I PARTICIPANTS:

King County

Municipality’of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro)

City-of Seattle

Seattle-King County Department of Public Health

Suburban Cities Association: Algona Auburn Beaux Arts Village Bellevue Black Diamond Bothell Carnation Clyde Hill Des Moines Duvall Enumclaw Federal Way Hunts Point Zssaquah Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Medina Mercer Island Normandy Park North Bend Pacific Redmond Renton SeaTac

/

Skykomish ,

Snoqualmie Tukwila Yarrow Point

Printed on recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content and 50% unbleached pulp.

King County Residential Opinion Survey of Household Hazardous Waste Issues: Round 11, 1991

February 1992

Christine M. Patmont and MAR-KEY Research

\

KING COUNTY RESIDENTIAL OPINION SURVEY OF HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE ISSUES:

ROUND II, 1991

By:

Christine M. Patmont, and

MAR-KEY Research

February, 1992

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Survey Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SURVEYRESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Socioeconomic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 HHW Prevalence and Reported Disposal Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 HHWAwareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Alternative Products and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

APPENDIXA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the fall of 1990, a baseline survey of King County residents was conducted as part of an overall evaluation of the Local Hazardous Waste Plan (Patmont, 1990). The purpose of this baseline survey was to document existing conditions prior to the implementation of education and collection activities that were proposed in the five-year Plan. Approximately one year later, in November and December of 1991, a follow-up survey (Round II) to the original baseline survey has been performed. In this report, results from this Round II survey will be presented. These results will indicate whether significant changes in behavior, knowledge or attitudes have occurred since the completion of the baseline survey in 1990.

This report presents the results from the Round II survey of 325 randomly selected King County households and juxtaposes them against those found in the original baseline survey. As in the baseline survey, respondents have been questioned on demographics, hazardous waste generation and disposal, knowledge and use of hazardous waste collection facilities and on alternative products and practices which lessen hazardous waste amounts.

Several minor changes have been made to the original survey instrument based upon results from the baseline survey. Generally, though, an emphasis has been placed upon maintaining the survey instrument in its original form in order to retain comparability across the surveys. As with the baseline survey, the Round II survey has been well received, indicating County residents' willingness to cooperate in a survey sponsored by METRO.

Many of the results to the Round II survey parallel those found in the baseline survey. Demographic results show the Round II survey respondents to be very similar to those respondents in the baseline survey. Knowledge of what constitutes HHW and of HHW collection facilities show many similarities. Again, King County households show a very high level of awareness regarding which items constitute household hazardous waste (HHW). Over 95 percent understand that hazardous waste items including motor oil, paints, thinners, herbicides and pesticides are inappropriate for the regular garbage. And, approximately 60 percent of each survey group know that HHW collection facilities exist. However, when questioned more closely on collection facilities, considerably more Round II than baseline respondents are able to properly identify a collection facility. This indicates an improvement in the public's awareness of HHW collection facilities.

When questioned on alternative products and practices, agreement has again been noted between the baseline and Round II surveys. Both surveys reveal considerable willingness to pay more for environmentally safer products and to use "elbow grease" in place of toxic cleaners. Respondents report more alternative products available in stores at the

3

time of the Round I I survey, which translates into more purchases of alternative products at that time.

Not all the changes observed from the time of the baseline to the Round II survey have been in the desired direction. A significant increase in paint and toxic cleaner disposal has been observed from the time of the baseline to the Round II survey. While the increase in paint disposal itself is likely due to factors outside the influence of Plan activities, it is important to note that more Round II respondents report using storage and regular garbage or landfill for disposal, and fewer report using HHW collection facilities. While it appears King County residents are becoming more knowledgeable about HHW collection facilities, they do not appear to be using them as readily. On a positive note, motor oil disposal showed slight (nonsignificant) improvement, indicating no reduction its proper disposal.

An additional question was added to the Round II survey asking those who typically use herbicides/pesticides or toxic cleaners whether they had made any changes in the products’ use in the past year. While approximately half had made no change, a substantial percentage (20 to 30%) were using less of the toxic products and a smaller number (10 to 15%) had switched to nonchemical products and practices.

Thus, results from the Round II survey show a rather mixed pattern of stability, improvement and decline in regards to HHW issues in comparison with those observed at the baseline survey. While some of the Plan’s intentions are being realized (e.g., increasing awareness of HHW collection facilities), others appear less so. However, because it is still early in the Plan’s implementation it is important to interpret these results with some caution. Along with results obtained in the baseline survey, these results will provide useful information on areas for improvement and will serve as a backdrop against which to compare future results.

4

BACKGROUND

1

The intent of the 1990 baseline survey and the 1991 Round II survey is to evaluate changes in King County residents’ attitudes, knowledge and behavior in regards to HHW. Changing residents’ awareness and actions concerning creation and disposal of HHWs is the one of the main purposes of the five-year Local Hazardous Waste Plan. The Plan presents a comprehensive program of education, publicity and collection options with the goal of reducing hazardous waste in the solid and liquid waste streams. An evaluation plan (Patmont, et.al., 1990) was devised to assess the effectiveness of the Plan in meeting its goal of proper disposal and hazardous waste reduction.

This evaluation plan proposes three mechanisms for weighing the Plan’s implementation and effectiveness - documentation, waste stream measures and surveys. Documentation records tangibie program processes and outcomes, for example, the number of users of HHW collection facilities. Waste stream sampling assesses Plan outcomes by providing physical evidence of the reduction or increase of hazardous waste components in the solid and liquid waste streams. Surveys provide both process and outcome measures on the Plan’s progress. Process measures include feedback on questions such as which collection facilities are most convenient or which publicity methods work best. Outcome measures include such things as reported changes in the disposal of HHW hems or in the purchase of alternative products.

A previous report (Patmont, 1990) presents results from the baseline survey of King County residents on HHW issues. In this report, results from the Round I1 survey, which was performed approximately one year later, will be presented. The baseline and Round II surveys are both early measures of Plan activities, and will provide the background against which to compare future outcomes. Differences found at this point between the baseline and Round II surveys will be highlighted in this report.

