HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-22 Council Meeting
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Barb Tolbert
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Mayor Barb Tolbert – Julie
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT
For members of the public who wish to speak to the Council about any matter not on the Public Hearing
portion of the meeting. Please limit remarks to three minutes.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette
1. Minutes of the August 1 and September 12, 2022 Council meetings ATTACHMENT A
2. Accounts Payable:
Approval of EFT Payments, Claims, and Petty Cash Checks:
#106145 through #106266 dated August 2, 2022 through August 15, 2022
for $1,133,416.55, and #106267 through #106394, Petty Cash
Checks #2012, 2014, and 2015 dated August 16, 2022 through September 6, 2022
for $1,013,372.31, and #106395 through #106486, Petty Cash Checks #2016
dated September 7, 2022 through September 19, 2022 for $436,890.45, and
Approval of Payroll EFT Payments and Checks: #30198 through #30210
dated August 1, 2022 through August 31, 2022 for $1,225,717.60
3. Adoption of 2021 Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and ATTACHMENT B
Hazardous Waste Management Plan
PUBLIC HEARING
NEW BUSINESS
1. Opioid Litigation Settlement ATTACHMENT C
Staff Presentation: Paul Ellis / Steve Peiffle
Council Liaison: Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette
Arlington City Council Meeting
Monday, September 19, 2022 at 7:00 pm
City Council Chambers – 110 E 3rd Street
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The City of Arlington strives to provide accessible meetings for people with disabilities. Please contact the
ADA coordinator at (360) 403-3441 or 711 (TDD only) prior to the meeting date if special accommodations are required.
2. Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Health District for Naloxone ATTACHMENT D
Staff Presentation: Peter Barrett
Council Liaison: Heather Logan
3. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Everett for In-Service Training Sessions ATTACHMENT E
Staff Presentation: Peter Barrett
Council Liaison: Don Vanney
4. Authority to Apply for City Tourism Grant ATTACHMENT F
Staff Presentation: Sarah Lopez
Council Liaison: Marilyn Oertle
5. Contract Amendment No. 1 for Construction Management Services ATTACHMENT G
with KBA, Inc. for the Smokey Point Blvd Overlay Project
Staff Presentation: Jim Kelly
Council Liaison: Debora Nelson
COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
INFORMATION/ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS
MAYOR’S REPORT
EXECUTIVE SESSION
RECONVENE
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette / Mayor Barb Tolbert
DRAFT
Page 1 of 3
Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Monday, August 1, 2022
Councilmembers Present: Don Vanney, Heather Logan, Debora Nelson, Marilyn Oertle, Jan Schuette, Michele Blythe, and Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam.
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Mayor Barb Tolbert, Paul Ellis, Lieutenant Peter Barrett, Austin Shouman, Sarah Althuisius, Jason Metcalf, Marc Hayes, Dave Ryan, Sarah Lopez, Jim Kelly, Chief Jonathan Ventura, City Attorney Steve Peiffle, Tony Orr, and Julie Petersen.
Also Known to be Present: family and friends of police officers, Heather Ostmann, Stephanie Despain, Gayle Roeber, Kathy Vanney, and Sid Logan. Mayor Barb Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Lieutenant Peter Barrett introduced the new police officers, Jason Metcalf, Austin Shouman, and Sarah Althuisius, and City Attorney Steve Peiffle performed the swearings in.
PROCLAMATIONS None.
PUBLIC COMMENT Heather Ostmann and Stephanie Despain spoke to the City Council on their thoughts regarding the business development in Smokey Point and the concern for less park areas. Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes replied.
CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette moved and Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda that was unanimously carried: 1. Minutes of the July 18 and July 25, 2022 Council meetings, and July 25, 2022 Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting
Minutes of the Arlington
City Council Meeting
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting August 1, 2022
Page 2 of 3
2. Accounts Payable: Approval of EFT Payments and Claims Checks: #106061 through #106144 dated July 19, 2022 through August 1, 2022 for $3,179,424.18. 3. Request for Permit Fee Waiver 4. Dedication of Wetland Tract Associated with Project Roxy
PUBLIC HEARING
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program Public Works Director Jim Kelly requested Council approve the resolution adopting the City of Arlington 2023-2028 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Mr. Kelly answered Council questions. The public hearing was opened at 7:21 p.m. With no members of the public wishing to speak, the public hearing portion was closed at 7:21 p.m. Council questions were opened at 7:21 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette provided comment. The public hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette moved and Councilmember Debora Nelson seconded the motion to approve the resolution adopting the City of Arlington 2023-2028 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, and authorized the Mayor to sign the resolution. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Full-Time Employee for Development and Business Inspections City Administrator Paul Ellis requested Council approve changes to the interlocal agreement, and the addition of one full-time employee. Mr. Ellis answered Council questions. Councilmember Debora Nelson moved and Councilmember Don Vanney seconded the motion to approve the changes to the interlocal agreement, and the addition of one full-time employee, and authorized the Mayor to sign the agreement. The motion passed unanimously.
Purchase of Right of Way for 197 Pl. N.E. Community and Economic Development Director Marc Hayes requested Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the AVR Business Park, LLC property, for public right of way use. Mr. Hayes answered Council questions. Councilmember Michele Blythe moved and Councilmember Debora Nelson seconded the motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the AVR Business Park, LLC property, for public right of way use. The motion passed unanimously.
Appointment of Planning Commissioner Councilmember Michele Blythe moved and Councilmember Heather Logan seconded the motion to approve the appointment of Gayle Roeber to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously.
Review of Council Remote Access Policy City Administrator Paul Ellis and City Attorney Steve Peiffle requested Council approve the amended Council Rules of Procedure, as edited. Mr. Peiffle and Mr. Ellis answered Council questions.
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Meeting August 1, 2022
Page 3 of 3
Councilmember Marilyn Oertle moved and Councilmember Don Vanney seconded the motion to accept the edits to the Council Rules and Procedures. The motion passed unanimously.
Resolution to Accept Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) Grant from the FAA Airport Director Dave Ryan requested Council approve the resolution to accept Bipartisan Infrastructure BIL grants in the amount not to exceed $1,475,000.00 over the period of five years. Councilmember Don Vanney moved and Councilmember Debora Nelson seconded the motion to approve the resolution to accept Bipartisan Infrastructure Law BIL grants in the amount not to exceed $1,475,000.00 over the period of five years. The motion passed unanimously.
COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette announced that the National Night Out will be at Legion Park on Tuesday, August 2 at 5:00 p.m.
ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS City Administrator Paul Ellis reminded the Council that there will not be any additional City Council meetings in August. The regularly scheduled meetings will resume September 12, 2022.
MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Tolbert announced that a group of Snohomish County Mayors has formed a non-profit organization who has hired a public relations representative to address the changes to the public safety laws that are affecting the cities of Snohomish County.
EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Steve Peiffle announced the need for an Executive Session for discussion of potential litigation, RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), to last until 8:05 p.m. Mayor Tolbert recessed the meeting at 7:47 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m. Councilmember Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam moved and Councilmember Jan Schuette seconded the motion to authorize the City Attorney to take code enforcement action regarding the Arlington Motor Inn property, Cub Systems Property, Back at the Ranch property and HCI Steel property, and B&M Group property, including litigation, if deemed necessary. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. _________________________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
DRAFT
Page 1 of 3
Council Chambers 110 East 3rd Street Monday, September 12, 2022
Councilmembers Present: Heather Logan, Debora Nelson, Jan Schuette, Michele Blythe, Yvonne Gallardo-Van Ornam, and Marilyn Oertle, via Zoom.
Council Members Absent: Don Vanney, excused.
Staff Present: Mayor Barb Tolbert, Paul Ellis, Jim Kelly, Deputy Fire Chief Dave Kraski, Chief Jonathan Ventura, City Attorney Steve Peiffle, Tony Orr, and Julie Petersen.
Also Known to be Present: None.
Mayor Barb Tolbert called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm, and the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call followed.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Jan Schuette moved to approve the agenda as presented. Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS None.
WORKSHOP ITEMS – NO FINAL ACTION WAS TAKEN
Opioid Litigation Settlement City Attorney Steve Peiffle updated the Council on the Opioid Litigation Settlement. He announced that this would be the second proposed opioid litigation settlement for Council to consider. The Council previously approved a settlement reached between numerous cities and county governments and three opioid distributors. The current settlement proposal is to join in a $518 million settlement entered into by the Washington State Attorney General’s office, which has entered into a proposed settlement with the same three distributors of opioids. The settlement requires participation of 90% of local governments with a population in excess of 10,000 persons. To join in the settlement, the Mayor would need authorization to sign the proposed settlement participation form, the Allocation Agreement, and a One Washington Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between Washington Municipalities. The settlement distributes roughly half of the net proceeds from settlement (about $215 million) to the State and the other half to local governments that participate. Under the Allocation Agreement, the City would receive 0.2620524080% of the $215 million for local governments (approximately $563,000 before payment of attorney’s fees).
Minutes of the Arlington
City Council Workshop
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop September 12, 2022
Page 2 of 3
In general, those monies would be pooled and used regionally to address local impacts of the opioid crisis. Discussion followed with Mr. Peiffle and Mr. Ellis answering Council questions.
Contract Amendment No. 1 for Construction Management (CM) services with KBA, Inc.
for the Smokey Point Blvd Overlay Project Public Works Director Jim Kelly stated that city staff applied for and received a grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council (FHWA program) in 2018 for the pavement preservation of Smokey Point Blvd. Preservation extents are from the south Arlington City limits north to 174th Ave. Work included replacement of non-compliant ADA ramps and upgrading ADA pedestrian crossing facilities at the 168th intersection. Grant funding was received in the amount of $726,000.00. The project was publicly bid and constructed in 2021 by Cadman Materials, Inc. Because there was federal money on the project, KBA was contracted for construction management. Due to extreme project delays, the total CM cost has been exceeded, and KBA is requesting additional funds in the amount of $14,567.00. Discussion followed with Mr. Kelly answering Council questions.
Adoption of 2021 Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan Public Works Director Jim Kelly stated that the 2021 Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan follows the RCW 70A.205.040, which requires each county within the state to prepare a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan (SWMP). The statute also encourages joint solid waste planning between and among adjoining cities and counties. Alternatively, a city may prepare a SWMP independent of the county plan; providing the city’s SWMP meet all of the planning requirements described in RCW 70.95.090. For the past 12 months Arlington and other cities have worked with Snohomish County on the development of the Snohomish County 2021 SWMP, a copy of this final plan is being presented to you at the Council Workshop. This Snohomish County 2021 SWMP plan meets all of the requirements in RCW 70A and will continue to serve the best interests of the Arlington community with the management of solid waste, organic compostable waste, and recyclable materials. Discussion followed with Mr. Kelly answering Council questions.
Police Quarterly Report Police Chief Jonathan Ventura shared the Quarterly Police Report. Discussion followed regarding the drag strip cruising on September 9, 2022 on Olympic Avenue with Chief Ventura answering Council questions.
North County Regional Fire Authority (NCRFA) Quarterly Report NCRFA Deputy Fire Chief Dave Kraski shared details from the Quarterly North County Regional Fire Authority Report. Discussion followed with Deputy Chief Kraski answering Council questions.
ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS City Administrator Paul Ellis announced that the October 1, 2022 City Council Budget Retreat will be held in the Council Chambers from 8 am to 3 pm.
Minutes of the City of Arlington City Council Workshop September 12, 2022
Page 3 of 3
MAYOR’S REPORT None.
COMMENTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS/COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS None.
PUBLIC COMMENT None.
REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Councilmembers discussed and agreed to put the Adoption of 2021 Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan on the consent agenda for the September 19, 2022 Council meeting
EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Steve Peiffle announced the need for an Executive Session to review consideration of real estate lease or purchase or price [RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)-(c)]. Mr. Peiffle stated that the meeting would resume at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Tolbert recessed the workshop at 8:31, and the workshop reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _________________________________________ Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: CA #3 Attachment B
adjoining cities and counties. Alternatively, a city may prepare a SWMP independent of the county plan; providing the city’s SWMP meet all of the planning requirements described in RCW 70.95.090. For the past 12 months Arlington and other cities have worked with Snohomish County on the development of the Snohomish County 2021 SWMP, a copy of this final plan is being presented to you at the Council Workshop. This Snohomish County 2021 SWMP plan meets all of the requirements in RCW 70A and will
Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan - 2021
PRELIMINARY DRAFT COPY: July 1, 2021
Title VI and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: It is Snohomish County’s policy to assure that no person shall
on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be discriminated against under any county-sponsored
program or activity. For questions regarding Snohomish County Public Works’ Title VI Program, or for interpreter or translation
services for non-English speakers, or otherwise making materials available in an alternate format, contact the Department Title
VI Coordinator via email at spw-titlevi@snoco.org or phone 425-388-6660. Hearing/speech impaired may call 711.
Información sobre el Titulo VI y sobre la Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades (ADA por sus siglas en inglés): Es la política
del Condado de Snohomish asegurar que ninguna persona sea excluida de participar, se le nieguen beneficios o se le discrimine
de alguna otra manera en cualquier programa o actividad patrocinada por el Condado de Snohomish en razón de raza, color,
país de origen o género, conforme al Título VI de la Enmienda a la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964. Comuníquese con el
Department Title VI Coordinator (Coordinador del Título VI del Departamento) al correo electrónico spw-titlevi@snoco.org, o al
teléfono 425-388-6660 si tiene preguntas referentes al Snohomish County Public Works’ Title VI Program (Programa del Título
VI de Obras Publicas del Condado de Snohomish), o para servicios de interpretación o traducción para los no angloparlantes, o
para pedir que los materiales se hagan disponibles en un formato alternativo. Los que tienen necesidades comunicativas
especiales pueden llamar al 711.
Acknowledgements
Snohomish County Solid Waste Division
3000 Rockefeller Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
Kevin Kelly, Division Director
Matthew Zybas, Division Director (retired)
Dave Schonhard, Operations Manager
Jon Greninger, Superintendent
Ciara Bertulfo, Business Process Analyst
Jessica Myntti, Project Specialist I
Jo-Anne Antoun, Project Specialist IV
Michael B. Smith, Project Specialist IV
In collaboration with:
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
James Kelly, Chair, City of Arlington
Dale Kaemingk, City of Brier
Phil Williams, City of Edmonds
Apryl Hynes, City of Everett
Brent Kirk, City of Granite Falls
Marcie MacQuarrie, City of Lynnwood
Steve Muller, City of Marysville
Ed Rubatino, Rubatino Refuse Removal, Inc
Bruce Clark, United Recycling
Special thanks to:
Green Solutions and Terrill Chang
Cover images (left to right):
Top Row: Intermodal containers filled with garbage headed to Roosevelt Landfill via rail; Solid Waste
Administration Office, Downtown Everett
Middle Row: Roll-off container truck; Recycle bins at the Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station
Bottom Row: Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station; Tipping floor at the Airport Road Recycling and
Transfer Station
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
1
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
THE PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................... 2
IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................... 2
ORGANIZATION OF THIS PLAN ................................................................................................................................... 3
THE CURRENT SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
HOW DID WE GET HERE? ........................................................................................................................................... 5
CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 9
VISION FOR THE FUTURE ..................................................................................................................................... 20
NEXT STEPS .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Technical Memorandums
Climate Change and Sustainability
Waste Prevention
Recycling
Organics
Waste Collection
Transfer
Disposal
Energy from Waste
Outreach and Education
Administration and Regulation
Appendices
A Glossary
B Moderate Risk Waste Plan
C Solid Waste Facility Siting
D Waste Quantities and Composition
E UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire
F SEPA Checklist
G Interlocal Agreements
H Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan
I Resolutions of Adoption
2
INTRODUCTION
THE PLAN
This document is a plan for managing the solid waste (garbage, recyclables, and
organics) generated in Snohomish County. Part of this plan also addresses hazardous
and toxic wastes. This plan is intended to be a guide for the proper management of
these wastes.
The current solid waste management system in Snohomish County is working well, but
does face some challenges in the future, especially related to recycling contamination
and market issues.
IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING
The Need for Solid Waste Planning
To ensure that solid waste is collected, handled, recycled, and disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner that protects public health, Washington state regulations
require the county to have an approved comprehensive solid waste management plan.
Snohomish County currently operates an effective solid waste system that benefits from
the foresight and development of previous solid waste plans. Building on that
foundation, this Solid Waste Management Plan (the “Plan”):
• provides an opportunity to evaluate and refine existing programs and activities;
• identifies policies that will help implement the recommended programs and
practices;
• and provides a road map for how the County will handle solid waste issues in the
future.
Participating Jurisdictions
The following cities and towns (depicted in Figure 1 on the following page) have signed
an interlocal agreement to participate in this Plan.
(*) part of Bothell is in the King County system.
Relationship to Other Documents
This Plan utilizes the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan for a majority of the
planning background information. This includes housing types, population growth, and
development projections. More in-depth information on these factors, as well as on the
3
Figure 1. Map of participating jurisdictions
environmental characteristics of Snohomish County and the designation of urban and
rural areas, can be found in the Comprehensive Plan.
Other related plans include the Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) Plan, an update of which
is attached to this Plan as Appendix B, shoreline master programs, and land use plans
and associated zoning codes for Snohomish County and its cities and towns.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS PLAN
Vision and Goals for Plan
The vision for this update of the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Plan is to
shift to a more sustainable future, where people are generating less waste and are
handling the wastes that they do generate in an environmentally and sustainably sound
manner emphasizing the concepts of reduce and reuse as opposed to focusing on
recycling.
4
This vision is the underlying concept for the two major goals of this Plan:
GOAL I: Support actions to reduce climate change and promote sustainability.
GOAL II: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
The goals are in turn reflected in the policies that are used in this Plan to consider
additional programs and recommendations for enhancements to the solid waste system.
The vision statement, goals and policies are described in more detail in the Vision for
the Future section of this Plan.
Structure of this Plan
This Plan consists of this document, which provides background information and a
summary of the recommendations, and a series of technical memorandums and
appendices that address specific topics in detail. The electronic version of this plan
includes numerous links to other sections of this Plan and to external documents and
other sources of information.
A more detailed description of the three parts of this Plan is provided below:
Volume I
Volume I is this part of the document, and it contains a narrative summary of
background information, policies, recommended alternatives and a summary
of accomplishments for the last planning cycle.
Technical Memorandums
Volume II is a series of technical memorandums that address specific aspects of the
solid waste system. Each memo supports one or both of the two overarching goals of
the plan and also has its own specific policy statement. The technical memorandums
contain background information on each topic, related regulations, near and long-term
planning issues, and possible alternatives on how to address policies, service gaps and
recommendations specific to that part of the solid waste system.
Appendices
The Appendices contain background information on specific topics and parts that satisfy
regulatory requirements such as the Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan
(CROP), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist and the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission (UTC) cost assessment questionnaire. Also included in
the appendices are the MRW plan, documents related to the plan adoption process, and
other information such as a glossary.
5
THE CURRENT SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
Snohomish County’s management of solid waste has evolved over time based on
population growth and cultural changes. At the inception of the Solid Waste Division
(the “Division”) in 1972, the County’s population was 263,300. By 2010, the population
had almost tripled to nearly 726,000 and in 2019, the population was approximately
822,083. This growth, and the changes that have occurred in the geographic distribution
of the population, required a significant investment in facilities and services to ensure
adequate accessibility and availability to all users. In addition, there must be
coordination and cooperation with the local waste haulers who provide collection
services to residences and businesses. The haulers typically have the most direct
contact with the residents and are expected to continue helping accomplish the goals
and policies set forth in the Plan.
The amounts and types of wastes have also grown over the years, requiring more facilities
with new capabilities to properly manage these wastes. Many items that were formerly
disposed of are now part of countywide diversion programs that recycle or reuse them.
This cultural shift acknowledges the benefits of recycling and has required the evolution
and growth of the basic services and policies of the Division.
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Our Interaction with Garbage
Prior to the nineteenth century very little household waste was produced and very little
of what was produced was permanently disposed of. Most of it was organic, such as
food scraps, and was fed to livestock or rendered and remade into other products.
Clothing was patched until it was no longer wearable, and then the scraps were used as
rags or sewn together for other uses. The majority of waste produced at this time was
ash from industrial processes.
With the advent of the industrial revolution came the proliferation of disposable items
and the association of these items with wealth and progress. Consumerism had arrived.
Suddenly there was an ever-growing selection of products from which to choose. From
napkins to watches, people were able to purchase inexpensive items and toss them out
at the end of their life. This was associated with increased product marketing and a
continual need to develop new and improved “things.”
The ongoing growth of consumerism created more garbage and the need for waste
management services. Private companies developed to serve this need. Cities and
towns began to pass ordinances and regulations for managing waste. Entire
departments and divisions were established to handle the growing volumes of this new
waste stream. At the same time industry was developing their own new wastes that
6
contained more chemicals, composites and engineered materials that had never been
seen before. These materials were different and some required special disposal
methods to protect the public and the environment. It took decades to fully understand
the potential dangers to the public posed by some of these materials.
By the end of the twentieth century, waste management had become a combination of
science and art. New technologies are constantly being tried to find the “best” way to
dispose of or recycle waste. Landfills win awards for becoming parks and open spaces,
as well as producing alternative sources of energy. In addition, the idea of waste and
how much we produce is being pushed to the forefront of the consumer’s mind more
than ever before. Today, an individual shopping at a store faces the decision of buying a
product that is packaged with or without recycled material. Or, before they throw
something out, they need to determine whether the object is reusable, recyclable,
compostable, garbage, or a household hazardous waste.
Much of the recyclables collected in this area
were shipped overseas until 2018, when
China’s government issued new mandates
and restrictions on what recyclables may be
imported into the country. The combination
of increasing amounts of contamination in
single-stream programs and the inability of
processing facilities to effectively remove
these contaminants severely impacted
markets for these materials. The availability
of the Chinese markets had previously
allowed collection and processing systems
to operate without penalties for
contamination, until the marketed recyclable
materials became so dirty that the Chinese
government started to restrict the import of
these materials and then implemented a ban
on numerous materials known as the China
Sword initiative. This created huge problems
for recycling programs in the U.S., as
materials continued to be collected but
without a market to take them. This led to
stockpiling of baled materials, landfilling of
recyclable materials in a few cases, and
some program cutbacks. Paper mills and
other companies in the United States and
Canada are responding by increasing
capacity, but this takes time. The situation
has improved and will continue to improve,
Site Attendants assisting customers during
the COVID-19 pandemic
7
but clearly the recycling stream needs to be cleaned up to avoid a repeat of this
situation.
Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way solid waste was collected. As
people are quarantined at home and businesses were closed to limit transmission of the
virus, solid waste was still generated but at a different location. Additionally, citizens
cleaned up and decluttered their households, creating a spike in self-haul customers
to dispose of their material. In Snohomish County alone, there was an 8% increase in
the number of self-haul customers between 2019 and 2020. This occurred despite
efforts to emphasize that everyone should remain at home and only visit solid waste
facilities to dispose of essential garbage. Business and commercial hauling tonnage
saw a 7% decrease throughout the year. The continuation and total impact of pandemic
remains unknown on solid waste systems.
Snohomish County Solid Waste Beginnings
Historically, the solid waste disposal needs
for Snohomish County were satisfied by a
number of relatively small, independently
operated, open dumps. None of the
disposal sites would be considered
acceptable by today’s standards. Rats,
odors, contaminated water, and
uncontrolled gas production characterized
most of the old disposal sites. In addition,
poor service levels, inadequate planning,
lack of inter-agency coordination, and
inadequate handling of special wastes was
also a problem.
A major change occurred with the closure
of the Emander Landfill (McCollum Park)
in 1967. As a result of this closure, use of
the City of Everett Landfill increased
greatly, to the point that its estimated site
life was less than five years. (The Everett
landfill stopped accepting waste in 1974.)
Furthermore, no coordinated solid waste
planning between various jurisdictions had
taken place to ensure that a replacement
disposal site was available.
In response to the disposal capacity
problem facing the urban areas of the
county, the Board of Health for the
Town of Gold Bar Dump Shack, circa 1970
Cathcart Landfill, 1987
8
Snohomish Health District directed its staff to spearhead the formation of a group
tasked to identify and develop alternative solutions to existing solid waste disposal
problems, with an emphasis on regionalization. The Solid Waste Disposal Steering
Committee was created by formal resolution of the County Council in 1968.
In the midst of the Solid Waste Disposal Steering Committee’s early planning efforts,
the Washington State Legislature adopted major solid waste management legislation.
This Solid Waste Management Act of 1969 required that every county in the state of
Washington prepare a comprehensive solid waste management plan.
An interim plan, completed in May of 1971, offered recommendations to the Solid Waste
Disposal Steering Committee covering additional steps required for the implementation
of a regional solid waste management system. Although the act did not require the
implementation of regional systems, the framers of the act saw the efficiency that could
be gained through inter-jurisdictional coordination, with management of transfer and
disposal systems taking place at the county level.
The Snohomish County Public Works Department was established in April 1972. The
department was directed, authorized, and empowered to implement all public works
projects undertaken by the County. With the appointment of a Director of Public Works
in January of 1973 and a Solid Waste Director in March of 1973, efforts intensified to
implement the interim plan’s recommendations for the physical disposal system and to
develop new alternatives where needed.
Cathcart Landfill, circa 1989
9
A model drop box site was opened near Gold Bar in June of 1974 and as a result, both
the Index and Gold Bar dumps were closed and removed from service. The Granite
Falls Drop Box and the Lake Roesiger Drop Box were constructed shortly after and the
Sultan Drop Box opened in the spring of 1977. The Oso Drop Box was opened in
1987(in 2009, the Oso and Gold Bar Drop Box sites were closed). Waste from the drop
box sites is currently taken to a county transfer station where it is compacted and sent
to a landfill in eastern Washington.
Snohomish County’s first comprehensive solid waste management plan, written under
Washington State’s new regulations, was completed in October 1974 and approved by
the State of Washington Department of Ecology in April 1975. This plan recommended
that Snohomish County assume jurisdiction over all disposal and collection sites within
Snohomish County including drop boxes, transfer stations, and landfills. All of the cities
and towns yielded their authority over planning and designation of transfer and disposal
locations to the Snohomish County Department of Public Works Solid Waste Division
(the “Division”).
CURRENT FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
An overview of the current system is provided below, followed by more detailed
information on facilities and programs as these relate to the two major goals of this
planning process. The two goals are to:
1) Support actions to reduce climate change and promote sustainability.
2) Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
These goals and the associated policies are also discussed in the next section of this
Plan (Vision for the Future).
System Overview
The current system involves a large number of private companies and public agencies
that provide the services and programs to address various components of solid and
hazardous waste management.
There are four private collection companies in Snohomish County: Waste Management
Northwest, Republic Services, Inc (formerly Allied Waste Services and Rabanco),
Rubatino Refuse Removal, Inc, and Sound Disposal, Inc. A fifth hauler, Recology,
collects in the City of Bothell, which is only partially in Snohomish County. In
addition, the City of Marysville provides collection services within their boundaries. As
of January 2021, the City of Sultan contracted with Republic Services to provide
garbage, recycling and yard debris collection services to city residents. The other cities
and many other private collection companies are also involved to varying degrees in the
solid waste system in Snohomish County. These activities are discussed in several of
the technical memorandums that make up this Plan. Most of the rest of this section
provides information about the County’s role and activities.
10
Figure 2. Map of Solid Waste Facilities
11
Facilities and Operations
Transfer stations and drop box sites (formerly known as Neighborhood Recycling and
Disposal Centers or NRDCs), have managed the bulk of waste produced in the county
since the Division’s inception. Figure 2 is a map of Snohomish County Solid Waste
facilities. Currently the Division operates three transfer stations and three drop
box sites. A fourth transfer station (Cathcart) is utilized when one of the other stations is
temporarily closed for maintenance or repair. In addition, the Division has two
closed drop box sites that are available for emergency use.
The transfer stations are located in the more urbanized areas of the County and provide
service to the greatest number of residents, while the drop boxes are distributed
throughout the more rural areas of the County. The waste collected at the transfer
stations and drop box sites is compacted and trucked to an intermodal facility in Everett,
from which it is shipped by rail to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. On
an average day, the County ships 1,500 tons of waste to Roosevelt.
Prior to the waste-by-rail system, garbage had been disposed of at the Cathcart Landfill,
which operated from 1980 to 1992 and received 3,641,560 tons of waste during that
time.
The Cathcart landfill was one of the first
in the country to be constructed under
new standards regulating landfills. These
standards included a flexible membrane
liner system, leachate collection system,
and an active landfill gas extraction
system for capturing methane gas
produced from the landfill.
Shortly after the facility was opened, the
site selection process for another larger
landfill was started in combination with
the siting process for a waste-to-energy
(incinerator) facility. The concept for the
county’s waste disposal system was one
large landfill and one incinerator. At the
conclusion of the siting process, it was
determined that the best site for a new
landfill was adjacent to the Cathcart
Landfill. The design and construction
process for the new landfill was started.
Simultaneously, the siting process for an
incineration facility was moving forward
when Klickitat County announced the
Intermodal yard, Roosevelt Regional Landfill
Intermodal shipping containers
12
construction of a large regional landfill near Roosevelt, Washington. Snohomish County
studied the concept of transporting its waste by train or truck to a distant landfill
and determined that it would be less expensive than incineration. Subsequently, the
County requested proposals from the owners of such disposal sites and wound
up awarding a contract to the Rabanco Company to use the landfill it had built in
Klickitat County. In committing to the waste by rail system for disposal, the County
abandoned the concept of incineration. Since the County was one of the first
jurisdictions in the country to implement waste by rail, however, and since the Klickitat
landfill was not yet completed at the time the contract was signed, it was decided to
construct the first phase of the County’s new “Regional Landfill” as a backup facility.
Every effort was made to avoid placing waste into this first phase of the new landfill due
to the long-term regulatory and maintenance costs that would follow.
In order to maximize efficiency with the waste by rail process, Snohomish County
needed to update its transfer stations to accommodate waste compactors. Up until this
time, waste was compacted directly into heavily built tractor trailers, which were
impractical to use in the long-haul plans. Lighter weight shipping containers
necessitated the installation of larger compactors which could create denser bales and
insert them into the containers. New compactors were installed at the Southwest
Recycling and Transfer Station and North County Recycling and Transfer Station in
1992. The Everett station did not have compactors installed until 2001. Prior to the
installation of a compactor at the Everett Station, upgrades to the temporary transfer
station facility at Cathcart were completed for its use. This began the use of the
Cathcart Way Transfer Station as a temporary facility to be used during construction
and maintenance at other solid waste facilities.
The Everett Station was located on land leased from the City of Everett. That lease was
set to expire at the end of 1994, and the City expressed the desire to redevelop the
property, requiring development of a new transfer station. A lease extension was
negotiated, but the County had to push to develop a new station.
The siting process for new stations consumed much of the 1990’s. The process focused
on replacing the Everett station, meeting the needs of the growing population in east
Snohomish County (which had previously been served by the Cathcart Landfill), and
planning for overall county growth. Eventually the Airport Road Recycling and Transfer
Station was sited and built in 2003, and a new, much larger Southwest Recycling and
Transfer Station was built at the previous SWRTS location in 2004. Although these two
new facilities provided greater capacity than needed at the time, they established a
stable solid waste disposal system for the County which is capable of meeting the
County’s solid waste needs into the future. The large flat floor designs also provided
increased flexibility in handling and recycling waste.
Waste-by-rail has proven to be a reliable and environmentally-sound method to manage
the County’s wastes. In 2016, Snohomish County purchased the intermodal rail yard
13
facility in North Everett. Additional acreage adjacent to the intermodal facility was
purchased in 2019 for future expansion of the site.
Most recently, Snohomish County took ownership of the Sisco landfill and surrounding
property in 2016 as part of a settlement agreement. Snohomish County performed
supplemental investigations in 2017 through 2019 to update the data for site conditions
and support development of a Revised Feasibility Study, which is currently being
reviewed by Ecology.
The Division also operates a vactor facility at the Cathcart Way Operations Center in
unincorporated Snohomish County. This facility accepts street sweepings and vactor
waste from the maintenance of storm water control structures.
In response to the Hazardous Waste Management Act, the Moderate Risk Waste
(MRW) collection facility was opened in 1996 in Everett. This facility offers free disposal
of household hazardous wastes from Snohomish County residents. For a fee, it also
accepts hazardous waste from commercial businesses that generate small quantities of
hazardous waste.
Airport Road Recycling and Transfer Station
North County Recycling and Transfer Station
Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station
Moderate Risk Waste Facility
14
Programs
In 1989, the State of Washington passed
the Waste Not Washington Act. The act
requires local governments to plan for
providing recycling services. This served
as the impetus for the Division to develop
an implementation strategy as part of the
Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan.
At the same time, Snohomish County had
started a pilot program of recycling
domes. Seventeen sites across the
county contained a series of domes in
which a resident would deposit the
appropriate recyclable. These sites
provided opportunities to recycle mixed
paper, newspaper, aluminum, tin, glass
(brown, clear, green), and cardboard.
This approach to recycling was
abandoned in 2003, because by this time
90-95% of the population in Snohomish
County had access to curbside recycling,
which was much more convenient and
cost-effective. By the end of 2003, all
residents in the county had access to
curbside recycling. Solid waste facilities
continue to provide recycling
opportunities to the general public using
an updated, more efficient container
system.
The Division has more recently developed additional policies and programs for specific
types of recyclable commodities and organics, which will be discussed in later chapters
of this document. These new programs reflect the emergence of growing markets and
responses to recent legislation.
The 2013 update to the Plan focused heavily on concepts related to climate change,
product stewardship, and waste prevention activities. The technical memorandum
format adopted in 2013 is an effective tool to disseminate information related to specific
topics or concepts and is carried over for the 2020 plan. Table 1 reviews all the of the
2013 Plan recommendations and provides a status update and notes relevant to each
item.
Darrington wood debris drop-off
Inspecting a customer load at the Sultan Drop
Box
15
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
20
1
3
P
l
a
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Not
e
s
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
CC
1
)
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
n
n
u
a
l
S
W
D
G
H
G
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
Hi
g
h
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
n
u
a
l
G
H
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
CC
2
)
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
-sa
v
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
n
e
w
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
co
n
d
u
c
t
c
o
s
t
-be
n
e
f
i
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
f
o
r
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
a
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
o
n
d
s
,
va
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
p
e
e
d
d
r
i
v
e
s
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
o
r
s
,
an
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
d
r
o
p
b
o
x
s
i
t
e
s
.
A
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
wi
t
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
u
n
t
y
g
r
e
e
n
CC
3
)
an
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
c
o
s
t
-be
n
e
f
i
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
f
o
r
e
n
e
r
g
y
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
a
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
o
n
d
s
a
n
d
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
s
a
m
e
a
s
CC
4
)
CC
5
)
re
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
p
r
o
c
u
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
Co
u
n
t
y
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
P
r
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
En
e
r
g
y
f
r
o
m
W
a
s
t
e
(
E
f
W
)
E1
)
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
n
E
f
W
an
d
if
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
p
r
o
m
i
s
i
n
g
,
c
h
o
o
s
e
t
o
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
Ef
W
in
m
o
r
e
re
l
a
t
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
n
e
e
d
s
a
n
d
SC
C
.
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
S
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
PS
1
)
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
u
r
s
u
e
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
st
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
PS
2
)
co
u
l
d
h
e
l
p
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
c
u
r
b
s
i
d
e
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
/
r
e
u
s
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
b
a
t
t
e
r
y
s
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
PS
3
)
PS
4
)
PS
5
)
PS
6
)
Wa
s
t
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
WP
1
)
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
m
a
r
t
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
Hi
g
h
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
c
i
t
i
e
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
16
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
20
1
3
P
l
a
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Not
e
s
WP
2
)
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
p
r
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
Hi
g
h
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
c
i
t
i
e
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
Co
u
n
t
y
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
n
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
P
r
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
WP
3
)
WP
4
)
WP
5
)
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
a
1
0
-ga
l
l
o
n
c
a
n
a
n
d
e
v
e
r
y
-ot
h
e
r
-we
e
k
g
a
r
b
a
g
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
-pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
WP
6
)
WP
7
)
ba
c
k
y
a
r
d
c
o
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
.
se
r
v
i
c
e
-pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
ma
s
t
e
r
c
o
m
p
o
s
t
e
r
a
n
d
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
r
r
i
o
r
WP
8
)
WP
9
)
th
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
l
i
f
e
s
p
a
n
o
f
a
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
c
o
s
t
f
o
r
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
hi
g
h
c
o
s
t
o
f
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
on
.
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
R1
)
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
m
u
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
t
o
se
r
v
i
c
e
-pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
R2
)
co
m
m
i
n
g
l
e
d
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Wo
r
k
e
d
w
i
t
h
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Co
u
n
t
i
e
s
o
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
l
i
s
t
t
o
h
e
l
p
R3
)
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
i
t
e
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
,
ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
b
a
n
s
,
a
n
d
j
o
i
n
t
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
o
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
l
i
s
t
t
o
h
e
l
p
R4
)
R5
)
R6
)
R7
)
17
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
20
1
3
P
l
a
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Not
e
s
R8
)
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
l
o
c
a
l
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
h
a
u
l
e
r
s
o
n
a
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
M
R
F
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
s
i
n
g
l
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
se
r
v
i
c
e
-pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
o
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
l
i
s
t
t
o
h
e
l
p
R9
)
R1
0
)
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
O1
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
y
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
a
t
Hi
g
h
Co
u
n
t
y
No
t
wo
o
d
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
O2
)
O3
)
O4
)
O5
)
or
g
a
n
i
c
s
,
re
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
s
an
d
g
a
r
b
a
g
e
,
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
-pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
O6
)
bu
r
n
i
n
g
”
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
h
e
n
i
t
e
x
p
i
r
e
s
.
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
bu
t
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
Da
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
Ha
m
p
t
o
n
L
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
Cl
e
a
n
A
i
r
A
g
e
n
c
y
h
a
v
e
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
e
d
f
o
r
a
n
AT
B
-
li
k
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
Da
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
fo
r
1
2
O7
)
O8
)
Wa
s
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
C1
)
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
e
d
ac
c
e
s
s
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
au
t
o
-pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
h
a
u
l
e
r
s
C2
)
C3
)
Co
u
n
t
y
.
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
18
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
20
1
3
P
l
a
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Not
e
s
Wa
s
t
e
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
TS
1
)
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
C
W
R
T
S
f
u
l
l
-ti
m
e
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ha
u
l
e
r
s
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
t
i
on
s
.
TS
2
)
se
l
f
-ha
u
l
e
r
s
,
w
h
e
n
w
a
s
t
e
t
o
n
n
a
g
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
l
f
-ha
u
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
de
m
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
c
o
u
n
t
y
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
i
t
.
fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
b
y
H
D
R
t
h
a
t
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
S
W
D
f
a
c
i
l
i
ti
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
ha
v
e
t
h
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
TS
3
)
de
m
a
n
d
s
o
f
e
a
s
t
c
o
u
n
t
y
g
r
o
w
t
h
.
co
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
n
e
w
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
ex
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
R
o
a
d
D
r
o
p
B
o
x
si
t
e
a
n
d
h
o
w
t
h
a
t
m
i
g
h
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
E
a
s
t
Wa
s
t
e
D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
D1
)
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
p
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
u
s
e
s
o
f
c
l
o
s
e
d
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
D2
)
D3
)
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
O&
E
1
)
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
a
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
m
o
r
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
On
g
o
i
n
g
O&
E
2
)
O&
E
3
)
O&
E
4
)
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
i
r
d
-pa
r
t
y
a
g
e
n
t
s
.
se
r
v
i
c
e
-pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
Re
p
u
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
o
n
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
ca
m
p
a
i
g
n
s
o
n
w
a
s
t
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
O&
E
5
)
ta
s
k
f
o
r
c
e
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
i
f
s
u
c
h
a
t
a
s
k
f
o
r
c
e
i
s
O&
E
6
)
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A&
R
1
)
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
fu
l
l
f
o
r
c
e
.
19
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
20
1
3
P
l
a
n
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Not
e
s
A&
R
2
)
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
f
o
r
l
i
t
t
e
r
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
.
Hi
g
h
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
L
i
t
t
e
r
W
r
a
n
g
l
e
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
A&
R
3
)
Ex
p
l
o
r
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
i
p
p
i
n
g
f
e
e
su
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
f
o
r
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
n
o
n
-di
s
p
o
s
a
l
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
A&
R
4
)
pr
o
g
r
am
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
A&
R
5
)
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
R
i
s
k
W
a
s
t
e
(
M
R
W
)
MR
W
1
)
Co
n
d
u
c
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
H
H
W
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
Co
u
n
t
y
MR
W
2
)
MR
W
3
)
MR
W
4
)
Su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
L
i
s
t
)
a
t
t
h
e
M
R
W
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
e
-wa
s
t
e
a
n
d
MR
W
5
)
MR
W
6
)
MR
W
7
)
MR
W
8
)
pr
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
u
s
e
o
f
t
o
x
i
c
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
b
y
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
P
r
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
MR
W
9
)
MR
W
1
0
)
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
h
a
n
d
l
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
l
e
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
MR
W
1
1
)
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
th
e
i
r
w
a
s
t
e
s
.
bu
t
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
i
d
n
’
t
me
e
t
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
S
W
D
o
r
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
MR
W
1
2
)
wi
t
h
r
e
t
a
i
l
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
o
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
l
e
s
s
-to
x
i
c
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
a
n
d
t
o
m
a
r
k
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
20
VISION FOR THE FUTURE
The vision for this update of the Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Plan is to
continue moving toward a more sustainable future that is in line with other county and
regional goals and policies. The Division anticipates that in the future, citizens will be
generating less waste and handling the wastes they do generate differently than in the
past. This will happen through alternative methods such as increased waste prevention,
recycling, and outreach/education programs. It is not expected that this movement or
shift will happen quickly or that it will be a path that replaces the current solid waste
system. New approaches to waste management and new technologies must respect
and build upon the previous work and programs that have been put in place and that
have served the county and its citizens well for decades. The Solid Waste Division
understands and respects that ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide what and
how to consume, and will strive to provide a variety of environmentally and socially
responsible disposal options that further the goals and policies of the County and the
Puget Sound Region.
This vision is the underlying concept
for the two major goals of this Plan:
GOAL I: Support actions to reduce
climate change and promote
sustainability.
GOAL II: Ensure efficient services for
a growing and changing customer
base.
These goals are reflected in the
policies and related technical
memorandums that are used in this
Plan to consider additional programs
and recommendations for
enhancements to the solid waste
system. These policies are shown
below and are used in the technical
memorandums.
Train on its way to the Roosevelt Landfill
Assorted recycling bins at SWRTS
21
GOAL I: SUPPORT ACTIONS TO REDUCE CLIMATE
CHANGE AND PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY
Policies
The following policies are adopted in this Plan to reduce climate change and
promote sustainability.
• Policy 1-1, Climate Change – Support efforts and actions by County and other
agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of
climate change.
• Policy 1-2, Energy-from-Waste – Continue to monitor new and existing
technologies for potential benefits to Snohomish County.
• Policy 1-3, Waste Prevention – Continue to offer and develop programs that
encourage waste prevention.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are proposed in this Plan to reduce climate change and
promote sustainability.
Climate Change
Continue to participate in County climate change initiatives.
Evaluate and study life cycle related issues.
When conducting operational improvements at Division facilities, evaluate
potential energy-saving opportunities.
Energy from Waste
The County should continue to monitor developments and progress in EfW
including new technologies, pilot projects, facility procurements and
operating track records, and other projects in the region.
Waste Prevention
Increased use of social media and promotion of waste exchanges will be
conducted.
Snohomish County will coordinate and collaborate with WACSWM on product
stewardship and waste prevention measures.
The impacts and results of waste prevention efforts will be identified and
monitored.
22
GOAL II: ENSURE EFFICIENT SERVICES FOR A
GROWING AND CHANGING CUSTOMER BASE
Policies
The following policies are adopted in this Plan to ensure efficient services for a growing
and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-1, Recycling – Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
• Policy 2-2, Organics – Continue to promote and expand the collection and non-
landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food waste.
• Policy 2-3, Waste Collection – Provide a variety of equitable and efficient
collection services to County residents and businesses that are in line with the
Division’s other goals and policies.
• Policy 2-4, Waste Transfer – Provide a variety of equitable and efficient waste
transfer services to County residents and businesses that are in line with the
Division’s other goals and policies.
• Policy 2-5, Waste Disposal – Continue to evaluate and monitor waste disposal
options and services that meet customer needs and are in line with other goals
and policies of the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
• Policy 2-6, Outreach and Education – Meet required educational components
mandated by the State of Washington.
• Policy 2-7, Administration and Regulation – Ensure that administrative
services and regulatory activities provide adequate support for policies and
programs undertaken by the Division.
• Policy 2-8, Moderate Risk Waste – Continue efforts to reduce the generation
and toxicity of moderate risk waste, and to ensure that convenient, cost effective
and sustainable options for its safe management are available.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are proposed in this Plan to ensure efficient services for
a growing and changing customer base.
Recycling
Collaborate and coordinate with WACSWM and other regional
partners/jurisdictions on the standardization, simplification and
R2)
R3)
R4)
Organics
The County should participate in a regional effort to provide consistent
messages for organics related initiatives.
23
O2) Organics program priorities need to be defined.
O3) Partner with the WSU Extension Service and revenue sharing agreement
partners (if the funding exists) to provide education services that align with
Waste Collection
Strategize and collaborate with G-certificated haulers on how to increase
curbside collection participation.
Engage SWAC for waste collection issues.
Waste Transfer
Upgrade the Dubuque Road DB to meet the demands of capacity and
population growth in central Snohomish County.
Expand Intermodal Yard if additional capacity is needed there.
Evaluate the use and operation of the vactor decant facility.
Waste Disposal
Establish policies and guidelines for appropriate uses of closed landfills.
Continue enforcement of the flow control elements of the revised
County Code.
Outreach and Education
Snohomish County should participate in a regional effort to provide more
consistent messages for solid waste programs and issues.
Greater efforts will be made to extend recycling outreach to a diverse
audience.
Continue partnership with the WSU Extension Service to provide
educational services to Snohomish County that align with Division priorities.
Alternative funding sources for public outreach and education should be
explored.
Division staff should define educational program priorities.
Administration and Regulation
Snohomish County SWD should implement division-wide continuous
improvement projects and report back to SWAC on implemented
A&R2)
explore program modifications that could increase the effectiveness of
waste prevention, recycling, greenhouse gas reduction and other
A&R3)
endeavors with regional partners to increase standardization and improve
A&R4)
current endeavors, and suggest/implement appropriate changes to align
24
A&R5) Snohomish County SWD will work with the cities to renew the Interlocal
Agreement for solid waste management.
Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
Public education programs for household hazardous wastes will be
conducted through collaboration with other agencies and groups.
Implement MRW oriented continuous improvement projects and report back
to SWAC on implemented improvements or operational changes.
Explore user fees for residential customers of the MRW Facility and mobile
collection events.
A promotional campaign will be implemented to identify and address
barriers that are preventing greater usage of the MRW Facility.
Engage in regional and statewide coordination and collaboration efforts.
Continue partnership with the WSU Extension Service to provide
educational services specific to the MRW facility and HHW.
Review and update the MRW Facility’s O&M manual to align with current
programs and equipment standards and practices.
NEXT STEPS
Implementation Plan
The next step for the Snohomish
County Solid Waste Division is to
implement the recommendations of
this Plan. Table 2 lists all of the Plan
recommendations, identifies the
implementing organization and the
estimated year(s) of execution. More
information and discussion on all of
the recommendations can be found in
the individual technical
memorandums.
Assisting customers at the MRW facility
25
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ye
a
r
o
f
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
CC
1
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
c
l
i
m
a
t
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
X
X
X
X
CC
2
)
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
y
l
i
f
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
X
CC
3
)
W
h
e
n
co
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
e
n
e
r
g
y
-sa
v
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
En
e
r
g
y
f
r
o
m
W
a
s
t
e
E1
)
T
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
in
E
f
W
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
n
e
w
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
,
p
i
l
o
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
c
k
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
Wa
s
t
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
WP
1
)
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
u
s
e
o
f
s
o
c
ia
l
m
e
d
i
a
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
wi
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
WP
2
)
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
w
i
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
n
d
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
WA
C
S
W
M
o
n
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
a
n
d
w
a
s
t
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
WP
3
)
T
h
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
R1
)
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
an
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
W
A
C
S
W
M
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
/
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
r
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
C
i
t
i
e
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
26
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ye
a
r
o
f
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
R2
)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
is
s
u
e
s
.
Se
r
v
i
c
e
-Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
R3
)
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
u
s
e
r
-pa
y
sy
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
s
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
a
t
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
R4
)
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
S
W
A
C
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
a
n
d
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
a
r
e
a
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
r
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
O1
)
T
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
a
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
O2
)
O
r
g
a
n
i
c
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
X
X
X
X
O3
)
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
wi
t
h
t
h
e
W
S
U
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
(
i
f
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
e
x
i
s
t
s
)
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
th
a
t
a
l
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
Wa
s
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
C1
)
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
z
e
an
d
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
G
-ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
d
h
a
u
l
e
r
s
o
n
h
o
w
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
u
r
b
s
i
d
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
X
X
C2
)
E
n
g
a
g
e
S
W
A
C
f
o
r
w
a
s
t
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
27
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ye
a
r
o
f
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
Wa
s
t
e
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
T1
)
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
th
e
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
R
o
a
d
D
B
t
o
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
s
o
f
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
an
d
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
g
r
o
w
t
h
i
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
T2
)
E
x
p
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
m
o
d
a
l
Y
a
r
d
i
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
i
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
T3
)
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
th
e
u
s
e
a
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
v
a
c
t
o
r
d
e
c
a
n
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
Wa
s
t
e
D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
D1
)
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
u
s
e
s
o
f
c
l
o
s
e
d
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
D2
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
f
l
o
w
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
Co
u
n
t
y
C
o
d
e
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
O&
E
1
)
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
a
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
e
f
f
o
r
t
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
m
o
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
C
i
t
i
e
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
O&
E
2
)
G
r
e
a
t
e
r
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
a
d
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
t
o
a
di
v
e
r
s
e
a
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
On
g
o
i
n
g
O&
E
3
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
W
S
U
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
o
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
h
a
t
a
l
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
O&
E
4
)
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
sh
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
d
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
28
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ye
a
r
o
f
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
O&
E
5
)
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
st
a
f
f
s
h
o
u
l
d
d
e
f
i
n
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A&
R
1
)
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
S
W
D
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
-wi
d
e
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
b
a
c
k
t
o
S
W
A
C
o
n
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
A&
R
2
)
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
S
W
D
s
h
o
u
l
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
t
o
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
,
g
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
g
a
s
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
X
X
X
X
A&
R
3
)
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
S
W
D
w
i
l
l
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
en
d
e
a
v
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
t
o
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
A&
R
4
)
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
S
W
D
w
i
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
y
c
o
d
e
,
h
o
w
i
t
re
l
a
t
e
s
t
o
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
e
n
d
e
a
v
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
/
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
ch
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
a
l
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
A&
R
5
)
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
S
W
D
w
i
l
l
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
r
e
n
e
w
t
h
e
In
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
C
i
t
i
e
s
X
X
X
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
R
i
s
k
W
a
s
t
e
(
M
R
W
)
MR
W
1
)
P
u
b
l
i
c
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s
w
i
l
l
be
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
p
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
29
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ye
a
r
o
f
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
MR
W
2
)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
MR
W
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
re
p
o
r
t
b
a
c
k
t
o
S
W
A
C
o
n
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
ch
a
n
g
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
MR
W
3
)
E
x
p
l
o
r
e
u
s
e
r
f
e
e
s
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
R
W
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
an
d
m
o
b
i
l
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
MR
W
4
)
A
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
ad
d
r
e
s
s
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
u
s
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
M
R
W
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
Co
u
n
t
y
X
X
MR
W
5
)
E
n
g
a
g
e
in
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
co
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
MR
W
6
)
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
W
S
U
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
t
h
e
M
R
W
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
H
H
W
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
MR
W
7
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
an
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
M
R
W
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
’
s
O
&
M
m
a
n
u
a
l
t
o
a
l
i
g
n
wi
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
.
Co
u
n
t
y
On
g
o
i
n
g
30
Each year during the annual budget
process, work plans will be
prepared by the Solid Waste
Division that describe the
recommended programs and actions
to be implemented in the upcoming
fiscal year for County Council
consideration. The work plans will
include the estimated staff resources,
budget required, and any rate
impacts for implementation and the
projected results.
Further efforts to plan for
realistic implementation of Plan
recommendations and to track
progress will include an annual report
prepared by the Solid Waste Division
and presented to the County Council.
This annual report will include the
following:
• Prior year’s goals and
accomplishments
• Quantitative / measurable results
• Upcoming year’s goals and
expected results
• Recommendations for any Plan
updates or modifications over the next
5 years
Six-Year Capital Acquisition Plan
Chapter 70A.205 RCW requires the Plan to project the anticipated cost of solid
waste construction and capital acquisition programs for a six-year period. The
Division’s capital programs are focused primarily on facility repair and maintenance
projects and the purchase of a few additional pieces of equipment. Table 3 outlines
the significant anticipated capital acquisitions and improvements for the next six
years.
New electric yard goat at ARTS
Vactor Decant Waste Facility at Cathcart
31
Ta
b
l
e
3
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
o
r
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
No
t
e
s
Ye
a
r
of
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
Si
s
c
o
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
th
i
r
d
-pa
r
t
y
f
u
n
d
s
t
o
p
a
y
f
o
r
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
S
i
s
c
o
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
i
n
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
b
e
g
a
n
i
n
2
0
1
7
.
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
0
wi
t
h
c
on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
in
2
0
2
2
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
So
f
t
w
a
r
e
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
an
d
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
e
w
s
c
a
l
e
s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
n
2
0
2
2
.
T
h
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
s
e
r
v
i
c
i
n
g
a
l
l
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
3
0
y
e
a
r
s
.
T
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
s
t
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
re
l
i
a
b
l
e
:
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
m
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
I
T
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
.
U
p
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
so
f
t
w
a
r
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
t
o
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
t
s
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
X
X
X
X
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
re
p
a
i
r
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
i
t
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
su
r
f
a
c
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
th
e
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
t
h
e
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
ad
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
n
e
e
d
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
(N
C
R
T
S
)
C
o
m
p
a
c
t
o
r
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
us
e
f
u
l
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
re
p
l
a
c
e
d
.
T
h
e
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
th
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
v
e
n
d
o
r
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
o
r
w
i
l
l
ha
v
e
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
t
h
e
N
C
R
T
S
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
X
32
Ta
b
l
e
3
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
o
r
Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
No
t
e
s
Ye
a
r
o
f
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
Su
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
an
d
D
a
t
a
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(S
C
A
D
A
)
Mo
d
e
r
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
c
l
o
s
e
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
s
da
t
e
d
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
n
up
d
a
t
e
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
On
g
o
i
n
g
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
(A
R
T
S
)
S
c
a
l
e
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Th
e
A
R
T
S
s
c
a
l
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
c
e
2
0
0
3
a
n
d
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
fo
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
(
f
e
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
w
e
i
g
h
t
)
.
T
h
e
y
a
r
e
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
us
e
f
u
l
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
S
c
a
l
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
se
q
u
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
n
o
r
m
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
X
X
X
an
d
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
(S
W
R
T
S
)
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Re
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
20
0
3
,
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.
W
i
t
h
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
tr
u
c
k
tr
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
l
e
r
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
i
t
i
s
n
o
w
s
h
o
w
i
n
g
si
g
n
s
o
f
w
e
a
r
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
“
a
l
l
i
g
a
t
o
r
”
c
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
a
t
c
h
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
an
d
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
.
X
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
f
o
r
u
n
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
s
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
33
Only one recommendation being made in this Plan leads to “construction and capital
acquisition” costs. The Transfer (T1) recommendation for drop box improvements in
East County is more conceptual at this point and not defined well enough to identify
specific capital costs for this endeavor. This and other capital costs will be funded by
tipping fees.
Twenty-Year Implementation Program
Solid waste management in Snohomish County will continue to evolve based on
changes in population, demographics, the local, state, and national economy,
regulations, and advancements in waste handling and recycling systems. Because
this Plan is being developed during a pandemic and is still under the influence of
international market and recycling uncertainties, it is particularly difficult to project
waste generation and the resultant need for additional facilities and programs. It
must be recognized that some amount of flexibility will be needed to see Snohomish
County and their partners through the next few years and into the next twenty years.
Procedures for Amending the Plan
This Plan is meant to be dynamic. It is not intended that the Plan sit for the next five
years, and then to be totally revised. While the Plan’s mission and goals are
expected to remain the same, the Plan is designed upon the assumption that
information will be updated gradually, and the action plan will be altered
appropriately in a timely manner.
The mechanism to facilitate modifications and revisions has the following goals:
• For minor modifications, which are modifications that do not affect the basic
goals or direction of the Plan, allow the plan to be modified relatively easily
when circumstances require change.
• Allow the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) to maintain its role as
advisory to the Solid Waste Division and the County Council as defined in
bylaws, County code, and state legislation.
• Allow cities and towns to maintain their desired level of control over Plan
modification.
• Keep all players involved to ensure that there is political dialogue for minor
Plan modifications and consensus for major modifications.
The following steps will be used to revise and modify this Plan:
1) This Plan anticipates that the activities in the Six-Year Implementation
Schedule (see Table 2) will be undertaken, but that, as circumstances
change, it may be beneficial to deviate from the planned activities in order to
better achieve one or more of the Plan’s goals. Deviating from one or more
activities in the Six-Year Implementation Schedule is defined as a minor plan
revision, and in such cases the County will:
a) explain in writing how the deviation will better contribute to
accomplishing one or more of the Plan’s goals;
b) notify all cities and towns;
34
c) notify and give the public an opportunity to comment, either prior to,
or at a regular SWAC meeting;
d) notify Ecology of the proposed modification;
e) discuss the issue with SWAC; and
f) schedule a County Council vote on the modification no less than 60
days after the public, cities and towns, and SWAC have been
notified. It is expected that the 60-day period will be used by SWAC
members and the public to notify their respective cities and towns
or interest groups of the proposed modification, and for opinions
concerning the modification to be conveyed to the County Council.
2) Decisions to either undertake actions outside the Six-Year Implementation
Schedule or that alter the Plan’s Vision, major goals, or policies, will be
defined as major plan revisions. In such instances a full approval process will
be required.
Implicit in the development and adoption of this Plan is the understanding that in the
future, the County may need to take emergency action for various reasons, and that
these actions can be undertaken without the need to amend this Plan beforehand. In
this case, Snohomish County staff will endeavor to inform the SWAC and other key
stakeholders as soon as feasibly possible, but not necessarily before new actions
are implemented. If the emergency results in permanent and significant changes to
the Snohomish County solid waste system, an amendment to this Plan will be
prepared in a timely fashion. If, however, the emergency actions are only undertaken
on a temporary or short-term basis, an amendment will not be considered
necessary. Any questions about what actions may be considered “temporary” or
“significant” should be brought to the SWAC for their advice and then presented to
the County Council for review and decision.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS
Climate Change and Sustainability
Waste Prevention
Recycling
Organics
Waste Collection
Transfer
Disposal
Energy from Waste
Outreach and Education
Administration and Regulation
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 1
CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY
SUMMARY
This technical memorandum discusses the existing programs that Snohomish County
and the Solid Waste Division are using to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also
identifies relevant planning issues and evaluates alternative strategies. The evaluation
of alternatives is based on a qualitative assessment by Solid Waste Division staff,
County Solid Waste Advisory Committee members and the Plan’s consultants based on
professional knowledge and experience in other jurisdictions.
This technical memorandum recommends that the Division participate in ongoing
County climate change and sustainability initiatives, and look for ways to further improve
programs and facilities.
BACKGROUND
The primary role of the Solid Waste Division (the Division) is to ensure the
environmentally sound and cost-effective management of solid waste produced within
Snohomish County. To accomplish this, the Division implements policies and programs
that impact the environmental health of the region. These policies and programs should
be based on ecologically sound principles that reflect the values of county residents and
that preserve their quality of life.
Because of the public’s concern about the impacts of global warming on environmental
and human health, government bodies including Snohomish County, some communities
within the county, and the State of Washington have adopted policies to reduce their
emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG) that would otherwise contribute to climate
change and global warming.
Solid waste management can play a key role in executing the County’s policies and
programs to reduce GHG emissions and promote sustainability.
Goals for Climate Change
Snohomish County is committed to environmental protection, conserving resources and
reducing GHG emissions. Current government endeavors include the Sustainable
Operations Action Plan (SOAP), developing a new Green and High Performance
Building policy and a new Green Fleet policy. In the Solid Waste Division, this will be
accomplished by maintaining and expanding current programs, as well as by
establishing new programs and partnerships throughout the county.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 2
Goals and policies that are specific to climate change include:
• Goal 1: Support actions to reduce climate change and promote sustainability.
• Policy 1-1, Climate Change: Support efforts and actions by County and other
agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of
climate change.
• Related policies from other technical memorandums:
o Policy 1-2, Energy from Waste: Continue to monitor new and existing
technologies for potential benefits to Snohomish County.
o Policy 1-3, Waste Prevention: Continue to offer and develop programs that
encourage waste prevention.
o Policy 2-1, Recycling: Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
County Climate Change Initiatives
Snohomish County opened an Office of Energy and Sustainability in 2010 to help lead
and manage environmental conservation efforts, including climate change mitigation,
adaptation and resiliency, for government operations and the community. In the last ten
years, the County has made big strides in these areas, however there is much more
work to do to address the urgency of climate change.
In February 2019, the County Council and Executive Somers issued Joint Resolution
19-006 committing the County to achieving 100% clean energy in County operations by
2045. JR 19-006 outlines several key action items such as requiring all new County
facilities to achieve LEED Gold Certification, establishing a dedicated energy efficiency
fund in the annual budget, and plan to transition County operations off of fossil fuels.
Additionally, in 2019 the County launched a new Climate Action Advisory Committee
that will provide guidance on the County’s 2020 Sustainable Operations Action Plan
(SOAP), and a new community climate action and environmental stewardship plan.
Both the 2020 SOAP and subsequent countywide climate action plan will address
strategies for climate change mitigation (i.e., reducing GHGs) and climate adaptation
and resiliency (i.e., preparing for the impacts of climate change).
Some key accomplishments of the Office of Sustainability include:
• The County is on-track to meet its 20% greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal by
2020 for government operations.
• 24 new electric vehicle charging stalls were installed at various County facilities.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 3
• The County’s Energy Smart Loan Program assisted over 1,400 customers make
their homes more energy efficient and comfortable; saving enough energy to power
over 267 homes for a year and providing more than $17 million in work for local
contractors.
• The County’s Savvy Septic Program assisted more than 630 homeowners with a
rebate, low-income grant, or low interest loan to repair, replace, or conduct
maintenance on their septic systems.
• The County is a founding member of the new regional Puget Sound Climate
Preparedness Collaborative to better address climate change preparedness and
resiliency.
• The Public Works Department piloted new software to better plan and prepare for
climate change impacts across a diverse portfolio of road, bridge, and other
infrastructure projects.
• The County’s Zero Waste Fair initiative has reduced the total waste from the
Evergreen State Fair by about 45% (or about 50 tons) annually since it started in
2014. Approximately 350,000 people attend the twelve day Fair each year,
generating about 120 tons of waste.
More information can be found on the County’s website for the Office of Energy and
Sustainability, at https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2596/Plans-Policies-Reports.
In addition to the County-wide programs, the Division continues to develop and offer
programs that encourage the reuse and recycling of materials by its citizens and
businesses. The Division continually reviews its own operations, programs, and
facilities to ensure that its actions promote sustainability and help to reduce climate
change. Solid Waste staff also participate on the Green Building and Green Fleet
project teams.
County Biodiesel Initiative
Snohomish County adopted an initial goal of reducing community GHG emissions by
20% below 2000 levels by the year 2020. In 2005, County Fleet Management
committed to burning cleaner fuels in its diesel vehicles. The first step was to switch to
biodiesel B-20 (20% from non-petroleum feedstock) in road maintenance trucks, solid
waste trucks and off-road vehicles. Since that time, the entire County diesel fleet has
been converted to run on biodiesel. The blend of biodiesel varies with seasonal
temperature fluctuations to prevent thickening (“gelling”) of the fuel.
Alternatives to (Backyard) Burning
The goal of the alternatives to burning program is to develop infrastructure that is
financially sustainable and that will provide alternatives to backyard burning of
residential yard and woody debris in the Town of Darrington. The Town, Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency, Hampton Lumber and Snohomish County Solid Waste have worked
collaboratively for the last 12 years to offer a free “alternative to burning” (ATB) program
to valley and town residents, which includes wood waste recycling at the Hampton log
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 4
yard and yard debris recycling at the Darrington airport. Collectively the program has
diverted over 20,000 cubic yards of wood and yard debris (see the Organics technical
memo for more details).
Burning a ton of wood waste (hog fuel) in a boiler to make steam produces roughly the
same amount of CO2 as backyard burning a ton of wood waste. There is, however, a
significant benefit in that the hog fuel replaces fossil fuel (e.g. oil or natural gas) that
would otherwise have been burned to generate the steam. In turn, this avoids
introducing ancient, fossil-source CO2 into the atmosphere. In addition, burning wood
at a central facility with an air pollution control permit will produce fewer other emissions
than numerous small backyard burners without emission controls spread over a wide
geographic area.
Solid Waste Division Facilities
The Division owns and operates four transfer stations, three drop box sites, one
Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) Facility, and the vactor decant facility. These facilities
provide an opportunity to share environmental information with the public and to
demonstrate programs aimed at sustainability and GHG reduction.
The Division is constantly looking for ways to make energy efficient improvements at
their facilities. In 2010, the Division began energy efficiency improvement upgrades to
the leachate pretreatment facility at Cathcart, the Airport Way Recycling and Transfer
Station (ARTS), and the Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station (SWRTS). These
improvements include lighting upgrades to more efficient fluorescents as well as
improving the energy efficiency of the aerators used to operate the lagoons. It is
estimated these improvements will save approximately 800,000 kilowatt hours per year.
Most recently, in 2020, the Division installed a new heating and cooling system at the
leachate pretreatment facility that serves the closed Cathcart landfill on the Cathcart
Way Operations Center campus. The new air handler system is estimated to save
approximately 13,935 kWh/year and an annual savings of $1,184.
In November 2020, the Division replaced two aging MSW compactors at the Southwest
Recycling and Transfer Station (SWRTS). The two compactors in service since 2003
were replaced with new variable speed drive (VSD) devices. In 2013, Seattle City Light
conducted an energy audit of trash compactors with VSD. The tonnage estimations and
compactor types that were evaluated by the City are quite similar to the existing
SWRTS machines. By comparing the old compactor technology against VSD
compactors, the City estimated the energy savings would be approximately 194,336
kWh/year (Seattle Public Utilities 2013). The estimates used at the City of Seattle
South Transfer Station reflect processing about 40,000 tons more per year than
SWRTS, but still provide a useful estimate as to the potential energy savings of
compactors utilizing variable drives.
One of the compactors at the North County Recycling and Transfer station is scheduled
to be replaced in 2021 with the same model as SWRTS.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 5
Solid Waste Division Operations
While facilities can have features that promote sustainability, so can selected
operational practices. The items below highlight some of the more prominent activities
the Division has undertaken:
• The Division is currently utilizing a variety of electric vehicles for operations,
including electric forklifts and yard goats. County Fleet is also evaluating the use of
electric backhoes and loaders for solid waste operations. The MRW facility is
scheduled to replace a current box truck with an electric version in 2021.
• Snohomish County currently rail-hauls its MSW to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill
near the town of Roosevelt in Klickitat County. Shipping waste by rail uses less fuel
per ton-mile than trucking and emits fewer GHG per ton. In addition, the Regional
Landfill collects the methane produced by the decomposing garbage and this gas is
sold to Puget Sound Energy as renewable natural gas.
• The Division has utilized GPS on its short-haul and roll-off trucks to ensure efficient
routes and reduced idling since 2007.
PLANNING ISSUES
Near-Term Planning Issues
Current issues related to climate change include:
• Solid waste haulers do not pick up materials from every house or commercial entity
that they pass on their routes. If collection were mandatory, residents would no
longer self-haul waste and recyclables to a transfer station. GHG emissions would
be drastically reduced, as a single garbage truck could replace over sixteen pickup
trucks. Increased curbside collection is addressed in more detail in the Waste
Collection Technical Memo.
• There is a need for better goals and metrics for monitoring County impacts related to
climate change.
• Continuing to collaborate with County Departments on climate change and
sustainability initiatives will lead to more effective programs and results.
• Current Division facilities have room for improvement in regard to greenhouse gas
emissions and sustainability. The Division will continue to evaluate facility
maintenance, upgrades and retrofits that stress sustainability and reduce GHG
emissions. This includes purchasing and/or incorporating recycled or sustainably
produced construction materials into facility repairs or improvements consistent with
other Division and Snohomish County environmentally preferable purchasing
policies and practices.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 6
Long-Term Planning Issues
• The Solid Waste Division is interested in understanding the impacts of life cycle
assessment (the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential
environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle) and the
differences between product development versus production could greatly influence
and impact local GHG production for Snohomish County residents.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Collaborate with County Climate Change Initiatives
The Office of Energy and Sustainability leads many climate change initiatives
throughout the County. The Solid Waste Division could continue to work with them to
support and provide expertise for climate change endeavors.
Alternative B – Conduct Product Life Cycle Assessments and Evaluate their
Impacts on Snohomish County
The Division could investigate the principles of life cycle assessment and product
development/disposal as it relates to climate change and GHG initiatives in Snohomish
County.
Alternative C – Evaluate Energy-Saving Opportunities
As new projects are developed, specific energy-saving opportunities could be identified
and evaluated using a cost-benefit analysis, including evaluating the trade-offs between
energy savings and other environmental or social costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for climate change programs:
CC1) Continue to participate in County climate change initiatives.
CC2) Evaluate and study life cycle related issues.
CC3) When conducting operational improvements at Division facilities, evaluate
potential energy-saving opportunities.
Snohomish County Solid Waste Division would be in a supporting role for
Recommendation CC1. Evaluating product life cycle could be a local or regional effort.
The Division would be the lead agency for Recommendation CC3.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 7
The above recommendations could require a substantial amount of staff time. All of
these recommendations can be implemented beginning immediately or in the next few
years.
REFERENCES
Seattle Public Utilities 2013. Trash Compactors with Variable Speed Drives. Prepared
by Seattle City Light, November 2013.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Climate Change and Sustainability 8
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 1
WASTE PREVENTION
SUMMARY
Waste prevention is an important aspect of resource management because not creating
waste preserves the intrinsic value of manufactured and natural products, avoids the
need for collection and processing of materials that would otherwise be treated as
recyclables or wastes. For these and other reasons, it is the highest priority activity in
the waste management hierarchy.
The recommendations made in this technical memo address the need to conduct more
social media oriented waste prevention measures, collaborate with regional partners to
advance waste prevention measures and to develop methods to monitor the results of
waste prevention efforts.
BACKGROUND
A clear definition for “waste prevention” has not been adopted in Washington State.
There is a definition for “waste reduction,” which is defined to include activities and
programs that reduce the amount of waste generated and also activities and programs
that reduce the toxicity of wastes that are generated. The term “waste prevention” is
used here to allow a focus on solid wastes. Programs addressing toxic wastes are
described in the Moderate Risk Waste plan (see Appendix B).
Effective waste prevention requires a new way of thinking about how we consume and
discard items. Waste prevention is the least expensive way of handling materials that
would otherwise become garbage. The potential savings from waste prevention exist
everywhere along the production chain from not using resources to produce, ship,
package, and discard materials.
Goals and Policies for Waste Prevention
Goals and policies specific to waste prevention include:
• Goal 1: Support actions to reduce climate change and promote sustainability.
• Policy 1-3, Waste Prevention: Continue to offer and develop programs that
encourage waste prevention.
• Related policies from other technical memorandums include:
o Policy 1-1, Climate Change: Support efforts and actions by County and other
agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of
climate change.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 2
o Policy 2-2, Organics: Continue to promote and expand the collection and non-
landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food waste.
o Policy 2-8, Moderate Risk Waste: Continue efforts to reduce the generation and
toxicity of moderate risk waste and to ensure that convenient, cost effective and
sustainable options for its safe management are available.
Regulations for Waste Prevention
Washington State’s goal of 50% recycling, composting and waste reduction must be
addressed in solid waste plans, but each county is expected to set their own goal based
on local conditions and constraints.
Waste reduction has the highest priority according to the waste management hierarchy
established by State law (RCW 70A.205.005 (8)).
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Overview of General Waste Prevention Methods
Reduce: There are many ways of keeping a product or material from becoming a
waste. The following list hints at the range of options in this area:
• repair services
• on-demand manufacturing
• manufacturing practices that avoid waste
• office practices such double-sided printing and use of email
Reuse: There is a significant amount of activity in the area of reusing products. This
occurs through non-monetary methods (gifts, donations, “hand-me-downs,” etc.), a wide
variety of personal and commercial retail activities, and also through services that clean,
repair or rent various products. The following list provides examples of these activities:
• refilling services (such as printer cartridges)
• rental shops
• secondhand stores, bookstores and consignment shops
• person-to-person transfers (sales or gifts)
• internet auction websites (e-Bay and others)
• garage sales, want ads and swap meets
• antique and thrift stores
• pawn shops
• clothing and food banks
• material exchanges
• linen and diaper cleaning services
• some pack-and-ship stores accept clean Styrofoam peanuts for reuse
• used car, truck and boat dealers, including auto wrecking and used parts dealers
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 3
Waste Prevention Methods Used in Snohomish County
More specific examples of how these are occurring in Snohomish County are discussed
below.
Repair Cafes: The WSU Extension services hosts Repair Cafes that have been very
well attended. The Repair Cafes are free. Participants bring broken items and WSU
volunteers bring their skills to help fix the items. They also teach participants how to fix
their own items. Activities include small appliance repair, bicycle maintenance, sewing,
leatherworking and more. Snohomish County WSU Extension Education Center, in
cooperation with bike shops and textiles advisers, scheduled six repair cafes in 2020,
although the Covid-19 pandemic will likely reduce the number of actual events.
Sustainable Stewards: The Division presented a class, in coordination with the WSU
Extension service, to Sustainable Steward volunteers. The class focused on not buying
what doesn’t give value, eliminating excess consumption and thoughtful purchasing.
