Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUtilities 2007-10-02 Item 3A - Discussion - Solid Waste UpdateTo: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: September 24, 2007 Subject: Solid Waste Update ISSUE: BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: 1. Solid Waste Disposal Rate: INFORMATION MEMO Update the Utilities Committee on the King County solid waste disposal rate increase and the proposed Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) Letter to the King County Council regarding incineration technologies. A few months ago, the King County Solid Waste Division proposed an increase in solid waste disposal rates from $82.50 to $95.00 per ton. The King County Council unanimously approved the new rates on July 9, 2007. The rate increase will be effective January 1, 2008 and will help fmance major capital improvements to the County's aging transfer system infrastructure and offset increased operations and maintenance costs. Both curbside garbage subscribers and self haulers will be affected. King County will notify County residents and businesses of the new rates via flyers, news releases, and the County website. 2. Proposed MSWMAC Letter: Under the directives stipulated in the King County Ordinance 14971, the King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD), MSWMAC, Interjurisdictional Technical Staff Group (ITSG), and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), continue to work towards the completion of a waste export plan. Significant progress has been made in the development of the plan but there are some outstanding issues relating to waste disposal upon closure of Cedar Hills Landfill that need to be evaluated. One of the issues that the stakeholders recently addressed was a requirement from the King County Council to conduct a comparative evaluation of incineration technologies and waste export. R.W. Beck, a consultant retained by the KCSWD conducted the evaluation. MSWMAC has reviewed R.W. Beck's report and has drafted a letter to the County Council. The letter (Attachment 1) conveys MSWMAC's thoughts on R.W. Beck's key conclusions regarding incineration technologies, raises concerns related to incineration technologies that were not addressed in the R.W. Beck report, and offers recommendations for County Council consideration. RECOMMENDATION: No action is required. Present to the Utilities Committee for information. Attachment: Draft MSWMAC Letter to the King County Council (p: users\frank\2007\solid waste\utilities committee-solid waste update-9-25-07) DRAFT October 12, 2007 The Honorable Larry Gossett, Chair King County Council Room 1200 COURTHOUSE RE: Direction of Solid Waste Management Planning Dear Council Chair Gossett: In July 2004, the King County Council adopted Ordinance 14971, which established the Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and charged it with developing recommendations for the solid waste transfer and waste export system. The ordinance responded to a council policy decision to export the county's solid waste to one or more landfills after the Cedar Hills regional landfill reaches capacity and closes. The council rejected alternatives to waste export, including development of a new landfill in King County or incinerating the county's waste. Three years later, we believe the directives of Ordinance 14971 have been fully implemented. The four milestone reports specified in Section 6 of the ordinance were submitted to the council and the Regional Policy Committee in its capacity as solid waste interlocal forum in 2005 and early 2006. These reports provided the basis for the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Export System Plan, submitted in September 2006. Other deliverables required by Ordinance 14971 have also been submitted to the council, including an independent review of the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Export System Plan prepared by GBB. While the independent review provides some additional recommendations for the County to consider, it supports the recommendations in the Transfer and Waste Export System Plan. In addition to the directives of Ordinance 14971, the council added a proviso to the 2007 Solid Waste Division budget that required the Division to retain a consultant to prepare a comparative evaluation of incineration technologies and waste export. The Division retained R.W. Beck to conduct the evaluation. After review and comment on the draft report by MSWMAC and SW AC, the final R.W. Beck report was submitted to the council on August 6, 2007. Now that the R.W. Beck report is complete, we believe it is important to convey to the council our impression of what the report means to the future of the solid waste system, and to offer our recommendations on how to proceed from here. Our overall impression after a careful reading ofthe R.W. Beck report is that it does not reach any conclusions that support a move away from the current policy of waste export. Among the key conclusions of the report are: 1. The three feasible incineration technologies are estimated to cost more than waste export over the 20-year analysis period. The following cost estimates are for the 20-year period from 2016 (the assumed first year of closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill) to 2035. Costs are expressed in net present value per ton in 2016, and take into consideration capital and operating costs, as well as energy revenues: Mass Bum Waste-to-Energy $42-58 per ton Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF)Waste-to-Energy $59-74 per ton Advanced Thermal Recycling* $54-70 per ton Waste Export $43-47 per ton *The German technology being promoted by the vendor WRSI The higher per-ton cost of incineration technologies would be significant when multiplied by the estimated 1.2 million tons per year of solid waste requiring disposal by 2016. 