5

SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION

Survev Instrument

The instrument used for both the King County baseline and Round II surveys was initially developed as part of the evaluation design for the Local Hazardous Waste Plan. This original instrument is presented in the Final Report on the Proposed Evaluation Desian for the Local Hazardous Waste Manaciement Plan (Patmont, et.al., 1990). The revised instrument used in the Round II survey is presented in Appendix A of this report. The following modifications have been made between the baseline and Round II surveys:

* In addition to asking whether herbicide/pesticides and toxic cleaning products had been disposed of in the past year, respondents who typically used these products were asked whether they had made any changes in their use of these products in the past year. (See questions 3.1, 4.1, Appendix A.)

* Respondents who had alternative products available in the stores they shopped at, yet had not purchased them, were asked what factors would motivate them to purchase these products. (See question 9f, Appendix A.)

* A question was added asking whether the respondent regularly had a car available for transportation. This was considered a potential barrier to use of HHW collection facilities. (See question 16, Appendix A.)

Survev lmdementation

Survey implementation for the Round II survey followed the same procedures established for the baseline survey. Using the survey instrument in Appendix A, four interviewers at Mar-Key Research administered interviews under the direction of a Field Supervisor. Respondents were chosen at random from telephone directories which encompassed the King County area. The number of respondents chosen from each directory was proportionate to that directory’s size in relation to all of King County. Potential respondents were chosen uniformly throughout the directory. A total of 325 interviews were completed to provide representative results (+ 6% with 95% confidence).

Calling was done during the day as well as in the evening in order to allow potential respondents the opportunity to be contacted regardless of their schedule. Participation was very high, with the great majority of those contacted willing to respond. As before, an introductory explanation that the survey was being conducted to assist Metro in its planning efforts, appeared to positively influence those who were contacted.

Participation in the interview was verified for 15 percent of the interviews by contacting respondents a second time to confirm their earlier responses. As in the first interview,

6

the head of the household was identified and the male or female head requested depending upon who had initially responded. Participation was then verified.

After all suweys were administered, data were computer entered. Double entry was performed to detect any errors. Univariate and bivariate analyses were then performed.

7

SURVEY RESULTS

Results from the Round II survey of King County residents will be presented in four groups: 1) socioeconomic characteristics the survey respondents, 2) the prevalence of four common HHW items in respondents’ homes and their reported disposal practices, 3) respondent’s awareness of what constitutes HHW and of collection facilities for HHW, and 4) respondents’ awareness and use of alternative products and practices that lessen the generation of HHW. Round I I results will be presented along with those from the baseline survey to facilitate comparisons between the two..

Socioeconomic Characteristics

Basic socioeconomic data were again gathered due to their importance in interpreting survey results and their potential effect on education and collection programs. Data on respondents’ age, education, income and availability of an automobile for transportation are presented in Tables 1 through 4. The sample size for the baseline King County survey is 326, and 325 for the Round II survey.

Table 1. Respondent Age

Under 21 21 -30 31 -45 46 - 60 Over 60 DK/NR

Percentacle of Rewondents

Baseline (n=326)

Round II (n = 325)

0.3% 0.3%

34.4% 35.4% 21 .a% 20.3% 27.3% 25.5% 0.3% 0.3%

16.0% 18.2%

Education

Grade school High school Some college/

Undergrad. degree Graduate degree DWNR

community college

Income Level

Under $1 5,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $54,999 Over $55,000 DK/NR

Auto available Not available DWNR

Table 2. Respondent Education

Percentaue of Respondents

Baseline (n=326)

4.3% 20.6% 31 .O%

24.2% 19.0% 0.6%

Round II (n = 325)

2.2% 16.6% 32.3%

30.5% 17.5% 0.3%

Table 3. Respondent Income Level

Percentaae of Respondents

Baseline (n=326)

7.4% 21.5% 26.4% 20.6% 16.9% 7.4%

Round I I (n=325)

4.9% 19.1 % 24.9% 19.7% 18.5% 12.9%

Table 4. Available Auto for Transportation

Percentaae of Respondents

Round II (n = 325)

96.0% 3.4% 0.6%

9

Based on age, education and income level, no significant differences are observed between the baseline and Round II respondents. The question on automobile availability, asked only in Round II, indicates this mode of transportation is available to the great majority (96.0%) of respondents. In other questions regarding socioeconomic factors, homeownership figures remain the same (baseline - 70.2%, Round II - 73.8%) as do percentages living in single family residences (baseline - 77.0%, Round II - 77.8%). The largest difference observed is in the percentage of male/female respondents. In the baseline survey, 66.0 percent of the respondents are female, while in the Round I I survey 57.5 percent are. This difference approaches, but does not reach, significance at the p=.O1 level and there is no clear explanation for its occurrence. However, given that gender is not associated with any significant differences in response in the baseline survey, and given the close similarity of respondents on all other sociodemographic characteristics, this difference is not likely to be of importance.

1

HHW Prevalence and Reported Disposal Practices

Both baseline and Round II respondents are presented with four categories of common HHWs: 1) paint/paint thinner, 2) motor oil, 3) herbicides/pesticides, and 4) toxic cleaning products. For each category, respondents are asked if, in the past year, anyone in the household had disposed of that type of waste and the manner in which it had been disposed. Additionally, for the last two categories - herbicides/pesticides and toxic cleaning products - regular users are asked if they had changed the way they used these products in the last year. (Only herbicides/pesticides and toxic cleaning products were included since alternative products and practices exist for these categories.) Recall was limited to the past year because it was believed to be long enough to be representative of HHW generation patterns, yet short enough that respondents could remember accurately. Table 5 presents reported disposal of the four categories of HHW, Tables 6 through 9 present disposal patterns, and Table 10 presents changes in HHW use.