This message was presented to the volunteers who are dedicated to making their lives
more “green” and could be offered to a wider audience.
Computer Reuse: Working computer equipment can often be reused. This is better
for the environment and, in addition, provides social benefits. Reused computers help
close the "digital divide" by making equipment available at low cost or free to those with
lower incomes, youth, non-profit organizations and aide programs. A number of E-cycle
Washington collectors are engaged in computer reuse activities.
Redistribution of Food: There are a large number of non-profit food banks and hot
meal programs in Snohomish County. These programs distribute food and meals to the
food insecure. They rely on donated food, as well as purchasing food and supplies.
Volunteers of America coordinates many of the donations to food banks and the Everett
Hot Meals Coalition coordinates donation of highly perishable but still edible food. Both
these organizations serve as a coordination point for the redistribution of food that
would otherwise be landfilled or composted. See the Organics tech memo for more
details.
Product Substitution: Examples of product substitution that lead to waste prevention
include water bottles and refill stations, durable coffee cups, and reusable shopping
bags. Reusable shopping bags are expected to become more common throughout
Washington due to the recent statewide ban on single-use plastic bags.
On-Site Resource Management: This includes backyard composting (the composting
of yard debris on the property where it was generated), which is typically defined as a
waste prevention measure because it avoids treating yard debris as a waste. The
County provides educational materials for on-site composting, and works with WSU
Extension who trains Master Gardeners to encourage these types of practices.
In an industrial setting, raw materials or products are often reclaimed from floor
sweepings or other activities. Again, this avoids treating materials as a waste. Another
example in the industrial sector is the use of solvent stills that reclaim solvents.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 4
Several examples of on-site management exist in the construction industry, one of the
largest activities being on-site grinding and reuse of concrete and asphalt on that site.
Manufacturing and Packaging: “Lightweighting” of plastic and glass bottles and
aluminum cans has been occurring for several years. Products themselves are being
made lighter through the use of composite materials (for products such as planes and
cars). Product stewardship approaches (as well as economic and corporate green
initiatives) can drive waste prevention activities, including eliminating unneeded
packaging, toxics and materials; uniformity of standard parts (such as recharging
apparatus for cell phones); and education by manufacturers on refining purchasing to
reduce waste. Manufacturing technologies that reduce waste includes new ways of
setting dies so that more of a sheet of metal or plywood is used.
Public Education: Public education activities are often directed at waste prevention
practices, and are an important tool for promoting waste prevention. Waste prevention
is often accomplished by changing behavior (consumption patterns) so that new habits
or practices are developed that generate less waste. These changes often require
education and promotion of new ideas or methods.
There are 66 schools within Snohomish County that participate in the Washington
Green Schools program. This is a web-based, five-level program to provide resources
for schools to become certified as a Washington Green School. The program assists
schools in assessing and taking actions regarding energy efficiency, recycling and
waste prevention, toxics reduction and indoor air quality and water quality and
conservation. There are many opportunities for cities to partner in this program, utilizing
their own outreach efforts to achieve the same messages/goals as those in the
program.
Waste Prevention Activities by State, Federal and International Agencies
Plastic Packaging: Senate Bill 5397 established a goal of achieving sustainable
plastic packaging policies in Washington State. State legislators adopted a goal that all
packaging sold in Washington will be 100% recyclable, reusable, or compostable, and
that this packaging contains at least 20% postconsumer recycled material by 2025.
This law required that the Department of Ecology conduct an independent study to
gather data on the amount and types of plastic sold in the state, and the management
and disposal of that plastic packaging. The report was issued in October 2020 and it
identified several improvements that could be made for management of waste plastics.
Paint: As part of the new product stewardship program in Washington State, the paint
industry is required to promote the idea that residents and businesses should avoid
purchasing extra paint. This program is funded and operated by the paint industry.
State Solid and Hazardous Waste Plan: In the State plan, which is also known as the
“Beyond Waste plan,” the State has a goal to increase the focus on manufacturing and
use, not just end-of-life issues. This Plan promotes environmentally-preferred
purchasing, independent, third-party certifications and labels, and enabling more reuse
of materials and products.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 5
The plan also has a goal to reduce toxic threats in products and industrial processes.
The Plan encourages less toxic products and industrial processes through better
design. Working with stakeholders, Ecology plans to establish continuous improvement
goals for waste reduction, reuse, and recycling (including for organic materials) that
promote highest and best use of materials, based on economic, environmental and
human health criteria, and to account for regional differences across the state.
Sustainable Consumption: The Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) and
Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan addresses European Union goals for
environmental sustainability, economic growth, and public welfare. By improving the
overall environmental performance of products throughout their life-cycle and supporting
the development of more sustainable products and production technologies, it seeks
both to foster resource conservation and resource efficiency. The United States does
not have a formal national policy or strategy for sustainable consumption and production
or for sustainable development. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
sponsors numerous sustainability programs for the built environment, water,
ecosystems and agriculture, energy, and materials and toxics. The Network for
Sustainability is a voluntary, collaborative network of Federal agencies in the Western
United States focused on fostering and furthering the concept of sustainability within the
government. Some American counties and cities have initiated sustainability strategies.
Private Sector Waste Prevention Activities
Many private companies have implemented waste prevention practices. Starbucks has
made substantial progress in reducing the impact of waste generated in their stores
through cup innovation and improved packaging design, advocacy for local recycling
infrastructure, and offering reusable cups. In 2019, Costco deepened their focus on
packaging and are developing a global packaging and plastic plan that addresses many
aspects of business including reducing the amount packaging, educating employees
and increasing the recyclability and compostability of all packaging. Albertsons
Companies announced that 100% of its Own Brands packaging will be recyclable,
reusable, or industrially compostable by 2025, and they have pledged to reduce plastic
waste throughout the company. The new commitment furthers the circular economy for
packaging at the company’s 2,300 Albertsons, Safeway, Vons, Jewel-Osco, Tom
Thumb, Shaw’s, Star Market, ACME Markets, Randalls, Haggen, and other banner
stores.
Walmart has announced that it will work with its U.S. private brand suppliers on the
following commitments:
• seek to achieve 100% recyclable, reusable or industrially compostable packaging for
its private brand packaging by 2025;
• target at least 20% post-consumer recycled content in private brand packaging by
2025;
• label 100% of food and consumable private brand packaging with the
How2Recycle® label by 2022;
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 6
• work with suppliers to eliminate PVC in general merchandise packaging by 2020;
and
• reduce private brand plastic packaging when possible.
Amazon has eliminated packing with Styrofoam and now uses “air pillows” and various
types of paper packing. Amazon is also experimenting with returnable packaging.
Other companies are using reusable pallets, including in some cases where the pallets
are leased to companies by the manufacturer. In other cases, shipping boxes are
designed to be converted into display cases for the products being shipped.
PLANNING ISSUES
Waste prevention is supposed to be the highest priority on the waste management
hierarchy. Effective waste prevention will require a new way of thinking about
consumption and disposal. There are numerous regulatory and cultural barriers to
making such changes. Overcoming these barriers will require special attention to what
stands in the way of discarding less.
Near-Term Planning Issues
Current issues related to waste prevention include:
• County and city employees have limited funds and staff to promote waste prevention
efforts. A new source of funding needs to be identified.
• Better strategies are needed for communicating with the public. Waste prevention
outreach needs to be developed and implemented.
• Measuring the results of waste prevention programs is difficult, and hence it is
difficult to demonstrate the overall cost-effectiveness of programs. The results of
specific waste prevention methods are sometimes easier to measure, but still pose a
challenge for demonstrating cost-effectiveness. A more effective, simple and easily
digestible method of interpreting and evaluating campaign or program data needs to
be developed.
Long-Term Planning Issues
Emerging long-term issues related to waste prevention include:
• Despite its high priority, waste prevention is a difficult topic for municipalities to
address because it often requires either additional public education efforts (which
are costly) or mandatory requirements (which are usually unpopular). Some
activities may also be interpreted as anti-business (for programs targeting a
reduction in use of a specific product).
• Additional product stewardship programs could increase waste prevention. Product
stewardship can lead to waste prevention by spurring manufacturers to take an
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 7
increased interest in ease of disassembly, recyclability, repairability and related
issues for their products.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Reduce Specific Products
This ongoing activity is most effectively done with other jurisdictions. Local
governments are already working on the reduction of several specific products, such as
looking for effective ways to ban or reduce junk mail. This alternative is based on the
idea that more could be done in this area, and that aggressively identifying and pursuing
this approach would have long-term benefits.
Alternative B – Promote Waste Exchanges
One method to reduce industrial and commercial waste is to encourage greater reuse of
items and materials. This could be done through an established waste exchange or a
local program. The participating jurisdictions could promote, develop, and monitor use
of IMEX (Industrial Materials Exchange), the regional waste exchange managed by the
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Other options for residential and
commercial waste exchanges include online services such as Twitter, Facebook,
OfferUp, Next Door, Freecycle and many others.
The success of any waste exchange program depends on how well it is managed and
promoted. Advertisements in local newspapers and flyers are required to keep the
waste exchange visible. Existing waste exchange listings could be made available to
local trade associations and business groups. Those groups could be encouraged to
subscribe to the listing independently. With good promotion, a waste exchange can be
effective in reducing waste.
Most companies practice both source reduction and recycling of industrial wastes. If
some businesses cannot achieve closed-loop recovery, some may be able to sell
wastes as by-products. One business’s waste stream could be a viable feedstock for
some other company in a completely different industry. Similarly, businesses might be
able to purchase lower-cost recycled materials from another company’s residuals.
There are a few industrial parks that are designed to facilitate these practices.
Alternative C – Continue to Monitor and Evaluate Legislation
A number of pieces of legislation were considered recently in Washington State that
could increase waste prevention for specific products and materials. Snohomish
County and the cities, through their own legislative contacts or through their involvement
with groups such as the Washington Association of County Solid Waste Managers
(WACSWM), could actively support bills for waste prevention activities. These bills
could include right-to-repair laws, food labeling requirements, and requirements for food
service products and packaging to be recyclable or compostable.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Prevention 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for waste prevention programs:
WP1) Increased use of social media and promotion of waste exchanges will be
conducted.
WP2) Snohomish County will coordinate and collaborate with WACSWM on product
stewardship and waste prevention measures.
WP3) The impacts and results of waste prevention efforts will be identified and
monitored.
Snohomish County will coordinate and collaborate with municipalities and regional
organizations/business partners to provide guidance in implementing waste prevention
programs.
The costs to implement these recommendations will primarily be staff time for planning
and coordination, plus a small amount of additional public education and other
expenses.
The schedule for implementing most of these recommendations is either ongoing or to
conduct these activities in the next five years.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 1
RECYCLING
SUMMARY
This technical memo addresses recycling activities in Snohomish County. “Recycling”
refers to the transformation or remanufacturing of recyclable waste materials into usable
or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal, alternative daily (landfill)
cover, industrial waste stabilizer, combustion or incineration. This Snohomish County
Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan (or “Plan”) addresses
recycling separately from reuse (where products or materials are used again in their
existing condition, see the Waste Prevention technical memo) and organics (where
composting or similar steps are required to convert materials into a product that
indirectly, through plant growth, creates a similar material, see the Organics technical
memo for more information). Proposed steps to reduce contamination in recycling
programs are addressed here and also in the Contamination Reduction and Outreach
Plan (see Appendix H).
Recycling systems have experienced severe challenges in the past few years due to the
closure of Chinese and other international markets. The actions by the Chinese were in
part due to increasing levels of contamination in the recyclable materials collected in
and shipped to them from the U.S. This has forced recycling programs to reassess their
approach. Snohomish County, like many others, are now placing a greater emphasis
on making sure that the items collected for recycling are marketable, including
eliminating materials with no or poor markets, stressing the need for recyclable
materials to be clean and dry, and reducing contamination.
The recommendations made by this technical memo address the need for simplification
and standardization of core recycling programs and principles in Snohomish County.
Other recommendations address the need for enhanced education campaigns,
evaluating the potential for user-pay recycling, and increased SWAC involvement for
area recyclers.
BACKGROUND
Snohomish County’s existing (2017) recycling rate is estimated to be 63.9% (see
Appendix D for more details). This figure has increased from 48.8% in 2009 (the figure
shown in previous solid waste plan), and is based on the annual recycling survey
conducted by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Most of this increase
is due to construction and demolition (C&D) materials, which previously were not
counted in the recycling rate. As shown in Appendix D (see Table 2 in Appendix D), the
amount of C&D materials measured by Ecology in 2017 was 493,884 tons, which is
over half (52.6%) of the total amount of materials classified as recyclable by Ecology for
that year. Materials diverted to energy recovery are not counted as recycling in this
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 2
plan, and instead are addressed in other tech memos (such as the Energy from Waste
Tech Memo).
Recycling programs create significant benefits to the residents and businesses in
Snohomish County, including:
• Greenhouse gas reductions and related benefits for sustainability.
• Recycling creates more jobs. Ton-for-ton, recycling creates up to seven times more
jobs than landfilling the same amount of a material (NRDC 2014).
• Recycling returns resources back into the stream of commerce, not only providing
for future sustainability but also ensuring that the necessary materials are available
for manufacturing processes. Plus, it is often cheaper and more cost-effective to
use recycled materials in manufacturing, thus making local industries that use
recycled materials more profitable and competitive.
Goals and Policies for Recycling
Goals and policies specific to recycling include:
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-1, Recycling: Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
• Related policies from other technical memorandums include:
o Policy 1-1, Climate Change: Support efforts and actions by County and other
agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of
climate change.
o Policy 1-3, Waste Prevention: Continue to offer and develop programs that
encourage waste prevention.
o Policy 2-2, Organics: Continue to promote and expand the collection and non-
landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food waste.
o Policy 2-3, Waste Collection: Provide a variety of equitable and efficient
collection services to County residences and businesses that are in line with the
Division’s other goals and policies.
o Policy 2-8, Moderate Risk Waste: Continue efforts to reduce the generation and
toxicity of moderate risk waste and to ensure that convenient, cost effective and
sustainable options for its safe management are available.
Regulations for Recycling
State Planning Requirements: Washington State’s goal of 50% recycling, composting
and waste reduction must be addressed in solid waste plans, but each county is
expected to set their own goal based on local conditions and constraints. State
planning guidelines (Ecology 2010) require solid waste plans to establish urban-rural
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 3
boundaries and to designate a list of recyclable materials that must be collected by
programs in the county (see the Planning Issues section of this technical memo). Solid
waste plans must also address markets for recyclable materials, which in this Plan is
included with the discussion of designated recyclable materials.
One of the more relevant provisions of State law is the 2010 amendment to RCW
70A.205.040. This amendment requires that solid waste management plans address
source separation and collection of recyclable materials, and the proper preparation of
materials for reuse or recycling. Solid waste management plans are also required to
address “construction and demolition waste for recycling or reuse.” The Legislature’s
stated intent for this amendment was "increasing available residential curbside service
for solid waste, recyclable, and compostable materials provides enumerable public
benefits for all of Washington. Not only will increased service provide better system-
wide efficiency, but it will also result in job creation, pollution reduction, and energy
conservation, all of which serve to improve the quality of life in Washington
communities. It is therefore the intent of the legislature that Washington strives to
significantly increase current residential recycling rates by 2020.”
State law also requires a program “to monitor the collection of source separated waste
at nonresidential sites where there is sufficient density to sustain a program” (RCW
70A.205.045.7.b.ii). In Snohomish County, monitoring commercial recycling activities is
being accomplished by the Solid Waste Division and others, who periodically collect
information on services offered by the private sector and cities in order to help promote
those.
State Provisions for Recycling Programs: Several state rules and regulations affect
the manner in which recycling can be conducted in Snohomish County, including
Chapter 70A.205 RCW, Chapter 70A.214 RCW, Chapter 81.77 RCW, and various
WACs (especially Chapter 173-350 WAC). Counties have limited authority over most
solid waste management options but are allowed to contract for the collection of
residential recyclables by requesting authority from the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (UTC). An example where a county has taken control of
the residential curbside recycling collection is in Clark County. Another county (Kitsap)
took control of curbside recycling for a short time, but then opted out. Cities and private
companies have more flexibility, and can conduct their own recycling programs or
contract with various companies for recycling services. One opportunity that ties into
the UTC’s jurisdiction is the establishment of rate incentives to encourage recycling.
Through this Plan, an “incentive rate” structure can be established in the certificate
(franchise) areas. Cities can also set rates that encourage recycling and waste
reduction.
Private companies have significant flexibility in conducting commercial recycling
activities and programs that provide drop-off opportunities. There are some limits on
these services, not the least of which is the requirement that materials are actually
recycled. This requirement is addressed by the Recyclable Materials Transporter and
Facility Requirements (see below). As noted above, residential curbside programs are
managed through the UTC system, or through city and town contracts for these
services.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 4
Specific additional State laws that impact recycling include the following:
Revenue-Sharing Agreements: RCW 81.77.185 allows waste collection
companies (certificated haulers) to retain part of the proceeds from the sale of
recyclable materials as an incentive to increase the quantity and quality of
recyclables collected, and to seek out the best market prices or to improve services.
Under this law, waste collection companies may retain up to 50 percent of the
revenues for sales of recyclable materials if the UTC approves their plan for the use
of those revenues. Before such a plan can be submitted to the UTC, it must be
certified by the county as being consistent with the county’s solid waste
management plan, and generally the county and a waste collection company enter
into an agreement that specifies new or additional activities to improve recycling
programs that will be undertaken using the retained funds. Snohomish County has
previously worked with haulers to implement or expand a variety of activities, such
as:
• increasing recycling outreach activities;
• new coordinated communication plans and educational materials;
• recycling outreach in Spanish to the Latino community;
• addition of food waste to yard debris collection programs;
• characterization studies of recyclables, residuals and contaminants;
• reporting of recycling and disposal data;
• efforts to increase collection service customers;
• expansion of curbside to include additional materials;
• multifamily customer outreach; and
• improving performance at material recovery facilities, including technology and
equipment additions and upgrades.
At this point in time, given the poor markets for recycling, there are essentially no
funds available to continue the revenue sharing agreements and the programs are
operating at a deficit.
Recyclable Materials Transporter and Facility Requirements: The Recyclable
Materials Transporter and Facility Requirements (RCW 70A.205.300) requires
transporters of recyclable materials to register with the state and requires certain
recycling facilities to notify the state before commencing operation. A new state rule,
the Recyclable Materials Transporter and Facility Requirements (Chapter 173-345
WAC), was developed in response to this legislation. Although originally directed at
C&D recycling issues, the new rule covers all types of recyclable materials (all
materials that are designated as recyclable in this Plan). The new rule prohibits
recyclable materials that have been separated and collected for recycling from being
delivered to transfer stations and landfills. The rule does not apply to several
entities, including self-haulers, cities and city contractors, Tribes, and charities.
The Event Recycling Law: This requirement is in effect in communities where
there is an established curbside service and where recycling service is available to
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 5
businesses, a recycling program must be provided at every official gathering and at
every sports facility by the vendors who sell beverages in single-use aluminum,
glass, or plastic bottles or cans. A recycling program must include a provision for
receptacles or reverse vending machines, and coordinators may choose to work with
vendors to coordinate the recycling program. The recycling receptacles or reverse
vending machines must be clearly marked, and must be provided for the aluminum,
glass, or plastic bottles or cans that contain the beverages by the vendor. For
further information see RCW 70A.200.100.
Waste Reduction and Recycling Education (WRRED) Grants Program: The
WRRED grants were awarded in 2019 through a competitive grant program that
provided up to $60,000 to qualified local governments and non-profit organizations
for local or statewide education programs designed to help the public with litter
control, waste reduction, recycling, and composting. Marysville was awarded a
$53,000 grant to improve their multi-family recycling efforts. Snohomish County
received $40,000 in grant funds to improve waste reduction, recycling and education
at the Evergreen State Fairgrounds.
Recent Legislation: Several new laws were passed in 2019 and 2020 that adopted
new programs or requirements, including:
Recycling Development Center, Chapter 70A.240 RCW: To support recycling
markets, the Washington Legislature established the Recycling Development Center
(RDC) within Ecology. The RDC is tasked with researching, developing, expanding,
and incentivizing markets for recycled commodities. The RDC is partnering with the
Washington Department of Commerce to further the development of markets for
recycled products.
Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plans (CROP), RCW 70A.205.045: To
combat contaminants in Washington's recycling stream, Ecology developed a
statewide Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP). This statewide
plan identifies problematic contaminants and addresses strategies to reduce them.
Local governments are required to create and adopt their own CROP plans, or use
the state plan, by July 1, 2021.
Paint Stewardship Program, Chapter 70A.515 RCW: This law requires all
producers of architectural paint, selling in or into Washington, to participate in and
provide funding for a product stewardship plan. This program began in April 2021.
Plastic Packaging Study, Chapter 70A.520 RCW: This law required that Ecology
evaluate and assess the amount and types of plastic packaging sold into
Washington, as well as their management and disposal. The law also required that
Ecology submit a legislative report on the evaluation and assessment of plastic
packaging by October 31, 2020. The report included recommendations to reduce
plastic packaging and other packaging waste through industry initiative, product
stewardship, or both. As part of this law, the Legislature intended that Ecology
consult with industry and consumer interests and develop options to reduce plastic
packaging in the waste stream by January 1, 2022.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 6
Plastic Package Degradability, Chapter 70A.455 RCW: This law requires
environmental marketing claims for plastics to follow uniform and recognized
standards for compostability and biodegradability. Plastic products marketed as such
must be readily and easily identifiable as meeting these standards. Under this law,
the Washington State Attorney General and local governments have authority to
pursue false or misleading environmental claims about a plastic product's
compostability and biodegradability.
Plastic Bag Ban, Senate Bill 5323: A ban on thin carryout plastic bags in
Washington State was signed into law on March 25, 2020. The legislation was
intended to go into effect on January 1, 2021, but has been delated due to the
Covid-19 pandemic. When it goes into effect, it will ban retailers from giving out
single-use plastic carryout bags and requires an 8-cent charge for other bags. The
8-cent charge will help stores cover the cost of paper or reusable bags and create
an incentive for shoppers to bring their own bags. The fee will increase to 12 cents
in 2026. The legislation also requires paper bags to be made from 40% recycled
material.
County Code: Much of the solid waste activities, especially for regulation and
enforcement, are directed by the Snohomish County Code. The sections of Title 7 of
the County Code that are relevant to solid waste include:
• 7.34 – establishing the Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
• 7.35 – establishing a comprehensive county-wide program for solid waste handling,
recovery and/or reclamation. This requires effective control of all non-exempted
solid waste generated and collected within the unincorporated areas of Snohomish
County.
• 7.41 – operating rules and disposal fees for Snohomish County solid waste facilities.
• 7.42 – minimum service levels for recycling and waste collection in the
unincorporated areas. The purpose of this chapter is to define levels of single-family
and multi-family residential solid waste and recycling services which shall be
provided to households in areas serviced by solid waste collection companies
operating in unincorporated portions of Snohomish County.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Drop-Off Recycling
Several sites throughout the county accept various recyclable materials. A few publicly
operated sites accept a wide range of materials, but the sites operated by private
companies usually take only a specific material or similar types of materials (in line with
the nature of the business). These sites can generally be used by either residential or
commercial customers, although in some cases commercial customers can generate
volumes of materials that are difficult to haul to the sites or that exceed the capacity of
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 7
the drop-off sites to handle (in which case a commercial collection service would be
more appropriate).
The three transfer stations and three drop box sites operated by Snohomish County
Solid Waste Division collect a wide range of paper, glass and metals.
There are a number of sites that accept a specific material or a limited range of
materials for recycling. There are also some sites that accept materials for reuse (which
are addressed in the Waste Prevention technical memo), or for composting (which are
addressed in the Organics technical memo). The materials accepted by various sites
for recycling include appliances and other metals, automotive wastes such as oil,
construction wastes, electronic wastes, printer cartridges, rechargeable batteries, and
other materials that are too numerous to list here. The list below highlights some of the
materials accepted for recycling, but by no means is this list complete:
• Appliances without freon or other chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) can be dropped off at
several private vendors in the county. Appliances with CFC’s are accepted by
vendors in Arlington, Everett, Lynwood, Marysville, Mukilteo and Snohomish.
• Automotive wastes such as oil and antifreeze are accepted at the County’s transfer
stations, drop box sites and the Moderate Risk Waste (MRW) facility. Used oil is
accepted for recycling at more than 30 private locations in the county, some of which
also accept antifreeze. Car batteries are accepted at almost 20 locations throughout
the county.
• Battery collection displays in many of the larger hardware stores in the county collect
rechargeable batteries for recycling.
• Several companies collect construction, demolition and land clearing debris in the
county. Recycling sites for materials such as tree stumps, branches, clean lumber,
leaves and clippings, plywood, wood pallets, soil, concrete, sod and stone are
readily available throughout the County (see also the Organics technical memo).
Wood waste is also accepted at the County-operated transfer stations. Several
private companies in or near the county take other construction and demolition
materials for recycling, including asphalt, brick, carpet, concrete, drywall and
porcelain.
• As of early 2020, there were 29 E-Cycle Washington locations in Snohomish County
for computers, TV’s, laptops, monitors, tablets, e-readers and portable DVD players.
The County does not collect E-Cycle items at the transfers stations or drop boxes.
Other sites (which are not part of the E-Cycle program) collect these and similar
items for a fee. Peripherals such as keyboards, copiers, printers, scanners and cell
phones are also collected at many of these other sites in the county, and are taken
at no charge at Best Buy and Staples stores.
• Metals are accepted by a variety of recycling operations in the county. Many of
these accept aluminum cans, ferrous and non-ferrous scrap, auto bodies and parts
(with proof of ownership as required by RCW 46.80.090), and steel barrels. Metals
recyclers will often pay for these materials.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 8
• Plastic bags are currently accepted by many grocery stores in the county. With the
recent Washington State plastic bag ban starting in 2021, this collection method may
be curtailed due to the decrease in plastic bag use at the grocery stores.
• Drop boxes distributed throughout the county collect books and clothing primarily for
reuse, but a portion of these materials is not suitable for reuse and is recycled
instead. Contamination can also be an issue.
• Many of the materials accepted by the Household Hazardous Waste Facility are also
recycled (see the MRW Plan in Appendix B for more details). Several items are also
collected at other sites, such as batteries, paint, and light bulbs.
• Annual cleanup or periodic collection events are conducted in a few of the cities.
For the last few years, Sultan has provided a garbage collection cleanup day with
paper shredding for their residents, and Republic Services Inc conducts styrofoam
collection events for their customers in Edmonds and Woodway.
Curbside Collection
Curbside collection of recyclables is available to all residents in the county, both in the
cities and the unincorporated areas. Four private haulers provide these services:
Republic Services Inc, Rubatino Refuse Removal Inc, Sound Disposal Inc, and Waste
Management Northwest. Tonnages collected by these haulers in 2019 from single-
family homes are shown in Table 1. Most areas have their recycling picked up every
other week, while a few of the cities have weekly service.
The materials accepted by the curbside programs vary depending on the service
provider, but at a minimum include the materials required by county code (SCC 7.42).
These materials include paper, glass bottles, metal cans, and plastic bottles, and some
programs collect additional materials such as plastic tubs.
Table 1. Single-Family Curbside Recycling Tonnages
Collection Company
Number of Single-
Family Recycling
Customers1
Annual Tons,
20191
Pounds per
Household per Year
Republic Services Inc 29,664 8,638 582
Rubatino Refuse Removal Inc 20,077 5,072 505
Sound Disposal Inc 1,645 988 1,201
Waste Management NW 141,566 33,303 470
Notes: 1. The number of customers shown is the number of single-family recycling accounts for December
2019.
Source: From data reported by haulers to Snohomish County (Snohomish County 2020).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 9
Participation in the curbside recycling programs are incentivized by the rate structures
used for garbage and recycling services. “Variable rates” or “volume-based rates” are
used throughout Snohomish County. This means that households are charged
significantly more for disposing of more garbage. Businesses are generally already
charged according to the amount of garbage disposed and this approach is almost
impossible to implement for individual apartments, so this strategy typically refers only
to single-family homes. Many households can reduce their garbage service to one can
per week by recycling. Avid recyclers or households that minimize waste as much as
possible can also choose a “mini-can” rate (a 20-gallon can).
Multi-Family Collection
Recycling services are available for multi-family buildings throughout the county. These
services are provided by the UTC certificated or contract haulers for that area or under
a separate contract in the city with a municipal garbage collection program (Marysville).
The haulers provide a variety of equipment and containers, such as roll-off (drop box)
containers and carts (32, 64 and 96 gallons in size). The multi-family programs collect
the same or similar materials as the curbside programs for single-family homes,
including paper, glass bottles and jars, metal cans and plastic bottles and tubs. Multi-
family residents can also use the drop-off centers described previously in this technical
memo. Due to a number of challenges, such as educating tenants who frequently
move, language barriers and coordinating with property managers, the recyclables
collected from multi-family units are often contaminated.
Commercial Collection Programs
Numerous recycling companies collect a variety of materials from commercial sources.
These companies provide recycling services at the request of the commercial business.
Items that are collected this way include wood waste, office paper, cardboard, scrap
metal and food waste. Many businesses also subscribe to commingled stream
recycling services provided by the hauler in that area. The recycling companies can
provide roll–off containers (20 to 40 yards), dumpsters (1 to 8 yards), or carts for
recycling collections at a regular frequency or on an on-call basis. The recycling
companies generally charge for these services, and only rarely is the value of the
material collected sufficient to purchase it or provide the service at no charge.
The Snohomish County Solid Waste Division provides assistance to commercial
recycling programs upon request. For example, the Evergreen State Fairgrounds is
using Snohomish County grant funds in their efforts to reach a zero waste goal. They
provide recycling and compost containers that accompany almost every garbage can at
the fairgrounds. Attendees to the fair can use their reusable water bottles when
ordering drinks rather than using a disposable cup. The fairgrounds also employs staff
who use a trash picker-upper to remove recyclables thrown in the trash and put them in
the recycling container.
The Industrial Materials Exchange (IMEX) is an on-line and catalog service designed to
help businesses find markets for industrial by-products, surplus materials and waste.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 10
C&D Recycling Programs
Recycling programs for construction and demolition (C&D) materials have undergone
significant changes in the recent years. The most recent change was the adoption of an
amended ordinance (Snohomish County Code 7.35 and 7.41), which requires waste
generators of all types to adhere more closely to rules that require solid waste
generated in the county to stay in the Snohomish County system. This especially
affects C&D recycling programs because construction sites will now be required to
clearly label recycling and waste containers and to ensure that recycling containers do
not contain 10% or more of non-recyclable contaminants. See the Disposal technical
memo for more details on flow control and the residual reclamation waste program.
Analysis of Recycling Results in Snohomish County
An analysis of the recycling tonnages collected by various public and private activities in
the county provides a clearer picture of the current performance of those programs and
helps to demonstrate the relative amount of recycling being conducted by the public and
private sectors. Table 2 provides data on the collections conducted by contract and
UTC certificated haulers in Snohomish County. These figures provide a fairly accurate
analysis of the participation rate and results for curbside recycling programs, but it
should be kept in mind that there are many other recycling activities that residential and
commercial generators are participating in. Commercial generators in particular are
recycling substantial amounts of other materials through a variety of other programs.
Table 2. Recycling Tonnages Collected by Contract and Certificated Haulers
Type of Generator
Tons
Collected,
tons per year
(2019)
Number of
Customers or
Accounts (as of
December 2019)
Total
Households
or
Businesses
Percent
Subscribed
Single-Family 48,001 192,952 220,5811 87.5%
Multi-Family 6,139 2,676 100,846 NA2
Commercial 22,391 5,122 20,2283 25.3%
Organics, Single-Family 70,631 105,542 220,581 47.8%
Organics, Multi-Family and
Commercial 2,404 2,580 121,074 NA
Notes: The figures for the recycling tons collected from each type of generator and the number of accounts
are from hauler reports to Snohomish County (Snohomish County 2020).
1. The number of single-family homes includes single dwellings and duplexes, and is based on
data from the Office of Financial Management (OFM 2020) for the number of households and
data from the U.S. Census for the breakdown by housing type.
2. NA = Not Available. The participation rate for multi-family recycling and multi-
family/commercial organics cannot be determined based on the available data because it is
unknown how many apartment units are included in the number of multi-family accounts.
3. The number of businesses is a third quarter 2019 figure from the Washington State
Employment Security Department’s web page https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/covered-
employment (ESD 2020)
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 11
Another way to look at the results of the recycling programs in Snohomish County is to
consider how much of the total is being collected by each method. Table 3 shows this
analysis to the extent that the data is available. Data for the amounts collected by the
haulers is taken from Table 2. The amount shown for “county-operated sites” is from
Table 1 of the Transfer tech memo. The amounts for “all other recycling” are from Table
2 of Appendix D, and have been adjusted to avoid double-counting of wood and
organics collected at the county-operated sites and by the haulers.
Table 3. Recycling Tonnages by Collection Method (2019)
Collection Method Annual Tons Percent of Total
Haulers:
Single-Family (curbside)
Multi-Family
Commercial
48,001
6,139
22,391
5.1%
0.7%
2.4%
Organics (curbside and
commercial) 73,035 7.8%
C&D
MRW
Organics
Other
490,549
12,396
69,190
187,239
52.2%
1.3%
7.4%
19.9%
Notes: The figures for the recycling tons collected by contract and UTC certificated haulers are from
hauler reports to Snohomish County for 2019 (Snohomish County 2020).
The tonnage figure for county-operated sites are from county records. This figure includes
wood, yard debris and various recyclable materials, but does not include MRW.
The tonnage for “all other recycling” is the difference between the amount of recycling reported
by the Department of Ecology (Ecology 2020), which is a 2017 figure, and the other sources.
The amount of C&D shown has been adjusted for the amount of wood included in the figure
for “county-operated sites” and the amount of organics has been adjusted for the amount of
organics collected by the haulers and the amount of yard debris included in the figure for
“county-operated sites.” See Table 2 of Appendix D for more details.
The total recycling figure does not include the “recovered and reused” materials reported by
Ecology, which includes items such as wood and other materials burned for energy, organics
handled through anaerobic digestion, and reused clothing and household goods.
The data shown includes recycling tonnages collected in both incorporated and unincorporated
areas of Snohomish County.
PLANNING ISSUES
This section of this technical memo provides information about near and long-term
planning issues specific to Snohomish County, and also addresses issues that are
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 12
required by State planning guidelines (Ecology 2010) to be addressed (such as urban-
rural designations and designation of recyclable materials).
General Planning Issues
Current near-term planning issues related to recycling include:
• Single stream collection issues, including commodity cross-contamination and
quality.
• Processing of single-stream materials to remove contamination.
• The need to understand markets for recycling. What is the market price or other
criteria for choosing between recycling and when to dispose of a material?
• Educating the public on the cost of recycling and the impacts of “wishful recycling.”
• Options for improving multi-family recycling and reducing contamination.
• Processing of mixed loads to ensure proper separation of recyclables and waste for
construction and demolitions wastes.
• Financial support for recycling and finding replacement funding for activities that had
been funded through revenue-sharing agreements.
• Compliance with event recycling law.
• Address businesses conducting sham recycling and maintain flow control
enforcement.
• Community conversations about greenhouse gas emissions and how that relates to
whether or not something should be recycled or not.
• Coordination and collaboration with the Washington Association of County Solid
Waste Managers (WACSWM) recycling guidance.
Emerging long-term issues related to recycling include:
• Role of recycling requirements, disposal bans, mandatory programs in increasing
recycling.
• The need to reduce contamination.
• How to recycle in a cost-effective manner.
• Public perception that recycling alone is good enough.
• Increase the ideas of reuse of materials as opposed to just recycling.
• Public perception that recycling should be free when some materials incur a
significant cost to recycle.
Designation of Urban-Rural Boundaries for Recycling Programs
State law (RCW 70A.205.050) requires that criteria be adopted to designate areas
within a county as either urban or rural, and that recycling and other services be
provided as appropriate for each type of area. For urban areas, the recommended
minimum service level for recycling is curbside collection. For rural areas, the
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 13
recommended minimum service level is drop-off centers at all disposal facilities and
other convenient locations. In Snohomish County, curbside collection is required
throughout the county and so there is no difference in service levels for urban and rural
areas.
This Plan satisfies the requirements for establishing urban and rural boundaries by
adopting the urban boundaries shown in the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan
(Snohomish County 2016). By incorporating by reference the urban boundaries shown
in the Comprehensive Plan, including any future revisions, the programs and policies of
this solid waste plan are consistent with that important document, and are automatically
updated as the urban boundaries are revised in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Designation of Targeted Recyclable Materials
State regulations (RCW 70A.205.045.7.c) require “a description of markets for
recyclables.” State planning guidelines also require the designation of what materials
will be collected for recycling, with marketability being one of the factors to consider in
this designation process. The designation of recyclable materials took on more
importance with the adoption of Chapter 173-350 WAC, which defines recyclable
materials as being those materials “that are identified as recyclable materials pursuant
to a local comprehensive solid waste plan.”
A description of markets for materials collected in Snohomish County is provided below.
This is intended to be only a brief report of current conditions (current as of mid-2020).
It should be noted that market conditions for recyclables can change drastically in a
short amount of time, which is a challenge for a long-range document such as this Plan.
Rather than provide an exhaustive review of current market conditions, this Plan will be
more useful in the future if it can be responsive to changing conditions. Hence, the list
of designated materials includes a description of the process for revising that list.
Market overview: A significant factor for market conditions for recyclable materials is
the recent closure of overseas markets and the resulting decrease in demand for
recyclable materials. Much of the recyclables collected in the United States, especially
on the west coast, had been shipped to China until that country halted most of the
imports of recyclable materials over concerns about growing amounts of contamination
(garbage) being shipped with the recyclables and also out of a desire to encourage
more collection programs in their own country. As of this point in time (mid-2020), there
were signs of economic recovery and prices began increasing for many of the
recyclables as domestic markets in the U.S. began to ramp up to use more recyclables,
until the Covid-19 virus shut down a lot of the economic activity in the country. These
swings in market prices underscore the need for caution when implementing new or
expanded programs, as well as the need for flexibility.
Additional factors affecting specific materials are shown in Table 4. The materials listed
and factors discussed in Table 4 primarily address the established markets for existing
recyclables, and do not reflect the potential for new markets being created in the future.
Any new markets developed in the future should be thoroughly demonstrated before
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 14
allowing those to be factored into the designation of recyclable materials or other parts
of the Snohomish County system.
Table 4. Current Markets for Recyclable Materials
Material Primary Market(s) Comments
Paper, including
cardboard, mixed
paper and newspaper
Regional paper mills.
Markets for recycled paper are improving,
with additional capacity coming on-line.
Demand for cardboard is strong, but markets
for mixed paper weak compared to historical
trends. However, due to the current COVID-
19 outbreak, tissue mills report a shortage of
recycled paper.
Plastics
Regional markets in
western Washington
and limited export.
Current markets for plastics vary based on
type. Recent programs to use plastics for
energy production are not classified as
recycling.
Metals, including
aluminum and tin cans,
white goods
(appliances), and
ferrous and non-ferrous
scrap
Regional markets in
western Washington
and Oregon.
There has been adequate demand for non-
ferrous metals such as aluminum and copper
in the past year and this is expected to
continue. Recent demand and prices have
been mixed for steel. In general, prices for
metals are low but manageable.
Glass, including clear,
brown and green glass
Markets in western
Washington and
Oregon.
Prices are low for all colors of glass.
Negative prices and contamination continue
to be problems for glass.
Organics:
Wood
Hog fuel, mulch. Demand for these materials is moderate.
More information on the markets for these
materials is provided in the Organics
technical memo. Yard Debris Compost.
Food Waste Compost.
Construction and
Demolition (C&D),
including concrete,
asphalt paving,
sheetrock and other
materials
Aggregates, new
asphalt paving, new
sheetrock, other
materials.
Markets for some of these materials
(concrete, asphalt paving, bricks and
ceramics) are generally strong and have the
added advantage that most are local
markets. Markets for other materials are
limited.
Note: Information is current as of mid-2020.
Designated recyclable materials: State law and Ecology’s guidelines require that
counties designate a list of materials as the materials to be commonly recycled in the
county. In this case, the list is not intended to create the requirement that every
recycling program in Snohomish County collect every designated material. Instead, the
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 15
intent is that through a combination of programs offered throughout the County,
residents and businesses should have an opportunity to recycle all of the designated
materials through at least one program. In other words, if plastics are on the designated
materials list, then at least one program in the county should collect plastics.
Based on this analysis and information presented in other parts of this Plan, the proposed
list of designated recyclable materials is shown in Table 5. This list is based on the
materials that can be recycled currently. This list of designated recyclables should be
used to help guide program development and implementation, but is not intended to be
universally mandatory. Residents and businesses in Snohomish County should have
the opportunity to recycle these items through at least one program in the county, but
not every program needs to collect every material.
Table 5. List of Designated Recyclable Materials
Program/Service Designated Material
Residential Curbside Materials:
Materials that are designated as
recyclables for curbside and
multifamily collections. These
materials are also designated for drop-
off or commercial collection programs.
Glass
Loose Paper
Cardboard
Newspaper
Magazines
Paperboard/chipboard
Envelopes
Tin/steel cans
HDPE Plastic
PET Plastic
Aluminum cans
Yard debris
Food waste
Other materials designated by the Solid Waste Director
(SCC 7.42)*
Construction, Demolition and Land
Clearing Debris: Additional materials
that are designated as recyclables
from construction and demolition
activities.
Aggregates (brick, porcelain, ceramics, rock)
Asphalt pavement
Concrete
Land clearing debris (stumps, brush, limbs)
Uncontaminated soil
Wood waste (untreated or unpainted)
* From Snohomish County Code 7.42: “The director may designate the materials which are to be collected as
recyclables, yard debris or garbage. In determining the status of such materials, the director shall consider
health issues, environmental and economic factors, public demand, the material’s compostability and ability
to be recycled, the quantity of materials in the waste stream, and standards for processing facilities and
equipment.” (SCC 7.42.030 (2)).
Note: Designation as recyclable only applies to those materials that have actual markets and that are
actually recycled. For instance, not all wood may qualify as recyclable. If not recycled, designated
materials and other wastes must be managed as solid waste for disposal.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 16
Table 5 is based on existing conditions (collection programs and markets), and future
markets and technologies may warrant changes in this list. Any new markets must be
proven to be viable before changes will be made to this list. The following conditions
are grounds for additions or deletions to the list of designated materials:
• The market price for an existing material becomes so low that it is no longer feasible
to collect, process and/or ship it to markets.
• Local markets and/or brokers expand their list of acceptable items based on new
uses for materials or technologies that increase demand.
• New local or regional processing or demand for a particular material develops.
• No market can be found for an existing recyclable material, causing the material to
be stockpiled with no apparent solution in the near future.
• Legislative mandate.
• Manufacturer and/or retailer provided product stewardship programs are put in place
to handle the material.
Any proposed changes in the list of designated materials should be submitted by the
Solid Waste Division to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) for their
discussion. SWAC will then review recycling criteria and evaluate the request for
change to the list of designated materials. After evaluation by SWAC, the committee
will provide the Solid Waste Division with a recommendation. With the concurrence of
the SWAC, minor changes in the list may be adopted by the Solid Waste Director
without formally amending the Plan. Thus, minor changes can be addressed in about
60 to 75 days, depending on the schedule of SWAC meetings at the time of the
proposed change. Should the Solid Waste Division and SWAC conclude that the
proposed change is a “major change,” then an amendment to the Plan would be
necessary (a process that could take 120 days or longer to complete). What constitutes
a “major change” is expected to be self-evident at the time, although consideration of
the relative impact on the system by the established criteria including potential waste
stream diversion, collection efficiency and feasibility, processing requirements (including
costs) and market conditions will be the primary factors. Ecology will be notified when
changes to the list are adopted. All affected service-providers should also be notified of
the effective date and other details of the change, and a public education campaign will
need to be conducted to inform the participants of the affected program(s).
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Increased Focus on the Simplification and Standardization of
Recyclable Materials
Following guidance from WACSWM, the process of recycling should be simplified and
standardized for managing agencies, the consumer and be productive for the
processor. This alternative would address the need to simplify recycling: how to recycle
for the household or consumer, what can be recycled, how does that commodity relate
to market conditions and can materials that are recycled be standardized between
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 17
County and regional stakeholders.
Alternative B – Expanded Education Campaign on Recycling and Reduction of
Contamination
With the popularity of commingled recycling, also known as single stream recycling,
some participants are erring on the side of throwing everything into the recycling cart,
including garbage and other contaminants. Recycling processing facilities are reporting
growing amounts of contaminants in the recycling carts, especially for some materials
that may be recyclable through programs other than curbside (such as plastic bags).
Contamination leads to higher processing costs for recycling facilities and causes
material to be landfilled that would normally be recycled. The higher the contamination
level, the higher the chance that more material will be landfilled. Recycling
contamination can also pose hazards to sorting facility workers. Hence, residents and
businesses need to be reminded of which items are allowed in the recycling carts.
Steps to reduce contamination are also discussed in the Contamination Reduction and
Outreach Plan (see Appendix H).
Effective education campaigns begin with an identification of the problem, and may
focus fairly narrowly on a specific issue and/or a specific audience. Once the problem
(or message) and audience(s) have been identified, a variety of methods could be used:
Website: Snohomish County maintains a website to promote recycling:
https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/530/Recycling. The website features
information about recycling resources, natural gardening, waste reduction,
household hazardous waste and garbage rates.
Social Media: Messages can be promoted through social media avenues to include
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other apps designed for educating and/or
promoting. Local neighborhood apps such as “Next Door” could help promote
recycling on a community network.
Cart Tagging: This method of messaging has been effective in identifying
contamination. Once a visual observation of each recycling container is conducted,
then a friendly and informational cart tag can be left saying what can be improved
and often praising the homeowners on their clean recycling.
Other Methods: Other options include displays in various locations, video and radio
ads.
Alternative C – Coordination with Programs in Nearby Jurisdictions
Snohomish County is involved with regional and statewide efforts to increase program
consistency and reduce contamination in the recycling stream. County staff regularly
meet with staff from other county, city and state agencies to compare and improve solid
waste and recycling programs. Continuing this involvement can provide a number of
benefits and can be used to address a number of factors, including:
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 18
Materials collected: Snohomish County is made up of 20 cities and a large
unincorporated area. The County is taking the lead on synchronizing the items
collected from these cities plus the four existing collectors and the processors for the
areas. Snohomish County is working with other Puget Sound jurisdictions to
compare notes on how best to clarify the recycling services throughout Snohomish
County. The County could continue these efforts in harmonizing the recycling
programs. Additionally, the County is working with the WACSWM to develop
standardization and consistency with recycling guidance and collection standards.
Four recycling companies conduct curbside recycling in Snohomish County. These
companies collect the same basic recyclables and none of them take shredded
paper or plastic bags. The only difference in the materials collected is that one of
the companies collects scrap metal, plastic lids and plastic potting pots. It could be
helpful to work with the cities to either add in the missing items for other areas or
remove them in the one system. In addition, the haulers and the cities produce
guidelines on what they collect, and it could help to clarify the message if a standard
format or the same promotional materials were used by all to show what materials
are collected.
Flow control enforcement: Enforcing flow control provisions can be done more
effectively if Snohomish County coordinates their efforts with cities and neighboring
counties to ensure the proper collection, recycling, and disposal of recyclables and
waste. Snohomish County is already working with the City of Seattle, Tacoma,
Pierce, Kitsap, Skagit and King County on these issues. Additionally, regional health
districts, Ecology and the UTC are also participating in regional planning efforts.
Education and outreach: Sharing programs and methods with the cities and
neighboring counties on education and outreach could have significant benefits for
all involved. Ecology already assists with this in some cases by sharing information
in regional groups. Ecology also provides comprehensive statewide messaging for
specific materials such as e-waste.
Alternative D – Consider User Pay Systems at the Transfer Stations
With limited markets and high contamination rates, the cost of recycling is increasing.
While recycling costs have been embedded in garbage costs for a number of years, the
recycling cost has increased and it has become challenging to continue this practice.
The County could set up a user pay system for some recyclables collected at the
transfer stations, and provide messaging that recycling does cost money, it is not free.
Alternative E – Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Involvement
Given the dynamic nature of the recycling industry and how volatile commodity markets
are at this time, recyclers could engage SWAC for discussion and to develop
recommendations on recycling related issues.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 19
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for recycling programs:
R1) Collaborate and coordinate with WACSWM and other regional
partners/jurisdictions on the standardization, simplification and implementation of
core recycling principles and programs.
R2) Implement expanded education campaigns related to recycling issues.
R3) Evaluate the impacts and possible implementation of a user-pay system for
recyclables collected at Snohomish County solid waste facilities.
R4) Promote SWAC benefits and involvement to area recyclers.
Concerning R1, WACSWM has already developed state-wide guidance for commingled
recycling. The County and area service-providers (cities and haulers) should follow and
adapt guidance to promote and implement community standardization and simplification
of recycling in Snohomish County.
For Recommendation R2, the County can engage the WSU Extension Service and
possible revenue sharing agreement funds to develop and continue educational efforts.
Recommendations R3 and R4 are primarily County responsibilities. R3 will take time
and resources to evaluate, while recycler involvement with SWAC could begin
immediately.
REFERENCES
Ecology 2010. Guidelines for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plans and Plan Revisions, Publication #10-07-005, Washington
Department of Ecology, February 2010.
Ecology 2020. Annual Recycling Survey, Washington Department of Ecology, January
2020.
ESD 2020. Washington State Employment Security Department, preliminary third
quarter covered employment figures (https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/covered-
employment), May 2020.
NRDC, 2014. From Waste to Jobs: What Achieving 75 Percent Recycling Means for
California, March 2014.
OFM 2020. Postcensal Estimates of Housing Units, April 1, 2010 to April 1, 2020,
Office of Financial Management, July 2020.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Recycling 20
Snohomish County 2016. Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan, amended
November 2016.
Snohomish County 2020. 2019 Hauler Recycling Reports, Snohomish County Public
Works, May 2020.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 1
ORGANICS
SUMMARY
This section discusses existing programs, planning issues, and alternative strategies for
several organic materials, including:
• yard debris
• food waste
• wasted food
• wood waste
• agricultural waste
The recommendations made by this technical memo address the need to regionally
collaborate on developing consistent messaging, the need to define organics related
priorities and develop educational services that emphasize that content.
BACKGROUND
The discussion of organics in this technical memo focuses on five types of materials:
• Yard Debris: includes leaves, weeds, flowers, roots, grass clippings, shrubbery and
small tree trimmings/branches (typically defined as being less than four inches in
diameter).
• Food Waste: includes unwanted food preparation and table scraps. Many food
waste collection programs also include compostable paper. This technical memo
does not address grease collection and rendering, since grease is generally handled
by a separate collection system that is not part of the solid waste system.
• Wasted Food: there is an important distinction between food waste and wasted
food. Wasted food refers to food that was edible at one point. Wasted food
becomes food waste when it spoils or is discarded, but food waste also includes
items that were never considered edible in the first place (such as banana peels).
• Wood Waste: includes woody vegetation (branches and limbs over four inches in
diameter, stumps and trunks), and manufactured wood products. Manufactured
wood products are often divided into “clean wood waste” (unpainted and untreated
lumber, plywood, OSB, and pallets) versus unacceptable wood (painted and treated
wood).
• Agricultural Waste: includes crop residues, livestock manures and other organic
materials generated on farms and ranches. Agricultural wastes such as these are
not defined as solid wastes but are addressed in this tech memo to the extent that
these are co-managed with solid wastes (such as composted with yard debris).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 2
Organic materials have the potential to create significant problems if not managed
properly, but these materials also present significant opportunities. Single-family
garbage customers can now recycle food scraps and food-soiled paper in their yard
waste carts. Items like meat, fish, poultry, bones, dairy, vegetable and fruit trimmings,
bread, pasta and coffee grounds are now compostable. Historically, agricultural
organics have been managed on-site (on the ranch or farm where generated) to reduce
expenses and to improve soil quality, but management practices for these wastes
continue to evolve. Now there is an increasing interest and need for doing more with all
of these organics due to climate change and sustainability issues (see also the Climate
Change and Sustainability tech memo).
Goals and Policies for Organics
Current Goals and Policies: Current goals and policies in this Plan specific to
organics include:
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-2, Organics: Continue to promote and expand the collection and non-
landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food waste.
• Related policies from other technical memorandums:
o Policy 1-1, Climate Change: Support efforts and actions by County and other
agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of
climate change.
o Policy 1-3, Waste Prevention: Continue to offer and develop programs that
encourage waste prevention.
o Policy 2-1, Recycling: Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
Beyond Waste Goals: The State’s solid waste plan (the “Beyond Waste Plan”)
adopted the following goals for managing organics (Ecology 2015):
• SWM16: Ecology and stakeholders will create a beneficial use hierarchy for residual
organic material processing and uses.
• SWM17: Less food will enter the disposal system; more discarded food will be
managed according to EPA’s food waste hierarchy.
• SWM18: The use of soil amendments derived from recycled organics will increase,
reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
• SWM19: Agriculture, landscapes, and home gardens will need less water due to
increased use of compost and other soil amendments derived from recycled
organics.
• SWM20: The value of recycled organics as storm and surface water filtration media
will be better understood, resulting in increased use.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 3
• SWM21: Soil organic carbon sequestration using recycled organics will increase
based on research recommendations.
• SWM22: More diversified organics processing infrastructure will exist in the state.
• SWM23: Composting facilities will produce clean end products.
• SWM24: Diversified end-use markets will be in place for recycled organic products.
Each of these goals is accompanied by one to five objectives (“actions”).
Regulations for Organics
State Regulations: A new law adopted in 2020, the Compost Procurement and Use
bill (ESHB 2713), amended Chapter 43.19A RCW to add three new sections. Among
other provisions, these sections:
● Recognize the benefits of organics diversion and compost usage.
● Requires State agencies and local governments to consider the use of compost in
government-funded projects, and to use compost if it is reasonably priced and
available, and if the compost meets existing procurement, health and other
standards.
● Encourage State agencies and local governments to give priority to locally-produced
compost.
● Encourages local governments that provide “residential composting service” to buy
back at least 50% of the compost produced from the collected organics.
The legislative findings that provide the basis for Chapter 70A.205 RCW state that
“when updating a solid waste management plan developed under this chapter, after
June 10, 2010, local comprehensive plans must consider and plan for the handling and
proper preparation of organic materials for composting or anaerobic digestion.
Yard Debris: State law (see RCW 70A.205.045 (7)(b)(iii)) requires county solid waste
management plans to address “programs to collect yard waste, if the county or city
submitting the plan finds that there are adequate markets or capacity for composted
yard waste within or near the service area to consume the majority of the material
collected.” No specific alternatives or other details are provided, but the Beyond Waste
Plan (see previous section) lists a number of recommended actions for organics.
Snohomish County Code 7.42 requires the provision of curbside yard debris collection
to customers of solid waste collection companies within the yard debris service zone of
unincorporated Snohomish County.
A few of the cities in Snohomish County have banned yard debris from disposal with
garbage, including Arlington, Lynnwood and Mill Creek.
Food Waste: State law (see RCW 70A.205.715) establishes a goal for the state to
reduce by fifty percent the amount of food waste generated annually, relative to 2015
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 4
levels, by 2030. A subset of this goal includes reducing the amount of edible food that
is wasted.
Wood Waste: Snohomish County supports the use of wood waste for hog fuel for the
generation of steam or electricity and considers this recycling even though it is not
defined as such.
Agricultural Waste: Anaerobic digesters that process 50% or more animal manure
can also “import” up to 30% of their organic feedstocks from outside sources and are
still exempt from solid waste permitting requirements in RCW 70A.205.290.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Yard Debris Programs
In the course of maintaining yards and gardens, Snohomish County residents and
businesses often produce yard debris and landscaping residues. Many residents
practice backyard composting for these materials.
All local haulers separately collect yard debris and food waste as one of the services
they provide. Self-haulers of yard debris and clean wood can also bring it to one of the
County’s three transfer stations, or to one of several private compost facilities that
accept yard debris directly from residential and commercial sources and use it to
produce high quality compost. The yard debris and wood collected at the County’s
three transfer stations is currently sent to Lenz Enterprise for processing, and the
amounts collected in 2019 are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Organics Collected at County Transfer Stations (2019)
Facility Wood (tons) Yard Debris
(tons)
Total
Organics
(tons)
Airport Road Recycling & Transfer Station 1,785 5,288 7,073
North County Recycling & Transfer Station 545 1,124 1,669
Southwest Recycling & Transfer Station 1,005 10,967 11,972
Totals 3,335 17,379 20,714
Source: Snohomish County records.
Another program is an inter-agency effort to provide “alternative to burning.” The Town
of Darrington, Hampton Lumber Mill, Snohomish County Solid Waste, and the Puget
Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) work together to provide wood debris collection for
recycling at Hampton Lumber Mill on select Sundays from April to October and yard
debris collection at the Darrington Municipal Airport during daylight hours. These
collections were temporarily suspended in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 5
Current collection programs in Snohomish County are doing well at diverting most of the
yard debris that is generated. Recent information shows that 127,554 tons of yard
debris were recycled (composted) in 2017 (Ecology 2020a). No figures are available for
the amount of yard debris handled by backyard composting and other waste reduction
activities. The 2015-2016 Washington Statewide Waste Characterization Study
(Ecology 2016) shows that the waste stream for the Puget Sound Region (which
includes Snohomish County and four other counties) only contained 5.0% yard debris.
Combined with the amount of waste disposed by Snohomish County in 2017 (509,209
tons), leads to a figure of 25,460 tons of yard debris disposed, and a recovery of 83.4%
(see Table 2). A similar analysis was conducted for food waste and wood. No figures
are shown for agricultural wastes because only incomplete data was available it. The
analysis shown in Table 2 is based on 2017 figures because that is the most recent
year for which data is available on recycled and diverted amounts of organics, and this
also matches up well with the 2015-2016 data on waste composition. The figures
shown in Table 2 do not include the amounts of “other organics” recycled in 2017
(12,641 tons) or diverted in 2017 (4,229 tons), and also do not include the large
amounts of food handled by food banks and other recovery options.
Table 2. Recovery Rates for Organics Materials (2017 Estimate)
Organic Materials Tons
Disposed1
Tons Recovered Total Tons Recovery
Rate Recycled Diverted2
Yard Debris 25,460 127,5543 153,014 83.4%
Food Waste 91,148 18,787 1,313 111,248 18.1%
Wood Waste 38,700 55,377 12,258 106,335 63.6%
Agricultural Waste NA NA NA NA NA
Notes: 1. Figures for the amount of tons disposed are based on waste composition data from the
2015-2016 Washington Statewide Waste Characterization Study (Ecology 2016) and an
annual disposal figure for Snohomish County of 509,209 tons in 2017.
2. “Diverted” includes beneficial uses that are not defined as recycling but that still avoid
landfill disposal of organic materials, such as wood used for hog fuel and food waste that
is anaerobically digested.
3. The amount of yard debris recycled includes the amounts of mixed yard debris and food
waste collected through curbside programs.
4. The wood waste category includes only recyclable grades of wood for the disposal figure
(dimension lumber, engineered wood, pallets, crates, natural wood, and other untreated
wood). The recycled wood figure includes land clearing debris.
Food Waste Collection Programs
In most areas of Snohomish County, food scrap collection programs are available for
residents and businesses. Programs to collect food waste curbside with yard debris
have been phased in over the past few years and are now available throughout
Snohomish County. Residential food is collected curbside by the solid waste collection
companies commingled with yard waste, and the material is brought to a composting
facility permitted to handle post-consumer food waste.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 6
The most recent information on recycling of food waste (Ecology 2020a) shows that
18,787 tons of food waste were recycled in 2017, and an additional 1,313 tons were
diverted through anaerobic digestion. The 2015-2016 Washington Statewide Waste
Characterization Study (Ecology 2016) indicates that Snohomish County’s waste stream
contained 17.9% food waste, or an estimated 91,148 tons in 2017. Hence, the recovery
rate for food waste was 18.1% in 2017 (see Table 2).
Wasted Food
There are a large number of non-profit food banks and hot meal programs in
Snohomish County. These programs distribute food and meals to the food insecure.
They rely on donated food, as well as purchasing food and supplies. These efforts are
currently being coordinated through the Snohomish County Food Bank Coalition. This
coalition is comprised of over 18-member food banks serving clients from Darrington
and Stanwood-Camano south to Mountlake Terrace, east to Sultan and all points in
between. The Food Bank Coalition members meet to discuss healthy choices, bulk
purchases, best practices, and common policies and procedures. Partnering agencies,
like Citrine Health, Food Lifeline, Northwest Harvest, Washington Food Coalition and
Within Reach attend these meetings to share additional resources available to food
banks and the families they serve. The Food Bank Coalition is now able to accept still
edible but highly perishable food from local area businesses. This food would otherwise
have been discarded as previously there was no easy way to get it to the programs that
could use it.
Snohomish County has previously worked with food banks to arrange donations of less
perishable discarded food (such as canned goods and meats that could be frozen and
fruit and vegetables wish some shelf life). Most food banks cannot handle the highly
perishable segment, including cooked foods such as fried chicken and bakery discards
that must be eaten within a day or two. Hot meal program providers seemed a good fit
for these items but because of the individuality of these programs, there was no single
point of reference for a business with such discards. Through the Food Bank Coalition,
members share the food and information about it so it can go to programs that can best
use it.
ReFED is a national organization that was formed to support non-profit and charitable
organizations that distribute food to those who have difficulty purchasing enough food to
avoid hunger, or who are food insecure (do not know where their next meal will come
from). A food bank’s role is only to provide emergency food, usually a three-day supply
for an individual or a family that they can replenish once a month.
Wood Waste
Residents and commercial businesses have several alternatives for disposal or
recycling of wood waste in Snohomish County. The Town of Darrington, PSCAA,
Hampton Lumber and Snohomish County Solid Waste have worked collaboratively for
the last 12 years to offer a free “alternative to burning” (ATB) program to valley and
town residents, which includes wood waste recycling at the Hampton log yard and yard
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 7
debris recycling at the Darrington airport. The table below shows the volume of wood
and yard debris collected through the ATB program.
Table 3. Organics Collected by the ATB Program
Year Wood Debris
(cubic yds)
Yard Debris
(cubic yds)
Total Organics
(cubic yards)
2008 574 0 574
2009 1,613 88 1,701
2010 1,159 22 1,171
2011 950 52 1,002
2012 1,432 42 1,473
2013 1,897 70 1,967
2014 1,091 20 1,111
2015 1,700 69 1,769
2016 2,433 254 2,687
2017 1,977 0 1,977
2018 1,347 0 1,347
2019 689 0 689
Source: Snohomish County records.
Burn bans may be issued by the County Fire Marshal for fire safety reasons, by PSCAA
to protect air quality, and by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to
help reduce the risk of wildfires. Burning permits can be issued for locations outside the
Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) that are also outside of established “no burn zones” and
within fire protection districts of unincorporated Snohomish County. PSCAA has
maintained a permanent ban on burning land clearing debris in Snohomish County
since 2008 in accordance with WAC 173-425-040(5). Residential burning is allowed in
some cases but may require a permit. Outdoor burning of treated wood and
construction debris is illegal in all areas of Snohomish County
Clean wood waste is accepted for composting, recycling or energy recovery at the
County's three transfer stations. Stumps should be no larger than 2 feet by 2 feet in
size and without dirt.
Private companies play a role in the recycling of wood debris from residential and
commercial businesses. Private recycling facilities process this resource into wood
chips, mulch, landscape products, hog fuel and other materials.
The most recent information for wood waste (Ecology 2020a) shows that 55,377 tons of
wood waste were recycled in 2017 and another 12,258 tons were used for energy
recovery. The 2015-2016 Washington Statewide Waste Characterization Study
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 8
(Ecology 2016) indicates that Snohomish County’s waste stream contained 7.6%
recyclable wood, or an estimated 38,700 tons in 2017. Hence, the recovery rate for
wood was 63.6% in 2017 (see Table 2). Note that this recovery rate is not the same as
a recycling rate since it includes diversion to energy recovery (which is not defined as
recycling).
Agricultural Waste
In Snohomish County and in other parts of the state, there is little agricultural waste that
is disposed as a solid waste and agricultural waste is not actually defined as municipal
solid waste (MSW). Most types of agricultural waste, whether crop residues or livestock
manures, can be returned to the land where these were generated, although in some
cases composting or other processing may be necessary to avoid creating problems
with this approach. A few materials, such as branches and stumps from orchards,
cannot easily be handled on-site. Other types of agricultural waste may need to be
removed for disease prevention purposes or because a specific farm may not have the
capacity to absorb all of the material (such is the case at times with amounts of animal
manures that exceed the nitrogen-holding capacity of a farm). Some of these materials
are currently being processed at composting or other solid waste facilities.
Current Processing Facilities
Several processing facilities are currently operating in Snohomish County to handle
organics and other materials, and those are briefly summarized here in a separate
section because these facilities handle more than a single type of material. Facilities
currently permitted to operate in Snohomish County include:
Bailey Compost – Bailey Compost is a composting facility located at the Bailand
Dairy Farm. This facility composts cow manure from the dairy with yard debris,
which is accepted for a fee at the facility.
Cedar Grove Compost – Cedar Grove began with a large composting facility in
Maple Valley (King County) and has operated a facility in Everett since 2004. Both
facilities use the “Gore Cover Technology” to compost yard debris, food waste, wood
waste and agricultural organics.
Lenz Enterprises – Lenz Enterprises accepts yard debris, food waste and
agricultural waste for composting. These materials are ground, mixed, and then
composted in concrete bunkers. Air is pulled or pushed through the material as it is
composted, depending on temperature levels and aeration needs. The compost is
cured and then screened and blended with other materials.
Pacific Topsoils – Pacific Topsoils accepts a variety of materials for recycling,
including yard debris, sod, brush, stumps, wood waste, soil, asphalt and concrete.
Organic materials are composted at their Maltby location and used in a variety of
topsoil blends sold by them.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 9
Riverside Topsoils – This composting operation handles yard debris, landclearing
debris, manures, sawdust and shavings to produce the topsoil blends and other
products that they sell.
Thomas Farm Agricultural Composting – This composting operation mixes
animal manure and bedding with sawdust and shavings to produce a composted mix
(“Fertil Mulch”) that is sold through another family business, Topsoils Northwest.
Table 4 shows a summary of the types of materials handled by these facilities and the
annual amounts for 2018, which is the most recent year for which this data is available
(Ecology 2020b). Not shown in the above list or in Table 4 are two wastewater
treatment plants (Arlington and Granite Falls) that mix sawdust, shavings and hog fuel
with biosolids to produce a soil amendment. Also not shown in Table 4 are facilities
outside of Snohomish County that are handling Snohomish County materials. For
instance, much of the wood waste collected in Snohomish County is only minimally
processed and then shipped to out-of-county facilities for use as hog fuel. On the other
hand, the quantities shown in Table 4 include many tons of materials from outside of the
county, as Snohomish County is a net importer of organics due to the large number of
processing facilities present in the county.
Table 4. Materials Handled by Snohomish County Composting Facilities
Facility
Total Tons
(2018)
Bailey Compost X X 17,000
Cedar Grove Compost X X X X X 146,652
Lenz Enterprises X X X X 74,861
Pacific Topsoils X X 62,564
Riverside Topsoils X X X X 3,344
Thomas Farm X X 22,000
Note: 1. Agricultural waste includes vegetative materials, manures, and bedding.
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology Website, https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Reducing-
recycling-waste/Organic-materials/Managing-organics-compost (Ecology 2020b).
Current and Future Processing Capacity
RCW 70A.205.045 (7)(b)(iii) requires solid waste plans to address programs to
separately collect yard debris and food waste if “there are adequate markets or capacity
for composted yard waste and food waste within or near the service area to consume
the majority of the material collected.” While there are occasionally reports of marketing
challenges for composted materials, the facilities in Snohomish County are generally
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 10
able to sell all of the materials produced. The current capacity for composting facilities
in Snohomish County is adequate to handle the amounts of organics generated in
Snohomish County as well as a significant amount of material from neighboring
counties.
County Policy for Future Development of Processing Facilities and Markets
In recent years, there have been varying degrees of involvement by Snohomish County
and other local governments in the development of processing facilities, markets and
other systems to manage organics. Currently, it is anticipated that Snohomish County
will have only a limited role in the future development of handling and management
systems for organics. Although the County (and the cities as appropriate) will continue
to set goals and encourage collection programs, this policy recognizes the ability of the
private sector to find the proper balance for growth and economic sustainability in the
future development of organics processing capabilities and markets.
PLANNING ISSUES
General Planning Issues
• Define what the Division organics program should look like.
• Collaborate and coordinate with the Washington Association of County Solid
Waste Managers (WACSWM) and other regional partners/jurisdictions on the
standardization, simplification and implementation of organics-related programs
and initiatives.
• Investigate additional sources of funding for alternatives to burning and other
organics-related programs.
• Contamination issues related to composting and food waste.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Encourage Food Waste Diversion through Education Efforts
Food waste is the largest single material remaining in the waste stream, and getting
people to recognize that this is a resource, not a waste, will require a strong educational
effort. The options for diverting food waste could be promoted to residential and
commercial generators. The County could collaborate with the WSU Extension Service,
Waste Management and Republic Services (through revenue sharing agreements) to
develop outreach programs specifically related to food waste diversion.
Alternative B – Regional Coordination
The County should collaborate with regional partners, such as with King County’s efforts
in organics. Other options could include coordination with new ventures, such as the
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 11
Darrington Wood Innovation Center. Additionally, the County will work with WACSWM
efforts to develop guidance on organics programs. Regional collaboration activities
such as these could provide more consistent messaging about programs in the region,
and hence less confusion among program participants, lower contamination levels and
more effective programs overall. Regional collaboration could also lead to better results
for new programs by combining the skills and resources of the agencies involved.
Alternative C – Reduce Contamination in Organics Collection Programs
The amount contamination in programs that collect mixed yard debris and food waste
from residential sources, or food waste from commercial sources, has increased since
these programs were initiated. The County could collaborate with the WSU Extension
Service, Waste Management and Republic Services to develop outreach programs
specifically related to various aspects of organics and contamination.
Alternative D – Define Division Program Priorities
The Division manages a variety of solid waste-oriented programs but has not recently
collaborated on establishing outreach and education priorities specifically related to
organics. Planning staff will convene and develop guidance for education priorities.
SWAC could also be consulted in determining the priorities and providing guidance to
the Division toward organic related activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for organics programs:
O1) The County should participate in a regional effort to provide consistent messages
for organics related initiatives.
O2) Organics program priorities need to be defined.
O3) Partner with the WSU Extension Service and revenue sharing agreement
partners (if the funding exists) to provide education services that align with
Division priorities.
Snohomish County would be the lead agency for most of these recommendations,
although Recommendation O1 will involve other agencies and/or other county
departments besides the Solid Waste Division.
The above recommendations will require additional expenditures for outreach materials
and operating expenses.
All of these recommendations can be implemented soon or in the next few years.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Organics 12
REFERENCES
Ecology 2015. Washington Department of Ecology, Moving Washington Beyond Waste
and Toxics, June 2015 (Publication #15-04-019).
Ecology 2016. Washington Department of Ecology, 2015-2016 Washington Statewide
Waste Characterization Study, October 2016 (Publication #16-07-032).
Ecology 2020a. Data from the Annual Recycling Survey, Washington Department of
Ecology, email from Dan Weston to Rick Hlavka, January 22, 2020.
Ecology 2020b. “WA State Composted Materials for 2018,” spreadsheet from the
website for the Washington Department of Ecology, https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-
Toxics/Reducing-recycling-waste/Organic-materials/Managing-organics-compost, May
25, 2020.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Collection 1
WASTE COLLECTION
SUMMARY
This technical memo describes the solid waste collection system in Snohomish County,
including identification of policies, regulations, emerging issues, current garbage
haulers, service areas and rates.
The recommendations made in this technical memorandum address the need for
possible increased curbside collection and involvement of SWAC to address any waste
collection issues.
BACKGROUND
Effective and efficient waste collection is an important aspect of a well-designed solid
waste management system. Although a major goal of the Snohomish County
Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan is to reduce waste
volumes to the extent possible, waste collection services will continue to play a vital role
for the foreseeable future.
This technical memorandum addresses garbage collection, which is regulated
differently than collection of recyclable and compostable materials. Collection of other
materials (such as recyclables, organics, moderate risk wastes and other special
wastes) is addressed in the technical memorandums dealing with those materials.
Goals and Policies for Collection
Goals and policies specific to waste collection include:
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-3, Waste Collection: Provide a variety of equitable and efficient collection
services to County residences and businesses that are in line with the Division’s
other goals and policies.
• Related Policies from other technical memorandums:
o Policy 2-1, Recycling: Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
o Policy 2-2, Organics: Continue to promote and expand the collection and non-
landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food waste.
o Policy 2-4, Waste Transfer: Provide a variety of equitable and efficient waste
transfer services to County residences and businesses that are in line with the
Division’s other goals and policies.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Collection 2
o Policy 2-7, Administration and Regulation: Ensure that administrative services
and regulatory activities provide adequate support for policies and programs
undertaken by the Division.
Regulations for Collection
The governing authorities for collection are the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology), the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC), Snohomish
County, and the cities and towns within Snohomish County. The Tulalip Tribes of
Washington have inherent authority to govern all activities related to solid waste
management within the boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation.
UTC Regulations: The UTC regulates solid waste collection companies under:
• Chapter 81.77 RCW, Solid Waste Collection Companies: This law establishes the
regulatory authority for solid waste collection companies and the procedures and
standards with which they must comply.
• Chapter 35.21 RCW, Cities and Towns: This law establishes the authority of towns
and cities in regard to solid waste and the procedures and standards with which they
must comply.
• Chapter 480-70 WAC, Rules for Solid Waste and/or Refuse Collection Companies:
This chapter establishes standards for public safety, fair practices, reasonable
charges, nondiscriminatory application of rates, adequate and dependable service,
consumer protection, and compliance.
County Regulations: Title 7 of the Snohomish County Code has several provisions
that affect collection programs. This title also addresses illegal dumping and littering.
Section 7.42 establishes minimum service levels for residential (single family and multi-
family) recycling in the unincorporated areas. Single family garbage collection services
in the unincorporated areas are also required to include weekly mini-can and other
weekly service levels, monthly mini-can and one can service levels, and a recycling-only
option.
