|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reaching for
Zero: |
 |
| < Previous |
|
Waste prevention can take many forms. It usually involves changing purchasing or other habits to reduce waste at the source–preventing it from becoming waste in the first place. Rather than devoting energy, personnel and funding to disposal, waste prevention encourages a look at the front end. There are usually two categories associated with waste prevention activities:
It is important to separate these two kinds of waste prevention activities, because under the first category there is a great deal New York City government and residents can do immediately to reduce waste that is put out for disposal. The second kind of activity usually involves legislation and could take longer to implement. However, changes at the design stage are voluntarily being implemented by some businesses–thus designing waste and toxic inputs out of the system. Because of the consideration for reducing and eliminating toxics, waste prevention can also be considered pollution prevention. Waste prevention is considered the most preferred solid waste management option by the state and federal government because it completely eliminates the need to manage waste. It thereby provides the greatest environmental benefit, and the greatest savings in avoided disposal costs. In the 1992 City Solid Waste Management Plan, the City identified waste prevention as the least expensive waste management method—costing only $20 per ton. The plan stated that as much as $120 - $130 additional dollars could be spent on waste prevention programs and the City would still be saving money (City of New York Department of Sanitation Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, 1992). More importantly, some waste prevention initiatives require only one-time investments that then yield disposal cost savings year after year. These often pay for the original investment in only a few years time. The City has at times appeared to support waste prevention. In 1996, Mayor Giuiliani issued a Mayoral Directive on Waste Prevention, which said, "Waste Prevention is the most fiscally prudent, socially responsible, and environmentally sound strategy for managing the City’s trash." (Giuliani, 1996). Subsequently, however, no waste prevention coordinators (as required under the directive) were appointed to City agencies and no progress was ever reported. Despite the clear benefits of waste prevention, the City has been reluctant to invest in it and to date has failed to make any substantial and continuing commitment to waste prevention. Partly this is due both to a mindset that focuses solely on waste prevention activities that involve changes in design and manufacturing of products and packaging, and to a reluctance to use legislative remedies. Another reason is the fact that while the costs of waste prevention programs are obvious, the benefits of waste prevention are often difficult to quantify. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quantified national waste reduction accomplishments of 23 million tons reduced or prevented in 1996, 11% of the waste stream that year (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). Many communities are realizing benefits by just implementing waste prevention programs. Despite the lack of investment in waste prevention, NYC has some success stories. Under a grant from the City, the NY Botanical Gardens focused on grass clippings from City institutions. This resulted in getting 58 NYC Housing Authority developments to change their practices of bagging grass clippings for DSNY collection and instead use mulching mowers. As a result 8,000 to 15,000 tons of grass clippings were diverted from disposal (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Composting, 2001). At a cost of $105 per ton for disposal, the disposal savings alone (not including collection) for 7 years of this program equal $5.9-$11 million. This program could have been expanded for other institutions in NYC, potentially saving millions more in collection and disposal costs. However, the funding for the entire NY Botanical Gardens program including composting initiatives was cut in June 2002. The City estimates that there are a total of 78,000 tons of grass clippings in NYC in the residential and institutional waste streams (City of New York Department of Sanitation, Composting, 2001). If all this waste were prevented from entering the waste stream, the City could save $20 million in collection and disposal costs using $257 per ton for collection and disposal costs (City of New York Office of Operations, 2003). For more on this subject, please see Chapter 4, Composting. In the residential sector, targeted shopping campaigns can help New Yorkers improve the way they shop in order to reduce waste, for example, by encouraging people to choose products with less packaging. Reducing junk mail and renting tools and equipment, instead of purchasing things one might use infrequently, can also reduce waste. Waste prevention in the institutional and industrial sectors is very similar. Purchasing printers and copiers that print on both sides of paper is a waste prevention measure. When waste is prevented, not only is there no disposal cost, but the costs of collection and handling can also be eliminated. Collection