Table 5. HHW Items Disposed of in Past Year

Percentage of Respondents

HHW Item

Motor oil Paints/thinner Herbicidelpesticide Toxic cleaners

Baseline (n = 326)

34.7% 31.9% 6.4% 2.5%

Round II (n = 325)

32.3% 52.6% 8.6%

10.5%

10

Table 6. Disposal Methods for Painnhinners

Y

DisDosal Method

Stored it HHW collection facility In garbagebandfill Other DK/NR

DisDosal Method

Gas station Stored it HHW collection facility In garbagebandfill Poured down drain Poured on soil Used absorber pack Other DK/NR

Percentaae of Respondents*

Baseline (n= 104)

52.9% 34.6% 9.6% 3.9% 1 .O%

Round II (n=171)

64.9% 15.8% 14.0% 2.3% 2.9%

Table 7. Disposal Methods for Motor Oil

Percentaqe of Respondents*

Baseline (n=113)

36.3% 18.6% 9.7% 7.9% 5.3% 0.0% 3.5% 5.3% 13.3%

Round II (n= 105)

37.1 % 12.4% 15.2% 4.8% 0.0% 2.8% 1 .O% 7.6% 14.3%

DisDosal Method

Table 8. Disposal Methods for Herbicides/Pesticides

Percentaqe of Respondents*

HHW collection facility In garbage/landfill Stored it Poured in storm drain DKJNR

Baseline (n=21)

57.1 % 23.8% 14.3% 4.8% 0.0%

Round I I (n=28)

42.9% 10.7% 39.3% 0.0% 7.1 %

*Sum may be greater than 100% because multiple responses are allowed.

1 1

Table 9. Disposal Methods for Toxic Cleaners

Percentaae of ResDondents*

DisPosal Method

HHW collection facility In garbage/landfill Poured down inside drain Stored it Other DWNR

Baseline (n=8)

37.5% 25.0% 12.5% 0.0%

25.0% 16.7%

Round II (n=34)

26.5% 29.4% 32.4% 11.4% 0.0% 0.0%

*Sum may be greater than 100% because multiple responses are allowed.

Table 5 shows nearly the same percentage of respondents reporting disposal of motor oil and herbicides/pesticides in the baseline and Round It surveys. Roughly one-third of each group dispose of motor oil, and 6 to 8 percent report disposal of herbicides/pesticides. However, substantial increases are observed in the percentages disposing of paint or paint products (31.9% vs. 52.6%, p=.Ol) and toxic cleaners (2.5% vs. 10.5%, p=.Ol) from the time of the baseline to Round II surveys. The increase in disposal of paint or paint products is sufficient to move it from second place in the baseline survey to the most frequently disposed item on the list.

Table 6, disposal methods for paints/thinners, show a significant change (p=.Ol) in the pattern of disposal methods from the baseline to the Round II survey. In the Round II survey, more respondents report storing paintdthinners (64.9% vs. 52.9%) and fewer report using a HHW collection facility (1 5.0% vs. 34.6%). Slightly more report disposing of waste paint/thinners in the garbage or in landfills (14.0% vs. 9.6%).

Table 7 presents methods for disposing of used motor oil. No significant changes are seen in disposal methods for motor oil, with disposal methods remaining relatively stable from the baseline to the Round II survey. The figures show a slight improvement in oil disposal, with fewer storing it from baseline to Round II surveys (18.6% vs. 12.4%), more reporting use of a HHW collection facility (15.2% vs. 9.7%) and roughly one-third of each group reporting improper disposal or saying "don't know". It is important to remember, though, that while these changes are in the desired direction, they are not statistically significant and are only indications of possible change.

Statistical testing could not be performed on the results shown in Tables 8 and 9,

12

herbicide/pesticide and toxic cleaning disposal methods, due to the small sample sizes. However, for both herbicides/pesticides and toxic cleaning products, there is more storage and less reported use of HHW collection facilities. These changes would appear to be in the wrong direction, but due to the small sample sizes involved, these results must be interpreted with caution.

As was done in the previous report on the baseline survey, the results from the Round II suwey have been analyzed to determine which socioeconomic factors are associated with various responses. For example, within the general King County population, are certain age groups more responsible for disposal of paint or paint products than others? These analyses are helpful in uncovering explanatory variables from the wide range of SES factors found in the King County survey population. Due to the numerous comparisons being made, only those significant at the .01 level are reported.

Because considerable differences are apparent between the baseline survey and the Round II survey in regards to paint and paint products, these responses have been examined in regards to SES factors. As was found in the baseline survey, SES analyses again show homeowners to be much more likely than renters to dispose of paint and paint products (baseline - 39.3% vs. 14.1%, p=.O1; Round II - 60.4% vs. 26.8%, p=.Ol). It is interesting to note that increases in paint disposal are observed among both renters and homeowners from the time of the baseline survey to the time of Round II, but the greatest increase occurs among homeowners. Income level also showed a similar effect, with higher income respondents more likely to dispose of paint and paint products than lower income respondents (under $40K, 39.0%, vs. over $40K, 65.3%, p=.Ol).

For motor oil disposal, those respondents age 45 and under are significantly more likely to have changed their own motor oil than those 46 and over (37.9% vs. 26.1%, p=.Ol). This result was similar to that observed in the baseline survey. However, unlike the baseline survey, no significant difference has been observed for those living in single family residences as compared to all others. While this was not evident in the baseline survey, a statistically significant income effect has been observed in the Round II survey in regards to motor oil disposal. Those with relatively lower incomes are more likely to have changed their own motor oil than those with higher incomes (under $40K, 37.3%, vs. over $40K, 21.8%, p=.Ol).

Because in Round II only 28 respondents report disposing of herbicides or pesticides and only 34 for toxic cleaners, no significance testing for socioeconomic effects could be done on these results. A visual review of socioeconomic factors reveals no pattern of responses for these two types of disposal.

An additional question was added to the Round II survey, asking respondents who typically used herbicides/pesticides or toxic cleaning products whether they had made changes in their toxic use in the past year. Table 10 presents the results to these questions.

13

Table 10. Changes in Toxic Use in Past Year

Pest/Herb. (n-139)

Cleaners (n=219)

No changes 51.8% 60.7% Used less of chemicals 33.1 % 22.8% Use envirn. safer products 7.9% 9.6% No longer use any chemicals 2.9% 1.8% Use homemade products, non- 4.3% 1.8%

chemical methods

Table 10 illustrates that the majority of pesticide/herbicide and toxic cleaner users did not change their toxic use in the past year. However, one-third of the pesticide/herbicide users and 23 percent of the toxic cleaner users report usinq less of the toxic substances in the past year. Ten to fifteen percent of each group report using alternative products, no chemicals or homemade, nonchemical products.

HHW Awareness

In the baseline assessment of King County respondents' HHW knowledge, a series of questions were included on what constitutes HHW, known collection facilities for HHW and the methods or informational channels by which respondents learned of these.The question on what constitutes HHW was based on one used by the City of Seattle (1 989 Solid Waste Utility Customer Survey).

