increasing frequency of the collection events. There are other statements and places throughout the Plan that deal in one extent or another with annual collection events. Throughout the meetings including SWAC meetings, hearings, the various informal meetings between agency's representatives and the meeting dealing with region wide issues, a great majority of involved parties concluded that the annual collection days would be less effective than establishing permanent collection facilities. Examples were given of the Yakima County program, City of Spokane program and other programs brought up by the Department of Ecology representatives that had been more effective than the annual collection events. During the Benton County SWAC meetings, both representatives Olson and Hammond have proposed that rather than the annual collection event, that the same dollars be put into establishing permanent facilities. The City plans to budget for 1992 options for providing one permanent collection facility. The City would not support any approach that required immediate City enforcement of its businesses concerning specific reduction criteria and specific time tables for reduction and disposal. The City recognizes that the moderate risk waste generated by commercial businesses will account for a very large portion of total generated waste. For the most part, the City concurs with the Plan's approach concerning commercial business. We see a great need for public information and education. There have been some excellent ideas on how to provide that information, including using peer groups to talk to one another. This we feel will be more effective than having governmental agency personal trying to educate business representatives. The Plan calls for an evaluation in January 1994 concerning commercial business. This evaluation would assumably try to identify the effectiveness of the previous two years' effort to inform and educate commercial moderate risk waste generators. At that time options would be developed for increasing or maintaining proper reduction and disposal of the commercial waste. The City supports this approach. Agricultural waste management is emphasized in the Plan. While recognizing the importance of this issue, the City nonetheless is not supportive of expending any sizeable amount of effort in this area because the primary return is not to the City residents. The City does support continuance and expansion of existing programs primarily administered by the State Department of Agriculture regarding ag chemical waste reduction and disposal. In order to be eligible for any possible grants, the City would like to include a provision in the Plan for adding a staff person to help provide the appropriate information and education and to interpret and implement some specific legislation as it relates any plan elements. This of course is subject to budgetary approval. The only specific reference to staff requirements in the Plan was found under 7.2.2 Budget in each of the categories. On the surface this appears to provide the needed basis for grant application; however, your consideration of this point and comments would be appreciated. In general, the goals as stated in the Plan appear to lack any specificity. For example, the verbs used in the goals are "protect, manage, increase, improve, reduce, coordinate, encourage, emphasize and comply". When we consider the possible large range of responsibilities involved, such genejl_. verbiage makes it difficult to pin down specific responsibilities. Under the evaluation sections of the plan there does not appear to be much specificity provided for the method to measure the Plan's effectiveness. It appears the local agencies will be required to do so from words such as "track information such as waste collected diverted, and participation rates". The main concern is that if future grant eligibility, state enforcement, etc. is based on the product of this program evaluation and measurement, then the State should share some responsibility to develop and implement a reasonable yard stick for measuring program success. Please accept our congratulations on the formulation of this Plan. In general it appears that it is more than just a generic document to be put on a shelf. There is enough specific items in fact that we find ourselves feeling somewhat cornered. Therefore, please accept these comments as our attempt to share our concerns with a somewhat uncertain projection for what the needs for program Res .ectfully yours, /0 City Manage implementation will be for the City. We look forward to your responses to these concerns and appropriate consideration for changes to the Plan. RMK:RRH:vih cc: City Council Erv Bader, Public Works Director Bob Hammond, Maintenance & Operations Manager BENTON-FRANKL1N GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE P 0 BOX 217 • 1622 TERMINAL DRIVE • RICHLAND, WA 99352-0217 TELEPHONE (509) 943-9185 • FAX (509) 943-6756 August 23, 1991 Mr. Bob Kelly City Manager City of Kennewick P.O. Box 6108 Kennewick, WA 99336-0108 SUBJECT: KENNEWICK COMMENTS - MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Bob: Thank you for submitting comments regarding the Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan. In addition to your comments, we have received public comments and suggestions from both County Solid Waste Advisory Committees for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Parametrix, the consultant for the Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan, was faxed a copy of your comments In general, the plan was designed and the point made at the SWAC meetings that the lack of detail in some cases was intended to provide a degree of flexibility to the jurisdictions, so that as new information is gathered, it does not necessarily make the plan outdated, and subject to amendment. The plan, in part, is intended to be a guidance document, with specific implementation details worked out by the participating jurisdictions during the plan's implementation. The first point addressed the fact that detailed breakdowns of projected costs are not provided for each agency. If detailed costs have been developed, they should be included within the plan. The assumptions for developing the plan's budget were detailed in a document presented to the Advisory Committee members on May 31, 1991. A copy is attached. That document explains how the budget was calculated. The plan reflects this budget in a summary form, and is adjusted for inflation. The specific costs for each agency have not been defined in the plan, but can be estimated for discussion purposes. The reason more detail has not been included in the plan is that some future costs will be determined only after the plan has been finalized. The programs are evolving, and although the costs may be estimated now, they will change each year. For instance, the plan calls for Bob Kelly Kennewick Comments Page 2 examining the feasibility of permanent facilities. As part of that study, it will be necessary to determine the costs, and allocation of costs to each jurisdiction The costs of the facilities to be developed will depend upon the degree to which the jurisdictions wish to publicize and promote use by citizens. We thought it would make sense to show the estimated costs at this time, recognizing that the specific costs and assignment of those costs would have to be determined during plan implementation. However, we are able to help the City of Kennewick estimate its costs, based upon the information available now. The second point is that revenue options have not been fully developed. Most cities look to the solid waste collection or disposal system as the method of funding their share of program costs. It is up to each jurisdiction to decide how it best may raise the funds to carry out programs. At your convenience, we should discuss the preferred methods of funding programs within the City of Kennewick. The third point addresses the need for a statement that expenditures for the plan elements are subject to agencies' yearly budget approval. That would be useful to add, since activities and resulting costs are subject to change. The fourth point concerned commitment to collection events, rather than permanent facilities. We propose revising the text of the plan to drop the commitment for a 1992 collection event, if permanent facilities are available within a reasonable time to serve as an alternative to the event. This provides some flexibility, and would serve both Benton and Franklin Counties. The fifth point addresses City enforcement of businesses concerning reduction of waste, with timetables. The City did not support this approach. There are no provisions in the plan for City enforcement as stated. The plan emphasized education and voluntary compliance. BENTON FRANKLIN GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE Bob Kelly Kennewick Comments Page 3 The sixth point is related to agricultural waste education. I do not expect any significant effort using city resources applied here, since it does not benefit city residents. The seventh point addresses City staffing. As the plan was drafted, Kennewick would financially support Benton County in education activities. In return, Benton County staff would provide assistance to the City. if the City wishes to change this approach, it will need to be reflected in the plan. This needs to be discussed further to determine the City's intent. The eighth point concerns the generality of the plan's goals. They were proposed to the committees in January for review and comment. They are only intended to state the purposes for writing the plan. Objectives are defined in Chapter 6, and are more specific. Specific agency responsibilities are identified in Chapter 7, Recommendations. The final point concerns the need to be more specific about measuring the effectiveness of the plan. That is a good point, and as programs are established, it will be important for the lead agencies to define and agree upon specific measurable objectives and the tools for measurements. In fact, we expect the Department of Ecology to request information on program results. If statewide data are to be tabulated, it would be appropriate, as suggested, for the Department of Ecology to provide guidance in quantifying programs and measuring success. If I can be of additional assistance, please contact me. Sin erely, Art ackett Community Development Manager AT/sg Enclosure BENTON-FRANKLIN GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE 1 4 r. 4 ''4' /44 4. . i ' 5 7 1 c n4,4, 14' r " 14,- , -L r, 7.4 3." ,- , 7, ,2 4'" 4 r , 4, r 4 7 c I r-) V" .94 ' ii.