Marjorie J. Clarke, Ph.D. mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu

Presented and published in the Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association's 94^th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Orlando, FL, June 24-28, 2001. 18 pp.

ABSTRACT: In 1996 the planning process for New York City to wean itself away from its only in-city disposal site, Fresh Kills landfill, began after the political decision was made to do so. The initial stage of planning (1996-1997) consisted of the creation of numerous reports, authored by City-State, City Council, and five Borough Presidents' task forces, which included input from the public. This paper details the process that has occurred since that time, whereby a series of interim export contracts were executed, two proposals for long-term post-closure (2002 onwards) solid waste export were issued by the City Administration, and two draft Solid Waste Management Plans and a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement were issued by the Administration and evaluated by the public, City Council, Independent Budget Office, and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. The paper will also elaborate on the debate concerning these developments, the lack of a backup export plan should the current plan to export via a barge-to-rail site in Linden, NJ ultimately fail, the impacts of the interim export contracts, the lack of new Administration proposals for waste prevention, recycling and composting, the increasing economic viability of recycling as those costs decrease and as export costs increase (as determined by the NYC Independent Budget Office), the development and impact of a new citywide Waste Prevention Coalition and its ambitious five-year plan for waste prevention, and the fate of Intro. 482, a bill to codify a Mayoral Directive on agency waste prevention practices and agency environmental procurement practices.

In May, 1996 grassroots pressure from Staten Island residents, building for many years, effectively mounted to produce a City Council bill to close the landfill. Within a few weeks the state legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Chapter 170 requiring closure of the landfill by December 31, 2001. At the time of the decision, the landfill handled over 80% of the City's non-commercial discards, and the City was in defiance of the local law to recycle 25% of the residential waste stream, recycling only about 14%. But the closure decision was made without any prior waste management planning for this circumstance.

Residential and institutional garbage collected from the curb has been transported for decades by truck to marine transfer stations located in the four New York City boroughs other than Staten Island. Garbage was weighed at the marine transfer stations, loaded onto about 20 barges, and sent to the landfill each day (each barge carries 650 tons). The commercial waste stream, which, for some time, had been disposed at Fresh Kills, suddenly began to be exported when the City more than doubled its tipping fees to commercial haulers in 1987-88. (The commercial waste stream was estimated in 1990 to be about 14,000 tons per day, but which appears to be growing fast and has been difficult to measure). This increase in tip fees spurred hasty siting and construction of over a hundred private waste transfer stations, primarily in Brooklyn and to some degree in the Bronx for out-of-state shipment of this commercial waste. This began a second citizen revolt over waste management planning, the first (successful) one having been to oppose the Brooklyn Navy Yard incinerator.

The first stage of planning (1996-1997) consisted of the creation of numerous reports, authored by City-State, City Council, and five Borough Presidents' task forces, which included input from the public. A City/State Task Force with officials from a number of agencies was appointed to examine alternatives and make recommendations. This Task Force's report, issued in November, 1996, reflected a 5-year landfill phase-out recommendation, but the proposals on recycling and waste prevention were not ambitious, continuing the status quo of slow evolution. Whatever wastes were not prevented, recycled or composted would be exported.

The City-State Task Force also recommended that each Borough President should evaluate waste management (export) needs for his/her borough and recommend solutions. In 1997 all five borough presidents assembled task forces of interested stakeholders and produced five reports packed with recommendations to increase prevention, recycling, and composting, as well as thoughts on export, including specific sites. Most of Manhattan's report was dedicated to describing recommendations to reduce by 50% the amount of garbage to be exported.) The Borough reports tended to agree that the current Marine Transfer System (barges) should be retained if possible. The City Council then hired a consultant to write a Fresh Kills closure report, and held hearings. The Council's report generally agreed more with the tenor and expansive recommendations made in the Borough reports than with the City/State Task Force report. But these reports were largely ignored by the City.

