The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReg 2025-06-02 Item 4B - Presentation - King County Long-Term Disposal Study ResultsLong -Term Disposal Study City of Tukwila I June 2, 2025 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid waste Division N King County's Solid Waste Division Vision Achieve Zero Waste of Resources by enhancing the environment through collaboration and innovation Service area 37 cities (all but Seattle and Milton) and unincorporated areas in King County We operate • Eight transfer stations • Two rural drop boxes • Nine closed landfills • One currently operating landfill 2 Se> Lae 'en"�wt rikoolrorlfe N Taro..ed-ri a= ,I� ry. n. smn.s/-* WILse1r ern 1. Liko Cr l‘r vang R�Ildn 971•i �RrUil�id:n 2 r7 Co uw Lrr Parrc Novo! facility • Retakned or Rebuilt Transfer Station ▪ I Transfer Station to lie Closed when RepiacementCapa€ity Is Available I J r KIn9County REVonal LandRll to King County Drop Aoa A Locaugnsornosedtandhils tio , Cedar MIN AK Iona Lenmlll Ceder Falls 7990'* 0 t 2 4 6 E mom Agenda Timeline Overview Study Purpose and Background Study Overview and Engagement Criteria Analyzed Key Results Next Steps 3 I May 27, 2025 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division CA) Timeline Overview Study Design 12021-2022 Information Gathering 12023-2024 Select Options I Criteria with MSWAC/SWAC I Sign Contract Research I Modeling I Comparative Analysis Advisory Committee Briefings 12024-2025 SEPA 12025-2026 Subgroups & Open Houses I Q&A I Report Drafts I Briefings Scoping Public Comments I Draft EIS Comments I Final EIS Advisory Committee Briefings 12027 Recommendations 12027 4 I May 27, 2025 MSWAC/SWAC I City Briefings I Q&A MSWAC/SWAC I Executive I Comp Plan King County Dacartnlert c- f.atLral Resources a nc Parks Solid Waste Division Purpose of the Long -Term Disposal (LTD) Study To help inform the decision making for County and ILA Partners Cedar Hills Regional Landfill expected to reach capacity by 2040 5 I May 27, 2025 To help plan for various waste amounts, including Re+ waste impacts To help plan for 2040-2060 King County Dacartmerit r; f.atcral Resources anc Parks Solid Waste Division C) Our Engagement So Far • Multiple MSWAC/SWAC Updates • Open Houses • 5 Subgroup Meetings on LTD Study • Overview • Refuse -derived Fuel, Gasification, Pyrolysis • Waste Export by Rail (WEBR), Mass Burn with WEBR • WEBR, Mass Burn with WEBR deeper dive • Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee Briefing • Regional Policy Committee Briefings 6 I May 27, 2025 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Beyond the Scope of the LTD Study • Hyper local impacts on environment and communities • The SEPA EIS and a siting study will take a closer look at these impacts • How Re+ will look • This study is focused on disposal, not waste prevention and diversion. Re+ is considered in the analysis. • Rate Impacts • Rates were not forecasted for 2040, but capital and operating costs were analyzed • Cost benefit analysis of combining different disposal methods • Only 2 options are viable • Partial Early Export • Previous analysis shows it is too expensive to export and landfill at Cedar Hills at the same time. 7 I May 27, 2025 King County Department of natural Resources and Parks Solid waste Division 03 Five Disposal Options Studied Waste Export by Rail (WEBR) Mass Burn with WEBR (Mass Burn) Pyrolysis Gasification Refuse -Derived Fuel 8 I May 27, 2025 King County Dacartnlert c- f.atLral Resources a nc Parks Solid Waste Division Study Criteria Economic Impact Environmental Impact Social Impact Capacity Logistics Operating History 9 I May 27, 2025 How expensive to implement? What are the impacts to climate, water, air, health, etc.? What are the impacts to local neighborhoods? How does each method handle different waste tonnages and types? How easily does each method fit into King County systems? What is the historical record of performance, safety, and compliance? King County Dacartnlent c-f.atcral Resources a nc Parks Solid Waste Division C.0 Key Takeaways Refuse -Derived Fuel Gasification & Pyrolysis • Technically capable of processing tonnage amounts , b.�- z • High competition against better RDF feedstock, like Construction & Demo waste • There are no guaranteed markets that will buy Municipal Solid Waste - based RDF a • Most existing facilities are smaller demonstration/pilot plants • Facilities have not been successful in processing MSW without many challenges • Unable to process even low -end tonnage amounts Advisory Committees unanimously agreed to remove these options from consideration. Analyses will remain in the final report. I Key Takeaways Mass Burn with WEBR (1 of 2) Capital: $1.2 billion; Operational: $54 million + $23 million ash disposal; Cost per Ton of $231 (2040$) Difficult to site and permit Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) shows benefit in non-renewable energy demand, acidification potential, and smog formation potential. LCA shows detriment in global warming, water consumption, and cancer I \ ) Key Takeaways Mass Burn with WEBR (2 of 2) Financially disincentivizes lowering tonnage throughput (not very compatible with Re+) Reduces waste 7 5 % by weight. Ash residuals would need to be transported to ash monofill (WEBR) Recent closures of Mass Burn facilities on West Coast Energy from Mass Burn generally prohibited from being used within the State due to Clean Energy Transformation Act, MSW not renewable resource under Key Takeaways Waste Export by Rail • Capital: $3.3 million; Operational: $72 million; Cost per Ton of $108 (2040$) • Can utilize existing infrastructure, so no need to site and build a new facility • LCA shows benefit in water consumption. Neutral in cancer potential. • Can more easily accommodate changing tonnage amounts (more compatible with Re+) • Washington State Rail Plan 2019-2040: King County tonnage and expected rail use growth should not significantly impact rail capacity • Railroads prefer contracts of 5-10 years. Future pricing projections are difficult and exposes County to risk w Q2 2025: Begin SEPA Process • Dates TBD: Scoping Comment Period (4 in -person, 1 virtual)* • Dates TBD: Draft EIS Comment Period (4 in -person, 1 virtual)* Q2 2025: Begin City Briefings* 2025-2026: Regular EIS updates to Advisory Committees* Q4 2026: Final EIS Q1-Q2 2027: Seek Advisory Committee recommendations Q2 2027: Exec Office decision Patty Liu pliu@kingcounty.gov 15 I May 27, 2025 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division