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

Vehicle traffic and its associated congestion and air emissions represent an enormous environmental health challenge in a city like New York with such long standing poor air quality. Under any solid waste system, transportation should be well understood and impacts minimized to the greatest extent possible. Fortunately, a plan to achieve zero waste can offer substantial advantages for reducing truck vehicle miles traveled and air emissions at the same time as it reduces the generation of waste. However, under any configuration of waste prevention, reuse and recycling programs, some transportation will be necessary.

The zero waste system we propose seeks to reduce or minimize transportation impacts in the following ways:

• Minimize waste generation through waste prevention/ reduction: ; Other chapters of the report outline the programs and actions that can reduce the amount of materials requiring transportation and reduce the distance materials travel by developing localized recovery systems. Chapter 2, Reuse, proposes a network of reuse complexes that would minimize the transportation distance of reusables, and neighborhood "Swap Shops" that would handle some reusables even closer to home. Chapter 4, Composting, outlines a strategy for increasing backyard and neighborhood based composting to reduce the organics requiring transportation. Chapter 5, Economic Development, defines a strategy for borough-based Recycling Industrial Parks, which would process and add value to recyclable materials closer to the point of generation.

• Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Improve Efficiency of the Waste Collection System: Reducing overall waste generation, processing and handling materials closer to the point of generation, and efficient truck routing are all viable strategies for reducing the miles traveled, and thereby reducing emissions and other impacts of transportation. Franchising commercial waste collection routes, so that only one commercial carter, provides service for each neighborhood would dramatically reduce VMT (instead of the current system where multiple trucks are traveling the same routes). As we move to a zero waste system with more recyclables collected, we must make collections more efficient and cost-effective.

• Try Innovative Truck Design: To move efficiently to a zero waste system, the City should consider a variety of truck designs that may be better suited to the purpose or the neighborhood. For example, DSNY may improve efficiency by using larger collection trucks in more densely populated areas and using trucks specifically designed to handle recyclables for those streams. DSNY must also recognize the progressive nature of a zero waste system that may require a progression from one truck design to another as collection requirements change due to alterations in collection streams and participation.

• Maximize Waterborne and Rail Transportation: As the Mayor, opinion leaders, advocates, and communities have recognized, NYC’s waterways are an underutilized transportation resource. To the extent possible, materials should be moved via barge to processing and recovery facilities and clean fuel technologies utilized on tugboats and other marine vessels. Furthermore, existing but dormant rail lines should be evaluated and rehabilitated to move materials to inland locations where financially viable.

• Use Cleaner Vehicles: Conventional diesel-fueled garbage trucks generate noxious as well as toxic emissions that have been linked to lung cancer, asthma attacks, reduced birthweight and size, and cardiopulmonary mortality. They are also very noisy, posing a quality-of-life challenge for all New Yorkers, but especially those who live near garbage truck depots or waste/ recycling transfer stations. There are a number of fuel choices (compressed natural gas, biodiesel, ultra-low sulfur diesel, hybrid and electric) and add- on emissions control devices that offer superior health, environmental and quality of life benefits over conventional diesel. Over the 20-year planning period, the DSNY should seek to continually reduce vehicle emissions by using state-of-the-art technologies while laying the groundwork for hydrogen fuel cells or other zero emissions vehicles.

Improve Garbage Collection Efficiency and Cost-effectiveness

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled by Employing Better Routing, and Adjusting Collection Frequencies.

One of the most significant transportation concerns with regard to materials handling is the sheer number of garbage trucks that traverse our streets. In high density districts each residential block has been served by three trucks in most areas of the City: one for garbage, one for metal/glass/plastic recycling, and one for paper recycling. Two trucks serve 22 lower density districts where dual bin recycling trucks are in use (New York City Waste Prevention Coalition, 2002). The routing of trucks is determined by a number of factors, including City Charter provisions restricting trucks from crossing community district lines. Such restrictions must be evaluated and adapted to ensure maximum efficiency. In addition, the City should continually evaluate its routes, their diversion rates and their efficiency to determine where gains may be possible by lengthening routes, reducing collections, etc.

Many areas of the City still receive garbage collection three times per week, and even low-density districts have waste collection twice weekly. These collection frequencies have not been adjusted since recycling has taken hold. Even in areas where recycling rates had topped 30 percent, garbage collection frequency did not change (New York City Waste Prevention Coalition, 2002). As we move toward a zero waste system, DSNY must reduce the frequency of garbage collection in order to maintain high efficiencies, since 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 the subsequent entry of valuable material into the waste stream rather than into recycling collection. The City should develop a model for transitioning a route from one where the main collection is for garbage to one where the main collections are for recycling, reuse and composting. The model would determine when and how transitions would take place in areas of the City with different demographic and density characteristics.

Implementation Schedule:

2006: Identify districts with high recycling diversion rates (over 30 percent) and garbage collections three times per week, reduce garbage collections by one per week in these neighborhoods. Develop model for transitioning collection from predominantly garbage to predominantly recyclables and reusables in all City neighborhoods.

2007: Evaluate routes to determine if efficiencies could be gained by lengthening routes or crossing district lines; if so, pursue changes to City Charter; evaluate and record VMT improvements; make route maps available to the public and elected officials, so that they can make recommendations.

2008 and beyond: Annually evaluate all City routes against model and implement route and frequency changes; continue to implement garbage collection reductions as diversion rates increase.

Explore Various Recycling Collection and Truck Design Options

DSNY has always used the same trucks to collect garbage and recyclables in all neighborhoods around the City. The City’s frequent turn-over of trucks offers an opportunity to test and evaluate different options and to stage implementation of a diversified fleet.

The use of standard packer trucks has affected the quality of the City’s recyclables, as well as the efficiency of its collections. For example, one of the primary drivers to suspending glass recycling was the enormous volume of low-value, mixed color broken glass being collected. Those high volumes are the direct result of the method of collection -- since glass is collected with other containers in a packer truck with sometimes high compaction ratios, it is often broken during collection. (For a complete discussion on glass see Chapter 3, Recycling).

To move efficiently to a zero waste system, the City should consider a variety of truck designs that may be better suited to the purpose or the neighborhood at hand. Cities like Philadelphia have a diverse fleet and dispatch trucks to certain neighborhoods based on demographics, width of streets, volumes, and other data analysis (Robinson, 2002). For example, DSNY may improve efficiency by using larger collection trucks in more densely populated areas and smaller trucks in lower density districts. In addition, using trucks specifically designed to handle recyclables, with little or no compaction and multiple bin design can improve the quality of recyclables, as well as the costs of collection and processing.

The City should investigate and test collection methods that both improve recycled material quality and reduce costs, including reducing compaction, "single stream" recyclables, and containerized and semi-automated collections. For example, reducing compaction in collection trucks can reduce glass breakage. Collecting all recyclables, including paper and containers, in a "single stream" in one truck can improve efficiencies by collecting more materials in fewer vehicles; in some cases, its convenience has led to improved participation in recycling programs. However, single stream collection can cause greater contamination and affect recycled material quality, creating significant concerns for some materials markets, particularly the recycled paper industry (Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, 2002). Using semi-automated collection vehicles in low-density districts has enabled other cities to reduce collection crew size from three to one per truck and thereby reduce collection costs significantly. In semi-automated collection systems, common receptacles can be loaded into a truck using a mechanical arm. Other cities have achieved these transitions without job losses by switching to semi-automated collection in concert with other changes, such as additional collections for source-separated organics. The City should investigate these and other options. All such tests and evaluations should be planned and conducted in a transparent process with public input. The findings should be conveyed in a report to the public.

Furthermore, the City should seek to expand the collection methods that have proven to be the most cost-effective, including both containerized collection (dumpsters) and dual bin collection vehicles for recycling in low-density districts. Containerized recycling collections, currently in place for large complexes, are very cost effective because of the automation of collection–the frequency of recycling collections can be increased as well as the number of containerized service locations. Dual bin trucks are in use in 22 districts and provide significant cost savings by collecting two material streams (paper and metal) in one truck with one crew. The recent report "Why Waste the Future" indicates that it may be feasible to extend the use of dual bin trucks to an additional 7 to 13 districts (New York City Waste Prevention Coalition, 2002).

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Test collection in trucks with adjusted compaction ratios to determine if reducing compaction improves the marketability and quality of the recyclables collected; determine the optimal compaction ratio for maximum material quality and collection efficiency.

2006: Based on test, implement optimal compaction ratios City-wide; evaluate the expansion of the use of containerized collection and dual bin collection.

2007: Perform a pilot test of "single stream" collection in at least five districts; evaluate for impacts on participation, material quality and residue rate.

2008: If warranted, develop strategy for expanding "single stream" collection to the optimal districts, as determined by the pilot test.

2009 and beyond: Continue to monitor the state-of-art in recycling collection and test new strategies and truck technologies as they become available; continually measure recycling rates, quality of recyclables and other performance indicators.

Implement a Franchise System for Commercial Waste

Because the commercial waste handling system is a completely open market, one business district can be serviced by a dozen private carting operations, each operating its own vehicles. This excessive truck traffic is a burden to communities, because of its air quality, noise and traffic impacts. It also increases wear and tear on our roads. For commercial customers and carters it increases the overall cost of doing collections. To address this critical issue, the City should expand the provision in Local Law 42 §16-523 to enable franchise waste districts to be implemented Citywide, similar to those operating in many California communities. Local Law 42 §16-523 currently gives the City the right to "designate no more than two areas of the City as special trade waste removal districts." A change in this law would be needed to implement franchises Citywide (Hammer Environmental Consulting, 2001). Commercial carters and DSNY crews could bid on the right to serve these districts and the lowest qualified bidder could then serve an entire neighborhood, substantially reducing the vehicle miles traveled by commercial carting trucks. Intermediate tipping sites to reduce VMT should also be considered. To encourage further reductions of VMT, higher priority should be given to carters with local garages in a given district.

Changes to the law and implementation of franchising should consider means to enable independent recycling operations to offer competitive recycling services in the districts.

Implementation Schedule:

2006: Conduct groundwork to implement commercial franchise system; pilot test commercial franchises system in two districts.

2007: Continue to pilot test and develop the franchise system.

2008 and beyond: Pass implementing legislation; establish districts for franchise system; implement commercial franchise system Citywide.

Maximize Waterborne and Rail Transportation

Waterborne Transportation

As we develop an enhanced recovery infrastructure, we must ensure that it can maximize use of the City’s waterways for transportation. Increasing waterborne transportation will reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, noise, and wear and tear on NYC’s streets, arteries and highways. It will also improve efficiency, since one 600-ton barge can move as much material as approximately 58 ten-ton trucks.

Indeed, mixed paper recycling is one of the most cost effective elements of the City’s recycling program, in part because much of that paper is moved by barge from the marine transfer station at West 59^th Street to the Visy plant on Staten Island. It appears that DSNY is already thinking in terms of expanding such opportunities, since the recent request for proposals for a long-term recycling contract gave preference to proposers with waterfront facilities.

In its efforts to redesign the marine transfer station (MTS) system, the City should be planning for inclusion of both commercial and residential recyclables to the greatest extent feasible and transitioning to handling only compostables, recyclables and reusables (if feasible), as we approach zero waste. That is, over the long term, the operating marine transfer stations should transition from handling primarily waste and some recyclables, to handling materials en route to reuse, composting and recycling operations.

As the City increases its use of marine vessels, it must recognize that these vessels are also powered by largely unregulated and polluting diesel engines. Public policy should focus on reducing emissions of several contaminants from marine engines, including nitrous oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM) and sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus far, federal regulation has been inadequate to bring emissions from marine vessels anywhere close to new standards for on-highway vehicles.

Marine vessels like tug boats could transition to ultra-low sulfur diesel or biodiesel coupled with pollution control technologies. To ensure adequate fueling infrastructure, the City and the Port Authority should work together to install clean fueling stations as part of the capital upgrade of marine and container terminals in the Comprehensive Port Improvement Plan (CPIP). (A full discussion of the various alternative fuel options is provided below.) The City should be a major driver for emissions improvements to marine vessels within its purview and it should produce a clean fuels strategy for marine vessels.

Implementation Schedule:

2005: Ensure that planning for the retrofit of the marine transfer station system supports a long-term vision of eliminating waste and moving reusables, compostables and recyclables through that system.

2006: Research alternative fuel possibilities for marine vessels.

2007: Identify fuels of choice for long-term marine clean fuels strategy; begin to pilot test the transport of reusables, compostables and recyclables by barge.

2008: Develop a clean fuels implementation strategy for marine vessels; expand use of the MTS system for reusables, compostables and recyclables.

2009 and beyond: Implement clean fuels strategy; fully utilize the operating MTSs for reuse, composting and recycling.

Rail Transport

The existing network of freight rail lines should be evaluated to determine its usefulness for internal movement of recoverable materials. Using this network, compostables, reusables and recyclables could be transported by a combination of barge and rail from one borough to another, reducing the amount of trucks used for intra-borough waste transport. The freight rails that currently exist in the City previously serviced manufacturers and distributors receiving raw materials and products by barge. Many of these systems are no longer operational because the bulkheads have deteriorated, leaving the barges with nowhere to land. As a result, companies that used these rail lines for incoming materials now rely on more costly and environmentally destructive truck delivery. Rail lines should be reactivated to move recoverable materials more efficiently to processors within the City. This would reduce the costs of transport, as well as the negative environmental impacts of truck traffic.

The City should evaluate the existing rail lines to determine their value in moving recoverable materials to processors or end-users. This evaluation should consider proximity to operating MTS and freight barge unloading sites, as well as to current or planned recycling, reuse or composting facilities. It should also consider the equipment needs to utilize rail, such as the inventory of current engines available. Next, the City should undertake a full feasibility study on the use of rail for transporting recoverable materials. The study should consider routes materials would travel from the point of generation or transfer to the point of processing or end-use and should identify specific equipment needs and clean fuel alternatives.

Implementation Schedule:

2006: Evaluate the existing rail lines to determine their value in moving recoverable materials.

2007: If evaluation warrants, conduct feasibility study of using rail to transport recoverable materials.

2008: Develop schedule for repair and reinstatement of rail lines and a plan for operation of the rail lines (if feasible).

2009: Reactivate rail lines as MTS and other barge facilities come on-line (if feasible).

Use Cleaner Vehicles

Many other cities are converting their waste collection and other large fleets to alternative fuels and cleaner vehicles. In Los Angeles, fleets of more than 15 vehicles are required to convert to alternative fuels (Liss, 2004). San Francisco is transitioning its fleet to compressed natural gas and experimenting with compressed natural gas hybrid vehicles, while its neighbor Berkeley and half a dozen other communities are utilizing biodiesel in recycling fleets (Haley, 2002 and Farrell, 2002). In NYC, DSNY was among the first to pilot compressed natural gas (CNG) trucks. DSNY has also committed to retrofit its existing fleet of diesel sanitation trucks with additional pollution controls by mid- 2006, when the use of ultra low sulfur diesel fuel is mandated. However, there is also an opportunity for NYC to do more.

Cleaner Fuel Options

There are several types of "clean fuel" technologies including (CNG), biodiesel, hybrid electric (hybrids also use gasoline/diesel), and full electric. Ultra low sulfur diesel fuel is a new federal requirement that will soon (2006) be required to be used by on-highway diesel vehicles. The use of these fuels and technologies can reduce the air pollution burden as we make the long-term transition to clean technologies like hydrogen fuel cells. Each type of fuel has its benefits and drawbacks and is best used under certain circumstances.

Ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) works with conventional diesel engines, and can achieve the best emission reductions when coupled with pollution controls, such as diesel particulate filters or oxidation catalysts. DSNY has already committed to the retrofit of existing vehicles with pollution controls and for the use of ULSD in its fleet by mid-2006. The conversion is spurred by the recent EPA rule requiring that a) all diesel fuel used in on-road vehicles have no more than 15 ppm sulfur by 2006 and b) NEW highway diesel engines start to meet new stringent emissions standards for PM and NOx beginning in model year 2007. City of New York Local Law 77, enacted in 2003, requires all City- contracted construction contractors to use ULSD and pollution controls in their non-road diesel engines. The law is effective immediately in Lower Manhattan and applies Citywide in 2005. DSNY should follow suit for the non-road vehicles that they operate. In May 2004, the federal EPA announced the phase-in of requirements for ultra low sulfur diesel for all non-road engines in 2010 and for locomotives and marine engines in 2012 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004).

Compressed natural gas (CNG) is a clean burning fuel that requires less frequent engine maintenance and therefore has reduced operating costs. CNG vehicles are also quieter than diesel engines. However, CNG requires specially designed engines, which are relatively expensive, and NYC presently lacks the necessary fueling infrastructure. Because garbage trucks in NYC travel relatively short distances and refuel at central stations, they are well suited for (CNG). The DSNY fleet was the first in the nation to pilot CNG trucks in 1989, and today operates 26 CNG trucks (Bloomberg and US Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation Commissioners, 2003).

Electric vehicles consist of a variety of types that are in production and use today. While fully electric vehicles themselves have no emissions, the generation of electricity to charge them commonly creates pollution. Electrical generation facilities in NYC are commonly found in low-income communities of color that may also host waste transfer stations. Hybrid electric vehicles that use an onboard fuel to generate electricity do not connect to the electric grid and are not responsible for increased pollution at power plants. In the past, electric vehicles were often not powerful enough to drive heavy loads; however, recent improvements have enabled more powerful heavy-duty vehicles, such as the hybrid electric garbage trucks made by ISE Corporation that are available on the market today (ISE Corporation, 2004).

Biodiesel is produced from domestic, renewable resources (vegetable oil or animal fat) and can be used in compression-ignition (diesel) engines with little or no modification. This fuel can originate from a virgin source or; preferably from our perspective, from used vegetable oil and animal fat. While local distributors exist, there is no local producer in NYC making biodiesel from used oil. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. It currently comes in two standard formulations B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% diesel) and B100 (100% biodiesel) (US Department of Energy, 2001).

The major benefits of biodiesel are that it is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic, essentially free of sulfur and aromatic hydrocarbons, and can be derived from recycled feedstock. Furthermore, biodiesel emissions are much lower than conventional diesel.

Pilot programs around the country have begun expanding their fleets using biodiesel and hybrid-biodiesel systems. Yosemite National Park is in the process of purchasing hybrid/biodiesel buses to conduct shuttle service within the park. These buses will run on fuel processed within the park from concessionaires’ waste oil. Growing from its 1995 pilot program, the National Parks System now has 675 vehicles and equipment in 21 parks that run on biodiesel (Hodel, 2004 and National Parks Service, 2004). The recycling fleet for the City of Berkeley, California, operated by the Ecology Center, runs on fuel derived from used vegetable oil generated by local restaurants. In Austria, McDonalds completes the recycling loop by processing its waste vegetable oil into biodiesel to fuel its own delivery trucks (PR Newswire, 2003).

New York City should evaluate the potential for a biodiesel production facility to make use of the large amount of used oil and grease from commercial and institutional food establishments. Currently, such grease poses a significant problem for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which maintains NYC sewers. The DEP currently requires businesses that discharge grease and oil into the sewer system to have a grease interceptor (Department of Environmental Protection, 2002). Capturing this grease and turning it into a product could simultaneously solve a problem and provide an economic development opportunity for the City. The business feasibility analysis and facility development should be done by the Technical Assistance Unit described in Chapter 5, Economic Development.

Cleaner Vehicle Implementation Strategy

The City should develop a "Clean Vehicle Implementation Strategy" for DSNY, as well as for private sector carters and transfer stations. The strategy should evaluate all of the DSNY fleet, including administrative and other smaller vehicles, in addition to trucks. It should also evaluate fuel and technology choices and the environmental impacts and economic costs of each. Since DSNY trucks are replaced approximately every 7 years, every year about 14 percent of DSNY trucks must be newly purchased. (Lange, 2004) This means that every year there is an opportunity to move the fleet toward zero emission vehicles. When purchasing new diesel trucks in 2007-2010, DSNY should require manufacturers to provide only vehicles that meet the new more stringent standards. The strategy should set up a research program to regularly evaluate new developments in the field and to conduct pilot tests of cleaner fuels and of engine and vehicle technology, such as hybrid electric trucks. There should also be timetables for the purchase of zero emission vehicles.

The "Clean Vehicle Implementation Strategy" must also address private sector carters and transfer stations. Private or commercial waste haulers must be required to make a similar level of investment in environmental improvements for their vehicles as the City is. While implementing a franchise system for commercial carters has the greatest potential to reduce the number of trucks traveling on the same streets, and thus to reduce overall mileage and pollution, using cleaner fuels and technology must also be required in the commercial waste sector. The City could follow the lead of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the City of Hayward, California and require private carters to use alternative fuels or diesel retrofit emissions control equipment as a permit condition. The recently passed NYC Local Law 77, which requires using ULSD for nonroad construction equipment, needs to be expanded to include nonroad equipment used at all transfer stations, junk yards, and recycling processing facilities.

Implementation Schedule:

2006: Produce a "Clean Vehicles Implementation Strategy" for all of DSNY fleet and the private sector. Set permit conditions for private sector phase-in of cleaner vehicles and nonroad engines or Pass Local Law with the same effect.

2007: Begin implementation of clean vehicles strategy. Design and conduct pilots of fuels and technology. Evaluate potential for a Biodiesel Production facility in NYC.

2008 & beyond: Report on Progress every two years. Update the Clean Vehicles Implementation Strategy every two years to incorporate evolving technology.

References

Bloomberg, M., US Environmental Protection Agency and US Department of Transportation Commissioners. 2003. Press Release Announcing New York City’s acceptance into Clean Cities Program. April 2003.

Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership. 2002. Making Recycling Work: A Roundtable on the Future of Recycling in New York City. Roundtable Proceedings Report.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Preventing Grease Discharge Into Sewers: Guidelines for New York City Business. http://www.nyc.gov.

Farrell, T., Manager of Solid Waste & Recycling, City of Berkeley, California. 2002. Presentation at National Recycling Coalition Congress. Seattle, Washington. January 2002.

Haley, R, Director of Recycling, San Francisco. 2002. Roundtable on the Future of Recycling in New York City. Roundtable Proceedings Report.

Hammer Environmental Consulting. 2001. Changing Course with Commercial Waste Collection in New York City. December 2001.

Hodel, L. 2004. Yosemite goes for Biodiesel. Mother Earth News. February-March 2004.

ISE Corporation. 2004. http://www.isecorp.com.

Lange, R., Director of the Bureau of Waste Prevention, Recycling and Composting, NYC Department of Sanitation. Personal Communication, June 2004.

Liss, G., Consultant. Personal Communication. March 2004.

National Park Service. 2004. Greening the National Park Service: Biodiesel in the National Parks. http://nps.gov/renew/npsbiodiesel.htm.

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.

PR Newswire. 2003. McDonald’s Austria fueling the trucks that supply its restaurants with low-emission biodiesel made from the restaurants’ used cooking oil. May 2, 2003.

Robinson, D., Director of Recycling for Philadelphia. 2002. Making Recycling Work: A Roundtable on the Future of Recycling in NYC. Roundtable Proceedings Report.

US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2001. Factsheet: Biodiesel Offers Fleets a Better Alternative to Petroleum Diesel. May 2001.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel. US EPA/2060-AK. May 11, 2004.