These same questions on HHW awareness were repeated in the Round I1 survey. Respondents were asked: "Some of the things I'm going to mention are okay to put in the garbage and others should not go in the garbage. Can you tell me which of the following are okay to put in the garbage and which are not okay to put in the garbage? tf you are unsure, please respond 'Don't Know'." The items presented and the responses for the baseline and Round I1 surveys are presented in Table 11.

14

Table 11. Acceptability of Waste Items for Regular Garbage

OK in Garbaae Don't Know

Baseline Round II Baseline Round II - Item (n = 326) (n=325) (n = 326) (n=325)

Paint thinner Motor oil Paint Pesticides Herbicides Bleach Disp Diapers Pet Waste Hsehld Battery Aerosol Can

0.9% 1.2% 1.5% 1.8% 2.5%

13.2% 27.0% 30.4% 34.4% 53.1 %

0.9% 0.3% 1.5% 1.2% 3.7%

16.9% 25.5% 27.7% 34.8% 48.6%

3.7% 0.3% 4.0% 0.9% 1.5%

14.7% 11.3% 17.5% 13.2% 7.7%

1.2% 1.8% 2.2% 4.0% 1.8%

15.4% 20.9% 24.3% 9.5%

10.2%

No significant changes are observed between the baseline results and those found in Round II in regards to this question. As noted in the baseline survey report, respondents are clearly aware that the most hazardous items on the list - paints, thinners, motor oil, pesticides and herbicides - are not acceptable as part of the regular garbage. There was little uncertainty regarding disposal of these items, as shown by the low percentage of respondents saying "Don't Know" for these five items.

Responses to items on the list which are clearly less hazardous (i.e., laundry bleach, household batteries, empty aerosol cans) or that pose other non-chemical risks (Le., disposable diapers, pet waste) are very similar between the baseline and Round II respondents. These items are noted as inappropriate for the regular garbage by approximately 50 to 90 percent of the respondents in both surveys. Likewise, respondents to both surveys are more unsure of the suitability of these items for the regular garbage as shown by the high percentages in the "Don't Know" column (1 0 to 30 percent).

While knowledge regarding HHW constituents remains the same over time, changes are apparent between the baseline and Round ll respondents in regards to informational channels for learning about HHW constituents. Table 12 presents the informational channels reported by respondents of both surveys. Multiple responses were allowed.

15

Channel

Table 12. Most Frequent Channels for Learning of HHW Items

Percentaae of Respondents*

Newspaper Television Magazines/Books Genrl. knwldg./word

Profession/Edctn. Radio Utility flyers Brochures Other DK/NR

of mouth

Baseline (n=326)

42.3% 33.7% 19.3% 32.2%

12.6% 9.2% 8.0% 5.8%

13.5% 0.0%

Round II (n=325)

41.5% 31.1% 9.2%

28.3%

1 .O% 10.8% 20.6% 17.8% 9.5% 2.2%

*Responses sum to over 100% due to multiple responses

The "Other" category includes such things as recycling services, recycling bins, the recycling hot line, product labeling, and bus posters.

While the small category sizes for some of the responses in Table 12 prevented statistical analysis, there are noticeably fewer Round I I respondents than baseline respondents reporting magazines/books and profession/education as channels for learning of HHW. However, considerably more Round I I respondents note utility flyers and brochures. All other channels appear similar between the two surveys. As noted in the baseline report, brochures and utility flyers are apparently effectively used by the City of Seattle utilities to dispense information on HHW constituents. This same strategy appears to have been adopted by other King County waste utilities and companies between the time of the baseline and Round II surveys.

Along with the question on informational channels, respondents were asked where they would go or who they would call if they had questions regarding the disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous items. Their responses to this question, for baseline and Round II respondents, is presented in Table 13.

16

Table 13. Source for Information on HHW Disposal

Percentaqe of ResDondents

Source

EPA Local Garbage Utility METRO King County Recycle/Haz Mat tine C i of Seattle DWNR

Baseline (n = 326)

1 1 .O% 8.0% 7.7% 6.1% 5.2% 4.9%

32.0%

Round I1 (n=325)

9.2% 19.7% 10.2% 9.2% 2.2% 4.6%

27.1 %

Since the time of the baseline survey, Table 13 results seem to show more respondents calling their local garbage utility and fewer calling the Recycle/Haz Mat Line. (Statistical testing could not be performed for these results due to very small numbers of respondents in some categories.) The other sources noted in Table 13 remain similar between the baseline and Round I1 surveys. Other sources were mentioned by less than 5 percent of the respondents and are not displayed in Table 13. These include fire departments, local cities, and HHW collection facilities.

When questioned, 62 percent of the respondents to both surveys were aware of special collection facilities in the area for HHW. Analysis of socioeconomic factors indicated that, as in the baseline survey, Round I I respondents who were aware of special collection facilities are more likely to have higher incomes (Le., over $25K annually, p=.Ol) and to live in a single family residence (p=.Ol). However, while the baseline survey shows respondents with more education are more likely to know of HHW collection facilities, educational level was not found to be a significant factor in the Round It survey.

The 62 percent of respondents who were aware of special collection facilities for HHW were asked to describe the facilities, to tell how they had learned of them, and if they had ever used them. Table 14 presents information on the description respondents gave of special HHW collection facilities in the area. Table 15 shows the informational channels by which they learned of the HHW collection facilities.

13

Table 14. Description of HHW Collection Facility

TvDe of Facilitv

King County Wastemobile Round-Ups Gas Station Transfer Station/H H W

collection center Other DWNR

Channel

Newspaper Television Word of mouth Community newsletter Drove by, saw it Brochures Radio Utility flyer Other DWNR

Percentaae of Respondents

Baseline (n=203)

29.6% 23.6% 22.2% 13.3%

5.4% 20.7%

Round II (n = 201 )

38.3% 12.4% 6.4% 37.1 %

0.5% 5.4%

Table 15. Channels for Learning of HHW Collection Facilities

Percentaqe of Respondents

Baseline (n = 203)

30.0% 19.7% 18.2% 13.8%

12.8% 8.9% 7.4% 9.9% 1 .O%

13.3% .

