ORAL TESTIMONY
FY94 Budget Recommendations for NYCDOS
Waste Prevention Programs
for the City Council Committee on Environmental Protection
by
Manhattan Citizens' Solid Waste Advisory Board and
InterSWAB Waste Prevention Committee
Marjorie J. Clarke, Chair
May 20, 1993
Both the Manhattan Citizens' Solid Waste Advisory Board and the InterSWAB Waste Prevention Committee are in solid agreement that one of the two or three most important areas for expanded effort by DOS is waste prevention. We believe this to be the case because:
1. Waste Prevention is by far the most cost-effective way of dealing with solid waste.
2. Waste Prevention is by far the most environmentally-effective way of dealing with solid waste.
3. Waste Prevention is the management alternative most preferred by the State and Federal governments.
But Waste Prevention receives, by far, the lowest priority in funding of all waste management methods at the DOS. Only 1.5 million dollars is earmarked for waste prevention, as compared with 28 million for recycling planning, plus untold additional millions for waste and recyclables collection, incineration, and landfilling in other departments at DOS. This meager appropriation is despite the fact that waste prevention will produce productivity gains and dividends into the future which will more than make up for investments made now.
With the other methods of waste management, each ton of waste produced this year and in all future years, which is collected, processed, treated, and/or disposed has a cost of $200/ton. Waste prevention costs only a fraction of these costs. Once programs and legislation are in place and a portion of the waste stream has been prevented, $200/ton is saved for every ton prevented -- not only in the first year, but in every year after. Certainly on this basis alone, waste prevention deserves a much higher funding priority. It is for this reason that the Manhattan SWAB and the InterSWAB Waste Prevention committee argues strongly to increase funding for waste prevention. Some of the initiatives which we believe are of highest priority are in the areas of research, education, grants and loan programs, monitoring, reporting, planning, and public participation, and organizational priority of waste prevention within DOS. Some of our specific recommendations include:
1. the hiring of sufficient staff in the DOS Waste Prevention office to accomplish the missions outlined below.
2. the establishment of a Waste Prevention Action Grants Program, modelled after the Toronto program, in which nonprofits undertake specific or general research programs, pilots, surveys, educational programs, etc...to facilitate waste prevention and develop successful, replicable programs
3. the establishment of a Small business Waste Prevention Loan Program, to develop replicable methods of redesigning and/or auditing businesses to enhance waste prevention and reuse.
4. the establishment of a Business Resource Exchange and Computer Bulletin Board to foster the exchange or sale of reusable or repairable goods by small businesses and nonprofits.
5. commencement of a products/packaging/toxics-oriented solid waste composition study to identify, characterize and quantify items that shall be the subject of waste prevention initiatives, in order to optimize the design of such initiatives.
6. production of an annual survey of the viability of the various sectors of the waste prevention industry and a study of economic development costs and benefits to the New York City economy to be derived from the implementation of waste prevention.
7. a pilot study of unit-pricing for garbage collection in multi-family dwellings in order to encourage responsible purchasing habits and recycling.
8. DOS to pursue adoption of an aggressive set of legislative initiatives at the local, state and federal levels
9. a comprehensive, ongoing study of municipal waste prevention programs, legislative initiatives, economic incentives, and educational programs in the US and abroad to evaluate useful improvements and new technologies for the New York City program.
10. a pilot study, such as that conducted in Berlin, to test the alternative educational methodologies for waste prevention.
11. a research study to determine how to adapt advance disposal fees in New York City.
12. the hiring of a full-time staff person to research and produce an annual waste prevention report which documents
- volumes and weights of products and packaging generated, reclaimed, repaired, reused, resold, or otherwise diverted from the waste stream in the last year as a result of DOS-sponsored waste prevention programs,
- the cost per ton for each prevention program, the character of the waste stream remaining for recycling and disposal,
- the results in the last year of ongoing educational and other programs,
- the results of all research and development programs, pilot studies, information gathering exercises, and how these will be adapted by NYCDOS to enhance the effectiveness of its waste prevention programs, and finally,
- the progress towards established waste prevention goals.
13. periodic revision and expansion of the Waste Prevention portion of the DOS Solid Waste Management Plan
14. establishment of an Urban Ore program, such as the one in Berkeley, CA, to extract and rehabilitate usable, or repairable durable products from the waste stream and place them in the "free" markets
15. work with Board of Education to establish reuse and repair centers at vocational high schools or any other nonprofit enterprises
16. expansion of the DOS Waste Prevention Partnership with Business to encourage designers of packaging and other problem products to develop better designs from an environmental point-of-view,
17. technical assistance programs to promote waste prevention procurement and practices in the commercial sector,
18. the development and deployment of more effective and proven educational programs and production of Public Service ads, ads in transit locations, free advertising directories for repair, reuse, resale, thrift, etc... shops by neighborhood, and waste reduction handbooks
These 18 ideas are just a small sampling of the total number of worthy waste prevention initiatives already identified by us. Many of these have been producing results in other cities as documented in the Manhattan SWAB's consultant report from last year. We strongly urge that a minimum of an additional 2 million dollars be appropriated for waste prevention programs so that by this time next year we might have begun to realize some of the great cost savings to be generated by waste prevention.
A final note: In our March 8 testimony, we requested funding so that the Waste Prevention committee could hire consultants to aid us in our oversight of DOS' programs. We have decided to defer to the Citywide Recycling Advisory Board (the CRAB), and have merged our request with their overall request for funding on behalf of all the solid waste advisory boards and committees.
In summary we request that the Council strongly consider our arguments in favor of increased funding both for DOS waste prevention programs, and for enhanced oversight of DOS by the advisory community.