One of the more important provisions of the Snohomish County Code establishes “flow
control” authority for the County, which requires that waste generated in the County be
disposed only at sites within the Snohomish County solid waste system (see Section
7.35.125). This provision also requires that clearly-marked containers for garbage and
recycling be used at construction sites and other locations, to help ensure that materials
collected as recyclables go to reclamation facilities rather than landfills. This helps
ensure that landfill-disposed materials are properly handled and disposed of within the
Snohomish County solid waste disposal system. SCC 7.35.125 is described in more
detail in the Disposal technical memo.
Many of the cities in Snohomish County have adopted codes that require homes and
businesses to subscribe to garbage collection services and to keep their properties free
of junk accumulations and related problems.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Collection 3
Municipal Authority: Four forms of collection services are allowed by State law:
• Certificated: With this collection method, the municipality is not actively involved in
the management of garbage collection. Instead, it allows the UTC-certificated hauler
to provide service. This is the only form of waste collection available in the
unincorporated areas of the county.
• Municipal: This method utilizes municipal employees to collect waste.
• Licensed collection: This method applies to municipalities that require private
collectors to have both a city-issued license as well as a UTC Certificate. This gives
the municipality some measure of control over collection services.
• Contracted collection: A municipality can enter into a contract with a private hauler
to provide waste collection services.
Only cities and towns are authorized to engage in the last three options (except that
Snohomish County is allowed to contract for residential curbside recycling services in
the unincorporated areas):
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Waste Haulers
One municipality collects waste within their city limits (Marysville). Four private haulers
perform collection for the rest of Snohomish County: Republic Services, Rubatino
Refuse Removal, Sound Disposal, and Waste Management. Their contact information
follows:
Republic Services Inc Rubatino Refuse Removal Inc
54 S. Dawson St. P.O. Box 1029
Seattle, WA 98134 Everett, WA 98206-1029
(206) 332-7700 (206) 259-0044
www.republicservices.com www.rubatino.com
Sound Disposal Inc Waste Management Northwest
8421 - 202nd SW 720 4th Ave.
P.O. Box 487 Kirkland, WA 98033
Edmonds, WA 98020-0487 (425) 823-6164
(206) 778-2404 www.wmnorthwest.com
www.sounddisposalinc.com
A fifth private hauler, Recology, collects waste in Bothell, but since most of Bothell is in
King County, the waste is brought there instead of being part of Snohomish County’s
system (pursuant to an agreement between the city and the two counties, see Appendix
G for more details). Figure 1 shows the service areas for each collection service (as of
January 2021). Table 1 lists the form of collection service found in each municipality
and notes the ten municipalities where collection is mandatory.
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
Co
u
n
t
y
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
S
o
l
i
d
an
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Wa
s
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
D
r
a
f
t
f
o
r
S
W
A
C
R
e
v
i
e
w
Wa
s
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
Wa
s
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
i
n
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Collection 5
Table 1. Waste Collection Service Arrangements in Snohomish County
Municipality Form of Service Mandatory Collection
Arlington Contract Yes
Bothell (part) Contract Yes
Brier UTC Certificate No
Darrington Contract No
Edmonds UTC Certificate No
Everett UTC Certificate No
Gold Bar UTC Certificate No
Granite Falls Contract No
Index UTC Certificate No
Lake Stevens UTC Certificate/Contract Yes
Lynnwood UTC Certificate Yes
Marysville Municipal Yes
Mill Creek Contract No
Monroe Contract Yes
Mountlake Terrace Contract Yes
Mukilteo Contract No
Snohomish Contract Yes
Stanwood Contract Yes
Sultan Contract Yes
Woodway UTC Certificate No
Frequency of Collection
Marysville and the four private haulers in Snohomish County offer weekly collection
options for residential garbage collection for the 20 cities and towns in the County. In
addition, monthly service is provided in more than half of the cities and towns and every
other week services are provided in eight of the cities. The monthly and every other
week service is offered at a lower price than the weekly service rate for the same size
can. This provides incentive for residents to reduce waste and encourages recycling
and composting.
Tiered Rates Based on Can Size
Marysville and all four private haulers in Snohomish County offer tiered rates based on
can size. All areas except Marysville offer a min-can (20-gallon) option. Providing
discounted rates for smaller can sizes also encourages waste reduction, recycling and
composting.
Table 2 lists the haulers, their service districts, and each district’s area (square miles),
population, and population density.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Collection 6
Table 2. Waste Collection Service Providers in Snohomish County
Service Area
Area (square
miles) Population1
Density (people per
sq. mi.)2
Marysville 20.47 69,180 3,379
Bothell (part) 6.4 18,670 2,917
Edmonds 9.04 42,470 4,697
Lynnwood 10.12 40,690 4,021
Monroe 5.71 19,800 3,467
Sultan 3.35 5,530 1,652
Woodway 1.10 1,360 1,234
Uninc. Snohomish County NA NA 205
Everett 34.25 112,700 3,291
Uninc. Snohomish County NA NA 205
Edmonds 9.04 42,470 4,697
Arlington 12.28 20,600 1,678
Brier 2.28 6,760 2,971
Darrington 2.13 1,420 666
Edmonds 9.04 42,470 4,697
Gold Bar 1.45 2,195 1,517
Granite Falls 2.16 4,425 2,046
Index 0.19 175 921
Lake Stevens 9.19 34,150 3,716
Mill Creek 4.75 20,590 4,331
Mountlake Terrace 3.98 21,660 5,439
Mukilteo 6.14 21,360 3,481
Snohomish 3.51 10,240 2,916
Stanwood 3.00 7,125 2,372
Uninc. Snohomish County NA NA 205
Notes: All figures are estimates for the year 2020, except the population density for the unincorporated area,
which is based on a 2019 figure for the total area of the county (2,087.3 sq. mi.).
1. Population data is from the Office of Financial Management (OFM) April 1, 2020 Population of
Cities, Towns and Counties. Figures are not available for the parts of the unincorporated areas
that are serviced by each hauler.
2. The population density figures shown for the unincorporated areas for Republic Services, Inc.,
Rubatino Refuse Removal, Inc. and Waste Management Northwest are for all of Snohomish
County, and are not specific to the service area for each hauler.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Collection 7
Biomedical Waste
The State’s definition of biomedical waste (RCW 70A.228.010) preempts that of local
health jurisdictions and includes animal waste, biosafety level 4 disease waste, “cultures
and stocks,” human blood and blood products, pathological waste and sharps
(syringes).
The UTC regulates transporters of biomedical wastes. Its regulations also allow solid
waste haulers to refuse to haul wastes that they observe to contain infectious wastes as
defined by the UTC. The UTC has issued statewide franchises to Stericycle Inc and
Waste Management of Washington to transport biomedical wastes. Stericycle Inc
collects biomedical and infectious wastes generated in Snohomish County. It sends
pathological and trace chemotherapy waste as well as medicine to its incineration
facility in Salt Lake City, Utah. The other biomedical wastes are sent to its facility in
Morton, Washington for autoclave heat treatment (Stericycle 2020). In addition, Waste
Management of Washington collects biomedical waste in all of Snohomish County
(along with all of Washington). The waste is taken to their processing plant in South
Seattle for autoclave treatment.
The list of potential generators of biomedical waste includes medical and dental
practices, hospitals and clinics, veterinary clinics, farms and ranches, and individual
residences. There is no definitive estimate of the quantity of syringes (sharps) and
other biomedical wastes that are improperly disposed locally, but haulers in other areas
often report seeing syringes sticking out of garbage bags. This problem could be
expected to increase without proper disposal education due to an aging population and
additional medications that have recently become available for home use (e.g. for HIV,
arthritis, osteoporosis and psoriasis).
PLANNING ISSUES
General Issues
Current planning issues related to waste collection include:
• How to increase curbside collection participation.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Increase Curbside Collection Participation
During the COVID-19 pandemic response, citizens were encouraged to quarantine and
stay safe and healthy. Snohomish County solid waste facilities along with G-certificated
haulers continued to operate as essential services. With many people confined to their
homes, the public cleaned out many of their garages and houses. This created a spike
in non-essential and non-putrescible garage. Many citizens that did not subscribe to
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Waste Collection 8
curbside collection service, inundated County solid waste facilities to dispose of their
unwanted material. With reduced facility hours and other restrictions, this increased the
wait and processing times. As a resolution to having to wait in line, County staff
encouraged residents to subscribe to curbside garbage and recycling collection service.
Many people took advantage of this service.
Alternative B – Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) Involvement
The current collection system in Snohomish County is robust and is functioning well to
provide efficient garbage and recycling collection services to area residents. If any of
the G-certificated haulers for Snohomish County have issues related to waste collection,
engaging the SWAC could be an effective way to address the issues.
CONCLUSIONS
The current collection system has adequate capacity to handle the anticipated waste
stream for years to come and is currently functioning well.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for the solid waste collection system:
C1) Strategize and collaborate with G-certificated haulers on how to increase curbside
collection participation.
C2) Engage SWAC for waste collection issues.
Snohomish County and the haulers would work collaboratively to engage in discussions
related to Recommendations C1 and C2.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 1
TRANSFER
SUMMARY
This technical memorandum discusses the existing municipal solid waste transfer
system in Snohomish County, identifies relevant planning issues, and develops and
evaluates alternative transfer system strategies.
The recommendations made in this technical memo address the potential future need
for additional transfer capacity and the need to evaluate the vactor facility’s operation
and capacity.
BACKGROUND
The transfer component of a solid waste system involves consolidating numerous small
loads of waste into larger containers or vehicles that are more economical to transport
to a final disposal facility. Transfer stations in Snohomish County have the ability to
receive waste and compact it into shipping containers for transport by railroad to the
Roosevelt landfill in Klickitat County, Washington, owned and operated by Republic
Services. County transfer stations offer extensive opportunities to drop off a variety of
recyclable materials, and in some locations, the ability to collect limited types of
household hazardous wastes (HHW).
Smaller facilities, generally without waste compaction and with fewer recycling
opportunities, are typically used in rural or less densely populated areas where waste
flows do not justify the large capital investment for a transfer station. In Snohomish
County, these are called drop box (DB) sites, since roll-off containers or “drop boxes”
are the type of containers used to receive the wastes.
Goals and Policies for the Transfer System
Goals and policies specific to the solid waste transfer system include:
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-4, Waste Transfer: Provide a variety of equitable and efficient waste transfer
services to County residences and businesses that are in line with the Division’s
other goals and policies.
• Related policies from other technical memorandums:
o Policy 2-1, Recycling: Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
o Policy 2-2, Organics: Continue to promote and expand the collection and non-
landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food waste.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 2
Regulations for the Transfer System
The following regulations apply to transfer facilities:
• State regulations governing transfer stations and drop boxes are found in WAC 173-
350-310 of the Solid Waste Handling Standards.
• Snohomish County has a flow control ordinance requiring all solid waste generated
in the county to be delivered to a facility located in the county (SCC Chapter 7.35).
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
The solid waste transfer system for Snohomish County consists of three large transfer
stations: Airport Road Recycling and Transfer Station (ARTS), North County Recycling
and Transfer Station (NCRTS), and Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station
(SWRTS). A fourth station, the Cathcart Way Recycling and Transfer Station (CWRTS),
is opened when one of the other stations is temporarily closed for maintenance or
repair.
There are also three drop box sites (DBs) located in Granite Falls, Sultan, and
Snohomish. These DBs are used almost exclusively by self-haul customers.
Altogether, the DBs handled only 2.9% of the County’s solid waste in 2019. Figure 1
shows a map of the County’s solid waste transfer facilities.
At the transfer stations, wastes are compacted into shipping containers and trucked to
the County’s Intermodal Yard in Everett, where they are placed on a train and hauled by
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) to the Republic Services Regional Landfill near
Roosevelt (Klickitat County), Washington. The Intermodal Yard is owned by the County
and leased to Republic Services. The shipping process is discussed in more detail in
the Disposal technical memorandum.
Transfer Stations
The County’s four transfer stations accept waste from municipal, commercial, and self-
haulers. Fees for garbage disposal at these stations currently (2021) are a minimum of
$20 (including tax) for quantities up to 360 pounds, and $105 per ton plus tax for
quantities over 360 pounds. Some wastes require special preparation prior to
acceptance at County facilities and other wastes are not accepted at all (see Special
Wastes section below).
The four transfer stations are described below and the tonnages of waste and
recyclables they handled in 2019 are shown in Table 1.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 3
Figure 1
Snohomish County Solid Waste Facilities
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 4
Table 1. Tons of Wastes and Recyclables Received at Transfer Stations and DBs (2019)
Facility
Wastes Recyclable Materials
-
(
)
-
1
Total
Tons
(2019)
ARTS 211,237 32,155 456 1,507 2,845 1,785 5,288 255,273
CWRTS 18,476 96 92 4242 480 NA NA 19,568
Dubuque DB 5,087 624 46 234 804 45 NA 6,840
Granite Falls DB 2,471 263 18 102 304 18 NA 3,176
NCRTS 98,520 15,779 129 516 1,898 545 1,124 118,511
Sultan DB 5,999 718 111 94 674 110 NA 7,706
SWRTS 115,190 27,539 7 3,379 2,223 1,005 10,967 160,310
456,980 77,174 859 6,256 9,228 3,508 17,379 571,384
Notes: 1. “Recyclables” include cardboard, mixed paper, glass, aluminum cans and ferrous metals.
2. For CWRTS, the figure shown for “Other” is junk vehicles, but for all other sites it is furniture.
NA = Not Applicable, that material is not collected separately at that facility.
Source: Annual reports to Ecology, by Snohomish County. Figures shown are outbound tonnages.
Airport Road Recycling & Transfer Station (ARTS)
10700 Minuteman Drive, Everett, WA 98204
The $25 million ARTS facility opened in October 2003. Located on a 10-acre site, it has
a 55,000 square foot tipping floor and a design capacity of about 1,800 tons/day and
649,800 tons/year. It can handle 180 tons per hour, 1,100 vehicles per day, and 140
vehicles per hour.1 In 2019, 67.5% of its tonnage was from commercial haulers.
Cathcart Way Recycling & Transfer Station (CWRTS)
8915 Cathcart Way, Snohomish, WA 98296
The CWRTS facility opened in 2003 and underwent significant upgrades in 2009,
including new scales and a new compactor. Located on a 2.3-acre site, it has a 4,300
square foot tipping floor and a design capacity of about 600 tons/day and 100,000
tons/year. It can handle 60 tons per hour, 100 (commercial) vehicles per day, and 10
vehicles per hour. CWRTS is open only on an intermittent basis. It serves customers
with a hydraulic or mechanically unloading vehicle that have been diverted from other
Snohomish County transfer stations when they are closed for maintenance or repair.
Abandoned vessels, including boats, recreational vehicles (RVs), travel trailers and
vehicles impounded by law enforcement agencies are accepted for recycling at
CWRTS. Citizens looking to dispose of RVs or boats may contact the Environmental
1 Station size and design capacity figures are from “Evaluation of Solid Waste Facility Needs Technical
Memorandum (HDR 2018).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 5
Cleanup Team to schedule an appointment for the disposal/recycling of those items.
These vehicles are weighed and charged the current solid waste disposal fee per ton.
County staff dismantle vehicle chassis for recycling.
There is also a vactor facility at CWRTS. This facility currently operates five days per
week and accepts a variety of liquids and semi-liquid materials for treatment. This
facility does not handle septic or sewage-related wastes, and many of the materials it
can accept require pre-approval and testing. Information regarding rates/fees,
authorization requirements and acceptance policy/waste restrictions may be found at
the following link:
https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/5430/Vactor-Waste-Decant-Facility
North County Recycling & Transfer Station (NCRTS)
19600 63rd Avenue NE, Arlington, WA 98223
NCRTS opened for operations in 1986. Located on a 9-acre site, the station has an
older design with push pits and a 6,000 square foot floor. NCRTS has peak capacities
of 600 tons per day, 60 tons per hour, 650 vehicles per day, and 110 vehicles per hour.
In 2019, 66.2% of its tonnage was from commercial haulers.
Southwest Recycling & Transfer Station (SWRTS)
21311 61st Place W, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
The $28 million SWRTS facility opened in September 2004. Located on a 9-acre site, it
has a 37,500 square foot tipping floor and a design capacity of about 1,200 tons/day
and 260,000 tons/year. SWRTS has peak capacities of 120 tons per hour, 1,100
vehicles per day, and 140 vehicles per hour. In 2019, 56.9% of its tonnage was from
commercial haulers.
Drop Boxes (DBs)
Two DBs, in Gold Bar and Oso, were closed in early 2009, leaving three DBs in
Snohomish County. Self-haulers currently utilize DBs at three locations:
• Granite Falls DB: 7526 Menzel Lake Road, Granite Falls, WA, 98252
• Dubuque Road DB: 19619 Dubuque Road, Snohomish, WA, 98290
• Sultan DB: 33014 Cascade View Drive, Sultan, WA, 98294
DBs allow a maximum load of 5 cubic yards per customer. As of 2021, the minimum
cost to dispose of up to one cubic yard of material is $20, and each additional cubic
yard is $20. The current tonnages of waste delivered to the drop box sites are shown in
Table 1.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 6
SPECIAL WASTES
Chapter 173-303 WAC, the Dangerous Waste Regulations, defines special waste as a
type of dangerous (i.e., hazardous) waste. However, historically the term “special
waste” has been widely used in Washington State to refer to problematic solid wastes.
For the purpose of this Plan, special waste refers to special types of solid waste, a
usage that is consistent with Chapter 7.35 of the Snohomish County Code and also with
other solid waste management plans in Washington State. Some special wastes have
some similarities to “normal” municipal solid waste and can be managed in a similar
fashion at solid waste facilities but many special wastes require additional precautions
or special handling procedures to avoid creating elevated risks to the environment or to
human health and safety.
The County’s waste acceptance policy is updated periodically to reflect evolving
programs and regulations. This policy identifies the various wastes accepted at County
solid waste facilities, notes those that require special preparation, and lists options for
handling wastes that are not accepted at County facilities. Any changes in the waste
acceptance policy take precedence over the information in this Plan. There are five
broad categories of special waste:
• Wastes not accepted at County facilities:
o Air conditioners
o Asbestos containing material
o Bio-hazardous/medical waste (all types)
o Canisters and tanks
o Contaminated soils
o Dehumidifiers
o Electronics (E-waste)
o Heat pumps
o Industrial ash
o Liquid waste
o Major motor vehicle components
o Pharmaceutical waste (sharps/needles)
o Refrigerators/freezers
o Rodent-infested loads
o Septage or septic tank waste.
o Additional wastes identified in Snohomish County Code 7.41.050.
• Wastes requiring special preparation for acceptance at County facilities:
o Ash
o Asphalt, brick, concrete, dirt, sod, sand, gravel, and rocks
o Canopies
o Contaminated soils not designated as hazardous waste
o Dead animals (less than 10 pounds)
o Fecal matter from pets
o Grease-trap solids
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 7
o Latex paint (open, dried-out cans accepted at County at transfer stations or DBs;
liquid paint accepted at the Household Hazardous Waste Facility)
o Sewer treatment plant screenings and grit
o Tires
o Yard debris/clean wood debris
• Certain wastes are accepted for recycling only (i.e., not for disposal):
o Large household appliances not containing Freon or chlorinated fluorocarbons
o Automotive products including lead acid batteries, motor oil and filters, and
antifreeze, with quantity limits
o Fluorescent tubes, high intensity discharge lamps, and compact fluorescent
bulbs
o Lawn mowers (fluids drained, battery and extra plastic removed)
• E-waste, sharps (syringes) and pharmaceuticals are handled by product stewardship
programs funded and managed by the manufacturers of the original products.
• Household hazardous wastes and business-generated hazardous wastes are
prohibited at the transfer stations and DBs but may be accepted at the Household
Hazardous Waste Facility.
In addition to the above, there are size restrictions for the wastes accepted at NCRTS
and the drop box sites. At these facilities, items must be less than six feet long or 25
square feet in area, except sofas, appliances, mattresses, doors, carpets, and rugs.
PLANNING ISSUES
Near-Term Planning Issues
Current issues related to the solid waste transfer system include:
• Waste disposal tonnages in Snohomish County and across the United States
decreased sharply in 2008 and 2009 due to the economic downturn. As the
economy recovered, waste tonnages have grown but are still within the capacity of
Snohomish County facilities (see Table 2). The one possible exception currently is
the Dubuque Road DB (see next bullet), which is currently struggling with traffic
backups onto a local main road. Previous projections did not foresee any other
major problems with capacity that could not be addressed with operational changes
(such as expanding hours of operation or other steps). It remains to be seen,
however, whether the impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic will create another
recession and another drop in waste tonnages, or if the pandemic will lead to an
increase in tonnages (as it appears to be doing in the short term).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 8
Table 2. Transfer Station Capacity Data
ARTS CWRTS NCRTS SWRTS
Year Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
Average 1,800 818 NA 62 600 324 1,200 439
Vehicles per 1,100 600 NA 18 650 322 1,100 467
Notes: NA = Not Available.
The average tons per day figures do not include “recyclables” (see Table 1), since those are delivered
to separate containers at the transfer stations.
Sources: Snohomish County records and “Evaluation of Solid Waste Facility Needs Technical Memorandum
(HDR 2018).
• A recent study (Parametrix 2020) evaluated several alternatives for expanding the
Dubuque Road DB site to increase waste handling capacity and relieve weekend
traffic issues. A significant impediment to upgrading the site, however, is the
proximity of a City of Everett water transmission line and maintenance easement.
• Replacement of a compactor at NCRTS will be completed in 2021.
• The operation and use of the vactor decant facility needs to be reviewed, including
an investigation into customer use, capacity issues, rates, facility configuration and
potential improvements.
Long-Term Planning Issues
Current long-term issues related to the solid waste transfer system include:
• Expanded hours of operation at the transfer stations could provide additional system
transfer capacity.
• Expansion of the Intermodal Yard onto adjacent County-owned properties if
additional capacity is needed.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Expand Operational Hours at ARTS and SWRTS
If solid waste facility capacity ever became an issue, expanding the hours of weekday
operation at ARTS, SWRTS and NCRTS would give staff extra time to compact MSW
and load shipping containers (HDR 2018, Scenario 3). This could be combined with
expanding weekday hours for receiving MSW, allowing more time for commercial loads
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 9
to be delivered. Expanding weekend hours could reduce waiting times by spreading
traffic volumes over more hours, an important customer benefit.
While a local noise ordinance limits the hours of operation at SWRTS, the other two
primary transfer stations (ARTS and NCRTS) have no such limitations and could
theoretically operate 24 hours per day and seven days per week. Expanding the hours
of operation will likely require the hiring of additional staff.
Alternative B – Expand the Dubuque Road Drop Box Facility
A study completed in late 2020 evaluated options for an enhanced Dubuque Road DB
facility to serve the growing population in central Snohomish County. The results of that
study and other options are being evaluated.
Alternative C – Evaluate Vactor Decant Facility Use, Capacity and Operations
Use of the vactor facility is at an all-time high and there are several issues that need to
be reviewed and potentially adjusted, such as grit storage, the physical facility footprint,
capacity with the Silver Lake Water District, user fees, waste restrictions and automated
processing of vactor-related transactions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for the solid waste transfer system.
T1) Upgrade the Dubuque Road DB to meet the demands of capacity and population
growth in central Snohomish County.
T2) Expand Intermodal Yard if additional capacity is needed there.
T3) Evaluate the use and operation of the vactor decant facility.
Snohomish County is the lead agency for these recommendations. Implementing these
recommendations will require additional Solid Waste Division staff time. Conducting a
cost-benefit analysis to evaluate revenues, costs, tonnages, greenhouse gas emissions
and other transfer system-wide factors will help to determine the timing of
implementation.
REFERENCES
HDR 2018. HDR, Task 4 – Evaluation of Solid Waste Facility Needs Technical
Memorandum, May 25, 2018.
Parametrix 2020. Parametrix, Dubuque Road Drop Box Expansion Planning,
December 2020.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Transfer 10
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 1
DISPOSAL
SUMMARY
This technical memorandum discusses existing programs and facilities, identifies
relevant planning issues, and develops and evaluates alternative strategies for disposal
of municipal solid waste (MSW).
The recommendations made in this technical memorandum address the appropriate
uses of closed landfills and continued enforcement of flow control.
BACKGROUND
Where and how waste is disposed affects public health and the environment, today and
in the future, making the final disposition of waste a critical element of this plan. This
memorandum discusses the County’s current garbage disposal system and touches on
goals for waste prevention and diversion. Current prevention and diversion methods
(such as recycling and composting) are addressed in other memoranda.
Goals and Policies for Disposal
Goals and policies specific to disposal include:
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-5, Waste Disposal: Continue to evaluate and monitor waste disposal
options and services that meet customer needs and are in line with other goals and
policies of the Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan.
• Related Policies in other technical memoranda:
o Policy 2-1, Recycling: Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
o Policy 2-2, Organics: Continue to promote and expand the collection and non-
landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food waste.
o Policy 2-4, Waste Transfer: Provide a variety of equitable and efficient waste
transfer services to County residences and businesses that are in line with the
Division’s other goals and policies..
o Policy 2-7, Administration and Regulation: Ensure that administrative services
and regulatory activities provide adequate support for policies and programs
undertaken by the Division.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 2
o Policy 2-8, Moderate Risk Waste: Continue efforts to reduce the generation and
toxicity of moderate risk waste and to ensure that convenient, cost effective and
sustainable options for its safe management are available.
Regulations for Disposal
Regulations specific to disposal include:
• Chapter 70A.205 RCW This law addresses several aspects of waste disposal,
including inert waste landfills, disposal facility siting and permitting, reserve accounts
for landfill, and other requirements.
• WAC 173-350-320 provides the rules for solid waste handling standards for piles
used for storage or treatment.
• WAC 173-350-400 – This rule establishes standards for limited purpose landfills.
• WAC 173-350-410 – This rule establishes standards for inert waste landfills and
facilities that use inert waste as a fill component. This regulation is applicable to
facilities with a total capacity greater than 250 cubic yards.
• Chapter 173-351 WAC This rule establishes minimum statewide standards for
municipal solid waste landfills.
• Snohomish County Code Chapters 7.35 and 7.41 – Changes were made to the
County Code in early 2011 to promote recycling and to ensure that materials
destined for landfill disposal are properly handled and are disposed in the
Snohomish County solid waste system. These are discussed in detail in a later
section on Impact of Flow Control.
• Snohomish County, King County, and the City of Bothell have reached an
agreement regarding disposal of waste collected in Bothell. Waste collected within
the city limits established prior to January 1, 2011, will remain under King County
jurisdiction for disposal. Any annexations after January 1, 2011 by the City of
Bothell of Snohomish County lands will fall under Snohomish County jurisdiction for
disposal. See Appendix G for copies of interlocal agreements.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Solid waste that is not recycled or otherwise diverted is compacted into shipping
containers at the transfer stations and hauled by truck to Snohomish County’s
intermodal rail facility in Everett. The facility is operated by Regional Disposal Company
(now Republic Services) through a contract with Snohomish County. The waste is
hauled by the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad to the Roosevelt Regional
Landfill in Klickitat County, Washington. The landfill began operations in 1991 and has
an on-site landfill gas-fired power plant that generates renewable natural gas that the
Klickitat Public Utilities District sells to Puget Sound Energy.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 3
Table 1 lists the active solid waste sites located in Snohomish County. As of early
2020, the only active landfills in Snohomish County were inert waste landfills. In
addition to the four active sites shown in Table 1, there were eight sites with piles of
inert waste that were exempt from permitting and four sites using piles for storage or
treatment.
Table 1. Active Solid Waste Sites in Snohomish County
Site Name City Type
AAA Monroe Rock Corp Snohomish Inert Waste Landfill
Cemex Inert Waste Landfill, Everett Everett Inert Waste Landfill
Everett Water Filtration Plant Sultan Inert Waste Landfill
Woods Creek Quarry Inert Waste Landfill Monroe Inert Waste Landfill
Source: Ecology website, see https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Solid-waste-
recycling-data (Ecology 2020).
Snohomish County Public Works owns five solid waste landfills: the Bryant Solid Waste
Landfill, Cathcart Solid Waste Landfill, Lake Stevens Solid Waste Landfill, Lake
Goodwin (Warm Beach) and the Sisco Landfill. All of these landfills show decreasing
landfill gas production, ground water contamination, and surface water contamination.
Snohomish County Parks and Recreation owns the McCollum/Emander Solid Waste
Landfill, but its post-closure care is the responsibility of Snohomish County Public
Works.
Active solid waste facilities such as drop boxes, transfer stations, and moderate risk
waste facilities are addressed in other technical memoranda. The Vactor Decant
Facility at 8915 Cathcart Way in Snohomish accepts waste from cleaning out storm
drains and catch basins.
Additional information about facilities, including closed landfills no longer requiring
monitoring, can be requested from the Snohomish Health District.
SITING OF DISPOSAL OR RECYCLING FACILITIES
Solid waste disposal, transfer, recycling, and composting facilities are often not
welcomed as potential neighbors. Nevertheless, they are necessary for public health
and implementation of public policy. Therefore, the ability to site, construct, and operate
these types of facilities must be preserved. While environmental and land use controls
are not a responsibility of the solid waste system, the Solid Waste Management Division
will cooperate with those agencies and jurisdictions having land use and environmental
control powers. This will help ensure that such facilities can be located in a manner that
is fair and equitable for those who will be impacted by their location, as well as those
who utilize or benefit from the facilities.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 4
Siting criteria in state solid waste regulations were developed in the 1980s to address
the siting of new MSW landfills. Because recyclables are (from a regulatory standpoint)
a form of solid waste, recycling facilities must in general meet the same siting
requirements as solid waste handling and disposal facilities. Appendix C provides more
information about the siting process for solid waste facilities.
IMPACT OF FLOW CONTROL
Changes made in early 2011 to Snohomish County Code 7.35 and 7.41 were known as
“flow control” because they control the handling and ultimate disposal of solid waste
generated within Snohomish County. The Code now further clarifies the requirement
that wastes generated in Snohomish County go to transfer facilities in the County. The
purpose of the change was:
• to provide transparency about which materials are being recycled and which
materials are being disposed at a landfill;
• to promote recycling; and
• to ensure that landfill-disposed materials are properly handled and are disposed in
the Snohomish County solid waste system.
Disposal fees for waste generated in Snohomish County pay for the ongoing monitoring
of six closed landfills, operation of seven waste transfer facilities, illegal dumping
cleanup, recycling and program planning, and operation of a household hazardous
waste drop-off station. The County’s solid waste system benefits all residents and
businesses in Snohomish County and receives no local taxes or general fund revenues.
It is important to keep revenue associated with waste generated in Snohomish County
in the local solid waste system (through flow control) to cover the cost of these
community programs and services.
Key highlights of the clarifications in the code include:
• Commercially provided containers for hauling non-recyclable waste for landfill
disposal must be marked with the words “solid waste for disposal,” ”landfill,” or
“garbage.” These containers must be transported to a Snohomish County transfer
station. It should be noted that state law restricts the commercial hauling of waste
for landfill disposal to UTC-certificated waste haulers and city contracted haulers.
Others can “self-haul” their own waste, including businesses and residents, as well
contractors who can self-haul their own construction and demolition wastes for
landfill disposal. In all cases, the waste must go to Snohomish County transfer
facilities.
• Commercially provided containers for hauling recyclable materials for recycling must
be marked with the words “recyclables” or “recycling” or display the universal
recycling symbol (three chasing arrows that form an unending loop). These
containers can ONLY be transported to a reclamation site/processor to be recycled.
They can be transported to a recycling facility within or outside of Snohomish County
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 5
at whatever rate is offered by the hauler/processing facility. State law allows
materials that will be recycled to be hauled by a wider range of businesses, including
properly-licensed common carriers, such as construction and demolition material
haulers. Recyclable materials can also be “self-hauled” to a recycling facility or
drop-off site.”
• Any site utilizing recycling services must also have a properly marked container for
non-recyclable waste for landfill disposal.
• Only recyclables that are actually going to be recycled should be put in the recycling
containers. If the recycling containers have more than 10 percent accidental and
incidental non-recyclable waste (by volume), they need to be “cleaned up” on site
before they can be hauled to a recycling facility.
• Intermodal containers for hauling waste for landfill disposal directly to rail facilities
are not allowed on construction/demolition job sites, except as otherwise approved
by Snohomish County Solid Waste Division for the hauling of friable and non-friable
asbestos containing material or petroleum contaminated soils.
• Construction and demolition waste hauled to Snohomish County transfer stations
are charged at the rate of $105/ton (this rate is current as of 2021).
• Non-recycled residuals from reclamation facilities processing recyclables in
Snohomish County must be disposed of as solid waste at a rate of $105/ton (2021
rate) or the rate of $65/ton (2021 rate) if the facility meets certain requirements and
utilizes an intermodal container.
Flow control officers observe recycling facilities and construction projects throughout the
County to see that materials are actually being recycled. These officers document
contamination and code issues related to the improper use of recycling or disposal of
materials. Snohomish County is partnering with local cities, other County departments
both within Snohomish County and outside the county, Ecology and the UTC for these
enforcement and education activities. Many construction and demolition recycling
programs do not meet the 10% rule or struggle to follow the requirements listed in SCC
7.35.125. Snohomish County continues to correspond with and educate local recyclers
and industry providers. The County issued one violation for flow control in 2019.
PLANNING ISSUES
Near-Term Planning Issues
Current planning issues related to waste disposal include:
• The County is interested in establishing a policy for beneficial use of closed landfills.
This could include locating recreational activities on closed landfills, provided they do
not compromise the integrity of environmental control systems such as the landfill
cover or landfill gas control systems. For example, these activities may be restricted
to passive recreational activities such as walking trails and educational kiosks.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 6
• Continued enforcement of flow control activities are an integral component of
disposal of solid waste in Snohomish County. Companies are continually engaging
in “sham recycling”, not following mandated hauling guidelines or avoiding facility
tipping fees by exporting solid waste out of the county.
Long-Term Planning Issues
Waste shipments by railroads have provided reliable transportation of large quantities of
solid waste exported to landfills in eastern Oregon or Washington, with only infrequent
service interruptions due to factors such as extreme weather, landslides, and temporary
lack of empty shipping containers. However, it should not automatically be assumed
that there will always be sufficient rail capacity available at a price compatible with solid
waste disposal rates. Over the long run, the demand for rail transportation is likely to
grow along with population. The major freight railroads (BNSF and Union Pacific) are
making investments to add capacity and improve service to customers in Washington
State, but their business practices and investment priorities are also heavily influenced
by the railroads’ national-level needs and price competition.
Factors that could significantly affect future rail demand and pricing include:
• Increases or decreases in bulk exports such as coal, oil, or agricultural products.
• Volatility in global markets (where are products coming from or going to).
• Shifting economics between rail and truck.
• Fluctuating fuel costs and potential conversion to alternative sources of energy.
• Global economic changes, such as tariffs that could increase or decrease the
amount of American products being exported and foreign goods being imported.
• Political changes.
• Climate change, which could affect the type and quantity of crops grown; flooding
and washouts of track; wildfires and extreme heat.
• Regulatory changes, such as more or less stringent emissions limits from diesel
locomotives and other greenhouse gas measures.
Since the mid-2000’s, numerous studies of the capacity of Washington’s railroads have
been performed, many on behalf of the Washington State Department of
Transportation. These studies looked at factors such as the inherent physical capacity
of the track system; the location of bottlenecks; growth in demand for shipment by rail
as well as by truck or barge; the effects of climate change; proposed capital
improvement projects; and related public and private investment. The 2019 Washington
State Rail System Plan (WSDOT 2019) provides a recent assessment of rail capacity
and projections of future demand for freight and passenger services.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 7
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Policy for Beneficial Activities at Closed Landfills
The County could establish policy and guidelines for appropriate uses of closed landfills
that support Beyond Waste goals, while protecting the integrity of the environmental
protection systems in place at the landfills.
Alternative B – Continued Enforcement of Flow Control Portion of County Code
This alternative involves the monitoring of waste generated at construction or demolition
sites and the placement of wastes in the properly labeled containers, as well as tracking
the final disposition of waste and recyclables.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for disposal of municipal solid waste.
D1) Establish policies and guidelines for appropriate uses of closed landfills.
D2) Continue enforcement of the flow control elements of the revised County Code.
Snohomish County will be the lead agency for these two recommendations. These
recommendations will not lead to a significant increase in staffing requirements or other
budget demands, and can be continue to be implemented on an ongoing basis.
REFERENCES
Ecology 2020. Washington Department of Ecology, information from Ecology’s website,
https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Solid-waste-recycling-data,
March 2020.
WSDOT 2019. 2019 Washington State Rail System Plan, December 2019.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Disposal 8
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 1
ENERGY FROM WASTE (EfW)
SUMMARY
This technical memorandum discusses the current options for deriving energy from
waste (EfW). Historically, the term waste-to-energy (WTE) has been used but this term
applies primarily to combustion methods; now the broader term EfW is being used to
refer to a wider variety of technologies that utilize thermal, biological, mechanical and/or
chemical processes. While many show a degree of promise and could provide a variety
of advantages, most of these are still unproven on a large scale in the United States.
This technical memorandum provides a brief overview of current technologies for
producing energy from waste. It is not intended to provide detailed information for the
selection of a technology that would be appropriate for Snohomish County. This
technical memorandum recommends monitoring the progress of these technologies to
see if any might be of value to Snohomish County in the future.
BACKGROUND
Throughout history, humans have burned garbage to minimize its odors, deter pests,
and reduce its volume. Open burning and incinerators with minimal or no controls were
widely used in the United States until the 1980s. At that time, there was growing
interest in the U.S. for 1) cleaning up the air emissions from solid waste incinerators,
and 2) recovering energy from incinerators in the form of steam and electricity. A new
style of incinerator was developed, which became known as a waste-to-energy (WTE)
facility. Most of the WTE facilities in the U.S. were constructed during the 1980s and
1990s.
By the mid-1990s, interest in WTE in the U.S. had declined due to the public’s concerns
about toxic air emissions, especially carcinogens such as dioxins and furans. Despite
improved air emissions control equipment, no new large (more than 500 tons/day) WTE
facilities were brought on-line in the U.S. between 1996 and 2015. Meanwhile, WTE
facilities in Europe continued to enjoy public support and are widely used to generate
electricity and steam for heating buildings. After a 20-year hiatus in the U.S., a new
3,000 ton per day WTE facility opened in West Palm Beach, Florida in 2015.
In the past few years, interest in WTE and the broader group of EfW technologies has
begun to grow again in the U.S. One primary factor spurring that interest is a concern
about climate change and greenhouse gases (GHG) from burning fossil fuels to
generate electricity. As an alternate energy source, the attractiveness of EfW may
increase or decrease depending on whether fossil fuel prices appear to be rising or
falling.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 2
Goals and Policies for Energy from Waste
Goals and policies specific to energy from waste include:
• Goal 1: Support actions to reduce climate change and promote sustainability.
• Policy 1-2, Energy from Waste: Continue to monitor new and existing technologies
for potential benefits to Snohomish County.
• Related policies from other technical memorandums include:
o Policy 1-1, Climate Change: Support efforts and actions by County and other
agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of
climate change.
Regulations for Energy from Waste
The following regulations apply to energy from waste facilities and activities:
• State regulations governing energy recovery, incineration and anaerobic digestion
facilities can be found in Chapter 173-350 WAC, the Solid Waste Handling
Standards. Chapter 173-350 WAC sets minimum functional performance standards
for the proper handling of solid wastes. WAC 173-350-240 contains rules for energy
recovery and incineration facilities, and WAC 173-350-250 contains rules for
anaerobic digestion. Additional rules for incineration can also be found in Chapter
173-306 WAC (special incinerator ash management standards) and Chapter 173-
300 WAC (certification of operators of solid waste incinerator and landfill facilities).
• Chapter 7.35 of the Snohomish County Code addresses incineration and other
aspects of solid waste management.
• Depending on the type of facility and the technology employed, additional rules from
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, EPA and other agencies would likely also apply.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Current EfW Projects
As noted above, the term “energy from waste” (EfW) is being used more commonly now
to refer to a wider variety of technologies that utilize thermal, biological, mechanical
and/or chemical processes. There are relatively few EfW facilities used in the region.
Some examples are briefly described below:
• Spokane WTE Facility: The City of Spokane operates an incinerator using mass
burn technology. Mass burn technology is distinguished from other approaches by
the fact that there is little pre-treatment of the waste. This facility has operated since
1991 and has a current capacity of 800 tons per day. It generates 22 megawatts of
electricity, which is enough to power 13,000 homes. The solid waste processed is
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 3
reduced 90% by volume and 70% by weight. The ash is sent to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill for disposal.
• Marion County WTE Facility: Marion County’s solid waste disposal system uses a
mass burn incinerator located in Brooks, Oregon just off I-5. The plant is privately
owned and operated by Covanta Marion, Inc., a subsidiary of New Jersey-based
Covanta Energy Corp, which operates about 50 incinerators WTE plants around the
world. The facility processes an average of 550 tons of garbage each day. The
garbage is dumped into a 34-foot deep pit, which can hold nearly 3,000 tons at one
time. An overhead crane mixes the garbage in the pit and lifts it into one of the two
hoppers that feed the two boilers. The trash is burned at temperatures reaching
2,000 °F, which in turn boils water to generate steam to feed turbines that generate
approximately 13 megawatts of electricity. This facility processes about 90% of
Marion County’s garbage. The other 10% consists of construction and demolition
wastes, food processing waste, and other miscellaneous non-burnable materials.
• Tacoma Food Waste Project: The City of Tacoma experimented with processing
source-separated food waste to supplement sewage in digesters at its wastewater
treatment plant to produce methane gas that could be upgraded to pipeline quality
for sale to a utility. This practice was abandoned for cost issues and technical
reasons, and Tacoma’s food waste is now combined with yard debris and
composted.
• Qualco Energy: The Qualco Energy facility near Monroe, WA converts dairy
manure and other organics into methane gas and generates 450 kW of power. The
electricity generated is sold to the Snohomish Public Utility District. In addition to
dairy manure, this facility has handled other wastes such as food waste, fish waste,
cattle and chicken blood, trap grease, pulp, whey, and expired beer, wine, and soda.
This facility also produces compost.
• H.W. Hill Landfill Gas Project: The regional landfill operated by Republic Services
in Roosevelt, WA receives garbage from Snohomish County and many other
municipalities. The gas created by the decomposing garbage is about 50% methane
and 50% carbon dioxide, and is used to produce renewable natural gas (RNG),
which the Klickitat PUD sells to Puget Sound Energy.
• Wood Waste used for Fuel: There are several facilities throughout the State of
Washington that use wood waste for heat and electricity. The Hampton lumber mill
in Darrington, WA burns wood waste (biomass) to cogenerate steam for drying
lumber and electricity which is sold to the local utility. The McKinley Paper Company
in Port Angeles, WA burns wood waste in a biomass cogeneration plant to provide
steam for their operations, generating 9.5 megawatts.
It should be noted that the facilities listed above are generally in compliance with air
quality and other environmental standards, and WTE facilities typically must meet more
stringent standards than other power plants and facilities. It is anticipated that any new
facilities proposed or constructed will need to meet even more stringent standards.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 4
POTENTIAL EfW TECHNOLOGIES
EfW technologies can be grouped into three major categories: thermal, biological and
chemical, and other technologies. A brief summary of these technologies is shown
below.
Thermal EfW Technologies: Thermal technologies typically operate in a range of 700
to 10,000 °F. They have higher reaction rates than biological/chemical technologies.
Most thermal technologies produce electricity as their primary energy product. The
major types of thermal technologies include:
• Mass Burn (Incineration): “Mass burn” facilities burn waste in an “as received”
condition, without further preparation other than the removal of some large,
undesirable objects such as major appliances. Incineration involves burning solid
waste in a furnace under aerobic conditions and recovering the heat as steam,
which drives a steam turbine and electrical generator. The waste is burned on a
reciprocating grate, a technology generally licensed from one of several European
companies who have proprietary equipment systems. Incineration plants larger than
about 400 tons/day capacity utilize a “waterwall” boiler, where the furnace walls are
actually water-filled tubes. The burning waste heats the tubes and creates steam
which then drives a turbine (electrical) generator. Having been used successfully
around the world for decades, mass burn is still the primary EfW technology, with
continued improvements in the design of the waste-burning grates, air pollution
control equipment, and combustion control systems.
• Refuse-Derived Fuel: A few US facilities use “refuse-derived fuel” (RDF), or waste
that had been shredded and sorted to produce a higher quality, cleaner-burning fuel.
Shredding solid waste and removing non-combustible materials such as glass and
metals increases the heating value of the fuel and reduces the amount of material
that is either abrasive or deleterious to the incinerator. The shredded RDF is more
uniform in size and burns more evenly than unprepared waste. The added capital
and operating costs of processing solid waste into RDF, however, has made it less
popular than mass burn and relatively few U.S. plants use this technology.
• Advanced Thermal Recycling: Advanced thermal recycling is a second-generation
mass burn technology that burns carbon-based materials in an oxygen-rich
environment at temperatures of 1,300 to 2,500 °F. The grate, steam turbine, and
generator are similar to those used in mass burn plants. The advanced air pollution
control system captures and removes components from the flue gas stream and
converts them to potentially saleable byproducts such as gypsum (calcium sulfate)
and hydrochloric acid. Metals in the bottom ash from the grate are recycled and the
ash can be used for road construction as is currently done in Germany. Advanced
thermal recycling is essentially the current state-of-the-art for traditional mass burn
WTE technology.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 5
• Pyrolysis: Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of organic materials in the absence
of oxygen using an indirect heat source at about 750-1,650 °F. The byproducts are
a synthetic gas (syngas), tars, and unburned carbon char. The syngas can be
burned to generate steam or electricity. Although the char theoretically has
industrial and consumer uses, the markets for such products have proven to be
limited.
• Gasification: Gasification is the thermal degradation of organic materials in the
presence of a limited amount of oxygen, less than that required to completely
combust the materials. Gasification uses direct or indirect heating at about 1,400-
2,500 °F to produce either fuel gas (methane and lighter hydrocarbons) or syngas
(carbon monoxide and hydrogen). These can be burned to generate steam or
electricity.
• Plasma Arc: Plasma is an electrically conducting gas produced by passing an
electrical current through graphite electrodes. Operating at temperatures over 7,000
°F, the plasma can decompose organic materials into a synthetic gas (syngas)
composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Gaseous chemical
compounds are broken down into their constituent elements. Inorganic materials
solidify into a vitreous (glass-like) slag. Plasma arc is essentially a gasification
technology, although in Japan, a primary use of plasma arc equipment is to reduce
incinerator ash to an inert slag that does not leach hazardous compounds into
groundwater.
Geoplasma proposed the first plasma-based waste disposal system in the U.S. in St.
Lucie County, Florida, which would have disintegrated “fresh” MSW and MSW mined
from an existing landfill. However, the project was cancelled in early 2012 due to
technical and economic issues. Other cancelled plasma arc facilities include
projects in Vancouver, B.C. and Tallahassee, Florida. A primary stumbling block for
this technology is the heterogeneous nature of MSW, which makes it difficult to
handle and to maintain consistent physical/chemical reaction conditions.
• Catalytic Cracking: Catalytic cracking is a thermochemical process that uses
catalysts to accelerate the process of breaking down polymers (e.g. plastics) into
their basic building blocks, called monomers. Standard oil refinery techniques can
then be used to process the monomers into traditional fuels such as diesel and
gasoline. This technology would apply mainly to plastics, which comprise about
13% of total MSW by weight.
Biological and Chemical Technologies: Biological and chemical technologies
operate at lower temperatures and have slower reaction rates than thermal
technologies. They can accept feedstocks with high moisture content but require
material that is biodegradable. This means that materials such as metals, glass, and
most plastics must be removed prior to beginning the biological/chemical reactions, or
screened later. Useful byproducts can include fuel, electricity, compost, and chemicals.
The following are typical biological/chemical technologies:
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 6
• Anaerobic Digestion: This technology uses a series of bacteria to decompose
biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen, producing a medium-Btu gas
containing 50% to 70% methane and 30% to 50% carbon dioxide. This gas can be
burned in an internal combustion engine or a gas turbine, which in turn would drive
an electrical generator. Anaerobic digestion also produces a residue that can be
suitable for composting.
• Ethanol Fermentation: A series of chemical reactions is required to produce
ethanol (a type of alcohol) from waste materials. The first reaction is hydrolysis,
which converts organic materials to sugars. The sugars are then fermented to make
dilute ethanol, which is then further distilled to produce a fuel-grade ethanol. The
hydrolysis process for MSW is still under development.
• Thermal Depolymerization: This process reduces complex organic materials into a
substance that is similar to crude oil. This is generally done with agricultural and
animal wastes, which are ground, mixed with water, and then subjected to heat and
pressure. The resulting hydrocarbons are further processed and distilled to produce
a crude oil. Considerable development is required before this technology could be
applied to MSW.
Other Technologies: There are a few additional EfW technologies that do not fit neatly
into the above two categories, or that consist of a combination of technologies:
• Densification/Pelletization: Solid waste can be compressed and extruded through
a machine to make fuel pellets used by industrial processes as a substitute for coal,
oil, or natural gas. As with RDF, the cost of processing waste into pellets has
inhibited this technology from becoming more widespread. In the U.S., pelletization
is used mainly on small and relatively homogenous waste streams such as those
produced by industrial plants.
• Landfill Gas: The decomposition of garbage in a landfill produces a methane-
carbon dioxide mixture known as landfill gas (LFG). Because methane is potentially
explosive, it is a long-standing industry practice (and an EPA requirement for large
landfills) to collect the LFG and burn it in a flare to eliminate the explosion hazard.
The fact that methane is also a potent greenhouse gas is added motivation to
capture LFG, which can be burned in an internal combustion engine, gas turbine,
steam boiler or fuel cell to produce electricity. Other technologies scrub and
compress the methane, so it can be sold and injected into commercial natural gas
distribution systems or utilized in CNG fleet vehicles.
• Mechanical/Biological Treatment (MBT): MBT utilizes a variety of mechanical and
biological processes to recover recyclables, stabilize organic material, generate
energy, and produce products. In the European Union, an estimated 300 facilities
use MBT to recover recyclables and produce solid recovered fuel (SRF), a substitute
for coal, especially in cement kilns.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 7
In the US, Entsorga (West Virginia) uses a proprietary Italian high efficiency
biotreatment process that automates the separation of larger, dry material from
smaller, higher-moisture material. The latter is aerated and dried for 7-10 days to
bio-stabilize it. In the subsequent mechanical refinement stage, the two material
streams are recombined, recyclables and undesirable material removed. The
remainder is ground into SRF, a fluffy shredded paper mix used to supplement coal
in cement kilns.
RePower South’s 50 ton per hour facility near Charleston, South Carolina uses
shredders, screens, conveyors, magnets, and optical sorters in about 20 process
steps to shred, size, and sort MSW into cardboard, ferrous and non-ferrous metals,
and several types of plastic, all of which are baled for market. The process also
creates a fuel to supplement coal in cement kilns, industrial boilers, and electric
utility boilers.
PLANNING ISSUES
The planning issues in this technical memo are separated into general issues (which
are primarily associated with short-term issues and/or small-scale facilities) and issues
that Snohomish County might consider if they wish to look at an EfW approach in the
future instead of a waste export system.
General Issues
The general issues associated with EfW include:
• Many EfW technologies are based on the production and sale of alternative fuels to
supplement or replace coal or other fossil fuels in cement kilns, industrial boilers,
and electric generation utilities. The definition of “recycling” in Washington State law
(WAC 173-350-100) and Snohomish County Code (SCC 7.35.020) explicitly
excludes conversion of waste for use as fuel in incinerators. Thus, because
they are not considered recycling facilities, facilities engaged in the production of
alternative fuels from waste materials must meet siting and permitting requirements
for solid waste facilities.
• Publicizing the manufacture of alternative fuels as “recycling” is misleading to the
public and to businesses that are involved in the system.
• Alternative fuels manufactured from waste stream components can displace some
fossil fuel in industrial applications such as cement kilns. Beneficial use of certain
solid waste components that currently lack a viable recycling market is
advantageous, but not if this discourages the development of a true recycling
market.
• Energy recovery ranks higher than landfilling in the State and Federal waste
management hierarchies. Conversion of materials to a beneficial use, such as the
large volumes of wood waste that are being converted to hog fuel, reduces the
waste volumes that need to be landfilled.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 8
• In addition to reducing the amounts of materials needing disposal in a landfill, EfW
system can create local jobs and other economic benefits.
• Failure to pay tipping fees deprives the County of revenue that supports several
programs, such as litter crew services, proper management and disposal of
moderate risk wastes, disaster debris planning, other solid waste planning and
program management, management and monitoring of closed landfills, RV and boat
disposal (Environmental Cleanup - ECUP), and solid waste education programs.
Current Snohomish County Issues
Some organizations and businesses in Snohomish County have expressed interest in
utilizing EfW and are actively exploring ways to take advantage of the technology. This
interest is driven by the potential revenue from the sale and export of “alternative fuel”
made from waste materials. One of the biggest issues directly impacting Snohomish
County is the export of residuals from recycling processes to cement kilns in Canada.
Described in greater detail in the Disposal technical memo, SCC 7.35.125 requires that
residual solid waste be disposed of at a Snohomish County solid waste facility.
However, companies argue that they are manufacturing an alternative fuel to meet
customer specifications, and that therefore it is no longer a residual byproduct of the
recycling process, having been transformed into a completely new commodity.
The export of processed solid waste (alternative fuel) to EfW facilities, in violation of
flow control ordinances, constitutes a regional problem. The County will continue to
collaborate with regional partners including local health districts, local government, and
State agencies to address this issue.
King County Example
Encouraged by the opening of a new 3,000 ton per day mass burn EfW facility in West
Palm Beach, Florida in 2015, the King County Council included advanced thermal
recycling (mass burn with enhanced recycling and advanced air pollution control) in a
study that examined its alternative disposal options (King County 2019). This study was
prompted by the upcoming closure of King County’s Cedar Hills Landfill. The study
concluded that this type of EfW would provide King County with less expensive waste
disposal over a 50 year time horizon than if it began exporting its waste by rail.
However, this does not necessarily imply that EfW would be less expensive than
Snohomish County’s existing waste export by rail program. There are a number of
factors that differ for King County (see below) and there are also risks associated with
this type of approach (siting and permitting delays, unexpected costs, siting problems in
general, etc.) that could lead to this approach being more expensive than anticipated.
King County’s solid waste system differs from that of Snohomish County’s in a number
of important ways:
• King County’s transfer system is somewhat larger than Snohomish County’s,
consisting of 8 transfer stations and two drop box facilities.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 9
• Rather than conducting a complex facility siting exercise, King County made the
simplifying assumption that the new EfW facility could be located at the Cedar Hills
Landfill site, resulting in no change to established waste transfer patterns.
• King County is served by two railroads (BNSF and Union Pacific) and thus could
export waste from one of two intermodal facilities. However, King County would
have to establish a new waste export program for itself.
• King County’s base EfW scenario was a 3,000 ton per day (90-100 megawatt)
facility, with an option to add another 1,000 ton per day combustion train. This is
roughly twice Snohomish County’s average daily tonnage.
• Solid waste disposal and recycling programs could significantly change over the 50
year time horizon of the study.
Because EfW facilities are extremely capital intensive, it would be difficult to draw
reliable conclusions about feasibility unless Snohomish County conducted its own study
based on its own unique features.
Issues for a Countywide System
Snohomish County already has a reliable and cost-effective solid waste disposal system
that rail-hauls waste to a privately owned landfill in eastern Washington for disposal. In
the future, however, the County may choose to consider other methods to dispose of
some or all its solid waste. The motivation to do so may include a variety of factors
such as landfill disposal costs, climate change, energy prices, materials markets,
regulatory changes, and environmental concerns. The options for solid waste disposal
are largely limited to landfilling, EfW, or a combination of recycling, composting and EfW
technologies (such as mechanical/biological treatment, see page 7). Under some future
conditions, an EfW facility disposing of the County’s waste stream could provide an
economically viable and sustainable alternative to waste export and landfilling.
Across the U.S., EfW technologies were first considered as a response to either
declining landfill capacity or the increasing cost of landfilling. Landfill capacity is not a
problem in the Pacific Northwest, where several remote regional mega-landfills dispose
of waste from numerous cities and counties. However, EfW technologies could still be
considered for inclusion in an integrated solid waste management system.
The potential benefits of a large or countywide EfW approach include:
• Changes in the Viability of Waste Export by Rail: While rail-haul has enabled
reliable waste disposal for decades, there is no guarantee that sufficient rail capacity
will continue to be available at historically acceptable prices. Over the long run, the
demand for rail transportation might grow along with population. While the major
freight railroads (BNSF and Union Pacific) are making investments to add capacity
and improve service to customers in Washington State, their business practices and
investment priorities are also heavily influenced by the railroads’ national-level needs
and price competition. In addition, changes in quantities and types of commodities
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 10
shipped, in global economics, regulations, and climate can also influence available
rail capacity.
• Waste Diversion: EfW technologies are another potential technique for diverting
non-recyclable wastes from landfills, to supplement traditional programs such as
curbside recycling and yard waste composting. Many EfW technologies involve a
pre-processing step to remove materials such as glass and metals that are non-
degradable or non-combustible, hence deleterious to the conversion process. This
pre-processing provides an opportunity to recover additional recyclables from
discarded MSW. Rather than compete with recycling, EfW technologies can
complement existing recycling programs.
• Energy Recovery: The ability to generate energy such as steam or electricity, or a
fuel that can be burned to generate steam or electricity, is an added economic
benefit in a time of high fuel prices.
• Displacement of Fossil Fuels: The use of solid waste can reduce the amount of
fossil fuel used to generate electricity in a region, contributing to climate change
benefits.
• Reduced Air Emissions: The use of some EfW technologies could potentially
reduce the emissions of NOx, SOx, and particulates compared with some EfW
technologies or traditional fossil fuel-fired power plants.
• Reduced Carbon Emissions: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel-fired
and methane (CH4) emissions from landfills are greenhouse gases. Methane has a
global warming potential of about 21 times that of CO2. The use of an EfW
technology could reduce carbon emissions through increased recycling, diversion of
organics from landfills, and displacement of fossil fuels.
• Local Control: EfW technologies provide an opportunity to manage solid waste
locally instead of transporting it to a distant landfill. This could lead to additional
stability.
• Job Creation: In general, landfill disposal creates the smallest number of jobs,
whereas recycling and composting create more jobs2, typically at least part of which
are local jobs. EfW technologies would create more jobs and other economic
benefits than landfilling, in part due to the increased recycling that might take place.
• Reduced Transportation Costs: Sending MSW to a local EfW facility reduces the
cost and other impacts of transporting MSW to a regional disposal site.
• Preservation of Landfill Capacity: Landfill capacity not used for “convertible”
MSW can be saved for future disposal of materials that truly cannot be recycled or
2 Various studies have estimated that recycling creates 10.2 to 16.1 new jobs per 1,000 tons of additional
recycling (CIWMB 2001).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 11
converted into energy or useful byproducts. In addition, EfW technologies typically
generate relatively small amounts of non-recyclable residuals, and these are more
likely to be inert than unprocessed MSW.
• System Reliability and Diversity: Use of an EfW technology could allow the
recovery of energy from MSW in a manner not currently practiced by Snohomish
County’s solid waste system. It would provide some diversity in terms of disposal
capability. If multiple facilities were built in different parts of the County, they could
reduce overall waste transportation costs and provide distributed generation of
electricity. This could in turn contribute to the redundancy and robustness of both
the solid waste system and the electric power system.
Potential drawbacks of an EfW approach by or in Snohomish County include:
• Economies of Scale: To operate an EfW facility economically and sustainably
would require the long-term commitment of a significant portion of the municipal
waste stream. Current contractual commitments by Snohomish County (through the
waste export contract) and the cities (through the interlocal agreements), and flow
control measures that govern wastes from unincorporated areas, result in most of
the solid waste in Snohomish County being committed to the waste export system
through at least 2028.
• Low Energy Prices: Energy prices in the Pacific Northwest are currently relatively
low and appear to be stable, making EfW systems less cost-effective. In addition,
many government agencies and other organizations are faced with goals for
increasing the amount of “green” energy that they use, and EfW is not currently
classified as a renewable energy source and so is not in a good position to compete
in the energy market.
• Ash Disposal Costs: The incineration of solid wastes creates ash that typically
needs to be disposed in a landfill, often in a special cell of the landfill. The cost of
ash disposal diminishes the economic benefits and reliability of an EfW system.
• Competition with Waste Diversion: An EfW system can be seen as competing
with or be confused with recycling programs. A recent study for Ecology (Ecology
2020) did not find current local evidence of this, but environmental organizations or
the general public may still be concerned about this. There have been past cases
where proposed EfW systems have been viewed as eliminating the need for
curbside recycling (despite the very different outcomes of each approach), and so
this issue would need to be approached cautiously for any future EfW projects.
There is also confusion currently with EfW systems (especially for the production of
alternative fuels) being equivalent to recycling, despite the clear regulatory
distinctions between the two approaches.
• Public Acceptance and Political Feasibility: Past efforts to implement EfW
systems in the U.S. have been undermined by public outcry and a lack of political
support. In the past, much of this was driven by concerns about toxic air pollutants
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 12
being released by incineration of waste. While this situation seems to have calmed
down significantly in the past decade, it is possible that this could become a problem
for any future proposals.
• Unproven Technologies: The basic approaches for WTE have been tested and
proven to work in many locations, especially currently in Europe, but many of the
other EfW technologies previously listed in this technical memo have not been
proven on a large scale.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Monitor Progress of EfW Technologies
Although EfW technologies have a limited track record in the U.S., vendors continue to
develop their equipment and processes at pilot-scale and small commercial plants.
Because of the many potential advantages and benefits noted above, it would be
worthwhile for Snohomish County to monitor the progress and success of these efforts.
In the future, it may be beneficial to conduct a detailed technical and economic
feasibility study of one or more EfW technologies to determine its/their suitability to
handle a portion of the County’s MSW and produce energy, fuel, or other useful
byproducts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendation is being made with regard to energy from waste:
E1) The County should continue to monitor developments and progress in EfW
including new technologies, pilot projects, facility procurements and operating
track records, and other projects in the region.
Snohomish County would be the lead agency for this recommendation. E1 would
require a minimal amount of additional Solid Waste Division staff time, since Division
personnel are already routinely exposed to information about new developments and
practices in the solid waste industry. If results appear promising, the County may at
some point in the future wish to explore EfW in more depth, perhaps in the next solid
waste planning period. Should the County choose a new technology it should be one
with years of proven efficient operation. Adequate staff resources and budget would
need to be approved to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study and cost-benefit
analysis for an EfW technology.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 13
REFERENCES
CIWMB 2001. The Economic Impact of Waste Disposal and Diversion in California.
Prepared by the University of California for the California Integrated Waste
Management Board. April 2001.
Ecology 2020. Waste-to-Energy as a Tool for Solid Waste Management. Prepared by
the University of Washington Evans School of Public Policy & Governance. June 2020.
King County 2019. Waste-to-Energy and Waste Export by Rail Feasibility Study.
Prepared by Arcadis U.S., Seattle, Washington. September 2019.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Energy from Waste 14
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 1
OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
SUMMARY
Outreach and education are a critical element of waste diversion programs, serving to
both inform people of the opportunities that exist for waste reduction and recycling and
then motivating them to act. Outreach and education programs should encourage
people and businesses to avoid producing waste in the first place and inform them
about access to recycling and composting programs. People should also be
encouraged to properly dispose of their wastes.
This tech memo addresses how best to implement various outreach and educational
messages. It does not address outreach and educational efforts specific to program
implementation. Outreach and education for specific programs and areas of focus are
addressed in their corresponding technical memos. In addition, an overview of the
plans to reduce recycling contamination can be found in the Contamination Reduction
and Outreach Plan (see Attachment H).
The recommendations in this technical memo address the roles and responsibilities for
public education efforts, the need for the Solid Waste Division to define outreach
priorities, how to go about outreach for a more culturally diverse audience, and the need
to find alternative funding sources for public education efforts.
BACKGROUND
The solid waste system is performing the same function it did thirty-five years ago –
providing the county’s citizens and businesses with environmentally safe waste disposal
methods. Currently, however, this function is being performed in a very different
manner. The system is now involved with not just disposal but also waste processing,
transport, planning, engineering, recycling and waste prevention, moderate risk waste
management, environmental regulation, compliance at operating and closed facilities,
debris management planning, and contract monitoring. Furthermore, there is an
increasing emphasis on sustainability, which goes far beyond the field of solid waste
management.
Goals and Policies for Outreach and Education
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-6, Outreach and Education: Meet required educational components
mandated by the State of Washington.
• Policies for most of the other technical memos are related because public education
has the potential to support all other aspects of solid waste management.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 2
Regulations for Outreach and Education
Regulations affect outreach and education in several different ways, which are
discussed below by sector/responsible agency.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology): Public education is seen
as an important support tool for the waste hierarchy and other mandated programs.
The State has a few regulations specific to public education:
RCW 70A.205.005 (6)(c): “It is the responsibility of county and city governments to
assume primary responsibility for solid waste management and to develop and
implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source separation
strategies.”
RCW 70A.205.005 (15): “Comprehensive education should be conducted
throughout the state so that people are informed of the need to reduce, source
separate, and recycle solid waste.”
RCW 70A.205.010 (1): the primary responsibility for adequate solid waste handling
is assigned to local government.
RCW 70A.205.045 (7)(iv): states that the waste reduction and recycling element of
the solid waste plan must include “programs to educate and promote the concepts of
waste reduction and recycling.”
RCW 70A.205.045 (10): addresses how to combat contaminants in recycling.
Ecology worked with stakeholders to develop a statewide Contamination Reduction
and Outreach Plan (CROP), and counties are required to adopt this plan or develop
their own CROP.
RCW 70A.205.070: addresses Ecology’s roles in providing education and outreach,
as well as technical assistance for planning.
RCW 70A.500.060 and 70A.500.120: requires that the manufacturers of electronics
provide a promotional campaign to encourage the use of the product stewardship
program (E-Cycle Washington) and requires that Ecology and local governments
also promote the program.
RCW 70A.505.030: states that this mercury lights product stewardship program
shall include production and distribution of point-of-sale educational materials to
retailers of mercury-containing lights and point-of-return educational materials to
collection locations.
RCW 70A.515.040 and 70A.515.050: requires that the implementation of the paint
stewardship program include promotion of paint stewardship and development of
educational and informational material. All producers of architectural paint selling in
Washington will participate in an approved state paint stewardship plan through
membership in and funding of a stewardship organization.
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC): UTC rules
regarding waste collection companies includes a requirement (WAC 480-70-361) that
garbage haulers publicize recycling and other services at least annually.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 3
Local Government: Snohomish County and some of the cities have set their own
service level requirements or executed contracts that sometimes include outreach and
education.
Contracted Haulers: In cities that contract with haulers, the haulers also implement
contractual requirements and service level ordinances that in many cases include
performing outreach and education.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Snohomish County has implemented programs for outreach and education by
assessing the need for educating children, the general public, business and institutions
concerning waste reduction, pollution prevention, and recycling/composting. The
County maintains communications about these programs with private parties, other
subdivisions within the county, other relevant county and city governments, and state
and federal agencies. The cities, waste collection companies and others have also
conducted programs to educate their residents and customers on similar issues.
A summary of current activities by agency and private companies is provided below.
Snohomish County
Snohomish County delivers educational information through a variety of portals
including traditional paper handouts, signage, social media (Twitter, Facebook, and
Nextdoor), the Solid Waste Call Center, and the County’s website
(https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/207/Solid-Waste).
As of mid-2020, information available on the website includes:
• Near real-time (with a one to two minute delay) camera images of the queue lanes at
all facilities.
• Construction and demolition debris program and education materials.
• Solid Waste account/credit information.
• Education materials on curbside collection, hazardous waste, recycling, and waste
restrictions.
• General facility information.
• Fees.
A comparison of the web statistics between 2019 and 2020 (through July 20)
emphasize the success and usefulness of the Division’s web presence (see Table 1).
An example of how the County is utilizing social media was highlighted during the
COVID-19 pandemic response for the weekend of June 27-28, 2020. The County was
able to educate on program details, new service hours, and issue reminders about
masks and social distancing, reaching 3,214 Twitter followers, 11,145 Facebook and
13,586 Nextdoor views.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 4
Table 1. Number of Visits to Snohomish County Websites
2019 2020
Solid Waste Web Page Pageviews Unique
Pageviews Pageviews Unique
Pageviews
Main Page 70,332 50,386 203,425 156,934
Facilities 131,203 111,707 191,521 157,437
Check the Lines 3,249 2,645 23,640 16,648
Recycling 50,538 41,887 72,564 59,805
C&D 1,251 1,010 6,983 5,774
Hazardous Waste 42,465 35,626 57,827 45,371
Source: Snohomish County records.
Some of the brochures and flyers available (as of mid-2020) on the Snohomish County
website include:
• Secure Your Load
• How to Prevent and Report Illegal Dumping
• Pharmaceutical Waste Collection Locations
• Where Does Our Garbage Go? (English and Spanish versions)
• How to be a Salmon Friendly Gardener
• Resource Guide for Educators
As digitally dependent as society is becoming, the Solid Waste Call Center has set
volume records for 2020. In 2019, the Call Center answered 17,505 phone calls.
Typical questions include: what hours are you open, do you take a specific material or
how do I dispose of a certain product. Due to the uncertainty with the COVID-19
pandemic and its effects on solid waste in Snohomish County, the call volume spiked to
23,118 inquiries for just the first six months of 2020 (January through June). The total
number of calls for 2020 was 35,231.
This approach to outreach reflects the resources normally available to the Solid Waste
Division for education, although at times special campaigns may be warranted.
State Programs
Ecology offers two-year non-competitive grants, the Local Solid Waste Financial
Assistance grants (LSWFA), to all of the counties based on population. Snohomish
County spends a majority of the grant money on the Moderate Risk Waste program.
Ecology has also offered Waste Reduction and Recycling Education (WRRED) grants,
which is a competitive grant program that provides funding to qualified local
governments and non-profit organizations for local or statewide education programs
designed to help the public with litter control, waste reduction, recycling, and
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 5
composting. A match of 25% of the state funding is required. In addition to funding,
Ecology houses the 1-800-RECYCLE hot line and provides numerous brochures,
publications and workshops to the public and recycling coordinators.
In recent years, Ecology has launched and maintains several statewide campaigns
including the product stewardship program for e-waste, fluorescent lights and paint.
These programs included advertising campaigns that target all areas of the state.
Ecology, as well as the manufacturers, deliver outreach through media ads, billboards
and signs at the collection points.
Haulers
The haulers are active in promoting their recycling and yard debris services, and helping
distribute messages on recycling and sustainability in general. The hauler’s websites
address their recycling and other services. The haulers send out annual recycling
guidelines and calendars to residents. They also send these to new customers. At
least one of the haulers invites residents to tour their recycling facility. All of the haulers
continue to improve and update their brochures for curbside collection and recycling.
G-certificated haulers work with the UTC and Snohomish County on the implementation
of revenue sharing agreements. The agreements, described in more detail in the
Recycling technical memorandum, provide for a variety of education activities for solid
waste customers, such as increasing recycling outreach activities; new coordinated
communication plans and educational materials; recycling outreach in Spanish to the
Latino community; addition of food waste to yard debris collection programs;
characterization studies of recyclables, residuals and contaminants; reporting of
recycling and disposal data; efforts to increase collection service customers; expansion
of curbside to include additional materials; multifamily customer outreach; and
improving performance at material recovery facilities, including technology and
equipment additions and upgrades.
Other Private Companies
Many different private companies are involved in educational efforts about waste
reduction and recycling. Naturally, these efforts generally focus on the specific products
manufactured or sold by the companies. For instance, many local grocery stores
provide a small credit to customers that bring their own bag. The retailers also sell
reusable shopping bags. There may be changes in these activities when the state law
banning plastic bags at grocery stores is implemented in 2021.
Several private companies provide information on their services. One example of this is
the Call2Recycle battery recycling program. Call2Recycle broadcasts on their website,
in retail stores and in mass media to promote the collection and recycling of
rechargeable batteries. Private efforts are sometimes also implemented through a
consortium approach, where several companies join forces to promote the recycling of
their product.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 6
With the recent focus on green technology and carbon footprint, many private
companies are evaluating their carbon footprint and, in some cases, publicizing the
results. This helps to draw attention to personal and household carbon footprints
(sustainability).
Non-Profit and Charitable Organizations
The Washington Green Schools provides education and outreach throughout the state
to elementary school students on recycling, waste prevention, energy and sustainability
topics. Schools can review the Green Schools website and go online to register their
school for participation. The Washington State University (WSU) Extension staff train
volunteers who provide outreach on recycling, waste reduction and composting.in the
County. Habitat for Humanity promotes their collection and sale of reusable building
construction and household items. The Washington Conservation Corp works with
AmeriCorps volunteers who educate on environmental practices. These volunteers
receive an education award upon finishing their year of service.
PLANNING ISSUES
Short-Term Planning Issues
Current planning issues related to outreach and education include:
• Continue to develop alternative funding sources for waste reduction efforts.
• The need to have common region-wide messages.
• The need for addressing inclusiveness and diversity in communication and public
involvement strategies.
• The need to do more education using non-English materials.
• Determine new methods to convey information to the public.
• Define what the Division outreach and education programs should look like.
Long-Term Planning Issues
Emerging long-term issues related to outreach and education include:
• The increasing emphasis on sustainability raises questions about what is the
appropriate message and who should take the lead on public education.
• The need for better measurement of the results of outreach and education efforts.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 7
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Stay Engaged in Regional Efforts
Snohomish County are already involved in regional discussions about a variety of solid
waste topics. Continuing this involvement will allow more consistent messages in the
region about recycling and other issues, and also allow these messages to be
distributed more effectively. Distributing more consistent messages in the region will
reduce confusion for residents and businesses in the Puget Sound region and lead to
more effective results for getting the message to the target audiences.
At a minimum, this effort should involve staff from Snohomish County, King County,
Seattle, and other cities in Snohomish and King Counties. Staff from Pierce County,
Tacoma, Skagit County, and private organizations could also be invited. One goal of
the coordination could be to incorporate solid waste issues into the broader context of
similar messages. For example, waste reduction and reuse could be briefly mentioned
as part of the solution when discussing global warming. Similarly, litter prevention could
be tied into pollution concerns for the Puget Sound. The costs of this approach would
only be the staff time for planning and coordination of regional meetings.