„ 4-7 44 5.7 7 '114. f • A r 2 _r 1 1' I 1 444 - 44 4-) _ r " , t ro A „ , c 44,54:4 5 A I 44 7 ,..., 4. , „, 4 , ,i, .i.,' _• t- ,) .,— -5. , 94 „ , - , ,..„... ,. , ^ - .? ,,, q ' , - nr , ) , 4 .,9 .41 4. , ,fi , 4, ' '44/ 1 41 44 ' 44141 1 A 1 ' ' t A 4' 4 '''_. „ A ' f 7 t. 4 2' 1 { 2 S _r "0 ' 7 ,, , ,, T ( {4- 4 v ... 1 .. 5 , l , , f 7 , , l ' , 4 4 4 l -, I'- < ' .„I,.1 .P I r. e c ie r} Xe; , c ' c ' ) r' 1 c . ' - ` / < 7 n - ' l : 4.1 . „e 7- 4 r r:4 0 •*- 1 r 4 , r- - w a , -< r' ,,,,, n I I r , 2 4 -4 t ri " <or r - 1 e 14, 4, APPENDIX E HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE • Household Hazardous Waste Questionnaire • Quantities Reported Disposed of on the Benton and Franklin Counties Household Hazardous Waste Questionnaire Q1 Enter the Respondent ID# Q2 Enter the Interview Start Time ( ) Q3 Enter the Interview End Time ( ) Q4 Enter Area Code and First Three Digits of the Phone # Q5 Enter the State Code DIAL THE TELEPHONE IF A YOUNG CHILD ANSWERS, ASK FOR AN ADULT 0 Q6 Hello My name is and I am calling from Gilmore Research We are conducting a short survey of Benton and Franklin residents on the subject of household hazardous wastes and their disposal May I speak with the person in your household who would know the most about the household wastes you throw away? 1 Yes 2 No - [INTERVIEWER When would be a more convenient time to call back 9 ] Q7 This interview is voluntary, and if we come to any question that you would prefer not to answer, just let me know and I will skip over it, OK? 1 Yes 2 No Q8 Do you run a farm FOR A LIVING? 1 Yes ---> GO TO Q282, CLOSING #1 2 No Q9 Do you run a business from your home? 1 Yes ---> GO TO Q282, CLOSING #1 2 No Q10 Next, we are interested in learning about hazardous wastes in households To the best 01 your knowledge, are there any hazardous household products in your home that need special disposal 9 Q11-Q23 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q24 Can you list some of these household products for me 9 [INTERVIEWER DO NOT PROMPT CHECK ALL TYPES OF PRODUCTS THAT ARE MENTIONED] 0 Q11 ADHESIVES, GLUES AND SEALANTS Q12 ____ PAINTS, SOLVENTS OR THINNERS Q13 _ CLEANERS Q14 ____ PESTICIDES Q15 ___ AUTO BA! 1ERIES Q16 _ OTHER HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES Q17 - AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS — Q18 OTHER CHEMICALS _ Q19 OTHER FLAMMABLES Q20 EXPLOSIVES Q21 - OTHER, please specify Q22_..... - OTHER, please specify Q23_ OTHER, please specify Q24 I'd like to ask if you've had any of the following types of wastes in the last year and the methods you used to dispose of them If you have used more than one method, I would like to know what percentage of the product you disposed by each method Some of the wastes I will ask you about are hazardous and some are not (It's all right to dispose of wastes by several of the methods I'm going to mention) The Counties Just want to know what the products are and the methods which people use most often Your responses are confidential The first type of household waste I would like to ask you about is Adhesives, Glues and Sealants such as rubber cement, adhesives used in remodeling or hobbies, roof coatings, caulkings, or epoxy In the last twelve months, have you had any Adhesives, Glues and Sealants in your home, workshop, or garage 9 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q42 Q25 How much Adhesives, Glues and Sealants, if any, do you think you threw away as a waste or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINERS OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G TUBES, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 GAL, 1 OZ, 3 LBS, ETC)] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT 025 AND ENTER N AT Q26 TO GO TO Q42] Q26-Q41 What methods of disposal did you use when you got rid of the Adhesives, Glues and Sealants? Did you dispose of the waste by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More % Q26 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q27 Q28 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q29 Q30 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N 031 Q32 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N 033 Q34 Burying it or pouring it on the ground? 1 2 N Q35 Q36 Recycling it? 1 2 N 037 Q38 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 ? N 039 Q40 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N Q41 Q42 The next type of waste is Latex or Water-based Paints (NOT oil-based paints) In the last twelve months, have you had any Latex or Water based Paints in your home, garage or workshop? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q60 Q43 How much Latex or Water-based Paint, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINERS OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC)] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT Q43 AND ENTER N AT Q44 TO GO TO Q60] Q44-059 What methods did you use to dispose of the Latex or Water-based Paints? Did you disposed of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"' Yes No No More % Q44 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up ervice? 1 ? N Q45 Q46 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q47 Q48 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N Q49 Q50 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N Q51 Q52 Burying it or pouring it on land? 1 2 N Q53 Q54 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q55 Q56 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q57 Q58 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N Q59 Q60 The next type of household hazardous waste is Oil-based Paints In the last twelve months, have you had any Oil-based Paints in your home, garage or workshop? 1 Yes ? No --- > GO TO 078 Q61 How much Oil-based Paints, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINERS OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC )] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT Q61 AND ENTER N AT Q62 TO GO TO Q78] Q62-Q77 What methods did you use to dispose of the Oil-based Paints? Did you disposed of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More % Q62 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q63 Q64 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q65 Q66 Putting it down the dram or toilet? 1 2 N Q67 Q68 Pounng it on the street or m the storm sewer? 1 2 N Q69 Q70 Burying it or pouring it on land? 1 2 N Q71 Q72 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q73 Q74 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q75 Q76 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed'? 1 2 N Q77 Q78 The next type of household hazardous waste is Solvents and Thinners such as nail polish remover, spot remover, paint thinner or stripper In the last twelve months, have you had any Solvents and Thinners in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q96 Q79 How much Solvents and Thinners, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC.)] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT 079 AND ENTER N AT Q80 TO GO TO Q96] Q80-Q95 What methods did you use to dispose of the Solvents and Thinners? Did you dispose of it by ) [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More % Q80 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 9 N 081 082 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station'? 