|
Taking
Out the Trash: |
 |
|
About
|
OWN/CPI SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Organization of Waterfront
Neighborhoods (OWN), a citywide coalition formed in 1996,
seeks to address the problems posed by waste transfer
stations and to promote equitable, environmentally and
economically sound waste management alternatives. The
Consumer Policy Institute (CPI) of Consumers Union
undertakes research and education in the consumer
interest. CPI and OWN envision a sustainable
waste management plan for New York City. The OWN/CPI plan
incorporates several key components: maximal use of waste
prevention and recycling - so as to minimize the need for
export; use of existing Municipal Marine Transfer Stations
(MTS's) to compact and containerize garbage prior to its
export; fostering of community-based economic development
and job creation; and the equitable siting, upgrading and
sound operation of commercial waste transfer stations. Our work builds on a democratic
planning process that has gone on for at least twenty years.
Many volunteers, elected officials, business and non-profit
groups have worked on developing environmentally sound waste
solutions. Thanks to their efforts, a host of unique and
wonderful ideas and excellent recommendations are already
before the public, contained in a whole series of documents,
like Recycle First, the City Council plan, Without Fresh
Kills: A Blueprint for Solid Waste Management, and the
Borough plans, Brooklyn's Ensuring the Closure of the Fresh
Kills Landfill While Protecting Every Borough's Interest,
The Bronx Solid Waste Management Plan, Manhattan's Goodbye,
Fresh Kills! or How the City Can Stop Worrying and Learn to
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, Queens' Closure of the Fresh
Kills Staten Island Landfill, and Solid Waste Management
Plan for the Borough of Staten Island Municipal Waste.
These ideas and recommendations reveal a surprising
consistency. Waste reduction, recycling, composting and
economic development are very strong recurring themes in the
recommendations put forth by Borough Presidents, City
Council, environmental organizations and experts. Our plan builds on the intent of local
and state laws, including the 1989 NYC Recycling Law; Local
Law 40 of 1990 regulating transfer stations; and the 1988
NYS Solid Waste Management Act. Our plan utilizes and
invests in the skills and expertise of New Yorkers; it
develops community partnerships to conduct education and
outreach, run reuse and recycling centers, composting
operations and to monitor compliance to ensure responsible
waste handling. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE OWN/CPI
PLAN The OWN/CPI plan includes the
following elements: I. RETROFIT MUNICIPAL MARINE
TRANSFER STATIONS: Modify City-owned waste transfer
stations used to barge waste to Fresh Kills, and
containerize waste for direct export of waste by
barge-to-rail. II. ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
AND EQUITABLE HANDLING OF COMMERCIAL WASTE III. REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE:
Shift fundamental focus/goals from waste disposal and
export to waste diversion and recycling. Comply with its
Recycling Law; then achieve the 50% waste prevention and
recycling goals in the State Solid Waste Management Act;
IV. FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
in re-manufacturing and secondary materials. V. MANAGE FINAL DISPOSAL IN AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANNER Each of these elements is discussed below.
I. MUNICIPAL MARINE TRANSFER: RETROFIT CITY OWNED STATIONS FOR DIRECT EXPORT OF WASTE BY BARGE TO RAIL OR SHIP TERMINAL
We recommend modification of NYC's
eight Marine Transfer Stations and sites so that they can
compact the garbage and put it into containers, and building
of a new recycling and processing station at the Fresh Kills
site on Staten Island. Garbage containers would then be put
on flat barges and shipped to rail or ship terminals for
transport to a landfill. New car technology using sealed
airtight containers rather than boxcars makes rail shipment
of waste more acceptable. We recommend compacting and
containerizing waste at the City's Marine Transfer Stations
and barging it to rail terminals in New Jersey or Howland
Hook on Staten Island in order to access the nation's
railway system. Because there are problems of rail service
east of the Hudson River, we recommend planning around a
combination of barge and rail transport. We support the
needed improvements to NYC's rail infrastructure that have
been identified by the NYC Planning Department to include:
improved cross harbor rail routes via tunnel or improved
float bridge service, intermodal and distribution facilities
east of the Hudson, removal of numerous height clearance
restrictions around the region that would allow double
stacked cars to be moved, and open access or track rights to
avoid transfers where rail ownership changes. (Dept of City
Planning, Oct. 1999 p. 13-26). However, it could take many
years to address the needed rail improvements. In contrast to commercial or private
transfer stations, the municipal Marine Transfer Stations
have operated for decades with only minimal complaints;
these are usually associated with the closure of one station
for repairs and the subsequent routing of more trucks to
other stations. The eight MTS's are fairly well-designed
and equitably located in every borough except Staten Island,
which was on the receiving end of the City's garbage.