cost savings are not achieved on a ton-for-ton basis — that is, not every ton reduced will lead to reduced collection costs. However, an effective and ambitious waste prevention program can bring in collection savings, as the volume reduced results in reduced truck shifts. In New York City, the cost of collection and disposal of solid waste in 2003 was $257 per ton, so eliminating just 10 percent of the residential waste stream would save more than $84 million annually (City of New York Office of Operations, 2003). Unfortunately, the promise of significantly reduced waste handling costs cannot be realized unless the City makes a real commitment to waste prevention. Prevention opportunities can be identified by conducting waste audits for agencies, institutions and businesses in NYC. Waste audits not only reduce waste sent for disposal, producing some cost savings, but audits usually identify even larger savings that can be achieved by changing purchasing policies and habits. These savings have been documented for government agencies, institutions, like universities and large businesses. The savings are often so large that they pay for themselves in the same year the changes are made. Federal agencies have altered their purchasing practices and reduced waste sent for disposal; see the Waste Wise program (www.epa.gov/wastewise), which includes success stories for businesses and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) database, which lists environmentally preferable products. (www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/database.htm). The federal EPA has recently established a Resource Conservation Challenge to achieve better materials management, which includes environmentally friendly design, product stewardship, priority chemical reduction, and greening the government–all elements of waste prevention (www.epa.gov/rcc). At the local level, The NYC Council on the Environment, affiliated with the Mayor’s Office, has completed waste audits at a number of institutions in NYC and identified the potential for savings. In addition a contractor to the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), took a limited look at the activities of City agencies and identified a huge potential for savings (Science Applications International Corporation, NYC Sen$e 2000). This makes waste prevention a "good government" program that can trim costs and put more in actual programs, where it belongs. The federal government has made a great deal of progress in this area with programs across many agencies. A key element of waste prevention programs is updated information about the composition of the waste stream. Detailed waste composition studies of the residential, institutional and commercial waste sectors can identify targets for waste prevention programs, if they are designed to do so. New York City’s last detailed waste composition study was in 1989; since then production, marketing and consumption patterns have changed significantly. The products used and wasted have changed; for example, cell phones are currently a significant electronic waste problem. Much can be done to implement waste prevention programs in the short term. Longer term strategies require policy and even legislative changes. Strong waste prevention policy is critical to a zero waste system. If the City adopts the appropriate economic and policy incentives and provides education and technical assistance, waste prevention will be a natural outcome. For example, if Extended Producer Responsibility legislation is adopted, then businesses will find ways to make products and packaging that are less toxic and wasteful. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation, in place for packaging and electronics in Europe and Asia, requires that the manufacturer of a product take responsibility — either fiscal or physical — for that product at the end of its life (Fishbein, 1996). These systems result in design and manufacturing changes that prevent waste. For example, when the German EPR program for packaging was put in place, brand owners immediately redesigned packaging to eliminate excess by selling toothpaste and deodorant without boxes (Fishbein, 1994). Similarly, a European electronics directive is driving manufacturers to eliminate the toxic materials in computer casings (INFORM, 2003). However, we must make a more substantial investment than the City has in recent years. New York’s investment in waste prevention in recent years has been minimal: $1.6 million in 2001, $2.8 million in 2002, $1.6 million in 2003, and approximately $600,000 in 2004. The primary reason appears to be that these programs are listed in the City budget as expenses, but the money they save, which totals in the millions, appears nowhere. Thus, in shortsighted and self-defeating decisionmaking, even very small waste prevention initiatives are repeatedly cut from the City budget. Many players outside of the traditional waste management infrastructure, such as purchasing officials, designers, and planners, will need to be involved. Thus effective waste prevention requires a management structure that has the ability to work across many agencies. A comprehensive waste prevention program for New York City will include the following elements:
For more on EPR, see Legislation and Regulation chapter.