1 9 N Q83 Q84 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N 085 086 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N Q87 Q88 Burying it or pouring it on land? 1 2 N Q89 Q90 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q91 Q92 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N 093 Q94 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N 095 Q96 The next type of household hazardous waste is Cleaners such as degreasers like ammonia, disinfectants, waxes, oven cleaners, floor polish, or furniture polish, deck, patio or chimney cleaners, toilet, drain or septic tank cleaners, or furniture strippers In the last twelve months, have you had any Cleaners in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q114 Q97 How much of the Cleaners, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER). IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC )1 [IF NONE, ENTER N AT Q97 AND ENTER N AT 098 TO GO TO Q114] Q98-Q113 What methods did you use to dispose of the Cleaners? [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using , Did you dispose of it by this method?"] No Yes No More % Q98 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q99 Q100 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q101 Q102 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N 0103 , Q104 Pounng it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N 0105 Q106 Burying it or pounng it on land? 1 2 N Q107 Q108 Recycling it? 1 2 N 0109 Q110 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N 0111 Q112 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N Q113 Q114 The next type of household hazardous waste is Pesticides such as weed and bug killers, rodent killers, wood preservatives, flea bombs, moss retardants, or fertilizers In the last twelve months, have you had any Pesticides or Wood Preservatives in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q132 Q115 How much Pesticides or Wood Preservatives, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC)] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT Q115 AND ENTER N AT Q116 TO GO TO Q132] Q116-Q131 What methods did you use to dispose of the Pesticides and Wood Preservatives? Did you dispose of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?'] Yes No No More Q116 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q117 0118 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N 0119 Q120 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N 0121 Q122 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N 0123 0124 Burying it or pouring it on land? 1 2 N 0125 0126 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q127 Q128 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q129 Q130 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N Q131 Q132 The next type of household hazardous waste is Auto Battenes In the last twelve months, have you had any Auto Batteries in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q146 Q133 How many Auto Battenes, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE RECORD BATTERIES ONLY AS NUMBER OF BATTERIES OR LBS (IE 5 BATTERIES, 200 LBS) ] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT 0133 AND ENTER N AT Q134 TO GO TO Q146] Q134-Q145 What methods did you use to dispose of the Auto Batteries? Did you dispose of them by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More Q134 Putting them out for garbage service? 1 2 N Q135 Q136 Taking them to the landfill or transfer station/ 1 2 N Q137 Q138 Burying them? 1 2 N 0139 Q140 Recycling them? 1 2 N 0141 Q142 Taking them to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q143 Q144 Disposing of them in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N Q145 0146 The next type of household hazardous waste is Household Batteries such as for flashlights, calculators, watches or hearing aids In the last twelve months, have you had any Household Batteries in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q160 Q147 How many Household Batteries, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE RECORD BA11ERIES ONLY AS NUMBER OF BAT1ERIES OR LBS (IE 12 BAT1ERIES, 2 LBS) ] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT Q147 AND ENTER N AT Q148 TO GO TO Q160] Q148-Q159 What methods did you use to dispose of the Household Batteries? Did you dispose of them by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More % Q148 Putting them out for garbage service? 1 2 N 0149 Q150 Taking them to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q151 Q152 Burying them? 1 2 N Q153 Q154 Recycling them? 1 2 N 0155 Q156 Taking them to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q157 0158 Disposing of them in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N 0159 Q160 The next type of household hazardous waste is Contaminated or Used Motor 011 or Diesel In the last twelve months, have you had any Contaminated or Used Motor Oil or Diesel in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q178 Q161 How much Used or Contaminated Motor Oil or Diesel, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUAN MIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC)} [IF NONE, ENTER N AT 0161 AND ENTER N AT Q162 TO GO TO 0178] Q162-Q177 What methods did you use to dispose of the Used or Contaminated Motor 011 or Diesel? Did you dispose of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More % Q162 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N 0163 Q164 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q165 Q166 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N Q167 Q168 Pounng it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N Q169 Q170 Burying it or pounng it on land? 1 2 N 0171 Q172 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q173 Q174 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N 0175 0176 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N Q177 Q178 The next type of household hazardous waste is Antifreeze In the last twelve months, have you had any Antifreeze in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO Q196 Q179 How much Antifreeze, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE. 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC )] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT Q179 AND ENTER N AT 0180 TO GO TO 0196] Q180-Q195 What methods did you use to dispose of the Antifreeze? Did you dispose of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] No Yes No More % Q180 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q181 Q182 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q183 Q184 Putting it down the dram or toilet? 1 2 N Q185 Q186 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N 0187 Q188 Burying it or pouring it on land? 1 2 N Q189 Q190 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q191 Q192 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q193 Q194 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N Q195 Q196 The next type of household hazardous waste is Other Automotive Supplics such as contaminated gasoline, additives, flushes, or carburetor cleaner In the last twelve months, have you had any Other Automotive Supplies ID youi home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No --- > GO TO Q214 Q197 How much Other Automotive Supplies, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC)] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT Q197 AND ENTER N AT Q198 TO GO TO 0214] Q198-Q213 What methods did you use to dispose of the Automotive Supplies? Did you (119)oc,ed of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] No Yes No More % Q198 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q199 Q200 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N 0201 Q202 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N Q203 _ Q204 Pounng it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N Q205 Q206 Burying it or pounng it on land? 1 2 N Q207 Q208 Recycling it? 1 2 N 0209 Q210 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N 0211. Q212 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N 0213 Q214 The next type of household hazardous waste is Other Chemicals such as pool chemicals, photo chemicals, chemistry sets, inks, dyes or glazes In the last twelve months, have you had any Other Chemicals in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO 0232 Q215 How much of the Other Chemicals, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE. 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC)] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT 0215 AND ENTER N AT 0216 TO GO TO Q232] Q216-Q231 What methods did you use to dispose of the Other Chemicals? Did you dispose of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More Q216 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q217 0218 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q219 Q220 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N 0221 Q222 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N 0223 Q224 Burying it or pounng it on land? 1 2 N 0225 Q226 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q227 Q228 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q229 Q230 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N 0231 Q232 The next type of household hazardous waste is Other Flammables such as charcoal lighter fluid, bottled gas or white gas In the last twelve months, have you had any Other Flarnmables in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO 0250 Q233 How much of the Other Flammables, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE. 