Alternative B – Identify Alternative Financing Sources for Public Education
Current public education and outreach efforts are funded primarily by grants and service
charges (as part of the services provided by haulers and cities). Should the County or
others choose to expand their education and outreach programs, additional funding may
be needed. Alternative funding sources may also be needed if the LSWFA funds are
restricted or eliminated due to the State budget crisis or other problems. Alternative
funding mechanisms, such as fees or taxes placed on certain goods or services that
create a disproportionate amount of waste or use a disproportionate amount of
resources, could also help influence consumer behavior and call attention to problem
areas. Possible alternatives for new or additional funding could include:
• Other grants: other grants monies are available from federal agencies, private
foundations, non-profit organizations and others. Although grants are an attractive
method, applying for a grant can be a time-consuming and potentially fruitless effort,
plus grants may lack long-term stability.
• Collection or disposal rate surcharges: the County can attach surcharges to the
disposal tipping fee to pay for education and other programs, and the cities can
attach surcharges to collection contracts that they have executed with haulers (or to
their own rates in the case of municipal collection systems). Both of these
approaches are currently in use for other programs, however, and there would be
some resistance to further increasing collection or disposal costs.
• Service fees: a surcharge could also be attached to service fees charged by
haulers and others, or additional funds could be generated by embedding the cost of
education into a fee for recycling or other service. This is also already done to some
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 8
extent, and as with the above example there would be some resistance to the idea
of further increasing collection costs.
• Other fees, surcharges and taxes: a variety of other taxes or fees could be
implemented, but none of these are considered to be politically feasible at this time.
Alternative C – Washington State University Extension Service Partnership
Snohomish County could extend and enhance the existing partnership with the WSU
Extension Service to provide continuing educational services on solid waste topics and
Division priorities. The WSU Extension service will collaborate with the Solid Waste
Division to develop new educational components and establish program preferences to
align with Division priorities. The County has found good results in waste reduction and
recycling outreach through the work of WSU Extension staff and volunteers.
Alternative D – Extend Recycling Outreach to a Culturally-Diverse Audience
Public education and promotional efforts could target a diverse cultural audience, as
appropriate to the topic and locality being addressed. In Snohomish County, 20.6% of
the population speaks a language other than English in their homes and slightly more
than one-third of these (7.6% of the total population) speaks English less than “very
well” (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Of this 7.6%, 37% speak Asian and Pacific Islander
languages, 33% speak Spanish, 22% speak other Indo-European languages, and the
remaining 8% speak other languages. The children in these families are likely receiving
education about environmental issues in school, but the adults may not be as well-
informed. Hence, this alternative focuses primarily on educating the adult members of
these families, through printed and electronic materials in non-English languages.
In the past, Snohomish County conducted outreach in non-English languages with
funding from the Revenue Sharing Agreements, but this funding is limited. WSU has
incorporated some outreach to culturally diverse audiences in their waste reduction and
recycling materials.
Alternative E – Define Division Program Priorities
The Division manages a variety of solid waste-oriented programs but has not recently
collaborated on establishing outreach and education priorities. Planning staff will
convene and develop guidance for education priorities. This endeavor could also be
considered a continuous improvement project, which is described in the Administration
and Regulation technical memo.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for outreach and education programs:
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 9
O&E1) Snohomish County should participate in a regional effort to provide more
consistent messages for solid waste programs and issues.
O&E2) Greater efforts will be made to extend recycling outreach to a diverse audience.
O&E3) Continue partnership with the WSU Extension Service to provide educational
services to Snohomish County that align with Division priorities.
O&E4) Alternative funding sources for public outreach and education should be
explored.
O&E5) Division staff should define educational program priorities.
Snohomish County should be the lead agency for most of these recommendations.
Cities, service groups, haulers and other private companies will promote local
programs, including reaching out to a more diverse audience.
The cost for all recommendations will consist primarily of County staff planning and
coordination. O&E2 may lead to increased costs for cities and service providers. Most
of these recommendations should be conducted on an on-going or as-needed basis.
REFERENCES
U.S. Census Bureau 2020. Snohomish County data from U.S. Census Bureau website,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/snohomishcountywashington,US/POP8152
18, April 30, 2020.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Outreach and Education 10
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 1
ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATION
SUMMARY
This technical memo addresses the administrative and regulatory activities at the local,
regional, state and federal levels and how they impact and define solid waste programs
in Snohomish County.
The recommendations made in this technical memo address regional collaboration and
standardization for solid waste issues, continuous improvement initiatives, county code
review/alignment, the need to annually examine the effectiveness of solid waste
programs in Snohomish County, and the need to update the interlocal agreement.
BACKGROUND
The solid waste management system in Snohomish County is an integrated collection of
facilities and programs that are intended to operate as a cohesive system. Achieving
this requires the cooperation and coordination of government agencies on several levels
and the involvement of many private companies. The various facilities and programs
are not only intended to satisfy the statutory requirements that private and public sector
participants are responsible for fulfilling, but altogether the system is intended to provide
waste management services in the most cost-effective and environmentally responsible
manner possible.
Goals and Policies for Administration and Regulation
Goals and policies specific to administration and regulation include:
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-7, Administration and Regulation: Ensure that administrative services and
regulatory activities provide adequate support for policies and programs undertaken
by the Division.
• Policies from other technical memorandums: All of the other policies are related in
some way to administrative and regulatory activities as delineated in this Plan.
EXISTING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
Administrative responsibility for solid waste handling systems in Snohomish County is
currently divided among several agencies and jurisdictions in local, county, regional and
state government. Enforcement and regulatory responsibilities are assigned to cities,
counties, or jurisdictional health departments, depending on the specific activity and
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 2
local preferences. Each organization involved in the Snohomish County solid waste
management system is described below.
Snohomish County Solid Waste Division
The Washington State Solid Waste Management Act, Chapter 70A.205 RCW, assigns
local government the primary responsibility for managing solid waste. Solid waste
handling, as defined in RCW 70A.205.015, includes the “management, storage,
collection, transportation, treatment, utilization, processing, and final disposal of solid
wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes, the
recovery of energy resources from solid wastes or the conversion of the energy in solid
wastes to more useful forms.”
Chapter 36.58 RCW authorizes Snohomish County to develop, own, and operate solid
waste handling facilities in unincorporated areas of the county, or to accomplish those
activities by contracting with private firms. The County may regulate tipping fees, hours
of operation, facility access, and waste acceptance policies at each of its facilities. The
County also has the authority and responsibility to prepare comprehensive solid waste
management plans for unincorporated areas and for jurisdictions that agree to
participate with the County in the planning process. Through interlocal agreements, all
of the cities and towns in Snohomish County have agreed to participate in the planning
process. The interlocal agreements also require that all waste collected by or in the
cities must go to a Snohomish County disposal facility.
Snohomish County exercises its solid waste responsibilities through the Public Works
Department, and specifically through the Solid Waste Division. The specific
administrative functions performed by the Solid Waste Division include:
• Administering, staffing, and operating four transfer stations, three drop box sites, a
household hazardous/moderate risk waste collection facility, a vactor waste decant
facility, and various recycling and organics collection programs.
• Monitoring, providing post-closure maintenance, and providing financial assurance
for closed solid waste facilities.
• Conducting public education programs for waste reduction and recycling.
• Administering grants, contracts and various agreements.
• Planning and implementation of various programs including disaster debris
management, environmental clean-up, litter crew and alternatives to burning.
• Regional collaboration and coordination with Federal, State, local, municipal, and
public/private stakeholders in the solid waste industry.
• Maintaining the Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
(Plan) as adopted relating to public health, safety, and sanitation, and providing
regulations to govern the storage, collection, transfer, transportation, processing,
use, and final disposal of solid waste by all persons in Snohomish County.
• Providing staff support for the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 3
The Solid Waste Division is staffed by about 150 employees and most are involved in
the operation of transfer and disposal facilities. Figure 1 illustrates the Solid Waste
Division organizational structure as of October 2020.
Figure 1
Snohomish County Solid Waste Division Organizational Structure by Function
The Solid Waste Division is funded primarily by the fees collected at the drop box sites
and transfer stations. Fees charged at the County’s solid waste facilities are
established in the solid waste service fee schedule approved through a County Council
motion. The County also receives grant monies from the Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) for solid waste management planning activities and other projects.
The budget for the Solid Waste Division is shown in Table 1.
Solid Waste
Director
Superintendent
Admin (2 FTE)
Planning (4 FTE)
Finance (6 FTE)
Environmental
Services (7 FTE)
Household
Hazardous
Waste (5 FTE)
Operations
Manager
Transfer Stations
(69 FTE)
Drop Box Sites
(7 FTE)
Trucking
(23 FTE)
Maintenance
(12 FTE)
Vactor Decant
Facility (3 FTE)
Environmental
Cleanup (2 FTE)
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 4
Table 1. Snohomish County Solid Waste Budget
2017 2018 2019 2020
Expenditures
Revenues
Notes: All figures are in dollars. The 2017 and 2018 figures are actual amounts, and the 2019 and
2020 figures are budgeted amounts.
1. Other Revenue includes vactor fees, yard waste fees, investment interest, intermodal rent
and leases, and Ecology grants.
One important program for the Solid Waste Division is the Environmental Cleanup
program (ECUP), which was implemented in 2000. ECUP’s mission is to remove solid
and hazardous waste illegally dumped on public lands, mitigate sites where illegal
dumping frequently occurs and educate the public on the variety of alternatives to
unlawfully dumping material throughout Snohomish County.
Now 20 years old, the ECUP program and staff have developed a reputation for
exemplary customer service, response to emerging community issues and are an
integral component of the Snohomish County solid waste system. ECUP activities
include: illegal dump cleanup, roadside litter collection, abandoned vehicle towing and
processing, junk vehicle affidavit inspection services, and recreational vehicle (RV),
camper, travel trailer and boat recycling and disposal. An offshoot of the ECUP
program that was established in 2017 is the Clean Sweep Litter Program. The Clean
Sweep Litter Program is Snohomish County’s response to residents’ increasing
concerns about litter issues. A five-member crew of county employees, named the
Litter Wranglers, responds to resident calls and emails by working the roadsides and
collecting the trash in areas with excessive litter. Results of the successful program are
highlighted in Table 2. The 2020 Litter Wrangler program was suspended due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 5
Table 2. Clean Sweep Litter Program Results
Year Miles Cleaned
Litter Bags
Collected
2017 445.7 4,749
2018 607.7 5,878
2019 805.1 6,398
Source: Snohomish County records.
Much of the solid waste activities, especially for regulation and enforcement, are
directed by the County Code. The sections of Title 7 of the County Code that are
relevant to solid waste include:
• 7.34 – establishes the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (see the following section).
• 7.35 – establishes a comprehensive county-wide program for solid waste handling,
recovery and/or reclamation. This requires effective control of all non-exempted
solid waste generated and collected within Snohomish County.
• 7.41 – adopts operating rules and disposal fees for Snohomish County solid waste
facilities.
• 7.42 – establishes minimum service levels for recycling and waste collection in the
unincorporated areas.
Snohomish County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
The formation of the Snohomish County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) is
governed by Chapter 7.34 of the County Code and also by state law. The SWAC is an
advisory body and does not have the authority to implement programs. As shown in
state law:
“Each county shall establish a local solid waste advisory committee to assist in the
development of programs and policies concerning solid waste handling and
disposal and to review and comment upon proposed rules, policies, or ordinances
prior to their adoption. Such committees shall consist of a minimum of nine
members and shall represent a balance of interests including, but not limited to,
citizens, public interest groups, business, the waste management industry, and
local elected public officials. The members shall be appointed by the county
legislative authority” (RCW 70A.205.110 (3)).
The SWAC meets regularly to exchange information on solid waste and resource
recovery issues, provide policy recommendations to Snohomish County and review and
provide comments on plans concerning solid waste handling and disposal. Meetings
are held at least quarterly and are open to the public. The Snohomish County Boards
and Commissions website provides additional information about the SWAC. SWAC
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 6
meetings were temporarily suspended in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and
resumed in early 2021, at which point monthly meetings were held to review this Plan.
Snohomish Health District
The Snohomish Health District (SHD) is responsible for enforcing solid waste
regulations and issuing permits for solid waste facilities. Permits are required for all
solid waste facilities in accordance with Chapter 173-350 WAC and Chapter 173-351
WAC. Permitted solid waste facilities include, but are not limited to, landfills, transfer
stations, recycling processing, composting, and petroleum-contaminated soil (PCS)
remediation sites. The SHD inspects all permitted solid waste facilities at least once per
year. The SHD also reviews permit applications to ensure that proposed facilities meet
all applicable laws and regulations, conforms to the approved solid waste management
plan, and complies with all zoning requirements.
The Environmental Health Section of the SHD investigates complaints concerning the
following activities:
• Illegal dumping: garbage and/or other solid waste dumped on private or public
property without the owner's permission.
• Garbage: improper storage, handling, and disposal practices that attract flies or
rodents. This includes uncontained garbage, or garbage not removed weekly.
• Rodent/Vector problems: conditions that are attracting or feeding rodents or other
vectors, causing a neighborhood infestation.
• Hazardous waste: storage, handling, or disposal practices that allow toxic
chemicals to be released to surface water, groundwater or soil.
• Initial investigations for chemical releases: the Health District works in
cooperation with Ecology to investigate releases or potential releases of chemicals
to the environment.
Snohomish County Roads Division
The Snohomish County Public Works, Roads Division (Roads) administers the Adopt-a-
Road program. The Adopt-a-Road Program is a roadside clean-up campaign designed
to remove litter along county roadways, enhance the quality of the environment, and
promote community pride. The program establishes a partnership between volunteer
groups and Snohomish County Public Works. Community groups sign up to remove
litter along “adopted” sections for county road. In recognition of their efforts, Public
Works installs two Adopt-A-Road signs with the group’s name along their adopted
section of road, and these are installed after the group’s first clean-up event.
Roads provides safety training for group leaders, safety training materials for
volunteers, safety equipment, and supplies for clean-up events. Individuals, families,
civic organizations, service clubs, churches, businesses, and other organizations can
participate in the program.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 7
Additionally, Roads is a business partner with Solid Waste and the Litter Wrangler
roadside cleanup program. As the litter crew collects trash along the roadside, Roads
crews will collect the material and transport it to the nearest transfer station for disposal.
Roads also pays for 33% of the Clean Sweep program costs.
Cities and Towns
There are 20 incorporated cities and towns in Snohomish County, including one city
(Bothell) that is partly in King County. RCW 35.21.152 allows cities to develop, own,
and operate solid waste handling systems and to provide for solid waste collection
services within their jurisdictions. Most of the cities contract with a hauler to collect
garbage within their city, while garbage collection routes outside the city borders are
regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). Fees
charged for collection services generally cover the expenses of the system, although
some cities also charge a “utility tax” that helps fund other city functions. More detailed
information about garbage collection in individual cities is shown in the Waste Collection
Technical Memo.
Most of the cities and towns also have some form of code enforcement program for
properties that accumulate junk such as wood, inoperable cars, car parts, appliances,
and furniture. Snohomish County has taken the lead in educating contractors doing
work within municipalities on requirements associated with waste disposal in
Snohomish County. Any enforcement is typically done through issuing permits and
references that builders must comply with the disposal requirements delineated in
County Code.
Washington State Department of Ecology
The Solid Waste Handling Standards (Chapter 173-350 WAC) were promulgated by
Ecology under the authority granted by Chapter 70A.205 RCW. In addition, Chapter
173-351 WAC, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, contains the current
standards for municipal solid waste landfills. The Model Litter Control and Recycling
Act (RCW 70A.200.060) prohibits depositing garbage on any property not properly
designated as a disposal site, including junk vehicles. There is also the waste
reduction, recycling, and litter control account that has been created through a tax levied
on wholesale and retail businesses, and the monies from this fund have been used for
education, increased litter clean-up efforts, and contracts to eligible county entities for
illegal dump clean-up activities.
The Community Litter Control Prevention (CLCP) program provides funds to the
counties for litter cleanup activities. For the most recent funding cycle, mid-2019
through mid-2021, Snohomish County received $299,200 from this program, including
$78,000 for a curtain trailer for ECUP. This is a reduction in funding from the 2012-
2013 grant cycle when the County received $1.3 million dollars per biennium.
Under the Model Toxics Control Act (Chapter 70A.305 RCW), grants are available to
local governments for solid waste management plans and programs, hazardous waste
management plans and programs, and remedial actions to clean up existing hazardous
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 8
waste sites. Solid and hazardous waste planning and programs are funded through the
Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance program administered by Ecology’s Solid Waste
Management Program. The state rule that governs this program is WAC 173-312 –
Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance. The 2019-2021 Local Solid Waste Financial
Assistance Guidelines (Ecology publication #19-07-009) outlines the Local Solid Waste
Financial Assistance program and the fund that supports the program. Cleanup of
existing hazardous waste sites is funded through Remedial Action Grants, described in
Ecology’s Remedial Action Grants and Loans Program Guidelines (Ecology publication
#20-09-055).
Ecology also responds to complaints regarding hazardous material spills or releases.
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC)
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) regulates privately-
owned utilities and companies that provide public services such as electric power,
telephone, natural gas, private water, transportation, and waste collection. The UTC’s
authority over solid waste collection is established in Chapter 81.77 RCW and Chapter
480-70 WAC.
The UTC regulates residential and non-residential garbage collection services, primarily
in unincorporated areas. Cities are permitted by state law to choose their form of waste
collection regulation. Most of the cities in Snohomish County contract with a private
hauler for garbage collection services (or collect it with city crews as in the case of
Marysville), and only a few rely on the UTC to regulate a private garbage hauler as if
they were an unincorporated area. UTC authority does not extend to companies
operating under contract with any city or town, or to any city or town that conducts their
own solid waste collection. This regulatory system was set up by the State Legislature
in the 1960's to ensure that every household or business, no matter how remote, is
offered garbage collection service.
The UTC regulates solid waste collection companies by granting “certificates of
convenience and necessity” that permit collection companies to operate in specified
service areas. It also regulates solid waste collection, under the authority of RCW
81.77.030, by:
• Fixing and altering collection rates, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations.
• Regulating accounts, service, and safety of operations.
• Requiring annual reports and other reports and data.
• Supervising collection companies in all matters affecting their relationship to their
customers.
• Requiring compliance with local solid waste management plans and related
implementation ordinances.
• Requiring collection companies to use rate structures consistent with state waste
management priorities.
• Enforcing illegal transportation of solid waste for disposal.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 9
In 2019, the UTC implemented a renewed campaign to enforce transportation carriers
and the illegal hauling of solid waste. Reports of illegal hauling of solid waste material
may be submitted via the website at:
https://www.utc.wa.gov/regulatedIndustries/transportation/TransportationDocuments/No
n-Permitted%20Carrier%20Report.pdf.
Solid waste companies operating in the unincorporated areas of the county must
comply with this Plan (see RCW 81.77.040).
This Plan contains a cost assessment prepared according to the Cost Assessment
Guidelines for Local Solid Waste Management Planning (UTC 2019). RCW 70A.205.65
grants the UTC 45 days to review the plan’s impact on solid waste collection rates
charged by solid waste collection companies regulated under RCW 81.77, and to advise
the County and Ecology of the probable effects of the Plan’s recommendations on those
rates.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Clean Air Agency) is a special-purpose, regional
agency chartered by state law in 1967 (Chapter 70A.15 RCW). Its jurisdiction covers
King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties, and it is governed by a Board of Directors
that is comprised of elected officials from each of the four counties, a representative
from the largest city in each county, and one member representing the public-at-large.
The Clean Air Agency also has an Advisory Council comprised of individuals
representing large and small businesses, non-regulated business, education,
transportation, health, tribes, fire officials, the environmental community, ports and the
public-at-large.
Clean Air Agency regulations apply to all areas of Snohomish County except for Tulalip
Tribal lands, which are guided by the Federal Air Rules for Reservations (FARR)
regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as
amended by the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 6901-
6987), is the primary body of legislation dealing with solid waste. Subtitle D of RCRA
deals with non-hazardous solid waste disposal and requires the development of a state
comprehensive solid waste management program that outlines the authorities of local,
state and regional agencies. Subtitle D requires that the state program must prohibit
“open dumps” and must provide that all solid waste is disposed in an environmentally-
sound manner.
Tulalip Indian Nation
The Tulalip Tribes of Washington is a federally-recognized Indian Nation and their
reservation occupies 22,000 acres located north of Everett and the Snohomish River
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 10
and west of Marysville, Washington. The Tribe’s population is over 4,900 and growing,
with 2,700 living on the Tulalip Indian Reservation. The Tribe is governed by a Tribal
Council made up of elected members. The Council holds regular meetings and handles
the business affairs of the Tribe. The Tulalip Nation has inherent authority to govern all
activities as they pertain to solid waste management within the boundaries of the Tulalip
Indian Reservation.
PLANNING ISSUES
Near-Term Planning Issues
Current planning issues related to administration and regulation include:
• Educating Snohomish County residents and business on current solid waste and
recycling issues.
• Supporting Solid Waste operations so they may continue to run fiscally responsible
and efficient solid waste services for the Snohomish County community.
• Staffing issues related to supporting the programs necessary for an effective solid
waste program.
• Updating and promoting the use of technology to support Division activities and
programs.
• Implementing continuous improvement initiatives across the Division.
• Evaluating alignment of Division programs with Snohomish County Code.
Long-Term Planning Issues
Long-term issues related to regulation and administration include:
• Align and standardize regional response and efforts for dealing with solid waste
issues.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Regional Collaboration and Standardization on Solid Waste Issues
and Programs
Snohomish County is involved with regional and statewide efforts to increase program
consistency and collaborate on ways to address solid waste issues. County staff
regularly meet with staff from other county, city and state agencies to compare and
improve solid waste and recycling programs. Continuing this involvement can provide a
number of benefits and be used to address a number industry-related issues. The
individual technical memorandums as part of this comprehensive plan update outline
specific collaborative efforts for various topics.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 11
Alternative B – Continuous Improvement (CI)
Snohomish County has implemented an ongoing effort to analyze and improve existing
workflow and processes, evaluate programs and make adjustments as needed to a
variety of solid waste initiatives. In the Solid Waste Division, this may include review
and evaluation of administrative, planning, fiscal or operational-centric workflows. The
Division has identified several CI projects. The Division will implement projects already
identified and continue to seek new projects. Planning staff will train supervisors and
select staff in how to recognize potential CI projects and follow through on their
implementation. Examples of current CI projects include:
• New web pages to provide better customer service.
• Changing point of sale vendors to reduce credit card service charges.
• Adding new containers to collect small propane tanks at transfer station recycle
areas.
• Evaluating how cooking oil is collected and processed.
Alternative C – Define and Prioritize Solid Waste Activities
As part of an annual review process, the Division can develop actionable workplans to
help design and strategize for implementing realistic and effective programs. These
improvements could also be part of an annual process for tracking progress in
implementing this Plan’s recommendations. An annual report could be prepared by the
Solid Waste Division and presented to the County Council. This annual report could
include the following:
• Prior year’s goals and accomplishments.
• Quantitative / measurable results.
• Upcoming year’s goals and expected results.
• Recommendations for any Plan updates or modifications over the next 5 years.
Additionally, the outcomes from the workplans and project can be reported to SWAC.
Alternative D – Evaluate Alignment of Division Programs with Snohomish County
Code (SCC)
As solid waste programs continually evolve with changing markets, mandates and a
variety of other factors, the SCC does not necessarily stay current with the industry or
the direction of Division management. The Division should review existing programs
and related SCC references to make sure they align with current program parameters.
For example, the review could update several SCC entries including:
• SCC 7.35.020, Definitions of solid waste related terms and activities.
• SCC 7.35.125, Disposal of Solid Waste.
• SCC 7.37.030, Grants to certain not for profit charitable organizations.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Administration and Regulation 12
• SCC 7.41.020, Solid waste service fee schedule.
• SCC 7.42.040, Services to be provided regarding residential collection of solid waste
and recyclables in unincorporated areas of the county.
Alternative E – Renew the Interlocal Agreement
The current interlocal agreement for solid waste management, which was executed in
2004 by Snohomish County and all of the cities and towns, expires December 31, 2023.
This agreement has served the county and municipalities well, and should be continued.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for administrative and regulatory
programs:
A&R1) Snohomish County SWD should implement division-wide continuous
improvement projects and report back to SWAC on implemented
improvements or operational changes.
A&R2) Snohomish County SWD should review programs and activities annually to
explore program modifications that could increase the effectiveness of waste
prevention, recycling, greenhouse gas reduction and other programs.
A&R3) Snohomish County SWD will collaborate and coordinate program endeavors
with regional partners to increase standardization and improve responses to
solid waste issues.
A&R4) Snohomish County SWD will review existing county code, how it relates to
current endeavors, and suggest/implement appropriate changes to align with
Division programs.
A&R5) Snohomish County SWD will work with the cities to renew the Interlocal
Agreement for solid waste management.
Snohomish County is the administrative and regulatory lead for the solid waste system
in the county, in coordination with Federal, State, regional and local agencies. Cities,
service groups, haulers and other private companies will operate within these systems.
All of the recommendations should be implemented, or continue to be conducted, over
the next five to ten years.
REFERENCES
UTC 2019. Cost Assessment Guidelines for Local Solid Waste Management Planning,
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, October 2019.
APPENDICES
A Glossary
B Moderate Risk Waste Plan
C Solid Waste Facility Siting
D Waste Quantities and Composition
E UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire
F SEPA Checklist
G Interlocal Agreements
H Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan
I Resolutions of Adoption
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 1
GLOSSARY
The following definitions are provided for various terms used in the Snohomish County
Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Items marked with an
asterisk (*) are from Chapters 7.35 and 7.41 of the Snohomish County Code.
Note: See also Snohomish County Codes (especially Chapters 7.35 and 7.41) and
State law (especially RCW 70.95.030 and WAC 173-350-100) for additional definitions
related to solid waste management. In the case of any inconsistencies, Snohomish
County Code, and then State law should take precedence over the below definitions.
Anaerobic digester: a facility that processes livestock manure, biosolids, and/or other
organics, using microorganisms in a decomposition process within a closed, oxygen-
free vessel to produce methane and residual solids.
ARTS: Airport Road Recycling and Transfer Station, one of the transfer stations owned
and operated by Snohomish County (see also “CWRTS,” “NCRTS” and “SWRTS”).
Biodiesel: a type of diesel fuel derived from vegetable oils or animal fats rather than
petroleum, used in vehicles and other compression-ignition engines.
Biomedical waste: infectious and potentially injurious waste originating from a medical,
veterinary, or intermediate care facility, or from home use.
Biosafety level 4 disease waste: includes wastes contaminated with blood, excretions,
exudates, or secretions from humans or animals who are isolated to protect others from
highly communicable infectious diseases that are identified as viruses assigned to
Biosafety Level 4 by the Centers for Disease Control.
Biosolids: includes sludge from the treatment of sewage at a wastewater treatment
plant and semisolid waste pumped from a septic system that has been treated to meet
standards for beneficial use.
Cardboard: recyclable kraft liner cartons with corrugated inner liners, as typically used
to ship materials. This generally does not include waxed cardboard or paperboard
(cereal boxes, microwave and similar food boxes, etc.).
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.
CESQG: see conditionally exempt small quantity generators.
CFC: chlorofluorocarbon, a chemical used in refrigerators and similar appliances.
Combustion: the process of burning something.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 2
*Commercial: a category of solid waste brought to a Snohomish County solid waste
disposal system facility for disposal by a company, corporation, business, firm,
association, sole proprietorship, partnership, municipality, political subdivision, or
government entity.
Commingled: recyclable materials that have been collected separately from garbage by
the generator, but the recyclable materials have been mixed together in the same
container (see also single stream and source-separated).
*Composting: the controlled microbial degradation of organic waste yielding a
nuisance-free soil amendment product.
Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs): a dangerous waste
generator whose dangerous wastes are conditionally exempt from regulation under
chapter 70.105 RCW, Hazardous waste management, solely because the waste is
generated or accumulated in quantities below the threshold for regulation and meets the
conditions prescribed in WAC 173-303-070 (8)(b).
*Construction, demolition and land-clearing waste: any recyclable or non-recyclable
waste that results from construction, remodeling, repair or demolition of buildings,
roads, or other structures, or from land-clearing for development, and that is removed
from the site of construction, demolition or land clearing.
CROP: Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan.
Curbside recycling: the act of collecting recyclable materials directly from residential
generators, usually after the recyclable materials have been placed at the curb (or at the
side of the street if no curb exists in the area) by the residents.
CWRTS: Cathcart Way Recycling and Transfer Station, the fourth transfer station in
Snohomish County, is opened to accept waste only when one of the other stations is
temporarily closed for maintenance or repair.
*Disposal site: an approved site or sites where any final treatment, utilization,
processing or deposition of solid waste is permitted and occurs. This includes, but is
not limited to, transfer stations and intermodal facilities (included as part of the disposal
system of the county), sanitary landfills, incinerators, composting plants, and the
location of a facility for the recovery of energy resources from solid wastes or the
conversion of the energy in such wastes to more useful forms or combinations thereof.
Drop Box Site: Previously known as Neighborhood Recycling and Disposal Centers.
These serve a similar function as transfer stations but are smaller and serve mainly self-
haul customers in rural areas. MSW is placed directly into an open-top container by the
customer.
Ecology: the Washington State Department of Ecology (also “Ecology”).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 3
EfW: energy from waste; typically, steam or electricity derived from burning waste.
EPA: the United States Environmental Protection Agency; the federal agency
responsible for promulgation and enforcement of federal environmental regulations.
E-Waste: electronics, including TVs, computers and monitors.
Feedstock: a waste or other material used to supply or fuel a machine or industrial
process.
Ferrous metals: materials that are predominantly (over 75% by weight) made of iron.
Includes cans and various iron and steel alloys that contain enough iron such that they
adhere to magnets. For recycling purposes, this generally does not include paint cans
or other containers that may contain hazardous residues.
Flow Control: The process of ensuring that garbage, including the residuals from
processing recyclable materials and construction and demolition wastes, generated in
Snohomish County is disposed of through the Snohomish County system. Since
Snohomish County receives no local taxes or general fund revenues to maintain its
solid waste programs, it is important to keep disposal fees for waste generated in
Snohomish County in the local solid waste system to cover the cost of these community
programs and services. In addition to providing transparency about which materials are
recycled or disposed of at a landfill, flow control promotes recycling and ensures landfill-
disposed materials are properly handled and disposed in the county solid waste system.
Disposal fees paid at county recycling and transfer stations help fund programs like the
county’s Household Hazardous Waste Program, Environmental Clean-up Team,
education and outreach, closed landfill management, disaster debris planning, solid
waste planning, and abandoned vehicle removal. See SCC 7.35.125 for more detail.
*Garbage: material that includes all putrescible wastes, except sewage and body
wastes, including vegetables, animal offal and carcasses of dead animals, but not
including recognized industrial by-products, and shall include all such substances from
all public and private establishments and from all residences.
GHG: greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
Green building: methods for designing and constructing buildings so as to reduce
energy and water consumption, to reduce materials consumed in the construction
process, and to provide other environmental benefits.
Groundwater: water present in subsurface geological deposits (aquifers).
HDPE: high-density polyethylene, a type of plastic commonly used in milk, detergent,
and bleach bottles and other containers.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 4
Hog fuel: wood waste that is reduced in size to facilitate burning.
Household hazardous waste (HHW): wastes that would be classified as hazardous due
to their nature or characteristics, except that the wastes are generated by households.
IMEX: Industrial Materials Exchange, an on-line and catalog service designed to help
businesses find markets for industrial by-products, surplus materials and waste.
Incentive rates: a rate structure for certificate (franchise) areas that incorporates the
cost of recycling into the cost of garbage collection, such that customers who recycle
can then be charged a lower monthly fee as an incentive.
*Incineration, incinerate or incinerated: the controlled combustion of solid waste that
yields satisfactory nonputrescible residues and air effluents.
*Incinerator: a furnace and associated building designed to burn solid wastes under
controlled conditions of more than 50-pounds-per-hour capacity.
*Industrial waste: waste by-products of manufacturing and/or processing operations
(does not include hazardous wastes generated by these industries).
Inert waste landfill: a type of landfill that only handles inert wastes (such as concrete,
asphalt, glass, and a few other materials), as regulated under Chapter 70A.205 RCW
and WAC 173-350-410.
*Intermodal container: any fully enclosed or open-top container designed and destined
for rail shipment that is closed and sealed with a security identification tag and is not
opened during transit or at the intermodal facility.
*Intermodal facility: any facility at which intermodal containers of waste are transferred
from trucks for rail shipment and at which the containers are not opened for further
treatment, processing or consolidation of the waste prior to final disposal. Any
intermodal facility currently in use by Snohomish County or hereafter created or
contracted by it, is part of the Snohomish County solid waste disposal system.
Leachate: water or other liquid within a solid waste handling unit that has been in
contact with solid waste or has been contaminated due to contact with landfill gas.
LDPE: low-density polyethylene, a type of plastic commonly used for some types of
packaging and products.
LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a standard applied to green
building projects.
LQG: large quantity generator.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 5
LSWFA: Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance, grant funds that are provided by
Ecology to support solid and hazardous waste activities.
Mixed paper: a mix of various types of recyclable paper, including materials such as
“junk mail,” magazines, books, paperboard (non-corrugated cardboard), and colored
printing and writing papers.
*Moderate risk waste (MRW): a) hazardous waste that is generated in smaller
quantities than those regulated by the Department of Ecology under the Dangerous
Waste Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC); less than 2.2 pounds (1 kg) of extremely
hazardous waste per month, and less than 220 pounds (100 kg) of dangerous waste
per month; and/or b) any household-generated hazardous waste, such as oil-based
paints, solvents, thinners, pesticides, corrosives, cleaners, auto maintenance products
and cosmetics.
MQG: medium quantity generator.
MRW: see moderate risk waste, above.
MSW: municipal solid waste (see also “solid waste”).
NCRTS: North County Recycling and Transfer Station, one of the transfer stations in
Snohomish County (see also “ARTS,” “CWRTS” and “SWRTS”).
Non-ferrous metals: materials predominantly made of copper, lead, brass, tin,
aluminum, and other metals except iron.
PBTs: persistent, bioaccumulative toxins are chemicals that pose a unique threat to
human health and the environment in Washington State. They remain in the
environment for long periods of time, are hazardous to the health of humans and
wildlife, can build up in the food chain, can be transported long distances and readily
move between air, land and water media.
PET: polyethylene terephthalate, a type of plastic. Commonly used to refer to 2-liter
beverage bottles, although other containers are also increasingly being made from this
material, including containers for liquid and solid materials such as cooking oil, liquor,
peanut butter, and many other food and household products.
Product stewardship: also known as “producer responsibility” or “extended producer
responsibility” (EPR), product stewardship is a strategy designed to address the
environmental impacts of products through their entire lifecycle, including end-of-life
management (prevention, reuse, recycling and disposal).
Public education: a broad effort to present and distribute public information materials.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 6
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency: the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is an agency with
regulatory and enforcement authority for air pollution issues in King, Kitsap, Pierce and
Snohomish Counties.
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
RCW: Revised Code of Washington.
RDC: Recycling Development Center.
*Reclamation: the process conducted at a reclamation site which consists of hand
and/or mechanical segregation of source separated recyclable solid waste for sale and
reuse. Materials which can be removed through reclamation include but are not limited
to paper, metal, glass, plastics, aggregates and wood waste processed for feedstock,
for new products or as hog fuel and used for energy recovery. Reclamation does not
include combustion of solid waste, preparation of a fuel from solid waste (other than hog
fuel), use of solid waste as alternative daily cover or use of solid waste as an industrial
boiler fuel.
*Reclamation site: a facility compliant with local, state and federal regulation used for
the processing or the storage of reclaimed material. Reclamation sites do not include
locations or facilities where wastes are initially generated, such as businesses,
construction sites or demolition sites.
*Recyclable materials: those solid wastes that are separated from other wastes for
anaerobic digestion, composting, recycling or reuse, including but not limited to papers,
metals, glass, plastics, aggregates, fabrics, yard debris, food waste, manures, wood
waste and other materials that are identified as recyclable material in the Snohomish
County comprehensive solid waste management plan, and are recycled. Wood waste
processed as hog fuel and used for energy recovery shall be considered a recyclable
material for purposes of this chapter.
Recycling or Recycled: the transformation or remanufacturing of recyclable waste
materials into usable or marketable materials for use other than landfill disposal,
alternative daily (landfill) cover, industrial waste stabilizer, combustion or incineration.
Reusable items: items that may be reused (or easily repaired), including things such as
small electronic goods, household items such as dishes, and furniture.
SDS: Safety Data Sheets.
Self-haul waste: waste that is brought to a landfill or transfer station by the person
(residential self-haul) or company (non-residential or commercial self-haul) that created
the waste.
SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 7
Septage: a liquid or solid material consisting of settled sewage solids combined with
varying amounts of water and dissolved materials. This waste is pumped from septic
tanks, cesspools, portable toilets, pit toilets, RV holding tanks, and similar systems.
SHD: Snohomish Health District.
Single stream: refers to the practice of placing all recyclable materials together in one
container for curbside collection (see also commingled and source-separated)
*Small quantity generator (SQG): a business which generates less than 220 pounds of
hazardous waste or 2.2 pounds of extremely hazardous waste per month and does not
accumulate more than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste (see also conditionally exempt
small quantity generators).
*Solid waste: all putrescible and non-putrescible wastes, whether in solid or in liquid
form, except liquid-carried industrial wastes and sewage, and including garbage,
rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, construction, demolition and land-clearing
wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded home and industrial appliances,
manure, digested sludge, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes, dead
animals, and other discarded solid and semi-solid materials. Municipal solid waste
(MSW), a subset of solid waste, refers to wastes normally collected from residential
households, commercial businesses, and containers.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC): a group assisting Snohomish County with
the development of this solid waste management plan, composed of representatives
from the general public, private industry, and the cities.
*Solid waste disposal system facility: a facility owned and operated by the solid waste
division or a facility operated under contract with the solid waste division which performs
activities identified as being part of the solid waste disposal system in the Snohomish
County comprehensive solid waste management plan, which includes, but is not limited
to, county owned and operated transfer stations and neighborhood recycling and
disposal centers (drop boxes) and the county’s contracted intermodal facilities.
*Source-separation: the segregation of recyclable materials from other solid waste for
the purpose of recycling, conducted by or for the generator of the materials on the
premises at which they were generated. Source separation does not require that
different types of recyclable materials be separated from each other.
*Special wastes: those solid wastes which require special handling either due to their
posing a potential health hazard, or due to their bulky or abrasive nature which could
damage transfer equipment, and which are designated as “special wastes” by the
authorized designee.
SQG: see small quantity generator.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix A – Glossary 8
SWAC: see Solid Waste Advisory Committee.
SWRTS: Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station, one of four transfer stations in
Snohomish County (see also “ARTS,” “CWRTS” and “NCRTS”).
*Transfer station: a staffed, fixed, supplemental, collection/transportation/disposal
facility, used by collection agents, or other persons or route collection vehicles to
deposit solid wastes into the larger transfer vehicle for transport to a disposal site. This
does not include a detachable container or solid waste drop box. Any transfer station
currently in use by Snohomish County, or hereafter created by it, is part of the
Snohomish County solid waste disposal system. MSW is typically placed onto a tipping
floor or pit by the customer.
UGA: Urban Growth Area, see the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan for more
details.
WAC: Washington Administrative Code.
Waste reduction or waste prevention: reducing the amount or type of solid waste that is
generated. Also defined by state rules to include reducing the toxicity of wastes.
White goods: term used to refer to large appliances, such as refrigerators, stoves,
dishwashers, water heaters and similar consumer products.
*Wood waste: means solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a
by-product or waste from the manufacturing of wood products, handling and storage of
raw materials and trees and stumps. This includes but is not limited to sawdust, chips,
shavings, bark, pulp, hog fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood
pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as creosote,
pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome-arsenate.
WSDA: Washington State Department of Agriculture.
WTE: waste-to-energy.
WUTC: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
Yard debris: refers to plant material, including, but not limited to, grass clippings,
leaves, branches, brush, flowers, roots, windfall fruit, vegetable garden debris, and
weeds commonly created in the course of maintaining yards and gardens, and through
horticulture, gardening, landscaping, or other similar activities.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 1
MODERATE RISK WASTE PLAN
SUMMARY
This document is the updated plan for moderate risk waste (MRW) management in
Snohomish County.
This Moderate Risk Waste Plan (MRW Plan) provides several recommendations for the
MRW management system in Snohomish County, including both new activities as well
as refinements to existing programs. New activities being recommended include the
implementation of continuous improvement initiatives and investigating a possible user
fee at the MRW Facility. Recommendations for existing activities include refinements to
public education programs and continuing the partnership with WSU, investigating
barriers to MRW Facility usage, increased collaboration with regional and statewide
MRW efforts, and reviewing and updating the MRW Facility’s O&M manual.
INTRODUCTION
This MRW Plan has been prepared to provide an update of Snohomish County’s plans
and programs for MRW. This MRW Plan was prepared as part of the update of the
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. As
part of the solid waste plan, some of the basic requirements for this MRW Plan are
fulfilled by parts of the solid waste plan, including information on the general
background of the planning area, the identification and approvals by participating
jurisdictions, the public participation process, and compliance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Definition of Moderate Risk Waste
Moderate risk waste (MRW) refers to waste materials that have characteristics similar to
hazardous wastes, but are generated in relatively small quantities by individual
households and in small quantities by businesses. In other words, these wastes are
flammable, corrosive, toxic, reactive, and/or persistent (Chapter 70A.300 RCW, WAC
173-303-070). Federal law does not currently regulate these wastes as hazardous, but
allows each state to adopt stricter regulations for hazardous waste from households and
small quantity generators.
Washington State has chosen to regulate these materials. The Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) created a waste classification called MRW that
includes household hazardous waste (which is generated by residential sources) and
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator waste (which is generated by
businesses, but in quantities below the current threshold for hazardous waste
regulations). A State law adopted in 1991 also added used oil to the list of materials to
be addressed by MRW programs.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 2
Snohomish County Code (SCC 7.41.050) requires MRW to be brought to the proper
facilities and not be disposed with solid wastes.
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW): The Hazardous Household Substances List
developed by the Department of Ecology is shown in Table 1 (Ecology 2010). When
generated in a residence, these products may become household hazardous wastes
when they are discarded, if they are flammable, corrosive, toxic, reactive, or persistent.
(NOTE: Table 1 is not all-inclusive as there are other wastes not on the list that may
also be HHW.)
Table 1. Hazardous Household Substances List
Substance or Class of Substance
Group 1: Repair and Remodeling
Adhesives, Glues, Cements X X
Roof Coatings, Sealants X
Caulking and Sealants X
Epoxy Resins X X X
Solvent Based Paints X X
Solvents and Thinners X X X X
Paint Removers and Strippers X X
Group 2: Cleaning Agents
Oven Cleaners X X
Degreasers and Spot Removers X X X
Toilet, Drain and Septic Cleaners X X
Polishes, Waxes and Strippers X X X
Deck, Patio, and Chimney Cleaners X X X
Solvent Cleaning Fluid X X X X
Household Bleach X
Group 3: Pesticides
Insecticides X X
Fungicides X
Rodenticides X
Molluscides X
Wood Preservatives X
Moss Retardants X X
Herbicides X
Fertilizers X X X
Group 4: Auto, Boat, and Equipment Maintenance
Batteries X X X
Waxes and Cleaners X X X
Paints, Solvents, and Cleaners X X X X
Additives X X X X
Gasoline X X X X
Flushes X X X X
Auto Repair Materials X X
Motor Oil X
Diesel Oil X X
Antifreeze X
Group 5: Hobby and Recreation
Paints, Thinners, and Solvents X X X X
Pool/Sauna Chemicals X X X X
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 3
Table 1. Hazardous Household Substances List, continued
Group 5: Hobby and Recreation, continued
Photo Processing Chemicals X X X X
Glues and Cements X X X
Inks and Dyes X X
Glazes X
Chemistry Sets X X X X
Pressurized Bottled Gas X X X
White Gas X X X
Charcoal Lighter Fluid X X
Batteries X X X
Group 6: Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs)
CFLs and Fluorescent Tubes
Auto Switches
Thermometers
Barometers
Thermostats
X (all) X (all)
Lead
Fishing Weights
Unused Lead Shot
Unused Traffic Paint
Unused Art Supplies (for stained glass and lead
X (all)
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDEs)
Computers X (all)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs
Pavement Sealant X (all)
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs)
X (all)
Group 7: Miscellaneous
Source: Guidelines for Developing and Updating Local Hazardous Waste Plans, prepared by the
Washington State Department of Ecology, Appendix F, February 2010.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 4
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) Waste: Many businesses
and institutions produce small quantities of hazardous wastes. The list of these
hazardous wastes is the same as for HHW (see Table 1). Conditionally exempt small
quantity generators (CESQGs) may produce hazardous waste at rates less than 220
pounds per month or per batch (or 2.2 pounds per month or per batch of acutely or
extremely hazardous waste) and accumulate less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous
waste on-site (or 2.2 pounds of acutely or extremely hazardous waste). Extremely
hazardous wastes include specific pesticides and other poisons that are more toxic or
persistent than other hazardous wastes. At amounts above these limits, the businesses
become medium (MQG) or large (LQG) quantity generators and must comply with the
reporting and other requirements for hazardous waste management and disposal.
CESQGs are conditionally exempt from State and Federal regulation, meaning that they
are exempt only as long as they generate less waste than the threshold amounts and
properly manage and dispose of their wastes.
Used Oil: Washington State law (Chapter 70A.224 RCW) requires that local
governments manage used oil in conjunction with their MRW programs and submit
annual reports to Ecology.
Goals and Policies for MRW
Current Goals and Policies: Current goals and policies specific to MRW include:
• Goal 2: Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base.
• Policy 2-8, Moderate Risk Waste: Continue efforts to reduce the generation and
toxicity of moderate risk waste, and to ensure that convenient, cost effective and
sustainable options for its safe management are available.
• Related policies from technical memorandums in the solid waste plan include:
o Policy 1-3, Waste Prevention: Continue to offer and develop programs that
encourage waste prevention.
o Policy 2-1, Recycling: Continue to offer and develop programs that encourage
recycling.
Beyond Waste Plan Goals for MRW: Ecology is required by law (RCW 70A.300.300
and RCW 70A.205.210) to develop and update the statewide hazardous waste and
solid waste plans. In 2004, Ecology simultaneously updated the 1994 State Hazardous
Waste Management Plan and the 1991 State Solid Waste Management Plan. The
updated plans were published together as the Beyond Waste Plan in November 2004.
The Beyond Waste Plan was updated in 2009 and 2015.
The Beyond Waste Plan’s 30-year vision states: "We can transition to a society where
waste is viewed as inefficient, and where most wastes and toxic substances have been
eliminated. This will contribute to economic, social and environmental vitality.” The
Beyond Waste Plan recognizes that "waste generation in Washington continues to
increase, and that toxic substances are more prevalent in our everyday lives now than
they were just few years ago." It explains why it is important to move beyond waste and
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 5
concludes "to lower the risks to people and the environment, Washington needs to shift
to an approach that will significantly reduce wastes and toxic substances over time.”
The Beyond Waste plan is divided into five sections, and each section presents goals
and actions that can be taken over the next five years:
• Managing Hazardous Waste and Materials
• Managing Solid Waste and Materials
• Reducing Impacts of Materials and Products
• Measuring Progress
• Providing Outreach and Information
The Beyond Waste plan also incorporates the concept of sustainable materials
management, which has been adapted from recent work by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Sustainable materials management looks at the full life cycle
of materials, from the design and manufacturing phase, to the use phase, and then to
the end-of-life phase when the material is either disposed or recycled. Materials
management still focuses on recycling and disposal issues, but in looking at production
methods and the use of materials, this approach can help identify more sustainable
ways to design products that use less energy, water and toxics. This is important
because the adverse environmental impacts of extraction, production and use can be
far greater than those associated with disposal when the product becomes a waste.
According to the EPA, a materials management approach is essential to conserving
natural resources to meet both today’s needs and those of future generations.
The Beyond Waste Plan adopted the following goals for managing hazardous wastes
and materials (Ecology 2015):
HWM 1: Hazardous waste generators will significantly reduce chemical use, waste,
emissions, and costs by successfully implementing effective pollution prevention
plans and other actions.
HWM 2: Pollution prevention planning facilities and other industries will use cleaner,
more sustainable manufacturing processes and produce less toxic and more
sustainable products.
HWM 3: LQGs and MQGs will comply with the dangerous waste rules and remain in
compliance.
HWM 4: Communication about compliance issues will improve, so it will be easier for
facilities to make corrections.
HWM 5: The Local Source Control Partnership, and other small business dangerous
waste and stormwater pollution technical assistance programs, will be expanded.
Fewer environmental issues will be found at facilities visited by staff.
HWM 6: All treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDs) will comply with
regulations and operate safely.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 6
HWM 7: By 2020, 95 percent of corrective action sites permitted by Ecology will safely
manage environmental contamination.
HWM 8: In the next five years, Ecology will issue permits for all sites and facilities that
reflect current operations and ensure facilities comply with permit conditions.
HWM 9: Parties interested in permitted facilities and corrective action sites will know
where to find current information.
HWM 10: Dangerous waste facilities and used oil processors will offer safe recycling.
HWM 11: Until toxic substances are phased out of products, and use of hazardous
materials declines, MRW collection will be maximized.
HWM 12: MRW locations and programs will provide increased services for residents,
businesses, and underserved communities.
HWM 13: Facilities that collect MRW will be properly permitted (if required) and in
compliance with applicable laws and rules.
Each of these goals is accompanied by two to five objectives (“actions”).
Regulations for MRW
MRW is regulated by local, State and Federal laws that govern proper handling and
disposal of these wastes.
Federal Regulations: The primary Federal laws relating to hazardous waste are the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Security Act. Other Federal legislation such as the Universal Waste
Rule and the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act establish
rules for specific types of hazardous waste. Asbestos and a few other materials are
regulated via the Toxic Substances Control Act.
a. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. s/s 6901 et seq.): The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes responsibility and
authority for managing hazardous waste. Subtitle C of the law establishes
requirements for generators, transporters, and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Hazardous wastes must be tracked from
the time they are generated until the time they are disposed using a manifest
system. Subtitle D of RCRA establishes minimum requirements for construction and
operation of solid waste disposal facilities. It seeks to ensure that landfills receiving
household hazardous waste and small quantity generator waste meet minimum
design and construction standards. Ecology has been delegated the authority to
enforce the provisions of RCRA.
b. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42
U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq.): CERCLA, also known as the Superfund act, provides the
Environmental Protection Agency with the authority to clean up disposal sites
contaminated with hazardous waste. The legislation enables the agency to identify
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 7
responsible parties and assess liability for cleaning up individual sites. The
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act establishes requirements related
to emergency response planning and community notification of chemical releases.
c. Toxic Substances Control Act: The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA)
provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record keeping and testing, and
establishes restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. TSCA
addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals
including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, and lead-based paint. Certain
substances are generally excluded from TSCA, such as food, drugs, cosmetics and
pesticides.
d. Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (HM-181): In 1974, the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act gave the Department of Transportation (DOT) the
authority to regulate the movement of substances that pose a threat to human health
and safety, property, or the environment. In 1990, the Transportation Uniform Safety
Act became law. The goal of this act was to create a uniform system for transporting
hazardous materials and to make U.S. regulations on hazardous material packaging
and transportation consistent with United Nations standards. This law led to
promulgation of the Hazardous Material Regulation 181 (HM-181). This regulation
governs the packing, shipping, and labeling of hazardous materials and waste in
transportation. This law also has requirements for generator and shipper training.
e. Enhancing Hazardous Materials Transportation Security (HM-232): HM-232,
which went into effect March 25, 2003, amended the hazardous materials
transportation rules to require that persons who transport, or offer for transportation,
certain types of hazardous materials develop and implement a security plan. This
rule also requires that employees be provided with security awareness training. This
rule applies to Snohomish County’s MRW Facility due to the types and quantities of
wastes collected and shipped. The intent of the security plan is to prevent theft of
flammable or explosive materials that could be used in acts of terrorism.
f. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA): Various OSHA rules
provide for worker safety protection in activities related to hazardous waste
management. One of the primary rules is contained in 29 CFR Part 1910. Subpart
H (Part 1910.120) of this rule addresses requirements for training and safety for
workers in RCRA facilities, and also for workers involved in clean-up and emergency
response activities.
State Regulations: One of the primary State laws that directly affects MRW is the
Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70A.300 RCW) and the associated rules
(Chapter 173-303 WAC and WAC 173-350-360). A few of the more significant State
laws are summarized below.
a. Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70A.300 RCW): The Hazardous
Waste Management Act addresses state and local hazardous waste management
plans, rules for hazardous waste generation and handling, criteria for siting
hazardous waste management facilities, and local zoning designations that permit
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 8
hazardous waste management facilities.
The Hazardous Waste Management Act
also establishes waste management
priorities for hazardous wastes. In order of
decreasing priority, the management
priorities are:
• waste reduction
• waste recycling
• physical, chemical, and biological
treatment
• incineration
• solidification/stabilization/treatment
• landfill
This waste hierarchy is a key element in
determining the compliance of this MRW
Plan with State requirements.
b. Dangerous Waste Regulations: Rules
implementing the Hazardous Waste Management Act are codified in the Dangerous
Waste Regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC). This regulation defines dangerous
waste materials and establishes minimum handling requirements. State rules
specifically exclude household hazardous waste and conditionally exempt small
quantity generator wastes from the Dangerous Waste Regulations. The Dangerous
Waste Regulations have been amended several times over the years, most recently
in 2019.
c. Ban on Disposal of Automobile Batteries: The Solid Waste Management Act
(Chapter 70A.205 RCW) prohibits the disposal of automobile batteries and requires
retail vendors to accept used batteries for recycling.
d. Ban on Disposal of Mercury Lighting: Legislation passed in 2010 (Chapter
70A.505 RCW and Chapter 173-910 WAC) prohibits the disposal of mercury lighting
with solid wastes.
e. Paint Stewardship Program: A new product stewardship program for paint went
into effect in April 2021 per a State law recently adopted (Chapter 70A.515 RCW).
This program will reduce the volumes and costs for the MRW facilities operated by
Snohomish County and other counties in Washington.
Local Regulations: Local regulations can be more stringent than Federal and State
regulations. Snohomish County has adopted local regulations that are more stringent in
some ways. The following local regulations pertain to MRW.
a. Snohomish Health District Sanitary Code Chapter 2.15, Solid Waste Handling
Regulations: The Snohomish Health District (SHD) Sanitary Code section
MRW Waste Management Hierarchy, from
Guidelines for Developing and Updating Local
, Ecology 2010.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 9
pertaining to MRW handling (Section 2.15.210) prohibits HHW or CESQG waste
from being placed into the solid waste collection system (or into septic systems,
stormwater systems or otherwise released into the environment). This regulation
allows for the disposal of MRW at permitted facilities and product take-back centers.
b. Snohomish Health District Sanitary Code Chapter 2.20: SHD has fully
incorporated Washington’s Solid Waste Handling Standards (Chapter 173-350
WAC) into their Sanitary Code, as Chapter 2.20. WAC 173-350-360 provides
handling and management standards related to MRW facilities.
c. Snohomish County Code 7.41.050: The Snohomish County Code (SCC) includes
definitions and restrictions regarding hazardous waste and moderate risk waste.
SCC 7.41.050 prohibits the disposal of moderate risk waste and hazardous waste
except at facilities designated for those wastes, and also prohibits the disposal of
pharmaceutical wastes at solid waste facilities, including expired, unused or
contaminated drugs and vaccines.
d. Snohomish County Public Works Solid Waste Division Waste Acceptance
Policy: The Waste Acceptance Policy does not allow for the disposal of the
following as garbage: household hazardous waste, business-generated hazardous
waste, computer monitors, televisions, computers, cell phones, separated circuit
boards and other cathode ray tube devices, pressurized canisters and tanks,
appliances that use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos and asbestos-containing
materials, and liquid wastes.
EXISTING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Evaluation of Current MRW and Oil Programs
1. HHW Collection Program: Snohomish County operates a facility to collect and
properly dispose of household hazardous wastes. The MRW Facility is located in
Everett. The County has also recently conducted community roundup events in
Darrington and Sultan for the collection of household hazardous waste. Households
may bring accepted items free of charge to the MRW Facility or to the roundup events.
Many additional locations for the collection and proper disposal/recycling of select
materials are also provided by retailers, manufacturers and other businesses throughout
the County. The primary collection methods are described further below:
a. MRW Collection Facility: The MRW Facility accepts a wide variety of hazardous
waste, and a complete list of the currently-acceptable items is shown on Snohomish
County’s website. In 2019, the MRW Facility served 14,808 residential customers
and collected 1,505,568 pounds (752.8 tons) of materials (including some non-
hazardous materials but not including motor oil, oil filters and antifreeze). The MRW
Facility also accepts waste from small businesses, but for a fee and only by
appointment (see later section for more details). Table 2 provides more details
about the wastes collected.
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
S
o
l
i
d
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
D
r
a
f
t
f
o
r
S
W
A
C
R
e
v
i
e
w
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
–
MR
W
P
l
a
n
10
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
MR
W
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
i
n
2
0
1
9
(
p
o
u
n
d
s
)
Wa
s
t
e
T
y
p
e
HH
W
CE
SQ
G
Ro
u
n
d
u
p
s
To
t
a
l
s
Di
s
p
o
s
a
l
M
e
t
h
o
d
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
:
Ba
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
;
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
Au
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
63
,
9
5
6
16
5
,
6
4
5
9,
2
7
8
0
28
6
1,
4
0
6
73
,
5
2
0
16
7
,
0
5
1
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
La
t
e
x
1
Oi
l
Ba
s
e
d
37
6
,
4
7
8
19
3
,
1
3
4
38
,
8
5
4
46
,
9
3
2
0 0
41
5
,
3
3
2
24
0
,
0
6
6
Re
u
s
e
d
o
r
d
i
s
p
o
s
e
d
En
e
r
g
y
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Ot
h
e
r
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
s
90
,
6
8
0
27
,
1
5
6
5,
5
6
5
12
3
,
4
0
1
Va
r
i
e
s
Wa
s
t
e
O
i
l
a
n
d
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
;
Us
e
d
O
i
l
Us
e
d
O
i
l
F
i
l
t
e
r
s
86
2
,
1
5
9
37
,
0
3
0
86
2
,
1
5
9
37
,
0
3
0
To
t
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
s
1,
1
1
4
,
4
5
8
(2
,
1
3
5
,
8
1
5
wi
t
h
o
i
l
a
n
d
15
5
,
3
3
7
8,
9
7
1
2,
3
0
0
,
1
2
3
po
u
n
d
s
,
o
r
1,
1
5
0
t
o
n
s
No
n
-Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
:
No
n
-Re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
L
i
q
u
i
d
s
No
n
-Re
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
S
o
l
i
d
s
Us
e
d
C
o
o
k
i
n
g
O
i
l
(
B
i
o
d
i
e
s
e
l
)
Pr
o
p
a
n
e
T
a
n
k
s
Ot
h
e
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
R
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
,
R
e
u
s
e
d
To
t
a
l
N
o
n
-Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
11
,
1
7
0
97
,
9
2
9
46
,
1
5
7
10
5
,
6
8
3
13
0
,
1
7
1
39
1
,
1
1
0
38
,
8
9
8
12
,
5
0
6
75
9
0
30
8
52
,
4
7
1
0 0
53
0
20
8
26
1
50
,
0
6
8
11
0
,
4
3
5
46
,
9
6
9
10
5
,
6
8
3
13
0
,
6
8
7
44
3
,
8
4
2
Di
s
p
o
s
e
d
Ha
z
.
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Re
u
s
e
d
o
r
r
e
c
y
c
l
e
d
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
s
,
A
l
l
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
(w
i
t
h
o
i
l
a
n
d
20
7
,
8
0
8
po
u
n
d
s
9,
2
3
2
p
o
u
n
d
s
2,
7
4
3
,
9
6
5
po
u
n
d
s
,
o
r
No
t
e
s
:
Th
e
a
b
o
v
e
d
a
t
a
i
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
t
o
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
T
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
o
i
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
at
t
h
e
M
R
W
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
r
o
p
b
o
x
e
s
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
o
t
h
e
r
(
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
)
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 11
b. Hazardous Waste Roundup Events: Households may bring hazardous waste
items to scheduled roundup events for free. No business waste is accepted at the
roundups. Roundups have been held in Darrington and Sultan in recent years.
These events served a total of 156 residential customers in 2019, ranging from 30 in
Darrington to 126 in Sultan. The total amount of waste collected at these events in
2019 was 9,232 pounds (see Table 2 for more details on the types of wastes
collected).
c. Snohomish County Transfer Stations: Limited quantities of certain hazardous
wastes are accepted for recycling from households, free of charge, at Snohomish
County transfer stations and drop box sites. These items currently include
antifreeze, batteries, fire extinguishers, fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent
bulbs, motor oil, oil filters, and propane tanks.
2. Public Education: The County conducts several activities to educate residents
about proper handling and disposal of HHW. These include information provided on
their website and the distribution of brochures that address specific topics such as
pharmaceuticals. The County has also worked with local haulers to help provide clear
MRW management instructions to customers through their websites.
3. Small Business Technical Assistance: Many of the activities conducted by
Snohomish County to educate residents about HHW also serve to educate businesses
about CESQG wastes. There are also specific activities that target businesses.
If a business accumulates more than the eligible CESQG amounts, the business may
become a fully-regulated generator of hazardous waste. Snohomish County Solid
Waste staff can provide other hazardous waste management and disposal options,
including a list of vendors who will pick up hazardous wastes from the business.
4. Small Business Collections: State and Federal law requires businesses to
properly manage and dispose of chemical waste. Business hazardous wastes include
items such as dyes, paints, inks, thinners, sludges, solvents, pesticides, chemicals,
acids, and caustics. The MRW Facility is open to CESQG businesses by appointment
only. A fee is charged for the service. Businesses must have their Safety Data Sheets
(SDS) and be ready to identify the class of hazardous wastes they are disposing. A
business may qualify as a CESQG if:
• the business generates less than 220 pounds of hazardous waste per month or
accumulates less than 2,200 pounds of hazardous waste at one time.
• the business generates less than 2.2 pounds of acutely or extremely hazardous
waste per month, or accumulates less than that amount at any one time.
In 2019, the MRW Facility served 543 CESQGs and collected a total of 207,808 pounds
(103.9 tons) from these generators (not including oil, oil filters and antifreeze). See
Table 2 for details on the types of wastes collected.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 12
5. Enforcement: The Snohomish Health District is the lead agency for the
enforcement of solid waste and MRW management issues in Snohomish County. They
enforce MRW regulations via complaint investigations and via permitting of MRW
facilities. Many of these complaints involve illegal dumping or improper storage and
disposal of wastes, such as batteries, used oil, gasoline, paint and paint-related
chemicals.
While SHD serves as the lead enforcement agency, they also work cooperatively with
the Division to provide various education and outreach programs dealing with MRW
management. Additionally, SHD provides public education to homeowners and
CESQGs. Homeowner education is delivered as part of their complaint investigation
process. CESQG technical assistance is also conducted as part of their complaint
investigation process. In addition, a business-oriented Pollution Prevention Assistance
program focuses on solid and hazardous waste management, pollution prevention, and
storm water issues.
To accomplish specific regulatory and public outreach objectives, SHD created a grant-
funded program. Accomplishments include adoption of countywide MRW regulations;
educational outreach intended to reduce the amount of MRW generated; and outreach
geared toward proper handling and disposal of MRW. For example, SHD has a
program that permits and inspects MRW collection facilities to ensure that there is no
threat to public health or the environment. Permitted MRW facilities, as of mid-2020,
include the Port of Edmonds, Pristine Environmental Services, Refined Solutions
(processors of dental amalgam), and the Snohomish County MRW Facility.
In the case of illicit disposal, Ecology may manage spills or releases through WAC 173-
303-050, -145, and/or -960.
6. Used Oil and Automotive Fluids Collection and Education: Automotive fluids
and batteries cannot be disposed as garbage and must be handled properly. These
materials must be taken to a proper handler, such as the County’s MRW Facility or a
reputable business. Many private businesses such as auto parts stores or service
stations provide recycling services for car batteries, used motor oil, oil filters, and
antifreeze. Battery retailers will accept car batteries from customers and the public.
7. Other Program Elements: Other important aspects of the MRW program include
various activities and issues:
a. Toxicity Reduction and Waste Prevention: Reducing or eliminating toxicity in
products or the use and disposal of toxic products is not only important to protect
human health and the environment, but it can save manufacturers, customers, rate
payers and the County significant costs for managing hazardous materials. When
able, the County participates in state and nationally convened processes to address
toxicity reduction.
b. Financing the MRW Program: The cost of operating the MRW Facility is covered
by Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance (LSWFA) funds from Ecology, with a
minimum of 25% matching funds provided by Snohomish County. Fees charged to
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 13
CESQGs defray a portion of the cost of disposing of their waste. Product
stewardship programs provide funds for handling some MRW at other locations and
offset some costs that would otherwise be incurred by the Division.
c. Governance Structure: The Snohomish County Solid Waste Division is the lead
agency for collection and education programs for MRW, and operates a facility to
collect and properly dispose of MRW. The Snohomish Health District is the lead
agency for the enforcement and compliance activities for solid waste and MRW
management issues in Snohomish County, and also conducts some education for
MRW.
d. Agricultural Waste Collection: The Washington State Department of Agriculture
(WSDA) conducts agricultural chemical waste collections annually, but none have
been held in Snohomish County recently. Locations for events are determined by
the number of requests. The closest events in the past year (2019) have been in
Seattle and Mount Vernon. Participants must sign up in advance to bring wastes to
these collection events, but there is no cost to participate.
Inventory of Generators and Facilities
RCW 70A.300.350(1)(a) requires MRW plans to contain an assessment of the
quantities, types, generators and fate of MRW in each jurisdiction. Not all of the
necessary data to conduct a complete assessment is currently available, but the data
that is available on the number of potential generators is summarized in Table 3. At first
glance, the data in Table 3 may appear to indicate that only a low number of MRW
generators (4.7% of the residential households and 2.7% of the potential non-residential
generators) bring their wastes to the MRW Facility or to the roundups. That conclusion
would actually be incorrect, however, due to several factors:
• Not every household and business is an MRW generator, or at least not in every
year. For residential sources especially, products may be stored for several years
before the resident does a “clean-up” or determines that the material is no longer
useful and is thus an MRW.
• An unknown number of households and businesses use other product stewardship,
take-back or drop-off sites for the more common wastes (electronics, oil, batteries,
antifreeze, mercury lighting and devices, and other MRW).
• An unknown number of CESQGs and large-quantity generators use the services of
private collection companies for their hazardous wastes instead of the MRW Facility.
Hazardous Waste Inventory
Ecology’s guidelines for MRW plans require that the following pieces of information be
addressed (Ecology 2010). The following information helps provide a full inventory of
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 14
Table 3. Characteristics of MRW Generators
Residential
Generators
Businesses
and
Institutions
Comments
Number of Households 316,9481 20,2282 Not all residents and businesses are
using the MRW Facility 14,964 543 multiple trips to the MRW Facility or
Number of Participants
for Other Programs Unknown Unknown
recycling electronics, oil, batteries,
mercury lighting, and other MRW
materials through various other
product stewardship, take-back and
drop-off programs, and an unknown
number of businesses are disposing
of wastes through that and private
collection services.
Notes: 1. The number of households (2019) includes one-unit dwellings (209,279), two+ units (88,064) and
mobile homes/special units (19,605) (OFM 2020).
2. The number of businesses is a third quarter 2019 figure from the Washington State Employment
Security Department’s web page https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/covered-employment (ESD 2020).
hazardous waste management in a community, by addressing dangerous waste
generators (i.e., large-quantity generators), contaminated sites, transporters and
processing facilities, and locations where hazardous waste facilities are allowed to be
sited (“zone designations”). For most of the following items, however, the actual
information is both lengthy and subject to change. Rather than attempt to show all of
the information here, the following provides a summary and also sources for updated
information.
Dangerous Waste Generators: Ecology’s records (Ecology 2020a) show that the
following numbers of businesses and institutions in Snohomish County are registered as
hazardous waste generators as of June 2020:
• 53 large-quantity generators
• 59 medium-quantity generators
• 155 small-quantity generators 1
• 80 non-generating sites and transporters with active EPA or state identification
numbers, but who did not generate waste in the most recent year.
1 This figure includes only those small-quantity generators that have chosen to get an EPA identification
number (which is not required for CESQGs), and the actual number of CESQGs is much higher than this
figure.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 15
Remedial Action Sites: Ecology’s list of confirmed and suspected contaminated sites
in Snohomish County can be found at https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/tcpwebreporting/ .
The sites are listed in five categories and the following figures are current as of May 22,
2020 (Ecology 2020b):
1. Brownfield Sites – 4 sites. Brownfield sites are abandoned or under-utilized
properties where potential liability due to environmental contamination and clean-up
costs complicate redevelopment.
2. Environmental Covenants Register – 34 sites. This registry is a list of sites that
have residual contamination after the clean-up has been completed. These sites have
environmental covenants or deed restrictions limiting the types of uses on the property.
3. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks – 572 records. This report contains
information on Underground Storage Tank facilities that require clean-up and their
clean-up history.
4. State Cleanup Sites:
a) Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites – 496 records. This report contains
information about sites that are undergoing clean-up and sites that are awaiting
further investigation and/or clean-up.
b) No Further Action Sites – 614 records. This data set contains information about
sites previously on the Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Site list (above) that
have received a No Further Action decision. These sites may have deed restrictions
or environmental covenants.
5. Regulated Underground Storage Tanks – 1,165 records. Washington State
regulates active storage tanks on different properties, including gas stations, industries,
commercial properties, and governmental entities.
Hazardous Waste Services (Transporters and Facilities): A large number of private
companies provide transportation and disposal services for a wide range of materials.
According to data from Ecology, there were 87 companies registered to transport
dangerous waste in Snohomish County in 2020 (Ecology 2020a).
Zone Designations: As part of the development of the original MRW plans, local
jurisdictions were required by State law (RCW 70A.300.370) to designate zones within
their borders where hazardous waste facilities would be permitted to operate and to
notify Ecology of those designations. In Snohomish County, that was done as part of
the 1993 plan and those designations are presumed to be in effect still. Cities that have
been incorporated since that time, however, may not be in compliance with this
requirement.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 16
PLANNING ISSUES
General Planning Issues
The existing service gaps and other issues connected to the specific components that
are required to be addressed by local moderate risk waste management programs are
addressed below.
• Most of the MRW collected in Snohomish County is handled through product
stewardship, take-back, or other business-provided services. The materials with the
highest rates of diversion from solid waste disposal are those materials for which
there are many widespread collection opportunities. Developing similar programs
for a wider range of MRW would help increase the diversion of these wastes from
disposal.
• Implement continuous improvement projects at the MRW facility to streamline
existing or stagnant workflows.
• Current and ongoing efforts to inform the public about opportunities for proper
disposal of MRW appear to be adequate based on the quantities of materials being
collected. More education will be needed for new programs.
• Business collection services are currently being provided through the MRW Facility
and other opportunities, including private contractors. These programs appear to be
working well for many of the materials. In addition, as with residential generators,
regular reminders about disposal requirements and opportunities are helpful for
maintaining the current level of compliance.
• Enforcement is currently being conducted on a complaint-based system and there
are no known problems with this approach.
• The recovery of used oil, antifreeze and automotive batteries appears to be very
good and few service gaps or other issues appear to exist for these wastes.
Long-term Planning Issues
• Significant improvement has been made in recent years in reducing or eliminating
toxicity in products or the use and disposal of toxic products, but more could be done
in this area.
• The County’s current MRW collection activities are funded primarily by the LFSWA
grant program administered by Ecology, and in the long term the MRW program may
need an alternative funding source if LFSWA grants become unavailable.
• The increased use of product stewardship programs could help provide new funding
methods and address other MRW management issues. The new product
stewardship program for paint, for instance, will eliminate (or at least provide an
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 17
alternative funding source for) 24% of the materials currently handled by the MRW
Facility (see Table 2). As more product stewardship programs are developed, the
County will need to determine to what extent, if any, they can and will participate in
those programs (through the MRW Facility or other means). As a central location
being used for other materials, the MRW Facility (and by extension, the mobile
collection events) can provide a good opportunity to collect materials for a product
stewardship program. Those programs will, however, need to make sense for the
County (i.e., not create unreasonable demands on finances or operations).
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A – Public Education for Household Hazardous Waste
Household hazardous waste education programs focus on identifying household
products that contain hazardous ingredients, promoting safer alternatives, and
explaining how to dispose unwanted products that contain hazardous substances. The
Division could review the existing outreach and update material as needed. In addition,
rather than solely continuing an independent education program for moderate risk
waste, Alternative A attempts to incorporate the message into other programs that also
benefit from proper household hazardous waste management. Other programs that
have common objectives include programs that deal with storm water, groundwater,
municipal wastewater treatment, and on-site sewage systems. By coordinating the
message with other resource protection and waste management programs, the
message would be repeated, and attention would be focused on the multiple benefits of
the higher-priority management practices.
Alternative B – Continuous Improvement (CI)
Snohomish County has implemented an ongoing effort to analyze and improve existing
workflow and processes, evaluate programs and adjust as needed to a variety of solid
waste initiatives. In the Moderate Risk Waste facility, this may include a review and
evaluation of administrative, planning, fiscal or operational-centric workflows. The
Division has identified several CI/MRW oriented projects including:
• Adding new containers to collect small propane tanks at transfer station recycle
areas.
• Evaluating how cooking oil is collected and processed.
• Enhancing MRW facility access to the Internet for research and data entry.
• Re-evaluating the phone tree structure and adjust the customer service model.
Alternative C – User Fees at the MRW Facility
A nominal fee could be charged, such as $5.00 per visit or a fee per item, for the use of
the MRW Facility or mobile collection events. Similar fees are charged in many areas of
the state. The CESQGs using the MRW Facility already pay a fee, so this alternative
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 18
applies only to the residential customers at that facility (and at the mobile collection
events). A fee such as this would help educate the public that there is a cost for this
service and that the use of less-toxic products would be less expensive. On the other
hand, a fee could discourage participation in HHW programs and reduce proper
disposal of HHW.