Meanwhile, even before these task forces began work, NYC Department of Sanitation (DOS) began to issue interim Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for companies to bid on the City's waste for export, in 20% increments per year, until 2001. The DOS has continued to issue interim RFPs for export, as use of Fresh Kills landfill has been phased-out. The following tons and rates information was assembled by the City's Independent Budget Office:

• In July 1997, the first interim RFP for export of 1,895 tons per day of Bronx-generated wastes resulted in bids between $46 and $66/ton, thus reducing the likelihood that export-reducing strategies such as recycling would be cost-competitive. This waste is currently trucked to Virginia or South Carolina at a cost of $54.82/ton.
• Starting December, 1998 DOS entered into a second interim contract for export of 2334 tons per day waste from Brooklyn to landfills in Pennsylvania at a cost of $60.03/ton.
• In December, 1999 a third interim contract for $63.75/ton began for export of 2,798 tons per day of waste from Manhattan and Staten Island to an incinerator in Essex County, NJ and to backup transfer stations in Elizabeth, NJ.
• A fourth interim contract, awarded in September 2000, for 1,073 tons per day involves trucking Brooklyn waste to unknown destinations for $69.16/ton.
• The last interim contract, to export 3,281 tons per day of Queens waste for $68.22/ton, was issued in February, 2001.

In 1998 citizens fighting the over-abundance of poorly operated transfer stations for putrescible wastes in Brooklyn, convinced the City Council that certain areas of the City contain a disproportionate number of transfer stations, DOS does not expeditiously complete environmental reviews of applications for permits for new transfer stations, and there is inadequate enforcement against operators who violate the relevant laws and rules. It has been a continuing source of frustration by residents.

Because the City was planning to close a waste disposal facility that handled 85% of its waste (Fresh Kills), the New York State Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 required that the City issue a modification to its Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) . The draft modification, first issued by DOS in April 1998 was descriptive about DOS’ accomplishments and past programs, but relatively few pages contained definitive commitments or plan milestones for future activities, and the planning timeframe ended at 2002. Regarding new initiatives, the draft modification spoke mainly about export alternatives, and relatively little about means of expanding its prevention, recycling and composting efforts.

In December 1998, without prior consultation and agreement with affected parties, the City Administration announced its decision to export most of the City’s waste on a permanent basis after the landfill closure date. This decision included the siting of permanent enclosed barge unloading facilities (EBUFs) in Newark and Carteret, New Jersey, and in Red Hook, Brooklyn, and truck-to-container-to rail export facilities in the Bronx and at Fresh Kills. From these facilities the waste would be shipped in sealed containers to out-of-City disposal sites via ocean-going barges or trains. Twenty-year waste disposal agreements would entail 3900 tons per day (tpd) to be barged from Brooklyn to Virginia; 3900 tpd from Carteret would be exported by rail or truck to disposal sites in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois; and 2000 tpd from Newark would be transported by rail and truck to Virginia and New Jersey disposal sites.

Due to the undiplomatic manner in which the City announced this long-term export plan, government officials in New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania moved to halt the plan. As a result, in 1999 this plan to site EBUFs in New Jersey and Brooklyn was abandoned. In May 2000 the City issued another Draft EIS and SWMP featuring several new export facilities, many at existing DOS sites, but featuring a new export EBUF:

• The new EBUF would be sited on the industrial waterfront of Linden, NJ, across the narrow Arthur Kill (river) from Fresh Kills landfill. The Plan suggests that this BFI facility will take about half of the non-recycled trash (2390 tpd from Manhattan, 1860 tpd from Brooklyn, and 2180 tpd from Queens), transfer it directly to railcars and export it in a unit train, once per day, through central New Jersey (or other routes as needed depending on rail traffic) to points south and west. Though 6430 tpd is slated for this facility, it is being sized for twice as much, igniting fears by New Jersey residents that more waste will go there, and fears by New Yorkers that there is no contingency plan for the waste if something happens to prevent or delay this facility from timely completion. Linden's trash would be handled for free.
• A proposed truck-to-container-to-barge facility at the old SW Brooklyn incinerator for 950 tons per day of Brooklyn's waste,
• A truck-to-container-to-barge facility at Greenpoint or Newtown Creek in Brooklyn for 990 tons per day of Brooklyn's waste,
• A truck-to-container-to-barge or rail facility at Newtown Creek for 1080 tons per day of Queens waste,
• A truck-to-container-to-barge or rail facility for 1900 tons per day of Bronx waste,
• A truck-to-container-to-rail facility at Fresh Kills landfill for 1150 tons per day of Staten Island waste.

As DOS continued with its interim and long-term export plans, it has made few investments in creating in-City export-prevention capacity (i.e., waste prevention, recycling and composting). An important recycling milestone included in the draft plan modification was to achieve a 25% diversion rate with the curbside recycling program by FY2001. It is important to remember that Local Law 19 of 1989 had required the City to achieve a 25% recycling rate by 1994, and failing to achieve that rate, the City had seven times been ordered by various State Supreme and Appellate courts to make sufficient investments in the recycling programs to achieve the mandated recycling rate.

In 2000, DOS targets only 49% of the waste stream for recycling and composting and captures only about 45% of targeted recyclables, so 55% of targeted recyclables are in the garbage. The reason for this 45% capture rate is poor public participation. So recycling rates could be increased both by increased targeting of recyclables and compostable materials, and by more ambitious recycling education and enforcement. Thus, about 20% of the waste exported are recyclables.

The exported "waste" stream also includes a sizable component consisting of organic materials that aren't targeted for composting. In New York City, food waste is 16.3% of the waste stream and miscellaneous organics are 7.3%, or 24% of the total waste stream. Thus, almost 20% of the exported "waste" is compostable food and yard waste.

Textiles, and miscellaneous plastics account for about 11% of the total waste stream. Thus, over 8% of the exported "waste" could be reused or recycled.

Therefore, almost 50% of the "waste" that the City exports could be recycled or composted. As exporting costs $95.50/ton according to the SWMP, reducing exports by 50% could divert hundreds of millions of dollars per year to recycling / composting / prevention programs.

In late December, 1998 the NYS DEC produced a number of comments on the City's 1998 SWMP , requiring the City to clarify, explain inaction, and, in some cases, revisit some decisions and commitments laid out in the Plan Modification. A number of the comments reflected previous recommendations made to NYS DEC by the advisory community regarding the Plan. Some of the comments are summarized by the following points:

• DOS must provide a discussion of a contingency plan for how solid waste transfer and disposal would take place if the private sector capacity were not adequate.
• DOS must certify that five years of adequate disposal capacity exists for exported waste.
• DOS must provide a timetable for purchasing, permitting and constructing the proposed barge unloading facilities.
• DOS must establish and present specific city agency, residential and commercial waste reduction targets/goals, together with the strategies by which they can be effected.
• DOS must identify and implement techniques for measuring waste reduction.
• DOS must consult with the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) to develop a plan for incorporating feasible waste prevention measures into procurement practices (this plan was to have been submitted by March 1997 and implemented by March 1998).
• DOS must submit a review and recommendations regarding several waste prevention legislative and administrative initiatives. (The City had agreed to do it by 1997.)
• The education budget of $5.4 million per year through 2002 represents a budget of 73 cents per year per New Yorker, which declines over time in real dollars.
• DOS must explain how this recycling education budget will result in a 56% increase in residential recyclables diversion rate to achieve a 25% diversion rate by 2002.
• DOS must explain to what extent it intends to implement the seven recommendations of its own market research to enhance the public education program, since this is a primary mechanism of the City’s plan to increase diversion rates.
• DOS must explain why it decided not to do a comprehensive study on recycling participation rates citywide, with recommendations on means to enhance diversion.
• DOS must provide a path of decision making for the city’s future composting efforts, with specific dates for projects, programs and activities.
• DOS must provide a plan for food waste composting in all sectors with an implementation schedule.
• DOS must discuss measures the city is planning to undertake to encourage economic development for recycling industries in New York City.