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC)] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT 0233 AND ENTER N AT 0234 TO GO TO 0250] Q234-Q249 What methods did you use to dispose of the Other Flammables? Did you dispose of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this method?"] Yes No No More % Q234 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N 0235 Q236 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N Q237 Q238 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N 0239 Q240 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N 0241 Q242 Burying it or pouring it on land? 1 2 N 0243 Q244 Recycling it? 1 2 N 0245 Q246 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N 0247 Q248 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N 0249 Q250 The next type of household hazardous waste is Explosives such as ammunition or fireworks In the last twelve months, have you had any Explosives in your home, workshop or garage? 1 Yes 2 No ---> GO TO 0268 Q251 How much Explosives, if any, do you think you threw away AS A WASTE or recycled in the last 12 months? [ DO NOT RECORD EMPTY CONTAINER OR UNMEASURABLE QUANTITIES (E G FLEA BOMBS, ONE CONTAINER) IF RESPONDENT IS UNSURE, TRY TO GET ROUGH ESTIMATE INCLUDE AMOUNT AND METHOD OF MEASURE (IE 2 LBS, 1 OZ, 3 GAL, ETC ) ] [IF NONE, ENTER N AT 0251 AND ENTER N AT 0252 TO GO TO 02681 Q252-Q267 What methods did you use to dispose of the Explosives? Did you dispose of it by [IF USED "What percentage did you dispose using this methodn Yes No No More 670 Q252 Putting it out for your garbage pick-up service? 1 2 N Q253 Q254 Taking it to the landfill or transfer station? 1 2 N 0255 Q256 Putting it down the drain or toilet? 1 2 N Q257 Q258 Pouring it on the street or in the storm sewer? 1 2 N 0259 Q260 Burying it or pounng it on land? 1 2 N Q261 Q262 Recycling it? 1 2 N Q263 Q264 Taking it to the household hazardous waste collection event? 1 2 N Q265 Q266 Disposing of it in another way I have not listed? 1 2 N 0267 Q269 Special collection days which would be held in a central location once or more each year Q270 A permanent site where you could drop off wastes which would be open once a week Q271 A permanent site where you could drop off wastes which would be open every day Yes No 1 2 1 2 1 2 , Q268 We're finding that household hazardous wastes which are improperly handled pose threats to our environment and to people's health We would like to find ways to help residents dispose of their household hazardous wastes in the safest manner possible The Counties are considering a number of different programs to help residents In the next few questions, I'd like to get your opinions on the types of services you would use, so we can tailor programs to the needs of our residents Q269-Q272 I'm going to read a list of four services that the Counties could provide to help you safely dispose of some of the products we discussed earlier I'd like to know if you think you would use any of these services First, Would you use M M M Q272 A pick-up service that picked up household hazardous waste 1 2 M from your home by appointment Q273 Of the disposal services I Just mentioned, which would you be most likely to use 9 1 Special collection days, at least once a year 2 A permanent site, open once a week 3 A permanent site, open every day 4 Pick-up by appointment 5 None of the disposal services mentioned Q274 Have you participated in the household hazardous waste collection events held in the TIM- Cities area? 1 Yes 2 No Mayb e Q275 How far (in miles) would you be willing to drive to a collection center for household hazardous wastes? [INTERVIEWER Code from list below] 1 Would not drive 2 Up to five miles 3 Six to ten miles 4 Eleven to fifteen miles 5 More than fifteen miles Q276 Do you use a garbage collection service for waste picicup? 1 Yes 2 No Q277 Would you object to a fee, such as $1 00 per month, to support a household hazardous waste collection program'? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don't know Q278 Now, I just need to ask you a few questions about your home Do you live in a single family home, an apartment or duplex, or a mobile home? 1 Single family home 2 Apartment/duplex 3 Mobile home Q279 Do you own or rent your home? 1 Own 2 Rent 3 Refused to answer Q280 Do you live in the muncorporated county or in a city or town? 1 Benton City 2. Prosser 3 West Richland 4 Kennewick 5 Richland 6 Connell 7 Kahlotus 8 Mesa 9 Pasco 10 Unincorporated Benton County 11 Unincorporated Franklin County Q281 Would you like further information concerning household hazardous wastes? 1 Yes ---> GO TO Q282, CLOSING #2 2 No ---> GO TO Q283, CLOSING #3 Q282 CLOSING #1 Thank you for your willingness to participate in our survey, but we are only surveying residents who don't run a farm or business from their home Let me verify your phone number; did I dial (PHONE #) 9 Would you like to receive information on what types of hazardous wastes you may generate and how to dispose of them? (IF YES) Could you tell me your name and address NAME ADDRESS Q283 CLOSING #2 0 K. First, let me verify your phone number Now, could you tell me your name and address' NAME ADDRESS That concludes the survey, and I'd like to thank you for your time and opinions Have a nice day/evening Q284 CLOSING #3 0 K, could I Just verify your phone number') That concludes the survey, and I'd like to thank you for your time and opinions Have a nice day/evening Q285 INTERVIEWER! ENTER YOUR NAME (OR INITIALS)! Also, there is a space for the INTERVIEWER to note any comments or observations you have about this interview and this survey Thank you Quantities Reported Disposed of on the Benton and Franklin Counties Household Hazardous Waste Questionnaire Table El Quantities reported disposed of on the Benton and Franklin Household Hazardous Waste Questionaire Disposal Methods (quantities reported m pounds) Waste Type Garbage Pickup Taken to Landfill or Transfer St Poured Down Drain Street or Storm Drain Bury or Pour on Ground Recycle Collection Event Other Method Not Reported TOTAL % TOTAL Adhesives 36 08 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 033 36 41 035% Latex Paint 140 51 29 21 000 000 167 00 83 45 41 73 41 73 000 503 62 479% Oil Paints 14 54 000 000 000 000 000 000 20 86 000 35 40 034% Solvents 14 73 27 13 22 04 000 762 209 96 209 10 53 000 294 10 280% Cleaners 48 33 542 137 03 20 86 437 183 000 125 201 221 10 210% Pesticides 923 000 000 000 019 600 000 835 000 23 76 023% Auto Batteries 40 00 200 00 000 000 000 3,76000 000 340 00 40 00 4,38000 4164% Household Batteries 362 82 000 000 000 000 538 075 188 174 372 57 354% Waste Oil 469 72 316 76 000 24 98 161 57 2,335 12 191 93 525 94 625 4,03227 3833% Antifreeze 35 47 20 87 835 108 35 104 35 75 59 000 70 38 000 423 34 402% Other Auto Products 62 58 000 000 000 12 52 751 000 17 54 000 100 13 095% Other Chemicals 093 021 38 59 000 000 000 000 000 000 39 73 038% Other Flammables 38 21 000 000 000 000 000 000 050 000 38 71 037% Explosives 950 300 000 000 000 500 000 000 000 17 50 017% TOTAL 1,28265 602 60 206 01 154 19 457 62 6,48984 236 50 1,03896 50 33 10,51864 % TOTAL 1219% 573% 196% 147% 435% 6170% 225% 988% 048% t'S , ry: t 4 r- 3 ri t 4.„ 4,7 - a yry ,4 r ty i 134;,, 85 rds.}.. ..." At ..,r4r 1 r ' rr Yi , r'c' 8ç-t.., 1 , 1r rryr , re ... 1 f "4 , / 1 , r t... „c1 ,,,....., ,,,,, '1 ir-• , , ,.., , rr \ r -r• ::- 7-, i _ r r' 2 .,,, " 1 1 85 ' ,„ ',A.:4 rt. ri 5 1 •-', r.4. 4 ' 0-7. ' ., 1.„. ,,-, s r. 4 4 1 h '1 4 r- 4r 34, .Y''): c. , , x 5 el e 7, ,.-rr .4 r r3 Yes r ,,..4, 4 85 l'-' 54 '{ 44 `r - "tr dr r , re ••n• ..., 1 ' 4 b 7 3,3r 4-4 ,, ' i'- , , 44 • '1;3! 4" 7, , ,... ' 4 it -• 1, 23' r,' i''' ' ..,. r. ,? ' A 4 ir 4. -r..,..4 ' l' • 4n1 14. tr 4 I ar:-.7..‘ .4854.5 e ' y t et ' —4 5 t ,.., L .,- -.- r f -r-'''‘ ',.. ' "A" -,r. .,,, ..., .r. .... , Li 1 F r 1 -r. 4 ' r, ..„7„._, , 4r ,. ,,., 44 .1 * '1 " ^.„, ' r "r:' -r. ' • L , - 4 ' *(t 4 ' 4 t i "It t r bet ' F. rrOr rr..., ...44 4't s. 4\ ' ". -., r .., r k A r r, 'y t, , „. ... t tv -4-rty ,,,,,.. „..„, ; 3 ' " a A e rn 1: ) Y.k., 4 '''''' rr J ,1 r ... ' S. ' 7.-Yr y 7 44 ,1 t , Orr 4 ,1,-, 1.' ' 'I . - 3 .3 '/ I / r d. 3 , , 5.34 / 74 , r 4, ''''', 4 ., _tr-- 854 '37 "7- 4,. / '3 ?1 4 fr..." , / t -4,:, ' ' V" 1 :'''' 12 ,t't ' 4 I ,-,14 ..,, 4 -A tt'-- 3 rn , i '''' , .1 , 5 .r.V r'' ,r. 4, "..4... .. ......n t. .0 ; a ' , r- ,`<,5 r-51 4 ( „ V. t • ' „ 5 5 r. 137. Y. 1 t 0 , 555 ,44 , 5.5 , y r .14 — 44(5 -)5 3 a 95 P,5 f 4 J %4' 4 I c 't z S s tc ' ,t • 1 „7 r • "' / a I 'C V. , 1 " f I. ,.. .. , 1 • 4 .` Y / , 4'4'..,-, rr• ,, 4.- 4 '-• 8 tr. 15. r547 4 "5 - r;V:' r, y t r t 4,/ APPENDIX F COMMERCIAL MODERATE RISK WASTE Commercial Waste Survey Commercial Waste Survey Generation Results for Each Business Group BENTON-FRANKLIN MODERATE RISK WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Commercial Waste Survey Benton-Franklin Governmental Conference This questionnaire will assist the Benton-Franldin Governmental Conference in preparing a Moderate Risk Waste Management Plan for Benton and Franklin Counties Our goal is to identify and develop appropriate programs and services for businesses in both Counties By completing the survey, you can help shape the Counties' moderate nsk waste management programs All information you provide is strictly confidential — you do not need to identify the name of your business. Please take a few minutes of your time to complete the survey and return it in the enclosed, postage paid envelope If you need help filling out the questionnaire, please call Andrew Dixon of the Benton-Franklin Governmental Conference at 943-9185. 