Disposal ChapterApril 2017

Policies Are Labeled by Chapter and Number

• Labeling consistent with

committee survey

results included in

November 2016

meeting

2

Chapter

Policy

Number

D-1

Policy Legend

3

WPR TWaste Prevention

& Recycling

P Planning

CP Collection &

ProcessingF

D Disposal

Transfer

Finance

Goals vs. Policies vs. Actions

4

PolicyPolicies provide broad

direction and

authorization for

services and system

priorities. Policies

should not change

through the life of the

Comp Plan.

ActionActions are targeted,

specific, and time-based

to implement policies and

could include: programs,

studies, infrastructure

improvements, and

regulations. Actions may

be updated to adapt to

changing conditions.

GoalGoals reflect the long-

term outcomes and

aspirations for the

regional system. Goals

should not change

through the life of the

Comp Plan.

Comp Plan Progress

Chapter Policies Status

Planning P1 – P4 Committees in

agreement

Waste Prevention and

Recycling

WPR1, WPR3 –

WPR5

Committees in

agreement

Collection and Processing C1 – C2, new C3In discussion; follow-up

scheduled June 2017

5

Update on WPR Chapter

Changes to WPR goal and policy agreed to by committees:

Goal: Achieve Zero Waste of Resources – to eliminate the disposal of materials with economic value – by 2030, with an interim goal of 70% recycling, through a combination of efforts in the following order of priority: waste prevention and reuse; product stewardship, recycling, and composting; beneficial reuse.

Enhance, develop, and implement waste prevention and recycling programs that will increase waste diversion from disposal using: infrastructure, education & promotion, incentives, mandates and enforcement.

6

WPR 2

Agenda for Today

• Review draft policy for Cedar Hills Landfill

• Present factors affecting landfill capacity

• Discuss long-term disposal alternatives

• Present evaluation of alternatives

• Initial findings and discussion

7

Maximize the capacity

and lifespan of the Cedar Hills

Regional Landfill, subject to

environmental constraints,

relative costs to operate, and

stakeholder interests.

8

D2

Key Topics for Today

• What does “maximize capacity and lifespan of Cedar Hills” look like?

• What local factors impact the long-term disposal options for King County?

• What factors should be considered (and when) to choose a post-Cedar Hills waste solution?

– Should a policy be developed describing how the next choice will be made?

9

10

1960 1970 1980

1990 2000 2015

Landfill Capacity is a Moving Target

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

An

nu

al La

nd

fille

d T

on

s (

00

0’s

)

Landfilled Tons (in thousands)

11

Cedar Hills Projected to Reach Capacity by 2028

12

837 839 862900 932 964 993 1,021 1,047 1,067 1,088

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Re

ma

inin

g C

ap

acit

y (i

n 0

00

's o

f to

ns)

La

nd

fille

d T

on

s (

00

0's

)

Landfilled Tons Remaining Capacity

Other Factors that Affect Landfill Capacity

Factor

Projected

Date of

Closure

Solid waste system achieves 70% recycling rate by 2030 End of 2028

Waste generation rates increases 5% above forecast Mid 2027

Waste generation rates decrease 2% below forecast Early 2028

13

Visioning Exercise Ideas for Disposal Options

Beyond 2028

14

All Garbage is Local

Tampa (FL)

• 315,000 disposed tons per year

• City owns and contracts operation of a

mass burn WTE facility, built 1985

• Energy from WTE facilities considered

renewable in Florida; utilities required to

buy power

• Electricity sale price is $59 to $62 per

MWh

15

McKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy Facility

Tampa, Florida

All Garbage is Local

San Antonio, TX

• 3 million disposed tons in 2015*

• City has three long-term disposal contracts with two local landfills and one out-of-county landfill

• $23 per ton disposal fee

• Evaluated alternative disposal options in 2012

16

* Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (data for San Antonio region – Alamo Area Council of Governments)

All Garbage is Local

Spokane (WA)

• Up to 280,000 disposal tons per year

• Operates as a “renewable” energy

producer – can sell energy at a

premium.

• Built in 1991 for $170 million with

$60 million in state grants.