Alternative D – Increased Promotion of MRW Facility
Use of the MRW Facility could be increased by publicizing it more, and by emphasizing
the importance of proper disposal of even a small amount of toxic material. Any
publicity should target specific audiences or issues. Target audiences should include
those types of people that may be generating MRW but that aren’t using the facility as
much as other groups. Once a target audience is defined (residential and/or
commercial, specific gender and age groups, etc.), a variety of methods could be
implemented to increase the awareness of the MRW Facility.
The County could also review the possible barriers and benefits for potential users of
the MRW Facility. Some barriers could include that they do not find it convenient, they
do not know the hours or location, they do not want to spend any money or do not know
that it is free (for residential users), they do not want to transport just a small quantity of
toxics, they do not know how to transport their waste products, or there are language
barriers. The County could get a measure of the magnitude of these barriers by
conducting a brief survey of people in the target audience to ask them what prevents
them from using the MRW Facility. Once the barriers are assessed, the County could
promote an appropriate message via a variety of methods:
• social media postings.
• tokens, coupons, or vouchers, distributed by direct mail or utility bill inserts (although
already free to residential users, this could be an effective way to get some people’s
attention).
• posting MRW facility information at local libraries, schools, universities, city halls,
county offices, transfer stations, public facilities, and locations serving other ethnic
groups.
• more promotion of the MRW facility on the Snohomish County and other websites.
• radio ads.
• press releases.
The preferred strategy will depend on the target audience and the nature of the
participation barriers.
Alternative E – Coordination and Collaboration with Regional Jurisdictions
Snohomish County can become more involved with regional and statewide efforts to
manage HHW. County staff should meet regularly with staff from other county, city and
state agencies to compare and improve HHW programs. Continuing this involvement
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 19
can provide a number of benefits in managing regional HHW.
Alternative F – Washington State University Extension Service Partnership
Snohomish County could continue the existing partnership with the WSU Extension
Service to provide continuing educational services on HHW topics. The WSU Extension
service will collaborate with the Solid Waste Division to develop new educational
components and establish program preferences to align with Division priorities. The
County has found good results in waste reduction and recycling outreach through the
work of WSU Extension staff and volunteers.
Alternative G – Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual Update
The Division could review and update the MRW Facility’s O&M manual to align with
current programs and equipment standards and practices.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are being made for MRW programs:
MRW1) Public education programs for household hazardous wastes will be conducted
through collaboration with other agencies and groups.
MRW2) Implement MRW oriented continuous improvement projects and report back
to SWAC on implemented improvements or operational changes.
MRW3) Explore user fees for residential customers of the MRW Facility and mobile
collection events.
MRW4) A promotional campaign will be implemented to identify and address barriers
that are preventing greater usage of the MRW Facility.
MRW5) Engage in regional and statewide coordination and collaboration efforts.
MRW6) Continue partnership with the WSU Extension Service to provide educational
services specific to the MRW facility and HHW.
MRW7) Review and update the MRW Facility’s O&M manual to align with current
programs and equipment standards and practices.
Snohomish County is the lead agency for most of the above recommendations,
although MRW1 and MRW5 depend on collaboration with other departments and
agencies or with the private sector.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 20
None of the recommendations require new capital investments, and the costs for most
are limited to additional staff time and some expenses for outreach materials. For the
schedule, most of the recommendations can and should be implemented over the next
six years.
More information about the lead agencies, budget and schedule for the above
recommendations are shown in the following implementation plan.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Schedule and Financing for Implementation
The proposed implementation schedule and agency with the primary responsibility for
each recommendation is shown in Table 4. The entities shown as having responsibility
for implementation are the primary agencies responsible for this, but it should be
understood that these agencies will need assistance from others (especially the
municipalities and private companies such as waste collection firms).
Table 4. Six-Year Implementation Schedule
Recommendation Implementation
Responsibility
Year of Implementation
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
MRW1) Public education programs for HHW
will be conducted through collaboration with County Ongoing
improvement projects and report back to
SWAC on implemented improvements or County Ongoing
MRW3) Explore user fees for residential
customers of the MRW Facility and mobile County X X
MRW4) A promotional campaign will be
implemented to identify and address barriers
that are preventing greater usage of the MRW County X X
MRW5) Engage in regional and statewide County Ongoing
MRW6) Continue partnership with the WSU
Extension Service to provide educational County Ongoing
MRW7) Review and update the MRW Facility’s
O&M manual to align with current programs County Ongoing
Notes: County = Snohomish County, primarily the Solid Waste Division but may include the Snohomish
Health District and other County departments.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 21
Table 5 shows the approximate budget for the activities recommended in this plan.
Because this MRW Plan is being updated during a pandemic and the timing and extent
of the economic recovery are currently unknown, it is particularly difficult to project
waste generation and the resultant need for additional facilities and programs. Ongoing
monitoring of various developments and possible future amendments will allow this
MRW Plan to continue to serve Snohomish County beyond the next six years if desired.
Monitoring Future Performance
Moderate risk waste management in Snohomish County will continue to evolve based
on changes in population and other demographic factors; the local, state, and national
economy; regulations; and advancements in waste handling and recycling. Snohomish
County staff will continue to monitor these factors and other changes that may occur,
with the intent of developing new programs or changing existing programs to meet the
needs of the county’s residents and businesses. Snohomish County staff will also
continue to stay informed on new regulations being developed on the state and national
levels. New developments will be shared and discussed with the SWAC, as
appropriate. Significant changes in MRW programs will be addressed through
amendments to this MRW Plan.
Snohomish County staff will also monitor the tonnages of wastes collected at the MRW
Facility and through other methods (using the annual data collected by Ecology and
other sources as available) as indicators of the effectiveness of collection programs.
Any large increases or decreases in specific wastes or collection tonnages will be
investigated if those changes cannot be easily explained by program changes or other
known factors.
Future Amendments to MRW Plan
As part of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan, the schedule and approach for amending this MRW Plan should be
the same as the Solid Waste Management Plan. This does not, however, prevent the
following steps from being taken:
• This MRW Plan could be separated from the Solid Waste Management Plan in the
future if this was deemed advantageous.
• This MRW Plan could be amended separately in the future if necessary. For
instance, the implementation section of this plan could be amended to reflect
changes in plans, funding or priorities, or changes that occur for reasons outside of
the County’s control.
Implicit in the development and adoption of this plan is the understanding that
emergency actions may need to be taken by the County in the future for various
reasons, and that these actions can be undertaken without needing to amend this plan
beforehand. In this case, Snohomish County staff will endeavor to inform the SWAC
and other key stakeholders as soon as feasibly possible, but not necessarily before new
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
S
o
l
i
d
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
D
r
a
f
t
f
o
r
S
W
A
C
R
e
v
i
e
w
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
–
MR
W
P
l
a
n
22
Ta
b
l
e
5
.
S
i
x
-Ye
a
r
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
(
i
n
$
1
,
0
0
0
’
s
)
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Ye
a
r
o
f
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
MR
W
1
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
H
H
W
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
p
l
u
s
s
m
a
l
l
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
a
f
f
f
o
r
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
an
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
b
a
c
k
t
o
S
W
A
C
o
n
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
St
a
f
f
t
i
m
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
St
a
f
f
t
i
m
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
ad
d
r
e
s
s
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
u
s
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
M
R
W
15
15
So
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
ti
p
p
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
15
15
15
15
15
15
St
a
f
f
t
i
m
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
15
15
15
30
30
15
No
t
e
s
:
A
l
l
f
i
g
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
i
n
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
o
f
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 23
actions are implemented. If an emergency results in permanent and significant changes
to the Snohomish County waste management system, an amendment to this plan will
be prepared. If, however, the emergency actions are only undertaken on a temporary
or short-term basis, an amendment will not be considered necessary. Any questions
about what actions may be considered “temporary” or “significant” will be brought to the
SWAC for their advice. If emergency actions have temporary or significant budget or
service impacts, the County Council will be advised. Any future modifications to the list
of materials handled by the MRW Facility and by the roundups, as well as the frequency
(including cancellation altogether) and locations of the roundups, are not considered
sufficiently significant to require an amendment to this MRW Plan.
REFERENCES
Ecology 2010. Washington Department of Ecology, Guidelines for Developing and
Updating Local Hazardous Waste Plans, February 2010 (Publication #10-07-006).
Ecology 2015. Washington Department of Ecology, Moving Washington Beyond Waste
and Toxics, June 2015 (Publication #15-04-019).
Ecology 2020a. Washington Department of Ecology, information provided by email
from Megan Warfield to Rick Hlavka, June 17, 2020.
Ecology 2020b. Washington Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program Web
Reporting, https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/tcpwebreporting/, May 2020.
ESD 2020. Washington State Employment Security Department, preliminary third
quarter covered employment figures (https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/covered-
employment), May 2020.
OFM 2020. Postcensal Estimates of Housing Units, April 1, 2010 to April 1, 2019
(https://www.ofm.wa.gov/washington-data-research/population-
demographics/population-estimates/april-1-official-population-estimates), Office of
Financial Management, May 2020.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix B – MRW Plan 24
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix C – Solid Waste Facility Siting 1
SOLID WASTE FACILITY SITING
INTRODUCTION
Solid waste management plans (SWMP’s) in Washington State typically have included
information related to the siting of solid waste disposal facilities. Historically, this dates
back to the late 1980s when there was considerable concern about the proper siting of
new state-of-the-art solid waste landfills to replace old, unlined landfills and dumps.
Information about a county’s geography, geology, soils, slopes, seismic hazard areas,
groundwater, surface water (rivers, creeks, and lakes), flooding, land use, and air
emissions was previously included in a SWMP because these conditions are most
relevant to siting a new landfill.
Snohomish County currently sends the county’s municipal solid waste (MSW) to a
privately owned and operated landfill in central Washington, and has no immediate
plans to develop an MSW landfill in the county. It is equally unlikely that a private entity
would wish to construct a solid waste landfill in Snohomish County, in part because
there are already three very large, privately-owned regional MSW landfills in Oregon
and Washington. These three landfills are in low-rainfall areas that are better suited for
landfills than Snohomish County, and together provide sufficient competition such that
there would be little economic motivation for either the County or a private entity to
consider siting an MSW landfill within Snohomish County.
Some of the factors for siting a disposal facility would also be relevant to other types of
solid waste facilities such as transfer stations, inert waste landfills, construction and
demolition (C&D) waste processing facilities, recycling facilities, composting facilities,
and energy from waste (EfW) facilities. Hence, this technical memo provides
information about siting solid waste facilities in general.
SOLID WASTE FACILITY SITING PROCESS
New or improved technology or materials markets may motivate the proposed
development of other types of solid waste facilities such as inert waste landfills,
recycling or waste processing facilities, solid waste transfer stations or other facilities.
State Regulations
If the County or a private entity were to propose development of a solid waste facility, it
would be evaluated using Washington state rules such as the Solid Waste Handling
Standards (Chapter 173-350 WAC).
Snohomish County Regulations
Snohomish County standards such as the County Code and the Snohomish County
Comprehensive Plan, as well as municipal, zoning, and land use codes, would apply to
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix C – Solid Waste Facility Siting 2
solid waste facility siting. All of these other documents provide a more up-to-date
source for information about siting factors and considerations (and hence are hereby
incorporated by reference).
The Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan, most recently amended in 2016, serves
as a guide to the county’s future growth and development through 2025. The
Comprehensive Plan includes the following five sections:
• General Policy Plan
• Future Land Use Map
• Transportation Element
• Capital Facilities Plan
• Park and Recreation Element
The Capital Facilities section of the General Policy Plan identifies solid waste facilities
as an “essential public facility” and states that a process for the siting of these and other
facilities will be established though the county’s development regulations (see Goal CF
12 and related policies). The Capital Facilities section also contains goals and policies
that commit to ensuring that an adequate number and distribution of facilities are
available to encourage the proper disposal of solid and hazardous wastes (see
Objective CF 4.B).
Summary of Siting Process Steps
In general, the siting process for a solid waste facility would include the following steps:
1. Site Identification: For a public facility, the process of identifying sites may include
soliciting nominations from citizens and interested parties, identification of major
landholders and City/County properties, and other activities to initially identify as
many sites as practical. For a private site, the site selection process may consist
primarily of an inventory of sites currently owned or available for purchase.
2. Broad Site Screening: This step typically involves evaluating potential sites for
“fatal flaws,” such as unsuitable neighboring land use, distance from the point of
waste generation, site size, steep slopes, floodplain area, wetlands, surface water or
shorelines. For a public site, the goal should be to retain up to 12 sites after this
step is completed. For a private facility or other cases where there may be only a
few sites to begin with, only one or two sites need to survive this evaluation.
3. Detailed Site Ranking: After sites with fatal flaws have been eliminated, the
remaining sites should be evaluated against more detailed criteria such as the
availability of utilities (water, sewer, and electricity), traffic impacts and road access,
and other factors affecting the ability to develop and use the site. For a public effort,
no more than four sites should remain after this step is completed.
4. Detailed Site Evaluation: The final step in evaluating potential sites involves a
detailed investigation to assess environmental impacts, in accordance with the State
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix C – Solid Waste Facility Siting 3
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This includes significant public involvement to
ensure that stakeholders and citizens have sufficient input to the process. This step
should result in the recommendation of a preferred site.
5. Siting Decision: Finally, the decision to proceed with a recommended site should
be based on environmental, engineering, financial and political factors, and then
more detailed plans can be developed and the permitting process can begin.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix C – Solid Waste Facility Siting 4
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 1
WASTE QUANTITIES AND COMPOSITION
SUMMARY
This appendix provides information on waste disposal amounts, waste generation rates
(current and projected), waste composition, and recovery rates for recycled materials.
This data is used in the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (the “Plan”) to assess the need for new programs or determining the
impact of a proposed new program.
INTRODUCTION
The data in this appendix is organized chronologically:
• past disposal amounts
• current data on recycling levels, waste composition and recovery rates
• projected future amounts of garbage and recycling
Data provided in this appendix is used throughout this Plan, but primarily to assess the
potential impact of new or expanded programs.
PAST DISPOSAL QUANTITIES
Historical Disposal Amounts
The amounts of wastes disposed in the past 22 years in Snohomish County are shown
in Table 1. The waste tonnage figures shown are only for municipal solid waste (MSW)
brought to County facilities and does not include wastes brought to other facilities or
recycling tonnages.
Population and Waste Disposal Rates
Current and future population levels are an important factor to consider for solid waste
management plans. People create solid waste and in general, the more people there
are (now and in the future), the more waste is created. The amount of waste disposed
is also influenced by employment levels, other economic factors and recycling rates.
Hence, Snohomish County population data is also shown in Table 1, and this data is
used to calculate a waste disposal rate. This rate should not be confused with a waste
generation rate (which is addressed later in this appendix). The waste generation rate
is actually a better measure of the amount of waste produced, since it takes into
account all of the wastes produced (regardless of whether the waste materials are
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 2
Table 1. Historical Waste Disposal Amounts
Year Waste Disposed,
TPY Population Waste Disposal
Rate, tpy/person
1998 397,461 576,165 0.69
1999 419,741 591,590 0.71
2000 434,754 606,024 0.72
2001 438,529 617,860 0.71
2002 440,007 629,290 0.70
2003 422,852 639,940 0.66
2004 443,964 648,780 0.68
2005 462,955 661,350 0.70
2006 507,122 676,130 0.75
2007 518,820 689,310 0.75
2008 456,744 699,330 0.65
2009 419,129 705,890 0.59
2010 403,585 713,340 0.57
2011 395,379 717,000 0.55
2012 394,631 722,900 0.55
2013 411,770 730,500 0.56
2014 430,128 741,000 0.58
2015 452,771 757,600 0.60
2016 484,912 772,860 0.63
2017 509,209 789,400 0.65
2018 526,344 805,120 0.65
2019 528,761 818,700 0.65
2020 560,525 841,998 0.67
Sources: Waste tonnage data is from Snohomish County records, and includes only the outbound
wastes handled and processed by county facilities. Population data is from the Office of
Financial Management (OFM 2019).
Waste disposal rates are expressed in terms of tons per year (tpy) per person.
recycled or disposed). Figure 1 shows how the per capita disposal rate (in terms of tons
of waste per person per year) has changed in the past 23 years through the county
system.
CURRENT RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL DATA
Current Recovery Rate
The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) gathers data annually on the
amounts of materials recycled and disposed in Washington State. This analysis begins
with annual reports on recycled and disposed quantities submitted by a wide variety of
private companies, government agencies, non-profit organizations and others. The
annual reports are mandatory for companies and agencies engaged in activities
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 3
Figure 1
Historical Per Capita Disposal Rates
Source: Based on the waste disposal rates shown in Table 1.
that require a solid waste permit, but there are many waste diversion activities that do
not require permits and so reporting in many cases is voluntary. Hence, the level of
cooperation and accuracy of reporting can vary significantly from year to year.
Much of the focus on data collection by Ecology in the past targeted the calculation of a
“recycling rate,” or in other words the percentage of municipal solid wastes (MSW) that
were diverted to recycling and composting programs and facilities. In this plan, MSW is
the term generally used for solid wastes handled by the County’s system of transfer
stations and disposal. Non-MSW wastes include other wastes handled outside of that
system, such as contaminated soils sent directly to a landfill. Beginning with the 2017
data, Ecology shifted their focus to the determination of a “recovery rate” and increased
the types of materials counted towards the recycling rate or recovery rate. The recovery
rate is a broader term that includes both materials diverted to other uses that are not
defined as recycling, such as wood burned for energy, and non-MSW wastes.
Data for the past three years from Ecology’s annual recycling survey is shown in Table
2. Data for the year 2017 is the most recent data available at this time. A three-year
average is shown to avoid some of the fluctuations that may be caused by non-reporting
issues, and to show the trends that might exist for some of the materials. The data
shown in Table 2 reflects the increased types of materials counted towards the recycling
rate for 2017, and data for 2015 and 2016 has been reconfigured to be consistent with
Ecology’s new approach. This new approach is the primary reason for the increase in
Snohomish County’s recycling rate, which has gone from 48.8% in 2009 to 63.9% in
2017. Most of this increase is due to construction and demolition (C&D) materials,
which previously were not counted in the recycling rate. As shown in Table 2, the
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 4
Table 2. Recycled and Composted Quantities by Material
Material Three-Year
Average
Asphalt and Concrete 296,634 268,270 323,197 296,034
Gypsum 434 2,259 9,287 3,993
Land Clearing Debris 59,619 42,567 28,277 43,488
Roofing Materials 3,418 320 0 1,246
Wood 42,977 28,037 27,100 32,705
Other C&D 62,143 70,105 106,023 79,424
Glass (Containers) 13,194 14,357 14,020 13,857
Aluminum Cans 885 756 757 799
Appliances/White Goods 140 4,122 3,649 2,637
Other Ferrous 123,477 103,946 141,232 122,885
Other Non-Ferrous 19,561 11,254 20,444 17,086
Steel (Tin) Cans 1,067 1,181 968 1,072
Antifreeze 334 265 204 268
Batteries, Auto Lead Acid 778 912 864 852
Batteries (all other) 96 108 30 78
Electronics 3,971 5,468 4,762 4,734
Light Bulbs 105 201 99 135
Oil Filters 108 202 179 163
Used Oil 5,820 6,305 6,258 6,128
Agricultural Organics 1,000 2,000 2,000 1,667
Meats, Fats, and Oils 16,990 2,390 1,945 7,108
Food and Yard Debris, Mixed 73,791 65,457 74,413 71,220
Yard Debris 33,540 49,212 53,141 45,298
Other Food Waste 55,381 12,310 16,842 28,178
Other Organics 10,890 18,731 12,641 14,087
Cardboard 40,162 49,512 33,151 40,942
High Grade 3,260 3,632 5,657 4,183
Mixed Paper 16,178 26,487 25,226 22,630
Newspaper 23,137 18,856 15,927 19,307
HDPE 993 1,255 966 1,071
LDPE 408 1,479 409 765
PET 1,196 1,459 1,195 1,283
Other Plastics 416 750 844 670
Textiles 2,978 3,348 3,441 3,256
Tires 3,721 2,765 3,691 3,392
Miscellaneous 91 44 45 60
918,894 820,322 938,883 892,700
Note: All data is from the annual recycling survey conducted by Ecology (Ecology 2020).
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 5
amount of C&D materials measured by Ecology in 2017 was 493,884 tons, which is
over half (52.6%) of the total amount of materials classified as recyclable by Ecology for
that year.
Additional materials tracked by Ecology’s annual survey are shown in Table 3. This
table shows materials that are not counted as recycling because the materials are used
for energy production. This includes materials processed by anaerobic digestion, which
Ecology began tracking in 2017.
Table 3 also shows the materials monitored for reuse. The figures for reuse should be
viewed with caution as there are many more tons of a wide variety of materials that are
being managed through reuse than are tracked by the Ecology survey. The reuse
figures shown in Table 3 represent only a small fraction of the types and amounts of
materials being handled through food banks, charities, building material operations,
garage sales and online services such as Craigslist, eBay, and many others. In
addition, Ecology only recently began tracking these materials.
Table 3. Recovered and Reused Material
Material Three-Year
Average
Food Waste Anaerobically Digested 0 0 1,313 438
Other Organics Anaerobically Digested 0 0 4,229 1,410
Used Oil Burned for Energy 566 1,413 0 660
Tires Burned for Energy 57 480 160 232
Wood Waste Burned for Energy 9,484 3,917 12,258 8,553
Clothing and Household Items 819 3,705 2,856 2,460
Construction and Demolition Mtl. 112 118 26 85
Food 0 358 0 119
Tires 619 457 255 444
Wood 79 17 0 32
Note: All data is from the annual recycling survey conducted by Ecology (Ecology 2020).
Composition of Waste Disposed
Composition data is useful for designing solid waste handling and disposal programs. A
waste composition study was conducted for Snohomish County in 2008 and 2009
(Snohomish County 2009). This study divided the waste stream into five categories
based on source of waste (see below) and into 81 categories of materials. A summary
of the results of this study is shown in Table 4.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 6
Table 4. Solid Waste Composition in Snohomish County
Type of Material
Annual Average by Waste Generator, % by Weight Total
Waste
Stream Single-
Family
Multi-
Family
Res.
Self-Haul
Non-Res.
Self-Haul
General
Non-Res.
Recyclable Paper 10.4 18.9 9.7 3.1 11.7 11.3
Compostable Paper 5.7 4.2 1.1 0.1 7.7 4.9
Other Paper 2.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 3.2 2.2
Plastic Bottles 1.7 2.5 1.0 0.2 1.4 1.4
Plastic Bags, Film 6.0 4.7 1.9 1.3 7.0 5.0
Other Plastics 5.1 4.4 6.3 3.7 10.5 7.0
Metals 7.0 5.2 11.8 4.9 6.0 7.2
Recyclable Glass 2.1 4.9 2.9 0.2 1.9 2.4
Other Glass 0.4 1.1 2.5 3.3 0.8 1.2
Food Waste 26.2 17.7 5.5 0.6 13.1 14.6
Yard Debris 2.2 3.6 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.3
Disposable Diapers 5.7 4.5 1.4 0 0.6 2.5
Textiles 3.8 4.2 2.9 0.3 5.0 3.8
Furniture 0.8 1.3 6.6 8.0 0.4 2.4
Wood Waste 1.2 6.8 26.0 29.8 15.3 13.8
Const./Demolition 0.6 1.2 7.8 30.1 3.7 5.4
Animal Excrement 7.2 2.8 2.3 0 0.3 2.7
Other Special Wastes 0.9 2.2 1.9 0.2 1.0 1.2
Other Materials 10.9 8.6 5.5 10.7 8.1 8.6
33.1 44.0 31.6 12.2 35.3 33.4
Source: From Table E–2 of the “Snohomish County Waste Composition Study” (Snohomish County 2009).
Notes: All figures are percentages by weight.
The recyclable materials subtotal includes recyclable paper, plastic bottles, plastic film and bags,
metals, glass bottles, yard debris and textiles.
This study was conducted at the County’s three main transfer stations (ARTS, SWRTS
and NCRTS). Construction and demolition (C&D) wastes and other special wastes are
included in the results only to the extent that these materials were disposed at the
County facilities (in other words, the study does not include wastes disposed at C&D or
inert landfills). Recycled and diverted materials are not included in these figures since
the study only sampled wastes brought to the three main transfer stations for disposal
purposes.
The specific types of generators examined by the waste composition study included:
• Single-Family: waste collected by garbage haulers from single-family homes.
• Multi-Family: waste collected by garbage haulers from apartment buildings.
• Residential Self-Haul: waste brought in by the homeowners and renters who
generated it, typically using a car or pickup truck.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 7
• Non-Residential Self-Haul: waste from businesses and institutions (government
offices, churches, schools, etc.) which was brought to the disposal facility by an
employee of that business or institution. A substantial amount of this waste stream
consisted of loads of construction and demolition wastes.
• General Non-Residential: waste from all types of non-residential sources
(commercial, industrial, or institutional) which was delivered by someone other than
an employee (such as a garbage hauling company or municipality).
The composition of the waste stream can be expected to change in the future due to
changes in consumption patterns, packaging methods, disposal habits, and other
factors. These changes are very difficult to predict in the long term.
Waste Generation Rates
The information shown in Tables 2 and 3 can be combined with waste disposal data to
calculate a recycling rate and a recovery rate for Snohomish County. The recovery
rate, as indicated previously in this document, is a broader term that includes materials
that are burned for energy and also includes non-MSW wastes in the calculation. The
figures used for the calculation of the recycling and recovery rates are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Waste Generation Rates
Material Three-Year
Average
Recycled
Other Recovery and Reuse
918,894
11,734
820,322
10,643
938,883
21,096
892,700
14,491
Solid Waste Amounts;
MSW, at County Facilities
MSW sent to Other Facilities
MSW Subtotal
Other Solid Wastes
452,771
31,454
484,225
807,981
484,912
24,683
509,595
407,691
509,209
22,322
531,531
291,221
482,297
26,153
508,450
502,298
Recycling and Recovery Rate;
Recycling Rate (Recycled and MSW
only)
Recovery Rate (Total Recovery and
65.6%
61.7%
63.9%
63.7%
Population
Waste Generation Rate, tons per year
per person
MSW (MSW and Recycled Amounts)
All Wastes (All Wastes and Total
1.86
1.72
1.86
1.81
Notes: Figures for MSW handled at County facilities are from Snohomish County records (see Table
1), all other tonnage figures are from Ecology’s records.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 8
The bottom row of Table 5 shows the waste generation rates based on MSW only and
also for all types of wastes recovered and disposed.
In Snohomish County’s case, the recovery rate is substantially lower than the recycling
rate because there are significant amounts of non-MSW wastes generated in the
county, but relatively low amounts of recovered and reused materials being reported.
As can be seen in Table 5, the amounts of non-MSW wastes being disposed varied
from 807,981 tons in 2015 to 291,221 tons in 2017. The majority of the non-MSW
wastes were soils (contaminated and uncontaminated), and in 2015 there were also
441,511 tons of various types of construction and demolition debris reported as being
disposed.
PROJECTED FUTURE WASTE QUANTITIES
Projecting future amounts of solid waste is a necessary part of planning for proper solid
waste management. Projections for the future amounts of solid waste are an important
starting point for ensuring that there will be adequate collection, transfer and disposal
capacity for that waste, and also provides the basis for designing recycling and other
waste diversion programs.
An uncertainty regarding future waste projections is the question about the “other solid
wastes” that are not currently handled as part of the County system. Data from Ecology
(see Table 5) shows highly variable amounts of this waste in the most recent three
years for which data is currently available (2015-2017), with the three-year average
(502,298 tons) almost equaling the amount of waste handled through the County
system (508,450 tons). Much of the recent wastes that have fallen into the category of
“other solid wastes” are contaminated and uncontaminated soils or other materials over
which the County has little control and little opportunity for recycling or other waste
diversion options. Furthermore, these wastes are not being handled as part of the
County system, and so have no bearing on system capacity issues. Hence, the
following analysis examines only the MSW types of wastes (MSW and those materials
that count towards the recycling rate).
Table 6. Projected Solid Waste and Recycling Quantities for Snohomish County
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population 841,998 899,527 955,910 1,009,774 1,058,113
At 2017 Rates
1,566,116 1,673,120 1,777,993 1,878,180 1,968,090
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 9
Table 6 shows projected waste quantities using the same waste generation rate as in
2017 (1.86 tons per person per year) and the same recycling rate (64%). In other
words, the increasing amounts of waste and recycling shown in Table 6 are based
solely on increasing population. Figure 2 also shows this information graphically.
Figure 2
Projected Recycling and Waste Quantities
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Disposed Recycled
Source: Based on figures shown in Table 6.
REFERENCES
Ecology 2020. Data from the Annual Recycling Survey, Washington Department of
Ecology, email from Dan Weston to Rick Hlavka, January 22, 2020.
OFM 2019. Projections of the Total Resident Population for Growth Management, 2017
GMA Projections, Medium Series, Office of Financial Management, January 2019.
Snohomish County 2009. Snohomish County Waste Composition Study. Prepared by
Green Solutions, April 2009.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix D - Waste Quantities and Composition 10
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-1
COST ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
General Information
Plan prepared for the County of Snohomish
Prepared by Green Solutions
Contact telephone 360-897-9533
Contact email rick@green-solutions.biz
Date May 1, 2021
Years
Throughout this document:
Each year shall refer to:
Calendar year January 1 – December 31
1. Demographics
1.1. Population
1.1.1. Provide the total population of your County (excluding cities choosing to develop their
own SWMP) for the base year and each of the following five years.
1.2. References and Assumptions
For Section 1.1.1, population projections are based on OFM data, medium-growth series, 2017 GMA
projections.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-2
2. Waste Stream Generation
Provide the information below related to solid waste and recycling.
2.1. Tonnage of Solid Waste Disposed
2.1.1. Provide the total tonnage of solid waste disposed of in the base year and each of the
following five years.
2.2. Tonnage of Recyclable Materials with a Market
2.2.1. Provide the tonnage of recyclable materials recycled in the base year and each of the
following five years.
2.3. Tonnage of Recyclable Materials without a Market
2.3.1. Provide the tonnage of recyclable materials disposed of in the base year and each of the
following five years.
2.4. References and Assumptions
For Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.1, waste and recycling projections are based on population and the current
(2017) per capita disposal and recycling rates (0.667 and 1.19 tons per person per year, respectively, see
Tables 5 and 6 in Appendix D). For Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, it is assumed that markets will improve by
2021 and subsequent years, and collection programs will be adjusted to avoid non-recyclable materials.
3. Collection Programs
3.1. Regulated Solid Waste Collection Programs
Provide information for each UTC-regulated solid waste collection company operating in your
jurisdiction for the base year and each of the following five years.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-3
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
NA = Not Available, commercial waste tonnages for Sound Disposal, Inc. are included with residential
tonnage figures.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-4
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name Waste Management Northwest
G-Certificate # G-237
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Residential
# of customers 145,328 147,246 149,190 151,159 153,155 155,176
Tonnage collected 80,141 81,198 82,270 83,356 84,456 85,571
Commercial
# of customers 8,768 8,884 9,001 9,120 9,240 9,362
Tonnage collected 138,815 140,648 142,504 144,385 146,291 148,222
3.2. Cost & Funding for Solid Waste Programs
Provide information for solid waste programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include
costs and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Program Cost Funding Page #
Program Cost Funding Page #
Upgrade the Dubuque Pages 8 and 9 of the
3.3. References and Assumptions
For Section 3.1, the number of customers and tonnages collected are based on current figures (2019)
and then projected based on population growth (1.32% annually).
For Section 3.2, it is understood that the information requested here is intended to be for countywide
programs such as special taxes or fees, and not for basic services such as the cost of waste collection
services or for existing activities. There are no implemented or proposed programs like that. The only
applicable proposed activity that might result in additional costs for the solid waste collection system is
the possible expansion of the Dubuque Road Drop Box. The plans for that site have not been finalized
yet and so the costs of that upgrade are unknown at this time, but it is likely that all or part of that
expense can be taken from reserve funds and thus may not immediately result in increased tipping fees.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-5
4. Waste Reduction (Recycling and Organics)
4.1. Recycling
4.1.1. Regulated Recycling Collection Programs: Provide information for each UTC-regulated
recycling company for the base year and each of the following five years.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-6
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name Waste Management Northwest
G-Certificate # G-237
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Residential
# of customers 145,328 147,246 149,190 151,159 153,155 155,176
Tonnage collected 34,188 34,639 35,097 35,560 36,029 36,505
Commercial
# of customers 4,944 5,009 5,075 5,142 5,210 5,279
Tonnage collected 19,498 19,755 20,016 20,280 20,548 20,819
4.1.2. Recyclable Materials: Provide a list of recyclable materials to be collected in accordance
with the SWMP. For each item, indicate if there is an active market and if the revenues exceed
the cost of processing.
Recyclable Material Active Market Revenues > Processing Costs
Cardboard X Yes . No X Yes No
Newspaper X Yes No Yes X No
Other Paper X Yes No Yes X No
Aluminum Cans X Yes No X Yes No
Tin Cans X Yes No X Yes No
Glass X Yes No Yes X No
Plastic Bottles X Yes No X Yes No
Yard Debris X Yes No X Yes No
Food Wastes X Yes No X Yes No
4.1.3. Costs & Funding for Recycling
Provide information for recycling programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include costs
and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Program Cost Funding Page #
Pages 6 to 11 of the
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-7
Program Cost Funding Page #
Implement expanded Pages 17 and 19 of the
4.2. Other Waste Reduction Programs (Organics, such as Yard Waste and Food Waste)
4.2.1. Regulated Organics Collection Programs: Provide information for each UTC-regulated
company collecting organics operating in your jurisdiction for the base year and each of the
following five years.
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-8
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name Sound Disposal, Inc.
G-Certificate # G-82
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Residential
# of customers 1,398 1,417 1,435 1,454 1,473 1,493
Tonnage collected 801 811 822 833 844 855
Commercial
# of customers 33 33 34 34 35 35
Tonnage collected 54 55 56 57 57 58
UTC-Regulated Hauler Name
G-Certificate #
Residential
Commercial
4.2.2. Costs & Funding for Organics Collection Programs
Provide information for programs for collecting organics that have been implemented and/or proposed.
Include costs and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide
the page number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Program Cost Funding Page #
Pages 4 to 11 of the
Program Cost Funding Page #
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-9
4.3. References and Assumptions
For Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2.1, the number of customers and tonnages collected are based on current
figures (2019) and then projected based on population growth.
For Section 4.1.2, the materials listed are the designated recyclable materials for residential curbside
programs in Snohomish County (see Table 5 in the Recycling Tech Memo). The processing costs for
these materials (except yard debris and food waste) is assumed to average $60 to $70/ton, and the
revenues for each type of material are based on typical values published by RecyclingMarkets.net in
early 2020.
For Sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2, it is understood that the information requested here is intended to be for
countywide programs and not for basic services such as the cost of collection services.
5. Disposal
5.1. Energy Recovery & Incineration (ER&I) Disposal Programs
Not applicable, the only significant ER&I facility in Snohomish County is a privately-operated co-
generation plant (Hampton Lumber Mill). No new ER&I facilities are proposed.
5.2. Land Disposal Program
The only landfills operating in Snohomish County are a few small private inert waste landfills. See pages
2 to 3 of the Disposal Tech Memo for more details.
6. Administration Program
6.1. Costs & Funding for Administration Programs
Provide information for administration programs that have been implemented and/or proposed.
Include costs and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide
the page number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Program Cost Funding Page #
County administration Page 4 of the Admn.
Program Cost Funding Page #
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E: UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire Page E-10
6.2. References and Assumptions
The figure shown for the implemented cost in Section 6.1 is the sum of administration and planning
costs for 2020, see the Administration and Regulation Tech Memo for more information.
7. Other Programs
7.1. Programs
For each program in effect or planned that does not readily fall into one of the previously described
categories please fill in the following table.
7.1.1. UTC Regulation Involvement
If UTC regulation is involved, please explain the extent of involvement.
NA
7.2. Costs & Assumptions of Other Programs
Provide information for other programs that have been implemented and/or proposed. Include costs
and proposed funding mechanism. If these programs are discussed in the SWMP, provide the page
number in the draft plan on which it is discussed.
Program Cost Funding Page #
Program Cost Funding Page #
7.3. References and Assumptions
NA
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E – UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire 11
8. Funding Mechanisms
This section relates specifically to the funding mechanisms currently in use and the ones that will be implemented to incorporate the recommended
programs in the draft plan. Because the way a program is funded directly relates to the costs a resident or commercial customer will have to pay,
this section is crucial to the cost assessment process.
8.1. Facility Inventory
Facility Name Type of Facility Transfer Cost Location 3 3
Airport Road
Transfer Station Transfer station
See Note 1
Everett 266,020 $26,873,132
Transfer station Snohomish 3,261 $42,587
Drop Box $20/cubic yard Snohomish 7,090 $805,089
Drop Box $20/cubic yard Granite Falls 2,105 $237,568
Intermodal Facility Intermodal NA Everett 79,858 $5,190,768
Transfer station Arlington 121,772 $13,027,257
Transfer station 157,519 $16,478,499
Drop Box $20/cubic yard Sultan 5,944 $650,915
Notes: 1. The total operating costs for all transfer stations and drop boxes was $20,693,353 in 2020. Table 1 in the Administration and Regulation Tech Memo
provides more details about the Snohomish County budget.
2. The figure shown for Transfer Cost for the MRW Facility is the total operating costs for 2020.
3. The total tons and revenues shown for the transfer stations and drop boxes include MSW, yard debris and clean wood.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix E – UTC Cost Assessment Questionnaire 12
8.2. Tip Fee Component
Tip Fee by Facility Base Rate Surcharge Refuse Tax B&O Tax City Tax
8.3. Tip Fee Forecast
Tip Fee per Ton by Facility 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Notes: Tipping fees have remained the same since 2006, but may change in the future due to inflation, large capital expenses or for other reasons.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
Lead Agency: Snohomish County Public Works
Agency Contact:
Michael Smith, Project Specialist IV, Solid Waste Division
3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 607, Everett, WA 98201-4046
Email: michael.smith@snoco.org
Telephone: (425) 388-7519
Agency File Number: RR8023
Project Name: Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan – 2021
Description of Proposal:
Snohomish County Public Works - Solid Waste Division currently operates three transfer stations and
three drop box sites. A fourth transfer station (Cathcart) is utilized when one of the other stations is
temporarily closed for maintenance or repair. The transfer stations are in the more urbanized areas of the
County and provide service to the greatest number of residents, while the drop boxes are distributed
throughout the more rural areas of the County. The waste collected at the transfer stations and drop
box sites is compacted and trucked to an intermodal facility in Everett, from which it is shipped by rail to the
Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. The Division also operates the Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
collection facility which offers free disposal of household hazardous wastes from Snohomish County
residents. For a fee, it also accepts hazardous waste from commercial businesses that generate small
quantities of hazardous waste.
To ensure that solid waste is collected, handled, recycled, and disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner that protects public health, Washington State regulations require the county to have an approved
comprehensive solid waste management plan. The proposed Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan – 2021 updates the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. The Plan describes the management of all aspects of solid waste generated by residents
and businesses in the county and will be adopted as both a Six-Year and Twenty-Year plan with goals and
recommendations for solid waste management within Snohomish County.
The vision for this update of the Plan is to shift to a more sustainable future, where people are generating
less waste and are handling the wastes that they do generate in an environmentally and sustainably sound
manner emphasizing the concepts of reduce and reuse as opposed to focusing on recycling. This vision is
the underlying concept for the two major goals of the Plan: 1) Support actions to reduce climate change and
promote sustainability, and 2) Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base. The goals
are in turn reflected in the policies that are used in the Plan to consider additional programs and
recommendations for enhancements to the solid waste system.
The Plan consists of background information and a summary of the recommendations, and a series of
technical memorandums and appendices that address specific topics in detail, such as:
Snohomish County
Public Works
Transportation and Environmental Services
3000 Rockefeller Ave., M/S 607
Everett, WA 98201-4046
(425) 388-3488
www.snoco.org
Dave Somers
County Executive
Climate Change
Energy from Waste
Waste Prevention
Recycling
Organics
Waste Collection
Waste Transfer
Waste Disposal
Outreach and Education
Administration and Regulation
Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
Chapter 70A.205 RCW requires the Plan to project the anticipated cost of solid waste construction and
capital acquisition programs for a six-year period. The Division’s capital programs are focused primarily on
facility repair and maintenance projects and the purchase of a few additional pieces of equipment.
Significant anticipated capital acquisitions and improvements for the next 6 years include:
Sisco Landfill Closure
Scale Automation Software Upgrade
Drop Box Improvements
North County Recycling and Transfer Station (NCRTS) Compactor Replacement
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Modernization
Airport Road Recycling and Transfer Station (ARTS) Scale Replacement
Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station (SWRTS) Pavement Resurfacing
Solid waste management in Snohomish County will continue to evolve based on changes in population,
demographics, the local, state, and national economy, regulations, and advancements in waste handling
and recycling systems. Because this Plan is being developed during a pandemic and is still under the
influence of international market and recycling uncertainties, it is particularly difficult to project waste
generation and the resultant need for additional facilities and programs. It must be recognized that some
amount of flexibility will be needed to see Snohomish County and their partners through the next few years
and into the next twenty years.
Location of Proposal: The updated 2021 Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
will guide operations at all Snohomish County Solid Waste facilities and facilities and coordinate solid
waste management throughout Snohomish County.
Threshold Determination: Snohomish County Public Works has determined that this proposal will not
have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and Design Report. This information is available at:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/5958/Comprehensive-Solid-Waste-and Hazardous-
Snohomish County Public Works has determined the requirements for environmental analysis, protection,
and mitigation measures have been adequately addressed in the County’s development regulations and
comprehensive plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal
laws and rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158. Our agency will not require any
additional mitigation measures under Chapter 30.61 SCC.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) on February , 2022. It will be published on February 9, 2022,
and the comment period will end at 5:00 PM PST on February 23, 2022. Send any comments to the
Agency Contact.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
____________________________________ ________________
Kelly A. Snyder, MPA, Public Works Director Date
3000 Rockefeller Ave, M/S 607, Everett, WA 98201-4046
Telephone: (425) 388-6652, Email: kelly.snyder@snoco.org
Appeal Process:This DNS may be appealed pursuant to the requirements of SCC 30.61.300 and Chapter
2.02 SCC. There is a 14-day appeal period for this DNS that commences from the date of publication of
notice. Any appeal must be addressed to the County Hearing Examiner, accompanied by a filing fee of
$500.00, and be filed in writing. The appeal must be received by 5:00 PM PST on February 23, 2022.
The appeal must contain the items set forth in SCC 30.71.050(5). In addition, SCC 30.61.305(1) also
requires that any person filing an appeal of a threshold determination made pursuant to Chapter 30.61
SCC shall file with the County Hearing Examiner, within seven (7) days of filing the appeal, a sworn
affidavit or declaration demonstrating facts and evidence, that, if proven, would demonstrate that the
issuance of the threshold determination was clearly erroneous.
Currently, in person filings are suspended due to COVID-19 safety protocols
Online filing instructions:
Appeals may be accepted electronically and paid for by credit card over the phone as follows:
Scan the original signed copy of the appeal document.
Send your appeal as an email attachment to epermittech@snoco.org. Please include a phone
number where you can be reliably reached.
Staff will call you to collect your credit card information and process your payment.
Mail the original copy to: Snohomish County PDS, 3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 604, Everett, WA
98201
Title VI and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: It is Snohomish County’s policy to assure that no person shall
on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be discriminated against under any county-sponsored
program or activity. For questions regarding Snohomish County Public Works’ Title VI Program, or for interpreter or translation
services for non-English speakers, or otherwise making materials available in an alternate format, contact the Department Title VI
Coordinator via email at spw-titlevi@snoco.org or phone 425-388-6660. Hearing/speech impaired may call 711.
Información sobre el Titulo VI y sobre la Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades (ADA por sus siglas en inglés): Es la
política del Condado de Snohomish asegurar que ninguna persona sea excluida de participar, se le nieguen beneficios o se le
discrimine de alguna otra manera en cualquier programa o actividad patrocinada por el Condado de Snohomish en razón de raza,
color, país de origen o género, conforme al Título VI de la Enmienda a la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964. Comuníquese con el
Department Title VI Coordinator (Coordinador del Título VI del Departamento) al correo electrónico spw-titlevi@snoco.org, o al
teléfono 425-388-6660 si tiene preguntas referentes al Snohomish County Public Works’ Title VI Program (Programa del Título VI
de Obras Publicas del Condado de Snohomish), o para servicios de interpretación o traducción para los no angloparlantes, o para
pedir que los materiales se hagan disponibles en un formato alternativo. Los que tienen necesidades comunicativas especiales
pueden llamar al 711.
DISTRIBUTION LIST:
Federal Agencies:
National Marine Fisheries Service- SEPA Review
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service – North Puget Sound Branch
State Agencies:
Department of Ecology- SEPA Register, Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Tribal Governments:
Muckleshoot Tribe
Samish Indian Nation
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe
Skagit River System Cooperative
Snoqualmie Tribe
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Suquamish Tribe
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Tulalip Tribes
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Cities:
Arlington - Public Works Director, Mayor, Communications Manager
Bothell - City Manager, Public Works Director
Brier - Mayor, Public Works Supervisor
Darrington - Mayor, Darrington Public Works
Edmonds - PW and Utilities Director, Mayor
Everett - Mayor, Chief of Staff, Communications Director, PW City Engineer, PW Information &
Education
Gold Bar - Mayor, PW Director, Office Manager
Granite Falls - City Manage, PW Director, City Clerk
Lake Stevens - Mayor, Public Works Director, City Administrator, City Clerk
Lynnwood -Mayor, PW Director, PIO
Marysville - Mayor, Public Works Director, Communications Administrator
Mill Creek - Public Works Director, City Manager, Interim Director of Communications and
Marketing
Monroe - Mayor, City Administrator, Public Works Director
Mountlake Terrace - City Manager, PW Director, City Clerk Community Relations
Mukilteo - Mayor, Interim Public Works Director, Executive Assistant
Snohomish - Mayor, Economic Development/Communications Manage, City Engineer
Stanwood - Public Works Director, City Administrator, Mayor
Sultan - City Administrator, Public Works Director, Mayor
Woodway - City Administrator, PW Director, Mayor
Other:
The Herald
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Libraries: Everett Public Library and Sno-Isle Libraries
Snohomish County: Snohomish County Council, County Executive
SEPA CHECKLIST
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Snohomish County
Public Works
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Prepared by:
Smith, Michael Project Specialist IV
Snohomish County Public Works-
Solid Waste Division
Phone: (425) (425) 388-7519
Michael.smith@snoco.org
January 2022
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 1 of 16 1/21/2022
Purpose of Checklist:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental
impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if
available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the
probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to
further analyze the proposal.
SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND
Name of proposed project:
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Name of applicant:
Snohomish County Public Works Department
Solid Waste Division
Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Michael Smith, Project Specialist IV
Solid Waste Division
3000 Rockefeller Ave, MS 607
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 388-7519
Michael.smith@snoco.org
Date checklist prepared:
January 21, 2022
Agency requesting checklist:
Snohomish County Public Works
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Plan)
provides recommendations and policies through 2041. The Plan and SEPA Environmental
Checklist will be submitted to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) for review. If approved by
Ecology, the Plan will then be submitted to the Snohomish County Council for review. If
approved, the Snohomish County Council will adopt the Plan by motion. This process is
expected to be completed spring 2022.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, please explain.
This Plan is written to be a dynamic document. Minor modifications, which do n ot affect the
basic goals of the Plan, may be made throughout the lifetime of this document. Decisions to
either undertake actions outside the Six-Year Implementation Schedule or that alter the
Plan’s Vision, major goals, or policies, will be defined as major plan revisions and require a
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 2 of 16 1/21/2022
full approval process. In general, the Plan is reviewed every 6 years and is scheduled for a
2027 update.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Ten Technical Memorandums on related topics were prepared as part of this Plan. The
memos prepared are: Climate Change and Sustainability, Waste Prevention, Recycling,
Organics, Waste Collection, Transfer, Disposal, Energy from Waste, Out reach and Education,
Administration and Regulation. The Appendices also include: Moderate Risk Waste Plan, Solid
Waste Facility Siting, Waste Quantities and Composition, Contamination Reduction and
Outreach Plan.
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, please explain.
No.
List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
State Law (RCW 70A.205.040) and guidelines issued by the Department of Ecology (Guidelines
for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions)
require the cities and towns to adopt the plan (or they must develop their own plans), require
a public review period for a minimum of 30 days, require that the plan and a Cost Assessment
Questionnaire be reviewed and approved by the Washingt on Utilities and Transportation
Commission, and require Ecology and the Department of Agriculture to examine and
comment on the preliminary draft plan. The Board of County Commissioners and the cities
and towns must also adopt the final draft of the plan. After adoption by the County and
cities, Ecology must approve the plan before it becomes effective.
The process for government approval will be:
• Prepare and release the Preliminary Draft plan
• Public and agency comment period
• Address comments received and incorporate those into the Final Draft
• Adoption of Final Draft by cities and county
• Review and approval of the final daft by Ecology
1. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project 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).
Snohomish County Solid Waste Division currently operates three transfer
stations and three drop box sites. A fourth transfer station (Cathcart) is utilized
when one of the other stations is temporarily closed for maintenance or repair.
The transfer stations are in the more urbanized areas of the County and
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 3 of 16 1/21/2022
provide service to the greatest number of residents, while the drop boxes are
distributed throughout the more rural areas of the County. The waste collected
at the transfer stations and drop box sites is compacted and trucked to an
intermodal facility in Everett, from which it is shipped by rail to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. The Division also operates the Moderate
Risk Waste (MRW) collection facility which offers free disposal of household
hazardous wastes from Snohomish County residents. For a fee, it also accepts
hazardous waste from commercial businesses that generate small quantities of
hazardous waste.
To ensure that solid waste is collected, handled, recycled, and disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner that protects public health, Washington State
regulations require the county to have an approved comprehensive solid waste
management plan. This proposal is to update the Snohomish County
Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Plan
describes the management of all aspects of solid waste generated by residents
and businesses in the county and will be adopted as both a Six -Year and
Twenty-Year plan with goals and recommendations for solid waste
management within Snohomish County.
The vision for this update of the Plan is to shift to a more sustainable future,
where people are generating less waste and are handling the wastes that they
do generate in an environmentally and sustainably sound manner emphasizing
the concepts of reduce and reuse as opposed to focusing on recycling. This
vision is the underlying concept for the two major goals of the Plan: 1) Support
actions to reduce climate change and promote sustainability, and 2) Ensure
efficient services for a growing and changing customer base. The goals are in
turn reflected in the policies that are used in the Plan to consider additional
programs and recommendations for enhancements to the solid waste system.
The Plan consists of background information and a summary of the
recommendations, and a series of technical memorandums and appendices
that address specific topics in detail, such as:
• Climate Change
• Energy from Waste
• Waste Prevention
• Recycling
• Organics
• Waste Collection
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 4 of 16 1/21/2022
• Waste Transfer
• Waste Disposal
• Outreach and Education
• Administration and Regulation
• Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
Chapter 70A.205 RCW requires the Plan to project the anticipated cost of solid
waste construction and capital acquisition programs for a six-year period. The
Division’s capital programs are focused primarily on facility repair and
maintenance projects and the purchase of a few additional pieces of
equipment. Significant anticipated capital acquisitions and improvements for
the next 6 years include:
• Sisco Landfill Closure
• Scale Automation Software Upgrade
• Drop Box Improvements
• North County Recycling and Transfer Station (NCRTS) Compactor Replacement
• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Modernization
• Airport Road Recycling and Transfer Station (ARTS) Scale Replacement
• Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station (SWRTS) Pavement Resurfacing
Solid waste management in Snohomish County will continue to evolve based
on changes in population, demographics, the local, state, and national
economy, regulations, and advancements in waste handling and recycling
systems. Because this Plan is being developed during a pandemic and is still
under the influence of international market and recycling uncertainties, it is
particularly difficult to project waste generation and the resultant need for
additional facilities and programs. It must be recognized that some amount of
flexibility will be needed to see Snohomish County and their partners through
the next few years and into the next twenty years.
2. Location of 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/range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of areas,
provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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.
This plan applies to all solid waste management properties throughout
Snohomish County.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 5 of 16 1/21/2022
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (check one): Not Applicable
☐ FLAT
☐ ROLLING
☐ HILLY
☐ STEEP SLOPES
☐ MOUNTAINOUS
☐ OTHER (please describe): Click here to enter text.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Does Not Apply.
c. What general types of soil are found on the site (i.e., clay – sand – gravel – peat –
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note an y
agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results
in removing any of these soils.
There are many different soil types in Snohomish County.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
please describe.
Does Not Apply
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected
area of any filling excavation and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Does Not Apply
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, please generally
describe.
Does Not Apply
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (i.e., 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 during construction,
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, please 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,
please generally describe.
Does Not Apply
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 6 of 16 1/21/2022
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Does Not Apply
3. Water
a. Surface Water:
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, please describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream
or river if flows into.
Does Not Apply.
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 p lans.
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? Please give a
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.
No.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, please describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Does Not Apply
b. Groundwater:
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water of other
purposes? If so, please give a general description of the well, proposed uses and
approximate quantities withdrawn from the well.
No.
2. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Please give a general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Does Not Apply
3. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (i.e., domestic sewage, industrial, containing the
following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.).
Does Not Apply
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 7 of 16 1/21/2022
4. 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
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) 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, please describe.
Does Not Apply
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, please generally
describe.
No.
3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of
the site? If so, please describe.
Click here to enter text.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface water, groundwater, runoff water, and
drainage impacts, if any:
Does Not Apply
4. Plants
a. Check all types of vegetation below found on or in close proximity to the site: Not
Applicable
☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, cottonwood, other
☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, hemlock, pine, other
☐ shrubs
☐ grass
☐ pasture
☐ crop or grain
☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops
☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
☐ other types of vegetation present: Click here to enter text.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None.
c. List threatened and endangered plant species known to be on or near the site.
None.
d. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
None.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 8 of 16 1/21/2022
e. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation of the site, if any:
None.
5. Animals
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site. Does Not Apply
b. birds: hawks, heron, eagle, songbirds, owls, ducks, woodpeckers
c. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, opossum, raccoon, coyote, small rodents
d. fish: salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other):
e. other: Click here to enter text.
f. List any threatened and endangered wildlife species known to be on or near the site.
Where federal threatened and endangered species are found, a ny future work associated
with the plan’s implementation will conform to the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Where state listed species or Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) are found , the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species recommendations
will be followed, when appropriate.
g. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, please explain.
Snohomish County lies within the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds which stretches
between Alaska and South America. All migratory birds are protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
h. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Does Not Apply.
i. 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? Please 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,
please generally describe.
Does Not Apply.
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:
A major goal of this Plan is to support actions which will reduce climate change
and promote sustainability.
7. Environmental Health
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 9 of 16 1/21/2022
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, please describe.
The Solid Waste Division has operated a Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
collection facility since 1996. This facility offers free disposal of household
hazardous waste from Snohomish County residents and commercial businesses
that generate small quantities of hazardous waste.
1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past
uses.
Does Not Apply.
2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
None.
3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or
produced during the project’s development or construction, or any time during
the operating life of the project.
Various chemicals and materials (acids, bases, batteries, paints, stains,
aerosols) are temporarily stored at the MRW facility until the County’s
hazardous waste contractor is contacted for pick of the materials
4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
The MRW facility has been designed to contain minor spills if they occur. The
staff is trained in emergency procedures. If a major spill of fire occurred staff
would contact local emergency services.
5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Improving solid waste collection will help reduce environmental health hazards
by removing potential risks from the environment.
b. Noise:
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (i.e., traffic,
equipment, operation, aircraft, 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 long-term basis (i.e., traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Does Not Apply.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 10 of 16 1/21/2022
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Does Not Apply
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect
current land use on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, please describe.
Does Not Apply.
b. Has the site been used as working farmlands or working forestlands? If so, please
describe. How much agriculture or forestland of long-term commercial significance will
be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not
been designated, how many acres in farmland or forestland tax status will be converted
to non-farm or non-forest use?
Does Not Apply
1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farmland or
forestland’s normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the
application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
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 critical area by the city or county? If so, please
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
k. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to nearby agricultural and forestlands
of long-term commercial significance, if any:
Does Not Apply.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 11 of 16 1/21/2022
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Does Not Apply
m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement, 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:
Dos 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 view 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.
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 recreation uses? If so, please describe.
Does Not Apply
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 12 of 16 1/21/2022
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreating, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Does Not Apply.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45
years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, site, or local preservation registers
located on or near the site? If so, please general describe.
There are several hundred recorded historical sites in Snohomish County. Some of these
are listed on, or eligible for, national, state or local preservation registers. The Solid Waste
Plan will not directly affect any of these sites.
b. Are there any landmarks, features or other evidence of Tribal or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material
evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any
professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources.
There are many landmarks, features or other evidence of Tribal or historic use and
occupation within Snohomish County. The Solid Waste Plan will not directly affect any of
these locations.
a. Describe methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources
on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with Tribes and the
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic
maps, GIS data, etc.
Any future site work associated with plan implementation would b screened by
Snohomish County Public Works to determine site proximity to known
archaeological and cultural sites.
b. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may
be required:
Does Not Apply.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, or affected geographic area, and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Does Not Apply.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, please
generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Does Not Apply.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project
proposal have? How many would the project proposal eliminate?
Does Not Apply.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 13 of 16 1/21/2022
d. Will the proposal require any new – or improvements to existing – roads, streets,
pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so,
please generally describe (indicate private or public).
Does Not Apply.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, please generally describe.
Solid waste from Snohomish County is transported by rail to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill in Klickitat County, Washington. The current waste export
contract extends to 2028.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occu r and what percentage of
the volume would be trucks (such as commercial or non-passenger vehicles). What data
or transportation models were used to make these estimates?
Does Not Apply.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural
and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, please generally describe.
Does Not Apply.
h. 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 (i.e., fire protection,
police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, please generally
describe.
Does Not Apply
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Does Not Apply
16. Utilities Not Applicable
a. Check all utilities currently available at the site:
☐ Electricity
☐ Natural Gas
☐ Water
☐ Refuse Service
☐ Telephone
☐ Sanitary Sewer
☐ Septic System
☐ Other (please describe) Click here to enter text.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site of in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 14 of 16 1/21/2022
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: ___________________________________________
Printed name and Digital Signature ___________________________________________
Position and Agency/Organization: Project Specialist IV, Snohomish County Solid Waste
Division
Date Submitted: _January 21, 2022______________________________
Michael B. Smith
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 15 of 16 1/21/2022
D. Supplemental sheet for non-project actions
(IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of
the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect
the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented.
Respond briefly and in general terms.
1) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
This proposal would not increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Snohomish County Solid Waste Management will support efforts and actions by County and
other agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of climate
change through various initiatives such as waste prevention, recycling, and energy -from-
waste.
Snohomish County Solid Waste Management will continue efforts to reduce the generation
and toxicity of moderate risk waste, and to ensure that convenient, cost effective and
sustainable options for its safe management are available.
2) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Does not apply
3) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
This proposal would not deplete energy or natural resources.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural r esources are:
The County will continue to monitor developments and progress in energy-from-
waste including new technologies, pilot projects, facility procurements and operating track
records, and other projects in the region.
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?
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 16 of 16 1/21/2022
This proposal would not affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Does not apply
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?
This proposal would not affect land use and shoreline use.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Does not apply
6) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
This proposal would not increase demand for transportation or public service s and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Division will provide a variety of equitable and
efficient waste transfer services to County residences and businesses. The County will
continue to offer and develop programs that encourage recycling, as well as continue to
promote and expand the collection and non-landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food
waste.
7) Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
This proposal would not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements.
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix G – Interlocal Agreements 1
Appendix G
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS
regarding Solid Waste Management
Waste Management
Snohomish County concerning Annexation and Urban Development with the
Bothell Municipal Urban Growth Area
Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Disposal
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 1
CONTAMINATION REDUCTION AND OUTREACH PLAN
SUMMARY
This appendix addresses the new State requirement for solid waste plans to contain a
Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP Plan). This CROP Plan provides
more information on this requirement and on the statewide plan developed by the
Department of Ecology (Ecology). As part of the statewide plan, Ecology also provided
a template that could be used by counties to develop their own CROP plan. This plan,
the Snohomish County CROP Plan, is based largely on the template provided by
Ecology. This plan describes a seven-step process that will be conducted over a three-
year period (2021-2023) to gather more information about current contamination levels
in recycling programs and develop strategies to reduce that contamination.
INTRODUCTION
In 2019, the State legislature adopted a new requirement for counties to include a
Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (CROP Plan) in their solid waste plans.
This requirement applies to counties over 25,000 in population, and also to the cities in
those counties who have independent solid waste plans. Ecology was required to
develop a statewide CROP Plan first, after which counties had three options:
• Develop their own CROP Plan.
• Adopt the statewide CROP Plan.
• Adopt a modified version of the statewide CROP Plan.
Snohomish County has chosen to use the third option by adopting a modified version of
the template provided in the State CROP Plan (i.e., this document), which is intended to
meet the requirements of RCW 70A.205.045 (10). More details on what is required to
be in a CROP Plan and what is in the State CROP Plan are provided below.
Requirements for CROP Plans
The requirements shown in State law for CROP plans can be found in RCW
70A.205.045 (for the county’s responsibilities) and in RCW 70A.205.070 (for Ecology’s
responsibilities). The requirements for local CROP plans are shown in Section 10 of
RCW 70A.205.045 (this is the RCW that also lists the other required contents for solid
waste management plans):
“Each county and city comprehensive solid waste management plan shall include the
following:
(10) A contamination reduction and outreach plan. The contamination reduction
and outreach plan must address reducing contamination in recycling. Except
for counties with a population of twenty-five thousand or fewer, by July 1,
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 2
2021, a contamination reduction and outreach plan must be included in each
solid waste management plan by a plan amendment or included when
revising or updating a solid waste management plan developed under this
chapter. Jurisdictions may adopt the state's contamination reduction and
outreach plan as developed under RCW 70A.205.070 in lieu of creating their
own plan. A recycling contamination reduction and outreach plan must
include the following:
(a) A list of actions for reducing contamination in recycling programs for
single-family and multiple-family residences, commercial locations, and
drop boxes depending on the jurisdictions system components;
(b) A list of key contaminants identified by the jurisdiction or identified by the
department;
(c) A discussion of problem contaminants and the contaminants' impact on
the collection system;
(d) An analysis of the costs and other impacts associated with contaminants
to the recycling system; and
(e) An implementation schedule and details of how outreach is to be
conducted. Contamination reduction education methods may include
sharing community-wide messaging through newsletters, articles,
mailers, social media, web sites, or community events, informing
recycling drop box customers about contamination, and improving
signage.”
The requirements for Ecology to prepare a State CROP Plan, as shown in RCW
70A.205.070, are:
“(4)(a) The department must create and implement a statewide recycling
contamination reduction and outreach plan based on best management
practices for recycling, developed with stakeholder input by July 1, 2020.
Jurisdictions may use the statewide plan in lieu of developing their own
plan.
(b) The department must provide technical assistance and create guidance to
help local jurisdictions determine the extent of contamination in their
regional recycling and to develop contamination reduction and outreach
plans. Contamination means any material not included on the local
jurisdiction's acceptance list.
(c) Contamination reduction education methods may include sharing
community-wide messaging through newsletters, articles, mailers, social
media, web sites, or community events, informing recycling drop box
customers about contamination, and improving signage.
(d) The department must cite the sources of information that it relied upon,
including any peer-reviewed science, in the development of the best
management practices for recycling under (a) of this subsection and the
guidance developed under (b) of this subsection.”
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 3
The State CROP Plan
The Washington State Recycling Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan (the
“State CROP Plan”) was released on October 2, 2020. This plan contains:
● a description of the current situation,
● a statewide action plan,
● a template for local CROP plans,
● a description of best management practices for contamination reduction, and
● a list of additional resources.
The recommendations included in the statewide action plan are:
1. Promote alignment and harmonization of recycling programs statewide:
● Support the Recycling Steering Committee, the Recycling Development Center,
and other groups working to develop more aligned and harmonized regional and
statewide recycling programs.
● Promote the use of a priority list of materials accepted for recycling statewide.
● Enhance existing resources to support communities to make better informed
decisions on what to accept in their recycling programs. This includes recycling
market data and data on the environmental and social costs and benefits of
recycling specific materials.
● Expand and continue to support successful statewide contamination reduction
campaigns like Recycle Right.
2. Encourage and support regional solid waste planning and aligned or joint contracting
for services:
● Enhance and maintain Material Recovery Facility (MRF)-shed and MSW flow
maps, and other resources to assist in identifying opportunities for regional
collaboration.
● Convene regional meetings to explore joint planning and program development
opportunities.
● Share MRF processing and collection contracting resources to assist local
governments in their efforts to reduce recycling contamination and improve the
overall performance of their recycling programs.
3. Gather and share data to measure the performance of the recycling system:
● Conduct recycling characterization studies to gather data on recycling
contamination and other key metrics like the capture rate for recyclables. These
studies should be done on the same schedule as Ecology’s waste
characterization studies. In the future, these studies could be expanded to
include organics and other streams.
● Develop and maintain an easily accessible and searchable database on local
recycling programs across the state.
4. Pursue legislative, funding, and policy solutions:
● Work to secure increased state and federal funding for local government solid
waste programs, including restoring funding for the Local Solid Waste Financial
Assistance program.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 4
● Forge new and enhance existing public, private, and non-profit partnerships to
support local recycling contamination reduction programs.
● Evaluate Extended Product Responsibility, product labeling, product bans and
restrictions, right to repair, market development, recycled-content, and other
targeted legislative and policy options to assist in achieving recycling
contamination reduction goals and strengthen our recycling system.
The State CROP Plan is not required to include an implementation schedule as to when
these actions would be conducted or completed, although it does note that some of
these items (such as extending the Recycle Right campaign and conducting recycling
characterization studies) are on hold until funding becomes available.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY CROP PLAN
The goal of the CROP is to reduce contamination of the materials collected in
Snohomish County’s single-family, multi-family, drop box, and commercial recycling
programs. This will help Snohomish County more fully realize the economic,
environmental, social, and public health benefits of these programs. The Snohomish
County CROP Plan consists of the following seven steps.
Step 1: Data collection for current recycling collection services and programs
Much of the information needed for this CROP Plan is shown in other parts of the
Snohomish County Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, but some additional
information should be gathered for the CROP Plan. Snohomish County will gather the
following additional information:
• Types of materials accepted for recycling for each type of program (single-family,
multi-family, drop box, and commercial) and how this list compares to the list of
designated recyclable materials (see Table 5 in the Recycling Tech Memo).
• Cart or container colors for single-family, multi-family, and commercial programs.
• Destination for recyclables collected (which MRF is used for each program, or which
market is used for source-separated materials).
• Information shown on local government and recycling collector websites.
• Stickers and signs on recycling containers for curbside, commercial and drop box
services.
Snohomish County will identify differences or inconsistencies in the information
provided to residents and businesses about what to recycle and how it should be
prepared for collection. Snohomish County will use this data to identify opportunities for
more consistent and aligned programs. The data will also be used to help determine
what specific contamination reduction strategies to implement.
Step 2: Prioritizing the recycling programs to focus on first
In reviewing current information about programs, including suspected contamination
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 5
levels, Snohomish County has determined that the following factors should be
considered in setting priorities for this CROP Plan:
• Single-family: curbside recycling programs for single-family homes contribute over
half of the total tonnage for the types of recyclable materials that are addressed by
this CROP Plan (see Table 1). Information from various studies indicates that
contamination of these recyclables has been increasing over the past decade.
Taken together, these factors make this source a very high priority for contamination
reduction efforts.
• Multi-family: many recycling collection programs for multi-family units suffer from
high contamination rates, but this source only contributes about 7% of the recyclable
materials collected in Snohomish County. This is also a very difficult source to
improve, as repeated efforts over the years have demonstrated. This source is
being given the lowest priority in this CROP Plan to allow Snohomish County an
opportunity to focus instead on more productive activities in the near term.
• Drop box: there are a few drop-off sites operated by private and non-profit
organizations, but the bulk of the recyclable materials in this category are collected
at the county-operated transfer stations and rural drop box sites (see the Transfer or
the Recycling Technical Memorandums for more details). These programs are
source-separated, which allows for a different set of possibilities in addressing
contamination at these sites. This source is being given a medium priority.
• Commercial: based on the tonnages and other factors for this source, it rates as
the second-highest priority for this CROP Plan.
As the lowest priority program, multi-family will not be addressed any further here but
will possibly be addressed in the next version of this CROP Plan.
Table 1. Recycling Tonnages by Source
Source Annual Tons (2019) Percent of Total
Haulers:
Single-Family (curbside)
Multi-Family
Commercial
48,001
6,139
22,391
56.0%
7.2%
26.1%
9,228 10.8%
Total 85,759
Sources: The above figures are from Table 3 of the Recycling Tech Memo and Table 1 of the Transfer
Tech Memo. The figure for county-operated sites (9,228 tons) does not include yard debris
and wood.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 6
Step 3: Define data collection methods
Snohomish County will work with the haulers and other stakeholders to determine data
collection methods for contamination in the single-family, drop box and commercial
recycling collection programs.
Data collection methods may include, but are not limited to:
• Recycling stream composition studies
• Survey of transfer stations and MRF operators
• Tracking contamination using on-board truck or container-mounted cameras
• Drop box composition studies or visual audits
• Container lid-lift audits for residential, multi-family and commercial accounts
Step 4: Gather baseline contamination data
Baseline levels and types of recycling contamination will be determined using methods
described above. This information will be used to identify the most problematic and
costly contaminants, and then that information will be used to refine outreach materials
and assist with other strategies targeting the most problematic materials. It will also be
used to assess the economic and other benefits of removing problematic materials from
the recycling stream.
In recent surveys, such as the one conducted by The Recycling Partnership in 2019,
MRFs and cities in Washington identified the following recycling contaminants as the
most problematic and costly to manage:
• Plastic bags and film
• Tanglers including rope, cords, chains, and hoses
• Food and liquids
• Shredded paper
• Bagged garbage
• Non-program plastics including clamshells and polystyrene foam
• Hypodermic needles
These contaminants can:
• Slow down the sorting and processing of materials.
• Reduce the quality and value of secondary material feedstocks.
• Result in costly shutdowns.
• Damage collection, processing, and remanufacturing equipment.
• Cause serious injuries to collection and processing facility staff.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 7
According to TRP, the greatest costs associated with managing a contaminated
recycling stream at MRFs nationally come from the following and represent 80% of total
contamination-related costs:
• 40% for disposal of residuals
• 26% in value lost from contaminated recyclables
• 14% in labor to remove contamination from sorting equipment, etc.
Step 5: Develop and implement education and outreach strategies to reduce
contamination
Snohomish County, in coordination with the haulers and other stakeholders, will develop
and implement education and outreach strategies based on best practices. This will
start with addressing any inconsistencies in recycling information and messaging
identified in Step 1. All new outreach materials and messages will be aligned and
consistent across all platforms.
Depending on the type of recycling program, outreach and education strategies may
include, but are not limited to:
• Discuss with haulers moving toward uniformity in commingled cart lid colors such as
blue for recycling, gray or black for garbage, and green for organics.
• Visual, easy-to-understand signage using photos and universal pictures and
symbols.
• Cart-tagging and cart rejection.
• On-route monitoring tools, including apps and cameras.
• Pairing right-sized recycling and trash bins.
• On-site assistance and outreach at drop-off sites.
• Up-to-date, and easy-to-find and access websites with clear, consistent messaging.
• Social media posts, campaigns, mailings, brochures, and other communications.
• Online apps for residents and businesses to get answers to their recycling
questions.
• Community presentations, tabling, and activities at community events.
• School presentations and activities focused on recycling right.
• Translation of educational materials and campaigns to ensure recycling information
is clearly understood by all audiences.
• Social marketing campaigns to effectively promote long-term behavior change.
Where possible, free and customizable resources will be utilized, including Ecology’s
Recycle Right campaign materials and The Recycling Partnership’s Anti-Contamination
Kit.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix H – Contamination Reduction and Outreach Plan 8
Step 6: Evaluate the effectiveness of anti-contamination strategies
Snohomish County will conduct periodic assessments on the effectiveness of recycling
contamination reduction programs and strategies, and will share the results with the
SWAC, other key stakeholders and the public. These assessments will use, at least in
part, the same methodology used in Step 4 to establish baseline contamination levels.
This assessment will inform Snohomish County about what is working and what
adjustments are needed to make for better results.
Step 7: Explore contamination reduction strategies beyond education and
outreach
As part of a statewide effort, Snohomish County will work with community partners to
explore strategies and solutions beyond education and outreach. These could address
regional planning, operations and collection, contracting, incentives, pricing, policies,
mandates, enhanced data collection, etc. Based on this evaluation, Snohomish County
will identify and pursue the most promising initiatives.
During this process, Snohomish County will also work with key stakeholders to identify
and secure new and/or allocate existing funding, and forge partnerships with agencies
and organizations to provide technical and financial assistance.
An initial 3-year implementation schedule for the Snohomish County CROP Plan is
shown below. As Snohomish County clarifies and defines the scope of work, and
identifies the resources to complete the work, a more detailed and refined
implementation plan, schedule and budget will be developed.
CROP Implementation Schedule
Year 1 (2021)
Step 1: Data collection for current recycling collection services and programs
Step 2: Prioritizing the recycling programs to focus on first
Step 3: Define data collection methods
Year 2 (2022)
Step 4: Gather baseline contamination data
Step 5: Develop and implement education and outreach strategies to reduce
contamination
Year 3 (2023)
Step 6: Evaluate the effectiveness of anti-contamination strategies
Step 7: Explore contamination reduction strategies beyond education and outreach
This CROP Plan will be updated with the next update of the Snohomish County Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and may be more fully integrated into the
solid waste plan at that point.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Draft for SWAC Review
Appendix I – Resolutions of Adoption 1
Appendix I
RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION
Resolutions of adoption will be added after the Preliminary Draft has been reviewed, revised
and then adopted by the cities and Snohomish County.