1. Type of business 2. What services or products does your business provide? 3. SIC code (4 digit) (Your business SIC code is the 4 digit number found on the cover letter The SIC code does not identify your business. It only defines the general classification of your business ) 4. Zip code 5. Number of employees 6. How many years has the current owner been (Including owner) operating this establishment? 7. Is your business an RCRA-regulated generator 8. What type of sewage treatment does your of hazardous waste? (This means you submit an business use? (circle all that apply) annual report to EPA about the hazardous wastes A Public sewer you produce ) B Septic/on-site A Yes sewage treatment B No C Unknown 9. This question summanzes your moderate risk waste generation characteristics and management practices Please be as complete and accurate as possible QUANTITIES GENERATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Estimate the total quantify generated Estimate the percentage of waste that is managed or as waste annually (pounds or gallons) disposed in the following ways Waste Material Quantity Generated Annual]) (speah units) Place in Garbage Can/ Dumpster Pour Down Sewer or Septic Tank Pour Down Street CIT Storm Drain Bur), Spread on Land, or Dispose Recycle in Drywell On Site 90 gal. Example Waste Motor 014 Diesel, Automonve Grease Adhesives, Glues, Sealants, Roof Coatings Latex or Water-Based Paints Oil Based Paints, Thinners, Strippers Dr. Cleaning Solutions or Wastes, Solvents, Degreasers Other Cleaning Agents, Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes, Polishes Photo Chemicals, Developers, Fixers, Inks Pesticides, Wood Preservatives (such as Insect killer, rodent killer, creosote, herbicides) Waste Motor Oil, Diesel, Automotive Grease Antifreeze Auto or Heavy Equipment Batteries [number] Other Automotive Supplies (such as contaminated gasoline, additives, carburetor cleaner, engine degreasers) Other Batteries [number] Plating Waste, Toxic Metal --Naste/Sludges (such as-- mercur), chromium, silver, lead, cadmium, barium) Acids/Bases (such as hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide) Explosives Other (specify) • If other disposal methods are used please list them 11. What accounts for the change ir your business disposes') (circle all that A Increase/decrease in sales B Change in raw materials used C Change in process or technologN D Investment in new equipment E Increased recycling or reuse 10. Compared to five years ago does your business generate and dispose of more, less, or about the same amount of moderate risk waste' (circle one) A More D Unknown B Less E have been in business C About the same less than five years Self Haul to Landfill/11-ansfer Station Treat On Site (E‘aporate Accumulate Burn or Neutralize) On Site Incinerate 25% Self Haul to Hazardous Waste 11.eatment or or Recycling •Other Recycling Facility Pickup (specify below) 75% 1 the amount of moderate risk waste 12. Which of the following might prevent your business from reducing the apply) amount of moderate risk waste it produces? (circle all that apply) F Increased waste treatment A Lack of information or D Capital costs too high G No change technical assistance E Financing not available H Other (specify) B Technology not available F Other (specify) C Potential adverse impact on production 13. Which of the following services would best fit the needs of your business with respect to the management of moderate risk waste? (circle all that a A A collection service that would come to your business and pick up your moderate risk waste This service may be provided by local government or the private sector B A permanent drop-off facility at a central loca- tion where businesses could drop off or send mod- erate risk waste for recycling, treatment, or dis- posal This service may be provided by local government or the private sector C A collection day once or more during the year where businesses can take their moderate risk waste for disposal Waste brought into the collec- tion day would be properly sorted, packaged, and shipped for recycling, treatment or disposal 14. What do you estimate is your current annual cost for disposal of moderate risk waste? (circle one) A$0 E $251 - $500 B $1 - $50 F $501 - $1000 C $51 - $100 G Over $1000 D $101 - $250 H Unknown 16. What would you be willing to pay per year for a drop off facility for the moderate risk waste gener- ated by your business? (circle one) A No more than $50 D No more than $500 B No more than $100 E More than $500 C No more than $250 F Would not use service 18. How do you expect the quantity of moderate risk waste produced by your business to change dur- ing the next five years? (circle one) A Increase C Stay about the same B- Decrease D Unknown 20. Please identify am other concerns or sugges- tions you have regarding moderate risk waste man- agement within Benton and Franklin Counties D 'Technical assistance to help your business re- duce waste generation, identify non-hazardous product substitutes, and understand hazardous waste regulations and proper disposal procedures 'Technical assistance may take the form of phone or in-person consultation, workshops or newsletters E An industrial waste exchange for recycling surplus materials or products An industrial waste exchange allows businesses to confidentially list and publicize the availability of waste materials for use by other industries F Other 15. What would you be willing to pay per year for a collection service for the moderate risk waste gener- ated by your business? (circle one) A No more than $50 D No more than $500 B No more than $100 E More than $500 C No more than $250 F Would not use service 17. How often would your business expect to use either a collection service or a drop off facility for moderate risk waste? (circle one) A Once annually E Other (please specify) B 'Nice annually C Monthly D Weekly F Would not use service 19. Has your business taken any action to reduce the quantities of moderate risk waste it produces (i e, substitution of less toxic products, or purchas- ing only needed amounts of hazardous products)? (circle one) A Yes B No C Unknown If you would like additional information about mod- erate risk waste management and the Counties' planning process, please fill in the information requested or call Andrew Dixon at 943-9185. Business Name Address Contact Person Phone Number Pp ly) THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION! Commercial Waste Survey Generation Results for Each Business Group Table Fl Group 1 Budding Cleaning and Maintenance Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal* Method Pour Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or or for Can or Septic Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 417 0 0 0 417 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 250 42 0 292 Antifreeze 0 0 25 0 0 25 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 40 40 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Batteries 1 0 0 0 0 1 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 835 0 0 0 835 Total Waste by Disposal Method 1 1,252 275 42 ao 1,610 ' All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs ,1 household battery = 2 oz. Table F2 Group 2 Chemical Manufacturing Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Matenal Method of Waste Disposal * Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Drain Drywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants Latex or Water-Based Paints Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Stnppers Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks Pesticides, Wood Preservatives Waste Motor Oil, Diesel Antifreeze Auto Battenes Other Automotive Supplies Other Battenes Plating Wastes, Toxic Metals Acids/Bases Explosives Other NO WASTE REPORTED Table F3 Group 3 Construction Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal • Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or Or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Drain Drywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 5,326 0 0 0 0 0 10 75 40 0 0 0 5,451 Latex or Water-Based Paints 121 0 0 0 42 0 13 417 167 0 0 0 760 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 259 0 0 0 1,001 438 63 0 63 42 83 0 1,949 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 42 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 8 0 2,087 0 2,179 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 21 67 23 23 0 417 0 0 0 0 0 0 551 Photochenucals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 63 12 0 0 0 80 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 147 0 0 584 897 0 2,505 0 292 325 8,428 1,043 14,221 Antifreeze 0 25 4 13 209 17 0 0 0 0 835 33 1,136 Auto Batteries 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 320 1,120 0 1,640 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 Other Batteries 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 6,007 92 27 620 2,191 1,000 2,591 675 582 687 12,553 1,076 28,101 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F4 Group 4 Educational and Vocational Schools Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Matenal