Waste Prevention Comments (DOS 20-year plan) 5/18/92
Marjorie Clarke, Chair, InterSWAB Waste Prevention Committee
General Comments
The DOS approach to waste prevention includes a number of good approaches to waste prevention which have been done before. However, the DOS plan for waste prevention is flawed from a number of standpoints. The most basic is that DOS' waste prevention program consists of a very small group of timid initiatives and programs which address a relatively small fraction of the waste stream for the most part. This is in stark contrast to their recycling, composting, and incineration systems, which attempt to address almost all the waste stream.
The group of DOS waste prevention strategies accounts for only a reduction of 7 percent from a 1990 baseline (not the 1988 baseline required by the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act), and does not evolve over time with improvements in waste prevention methodologies. No 20-year plan is laid out for waste prevention planning, research, pilots, education, or implementation. In fact, most of the initiatives are in the first year only. It is as if DOS knows now everything there is to know about waste prevention. The only alternative waste prevention scenarios that are even considered is with and without waste prevention (and the "with" scenario is either 7.3% or 8.1% depending on what table you read). ). There is no reason why DOS should not have attempted to project a vigorous waste prevention program into the future. Waste prevention should be pursued to the maximum regardless of what combination of recycling, composting, and waste-to-energy DOS eventually pursues. Evidence of DOS' timidity in this area is the planning effort underway in the City of Toronto, Ontario, where a 45% waste prevention and reuse goal is part of a 40-year "almost no-waste" plan, in which 90% of waste will be diverted from landfills. Thus, DOS' plan is deficient because of the small number of waste prevention and reuse strategies it proposes, and because these strategies have a much greater potential for future research and development.
DOS' cost calculations for waste prevention are presented in such a way that the enormous benefits of prevention are buried in overall system costs. Table 4 in the Waste Prevention Appendix indicates that prevention will account for 607,000 tons per year and will cost $20/ton to effect (or about $12 million per year). If DOS were to fund waste prevention at this level, it would require considerably more financial commitment than has been evident thus far. Assuming DOS' figures, their cost per ton for the prevention alternative ($20/ton) is $193/ton less than the overall system cost of $213/ton assuming no waste prevention. That prevention should cost one-tenth that of the entire system cost is significant. But even more noteworthy is how much money prevention can save DOS per year. If 607,000 tons are prevented in a year and each ton prevented represents a savings of $193 in collection and disposal costs, assuming DOS' non-waste prevention scenario, then the yearly savings amount to over $117 million. Further, these figures are based on information from table 4, which indicates a 7.3% prevention rate. Increased prevention would further increase the annual savings. Considering the huge windfall that DOS could garner by fostering waste prevention, it is hard to understand why DOS would not have proposed a far more ambitious program of initiatives -- not only for the next few years, but also for the entire 20-year planning period. One hundred seventeen million dollars per year could fund quite a large number of pilot studies, educational programs, task forces with industry, audit programs, and staff charged with staying abreast of other jurisdictions' studies, programs, etc.... In fact, there would certainly be enough to fund some recycling and composting education and initiatives as well. From a purely financial point of view, it behooves the Sanitation Department to make substantial investments in waste prevention.
DOS' consultants produced Appendix 4.1, in which over 60 initiatives were discussed, and in most cases recommended, throughout the body of the report. The Manhattan Citizens' Solid Waste Advisory Board's (MCSWAB) Waste Prevention Committee presented DOS with a list of over 50 specific economic incentives, legislative initiatives, educational and procurement programs, and other measures which the City could pursue. Though DOS chose to reprint the latter as an appendix to Appendix 4.1, most of the initiatives are not chosen by DOS for further examination. The DOS' consultants, in Appendix 4.1, finally recommended a small fraction (13) of the many initiatives they discussed at length in their report only on the basis of if "it seems both desirable from a policy view point and practical from an operations perspective". In other words, their proposed program was cautious -- including only those few initiatives that they believed could easily be implemented now based on current knowledge.
