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

A comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework is needed to support a zero waste future for New York City. Not all public policy requires legislation and an enormous amount of change can occur under the leadership of the Mayor and Commissioners, if they are committed to zeroing out waste. However, in some cases achieving strong zero waste programs will require new regulations and new laws. The City has jurisdiction to propose and pass new laws at the municipal level. The City also maintains a presence at the state and federal level to advocate for legislation it deems in its interest.

This plan does not dictate the details of the actions proposed, but rather identifies the areas that should be addressed to support a zero waste future and suggests timeframes for their implementation. The details should be developed and fully aired through stakeholder meetings, public hearings, and other means of public input and involvement.

Some of the most important legal and regulatory changes needed include:

• Zero Waste Legislation/Resolution: to establish a zero waste goal and direct the city to begin planning for it. A zero waste resolution has been introduced in the City Council.
• Strengthen the City’s Recycling Law, LL 19, the State Solid Waste Management Act and the City’s Commercial Recycling Law, LL 87: to establish aggressive, mandatory performance targets and to be consistent with a zero waste goal.
• Comprehensive Government Procurement Legislation: to use the city’s purchasing power to create markets for recycled, reused and waste preventing products. The federal government has made real strides in this area and has produced purchasing guides for use by state and local governments.
• A bigger better bottle bill for New York State: to reduce the amount of waste the city must handle, and generate more than $75 million annually to finance New York City zero waste programs (Gitlitz, 2004).
• Extended Producer Responsibility legislation: to ensure that the producers of products bear the financial burden for their entire life cycle, including disposal and/or recycling, rather than local governments; immediately target toxic or problem products like electronics, carpets, fluorescent bulbs and other mercury containing products, batteries, and tires. This kind of legislation can be passed at all levels of government-city, state and federal.
• Legislate Market Development: to establish mandatory minimum recycled content for products like fiberglass insulation, plastic bags, and plastic and glass bottles. The City can create demand for our recycled materials in this way.
• Make legislative or regulatory changes to remove barriers to reuse: Address procurement regulations, building code barriers and low-income housing financing guidelines that restrict the use of reused goods, and enable agencies to donate reusables to not-for-profit organizations.
• Draft building code requirements to enhance opportunities for recycling in multi-family buildings: provide ample recycling space and/or innovative equipment to facilitate storage and sorting of recyclables.
• Establish export and disposal bans as the recovery infrastructure develops for various products; prohibiting disposal of specific materials at transfer stations destined for landfills and incinerators.
• Establish an incentive and deposit system to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost waste in two categories–1) special events like street fairs and 2) new construction, demolition and renovation projects. Special event organizers and building contractors would make a substantial deposit when a project begins. The deposit would be returned only when the party demonstrates that it has met targets for prevention, recycling, reuse and composting.
• Eliminate federal virgin materials subsidies: The US Government provides $2.6 billion in virgin materials subsidies, such as oil and gas depletion allowances and below cost timber sales, every year (GrassRoots Recycling Network, 2000) that make virgin materials artificially cheap, at the taxpayer’s expense, and thereby make recycled materials and the companies that use them less competitive on the open market.

This section provides more detail on the policy actions outlined above.

Setting the Context for Zero Waste Planning

Local -- Set a Zero Waste Goal

The City Council could set the context for the City’s next Solid Waste Management Pan by passing a resolution or law establishing a zero waste goal, (that is a goal of reducing NYC’s waste exports to zero through prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting,) and by directing the City to have that goal guide its planning. The states of California and Wisconsin, as well as the Cities of Toronto (ON), San Francisco and San Luis Obispo (CA), Del Norte County (CA), and the Town of Carboro (NC), have all adopted zero waste goals.

Implementation Schedule:

2004: Pass a zero waste local law or resolution.

Local— Update the City’s Recycling Law, Local Law 19

Many stakeholders agree that the City’s recycling law, originally passed in 1989, needs to be updated to better reflect current circumstances. The landmark law mandated that the city meet certain tonnage diversion targets. The tonnages were intended to reflect the percentages of diversion that the city was striving for. The March 2003 report of the New York City Joint Recycling Task Force recommends that the City revise its tonnage requirements after examining recycling laws and practices in other cities. While the dates to achieve the 1989 Recycling Law’s goals have certainly slipped and need to be revised, the tonnage requirements should not be changed. Operating under a zero waste goal, the City will need to expand the materials targeted for recycling — particularly organic waste, which has been shown in communities around the country to increase recycling rates dramatically.

The mandatory nature of Local Law 19, the City’s Recycling Law, must be preserved while it is revised to codify many of the critical program elements described in this report that support the zero waste goal. The revised law should incorporate a zero waste goal, as well as implementation plans to reach that goal in the near term, intermediate term and long term periods. It should require progress reports from City agencies on economic development, procurement and zero waste programs. The revisions to Local Law 19 should be carefully coordinated with the solid waste management planning process and should ensure that waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting form the basis of the City’s long-term waste management strategy. Consideration should also be given to putting some teeth into the Solid Waste Management plans the City develops. As we discuss below, the State Solid Waste Management Act is not readily enforceable and since the City’s first plan many important milestones were missed. The City could make solid waste management plans subject to local law and thus local enforceability. This change could be made as part of modifications to LL 19 or in another bill.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Begin hearings and dialogue on updating Local Law 19, and making solid waste management plans subject to local law.

2006: Pass legislation.

State -- Strengthen the Solid Waste Management Act

The New York State Solid Waste Management Act (NYSSWMA) is more than a decade old and in need of revision. While it set diversion targets for recycling and waste prevention programs, they were not readily enforceable. If a city does not meet the diversion target the State can withhold permits for disposal facilities, but there are no other consequences. Since many communities do not own their own disposal facilities, this enforcement mechanism is ineffective.

Statewide enforceable legislation to establish a New York State zero waste goal and aggressive 20-year milestones for communities to meet that goal (or close to it) would be very helpful. While this report proposes ways to move the City toward a zero waste goal, the assistance and support of state government would be welcomed in achieving the goal.

The new State act should also be more readily enforceable. California’s state law, AB 939, offers a strong model for New York. That law required communities to plan for and meet diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 (meaning diversion away from disposal) and 50 percent by 2000. Communities that did not achieve those goals were subject to a fine of $10,000 per day for their lack of compliance. (In the case of New York, a sliding scale of fines may be preferable, with smaller fines for smaller towns and larger fines for major cities.) California’s law, AB 939, also created the California Integrated Waste Management Board to guide the state’s programs in this area. Having achieved the 50 percent diversion target in AB 939, the Board recently adopted a zero waste goal. New York could adopt/pass a law like California’s law, which is mandatory with specific milestones and provides extensive support for various innovative zero waste programs.

In addition to aggressive and enforceable targets, a new state Solid Waste Management Act should address:

• Specific targets for waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting;
• Strong government procurement programs (see below), particularly waste preventing procurement;
• Disposal surcharges at landfills and incinerators to finance recycling and waste prevention;
• Product and shelf labeling of waste preventing, recycled and recyclable products;
• Waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting education;
• Banning disposal of recyclables and compostable organic materials, as has been planned in the European Union, because the methane gas released as organics break down in the landfills contributes to global warming and because organics can be composted to create a valuable soil amendment (See Chapter 4, Composting).

Additionally, in order to be certified as complete by the State, all plans issued by municipalities should contain sufficient number and quality of planning milestones in every year of the plan to make reasonable progress towards the established waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting goals.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Begin hearings and dialogue regarding modifications to NYS’s Solid Waste Management Act.

2007: Pass legislation to improve the NYS SWMA.

Local -- Establish Strong Government Procurement Programs

While the City could make substantial inroads to support a move to zero waste through voluntary affirmative procurement practices, strong government procurement legislation would ensure that the government’s purchasing power is fully harnessed to support zero waste. The current proposed procurement legislation, Intro 89 of 2004, is a good start, but it does not include all the provisions necessary to support a zero waste future. Therefore, a more comprehensive bill or set of bills should be drafted. The legislation should require compliance by City agencies and large contractors, and include the following provisions:

• Ensure the removal of specifications that create barriers to the procurement of environmentally preferable products (including waste preventing, reused, recycled and composted, as well as less toxic products).
• Specify requirements for the use of recycled glass in public projects -- for example as road aggregate, as a sandblasting medium, and as a filter medium. The NYS Thruway Authority has adopted specifications using crushed glass as aggregate that NYC could immediately adopt on many public works projects (Grober, 2002).
• Specify requirements for the use of other recycled products, such as plastic lumber, paper, and the more than 50 other products included in the US EPA’s Comprehensive Environmentally Preferable Procurement Guidelines.
• Increase recycled content levels for recycled products purchased by the City over time.
• Establish preferences for products that are designed to be reused, refilled, recharged, repaired and/or recycled; for products that use returnable packaging or are not excessively package; and for waste preventing products (e.g. more durable and long lasting products).
• Develop, plan and establish procurement requirements for prohibiting purchase of the most toxic chemicals by the City and for substituting non-toxic or least toxic chemicals. This will reduce workers’ and the public’s exposure to toxics during use, and during handling of waste.
• Write requirements for City contracts specifying that the producers of certain products, such as carpets, electronics, batteries and mercury containing products, must take their products back at the end of their useful life.
• Establish a preference for leasing products where possible.
• Develop analyses of life cycle costing for major City purchases, so that products with the lowest cost over their useful life are favored over those with lower up-front costs.
• Codify and expand NYC agency waste prevention practices outlined in the 1996 Mayoral Directive.
• Establish requirements for new buildings and construction projects to meet US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards and for rehabilitation and retrofit projects to utilize the Department of Design and Construction’s High Performance Building Guidelines.
• Require that plans for new buildings and construction projects be assessed to determine whether demolition and new construction are needed, or whether rehabilitation is possible; also provide preferences for building deconstruction contractors.
• Establish contract requirements for vendors of construction and renovation services to document the reuse, recycling or composting of the materials generated during a project.
• Provide for adequate reporting and enforcement provisions to ensure compliance.

Implementation Schedule:

2004: Draft needed bills to create strong environmentally preferable procurement policy for the City; hold hearings to develop comprehensive procurement legislation.

2005: Pass comprehensive procurement legislation.

Local -- Strengthen Commercial Recycling & Create Waste Franchise Districts Citywide

The City should amend Local Law 87, the commercial recycling law, to make it more enforceable. Specifically, it should require that commercial carters make recycling services available to their customers for materials including, but not limited to, scrap metal, paper, glass, and plastic containers. Both the list of materials targeted and the required services should be expanded to include reuse and composting, as the infrastructure for these programs and materials is developed, as outlined in other sections of this plan. In addition, as the infrastructure develops, carting rate caps for recyclables and compostables should be reduced to provide incentives for participating in recycling.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Advance legislation requiring commercial carters to offer expanded recycling services.

2006: Research policy options to create additional incentives/regulations for commercial recycling, including lower carting rate caps for recyclables. Pass legislation to set-up waste franchise districts citywide.

2007: Implement new policy options to promote commercial recycling.

Improving Materials Diversion and/or Raising Revenues

State -- The Bigger Better Bottle Bill

New York City should become a strong advocate for passage of the Bigger Better Bottle Bill (A3922-A and S1696-A) currently pending before the state legislature. The bill would expand the most successful recycling program in New York’s history — the deposit/return system in place for beer and soda. The current system effectively captures 75 percent of the state’s cans and bottles covered by the program. The new bill would expand the system to include non-carbonated beverages, such as juice drinks, sport drinks, bottled water, teas, and other so-called "new age beverages." In so doing it will remove an additional 3.4 million containers from the waste stream statewide, about half of them in NYC. The bill will also enable the state to assume control of the unclaimed deposits that are currently held by bottlers and beverage distributors and use them to fund reduction, reuse, recycling and composting programs. Under an expanded bill, these unclaimed deposits could top $179 million annually. If the deposits collected in NYC were made available to City government, more than $75 million would come to New York City (Gitlitz, 2004). One important use for this money would be the building of redemption centers for all types of bottles, so that consumers can redeem all their nickels in one place, instead of needing to return to several different stores. New York City was a critical force behind the passage of the first bottle bill, and given the substantial potential benefits and revenues, the City should be again with the Bigger Better Bottle Bill.

Over time, increasing the deposit to keep pace with inflation will ensure that the program continues to provide sufficient incentives for returns. As such, the city should periodically advocate for legislation to increase the deposit.

Implementation Schedule:

2004: Advocate for the passage of the Bigger Better Bottle Bill.

2009: Advocate for legislation to increase the deposit to 10 cents.

2019: Advocate for legislation to increase the deposit to 15 cents.

Local, State or Federal -- Extended Producer Responsibility

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach taking hold around the globe. EPR creates a framework that ensures that the manufacturer or brand owner is financially responsible for its product and/or packaging throughout its entire life cycle, including eventual recycling or disposal. EPR includes the cost of ultimate disposal in the cost of the product, so that the consumer pays less for products that are more easily recycled and less wasteful. Furthermore, policies promoting EPR have been a driver in getting manufacturers to design products for recyclability and to reduce or remove toxic chemicals, since recyclable and less toxic products are generally cheaper to manage at the end if their lives. Most importantly, EPR ensures that products and packaging are responsibly recycled or disposed of at no cost to the taxpayer.

There are many EPR models around the world. The Bottle Bill’s deposit/return system is one form of EPR. In Europe, EPR systems are in place for packaging, electronics and automobiles (Fishbein, 1996). In Ontario, Canada, a quasi-EPR system finances the curbside recycling program (Miller, 2004).

In most cases, EPR requires manufacturers and/or brand owners to pay into a system, usually managed by an independent third party, to recover a class of products (e.g., electronics) or packaging. EPR can also generate revenue for the municipality by requiring the third party to pay the costs of municipal recycling collections, transportation and processing.

One of the most well documented EPR programs, and arguably the first non-bottle bill EPR system, is the German packaging recycling system, the Duales System Deutchland (DSD). The DSD was created in the early 1990s after the Germans passed legislation requiring manufacturers to pay the cost of recycling the packaging material they used. To implement this legislation, German industry established a third party system, the DSD, to manage the packaging recycling program. Manufacturers and brand owners pay into the system based on the materials they used and the costs of recycling those materials. In addition to ensuring that materials were recycled without using government funds, the law immediately resulted in the elimination of millions of tons of unnecessary packaging, like boxes for toothpaste and deodorant and plastic "blister pack" packaging (Fishbein, 1994).

More recently, in 2003, the European Union adopted the Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)(INFORM, 2003). The directive promotes design for repair, upgrade, reuse, dismantling and safer recycling. It requires distributors to take back electronics from consumers at the end of their useful life and producers to finance collection systems. It prohibits the use of toxic chemicals like mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants by 2004 and sets compulsory collection, recycling and reuse targets for manufacturers.

In the US, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) in 2004 adopted a policy position in support of EPR. New York City should pursue the implementation of EPR policies on the local and state level. While EPR has not been implemented extensively on the local level in Europe or elsewhere, there are no apparent legal restrictions to doing so and the City offers a reasonably large economy of scale — on par with many states. The City should immediately identify viable targets for EPR. Targets could include disposable products (plates, cups, razors, diapers), packaging, electronics, carpets, fluorescent bulbs, and batteries. Using the results of the waste characterization research proposed in Chapter 11, Research and Data-gathering, the City should identify additional targets for EPR based on materials that remain in the waste stream as comprehensive waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting programs are implemented.

Local Action Implementation Schedule:

2005: Evaluate findings of waste composition studies; conduct Council hearings on EPR targets.

2006: Advance an EPR legislative package targeting disposable products, consumer packaging and electronics.

2007: Advance an EPR legislative package targeting carpets and mercury containing products (batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, etc.).

2008 and bi-annually thereafter: Based on waste characterization data, identify one additional product/packaging category and advance EPR legislation.

Local or State -- Disposal Bans

When implemented in conjunction with recovery programs, bans on the disposal of recoverable materials are a valuable driver for increased diversion. They have the effect of "plugging the pipe" to ensure that the materials targeted for reuse, recycling and composting do not find their way to landfills and incinerators.

Forty-seven states ban selected materials from landfills and incinerators. Twenty-two states ban the disposal of some or all yard trimmings. These bans were usually put in place as states and localities developed yard waste composting infrastructure and promoted leave-it-on-the-lawn programs. The bans are widely viewed as critical to the success of yard waste composting nationally. In a 1996 survey of state recycling programs, the majority of state managers responding found landfill bans to be an effective tool for increasing recycling (GrassRoots Recycling Network, 2000).

As the city develops the infrastructure and programs to reuse, recycle and compost, it should institute disposal bans on the materials targeted within a year of full operations. The bans should be enforced at the curb, as well as at the transfer station (particularly for commercial generators). This approach will ensure that the materials targeted are not inadvertently wasted. An initial ban should target grass clippings, as proposed in the Chapter 4, Composting, since clippings can be left on the lawn. A grass ban could save the city in excess of $20 million annually. (For a complete discussion of this topic, see Chapter 4, Composting).

As an enhanced recycling program is implemented, disposal bans can be advanced for the materials targeted for curbside recycling. Similarly, as EPR programs are put in place, the materials they target can be banned from disposal.

Local Implementation Schedule:

2004: Ban the disposal of grass clippings with waste (couple with education on the benefits).

2005 and years thereafter: Advance disposal bans for other materials as effective recovery infrastructure is developed.

Local -- Construction and Renovation Diversion Initiatives

The City of San Jose, CA, has implemented an innovative program to provide incentives for the reuse, recycling and composting of construction and demolition debris. Under that program, the City requires any construction or remodeling contractor to make a deposit as a condition of the building permit. The amount of the deposit is based on the size of the proposed job. The deposit is returned to the contractor at the end of the job only if he/she demonstrates that diversion targets have been met. If not, the deposit is surrendered to the City. Contractor can demonstrate compliance and retrieve their deposits by using a facility that the city has certified to maximize recovery. New York City should adopt this type of system and adapt it to support the zero waste infrastructure proposed in this report. For example, NYC could provide special credit or incentives for those engaged in remodeling and reconstruction to maximize the materials directed to Reuse and Recycling facilities. To ease the transition into this type of system, the Buildings Department would provide technical assistance and information to help contractors identify outlets for their reusable and recyclable materials.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Initiate contractor education.

2007: Implement deposit program for construction and renovation projects.

Local — Special Event Diversion Initiatives

New York City should also adapt the San Jose construction and demolition deposit model (discussed above) to provide incentives for zero waste, in special events like the Olympics, major sporting events (the US Open), street fairs, parades, festivals, etc. As with the model described above, the size of the deposit could be scaled to the size of the event. To ease the transition into this type of system, the Department of Parks and Recreation (for events in parks) and the Department of Transportation (for concessions and street events) should provide technical assistance and information to help event organizers plan zero waste events and identify outlets for their reusable, recyclable and compostable materials.

Deposits should be devoted to technical and physical support for these programs.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Initiate special event organizer education.