These comments indicate that NYS DEC was concerned about the DOS’ ability to achieve the 25% diversion rate (originally the mandated requirement for 1994) even by 2002 based on the Plan’s milestones. NYS DEC stated that DOS should have a greater commitment to defining and achieving results with its educational, composting, and waste prevention programs. DEC also expressed concerns that the City’s export plans have no expressed contingency plans, in the event of inadequacies in the private sector or unforeseen changes in out-of-City disposal capacity.

In June and October of 2000, NYS DEC again issued 12 pages of succinct comments and questions on the Draft SWMP , repeating many of its earlier remarks and adding some new ones (a small sampling):

• DOS identifies the "no action" alternative as the continuation of disposal at Fresh Kills, but state law and a landfill consent order create a legal mandate to close the landfill, therefore, the "no action" alternative should be the interim contracts.
• The level of detail and environmental analysis of the proposed Plan as discussed in the Draft Plan Modification and EIS may not be sufficient to render a decision with regards to site specific permitting.
• Will the long term contracts for management of City collected solid waste contain minimum tonnage delivery limits? (If so, such "put-or-pay" contracts could discourage or quash efforts to prevent, recycle and compost materials in the waste stream.)
• DEC insists that the SWMP include any waste reduction / recycling activities that have changed since the prior SWMP update in 1996.
• DOS eliminated a proposed recyclables processing facility, but didn't analyze need for such capacity.
• Contingencies and/or alternatives to specific aspects of the Plan should be developed where there are undefined criteria, such as the outcome of environmental reviews, undefined environmental remediation, and undefined or unsecured rail service.
• DEC requested that DOS provide a detailed evaluation of the feasibility of Quantity-Based User fees and discussion of their potential benefits.
• DEC requested that DOS perform updated waste composition studies (since the last one was done 10 years ago).

In 2000 the City's Independent Budget Office (IBO) hired staff to oversee the Department of Sanitation. Soon after, two Councilmembers requested analyses of the SWMP and EIS, as well as costs and benefits of recycling and waste prevention programs. In February, 2001, the IBO published a study of New York City's waste stream . Though significant improvements were seen in recycling diversion rates over the last eight years, the IBO staff has sometimes had difficulty obtaining data, and some concerns were raised:

• The costs of waste management in New York City are skyrocketing. DOS' operating expenditures have increased from $590.5 million in 1997, when all non-recycled discards were disposed at Fresh Kills, to $940.6 million projected for 2001, due almost entirely to closing Fresh Kills landfill and export to out-of-city landfills and incinerators. Costs per ton for disposal at Fresh Kills was roughly $43/ton, but export contracts started at less than $55/ton in 1997, and rose steadily to over $68/ton with the last interim contract issued in February 2001.
• The IBO has also indicated that the costs of recycling have been decreasing over time, because of the use of dual-bin trucks and a slowly increasing capture rate. The costs of export have meanwhile been increasing. They have suggested that recycling will become cheaper than export soon, supporting the contention that the SWMP should be more of an integrated solid waste management plan. In early 2001 a recycling official at the Department of Sanitation indicated at an advisory board meeting that recycling had, indeed, become cheaper per ton than export, though that was contradicted in a City Council hearing.
• Local Law 19 of 1989, amended by subsequent court orders, resulting from the City's decision to litigate, has required the City to recycle 3,400 tons per day (25% diversion rate) by July 14, 1999, and 4,250 by July 14, 2001. During this time, the courts told the City it could not count C&D waste towards mandated tonnages. The City has continued to count C&D, asphalt millings and dirt cleaned from lots towards its recycling tonnages, claiming a 34.7% recycling rate. If the latter disputed materials are not counted, the City fails to meet its 2001 required recycling tonnage requirement by over 1,000 tons per day, with a 17.2% diversion rate in 2000.
• Only 44% of all potentially recyclable materials were set out by residents and institutions for recycling collection in 2000, with some districts' capture rates as low as 17%.
• Food waste comprises the largest portion of the waste stream that is not targeted for recycling, at 13%. For the 2002 budget cycle, the City chose to defer $20 million, which was already allocated for composting facilities in 2003, to 2010.
• Despite requirements for increased recycling rates, the less than optimum capture rate, and the decreasing costs of recycling, the operating budget for the DOS Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse, and Recycling comprised between 3 and 4% of the total operating budget for DOS, $27 million in 2000.
• Since the interim export contracts are for limited periods of time (e.g. three years with two one-year extensions, all to expire by December 2004), there is concern about what will happen if these expire before a long-term solution is permitted and built. The IBO has explored the permitting process in detail and has opined that the Linden facility will not be completed for eleven years. Legislators and citizens' groups from Linden and communities along the proposed train route, have come to New York to City Council hearings and advisory board meetings to express their outrage. Should it be the case that the Linden facility is never built or is delayed, no contingency plan is in place.