The DOS plan itself is even more conservative than their consultant's report, only presenting 11 waste prevention initiatives, four of which cannot provide prevention since they involve only evaluation or monitoring of others' programs. (No indication is given that these four would be pursued after they are studied, even though the first three are currently in place in other jurisdictions and the last has been done by the well-respected Franklin Associates, and therefore should be scheduled for implementation here after limited study. (The four initiatives are: residential Quantity Based User Fees (QBUFs), waste audits, "leave the packaging behind" and product-oriented waste composition studies.) It is clear that monitoring of others' research efforts, and conducting a comprehensive research and pilot testing program of our own, is critical to progress in developing waste prevention. However, the set of 7 waste-preventing initiatives presented on pp 19-4 and 5 is clearly not responsive to DEC's directive: that waste prevention and reuse should receive the highest priority in waste management planning. The program represents a tiny fraction of the initiatives that have already been proposed and used in other jurisdictions. But since waste prevention has so much potential (over 30% is packaging, over 30% is semi-durables, including disposables, over 10% is durables, many of whose life spans can be extended, and 20% is food/yard waste/organics, which can be composted on-site), DOS should have proposed a more aggressive set of programs, initiatives, and pilot/research programs to be implemented at the outset of the planning period.
The Toronto and Seattle programs exemplify the type of visionary, long-term planning that has been lacking at DOS. According to the MCSWAB's Technical Consultant report (the appendix to Recycle First), in just one year between 1988 and 1989 when Seattle's preexisting QBUF (fee charged on the basis of volume nonrecyclable garbage disposed) was increased, an 11% reduction in waste disposed was achieved. Previously, Seattle had achieved far greater levels of reduction and recycling due to its QBUF system. Seattle's variable rate system had already helped foster a 26% recycling rate.
In stark contrast, for two years DOS has had only one person assigned to work on waste prevention issues, out of hundreds of nonuniformed staff, and even her time has sometimes been split to work on intensive recycling. Prior to the present time, DOS has ignored most recommendations made by the Manhattan SWAB's Waste Prevention Committee regarding prevention-oriented waste composition studies; research studies, such as the 1984 Berlin study which showed the potential for 21% prevention; procurement program needs; and the need to elevate waste prevention to Director status, and eventually to Deputy Commissioner status (with sufficient staff to carry out needed information gathering, research, and program implementation), comensurate with Recycling/Composting, Waste-to-Energy/Ash Management, and Landfilling. All of these deficiencies in DOS' position and in DOS' plan unnecessarily limit waste prevention -- in essence, deprioritizing it vis a vis recycling, composting, and waste-to-energy -- and therefore, the DOS plan is at odds with the State's hierarchy and with the future needs of the City.
DOS' consultants state in their report (p. 24) that "cost data for nearly all of the waste prevention strategies discussed in this report do not exist because many of the programs described have not yet been implemented". However, it is clear from reading the report that the consultants did not attempt a comprehensive, worldwide review of preexisting waste prevention programs, pilots, and initiatives. Only a few specific case studies are mentioned. The consultant for the MCSWAB, in its recently issued 125-page report which took only six weeks to prepare, and which cost the City via MCSWAB's remaining funding a mere $15,000, were able to present considerable detail on a number of successful waste prevention programs as well as other waste management case studies. Had more time and money been available to the MCSWAB, many more waste prevention initiatives would have been studied as evidenced by the additional list of existing case study initiatives presented in the report's attachment B.
Had DOS allocated more if its funding to research waste prevention case studies at a comensurate level with DOS studies on other waste management alternatives, DOS would have found that, for example, that Toronto has an extensive, ongoing Community Action Waste Reduction Grant program to provide funding for waste prevention pilot studies. It was Metro Toronto's advisory committee that recommended this action. At this point 44 community-based groups and nonprofit organizations are funded to conduct research for the city, targeting improved prevention education, backyard composting, and a greater use of such important reusable products as cloth diapers. The latter is important because disposable diapers constitute over 3% of New York City's residential waste stream, or 415 tons per day of diapers based on the total waste generated in the City from all three sectors. (Appendix 4.1, p. 92)
In addition to this small grants program, which New York City could replicate with great success, Toronto has produced a long-range integrated plan to attain a goal of 35% waste reduction and 10% reuse by the year 2031. Berkeley's Urban Ore reuse program has been credited with salvaging 87% of the available reusable discards, amounting to a reduction of 1.5% of the waste stream plus additional materials recycled. Minneapolis recently phased in its own packaging legislation which prohibits sale at the retail level any food or beverage the is packaged in or on packaging which is not environmentally acceptable. This legislation has not only resulted in a reduction of solid waste tonnage far more than known recycling can account for, but it also enhanced recycling. These and other case studies in the MCSWAB's report clearly show that many other cities of similar and smaller size than New York City are not waiting for waste prevention programs to be exhaustively demonstrated before implementing pilot and full-scale programs. New York City should be required to pursue waste prevention at least as intensively as these other cities.