Garbage can leave by barge rather than by more polluting
trucks. These marine stations have far more
capacity than is currently being utilized. An existing
system that is working well should be looked to for
upgrading and modernizing for our export needs. Since under
the interim contracts trucks are currently transporting most
waste out of the city, several of the MTSs are now inactive.
Thus modification or reconstruction could be easily
undertaken. Supporting the contention that
modification of the MTSs is a sound idea are the
following: -- The Mayor's Fresh Kills Closure
Task Force Report claimed in 1996 that "the system of marine
transfer stations has existed for many years and represents
an opportunity to avoid the need for siting additional
transfer stations." (p. 93) --The Mayor's December 1998 plan, 2001
and Beyond: A Proposed Plan for Replacing The Fresh Kills
Landfill, lists the many benefits of the existing Marine
Transfer Station system as including well-situated
locations, simplicity of operation, minimal environmental
impacts, adaptability to emergency conditions, efficiency
and cost-effectiveness, and environmental benefits of barge
transport. The 1998 plan states, "The MTS System is
critical to the future reliability and efficiency of the
City's waste management operations. It is an essential
element of the proposed new export infrastructure and
provides important environmental benefits for City
Residents." -- City Comptroller Alan Hevesi has
identified a way to redesign sanitation trucks to carry
containers that could be directly loaded onto barges at the
MTSs and floated to rail or shipping facilities. (Hevesi,
1999) -- A major company, a division of
Allied Industries, made a submission to DOS indicating that
MTSs could be retrofitted for containerization with only
minimal modifications. The Administration frequently claimed
that retrofitting was prevented by space limitations.
However, a new mega-transfer station proposed for the Bronx
plans to handle 5200 tons per day on a site only 5.5 acres
in size. Seven out of eight MTS sites and adjacent
city-owned properties are larger than this. The City is hard pressed to explain
why the municipally owned transfer sites cannot be reused.
After years of insisting that they cannot be retrofitted to
containerize garbage, the May, 2000 plan proposes doing
exactly that at two locations: Southwest Brooklyn and
Greenpoint. Each of the eight MTSs is permitted to handle
4,800 tons per day, far in excess of tonnage handled there
recently-(600 to 2200 TPD before the interim export
contracts were issued). Prior to the increase in tipping
fees at Fresh Kills in the late 1980s, the MTSs were
handling all city municipal and commercial waste-27,000 tons
per day. The Department of Sanitation's Ten
Year Adopted Capital Plan totaled more than $1.7 billion and
included $475 million for projects to rehabilitate its
marine transfer stations. Serious reconsideration of these
capital expenditures should be undertaken including a full
analysis of how the funds might be better allocated to
retrofit or rebuild the marine transfer stations for direct
export of garbage. (DOS Final SWMP, 1996, p.5-27.) We also recommend that the City
continue to own and operate all the Marine Transfer Stations
in order to be in a position to request competitive bidding
on contracts for disposal, and to be in a position to modify
the facilities for increased handling of recyclables. II. ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND
AND EQUITABLE HANDLING OF COMMERCIAL WASTE Currently there is more commercial
waste to dispose of every day in the City than residential
waste - more than 11,000 tons per day. A great deal of this
waste is paper from offices but it includes everything from
restaurant garbage to construction debris. All of it is
currently picked up by private companies. Much is processed
at waste transfer stations in Brooklyn and the Bronx and
then exported to out-of-state landfills. Assuring
sustainable waste management for commercial waste will
require a substantial upgrade in waste facilities, equitable
redistribution, improved equipment and operations, and
stringent enforcement. The "externalities" of the private
system - the social and environmental costs of its current
waste handling practices - must be internalized. Companies
themselves must pay the real costs of their operations. The
government must ensure that waste is handled in a safe and
sanitary way, without excessively burdening any communities
within NYC. City and state elected officials must make a
commitment to rectify the currently unacceptable
situation. 1. Complete a study of commercial
waste generation and processing as required by solid waste
planning regulations. As part of preparation of the 1992
Solid Waste Management Plan, engineers at SCS, a consulting
firm, attempted a survey of commercial transfer stations.
