Taking Out the Trash: A New Direction for New York City's Waste by Barbara Warren, M.S. Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods and Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union May 31, 2000

About Acknowledgements Executive Summary Report Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D

CHAPTER V RECOMMENDATIONS NEW YORK CITY New York City Council Ideally, the City would adopt the OWN Alternative Plan for managing the City's waste. On the other hand, if the Administration's May 2000 plan is to be adopted-- with the BFI/Allied facility in Linden, New Jersey as its centerpiece, processing more than half of all City waste--the City Council must modify it in order to meet basic standards of equity, environmental soundness and economic sustainability. If not modified, the City Council should veto the Solid Waste Management Plan and any Budget for long term export. The City Council should vote only on a specific final plan, not the current version, which actually offers a menu of options and alternatives. The Department of Sanitation must be held accountable in this process. The City Council should require the following in the Final Solid Waste Management Plan: 1) A commitment to borough-based equity; 2) A commitment to compliance with the City's Recycling Law with a phase-down schedule for export as recycling is expanded, including: a) building of needed state-of-the-art recycling infrastructure b) a long term commitment of funding for waste prevention and recycling in the expense budget - at a level of 50% of the waste collection and disposal budget (divided 10% for waste prevention programs and 40% for recycling programs)-- while simultaneously making the programs more cost-effective. These budget allocations, while aggressive, are needed largely because these programs have been underfunded for too long. c) restructuring the Department of Sanitation to reflect waste diversion goals and borough based management of waste diversion programs. d) partnerships with community based organizations to develop projects and achieve diversion objectives. 3) A commitment to a comprehensive study over the next year of commercial waste handling and private transfer stations and the development of a plan for comprehensive reform. The Plan should specify that no commercial waste can be moved through City Marine Transfer Stations until the above study is completed and plans for commercial waste handling reform are adopted. 4) Protective contract provisions for the City, ie., do not allow "put or pay" contracts whereby the City would have to pay for an amount of waste disposal, whether or not we generate it. The City might be better served by purchasing a total disposal capacity, which we could make last longer by increasing waste prevention and recycling programs. Given the limited ability of the Council to exercise authority over the contracting process, the Council should utilize the Solid Waste Management Plan approval process to the fullest extent possible to provide the necessary protections. 5) Inclusion of a Back-up Export Plan for the City, based on retrofit of the eight existing Marine Transfer Stations(MTSs) so that they can containerize waste for direct export, and construction of a small Staten Island recycling station. The City should prepare this in case the Linden facility proposal does not come to fruition for any of a variety of reasons. City Council should also require the City to more fully analyze the reconstruction of these facilities in conjunction with nearby city-owned property in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 6) A prohibition on building new or expanding existing private waste transfer facilities in the most overburdened neighborhoods-- the South Bronx, Greenpoint/Williamsburg and Red Hook, including facilities with pending permit applications. 7) In Brooklyn, retention of the Greenpoint MTS under city ownership and modification for direct export of waste by barge-to-rail. The incinerator stack and equipment should be removed. 8) In Queens, City ownership of a proposed new waste facility and inclusion of recycling infrastructure, rather than private ownership. 9) Use of barge transport rather than rail for export of Brooklyn and Queens waste. Rail transport east of the Hudson is extraordinarily limited at this time and what is available should be used to meet existing needs. 10) In the South Bronx, existing facilities should process the borough's residential waste for direct export by rail. No new facilities in this impacted community. 11) On Staten Island, construction of a City-owned and operated recycling processing center (as planned several years ago), rather than invest $30 million in an 1150 ton per day containerization station, which would provide much more capacity than SI needs for its waste. The plan should provide for barging of SI mixed waste for export across to Linden. SI would need to send only one barge load per day, 575 tons, the amount of residential waste it was generating as of July 1999. The construction of a ramp allowing trucks to dump in a barge is all the infrastructure that would be needed. The City on the other hand needs recycling infrastructure. Rail service is not currently available to this site. 12) For Manhattan, require a more comprehensive analysis of MTS Retrofit/Reconstruction in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. All of the MTSs are capable of being retrofitted for direct export of waste if all available DOS or city owned property is utilized. DOS has unacceptably rejected the retrofit of the 59th St. MTS. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should reexamine the Retrofit of the 59th St. MTS in conjunction with the adjacent garage facility, currently slated to be torn down and rebuilt. The garage facility should be reconstructed for receipt of garbage, compaction and containerization. These containers could then be driven across the street at night to a reconstructed MTS for direct export of containers by flat bed barge. While there is limited available land at the 91st Street MTS, the City has not explored building several stories up at this location. 