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
SEPA CHECKLIST
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Snohomish County
Public Works
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Prepared by:
Smith, Michael Project Specialist IV
Snohomish County Public Works-
Solid Waste Division
Phone: (425) (425) 388-7519
Michael.smith@snoco.org
January 2022
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 1 of 16 1/21/2022
Purpose of Checklist:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental
impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if
available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the
probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to
further analyze the proposal.
SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND
Name of proposed project:
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Name of applicant:
Snohomish County Public Works Department
Solid Waste Division
Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Michael Smith, Project Specialist IV
Solid Waste Division
3000 Rockefeller Ave, MS 607
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 388-7519
Michael.smith@snoco.org
Date checklist prepared:
January 21, 2022
Agency requesting checklist:
Snohomish County Public Works
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Plan)
provides recommendations and policies through 2041. The Plan and SEPA Environmental
Checklist will be submitted to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) for review. If approved by
Ecology, the Plan will then be submitted to the Snohomish County Council for review. If
approved, the Snohomish County Council will adopt the Plan by motion. This process is
expected to be completed spring 2022.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, please explain.
This Plan is written to be a dynamic document. Minor modifications, which do n ot affect the
basic goals of the Plan, may be made throughout the lifetime of this document. Decisions to
either undertake actions outside the Six-Year Implementation Schedule or that alter the
Plan’s Vision, major goals, or policies, will be defined as major plan revisions and require a
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 2 of 16 1/21/2022
full approval process. In general, the Plan is reviewed every 6 years and is scheduled for a
2027 update.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Ten Technical Memorandums on related topics were prepared as part of this Plan. The
memos prepared are: Climate Change and Sustainability, Waste Prevention, Recycling,
Organics, Waste Collection, Transfer, Disposal, Energy from Waste, Out reach and Education,
Administration and Regulation. The Appendices also include: Moderate Risk Waste Plan, Solid
Waste Facility Siting, Waste Quantities and Composition, Contamination Reduction and
Outreach Plan.
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, please explain.
No.
List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
State Law (RCW 70A.205.040) and guidelines issued by the Department of Ecology (Guidelines
for Development of Local Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plans and Plan Revisions)
require the cities and towns to adopt the plan (or they must develop their own plans), require
a public review period for a minimum of 30 days, require that the plan and a Cost Assessment
Questionnaire be reviewed and approved by the Washingt on Utilities and Transportation
Commission, and require Ecology and the Department of Agriculture to examine and
comment on the preliminary draft plan. The Board of County Commissioners and the cities
and towns must also adopt the final draft of the plan. After adoption by the County and
cities, Ecology must approve the plan before it becomes effective.
The process for government approval will be:
• Prepare and release the Preliminary Draft plan
• Public and agency comment period
• Address comments received and incorporate those into the Final Draft
• Adoption of Final Draft by cities and county
• Review and approval of the final daft by Ecology
1. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project 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).
Snohomish County Solid Waste Division currently operates three transfer
stations and three drop box sites. A fourth transfer station (Cathcart) is utilized
when one of the other stations is temporarily closed for maintenance or repair.
The transfer stations are in the more urbanized areas of the County and
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 3 of 16 1/21/2022
provide service to the greatest number of residents, while the drop boxes are
distributed throughout the more rural areas of the County. The waste collected
at the transfer stations and drop box sites is compacted and trucked to an
intermodal facility in Everett, from which it is shipped by rail to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. The Division also operates the Moderate
Risk Waste (MRW) collection facility which offers free disposal of household
hazardous wastes from Snohomish County residents. For a fee, it also accepts
hazardous waste from commercial businesses that generate small quantities of
hazardous waste.
To ensure that solid waste is collected, handled, recycled, and disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner that protects public health, Washington State
regulations require the county to have an approved comprehensive solid waste
management plan. This proposal is to update the Snohomish County
Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Plan
describes the management of all aspects of solid waste generated by residents
and businesses in the county and will be adopted as both a Six -Year and
Twenty-Year plan with goals and recommendations for solid waste
management within Snohomish County.
The vision for this update of the Plan is to shift to a more sustainable future,
where people are generating less waste and are handling the wastes that they
do generate in an environmentally and sustainably sound manner emphasizing
the concepts of reduce and reuse as opposed to focusing on recycling. This
vision is the underlying concept for the two major goals of the Plan: 1) Support
actions to reduce climate change and promote sustainability, and 2) Ensure
efficient services for a growing and changing customer base. The goals are in
turn reflected in the policies that are used in the Plan to consider additional
programs and recommendations for enhancements to the solid waste system.
The Plan consists of background information and a summary of the
recommendations, and a series of technical memorandums and appendices
that address specific topics in detail, such as:
• Climate Change
• Energy from Waste
• Waste Prevention
• Recycling
• Organics
• Waste Collection
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 4 of 16 1/21/2022
• Waste Transfer
• Waste Disposal
• Outreach and Education
• Administration and Regulation
• Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
Chapter 70A.205 RCW requires the Plan to project the anticipated cost of solid
waste construction and capital acquisition programs for a six-year period. The
Division’s capital programs are focused primarily on facility repair and
maintenance projects and the purchase of a few additional pieces of
equipment. Significant anticipated capital acquisitions and improvements for
the next 6 years include:
• Sisco Landfill Closure
• Scale Automation Software Upgrade
• Drop Box Improvements
• North County Recycling and Transfer Station (NCRTS) Compactor Replacement
• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Modernization
• Airport Road Recycling and Transfer Station (ARTS) Scale Replacement
• Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station (SWRTS) Pavement Resurfacing
Solid waste management in Snohomish County will continue to evolve based
on changes in population, demographics, the local, state, and national
economy, regulations, and advancements in waste handling and recycling
systems. Because this Plan is being developed during a pandemic and is still
under the influence of international market and recycling uncertainties, it is
particularly difficult to project waste generation and the resultant need for
additional facilities and programs. It must be recognized that some amount of
flexibility will be needed to see Snohomish County and their partners through
the next few years and into the next twenty years.
2. Location of 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/range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of areas,
provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 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.
This plan applies to all solid waste management properties throughout
Snohomish County.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 5 of 16 1/21/2022
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (check one): Not Applicable
☐ FLAT
☐ ROLLING
☐ HILLY
☐ STEEP SLOPES
☐ MOUNTAINOUS
☐ OTHER (please describe): Click here to enter text.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Does Not Apply.
c. What general types of soil are found on the site (i.e., clay – sand – gravel – peat –
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note an y
agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results
in removing any of these soils.
There are many different soil types in Snohomish County.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
please describe.
Does Not Apply
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected
area of any filling excavation and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Does Not Apply
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, please generally
describe.
Does Not Apply
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (i.e., 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 during construction,
operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, please 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,
please generally describe.
Does Not Apply
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 6 of 16 1/21/2022
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Does Not Apply
3. Water
a. Surface Water:
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, please describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream
or river if flows into.
Does Not Apply.
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 p lans.
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? Please give a
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.
No.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, please describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Does Not Apply
b. Groundwater:
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water of other
purposes? If so, please give a general description of the well, proposed uses and
approximate quantities withdrawn from the well.
No.
2. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Please give a general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Does Not Apply
3. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (i.e., domestic sewage, industrial, containing the
following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.).
Does Not Apply
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 7 of 16 1/21/2022
4. 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
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) 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, please describe.
Does Not Apply
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, please generally
describe.
No.
3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of
the site? If so, please describe.
Click here to enter text.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface water, groundwater, runoff water, and
drainage impacts, if any:
Does Not Apply
4. Plants
a. Check all types of vegetation below found on or in close proximity to the site: Not
Applicable
☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, cottonwood, other
☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, hemlock, pine, other
☐ shrubs
☐ grass
☐ pasture
☐ crop or grain
☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops
☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
☐ other types of vegetation present: Click here to enter text.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None.
c. List threatened and endangered plant species known to be on or near the site.
None.
d. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
None.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 8 of 16 1/21/2022
e. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation of the site, if any:
None.
5. Animals
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site. Does Not Apply
b. birds: hawks, heron, eagle, songbirds, owls, ducks, woodpeckers
c. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, opossum, raccoon, coyote, small rodents
d. fish: salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other):
e. other: Click here to enter text.
f. List any threatened and endangered wildlife species known to be on or near the site.
Where federal threatened and endangered species are found, a ny future work associated
with the plan’s implementation will conform to the requirements of the Endangered Species
Act administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Where state listed species or Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) are found , the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species recommendations
will be followed, when appropriate.
g. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, please explain.
Snohomish County lies within the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds which stretches
between Alaska and South America. All migratory birds are protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
h. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Does Not Apply.
i. 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? Please 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,
please generally describe.
Does Not Apply.
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:
A major goal of this Plan is to support actions which will reduce climate change
and promote sustainability.
7. Environmental Health
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 9 of 16 1/21/2022
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, please describe.
The Solid Waste Division has operated a Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
collection facility since 1996. This facility offers free disposal of household
hazardous waste from Snohomish County residents and commercial businesses
that generate small quantities of hazardous waste.
1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past
uses.
Does Not Apply.
2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
None.
3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or
produced during the project’s development or construction, or any time during
the operating life of the project.
Various chemicals and materials (acids, bases, batteries, paints, stains,
aerosols) are temporarily stored at the MRW facility until the County’s
hazardous waste contractor is contacted for pick of the materials
4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
The MRW facility has been designed to contain minor spills if they occur. The
staff is trained in emergency procedures. If a major spill of fire occurred staff
would contact local emergency services.
5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Improving solid waste collection will help reduce environmental health hazards
by removing potential risks from the environment.
b. Noise:
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (i.e., traffic,
equipment, operation, aircraft, 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 long-term basis (i.e., traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Does Not Apply.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 10 of 16 1/21/2022
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Does Not Apply
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect
current land use on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, please describe.
Does Not Apply.
b. Has the site been used as working farmlands or working forestlands? If so, please
describe. How much agriculture or forestland of long-term commercial significance will
be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not
been designated, how many acres in farmland or forestland tax status will be converted
to non-farm or non-forest use?
Does Not Apply
1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farmland or
forestland’s normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the
application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
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 critical area by the city or county? If so, please
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
k. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to nearby agricultural and forestlands
of long-term commercial significance, if any:
Does Not Apply.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 11 of 16 1/21/2022
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Does Not Apply
m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement, 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:
Dos 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 view 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.
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 recreation uses? If so, please describe.
Does Not Apply
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 12 of 16 1/21/2022
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreating, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Does Not Apply.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45
years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, site, or local preservation registers
located on or near the site? If so, please general describe.
There are several hundred recorded historical sites in Snohomish County. Some of these
are listed on, or eligible for, national, state or local preservation registers. The Solid Waste
Plan will not directly affect any of these sites.
b. Are there any landmarks, features or other evidence of Tribal or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material
evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any
professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources.
There are many landmarks, features or other evidence of Tribal or historic use and
occupation within Snohomish County. The Solid Waste Plan will not directly affect any of
these locations.
a. Describe methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources
on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with Tribes and the
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic
maps, GIS data, etc.
Any future site work associated with plan implementation would b screened by
Snohomish County Public Works to determine site proximity to known
archaeological and cultural sites.
b. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may
be required:
Does Not Apply.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, or affected geographic area, and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Does Not Apply.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, please
generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Does Not Apply.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project
proposal have? How many would the project proposal eliminate?
Does Not Apply.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 13 of 16 1/21/2022
d. Will the proposal require any new – or improvements to existing – roads, streets,
pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so,
please generally describe (indicate private or public).
Does Not Apply.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, please generally describe.
Solid waste from Snohomish County is transported by rail to the Roosevelt
Regional Landfill in Klickitat County, Washington. The current waste export
contract extends to 2028.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occu r and what percentage of
the volume would be trucks (such as commercial or non-passenger vehicles). What data
or transportation models were used to make these estimates?
Does Not Apply.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural
and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, please generally describe.
Does Not Apply.
h. 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 (i.e., fire protection,
police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, please generally
describe.
Does Not Apply
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Does Not Apply
16. Utilities Not Applicable
a. Check all utilities currently available at the site:
☐ Electricity
☐ Natural Gas
☐ Water
☐ Refuse Service
☐ Telephone
☐ Sanitary Sewer
☐ Septic System
☐ Other (please describe) Click here to enter text.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site of in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed.
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 14 of 16 1/21/2022
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: ___________________________________________
Printed name and Digital Signature ___________________________________________
Position and Agency/Organization: Project Specialist IV, Snohomish County Solid Waste
Division
Date Submitted: _January 21, 2022______________________________
Michael B. Smith
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 15 of 16 1/21/2022
D. Supplemental sheet for non-project actions
(IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of
the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect
the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented.
Respond briefly and in general terms.
1) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
This proposal would not increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Snohomish County Solid Waste Management will support efforts and actions by County and
other agencies to reduce GHG emissions and to lessen and prepare for the impacts of climate
change through various initiatives such as waste prevention, recycling, and energy -from-
waste.
Snohomish County Solid Waste Management will continue efforts to reduce the generation
and toxicity of moderate risk waste, and to ensure that convenient, cost effective and
sustainable options for its safe management are available.
2) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
This proposal would not affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
Does not apply
3) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
This proposal would not deplete energy or natural resources.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural r esources are:
The County will continue to monitor developments and progress in energy-from-
waste including new technologies, pilot projects, facility procurements and operating track
records, and other projects in the region.
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?
Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Plan SEPA Checklist
Page 16 of 16 1/21/2022
This proposal would not affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for
governmental protection.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Does not apply
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?
This proposal would not affect land use and shoreline use.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Does not apply
6) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
This proposal would not increase demand for transportation or public service s and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Snohomish County Solid Waste Management Division will provide a variety of equitable and
efficient waste transfer services to County residences and businesses. The County will
continue to offer and develop programs that encourage recycling, as well as continue to
promote and expand the collection and non-landfilling of yard debris, wood waste, and food
waste.
7) Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
This proposal would not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
Lead Agency: Snohomish County Public Works
Agency Contact:
Michael Smith, Project Specialist IV, Solid Waste Division
3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 607, Everett, WA 98201-4046
Email: michael.smith@snoco.org
Telephone: (425) 388-7519
Agency File Number: RR8023
Project Name: Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan – 2021
Description of Proposal:
Snohomish County Public Works - Solid Waste Division currently operates three transfer stations and
three drop box sites. A fourth transfer station (Cathcart) is utilized when one of the other stations is
temporarily closed for maintenance or repair. The transfer stations are in the more urbanized areas of the
County and provide service to the greatest number of residents, while the drop boxes are distributed
throughout the more rural areas of the County. The waste collected at the transfer stations and drop
box sites is compacted and trucked to an intermodal facility in Everett, from which it is shipped by rail to the
Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Klickitat County. The Division also operates the Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
collection facility which offers free disposal of household hazardous wastes from Snohomish County
residents. For a fee, it also accepts hazardous waste from commercial businesses that generate small
quantities of hazardous waste.
To ensure that solid waste is collected, handled, recycled, and disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner that protects public health, Washington State regulations require the county to have an approved
comprehensive solid waste management plan. The proposed Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan – 2021 updates the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. The Plan describes the management of all aspects of solid waste generated by residents
and businesses in the county and will be adopted as both a Six-Year and Twenty-Year plan with goals and
recommendations for solid waste management within Snohomish County.
The vision for this update of the Plan is to shift to a more sustainable future, where people are generating
less waste and are handling the wastes that they do generate in an environmentally and sustainably sound
manner emphasizing the concepts of reduce and reuse as opposed to focusing on recycling. This vision is
the underlying concept for the two major goals of the Plan: 1) Support actions to reduce climate change and
promote sustainability, and 2) Ensure efficient services for a growing and changing customer base. The goals
are in turn reflected in the policies that are used in the Plan to consider additional programs and
recommendations for enhancements to the solid waste system.
The Plan consists of background information and a summary of the recommendations, and a series of
technical memorandums and appendices that address specific topics in detail, such as:
Snohomish County
Public Works
Transportation and Environmental Services
3000 Rockefeller Ave., M/S 607
Everett, WA 98201-4046
(425) 388-3488
www.snoco.org
Dave Somers
County Executive
Climate Change
Energy from Waste
Waste Prevention
Recycling
Organics
Waste Collection
Waste Transfer
Waste Disposal
Outreach and Education
Administration and Regulation
Moderate Risk Waste (MRW)
Chapter 70A.205 RCW requires the Plan to project the anticipated cost of solid waste construction and
capital acquisition programs for a six-year period. The Division’s capital programs are focused primarily on
facility repair and maintenance projects and the purchase of a few additional pieces of equipment.
Significant anticipated capital acquisitions and improvements for the next 6 years include:
Sisco Landfill Closure
Scale Automation Software Upgrade
Drop Box Improvements
North County Recycling and Transfer Station (NCRTS) Compactor Replacement
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Modernization
Airport Road Recycling and Transfer Station (ARTS) Scale Replacement
Southwest Recycling and Transfer Station (SWRTS) Pavement Resurfacing
Solid waste management in Snohomish County will continue to evolve based on changes in population,
demographics, the local, state, and national economy, regulations, and advancements in waste handling
and recycling systems. Because this Plan is being developed during a pandemic and is still under the
influence of international market and recycling uncertainties, it is particularly difficult to project waste
generation and the resultant need for additional facilities and programs. It must be recognized that some
amount of flexibility will be needed to see Snohomish County and their partners through the next few years
and into the next twenty years.
Location of Proposal: The updated 2021 Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan
will guide operations at all Snohomish County Solid Waste facilities and facilities and coordinate solid
waste management throughout Snohomish County.
Threshold Determination: Snohomish County Public Works has determined that this proposal will not
have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and Design Report. This information is available at:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/5958/Comprehensive-Solid-Waste-and Hazardous-
Snohomish County Public Works has determined the requirements for environmental analysis, protection,
and mitigation measures have been adequately addressed in the County’s development regulations and
comprehensive plan adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal
laws and rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158. Our agency will not require any
additional mitigation measures under Chapter 30.61 SCC.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) on February , 2022. It will be published on February 9, 2022,
and the comment period will end at 5:00 PM PST on February 23, 2022. Send any comments to the
Agency Contact.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
____________________________________ ________________
Kelly A. Snyder, MPA, Public Works Director Date
3000 Rockefeller Ave, M/S 607, Everett, WA 98201-4046
Telephone: (425) 388-6652, Email: kelly.snyder@snoco.org
Appeal Process:This DNS may be appealed pursuant to the requirements of SCC 30.61.300 and Chapter
2.02 SCC. There is a 14-day appeal period for this DNS that commences from the date of publication of
notice. Any appeal must be addressed to the County Hearing Examiner, accompanied by a filing fee of
$500.00, and be filed in writing. The appeal must be received by 5:00 PM PST on February 23, 2022.
The appeal must contain the items set forth in SCC 30.71.050(5). In addition, SCC 30.61.305(1) also
requires that any person filing an appeal of a threshold determination made pursuant to Chapter 30.61
SCC shall file with the County Hearing Examiner, within seven (7) days of filing the appeal, a sworn
affidavit or declaration demonstrating facts and evidence, that, if proven, would demonstrate that the
issuance of the threshold determination was clearly erroneous.
Currently, in person filings are suspended due to COVID-19 safety protocols
Online filing instructions:
Appeals may be accepted electronically and paid for by credit card over the phone as follows:
Scan the original signed copy of the appeal document.
Send your appeal as an email attachment to epermittech@snoco.org. Please include a phone
number where you can be reliably reached.
Staff will call you to collect your credit card information and process your payment.
Mail the original copy to: Snohomish County PDS, 3000 Rockefeller Ave M/S 604, Everett, WA
98201
Title VI and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: It is Snohomish County’s policy to assure that no person shall
on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be discriminated against under any county-sponsored
program or activity. For questions regarding Snohomish County Public Works’ Title VI Program, or for interpreter or translation
services for non-English speakers, or otherwise making materials available in an alternate format, contact the Department Title VI
Coordinator via email at spw-titlevi@snoco.org or phone 425-388-6660. Hearing/speech impaired may call 711.
Información sobre el Titulo VI y sobre la Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades (ADA por sus siglas en inglés): Es la
política del Condado de Snohomish asegurar que ninguna persona sea excluida de participar, se le nieguen beneficios o se le
discrimine de alguna otra manera en cualquier programa o actividad patrocinada por el Condado de Snohomish en razón de raza,
color, país de origen o género, conforme al Título VI de la Enmienda a la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964. Comuníquese con el
Department Title VI Coordinator (Coordinador del Título VI del Departamento) al correo electrónico spw-titlevi@snoco.org, o al
teléfono 425-388-6660 si tiene preguntas referentes al Snohomish County Public Works’ Title VI Program (Programa del Título VI
de Obras Publicas del Condado de Snohomish), o para servicios de interpretación o traducción para los no angloparlantes, o para
pedir que los materiales se hagan disponibles en un formato alternativo. Los que tienen necesidades comunicativas especiales
pueden llamar al 711.
DISTRIBUTION LIST:
Federal Agencies:
National Marine Fisheries Service- SEPA Review
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service – North Puget Sound Branch
State Agencies:
Department of Ecology- SEPA Register, Solid Waste Management Program
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
Tribal Governments:
Muckleshoot Tribe
Samish Indian Nation
Sauk-Suiattle Tribe
Skagit River System Cooperative
Snoqualmie Tribe
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Suquamish Tribe
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
Tulalip Tribes
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe
Cities:
Arlington - Public Works Director, Mayor, Communications Manager
Bothell - City Manager, Public Works Director
Brier - Mayor, Public Works Supervisor
Darrington - Mayor, Darrington Public Works
Edmonds - PW and Utilities Director, Mayor
Everett - Mayor, Chief of Staff, Communications Director, PW City Engineer, PW Information &
Education
Gold Bar - Mayor, PW Director, Office Manager
Granite Falls - City Manage, PW Director, City Clerk
Lake Stevens - Mayor, Public Works Director, City Administrator, City Clerk
Lynnwood -Mayor, PW Director, PIO
Marysville - Mayor, Public Works Director, Communications Administrator
Mill Creek - Public Works Director, City Manager, Interim Director of Communications and
Marketing
Monroe - Mayor, City Administrator, Public Works Director
Mountlake Terrace - City Manager, PW Director, City Clerk Community Relations
Mukilteo - Mayor, Interim Public Works Director, Executive Assistant
Snohomish - Mayor, Economic Development/Communications Manage, City Engineer
Stanwood - Public Works Director, City Administrator, Mayor
Sultan - City Administrator, Public Works Director, Mayor
Woodway - City Administrator, PW Director, Mayor
Other:
The Herald
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Libraries: Everett Public Library and Sno-Isle Libraries
Snohomish County: Snohomish County Council, County Executive
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON
ADOPTING THE 2021 UPDATE OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the 2021 update of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan contains the required elements for such a plan as
mandated by state law, and said elements are important to the city's solid waste management
activities; and
WHEREAS, the update to the existing Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Plan was prepared in accordance with chapter 70.95 RCW,
which requires that the City either adopt the county-wide plan or develop its own plan which
must be approved by the Department of Ecology; and
WHEREAS, public input and comment was accepted through the development of the
plan through various means and ways and the involvement of the Snohomish County Solid
Waste Advisory Committee was the main organization associated with the development of the
plan; and
WHEREAS, final adoption of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management Plan by the Snohomish County Council and the Washington State
Department of Ecology is contingent upon adoption of the Plan by the participating cities in
Snohomish County; and
WHEREAS, it appears to be in the best public interest to adopt and implement the 2021
update of the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Arlington adopts the 2021 update to
the Snohomish County Comprehensive Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Plan;
Passed by the City Council of the City of Arlington September 19, 2022.
CITY OF ARLINGTON
________________________
Barbara Tolbert, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Wendy Van Der Meersche, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Steven J. Peiffle, City Attorney
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #1 Attachment C
current settlement proposal is to join in a $518 million settlement entered into by the Washington State Attorney General’s office, which has entered into a proposed settlement with the same three distributors of opioids. The settlement requires participation of 90% of local governments with a population in excess of 10,000 persons. To join in the settlement, we would need to authorize the mayor to sign the proposed settlement participation form, the Allocation Agreement, and a One Washington Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between Washington Municipalities. The settlement distributes roughly half of the net proceeds from settlement (about $215 million) to the State and the other half to local governments that participate. Under the Allocation Agreement, the City would receive
1
ALLOCATION AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS PAID
BY THE SETTLING OPIOID DISTRIBUTORS IN WASHINGTON STATE
AUGUST 8, 2022
This Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by the Settling
Opioid Distributors in Washington State (the “Allocation Agreement”) governs the distribution
of funds obtained from AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson
Corporation (the “Settling Distributors”) in connection with its resolution of any and all claims
by the State of Washington and the counties, cities, and towns in Washington State (“Local
Governments”) against the Settling Distributors (the “Distributors Settlement”). The Distributors
Settlement including any amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
1. This Allocation Agreement is intended to be a State-Subdivision Agreement as
defined in Section I.VVV of the Global Settlement (the “Global Settlement”),
which is Exhibit H of the Distributors Settlement. This Allocation Agreement
shall be interpreted to be consistent with the requirements of a State-Subdivision
Agreement in the Global Settlement.
2. This Allocation Agreement shall become effective only if all of the following
occur:
A. All Litigating Subdivisions in Washington and 90% of Non-Litigating
Primary Subdivisions in Washington as the terms are used in Section
II.C.1 of the Distributors Settlement must execute and return the
Subdivision Settlement Participation Form, Exhibit F of the Distributors
Settlement (the “Participation Form”) by September 23, 2022. This form
is also attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
B. The Consent Judgment and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice,
Exhibit G of the Distributors Settlement, is filed and approved by the
Court.
C. The number of Local Governments that execute and return this Allocation
Agreement satisfies the participation requirements for a State-Subdivision
Agreement as specified in Exhibit O of the Global Settlement.
3. Requirements to become a Participating Local Government . To become a
Participating Local Government that can participate in this Allocation Agreement,
a Local Government must do all of the following:
A. The Local Government must execute and return this Allocation
Agreement.
B. The Local Government must release their claims against the Settling
Distributors and agree to by bound by the terms of the Distributors
Settlement by timely executing and returning the Participation Form. This
form is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
2
C. Litigating Subdivisions must dismiss the Settling Distributors with
prejudice from their lawsuits. The Litigating Subdivisions are listed on
Exhibit B of the Distributors Settlement.
D. The Local Government must execute and return the One Washington
Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities
(“MOU”) agreed to by the Participating Local Governments in
Washington State, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. As specified in
Paragraph 10.A of this Allocation Agreement, the Local Government may
elect in its discretion to execute the MOU for purposes of this Allocation
Agreement only.
A Local Government that meets all of the conditions in this paragraph shall be
deemed a “Participating Local Government.” Alternatively, if the requirements of
Paragraphs 2(A), 2(B), and 2(C) of this Allocation Agreement are satisfied and
this Allocation Agreement becomes effective, then all Local Governments that
comply with Paragraph 3(B) of this Allocation Agreement shall be deemed a
“Participating Local Government.”
4. This Allocation Agreement applies to the Washington Abatement Amount as
defined in Section IV.A of the Distributors Settlement. The maximum possible
Washington Abatement Amount for the Distributors Settlement is
$430,249,769.02. As specified in the Global Settlement, the Washington
Abatement Amount varies dependent on the percentage of Primary Subdivisions
that choose to become Participating Local Governments and whether there are
any Later Litigating Subdivisions as defined in Section I.EE of the Global
Settlement.
5. This Allocation Agreement does not apply to the Washington Fees and Costs as
defined in Section V of the Distributors Settlement. After satisfying its obligations
to its outside counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs, the State estimates that it will
receive approximately $46 million for its own attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant
to Section V.B.1 of the Distributors Settlement. The State shall utilize any and all
amounts it receives for its own attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Section V.B.1
of the Distributors Settlement to provide statewide programs and services for
Opioid Remediation as defined in Section I.SS of the Global Settlement.
6. While this Allocation Agreement does not apply to the Washington Fees and
Costs as defined in Section V of the Distributors Settlement, Section V.B.2 of the
Distributors Settlement estimates that the Settling Distributors shall pay
$10,920,914.70 to Participating Litigating Subdivisions’ attorneys for fees and
costs. The actual amount may be greater or less. This Allocation Agreement and
the MOU are a State Back-Stop Agreement. The total contingent fees an attorney
receives from the Contingency Fee Fund pursuant to Section II. D in Exhibit R
the Global Settlement, the MOU, and this Allocation Agreement combined cannot
exceed 15% of the portion of the LG Share paid to the Litigating Local
Government that retained that firm (i.e., if City X filed suit with outside counsel
3
on a contingency fee contract and City X receives $1,000,000 from the
Distributors Settlement, then the maximum that the firm can receive is $150,000
for fees.)
7. No portion of the Washington Fees and Costs as defined in Section V of the
Distributors Settlement and/or the State Share as defined in Paragraph 8.A of this
Allocation Agreement shall be used to fund the Government Fee Fund (“GFF”)
referred to in Paragraph 10 of this Allocation Agreement and Section D of the
MOU, or in any other way to fund any Participating Local Government’s
attorneys’ fees, costs, or common benefit tax other than the aforementioned
payment by the Settling Distributors to Participating Litigating Subdivisions’
attorneys for fees and costs in Section V.B.2 of the Distributors Settlement.
8. The Washington Abatement Amount shall and must be used by the State and
Participating Local Governments for Opioid Remediation as defined in Section
I.SS of the Global Settlement, except as allowed by Section V of the Global
Settlement. Exhibit 4 is a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as
Opioid Remediation. Further, the Washington Abatement Amount shall and must
be used by the State and Participating Local Governments as provided for in the
Distributors Settlement.
9. The State and the Participating Local Governments agree to divide the
Washington Abatement Amount as follows:
A. Fifty percent (50%) to the State of Washington (“State Share”).
B. Fifty percent (50%) to the Participating Local Governments (“LG Share”).
10. The LG Share shall be distributed pursuant to the MOU attached hereto as Exhibit
3 as amended and modified in this Allocation Agreement.
11. For purposes of this Allocation Agreement only, the MOU is modified as follows
and any contrary provisions in the MOU are struck:
A. The MOU is amended to add new Section E.6, which provides as follows:
A Local Government may elect in its discretion to execute the
MOU for purposes of this Allocation Agreement only. If a Local
Governments executes the MOU for purposes of this Allocation
Agreement only, then the MOU will only bind such Local
Government and be effective with respect to this Allocation
Agreement and the Distributors Settlement, and not any other
Settlement as that term is defined in Section A.14 of the MOU. To
execute the MOU for purposes of this Allocation Agreement only,
the Local Government may either (a) check the applicable box on
its signature page of this Allocation Agreement that is returned or
(b) add language below its signature lines in the MOU that is
returned indicating that the Local Government is executing or has
4
executed the MOU only for purposes of the Allocation Agreement
Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by the Settling Opioid
Distributors in Washington State.
B. Exhibit A of the MOU is replaced by Exhibit E of the Global Settlement,
which is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Agreement.
C. The definition of “Litigating Local Governments” in Section A.4 of the
MOU shall mean Local Governments that filed suit against one or more of
the Settling Defendants prior to May 3, 2022. The Litigating Local
Governments are listed on Exhibit B of the Distributors Settlement, and
are referred to as Litigating Subdivisions in the Distributors Settlement.
D. The definition of “National Settlement Agreement” in Section A.6 of the
MOU shall mean the Global Settlement.
E. The definition of “Settlement” in Section A.14 of the MOU shall mean the
Distributors Settlement.
F. The MOU is amended to add new Section C.4.g.vii, which provides as
follows:
“If a Participating Local Government receiving a direct payment
(a) uses Opioid Funds other than as provided for in the Distributors
Settlement, (b) does not comply with conditions for receiving
direct payments under the MOU, or (c) does not promptly submit
necessary reporting and compliance information to its Regional
Opioid Abatement Counsel (“Regional OAC”) as defined at
Section C.4.h of the MOU, then the Regional OAC may suspend
direct payments to the Participating Local Government after
notice, an opportunity to cure, and sufficient due process. If direct
payments to Participating Local Government are suspended, the
payments shall be treated as if the Participating Local Government
is foregoing their allocation of Opioid Funds pursuant to Section
C.4.d and C.4.j.iii of the MOU. In the event of a suspension, the
Regional OAC shall give prompt notice to the suspended
Participating Local Government and the Settlement Fund
Administrator specifying the reasons for the suspension, the
process for reinstatement, the factors that will be considered for
reinstatement, and the due process that will be provided. A
suspended Participating Local Government may apply to the
Regional OAC to be reinstated for direct payments no earlier than
five years after the suspension.”
G. Consistent with how attorney fee funds for outside counsel for
Participating Local Subdivisions are being administered in most states
across the country, the Government Fee Fund (“GFF”) set forth in the
5
MOU shall be overseen by the MDL Fee Panel (David R. Cohen, Randi S.
Ellis and Hon. David R. Herndon (ret.)). The Fee Panel will preside over
allocation and disbursement of attorney’s fees in a manner consistent with
the Motion to Appoint the Fee Panel to Allocate and Disburse Attorney’s
Fees Provided for in State Back-Stop Agreements and the Order
Appointing the Fee Panel to Allocate and Disburse Attorney’s Fees
Provided for in State Back-Stop Agreements , Case No. 1:17-md-02804-
DAP Doc #: 4543 (June 17, 2022).
H. The GFF set forth in the MOU shall be funded by the LG Share of the
Washington Abatement Amount only. To the extent the common benefit
tax is not already payable by the Settling Distributors as contemplated by
Section D.8 of the MOU, the GFF shall be used to pay Litigating Local
Government contingency fee agreements and any common benefit tax
referred to in Section D of the MOU, which shall be paid on a pro rata
basis to eligible law firms as determined by the Fee Panel.
I. To fund the GFF, fifteen percent (15%) of the LG Share shall be deposited
in the GFF from each LG Share settlement payment until the Litigating
Subdivisions contingency fee agreements and common benefit tax (if any)
referred to in Section D of the MOU are satisfied. Under no circumstances
will any Non-Litigating Primary Subdivision or Litigating Local
Government be required to contribute to the GFF more than 15% of the
portion of the LG Share allocated to such Non-Litigating Primary
Subdivision or Litigating Local Government. In addition, under no
circumstances will any portion of the LG Share allocated to a Litigating
Local Government be used to pay the contingency fees or litigation
expenses of counsel for some other Litigating Local Government.
J. The maximum amount of any Litigating Local Government contingency
fee agreement (from the Contingency Fee Fund pursuant to Section II. D
in Exhibit R the Global Settlement) payable to a law firm permitted for
compensation shall be fifteen percent (15%) of the portion of the LG
Share paid to the Litigating Local Government that retained that firm (i.e.,
if City X filed suit with outside counsel on a contingency fee contract and
City X receives $1,000,000 from the Distributors Settlement, then the
maximum that the firm can receive is $150,000 for fees.) The firms also
shall be paid documented expenses due under their contingency fee
agreements that have been paid by the law firm attributable to that
Litigating Local Government. Consistent with the Distributors Settlement
and Exhibit R of the Global Settlement, amounts due to Participating
Litigating Subdivisions’ attorneys under this Allocation Agreement shall
not impact (i) costs paid by the subdivisions to their attorneys pursuant to
a State Back-Stop agreement, (ii) fees paid to subdivision attorneys from
the Common Benefit Fund for common benefit work performed by the
attorneys pursuant to Section II.C of Exhibit R of the Global Settlement,
or (iii) costs paid to subdivision attorneys from the MDL Expense Fund
6
for expenses incurred by the attorneys pursuant to Section II.E of the
Global Settlement.
K. Under no circumstances may counsel receive more for its work on behalf
of a Litigating Local Government than it would under its contingency
agreement with that Litigating Local Government. To the extent a law
firm was retained by a Litigating Local Government on a contingency fee
agreement that provides for compensation at a rate that is less than fifteen
percent (15%) of that Litigating Local Government’s recovery, the
maximum amount payable to that law firm referred to in Section D.3 of
the MOU shall be the percentage set forth in that contingency fee
agreement.
L. For the avoidance of doubt, both payments from the GFF and the payment
to the Participating Litigating Local Governments’ attorneys for fees and
costs referred to in Paragraph 6 of this Allocation Agreement and Section
V.B.2 Distributors Settlement shall be included when calculating whether
the aforementioned fifteen percent (15%) maximum percentage (or less if
the provisions of Paragraph 10.K of this Allocation Agreement apply) of
any Litigating Local Government contingency fee agreement referred to
above has been met.
M. To the extent there are any excess funds in the GFF, the Fee Panel and the
Settlement Administrator shall facilitate the return of those funds to the
Participating Local Governments as provided for in Section D.6 of the
MOU.
12. In connection with the execution and administration of this Allocation
Agreement, the State and the Participating Local Governments agree to abide by
the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56 eq seq.
13. All Participating Local Governments, Regional OACs, and the State shall
maintain all non-transitory records related to this Allocation Agreement as well as
the receipt and expenditure of the funds from the Distributors Settlement for no
less than five (5) years.
14. If any party to this Allocation Agreement believes that a Participating Local
Government, Regional OAC, the State, an entity, or individual involved in the
receipt, distribution, or administration of the funds from the Distributors
Settlement has violated any applicable ethics codes or rules, a complaint shall be
lodged with the appropriate forum for handling such matters, with a copy of the
complaint promptly sent to the Washington Attorney General, Complex Litigation
Division, Division Chief, 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, Washington
98104.
15. To the extent (i) a region utilizes a pre-existing regional body to establish its
Opioid Abatement Council pursuant to the Section 4.h of the MOU, and (ii) that
7
pre-existing regional body is subject to the requirements of the Community
Behavioral Health Services Act, RCW 71.24 et seq., the State and the
Participating Local Governments agree that the Opioid Funds paid by the Settling
Distributors are subject to the requirements of the MOU and this Allocation
Agreement.
16. Upon request by the Settling Distributors, the Participating Local Governments
must comply with the Tax Cooperation and Reporting provisions of the
Distributors Settlement and the Global Settlement.
17. Venue for any legal action related to this Allocation Agreement (separate and
apart from the MOU, the Distributors Settlement, or the Global Settlement) shall
be in King County, Washington.
18. Each party represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such party’s
execution of this Allocation Agreement have been performed and that such person
signing for such party has been authorized to execute this Allocation Agreement.
8
FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
JEFFREY G. RUPERT
Division Chief
Date:
9
FOR THE PARTICIPATING LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
Name of Participating Local Government:
Authorized signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
A Local Government may elect in its discretion to execute the MOU for purposes of this
Allocation Agreement only by checking this box (see Paragraph 10.A of this Allocation
Agreement):
Local Government is executing the MOU in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 3, but
which is further amended and modified as set forth in this Allocation Agreement, only for
purposes of this Allocation Agreement.
EXHIBIT 1
Distributors Settlement
DISTRIBUTORS WASHINGTON
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Table of Contents
I. Overview ..............................................................................................................................1
II. Conditions to Effectiveness of Agreement ..........................................................................1
III. Participation by Subdivisions ..............................................................................................3
IV. Settlement Payments ............................................................................................................3
V. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ..................................................................................4
VI. Release .................................................................................................................................6
VII. Miscellaneous ......................................................................................................................6
Exhibit A Primary Subdivisions ................................................................................................. A-1
Exhibit B Litigating Subdivisions ................................................................................................B-1
Exhibit C ABC IRS Form 1098-F ...............................................................................................C-1
Exhibit D Cardinal Health IRS Form 1098-F ............................................................................. D-1
Exhibit E McKesson IRS Form 1098-F ....................................................................................... E-1
Exhibit F Subdivision Settlement Participation Form ................................................................. F-1
Exhibit G Consent Judgment and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice................................ G-1
Exhibit H Distributor Global Settlement Agreement.................................................................. H-1
1
DISTRIBUTORS – WASHINGTON SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. Overview
This Distributors Washington Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) sets forth the terms
and conditions of a settlement agreement between and among the State of Washington,
McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”), Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal”) and
AmerisourceBergen Corporation (“Amerisource”) (collectively, the “Agreement Parties”) to
resolve opioid-related Claims against McKesson, Cardinal, and/or Amerisource (collectively,
“Settling Distributors”).
By entering into this Agreement, the State of Washington and its Participating
Subdivisions agree to be bound by all terms and conditions of the Distributor Global Settlement
Agreement dated July 21, 2021 (including its exhibits) (“Global Settlement”), which (including
its exhibits) is incorporated into this Agreement as Exhibit H.1 By entering this Agreement, and
upon execution of an Agreement Regarding the State of Washington and the Distributor Global
Settlement Agreement (“Enforcement Committee Agreement”), unless otherwise set forth in this
Agreement, the Settling Distributors agree to treat the State of Washington for all purposes as if
it were a Settling State under the Global Settlement and its Participating Subdivisions for all
purposes as if they were Participating Subdivisions under the Global Settlement. Unless stated
otherwise in this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement are intended to be consistent with the
terms of the Global Settlement and shall be construed accordingly. Unless otherwise defined in
this Agreement, all capitalized terms in this Agreement shall be defined as they are in the Global
Settlement.
The Settling Distributors have agreed to the below terms for the sole purpose of
settlement, and nothing herein, including in any exhibit to this Agreement, may be taken as or
construed to be an admission or concession of any violation of law, rule, or regulation, or of any
other matter of fact or law, or of any liability or wrongdoing, or any misfeasance, nonfeasance,
or malfeasance, all of which the Settling Distributors expressly deny. No part of this Agreement,
including its statements and commitments, and its exhibits, shall constitute or be used as
evidence of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing by the Settling Distributors. Unless the contrary is
expressly stated, this Agreement is not intended for use b y any third party for any purpose,
including submission to any court for any purpose.
II. Conditions to Effectiveness of Agreement
A. Global Settlement Conditions to Effectiveness.
1. The Agreement Parties acknowledge that certain deadlines set forth in
Section VIII of the Global Settlement passed before the execution of this Agreement. For
1 The version of the Global Settlement as updated on March 25, 2022 is attached to this
Agreement as Exhibit H. Further updates to the Global Settlement shall be deemed incorporated
into this Agreement and shall supersede all earlier versions of the updated provisions.
2
that reason, (i) Settling Distributors agree to treat the State of Washington as satisfying the
deadlines set forth in Section VIII of the Global Settlement provided that the State of
Washington satisfies its obligations set forth in this Section II and (ii) the State of
Washington agrees to treat Settling Distributors as having satisfied all notice obligations
under Section VIII.B of the Global Settlement as to the State of Washington.
2. The State of Washington shall deliver all signatures and releases required
by the Agreement to be provided by the Settling States to the Settling Distributors by
September 30, 2022. This Section II.A.2 supersedes the deadline for delivering those
signatures and releases set forth in Section VIII.A.1 of the Global Settlement.
B. Agreement with Enforcement Committee. This Agreement shall not become
effective unless the Enforcement Committee and the Settling Distributors execute the Enforcement
Committee Agreement. If the Enforcement Committee Agreement is not executed by June 1, 2022,
the State of Washington and Settling Distributors will promptly negotiate an agreement that mirrors
the Global Settlement to the extent possible and with a credit of $1,000,000 to Settling Distributors
to account for possible credits the Settling Distributors would have received under Section V of this
Agreement from the State Cost Fund and the Litigating Subdivision Cost Fund of the Global
Settlement and to be deducted from the Year 7 payment described in Section V.B.1 and Section
V.C.g of this Agreement.
C. Participation by Subdivisions. If the condition in Section II.B has been satisfied,
this Agreement shall become effective upon one of the following conditions being satisfied:
1. All Litigating Subdivisions in the State of Washington and ninety percent
(90%) of Non-Litigating Primary Subdivisions (calculated by population pursuant to the
Global Settlement) in the State of Washington must become Participating Subdivisions by
September 23, 2022.
2. If the condition set forth in Section II.C.1 is not met, the Settling
Distributors shall have sole discretion to accept the terms of this Agreement, which shall
become effective upon notice provided by the Settling Distributors to the State of
Washington. If the condition set forth by Section II.C.1 is not met and Settling Distributors
do not exercise discretion to accept this Agreement, this Agreement will have no further
effect and all releases and other commitments or obligations contained herein will be void.
D. Dismissal of Claims. Provided that the conditions in Sections II.B and II.C have
been satisfied, the State of Washington shall file the Consent Judgment described in Section I.N of
the Global Settlement and attached hereto as Exhibit G (“Washington Consent Judgment”) with the
King County Superior Court (“Washington Consent Judgment Court”) on or before November 1,
2022. This Section II.C.2 supersedes the deadline for submitting a Consent Judgment set forth in
Section VIII.B of the Global Settlement. In the event that the Court declines to enter the
Washington Consent Judgment, each Settling Distributor shall be entitled to terminate the
Agreement as to itself and shall be excused from all obligations under the Agreement, and if a
Settling Distributor terminates the Agreement as to itself, all releases and other commitments or
obligations contained herein with respect to that Settling Distributor will be null and void. The date
of the entry of the Washington Consent Judgment shall be the effective date of this Agreement
3
(“Washington Effective Date”). Within the later of forty-five (45) days after the Washington
Effective Date or December 31, 2022, each Settling Distributor will certify to the State that all
medical claims data provided to it during the litigation (including Medicaid, PMP, LNI claims, and
PEBB data) has been destroyed by the party and its agents, including all retained experts.
III. Participation by Subdivisions
A. Notice. The Office of the State of Washington Attorney General in consultation
with the Settling Distributors shall send individual notice of the opportunity to participate in this
Agreement and the requirements for participation to all Subdivisions eligible to participate who
have not returned an executed Subdivision Settlement Participation Form within fifteen (15) days of
the execution of this Agreement. The Office of the State of Washington Attorney General may also
provide general notice reasonably calculated to alert Subdivisions, including publication and other
standard forms of notification. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the State of Washington
from providing further notice to, or from contacting any of its Subdivision(s) about, becoming a
Participating Subdivision.
B. Trigger Date for Later Litigating Subdivisions. Notwithstanding Sections I.EE and
I.GGGG of the Global Settlement, as to the State of Washington, Settling Distributors and the State
of Washington agree to treat the Trigger Date for Primary Subdivisions as September 23, 2022 and
the Trigger Date for all other Subdivisions as May 3, 2022.
C. Initial and Later Participating Subdivisions. Notwithstanding Sections I.BB, I.CC,
I.FF and Section VII.D and E of the Global Settlement, any Participating Subdivision in
Washington that meets the applicable requirements for becoming a Participating Subdivision set
forth in Section VII.B or Section VII.C of the Global Settlement on or before September 23, 2022
shall be considered an Initial Participating Subdivision. Participating Subdivisions that are not
Initial Participating Subdivisions but meet the applicable requirements for becoming Participating
Subdivisions set forth in Section VII.B or Section VII.C of the Global Settlement after September
23, 2022 shall be considered Later Participating Subdivisions.
D. Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms. Each Subdivision Settlement
Participation Form submitted by a Participating Subdivision from the State of Washington shall be
materially identical to Exhibit F to this Agreement. Nothing in Exhibit F is intended to modify in
any way either the terms of this Agreement or the terms of the Global Settlement, both of which the
State of Washington and Participating Subdivisions agree to be bound. To the extent that any
Subdivision Settlement Participation Form submitted by any Participating Subdivision is worded
differently from Exhibit F to this Agreement or interpreted differently from the Global Agreement
and this Agreement in any respect, the Global Agreement and this Agreement control.
IV. Settlement Payments
A. Schedule. Annual Payments under this Agreement shall be calculated as if the
State of Washington were a Settling State under the Global Settlement and shall be made pursuant
to the terms of Section IV of the Global Settlement except that, as to the State of Washington, the
Payment Date for Payment Year 1 shall be December 1, 2022 and the Payment Date for Payment
4
Year 2 shall be December 1, 2022. For the avoidance of doubt, the sole component of the State of
Washington’s Annual Payment is the portion of the Net Abatement Amount allocated to the State
of Washington under the Global Settlement (“Washington Abatement Amount”). The maximum
possible Washington Abatement Amount is $430,249,769.02.
B. Use of Payment. The Washington Abatement Amount paid under this Agreement
shall be used as provided for in Section V of the Global Settlement.
C. Nature of Payment. The State of Washington and its Participating Subdivisions
agree that payments made to the State of Washington and its Participating Subdivisions under this
Agreement are properly characterized as described in Section V.F of the Global Settlement.
V. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
A. Interaction with Global Settlement. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in the
Global Settlement, payments to cover attorneys’ fees and costs under this Agreement (“Washington
Fees and Costs”) shall be made pursuant to this Section V.
B. Amounts. The total amount to cover of all Washington Fees and Costs is
$87,750,230.98. That total consists of the categories of attorneys’ fees and costs set forth in this
Section V.B and shall be paid on the schedule set forth in Section V.C.
1. State Outside and Inside Counsel Fees and Costs. Settling Distributors shall
pay $76,829,316.21 to cover in-house fees and costs and outside counsel fees and costs to
the Washington Attorney General’s Office, which shall be used for any lawful purpose in
the discharge of the Attorney General’s duties at the sole discretion of the Attorney General.
The amount shall be paid in increments as specified in Section V.C (Payment Year 1 – 20%,
Payment Year 2 – 20%, Payment Year 3 – 15%, Payment Year 4 – 15%, Payment Year 5 –
15%, Payment Year 6 – 10%, Payment Year 7– 5%.)
2. Fees and Costs for Participating Litigating Subdivisions’ Attorneys.
Settling Distributors shall pay $10,920,914.70 to Participating Litigating Subdivisions’
attorneys for fees and costs into a single account as directed by the Washington Attorney
General’s Office, which then shall be paid as agreed between the State of Washington and
attorneys for Participating Litigating Subdivisions. Participating Litigating Subdivisions’
attorneys shall be paid in accordance with the schedule in Section V.C and V.D.5 of this
Agreement.
C. Schedule. Washington Fees and Costs shall be paid according to the following
schedule:
a. Payment Year 1: Twenty percent (20%) of the total Washington
Fees and Costs amount ($17,550,046.20), to be paid on or before December 1,
2022.
5
b. Payment Year 2: Twenty percent (20%) of the total Washington
Fees and Costs amount ($17,550,046.20), to be paid on or before December 1,
2022.
c. Payment Year 3: Fifteen percent (15%) of the total Washington
Fees and Costs amount ($13,162,534.65), to be paid on or before July 15, 2023.
d. Payment Year 4: Fifteen percent (15%) of the total Washington
Fees and Costs amount ($13,162,534.65), to be paid on or before July 15, 2024.
e. Payment Year 5: Fifteen percent (15%) of the total Washington
Fees and Costs amount ($13,162,534.65), to be paid on or before July 15, 2025.
f. Payment Year 6: Ten percent (10%) of the total Washington Fees
and Costs amount ($8,775,023.10), to be paid on or before July 15, 2026.
g. Payment Year 7: Five percent (5%) of the total Washington Fees
and Costs amount ($4,387,511.55), to be paid on or before July 15, 2027.
D. Remittance. So that Settling Distributors do not pay the same fees and costs under
both the Global Settlement and this Agreement, Washington and its Participating Litigating
Subdivisions and their respective counsel shall do as follows:
1. Participating Litigating Subdivisions in Washington and their counsel shall
apply to the Attorney Fee Fund and the Litigating Subdivision Cost Fund created pursuant
to Exhibit R of the Global Settlement for all fees, costs and expenses for which they may be
eligible and shall instruct the Fee Panel and the Cost and Expense Fund Administrator to
remit to Settling Distributors the full amount awarded to such Participating Litigating
Subdivision, with each Settling Distributor receiving the percentage of that amount
corresponding to the allocation set forth in Section IV.I of the Global Settlement.
2. Counsel for Participating Subdivisions shall instruct the Fee Panel created
by the MDL Court pursuant to Exhibit R of the Global Settlement to remit to Settling
Distributors the Contingency Fee Amount for their Participating Subdivisions in the State of
Washington, with each Settling Distributor receiving the percentage of that amount
corresponding to the allocation set forth in Section IV.I of the Global Settlement.
3. The State of Washington shall instruct the Fee Fund Administrator selected
pursuant to Exhibit S of the Global Settlement that the Settling Distributors shall not pay the
Fixed Amount for the State of Washington, and the State of Washington will not be eligible
to receive funds from the State Outside Counsel Fee Fund under the Global Settlement.
4. The State of Washington shall submit documented costs, as provided for in
Exhibit T of the Global Settlement, to the Global Settlement State Cost Fund created
pursuant to Exhibit T of the Global Settlement for all costs and expenses for which it may
be eligible and shall instruct the State Cost Fund Administrator to remit to Settling
Distributors the full amount awarded to the State of Washington, with each Settling
6
Distributor receiving the percentage of that amount corresponding to the allocation set forth
in Section IV.I of the Global Settlement.
5. No Participating Litigating Subdivision shall receive any payment due
under this Agreement, including but not limited to the portion of the Washington Abatement
Amount allocable to the Participating Subdivision, until it and/or its outside counsel, as
applicable, fulfill their obligations under Sections V.D. 1-2.
VI. Release
A. Scope. As of the Washington Effective Date, Section XI of the Global Settlement
is fully binding on, and effective with respect to, all Releasors under this Agreement. Accordingly,
as of the Washington Effective Date, the Released Entities are hereby released and forever
discharged from all Released Claims of Releasors, including the State of Washington and its
Participating Subdivisions.
VII. Miscellaneous
A. No Admission. The Settling Distributors do not admit liability, fault, or
wrongdoing. Neither this Agreement nor the Washington Consent Judgment shall be considered,
construed or represented to be (1) an admission, concession or evidence of liability or wrongdoing
or (2) a waiver or any limitation of any defense otherwise available to the Settling Distributors. It i s
the understanding and intent of the Agreement Parties that no portion of the Agreement shall be
entered into evidence in any other action against the Settling Distributors, among other reasons,
because it is not relevant to such action. For the avoidance of any doubt, nothing herein shall
prohibit a Settling Distributor from entering this Agreement into evidence in any litigation or
arbitration concerning a Settling Distributor’s right to coverage under an insurance contract.
B. Tax Cooperation and Reporting. The State of Washington and its Participating
Subdivisions will be bound by Section V.F and Section XIV.F of the Global Settlement, except
(i) as set forth in the final sentence of this Section VII.B and (ii) that the State of Washington shall
be its own Designated State and shall designate its own “appropriate official” within the meaning of
Treasury Regulations Section 1.6050X-1(f)(1)(ii)(B) (the “Appropriate Official”). The IRS Forms
1098-F to be filed with respect to this Agreement are attached as Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Exhibit
E. The State of Washington and its Participating Subdivisions agree that any return, amended
return, or written statement filed or provided pursuant to Section XIV.F.4 of the Global Settlement
with respect to this Agreement, and any similar document, shall be prepared and filed in a manner
consistent with reporting each Settling Distributor’s portion of the aggregate amount of payments
paid or incurred by the Settling Distributors hereunder as the “Total amount to be paid” pursuant to
this Agreement in Box 1 of IRS Form 1098-F, each Settling Distributor’s portion of the amount
equal to the aggregate amount of payments paid or incurred by the Settling Distributors hereunder
less the Compensatory Restitution Amount as the “Amount to be paid for violation or potential
violation” in Box 2 of IRS Form 1098-F and each Settling Distributor’s portion of the
Compensatory Restitution Amount as “Restitution/remediation amount” in Box 3 of IRS Form
1098-F, as reflected in Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Exhibit E.
7
C. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, no
portion of this Agreement shall provide any rights to, or be enforceable by, any person or entity that
is not the State of Washington or a Released Entity. The State of Washington may not assign or
otherwise convey any right to enforce any provision of this Agreement.
D. Cooperation. Each Agreement Party and each Participating Subdivision agrees to
use its best efforts and to cooperate with the other Agreement Parties and Participating Subdivisions
to cause this Agreement to become effective, to obtain all necessary approvals, consents and
authorizations, if any, and to execute all documents and to take such other action as may be
appropriate in connection herewith. Consistent with the foregoing, each Agreement Party and each
Participating Subdivision agrees that it will not directly or indirectly assist or encourage any
challenge to this Agreement or the Washington Consent Judgment by any other person, and will
support the integrity and enforcement of the terms of this Agreement and the Washington Consent
Judgment.
E. Enforcement. All disputes between Settling Distributors and the State of
Washington and/or the Participating Subdivisions in the State of Washington shall be handled as
specified in Section VI of the Global Settlement, including the referral of relevant disputes to the
National Arbitration Panel.
F. No Violations of Applicable Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to
authorize or require any action by Settling Distributors in violation of applicable federal, state, or
other laws.
G. Modification. This Agreement may be modified by a written agreement of the
Agreement Parties. For purposes of modifying this Agreement or the Washington Consent
Judgment, Settling Distributors may contact the Washington Attorney General for purposes of
coordinating this process. The dates and deadlines in this Agreement may be extended by written
agreement of the Agreement Parties, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
H. No Waiver. Any failure by any Agreement Party to insist upon the strict
performance by any other party of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a
waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement, and such party, notwithstanding such failure,
shall have the right thereafter to insist upon the specific performance of any and all of the
provisions of this Agreement.
I. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Global Settlement (and its
exhibits), represents the full and complete terms of the settlement entered into by the Agreement
Parties, except as provided herein. In any action undertaken by the Agreement Parties, no prior
versions of this Agreement and no prior versions of any of its terms may be introduced for any
purpose whatsoever.
J. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and a facsimile or
.pdf signature shall be deemed to be, and shall have the same force and effect as, an original
signature.
K. Notice. All notices or other communications under this Agreement shall be
provided to the following via email and overnight delivery to:
8
Copy to AmerisourceBergen Corporation’s attorneys at:
Michael T. Reynolds
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
825 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
mreynolds@cravath.com
Copy to Cardinal Health, Inc.’s attorneys at:
Elaine Golin
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
epgolin@wlrk.com
Copy to McKesson Corporation’s attorneys at:
Thomas J. Perrelli
Jenner & Block LLP
1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
TPerrelli@jenner.com
Copy to the State of Washington at:
Shane Esquibel
Jeffrey Rupert
Laura Clinton
Washington Attorney General’s Office
1125 Washington Street SE
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
Shane.Esquibel@atg.wa.gov
Jeffrey.Rupert@atg.wa.gov
Laura.Clinton@atg.wa.gov
[Signatures begin on next page.]
Authorized and agreed to by:
By:
Elizabeth Campbell
Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
May 2, 2022
Authorized and agreed to by:
Dated: 04/29/2022 CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.
By:
Name: Jessica Mayer
Title: Chief Legal and Compliance Officer
A-1
Exhibit A
Primary Subdivisions2
No. Subdivision Name
1. Aberdeen city
2. Adams County
3. Anacortes City
4. Arlington City
5. Asotin County
6. Auburn City*
7. Bainbridge Island City
8. Battle Ground City
9. Bellevue City*
10. Bellingham City*
11. Benton County*
12. Bonney Lake City
13. Bothell City*
14. Bremerton City*
15. Burien City*
16. Camas City
17. Centralia City
18. Chelan County*
19. Cheney City
20. Clallam County*
21. Clark County*
22. Covington City
23. Cowlitz County*
24. Des Moines City*
25. Douglas County*
26. East Wenatchee City
27. Edgewood City
28. Edmonds City*
29. Ellensburg City
30. Enumclaw City
31. Everett City*
32. Federal Way City*
33. Ferndale City
34. Fife City
35. Franklin County*
36. Gig Harbor City
37. Grandview City
38. Grant County*
2 Entities denoted with an asterisk (*) indicate a population of greater than 30,000 for purposes of the definition of
Primary Subdivision as it relates to Incentive Payment C.
A-2
39. Grays Harbor County*
40. Island County*
41. Issaquah City*
42. Jefferson County*
43. Kelso City
44. Kenmore City
45. Kennewick City*
46. Kent City*
47. King County*
48. Kirkland City*
49. Kitsap County*
50. Kittitas County*
51. Klickitat County
52. Lacey City*
53. Lake Forest Park City
54. Lake Stevens City*
55. Lakewood City*
56. Lewis County*
57. Liberty Lake City
58. Lincoln County
59. Longview City*
60. Lynden City
61. Lynnwood City*
62. Maple Valley City
63. Marysville City*
64. Mason County*
65. Mercer Island City
66. Mill Creek City
67. Monroe City
68. Moses Lake City
69. Mount Vernon City*
70. Mountlake Terrace City
71. Mukilteo City
72. Newcastle City
73. Oak Harbor City
74. Okanogan County*
75. Olympia City*
76. Pacific County
77. Pasco City*
78. Pend Oreille County
79. Pierce County*
80. Port Angeles City
81. Port Orchard City
82. Poulsbo City
83. Pullman City*
84. Puyallup City*
A-3
85. Redmond City*
86. Renton City*
87. Richland City*
88. Sammamish City*
89. San Juan County
90. Seatac City
91. Seattle City*
92. Sedro-Woolley City
93. Shelton City
94. Shoreline City*
95. Skagit County*
96. Skamania County
97. Snohomish City
98. Snohomish County*
99. Snoqualmie City
100. Spokane City*
101. Spokane County*
102. Spokane Valley City*
103. Stevens County*
104. Sumner City
105. Sunnyside City
106. Tacoma City*
107. Thurston County*
108. Tukwila City
109. Tumwater City
110. University Place City*
111. Vancouver City*
112. Walla Walla City*
113. Walla Walla County*
114. Washougal City
115. Wenatchee City*
116. West Richland City
117. Whatcom County*
118. Whitman County*
119. Woodinville City
120. Yakima City*
121. Yakima County*
B-1
Exhibit B
Litigating Subdivisions
No. Subdivision Name
1. Anacortes City
2. Bainbridge Island City
3. Burlington City
4. Chelan County
5. Clallam County
6. Clark County
7. Everett City
8. Franklin County
9. Island County
10. Jefferson County
11. Kent City
12. King County
13. Kirkland City
14. Kitsap County
15. Kittitas County
16. La Conner School District
17. Lakewood City
18. Lewis County
19. Lincoln County
20. Mount Vernon City
21. Mount Vernon School District
22. Olympia City
23. Pierce County
24. San Juan County
25. Seattle City
26. Sedro-Woolley City
27. Sedro-Woolley School District
28. Skagit County
29. Snohomish County
30. Spokane City
31. Spokane County
32. Tacoma City
33. Thurston County
34. Vancouver City
35. Walla Walla County
36. Whatcom County
37. Whitman County
C-1
Exhibit C
ABC IRS Form 1098-F
This Exhibit C will be appended to the Agreement prior to the Effective Date pursuant to Section
VII.B.
D-1
Exhibit D
Cardinal Health IRS Form 1098-F
This Exhibit D will be appended to the Agreement prior to the Effective Date pursuant to Section
VII.B.
E-1
Exhibit E
McKesson IRS Form 1098-F
This Exhibit E will be appended to the Agreement prior to the Effective Date pursuant to Section
VII.B.
F-1
Exhibit F
Subdivision Settlement Participation Form
Governmental Entity: State:
Authorized Official:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Email:
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in
consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement dated May 2, 2022 (“Distributors Washington Settlement”), and acting through the
undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Distributors Washington
Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Distributors Washington
Settlement, including the Distributor Global Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021
(“Global Settlement”) attached to the Distributors Washington Settlement as Exhibit H,
understands that all terms in this Participation Form have the meanings defined therein,
and agrees that by signing this Participation Form, the Governmental Entity elects to
participate in the Distributors Washington Settlement and become a Participating
Subdivision as provided therein.
2. The Governmental Entity shall, within 14 days of October 1, 2022 and prior to the filing
of the Consent Judgment, secure the dismissal with prejudice of any Released Claims that
it has filed.
4. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Distributors Washington Settlement
pertaining to Subdivisions as defined therein.
5. By agreeing to the terms of the Distributors Washington Settlement and becoming a
Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including,
if applicable, monetary payments beginning after December 1, 2022.
6. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Distributors
Washington Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
7. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the Washington Consent
Judgment Court for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving
disputes to the extent provided in, the Distributors Washington Settlement. The
Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National Arbitration Panel as
provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise provided in the
Distributors Washington Settlement.
F-2
8. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Distributors Washington Settlement
as provided therein.
9. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in the Distributors Washington Settlement, including, but not limited to, all
provisions of Section XI of the Global Settlement, and along with all departments,
agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and
attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of
the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the
foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a
release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity
hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim,
or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to
establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum
whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Distributors Washington Settlement are
intended by the Agreement Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the
Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to
Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to
release claims. The Distributors Washington Settlement shall be a complete bar to any
Released Claim.
10. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating
Subdivision as set forth in the Distributors Washington Settlement.
11. In connection with the releases provided for in the Distributors Washington Settlement,
each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all
provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the
United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or
her favor at the time of executing the release, and that if known by him or
her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or
released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it
knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each
Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles,
releases and discharges, upon the date the Distributors Washington Settlement becomes
effective pursuant to Section II.B of the Distributors Washington Settlement, any and all
Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or
suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no
fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental
Entities’ decision to participate in the Distributors Washington Settlement.
F-3
12. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Distributors
Washington Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this
Participation Form is worded differently from Exhibit F to the Distributors Washington
Settlement or interpreted differently from the Distributors Washington Settlement in any
respect, the Distributors Washington Settlement controls.
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation Form on behalf of the
Governmental Entity.
Signature: _____________________________
Name: ________________________________
Title: _________________________________
Date: _________________________________
G-1
Exhibit G
Consent Judgment and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice
The Honorable Michael Ramsey Scott
Trial Date: November 15, 2021
STATE OF WASHINGTON
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION,
CARDINAL HEALTH INC., and
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
NO. 19-2-06975-9 SEA
FINAL CONSENT JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
FINAL CONSENT JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
The State of Washington (“State”) and McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, together with the
subsidiaries thereof (collectively, the “Settling Distributors,” and each a “Settling Distributor”)
(together with the State, the “Parties,” and each a “Party”) have entered into a consensual
resolution of the above-captioned litigation (the “Action”) pursuant to a settlement agreement
entitled Distributors Washington Settlement Agreement, dated as of May 2, 2022 (the
“Washington Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Washington
Agreement shall become effective by its terms upon the entry of this Final Consent Judgment
(the “Judgment”) by the Court without adjudication of any contested issue of fact or law, and
without finding or admission of wrongdoing or liability of any kind. By entering into the
Washington Agreement, the State of Washington agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions
G-2
of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021 (as subsequently updated)
(the “Global Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (together with the
Washington Agreement, the “Agreements”) unless stated otherwise in the Washington
Agreement. Unless stated otherwise in the Washington Agreement, the terms of the Washington
Agreement are intended to be consistent with the terms of the Global Settlement and shall be
construed accordingly.
I. RECITALS:
1. Each Party warrants and represents that it engaged in arm’s-length negotiations in good
faith. In hereby executing the Agreements, the Parties intend to effect a good-faith settlement.
2. The State has determined that the Agreements are in the public interest.
3. The Settling Distributors deny the allegations against them and that they have any
liability whatsoever to the State, its Subdivisions, and/or (a) any of the State’s or Subdivisions’
departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and
attorneys, including its Attorney General, and any person in his or her official capacity whether
elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming
by or through any of the foregoing, (b) any public entities, public instrumentalities, public
educational institutions, unincorporated districts, fire districts, irrigation districts, and other
Special Districts, and (c) any person or entity acting in a parens patriae, sovereign, quasi-
sovereign, private attorney general, qui tam, taxpayer, or other capacity seeking relief on behalf of
or generally applicable to the general public.
4. The Parties recognize that the outcome of the Action is uncertain and a final resolution
through the adversarial process likely will require protracted litigation.
5. The Parties agree to the entry of the injunctive relief terms pursuant to Exhibit P of the
Global Agreement.
6. Therefore, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Settling Distributors
or any other Released Entities (as defined in the Global Agreement), the Parties now mutually
consent to the entry of this Judgment and agree to dismissal of the claims with prejudice pursuant
G-3
to the terms of the Agreements to avoid the delay, expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty of
protracted litigation.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
In consideration of the mutual promises, terms, and conditions set forth in the
Agreements, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by all Parties, it is agreed by and
between the Settling Distributors and the State, and adjudicated by the Court, as follows:
1. The foregoing Recitals are incorporated herein and constitute an express term of this
Judgment.
2. The Parties have entered into a full and final settlement of all Released Claims of
Releasors against the Settling Distributors (including but not limited to the State) and the Released
Entities pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreements.
3. The “Definitions” set forth in Section I of the Global Agreement are incorporated by
reference into this Judgment. The State is a “Settling State” within the meaning of the Global
Agreement. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms in this Judgment shall have the
same meaning given to them in the Global Agreement, or, if not defined in the Global Agreement,
the same meaning given to them in the Washington Agreement.
4. The Parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action
and over the Parties with respect to the Action and this Judgment. This Judgment shall not be
construed or used as a waiver of any jurisdictional defense the Settling Distributors or any other
Released Entity may raise in any other proceeding.
5. The Court finds that the Agreements were entered into in good faith.
6. The Court finds that entry of this Judgment is in the public interest and reflects a
negotiated settlement agreed to by the Parties. The Action is dismissed with prejudice, subject to
a retention of jurisdiction by the Court as provided herein and in the Agreements.
G-4
7. By this Judgment, the Agreements are hereby approved by the Court, and the Court
hereby adopts their terms as its own determination of this matter and the Parties’ respective rights
and obligations.
8. The Court shall have authority to resolve disputes identified in Section VI.F.1 of the
Global Agreement, governed by the rules and procedures of the Court.
9. The Parties have satisfied the Conditions to Effectiveness of Agreement set forth in
Section II.B of the Washington Agreement as follows:
a. The Enforcement Committee and the Settling Distributors executed the
Enforcement Committee Agreement by June 1, 2022.
b. All Litigating Subdivisions in the State of Washington and ninety percent (90%)
of Non-Litigating Primary Subdivisions (calculated by population pursuant to the
Global Settlement) in the State of Washington became Participating Subdivisions
by September 23, 2022.
10. The Parties have satisfied the Condition to Effectiveness of Agreement set forth in
Section VIII of the Global Agreement and the Release set forth in Sections XI.A, F, and G of the
Global Agreement, as follows:
a. The Attorney General of the State exercised the fullest extent of his or her powers
to release the Settling Distributors and all other Released Entities from all
Released Claims pursuant to the release attached hereto as Exhibit C (the “AG
Release”).
b. The Settling Distributors have determined that there is sufficient State
participation and sufficient resolution of the Claims of the Litigating Subdivisions
in the Settling States to proceed with the Agreements.
c. The Participation Form for each Initial Participating Subdivision in the State has
been delivered to the Settling Distributors. As stated in the Participation Form,
and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the Participation Form executed by the
Participating Subdivisions is intended to modify in any way the terms of the
G-5
Agreements to which the Participating Subdivisions agree. As stated in the
Participation Form, to the extent the executed version of the Participation Form
differs from the Global Agreement in any respect, the Global Agreement controls.
d. Pursuant to Section VIII.B of the Global Agreement, each Participating
Subdivision in the State is dismissing with prejudice any Released Claims that it
has filed against the Settling Distributors and the Released Entities.
11. Release. The Parties acknowledge that the AG Release, which is incorporated by
reference herein, is an integral part of this Judgment. Pursuant to the Agreements and the AG
Release and without limitation and to the maximum extent of the power of the State’s Attorney
General, the Settling Distributors and the other Released Entities are, as of the Effective Date,
hereby released from any and all Released Claims of (a) the State and its Participating Subdivisions
and any of their departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, Subdivisions, districts,
instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, including the State’s Attorney General, and any person
in his or her official capacity whether elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing, and any
agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, (b) any public entities,
public instrumentalities, public educational institutions, unincorporated districts, fire districts,
irrigation districts, and other Special Districts in the State, and (c) any person or entity acting in a
parens patriae, sovereign, quasi-sovereign, private attorney general, qui tam, taxpayer, or other
capacity seeking relief on behalf of or generally applicable to the general public with respect to
the State or any Subdivision in the State, whether or not any of them participate in the Agreements.
Pursuant to the Agreements and the AG Release and to the maximum extent of the State’s power,
the Settling Distributors and the other Released Entities are, as of the Effective Date, hereby
released from any and all Released Claims of (1) the State, (2) all past and present executive
departments, state agencies, divisions, boards, commissions and instrumentalities with the
regulatory authority to enforce state and federal controlled substances acts, and (3) any of the
State’s past and present executive departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions and
instrumentalities that have the authority to bring Claims related to Covered Conduct seeking
G-6
money (including abatement and/or remediation) or revocation of a pharmaceutical distribution
license. For the purposes of clause (3) above, executive departments, agencies, divisions, boards,
commissions, and instrumentalities are those that are under the executive authority or direct control
of the State’s Governor. Further, the provisions set forth in Section XI of the Global Agreement
are incorporated by reference into this Judgment as if fully set forth herein. The Parties
acknowledge, and the Court finds, that those provisions are an integral part of the Agreements and
this Judgment, and shall govern the rights and obligations of all participants in the settlement. Any
modification of those rights and obligations may be made based only on a writing signed by all
affected parties and approved by the Court.
12. Release of Unknown Claims. The State expressly waives, releases, and forever
discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory
of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to
claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect
to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that,
if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her
settlement with the debtor or released party.
13. The State may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it
knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but the State expressly
waived and fully, finally, and forever settled, released and discharged, through the Agreements
and AG Release, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of the Effective Date but which
the State does not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence
or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would have materially affected the State’s
decision to enter into the Agreements.
14. Costs and Fees. The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees except as
otherwise provided in the Agreements.
G-7
15. No Admission of Liability. The Settling Distributors are consenting to this Judgment
solely for the purpose of effectuating the Agreements, and nothing contained herein may be taken
as or construed to be an admission or concession of any violation of law, rule, or regulation, or of
any other matter of fact or law, or of any liability or wrongdoing, all of which the Settling
Distributors expressly deny. None of the Settling Distributors or any other Released Entity admits
that it caused or contributed to any public nuisance, and none of the Settling Distributors or any
other Released Entity admits any wrongdoing that was or could have been alleged by the State, its
Participating Subdivisions, or any other person or entity. No part of this Judgment shall constitute
evidence of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing by the Settling Distributors or any other Released
Entity. The Parties acknowledge that payments made under the Agreements are not a fine, penalty,
or payment in lieu thereof and are properly characterized as described in Section V.F of the Global
Agreement.