We are delighted to see that, DOS has indicated in its draft plan that it is necessary to establish a monitoring system to evaluate waste prevention progress. The purpose of such a system would not only be to determine how much waste has been prevented, as well as to what degree each potentially toxic element or compound in the municipal waste stream has been reduced, but also to evaluate the success of certain programs and initiatives, indicate where new programs could be developed, and to have the capability of demonstrating to DEC progress towards waste prevention goals. Such a product-oriented waste composition study was proposed to DOS originally in a meeting of the Intensive Recycling CAC in 1989, as an amendment to DOS' materials-based waste composition study which had just begun. The product/toxics -oriented concept was fleshed out in a written proposal by the MCSWAB Waste Prevention Committee to DOS in early 1990, but ignored until the issuance of this draft 20-year plan, when they were finally embraced (see Chapter 20.1 of the Plan). It is hoped that the recommendations made in these comments will receive more serious and timely consideration.
There is sufficient evidence here to demonstrate that aggressive pursuit of waste prevention would deserve merit from an economic point of view. But there are also considerable environmental benefits to be gained by DOS pursuing waste prevention as if it were the top priority: lower traffic congestion (due to less collection), lower facility emissions (due to less processing/treatment), lower land use/land degradation (due to less need for landfill, processing, treatment), not to mention the front-end environmental and energy conservation benefits to be gained by leaving forests and other natural resources in place, saving oil and other energy resources for future generations, and reducing transportation and refining impacts. These are just a few of the many environmental benefits to be gained from an aggressive waste prevention program, demonstrating why waste prevention is the highest priority in waste management.
In light of the above, DOS should reconsider its restrained view of waste prevention, and design and implement a truly aggressive and comprehensive set of programs, initiatives, and pilot/research studies, and commit sufficient human and financial resources to waste prevention to ensure its success.
Specific Recommendations
FY92 (remainder)
o The DOS plan does not include a 20-year waste prevention plan. This should be developed before final submission to DEC and the Council, complete with evolving, innovative research programs, education, legislation, economic incentives and disincentives, procurement, etc... Initiate more aggressive, longer-term waste prevention research goals and implementation program (as has been done for Toronto -- they have a 35%/10% reduction/reuse goal for 40 years from now)
o Establish a separate Director for Waste Prevention with a staff sufficient to implement the waste prevention activities scheduled in the Implementation Plan and provide continued monitoring of waste prevention initiatives and programs and lifecycle assessments outside of New York City for the purpose of adaptation to New York City.
FY 93
o Commence a comprehensive, ongoing study of municipal waste prevention and recycling 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. Include in this research assistance programs and economic incentives and develop mechanisms to site new and expanded facilities for reuse industry facilities (including repair shops, swap/thrift shops, and rental centers).
o Commence a product-oriented solid waste composition study to identify, characterize and quantify items that should be the subject of waste prevention initiatives, in order to optimize the design of such initiatives. Repeat periodically.
o Commence a study of economic development costs and benefits to the New York City economy to be derived from the implementation of local governmental measures to assist the reuse industry, and from the implementation of other waste prevention initiatives.
o Commence preparation of and lobbying for comments and improvements to the Federal RCRA reauthorization. These improvements should address all aspects of waste prevention (packaging and product design for less volume and toxicity, the problem of disposables and less durable products, the decline of the reuse industry, government-sponsored research and development, procurement for less volume and toxicity and greater durability, and education).
o Institute an ongoing research, development and demonstration small grants program to fund waste prevention-oriented pilot studies and other research to foster all aspects of waste prevention and to facilitate prevention/reuse/recycling of hard-to-recycle items. (In effect in Toronto)
o Develop and commence implementation of comprehensive waste prevention legislative initiatives, economic incentives, and educational programs on the local level (see below).
o Commence lobbying of other state governments, as well as cooperation with other cities on other, non-RCRA waste prevention initiatives.
o Develop criteria for and institute stricter purchasing requirements for procurement of more durable products with longer warranties, service contracts and phase-out of purchases of disposable items, and for products with lower levels of toxics and high levels of recycled content and requirements. Institute a computer network to monitor and coordinate purchases, maintenance, and repair of purchases by City agencies. Institute an interagency task force to evaluate these results on an ongoing basis.