Method of Waste Disposal* Method Pour Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Burn or Landfill or or for Can or Septic Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 Latex or Water-Based Paints 840 19 0 0 0 42 0 0 901 011-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 835 0 0 0 0 334 0 0 1,169 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 17 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 267 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 834 2,312 0 0 0 0 0 835 3,981 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 509 0 0 0 0 0 0 509 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 8 125 0 133 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 6,676 0 0 459 1,252 0 8,387 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 2,086 2,211 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 200 800 800 1,800 Other Automotive Supplies 0 835 0 0 0 0 0 0 835 Other Batteries 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 8 0 33 0 0 0 0 41 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 2,656 3,683 6,676 33 0 1,168 2,427 3,721 20,364 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F5 Group 5 Equipment Repair Type of Waste Matenal Method of Waste Disposal • Total Quantity of Waste by Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or Or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Drain Drywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Latex or Water-Based Paints 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 17 0 0 0 0 380 104 0 0 0 0 0 501 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 11 13 0 38 0 20 0 0 0 0 981 0 1,063 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Photochernicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 42 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 167 0 0 1,002 1,294 Antifreeze 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 242 0 0 83 350 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 80 0 180 460 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 21 Other Batteries 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 31 33 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 75 576 Total Waste by Disposal Method 154 34 0 146 0 909 104 0 631 80 981 1,371 4,410 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F6 Group 6 Funeral Services Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal* Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Incinerate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Drain Drywell On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 334 0 0 334 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 417 0 0 0 417 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Photochemicals, Fuels, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 17 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 120 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 15,021 12,518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,539 Total Waste by Disposal Method 15,021 12,518 0 0 17 417 334 120 0 28,427 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F7 Group 7 Labs and Medical Establishments Type of Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal° Total Quantity of Waste by Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Drain Drywell Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 1 6,592 0 0 0 0 3 6,596 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 722 0 0 63 0 0 785 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 29 o o 29 67 o o 125 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Battenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Batteries 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 19 0 0 0 4 0 0 23 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 108 Total Waste by Disposal Method 80 7,422 0 29 134 0 7 7,672 ° All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F8 Group 8 Laundries and Dry Cleaners Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Matenal Method of Waste Disposal* Method Pour Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Landfill or or for Can or Septic Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 8 o 0 0 o 0 0 8 Latex or Water-Based Paints o o o o o o 0 0 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Stnppers 8 0 0 0 o o o 8 Dry Cleatung Solution, Solvents 30 0 38 0 1 8 0 77 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 900 0 0 0 1 0 901 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o Auto Battenes 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o Other Battenes o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 46 900 38 0 1 9 0 994 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz. Table F9 Group 9 Metal Manufacturers Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal* Method Pour Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Burn or Landfill or Or for Can or Septic Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Latex or Water-Based Paints 13 0 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 258 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 5 0 0 246 0 8 0 0 0 0 259 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 1 0 292 0 0 1,043 0 1,336 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 225 0 1,002 0 o 0 0 209 668 2,104 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 o o o 209 o 376 o o 585 Antifreeze o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 80 180 0 280 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Batteries 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 21 0 0 284 21 175 50 0 551 Total Waste by Disposal Method 28 225 21 1,494 0 813 21 631 1,482 668 5,383 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 8 35 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F10 Total Quantity of Waste by Method of Waste Disposal • Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Bum or Landfill or Or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Drain Dtywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Stnppers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 84 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 12 209 0 388 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 180 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 o o o o o 417 417 17 7,911 0 8,762 Antifreeze 0 17 0 0 0 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 Auto Battenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 960 2,040 0 3,800 Other Automotive Supplies 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 Other Battenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 334 17 0 0 0 417 0 1,220 417 1,002 10,160 0 13,567 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz. Type of Waste Matenal Group 10 Motor and Railway Transportation Table Fll Group 11 Pesticide End-Use and Application Type of Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal ° Total Quantity of Waste by Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or Or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Drain Drywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 501 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 100 0 0 209 4 0 0 0 0 0 209 522 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 83 0 0 543 1,068 0 167 0 0 125 684 0 2,670 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 283 42 342 Auto Batteries 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 200 400 930 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 Other Batteries 13 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 167 180 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 353 601 0 543 1,277 4 167 17 0 365 1,167 818 5,312 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F12 Group12 Vehicle Maintenance and Gas Stations Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal ° Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Dram Mywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 42 Latex or Water-Based Paints 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 42 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 42 Dty Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 459 0 688 8 0 0 959 0 2,114 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 13 167 0 42 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 402 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 8 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 100 0 0 0 1,565 0 3,192 334 0 0 64,632 417 70,240 Antifreeze 0 4,590 0 0 0 0 0 876 0 0 835 584 6,885 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 280 15,400 8,000 25,680 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 876 0 918 Other Batteries 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 626 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 626 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 382 5,383 0 50 4,024 0 3,922 1,518 0 280 82,702 9,001 107,262 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F13 Group 13 Wood Products and Services Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal • Method Place in Garbage Can or Dumpster Pour Down Sewer or Septic Tank Pour Down Street or Storm Drain Bury, Spread on Land, or Dispose in DryweIL Recycle On-Site Burn or Treat Incinerate On-site On-site Accumulate On-site Self-haul to Landfill or Transfer