Reaching for Zero:
A The Citizens Plan for Zero Waste in New York City
By Resa Dimino and Barbara Warren
New York City Zero Waste Campaign
and Consumer Policy Institute / Consumers Union June 2004
available in pdf format

According to the Department of Sanitation’s 1990 Waste Composition Analysis, organic materials, such as leaves, grass clippings, wood and food waste, make up a substantial 26 percent of New York City’s waste stream, second only to paper as a single category (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Solid Waste Management Plan, 1992). The City generates about 13, 000 tons of residential and institutional recyclables and waste per day; 3,380 tons of this amount is organic material. Additional organic material is generated in the commercial sector, such as in restaurants.

All organic waste can be recycled by the composting process into valuable soil amendment material. As of 2001, the City diverted an average of 47,000 tons per year of organic waste from export and disposal. This represents about 4% of the estimated 1 million tons per year of organic material that DSNY collects. Over a decade ago, the City proposed to substantially increase composting. In 1992, it proposed building 500 to 2300 tons per day of composting facility capacity (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Solid Waste Management Plan, 1992). However, only three yard-waste facilities were actually created. Composting operations in NYC now handle 47,000 tons annually including (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Composting, 2001):

20,000 tons of leaves collected in 34 out of 59 community districts, and sent to one of three leaf composting sites;

7,500 tons of food waste composted at Rikers Island prison facilities;

2,500 tons of Christmas trees sent to parks for mulch;

10,000 tons of grass clippings and leaves handled on site by the NYC Housing Authority.

Budget cuts in 2002 cancelled funding for separate collection of leaves and composting, as well as for the Botanical Gardens efforts to promote leaving grass clippings on the lawn and to distribute compost bins.

Because of its substantial volumes, expanded composting of organic waste is critical to the success of any zero waste program. In fact, getting even close to zero waste will not be possible without greater recovery of organics. Organics composting is one of the key characteristics of recycling programs that exceed 40 percent recovery (Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2002). Many of the cities planning for zero waste, such as San Francisco and Toronto, are pursuing large scale composting, including curbside collection of food waste, as a central element of their strategy.

Composting is a natural process that converts organic matter into a fertilizer or soil enrichment. There are a multitude of management options for composting. Implementing larger scale composting Citywide should involve a variety of programs tailored to specific boroughs, specific housing stock and specific organic materials. Composting can be done either ‘on-site’ -- in a backyard or on the grounds of larger institutions -- or at centralized facilities. New York will have to utilize both. However, maximizing on-site composting has the dual benefit of reducing collection and disposal costs and eliminating the environmental impacts of having to collect and transport the material.

Organic materials are being targeted for recovery not only to reduce waste, but also because landfilling contributes to global warming. When organic material breaks down in an environment starved of air, such as a landfill, it releases methane, a harmful greenhouse gas. Because of these methane releases and the leachate produced by organics in a landfill, the European Union has set goals for reducing organic waste disposal at landfills by 65% in 15 years (Favoino, 2002).

Certain organic materials, such as yard waste, leaves and Christmas trees, should be targeted for discrete, seasonal collection programs, while others, such as food waste, must be collected year round and more fully integrated into the City’s collection system.

To date, New York City’s organics recovery efforts have been limited to fall leaf collection and composting, some on-site food waste composting at the Rikers Island prison, and education and outreach programs to promote composting and distribute subsidized backyard composting bins. Despite the suspension of most of these programs in 2002, they form a strong base on which to build a more comprehensive organics recovery program.

A zero waste program requires comprehensive organics recovery strategies. There are three primary components to a NYC composting program. The first deals with yard and food waste that can be composted on-site. By addressing just 10% of the DSNY organic waste stream, on-site processing could save the City over $25 million per year in collection and disposal costs, assuming $257 for collection and disposal (City of New York Mayor’s Office of Operations, 2003). Collection cost savings are not achieved on a ton-for-ton basis — that is, not every ton reduced will lead to reduced collection costs. However, an effective and ambitious program can result in collection savings, as the volume reduced results in reduced truck shifts. The second component is to reinstate and expand separate yard waste collections and composting the material at central locations. The third component is to develop new centralized food waste collection and composting systems.

This plan includes:

• Residential On-Site Backyard Composting and Grass Mulching: More than 930,000 NYC households have backyards and, based on DSNY research, 70 percent of households support backyard composting as a waste management strategy for the city (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Backyard Composting, 1999). An investment in subsidized bins for these households will yield substantial disposal and collection cost savings. We also recommend that a grass collection ban be accompanied by education on the benefits of leaving grass clippings on the lawn.
• Institutional On-Site Composting and Grass Mulching: The City should reinvigorate its technical assistance program, previously run by the NY Botanical Gardens, to help institutions do on-site composting. The City must also ban grass collections for institutions. These institutional programs should be coupled with PAYT. See Chapter 9 Financing
• Commercial On-Site Composting: the City should bring its plans for on-site composting at the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center to fruition and identify other areas that generate substantial amounts of food scraps (i.e. food courts, airports, etc.) for additional on-site composting systems.
• Centralized Composting of Residential Yard Waste and Fall Leaves: The City should reinstate fall leaf and Christmas tree collection and pilot test spring collection of yard trimmings for composting at DSNY sites. In addition, the City should enable landscapers to bring yard debris to DSNY sites for composting.
• Centralized Food Scrap Composting: The City should develop composting facilities to process organic food waste. We recommend evaluating two possible composing systems: a) one that utilizes dedicated collections of source-separated or clean organic materials and b) one that collects organic materials mixed with other trash —the trash remaining after comprehensive waste prevention, reuse, and recycling programs have been implemented. The City should pilot test collection of organics in several areas, including those generating substantial amounts of commercial food waste (i.e., restaurant districts) as well as low-density and high-density residential districts. Tests should compare the advantages and disadvantages of source-separated collection with the collection and processing of mixed trash materials, including final product quality.

On-Site Composting Systems/Organic Waste Prevention

From 1992 through 2001, DSNY supported education programs run by the Botanical Gardens. The programs distributed subsidized backyard composting bins and educated residents and institutions to mulch grass clippings, or "leave it on the lawn." These programs should be reestablished and expanded.

Grass Clippings Collection Ban and Mulching

The City should follow through on the grass clipping collection ban proposed in DSNY’s 1992 Solid Waste Management Plan. To ensure residents have the information needed to comply, the City should also reinstate the citywide "leave it on the lawn" education program. Under a grass clippings collection ban, residents would be required to mulch grass, i.e., leave clippings on the lawn to decompose naturally, compost clippings in their backyard, or have their landscaper remove clippings. According to the City’s waste composition studies, grass clippings comprise about 2% of the residential solid waste stream, or about 78,000 tons a year (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Composting, 2001). Therefore, a grass clipping ban could save the city as much as $20 million annually, assuming $257 for collection and disposal (City of New York Mayor’s Office of Operations, 2003). In order to realize collection savings, truck shifts must be reduced, so collection savings are not immediately realized until there is significant diversion.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Reestablish citywide ‘Leave it on the lawn" education program and institute a one-year warning period prior to instituting the ban on collection of grass clippings.

2006 onward: Enforce grass collection ban and fund citywide education and outreach.

Residential Backyard Composting

DSNY’s 1999 report, "Backyard Composting in New York City: A Comprehensive Program Evaluation," estimates that one-third of New Yorkers, or 930,000 households, have some form of backyard. The report cites market research that 70% of these households agree that backyard composting should be considered as a waste management tool.

The City’s efforts to encourage backyard composting, including the distribution of subsidized backyard composting bins in appropriate neighborhoods, were very successful and should be reinstated. In FY `99, working through the Botanical Gardens, DSNY distributed 425 compost bins; in FY `00 they distributed 4,200 bins; in FY `01 5,000 bins. The reinstitution of backyard composting education should include funding for the subsidized distribution of 10,000 compost bins (made of recycled materials) per year. In Santa Cruz, CA, their program has provided a financial incentive to choose backyard composting over organics collections.

In a limited pilot program, DSNY estimated that households diverted 6.8 pounds of yard waste per week. This is likely a serious underestimate of the potential diversion. However, if we assume that just 10%, or 93,000 of households with backyards, participate and divert 6.8 pounds per week, the overall savings to the City per year could be as high as $4.2 million, assuming $257 per ton for collection and disposal (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Backyard Composting, 1999, and The City of New York Mayor’s Office of Operations, 2003).

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Reinstate education program and distribute 10,000 compost bins.

2006 and beyond: Support education program and distribute 10,000 bins per year.

Institutional On-site Composting and Grass Recycling

The City should reinstate its outreach program to encourage institutions to do on-site composting of food scraps and yard trimmings and to do grass mulching. Due in large part to the outreach programs run by the Botanical Gardens under contract to DSNY, many institutions adopted on-site yard waste composting. The NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) adopted "leave it on the lawn" practices for 8,000-15,000 tons of grass clippings at all its housing developments. Assuming only 8,000 tons diverted at $257 for collection and disposal, these practices save the City $2 million every year (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Composting, 2001and City of New York Mayor’s Office of Operations, 2003). NYCHA also developed on-site leaf composting operations at many of its sites (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Composting, 2001).

By eliminating waste collection and disposal costs, these projects provide the City with substantial savings that continue year after year, long after the initial investment. However, it is a mistake to no longer count the monetary benefits that continue to accrue. This is waste prevention at its best with waste diverted before entering the DSNY collection system. The City needs to properly account for these savings in future years.

Once the outreach program is reinstated, the City should implement a grass collection ban for all institutions and agencies.

In the past, DSNY has also assisted in piloting on-site food waste composting at a number of institutions. If these pilots are successful, they should be expanded. On-site handling of food wastes would result in collection and disposal savings for the City.

A key barrier to getting large institutions to adopt composting is that they currently receive free waste collections from the City, while they must invest in and maintain composting systems. If instituted as a part of a zero waste system, in tandem with incentives such as Pay-As-You-Throw, volume-based pricing (see Chapter 9, Financing), composting becomes a more attractive option for institutions. Furthermore, composting technology continues to improve and become more cost-effective. Therefore, the City should continue to monitor and test new systems for technical and economic feasibility.

On-site food waste composting systems have been very successful where there are other motivating factors beyond cost saving. For example, the "Hot Box", installed in approximately 25 community gardens, parks, school yards and other sites, is a low-tech composting system developed by Open Road of New York, with students from the East Side Community High School (IS 318), and support from DSNY. The boxes are made from recycled plastic and handle small volumes of organics. Open Road assembles the boxes and provides instructions and training in their proper use. This program also has high educational value for the students.

In addition to on-site composting, on-site de-watering systems at larger institutions and where food is processed may provide a cost-effective way to reduce the weight and volume of food waste. De-watering can supplement on-site composting or contribute to more efficient waste collection where space does not permit on-site composting. De-watering has the advantage of being less labor and space intensive than the on-site composting systems currently available. The City should provide technical assistance and other incentives for institutions interested in on-site de-watering.

Implementation Schedule:

2005 and beyond: Reestablish composting outreach program to institutions and agencies citywide; require all institutions and agencies to "Leave it on the Lawn."

2006: Institute PAYT for institutions (see Chapter 9, Financing); provide technical and financial assistance to institutions to establish composting and de-watering systems for food wastes.

Commercial On-site Composting

For the past three years, DSNY has been working with the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center to develop an on-site composting system to process fruit and vegetable waste. That project should be brought to fruition and adopted in other NYC areas that generate large volumes of organic waste. Other large commercial generators of food waste that would benefit from on-site composting include office complexes, food courts, airports, and wholesale food processors.

These on-site composting facilities would reduce disposal costs to businesses, while eliminating the need for and the environmental impacts of transporting organics to a disposal site. The recent restructuring of commercial carting fees that raised the rates for "wet wastes" like restaurant food waste to $8 per 100 pounds or $160 per ton makes composting a more attractive option for operations that produce large amounts of organic waste.

The City should provide technical assistance and other incentives to interested businesses. The City could also encourage waste haulers to offer on-site composting services, as they offer other equipment such as compactors.

Implementation Schedule:

2005 and beyond: Establish and support citywide commercial organics recovery outreach program. Provide technical and financial assistance to help businesses establish in-vessel food waste composting systems.

Centralized Composting of Residential Yard Material

Despite the potential benefits, not all yard waste can be composted on-site. There will still be a need for yard waste collections for composting off-site. At the time the leaf composting collection program was suspended in 2002, it was diverting approximately 20,000 tons annually and collection efficiency had increased from 4.8 tons to 7.2 tons per truck. The City has three existing leaf composting sites, Soundview Park in the Bronx, Spring Creek on the Brooklyn-Queens border, and Fresh Kills on Staten Island. These facilities have sufficient capacity to handle 20,000 tons of leaves per year. If the leaf capture rate expands dramatically or the City starts to receive large amounts of landscaper organic waste (see below), additional acreage may be required.

We recommend both increasing yard waste collections and allowing landscapers to utilize composting sites. This has the potential to increase dramatically the amount of organic waste processed in NYC.

In resuming separate fall leaf collection and composting, DSNY should:

• Convene a task force to identify possible additional composting sites, to further decentralize operations, or to replace the existing temporary facilities with permanent ones. The task force should explore siting of facilities outside of parkland and seek to minimize the loss of open space to environmental justice communities, which have less open space in NYC.

• Ensure the facilities are properly managed to avoid odor, noise, dust or litter problems.

• Require that leaves be set out for collection in either loose in rigid containers or in compostable paper bags; this can reduce litter at compost sites and reduce composting costs by an estimated 50 percent.
• Expand leaf collection to areas of the city not previously serviced, including the large private housing complexes, NYCHA developments and neighborhoods with brownstones (e.g., Harlem and Chelsea) in Manhattan.

In addition to separate fall leaf collections, the City should expand the yard debris program to:

Reinstate Christmas tree collection and mulching

In 2004, the City resumed its citywide Christmas tree collection and created a partnership with the Parks Department for chipping collected trees to create mulch for use in parks. DSNY should explore ways of reducing collection costs, possibly through private collection or partnerships with the Parks Department and other organizations. As part of their licensing process, tree vendors should be required to distribute literature describing the city’s tree recycling program and the procedures residents are to follow in setting out their trees for collection.

Pilot a spring/summer yard trimmings program

Initially in low-density neighborhoods in Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx and then expand city-wide if successful. Spring collection would run for approximately 6 weeks -- the same length of time as the leaf collection cycle. Due to the volume reduction that occurs during composting, spring and summer yard debris could probably be handled at existing leaf composting sites without expanding their footprint. Therefore there should be no capital costs associated with these added collections.

Open city compost sites to private landscapers

Enable landscapers to dispose of yard trimmings at all City composting facilities (currently only the Fresh Kills facility is open to landscapers) to generate revenue through tipping fees and generate more compost, which is valuable to the Parks Department. This also reduces the likelihood that landscapers will leave yard waste at the curb for DSNY collection (an illegal but common practice). While no quantitative data are available, anecdotal information suggests that many of these leave yard waste at the curb for DSNY collection. Either the City should implement an enforcement program aimed at landscapers to end this practice or the City could begin to charge for this service. (See Chapter 9, Financing.)

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Reinstate and enhance curbside collection and composting of fall leaves; form task force to address siting issues and needs; open composting facilities to private landscapers; reinstate Christmas tree collection education and pilot test options for reducing collection costs; pilot test spring/summer yard debris collection.

2006: Expand fall leaf composting to include Manhattan; implement recommendations of task force; develop and implement strategy to roll out spring/summer yard debris collection city-wide.

2007 and beyond: Sustain fall leaf composting, Christmas tree collection, and spring/summer yard debris collections.

Centralized Food Scrap Composting and Collection

Composting food waste and other organics at commercial-scale, centralized facilities is a demonstrated, proven practice, with many such facilities in operation in North America and Europe. Commercial scale composting facilities are generally one of two types: aerobic technologies, commonly known as composting, use air as a part of the decomposition process; and anaerobic technologies, break down organic material in an environment deprived of air, known as anaerobic digestion. For our purposes we refer to both types of natural processes as "composting."

Large scale composting is not a new idea to New York City. Previous solid waste plans have included the development of large composting facilities. Furthermore, DSNY has worked to establish the Riker’s Island food waste composting program as well as to compost fall leaves and Christmas trees. Composting process costs for NYC are estimated at $62 per ton -- less than the cost of export. These costs could be cut in half by simply collecting the material with cans, bins or compostable bags (Izeman and Gokaldas, 2004). A DSNY pilot test sent New York City residential and commercial waste to a mixed waste composting facility and found that the facility was able to produce high quality compost, although this pilot may not be representative of the entire City since the pilot was conducted in a low density district of Staten Island. However, there remain two challenges to developing large-scale organics composting in New York City: an efficient collection system and the siting and operation of facilities.

Elsewhere in Kings County, Washington (the county includes Seattle) a facility processes approximately 195,000 tons per year of yard and food waste. Pilot projects to collect source-separated food and yard waste were met with a favorable response by residents, so the program was expanded to 45,000 households. Seattle City Council also approved funding to offer curbside collection of food scraps to city businesses (Musick, 2004). Los Angeles, California just completed negotiations for a contract to purchase 40 megawatts/day of electricity for 20 years for $320 million. The 2,700 ton per day anaerobic digestion plant will provide enough electricity for 40,000 homes plant and process source-separated green waste (Corum, 2004).

In Europe, anaerobic digestion facilities have become increasingly common in the past decade, with more than 70 commercial plants now in operation. (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Like aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion produces a soil amendment product, but it has the added benefit of producing methane fuel that can be captured to create electricity and steam heat through co-generation, making it a net energy producer.

In NYC, each facility should be designed to accept and process either source-separated or mixed trash materials. There are trade-offs that must be evaluated thoroughly. In general, it is always preferable to use the cleanest food and yard debris--free of glass, plastic and other contaminants, such as toxic products like pesticides and batteries -- to produce a high quality compost product. Source-separating organics for composting have clear advantages in terms of excellent compost quality and reduced processing costs. However, with a diversified zero waste system of waste prevention, reuse and recycling, composting could be tried with a mixed waste stream, with other materials, especially toxic or hazardous materials, pulled out prior to composting. This would provide a second chance to capture recyclables and to quickly see the success of other zero waste programs in diverting materials. It would also result in essentially 100 percent recovery of organics with no additional collection cost. As zero waste programs are implemented, the waste stream delivered to composting facilities would become more pure, providing higher quality compost and lower processing costs over time.

Some advocates prefer that the organic material be collected separately so the end product can be valuable enough to be bagged and sold. Some cities, San Francisco and Toronto, for example, have adopted "green waste" collection programs to capture food and yard waste that is relatively clean for composting. Other composting advocates believe that if we have maximized our waste prevention, reuse and recycling programs, including capturing special or hazardous waste, contamination would be at a minimum and we could do what is called "mixed waste composting." Mixed waste compost can also be sold, but usually for a lower price. At the composting facility, a separation line would remove unwanted material and compost the rest. Such a system would avoid a separate food and yard debris waste collection, but, in a City like New York, could have reduced product quality. Advocates of mixed waste composting believe that some processing will be needed no matter how we collect the material; therefore there would be no difference in facility design. They also feel that we could strive for improved compost quality over time.

As we expand composting we are recommending that these trade-offs and the products produced be tested thoroughly through pilot tests of the two systems–1) using source-separated organic waste and a composting facility and 2) using mixed waste and a composting facility. While DSNY has done a pilot test of mixed waste composting, the results may not be representative of what would occur when servicing higher density communities. All organic composting facilities should have the ability to do some processing to remove undesirable contaminants. We also recommend that a public stakeholder committee be formed to deal with principal challenges associated with siting and operation of the composting facilities and to provide valuable input on the design and conduct of collection pilot projects.

Organics Facility Development

To begin implementing organics composting, the city should release Requests for Proposals in FY ‘05 for one or more composting facilities. It should consider both aerobic and anaerobic technologies and facilities should be able to demonstrate economies of scale and good commercial performance (i.e., composting 250-500 tons per day). The facility should be designed to handle both commercial and residential food scraps and handle future growth.

Appropriate sites can be identified within the City’s borders, such as under-utilized DSNY facilities or City-owned properties under the NYC Economic Development Corporation’s jurisdiction. For example the Fresh Kills Landfill site offers substantial space and barge access that could be suitable to host composting operations. The City should provide land for facilities and work with a public stakeholder committee to identify sites and to select the technology and operational management that maximizes space efficiency and prevents odors. Because most composting technologies involve two stages — the initial and relatively short stabilization period and the longer curing period - the initial facilities should evaluate the feasibility of both on-site and off-site curing and storage.

Based on the results of the initial facilities, the City should conduct an analysis to determine space and facility requirements needed to serve the City’s commercial, residential and institutional sectors. The analysis should consider not only different technology options, but also the possibilities of separating the processing function from the curing/storing/distribution

functions. The site assessment should take into account the amount of organics generated locally as well as the potential to move materials by barge or by rail. The analysis and operating experience should be used to develop and implement a strategy for City-wide organics recovery.

In developing commercial-scale composting, the City should plan for both the commercial and residential waste streams. The Business Integrity Commission’s decision in Fall 2003 to charge a higher carting rate of $8 per 100 pounds or $160 per ton, for heavy waste, such as from restaurants and other food establishments, will likely cause more businesses to find less expensive alternatives (Cooper, 2003). Many restaurants, green grocers and food processors in the City would benefit from source-separated organics collections and composting services. Some private carters are actually starting to collect for source-separated organics and deliver them to distant compost facilities. A local facility would reduce the transportation costs substantially.

These facilities will likely compost some combination of food and yard waste for maximum efficiency. If we aim to compost 30% of organics on-site and another 30% in low tech yard waste facilities, the other 40% would need high technology composting facilities. For the DSNY managed waste alone, we would need 1,400 tons per day of composting capacity, without even considering capacity for commercial waste composting.

Composting significantly reduces the volume and weight of the original waste materials–as much as a 50% volume reduction in two weeks. Compost is a valuable product even just for City of New York landscaping applications. If not of sufficient quality to be sold, it can replace many City purchases of topsoils and compost. Thus avoided disposal costs as well as avoided City purchases of this material should be included in the cost evaluation of composting. Higher quality compost product could also generate revenue.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Issue RFP for one or more commercial scale composting facilities; form public stakeholder committee; establish criteria for evaluating the technology in conjunction with the public stakeholder committee.

2006: Identify city-owned site(s) and vendor of composting technology and establish at least one facility.

2007: If only one facility is established in 2006, establish a second or more to achieve 900 tons per day total capacity.

2008: Begin operation of facility/ies; complete organics recovery capacity needs analysis; develop strategy for implementing city-wide organics recovery.

2009 and beyond: Using needs analysis, issue RFPs for additional composting facilities; implement strategy for city-wide organics recovery.

Pilot Organics Collections

As part of the overall program for organics recovery, the City must continually evaluate the best ways to handle various organic waste streams, whether on-site, through drop-off programs, and/or through curbside collection programs.

Drop- off Programs: Programs in Europe can serve as the inspiration for the development of organics drop off locations in well-traveled areas. Here in New York City, the Lower East Side Ecology Center has offered a program to collect kitchen scraps at the farmers’ market at Union Square. Collection points should be available in well traveled areas, for example, close to a subway entrance, busy bus stop, or at strategic points in a neighborhood park, so people can drop-off source-separated kitchen scraps as part of their daily routines,

Community gardens in NYC can also utilize food waste to grow plants. Under the Waste Free NYC Community Coordinator Program, which operated for ten months ending in October of 2003, community residents were encouraged to drop off kitchen scraps at their neighborhood garden where they were composted and used on-site. As a result of this program, twelve community gardens established drop-off programs for foodwaste; one at an apartment complex in Manhattan alone diverted 1500 pounds per month (INFORM, 2003).

Curbside Collection of Source-Separated Organics

Other cities, such as Toronto and San Francisco, are instituting curbside collection of source-separated organics for composting in both residential and commercial sectors. NYC should pilot test collection of organics in several areas, including areas generating substantial amounts of commercial and institutional food waste (i.e., restaurant districts), as well as low-density and high-density residential districts. A variety of tests should evaluate the feasibility of source-separated organics collection with locking bins of assorted sizes. This system should be compared to collecting and processing the mixed materials that remain after comprehensive waste prevention, reuse, and recycling are implemented. The evaluation should include the quality of the compost product and the impact of locking food waste bins on the rat population in the high-density districts receiving organics collections.

Implementation Schedule:

2007: Design, plan and gather public input on the collection pilots, as well as the drop-off programs.

2008: Begin piloting collection of institutional, commercial and residential organics in selected districts; evaluate pilots.

2009: Expand organics collections to other districts based on lessons learned in pilots; develop strategy for City-wide organics collection

2010: Implement strategy for City-wide organics collection

Organics Facility Development

To begin implementing organics composting, the city should release Requests for Proposals in FY05 for one or more composting facilities. It should consider both aerobic and anaerobic technologies and should request that facilities be able to demonstrate economies of scale and commercial performance (i.e., composting 250-500 tons per day). The facility should be designed to handle both commercial and residential food scraps and handle future growth.

Appropriate sites can be identified within the City’s borders, such as under-utilized DSNY facilities or City-owned properties under the NYC EDC’s jurisdiction. For example the Fresh Kills Landfill site offers substantial space and barge access that could be suitable to host composting operations. The City should provide land for the initial facilities and work with a public stakeholder committee to identify other sites and to select the technology and operational management that maximizes space efficiency and prevents odors. Because most composting technologies involve two stages — the initial and relatively short stabilization period and the longer curing period - the initial facilities should evaluate the feasibility of both on-site and off-site curing and storage.

Based on the results of the initial facilities, the City should conduct an analysis to determine space and facility requirements needed to serve the City’s commercial, residential and institutional sectors. The analysis should consider not only different technology options, but also the possibilities of separating the processing function from the curing/storing/distribution functions. The site assessment should take into account the amount of organics generated locally as well as the potential to move materials by barge or by rail. The analysis and operating experience should be used to develop and implement a strategy for City-wide organics recovery.

In developing commercial-scale composting, the City should plan for both the commercial and residential waste streams. The Business Integrity Commission’s decision in Fall 2003 to charge a higher carting rate of $8 per 100 lbs. or $160 per ton, for heavy waste, such as from restaurants and other food establishments, will likely cause more businesses to find less expensive alternatives (Cooper, 2003). Many restaurants, green grocers and food processors in the City would benefit from source- separated organics collections and composting services. Some private carters are actually starting to collect for source-separated organics and deliver them to distant compost facilities. A local facility would reduce the transportation costs substantially.

These facilities will likely compost some combination of food and yard waste for maximum efficiency. If we aim to compost 30% of organics on-site and another 30% in low tech yard waste facilities, the other 40% would need high technology composting facilities. For the DSNY managed waste alone, we would need 1,400 tons per day of composting capacity, without even considering capacity for commercial waste composting.

Composting significantly reduces the volume and weight of the original waste materials–as much as a 50% volume reduction in two weeks. Compost is a valuable product even just for City of New York landscaping applications. If not of good enough quality to be sold, it can replace many City purchases of topsoils and compost. Thus avoided disposal costs as well as avoided City purchases of this material should be included in the cost evaluation of composting. Higher quality compost product could generate revenue.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Issue RFP for one or more commercial scale composting facilities; form public stakeholder committee; establish criteria for evaluating the technology in conjunction with the public stakeholder committee.

2006: Identify city-owned site(s) and vendor of composting technology and establish at least one facility.

2007: If only one facility is established in 2006, establish a second or more to achieve 900 tons per day total capacity.

2008: Begin operation of facility/ies; complete organics recovery capacity needs analysis; develop strategy for implementing city-wide organics recovery.

2009 and beyond: Using needs analysis, issue RFPs for additional composting facilities; implement strategy for city-wide organics recovery.

Use of Food Scrap Disposers in NYC

NYC recently legalized residential food waste disposers, in-sink devices that send ground food waste down the drain, and is currently evaluating its policy on disposers in commercial establishments. Many in the environmental community prefer that kitchen scraps be recovered as valuable soil amendment and nutrient for gardens and plants. Significant concerns have been raised about transferring these materials into the sewage treatment system where they could exacerbate water quality problems.

Wider use of food waste disposers could cause more release of combined sewage and storm water into the city’s waterways, closing beaches and affecting water quality. In addition, increasing the amount of food waste in the system would increase nitrogen levels, which are already exceeding standards in New York Harbor and Long Island Sound. Already an EPA enforcement order is forcing the City to invest millions of dollars to remove nitrogen from sewage treatment plant discharges. Adding more nitrogen could exacerbate the problem and lead to greater costs.

Given the significant issues at stake and the potential for multi-million dollar costs, we do not recommend permitting substantial expansion of food waste disposers. It is critically important that if an expansion is considered, it not proceed without thorough study and reporting on all the relevant issues and the costs for the city of handling food waste in the water treatment system, versus in the recycling system.

References

City of New York Department of Sanitation. 1999. Backyard Composting in New York City: A Comprehensive Program Evaluation.

City of New York Department of Sanitation. 2001. Composting in New York City. August 2001.

City of New York Department of Sanitation. 1992. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. 1992.

City of New York Mayor’s Office of Operations. 2003. Mayor’s Management Report Fiscal Year 2003. September 2003.

Cooper, M. 2003. City Urges Change in Carting Rates. New York Times. March 6, 2003.

Corum, L. 2004. Biogas Digesters to Recycle Green Waste. Biocycle, 45(5): 54.

Eisl, H., Bartlett, P.W., K. Couchot et al. 1999. Development and Implementation of an Integrated Recycling system for the Collection, Processing and the Use in Manufacturing of New York City Municipal Solid Waste. Center for Biology of Natural Systems (CBNS).

Favoino, E. 2002. Composting across Europe: Leading Experiences and Developing Situations: Ways to Success. Cites EU Directive 99/31/CE. Greece: Harokopio University.

INFORM. 2003. Final Report to City of New York Department of Sanitation on Waste Prevention Community Coordinator Program.

Institute for Local Self-Reliance. 2002. Recycling Means Business: ILSR Resources. http://www.ilsr.org/recycling

Izeman, M. and V. Gokaldas. 2004. Recycling Returns: Ten Reforms for Making New York City’s Recycling Program More Cost Effective. National Resources Defense Council.

Musick, M. 2004. Composter "Upgrades" to Receive Postconsumer Food Residuals. Biocycle, 45(2): 43.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Factsheet: Anaerobic Digestion Facilities for Urban Food Waste. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/iwg/AnaerobicDigestionfinal.pdf