o Expand DOS' Waste Prevention Partnership with business to include a program to work not only with retailers, but also with manufacturers and distributors to encourage the design, distribution, and marketing of products and packaging which exhibit waste prevention criteria (e.g., repairability, durability, refillability, recyclability), and to discourage toxic, nondurable, and otherwise wasteful products and packaging.
o Initiate ongoing research of consumer, business, and industry-directed education programs for waste prevention to determine the optimal design adaptations needed to be successful in New York City.
o Research QBUFs in other cities to determine the optimal design adaptations needed to be successful in New York City. Work with Consumer Affairs Department to see that QBUFs are implemented by next year for commercial generators. Establish QBUFs in the institutional sector. Implement QBUFs in low-density residential neighborhoods and pilot test QBUFs in apartment buildings (see the DOS consultants' suggestions for this in Appendix 4.1, pp. 26-8).
FY 94
o Adopt major waste prevention legislative program in the City and State.
o Implement optimal consumer, business, and industry-directed waste prevention education programs, as researched in FY 93. Expand existing education programs (e.g., bus/subway ads, literature).
o Commence (via Economic Development Corporation or similar agency) institution of economic incentives for the creation of new and expanded reuse industry facilities and for the creation of job training in the field of products maintenance and reuse both in industry and in public schools (shop and home ec classes revamped).
o Conduct a research pilot on refillable containers to determine overall and economic feasibility and possible incentives (e.g. of adopting the Michigan system where disposable bottles have a 10 cent fee and refillables have a 5 cent fee).
o Commence research study to determine whether and how to adapt advance disposal fees, such as dealer registration fees and manufacturer marketing fees for those who market household hazardous wastes and disposables in New York City. Evaluate the efficacy of a credit against the marketing fee for manufacturers which reduce packaging.
o Research measures to increase the lifespan of building exteriors and interiors (so as to decrease the volume of construction and demolition waste not related to repair and restoration).
o Research methods of fostering the reuse of books and magazines here and abroad, and including public libraries in the reuse system. Investigate the extent to which libraries are throwing out perfectly good books and magazines.
o Research methods of fostering reduced packaging at the retail level (e.g., greater use of electronic theft devices, encouraging reusable produce bags, and empty displays with merchandise behind the counter).
o Research the feasibility of instituting legislation, economic incentives, or other means to encourage industry to design products that are easier to repair (longer warrantees, universal parts, modular parts, etc...).
o Research the feasibility of instituting legislation, economic incentives, or other means to encourage industry to utilize reusable transport packaging, and to reuse its typically disposable packaging.
o Test alternative waste prevention education strategies in retail establishments.
o Commence implementation of waste/rate audits (to show any discrepancy) and QBUFs in the commercial sector, and where possible in the residential sector.
o Lobby for increased postal rates applicable to "junk mail" and explore/implement other means of reducing junk mail.
o Commence establishment of a network of reuse centers (which include not only transfer of reusable goods, but also repair, where necessary). These could be sited at vocational high schools along with drop-offs for repairable donated items. The repaired items could be given to nonprofits or the poor. These reuse centers should be supported, in part, by DOS and coordinated, and advertised by EDC and DOS.
o In addition to recommending home owners to "leave grass on the lawn", provide low-cost backyard composting systems with educational materials as well as low-cost kitchen worm composting systems for apartment dwellers. Establish compost collection sites at community gardens throughout the City. Work with Division of Real Property to ensure that such compost sites/gardens could be available permanently, and not sold for development.
o Coordinate the sizing of all waste management plants so as to avoid conflict with waste prevention goals.
FY 95
o Commence characterization study of residuals from MRFs and composting facilities and research technologies for reuse. Determine those not suitable for reuse, and develop additional legislative/economic measures to prevent them from being made.
o Continue to develop and implement new, innovative education and procurement programs.
o Continue to develop and implement economic incentives and legislative initiatives to effect greater waste prevention and reuse.
o Continue to encourage the reuse industry through innovative measures (job training, economic incentives, etc...)
Specific legislative and money-making proposals
The Source Reduction Fund (repository for monies collected above and dispensed in educational, procurement, and research programs.)