Round II (n = 201 )

26.9% 9.1 % 7.0% 5.5% 14.9% 7.5% 5.0% 13.9% 7.0% 3.5%

Table 14 shows considerable changes occurring in respondents’ descriptions of HHW collection facilities between baseline and Round I I surveys. Gas stations and Round-ups are noted by many fewer respondents, while roughly 10 percent more are aware of the King County Wastemobiles and over 20 percent knew HHW collection occurs at transfer stations or other designated facilities. In this latter category, more than half the responses are from people who said they knew of a special HHW collection facility

18

available to the public, but they could not identify an exact name for the facility.

In Table 15, television, word of mouth and community newsletters all drop considerably in the percentage of respondents identifying them as informational channels. The only channel that demonstrates a sizeable increase is utility flyer. This result is in agreement with respondents’ reporting that utility flyers help in their ability to identify HHW constituents (Table 1 1).

The 62 percent of respondents who were aware of collection facilities were asked if they had taken HHW items to the collection sites. Of those 62 percent, 43.8 percent of the baseline respondents said they had and 51.0 percent of the Round ll respondents reported they had. While this difference is not statistically significant, it is in the desired direction for showing an increase in HHW collection facility users.

Alternative Products and Practices

As in the baseline survey, the final category of questions in the Round II survey asks respondents about their awareness of, and willingness to use, products or practices that lessened the creation of HHW. Respondents were asked about their willingness to pay for environmentally safer products, their awareness and purchase of such alternative products, and their willingness to use alternative practices. Responses to these questions are presented in Tables 16 through 19.

Table 16 shows respondents’ answers when asked how much more they would be willing to pay for products which were environmentally safer than those they already used.

Table 16. Additional Percent Willing to Pay for Alternative Products

Percentaqe of Respondents

Additional Percent

0% (Nothing more) Up to 10% more 10 to 30% more 30% or more DK/NR

Baseline (n = 326)

Round II (n=325)

9.5% 13.8% 47.5% 49.5% 20.9% 17.8% 5.5% 7.7%

16.6% 11.1%

19

Testing of the results in Table 16 shows no statistically significant differences between the baseline and Round II responses. In both surveys, most respondents are willing to pay more for environmentally safer products, with the greatest numbers willing to pay up to 10 percent more. A considerable number of respondents in both groups said they did not know or were unwilling to say how much more they would pay.

A significant difference was observed when respondents were asked if alternative products, those which were less harmful to the environment, were available in the stores at which they shopped. While 46 percent of the baseline respondents said they were, this increased to 60.6 percent for Round I1 respondents (p=.Ol).

In both surveys, those who had alternative products available were asked to tell how they had learned of them and what types of products they were. Tables 17 and 18 present these results. Percentages sum to over 100 percent because multiple responses were allowed.

Channel

Saw in store Advertisement Newspaper Word of mouth Other DK/NR

Product

Table 17. Channels for Learning of Alternative Products

Percentage of Respondents

Baseline (n=150)

76.0% 23.3% 9.3% 6.0% 5.3% 2.7%

Round II (n=197)

73.6% 27.4% 7.1 % 9.6% 6.1 % 0.1 %

Table 18. Types of Alternative Products Available

Percentase of Respondents

Biodegradables Household cleaner Laundry soap Pesticide/herbicide Other DK/NR

Baseline (n=l50)

39.3% 32.7% 32.0% 13.3% 34.0% 12.0%

Round II (n=197)

15.2% 69.0% 5.1 %

17.3% 18.3% 6.6%

20

.I

As shown in Table 17, the informational channels for learning of alternative products remain very constant between the baseline and Round II surveys. Seeing the product in the store remains the main method through which respondents learn of alternative products. Advertisements remain the second most important channel. Newspapers and word of mouth are still consistently mentioned.

Table 18, the types of alternative products available, show significant changes between the baseline and Round I1 surveys (p=.Ol). Household cleaners are much more frequently reported in Round 11, while biodegradables, and laundry soap are much less frequently reported. Only the pesticide/herbicide category remain relatively constant.

When asked if they had actually purchased the alternative products available to them, 64.7 percent of baseline respondents and 71.5 percent of the Round II respondents said they had. This difference is not significant, but is in the desired direction. Of those who were aware of alternative products but had not yet purchased them, 63.8 percent of the baseline respondents, versus 72.5 percent of the Round I1 respondents, said they are likely to purchase them in the future. Again, this difference is not statistically significant, but is in the desired direction.

In the Round II survey only, a question was directed at those who had not yet purchased alternative products, asking which factors would influence them to buy alternatives. The majority of respondents (51.0%, n=55) said they would purchase alternatives if they believed they would really help the environment. Product pricing was the next most frequent response (20.0%), followed by product effectiveness (1 6.0%). The remaining 12 percent did not have a response or did not know.

In Table 19 which follows, those purchasing alternative products were asked what types of products they had actually purchased. Baseline and Round II survey results are shown.

Table 19. Types of Alternative Products Actually Purchased

Percentaqe of Rewondents

Alternative

Biodegradables Laundry soap Household cleaners Pesticideslherb. Other DWNR

Baseline (n=97)

35.4% 32.3% 24.2% 11.1% 28.3% 9.1%

Round II (n=141)

13.5% 34.8% 36.9% 8.5%

20.6% 9.2%

21

Biodegradables are much less frequently noted in Round II than they had been in the baseline survey, household cleaning products are more frequently mentioned while the remainder stay nearly the same.

In the same vein, respondents were asked if they would be willing to use a product which required more "elbow grease" but was environmentally less harmful. The majority of baseline (74.2%) and Round II (76.9%) respondents said they would be willing to use more elbow grease. Roughly equal percentages (1 6.6%, 10.8%, respectively) said they didnY know if they would be willing to substitute more work for less damaging products. As a follow-up question, respondents who said they were willing to use elbow grease in place of environmentally damaging products were asked if they had ever done so. Thirty percent of baseline respondents said they had while 40.2 percent of the Round II respondents reported they had.

22

DISCUSSION

Summarv of Results

.

These results provide an interesting preview to those that will be obtained after more Plan activities are initiated and implemented. While both the baseline and Round II results are early measures of Plan activities, some changes have already occurred in the first year of the Plan’s five-year period. As shown, many of these process and outcome measures have remained stable from the time of the baseline survey to the completion of the Round II survey. However, a number of differences have already occurred and many more are likely over the next four years of Plan implementation. A brief summary of the outcomes observed in the four categories will be noted below.