16. No Waiver. This Judgment is entered based on the Agreements without adjudication
of any contested issue of fact or law or finding of liability of any kind. This Judgment shall not be
construed or used as a waiver of any Settling Distributor’s right, or any other Released Entity’s
right, to defend itself from, or make any arguments in, any other regulatory, governmental, private
individual, or class claims or suits relating to the subject matter or terms of this Judgment.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State may enforce the terms of this Judgment as expressly
provided in the Agreements.
17. No Private Right of Action. This Judgment is not intended for use by any third party
for any purpose, including submission to any court for any purpose, except pursuant to Section
VI.A of the Global Agreement. Except as expressly provided in the Agreements, no portion of the
Agreements or this Judgment shall provide any rights to, or be enforceable by, any person or entity
that is not a Settling State or Released Entity. The State shall allow Participating Subdivisions in
the State to notify it of any perceived violations of the Agreements or this Judgment. No Settling
State, including the State of Washington, may assign or otherwise convey any right to enforce any
provision of the Agreements.
G-8
18. Admissibility. It is the intent of the Parties that this Judgment not be admissible in
other cases against the Settling Distributors or binding on the Settling Distributors in any respect
other than in connection with the enforcement of this Judgment or the Agreements. For the
avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall prohibit a Settling Distributor from entering this Judgment
or the Agreements into evidence in any litigation or arbitration concerning (1) a Settling
Distributor’s right to coverage under an insurance contract or (2) the enforcement of the releases
provided for by the Agreements and this Judgment.
19. Preservation of Privilege. Nothing contained in the Agreements or this Judgment, and
no act required to be performed pursuant to the Agreements or this Judgment, is intended to
constitute, cause, or effect any waiver (in whole or in part) of any attorney-client privilege, work
product protection, or common interest/joint defense privilege, and each Party agrees that it shall
not make or cause to be made in any forum any assertion to the contrary.
20. Mutual Interpretation. The Parties agree and stipulate that the Agreements were
negotiated on an arm’s-length basis between parties of equal bargaining power and was drafted
jointly by counsel for each Party. Accordingly, the Agreements are incorporated herein by
reference and shall be mutually interpreted and not construed in favor of or against any Party,
except as expressly provided for in the Agreements.
21. Retention of Jurisdiction. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of the Parties for the
limited purpose of the resolution of disputes identified in Section VI.F.1 of the Global Agreement.
The Court shall have jurisdiction over Participating Subdivisions in the State for the limited
purposes identified in the Agreements.
22. Successors and Assigns. This Judgment is binding on each of the Settling Distributor’s
successors and assigns.
23. Modification. This Judgment shall not be modified (by the Court, by any other court,
or by any other means) without the consent of the State and the Settling Distributors, or as provided
for in Section XIV.U of the Global Agreement.
G-9
So ORDERED this _____ day of _________________ 2022.
____________________________________________
THE HONORABLE JUDGE MICHAEL. R. SCOTT
APPROVED, AGREED TO AND PRESENTED BY:
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
Attorney General
s/
MARTHA RODRÍGUEZ LÓPEZ,
WSBA No. 35466
ANDREW R.W. HUGHES, WSBA No. 49515
NATHAN K. BAYS, WSBA No. 43025
BRIAN H. ROWE, WSBA No. 56817
SPENCER W. COATES, WSBA No. 49683
KELSEY E. ENDRES, WSBA No. 39409
LAURA K. CLINTON, WSBA No. 29846
JONATHAN J. GUSS, WSBA No. 57663
SUSAN E. LLORENS, WSBA No. 38049
LIA E. PERNELL, WSBA No. 50208
MOTLEY RICE LLC
s/
LINDA SINGER, pro hac vice
ELIZABETH SMITH, pro hac vice
DAVID I. ACKERMAN, pro hac vice
JAMES LEDLIE, pro hac vice
DON MIGLIORI, pro hac vice
REBECCA FONSECA, pro hac vice
MICHAEL J. QUIRK, pro hac vice
ANNIE KOUBA, pro hac vice
MICHAEL J. PENDELL, pro hac vice
CHRISTOPHER MORIARTY, pro hac vice
LISA M. SALTZBURG, pro hac vice
NATALIA DEYNEKA, pro hac vice
MICHAEL E. ELSNER, pro hac vice
ANDREW P. ARNOLD, pro hac vice
MIMI LIU, pro hac vice
STOEL RIVES LLP
s/
VANESSA SORIANO POWER,
WSBA No. 30777
JENNA M. POLIGO, WSBA No. 54466
RACHEL C. LEE, WSBA No. 48245
S. JULIA LITTELL, WSBA No. 54106
PER RAMFJORD, pro hac vice
CHRIS C. RIFER, pro hac vice
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
s/
LORYN HELFMANN, pro hac vice
A. JOSHUA PODOLL, pro hac vice
SUZANNE SALGADO, pro hac vice
NEELUM J. WADHWANI, pro hac vice
PAUL E. BOEHM, pro hac vice
ELEANOR J.G. WASSERMAN, pro hac vice
DAVID J. PARK, pro hac vice
JOSHUA D. TULLY, pro hac vice
STEVEN PYSER, pro hac vice
ENU A. MAINIGI, pro hac vice
JENNIFER G. WICHT, pro hac vice
JOSEPH S. BUSHUR, pro hac vice
COLLEEN MCNAMARA, pro hac vice
MATTHEW P. MOONEY, pro hac vice
ASHLEY W. HARDIN, pro hac vice
J. ANDREW KEYES, pro hac vice
EMILY R. PISTILLI, pro hac vice
BRAD MASTERS, pro hac vice
G-10
ANN RITTER, pro hac vice
SARA AGUINGUA, pro hac vice
DAVID BURNETT, pro hac vice
VINCENT GREENE, pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Washington
WILLIAM F. HAWKINS, pro hac vice
Attorneys for Defendant Cardinal Health Inc.
GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL
LLP
s/_____________________________
FRANKLIN D. CORDELL,
WSBA No. 26392
JEFFREY M. THOMAS,
WSBA No. 21175
KASEY HUEBNER,
WSBA No. 32890
COVINGTON & BURLING
CHISTOPHER EPPICH, pro hac vice
ANDREW STANNER, pro hac vice
KEVIN KELLY, pro hac vice
AMBER CHARLES, pro hac vice
MEGHAN MONAGHAN, pro hac vice
ISAAC CHAPUT, pro hac vice
DANIEL EAGLES, pro hac vice
MEGAN MCLAUGHLIN, pro hac vice
DEVON L. MOBLEY-RITTER, pro hac vice
MEGAN RODGERS, pro hac vice
SONYA D. WINNER, pro hac vice
CLAYTON L. BAILEY, pro hac vice
JAMES A. GOOLD, pro hac vice
EMILY KVESELIS, pro hac vice
PAUL W. SCHMIDT, pro hac vice
ALEXANDER SETZEPFANDT, pro hac vice
CHRISTIAN J. PISTILLI, pro hac vice
LAUREN DORRIS, pro hac vice
NICHOLAS GRIEPSMA, pro hac vice
ALISON DICIURCIO, pro hac vice
SARA J. DENNIS, pro hac vice
PHYLLIS A. JONES, pro hac vice
DALE A. RICE, pro hac vice
Attorneys for Defendant McKesson Corp.
LANE POWELL PC
s/_______________________________
JOHN S. DEVLIN III, WSBA No. 23988
PILAR FRENCH, WSBA No. 33300
REED SMITH LLP
G-11
ROBERT A. NICHOLAS, pro hac vice
KIM M. WATTERSON, pro hac vice
STEVEN BORANIAN, pro hac vice
ELIZABETH BRANDON, pro hac vice
Attorneys for Defendant AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation and AmerisourceBergen
Corporation
G-12
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I declare that I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be electronically served using
the Court’s Electronic Filing System, which will serve a copy of this document upon all counsel
of record.
CARDINAL
Vanessa S. Power, Atty vanessa.power@stoel.com
Jenna Poligo, Atty jenna.poligo@stoel.com
Per A. Ramfjord, Atty per.ramfjord@stoel.com
Rachel C. Lee, Atty rachel.lee@stoel.com
Christopher C. Rifer, Atty christopher.rifer@stoel.com
Loryn Helfmann, Atty lhelfmann@wc.com
A. Joshua Podoll, Atty apodoll@wc.com
Suzanne Salgado, Atty ssalgado@wc.com
Neelum J. Wadhwani, Atty nwadhwani@wc.com
Paul E. Boehm, Atty pboehm@wc.com
Eleanor J. G. Wasserman, Atty ewasserman@wc.com
David J. Park, Atty dpark@wc.com
Joshua D. Tully, Atty jtully@wc.com
Steven Pyser, Atty spyser@wc.com
Enu A. Mainigi, Atty emainigi@wc.com
Jennifer G. Wicht, Atty jwicht@wc.com
Joseph S. Bushur, Atty jbushur@wc.com
Colleen McNamara, Atty cmcnamara@wc.com
Ashley W. Hardin, Atty ahardin@wc.com
J. Andrew Keyes, Atty akeyes@wc.com
Emily R. Pistilli, Atty epistilli@wc.com
William F. Hawkins, Atty whawkins@wc.com
Stoel Docketing docketclerk@stoel.com
Leslie Lomax, Legal Assistant leslie.lomax@stoel.com
WA Action cardinalwashingtonaction@wc.com
MCKESSON
Franklin D. Cordell fcordell@gordontilden.com
Jeffrey M. Thomas jthomas@gordontilden.com
Kasey Huebner khuebner@gordontilden.com
Christopher Eppich, Atty ceppich@cov.com
Andrew Stanner, Atty astanner@cov.com
Kevin Kelly, Atty kkelly@cov.com
Amber Charles, Atty acharles@cov.com
Meghan Monaghan, Atty mmonaghan@cov.com
Isaac Chaput, Atty ichaput@cov.com
Daniel Eagles, Atty deagles@cov.com
Megan McLaughlin, Atty mmclaughlin@cov.com
Devon L. Mobley-Ritter, Atty dmobleyritter@cov.com
Megan Rodgers, Atty mrodgers@cov.com
Sonya D. Winner, Atty swinner@cov.com
Clayton L. Bailey, Atty cbailey@cov.com
G-13
James A. Goold, Atty jgoold@cov.com
Emily Kveselis, Atty ekveselis@cov.com
Paul W. Schmidt, Atty pschmidt@cov.com
Alexander Setzepfandt, Atty asetzepfandt@cov.com
Christian J. Pistilli, Atty cpistilli@cov.com
Lauren Dorris, Atty ldorris@cov.com
Nicholas Griepsma, Atty ngriepsma@cov.com
Alison DiCiurcio, Atty adiciurcio@cov.com
Sara J. Dennis, Atty sdennis@cov.com
Phyllis A. Jones, Atty pajones@cov.com
Dale A. Rice, Atty drice@cov.com
Nicole Antoine, Atty nantoine@cov.com
Timothy Hester, Atty thester@cov.com
Gregory L. Halperin, Atty ghalperin@cov.com
Stephen Petkis, Atty spetkis@cov.com
Alice Phillips Atty aphillips@cov.com
Ellen Evans, Legal Assistant eevans@gordontilden.com
Jacqueline Lucien Legal Assistant jlucien@gordontilden.com
Courtney Caryl Garth, Paralegal ccaryl@gordontilden.com
Electronic Mailing Inbox mckessonwa@cov.com
AMERISOURCEBERGEN
Pilar French, Atty frenchp@lanepowell.com
John S. Devlin III, Atty devlinj@lanepowell.com
Katie Bass, Atty bassk@lanepowell.com
Elizabeth Brandon, Atty ebrandon@reedsmith.com
Sarah Johansen, Atty sjohansen@reedsmith.com
Rachel B. Weil, Atty rweil@reedsmith.com
Steven Boranian, Atty sboranian@reedsmith.com
Adam D. Brownrout, Atty abrownrout@reedsmith.com
Nicole S. Soussan, Atty nsoussan@reedsmith.com
Brian T. Himmel, Atty bhimmel@reedsmith.com
Shannon E. McClure, Atty smcclure@reedsmith.com
Michael J. Salimbene, Atty msalimbene@reedsmith.com
Robert A. Nicholas, Atty rnicholas@reedsmith.com
Thomas H. Suddath, Jr., Atty tsuddath@reedsmith.com
Thomas J. McGarrigle, Atty tmcgarrigle@reedsmith.com
Courtland C. Chillingworth, Atty cchillingworth@reedsmith.com
Christina M. Vitale, Atty cvitale@reedsmith.com
Brian T. Kiolbasa, Atty kiolbasab@lanepowell.com
Abigail M. Pierce, Atty abigail.pierce@reedsmith.com
Joseph Mahady, Atty jmahady@reedsmith.com
Jeffrey R. Melton, Atty jmelton@reedsmith.com
Anne E. Rollins, Atty arollins@reedsmith.com
Eric J. Buhr, Atty ebuhr@reedsmith.com
Brent R. Gary, Atty bgary@reedsmith.com
Kim M. Watterson, Atty KWatterson@reedsmith.com
Jeffrey M. Weimer, Atty JWeimer@reedsmith.com
E-Mailbox Docketing-SEA@lanepowell.com
E-Mailbox Docketing-PDX@lanepowell.com
E-Mailbox ABDCWA@LanePowell.com
G-14
DATED ___ day of ____________________ 2022, at Seattle, Washington.
s/
ANDREW R.W. HUGHES, WSBA No. 49515
Exhibit H Distributor Global Settlement Agreement
This document is not attached due to its size. The document can be found here: https://agportal-
s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/DistributorsSettlement/National%20Distributor%20Settlement.pdf
EXHIBIT 2
Subdivision Settlement Participation Form
(Exhibit F of the Distributors Settlement)
! "#$ % "&"'( )"#" ( . /00&1&#$( ( ( 5 6&7( @A;@BCD ;@BEBF EG;@BEHE;G CI=>; JKLMNOPQROQSTU VQSWSXYZ[ E@ . " \"#& # & 0 ", \ 0&"2 7 &. . " ", ! "#$ % "&"' 7+ 2+# " " ", ) ""$ " .#" . ^#' 35 3_33 JK`WaSPWbcSMPa dTaeWQfSMQ gOSSUOROQSYZ[ C@G ChBE@< B:?=i. #+", &- . 00&1&#$5 , \' $ 1"2 " 7# "&1&7#" & ", j&2" &\+" 2 k#2,& ]"5 $ #2 #$$ l $ #2 . 4$#&!2 #]#& 2" #$$ l $ #2 . % "&"& 25 # . #] 2 #2 0 $$ ! "#$ % "&"' &2 #m# 0 # . ,#2 & m . ", j&2" &\+" 2 k#2,& ]""$ ! "5 & 1$+.& ] ", j&2" &\+" $ \#$ ) ""$ ! " *] ! " .#" . p+$' 3UMbTU gOSSUOROQSYZ CBBCh:;G B= B:; qErB?EIiB=?r sCr:E@<B=@ t;BBD;A;@B Cr %u,. 2"# .2 ",#" #$$ " !2 & ",&2 8# "&1&7#"& ! ,# ", ! # & ]2 . 0& . " #] 2 ",#" \' 2&] & ] ",&2 8# "&1&7#"& !5 ", ! "#$ % "&"' $ 1"&1&7#" & ", j&2" &\+" 2 k#2,& ]" ) ""$ ! " # . \ 1 ! # 8# "&1&7#"& ]\.& &2& #2 7 &. . ", & n ! "#$ % "&"' 2,#$$5 m&",& w .#'2 0 /1" \ 5 3_33 # . 7 & " ",", 4 2 " p+.]! "5 2 1+ ", .&2!&22#$ m&", 7 x+.&1 0 # ' l $ #2 . 4#2 0&$ .n ! "#$ % "&"' #] 2 " ", " !2 0 ", j&2" &\+" 2 k#2,& ]" ) ""#& & ] " )+\.& &2& 2 #2 . 0& . ", & n #] & ] " ", " !2 0 ", j&2" &\+" 2 k#2,& ]" ) ""$ ! " # . \ 1 !& $ #2 5 ", ! "#$ % "&"' &2 "&"$ . " ", \ 0&"2 7 &. . ", & 5 & 77$&1#\$ 5 ! "# ' 7#'! "2 \ ]& & ] #0" j 1 !\ 5 3_33n ! "#$ % "&"' #] 2 " +2 # ' ! & 2 &" 1 & 2 ", +], ", j&2" &2,& ]" ) ""$ ! " 2 $ $' 0 ", 7+ 7 2 2 7 &. . ", & n ! "#$ % "&"' 2+\!&"2 " ", x+ &2.&1"& 0 ", k#2,& ]" 4 2 "<A;@B ~=i?B H=? i?=r;r DEAEB;G B= B:CB h=i?B€r ?=D; Cr ?=>EG;G E@[ C@G H=? ?7+" 2 " ", u" " 7 &. . & 5 ", j&2" &\+" 2 k#2,& ]" ) ""$ ! "n o,
!
" #
"
$
" " %&
" '
" "
" "
"
(
"
"
"
"
$
"
)
* $
"
" "
" " "
" "
"
' (
$ + $
*
#
' + ) ) '
+
(
#
'
)
' "
"
"
"
'
/
"
'" '
"
0 1 ,23 +
+ + " '
4 567689: ;6:69<6= 6>?67?@ *
)
( '
)
)
" ( '
'
'
' '" "
'
$ +"
)
' " "
"
&&A
" + ) ' $
( '
!
"
#
$
%
&
"$
&
&
&
(
$
%
&
"
) *********************** ) ************************** #
) ***************************
) ***************************
EXHIBIT 3
One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities
1
ONE WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
WASHINGTON MUNICIPALITIES
Whereas, the people of the State of Washington and its communities have been harmed by
entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain who manufacture, distribute, and dispense
prescription opioids;
Whereas, certain Local Governments, through their elected representatives and counsel,
are engaged in litigation seeking to hold these entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain of
prescription opioids accountable for the damage they have caused to the Local Governments;
Whereas, Local Governments and elected officials share a common desire to abate and
alleviate the impacts of harms caused by these entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain
throughout the State of Washington, and strive to ensure that principals of equity and equitable
service delivery are factors considered in the allocation and use of Opioid Funds; and
Whereas, certain Local Governments engaged in litigation and the other cities and counties
in Washington desire to agree on a form of allocation for Opioid Funds they receive from entities
within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain.
Now therefore, the Local Governments enter into this Memorandum of Understanding
(“MOU”) relating to the allocation and use of the proceeds of Settlements described.
A.Definitions
As used in this MOU:
1.“Allocation Regions” are the same geographic areas as the existing
nine (9) Washington State Accountable Community of Health (ACH) Regions
and have the purpose described in Section C below.
2.“Approved Purpose(s)” shall mean the strategies specified and set
forth in the Opioid Abatement Strategies attached as Exhibit A.
3.“Effective Date” shall mean the date on which a court of
competent jurisdiction enters the first Settlement by order or consent decree. The
Parties anticipate that more than one Settlement will be administered according to
the terms of this MOU, but that the first entered Settlement will trigger allocation
of Opioid Funds in accordance with Section B herein, and the formation of the
Opioid Abatement Councils in Section C.
4.“Litigating Local Government(s)” shall mean Local Governments
that filed suit against any Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant pertaining to
the Opioid epidemic prior to September 1, 2020.
2
5.“Local Government(s)” shall mean all counties, cities, and towns
within the geographic boundaries of the State of Washington.
6.“National Settlement Agreements” means the national opioid
settlement agreements dated July 21, 2021 involving Johnson & Johnson, and
distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson as well as their
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors named in the National Settlement
Agreements, including all amendments thereto.
7.“Opioid Funds” shall mean monetary amounts obtained through a
Settlement as defined in this MOU.
8.“Opioid Abatement Council” shall have the meaning described in
Section C below.
9.“Participating Local Government(s)” shall mean all counties,
cities, and towns within the geographic boundaries of the State that have chosen
to sign on to this MOU. The Participating Local Governments may be referred to
separately in this MOU as “Participating Counties” and “Participating Cities and
Towns” (or “Participating Cities or Towns,” as appropriate) or “Parties.”
10.“Pharmaceutical Supply Chain” shall mean the process and
channels through which controlled substances are manufactured, marketed,
promoted, distributed, and/or dispensed, including prescription opioids.
11.“Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant” shall mean any entity
that engages in or has engaged in the manufacture, marketing, promotion,
distribution, and/or dispensing of a prescription opioid, including any entity that
has assisted in any of the above.
12.“Qualified Settlement Fund Account,” or “QSF Account,” shall
mean an account set up as a qualified settlement fund, 468b fund, as authorized by
Treasury Regulations 1.468B-1(c) (26 CFR §1.468B-1).
13.“Regional Agreements” shall mean the understanding reached by
the Participating Local Counties and Cities within an Allocation Region
governing the allocation, management, distribution of Opioid Funds within that
Allocation Region.
14.“Settlement” shall mean the future negotiated resolution of legal or
equitable claims against a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant when that
resolution has been jointly entered into by the Participating Local
Governments. “Settlement” expressly does not include a plan of reorganization
confirmed under Title 11of the United States Code, irrespective of the extent to
which Participating Local Governments vote in favor of or otherwise support such
plan of reorganization.
3
15.“Trustee” shall mean an independent trustee who shall be
responsible for the ministerial task of releasing Opioid Funds from a QSF account
to Participating Local Governments as authorized herein and accounting for all
payments into or out of the trust.
16.The “Washington State Accountable Communities of Health” or
“ACH” shall mean the nine (9) regions described in Section C below.
B.Allocation of Settlement Proceeds for Approved Purposes
1.All Opioid Funds shall be held in a QSF and distributed by the
Trustee, for the benefit of the Participating Local Governments, only in a manner
consistent with this MOU. Distribution of Opioid Funds will be subject to the
mechanisms for auditing and reporting set forth below to provide public
accountability and transparency.
2.All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be utilized
pursuant to Approved Purposes as defined herein and set forth in Exhibit A.
Compliance with this requirement shall be verified through reporting, as set out in
this MOU.
3.The division of Opioid Funds shall first be allocated to
Participating Counties based on the methodology utilized for the Negotiation
Class in In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP. The
allocation model uses three equally weighted factors: (1) the amount of opioids
shipped to the county; (2) the number of opioid deaths that occurred in that
county; and (3) the number of people who suffer opioid use disorder in that
county. The allocation percentages that result from application of this
methodology are set forth in the “County Total” line item in Exhibit B. In the
event any county does not participate in this MOU, that county’s percentage share
shall be reallocated proportionally amongst the Participating Counties by applying
this same methodology to only the Participating Counties.
4.Allocation and distribution of Opioid Funds within each
Participating County will be based on regional agreements as described in
Section C.
C.Regional Agreements
1.For the purpose of this MOU, the regional structure for decision-
making related to opioid fund allocation will be based upon the nine (9) pre-
defined Washington State Accountable Community of Health Regions (Allocation
Regions). Reference to these pre-defined regions is solely for the purpose of
4
drawing geographic boundaries to facilitate regional agreements for use of Opioid
Funds. The Allocation Regions are as follows:
King County (Single County Region)
Pierce County (Single County Region)
Olympic Community of Health Region (Clallam, Jefferson, and Kitsap
Counties)
Cascade Pacific Action Alliance Region (Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis,
Mason, Pacific, Thurston, and Wahkiakum Counties)
North Sound Region (Island, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom
Counties)
SouthWest Region (Clark, Klickitat, and Skamania Counties)
Greater Columbia Region (Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Garfield,
Kittitas, Walla Walla, Whitman, and Yakima Counties)
Spokane Region (Adams, Ferry, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, and
Stevens Counties)
North Central Region (Chelan, Douglas, Grant, and Okanogan Counties)
2.Opioid Funds will be allocated, distributed and managed within
each Allocation Region, as determined by its Regional Agreement as set forth
below. If an Allocation Region does not have a Regional Agreement enumerated
in this MOU, and does not subsequently adopt a Regional Agreement per Section
C.5, the default mechanism for allocation, distribution and management of Opioid
Funds described in Section C.4.a will apply. Each Allocation Region must have
an OAC whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by Regional
Agreement or as set forth in Section C.4.
3.King County’s Regional Agreement is reflected in Exhibit C to this
MOU.
4.All other Allocation Regions that have not specified a Regional
Agreement for allocating, distributing and managing Opioid Funds, will apply
the following default methodology:
a. Opioid Funds shall be allocated within each Allocation Region by
taking the allocation for a Participating County from Exhibit B and
apportioning those funds between that Participating County and its
Participating Cities and Towns. Exhibit B also sets forth the allocation to
the Participating Counties and the Participating Cities or Towns within the
Counties based on a default allocation formula. As set forth above in
Section B.3, to determine the allocation to a county, this formula utilizes:
(1) the amount of opioids shipped to the county; (2) the number of opioid
deaths that occurred in that county; and (3) the number of people who
suffer opioid use disorder in that county. To determine the allocation
within a county, the formula utilizes historical federal data showing how
the specific Counties and the Cities and Towns within the Counties have
5
made opioids epidemic-related expenditures in the past. This is the same
methodology used in the National Settlement Agreements for county and
intra-county allocations. A Participating County, and the Cities and Towns
within it may enter into a separate intra-county allocation agreement to
modify how the Opioid Funds are allocated amongst themselves, provided
the modification is in writing and agreed to by all Participating Local
Governments in the County. Such an agreement shall not modify any of
the other terms or requirements of this MOU.
b.10% of the Opioid Funds received by the Region will be reserved,
on an annual basis, for administrative costs related to the OAC. The OAC
will provide an annual accounting for actual costs and any reserved funds
that exceed actual costs will be reallocated to Participating Local
Governments within the Region.
c.Cities and towns with a population of less than 10,000 shall be
excluded from the allocation, with the exception of cities and towns that
are Litigating Participating Local Governments. The portion of the Opioid
Funds that would have been allocated to a city or town with a population
of less than 10,000 that is not a Litigating Participating Local Government
shall be redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed
in C.4.a above.
d.Each Participating County, City, or Town may elect to have its
share re-allocated to the OAC in which it is located. The OAC will then
utilize this share for the benefit of Participating Local Governments within
that Allocation Region, consistent with the Approved Purposes set forth in
Exhibit A. A Participating Local Government’s election to forego its
allocation of Opioid Funds shall apply to all future allocations unless the
Participating Local Government notifies its respective OAC otherwise. If a
Participating Local Government elects to forego its allocation of the
Opioid Funds, the Participating Local Government shall be excused from
the reporting requirements set forth in this Agreement.
e.Participating Local Governments that receive a direct
payment maintain full discretion over the use and distribution of their
allocation of Opioid Funds, provided the Opioid Funds are used solely for
Approved Purposes. Reasonable administrative costs for a Participating
Local Government to administer its allocation of Opioid Funds shall not
exceed actual costs or 10% of the Participating Local Government’s
allocation of Opioid Funds, whichever is less.
f.A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating
Local Government will not receive a direct allocation of Opioid Funds.
The portion of the Opioid Funds that would have been allocated to a Local
Government that is not a Participating Local Government shall be
6
redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed
in C.4.a above.
g.As a condition of receiving a direct payment, each Participating
Local Government that receives a direct payment agrees to undertake the
following actions:
i. Developing a methodology for obtaining proposals for use
of Opioid Funds.
ii. Ensuring there is opportunity for community-based input
on priorities for Opioid Fund programs and services.
iii. Receiving and reviewing proposals for use of Opioid Funds
for Approved Purposes.
iv. Approving or denying proposals for use of Opioid
Funds for Approved Purposes.
v. Receiving funds from the Trustee for approved proposals
and distributing the Opioid Funds to the recipient.
vi. Reporting to the OAC and making publicly available all
decisions on Opioid Fund allocation applications,
distributions and expenditures.
h.Prior to any distribution of Opioid Funds within the Allocation
Region, The Participating Local Governments must establish an Opioid
Abatement Council (OAC) to oversee Opioid Fund allocation,
distribution, expenditures and dispute resolution. The OAC may be a
preexisting regional body or may be a new body created for purposes of
executing the obligations of this MOU.
i.The OAC for each Allocation Region shall be composed of
representation from both Participating Counties and Participating Towns
or Cities within the Region. The method of selecting members, and the
terms for which they will serve will be determined by the Allocation
Region’s Participating Local Governments. All persons who serve on the
OAC must have work or educational experience pertaining to one or more
Approved Uses.
j.The Regional OAC will be responsible for the following actions:
i. Overseeing distribution of Opioid Funds from Participating
Local Governments to programs and services within the
Allocation Region for Approved Purposes.
7
ii. Annual review of expenditure reports from
Participating Local Jurisdictions within the Allocation
Region for compliance with Approved Purposes and the
terms of this MOU and any Settlement.
iii. In the case where Participating Local Governments chose
to forego their allocation of Opioid Funds:
(i) Approving or denying proposals by Participating Local
Governments or community groups to the OAC for use of
Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region.
(ii) Directing the Trustee to distribute Opioid Funds for use
by Participating Local Governments or community groups
whose proposals are approved by the OAC.
(iii) Administrating and maintaining records of all OAC
decisions and distributions of Opioid Funds.
iv. Reporting and making publicly available all decisions on
Opioid Fund allocation applications, distributions and
expenditures by the OAC or directly by Participating Local
Governments.
v. Developing and maintaining a centralized public dashboard
or other repository for the publication of expenditure data
from any Participating Local Government that receives
Opioid Funds, and for expenditures by the OAC in that
Allocation Region, which it shall update at least annually.
vi. If necessary, requiring and collecting additional outcome-
related data from Participating Local Governments to
evaluate the use of Opioid Funds, and all Participating
Local Governments shall comply with such requirements.
vii. Hearing complaints by Participating Local Governments
within the Allocation Region regarding alleged failure to
(1) use Opioid Funds for Approved Purposes or (2) comply
with reporting requirements.
5. Participating Local Governments may agree and elect to share,
pool, or collaborate with their respective allocation of Opioid Funds in any
manner they choose by adopting a Regional Agreement, so long as such
sharing, pooling, or collaboration is used for Approved Purposes and
complies with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement.
8
6. Nothing in this MOU should alter or change any Participating
Local Government’s rights to pursue its own claim. Rather, the intent of
this MOU is to join all parties who wish to be Participating Local
Governments to agree upon an allocation formula for any Opioid Funds
from any future binding Settlement with one or more Pharmaceutical
Supply Chain Participants for all Local Governments in the State of
Washington.
7. If any Participating Local Government disputes the amount it
receives from its allocation of Opioid Funds, the Participating Local
Government shall alert its respective OAC within sixty (60) days of
discovering the information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert its
OAC within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the
Participating Local Government’s right to seek recoupment of any
deficiency in its allocation of Opioid Funds.
8. If any OAC concludes that a Participating Local Government’s
expenditure of its allocation of Opioid Funds did not comply with the
Approved Purposes listed in Exhibit A, or the terms of this MOU, or that
the Participating Local Government otherwise misused its allocation of
Opioid Funds, the OAC may take remedial action against the alleged
offending Participating Local Government. Such remedial action is left to
the discretion of the OAC and may include withholding future Opioid
Funds owed to the offending Participating Local Government or requiring
the offending Participating Local Government to reimburse improperly
expended Opioid Funds back to the OAC to be re-allocated to the
remaining Participating Local Governments within that Region.
9. All Participating Local Governments and OAC shall maintain all
records related to the receipt and expenditure of Opioid Funds for no less
than five (5) years and shall make such records available for review by
any other Participating Local Government or OAC, or the public. Records
requested by the public shall be produced in accordance with
Washington’s Public Records Act RCW 42.56.001 et seq. Records
requested by another Participating Local Government or an OAC shall be
produced within twenty-one (21) days of the date the record request was
received. This requirement does not supplant any Participating Local
Government or OAC’s obligations under Washington’s Public Records
Act RCW 42.56.001 et seq.
D.Payment of Counsel and Litigation Expenses
1.The Litigating Local Governments have incurred attorneys’ fees
and litigation expenses relating to their prosecution of claims against the
Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants, and this prosecution has inured to the
benefit of all Participating Local Governments. Accordingly, a Washington
9
Government Fee Fund (“GFF”) shall be established that ensures that all Parties
that receive Opioid Funds contribute to the payment of fees and expenses incurred
to prosecute the claims against the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants,
regardless of whether they are litigating or non-litigating entities.
2.The amount of the GFF shall be based as follows: the funds to be
deposited in the GFF shall be equal to 15% of the total cash value of the Opioid
Funds.
3.The maximum percentage of any contingency fee agreement
permitted for compensation shall be 15% of the portion of the Opioid Funds
allocated to the Litigating Local Government that is a party to the contingency fee
agreement, plus expenses attributable to that Litigating Local Government. Under
no circumstances may counsel collect more for its work on behalf of a Litigating
Local Government than it would under its contingency agreement with that
Litigating Local Government.
4.Payments from the GFF shall be overseen by a committee (the
“Opioid Fee and Expense Committee”) consisting of one representative of the
following law firms: (a) Keller Rohrback L.LP.; (b) Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP; (c) Goldfarb & Huck Roth Riojas, PLLC; and (d) Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC. The role of the Opioid Fee and Expense Committee shall be limited to
ensuring that the GFF is administered in accordance with this Section.
5.In the event that settling Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants
do not pay the fees and expenses of the Participating Local Governments directly
at the time settlement is achieved, payments to counsel for Participating Local
Governments shall be made from the GFF over not more than three years, with
50% paid within 12 months of the date of Settlement and 25% paid in each
subsequent year, or at the time the total Settlement amount is paid to the Trustee
by the Defendants, whichever is sooner.
6.Any funds remaining in the GFF in excess of: (i) the amounts
needed to cover Litigating Local Governments’ private counsel’s representation
agreements, and (ii) the amounts needed to cover the common benefit tax
discussed in Section C.8 below (if not paid directly by the Defendants in
connection with future settlement(s), shall revert to the Participating Local
Governments pro rata according to the percentages set forth in Exhibits B, to be
used for Approved Purposes as set forth herein and in Exhibit A.
7.In the event that funds in the GFF are not sufficient to pay all fees
and expenses owed under this Section, payments to counsel for all Litigating
Local Governments shall be reduced on a pro rata basis. The Litigating Local
Governments will not be responsible for any of these reduced amounts.
10
8.The Parties anticipate that any Opioid Funds they receive will be
subject to a common benefit “tax” imposed by the court in In Re: National
Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP (“Common Benefit Tax”). If this
occurs, the Participating Local Governments shall first seek to have the settling
defendants pay the Common Benefit Tax. If the settling defendants do not agree
to pay the Common Benefit Tax, then the Common Benefit Tax shall be paid
from the Opioid Funds and by both litigating and non-litigating Local
Governments. This payment shall occur prior to allocation and distribution of
funds to the Participating Local Governments. In the event that GFF is not fully
exhausted to pay the Litigating Local Governments’ private counsel’s
representation agreements, excess funds in the GFF shall be applied to pay the
Common Benefit Tax (if any).
E.General Terms
1.If any Participating Local Government believes another
Participating Local Government, not including the Regional Abatement Advisory
Councils, violated the terms of this MOU, the alleging Participating Local
Government may seek to enforce the terms of this MOU in the court in which any
applicable Settlement(s) was entered, provided the alleging Participating Local
Government first provides the alleged offending Participating Local Government
notice of the alleged violation(s) and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged
violation(s). In such an enforcement action, any alleging Participating Local
Government or alleged offending Participating Local Government may be
represented by their respective public entity in accordance with Washington law.
2.Nothing in this MOU shall be interpreted to waive the right of any
Participating Local Government to seek judicial relief for conduct occurring
outside the scope of this MOU that violates any Washington law. In such an
action, the alleged offending Participating Local Government, including the
Regional Abatement Advisory Councils, may be represented by their respective
public entities in accordance with Washington law. In the event of a conflict, any
Participating Local Government, including the Regional Abatement Advisory
Councils and its Members, may seek outside representation to defend itself
against such an action.
3.Venue for any legal action related to this MOU shall be in the
court in which the Participating Local Government is located or in accordance
with the court rules on venue in that jurisdiction. This provision is not intended to
expand the court rules on venue.
4.This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the
same instrument. The Participating Local Governments approve the use of
electronic signatures for execution of this MOU. All use of electronic signatures
11
shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The Parties agree
not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the MOU solely because it is in
electronic form or because an electronic record was used in its formation. The
Participating Local Government agree not to object to the admissibility of the
MOU in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic
document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on
the grounds that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in
its original form or is not an original.
5.Each Participating Local Government represents that all
procedures necessary to authorize such Participating Local Government’s
execution of this MOU have been performed and that the person signing for such
Party has been authorized to execute the MOU.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank – Signature Pages Follow]
12
This One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington
Municipalities is signed this _____ day of ___________________, 2022 by:
_______________________________________________
Name & Title ___________________________________
On behalf of ____________________________________
4894-0031-1574, v. 2
EXHIBIT A
1
O P I O I D A B A T E M E N T S T R A T E G I E S
PART ONE: TREATMENT
A.TREAT OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD)
Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring Substance Use
Disorder or Mental Health (SUD/MH) conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through
evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1.Expand availability of treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions,
co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including all forms of Medication-Assisted Treatment
(MAT) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
2.Support and reimburse services that include the full American Society of Addiction
Medicine (ASAM) continuum of care for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including but not limited to:
a.Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT);
b.Abstinence-based treatment;
c.Treatment, recovery, or other services provided by states, subdivisions,
community health centers; non-for-profit providers; or for-profit providers;
d.Treatment by providers that focus on OUD treatment as well as treatment by
providers that offer OUD treatment along with treatment for other SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction; or
e.Evidence-informed residential services programs, as noted below.
3.Expand telehealth to increase access to treatment for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including MAT, as well as
counseling, psychiatric support, and other treatment and recovery support services.
4.Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to assure evidence-based,
evidence-informed, or promising practices such as adequate methadone dosing.
5.Support mobile intervention, treatment, and recovery services, offered by qualified
professionals and service providers, such as peer recovery coaches, for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction and
for persons who have experienced an opioid overdose.
6.Support treatment of mental health trauma resulting from the traumatic experiences of
the opioid user (e.g., violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or adverse childhood
experiences) and family members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose
2
or overdose fatality), and training of health care personnel to identify and address such
trauma.
7.Support detoxification (detox) and withdrawal management services for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction,
including medical detox, referral to treatment, or connections to other services or
supports.
8.Support training on MAT for health care providers, students, or other supporting
professionals, such as peer recovery coaches or recovery outreach specialists,
including telementoring to assist community-based providers in rural or underserved
areas.
9.Support workforce development for addiction professionals who work with persons
with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
10.Provide fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care,
instructors, and clinical research for treatments.
11.Provide funding and training for clinicians to obtain a waiver under the federal Drug
Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) to prescribe MAT for OUD, and
provide technical assistance and professional support to clinicians who have obtained
a DATA 2000 waiver.
12.Support the dissemination of web-based training curricula, such as the American
Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service-Opioids web-
based training curriculum and motivational interviewing.
13. Support the development and dissemination of new curricula, such as the American
Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service for
Medication-Assisted Treatment.
B.SUPPORT PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
Support people in treatment for and recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or
promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Provide the full continuum of care of recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including supportive housing,
residential treatment, medical detox services, peer support services and counseling,
community navigators, case management, and connections to community-based
services.
2.Provide counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and residential
treatment with access to medications for those who need it to persons with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
3
3.Provide access to housing for people with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including supportive housing, recovery
housing, housing assistance programs, or training for housing providers.
4.Provide community support services, including social and legal services, to assist in
deinstitutionalizing persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-
usage, and/or co-addiction.
5.Support or expand peer-recovery centers, which may include support groups, social
events, computer access, or other services for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
6.Provide employment training or educational services for persons in treatment for or
recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-
addiction.
7.Identify successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college recovery
programs, and provide support and technical assistance to increase the number and
capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery.
8.Engage non-profits, faith-based communities, and community coalitions to support
people in treatment and recovery and to support family members in their efforts to
manage the opioid user in the family.
9.Provide training and development of procedures for government staff to appropriately
interact and provide social and other services to current and recovering opioid users,
including reducing stigma.
10.Support stigma reduction efforts regarding treatment and support for persons with
OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment.
C.CONNECT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO THE HELP THEY NEED
(CONNECTIONS TO CARE)
Provide connections to care for people who have – or are at risk of developing – OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through evidence-
based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1.Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and
know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer if necessary) a patient for OUD
treatment.
2.Support Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs to
reduce the transition from use to disorders.
3.Provide training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health,
schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on youth and young
adults when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is common.
4
4.Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the technology.
5.Support training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients on
post-discharge planning, including community referrals for MAT, recovery case
management or support services.
6.Support hospital programs that transition persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, or persons who have experienced
an opioid overdose, into community treatment or recovery services through a bridge
clinic or similar approach.
7.Support crisis stabilization centers that serve as an alternative to hospital emergency
departments for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-
usage, and/or co-addiction or persons that have experienced an opioid overdose.
8.Support the work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support specialists,
to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services following an opioid
overdose or other opioid-related adverse event.
9.Provide funding for peer support specialists or recovery coaches in emergency
departments, detox facilities, recovery centers, recovery housing, or similar settings;
offer services, supports, or connections to care to persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction or to persons who have
experienced an opioid overdose.
10.Provide funding for peer navigators, recovery coaches, care coordinators, or care
managers that offer assistance to persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction or to persons who have experienced on
opioid overdose.
11.Create or support school-based contacts that parents can engage with to seek
immediate treatment services for their child; and support prevention, intervention,
treatment, and recovery programs focused on young people.
12.Develop and support best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace.
13.Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD.
14.Engage non-profits and the faith community as a system to support outreach for
treatment.
15.Support centralized call centers that provide information and connections to
appropriate services and supports for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
16.Create or support intake and call centers to facilitate education and access to
treatment, prevention, and recovery services for persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
5
17.Develop or support a National Treatment Availability Clearinghouse – a
multistate/nationally accessible database whereby health care providers can list
locations for currently available in-patient and out-patient OUD treatment services
that are accessible on a real-time basis by persons who seek treatment.
D.ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS
Address the needs of persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-
usage, and/or co-addiction who are involved – or are at risk of becoming involved – in the
criminal justice system through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs
or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Support pre-arrest or post-arrest diversion and deflection strategies for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction,
including established strategies such as:
a.Self-referral strategies such as the Angel Programs or the Police Assisted
Addiction Recovery Initiative (PAARI);
b.Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team (DART)
model;
c.“Naloxone Plus” strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who have
received naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then linked to
treatment programs or other appropriate services;
d.Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion
(LEAD) model;
e.Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult Civil
Citation Network or the Chicago Westside Narcotics Diversion to Treatment
Initiative;
f.Co-responder and/or alternative responder models to address OUD-related 911
calls with greater SUD expertise and to reduce perceived barriers associated with
law enforcement 911 responses; or
g.County prosecution diversion programs, including diversion officer salary, only
for counties with a population of 50,000 or less. Any diversion services in matters
involving opioids must include drug testing, monitoring, or treatment.
2.Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction to evidence-informed treatment,
including MAT, and related services.
3.Support treatment and recovery courts for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, but only if these courts provide
referrals to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT.
6
4.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, or other
appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction who are incarcerated in jail or prison.
5.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, or other
appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction who are leaving jail or prison have recently
left jail or prison, are on probation or parole, are under community corrections
supervision, or are in re-entry programs or facilities.
6.Support critical time interventions (CTI), particularly for individuals living with dual-
diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face
immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional settings.
7.Provide training on best practices for addressing the needs of criminal-justice-
involved persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage,
and/or co-addiction to law enforcement, correctional, or judicial personnel or to
providers of treatment, recovery, case management, or other services offered in
connection with any of the strategies described in this section.
E.ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT OR PARENTING WOMEN AND
THEIR FAMILIES, INCLUDING BABIES WITH NEONATAL ABSTINENCE
SYNDROME
Address the needs of pregnant or parenting women with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, and the needs of their families, including
babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome, through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or
promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Support evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising treatment, including MAT,
recovery services and supports, and prevention services for pregnant women – or
women who could become pregnant – who have OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, and other measures to educate and provide
support to families affected by Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.
2.Provide training for obstetricians or other healthcare personnel that work with
pregnant women and their families regarding treatment of OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
3.Provide training to health care providers who work with pregnant or parenting women
on best practices for compliance with federal requirements that children born with
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome get referred to appropriate services and receive a plan
of safe care.
4.Provide enhanced support for children and family members suffering trauma as a
result of addiction in the family; and offer trauma-informed behavioral health
treatment for adverse childhood events.
7
5.Offer enhanced family supports and home-based wrap-around services to persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction,
including but not limited to parent skills training.
6.Support for Children’s Services – Fund additional positions and services, including
supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children being removed
from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid use.
PART TWO: PREVENTION
F.PREVENT OVER-PRESCRIBING AND ENSURE APPROPRIATE
PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and dispensing
of opioids through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies
that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid prescribing,
dosing, and tapering patients off opioids.
2.Academic counter-detailing to educate prescribers on appropriate opioid prescribing.
3.Continuing Medical Education (CME) on appropriate prescribing of opioids.
4.Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training providers to
offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain.
5.Support enhancements or improvements to Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs
(PDMPs), including but not limited to improvements that:
a.Increase the number of prescribers using PDMPs;
b.Improve point-of-care decision-making by increasing the quantity, quality, or
format of data available to prescribers using PDMPs or by improving the
interface that prescribers use to access PDMP data, or both; or
c.Enable states to use PDMP data in support of surveillance or intervention
strategies, including MAT referrals and follow-up for individuals identified
within PDMP data as likely to experience OUD.
6.Development and implementation of a national PDMP – Fund development of a
multistate/national PDMP that permits information sharing while providing
appropriate safeguards on sharing of private health information, including but not
limited to:
a.Integration of PDMP data with electronic health records, overdose episodes,
and decision support tools for health care providers relating to OUD.
8
b.Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment data,
including the United States Department of Transportation’s Emergency
Medical Technician overdose database.
7.Increase electronic prescribing to prevent diversion or forgery.
8.Educate Dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing.
G.PREVENT MISUSE OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to discourage or prevent misuse of opioids through evidence-based, evidence-
informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1.Corrective advertising or affirmative public education campaigns based on evidence.
2.Public education relating to drug disposal.
3.Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs.
4.Fund community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug prevention efforts.
5.Support community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention, such
as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction – including staffing,
educational campaigns, support for people in treatment or recovery, or training of
coalitions in evidence-informed implementation, including the Strategic Prevention
Framework developed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA).
6.Engage non-profits and faith-based communities as systems to support prevention.
7.Support evidence-informed school and community education programs and
campaigns for students, families, school employees, school athletic programs, parent-
teacher and student associations, and others.
8.School-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated
effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to be effective in preventing
the uptake and use of opioids.
9.Support community-based education or intervention services for families, youth, and
adolescents at risk for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage,
and/or co-addiction.
10.Support evidence-informed programs or curricula to address mental health needs of
young people who may be at risk of misusing opioids or other drugs, including
emotional modulation and resilience skills.
11.Support greater access to mental health services and supports for young people,
including services and supports provided by school nurses or other school staff, to
9
address mental health needs in young people that (when not properly addressed)
increase the risk of opioid or other drug misuse.
H.PREVENT OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS
Support efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms through
evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1.Increase availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses
for first responders, overdose patients, opioid users, families and friends of opioid
users, schools, community navigators and outreach workers, drug offenders upon
release from jail/prison, or other members of the general public.
2.Provision by public health entities of free naloxone to anyone in the community,
including but not limited to provision of intra-nasal naloxone in settings where other
options are not available or allowed.
3.Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses for
first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids, families, schools, and
other members of the general public.
4.Enable school nurses and other school staff to respond to opioid overdoses, and
provide them with naloxone, training, and support.
5.Expand, improve, or develop data tracking software and applications for
overdoses/naloxone revivals.
6.Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses.
7.Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws.
8.Educate first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and Good
Samaritan laws.
9.Expand access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and
Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use.
10.Support mobile units that offer or provide referrals to treatment, recovery supports,
health care, or other appropriate services to persons that use opioids or persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
11.Provide training in treatment and recovery strategies to health care providers,
students, peer recovery coaches, recovery outreach specialists, or other professionals
that provide care to persons who use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
12.Support screening for fentanyl in routine clinical toxicology testing.
10
PART THREE: OTHER STRATEGIES
I.FIRST RESPONDERS
In addition to items C8, D1 through D7, H1, H3, and H8, support the following:
1.Current and future law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic.
2.Educate law enforcement or other first responders regarding appropriate practices and
precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs.
J.LEADERSHIP, PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Support efforts to provide leadership, planning, and coordination to abate the opioid epidemic
through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1.Community regional planning to identify goals for reducing harms related to the
opioid epidemic, to identify areas and populations with the greatest needs for
treatment intervention services, or to support other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
2.A government dashboard to track key opioid-related indicators and supports as
identified through collaborative community processes.
3.Invest in infrastructure or staffing at government or not-for-profit agencies to support
collaborative, cross-system coordination with the purpose of preventing
overprescribing, opioid misuse, or opioid overdoses, treating those with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, supporting them in
treatment or recovery, connecting them to care, or implementing other strategies to
abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
4.Provide resources to staff government oversight and management of opioid abatement
programs.
K.TRAINING
In addition to the training referred to in various items above, support training to abate the
opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1.Provide funding for staff training or networking programs and services to improve the
capability of government, community, and not-for-profit entities to abate the opioid
crisis.
2.Invest in infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-system coordination to
prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, or implement other
11
strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list
(e.g., health care, primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.).
L.RESEARCH
Support opioid abatement research that may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1.Monitoring, surveillance, and evaluation of programs and strategies described in this
opioid abatement strategy list.
2.Research non-opioid treatment of chronic pain.
3.Research on improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that demonstrate
promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to opioid use disorders.
4.Research on innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved detection of
mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids.
5.Expanded research on swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid misuse
within criminal justice populations that build upon promising approaches used to
address other substances (e.g. Hawaii HOPE and Dakota 24/7).
6.Research on expanded modalities such as prescription methadone that can expand
access to MAT.
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Adams County
Adams County 0.1638732475%
Hatton
Lind
Othello
Ritzville
Washtucna
County Total:0.1638732475%
Asotin County
Asotin County 0.4694498386%
Asotin
Clarkston
County Total:0.4694498386%
Benton County
Benton County 1.4848831892%
Benton City
Kennewick 0.5415650564%
Prosser
Richland 0.4756779517%
West Richland 0.0459360490%
County Total:2.5480622463%
Chelan County
Chelan County 0.7434914485%
Cashmere
Chelan
Entiat
Leavenworth
Wenatchee 0.2968333494%
County Total:1.0403247979%
Clallam County
Clallam County 1.3076983401%
Forks
Port Angeles 0.4598370527%
Sequim
County Total:1.7675353928%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-1
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Clark County
Clark County 4.5149775326%
Battle Ground 0.1384729857%
Camas 0.2691592724%
La Center
Ridgefield
Vancouver 1.7306605325%
Washougal 0.1279328220%
Woodland***
Yacolt
County Total:6.7812031452%
Columbia County
Columbia County 0.0561699537%
Dayton
Starbuck
County Total:0.0561699537%
Cowlitz County
Cowlitz County 1.7226945990%
Castle Rock
Kalama
Kelso 0.1331145270%
Longview 0.6162736905%
Woodland***
County Total:2.4720828165%
Douglas County
Douglas County 0.3932175175%
Bridgeport
Coulee Dam***
East Wenatchee 0.0799810865%
Mansfield
Rock Island
Waterville
County Total:0.4731986040%
Ferry County
Ferry County 0.1153487994%
Republic
County Total:0.1153487994%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-2
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Franklin County
Franklin County 0.3361237144%
Connell
Kahlotus
Mesa
Pasco 0.4278056066%
County Total:0.7639293210%
Garfield County
Garfield County 0.0321982209%
Pomeroy
County Total:0.0321982209%
Grant County
Grant County 0.9932572167%
Coulee City
Coulee Dam***
Electric City
Ephrata
George
Grand Coulee
Hartline
Krupp
Mattawa
Moses Lake 0.2078293909%
Quincy
Royal City
Soap Lake
Warden
Wilson Creek
County Total:1.2010866076%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-3
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Grays Harbor County
Grays Harbor County 0.9992429138%
Aberdeen 0.2491525333%
Cosmopolis
Elma
Hoquiam
McCleary
Montesano
Oakville
Ocean Shores
Westport
County Total:1.2483954471%
Island County
Island County 0.6820422610%
Coupeville
Langley
Oak Harbor 0.2511550431%
County Total:0.9331973041%
Jefferson County
Jefferson County 0.4417137380%
Port Townsend
County Total:0.4417137380%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-4
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
King County
King County 13.9743722662%
Algona
Auburn***0.2622774917%
Beaux Arts Village
Bellevue 1.1300592573%
Black Diamond
Bothell***0.1821602716%
Burien 0.0270962921%
Carnation
Clyde Hill
Covington 0.0118134406%
Des Moines 0.1179764526%
Duvall
Enumclaw***0.0537768326%
Federal Way 0.3061452240%
Hunts Point
Issaquah 0.1876240107%
Kenmore 0.0204441024%
Kent 0.5377397676%
Kirkland 0.5453525246%
Lake Forest Park 0.0525439124%
Maple Valley 0.0093761587%
Medina
Mercer Island 0.1751797481%
Milton***
Newcastle 0.0033117880%
Normandy Park
North Bend
Pacific***
Redmond 0.4839486007%
Renton 0.7652626920%
Sammamish 0.0224369090%
SeaTac 0.1481551278%
Seattle 6.6032403816%
Shoreline 0.0435834501%
Skykomish
Snoqualmie 0.0649164481%
Tukwila 0.3032205739%
Woodinville 0.0185516364%
Yarrow Point
County Total:26.0505653608%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-5
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Kitsap County
Kitsap County 2.6294133668%
Bainbridge Island 0.1364686014%
Bremerton 0.6193374389%
Port Orchard 0.1009497162%
Poulsbo 0.0773748246%
County Total:3.5635439479%
Kittitas County
Kittitas County 0.3855704683%
Cle Elum
Ellensburg 0.0955824915%
Kittitas
Roslyn
South Cle Elum
County Total:0.4811529598%
Klickitat County
Klickitat County 0.2211673457%
Bingen
Goldendale
White Salmon
County Total:0.2211673457%
Lewis County
Lewis County 1.0777377479%
Centralia 0.1909990353%
Chehalis
Morton
Mossyrock
Napavine
Pe Ell
Toledo
Vader
Winlock
County Total:1.2687367832%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-6
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Lincoln County
Lincoln County 0.1712669645%
Almira
Creston
Davenport
Harrington
Odessa
Reardan
Sprague
Wilbur
County Total:0.1712669645%
Mason County
Mason County 0.8089918012%
Shelton 0.1239179888%
County Total:0.9329097900%
Okanogan County
Okanogan County 0.6145043345%
Brewster
Conconully
Coulee Dam***
Elmer City
Nespelem
Okanogan
Omak
Oroville
Pateros
Riverside
Tonasket
Twisp
Winthrop
County Total:0.6145043345%
Pacific County
Pacific County 0.4895416466%
Ilwaco
Long Beach
Raymond
South Bend
County Total:0.4895416466%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-7
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Pend Oreille County
Pend Oreille County 0.2566374940%
Cusick
Ione
Metaline
Metaline Falls
Newport
County Total:0.2566374940%
Pierce County
Pierce County 7.2310164020%
Auburn***0.0628522112%
Bonney Lake 0.1190773864%
Buckley
Carbonado
DuPont
Eatonville
Edgewood 0.0048016791%
Enumclaw***0.0000000000%
Fife 0.1955185481%
Fircrest
Gig Harbor 0.0859963345%
Lakewood 0.5253640894%
Milton***
Orting
Pacific***
Puyallup 0.3845704814%
Roy
Ruston
South Prairie
Steilacoom
Sumner 0.1083157569%
Tacoma 3.2816374617%
University Place 0.0353733363%
Wilkeson
County Total:12.0345236870%
San Juan County
San Juan County 0.2101495171%
Friday Harbor
County Total:0.2101495171%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-8
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Skagit County
Skagit County 1.0526023961%
Anacortes 0.1774962906%
Burlington 0.1146861661%
Concrete
Hamilton
La Conner
Lyman
Mount Vernon 0.2801063665%
Sedro-Woolley 0.0661146351%
County Total:1.6910058544%
Skamania County
Skamania County 0.1631931925%
North Bonneville
Stevenson
County Total:0.1631931925%
Snohomish County
Snohomish County 6.9054415622%
Arlington 0.2620524080%
Bothell***0.2654558588%
Brier
Darrington
Edmonds 0.3058936009%
Everett 1.9258363241%
Gold Bar
Granite Falls
Index
Lake Stevens 0.1385202891%
Lynnwood 0.7704629214%
Marysville 0.3945067827%
Mill Creek 0.1227939546%
Monroe 0.1771621898%
Mountlake Terrace 0.2108935805%
Mukilteo 0.2561790702%
Snohomish 0.0861097964%
Stanwood
Sultan
Woodway
County Total:11.8213083387%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-9
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Spokane County
Spokane County 5.5623859292%
Airway Heights
Cheney 0.1238454349%
Deer Park
Fairfield
Latah
Liberty Lake 0.0389636519%
Medical Lake
Millwood
Rockford
Spangle
Spokane 3.0872078287%
Spokane Valley 0.0684217500%
Waverly
County Total:8.8808245947%
Stevens County
Stevens County 0.7479240179%
Chewelah
Colville
Kettle Falls
Marcus
Northport
Springdale
County Total:0.7479240179%
Thurston County
Thurston County 2.3258492094%
Bucoda
Lacey 0.2348627221%
Olympia 0.6039423385%
Rainier
Tenino
Tumwater 0.2065982350%
Yelm
County Total:3.3712525050%
Wahkiakum County
Wahkiakum County 0.0596582197%
Cathlamet
County Total:0.0596582197%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-10
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Walla Walla County
Walla Walla County 0.5543870294%
College Place
Prescott
Waitsburg
Walla Walla 0.3140768654%
County Total:0.8684638948%
Whatcom County
Whatcom County 1.3452637306%
Bellingham 0.8978614577%
Blaine
Everson
Ferndale 0.0646101891%
Lynden 0.0827115612%
Nooksack
Sumas
County Total:2.3904469386%
Whitman County
Whitman County 0.2626805837%
Albion
Colfax
Colton
Endicott
Farmington
Garfield
LaCrosse
Lamont
Malden
Oakesdale
Palouse
Pullman 0.2214837491%
Rosalia
St. John
Tekoa
Uniontown
County Total:0.4841643328%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-11
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Yakima County
Yakima County 1.9388392959%
Grandview 0.0530606109%
Granger
Harrah
Mabton
Moxee
Naches
Selah
Sunnyside 0.1213478384%
Tieton
Toppenish
Union Gap
Wapato
Yakima 0.6060410539%
Zillah
County Total:2.7192887991%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-12
Exhibit C
KING COUNTY REGIONAL AGREEMENT
King County intends to explore coordination with its cities and towns to facilitate a Regional
Agreement for Opioid Fund allocation. Should some cities and towns choose not to participate in
a Regional Agreement, this shall not preclude coordinated allocation for programs and services
between the County and those cities and towns who elect to pursue a Regional Agreement. As
contemplated in C.5 of the MOU, any Regional Agreement shall comply with the terms of the
MOU and any Settlement. If no Regional Agreement is achieved, the default methodology for
allocation in C.4 of the MOU shall apply.
EXHIBIT 4
Non-Exhaustive List of Expenditures that Qualify as Opioid Remediation
(Exhibit E of the Global Settlement)
!"#" $ %&"'()" *+",- ."'.$"/"7829:;<:5=>9?@AB2513344C299@C??43;B?D2D?5=1C32E213D35141B213=:34NOPQIRISTUSVPSVWXYHZLL[I\VRI]WPWHI^PLLPQV]\GPSIZ[ZWI_I]WYWSZWI\VIYlmNn
o, o ! !pq,r,ss! tqq!&u!t!' s q t!q ''
vw2561B2:5:5=;?B;:B41B34w?563B4x4@C??94x@?DD48ww?B1=B?8w4256;2D:9:34y256
5@B32436:41B:E81:?51?:56:z:68294{C?2B385:548{C?43:548B25@36?345?1@?z3B1C353363643Bz:@3>
|q-, or}~~~€ ‚€ƒ }€„ …€†‡ˆ‰Š‹Œq'!& o,oq ! s qr!,q!,|o
5@B32436:41B:E81:?5?;
1?:56:z:68294{C?285:548B36?B{C?43:548B25@36?345?1@?z3B1C3543Bz:@3y
B?z:63368@21:?51?4@C??9E2436256<?81C;?@8wB?=B2D41C216:4@?8B2=3?BwB3z351D:4843y
B?z:63
368@21:?52562{2B353441B2:5:5=1?C3291C@2B3wB?z:63B4x
4x92{35;?B@3D351x256;:B41B34w?563B4y256n
B?z:631B321D351256B3@?z3B<48ww?B143Bz:@3448B34:6351:29256:5w21:3511B321D351x:51354:z3?81w21B321D351x?81w21:3511C3B2w<?B@?85439:5=x256B3C?84:5=1C21299?{?B:513=B213D36:@21:?5256{:148ww?B143Bz:@34
n
!"#$%&'((#)#*+,')(-#.('/(#.)0#+"#$(-(''"1.02345674869:;<=>?@AB43CDE4B6F8F8
($)&")$(1)H#)#IH'($!'(*#"#.J0K(#L
!"#$&0K!'(M(#I)/((/)$(#&(G"I($.'(".K(#.'(&0/('NI('/)&(I+)#&1H$)#*
+-0'J0K(#J).FEEO33D8PQRDFDSTB4UDBF3S439:VWX@A58SF6Y4ZO[B658E4TB4UDBF3S439:;WX@A\]4865^_45^6YS-0'H#)#IH'($)#$)/)$H"1I-0'H!.0 K0#.MI!0I."#$
`'0/)$(&0K!'(M(#I)/(J'"!"'0H#$I('/)&(I.0)#J).Mabc+)#&1H$)#*M0HI)#*+.'"#I!0'.".)0#+d0G!1"&(K(#.e.'")#)#*+"#$&M)1$&"'(
c
fgh ijklmnopqprqmsptuvwqxyz{|}~
!"#$&0K!'(M(#I)/((/)$(#&(G"I($"#$'(&0/(IH!!0'.-0'%G"G)(IL
!"#$I('/)&(I-0'G(..('&0#.)#HHK0-&"'(J).M#(($$N"$L"#$
!"#$10#*.('K.'(".K(#."#$I('/)&(I-0'K($)K0#).0')#*0-%G"G)(I"#$.M()'-"K)1)(I
fhi g€ii ‚ƒ‚h
!"#$I('/)&(IIH&M"I#"/)*".0'I"#$0#&"11.("G(*)#
)#M0I!)."1(K('*(#&N$(!"'.K(#.IL
!"#$J"'KM"#$0--I('/)&(I.0.'"#I).)0#.0'(&I('/)&(IL
,'0"$(#I&0!(0-'(&0/('NI('/)&(I.0)#&1H$(&00%bc0'K(#."1M("1.M&0#$).)0#IL„
`'0/)$(&0K!'(M(#I)/(J'"!"'0H#$I('/)&(I.0)#)#'(&0/('N+)#&1H$)#*M0HI)#*+.'"#I!0'.".)0#+d0G!1"&(K(#.e.'")#)#*+"#$&M)1$&"'(L"#$
!"#$%&&#$%&'(&)*+&%,!&*,-&',*'%!&("#&!.+/00"!,1$'(2/%$'3
4"!0&!+"'+5$,6789*'%(""((:89;
<%$+"!%&!+5$,6$'*'%,!*'+$,$"'$'3"/,"4(!$-$'*2=/+,$(&+.+,&->*'%
'(!&*+&4/'%$'34"!=*$2+,"0!"#$%&,!&*,-&',,"$'5$,6789
? @A
/'%$'34"!-&%$*(*-0*$3'+,"0!&#&',"0$"$%/+CDCEFGHIJKLMFNOPDKCQRNSTNUVWCDTXFYFWCZD[-$+/+$'3,")*(("]>
/'%$'34"!&#$%&'(&)*+&%0!&#&',$"'0!"3!*-+$+(6""2+>
/'%$'34"!-&%$(*20!"#$%&!&%/(*,$"'*'%"/,!&*!&3*!%$'3)&+,0!&+(!$)$'30!*(,$(&+4"!"0$"$%+("5$,6,6&^ _`9`3/$%&2$'&+1$'(2/%$'30!"#$%&!6"+0$,*2+B*(*%&-$(%&,*$2$'3]>a
/'%$'34"!("--/'$,.%!/3%$+0"+*20!"3!*-+>*
/'%$'3*'%,!*$'$'34"!4$!+,!&+0"'%&!+,"0*!,$($0!&*!!&+,%$#&!+$"'0!"3!*-+10"+,"#&!%"+&!&+0",&*-+1"!+$-$2*!+,!*,&3$&+,6*,("''&(,*,!$+b$'%,")&6*#$"!*26&*2,6+&!#$(&+*'%+/00"!,+
<
c @Ad@A? @A
!"#$%&("-0!&6&'+$#&+.!$'3&+&!#$(&+0!"3!*-+-"!&5!*0*!"/'%+&!#$(&+1$'(2/%$'32$'b*3&,"7,!&*,-&',1*((&++,"+,&!$2&+.!$'3&+*'%2$'b*3&,",!&*,-&',"4$'4&(,$"/+%$+&*+&+
?efA Ag dh@g?AAfA@AiggA
!"##$%&&%'(&)'*&$+,#-$-./0'1-0$%.'%2,/13(*.(*45$$55"%%-*6!"70&(*5'/0'9'(8&:2!/1;
935$*.-&-$*0&:%$"6:'<-.'*5'7(0'.$%'<-.'*5'-*+$%)'.#'0&:(&)(4-*58".'=7"&(%'*$&8-)-&'.&$=&:'+$88$>-*6?@ , ?
DBEFGEGH DHGECHDCIE HJMMNOPPOQRPSQTPNUVMWNWXYZQ[WZNOXQO\]^_`abRTXRTcdN$55"%%-*6!"70&ZNOXQONOeQTPRfgQRfPh\]i_`jkla35$*.-&-$*0&:%$"6:'<-.'*5'7(0'.$%'$%)'.#%$6%()0$%0&%(&'6-'0&:(&)(4-*58".'=7"&(%'*$&8-)-&'.&$=&:$0'&:m n#(*.(<(-8(7-8-&4$+&%'(&)'*&+$%,/1(*.(*45$$55"%%-*6!/1;
95$*.-&-$*0=-*58".-*6(88+$%)0$+
'.-5(&-$*00-0PQXoOQRPSQTP\]kpq(##%$<'.74&:'/
!
$$.(*.1%"6.)-*-0&%(&-$*
!"##$%&(*.%'-)7"%0''<-.'*5'7(0'.0'%<-5'0&:(&(.:'%'&$&:')'%-5KNdWQPcNUrXXWdPWNTeQXWdWTQ\]pipkabdNTPWTLLSNUdROQUNOVY[RT$55"%%-*6!/1;
95$*.-&-$*0
n#(*.&'8':'(8&:&$-*5%'(0'(55'00&$&%'(&)'*&+$%,/1(*.(*45$$5!/1;
95$*.-&-$*0=-*58".-*6
=(0>'88(05$"*0'8-*6=#045:-(&%-5(*.$&:'%&%'(&)'*&(*.%'5$<'%40"##$%&0'%<-5'0
sSMONtQNtQOZWuhPNUVMWNWXoOQRPSQTPvONuORSZ\]^qwxabPNRZZLOQQtW7(0'.$%'<-.'*5'-*+$%)'.#%(5&-5'00"5:(0(.'y"(&')'&:(.$*'.$0-*6&:%'0:$8.(##%$(5:'0&$&%'(&)'*&
!"##$%&)$7-8'-*&'%<'*&-$*=&%'(&)'*&=(*.%'5$<'%40'%<-5'0=$++'%'.74y"(8-+-'.#%$+'00-$*(80(*.0'%<-5'#%$<-.'%0=0"5:(0#''%%'5$<'%45$(5#'%0$*0>-&:,/1(*.(*45$$55"%%-*6!/1;
95$*.-&-$*0(*.+$%#'>:$:(<''n#'%-'*5'.(*$#-$-.$<'%.$0'
@%$<-.'&%'(&)'*&$+&%(")(+$%-*.-<-."(80>-&:,/12{|}|=<-$8'*5'=0'(00("8&=:")(*&%(++-5~-*6=$%(.<'%0'5:-8.:$$.'n#'%-'*5'03(*.+()-84)')7'%02{|}|=0"%<-<-*6+()-84)')7'%0(+&'%(*$<'%.$0'$%$<'%.$0'(*.&%(-*-*6$+:'(8&:5(%'#'%0$**'8&$-.'*&-+4(*.(..%'000"5:&%(")(!"##$%&'<-.'*5'7(0'.>-&:.%(>(8)(*(6')'*&0'%<-5'0+$%#'$#8'>-&(*.(*45$$55"%%-*6)'*&(8:'(8&:5$*.-&-$*0
m
!"# ""!"#"$"# "$!! ! "" "#"$ "! % " %$ "! ""# $ & """ &&$%'"!"$ $""
)$!!*+ !& ! "" "* *+*!""* ,-.% $ )-./
0 "
, *" !" & "! "" ! "$ "# " &"
, " " !""$!!" ' ! "* "" ,-.% $ )-./
0& "# $ #'$ &# #" " !"# *" !%&! &"# " !"*+$ $""
$ "'*$ .$ &34564789:::;<=>?>@AAABC47DEFG6EHIFJ5,-.#! """ ! "" "$!! '. 222*
.""& *''" $ $ #"$ " & "% LHM4ENOGPE7QHRFESTH3H6MTUVDD7E4UFEQH6FW,!"*'' $ $ $&& *
. !""&* $ $ #"$ " & &%5RRH64H73PGN6LHM4ENOGPE7QHRFESTH3H6MTUVDD7E4UFEQH6F87EJFRH6M4H73""" &
]]^_`]a^]bacd`_ae`fad`edg_ah^ia_j!!!! % &,-.% $ )-./
0 $ '" &! &"" " &% &# ! &"" " k &! "*!$" "$ "* ,-. $ )-./
0 "# $ $" #"!#$l'! &#l' #
$ $$& & %" " % $ )-./
0 "# $ "$!! $" "$!!" " $" # &&$% "# "& & " &&$%'"" "
!"##$% &'( ) !*'(+
, - $ ! ## !-) !- ! #!. - !" !# -) !#!. $$% ! (##. % ##
.. ) ## - $ ! $ $!$ - $/ !# % &'( ) !*'(+
,
* ## 0# #) -% .) $ ## ! $ -.# - "# % &'( !*'(+
,
## # . )#!. "# % &'( ) !*'(+
,
.#$). ! $ "# .)".&'( ) !*'(+
,
") " $)#!. # ) -#$ - $$)#!. - # ## $ .4 # )" ! 5 $ )#!. $# )
!! #" -" 4 .. - .. )$ ## ##$ . ) ## ".$)..4 "" ## # % &'( ".$)
! $#. "# "! . "" ### $) # $ $ )".&'(- $ ! ! !.
* ## !. "" ! ! . ## "# &'(- $ ! ! !. "" .
8 ## $ $$)### #!. "# &'( ) !*'(+
, - $ ! %.
8 + ## ) ! $
, 4 $ $ %9 #0# )" ## $ 4
==>:?@><@A>BC<=>>DC>A@?<?C>C>A@?C>E=>>D<==>:?G<=H?<:IJ>K
! "# $%&! '# !' ( ( ) !* # # )+ # $%&,
!-. ", ! # , ! !/ -. "( ,( ! " 0#
! !
1 ! "! ", , , #-. ')), / "/ , 2 /! 0 +/( # ) ) "!( # ,, !! ! ,,
1 ,! #-. ! " " # ")
4 ! " ! , 0"
," )! ,
1 ! "# ," ) , " ! ! ! " "/ ! " ,, )##
/ ,",
- ", ( $%&!) -%&6
7 ! / ( 4 ! ! ! ) # ( "0 !" , - 0 9 ," )! ,# ( $%&!) "-%& ! 4 ! ! !
- ( ' # ," )
! -),/ ! " / ! ! , # ( " ! ! !!!
1 !#! "# ) ,"! ,/! 4# / ) / ) "/ , "< ## / / ( $) "-%&6
7 ! ( 4 ! !
4 !(,! ## )
= 0! ""( ,,! , # !<! / ,/! ) ",# ! ) "
!"# $# % & ' #()*
" &# " # !! ++ ! #" !
$ - & $$ #% & "! & % &" ' #()* & + )*.
/ &
03455674844059:;3<=<82>?@56<;4A<8B9>B40C43598& # &" ' #()* & + )*.
/ & %$% & D E"F ! %$% & D "#! $G + !# # % & F & % & "! & ! #!+ $& DF $ ! &D# #H ! & % && "$ ' #()* & + )*.
/ & D $& F$ # & #H
$" " $ ## $I !# I$ JKKLMNLOPQRMOSRTUVPLNLWNLSRXYZ[[\]^_`
% # ## * F !XYa[\b^_cOKRd`
YeWdOfOPRgdhi^iNT D'# #'E # & % &$#% % & $j % # "" " % & $ E & ! !# % k
("" % D ## ' " ! * % LOPXYlm[a^_cOKRd`
("" % ## n +D $ &n % $n 'E# n# o & * % ! % k,
n & &.$ % & !& $&& ()p $$' # )* j
$ % # & % &$' #()* & + )*.