- TAXES
o Work for establishment of a virgin materials use/purchase tax
o Establish a tax on disposable products. (Disposable means those products which replace products which are reusable, washable, repairable, and/or refillable)
o Tax the sale of food in disposable packaging and with disposable cutlery and condiments in individual packages and paper napkins) if the food is to be consumed on the premises.
o Establish a tax on each product which is designed for early obsolescence or which is designed to fall apart quickly.
o Require a tax on each product which contains parts which are not removeable, serviceable, replaceable, or repairable at facilities in the local area. ("Parts" includes spare parts as well as items like batteries)
o Put a tax on non HDPE or PET plastic containers so as to encourage the manufacture of these most easily recycled plastics.
o Establish a tax on each bag and each napkin beyond the first added at the end of a retail transaction. Retailers would be required to post signs offering customers the right to save money by rejecting these items.
o Institute a tax for products requiring non-solar or non-rechargeable batteries
o Institute a surtax applied at the retail level to specific products which cause problems in the disposal/waste stream (e.g., batteries, metals-based paints, products with batteries sealed inside, products containing household hazardous wastes, etc...) Require a uniform label which will indicate items which cause problems in the solid waste stream, to be placed on retail store shelves. Recommended by Minnesota governor's SCORE (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment)
o To discourage multi-material packaging, require a tax on packages containing more than a single material.
- FINES
o Ban egregious packaging. Violators would be fined.
o Require large retailers to make applicable products (e.g., grains, detergents, liquid, etc...) available in bulk sizes. Violators fined.
o Require all producers and retailers to accept for recycling, reuse, and/or disposal all returned transport packaging. Require that the consumer can leave all secondary packaging material at the point-of-sale. Require that retailers accept all used packaging materials returned by the consumer. (This is law in Germany.) Violators fined.
o Require that manufacturers label the composition of packages AND products by constituent and percent of the following pollutant precursors (nickel, cadmium, mercury, lead, manganese, chromium, arsenic, titanium, copper, beryllium, cobalt, silver, gold, radioactive elements, organic solvents, hazardous substances (Subtitle C), iron, chlorine, fluorine, sulfur, and nitrogen). Violators fined.
o Require phase-out of certain constituents in packaging, to include more metals in addition to the cadmium, mercury, lead, and chromium already required (e.g., nickel, manganese, arsenic, titanium, copper, beryllium, cobalt, silver, gold, radioactive elements, iron, chlorine, sulfur, nitrogen and any other significant pollutant precursor). Also include not only packaging but also products in the requirements. Also increase the scope of the CONEG provisions to phase-out within five years rather than phase-down these toxic precursors. Violators fined.
o Require that the percentage of the retail cost of each consumer product which accounts for packaging be listed on the package. (So that consumers know how much they pay for packaging) Violations subject to penalty.
o Require manufacturers to label products to indicate average ACTUAL lifetime, so that informed comparisons can be made (violators fined).
o Require manufacturers to label products for warrantee period and provide information to purchaser on where products can be repaired (if such repair is not nominally available as shoe repair and watch repair typically are) Violators would be fined.
o Require products labelled "recycled" state clearly the percentages of pre-consumer and post-consumer waste content. Violators would be fined.
o Require that all generators of junk mail be required to send a prepaid postcard requesting removal of addressee from the mailing list be sent with all catalogs, flyers, solicitations, etc.... Violators fined.
o Require that all generators of junk mail be required to pay for return postage for all returned junk mail. Violators fined.
o Require that retail customers be given a discount for using their own bag (shopping bags, cleaning bags, etc.) Violators fined.
o Require retailers provide a minimum percentage of retail shelf space to be set aside for products in fillable/returnable packaging -- this could be expanded to include bulk packaged products and concentrates. Violators fined. (This has been proposed by a New Hampshire Congressman.)
- FEES
o Research whether and how to adapt dealer registration fees and/or manufacturer marketing fees for those who market household hazardous wastes and disposables in New York City.*
o Permit citizens the right to enforce these legislative initiatives, and receive 25% of the penalties collected (75% will accrue to the source reduction fund). Citizens shall be liable to pay costs of false suits.
o Require that noncarbonated as well as carbonated beverages be subject to the bottle law; also remove the exemption given to restaurants, delis, salad bars, etc... which permits that containers of beverages consumed on premises are not subject to the deposit. Also, ensure that 75% of the unclaimed deposits are earmarked for the source reduction fund, with balance earmarked for processing of recyclables and for securing recycling markets.
o Institute a per ton fee on wastes disposed at solid waste management facilities -- the lower on the hierarchy, the higher the fee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER INITIATIVES TO CONSIDER
o Require shop owners label those shelves or items containing recycled content packaging, recyclable materials, products with long warrantee periods, refillable, rechargeable, and reusable items, bulk packaged items, concentrates, non-toxic cleaners and other nontoxic household items which are normally considered hazardous wastes. A universe of labelling options may be used. Violators would be fined.
o Replicate the "Urban Ore" reuse center concept used successfully in Berkeley, CA to New York City. (see MCSWAB's consultant report, p. 89.)
o Replicate and expand on the 1984 Berlin Study, which tested the efficacy of one waste prevention educational methodology, and found that 21% waste prevention was possible due only to education.
o Require that Sunday newspapers (or alternatively, all newspapers) be available for sale by the section. Violators would be fined.
o Require that phone companies issue phone books on an 18 month basis, and that they take back directories for recycling. Violators would be fined.
o Require use of reversible envelopes for utility bills. Violators fined.
o Require auto manufacturers to charge a deposit on cars and take back discarded cars for recycling.
o Require large retailers to make applicable products (e.g., grains, detergents, liquid, etc...) available in bulk. Violators fined.
o Require that all plastic bags be made of a single plastic resin (e.g., LDPE) so as to increase the recyclability of bags.
o Institute a requirement that all packaging
o contain at least fifty percent recycled content or be designed to be reused at least five times
o must be recyclable (made of materials for which a recycling program is available in the municipality in question)
o Exemption for prescription drug containers and to comply with federal law. Violators fined.
o Require a tax be assessed for each package containing any of the following pollutant precursors: nickel, cadmium, mercury, lead, manganese, chromium, arsenic, titanium, copper, beryllium, cobalt, silver, gold, radioactive elements, iron, CFC, chlorine, fluorine, sulfur, nitrogen, radioactive elements, organic solvents, and hazardous substances (Subtitle C)
o Institute a waste disposal tax on all products to penalize disposables. Exemption for products with a manufacturer's warrantee of at least three years or if manufacturer has an established program to take products back for reuse or recycling.
o Require a tax be assessed for each product containing more than 1% sum total of the following pollutant precursors (nickel, cadmium, mercury, lead, manganese, chromium, arsenic, copper, beryllium, silver, gold, radioactive elements, organic solvents, hazardous substances (Subtitle C), CFC, iron, chlorine, fluorine, sulfur, and nitrogen). Exceptions would include products with a manufacturer's warrantee of at least three years or if manufacturer has an established program to take products or pollutant precursors back for reuse or recycling.
o Institute a tax for products and packaging which use nonrenewable or scarce materials in production (e.g., oil, gas, coal, certain minerals, certain furs, etc..
o Tax building construction materials typically used in new construction (rather than repairs and restorations)
o Add a surcharge to the cost of construction permits to discourage wanton remodelling and destruction of otherwise serviceable building exteriors and interiors, and the creation of demolition waste. Exempt construction materials purchased solely in small quantities and for purposes of repairing or replacing worn building materials.
o revision of existing law authorizing NYC to levy a packaging tax
o Lifecycle (cradle-to-grave economic, environmental energy, and natural resources) analysis should be the basis for cost comparisons among solid waste management alternatives
o Mandate commercial waste audits and business source reduction plans.
o Require manufacturers to include product/package ratio (by volume) on the label and a three-tier tax increasing with decreasing product/package ratio. Violators fined.
Specific Comments on DOS plan and Appendix 4.1; other comments
1. Part II of DOS Appendix 4.1 "Structural issues in waste prevention" (and summarized as "Barriers to Waste Prevention" in the Plan (p. 7-2)) is being used as an excuse by DOS to limit itself to a cautious set of initiatives and discard most waste prevention initiatives, programs, fee structures, and other methodologies used by other jurisdictions. For example, one of the barriers mentioned is that "consumer choice is paramount"; that freedom to market and consume are unlimited rights in the US. But government has frequently placed requirements and regulations on product design and marketing in order to protect safety, so this argument is specious.