Residential Waste Community Based Zero Waste Coordinators As a first step, the City should hire coordinators to promote waste prevention, as well as reuse, recycling and composting in their districts. The City would contract with community-based organizations to fund coordinators in each of the City’s 59 community districts to perform education and outreach about zero waste programs and participation. These coordinators would serve as an accessible source of information and because of their knowledge of the community they would be able to identify and remove barriers to participation. The coordinators would perform multiple tasks, including: developing block leader programs to help residents reduce waste and recycle properly; reaching out to businesses and government institutions to help them comply with the City’s recycling, reuse, composting, waste prevention, and "buy recycled" requirements; working with retailers and restaurants to implement waste prevention and reuse programs aimed at consumers (e.g. hanger take-back at dry cleaners, used battery, cell phone and carpet collection programs; environmental shopping campaigns); promoting backyard composting and "leave it on the lawn" programs; encouraging and facilitating the reuse of common household items (e.g., furniture, electronics and clothing); and working with schools to include waste prevention in the curriculum. In 2001, the NYC Council allocated $6.3 million for the development of the Waste Prevention Community Coordinator Program, which we are again recommending here. The budget crisis caused the City to cut back the program to only one year and reduce funding to $1 million. This is particularly unfortunate because the whole point of the program was to build a network of resources and education in communities about waste prevention, recycling, reuse, and composting. These kinds of programs, where there are clearly start-up costs, must be planned and built for their long term benefits. INFORM, a NYC based environmental research organization, ran the residential portion of the program. Council on the Environment received the contract for the Board of Education and the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA). The key success story of these programs was the incredible enthusiasm generated among neighborhood residents for the collection events for computers, building materials, food and yard waste. This resulted in a ripple effect which stimulated computer collection efforts at CUNY, new partnerships for additional organic waste collections, as well as 13 new drop-off sites for food waste at community gardens. Working with the community gardening program Green Thumb, NYCHA is planning increased diversion and use of organic waste. In addition, school library books no longer needed were donated to NYCHA community programs. Additional book donations freed up valuable space in city schools, while providing educational materials to other countries. (It is impossible for us to provide adequate detail here for the diverse array of programs, which were operated under this short term program). (Inform, 2004 and Council on the Environment, 2003). The City needs to acknowledge that it cannot adequately educate the public about waste prevention from a central office in the Department of Sanitation. There must be on-the-ground community-based programs to generate the enthusiasm to support zero waste.
Implementation Schedule:
Community-Based Waste Prevention Project Fund The City should complement the Coordinator Program by providing $20,000 per coordinator per year to finance community-based waste prevention projects. The fund would enable community members to develop, plan and, with the coordinator’s assistance, implement a variety of programs to improve waste prevention and recycling in the City’s neighborhoods. As the recent pilots through the NYC Community Coordinator program and experiences in other municipalities have demonstrated, waste prevention projects not only divert materials from the waste stream, they also provide educational and promotional value. Possible future grant projects might include: electronics collection events; neighborhood yard/porch sales; zero waste neighborhood events, such as block parties and community festivals; and environmental shopping days, modeled on Seattle’s Waste Free Friday program, that teaches people how to generate less waste when shopping. (Genaux, 1999). We recommend doing an evaluation in 2008 of the lessons learned and ascertaining whether a larger fund might enable other projects, identified as desirable, to be implemented. Implementation Schedule:
Institutional Waste Waste Prevention Purchasing and Management in City Agencies The City would create seven staff positions to increase recycling, reuse and waste prevention activities within City agencies, and to increase the purchase of recycled and less wasteful and less toxic products:
The DCAS alone is responsible for $500 —700 million in annual procurement of goods and services, testing and inspection, storage and distribution of goods. Significant downsizing in this agency means that there are no longer personnel to work on waste prevention, life cycle analysis, product performance or recycled content procurement (Science Applications International Corporation, New York City Sen$e, 2000). Tasks for the staff positions include the production of an environmentally preferable product guide, that is updated frequently and available on an interactive website, as well as a complete review of toxic chemical purchasing in City Government and a prioritization plan for substituting and eliminating the most hazardous chemicals. As this core program for environmentally preferably purchasing develops, there will need to be the identification, assignment and training of staff in other agencies to coordinate and implement these policies for their agency purchases, contracts and City projects. Implementation Schedule:
Waste Prevention Technical Assistance to Institutions and City Agencies There are more than 87 City agencies, 122 facilities under the Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC), and 346 NYC Housing Authority developments (2,702 residential buildings) in the City of New York (New York City Government Website). All could benefit from technical assistance on waste prevention. There are also thousands of non-profit institutions which receive free collection from the City and should be included in the waste prevention program. Examples include universities, museums, and cultural institutions. A Waste Prevention Technical Assistance Center would be established and staffed with waste audit/prevention specialists serving institutions and agencies. The Center would have twelve technical assistance providers who would perform waste audits and help implement waste prevention initiatives. Staff expertise must include waste audit experience and knowledge of toxic chemicals. The Waste Prevention Center would also serve as a clearinghouse of information on waste prevention and provide a catalogue of waste prevention strategies developed for agencies and institutions. The staff would develop waste prevention measures that could be used wherever functions are similar–offices, vehicle fleets, health clinics, etc. Such broad-based measures could be developed and implemented quickly while the waste audit program begins to have an impact. More detailed waste audits would be performed for City agencies and institutions on a schedule, which would enable lessons learned to be shared with other institutions having similar functions. Staff would also work with institutions to implement recommended changes. A waste audit program will identify waste that can be avoided and like most such programs, identify enormous savings for the City on the purchasing side. A series of waste prevention reports completed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in 2000, a consultant for DSNY, (Science Applications International Corporation, NYC Sen$e 2000) provided one of the best examples of money well spent by the City for waste prevention–despite the fact that this analysis was extremely limited with no complete waste audit for any entire agency. Unfortunately, despite identifying millions of dollars in potential savings for City agencies alone, implementation of the findings of the reports has been lacking. Just a few examples illustrate the potential for large savings: City agencies may be discarding 279,882 wooden pallets per year, or 7,697 tons. All pallets received from the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) by City agencies have an $8 deposit connected to them. Yet City agencies are often throwing perfectly good pallets away. In this case we are paying twice–DCAS buys them, the Agency pays an $8 deposit, and then DSNY pays to collect and dispose of the waste. If all of the 279,882 discarded pallets, are not returned to DCAS, agencies are paying a total of $2.24 million in pallet deposits alone. A similar problem exists with 55-gallon drums, which carry a deposit of $20 and were often found to be unreturned by agencies, forfeiting the deposit. On a more positive note, DSNY was cited as implementing an extended preventive maintenance program for oil and oil filter changes. Based on extrapolating the over $600,000 in annual savings for just 350 DSNY vehicles, the City might be able to achieve savings of $47.9 million for the 25,000 vehicles it operates. The NYCSen$e Report contained numerous additional examples. Many institutions that receive free waste collection would also benefit from this technical assistance and waste audit program. The potential for savings provides the "carrot" for participation. The program can be developed to be self-sustaining using the capital fund described below. The City may want to consider charging a modest fee for the waste audits of non-City institutions. After initial audits, there should be follow-up to see how recommendations are being implemented and to measure the success of the program. Implementation Schedule:
Revolving Capital Fund for Waste Prevention Waste prevention projects, such as eliminating disposable food service ware, reducing paper towel use, or duplex printing, are cost-effective in the long run, but often require an initial capital investment. A $5 million fund would provide the necessary capital. The capital pool would be self-sustaining by recouping its outlays through savings to the agency or institution–as the savings are realized the agency or institution pays back the funds it used for the waste prevention project. The Office of Management and Budget needs to assist with establishing and maintaining this program as a functioning revolving fund. Implementation Schedule:
Waste Prevention in Schools There are 2081 schools in New York City, 917 private and 1164 public (with 60 more public schools to be created next year)(New York City Department of Education, 2004). According to the City’s 1990 Waste Characterization study, schools generate approximately 90,000 tons per year of waste. To deal with a variety of waste prevention programs in such a large number of schools, we need 10 school-based waste prevention coordinators. These coordinators would also assist with reductions in school cafeteria waste. Waste Prevention Programs The Council on the Environment of NYC worked with schools to implement waste prevention. In just a few months of operations, the program diverted 200 tons of textbooks and computers from 49 schools (Council on the Environment, 2003). Much of this diversion could be maintained year after year, with little additional cost or effort. The results of that pilot indicate that waste prevention in City schools is a cost effective alternative, that helps schools. A comprehensive waste prevention program in schools should be anchored by ten waste prevention coordinator positions created within the NYC Department of Education (DOE). The coordinators should work with community-based zero waste coordinators to organize school programs, including:
Implementation Schedule:
School Cafeteria Conversion Program Much of the waste in schools is generated in cafeterias, primarily from the use of disposable service ware. During the first stage of this program, DOE would eliminate the use of disposable food service trays in the cafeterias of the 201 NYC public schools that have unused dishwashers. The City would then study the feasibility of expanding the program by installing dishwashing systems in the remaining schools and evaluating the potential for reusable dishes and utensils. Implementation Schedule:
Waste Prevention in the Health and Hospitals Corporation Establish six Waste Prevention Coordinators, one for every two hospitals within the Health and Hospitals Corporation, to oversee and implement waste preventing practices and procurement in New York City’s public hospitals. A revolving capital fund would make available at least $25,000 per hospital for improvements. Savings realized are used to repay the revolving fund. According to the SAIC, full implementation of waste preventing strategies would reduce hospital operating costs for a 1,000-bed hospital by $2.3 million a year (Science Applications International Corporation, New York City Wastele$$, 2000). Implementation Schedule:
Agency and Institution Cafeteria Conversion Program A large number of cafeterias are present in NYC agencies and institutions beyond the school system. Cafeterias are a source of enormous amounts of waste, especially if they use disposable plates, cups and serviceware. The City should develop a plan to convert all City agency cafeterias to use reusable plates, glasses, trays and serviceware. Where this is not possible the City might want to consider using biodegradable paper and compostable utensils. A technical assistance program for cafeteria conversions should be provided to institutions that receive free collections from DSNY. Implementation Schedule:
Commercial Waste Technical Assistance to Help Businesses Prevent Waste Develop a Waste Prevention Technical Assistance Center and a revolving loan program, supported by an initial $5 million. The center would have twelve technical assistance staff that would perform waste audits and work with companies to implement waste prevention initiatives, provide a clearinghouse of information on waste prevention and catalogue waste prevention strategies developed for private sector clients. Technical assistance staff would complete 50 to 60 full waste audits annually and work to implement recommended changes. The loan program would finance equipment expenses related to waste prevention. Businesses could pay back the loans from savings realized and funds could then be used for new projects at other businesses. Implementation Schedule
References City of New York Department of Sanitation. 2001. Composting in New York City. August 2001. P 46. City of New York Department of Sanitation. 1992. Comprehensive Solid Waste Program. City of New York Office of Operations. 2003. Mayor’s Management Report Fiscal Year 2003. September 2003. Council on the Environment. 2003. Final Report: New York City Waste Prevention Coordinator Project. Fishbein, B. 1996. Extended Producer Responsibility: A New Concept Spreads Around the World. Rutgers University Newsletter. 1(2) Fishbein. B. Germany, Garbage, and the Green Dot: Challenging the Throwaway Society, INFORM. Genaux, D. 1999. Eliminating Trash from Gift Giving. The Daily, University of Washington. December 2, 1999. Giuliani, R. 1996. Waste Prevention and Efficient Materials Management Policies. Mayoral Directive #96-2. INFORM. 2003. Factsheet: European Union Electrical and Electronic Product Directives. INFORM. 2004. Final Report: Waste Free NYC Community Coordinator Program. New York City Department of Education. 2004. http://www.nycnet.edu/OurSchools/default.htm. New York City Government. http://www.nyc.gov. Science Applications International Corporation, (SAIC). 2000. NYCity Sen$e Summary Report. Spring 2000. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 2000. WasteLe$$ Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. National Source Reduction Characterization Report for MSW. US EPA/530-r-99-034.
|
| < Previous |