/ & % & "! & ! D $& & $ & %
! & % + #% & % & F &
!"#
$%"&& ' " ' &&& %% " !%( ')*+ $"#,*+-
. %(' / !&%
!"#
$%"&& " ' &&& %% " !%( ')*+ $"#,*+-
. %(' ! #/ !&%' / !&% &0 & ! " " $ %"&% $&# % ! %
2344567869798:;79<=9>7=6?=>795>@ABCDEFGH4:67983;:6;IJ569>K9?9K3:;@;9" ! #%%)*+-%"% !!!%% %% " !%( %O% %% %O%"&! % % #%
#0% & % %%# '% !/"!&%%( ')*+ $"#,*+-
. % ! /" !&%! &% $ ' " % # '%% ( ' $ '% #%%0 '%%
TUQVVWXQYQQTVZ[\UQ]YSYWZU\SUQYW^Y]_Z`QYSYQ^U[S`^a^QVb^YcadT^Y]eSe^QV_^WXYQZYSWSaSeVW^YQYTUZ`Q%% '% &# & #( ( ')*+ $"+-
. % '% ' !% !"#0 0%( '79>=>8=@I>K65<=ABhijFGH7N653LN=?9K=>8=0 % &% #% ' $!" 0" ! '% ' k,"&& 0 % !"#
$%% %"&& % & %% &# ( ( ('"!0 &# m('' )*+ $",*+-
. % ' %"% " &%"&& !% 0$ !0% ,$
n& &'%0 % $%%
"%"( ( ')*+ $"#,*+-
. % "& l '%&% & "
# 0% % '' ! ' &%!('(O&# ( ' !%# # )*+ $"#,*+-
. %
!"# #$# ! ! #% &"! "' %! # ' ()% " & # * '!!!" " ! '"'
+
'% ,")!!"'! #% # -./ ) *./0
1 "
'% ,")!! " "'! "# , ) *./0
1 "
")!!' '% ,%%&"")'' )") ' '% ,4 '')% '%& % '" "
-'' %&"#!) " "!" "# -./ , ) *./0
1 "6 ) 6&) %6! "$
789:;<=>?@@98AB98CD;E<8=FG>H=8:;I=>J ) !" " " ) ")!! )" " " "6 & %'% % 0! '" ) )")"
K-L M -RSRTUVSRQWPQRXYQZ[ZT\]T^RTX_QR]PPQVPQZ]URRXYQZ[ZT\]T^^ZXPRTXZT\VNVPZVZ^X!!''"! !" & ")!!!!" & ! " '!" ) &" '%! %" " %, )6&) %6 ' # L ) % !) ) &"!" &! "'!" "" # ) "'" & -!` '% .
*
` "'/""` 6!" "! "a % b
' !" "' "! "& !!" & 6" 6 ! ! "''!"
` )
) a`
b !!!!" & '! *)!!' !! % "6 ) !"'''%) % 6 '%%
!"#
"$
% & ' ! ( !) (*)+ (* &% + + !"#
"* ( "#
"&* $
+ "#
"& % ++ ! * +& !
+& ++ , & % &+ & &, "#
"&+ '+( - ./# + , +++% %(& (+,&+
!"#
" % + + %& 1+ - & + (&2345672389:;<329;7=9>9;?@;A>B9C;39DEFB>3?ADB9>92D3G?HC;B8;34IJ %& & + , +++%& (+,&+
!+ ! %& % !(
& !& && !
QRQSTUVWXWQYZYOVYV[W & ! % & !% & & & ! ! ( +&* + & + , !] & !& ! % &
^ %&% ! % + & ! & % &
" + & + ! &!& +
#!' '& + & !
& ! ( &! + !! &! % \ ! ( + + !% & & && +& ( +* !& ` !*& + !* + % ! + % & & + * +& !\! "% , '&%+ & (/
\
\ J;39>5a;>59:=;Bb24;?c7C232?9B>92D3defghifgjkl !! ! & & (
! ! " #!!$ ! %! " #!!$ !"" & ! ! " " %! '% "$ ' #!!$" $!& ' #!!$ #$ ! " ' # ! ! ' ! #
)#!!$ ! &! #%! ! " ! # # "! %% " "$*$& !%% # * !%! !
, ! ! !"" & !! ! %!% "$ '&! #' !$ *%! -./ &!! ).! !
) ! %! " ! " ! $ ! " $# $!%&! ! $2#!" & *!%" ! ! ! ! # '"! ! $"!$ ! $ *$$
) ! !" $# $ # ! %! &! $ ! !& #!!$ '# ! $#2! * ! ! # #!!$ %%' ! " $# $ # &! 32#! ! $& 4 # *!%! !! ! # 9:9;<=:98>=?9>9@<5?@;>=<5985@8A?B5@8A89>C ! %%! ! ! ! ! # ! ! # ! ! $ # "!# ! %! " ! " ! # " & ! $" !' #%!$$!2G $ $ & !!% $!H! ! # # ! ! %! % ! '! ! ' $ 2 #-./ % % "$&"" ' #!!$ '!"" & ! ! 2! * ' ! $ % !"I $! !'! ! # "" !% $ $
J$# $ # !% $!H! ! &! #!"" ! $!H! ! # # !%! % ! '! ! ' *! ! '% "$ ' !"" & ! ! ' ! # "" !% # $ $
$ #!!$ ! # #!!$ %% ! ! !! !! ! ! #"2 # $!H!' ' !
H '" !'! $! * !% 2 $ ! ! 0 $!H! $
!! " #! $%
&
' % %( % )*% ( '!! " #! $%
#" % ,( !% ) , ' !( !% %% $ ) , % %- %((%-% '' -%(-%(( % ,%- ' % ! -' "). - % )' ') ! ! % ,%( ," ( !%
*( %% % ! ' ' %%%%%)%0( %2 % ' ! , % ( %
#(( ! % ) '' ( , ' % ) ! ! - , "%(( %-) ) - ) (( ( % ,% ) % ( % ( % %$ )345 " #456
0
, ) ! % % ) ) ( , %-%( , " )%- , " )%(% %- ) ( '%% ( , ( % %$) % ( % ( % %$ )345 " #456
0 %
#(( % ' ' " * " %
0 73 0 # #;<=;><?@AB>;< !% % 2-5 0 ' % %( %-%(( ) $ 7 '$ ' ! ) ' % %( % (( (( % ( %$) $ )' " ) %
,% '$ %% %(( % ,%' ' % %( % ) %*( % " !%% $ ) ( ! "EB>;<F8?G?DEAA8AHEABI@@;B8AE=8@A(( '' % ( , %)(-( - -' %- ) %%% ) ( (! ) ) , %-( !%- % ) !" - ! - )' $ 7
! " # " ! $ " % $ " $ % !&#
"$ ' (" %% # #%) *'$("+"+ #%) " $ ! % !& %*' ( , " #-," #"# ) " !"## $ + ! # # #%% &
) ))! !%) ) ! ## $ &% +"" ) $! % !"+". & !1/02
3 !"% %!"% % #%!" ! $ " % $ " $ % !&#
4 ))!%!" % !%) $ % ! %
9:;:;< " !) " !" " % ! %" !" ! % !" % &# #% "" =4 ) !) )) !+,! ! % " $#&)!% %% & ) ) $
1 ) ))!)## $ &% % "+"./0 !1/02
3 % #%" ! $ " % $ " $ % !&#'>?@? " #" % & " % 40
4
(
CB98DE $ % "" % &# $ #% ")#
! ## ## # ) ! ! $ " $ % !&#
" %)"
! " !## "!!## $ !"
! ! "" $! # ## ! !# ! % !$#$ !"!!
&
'" (!# ) !)#! ! (! !! ! * !"" ! % ! "" !"" % ,-./.01(!!123 45 )67
6
"! ! +! ! #284 %!!! !"" !0! !+! !! !+ ! ! * !$! !+0% ! ! "" 9:;<=>?@AB?CA@DEFGHGIJK<L<B=MNO
P ! ! Q ! !+ !+" % ! !5 !"" ! !(! !! !! + 5 0! !# 5 " !!" ( ! !% ! !! "!!
R
" ! $!#%!
!! ! ++
Bob Ferguson
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
1125 Washington Street SE – PO Box 40100 – Olympia, WA 98504-0100
July 14, 2022
RE: Opioid Settlement
Dear Local Elected Leaders:
One of my highest priorities as Attorney General has been to address the opioid crisis that has
devastated so many communities and families throughout our state. I know you are already
familiar with how destructive the opioid epidemic has been for Washington, and I am grateful for
all you’ve already done to confront the many challenges it presents.
After two years of litigation and a lengthy trial against the three largest pharmaceutical
distributors in the nation, my office recently entered into a settlement agreement in which the
defendants have agreed to pay $518 million over 17 years if all conditions are met. These funds
will provide much needed resources and assistance to deal with this crisis.
You and your colleagues will have discretion to earmark a significant portion of this
settlement to combat the opioid epidemic in your communities.
For the distributor settlement agreement to become effective, we must have sign on to the
settlement from (1) all jurisdictions in our state that filed a lawsuit against the distributors and (2)
90% of jurisdictions with a population of over 10,000 that did not file a lawsuit. This structure is
similar to the arrangement that 48 other states and local governments have entered into with
opioid distributors. Importantly, no group of litigating or non-litigating jurisdictions has decided
not to approve the national settlement, and this resolution will bring tens of millions more to our
communities.
As a non-litigating jurisdiction, your participation in the settlement agreement is crucial to ensure
we receive the funding necessary to provide additional resources to providers and treatment to
individuals who desperately need our help. If we do not receive the requisite participation by the
local governments, we will not receive the $518 million to help Washington combat the opioid
epidemic.
Your jurisdiction can sign on by executing and returning the enclosed Participation Form. We
have a deadline of Friday, September 23, 2022 for local government approval.
Please return the completed Participation Form to: comopioidscases@atg.wa.gov
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
Local Elected Leaders
July 14, 2022
Page 2
Thank you for all you have already done to address the opioid crisis in our state. I urge you to
sign on to the settlement agreement as soon as possible to allow us to begin distributing these
funds promptly and get additional treatment and support to those who need it most.
Here are links to Washington’s settlement with the distributors and the national distributor
settlement, which is an exhibit to Washington’s settlement:
• Washington Distributor settlement
• National Distributor Settlement
Our office has recovered a total of more than $730 million from opioid litigation, including $183
million in recoveries from Purdue Pharma, more than $18 million from Mallinckrodt, and $13.5
million from McKinsey to address harms from the opioid crisis. This includes $159 million in
additional resources because we rejected national settlements involving Purdue Pharma and the
distributors and took those corporations to court.
If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Rupert, Chief of my Complex Litigation Division
at 206-389-2116 or Jeffrey.Rupert@atg.wa.gov.
Sincerely,
BOB FERGUSON
Attorney General
RWF/jlg
Encl.
1
ONE WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
WASHINGTON MUNICIPALITIES
Whereas, the people of the State of Washington and its communities have been harmed by
entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain who manufacture, distribute, and dispense
prescription opioids;
Whereas, certain Local Governments, through their elected representatives and counsel,
are engaged in litigation seeking to hold these entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain of
prescription opioids accountable for the damage they have caused to the Local Governments;
Whereas, Local Governments and elected officials share a common desire to abate and
alleviate the impacts of harms caused by these entities within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain
throughout the State of Washington, and strive to ensure that principals of equity and equitable
service delivery are factors considered in the allocation and use of Opioid Funds; and
Whereas, certain Local Governments engaged in litigation and the other cities and counties
in Washington desire to agree on a form of allocation for Opioid Funds they receive from entities
within the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain.
Now therefore, the Local Governments enter into this Memorandum of Understanding
(“MOU”) relating to the allocation and use of the proceeds of Settlements described.
A.Definitions
As used in this MOU:
1.“Allocation Regions” are the same geographic areas as the existing
nine (9) Washington State Accountable Community of Health (ACH) Regions
and have the purpose described in Section C below.
2.“Approved Purpose(s)” shall mean the strategies specified and set
forth in the Opioid Abatement Strategies attached as Exhibit A.
3.“Effective Date” shall mean the date on which a court of
competent jurisdiction enters the first Settlement by order or consent decree. The
Parties anticipate that more than one Settlement will be administered according to
the terms of this MOU, but that the first entered Settlement will trigger allocation
of Opioid Funds in accordance with Section B herein, and the formation of the
Opioid Abatement Councils in Section C.
4.“Litigating Local Government(s)” shall mean Local Governments
that filed suit against any Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant pertaining to
the Opioid epidemic prior to September 1, 2020.
2
5.“Local Government(s)” shall mean all counties, cities, and towns
within the geographic boundaries of the State of Washington.
6.“National Settlement Agreements” means the national opioid
settlement agreements dated July 21, 2021 involving Johnson & Johnson, and
distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson as well as their
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors named in the National Settlement
Agreements, including all amendments thereto.
7.“Opioid Funds” shall mean monetary amounts obtained through a
Settlement as defined in this MOU.
8.“Opioid Abatement Council” shall have the meaning described in
Section C below.
9.“Participating Local Government(s)” shall mean all counties,
cities, and towns within the geographic boundaries of the State that have chosen
to sign on to this MOU. The Participating Local Governments may be referred to
separately in this MOU as “Participating Counties” and “Participating Cities and
Towns” (or “Participating Cities or Towns,” as appropriate) or “Parties.”
10.“Pharmaceutical Supply Chain” shall mean the process and
channels through which controlled substances are manufactured, marketed,
promoted, distributed, and/or dispensed, including prescription opioids.
11.“Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant” shall mean any entity
that engages in or has engaged in the manufacture, marketing, promotion,
distribution, and/or dispensing of a prescription opioid, including any entity that
has assisted in any of the above.
12.“Qualified Settlement Fund Account,” or “QSF Account,” shall
mean an account set up as a qualified settlement fund, 468b fund, as authorized by
Treasury Regulations 1.468B-1(c) (26 CFR §1.468B-1).
13.“Regional Agreements” shall mean the understanding reached by
the Participating Local Counties and Cities within an Allocation Region
governing the allocation, management, distribution of Opioid Funds within that
Allocation Region.
14.“Settlement” shall mean the future negotiated resolution of legal or
equitable claims against a Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participant when that
resolution has been jointly entered into by the Participating Local
Governments. “Settlement” expressly does not include a plan of reorganization
confirmed under Title 11of the United States Code, irrespective of the extent to
which Participating Local Governments vote in favor of or otherwise support such
plan of reorganization.
3
15.“Trustee” shall mean an independent trustee who shall be
responsible for the ministerial task of releasing Opioid Funds from a QSF account
to Participating Local Governments as authorized herein and accounting for all
payments into or out of the trust.
16.The “Washington State Accountable Communities of Health” or
“ACH” shall mean the nine (9) regions described in Section C below.
B.Allocation of Settlement Proceeds for Approved Purposes
1.All Opioid Funds shall be held in a QSF and distributed by the
Trustee, for the benefit of the Participating Local Governments, only in a manner
consistent with this MOU. Distribution of Opioid Funds will be subject to the
mechanisms for auditing and reporting set forth below to provide public
accountability and transparency.
2.All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be utilized
pursuant to Approved Purposes as defined herein and set forth in Exhibit A.
Compliance with this requirement shall be verified through reporting, as set out in
this MOU.
3.The division of Opioid Funds shall first be allocated to
Participating Counties based on the methodology utilized for the Negotiation
Class in In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP. The
allocation model uses three equally weighted factors: (1) the amount of opioids
shipped to the county; (2) the number of opioid deaths that occurred in that
county; and (3) the number of people who suffer opioid use disorder in that
county. The allocation percentages that result from application of this
methodology are set forth in the “County Total” line item in Exhibit B. In the
event any county does not participate in this MOU, that county’s percentage share
shall be reallocated proportionally amongst the Participating Counties by applying
this same methodology to only the Participating Counties.
4.Allocation and distribution of Opioid Funds within each
Participating County will be based on regional agreements as described in
Section C.
C.Regional Agreements
1.For the purpose of this MOU, the regional structure for decision-
making related to opioid fund allocation will be based upon the nine (9) pre-
defined Washington State Accountable Community of Health Regions (Allocation
Regions). Reference to these pre-defined regions is solely for the purpose of
4
drawing geographic boundaries to facilitate regional agreements for use of Opioid
Funds. The Allocation Regions are as follows:
King County (Single County Region)
Pierce County (Single County Region)
Olympic Community of Health Region (Clallam, Jefferson, and Kitsap
Counties)
Cascade Pacific Action Alliance Region (Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Lewis,
Mason, Pacific, Thurston, and Wahkiakum Counties)
North Sound Region (Island, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom
Counties)
SouthWest Region (Clark, Klickitat, and Skamania Counties)
Greater Columbia Region (Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Garfield,
Kittitas, Walla Walla, Whitman, and Yakima Counties)
Spokane Region (Adams, Ferry, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, and
Stevens Counties)
North Central Region (Chelan, Douglas, Grant, and Okanogan Counties)
2.Opioid Funds will be allocated, distributed and managed within
each Allocation Region, as determined by its Regional Agreement as set forth
below. If an Allocation Region does not have a Regional Agreement enumerated
in this MOU, and does not subsequently adopt a Regional Agreement per Section
C.5, the default mechanism for allocation, distribution and management of Opioid
Funds described in Section C.4.a will apply. Each Allocation Region must have
an OAC whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by Regional
Agreement or as set forth in Section C.4.
3.King County’s Regional Agreement is reflected in Exhibit C to this
MOU.
4.All other Allocation Regions that have not specified a Regional
Agreement for allocating, distributing and managing Opioid Funds, will apply
the following default methodology:
a. Opioid Funds shall be allocated within each Allocation Region by
taking the allocation for a Participating County from Exhibit B and
apportioning those funds between that Participating County and its
Participating Cities and Towns. Exhibit B also sets forth the allocation to
the Participating Counties and the Participating Cities or Towns within the
Counties based on a default allocation formula. As set forth above in
Section B.3, to determine the allocation to a county, this formula utilizes:
(1) the amount of opioids shipped to the county; (2) the number of opioid
deaths that occurred in that county; and (3) the number of people who
suffer opioid use disorder in that county. To determine the allocation
within a county, the formula utilizes historical federal data showing how
the specific Counties and the Cities and Towns within the Counties have
5
made opioids epidemic-related expenditures in the past. This is the same
methodology used in the National Settlement Agreements for county and
intra-county allocations. A Participating County, and the Cities and Towns
within it may enter into a separate intra-county allocation agreement to
modify how the Opioid Funds are allocated amongst themselves, provided
the modification is in writing and agreed to by all Participating Local
Governments in the County. Such an agreement shall not modify any of
the other terms or requirements of this MOU.
b.10% of the Opioid Funds received by the Region will be reserved,
on an annual basis, for administrative costs related to the OAC. The OAC
will provide an annual accounting for actual costs and any reserved funds
that exceed actual costs will be reallocated to Participating Local
Governments within the Region.
c.Cities and towns with a population of less than 10,000 shall be
excluded from the allocation, with the exception of cities and towns that
are Litigating Participating Local Governments. The portion of the Opioid
Funds that would have been allocated to a city or town with a population
of less than 10,000 that is not a Litigating Participating Local Government
shall be redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed
in C.4.a above.
d.Each Participating County, City, or Town may elect to have its
share re-allocated to the OAC in which it is located. The OAC will then
utilize this share for the benefit of Participating Local Governments within
that Allocation Region, consistent with the Approved Purposes set forth in
Exhibit A. A Participating Local Government’s election to forego its
allocation of Opioid Funds shall apply to all future allocations unless the
Participating Local Government notifies its respective OAC otherwise. If a
Participating Local Government elects to forego its allocation of the
Opioid Funds, the Participating Local Government shall be excused from
the reporting requirements set forth in this Agreement.
e.Participating Local Governments that receive a direct
payment maintain full discretion over the use and distribution of their
allocation of Opioid Funds, provided the Opioid Funds are used solely for
Approved Purposes. Reasonable administrative costs for a Participating
Local Government to administer its allocation of Opioid Funds shall not
exceed actual costs or 10% of the Participating Local Government’s
allocation of Opioid Funds, whichever is less.
f.A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating
Local Government will not receive a direct allocation of Opioid Funds.
The portion of the Opioid Funds that would have been allocated to a Local
Government that is not a Participating Local Government shall be
6
redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed
in C.4.a above.
g.As a condition of receiving a direct payment, each Participating
Local Government that receives a direct payment agrees to undertake the
following actions:
i. Developing a methodology for obtaining proposals for use
of Opioid Funds.
ii. Ensuring there is opportunity for community-based input
on priorities for Opioid Fund programs and services.
iii. Receiving and reviewing proposals for use of Opioid Funds
for Approved Purposes.
iv. Approving or denying proposals for use of Opioid
Funds for Approved Purposes.
v. Receiving funds from the Trustee for approved proposals
and distributing the Opioid Funds to the recipient.
vi. Reporting to the OAC and making publicly available all
decisions on Opioid Fund allocation applications,
distributions and expenditures.
h.Prior to any distribution of Opioid Funds within the Allocation
Region, The Participating Local Governments must establish an Opioid
Abatement Council (OAC) to oversee Opioid Fund allocation,
distribution, expenditures and dispute resolution. The OAC may be a
preexisting regional body or may be a new body created for purposes of
executing the obligations of this MOU.
i.The OAC for each Allocation Region shall be composed of
representation from both Participating Counties and Participating Towns
or Cities within the Region. The method of selecting members, and the
terms for which they will serve will be determined by the Allocation
Region’s Participating Local Governments. All persons who serve on the
OAC must have work or educational experience pertaining to one or more
Approved Uses.
j.The Regional OAC will be responsible for the following actions:
i. Overseeing distribution of Opioid Funds from Participating
Local Governments to programs and services within the
Allocation Region for Approved Purposes.
7
ii. Annual review of expenditure reports from
Participating Local Jurisdictions within the Allocation
Region for compliance with Approved Purposes and the
terms of this MOU and any Settlement.
iii. In the case where Participating Local Governments chose
to forego their allocation of Opioid Funds:
(i) Approving or denying proposals by Participating Local
Governments or community groups to the OAC for use of
Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region.
(ii) Directing the Trustee to distribute Opioid Funds for use
by Participating Local Governments or community groups
whose proposals are approved by the OAC.
(iii) Administrating and maintaining records of all OAC
decisions and distributions of Opioid Funds.
iv. Reporting and making publicly available all decisions on
Opioid Fund allocation applications, distributions and
expenditures by the OAC or directly by Participating Local
Governments.
v. Developing and maintaining a centralized public dashboard
or other repository for the publication of expenditure data
from any Participating Local Government that receives
Opioid Funds, and for expenditures by the OAC in that
Allocation Region, which it shall update at least annually.
vi. If necessary, requiring and collecting additional outcome-
related data from Participating Local Governments to
evaluate the use of Opioid Funds, and all Participating
Local Governments shall comply with such requirements.
vii. Hearing complaints by Participating Local Governments
within the Allocation Region regarding alleged failure to
(1) use Opioid Funds for Approved Purposes or (2) comply
with reporting requirements.
5. Participating Local Governments may agree and elect to share,
pool, or collaborate with their respective allocation of Opioid Funds in any
manner they choose by adopting a Regional Agreement, so long as such
sharing, pooling, or collaboration is used for Approved Purposes and
complies with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement.
8
6. Nothing in this MOU should alter or change any Participating
Local Government’s rights to pursue its own claim. Rather, the intent of
this MOU is to join all parties who wish to be Participating Local
Governments to agree upon an allocation formula for any Opioid Funds
from any future binding Settlement with one or more Pharmaceutical
Supply Chain Participants for all Local Governments in the State of
Washington.
7. If any Participating Local Government disputes the amount it
receives from its allocation of Opioid Funds, the Participating Local
Government shall alert its respective OAC within sixty (60) days of
discovering the information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert its
OAC within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the
Participating Local Government’s right to seek recoupment of any
deficiency in its allocation of Opioid Funds.
8. If any OAC concludes that a Participating Local Government’s
expenditure of its allocation of Opioid Funds did not comply with the
Approved Purposes listed in Exhibit A, or the terms of this MOU, or that
the Participating Local Government otherwise misused its allocation of
Opioid Funds, the OAC may take remedial action against the alleged
offending Participating Local Government. Such remedial action is left to
the discretion of the OAC and may include withholding future Opioid
Funds owed to the offending Participating Local Government or requiring
the offending Participating Local Government to reimburse improperly
expended Opioid Funds back to the OAC to be re-allocated to the
remaining Participating Local Governments within that Region.
9. All Participating Local Governments and OAC shall maintain all
records related to the receipt and expenditure of Opioid Funds for no less
than five (5) years and shall make such records available for review by
any other Participating Local Government or OAC, or the public. Records
requested by the public shall be produced in accordance with
Washington’s Public Records Act RCW 42.56.001 et seq. Records
requested by another Participating Local Government or an OAC shall be
produced within twenty-one (21) days of the date the record request was
received. This requirement does not supplant any Participating Local
Government or OAC’s obligations under Washington’s Public Records
Act RCW 42.56.001 et seq.
D.Payment of Counsel and Litigation Expenses
1.The Litigating Local Governments have incurred attorneys’ fees
and litigation expenses relating to their prosecution of claims against the
Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants, and this prosecution has inured to the
benefit of all Participating Local Governments. Accordingly, a Washington
9
Government Fee Fund (“GFF”) shall be established that ensures that all Parties
that receive Opioid Funds contribute to the payment of fees and expenses incurred
to prosecute the claims against the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants,
regardless of whether they are litigating or non-litigating entities.
2.The amount of the GFF shall be based as follows: the funds to be
deposited in the GFF shall be equal to 15% of the total cash value of the Opioid
Funds.
3.The maximum percentage of any contingency fee agreement
permitted for compensation shall be 15% of the portion of the Opioid Funds
allocated to the Litigating Local Government that is a party to the contingency fee
agreement, plus expenses attributable to that Litigating Local Government. Under
no circumstances may counsel collect more for its work on behalf of a Litigating
Local Government than it would under its contingency agreement with that
Litigating Local Government.
4.Payments from the GFF shall be overseen by a committee (the
“Opioid Fee and Expense Committee”) consisting of one representative of the
following law firms: (a) Keller Rohrback L.LP.; (b) Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP; (c) Goldfarb & Huck Roth Riojas, PLLC; and (d) Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC. The role of the Opioid Fee and Expense Committee shall be limited to
ensuring that the GFF is administered in accordance with this Section.
5.In the event that settling Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Participants
do not pay the fees and expenses of the Participating Local Governments directly
at the time settlement is achieved, payments to counsel for Participating Local
Governments shall be made from the GFF over not more than three years, with
50% paid within 12 months of the date of Settlement and 25% paid in each
subsequent year, or at the time the total Settlement amount is paid to the Trustee
by the Defendants, whichever is sooner.
6.Any funds remaining in the GFF in excess of: (i) the amounts
needed to cover Litigating Local Governments’ private counsel’s representation
agreements, and (ii) the amounts needed to cover the common benefit tax
discussed in Section C.8 below (if not paid directly by the Defendants in
connection with future settlement(s), shall revert to the Participating Local
Governments pro rata according to the percentages set forth in Exhibits B, to be
used for Approved Purposes as set forth herein and in Exhibit A.
7.In the event that funds in the GFF are not sufficient to pay all fees
and expenses owed under this Section, payments to counsel for all Litigating
Local Governments shall be reduced on a pro rata basis. The Litigating Local
Governments will not be responsible for any of these reduced amounts.
10
8.The Parties anticipate that any Opioid Funds they receive will be
subject to a common benefit “tax” imposed by the court in In Re: National
Prescription Opiate Litigation, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP (“Common Benefit Tax”). If this
occurs, the Participating Local Governments shall first seek to have the settling
defendants pay the Common Benefit Tax. If the settling defendants do not agree
to pay the Common Benefit Tax, then the Common Benefit Tax shall be paid
from the Opioid Funds and by both litigating and non-litigating Local
Governments. This payment shall occur prior to allocation and distribution of
funds to the Participating Local Governments. In the event that GFF is not fully
exhausted to pay the Litigating Local Governments’ private counsel’s
representation agreements, excess funds in the GFF shall be applied to pay the
Common Benefit Tax (if any).
E.General Terms
1.If any Participating Local Government believes another
Participating Local Government, not including the Regional Abatement Advisory
Councils, violated the terms of this MOU, the alleging Participating Local
Government may seek to enforce the terms of this MOU in the court in which any
applicable Settlement(s) was entered, provided the alleging Participating Local
Government first provides the alleged offending Participating Local Government
notice of the alleged violation(s) and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged
violation(s). In such an enforcement action, any alleging Participating Local
Government or alleged offending Participating Local Government may be
represented by their respective public entity in accordance with Washington law.
2.Nothing in this MOU shall be interpreted to waive the right of any
Participating Local Government to seek judicial relief for conduct occurring
outside the scope of this MOU that violates any Washington law. In such an
action, the alleged offending Participating Local Government, including the
Regional Abatement Advisory Councils, may be represented by their respective
public entities in accordance with Washington law. In the event of a conflict, any
Participating Local Government, including the Regional Abatement Advisory
Councils and its Members, may seek outside representation to defend itself
against such an action.
3.Venue for any legal action related to this MOU shall be in the
court in which the Participating Local Government is located or in accordance
with the court rules on venue in that jurisdiction. This provision is not intended to
expand the court rules on venue.
4.This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the
same instrument. The Participating Local Governments approve the use of
electronic signatures for execution of this MOU. All use of electronic signatures
11
shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The Parties agree
not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of the MOU solely because it is in
electronic form or because an electronic record was used in its formation. The
Participating Local Government agree not to object to the admissibility of the
MOU in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic
document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on
the grounds that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in
its original form or is not an original.
5.Each Participating Local Government represents that all
procedures necessary to authorize such Participating Local Government’s
execution of this MOU have been performed and that the person signing for such
Party has been authorized to execute the MOU.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank – Signature Pages Follow]
12
This One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington
Municipalities is signed this _____ day of ___________________, 2022 by:
_______________________________________________
Name & Title ___________________________________
On behalf of ____________________________________
4894-0031-1574, v. 2
EXHIBIT A
1
O P I O I D A B A T E M E N T S T R A T E G I E S
PART ONE: TREATMENT
A.TREAT OPIOID USE DISORDER (OUD)
Support treatment of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring Substance Use
Disorder or Mental Health (SUD/MH) conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through
evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1.Expand availability of treatment for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions,
co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including all forms of Medication-Assisted Treatment
(MAT) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
2.Support and reimburse services that include the full American Society of Addiction
Medicine (ASAM) continuum of care for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including but not limited to:
a.Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT);
b.Abstinence-based treatment;
c.Treatment, recovery, or other services provided by states, subdivisions,
community health centers; non-for-profit providers; or for-profit providers;
d.Treatment by providers that focus on OUD treatment as well as treatment by
providers that offer OUD treatment along with treatment for other SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction; or
e.Evidence-informed residential services programs, as noted below.
3.Expand telehealth to increase access to treatment for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including MAT, as well as
counseling, psychiatric support, and other treatment and recovery support services.
4.Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to assure evidence-based,
evidence-informed, or promising practices such as adequate methadone dosing.
5.Support mobile intervention, treatment, and recovery services, offered by qualified
professionals and service providers, such as peer recovery coaches, for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction and
for persons who have experienced an opioid overdose.
6.Support treatment of mental health trauma resulting from the traumatic experiences of
the opioid user (e.g., violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or adverse childhood
experiences) and family members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose
2
or overdose fatality), and training of health care personnel to identify and address such
trauma.
7.Support detoxification (detox) and withdrawal management services for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction,
including medical detox, referral to treatment, or connections to other services or
supports.
8.Support training on MAT for health care providers, students, or other supporting
professionals, such as peer recovery coaches or recovery outreach specialists,
including telementoring to assist community-based providers in rural or underserved
areas.
9.Support workforce development for addiction professionals who work with persons
with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
10.Provide fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care,
instructors, and clinical research for treatments.
11.Provide funding and training for clinicians to obtain a waiver under the federal Drug
Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) to prescribe MAT for OUD, and
provide technical assistance and professional support to clinicians who have obtained
a DATA 2000 waiver.
12.Support the dissemination of web-based training curricula, such as the American
Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service-Opioids web-
based training curriculum and motivational interviewing.
13. Support the development and dissemination of new curricula, such as the American
Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service for
Medication-Assisted Treatment.
B.SUPPORT PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
Support people in treatment for and recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or
promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Provide the full continuum of care of recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including supportive housing,
residential treatment, medical detox services, peer support services and counseling,
community navigators, case management, and connections to community-based
services.
2.Provide counseling, peer-support, recovery case management and residential
treatment with access to medications for those who need it to persons with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
3
3.Provide access to housing for people with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, including supportive housing, recovery
housing, housing assistance programs, or training for housing providers.
4.Provide community support services, including social and legal services, to assist in
deinstitutionalizing persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-
usage, and/or co-addiction.
5.Support or expand peer-recovery centers, which may include support groups, social
events, computer access, or other services for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
6.Provide employment training or educational services for persons in treatment for or
recovery from OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-
addiction.
7.Identify successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college recovery
programs, and provide support and technical assistance to increase the number and
capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery.
8.Engage non-profits, faith-based communities, and community coalitions to support
people in treatment and recovery and to support family members in their efforts to
manage the opioid user in the family.
9.Provide training and development of procedures for government staff to appropriately
interact and provide social and other services to current and recovering opioid users,
including reducing stigma.
10.Support stigma reduction efforts regarding treatment and support for persons with
OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment.
C.CONNECT PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP TO THE HELP THEY NEED
(CONNECTIONS TO CARE)
Provide connections to care for people who have – or are at risk of developing – OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction through evidence-
based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1.Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and
know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer if necessary) a patient for OUD
treatment.
2.Support Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs to
reduce the transition from use to disorders.
3.Provide training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health,
schools, colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on youth and young
adults when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is common.
4
4.Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the technology.
5.Support training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients on
post-discharge planning, including community referrals for MAT, recovery case
management or support services.
6.Support hospital programs that transition persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, or persons who have experienced
an opioid overdose, into community treatment or recovery services through a bridge
clinic or similar approach.
7.Support crisis stabilization centers that serve as an alternative to hospital emergency
departments for persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-
usage, and/or co-addiction or persons that have experienced an opioid overdose.
8.Support the work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support specialists,
to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services following an opioid
overdose or other opioid-related adverse event.
9.Provide funding for peer support specialists or recovery coaches in emergency
departments, detox facilities, recovery centers, recovery housing, or similar settings;
offer services, supports, or connections to care to persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction or to persons who have
experienced an opioid overdose.
10.Provide funding for peer navigators, recovery coaches, care coordinators, or care
managers that offer assistance to persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction or to persons who have experienced on
opioid overdose.
11.Create or support school-based contacts that parents can engage with to seek
immediate treatment services for their child; and support prevention, intervention,
treatment, and recovery programs focused on young people.
12.Develop and support best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace.
13.Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD.
14.Engage non-profits and the faith community as a system to support outreach for
treatment.
15.Support centralized call centers that provide information and connections to
appropriate services and supports for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
16.Create or support intake and call centers to facilitate education and access to
treatment, prevention, and recovery services for persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
5
17.Develop or support a National Treatment Availability Clearinghouse – a
multistate/nationally accessible database whereby health care providers can list
locations for currently available in-patient and out-patient OUD treatment services
that are accessible on a real-time basis by persons who seek treatment.
D.ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS
Address the needs of persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-
usage, and/or co-addiction who are involved – or are at risk of becoming involved – in the
criminal justice system through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs
or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Support pre-arrest or post-arrest diversion and deflection strategies for persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction,
including established strategies such as:
a.Self-referral strategies such as the Angel Programs or the Police Assisted
Addiction Recovery Initiative (PAARI);
b.Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team (DART)
model;
c.“Naloxone Plus” strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who have
received naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then linked to
treatment programs or other appropriate services;
d.Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion
(LEAD) model;
e.Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult Civil
Citation Network or the Chicago Westside Narcotics Diversion to Treatment
Initiative;
f.Co-responder and/or alternative responder models to address OUD-related 911
calls with greater SUD expertise and to reduce perceived barriers associated with
law enforcement 911 responses; or
g.County prosecution diversion programs, including diversion officer salary, only
for counties with a population of 50,000 or less. Any diversion services in matters
involving opioids must include drug testing, monitoring, or treatment.
2.Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction to evidence-informed treatment,
including MAT, and related services.
3.Support treatment and recovery courts for persons with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, but only if these courts provide
referrals to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT.
6
4.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, or other
appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction who are incarcerated in jail or prison.
5.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, or other
appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction who are leaving jail or prison have recently
left jail or prison, are on probation or parole, are under community corrections
supervision, or are in re-entry programs or facilities.
6.Support critical time interventions (CTI), particularly for individuals living with dual-
diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face
immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional settings.
7.Provide training on best practices for addressing the needs of criminal-justice-
involved persons with OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage,
and/or co-addiction to law enforcement, correctional, or judicial personnel or to
providers of treatment, recovery, case management, or other services offered in
connection with any of the strategies described in this section.
E.ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT OR PARENTING WOMEN AND
THEIR FAMILIES, INCLUDING BABIES WITH NEONATAL ABSTINENCE
SYNDROME
Address the needs of pregnant or parenting women with OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, and the needs of their families, including
babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome, through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or
promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Support evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising treatment, including MAT,
recovery services and supports, and prevention services for pregnant women – or
women who could become pregnant – who have OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH
conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, and other measures to educate and provide
support to families affected by Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.
2.Provide training for obstetricians or other healthcare personnel that work with
pregnant women and their families regarding treatment of OUD and any co-occurring
SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
3.Provide training to health care providers who work with pregnant or parenting women
on best practices for compliance with federal requirements that children born with
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome get referred to appropriate services and receive a plan
of safe care.
4.Provide enhanced support for children and family members suffering trauma as a
result of addiction in the family; and offer trauma-informed behavioral health
treatment for adverse childhood events.
7
5.Offer enhanced family supports and home-based wrap-around services to persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction,
including but not limited to parent skills training.
6.Support for Children’s Services – Fund additional positions and services, including
supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children being removed
from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid use.
PART TWO: PREVENTION
F.PREVENT OVER-PRESCRIBING AND ENSURE APPROPRIATE
PRESCRIBING AND DISPENSING OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and dispensing
of opioids through evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies
that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid prescribing,
dosing, and tapering patients off opioids.
2.Academic counter-detailing to educate prescribers on appropriate opioid prescribing.
3.Continuing Medical Education (CME) on appropriate prescribing of opioids.
4.Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training providers to
offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain.
5.Support enhancements or improvements to Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs
(PDMPs), including but not limited to improvements that:
a.Increase the number of prescribers using PDMPs;
b.Improve point-of-care decision-making by increasing the quantity, quality, or
format of data available to prescribers using PDMPs or by improving the
interface that prescribers use to access PDMP data, or both; or
c.Enable states to use PDMP data in support of surveillance or intervention
strategies, including MAT referrals and follow-up for individuals identified
within PDMP data as likely to experience OUD.
6.Development and implementation of a national PDMP – Fund development of a
multistate/national PDMP that permits information sharing while providing
appropriate safeguards on sharing of private health information, including but not
limited to:
a.Integration of PDMP data with electronic health records, overdose episodes,
and decision support tools for health care providers relating to OUD.
8
b.Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment data,
including the United States Department of Transportation’s Emergency
Medical Technician overdose database.
7.Increase electronic prescribing to prevent diversion or forgery.
8.Educate Dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing.
G.PREVENT MISUSE OF OPIOIDS
Support efforts to discourage or prevent misuse of opioids through evidence-based, evidence-
informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1.Corrective advertising or affirmative public education campaigns based on evidence.
2.Public education relating to drug disposal.
3.Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs.
4.Fund community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug prevention efforts.
5.Support community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention, such
as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction – including staffing,
educational campaigns, support for people in treatment or recovery, or training of
coalitions in evidence-informed implementation, including the Strategic Prevention
Framework developed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA).
6.Engage non-profits and faith-based communities as systems to support prevention.
7.Support evidence-informed school and community education programs and
campaigns for students, families, school employees, school athletic programs, parent-
teacher and student associations, and others.
8.School-based or youth-focused programs or strategies that have demonstrated
effectiveness in preventing drug misuse and seem likely to be effective in preventing
the uptake and use of opioids.
9.Support community-based education or intervention services for families, youth, and
adolescents at risk for OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage,
and/or co-addiction.
10.Support evidence-informed programs or curricula to address mental health needs of
young people who may be at risk of misusing opioids or other drugs, including
emotional modulation and resilience skills.
11.Support greater access to mental health services and supports for young people,
including services and supports provided by school nurses or other school staff, to
9
address mental health needs in young people that (when not properly addressed)
increase the risk of opioid or other drug misuse.
H.PREVENT OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS
Support efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms through
evidence-based, evidence-informed, or promising programs or strategies that may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
1.Increase availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses
for first responders, overdose patients, opioid users, families and friends of opioid
users, schools, community navigators and outreach workers, drug offenders upon
release from jail/prison, or other members of the general public.
2.Provision by public health entities of free naloxone to anyone in the community,
including but not limited to provision of intra-nasal naloxone in settings where other
options are not available or allowed.
3.Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses for
first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids, families, schools, and
other members of the general public.
4.Enable school nurses and other school staff to respond to opioid overdoses, and
provide them with naloxone, training, and support.
5.Expand, improve, or develop data tracking software and applications for
overdoses/naloxone revivals.
6.Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses.
7.Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws.
8.Educate first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and Good
Samaritan laws.
9.Expand access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and
Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use.
10.Support mobile units that offer or provide referrals to treatment, recovery supports,
health care, or other appropriate services to persons that use opioids or persons with
OUD and any co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
11.Provide training in treatment and recovery strategies to health care providers,
students, peer recovery coaches, recovery outreach specialists, or other professionals
that provide care to persons who use opioids or persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction.
12.Support screening for fentanyl in routine clinical toxicology testing.
10
PART THREE: OTHER STRATEGIES
I.FIRST RESPONDERS
In addition to items C8, D1 through D7, H1, H3, and H8, support the following:
1.Current and future law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic.
2.Educate law enforcement or other first responders regarding appropriate practices and
precautions when dealing with fentanyl or other drugs.
J.LEADERSHIP, PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Support efforts to provide leadership, planning, and coordination to abate the opioid epidemic
through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1.Community regional planning to identify goals for reducing harms related to the
opioid epidemic, to identify areas and populations with the greatest needs for
treatment intervention services, or to support other strategies to abate the opioid
epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
2.A government dashboard to track key opioid-related indicators and supports as
identified through collaborative community processes.
3.Invest in infrastructure or staffing at government or not-for-profit agencies to support
collaborative, cross-system coordination with the purpose of preventing
overprescribing, opioid misuse, or opioid overdoses, treating those with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, supporting them in
treatment or recovery, connecting them to care, or implementing other strategies to
abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list.
4.Provide resources to staff government oversight and management of opioid abatement
programs.
K.TRAINING
In addition to the training referred to in various items above, support training to abate the
opioid epidemic through activities, programs, or strategies that may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1.Provide funding for staff training or networking programs and services to improve the
capability of government, community, and not-for-profit entities to abate the opioid
crisis.
2.Invest in infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-system coordination to
prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH conditions, co-usage, and/or co-addiction, or implement other
11
strategies to abate the opioid epidemic described in this opioid abatement strategy list
(e.g., health care, primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.).
L.RESEARCH
Support opioid abatement research that may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1.Monitoring, surveillance, and evaluation of programs and strategies described in this
opioid abatement strategy list.
2.Research non-opioid treatment of chronic pain.
3.Research on improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that demonstrate
promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to opioid use disorders.
4.Research on innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved detection of
mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids.
5.Expanded research on swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid misuse
within criminal justice populations that build upon promising approaches used to
address other substances (e.g. Hawaii HOPE and Dakota 24/7).
6.Research on expanded modalities such as prescription methadone that can expand
access to MAT.
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Adams County
Adams County 0.1638732475%
Hatton
Lind
Othello
Ritzville
Washtucna
County Total:0.1638732475%
Asotin County
Asotin County 0.4694498386%
Asotin
Clarkston
County Total:0.4694498386%
Benton County
Benton County 1.4848831892%
Benton City
Kennewick 0.5415650564%
Prosser
Richland 0.4756779517%
West Richland 0.0459360490%
County Total:2.5480622463%
Chelan County
Chelan County 0.7434914485%
Cashmere
Chelan
Entiat
Leavenworth
Wenatchee 0.2968333494%
County Total:1.0403247979%
Clallam County
Clallam County 1.3076983401%
Forks
Port Angeles 0.4598370527%
Sequim
County Total:1.7675353928%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-1
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Clark County
Clark County 4.5149775326%
Battle Ground 0.1384729857%
Camas 0.2691592724%
La Center
Ridgefield
Vancouver 1.7306605325%
Washougal 0.1279328220%
Woodland***
Yacolt
County Total:6.7812031452%
Columbia County
Columbia County 0.0561699537%
Dayton
Starbuck
County Total:0.0561699537%
Cowlitz County
Cowlitz County 1.7226945990%
Castle Rock
Kalama
Kelso 0.1331145270%
Longview 0.6162736905%
Woodland***
County Total:2.4720828165%
Douglas County
Douglas County 0.3932175175%
Bridgeport
Coulee Dam***
East Wenatchee 0.0799810865%
Mansfield
Rock Island
Waterville
County Total:0.4731986040%
Ferry County
Ferry County 0.1153487994%
Republic
County Total:0.1153487994%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-2
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Franklin County
Franklin County 0.3361237144%
Connell
Kahlotus
Mesa
Pasco 0.4278056066%
County Total:0.7639293210%
Garfield County
Garfield County 0.0321982209%
Pomeroy
County Total:0.0321982209%
Grant County
Grant County 0.9932572167%
Coulee City
Coulee Dam***
Electric City
Ephrata
George
Grand Coulee
Hartline
Krupp
Mattawa
Moses Lake 0.2078293909%
Quincy
Royal City
Soap Lake
Warden
Wilson Creek
County Total:1.2010866076%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-3
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Grays Harbor County
Grays Harbor County 0.9992429138%
Aberdeen 0.2491525333%
Cosmopolis
Elma
Hoquiam
McCleary
Montesano
Oakville
Ocean Shores
Westport
County Total:1.2483954471%
Island County
Island County 0.6820422610%
Coupeville
Langley
Oak Harbor 0.2511550431%
County Total:0.9331973041%
Jefferson County
Jefferson County 0.4417137380%
Port Townsend
County Total:0.4417137380%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-4
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
King County
King County 13.9743722662%
Algona
Auburn***0.2622774917%
Beaux Arts Village
Bellevue 1.1300592573%
Black Diamond
Bothell***0.1821602716%
Burien 0.0270962921%
Carnation
Clyde Hill
Covington 0.0118134406%
Des Moines 0.1179764526%
Duvall
Enumclaw***0.0537768326%
Federal Way 0.3061452240%
Hunts Point
Issaquah 0.1876240107%
Kenmore 0.0204441024%
Kent 0.5377397676%
Kirkland 0.5453525246%
Lake Forest Park 0.0525439124%
Maple Valley 0.0093761587%
Medina
Mercer Island 0.1751797481%
Milton***
Newcastle 0.0033117880%
Normandy Park
North Bend
Pacific***
Redmond 0.4839486007%
Renton 0.7652626920%
Sammamish 0.0224369090%
SeaTac 0.1481551278%
Seattle 6.6032403816%
Shoreline 0.0435834501%
Skykomish
Snoqualmie 0.0649164481%
Tukwila 0.3032205739%
Woodinville 0.0185516364%
Yarrow Point
County Total:26.0505653608%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-5
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Kitsap County
Kitsap County 2.6294133668%
Bainbridge Island 0.1364686014%
Bremerton 0.6193374389%
Port Orchard 0.1009497162%
Poulsbo 0.0773748246%
County Total:3.5635439479%
Kittitas County
Kittitas County 0.3855704683%
Cle Elum
Ellensburg 0.0955824915%
Kittitas
Roslyn
South Cle Elum
County Total:0.4811529598%
Klickitat County
Klickitat County 0.2211673457%
Bingen
Goldendale
White Salmon
County Total:0.2211673457%
Lewis County
Lewis County 1.0777377479%
Centralia 0.1909990353%
Chehalis
Morton
Mossyrock
Napavine
Pe Ell
Toledo
Vader
Winlock
County Total:1.2687367832%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-6
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Lincoln County
Lincoln County 0.1712669645%
Almira
Creston
Davenport
Harrington
Odessa
Reardan
Sprague
Wilbur
County Total:0.1712669645%
Mason County
Mason County 0.8089918012%
Shelton 0.1239179888%
County Total:0.9329097900%
Okanogan County
Okanogan County 0.6145043345%
Brewster
Conconully
Coulee Dam***
Elmer City
Nespelem
Okanogan
Omak
Oroville
Pateros
Riverside
Tonasket
Twisp
Winthrop
County Total:0.6145043345%
Pacific County
Pacific County 0.4895416466%
Ilwaco
Long Beach
Raymond
South Bend
County Total:0.4895416466%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-7
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Pend Oreille County
Pend Oreille County 0.2566374940%
Cusick
Ione
Metaline
Metaline Falls
Newport
County Total:0.2566374940%
Pierce County
Pierce County 7.2310164020%
Auburn***0.0628522112%
Bonney Lake 0.1190773864%
Buckley
Carbonado
DuPont
Eatonville
Edgewood 0.0048016791%
Enumclaw***0.0000000000%
Fife 0.1955185481%
Fircrest
Gig Harbor 0.0859963345%
Lakewood 0.5253640894%
Milton***
Orting
Pacific***
Puyallup 0.3845704814%
Roy
Ruston
South Prairie
Steilacoom
Sumner 0.1083157569%
Tacoma 3.2816374617%
University Place 0.0353733363%
Wilkeson
County Total:12.0345236870%
San Juan County
San Juan County 0.2101495171%
Friday Harbor
County Total:0.2101495171%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-8
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Skagit County
Skagit County 1.0526023961%
Anacortes 0.1774962906%
Burlington 0.1146861661%
Concrete
Hamilton
La Conner
Lyman
Mount Vernon 0.2801063665%
Sedro-Woolley 0.0661146351%
County Total:1.6910058544%
Skamania County
Skamania County 0.1631931925%
North Bonneville
Stevenson
County Total:0.1631931925%
Snohomish County
Snohomish County 6.9054415622%
Arlington 0.2620524080%
Bothell***0.2654558588%
Brier
Darrington
Edmonds 0.3058936009%
Everett 1.9258363241%
Gold Bar
Granite Falls
Index
Lake Stevens 0.1385202891%
Lynnwood 0.7704629214%
Marysville 0.3945067827%
Mill Creek 0.1227939546%
Monroe 0.1771621898%
Mountlake Terrace 0.2108935805%
Mukilteo 0.2561790702%
Snohomish 0.0861097964%
Stanwood
Sultan
Woodway
County Total:11.8213083387%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-9
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Spokane County
Spokane County 5.5623859292%
Airway Heights
Cheney 0.1238454349%
Deer Park
Fairfield
Latah
Liberty Lake 0.0389636519%
Medical Lake
Millwood
Rockford
Spangle
Spokane 3.0872078287%
Spokane Valley 0.0684217500%
Waverly
County Total:8.8808245947%
Stevens County
Stevens County 0.7479240179%
Chewelah
Colville
Kettle Falls
Marcus
Northport
Springdale
County Total:0.7479240179%
Thurston County
Thurston County 2.3258492094%
Bucoda
Lacey 0.2348627221%
Olympia 0.6039423385%
Rainier
Tenino
Tumwater 0.2065982350%
Yelm
County Total:3.3712525050%
Wahkiakum County
Wahkiakum County 0.0596582197%
Cathlamet
County Total:0.0596582197%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-10
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Walla Walla County
Walla Walla County 0.5543870294%
College Place
Prescott
Waitsburg
Walla Walla 0.3140768654%
County Total:0.8684638948%
Whatcom County
Whatcom County 1.3452637306%
Bellingham 0.8978614577%
Blaine
Everson
Ferndale 0.0646101891%
Lynden 0.0827115612%
Nooksack
Sumas
County Total:2.3904469386%
Whitman County
Whitman County 0.2626805837%
Albion
Colfax
Colton
Endicott
Farmington
Garfield
LaCrosse
Lamont
Malden
Oakesdale
Palouse
Pullman 0.2214837491%
Rosalia
St. John
Tekoa
Uniontown
County Total:0.4841643328%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-11
EXHIBIT B
Local
County Government % Allocation
Yakima County
Yakima County 1.9388392959%
Grandview 0.0530606109%
Granger
Harrah
Mabton
Moxee
Naches
Selah
Sunnyside 0.1213478384%
Tieton
Toppenish
Union Gap
Wapato
Yakima 0.6060410539%
Zillah
County Total:2.7192887991%
*** - Local Government appears in multiple counties B-12
Exhibit C
KING COUNTY REGIONAL AGREEMENT
King County intends to explore coordination with its cities and towns to facilitate a Regional
Agreement for Opioid Fund allocation. Should some cities and towns choose not to participate in
a Regional Agreement, this shall not preclude coordinated allocation for programs and services
between the County and those cities and towns who elect to pursue a Regional Agreement. As
contemplated in C.5 of the MOU, any Regional Agreement shall comply with the terms of the
MOU and any Settlement. If no Regional Agreement is achieved, the default methodology for
allocation in C.4 of the MOU shall apply.
Washington Distributor
Settlement
August 8, 2022 presentation
Jeff Rupert, Washington AGO
The AGO’s lawsuit against the
distributors
The AGO filed suit against AmerisourceBergen,
Cardinal Health, and McKesson
Nuisance and consumer protection claims
Huge amount of document and data in discovery
6-month trial in King County Superior Court
Settled at close of evidence
Overview of settlement
Up to $518 million payable over 17 years
$430 million must be spent on combatting the
opioid epidemic
Attorney General is directing an additional $46
million in attorneys’ fees to opioid spending by
the State.
Remainder is attorneys’ fees.
Who must join the settlement for it
become effective?
125 local governments listed in the settlement
All 37 jurisdictions that filed a lawsuit must join
90% of the local governments with a population
over 10,000 that did not file a lawsuit must join
All other states have approved
Washington settlement structure is very similar to
the national distributor settlement that 48 other
states and local governments joined
No other State and its local governments have
decided not to approve the national settlement
How a city or county can join the
settlement
Sign and return the Participation Form
Deadline is September 23, 2022
Return form to comopioidscases@atg.wa.gov
What happens if not enough cities and
counties join the settlement?
If not enough local governments join by
September 23, 2022, the settlement is void
No one gets any of the settlement money
As of 8/8, only 17 out of 125 eligible local
governments have returned the Participation
Form
The national distributor settlement is
part of Washington’s settlement
The national distributor settlement is
incorporated into the Washington settlement as
Exhibit H
The terms and conditions in the national
settlement apply to Washington
How will the money be split between
the State and the local governments?
The State and attorneys representing the local
governments have agreed in principle to 50% local
government/50% State split of the up to $430
million abatement amount
The local governments will receive up to $215
million payable over 17 years
Why is the local government share “up
to” $215 million?
The Washington and national settlement have
base and incentive payment structures
If less than 100% of the non-litigating local
governments join, the settlement payments are
less
If a local government later files a lawsuit against
the distributors, the settlement payments are less
and the payments may be delayed
How to join the Allocation Agreement
The Allocation Agreement has not yet been
finalized, but will be sent to the local
governments soon
Sign the Allocation Agreement and return the
signature page to comopioidscases@atg.wa.gov
The threshold for the Allocation Agreement to be
effective is in Exhibit O of the national settlement
agreement
How are the local governments dividing
their share?
The One Washington MOU that Keller Rohrback
circulated will be used to divide the local
government share
The Allocation Agreement makes a few changes to
the One Washington MOU for the Distributor
settlement
How to calculate the share your city or
county would receive
Exhibit B of the One Washington MOU lists the percentage that each eligible local government will receive
Percentages based on population adjusted for proportionate share of the impact of the opioid epidemic
A local government’s share can calculated by multiplying $215 million and that local government’s percentage in Exhibit B
Attorneys’ fees of 15% then need to be deducted, but this will not occur in later payment years as some of these fees are being paid via the settlement
How to join the One Washington MOU
Sign the One Washington MOU
Return the signature page to
comopioidscases@atg.wa.gov or Keller Rohrback
The threshold for the One Washington MOU to be
effective is in Exhibit O of the national settlement
agreement
A local government can decide to spend
settlement money or pool it with others
The One Washington MOU requires that each
region establish an Opioid Abatement Council to
oversee allocation, distribution, and spending
A local government can spend settlement money
itself or regionally
Settlement funds must be spent on an Approved
Use for fighting the opioid epidemic per court
order
Spending and reporting requirements
Opioid spending must be spent on an Approved
Uses per court order
Approved Uses are listed on Exhibit E of the
national settlement agreement
The national settlement and settlement
administrator have reporting and tax cooperation
requirements
All records must be retained and the Public
Records Act applies
To increase efficiency, please coordinate
your spending with the State’s spending
The State’s opioid spending is being coordinated
by HCA and DOH
Please discuss your spending plans with State and
regional counsels so that spending can be
coordinated
When do settlement payments start?
The first payment is due by December 1, 2022
Each of the 16 successive payment will be made
on July 15
Will the settlement payments be the
same each year?
Settlement payments will not be the same but
will not vary greatly unless certain incentive
payments are not achieved. See Section IV and
Exhibit M of the national settlement
The first payment on December 1, 2022 will be
approximately double the amount of the
remaining 16 payments
Other opioid bankruptcies
The Mallinckrodt and Purdue bankruptcies have
different requirements, and no sign on is required
for either
There may be future opioid settlements
Questions
Contact Jeff Rupert, the Complex Litigation
Division Chief, at 206-389-2116 or
Jeffrey.Rupert@atg.wa.gov
You also can contact comopioidscases@atg.wa.gov
https://www.atg.wa.gov/distributors-washington-
settlement has more information about the
settlement and the sign-on forms
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #2 Attachment D
prescription opioids as well as illicit drugs. Arlington PD has carried this resource since 2015 through
AGREEMENT FOR DISTRIBUTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF NALOXONE
This agreement is entered into by and between Snohomish Health District, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington (“SHD”), and ___________, a ________ corporation
(“Recipient Organization”), as follows:
WHEREAS, the Recipient Organization and SHD each recognize the public health, safety, and
welfare benefits that availability of naloxone provides to persons within SHD as well as the
Recipient Organization; and
WHEREAS, SHD now is able to secure naloxone through its own resources; and
WHEREAS, SHD and the Recipient Organization each have as authority to take measures to
benefit the health safety and welfare of persons with their respective jurisdictions;
NOW, THEREFORE,
For and in consideration of the mutual benefits derived from this agreement, SHD and Recipient
Organization agree as follows:
1. At no expense to Recipient Organization, SHD will provide naloxone to Recipient
Organization subject to written rules and protocols attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Recipient Organization agrees to save, hold harmless, and indemnify SHD, its officers,
agents, employees, and elected officials from and against any and all claims, costs, causes
of action, or lawsuits (including the cost of defense) arising out of or related to the
provision of naloxone to Recipient Organization and that SHD assumes no responsibility
for training in the proper administration of naloxone or the efficacy, reliability or
suitability of the naloxone as provided by the manufacturer.
3. By entering into this Agreement, Recipient Organization accepts the naloxone subject to
the above indemnity, disclaimer, and attached Exhibit A rules and protocols.
4. This Agreement shall be valid for three (3) years from the last signature date below,
unless the parties agree to a different term in writing executed by both parties. This
agreement may be terminated by either party with 60-days written notice.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, _____ has caused this Agreement to be executed by its ______ or
designee, and SHD has caused this Agreement to be executed by its Administrative Officer, each
of whom have authority to bind their respective entities.
Authorized representative: Snohomish Health District
________________________ _______ ______________________ _______
Date Date
EXHIBIT A
RULES AND PROTOCOLS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF NALOXONE
1. To help with tracking at each partner organization, it is required that the Recipient
Organization has an internal staff member act as the designated Naloxone Liaison. This
individual will take on the role of tracking naloxone distribution and use and employee
training within their organization. If the Naloxone Liaison leaves the partner organization
or assumes a new position, it will be their responsibility or the responsibility of their
supervisor to select a new liaison, train them, and inform the contact at SHD so
operations can continue smoothly.
2. The Naloxone Liaison must maintain an up-to-date roster including all employees that
carry naloxone, the dose number of the naloxone assigned to each individual, its
expiration date, and its lot number. This roster must also include the dose number,
expiration date and lot number of reserve replacement kits in their possession. It is the
responsibility of the Naloxone Liaison to track this information on the roster for each
dose as it is given out to each employee. The Naloxone Liaison is also responsible for
maintaining an accurate roster as new staff members are administered kits, and as
members leave the organization and turn in their kits to be reassigned (if the dose is not
nearing its expiration date). Additionally, the Naloxone Liaison should update the roster
when doses are used or expired and are replaced with reserve doses. The Naloxone
Liaison must provide this up-to-date information to SHD every quarter, even if no
changes occurred during that period.
3. The Naloxone Liaison will separately track when naloxone doses have been used to
reverse an overdose. For each overdose incident, SHD will ask for the name of the officer
who administered the naloxone, the date of administration, the case number, the number
of police department doses used in the incident, and if the use of naloxone resulted in the
reversal of an overdose or not. This information will be requested quarterly.
4. After the naloxone is delivered to the Recipient Organization, it should be stored at
between 59°F to 77°F. Naloxone nasal spray may be stored for short periods up to 104°F.
Do not store naloxone nasal spray in a car on hot summer days. Do not freeze or leave
naloxone nasal spray in a car during the winter. Naloxone nasal spray may not be as
effective if it is not stored properly. If naloxone nasal spray gets frozen or is stored at
104°F for long periods of time, it should be replaced. Only discard the naloxone nasal
spray once you have a replacement, as it is better to use improperly stored naloxone than
not have any naloxone at all.
5. Recipient Organization agrees to return and release all doses of naloxone four months
within their expiration date to SHD for redistribution into the community. It is understood
and agreed that Snohomish Health District may in its discretion redistribute the unexpired
doses to other agencies for use.
NOTICE: The naloxone that is purchased by the Snohomish Health District on behalf of cities
and towns expires 36 months after its manufacturing date. As a significant number of naloxone
doses purchased for this program go unused during the duration they are in the possession of
first responders, the Snohomish Health District has created a community-based redistribution
program for doses within four months of their expiration date. The naloxone doses your city or
town releases will be given to organizations that are in frequent contact with community
members at high risk of opioid overdose. This redistribution program will ensure that resources
purchased with public funds are utilized to their full potential to contribute to county-wide efforts
to end the opioid epidemic.
Hi Chief Ventura and Officer Thomas,
I hope you are doing well! As you are aware, we have switched away from per capita contributions to
purchase naloxone, and instead, the Health District is now covering the cost of the naloxone we
purchase for our partners. We have finalized the new naloxone agreement that outlines these changes
and this agreement will be valid through the end of 2022. Due to Snohomish Health District merging
with Snohomish County Human Services at the beginning of 2023, new naloxone agreements will need
to be drawn up and signed then.
Please review the agreement, and if it looks good to you please click ‘Reply All’ and send a signed copy.
If you would like to see any changes to the language, please click ‘Reply All’ and include the changes you
would like to see and our contracts team will review these. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #3 Attachment E COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022 SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the City of Everett for In-Service Training Sessions ATTACHMENTS: ILA with the City of Everett DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN Police; Peter Barrett, Lieutenant 360-403-4631 EXPENDITURES REQUESTED: $800 (Annually) BUDGET CATEGORY: Police BUDGETED AMOUNT: LEGAL REVIEW: DESCRIPTION: The City Council is asked to approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Everett for the Arlington Police Department to participate in regular in-service training sessions on various law enforcement topics. HISTORY: State law requires that law enforcement officers attend numerous hours of “in-service” type of trainings in order to maintain their WA State Peace Officer certification. As much of the required training is required by unfunded state mandate, to defray some of this expense many agencies share in
INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF EVERETT, SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF SNOHOMISH AND
KING COUNTIES FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS
THIS AGREEMENT is dated for reference purposes January 1, 2022, by the following
governmental entities (“Participating Entities”):
City of Arlington City of Lynnwood
City of Bothell City of Mill Creek
City of Brier City of Monroe
City of Edmonds City of Mountlake Terrace
City of Everett City of Mukilteo
City of Lake Stevens Tulalip Tribal Police
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, RCW 39.34 permits one or more public agencies to contract with any one or more
other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which each
agency is authorized by law to perform; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Entities comprise the Snohomish County Regional Training Group
and are empowered by law to train their law enforcement personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Participating Entities conduct regular in-service training sessions on various law
enforcement topics; and
WHEREAS, the City of Everett Police Department is typically the host of the regular in-service
training sessions, and has incurred and will incur costs associated with these regular in-service
training sessions, including but not limited to, training officers, miscellaneous expendable
goods, wear and tear on equipment, and use of facilities; and
WHEREAS, other Participating Entities may host the regular in-service training sessions at
future times; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that all of the Participating Entities share in the costs associated
with hosting, conducting, and participating in the regular in-service training sessions:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of covenants, conditions, performances and promises
hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS 2
1.0 Payment
The undersigned Participating Entities shall contribute fees at the rates indicated below*
per year toward paying for the costs of instructors, classes and certifications, equipment wear
and tear, and expendable items used in the regular in-service training sessions: Payment for
each year shall be made on or before January 31 of each year, and shall be payable to the City
of Everett as custodian of the funds until notice of a change of custodian is given in accordance
with Section 5 below.
*Participating Entities shall contribute fees at a rate commensurate to the number of sworn
officers in the agency.
Less than 50 officers $800.00 per year
50 – 100 officers $1200.00 per year
Over 100 officers $1600.00 per year
The annual contribution entitles each Participating Entity to have officers attend the regular
training sessions.
2.0 Scope of Services
2.1 Until notice of a change is given, in accordance with Section 5 below, the Everett
Police Department shall coordinate the facilities necessary to conduct regular in-
service training sessions. The Everett Police Department shall schedule regular
in-service training sessions on various law enforcement-related topics, and shall
give reasonable prior notice to each Participating Entity of the date, time and
place where each training session will be held, and the nature of the topic for
each regular training session.
2.2 Training for Participating Entities’ personnel shall be jointly provided by the law
enforcement personnel of the Participating Entities as provided in Section 3 of
this agreement.
3.0 Participating Entity Commitment
3.1 All Participating Entities shall make available a minimum of one trainer or
equivalent Full Time Employee (FTE) for each Police Skills Refresher (PSR)
week in any given month. A Participating Entity that does not make available
one trainer/FTE for any consecutive or non-consecutive four (4) months in a
rolling twelve-month period will not be allowed to enroll their officers in any
subsequent PSR trainings until such time that they meet this minimum
commitment requirement. It is recognized that a Participating Entity trainer/FTE
may not be needed during a particular month, and if this occurs, the Participating
Entity shall be given a minimum 7-day notice that their trainer/FTE is not needed.
If a trainer/FTE is made available but notified that he/she is not needed in
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS 3
compliance with this section, the Participating Entity will be deemed to have
provided a trainer/FTE for that month.
3.2 Any Participating Entity that does not make available one trainer/FTE during any
9 months over a rolling 12-month period will be removed as a Participating Entity
and party to this agreement on January 1 of the following calendar year. The
Participating Entity shall forfeit any rights and contributions provided pursuant to
Section 1 of this Agreement.
4.0 Effective Date
The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2022 or the date when the City
of Everett and one other Participating Entity have executed this Agreement, whichever is later.
This Agreement shall continue in effect through December 31,2026, unless sooner terminated
as provided under this Agreement. Thereafter, this Agreement shall automatically renew and
continue on a year-to-year basis, until terminated as provided under this Agreement.
5.0 Changes
5.1 This Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Participating
Entities. No such amendment shall be effective until it is reduced to writing and
signed by all Participating Entities with the same formality as this Agreement.
5.2 The fund custodian and regular in-service training site may be changed by
majority agreement of the Participating Entities without modifying this Agreement,
but with reasonable notice to all Participating Entities.
6.0 Waiver
No waiver by any party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed
as a waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall a waiver of any breach be deemed to
constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or of a different provision of
this Agreement.
7.0 Allocation of Liability/Insurance
Each Participating Entity shall be responsible for the conduct and liability of its own personnel in
the performance of this Agreement. Each Participating Entity shall maintain appropriate
insurance coverage for the activities occurring under this Agreement, including but not limited to
personal injury, death and property damage limits of not less than $1,000,000 (one million
dollars) per occurrence, or provide proof of self-insurance or of participating in an insurance
pool.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS 4
8.0 Legal Requirements
The Participating Entities shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in
performing this Agreement.
9.0 Withdrawal or Suspension
9.1 Any Participating Entity may withdraw or suspend its participation in this
Agreement, with or without reason, by providing written notice to the other
Participating Entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any
such withdrawal or suspension.
9.2 Withdrawal terminates the Participating Entity as a party to this Agreement, but
shall not entitle it to any refund of contributions pursuant to Section 1.
9.3 Suspension relieves the Participating Entity of its obligations under Section 3 of
this Agreement for the duration of the suspension.
a. Suspension shall not entitle it to any refund of contributions paid pursuant to
Section 1.
b. A suspended Participating Entity may resume participation in this Agreement by
providing written notice to the other Participating Entities at least thirty (30) days
prior to the first day of the next scheduled PSR week. Resumption of participation
resumes the Participating Entity’s rights and obligations under this Agreement.
c. In the event that a Participating Entity is suspended when payment pursuant to
Section 1 becomes due, and the Participating Entity subsequently resumes
participation, payment according to Section 1 shall become due by the end of the
month in which the Participating Entity resumes participation.
10.0 Termination
10.1 This Agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement, by simple majority, of
then-current Participating Entities. All funds remaining in the Snohomish County
Regional Training Group fund shall be disbursed pro-rata to the current
Participating Entities in proportion to their most recent contribution as provided in
Section 1.
10.2 Upon termination of the agreement, any equipment provided to the Snohomish
County Regional Training Group by a Participating Entity will be returned to that
jurisdiction.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS 5
11.0 Entire Agreement - Severability
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, as to interpretation
and performance. Any action hereunder may be brought only in the Superior Court of
Washington for Snohomish County. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties. Should any part, term or provision of the Agreement be determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected, and
the same shall continue in full force and effect.
12.0 Agreement – Amendment
This Agreement contains the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Participating Entities.
The Participating Entities agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise,
regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may only be amended by
written instrument executed by the Participating Entities. However, a new Participating Entity
not originally listed on this Agreement may be added to this Agreement (after a majority vote of
approval by then-existing Participating Entities) by execution of this Agreement by the new
Participating Entity without any Agreement amendment necessary.
13.0 Execution of Multiple Counterparts
This Agreement and any Amendment thereto, may be reproduced in any number of original
counterparts. Each Participating Agency need sign only one counterpart and when the
signature pages are all assembled with one original counterpart, that compilation constitutes a
fully executed and effective agreement among all the Participating Agencies.
14.0 Recording
As required by RCW 39.34.040, this Agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor or listed
by subject on a public agency's website or other electronically retrievable public source.
15.0 Interlocal Cooperation Act
The parties agree that no separate legal administrative entities are necessary in order to carry
out this Agreement. If determined by a court to be necessary for the purpose of the Interlocal
Cooperation ACT, Ch. 36.34 RCW, by an administrator or joint board responsible for
administering the Agreement will be established by mutual agreement. Any real or personal
property used by the parties in connection with this Agreement will be acquired, held and
disposed of by that party in its discretion, and other parties will have no joint or other interest
herein.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR IN-SERVICE TRAINING SESSIONS 6
16.0 Liability
No liability shall attach to any of the parties by reason of entering into this Agreement except as
expressly provided herein. None of the parties to this Agreement assume any duty to any third
party.
17.0 Signature Pages
The City of Everett shall execute this Agreement by signature on the City of Everett Signature
Page below. All other Participating Entities shall execute this Agreement by signature on a
signature page such as the Participating Entities Signature Page below. Execution and delivery
of this Agreement and any amendments by the Participating Entities shall be legally valid and
effective through: (i) executing and delivering a paper copy, (ii) transmitting the executed paper
copy by email in pdf format or other electronically scanned format, or (iii) execution and
transmittal by AdobeSign or DocuSign or similar e-signature method.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and
year first above written.
City of Everett Signature Page
CITY OF EVERETT SIGNATURE PAGE
CITY OF EVERETT
_____________________________
Cassie Franklin, Mayor
By: _________________________
Its: _________________________ Its: _________________________
ATTEST:
____________________________
Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
By:
Participating Entity Signature Page
PARTICIPATING ENTITY SIGNATURE PAGE
Participating Entity Name: _________________________
Signature: _________________________
Printed Name: ______________________
Title: _____________________________
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #4 Attachment F
Applications include:
• Eagle Festival 2023 – request $4,460
• Summer Entertainment Series 2023 – request $12,300
• Stronger Together Entertainment 2023 – request $3,100
• Picnic tables for events 2023 – request $9,000
• Kiosk replacements for Centennial Trail – request $6,500
• Sound system Olympic Avenue continuation – request $9,000 HISTORY: These are events/programs that have received funding from this grant in the past. The City of Arlington accepts applications from public and non-profit agencies for projects that promote economic development and tourism in the City. www.arlingtonwa.gov/201/Tourism-Economic-Development-Grant ALTERNATIVES: Do not apply for grant(s). RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to authorize staff to apply for the City of Arlington’s Hotel/Motel Tourism grant.
City of Arlington Council Agenda Bill Item: NB #5 Attachment G
Arlington City limits north to 174th Ave. Work included replacement of non-compliant ADA ramps and upgrading ADA pedestrian crossing facilities at the 168th intersection. Grant funding was received in the amount of $726,000.00. The project was publicly bid and constructed in 2021 by Cadman Materials, Inc. Because there was federal money on the project, KBA was contracted for construction management. Due
08/16/22 8:23 AM \\arlington\city\PW_Admin\Contracts\KBA\07_Sm Pt Blvd Overlay\_Ammendment #1\KBA Contract Amendment #1.docx
Contract Amendment No. 1
To
Professional Services Agreement
For
Smokey Point Overlay Project
This amendment authorizes the modification of the Professional Services Agreement between the City
of Arlington and KBA, Inc. for Construction Management services provided on the Smokey Point
Overlay project, executed on July 6, 2021. Unless modified below, all terms and conditions contained
in the Professional Service Agreement remain current and in effect for the completion of the contract.
It is mutually agreed that the above referenced agreement is amended as follows:
AMENDMENT
1. Fee - This additional fee included under this amendment shall be performed for a not to exceed fee
of $14,567.00 in accordance with the table below.
Amendment #1 $41,233
KBA Deduction (write off) $26,666
Net Amendment #1 $14,567
Original Contract $64,113
Amendment #1 $14,567
Total CM Cost $78,680
2. Schedule – The time schedule for completion of the contract is extended to September 30, 2022.
EXECUTION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first
above written.
KBA, Inc. City of Arlington