2007: Implement deposit program for special events.

Supporting Zero Waste Infrastructure

Local or State -- Legislate Market Development

In the 1990’s, nine states advanced legislation requiring manufacturers of certain products to use minimum levels of recycled content. These laws spurred investment in manufacturing systems that could handle recycled feedstock. California passed laws requiring a minimum of 35 percent recycled content in glass bottles, 30 percent recycled glass content in fiberglass, and 30 percent recycled content in plastic trash bags. Nine states, including Connecticut, Illinois and Arizona, enacted legislation requiring newspapers to print on recycled paper. However, instead of enacting minimum content legislation for newspapers, New York State entered into a voluntary agreement with publishers to ensure they would achieve certain targets for recycled content.

Mandatory minimum content laws support recycling programs by creating a market for the materials generated. For example, the laws for newsprint launched billions of dollars of investment into the equipment and facilities needed to recover old newspapers. New York City should pursue such laws immediately for its most problematic materials, most notably glass, and then consider expanding the law to include additional materials.

Local Implementation Schedule:

2005: Advance legislation to set mandatory minimum content requirements for glass bottles, fiberglass insulation and other products that can use recovered glass.

2007 and thereafter: Identify materials in need of market development and appropriate to minimum content standards and advance legislation to establish standards.

Local -- Remove Barriers to Reuse

There are several regulatory barriers to increasing the reuse of goods and the use of reused goods in New York City. They include:

• Government procurement policies that prohibit the purchase of reused goods;
• Building code requirements that bar the use of reused goods in new or renovated buildings;
• Low-income housing financing guidelines that exclude the purchase of reused items from eligibility; and
• Government regulations that do not permit city agencies to donate reusables to not-for-profit organizations.

The city should perform, or contract with a reuse organization to perform, a thorough review of regulations and policies that keep reuse from reaching its potential and advance a package of reforms that encourage the use of reused items.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Conduct review of policies and regulations related to disposition of materials or purchase of products.

2006: Advance a package of regulatory reforms that support reuse. Conduct hearings; pass legislation.

Local -- Establish Reused Item Sales Tax Exemption

Reused product sales outlets sometimes have difficulty competing against new products, particularly those that are manufactured abroad at low cost. A sales tax exemption would give reused items a competitive advantage at a very low cost to the City and State.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Advance legislation to establish an exemption from sales tax for reused items.

Federal -- Eliminate Virgin Materials Subsidies

Each year, the US Government provides $2.6 billion in direct subsidies for the extraction of virgin materials, such as oil and gas depletion allowances and below cost timber sales (GrassRoots Recycling Network, 2000). These subsidies make virgin materials artificially cheap, at the taxpayer’s expense, and thereby make recycled materials and the companies that use them less competitive on the open market. Eliminating these subsidies would support the success of the zero waste businesses proposed in this plan.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Work with other states, attorneys general, and public interest organizations to develop a network of support for the elimination of virgin materials subsidies. Advocate in Congress for the elimination of federal subsidies for virgin materials extraction, including the 1872 Mining Law.

References

Fishbein, B. 1996. Extended Producer Responsibility: A New Concept Spreads Around the World. Rutgers University Newsletter. 1(2).

Fishbein, B. 1994. Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society. New York: INFORM.

Gitlitz, J., Container Recycling Institute Research Director. 2004. Testimony before the New York City Committee on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Regarding Resolution #144: Endorsement of the Expanded Bottle Bill.

GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN). 2000. Wasting and Recycling in the US 2000.

Grober, B., Empire State Department Environmental Services Unit. 2002. Making Recycling Work: A Roundtable on the Future of Recycling in New York City.

INFORM. 2003. Factsheet, European Union Electrical and Electronic Product Directives.

Miller, R., RA Miller and Company President. 2004. Navigating Ontario’s Packaging Crisis. http://www.ramiller.on.ca/WDA2002Feb2004Summary.pdf