2. The incineration technologies would have somewhat higher greenhouse gas emissions than waste export to a landfill. This conclusion disagrees with that of some other researchers who have found greenhouse gas emissions from incineration technologies to be similar to or less than those from landfills. The R.W. Beck report explains that the difference in conclusions is caused by: 1) the greater landfill gas collection efficiency of the modem landfills considered in the report compared to the national average, and 2) the relatively low avoided emissions in Washington State compared with other states where a higher percentage of the electricity is generated from coal combustion. 3. Incineration technologies would compete with recycling as the recycling rate approaches 70 percent. The R.W. Beck report concludes that King County' recycling rate could increase to 60% with only a small impact on the energy production per ton of waste processed in an incinerator. However, as the recycling rate approaches 70%, there would be enough of an impact on energy production to affect decisions about the size and operation of the facility. If the county were to commit to a certain size incinerator based on today's recycling goals, it may limit the county's ability to exceed those goals during the 40-year life of the facility, because certain materials may be required to be used for incinerator fuel rather than recycled. 4. Incineration technologies have down time for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on an annual basis. Mass bum and advanced thermal recycling facilities would be expected to be down about 10 percent of the time or 36 days per year; while RDF facilities would be expected to be down about 13 percent of the time or 47 days per year. 5. Incineration technologies still require landfill capacity. The R.W. Beck report indicates that landfill capacity would be needed for a) fly ash and bottom ash, which together represent about 25-30% by weight of the incoming waste, b) non-processible waste, which represents about 5- 10% of the incoming waste by weight, depending on the technology; and c) waste brought to the facility when it is down for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. Bottom ash is recycled at some locations, but Washington State law requires all ash to be landfilled. Fly ash potentially tests as a hazardous waste. In summary, based on the R.W. Beck report, we believe that the incineration technologies available today offer no advantage to King County and its contract cities compared to waste export. Furthermore, we are concerned about two issues related to incineration technologies that are not addressed in the R.W. Beck report. First, building an incinerator would be a less flexible approach to disposal following closure of the Cedar Hills Landfill. It would likely require that the county and its contract cities commit to long- term contracts with no opportunity for periodic contract reopeners to consider other vendors or other emerging technologies that may become commercially viable. Waste export, on the other hand, would provide the flexibility for periodic contract reopeners. Second, the siting process for an incinerator would be costly, time-consuming, and controversial - and may ultimately not be successful. None of the issues that were of most concern in the mid- 1980's have been eliminated - the risk of fugitive emissions of hazardous materials from the stacks should air-pollution controls fail (however unlikely that may be); the need to handle and dispose of hazardous fly ash; the visibility and industrial look of the tall stacks and plumes (a facility large enough to serve King County would likely have four 200+-foot stacks); concerns on the part of potential host jurisdictions that the facility and its attendant truck traffic would adversely affect their community identity; and the lack of a clear need to build a $530-700 million facility (2013 dollars). King County is fortunate to have several already permitted MSW landfills that have a combined capacity of hundreds of millions oftons ofMSW; are within cost-effective rail-haul distance; have or have the potential for energy recovery; are located in sparsely populated jurisdictions who depend on the jobs and revenues the landfills provide; and are in arid areas where leachate is substantially reduced, the topography and geology are well suited to landfills, and the land can revert back to its original use for grazing or wildlife habitat. Based on the above considerations, we strongly recommend the following: 1. That the council continue its current policy course toward waste export by implementing the recommendations in the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Export System Plan. 2. That every avenue to extend the life of the Cedar Hills Landfill be explored, including increased recycling and partial early waste export, to keep our solid waste rates as low as possible for as long as possible and to provide maximum flexibility for long-term planning. 3. That no further resources be expended on the study of incineration technologies at this time. We believe there is sufficient information in the R.W. Beck report to analyze waste export and incineration technologies at a programmatic level in the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan update and its EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these recommendations. We would be happy to answer any questions the council may have. Respectfully Jean Garber, Chair [Also signed by other cities who approve the letter.] Solid Waste Photo