Station Self-haul to Treatment Or Recycling Facility Pickup Service for Hazardous Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 46 0 0 o 0 80 o o 167 8 0 0 301 Latex or Water-Based Paints 231 0 0 0 334 0 21 33 0 0 o 82 701 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 198 0 0 0 17 40 21 5 0 3 417 826 1,527 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents o 0 0 0 0 167 o 0 0 0 0 o 167 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 92 751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 843 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 0 835 0 0 83 0 21 396 83 0 1,418 Antifreeze 0 0 o 534 0 o o o 0 83 0 0 617 Auto Batteries o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 440 0 0 440 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 75 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 91 Other Batteries 3 o o o o o o o o o o o 3 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges o o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 Acids/Bases 17 o o o o 0 o o o o o o 17 Explosives o o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 Other 1,253 0 0 0 149 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,419 Total Waste by Disposal Method 1,840 751 0 1,444 500 304 133 38 188 938 500 925 7,561 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz. Table F14 Group 14 Textile, Leather, and Plastic Products Total Waste by Method Type of Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal* Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Spread on to Treatment Service Land, or Landfill or or for Dispose in Recycle Treat Transfer Recycling Hazardous Drywell On-Site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 o o o o o Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 6 0 11 0 0 0 0 17 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 75 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 Other Batteries 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 83 Total Waste by Disposal Method 6 0 11 83 75 0 0 175 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table FL5 Group 15 Paper, Prmtmg, and Allied Services Type of Waste Material Total Quantity of Waste by Method of Waste Disposal • Method Pour Pour Bury, Place in Down Down Spread on Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Dumpster Tank Dram Drywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 42 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 729 3,246 626 0 209 0 0 334 5,144 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 731 3,413 626 0 209 0 0 376 5,355 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Total Waste by Method of Waste Disposal • Method Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Land, or Landfill or Or for Can or Dispose in Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Mywell On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 0 0 50 0 0 451 0 501 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 o o o o 0 0 0 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes o 125 o o o o o 125 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 835 835 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 240 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Batteries 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 3 125 50 0 0 451 1,075 1,704 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 8 35 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2oz. Table F16 Group 16 Other Manufacturing Type of Waste Matenal Table F17 Group 17 Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services Total Waste by Method Type of Waste Matenal Method of Waste Disposals Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Land, or Landfill or or for Can or Dispose in Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Drywell On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 16 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 25 0 83 0 0 0 4 112 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 33 100 0 0 0 33 125 291 Antifreeze 17 0 0 0 0 o 33 50 Auto Battenes 0 0 120 0 120 40 40 320 Other Automotive Supplies 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 16 Other Battenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 91 100 203 0 120 73 325 912 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz i Table F18 Total Quantity of Waste by Method of Waste Disposal* Method Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup to Treatment Service Landfill or Or for Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 o Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Stnppers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 o o o o o Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 o o o o o Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 105 0 313 0 0 418 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Battenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Battenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 105 0 313 0 0 418 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 41) lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Type of Waste Matenal Group 18 Petroleum Distribution Table F19 Group 19 Wholesale Trade Total Quantity of Type of ... Waste by Waste Matenal Method of Waste Disposal • Method Pour Pour Billy, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or or for Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank Dram Drywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Stnppers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 0 0 0 0 459 0 0 0 0 4,173 0 4,632 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 0 876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 876 Photochenucals, Fixers, Inks 45 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,669 1,669 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 33 0 0 0 0 417 4,173 0 0 167 5,278 146 10,214 Antifreeze 0 0 0 0 417 0 0 0 0 0 167 0 584 Auto Battenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2,800 0 2,880 Other Automotive Supplies 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Other Batteries 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Waste by Disposal Method 81 886 0 0 422 876 4,173 0 0 247 12,418 1,815 20,918 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz. ,- Table F20 Group 20 Retail Trade Type of Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal • Total Waste by Method Pour Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Burn or Landfill or or for Can or Septic Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Dumpster Tank On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latex or Water-Based Paints 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 8 3,505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,513 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 83 0 0 83 167 0 26 17 0 376 Antifreeze 16 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 41 Auto Batteries 0 0 0 0 80 0 40 0 0 120 Other Automotive Supplies 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Other Battenes 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acids/Bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 335 Total Waste by Disposal Method 153 3,720 25 83 272 0 66 350 0 4,669 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz Table F21 Total of all Groups Total Quantity of Type of Waste by Waste Material Method of Waste Disposal • Method Pour Pour Bury, Self-haul Self-haul to Pickup Place in Down Down Spread on to Treatment Service Garbage Sewer or Street Land, or Burn or Landfill or or for Method Can or Septic or Storm Dispose in Recycle Treat Incinerate Accumulate Transfer Recycling Hazardous Not Dumpster Tank Drain Drywell On-Site On-site On-site On-site Station Facility Waste Other Reported Adhesives, Glues, Sealants 5,514 0 0 0 0 88 10 115 207 342 0 8 1 6,285 Latex or Water-Based Paints 1,506 23 0 0 376 245 33 490 584 42 0 115 1 3,415 Oil-based Paints, Thinners, Strippers 1,342 0 0 0 1,018 1,104 188 103 63 378 951 835 0 5,982 Dry Cleaning Solution, Solvents 183 221 0 38 459 773 689 381 9 13 9,710 9 0 12,485 Detergents, Disinfectants, Waxes 1,144 16,479 23 190 0 1,419 0 179 0 13 210 1,514 3 21,174 Photochemicals, Fixers, Inks 774 4,477 626 0 214 0 0 334 0 63 0 0 0 6,488 Pesticides, Wood Preservatives 27 100 0 14 209 18 0 146 12 8 125 1,903 0 2,562 Waste Motor Oil, Diesel 552 0 0 2,174 3,530 417 16,879 1,231 8% 2,596 88,360 3,567 336 120,538 Antifreeze 33 4,631 4 572 626 350 17 918 242 234 2,119 2,862 1 12,609 Auto Batteries 170 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 1,140 200 2,840 22,700 9,700 0 38,750 Other Automotive Supplies 92 843 o 75 42 25 50 0 21 a 876 8 0 2,040 Other Battenes 315 o 0 0 o 0 o 2 1 0 0 249 0 567 Plating Wastes, Toxic Metal Sludges 19 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 4 0 0 0 23 Acids/Bases 17 657 0 0 0 83 0 33 0 0 0 0 1 791 Explosives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 16,274 13,463 0 0 169 517 0 284 104 175 383 75 27 31,471 Total Waste by Disposal Method 27,962 40,894 653 3,063 8,643 5,039 17,866 5,356 2,339 6,716 125,434 20,845 370 265,180 • All quantities given in pounds Assumes 1 gallon = 835 lbs , 1 auto battery = 40 lbs , 1 household battery = 2 oz APPENDIX G AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL WASTE - Agricultural Survey \ AGRICULTURAL SURVEY Benton and Franklin Counties an conducting an agricultural survey to determine the types and quantities of pesticide wastes you may have stored on your ranch or farm The answers you provide will also identify the services farmers need to help them with the proper storage and disposal of agricultural chemical wastes within these Counties All information you provide Is strictly confidential - do not mite your name or the address of your farm or ranch anywhere on the survey form When you have completed the survey, please return it in the enclosed, self-addressed, postage paid envelope If you have any questions on filling out the survey, please call Marianne Ophardt at 735-3551 or Greg Van Doren at 786-5609 Please circle your answers on the survey form First, we would like to ask you about your farm or other business involvement 3a What type of farm or ranch do you operate? (circle the answer which in agriculture in the County makes up the largest portion of your operation) 1 Did you operate a farm or ranch in Benton or Franklin Counties during 1990/91? By "operate", we mean having the responsibility for making the day-to-day management decisions 1 YES 2 NO ---- These questions apply only to people who operated a farm or ranch in 1990/91 If you were not a farm or ranch oper- ator during the last year, then you do not need to complete this questionnaire However, please return this survey in the enclosed envelope 2 Where is your farm or ranch located? 1 BENTON COUNTY 2 FRANKLIN COUNTY 1 TREE FRUIT 2 WHEAT 3 HAY 4 HOPS 5 SMALL GRAINS (BARLEY) 6 ROW CROPS 7 POTATOES 8 ASPARAGUS 9 VEGETABLES 10 GRAPES (WINE OR JUICE) 11 MINT 12 DAIRY 13 BEEF CATTLE 14 SHEEP OR HOGS 15 OTHER (SPECIFY ) 3b How many acres do you farm? 4 Are you a State certified organic grower? 1 YES 2 NO 5 What type of sewage treatment does your farm use? 1 PUBLIC SEWER 2 SEPTIC TANK/ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT We would like you to complete these questions dealing with the types of agri- cultural chemicals which are no longer used in your operation and are stored We are only interested in the waste products, not your empty containers or useable chemicals 6 Do you have any agricultural chemicals stored as waste product, including obsolete, unusable, off-grade chemicals or damaged prod- ucts? 1 YES 2 NO ---- SKIP TO QUESTION 9 7 Please describe below the agrmultural chemical wastes stored and the quantities, in either gallons Iii pounds Note If you have any chemical rinsate wastes, please identify the quantity in Question 8 Quantity of liquid product (in gallons) Quantity of dry product (in pounds) A DEFOLIANT B DESICCANT C FUMIGANT D FUNGICIDE E GROWTH REGULATOR F HERBICIDE G INSECTICIDE H OTHER OR UNKNOWN 8 How much chemical rinsate waste do you have stored? (Please specify in gallons) Next, we would like you to identify your storage and disposal practices for empty agricultural chemical waste containers in this section If you have containers which are partially full, please do not include them in this section 9 Do you have any stored, empty agricultural chemical containers that need to be disposed? 1 YES 2 NO ---- SKIP TO QUESTION 11 10 If yes, how many empty containers are currently stored on-site? 11 On an average, approximately how many containers do you dispose of annually? 12 Are empty containers triple rinsed before disposal? This applies to liquid containers only 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON'T KNOW 4 DON'T USE LIQUID CONTAINERS 13a What disposal method do you use most often to dispose of empty plastic containers? 13c What disposal method do you use most often to dispose of empty paper bag containers? 1 PICK UP BY LOCAL GARBAGE HAULER 1 PICK UP BY LOCAL GARBAGE HAULER 2 BURY ON LAND 2 BURY ON LAND 3 RETURN TO SELLER 3 RETURN TO SELLER 4 BURN 4 BURN 5 SELF-HAUL TO LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION 5 SELF-HAUL TO LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION 6 REUSE 6 REUSE 7 TRANSPORT TO HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY 7 TRANSPORT TO HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY 8 OTHER (DESCRIBE ) 8 OTHER (DESCRIBE 1 9 DON'T USE PLASTIC CONTAINERS 9 DON'T USE PAPER BAG CONTAINERS 13b What disposal method do you use most often to dispose of empty metal containers'? 14 What would be your preferred method of disposal for empty liquid containers? 1 PICK UP BY LOCAL GARBAGE HAULER 1 SELF-HAUL DISPOSAL AT DESIGNATED SITE 2 BURY ON LAND 2 PICKUP SERVICE TO COLLECT CONTAINERS FROM 3 RETURN TO SELLER FARMS 4 BURN 3 RETURN TO THE DISTRIBUTOR FOR DISPOSAL (MAY 5 SELF-HAUL TO LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION REQUIRE A DEPOSIT) 6 REUSE 7 TRANSPORT TO HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY OTHER WASTE TYPES 8 OTHER (DESCRIBE ) 9 DON'T USE METAL CONTAINERS 15 Does your farm do any of as own vehicle/machinery maintenance? 1 YES 2 NO ---- SKIP TO QUESTION 17 16a What method do you usually use to dispose of waste oil or diesel? 1 PLACE IN GARBAGE OR DUMPSTER 2 BURY, POUR, OR SPREAD ON LAND 3 BURN ON-SITE 4 POUR DOWN STORM DRAIN OR SEWER 5 SELF-HAUL TO LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION 6 SELF-HAUL TO TREATMENT OR RECYCLING FACILITY 7 OTHER (SPECIFY ) 16b What method do you usually use to dispose of antifreeze? 1 PLACE IN GARBAGE OR DUMPSTER 2 BURY, POUR, OR SPREAD ON LAND 3 BURN ON-SITE 4 POUR DOWN STORM DRAIN OR SEWER 5 SELF-HAUL TO LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION 6 SELF-HAUL TO TREATMENT OR RECYCLING FACILITY 7 OTHER (SPECIFY ) 16c What method do you usually use to dispose of batteries? 1 PLACE IN GARBAGE OR DUMPSTER 2 BURY ON LAND 3 SELF-HAUL TO LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION 4 SELF-HAUL TO TREATMENT OR RECYCLING FACILITY 5 OTHER (SPECIFY ) 16d What method do you usually use to dispose of other auto maintenance products (additives, flushes, carburetor cleaner)? 1 PLACE IN GARBAGE OR DUMPSTER 2 BURY, POUR, OR SPREAD ON LAND 3 BURN ON-SITE 4 POUR DOWN STORM DRAIN OR SEWER 5 SELF-HAUL TO LANDFILL OR TRANSFER STATION 6 SELF-HAUL TO TREATMENT OR RECYCLING FACILITY 7 OTHER (SPECIFY ) We're finding agricultural hazardous wastes that are improperly handled pose threats to our environment and to people's health We would like to find ways to help farmers dispose of their agricultural chemical wastes in the safest manner possible We would like to get your opinions on the types of services you would use, so we may consider future programs to meet the needs of the residents 17 Do you apply your own agricultural chemicals or use an outside service? 1 SELF APPLY 2 OUTSIDE SERVICE 3 BOTH 4 DO NOT APPLY AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 18 A number of options can be used to assist in the proper disposal of agricultural hazardous waste If a site was established for the collection of unused or unusable agricultural chemical waste, how far would you be willing to drive? 1 1-5 MILES 2 5-10 MILES 3 10-15 MILES 4 15-20 MILES 5 MORE THAN 20 MILES 6 WOULD NOT DRIVE 19 What services would best lit your farm needs? (select one or more) 1 COLLECTION PICKUP SERVICE AT THE FARM 2 PERMANENT FACILITY FOR FARMERS TO DROP OFF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 3 AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY COLLECTION EVENTS, HELD PERIODICALLY IN A CENTRAL LOCATION 4 HOT LINE OR CONSULTING SERVICE 5 WORKSHOPS ON MANAGEMENT, DISPOSAL OPTIONS, REGULATIONS, HEALTH AND SAFETY 6 NEWSLETTER 7 EXCHANGE OF EXCESS, USABLE AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 20 Did you participate in the agricultural hazardous waste collection event sponsored by the Department of Agriculture in Pasco in the fall of 1990? 20 How much would you be willing to pay per year for disposal of agricul- tural chemicals? 1 $I - S100 2 $101 - $200 3 $201 - $300 4 $301 - S400 5 $401 - S500 6 WOULD NOT PAY 21 How often would you use agricultural hazardous waste disposal services? 1 ONCE PER YEAR 2 TWICE PER YEAR 3 MONTHLY 4 WEEKLY 5 WOULD NOT USE 22 If you used agncultural hazardous waste disposal services, what time of the year would you use them the most? 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2 APRIL - JUNE 3 JULY - SEPTEMBER 4 OCTOBER - DECEMBER 5 THE TIME OF YEAR IS NOT IMPORTANT 6 WOULD NOT USE 23 Is there anything else you wish to tell us about hazardous waste disposal? 1 YES 2 NO Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey We believe that the information gathered through this survey will be a valuable tool in understanding the problems and needs of the farmers and ranchers in Benton and Franklin Counties THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION! o 4.7 Ca a , `r I d 41 4' t• f ) 1 i 2 4,14 7 7.- r 4 4.-' 2 ,7 7- 4-1 , k 44' ( 4 •., ,, . j.., , 4 1 4, , a c- a , 77- e ‘; 'V Er I, 1 S. 1 „, C, , 2 ,3 2 2' .4 44 7 -• 2„ t t / a c- 1 r 721 4 — .13 73 , F*4- 4,4 A et , 1 31 •-44, 43 1 7. 3.. 1) - 1 42 a (4z• 7 A 4 , f i , s 1 ,.,',. , 4 4 2. S 4.• i 1 , 4 4 ' '' 7 e ' c 7 '1 4 4 ..... i , 4‘a1 C e 72 1 74 , C 1. 1 4i l 7 1 71 l I 7 Kc c. 1 r ,' ' ., ' 4 ''' t al 7 1 r a 4:4 1 4 a ct 44 3 44 7 21 1 t 't 21 ' A 7' 4 4,t7 77' c ' /3 7 2 .3 I 1 a , t 4 1- 44 4;.4.+,, 4.3 4. 2 1 r ,