SURVEY POPULATION

* Baseline and Round II socioeconomic data show no significant differences between the two surveys. While slightly more male callers are included in Round II as compared to the baseline survey, this difference is not statistically significant and is considered unlikely to have any significant effect.

* Round II and baseline data show a population which has fairly uniform age distribution, is well educated, is primarily white, and has a moderate income level.

HHW GENERATION AND DISPOSAL

* Of the four common HHW items presented in the Round II survey, motor oil and paints/thinners continue to be the two most frequently reported HHW items disposed of in the last year. However, relative to the baseline survey, a large increase was observed in the percentage of respondents reporting disposal of paintshhinners. More than half (52.6%) of the Round II respondents report disposing of paints/thinners in the past year compared with 32 percent in the baseline survey. Motor oil disposal continues at approximately the same rate (baseline - 34.7%, Round II - 32.3%).

* Herbicides/pesticides and toxic cleaners are still disposed of much less frequently than motor oil or paints/thinners at the time of the Round II survey. While herbicide/pesticide disposal rates remain unchanged (baseline - 6.4%, Round II - 8.6%), significantly more respondents note disposing of toxic cleaners in the Round II survey (baseline - 2.5%, Round I I - 10.5%, p=.Ol).

23

* In examining reported disposal patterns for the four HHW items, a significant change in the pattern of disposal was noted for paintdthinners but not for motor oils. Paints/thinners show more respondents using storage and garbage/landfill as disposal methods and fewer using HHW collection facilities. Thus, more people are using paint and paint products and then disposing of them improperly at the time of the Round II survey than at the baseline survey. Motor oil disposal patterns change slightly in the desired direction (Le., more use of HHW collection facilities, gas stations), but the change is not significant and indicates only the possibility of improvement. Herbicides/pesticides and toxic cleaning products could not be tested statistically for changes in disposal patterns, but both show fewer respondents reporting use of HHW collection facilities. In general, then, of the four HHW items only motor oil shows no worsening in terms of the disposal methods chosen. The other three items may indicate less desirable disposal options are being selected by Round II respondents than by baseline respondents.

* As noted in the baseline survey results, storage is commonly used as a method for handling HHW items. While storage is not necessarily an improper method for handling some HHWs, it represents potential problems due to the volatile nature of HHWs and possible future improper disposal. Ten to 65 percent of Round II survey respondents give "storage" as their method for dealing with various HHW items. Paints/t hinners, herbicides/pesticides and toxic cleaners are all stored more frequently by Round II respondents than they had been by baseline respondents.

* Socioeconomic factors were examined to detect similarities with baseline results and to uncover new trends. As in the baseline survey, age, homeownership and income variables are related to paint and motor oil disposal patterns. In both surveys, younger households (head under 45 years of age) report generating more motor oil wastes, and homeowners (as compared to renters) are significantly more likely to generate paint wastes. In both surveys, higher income households generate more paint waste. In the Round II survey only, lower income households are more likely to generate waste motor oil. A visual review of SES factors shows no relationship between the age, income and ownership variables and toxic cleaner or herbicide/pesticide disposal.

* In conjunction with the baseline survey, the Round II survey provides important information on King County residents' use of HHW collection facilities. While the baseline survey shows that between 35 and 57 percent of those who had the four HHW items (i.e., paints, motor oil, toxic cleaners, pesticides/herbicides) used HHW collection facilities, the Round II survey percentages are between 16 and 52 percent. While some volatility in these

24

figures is likely due to smaller sample sizes (only a portion of the whole sample answers this question), there appears to be no improvement from the time of the baseline to the time of the Round I1 survey in the number of people using HHW collection facilities.

* When questioned on whether they had made a change in herbicide/pesticide or toxic cleaner use in the past year, more than half of those who typically use such products had made no changes. Twenty to 30 percent of each group had used less, and 10 to 15 percent of each had switched to nonchemical products or practices.

HHW AND COLLECTION FACILITY AWARENESS

* As observed in the baseline survey, Round II survey respondents appear extremely knowledgeable regarding which items constitute HHW and are unsuitable for the regular garbage. Over 95 percent of the respondents know that the most hazardous items on the list - motor oil, paints, thinners, herbicides and pesticides - should not go into the regular garbage.

* Sixty-two percent of the respondents to both surveys claim to be aware of the presence of special collection facilities for HHW. Approximately half of these respondents could name the facility in the baseline survey, increasing to 80 percent in the Round II survey. It appears King County residents are becoming more aware of the presence of special HHW collection facilities. And while not statistically significant, approximately 1 0 percent more Round I1 survey respondents reported using a HHW collection facility than had baseline respondents.

ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS AND PRACTICES

* Both baseline and Round I1 survey groups show considerable willingness to pay more for environmentally safer products. The two groups showed close agreement in the percentages in each group willing to pay increasingly more for alternative products. Likewise, the two sets of respondents had nearly identical responses when they were asked if they would be willing to use more elbow grease in place of toxic cleaners (baseline - 74%, Round I1 - 77%).

* Significantly more King County respondents appear to have alternative products available in the stores at which they shop by the time of the Round II survey versus the baseline survey (61 % vs. 46%, respectively). A slight (not significant) increase was observed in the percentage of aware respondents who actually purchase alternative products. This combined increase in those aware of alternative products along with increased purchases, translates into

25

more respondents overall who are purchasing alternative products.

* Informational channels for learning of alternative products remain stable between the baseline and Round II surveys, with viewing the product in the store and advertisements as the primary channels. The product mix of alternatives purchased did change considerably, though, with greater purchases of household cleaners in Round II and less of biodegradable products and laundry soaps.

The results presented here present a mixture of improvement, decline and homeostasis from those observed in the baseline survey. It is important in interpreting these results to remember that Plan activities have been in effect for only one year and the results here are likely influenced by other factors as well. For example, the significant increase in paint disposal may be due to economic factors wholly unrelated to the Plan. Possible explanations may be that the weakening of the economy in the past year has resulted in people painting and remodeling instead of moving up in the housing market. Another possibility, given the slowing real estate market, is that people may be painting in an effort to make their homes more saleable. In either case, increased paint disposal is due to factors outside of Plan activities and influence.