2. Recommendation 5, DOS Appendix 4.1, "Examine Expansion of Deposit Legislation to improve downstream processing of recycling materials" (discussed on p. 17) does not improve waste prevention or reuse. It enhances recycling of beverage and other containers, and more properly belongs under recycling. This is not just a categorization problem. DOS may take credit for this recommendation within the 7% waste prevention total, and thus, the DOS 7% waste prevention figure would be an overestimate of actual waste prevention/reuse programs being proposed by DOS in its plan. In a related vein, DOS' consultants recommend a household battery separation program, but include this in the waste prevention recommendations (p. 47). Again, this fosters recycling, not reduction of batteries. One measure to reduce the number of batteries made would be taxing products containing batteries.
3. The discussion in Appendix 4.1 p. 16 which proposes the substitution of corrugated cardboard packaging (which is recyclable and typically recycled) with shrink wrap (which has not been recyclable) does not seem to be justifiable in terms of good overall solid waste management practice or maximum diversion from landfill.
4. DOS' consultants propose that waste prevention strategies be evaluated according to the following questions: Does the proposed waste prevention program target materials which are easy to recycle? If so, would that alter the cost effectiveness of a selected recycling program? This evaluation scheme would certainly minimize waste prevention unnecessarily and is a fallacious argument. Of course waste prevention programs target items that are easy to recycle. But more economic, environmental, material, and energy resources are saved by choosing to prevent an item from entering the waste stream than by recycling it. Take the example of double-sided copying on office paper, or reusing half-used sheets for drafts, rather than maximizing the amount thrown into the recycling bin. Surely the former is more sound from a resources conservation point-of-view. Just the economic resources saved by prevention rather than recycling is clear (see table 4, Appendix 4.1); prevention costs $20/ton and recyclables collection/processing costs $209/ton.
5. In Appendix 4.1 DOS' consultants divide waste prevention opportunities into three categories: product/package design, purchase, and durable product maintenance. There is a fourth category: product disposition/resale. When a product still has useful life, but the owner no longer wants it, the product can be sold, donated to charity, swapped for another used product, etc.... This is an important category for reuse which should not be overlooked.
6. Appendix 3 of appendix 4.1, which describes the assumptions and calculations for DOS' waste prevention estimates should be examined very carefully by DEC and the Council because no supporting evidence is presented for most of the assumptions. In the few cases where some explanation is given (e.g., grass/leaves on p. 79), the reasoning is still not clear. In this case, it is assumed that only one-third of those few households generating yard waste will participate in backyard composting, whereas two-thirds of those in Seattle did so. In another case, p. 85, it is assumed that only 5% of institutions using disposable diapers will switch to cloth diapers. This figure is highly dependent on laws and economic incentives, and would be much higher if such measures were introduced. DOS' consultants show an almost total lack of references for their assumptions, calling into question the accuracy of these assumptions. A much better job should have been done.
7. DOS proposes study for residential QBUFs. EPA has issued four documents on this subject which should lessen considerably the need for extensive study prior to implementation of QBUFs. These are:
o Charging Households for Waste Collection and Disposal: The Effects of Weight-or Volume-Based Pricing on Solid Waste Management (PB91-111-484) Describes how unit pricing works, and explains the effects of such a system on households and communities.
o Variable Rates in Solid Waste: Handbook for Solid Waste Officials - Volume I Executive Summary (EPAN/530-SW-90-084A) Explores the feasibility, design and operational considerations of different types of unit pricing programs.
o Variable Rates in Solid Waste: Handbook for Solid Waste Officials - Volume II (PB90-272-063) Describes the steps needed to determine the feasibility of a variable rate program and to design and implement a system tailored to a community's specific needs.
o Unit Pricing: Providing an Incentive to Reduce Waste (EPA/530-SW-91-005). Provides an introduction to unit pricing and identifies some of the issues that solid waste managers must consider in implementing variable rate collection programs in their communities.
8. In the DOS Commissioner's April 9 Notice of Completion of Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of CEQR Hearings, on p. 13 DOS contends, correctly, that the energy is saved when recycled materials are used in place of virgin materials in manufacturing processes. But it says nothing of the even greater energy savings (not to mention natural resources savings) to be gained by waste prevention. That this is not considered, may partly explain why DOS' plan is so weak on waste prevention.