13) Require City Council approval of any future amendments to the final plan. The City Council should pass laws that address the following: 1) Capping community district waste facility capacity and development of a certificate-of-need process for transfer station capacity. 2) Mandatory reforms to the existing commercial waste system and transfer stations including codifying strict siting restrictions, which the Department of Sanitation has proven unwilling to issue in accordance with Local Law 40. Placing a temporary moratorium on all permits for new transfer stations or expansions in Community Districts 1 and 6 in Brooklyn, Community Districts 1 and 2 in the South Bronx and Community District 12 in SE Queens until the process begins which will bring mandatory reforms to the existing commercial waste system. 3) Community mitigation/benefit packages for community districts, to be allocated in proportion to waste handling capacity, financed by a $2/ton fee levied on all waste and recycling processing facilities. The fee would finance independent oversight and watchdog activities as well as positive community benefits. 4) A package of necessary municipal services for all industrially zoned areas must be assembled and properly funded. While bringing tax base to the City these areas do not receive tax benefits returned in an appropriate level of city services for the operations housed there. Additional sewer cleaning, street maintenance and paving, and environmental protection services are some of the services that must be focused on the industrial zoned areas of the city. (It should be noted that the City actually has a water and sewer agency with a small budget, only 5% of the total, for environmental protection, not an environmental protection agency.) 5) A comprehensive city waste prevention and procurement bill (Intro. 482) 6) Proper closure of Fresh Kills with City Council and public input. The Department of Sanitation must take actions to address problems in community districts overburdened with waste transfer stations including addressing the special problem posed by Manhattan's large quantity of commercial waste including: a. Determining the total amount of waste being generated within NYC, including the commercial waste stream, to determine capacity needs for facilities. b. Instituting real Environmental Protection and Enforcement with regular inspections and steep penalties including the loss of permits to operate. Video surveillance of all waste handling facilities should be instituted immediately and should be considered equivalent to continuous monitoring of emissions in the regulatory framework. All City agencies should take long term actions to build a sanitary, environmentally sound and sustainable infrastructure for all waste handling. The City Administration should consider: a. Setting stringent physical and operational standards for all waste and recyclable handling facilities. This will help ensure that NYC does not become a magnet for solid waste transfer stations. Industry will also tend to locate where they can operate at the least cost. The waste industry will be forced to internalize social and environmental costs instead of shifting this burden onto the public. b. Combining the commercial and residential waste streams for management at municipally owned transfer stations, but only in conjunction with principles of fairness and equity to provide relief for communities overburdened with waste facilities. c. Requiring existing facilities with access to rail or water transport, to use these means of waste transport to reduce reliance on air polluting trucks. d. Requiring the scheduled phase in over 10 years of alternative, less polluting fuels for all commercial and municipal garbage trucks traveling on local routes. e. Prohibiting economic development assistance or incentives for waste handling facilities, other than recycling or composting facilities which have incorporated community and environmental protections in their planning. f. Completing a citywide environmental review of current land use and zoning practices to determine means to adequately protect public health and the environment and to avoid civil rights violations. g. Increasing roles for community participation in siting of facilities and oversight of DOS and the private sector. More democracy needs to be in the system. Executive authority for contracting must be limited in the future, if necessary by City Charter, to require a more democratic process for major decisions. The Comptroller's Office The Comptroller should refuse to register any long-term contracts for export unless the City's plan complies with the City Recycling Law and the City Council has approved the Solid Waste Management Plan. The Comptroller should also ensure that provisions in the contract ensure community protection, and that contracts allow for growth in recycling and waste prevention without penalties to the city. The City Council and the Comptroller have a role to play in ensuring that competition is maintained by diversifying waste management options and limiting the contracts given to any one company. Contracts should not be given to companies with a history of violations of environmental or competition laws or regulations. NEW YORK STATE The Governor has championed sustainable waste options through his representatives on the Fresh Kills Closure Task Force from the State Department of Environmental Conservation. NYC's waste problems are creating havoc in our relations with other states. Fresh Kills closure may ultimately be jeopardized and NYC may have to find waste facilities within the state. The Governor should act through his Department of Environmental Conservation to require