However, the smaller numbers of respondents using HHW collection facilities for disposal of paints and thinners is a concern in regards to Plan effectiveness. Likewise, fewer respondents report bringing their toxic cleaners and herbicides/pesticides to HHW collection facilities. This occurred despite reportedly greater awareness of collection facilities. It would seem additional effort is needed to encourage residents to make use of these facilities.

Little change or slight improvement is apparent in regards to motor oil disposal. When respondents were asked about their understanding and general use of alternative products and practices, they again showed little change. In both these cases, the one year period between the baseline and Round II surveys may not be sufficient to measure any changes. While some changes have occurred as shown by other portions of the survey, it is likely that additional time is needed before more changes will be seen.

In summary, the results from comparing the baseline and Round II results indicate a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration. First, real changes are apparent in a number of the questions asked. Second, while some of these changes are likely influenced by Plan activities, there appear to be others that are the result of factors outside the Plan’s influence. Third, because these comparisons reflect changes only in the first year of the five year Plan, it is likely that many more changes will be observed after subsequent survey efforts.

26

REFERENCES

Galvin, D. 1982. Public Opinions and Actions. Report C - Household Hazardous Waste Disposal Proiect. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Seattle, WA.

Metro. 1989. Local Hazardous Waste Manaaement Plan for Seattle-Kina Countv. Final Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle, WA.

Metro. 1989. Local Hazardous Waste Manaaement Plan for Seattle-Kina Countv. Draft Plan, Appendix D: Public Involvement Documents. Seattle, WA.

Patmont, C., et.al. 1990. Final Report on the Proposed Evaluation Desian for the Local Hazardous Waste Manaaement Plan. Seattle, WA.

Patmont, C., et.al., 1990. Kina Countv Residential Opinion Survev of Household Hazardous Waste Issues: Baseline, 1990. Seattle, WA.

27

APPENDIX A

28

GENERAL HOUSEHOLD INSTRUMENT - KING COUNTY DECEMBER 1991 VERSION

Time Begin:

INTRODUCTION: Hello, my name is with MAR-KEY RESEARCH, an opinion research firm. We're conducting a brief telephone survey for METRO. Are you a head of the household?

1. In the past year, did you or anyone in your household have any leftover paint or paint products? (01) Yes (Go to la) (02) No (Go to 2) ( 0 3 ) Don't Know/No Response (Go to 2)

la. If you had leftover paint or thinner, what did you do with it? (Check multiple responses if given.) (01) No leftovers (Probe - stated ffyeslf above) (02) Put in garbage ( 0 3 ) Took to landfill/transfer station ( 0 4 ) Poured on soil/in yard (05) Poured down inside drain/toilet ( 0 6 ) Stored it ( 0 7 ) Took to HHW Collection Facility ( 0 8 ) Poured down storm drain (i.e., street drain) (09) Other: (describe) (10) DK/NR

2. In the past year, did you or anyone in your household ever change your own motor oil? (01) Yes (Go to 2a) ( 0 2 ) No (Go to 3 ) ( 0 3 ) DK/NR (Go to 3 )

2a. What did you do with the used motor oil? (01). Put it in garbage (02) Took to landfill/transfer station ( 0 3 ) Poured on soil/in yard ( 0 4 ) Dumped down inside drain/toilet (05) Stored it (06) Took to gas station ( 0 7 ) Took to HHW Collection Facility ( 0 8 ) Used absorber pack provided (09) Poured down storm drain (i.e., street drain) (10) Other: (describe) (11) DK/NR

3. In the past year, did you or anyone in your household dispose of unwanted herbicides (weedkillers) or pesticides (insect killers) ? (01) Yes (Go to 3a) (02) No (Go to 3.1) (03) DK/NR (Go to 3.1)

3a. What did you do with leftover herbicides or pesticides that you no longer wanted? (01) No leftovers (Probe - said Ilyestl above) ( 0 2 ) Put it in garbage (03) Took to landfill/transfer station (04) Poured down inside drain/toilet ( 0 5 ) Poured on soil/in yard (06) Took to HHW Collection Facility ( 0 7 ) Stored it ( 0 8 ) Poured down storm drain (i.e., street drain) (09) Other: (describe) (10) DK/NR

3.1 In the past year, if you would typically use chemical herbicides or pesticides, have you made any changes in your herbicide/pesticide use? (IF RESPONDENT SAYS "YES", ASK:) What changes have you made? (01) Not applicable - would not typically use them. (02) No changes in chemical herb./pest. use. (03) Yes, switched to a commercial biodegradable or

"environmentally saf ell herb. /pest. ( 0 4 ) Yes, use less of the chemical herb./pest. (05) Yes, no longer use any chemical herb./pest. (05) Yes, use non-chemical methods of weed/insect

(06) Yes, other: control.

4 . In the past year, did you or anyone in your household dispose of drain cleaners, spot removers, or other toxic cleaning products? (01) Yes (Go to 4a) ( 0 2 ) No (Go to 4.1) (03) DK/NR (Go to 4.1)

4a. If you had these kinds of products that you no longer wanted, how did you dispose of them? (01) No leftovers (Probe - said Ivyeslt above) (02) Put it in garbage (03) Took to landfill/transfer station ( 0 4 ) Poured down inside drain/toilet ( 0 5 ) Poured on soil/in yard (06) Took to HHW Collection Facility ( 0 7 ) Stored it ( 0 8 ) Other: (describe) (09) DK/NR

.

4.1 In the past year, if you would typically use chemical household cleaners, have you made any changes in your use of these cleaners? (IF RESPONDENT SAYS nYESn, ASK:) What changes have you made? (01) Not applicable - would not typically use them. (02) No changes in household cleaner use. (03) Yes, switched to a commercial biodegradable or

( 0 4 ) Yes, use less of the chemical cleaners. ( 0 5 ) Yes, no longer use anv chemical cleaners. ( 0 6 ) Yes, use non-chemical methods, '*elbow greasev1, or

(07) Yes, other:

ttenvironmentally safe" cleaning product.

homemade products like vinegar and water.

5 . Some of the things I'm going to mention are okay to put in the garbage and others should not go in the garbage. Can you tell me which of the following are okay to put in the garbage and which are not okay to put in the garbage? If you are unsure, please respond "Don't Know". (Circle OK, Not OK or DK)

Household batteries Paint Laundry bleach Aerosol cans Paint thinner Food wastes Disposable diapers Pesticides Automobile oil Pet waste Herbicides

OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK Not OK DK

(If respondent answers 'INot OK" for at least one of the categories above, go to 5a. Otherwise, skip to 6.)