9. In the Executive Summary of the Plan (p. ES-8) it is stated that the design of waste prevention programs does not directly affect the design of the remaining waste managemetn system in the same way that the inter-related effects of collection, lprocessing, and idisposal programs for recycling, composting, waste-to-energy, and landfilling do. This is not the case. If waste prevention programs are designed primarily to reduce paper and plastic (e.g., programs directed at reducing paper and plastic packaging, junk mail, office paper reduction, etc...), then the amount of paper and plastic left over for recycling is reduced, and the size of the collection system and processing facilities and markets will need to reflect this, or they could be oversized. Similarly, such a waste prevention program would result in a lower BTU waste stream, which if incineration were chosen, would affect the design of the incinerator. Conversely, if prevention programs centered on reuse of appliances and reduction of heavy metals in products and packaging, the designs of recycling, incineration and ash management facilities would be affected in a different way. That DOS seems to view the design of waste prevention programs as an unchanging monolith, and something which is not important in affecting the design of the overall program, illustrates that DOS did not take waste prevention seriously or view it as part of the integrated system. In fact, on p. ES-16 DOS states that the set of proposed waste prevention programs were "designed for the purpose of providing a standard "post-prevention" waste stream for comparative analysis".
10. In the Plan (p. 7-5) DOS has implied that waste prevention is likely to encourage the use of a substitute resource, which may not be wise from an environmental or energy conserving point-of-view. This is an unfair characterization. Using a double-sided copier will only result in fewer sheets of paper used. Reusing a bag from the store doesn't use any other resources. The important thing to remember is that with evolving technology, substitute resources will be needed less and less. For example, a new dishwasher, sized for commercial applications, uses only small amounts of cold water and doesn't require soap since the washing involves ozonation. So even the contention that using a dishwasher or clothes washer to enable reuse of dishes and clothes will cause undue usage of water and energy to heat the water, and hence not be viable from a lifecycle point-of-view, will soon become a myth. Research and development is and will be key to advancing waste prevention and minimizing impacts.
11. In the Appendix 4.1 DOS' consultants suugest that building codes would have to be revised to require a "lazy susan" type of revolving recyclables in order for such a system to be effective. DOS should know that building laws cannot mandate good quality in design; it can only specify how it is constructed.
12. Oversupply of food waste is note really addressed (only reuse and composting). More focus on audits and true prevention techniques is required. Also, better coordination between food reuse programs and traditional "overusers" should be devised and implemented. (Appendix 4.1, p. 45)
13. Although the report discusses the "support of taxes (state and federal) to encourage waste prevention", the subsidies for vigin material users should equally be discouraged (i.e., lumber and petrochemicals). (Appendix 4.1, p. 55).
14. A special liaison to the designers of packaging and other problem products should be appointed by DOS. This will facilitate keeping them up-to-date with practices that do less environmental harm. Similarly, DOS should see to it that waste prevention principles are taught in the design schools (there are several very large ones in the metropolitan area including Pratt Institute). DOS should be more involved with professional organizations and trade shows in this area. Successfully marketing these concepts to the design community is the key to getting at a principle source of the waste. Part of our City's unique influence over the whole country is because of designers. They need more information and resources. The liaison could also work with designers to minimize "built in" product obsolescence.
15. One strategy for fostering reuse in the community is a DOS' sponsored/facilitated Exchange Day, when whole districts can place used but usable items at the curbside. Anyone can take any item for free. Alternatively, DOS could facilitate swap meets where people will buy and sell or exchange used items.
16. Providing tax breaks to second-hand and repair stores (both to the shoppers and to merchants) would foster the increased use of these reuse centers. These Tax-Free shops will help popularlize hand-me-downs.
17. A system, whereby Municipal Housekeeping Mini-courses could be given to all newcomers to New York City, including immigrants, perhaps in a mobile interactive exhibit in several languages, could teach the three R's to a segment of the population that is often missed by more typical education methods.
18. DOS should work to encourage industry to utilize more universal (and therefore, replaceable) parts in durable products so as to foster the repairability of those durables. The widespread lack of availability of inexpensive spare parts should also be investigated and corrected.
19. DOS should establish a liaison committee to work with manufacturers to increase the reuse of transport packaging (i.e. encourage shoe retailers to ask customers if they really need the shoe box, and send extra shoe boxes back to the factory for reuse, and encourage the factory to reuse them).
20. DOS' proposal to establish a local waste exchange is a good one, which can prevent the needless waste of reusable packaging materials and other reusable materials.
21. Establish a volunteer coordinator for waste prevention to develop an active, creative volunteer staff to generate methods for reuse and reduction.