|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reaching for
Zero: |
 |
| < Previous |
|
Overall New York City’s recycling program has been a success. This is in large part due to the tremendous support and enthusiasm for recycling on the part of the people of the City, as well as its elected officials, including most notably the Borough Presidents and City Council. Recycling has also been NYC’s primary waste diversion strategy — waste prevention, reuse and composting have all received extremely limited attention. New York residents could potentially set out 45% of the materials in their discards for curbside recycling pick-up: clean paper, cardboard, glass bottles, metal cans and plastic bottles. These materials, which are targeted by the current recycling program constitute 45% of NYC’s residential waste. In the nearly decade and a half since its inception, those New Yorkers participating in the recycling program and getting the correct materials in the recycling bin had achieved a 20% diversion rate prior to the recent partial suspension of the program in the summer of 2002. However, recycling has suffered from recent changes in the program. The City suspended glass and plastics collections, then restored plastics on July 1, 2003 and restored glass on April 1, 2004. However, New Yorkers, as a result, were recycling at only a 13.2% diversion rate in December of 2003 (the most recent figures for both curbside and containerized collections) (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Recycling Diversion Report, 2004). The diversion should improve with the recent addition of glass to the program. As of December 2003, 11,400 tons per day of waste are sent for disposal on average, while 1,609 tons of recyclables are collected every day and sent for processing (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Recycling Diversion Report, 2004). Visy Paper is the largest contractor processing the City’s paper, paying the City a minimum of $10 per ton for paper (Izeman and Gokaldas, 2004). The processing of metal, glass and plastic is more expensive and has been costly for the City because of the lack of recycling infrastructure and the failure of the City to invest for the long term in modern technology. The 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan called for the development of 3000 tons per day of recycling processing capacity under every scenario except for the maximum incineration scenario. The City actually selected a vendor for a 600 ton per day Material Recovery Facility (MRF) on Staten Island, but despite the considerable planning involved, failed to finally activate the contract (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 1992, and Eisl, et al, 1999). No other MRFs have been proposed by the City. In the summer of 2002 private recycling processors proposed an increase in what they charged the City to process metal glass and plastic. The City found the increase unacceptable and cancelled plastic and glass collections, maintaining only metal collections. The relatively high processing costs for recyclables were due to the outdated equipment at facilities in the City and the short term contracts the City issued for this service. With no long term contracts, businesses were reluctant to invest in newer equipment. The cancellation of plastic and glass pickup in the City led to a reduction in recycling rates. Not surprisingly the City never realized the savings it anticipated from cutting back the recycling program. The City should soon be awarding a long term contract for metal, glass and plastic which should be less costly per ton than waste disposal. New York City’s recycling success up to 2002 occurred despite major structural problems in NYC’s management of recycling–little recycling processing infrastructure within NYC, lack of attention to market development and large sectors--agencies and institutions, multifamily dwellings and public spaces-not adequately participating. As NYC’s primary waste diversion strategy, recycling has received the lion’s share of attention. Yet major hurdles remain to achieving a cost-effective and comprehensive recycling program. To get to zero waste, we must strengthen and stabilize the existing program, and then expand it to target and capture more materials. Over the years, the environmental community and the public sector have convened meetings and dialogues, performed significant analyses, and issued reports that detail strategies to improve recycling and overcome some of the structural problems that have hampered greater success. These include the Recycle First plan issued by recycling advocates in 1991, the series of recycling market development dialogues convened by the Department of Sanitation in the mid-1990’s, Comptroller reports, the Borough-based solid waste management plans and the City Council’s plan, all developed in 1997, and the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods/Consumer Policy Institute plan in 2000-- Taking Out the Trash: A New Direction for New York City’s Waste. The suspension of elements of the recycling program in 2002 spurred a number of efforts to identify ways to improve the recycling program and make it more cost-effective, including Why Waste the Future? issued by the NYC Waste Prevention Coalition in May 2002 (New York City Waste Prevention Coalition, 2002). A roundtable was also convened, "Making Recycling Work: A Roundtable on the Future of Recycling in NYC", by the Center for Environmental and Economic Partnership and the Citywide Recycling Advisory Board in November 2002 (Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, 2002). In April of 2004, Recycling Returns was issued by the Natural Resources Defense Council with input from ten other environmental organizations (Izeman and Gokaldas, 2004). The recycling hurdles identified in these plans and discussions include:
The City administration has recently made some significant strides toward correcting the long-term problems that have plagued the recycling program. Most notably, the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY) recently issued a request for proposals for a 20-year contract to process the City’s recyclables. This is a significant step forward since the previous short-term contracts (one to three years) were significant barriers to investment in state-of-the-art recycling facilities, and contributed to poor material quality and high recyclable processing costs. Another positive sign is the recent shift of some planning functions to the City’s Economic Development Corporation, (EDC) a signal that the City is beginning to recognize that recycling, reuse, composting, and waste prevention can be economic development strategies, not just waste management programs. Recycling programs are a major component of any zero waste system. A critical element to stabilizing the current program is developing markets for the City’s glass. Cities and states around the country, including New York State, have put significant resources into developing a variety of markets for glass, from low-value applications like replacement for pea gravel to high-value uses like fiberglass and sandblasting medium. (For more on glass market development, see below and Izeman and Gokaldas, 2004). Furthermore, the City can build on its existing program by supplementing curbside collection with other methods, such as drop off and buy back centers, as well as increasing recycling in public spaces, City agencies and workplaces. Moreover, to reach zero waste, our recycling programs must be more aggressive by both targeting additional materials and collecting more of the materials targeted. For example, even though when it was in full operation (prior to its partial suspension in July of 2002) New York City’s residential recycling program targeted more than 45% percent of the materials in the waste stream, its diversion rate was only around 20%. That means that the program captured a little less than half of the materials targeted. Getting to zero will involve recycling more materials and recycling both at home and away from home. Many other communities have added the collection of all plastics, of textiles, and window glass and ceramics (see discussion below). In addition, recycling in workplaces and public spaces can be greatly improved. In many cities, recycling bins are provided side by side with garbage bins in public transit stations and on public streets. And, businesses could do a much better job of recycling if the commercial recycling infrastructure were improved. In order to achieve zero waste, the City must place a much greater emphasis on educating the public, City employees, and businesses both about the importance of recycling and the mechanics of how to do it right. To date, too many of the City’s educational efforts have been vague and general -- telling the public that recycling is good, but not telling us precisely what to recycle and how. In addition, its enforcement programs have been too punitive, simply fining those who recycle improperly without educating them as to what they did wrong and how to do better next time. To achieve zero waste, the City must both inspire and require New Yorkers to recycle more and recycle better through a combination of enhanced education and enforcement programs. (For a full discussion of these issues, see Chapter 6, Education, and Chapter 7, Enforcement.) Critical to any of these improvements is accurate information on what kinds of materials are generated and where. The City’s planned waste characterization study is a strong step in the right direction. It should be fortified and followed up periodically to verify what types of materials are generated at home, at the office, on the go, in commercial settings, and when people are enjoying the recreational opportunities in NYC. Waste characterizations must look at categories of recyclables and compostables, as well as durables, reusables, preventables, and packaging. This information will inform the program’s expansion over time, and can help to identify areas where the program is falling short, i.e., if a targeted material continues to show up in the waste stream the program to recover it may need attention. Disappointing is the fact that the study will not characterize commercial waste — only residential and institutional. The recently released commercial waste study looked only at broad categories of waste and thus cannot be considered a waste characterization study. This is unfortunate because the opportunities in the commercial waste sector need to be identified for the 20-year City Solid Waste Management Plan. (For a full discussion, see Chapter 11, Research and Data-gathering.) Equally critical is the development of the physical infrastructure — the facilities and equipment — that can recover our valuable recyclable materials. Without ample capacity, recycling cannot succeed and zero waste will remain out of reach. The City’s move toward a 20-year contract with a recycling vendor is a strong step towards ensuring the development of that infrastructure. Its long-term nature is an incentive to develop state-of-the-art processing systems. Long-term contract provisions that ensure the ability to add capacity to handle increasing amounts of recyclables will ensure that the ultimate vendor can be a partner in the move toward zero waste. Should this long-term contract not come to be, it is essential that the City move quickly to develop sufficient processing capacity, either publicly owned or through a public-private partnership. In addition, collection infrastructure, such as bins and collection areas in multi-family buildings and businesses, is important to make recycling convenient and feasible. Several programmatic improvements can ensure the infrastructure is in place to achieve total recycling on the way to zero waste. Some of the recommendations below are very specific and implementable in the near term. Others are more long-term and speculative in nature. Since the latter are more difficult to anticipate precisely, the recommendations are more general and intended to guide the approach to planning for the future. In summary, the recommendations are to:
These elements are expanded upon below. Stabilize and Support Existing Recycling Programs The City and its top elected officials must make a long term commitment to maintaining a recycling program without annual budget renegotiations. Despite the fact that recycling has been with us for more than ten years, frequent budget cuts and program changes mean than the investments in public education are barely able to keep pace with the changes. Recycling is also kept in the start-up mode rather than maturing and becoming more cost-effective. Most importantly, the message to the public is that the City does not take recycling seriously–a very damaging mass media message. The first step to an improved recycling program is to stabilize what is already in place and move the recycling rate toward 25%. This rate is a break even point for costs in NYC (Eisl, et al, 1999). A recent analysis by the Independent Budget Office found that the costs of recycling in New York City have been dropping, and the costs of waste disposal increasing (New York City Independent Budget Office, 2004). The City’s decision to bring glass recycling back in April 2004 is an important move in that direction, as is the pending long-term contract for processing the City’s recyclables. An accompanying focus on market development (see below) will also serve to stabilize the program. The City might also want to explore using drop-off locations for collecting clear glass–thus keeping this high value material free of contamination. Providing consistent funding long term requires attention to developing alternative funding mechanisms. These alternative funding mechanisms are discussed in Chapter 9, Financing; they are essential to enable the recycling program to access consistent funding and be exempt from annual budget battles. And finally, more and better public education and enforcement are critical to stabilizing and making the most of our current recycling programs. (See Chapter 6, Education and Chapter 7, Enforcement.) Implementation Schedule:
Expand Market Development Efforts Stable markets for recyclables are the key to a cost-effective and efficient recycling program. In the early 1990s, the City recognized this by establishing a market development unit within the Department of Sanitation’s Recycling Office, that received direct leadership from the Commissioner. The dedicated staff and high-level leadership ultimately led to the VISY paper mill on Staten Island, the largest manufacturing investment in the City in the last half century and the cornerstone of the profitable paper recycling program. This type of effort must be revitalized. Because market development requires interagency collaboration, it is critical that this activity be part of a management structure that can bring agencies like the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) to the table to help build recycling markets. A key factor for all zero waste programming is the commitment of the City’s top management. The particular management structure for implementation of these efforts should be a decision made by the Mayor in conjunction with the City Council. Most immediately, the City must focus on market development for glass containers. The marketing of mixed color broken glass, or cullet, has been problematic for the City’s recycling contractors, because the markets available have been low quality and low margin, such as landfill cover. However, the technology exists today to process mixed color cullet into a product equivalent to sand that has many end-uses, including as an abrasive (e.g., sandblasting medium), as a filtration medium (e.g., pool filters), in cement, and as an aggregate to replace pea gravel (Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, 2002). The City itself and the contractors it uses could create significant markets for each of these end products (Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, 2002). In addition, these end-use technologies are not restricted to container glass, they can also absorb ceramics and plate glass. In moving toward comprehensive recycling, the City should work aggressively to develop these markets for mixed color cullet. While the City should strive to keep as much glass as possible whole to access higher value container and fiberglass markets, there will always be some mixed broken glass requiring low value markets, and in a city the size of New York, the volumes would likely still be substantial. The City should begin by holding meetings with the glass industry, recyclers and public interest groups to discuss improving market opportunities. Once glass markets are developed, the City should add plate glass and ceramics to the curbside collection system. Subsequent to efforts related to glass, the City should identify other materials that would benefit from market development. A market development plan should be produced and discussed with the City Council and public advisory boards. Market development efforts must include the City of New York as a major purchaser of good, since changing City purchases alone can substantially change the market. (This topic is discussed further in Chapter 10, Legislation and Regulation.) In order to ensure the City receives the benefits of its market development efforts, long-term contracts for recyclables processing must provide the City the right of first refusal for marketing the recyclables. Implementation Schedule:
Build Recycling Infrastructure The City must ensure that there is ample recycling processing capacity within its borders. The partial suspension of the recycling program in 2002 was caused in part by the lack of modern processing plants in NYC for sorting recyclables (Izeman and Gokaldas, 2004). The City’s recent move toward a 20-year contract for processing recyclables is a strong signal that it has recognized the importance of developing substantial processing capacity. This capacity must keep pace with a progression toward zero waste and enable commercial carters to use the City’s recycling vendors. Should the 20-year contract currently being negotiated not be finalized, the City must move immediately to develop sufficient recycling infrastructure in some other way--with public ownership or a public-private partnership. The City should also keep in mind the desirability of maintaining a healthy amount of competition to keep costs down. Previous City efforts to build recycling infrastructure have faltered when it mysteriously decided not to activate a contract already awarded for the Staten Island MRF (Eisl, et al, 1999). This cannot be allowed to happen again because it jeopardizes our ability to develop recycling as a cost effective alternative to disposal and export. Implementation Schedule:
Make Recycling and Waste Collections More Efficient and Cost-Effective While Preserving the Quality of Recyclables Collections, whether waste or recycling, are the most expensive part of the Sanitation budget. Collections also contribute to traffic congestion and air pollution--both serious problems in NYC. Rather than cover this issue twice, we cover it more thoroughly in Chapter 8, Transportation–where we discuss reducing vehicle miles traveled. In the context of recycling, however, we still have two systems–one for garbage collection and one for recyclables. The City has been reluctant to integrate the two systems in a way that has resulted in major savings for other municipalities-by substituting improved recycling collections for waste collections as recycling tonnage increases. The issue of efficiency and cost- effectiveness of recycling collections in NYC has been discussed at great length over the past several years in reports and recommendations coming from advisory committees, environmental groups and the City Council. Cutting waste collections will be a political hot potato, if not accompanied by sufficient public education and discussions of how to accomplish the task effectively. However, we must integrate the collection systems in order to obtain savings that other communities are already benefiting from. In fact, when we are targeting half the materials in the waste stream for recycling, maintaining waste collections at the same schedule as prior to recycling is actually a disincentive to greater recycling. The issue of reducing waste collections and creating one integrated system is dealt with more thoroughly in Chapter 8, Transportation. In order to achieve high efficiencies, DSNY must reduce the frequency of garbage collection as recycling, reuse, composting, and waste prevention programs reduce the amount of waste generated. Obtaining savings from reducing waste collections is absolutely critical to improving the cost-effectiveness of recycling. In addition, it is important to increase recycling collections as diversion levels improve. Inadequate recycling collections for the amount of material available can lead to storage problems in congested buildings and cause valuable material to enter the waste stream, instead of being recycled. Another means of improving recycling cost effectiveness is to try different types of truck collections and truck designs. Some of these methods can improve the quality of the recyclables collected and enable the City to obtain a higher revenue from the materials. Various kinds of pilot collections and truck designs are discussed in Chapter 8, Transportation. Implement Recycling in Public Spaces In order to maximize recycling, the City must provide the opportunity for people to recycle away from home. More and more of our most recyclable materials are being sent to landfills and incinerators because they are generated in public spaces where the user has little or no opportunity to recycle. For example, the recycling rate for aluminum cans and plastic soda bottles has been on a steady decline because soft drinks are often consumed on the go. Every day tons of valuable paper are thrown away in subway stations and on streets. Communities around the country have been working to develop new methods of recycling in public spaces. Some innovative new systems raise revenue while they improve recycling by providing both advertising space and recycling instructions on public space collection bins. In Toronto, Ontario, more than 3,000 "silver box" recycling bins in the City’s public spaces collect paper, containers, and waste. The public space recycling program should be implemented in two phases:
Implementation Schedule:
Improve Multifamily Residential Recycling Recycling in multi-family buildings poses unique challenges and opportunities. Participants at the November 2002 Roundtable on the Future of Recycling in NYC noted that nearly every other City in the nation designs specific recycling programs for multi-family buildings that speak to their particular needs and circumstances (Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, 2002). New York should follow this lead and develop a program that specifically targets multi-family generators. Research indicates that strong programs, supported by specific education initiatives, such as Building Leaders (see Chapter 6, Education), can improve diversion in multi-family buildings (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). A variety of incentives should also be considered for use in multi-family buildings. An effective multi-family building recycling program must address the building infrastructure, particularly in buildings with garbage chutes. There are two models for adapting such infrastructure. One involves installing two chutes, one for recyclables and one for garbage. This type of system has been developed by Hi-Rise Recycling and is in use in New York City already; it can be required in the building code and/or financed through avoided disposal costs. Another option, chosen by the City of San Francisco, is to eliminate the use of garbage chutes and replace them with accessible collection containers (Miggins, 2003). Improving multi-family recycling requires a detailed plan for targeting these residences and addressing all the existing barriers to effective recycling. Containers for use within apartments should be identified and utilized. For those moving in or out, special services should be made available. Multi-family recycling will also require targeted education and enforcement in multiple languages, not only to residents, but also to building managers, porters, and other "on-site champions" like volunteers. (For more detail see Chapter 6, Education). Enforcement in building must ensure that adequate recycling spaces are provided with appropriate signage. Implementing "Pay as You Throw" (PAYT), or volume-based pricing for non-recycled solid waste would be an important driver for increasing recycling in multi-family contexts and would strengthen the viability of the recommendations above. (For more information, see Chapter 9, Financing). Implementation Schedule:
Improve Recycling in City Agencies and Institutions NYC agencies and institutions generate significant amounts of recyclable materials, but to date much of it goes unrecovered. According to the 1990 DSNY Waste Characterization Study, more than 50 percent of the institutional waste stream is paper, which is not only recyclable, but also generates revenue for the City (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 1992). Unfortunately, major institutions that receive free collection from the City have no incentive to recycle. This can be corrected by instituting a PAYT program for institutions, as discussed in the Chapter 9, Financing. More immediately, the City can adjust recycling bin size and collections at institutions, so that they meet the volume of recyclables generated. This was found to be a problem at City schools, where the barrier to recycling was related to bin size and collection frequency. DSNY changed over to dual-bin trucks for school collections, which allowed recycling collections to occur at the same frequency as for trash. The result was an increase in recycling diversion from 2.1% to 20.5% within 1 year. (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Chart:Dual Bin School Truck Summary, 2004) Clearly identifiable recycling bins of different sizes would help this effort. More substantial fines can also be established for institutions not recycling. City agencies also currently have little incentive to recycle since the costs of disposal are not even represented in their budgets, and they get no direct benefit for increasing recycling. To improve recycling in City agencies, the City could implement a shared savings program modeled on the federal government’s program (Clinton, 1998). The program would enable agencies to share the revenues from the materials they recycle, most notably paper, and share the savings from avoided disposal costs. Those savings and revenues could fund new programs, or supplement core activities. Waste audits could not only improve recycling, but also help an institution save money and prevent waste. (See Chapter 1, Waste Prevention). The City should begin by gathering more data on the waste generation of various institutions and agencies, and their compliance with recycling requirements. At the same time, it should investigate, test and then implement incentives for increasing institutional recylcing. Implementation Schedule:
Improve Commercial Recycling For at least a century, a stable industry has existed in the recycling of commercially generated scrap paper and scrap metals. In addition, there are strong existing incentives to recover and reuse common-size shipping pallets. As a result, much of the scrap metal and corrugated cardboard generated by businesses in the City are recycled, as are the common size pallets. However, little infrastructure is in place to recycle other materials generated by businesses, such as bottles and cans and scrap wood, and many small businesses do not have the wherewithal to access the existing markets for scrap metals and paper. Commercial recycling rules allow carters to collect mixed materials for processing at recycling facilities. However, the lucrative export contracts offered by the City caused waste companies to use existing facilities primarily for processing waste for export. This indirectly led to the dismantling of recycling equipment at transfer stations in the City. To achieve comprehensive recycling in the commercial sector, there must be infrastructure for processing recyclables. This will require economic development work to create reuse and remanufacturing businesses in the City (see Chapter 5, Economic Development). The City might also want to revisit the commercial rules to require other recyclables to be separated. Carting rates should encourage recycling by commercial generators. The City merely sets a maximum carting or hauling rate, currently $12.20 per cubic yard or for heavier food waste $8.00 per 100 pounds. (Wilkinson, 2004). Paper and scrap metal usually cost less or even generate revenue. The reality is that many commercial businesses are not made aware of the different rates for recyclables. The City must increase its outreach program to businesses to make them aware of the benefits of recycling and ensure that carters are informing customers of their recycling services. The Technical Assistance Program for businesses (discussed in Chapter 1, Waste Prevention) can develop business policies for recycling and make businesses aware of new rules and diversion programs as they develop. The program would also support commercial recycling by completing waste audits and identifying opportunities to divert materials for recycling. Businesses can be encouraged to adopt Zero Waste business principles and goals and to develop a plan to achieve them (Grass Roots Recycling Network, 2004). NYC might want to look at what other communities are doing to require greater business participation in preventing and recycling waste. In Pittsburg, CA for example, an ordinance requires businesses to submit a simple recycling plan with their annual business tax reports. This city has provided a commercial recycling handbook to assist businesses in developing their plan (Liss, 2004). Implementation Schedule: 2005: Conduct outreach and education to businesses about recycling policies and rate structure. Require commercial carters to inform customers of recycling services. 2007: Evaluate capacity needs for recycling infrastructure and make recommendations to improve commercial recycling in NYC. Target More Materials In order to reach zero waste, New York City needs to collect more recyclable materials. The addition of materials to the recycling program must be carefully planned and coordinated with market development efforts, as outlined above. Specifically, the City should develop a list of materials for expanded recycling. They include all glass (container glass, window glass, ceramics), all plastic containers, film plastic, wood, tires, building materials and textiles (carpets, spent clothing, sheets, towels, only those not suitable for reuse). For each material, the City should investigate what markets exist and how it can access those markets, or, if a market does not yet exist, what markets are possible and what the City can do to create those markets. As the markets are accessed or opened, the City should add those materials to the curbside collection system. Many communities collect a wider range of materials than the mixed paper, metal, glass, and plastic collected in New York City. For example, St. Paul, MN, collects textiles at curbside (Eureka Recycling, 2004). Many communities have begun to collect all plastic bottles (numbers 1-7), including Portland (OR), Vancouver (WA) and Columbia (MD) (allplasticbottles.org, 2004). And Broome County, NY, was able to add plate glass and ceramics to its curbside collection due to the glass recycling technology it uses and the markets it opened through a partnership with the county public works department. As the City investigates the viability of adding materials to the curbside recycling program, it may identify materials that are more marketable when they are collected by means other than curbside. For example, a 1996 study found that textile recycling was viable in New York City, but collecting those materials at curbside reduced their marketability. The City might want to explore collecting textiles in special bags with bulk pickups. Similarly, glass containers are much more marketable if they are kept whole and not crushed in the back of a collection truck. For these materials, drop off centers, buy back centers, or producer take back programs may be the most viable options and thus must be investigated and established if found viable. In the case of the 1.7 million tires generated annually in NYC (or 17,000 tons of tires) (Science Applications International Corporation, 2000), we look forward to the day when New York State tire deposits fund an adequate recycling network for tires. Essential to developing the recycling network will be adequate funds–all the deposit funds should go to cleaning up tire dumps and to the recycling network, not to the State’s general fund. Implementation Schedule:
Build Buy-Back Centers to Expand Residential Recycling Options In addition to collecting more materials, the City could capture more recyclables by supplementing curbside recycling with other programs, such as buy-back centers. Despite the fact that the City’s Recycling Law requires that each borough establish a buy-back center, the City’s centers were closed in the early 1990s. Buy-back centers can build participation in low performing districts because they provide a direct economic incentive to recycle by paying cash for recyclable materials. The centers also improve program economics because they recover high-quality source separated recyclable materials with no collection costs. For example, when the Bronx buy-back center was operational more than a decade ago, it received a subsidy of only $50 per ton. Even if that amount were doubled, the centers would provide a net savings over collection and disposal. Implementation Schedule:
Expand New York’s Bottle Bill New York State’s existing Bottle Bill has been a success story for the environment, by reducing litter found in parks and along roadways. It is a good example of developing a system that assigns responsibility for bottle discards alleviating the burden of collection on municipalities. New York now needs an improved and enhanced Bottle Bill, known as the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill. See Legislation and Regulation Chapter for more on this topic. Develop Extended Producer Responsibility Programs Certain products are not suitable for curbside recycling because they are bulky, contain toxic materials, or they are generated infrequently and/or in small quantities. Nonetheless, they are recoverable through special programs. These products currently include computers and electronics; paint; pesticides; tires; and fluorescent light bulbs, batteries and other mercury containing products. The City should seek to pass legislation or enter into binding voluntary agreements with the producers of these products to create take-back programs whereby the manufacturer would collect the materials or finance their collection and ensure that they are recycled or properly disposed of. The City may want to work closely with the state in adopting EPR legislation. As the City moves toward zero waste it should identify other products to target for producer take back programs. For example, if the market development activities outlined above do not yield viable markets for certain products, such as film plastic, the City should seek to establish producer take back programs for those materials. For more detail and an implementation schedule, see the section on Extended Producer Responsibility in Chapter 10, Legislation and Regulation. Increase the Awareness and Public Availability of Special Waste Collections for Recycling The City has established special collection drop-off sites at Sanitation Garages for household hazardous wastes, such as leftover chemicals and paint, batteries, and used tires, to ensure that these materials are safely disposed of. Unfortunately, these sites are neither easily accessible nor regularly promoted. Many citizens are unaware of their existence. As a result, much of the City’s household hazardous waste is disposed of with regular trash. In order to keep these toxic and hazardous materials out of the waste stream and ensure that they are properly handled, the City must increase the availability of special waste collections. This could be done in several different and not mutually exclusive ways. For example, the City could have widely promoted special waste collection days, where household hazardous materials are collected at convenient locations. In addition, community-based coordinators (see Chapter 1, Waste Prevention) could organize and promote neighborhood-based special waste collections, and Reuse MRFs or Complexes (see Chapter 2, Reuse) could have special days during which household hazardous materials are collected. These events would need City support for proper handling and disposal. Furthermore, Sanitation Garages could hold special waste collection events if they are adequately publicized. Implementation Schedule:
References Allplasticbottles.org. 2004. Contact Your Peers. http://www.allplasticbottles.org/peers.asp#search Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership. 2002. Making Recycling Work: A Roundtable on the Future of Recycling in New York City. City of New York Department of Sanitation. 1992. Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. City of New York Department of Sanitation. 2004. Recycling Diversion Report for December 2003. April 2004. City of New York Department of Sanitation. 2001. Chart: Dual-Bin School Truck Summary. Citywide Recycling Advisory Board. 1991. Recycle First: A Solid Waste Management Plan for New York City. December 18, 1991. Clinton, W.J. 1998. Executive Order 13101: Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. 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. Flushing: Center for Biology of Natural Systems. Eureka Recycling. 2004. Recycling in St. Paul. http://eurekarecycling.com/rec_curbsort.cfm Ferrer, F., Bronx Borough President. 1997. Borough Plan: The Bronx Solid Waste Management Plan. April 1997. Golden, H., Brooklyn Borough President. 1997. Borough Plan: Fresh Kills Closure — Ensuring the Closure of the Fresh Kills Landfill while Protecting Every Borough’s Interest. May 1997. Grass Roots Recycling Network. 2004. Zero Waste Business Principles. http://grrn.org/zerowaste/business Green, M. and E. Holtzman. Comptroller Reports. Izeman, M.A. and V. Gokaldas. 2004. Recycling Returns: Ten Reforms for Making NYC’s Recycling Program More Cost-Effective. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council. April 2004. Liss, G. 2004. Personal Communication. Messinger, R., Manhattan Borough President. 1997. Borough Plan: Manhattan’s Goodbye, Fresh Kills! Or How the City Can Stop Worrying and Learn to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. April 1997. Miggins, E., formerly with NorCal Waste Systems. 2003. Personal communication. April 2003. Molinari, G., Staten Island Borough President. 1997. Borough Plan: Solid Waste Management Implementation Plan. April 24, 1997. New York City Independent Budget Office (IBO). 2004. Fiscal Brief: Refuse and Recycling: Comparing the Costs. February 2004. New York City Waste Prevention Coalition. 2002. Why Waste the Future: Alternatives to the Mayor’s Proposed Waste Prevention, Composting and Recycling Cuts. May 2002. Schulman, C., Queens Borough President. 1997. Borough Plan: Closure of the Fresh Kills Landfill. April 1997. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 2000. Characterization of NYC’s Waste Stream. US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Waste Reduction in Multi-Family Dwellings. US EPA/530-F-99-022. Vallone, Speaker, and Michels, S., Chairman of the Committee on Environmental Protection. 1997. Without Fresh Kills: A Blueprint For Solid Waste Management. City Council. Warren, B. 2000. Taking Out the Trash: A New Direction for New York City’s Waste. Yonkers: Consumers Union. Wilkinson, M., Business Integrity Commission. Personal Communication. May 2004.
|
| < Previous |