5a. Do you remember how you found out that some items (Check are not okay to put in the regular garbage?

multiple responses if given.) (01) Don't remember (02) Newspaper articles ( 0 3 ) TV ( 0 4 ) Radio (05) Flyers in utility billings (06) Brochures (07) Information from schools ( 0 8 ) Bus posters (09) "Hazard Free Communityll Pledge (10) Other: (11) DK/NR

6. If you wanted information on how to dispose of certain household hazardous wastes, which governmental body would you contact? (01) King County (02) METRO (03) city of Seattle ( 0 4 ) City of Bellevue (05) City of (specify): (06) Local garbage utility (07) Other: ( 0 8 ) DK/NR

7. Are you aware of any special collection centers in King County for disposing of items like used motor oil, paint products, herbicides, pesticides or other household hazardous wastes? (01) Yes (Go to 7a) (02) No (Go to 8) (03) DK/NR (Go to 8)

7a. Describe the center: (If response is something other than the Wastemobiles or HHW Collection Facility at the South Transfer Station, skip to 6d.)

7b. How did you learn of it? (Check multiple responses if given. ) (01) Flyer in utility billing (02) Newspaper (03) Radio ( 0 4 ) TV (05) Brochure (06) Community newsletter (07) Drove by, saw it ( 0 8 ) Other: (describe) (09) DK/NR

7c. Have you taken waste materials to the collection facility in the last year? (01) Yes (02) No (03) DK/NR

8 . How much more, in percentage terms, would you be willing to pay for household products that were less hazardous to the environment than those you are using now? Please listen to the choices and select one. (01) 0 % (nothing more) (02) Up to 10% more (03) Up to 30% more ( 0 4 ) Up to 50% more ( 0 5 ) More than 50% more ( 0 6 ) DK/NR

9. Are these kinds of alternative products, that is, ones that are less harmful to the environment, currently available in the stores you shop at? (01) Yes (Go to 9a) (02) No (Go to 10) (03) DK/NR (Go to 10)

9a.

9b.

9c.

9d.

How did you find out about them? (Check multiple responses if given.)

(01) Saw them in store (02) Advertisement (03) Newspaper article ( 0 4 ) Word of mouth (05) Other: (describe) (06) DK/NR

What types of products are they? (Check multiple responses if given.) (01) Household cleaning products (02) Herbicides (03) Pesticides ( 0 4 ) Other: (describe) (05) DK/NR

Have you ever purchased them?. (01) Yes (GO TO 9D) (02) No (GO TO 9E) (03) DK/NR (GO TO 9E)

What was the product? name if possible. Enter multiple responses if given.) (01) Household cleaning product: (02) Biodegradable product: (03) Pesticides/herbicides: ( 0 4 ) Laundry soap/detergents: (05) Other: (06) DK/NR

(Specify type of product and brand

TO OURSTION 10 !!!

9e. Do you think you are likely to ever purchase one of them?

(01) Yes, likely to purchase (02) No, unlikely to ever purchase (03) DK/NR

9f. What would motivate you to purchase an alternative product?

(01) Pricing (02) Belief it would really help the environment (03) If product was effective ( 0 4 ) Other: ( 0 5 ) DK/NR

10. Would you be willing to use a household product that took you more time to use or required more "elbow grease" if it were less hazardous to the environment? (01) Yes (GO TO 10A) (02) No (GO TO 11) ( 0 3 ) DK/NR (GO TO 11)

loa. Have you done so (i.e., used elbow grease in place of a hazardous household product) in the past year? (01) Yes (Describe:) (02) No (03) DK/NR

11. Now I'd like to ask a few questions for demographic purposes. What is the last year of school you completed (read choices) : (01) Grade school (02) High school (03) ( 0 4 ) College undergraduate degree (05) Graduate degree ( 0 6 ) DK/NR

Some college or community college

12. What is your age? (read choices): (01) < 21 (02) (03)

21 - 30 31 - 45

( 0 4 ) 46 - 60 ( 0 5 ) > 60 ( 0 6 ) DK/NR

13. What is your annual household income? (read choices): (01) < 15,000 (02) 15,000 up to 25,000 (03) 25,000 up to 40,000 ( 0 4 ) 40,000 up to 55,000

(06) DK/NR (05) > 55,000

14. Do you rent or own your home? (01) Rent (02) Own (03) DK/NR

15. Do you live in an (read choices): (01) Apartment building (02) Single family residence (03) Duplex/triplex ( 0 4 ) Other (05) DK/NR

16. Do you regularly have a car available to you for transportation? (01) Yes (02) No (03) DK/NR

17. What is your area's zipcode? (01) (02) DK/NR

18. (Interviewer) Male or female? (01) Male respondent (02) Female respondent

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions.

Time ended:

Content Areas Covered by the General Survey

HHW GENERATION AND DISPOSAL

Questions 1, la, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 3.1, 4, 4a, and 4.1 address what kinds of HHW are generated (from a selection of four types of common HHW) , what happens to the HHW when it requires disposal, and whether respondents have switched away from certain HHWs.

HHW AWARENESS AND EDUCATION CHANNELS

Question 5 assesses awareness of HHW by giving respondents a list of hazardous and nonhazardous items to identify. (This question duplicates one performed in the Seattle Solid Waste Utility 1989 Customer Survey which allows for comparisons between survey results.) Question 5a elicits information on which channels were effective in informing respondents about HHW.

HHW COLLECTION FACILITY AWARENESS, CHANNELS AND USE

Question 6, 7 and 7a through 7d examine the respondents awareness of the HHW Collection Facilities, how they learned of them and whether they've used them. For those who haven't used the collection facilities, their likelihood of using such a facility is assessed.

ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT AWARENESS, CHANNELS AND USE

Questions 8 and 10 assess respondents' willingness to purchase alternative products even if they are more expensive or less effective than more hazardous products they currently use. Questions 9 and 9a through 9d ask whether such products are currently available to respondents, how they learned of them and if they have purchased them or are likely to purchase them.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Questions 10 through 18 ask about respondent demographics.

d

c