that NYC's Solid Waste Management Plan meets the requirements of state and city law, the NYS Solid Waste Management Act and the NYC Recycling Law. No solid waste plan that is in open violation of these laws should be approved. The State has also over many years funded NYC for solid waste planning, waste reduction and recycling programs as well as economic development by supporting NYC businesses engaged in remanufacturing of recycled materials. The Governor and State must hold the City accountable for these investments by ensuring that solid waste planning reflects these investments. It does little good to send these businesses such mixed signals. The Attorney General has a similar role to play as that of the US Dept. of Justice. At the state level he can ensure that legal and fair business practices are operating in the state and that the public is not harmed by uncompetitive or irresponsible practices. The State Legislature should pass legislation to strengthen the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 so that the plans be enforceable by DEC, with severe penalties for non-compliance. Permitting of new waste facilities, transfer stations or disposal facilities, should not occur in the absence of comprehensive solid waste plans that cover the commercial and municipal waste streams. The State Legislature should pass legislation to address the numerous problems of waste transfer stations in NYC. The State Legislature should pass a bill that codifies a list of actions and projects for which a full environmental impact statement is required. Allowing state and city agencies to have discretion in this area has led to completely arbitrary and illogical decisions, and to exempting projects that are virtually certain to have significant environmental impacts from having to complete an environmental impact statement. The State Legislature should also pass the Environmentally Sound Packaging Act and require an advanced disposal fee for tires and batteries. The State Legislature should support the two recycling bills the Attorney General introduced this year to expand bottle bill deposits to other types of beverages and to mandate the recycling of certain materials. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Congress should remove billions of dollars in subsidies for virgin materials that hurt the competitiveness of secondary (recycled) materials. All disincentives for the use of recycled materials must be removed. Recycled materials must be able to compete on a level playing field with virgin raw materials. Congress should act to pass meaningful national waste reduction legislation. European nations have focused efforts on making producers more responsible for waste generation. EPA has been a leader in setting waste prevention and recycling goals, advancing composting, conducting research on sustainable waste solutions and preparing a host of excellent reports. These efforts must be continued. The Environmental Protection Agency despite a very limited budget for solid waste, nevertheless has authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to regulate solid waste management and planning, which does not have to be tied solely to state grants. EPA should review New York State's solid waste plan in accordance with RCRA and the consistency of NYC's plan with the state plan, and require appropriate modifications. In New York City's case more effort is required of EPA. Other states and communities will be impacted by NYC's export plans; and EPA participated in the Fresh Kills Closure Task Force, which prepared recommendations for closing this unpermitted landfill. The EPA should promulgate regulations for various kinds of waste transfer stations as called for by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, after completing a study of these facilities. Voluntary "best management practices" guidance for multinational companies will do little for those communities with the least political power--environmental justice communities--and in situations with the most negligent and unresponsive local government agencies. Transfer stations located in urban areas in close proximity to housing and public spaces need more stringent environmental controls. EPA has funded New York State and City for research, solid waste planning, waste reduction and recycling programs as well as economic development, by supporting Jobs thru Recycling. EPA must hold the city accountable by ensuring that solid waste planning reflects these investments. EPA should use all enforcement opportunities with NYC to guide it toward sustainable and environmentally sound solid waste management. For example, EPA is currently engaged in a $30 million suit against NYC for violating provisions of the Clean Air Act, which require the recovery and recycling of ozone depleting substances from refrigerators. As we have documented in this report and EPA has documented extensively previously, the environmental benefits of waste reduction and recycling include significant reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. We recommend that EPA only settle this suit by connecting the City's failures in solid waste handling to these air quality violations. Any settlement of the suit must incorporate waste prevention, recycling and composting requirements as alternatives to export and disposal plans which will generate more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time EPA should address the inequitable burdens of waste handling in NYC communities. EPA should also encourage government and private sector to move toward alternative fuels for heavy duty vehicles, that are less polluting. The Department of Justice has allowed significant industry consolidation in a field and with companies already known for anti-competitive practices. The Department of Justice must ensure competition and fair business practices and protect the public from potential harm resulting from the consolidation.