In Dec. 1998, with a third of the Council as sponsors, the New York City Council introduced Intro. 482 of 1998 , co-authored by the Manhattan Solid Waste Advisory Board's (SWAB) Waste Prevention Committee, and based to a large extent on a previous environmental procurement bill and the 1996 Mayoral Directive on waste prevention. Intro. 482 aims to increase purchases by mayoral and non-mayoral agencies of more recycled, recyclable, reusable, durable, and remanufactured products with reduced packaging, increase use of warehoused items, and provide better reporting of these strategies for fostering agency waste prevention and recycling. Planning and reporting requirements are also included. A hearing was held shortly after the bill's introduction, and neither DOS nor the procurement agency, DCAS were in attendance. The Mayor has indicated his disinterest.

With citizens outraged by the interim plan and those interested in promoting waste prevention as a pro-active means of changing the status quo in attendance, a Waste Prevention forum, "Damming the Waste Stream", was held December 1999. As a result, a consortium of organizations (40 and growing as of Fall, 2000) organized as the New York City Waste Prevention Coalition to advocate that the government undertake specific waste prevention activities in New York City. Since spring 2000 the Coalition

The Coalition's 5-year waste prevention plan involves:

• Community Based Waste Prevention Coordinators and Community Based Waste Prevention Projects: $16.1 million
• Waste Prevention in City Agencies and Institutions: $16.38 million
• Backyard Composting and Organic Waste Prevention and Institutional In-Vessel Composting Pilot Program: $10.1 million
• Technical Assistance to Help Businesses Prevent Waste and Technical and Financial Assistance to Recycling, Reuse And Remanufacturing Businesses: $12.2 million
• Residential Quantity Based User Fee Pilot Project and Measurement, Evaluation and Proposal of Programs: $1 million

After the Coalition lobbied Councilmembers by for their release, DOS released the long-overdue ten waste prevention research reports by SAIC/Tellus, and weeks later (Oct. 2000) the City Council held a hearing to discuss the reports and their recommendations. Despite the negatively worded introduction written by the DOS, and the decision by that agency not to endorse their consultants' work, there were numerous specific recommendations in the reports. The Coalition prepared extensive comments detailing these for the hearing. Key recommendations in the research reports included:

• Waste prevention is cost effective (DOS' programs heretofore have cost only $27/ton -- this as compared with the cost of the long-term export plan of $95.50 /ton plus avoided trash collection cost savings of $77/ton.
• Waste prevention education works (Successes in reducing waste inexpensively via public education programs were cited.)
• City agencies can benefit from waste prevention. (Opportunities for City agencies to save tens of millions of dollars in avoided disposal and purchasing costs by implementing waste prevention practices were cited.)
• Business waste prevention programs offer significant returns. (Further examples were cited of such programs saving businesses $9 million / year.)
• The City has many opportunities to expand its waste prevention programs. (Numerous recommendations were made, including local quantity-based user fees, as well as other incentives and penalties, a ban on set out of grass clippings, high-visibility citywide waste prevention education campaign, and publicity of its own efforts and achievements.)