"The survey was very unsuccessful, as shown from the poor
responses obtained. . . . Due to the poor results of the
survey efforts, SCS has not attempted to estimate the total
waste quantity handled by the private carters. A separate
study will be necessary to accurately quantify the private
sector's collection and transfer activities." (SWMP, 1992,
Appendix 4.2) This separate study has never been
done and as late as December of 1999 DOS officials indicated
they do not have information on NYC's waste generation
required by their own regulations. (Meeting between DOS,
EPA, DEC, OWN representatives, and the Brooklyn BP's office
Dec.1999). However, Chapter 20 of the 1992 Solid Waste Plan
requires that the plan be updated every two years and
"report environmental data from the monitoring of newly
developed and existing waste management facilities." This
information concerning the commercial waste stream has not
been included in previous SWMP updates. In other words, the
commercial waste stream has been and continues to be
inadequately studied, quantified and characterized for solid
waste planning purposes. These inadequacies in meeting solid
waste planning requirements are mirrored in addressing
environmental review requirements. Environmental review
should begin with an understanding of baseline or existing
conditions for any new plans or project. Since the City's
export plans call for new private facilities in some of the
same communities hosting many other commercial waste
facilities, it is essential that commercial waste handling
be part of any environmental review. It is critically important to have
better monitoring and accountability for how commercial
waste is handled in NYC. 2. Address the special problems
posed by Manhattan's commercial waste Based on estimates of commercial mixed
waste generation for the 1992 SWMP, Manhattan contributes
the lion's share of commercial mixed waste (Final SWMP,
1992). As Manhattan has little available land, its huge
volumes of largely unsorted commercial waste are carted by
truck to Brooklyn and the Bronx for processing, putting an
inequitable burden on communities in these boroughs. As the largest contributor to the
commercial waste stream, Manhattan requires more detailed
and possibly different planning considerations from the
other boroughs. The City has thus far adopted a "head in
the sand" approach toward this problem, satisfying no one
and angering many. We recommend that, in order to reduce
the amount of unprocessed mixed waste going to other
boroughs and to reduce polluting truck traffic within and
between the boroughs, NYC develop a more extensive
prevention and recycling plan for commercial waste in
Manhattan. The plan should consider initiatives to: -- expand technical assistance to help
businesses cut down on the volume of waste they generate and
reduce their own waste hauling bills; -- enforce source separation
requirements for generators and haulers. Require haulers
to bill at a lower rate for recyclable materials and to
inform their customers about this option, and not mix
separated waste. As source separated materials are cleaner
and require less processing, some could be treated in
Manhattan, rather than trucked to Brooklyn and the
Bronx. -- try out separate "green bin"
collections for biodegradable waste, with the goal of
keeping all recyclable materials cleaner and reducing the
burden of "smelly" putrescible waste on neighborhoods
outside of Manhattan. -- require businesses that are moving
and remodeling to reuse or recycle furnishings and
construction material. -- divert commercial paper through
Manhattan's 59th Street MTS during the hours of 3PM-
Midnight, when this MTS is not being used for municipal
waste. Currently, municipal waste paper goes from 59th
Street MTS by barge to Visy Paper on Staten Island, where it
is remanufactured. Making this option available to the
commercial sector would reduce truck traffic. -- put out competitive bids for
commercial collection routes, so that multiple trucks are
not travelling the same streets. Currently single
establishments hire their own carters, leaving many trucks
covering the same streets. This change also provides an
opportunity for better monitoring and enforcement of the
service. 3. Take actions to address problems
of commercial waste transfer stations. We recommend the following specific
steps: -- Determine the total amount of waste
being generated within NYC, including commercial waste, and
any waste that may be coming from outside the City. -- Cap the total amount of waste that
may be handled in any community district and require a
certificate of need process through City Council for all
proposed new waste facilities or expansions. -- Place a temporary moratorium on all
permits for new transfer stations or expansions in Community
Boards 1 and 6 in Brooklyn, Community Boards 1 and 2 in the
Bronx and Community Board 12 in SE Queens until stringent
siting and operational standards are implemented and
enforced. Keep this moratorium in place until NYC or NYS
law initiates a process bringing mandatory reforms to the
existing commercial waste system. Siting regulations issued
by DOS in 1999 did not meet the intent of Local Law 40. -- Set stringent physical and
operational standards for all waste and recycling
facilities. This will help ensure that NYC does not become
a magnet for solid waste transfer stations. The waste
industry will be forced to internalize social and
environmental costs instead of shifting this burden onto the
public. -- Close down facilities that due to
physical constraints cannot properly handle waste. -- Consider combining the commercial
and residential waste streams for management at municipally
owned transfer stations, but only if it provides relief for
those communities overburdened with waste facilities, and
not if it increases waste processing capacity within a
Community Board, or environmental impacts. -- Require existing facilities with
access to rail or water transport to use these over truck
transport. -- Require scheduled phase-in over ten
years of alternative, less polluting fuels for all
commercial and municipal garbage trucks. -- Prohibit economic development
assistance or incentives for waste handling facilities, with
the exception of recycling or composting plants that have
incorporated community and environmental protection in their
planning. -- Undertake a complete citywide
environmental review of existing land use and zoning
practices in order to determine the means to adequately
protect public health and the environment. -- Enforce all existing rules and
regulations and institute video surveillance of all waste
handling facilities. Urban waste facilities situated next
to schools and houses should be held to more stringent
standards and more enforcement. -- Put more democracy in the system
through borough-based management, increased community
participation in decision-making on siting facilities, in
recycling programs, and in oversight of DOS and the private
sector. -- Require community
mitigation/benefit packages to be allocated in proportion to
waste handling capacity. Community benefit packages should
be funded at a level of $2/ton for all waste and recyclable
handling facilities, to provide independent oversight and
watchdog activities, as well as positive community benefits.
Thus the $2/ton mitigation fee would be internalized to the
cost of doing business. -- Assemble and properly fund a
package of municipal services for all industrially zoned
areas. While bringing tax base to the City, these areas do
not receive tax benefits in the form of an appropriate level
of city services for the operations they house. Additional
sewer cleaning, street maintenance and paving, and
environmental protection services are some of the services
that must be focused on the industrially zoned areas of the
City. III. REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE:
Shift fundamental focus/goals from waste disposal and export
to waste diversion and economic development. The City must fundamentally shift the
emphasis of its waste management system from disposal to
diversion. Waste Diversion refers to removing as
many elements as possible from the waste stream so that what
must be disposed of is reduced to a minimum. In our plan,
export would be undertaken last after a number of diversion
programs have whittled away at the waste stream. The City's
own Solid Waste Management Plan in 1992 offered one option,
known as System B, which provided for 52.7 percent of the
NYC waste stream to be prevented, recycled or composted. We recommend, first of all, that New
York City comply with its own comprehensive Recycling Law of
1989, which called for 25 percent recycling by 1994. In
particular, the City should immediately implement this
comprehensive law's mandate to produce a recycling plan with
annual updates; a plan for waste reduction; a five year
strategy for collecting, processing and marketing
recyclables; and a comparison of the costs of recycling with
the costs of other disposal and waste management strategies,
including export. Second, New York City should comply
immediately with the goals of the State Solid Waste
Management Act of 1988 to achieve 10 percent waste reduction
and 40 percent recycling by 1997. The Act required
municipalities to conduct comprehensive solid waste
management planning and to adopt source separation rules for
all recyclables, where economic markets exist. There are really four kinds of waste
diversion: Waste Prevention/Reduction
refers to waste not created in the first place.
Prevention efforts, such as better packaging of consumer
goods, automatically reduce waste materials for collection
(the most expensive part of the system), transport and
disposal. It should be given top priority. Reuse involves reusing goods
and materials as they are with minimal modification, i.e.,
cleaning, refurbishing or repair -- and without
remanufacturing and/or turning them into something else. An
item to be reused is transferred to a household or
institution that wants it from one where it is no longer
wanted. Recycling involves using waste
as raw material, significantly modifying it or
re-manufacturing it for new uses. It is more expensive,
complex and environmentally stressful than prevention or
reuse. Both reuse and recycling foster economic development
by retrieving from the waste stream valuable materials that
can be used again. Fifteen percent of the nation's waste
stream consists of durable equipment -- appliances,
furniture -- that is either reusable or recyclable. (EPA,
Characterization of MSW: 1998 update, 1999) Composting is actually a form
of recycling because it returns organic materials, like food
and yard waste, back into valuable soil components. Despite
being the earth's oldest form of recycling, having occurred
for millions of years without human intervention, composting
is unfortunately too often not included in recycling
considerations. However, cities and states across the
country that have reached the maximum recycling rates with
traditional materials are now reaching new higher goals
simply by turning their attention to organic material. In our plan, export would move to last
place, after a number of diversion programs have whittled
away at the waste stream. One goal is to achieve maximum
diversion from export and disposal; the other goal is to
maximize economic development opportunities and generate
revenue. We would aim to market a greater percentage of
material and receive higher prices, including from high
quality compost. We recommend rewarding inovative personnel
skilled at analyzing the waste stream and coming up with new
strategies for diverting and marketing waste materials and
attracting remanufacturing industries. The Natural Resources Defense Council
contracted with Zogby International in 1977 to assess New
Yorkers support for recycling. When asked, "Do you support
or oppose expanded recycling efforts in New York City?" more
than 81.9% supported expansion. Extending across party
lines, equal percentages of Republicans, Democrats and
Independents supported it. While the young and women were
more likely to support recycling, support was fairly
consistent across racial lines-with the strongest support
from African Americans at 83.3%. (NRDC, Waste Watch Report,
1997). In the near future, NYC's current
recycling rate should jump from 20 percent to the 40 - 50
percent being achieved by a number of U.S. cities. A. The City should focus on the
following key steps to maximize waste prevention, reuse and
recycling: 1. Target more materials for reuse
and recycling When most people think of recycling,
they tend to think of a particular subset of materials, like
paper and metal, glass and plastic containers, but not food
and yard waste, furniture, lumber, and textiles. One
consequence of this thinking is that recycling rates seem to
plateau and members of the public are told repeatedly that
greater waste diversion cannot be achieved. The truth is
that most recycling programs don't target enough material,
making it impossible to reach higher goals. In our view,
the entire waste stream should be targeted for diversion
efforts. Targeting more materials can
significantly boost the overall recycling numbers. Simple
math tells us the story. If we target 35% of the waste
stream and 90% of the population recycles successfully 85%
of the time, meaning that they get the right materials into
the recycling bin, then we will achieve close to a 27%
diversion rate (.35x.90x.85=26.78%). On the other hand, if
we target 80% of the waste stream, with a similar
participation and success rate, we can achieve a 61%
diversion rate (.80 x .90 x .85 = 61%). Municipalities
across the U.S. are breathing new life into their programs
and increasing recycling rates, especially by targeting
organic materials. In NYC, there is significant potential
for increasing waste diversion, especially in two areas --
organic waste and durable goods, which total 38% of the
waste stream. Organic waste, which consists of food, yard
and any other biodegradable materials, represents
approximately 20% of the waste stream; yet little of it is
diverted. Efforts have amounted only to limited collections
of discarded Christmas trees in January and leaf collection
in some districts in the fall. San Francisco found that 26%
of their waste stream consisted of food waste and only 5%
was yard waste. This led to the decision to add organics to
their recycling program. They now have three collection
bins one for trash, one for recyclables and one for
organics. (Macy, p. 51). Separating organics from the rest
of the waste stream provides an assortment of benefits. The
organics are the wet, smelly portion of the waste stream, as
well as the portion which attracts vermin: separating out
this material from the rest means that there will be a
smaller overall quantity of smelly waste material to handle,
and it could be stored in well designed bins with locking
covers. In contrast to piles of plastic bags attracting
rodents on collection days, we would have a more sanitary
system. Fifteen percent of the nation's waste
stream consists of durable bulk goods -- appliances,
bicycles, furniture, etc., that are either reusable or
recyclable. With no community-based reuse centers in NYC,
most of this material is put out to the curb and ends up in
the trash. Metal items are collected for recycling in the
bulk metal program. Textiles represent another 3% of the
waste stream. Although non-profit organizations, such as
the Salvation Army, do clothing pick-ups in certain areas,
large sections of the City have no collection services for
this material. 2. Require everyone to
participate Recycling rates in NYC, which were
according to the Department of Sanitation around 20% in
December of 1999, are in fact amazing, given the large
categories with poor participation. Multifamily buildings,
municipal agencies and many institutions that receive free
collection have not effectively been brought into the
program. Our plan would expand education and outreach, and
enforce participation requirements. City agencies and institutions should
each be required to have waste audits and the budget would
show the cost of collecting waste for each individually.
Those making immediate and significant progress by preparing
and implementing a waste diversion plan should not be
charged for waste services. Those failing to do so should
be charged within two years for their trash or mixed waste
pick ups only, not for their recyclables. 3. Increase opportunities for
prevention, reuse and recycling. This involves reorienting the system
so that it provides more opportunities for people to divert
waste and fewer opportunities for materials to become
trash. a. Prevention: We recommend
that the City take measures to increase prevention efforts
in its own agencies and do education and outreach to promote
waste prevention measures in households, institutions and
businesses. In 1996, the Mayor issued a Mayoral
Directive on Waste Prevention for City Agencies in 1996
saying, "Conservation of City agency supplies and inventory,
reduction and reuse of packaging waste, and other proactive
measures that prevent waste can dramatically reduce
purchasing, operating and waste management costs for the
City. Waste Prevention is the most fiscally prudent,
socially responsible, and environmentally sound strategy for
managing the City's trash." Since then however, the program
appears stalled. There have been no progress reports from
the Mayor's office. If agency coordinators have been
identified, that information has not been made available. A
key consultant report with a prime focus on waste prevention
in City agencies was prepared but has not been released by
the Department of Sanitation. The lack of action in
preventing City agency waste is particularly disturbing, not
just because of the waste collection and disposal savings,
but because of the huge savings that can be found on the
purchasing side. Ignoring the potential for savings is
simply not fiscally prudent. The City needs to commit to a
prevention program, as well as to encourage the private
sector to take similar measures. For the commercial waste
stream, the City should enter into partnerships with
companies, promoting waste prevention through waste audits.
When businesses learn they can realize significant savings
by preventing waste, many will be anxious to obtain a waste
audit. Waste prevention benefits are so extraordinary that
for a small investment in waste audits, companies can save
money over and above any costs in the first year. Just two of many waste prevention
examples for the business sector outside New York City:
Baxter Health Care Corporation eliminated 6.5% or 11.6
million pounds of packaging, cutting costs in excess of $5.9
million. Keebler Company has reduced packaging by 12.7
million pounds and saved $2.6 million. (FK Task Force
report, p. 48-49). The strategies and educational
materials are different for households. People can and do
alter their habits when provided the information about what
and how to do so. More education and outreach is needed.
If people know that leaving grass clippings on the lawn or
around their shrubs will fertilize the soil and improve its
ability to hold water under drought conditions, most will
want to reuse grass clippings. b. Reuse: Opportunities for
reuse must be expanded. We recommend expanding reuse
opportunities by siting several centers throughout the City.
These "flea markets" would sell goods, like furniture and
appliances, unwanted by certain households but still having
useful life. Materials for the Arts, a high visibility
reuse program supported by City funds, has been very
successful. Donations provide materials to art programs in
the City and it will be soon providing services to schools
in the City. However, it is only a "drop in the bucket" of
what is possible in the reuse arena. In a Florida program
textile recycling was given a boost through a partnership
with local newspapers to distribute plastic bags with
information about where textiles could be donated. This
resulted in a 300% increase in donations to nineteen
non-profits. (Biocycle, May 1997, p.22) Reuse centers
should be part of a comprehensive package of City waste
services. Currently, bulk furniture, baby
carriages, and a host of repairable items are regularly
compacted for disposal by Department of Sanitation trucks.
The collection system must accommodate a means of preserving
quality durable goods, so that they can be reused. c. Recycling: Recycling should be made
easy for people moving around NYC. All public places and
spaces-parks, agency buildings, transit facilities-should
have bins for recyclable materials and prominent messages
about how to recycle. DOS has not implemented this program,
despite committing to do so in the Fresh Kills Task Force
report. In Toronto, a company was awarded a 10-year
contract to provide, install and maintain recycling bins
around the city for $8.7 million. Since Toronto will
receive a portion of the advertising revenues, the City
expects to receive a profit over the extra costs of
collecting recyclables. (Truini, Waste News,, August,
16,1999). We recommend that DOS direct all
municipal agencies and institutions to analyze their waste
and make the appropriate collection adjustments. Although
most of them generate trash containing 80% recyclable
material, trash collections still dwarf recycling
collections. We also recommend that DOS inspect all truckloads arriving for disposal at Transfer Stations to identify recyclable material, divert loads that contain 50 percent recyclable materials, and issue penalties to those who mix recyclables with garbage. Some NYC agencies bring their own garbage directly to the Transfer Stations without using DOS trucks. OWN members touring the Municipal Transfer Stations (MTS's) saw truckloads of cardboard and furniture, which should be reused or recycled, coming from NYC Housing Authority, and loads of recyclable dirt and rock, fill material, in DOS trucks. Now these same loads are being exported at a cost to the City of close to $70 per ton under interim contracts. |