• Electricity sale price is around

$35/MWh.17

Spokane Waste-to-Energy Facility

Long-Term Disposal Alternatives

Expand Cedar Hills Capacity

Export to Out-of-County Landfill

Waste-to-Energy

Emerging Technologies

18

Expand Cedar Hills Capacity

• Capacity thru 2040

• Requires capital spending to build capacity

• Gas revenue offsets some of the cost

• >50 years of County operation experienceConstruction of Area 6

Cedar Hills Landfill, 2007

19

Export to Out-of-County Landfill

• Long-term landfill

capacity available

• Adds transportation cost

• No offsetting revenue

• Transfer upgrades needed

• Rail capacity riskBNSF train carrying garbage through the Columbia Gorge

20

21

Waste-to-Energy

• Over 75 facilities in the US

• Mass burn is most common– proven and reliable technology

• Requires significant upfront capital spending

• Sale of energy and recovered metals offsets some costs

• Residual ash and excess waste typically landfilled

Sources: King County Solid Waste Division, Energy Recovery Council, EPA Office of Resource, Conservation, and Recovery

Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility, Maryland

22

23

Emerging Technologies

• Gasification, pyrolysis, and other waste-

to-biofuels are advancing.

• Unproven for MSW on a large scale but

SWD should monitor pilot facilities.

• Recent disposal studies have included

advanced material recovery facilities in

technology reviews; can boost recycling

rates and reduce greenhouse gas

emissions

Waste-to-biofuels facilities, Edmonton, Canada

24

Discussion

• What local factors impact the long-term

disposal option for King County?

• What factors should be considered (and when)

to choose a post-Cedar Hills waste solution?

25

County Staff Evaluated Three Technically

Feasible and Proven Options

26

Evaluated

Technologies

Expand Cedar

Hills to 2040

Waste Export in

2028

Waste-to-Energy

in 2028

Sources &

Data

Review of recent

disposal studies

County data and

forecasts

Interviews with

industry

Areas of

Focus

Financial

Greenhouse Gas

Emissions

Recycling Rate

Impact

Next Step

Third party review

of results

Expanding Cedar Hills is the Lowest Cost

Disposal Option

27

$1.0 $1.1

$1.7 $1.3

$1.8

$2.4

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

Expand Cedar Hills to

2040

Waste Export in 2028 Waste-to-Energy in

2028

Ne

t P

rese

nt

Co

st

($ in

Billio

ns)

Note: Based on a twenty year forecast, 2028 to 2048

WTE Net Cost per Ton is Higher than Cedar Hills OptionLow NW Energy Prices Don’t Offset the Higher WTE Costs

28

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

Dis

po

sa

l C

ost

Pe

r To

n

Dollars per Megawatt Hour

Required

Energy Price to

Break Even

with Cedar Hills

to 2040 Option:

$155/MWh

Estimated Price

Range for Power

in Western

Washington:

$20-$60 per

MWh

Aggressive landfill gas recovery at Cedar Hills has the greatest

impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint

29

-114,073

-25,360

49,287

-150,000

-125,000

-100,000

-75,000

-50,000

-25,000

0

25,000

50,000

Expand Cedar Hills to

2040 Waste Export in 2028

Waste-to-Energy in

2028

An

nu

al E

mis

sio

ns Im

pa

ct

(MTC

O2E

)

* Sources: EPA WARM Model, 2015 King County Waste Characterization Study and Tonnage Forecast

Waste-to-Energy Estimated to Increase

Recycling Rate by Two Percentage Points

30

• No impact to recycling rate from

Cedar Hills or Waste Export options

• Waste-to-Energy captures both

ferrous and non-ferrous metals –

estimated at 50,000 tons per year

from King County’s waste stream

• Potential to increase recycling rate

two percentage points

Discussion

Policy D2 says to maximize the capacity and lifespan of Cedar Hills subject to environmental constraints, relative costs, and stakeholder interests.

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of each disposal option in terms of environmental constraints, cost, and stakeholder interests?

31

Initial Findings: Expanding Cedar Hills Best

Supports Disposal, Financial, and

Environmental Goals

• Do you support this alternative?

• What additional information of the alternatives would you like to see in advance of the May 2017 committee meeting?

32

Links to Related Studies and Articles

• Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of Alternative Scenarios for Waste Treatment and/or Disposal, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, February 2016

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/socalconversion/pdfs/CT_Comparative_GHG_Analysis_Feb_2016_Complete.pdf

• Combined Qualitative Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Of Selected Waste Scenarios, Portland Metro, March 26, 2015

http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/Phase%203%20Final%20Report%20March%202015.pdf

• 2007 Comparative Evaluation of Waste Export and Conversion Technologies Disposal Options

http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/planning/documents/Conversion_Technologies_Report.pdf

• The Passionate Fight Over Trash in King County, Seattle Weekly, by Sara Bernhard, April 5, 2017

The Passionate Fight Over Trash in King County | Seattle Weekly

33

May 2017 Agenda

• Continue discussion on disposal options

• Develop committee recommendation on D2

policy

• Discuss D1 and D3 policies

34

King Street Center

201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701

Seattle, WA 98104-3855

206-477-4466

711 TTY Relay

your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste