|
Taking
Out the Trash: |
 |
|
About
|
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; a) building of needed state-of-the-art recycling infrastructure 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. 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. 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. 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. |