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
Top Related