On October 31, 2000 DOS released a Final EIS slightly revised from May 2000, and a not-at-all revised SWMP. Since a 1993 statute gave the City Council the authority to review and ability to reject a plan within a 30-day period after its release, Council held two hearings on the subject during November, 2000. During at least six hours of testimony from the solid waste advisory community, environmental organizations and citizens, from New York and New Jersey, who filled Council chambers, and which was well covered by the local press, all who testified criticized the plan and urged its rejection. Objections included that the environmental impacts of the interim export contracts are significant, are being ignored by DOS, and may continue for many years, and that the DOS has no waste prevention plan for the future, and little proposed to increase recycling and composting. Their hope was that the City would reissue a Plan which reflected a longer planning timeframe, adequate waste prevention, recycling, and composting commitments to meet the State's 1997 40% recycling / 10% reduction goals, support of Intro 482, and a plan for enforcing commercial sector recycling and prevention, and which addressed the continued impacts on Brooklyn and Bronx neighborhoods of the interim export contracts. It was made clear during the hearings that Council was negotiating with DOS on revisions to the Plan and support of Intro. 482.

In the end, despite statements from many Councilmembers that they would send the Plan back to DOS for substantially more revisions to improve waste prevention and recycling, the Council did receive a number of concessions from the Administration, and approved the modified Plan:

• The City agreed to a new 3-year $6.3 million pilot program through which DOS will fund recycling/waste prevention coordinators through contracts with community-based organizations. To help address the mixed record of compliance in the City’s more than 1,000 public schools and by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), four (4) coordinators are to be assigned specifically to the Board of Education and four (4) are to be assigned specifically to NYCHA. This program will focus on thoroughly educating the public on waste prevention, materials that are recyclable and the appropriate procedures to comply with the City’s recycling program. Coordinators will conduct outreach to community residents, schools and businesses and research the way the community presently produces waste, recycles and prevents waste. They will also research recycling and prevention ideas from other communities. This pilot program represents a partial funding of one of the recommendations of the NYC Waste Prevention Coalition.
• The City agreed to restore two environmental procurement positions in the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, cut early in Mayor Giuliani's first administration. These personnel would be hired to increase the City’s purchases of recycled-content and waste-reducing products and other environmentally preferable goods and services and to develop an environmentally preferable product guide and web site.
• The City's DCAS will review existing procurement specifications as contracts are let and develop new procurement specifications to ensure that they do not exclude, eliminate or otherwise discourage the purchase of :

1. recycled products or packaging made from post-consumer materials;
2. products or packaging manufactured from recyclable materials;
3. products, packaging or equipment that are remanufactured or reused, or
4. products or packaging that facilitate waste prevention.

• DCAS and other City agencies will purchase only printing and writing paper with a thirty percent post-consumer recycled content. This was another provision of Intro. 482.
• The City agreed to fund environmental procurement education for city agencies. DCAS will develop a curriculum and train Procurement Training Institute trainers to conduct periodic training of City agency procurement personnel regarding waste prevention-related procurement practices at an approximate cost of $350,000/year.
• DOS will evaluate the NYC Stuff Exchange (formerly Reuse Hotline) and expand the program Citywide in order to facilitate City residents’ access to reuse outlets. This program had been scheduled for completion several years ago.
• The City's long-term export contracts with the privately-owned waste processing facilities will not be "put or pay"-type contracts that have minimum tonnage guarantees that risk undermining the City’s recycling and waste prevention efforts. DOS responded to the concerns expressed for years by the advisory board community and more recently by the City Council, by structuring a payment schedule that contains a fixed cost component related to any capital costs incurred by a vendor to develop and equip a facility and a variable cost component payable on a per-ton basis.

