The Waste Prevention Gold Mine in the 1992 Plan
Maggie
Clarke, 1999
In response to a query about the benefits and
costs of waste prevention, I looked at the '92 Plan, and there are a number of
times waste prevention is discussed in some detail: Chapter 3
(beginning), Chapter 4 (beginning), Chapter 7 (beginning), and Chapter
17. There's even more here than I had remembered.
Potential
for Waste Prevention in NYC, Year 2000
On page 7-11, Table 7.1.5-1 the Potential for
Waste Prevention (Year 2000) shows the tonnage and percent prevented for
residential (250,000 tons, 7%), institutional (90,000 tons, 10%), and
commercial (330,000 tons, 9%). The overall rate of prevention is just
over 8%.
Monetary
Savings and Environmental Impacts avoided by Instituting Waste Prevention
Recommendations promised in 1992 SWM Plan
Pages 17.2-2 to 17.2-3
The estimates that follow are based on
assumptions documented in Appendix Volumes 3 and 7.1.
The proposed prevention program is expected to
produce reductions in NYC's waste stream of about 4% in 1995, and of about 7%
by the year 2000, when the program would be fully implemented. (See
Appendix Volume 7.1 for a detailed analysis of modeled prevention-program
impacts using a range of waste-stream projections.) In the year 2000,
this would amount to approximately 600,000 tons a year, composed primarily of
the following types of materials: office and computer paper, corrugated
cardboard, and mixed paper; grass; glass; and furniture and large appliances
(bulk waste). Based on calculations obtained by modeling the City's
proposed waste-management system with and without these prevention programs in
place, the "avoided costs" to the City's waste-management system due
to these reductions are estimated to be in the range of $87 to $92 million in
the year 2000, or $700 to $800 million cumulatively between 1992 and 2010 (in
net-present-value terms).
On the collection side, a reduction of 600,000
tons a year would reduce collection costs by $26 to $29 million in the year
2000 (because the number of truckshifts would be
reduced by 4 to 5%). Vehicle miles traveled would be reduced by 1.6
million miles per year (using System B for illustrative purposes): a 3%
decrease, which would reduce vehicular air emissions by a comparable amount (but
have only a negligible effect on reducing collection noise).
On the processing side, a reduction of 600,000
tons a year would reduce facility capital and operating costs by $58 to $60
million; require 750 million fewer gallons of water a year for rinsing
recyclables (by generators) and 100 to 200 million fewer gallons of water in
waste-processing facilities; reduce air emissions from recycling facilities by
about 5%, from waste-to-energy facilities by 6% (System A) or 7% (System B),
from landfills by 18 to 22% (A,B), and from ashfills
by 6-7% (B,A); reduce facility acreage requirements by about 14 acres; demands
on landfill capacity by about 15%, and ashfill
capacity by about 8%.
The estimated cost of a partial prevention
program (for backyard composting and public education) is $20 per ton in the
year 2000, while the full avoided cost would be on the order of $140 per ton
for System A and $150 per ton for System B. As much as $120 to $130 per
ton in prevention programs therefore could be added before costs would exceed
benefits. The effects of a more-effective-than-projected prevention
program and of a less-effective-than-projected program are represented in
Figure 17.2.1-1, which shows that prevention programs become increasingly
cost-effective as prevented percentages increase. The reason for this is
that larger prevented tonnages allow relatively greater reductions in truck
shifts and facility capacity; conversely, when reductions are smaller, fewer
savings are captured through reduced collection and facility costs.
--------------------
Regarding System A and System B, Table 15.3-1 on
page 15-26 compares the two:
System A: System
B:
Collection System Collection
System
High Quality Recyclables High Quality Recyclables
Leaf & Yard Organics
(institutional)
Organics (institutional) Refuse (w/WTE)
Refuse (w/WTE)
Facilities Facilities
MRFs: MRFs:
SI, Bx, Man, NQns, SEQns, NW Bkn SI,
Bx, Man, NQns, SEQns, NW Bkn
Leaf & Yard Composting In-Vessel Composting
Fresh
Kills, Edgemere
Bx,
Jam Bay, SI
In-Vessel Composting Waste-To-Energy
Wards
Is,
Waste-to-energy Landfill / Ashfill:
Fresh kills
Betts
Av,
Bx, SI
Landfill / ashfill:
Fresh Kills