• DOS has committed to increasing their personnel for enforcing transfer station and private carter regulations.
• The City agreed to fund a major study of commercial recycling, since major capacity for commercial recycling was converted for export of unprocessed waste, and since it appears that the diversion rate for commercial recycling has decreased. The study would be a comprehensive examination of all aspects of the commercial waste management system, including environmental, public health and economic impacts, and specifies the minimum components of that study. This comprehensive study must examine such issues as:

• potential environmental, economic and public health impacts on communities in which transfer stations are located;
• the effectiveness of the criteria for issuing and renewing transfer station permits;
• whether current enforcement mechanisms applicable to transfer stations and private carters effectively protect the communities in which transfer stations are located;
• the means and potential effects of limiting the number and capacity of transfer stations;
• the potential impacts of these transfer stations used in relation to air quality, water quality, odors, traffic congestion and noise; and
• analysis of the types of vehicles appropriate for transport of materials to and from transfer stations and the mechanism by which truck routing decisions are made.

• The City agreed to intensify public education, expanded recycling and a recycling curriculum in the public schools, since it has been a major weakness in the City’s recycling program with a mixed record of compliance in the City’s more than 1,000 public schools. By Spring, 2001, DOS had begun a pilot program to foster greater recycling in public schools by using dual-bin collection trucks in The Bronx and Queens. Recycling and refuse collection would be provided simultaneously – five day/week refuse collection in one bin and five additional recycling collections/week in the other bin (2 metal/glass/plastic and 3 paper).
• By early Spring, 2001, DOS and the Board of Education also developed a curriculum and teacher resource materials to address waste prevention, reuse and recycling targeted to grades K-5.
• The City agreed to apply for funding pursuant to the 1972 Environmental Quality Bond Act and the 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air for recycling-related programs. DOS has already filed a "pre-application" for funding for an expanded "Team Up to Clean Up" community beautification contest that will include the promotion of recycling compliance and awareness. A school entrant will be required to demonstrate an existing and on-going recycling program to qualify.
• DOS agreed to apply for state funding where municipalities obtain funding from an annual allocation of nearly $5 million to pay for recycling coordinators and other expenses related to operating a public education program for recycling.

While the Sanitation Department prepared to implement the above new programs, research study, and pilots, it completed its contracts to export all of New York City's residential and institutional waste, and in March, 2001 the City shipped its last waste to Fresh Kills landfill, nine months ahead of schedule.

The future of solid waste management in New York City remains uncertain, but there is cause for cautious optimism. For years the City showed a pattern of fighting City laws and Court rulings (Local Law 40 and Local Law 19), writing SWMPs that lacked important details and contingency measures, ignoring NYS DEC, ignoring the advisory community, and making major decisions on solid waste management without the benefit of advice and consent of affected parties (neighborhoods, other states). The City has proceeded to export thousands of tons of waste per day and develop plans for 20-year contracts for exporting wastes which consists of at least 50% recyclables and compostables, without moving aggressively to reduce, recycle and compost as much of that waste as possible. This has engendered a backlash from many directions and a feeling of anger and mistrust. The City has, by its actions, exacerbated a difficult situation (the need to design and implement within five and a half years, a plan to manage 13,000 tons per day that had gone to Fresh Kills), and has risked its export plans for a perceived expediency.

Despite the disinterest in optimizing recycling and reduction by the current Administration, it did agree to implement a number of modifications to its Solid Waste Management Plan over the next two years. There is a still a question as to whether the City will actually achieve its 2001 recycling requirements. Since the citywide offices are subject to term limits, there will be a new Mayor and two-thirds of the Council will be new. The future of solid waste management in New York City will depend to a large degree on who is elected Mayor later this year, and who will be elected to City Council.